Search

From the local to global level, indicators and reports are produced and published to support the transition towards sustainable development. Building from two European-level science–policy workshops, this perspective essay discusses the types of risks involved with such sustainability reporting. The analysis is rooted in the framework of the UN 2030 Agenda and sustainable development goals (SDG). As a globally adopted framework, it provides an example of how risks are either recognised and framed, or non-recognised. Well recognised risks include data availability for SDGs and siloed preparation of indicators, while risks receiving less attention are ritualistic reporting lacking a critical evaluation of the limitations of the SDG framework itself. These different risks are likely to reinforce each other. A specific risk is a too narrow focus on one-way communication aiming to inform individual policy decisions. Risks related to SDGs are best managed with iterative, integrative and interactive knowledge production fostering holistic understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2015, all 193 member states of the United Nations (UN) agreed on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The special section contains the following articles: The special section opens with a conceptual article (Eckert et al. [10]) discussing the surprising fact that the risk concept is almost absent in the SDGs, and similarly, most risks assessments are narrowed down to sectoral approaches without references to the SDGs. The agreement comprises 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specified by 169 individual targets, and a common understanding that these global goals need to be treated as being interconnected and interdependent rather than handled separately or even confined in silos (Dodds et al. [7]; UN [24]). [Extracted from the article]

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) constitute an ambitious comprehensive global framework including monitoring mechanisms and indicators to evaluate progress towards precise targets of sustainable development. Most European countries have adapted their national sustainability indicator systems to conform to the UN Agenda 2030 for sustainable development, introducing new indicators and monitoring frameworks and governance processes in which these are embedded. What do we know about the political processes and struggles of implementing this important global framework? How does the politics of indicators differ in national contexts? We propose a classification of national indicator systems along dimensions of indicator selection, appraisal landscape, participatory nature, and political communication. We empirically explore these dimensions for four European national sustainability indicator systems through a comparative analysis based on national policy documents, indicator databases, and web portals as well as inputs from workshops and expert interviews. Given the considerable variation with respect to the trajectory of national sustainability indicator systems, we posit that these differences correspond to different national interpretations of sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) define a path towards a sustainable future, but given that uncertainty characterises the outcomes of any SDG-related actions, risks in the implementation of the Agenda need to be addressed. At the same time, most risk assessments are narrowed to sectoral approaches and do not refer to SDGs. Here, on the basis of a literature review and workshops, it is analysed how SDGs and risks relate to each other's in different communities. Then, it is formally demonstrated that, as soon as the mathematical definition of risks is broadened to embrace a more systemic perspective, acting to maintain socio-environmental systems within their sustainability domain can be done by risk minimisation. This makes Sustainable Development Goals and risks "the Yin and the Yang of the paths towards sustainability". Eventually, the usefulness of the SDG-risk nexus for both sustainability and risk management is emphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]