1.1.1 – Going further than the Millennium Development Goals

9The SDGs are to a large extent the result of a “pendulum swing” with respect to the previous framework (2000–2015) of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (Langford, 2016). The MDGs were inspired by a 1996 core list of objectives of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), then crafted by United Nations experts in a drive to spur a collective remobilisation around a few priorities formulated in the Millennium Declaration of 2000. The MDGs laid out an Agenda for development assistance and the Ministers of Development in developed countries had taken on responsibility for this. The MDGs focussed on eight goals [1] targeting the responses to basic needs. They make a clear distinction between developed and developing countries, thus perpetuating a binary view of the world.

10For the SDGs, on the other hand, the first talks were propelled by middle-income countries (Colombia, Guatemala, Brazil). The preparation process was formally launched at the Rio+20 Summit in 2012, an arena that traditionally falls within the purview of Ministries of Environment (Fukuda-Parr, 2016). Contrary to the MDGs, it became clear as early as 2012 that the ambition was to propose goals that could apply to all countries. [2] At the outset, the two processes – one to reflect on the post-2015 Agenda as a sequel to the MDGs, the other to prepare sustainable development goals – were separate. They finally converged and gave rise to the formulation of the SDGs.

11The consultation process on the contents of the future 2030 Agenda was designed to be as open as possible, in what “what seemed like the first exercise in global participatory democracy” (Langford, 2016). Numerous consultations were organised at national, regional and global levels. An online survey was even launched worldwide, encouraging each citizen to respond. In 2013, a working group bringing together representatives from Member States was created. Its work finally produced a proposal with 17 goals in 2014.

12The vision advocated by the SDGs is broader than that of the MDGs. The SDGs target inclusion and the fight against inequality, mainly through redistributive efforts, and have the ambition of “leaving no one behind”. The Agenda clearly states the importance of tackling accumulated poverty, considering this from a multi-dimensional standpoint, not simply on the sole criterion of income. The importance of women’s empowerment and gender equality is also affirmed in a specific SDG. Environmental questions have been extended to the fight against climate change, the preservation of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and the sustainability of lifestyles (consumption and production, agriculture and housing).

1.1.2 – A negotiation process that did not set an order of priorities

13The consultations and negotiations for the 2030 Agenda brought together “sector-based communities” whose discussions were traditionally held in separate arenas, particularly for environmental and human rights matters. The 2030 Agenda took up many commitments previously made by States in different fora and at conferences on economic, human and environmental development (see Box 1).

14The negotiations leading to the adoption of the Agenda were the theatre of confrontations between different conceptions of development. In fact, Fukuda-Parr (2016) refers to “battles” rather than negotiations. The 2015 negotiations resulted in a document that drew a fine political balance and seemed to be the fruit of inevitable compromises between states. It contains a large number of goals because, according to Langford (2016), “When the deal was done in mid-2014 almost all states decried the number of goals and targets, yet none expressed willingness to trade off its own favoured goals and targets”. Subsequent negotiations in 2015 did not lead to a reduction of the number of goals. It was more a question of clarifying the sense by elaborating targets, means of implementation and a monitoring mechanism. A preamble was also added in an attempt to frame the goals more broadly. It states the Agenda’s five pillars (people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnerships), reaffirms the indivisibility of the goals and underlines the commitment to leave no one behind.

15Moreover, due to circumstance, the year 2015 produced a jumbled “trifecta”. The issues of financing development were dealt with in a separate document, adopted at the Addis Ababa Conference held in July 2015. And, while some proposals from the Addis Ababa Conference were integrated into the final 2030 Agenda document (e.g., the global technology facilitation mechanism), the two processes remained separate. Likewise, the results of the Paris Climate Agreement, adopted several months later, were not integrated as such into the Agenda. Admittedly, the Agenda refers to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, but only mentions it as the “the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change”.

1.2.1 – A polysemous notion

16The term “sustainable development”, popularised as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland Report, 1987), is polysemous. Sustainable development, “like other political terms such as ‘democracy’… has a widely accepted but vague core meaning within which there are differing ‘conceptions of the concept’—legitimate, yet incompatible and contested, interpretations of how the concept should be put into practice” (Jacobs, 1995, in Connelly, 2007). These multiple interpretations may give rise to window-dressing or “over-communication”, whereby some actors (governments or companies) flag their interventions as supporting sustainable development, but make no radical changes in their actions. So what sustainable development approach does the 2030 Agenda refer to?

The 2030 Agenda approach: sustainable development in three dimensions, at least…

17The 2030 Agenda explicitly refers to a conception widely found in the literature on sustainable development – that of a three-dimensional approach. In the preamble of the 2030 Agenda, the States reaffirm their commitment to the 17 SDGs, which “are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental” (AGNU, 2015).

18One of the first authors to conceptualise this three-dimensional approach is Edward Barbier. For Barbier (Barbier 1987, in Barbier and Burgess, 2017), the overarching objective of sustainable development is to maximise the goals across each of the three systems (economic, social and environmental/ecological) through a process of trade-offs between them. This approach is depicted as overlapping circles with sustainable development located at their intersection (cf. Figure 1).

Figure 1

Maximisation of the 3 dimensions

Maximisation of the 3 dimensions

19This three-system approach was then taken up by many other authors and schools of thought, but the perimeter of the three dimensions, their overlapping and ultimately the implications for public policy recommendations can differ widely among authors (Purvis et al., 2019). Some authors refute the idea of maximising the three spheres and, instead, view the economy as a means to serve the social sphere, which is itself embedded in a broader environmental dimension, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

The nested model with the economy embedded in the social sphere and its environment

The nested model with the economy embedded in the social sphere and its environment

20Other authors associate additional dimensions to these three to extend the sustainability spectrum. One dimension often highlighted is governance, so to underline the importance of institutional arrangements and civic participation for sustainable development. Culture may also be introduced as a determinant of the systems’ sustainability. In this case, the focus is on the individual’s value system, their lifestyle and traditional knowledge, or the way in which they perceive nature.

21Since the 2000s, with the ongoing updates to the planet’s biophysical boundaries, the materiality of the environmental constraint has prompted a revision of the sustainable development concept. According to this approach, sustainable development boils down to ensuring the well-being of society within directly measurable planetary limits, which, if overstepped could mean that the critical environmental thresholds will have been crossed (Rockström et al, 2009; Steffen et al, 2015). [3] Similarly, Kate Raworth has introduced the Doughnut diagram to show that a “safe and just space for humanity” must be found in between the need to meet humankind’s essential needs (food, water, education, employment, etc.) and the need to keep within the planetary boundaries (Figure 3)

Figure 3

The doughnut: a safe and just space for humanity

The doughnut: a safe and just space for humanity

1.2.2 – Tensions between SDGs, linked to the sustainable development approach set out in the Agenda

22The 2030 Agenda does not rely on the concept of planetary boundaries, but it does draw on the three-dimension approach. The Agenda’s economic dimension is grounded on the pursuit of economic growth, particularly in the least developed countries. One of the targets proposes to “sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries”. The Agenda thus assumes a possible large-scale decoupling between economic growth and environmental degradation. Target 8.4 aims to “endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation”. SDG 12 focuses on sustainable production and consumption patterns with a view to reducing the ecological footprint of productive activities through better energy efficiency, mainly driven by the deployment pf technological solutions (Elder and Olsen, 2019; Gasper et al, 2019).

23Under the SDGs, economic growth holds a pivotal role for the achievement of the SDGs on poverty alleviation and the reduction of inequality. On the other hand, robust constraints to ensure that this growth is compatible with the environmental goals set out in the Agenda have been given lesser importance. On the basis of a retrospective statistical study (1983–2016) of 227 countries and territories, Pradhan et al. (2017) show that although developed countries have indeed improved their citizens’ well-being, they are now locked into production and consumption patterns that generate unsustainable material and environmental footprints. The 2030 Agenda, which posits that sustaining economic growth must go hand in hand with improved efficiency in the use of global resources, is most likely doomed to fail for want of a compelling operating procedure. Lusseau and Mancini (2019) confirm that the climate and production targets, as well as those for sustainable consumption, will likely impede the achievement of other goals in high-income countries.

24This major difficulty in reconciling economic growth and protection of the environment has led authors such as Redclift (2005) to conclude that sustainable development should be seen as an oxymoron which obscures the tensions between natural systems and human activities. Concurring with the findings of Pradhan et al. (2017), Hickel (2019) draws on empirical data to underline that SDG 8 on growth and employment will, under current conditions, hinder the achievement of the SDGs sustainability objectives. The author challenges the assumption that an adequate decoupling between economic growth and the reduction of environmental degradation as outlined in the Agenda will be feasible. The painful experience of 2020, marked by a strong GDP contraction in the developed countries due to lockdowns resulting from the Coronavirus pandemic, shows – which gives no cause for optimism – that even a significant drop in GDP is not in itself enough to ensure an equivalent and lasting decrease in CO₂ emissions.

1.2.3 – Environmental objectives lagging behind

25The tensions between social, economic and environmental objectives are reflected in the stocktaking review of the SDGs, five years after their adoption. When we look at the progress made, the environmental goals are clearly on a long-term downwards trend. According to the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR, 2019), the goals to tackle climate change, halt marine and terrestrial biodiversity loss (which supposes an end to overfishing, to deterioration of coastal waters, wildlife trafficking…), promote a healthy lifestyle (contradicted by the increase in obesity) and less resource-dependent global production show a marked lag, as does the fight against inequality (see Table 1). For the GSDR (2019), no country has achieved the overarching objective of balancing human well-being with a healthy environment. In other words, for the time being, no country has successfully combined a high human development index with a low ecological footprint.

Table 1

Projected distance from reaching selected SDG targets by 2030 (at current trends)

GOAL WITHIN 5% 5-10% > 10% NEGATIVE LONG-TERM TREND 1.1 Eradicating extreme poverty 1.3 Social protection for all 2.2 Ending hunger (undernourishment) 2.2 Ending malnutrition (stunting) 2.5 Maintaining genetic diversity 2.a Investment in agriculture 2.2 Ending malnutrition (overweight) 3.2 Under-5 mortality 3.2 Neonatal mortality 3.1. Maternal mortality 3.4 Premature deaths from non-communicable diseases 4.1 Enrolment in primary education 4.6 Literacy among youth and adults 4.2 Early childhood development 4.1 Enrolment in secondary education 4.3 Enrolment in tertiary education 5.5 Women political participation 6.2 Access to safe sanitation (open defecation practices) 6.1 Access to safely managed drinking water 6.2 Access to safely managed sanitation services 7.1 Access to electricity 7.2 Share of renewable energy 7.3 Energy intensity 8.7 Use of child labour

Projected distance from reaching selected SDG targets by 2030 (at current trends)

GOAL WITHIN 5% 5-10% > 10% NEGATIVE LONG-TERM TREND 9.5 Enhancing scientific research (R&D expenditure) 9.5 Enhancing scientic research (number of researchers) 10.c Remittance costs Inequality in income 11.1 Urban population living in slums 12.2 Absolute material footprint, and DMC Global GHG emissions relative to Paris targets 14.1 Continued deterioration of coastal waters 14.4 Overshing 15.5 Biodiversity loss 15.7. Wildlife poaching and tracking 16.9 Universal birth registration

1.3.1 – An increasingly technical debate

26The 2030 Agenda uses the language of numbers to formulate the “informal norms that guide behavior” (Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2019). Once established, the priorities of the Agenda then become the new performance standards to be met and are considered as universally applicable and a reference for policy assessments. For Fukuda-Parr and MacNeill (2019), this has brought about a double re-framing: first, a shift in norms, as the 2030 Agenda reformulates the concept of development as a universal aspiration towards inclusive and sustainable human progress; but also a methodological shift as the preparation of the Agenda was primarily based on setting goals whose progress was to be monitored by numeric indicators.

27At the 2030 Agenda negotiations, the choice was made to leave it up to a technical body mainly made up of statisticians – the Expert Group on SDG indicators – to propose a selection of indicators to monitor the goals and targets adopted by the Open-ended Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, comprising UN Member States.

28This Expert Group first convened in June 2015 with the mandate to reach an agreement on a small set of indicators. Two years later, in July 2017, a list of 232 indicators was finally adopted. However, half of these were still under discussion due to the lack of available data. [4]

29The large number of indicators has produced a statistical conundrum. The 2020 Report of the UN Secretary-General underlines the “huge data gaps” that exist in terms of geographical coverage, the timeliness of data collection and the level of disaggregation of the indicators. (UNSG, 2020). On gender, sustainable production and consumption, climate action and marine ecosystems (4 of the 17 goals), fewer than half of the countries have comparable data.

30In an ideal world, each country would be able to build a pathway to achieve the SDGs by measuring the progress made and modelling the distance still to be covered. In practice, it is proving too complex to envisage constructing these national trajectories – “all goals included” – in the near future, even in the developed countries. Given the current structure of the SDGs, a country would in fact need to construct 169 trajectories, one for each target, to precisely comply with the SDG framework. The example of COP21, which had come after the elaboration of each country’s nationally determined contribution, shows that modelling a trajectory for one single target (CO₂ emissions) is a lengthy undertaking. This is why countries that are preoccupied by the sustainability of their development models analyse or should analyse in priority the most obviously conflicting goals, even if this means “side-lining” other goals.

1.3.2 – The erosion of ambition

31For Fukuda-Parr and McNeill (2019), a slippage in the Agenda’s ambition came about at the time the indicators were being defined. Translating the goals into indicators led to a replay of the political debate, on more technical grounds, between competing visions of development. For example, the goal to promote sustainable agriculture was translated into an indicator designed to represent the proportion of agricultural areas exploited both productively and sustainably. The fact that these two terms were conjoined is no minor detail, as an agricultural productivity indicator was already included in the Agenda’s indicators. This coupling led to heated discussions between the proponents of industrial agriculture and the advocates of agroecology, which concluded with the Food and Agriculture Organization’s proposal to establish an as yet experimental methodology using a dashboard to assess the environmental impacts on farms.

32When it comes to measuring poverty, given that there is no globally agreed methodology and no comparable cross-country data, the definition of an indicator for measuring the eradication of poverty in all its forms has been left to each country’s discretion.

33As for the goal to reduce inequality, the chosen indicator corresponds to the growth rate of household expenditure or the per capita income of the bottom 40% of the population (Target 10.1). Many other stakeholders, however, advocate the use of the Gini coefficient or the Palma ratio [5] to assess vertical economic inequality (Fukuda-Parr, 2019). In fact, the decision was taken in 2020 to re-introduce the Gini coefficient into the list of SDG tracking indicators as a component of the indicator for the redistributive impact of fiscal policies. Yet, the Gini Index, while certainly more comprehensive, is not the most appropriate to “capture” the phenomena of wealth concentration at the top of income distribution. This was pointed out by Thomas Piketty, who has shown the salience of monitoring the relative relationships between deciles: for example, tracking the changes in the income and assets of the wealthiest 10% compared to the rest of the population (Piketty, 2014). This example illustrates how discussions about indicators can evolve and modify the SDG monitoring framework to produce somewhat different results depending on which lens is used.

34Overall, the definition of the indicators gives rise to debates where power games and the way the authority of organisations is perceived from a technical and political viewpoint have a significant impact. The two indicators selected for SDG 5 on gender to measure all forms of violence against women and girls rely more on an approach that considers that this violence stems from interpersonal relationships rather than from the deeply unequal structures of societies that tolerate or play down the gravity of these acts. [6] This choice can be explained by the appeal of more easily measured indicators that use data collected by the national statistics offices and criminal justice agencies. These are bodies with both the capacity and authority to collect and analyse big data, contrary to other organisations that combat violence against women (Merry, 2016).

1.3.3 – The hurdles to the quantification of environmental themes

35The 2020 report on the SDGs highlights the difficulty of collecting reliable data to establish the Agenda 2030 indicators. In the environmental field more particularly, the indicators come up against the limitations of quantification. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, out of the 93 environment-related indicators, only one-third (i.e. 30 indicators) can be measured as the data exist (UNEP, 2019a). For the 63 others, the data are insufficient. For example, the targets linked to land degradation, ocean acidification or the quality of water resources cannot be measured for lack of data. The environmental SDGs stand out insofar as their targets are less precise than those of the so-called “social” SDGs, which are derived from the MDGs. However, to paraphrase Gramsci, if “the old world is dying, the new world is struggling to be born. Now is the time of monsters.” But the old world of the MDGs stills prevails over the world of the Paris Agreement and, perhaps, tomorrow, over the world of Kunming, the 2021 venue of the COP15 on biodiversity. The green SDGs, less clearly defined and undervalued, are still lagging and falling further behind with each passing year. The difficulty with the environmental targets stems from the fact that they are not always directly measurable, and need to be evaluated against an ideal that is modelled but not observed. This forecasting work is based on assumptions and modelling choices (e.g. the temporal or spatial scale) that have heavy implications for results in terms of sustainability.

36The 2030 Agenda negotiations can be rightly seen as a diplomatic success as they gathered together the entire international community around a single text with ambitious objectives. In this sense, they resulted in the formulation of a common language that provides a robust foundation for the stakeholder communities engaged in a sustainable development approach (states, NGOs, business, UN agencies and financial institutions). Be that as it may, the 2030 Agenda presents certain pitfalls: its prolific character detracts from its readability; the conception of sustainable development used in the Agenda, which places the economic, social and environmental spheres on the same footing, spawns contradictions; the Agenda compiles a multitude of indicators that make it hard to create concrete incentives for better investment in sustainable development. Yet, opportunities to avoid these pitfalls and return to the integrative ambition of the Agenda exist. These are developed in detail in the second part of this paper.

2.1.1 – At global level, step up research efforts to define and refine the environmental indicators

43As mentioned in Part I, most countries are finding it hard to adhere to the statistical edifice enshrined in the 2030 Agenda, especially countries with limited statistical capabilities. Given the mass of indicators set out in the Agenda, each country, each institution or researcher has to choose which ones they wish to prioritise, with the ensuing risk that the choice will come down on those that are easiest to collect. Means-of-implementation indicators (e.g., implementation of policies for sustainable public procurement practices, or the progress made in implementing a regulatory framework enabling small-scale fisheries to access fishing zones) could be preferred over performance indicators that reflect the state of societies and ecosystems (e.g., the proportion of people living on less than the median income, the areas of forest cover or plastic pollution of the oceans).

44The proliferation of targets and indicators also creates biases when it comes to analysing the goals as a whole; the risk being that this could create sorts of “black boxes” liable to quash any policy debate on the choice of variables. Thus, in order to obtain results, many studies seeking to model SDG interactions are obliged to select certain targets within the goals or focus on certain variables as proxies to assess the achievement of a goal. Research work such as the SDG Index [7] is based on aggregate data, which necessarily means that researchers take a position on the relative weight they give to each variable. This decision should, however, be a matter of public debate and democratic choice.

45Without oversimplifying, if a minimum number of indicators able to translate an integrated vision of sustainable development at a global level were chosen, this would foster democratic debate on the key sustainable development goals. This is not to say that only easy-to-collect indicators would be selected. On the contrary, it would help to focus research efforts on new indicators or to refine existing indicators with a view to integrating the different sustainable development dimensions. Stafford-Smith et al. (2017) confirm the need to focus on “essential sustainable development variables”, citing for example the studies on planetary boundaries by Steffen et al. (2015). Measuring indicators to obtain better estimates of well-being beyond the GDP yardstick or to monitor changes in climate or biodiversity encompasses fast-moving research fields. This type of research can usefully inform ongoing international negotiations, for example, on biodiversity (under the Convention on Biological Diversity) or climate (under the United Nations Climate Change Conference).

46To take an example from the environmental realm, meeting the core objective of the Paris agreement – i.e. global warming limited to 1.5 or 2°C – presupposes a massive decarbonization of economic activities. As power generation is a major source of CO₂ emissions, it would be possible for instance to establish an international standard for the “CO₂ content” of electricity production to limit the sector’s contribution to global warming. A level of 100 grammes per kWh is estimated to be a target that would provide the sector with a degree of environmental sustainability. If this level is to be reached by 2050 (compared to some 500 g/kWh today), it would require a huge increase in the share of renewables or low-carbon energies in the energy mix (around 80%), which would open up a pathway consistent with the scenario to limit global warming to the 1.5°C set by the IPCC.

47For biodiversity protection or sustainable resource management, the sustainable development goals do not adequately reflect the state of ecosystems or their degradation. The goals lack relevance for taking stock of the biosphere’s ability to sustain its regenerative capacity, in the optic of “strong sustainability”, which is to say, respect for the integrity of critical natural capital that cannot be replaced or offset. The sustainable development goals thus fix certain thresholds in social matters (e.g. the eradication of poverty, cut the global maternal mortality rate to under 70 per 100,000 live births or ensure a quality education for all), but overlook sustainability thresholds. Many indicators, and as many targets, refer to the “sustainable” management or use of ecosystems, but fail to specify what this sustainability means.

48For example, SDG 12 on the sustainable management of natural resources includes the following target: “By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources”. To measure the achievement of this target, two types of indicators are proposed – the material footprint and material consumption – but no required target level is set. To all appearances, the proposal is technical as it is linked to measurable indicators, but how can it be operationalised if it has no link to thresholds not to be exceeded? If no sustainability threshold is fixed, it is illusory to imagine that sustainable management can effectively be put into practice and that long-term planning for resource use can be improved.

Figure 4

Environmental Sustainability Gap (ESGAP) dashboard for New Caledonia

Environmental Sustainability Gap (ESGAP) dashboard for New Caledonia

Note to the reader: ESGAP comprises a dashboard of 22 indicators from which two composite indicators are calculated: the SES (Strong Environmental Sustainability) and the SESP (Strong Environmental Sustainability Progress). For the list of environmental functions currently identified (resources, pollution, biodiversity, health and well-being), these indicators represent the gap with respect to the environmental sustainability standards (from 0 to 100%) (SES), and the changes in this gap over time (SESP). For New Caledonia, the SES score is 43%, mainly due to the “weak sustainability of the ‘Critical pollution loads of ecosystems’ function (10% - shown in dark blue), linked to the high GHG emissions and the impact of fire on the ecosystems” (Comte et al., 2021).

49Scientific thinking on sustainability indicators crucially needs to make headway so that the complexity of sustainable development can be understood, without simplifying it. In this spirit, a research team led by Paul Ekins of University College London has developed a new indicator dubbed the Environmental Sustainability GAP, better known by its acronym ESGAP (Ekins et al., 2019; Fairbrass et al., 2020). Based on a dashboard, this indicator allows for monitoring of the state of environmental functions [8] and helps to ensure they are maintained at a sustainable level. Like all environmental indicators, local application of the ESGAP indicator runs up against the problem of data availability, as well as of the existence of sustainability standards. That said, in the countries and territories where it has been rolled out in pilot projects (Kenya, Viet Nam, New Caledonia), its application has made it possible not only to undertake a sorely lacking, cross-cutting diagnosis, but also to identify avenues to build up the collection and use of data for environmental management. More broadly, the formulation of this type of environmental indicator and its approach to local issues help to facilitate the science-policy interface. It enables ties to be forged with policymakers and public policies and ultimately enriches the public debate on the interactions between environmental, social and economic issues at the local level.

2.1.2 – At local level, engage in a debate on environmental thresholds in light of the major global challenges

50At national and local level, engaging in a debate on the establishment of environmental goals and the means of achieving them will be crucial to reappropriating the sustainable development challenges and reconciling the indicators used for international comparison with territorial scales, in the spirit of a mutual reinforcement of these two processes.

51Stimulating a democratic debate on setting thresholds at the local or national level, or even for a specific entity (e.g., a company or an institution) would help reposition the environmental goals at the centre of discussions. This approach echoes the process set up by the Paris Agreement, in which each state was asked to formulate its national contribution to the objective of limiting the increase in temperatures as set out in the Agreement. Certainly, at aggregate level, an analysis of contributions shows that the climate trajectory would push increases up to at least +3°C by the end of the century, far higher than the fixed target. Yet, this exercise has two key merits: first, it engages a national-level debate on the composition of the national contribution and, secondly, it raises awareness of the extent of additional efforts required to reach the ultimate objective. The challenge is now to bring the goal of keeping global warming to under 2°C back into line by substantially improving national contributions. On this count, the adoption of more precise national objectives to decarbonise main sectors and emissive activities stands as a priority.

2.2.1 – Identify the subjects requiring trade-offs

53On the basis of a statistical study involving a dataset of 122 indicators covering 227 countries and territories over the period 1983–2006, Pradhan et al. (2017) identify 10 pairs of SDGs that present the highest share of synergies and 10 pairs of SDGs with the highest share of trade-offs, meaning where progress on one or more SDG targets hinders progress on one or more targets of another SDG. Despite the limits of this study due to incomplete data, the findings show that the SDG on sustainable consumption and production conflicts most with the other goals such as inequality reduction, poverty eradication, health, education or access to water and sanitation. This SDG emerges as one of the SDGs that is most exposed to the need for trade-offs. Likewise, the SDG on terrestrial ecosystems also calls for trade-offs with other goals.

Figure 5

Global ranking of 10 pairs of SDGs with the highest shares of synergies (left) and trade-offs (right)

Global ranking of 10 pairs of SDGs with the highest shares of synergies (left) and trade-offs (right)

Note to the reader: The left-hand column lists the top 10 SDG pairs with the highest share of synergy. According to this ranking, SDG 1 on poverty and SDG 3 on health are the SDGs most often associated with synergies. The right-hand column lists the top 10 SDGs that have significant negative correlations (the progress on one goal leads to a backslide for another SDG). In this top 10, SDG 12 on responsible production and consumption and SDG 15 on terrestrial ecosystems are those that most often have negative correlations.

54Sachs et al. (2019) identify the goals whose interactions are particularly prone to trade-offs in order to deal with them all together. The authors consider that the goal to decarbonise energy and promote sustainable industry will require a trade-off between energy access on the one hand, and decarbonisation of energy and production systems on the other. A trade-off will also be necessary with respect to the choice of energy mixes in countries and territories in order to tackle the air pollution resulting from these choices, greenhouse gas emissions forecasts, and the potential rebound effect induced by an increase in energy demand. Undoubtedly, compromises will also have to be negotiated for food systems, as well as oceans. Possible contradictions in this area are widely documented, especially those between the increase in agricultural production on the one hand, and limiting damage to biodiversity and water resources on the other (due to pollution risks, the drying-up of aquifers, etc.).

55In addition to studying interactions on a global scale, they also need to be studied in context given that the type of interaction (positive or negative) depends on local factors. Thus, without explaining the reasons for the differences, the statistical study of Pradhan et al. (2017) mentioned earlier concludes that the SDG on health and the SDG on sustainable production and consumption are subject to trade-offs in many countries, but it also shows that, in some countries (such as Algeria), these two SDGs have a synergistic relationship.

56Nilsson et al. (2016) show that at least three elements must be considered when qualifying the nature of SDG interactions, depending on the context: available technologies, governance and geography. The study of the International Council for Science (ICSU, 2017) rounds off this list by adding time (to account for interactions that may emerge within different time frames) and directionality (which refers to the fact that SDG interactions may have different directions or, in other words, one SDG will have an impact on another without the reverse being necessarily true). Both studies find that, in most cases, antagonisms stem from governance issues. For example, energy infrastructure projects are likely to have harmful effects on land rights, but this negative interaction is not necessarily intrinsic – it depends above all on the governance measures implemented to take these rights into account.

57To work on the interactions between goals and negotiate actionable compromises between them, it is thus important to prioritise local and participatory approaches, as local perceptions of the trade-offs to be made may differ from the scientific analyses. As the “yellow vests” movement in France has shown, the increase in the carbon tax on fuel, recommended by the experts, nonetheless met with refusal from a sizeable fraction of French society, just as the climate-energy contribution had been rejected by the movement of the so-called “bonnets rouges” (red caps). The political sensitivity of the topics points to the need to work at the local level and within a system of good governance so that ways of settling compensation can be found between the winners and the losers of a policy, should trade-offs be necessary.

58The repercussions that one country’s achievement of an SDG may have on another country is also an under-researched topic. For example, building a dam may enable a country to reach its energy goal by increasing its population’s access to energy, but the dam could make it harder for the downstream countries to fulfil their own goal of food security if the dam has reduced the surface areas of irrigated agricultural land. The 2030 Agenda can help to point up such repercussions or highlight cases when a sustainable development problem is transferred from one country to another. In climate matters, for example, this approach is prompting interest in identifying the sources of greenhouse gas emissions more precisely. Factoring in cross-border effects means revising the calculation of country GHG emissions to correct for the effects of international trade (adding imported emissions and deducting exported emissions). With this type of estimate (net emissions), the emission trends over the past thirty years differ from the calculations generally advanced and show, for example, that net emissions in Europe have been stable since the 1990s, despite a decline in so-called territorial emissions (UNDP, 2020). This calculation method provides a better measure of the (in)effectiveness of mitigation policies and makes it possible to adapt them accordingly.

59The subject of governance raises the question of responsibility on the appropriate scale – either the international, regional, national or more local level. The integration of environmental issues often leads to a dilution of responsibilities among multiple actors (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al., 2018). Defining responsibilities at the right scale is an obvious issue not addressed in the 2030 Agenda which relies on a voluntary system for monitoring implementation at the level of actors and states.

2.2.2 – Work on nexuses

60The nexus approach is particularly relevant to working on the trade-offs to be made between the different aspects of sustainable development, as it explores the linkages between sectors, scales and actors and seeks to connect scientific analyses to territorial realities.

61Liu et al. (2018) shows that nexuses are directly or indirectly linked to all the SDGs (cf. Figure 6).

Figure 6

Nexus examples and direct relationships to SDGs

Nexus examples and direct relationships to SDGs

Note to the reader: each type of the above nexuses (left-hand column) are directly associated with SDGs (right-hand column) and can also be indirectly linked to many other SDGs.

62This approach is interesting as it makes it possible to go beyond institutional and intellectual siloes. The aim is to clarify the complex relationships between and within sectors, while also integrating these relationships into an institutional or stakeholder system (e.g., by analysing food and energy systems at watershed level). The approach usefully fulfils the need to find operational tools: a product life-cycle assessment, impact studies, etc. It can help facilitate and rationalise decision-making, for example, on major choices in the areas of energy, food, water management, as well as biodiversity protection and health (human and animal). Used mainly to respond to the issues of preserving natural resources, it promotes the planning and integrated management of these resources.

63Yet, the nexus approach requires time and resources, as it involves calling on different lines of expertise, putting data together and promoting coordination between experts and stakeholders who need to understand each other’s issues. For example, it means encouraging ministries to take an interest in SDGs other than those for which they are responsible. Given these constraints, Liu et al. (2018) consider that the nexus approach is only applicable to problems for which the added value of this approach has been adequately proven, since integrating the sustainable development aspects requires substantial financial and human resources to ensure coordination between the different sectors.

2.5.1 – Update the SDGs to scale up their ambition

76The Sustainable Development Goals will need to evolve not only as and when research on the environmental, social and economic indicators progresses, but also in line with diplomatic advances. On the climate front, for example, even though the Paris Agreement is not explicitly included in the SDGs given that it was signed several months after their adoption, a 50% target for carbon emissions reduction by 2030 is advocated at UN level and used de facto to measure the progress of the SDG on climate.

77To avoid rapid obsolescence, the 2030 Agenda thus needs to systematically integrate diplomatic advances on sustainable development issues (e.g., climate, biodiversity, gender or inequality). Failure to update the SDGs would entail the risk that UN agendas again diverge. Other agreements adopted under the same international framework would gradually be added to the SDGs. This means that, to survive and retain their role of ensuring coherence, the SDGs will have to adapt.

78For this, a review mechanism should be put in place so that each enhancement of the sustainable development ambitions approved by the international community is drafted into the Agenda. The major international gatherings planned for 2021, COP26 on climate in the United Kingdom and COP15 on biodiversity in China, should offer the opportunity to scale up ambitions for environmental objectives and revises downwards national carbon emissions trajectories. Late 2019, the United Nations Environment Programme warned that countries would have to triple the ambition of their current national contribution under the Paris Climate Agreement if they wished to collectively reach the 2°C target, and raise their ambitions fivefold to meet the 1.5°C target (UNEP, 2019b). The outcome of the forthcoming talks could lead to an update of the SDG framework, so that these new sustainable development pathways are duly integrated into the policy framework that sets the course of action to support sustainable development.

2.5.2 – Start thinking about the 2050 goals

79The debate on thresholds and trajectories also highlights the question of time when it comes to analysing decision-making. The time horizon for decisions made by stakeholders (policy-makers, private sector or civil society actors) is often short-termist, reduced to four or five years depending on the cycle of a project or election. What time scale should be chosen for environmental phenomena (whose effects are slow to materialise)? Why reduce the use of pesticides today if the time horizon for health objectives is limited to 2030 given that, by then, we will still not be able to precisely measure their impact on consumer health? It is important that we be able to take different time horizons into account – be it 2030, 2050 or a still more distant date – in order to integrate a long-term dimension depending on each SDG.

80The Agenda for the sustainable development goals was designed with the target year 2030 in sight, but this deadline is nothing more than a milestone. If we begin as of now to set goals for 2050, this will allow us to build sustainable development pathways in the longer term and become aware of the magnitude of change required to achieve these goals. The further away the time horizon, the more crucial it is to plan for renegotiation points in order to integrate changes in scientific consensus, the evolution of societies and their democratic choices, and changes in their chosen priorities. Nonetheless, the adoption of a longer-term horizon must not lead to delays in urgent decision-making, quite the opposite. This is why we also consider it necessary to foresee milestones every five years, to ensure that policymaking time and sustainability time are also reconciled.