Integrated SDG Implementation—How a Cross-Scale (Vertical) and Cross-Regional Nexus Approach Can Complement Cross-Sectoral (Horizontal) Integration

Chapter

Abstract

The growing demand for food, energy, and water, the resulting pressure on natural resources and the environment and the persistent lack of human securities in many parts of the world, require new integrated approaches in management and governance. Integration is not only required horizontally across disciplines and sectors, but also vertically across levels, scales and across regions. Implementation of a vertical Nexus Approach is to be achieved through mainstreaming, i.e. through entry points such as national and regional development plans, strategies and policies to which it can add value. In particular, the call for integrated implementation of the SDGs requires a horizontal and vertical Nexus Approach for achieving coherence across sustainability goals and targets across levels, scales and across regions. For example, the “global level of ambitions” to which the 2030 Agenda refers can be specified and quantified with the help of the Planetary Boundaries (PBs). For mainstreaming the PBs into say,—national—policy and decision making, they need to be downscaled and allocated to the individual countries, so they can serve as benchmarks for national environmental performance and can be integrated with bottom-up sustainability criteria, e.g. national environmental standards. Transdisciplinary approaches are required, for co-designing and co-generating relevant knowledge by scientists and policy and decision makers. This also involves normative decisions about fair allocation of natural resources, emissions and burden sharing among nations and eventually institutions for the global governance of natural resources.

References

  1. Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J (2012) World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bringezu S (2018) Key strategies to achieve the SDGs and consequences for monitoring resource use. In: Hülsmann S, Ardakanian R (eds) Managing water, soil and waste resources to achieve sustainable development goals: monitoring and implementation of integrated resources managementGoogle Scholar
  3. Bringezu S, Potocznik J, Schandl H, Lu Y, Ramaswani A, Swilling M, Suh S (2016) Multi-scale governance of sustainable natural resource use—challenges and opportunities for monitoring and institutional development at the national and global level. Sustainability 8:778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cairns R, Krzywoszynska A (2016) Anatomy of a Buzzword: the emergence of ‘the Water-Energy-Food Nexus’ in UK Natural Resource Debates. Environ Sci Policy 64(October):164–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dalin C, Konar M, Hanasaki N, Rinaldo A, Rodriguez-Iturbe I (2012) Evolution of the global virtual water trade network. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(16):5989–94.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203176109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawkins E, Beringer T, Hoff H, Croft S, Alva IL, Müller A (2016) Tracking Germany’s biomass consumption: scientific underpinning for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies Potsdam (IASS) e. V, Potsdam, http://publications.iass-potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:1959915:4/component/escidoc:1966071/1959915.pdf
  7. de Vries W, Kros J, Kroeze C, Seitzinger SP (2013) Assessing planetary and regional nitrogen boundaries related to food security and adverse environmental impacts. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(3–4):392–402.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Odorico P, Carr JA, Laio F, Ridolfi L, Vandoni S (2014) Feeding humanity through global food trade. Earths Future 2(9):458–69.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EF000250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eggers J (2016) Germany’s internal and external contribution to the transgression of the planetary nitrogen boundary. Bachelor Thesis, Humboldt University Berlin and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Berlin, PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  10. Faulstich M, Holm-Müller K, Bradke H, Calliess C, Foth H, Niekisch M, Schreurs M (2015) Stickstoff: Lösungsstrategien für ein drängendes Umweltproblem. Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen (German Advisory Council on the Environment), Berlin. http://www.umweltrat.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/02_Sondergutachten/2012_2016/2015_01_SG_Stickstoff_KF.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
  11. Friedrich J (2013) Modeling for planetary boundaries: a network analysis of the representations of complex human-environmental interactions in integrated global models. Master’s Thesis, Linköping UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. Guinee J, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Ekvall T, Rydberg T (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hibbard K et al (2007) Decadal-scale interactions of humans and the environment. In: Integrated History and Future of People on EarthGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM (2012) The water footprint of humanity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:3232–3237.  https://doi: 10.1073/pnas.1109936109  CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoff H, Keppner B, Kahlenborn W (2017) Die Planetare Stickstoff Leitplanke als Bezugspunkt einer nationalen Stickstoffstrategie, UBA Texte 75/2017Google Scholar
  16. Hoff H (2011) Understanding the NEXUS, Background paper for the Bonn 2011 Conference: the water, energy and food security Nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. http://www.water-energy-food.org/en/whats_the_nexus/background.html
  17. Karlberg L, Hoff H, Amsalu T, Andersson K, Binnington T, Flores-Lopez F, de Bruin A et al (2015) Tackling complexity: understanding the food-energy-environment Nexus in Ethiopia’s Lake Tana Sub-Basin. Water Altern 8(1):710–34Google Scholar
  18. Le Blanc D (2015) Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. United Nations—Department of economic and social affairs, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenton T, Held H, Kriegler E, Jim H, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber HJ (2007) Tipping elements in the earth’s climate system. PNAS 105:6 1786.1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lugschitz B, Bruckner M, Giljum S (2011) Europe’s global land demand: a study on the actual land embodied in European imports and exports of agricultural and forestry products. Sustain Europe Res Inst (SERI), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  21. Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016) Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534:320–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Brien M, Schütz H, Bringezu S (2015) The land footprint of the EU bioeconomy: monitoring tools, gaps and needs. Land Use Policy 47:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oita A, Malik A, Kanemoto K, Geschke A, Nishijima S, Lenzen M (2016) Substantial nitrogen pollution embedded in international trade. Nat Geosci 9:111–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pikaar I, Matassa S, Rabaey K, Laycock B, Boon N, Verstraete W (2018) The urgent need to re-engineer nitrogen-efficient food production for the planet. In: Hülsmann S, Ardakanian R (eds) Managing water, soil and waste resources to achieve sustainable development goals: monitoring and implementation of integrated resources managementGoogle Scholar
  25. Raupach M, Davis S, Peters Glen, Andrew R, Canadell J, Ciais P, Friedlingstein P, Jotzo F, van Vuuren D, LeQuere C (2014) Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat Clim Change 4:873–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raworth K (2012) A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the donut. Oxfam Policy and Pract 8(1):1–26Google Scholar
  27. Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin SF, Lambin EF, Lenton TM et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263):472–75.  https://doi.org/10.1038/461472aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sadkik AK, El Solh M, Saab N (2014) Food security—challenges and prospects. Report of the Arab Forum for Environment and Development. Beirut, LebanonGoogle Scholar
  29. Scheffran J (2008) The complexity of security. Complexity 14(1):13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):UNSP 1259855.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sutton MA, Bleeker A, Howard CM, BekundaM, Grizzetti B, de Vries W, van Grinsven HJM et al (2013) Our nutrient world: the challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), Edinburgh (UK)Google Scholar
  32. UNEP IRP (2015) Policy coherence of the sustainable development goals: a natural resource perspective. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)Google Scholar
  33. Wichelns D (2017) The water-energy-food nexus: is the increasing attention warranted, from either a research or policy perspective? Environ Sci Policy 69(March):113–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yu Y, Feng K, Hubacek K (2013) Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use. Glob Environ Change 23:1178–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© United Nations University Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources (UNU-FLORES) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm Environment InstituteStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations