Will the Sustainable Development Goals address the links between poverty and the natural environment?

Will

the

Sustainable

Development

Goals

address

the

links

between

poverty

and

the

natural

environment?

Judith

Schleicher

1

,

Marije

Schaafsma

2

and

Bhaskar

Vira

1

Therelationshipsbetweenthenaturalenvironmentandpoverty havebeenacentralthemeinthesustainabilityand

developmentliteratures.However,theyhavebeenless influentialinmainstreaminternationaldevelopmentand conservationpolicies,whichoftenneglectorfailtoadequately addresstheserelationships.Thispaperexamineshowthe SustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGs)mayinfluencethe framingofenvironment–povertyrelationships.Wearguethat theSDGs’comprehensivenaturecouldprovideanopportunity forbetterenvironment–povertyintegration.Torealisethis potential,SDG-relatedactivitieswillneedtochallengethe institutionalstatusquo;transformhowwemeasure,

understandandimplementdevelopment;designinterventions thatreflectlocalvisionsofdevelopment;maketrade-offs betweenSDGsexplicit;andaddressultimatedriversof environmentaldegradationandpoverty.

Addresses

1

DepartmentofGeography,UniversityofCambridge,CambridgeCB2 3EN,UK

2_{SchoolofGeographyandEnvironmentalScience,Universityof} Southampton,SouthamptonSO171BJ,UK

Correspondingauthor:

Schleicher,Judith(Judith.Schleicher@geog.cam.ac.uk)

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018,34:43–47

ThisreviewcomesfromathemedissueonSustainability science

EditedbyKenEGiller,IraMartinaDrupady,LorenzaBFontana&

Johan A Oldekop

ForacompleteoverviewseetheIssue Availableonline5thNovember2018

Received:15December2017;Accepted:25September2018

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.004

1877-3435/ã2018TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.Thisisan openaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Introduction

WiththeadoptionoftheSustainableDevelopmentGoals (SDGs)in2015,governmentsaroundtheworldendorsed anewframeworkthatwillguidetheinternational devel-opmentagenda.Byputtingsustainabilityattheircentre, the SDGs mark ashift fromthe Millennium Develop-ment Goals(MDGs)and emphasisetheinterconnected environmental, socialandeconomicaspectsof develop-ment [1]. Comparedto theMDGs, theSDGs’ compre-hensiveambitionsmaythereforefacilitatebetter integra-tion of theseobjectives [2].However,it remainsto be

seenwhethertheywillleadtoagenuine changeinhow theconnectionbetweenthenaturalenvironment,poverty and development is understood,measured andrealised [3],orwhethertheywill simplymaintainthestatusquo.

The importanceof therelationship betweenthenatural environment and human wellbeing and poverty has increasinglygainedattentioninthesustainability, environ-mentalanddevelopmentliteratures[3–6].Sofar,however, therecognitionoftherelevanceofthenaturalenvironment for human wellbeing has been less influential in main-stream international development policies and poverty alleviationstrategies,whichoftenneglecttheenvironment [7–9].Thisneglectismanifestedinhowpovertyisdefined andmeasured,andhowenvironmentaldriversandimpacts ofdevelopmentstrategiesareconsideredinprojectdesign, implementationandevaluation.Despitetherecognitionof theimportanceofthesocialaspectsofconservation[10], problemscontinuetoarisearoundlocalrightsand benefit-sharingofconservationprojects[11].Maintainingthestatus quo—inseparatinghumanwellbeingandenvironmental sustainability,andinfailingtochangegovernanceandto pay attention to trade-offs, root causes of poverty and environmentaldegradation,andsocialjusticeissues—will thereforefallshortofdeliveringontheambitious develop-mentagenda.

Inthispiece,wereflectonhowtheSDGagendamight influence theframing of environment–poverty relation-ships,comparedtotheMDGs.Inparticular,weconsider firstly, whether the broadened SDGs’ framing of the environment–povertyrelationshipisreflectedinpoverty targetsandindicators;secondly,whethertheSDGs’more holistic approachcan bereconciledwith nationaltarget setting and local visions of development; and thirdly, whether theagendafacilitatesaddressing trade-offsand rootcausesofenvironmental degradationand poverty.

Poverty

indicators

need

to

reflect

the

broadened

framing

of

environment–poverty

relationships

Mainstream development and ecosystem services debatesprimarilyconceiveofnatureorthenatural envi-ronmental as an instrumental factor, or externaldriver, impactingwellbeingandpoverty[12,13].Theytypically frame the environment as a means-to-an-end (e.g. for eradicating poverty). However, several philosophical accounts and worldviews (e.g. biocentric or ecocentric) allowforthenaturalenvironmenttotakeonaconstituent role in human wellbeing and poverty, whereby the

environment is an integral part of how wellbeing and povertyaredefinedandexperienced[14].This recogni-tion suggests the need for including an environmental dimensioninpovertyassessmentsincontextswherethis isdeemedrelevant [14,15].

Although the sustainable development discourse, and hencetheSDGs,embraceananthropocentricperspective onthehuman–environmentrelationship[16],theSDG’s broadened framing of multidimensional poverty is con-sistent with a constituent role of the environment in poverty concepts. This constituent role is reflected in the language of the targets of SDG 1, but is not ade-quately captured in the proposed indicators. While the firsttargetunderSDG1onendingpovertyinallitsforms still focuses on unidimensional income poverty (target 1.1),thenexttargets recognisepovertyinallits dimen-sions(1.2),andincludeownershipandcontrolover natu-ralresources(1.4)and theneed toreduce exposureand vulnerability to climate-related and other (economic, socialand)environmentalshocks (1.5).

Therefore,wearguefor developingSDG indicatorsthat incorporateaconstituentroleofthenaturalenvironmentin povertyandwellbeing,throughamoreinclusiveprocess. Developing,andreportingon,holisticindicatorsthat cap-turetheconstituentelementsoftheenvironment,maybe morelegitimate,butrequiresmobilisingnewanddiverse data sources, methodologies and datasets. The current relianceonquantitativedataforreportingon internation-ally agreed goals furthermore creates a risk that the SDGs implicitly prioritise aspects of the environment– povertyrelationshipthatlendthemselvestoquantitative assessments.Keyelementsofthepovertyperspectivesin targets1.2,1.4and1.5includetherecognitionofpeople’s rights,theequitablesharing of accessto andcontrolof land and naturalresources,(in)justiceassociatedwithdecisionsabout ecosystems,andespeciallypoorpeople’ssenseofresilience andvulnerabilitytoclimateandenvironmentalshocksand disasters. These poverty aspects can be subjective and difficulttomeasurequantitatively,andarethereforeless likelytoberepresentedifquantifiableoutcomesdominate theindicatorsfortheSDGs.Thismayreducethevisibility of these crucial factors in the monitoring of progress towards the SDGs, and as a result, they could become lowerprioritiesforimplementinggovernments.An exam-plearetheindicatorsselectedfortargets1.4and1.5inthe globalindicatorframework, developedby the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators. The indicators focus on access to services and tenure, and impacts of disastersonpeopleand property,includingeconomic losses [17].Theymissthemoresubtleissuesofequality,control, vulnerabilityandresilience.

Wearguethatthisisamissedopportunity.Theframing ofSDG1aspovertyinallitsdimensionspromisesamuch better recognition of the diverse relationshipsbetween

theenvironmentandmultidimensionalpoverty.Thereis aneedto harnessthis potentialbyworking outwaysto reflectourmorenuancedandmeaningfulunderstanding of poverty-environment relationships, especially their constituentelements,intotheSDGreportingframework andcapacityfor monitoring progresstowards theglobal goals.

National

and

local

adaptation,

visions

and

implementation

of

sustainable

development

The SDGs articulate a set of aspirations for human development.Theirlanguagereflectswhatwasglobally acceptable for all countries, without necessarily ade-quately capturing local perspectives. Individual nations havetotranslatetheseaspirationsintolocalandnational visionsofadevelopmentpathwayanddecideonspecific actionstowardsachievingthegoals.Inthisprocess,there isscopeforallowingpluralperspectivesandlocalvisions tobemorevisible,forinstanceintheVoluntaryNational Reviewsofimplementationtowardsthe2030Agendafor Sustainable Development. Guidelines for country-level reportingtotheUNHigh-LevelPoliticalForumonthe SDGsare explicitaboutthe need to take intoaccount, and respond to, different national realities, capacities, needs and priorities, and about the option to refer to nationaland regionalindicatorsin theirreporting [18].

ThebroadenedscopeoftheSDGscanbeachallengefor national-level reporting. There is an associated risk of ‘cherrypicking’,potentiallytotheneglectofsomeofthe moredifficulttomeasuretargets(suchasthoserelatedto povertyandtheenvironment).Theshiftfrom8MDGsto 17 SDGs meansthat the developmentcommunity and nationalgovernmentshavetoaddress,andreporton,an increased number of global goals. The 17 SDGs are furtherbrokendowninto169targetsandanevenlarger numberofindicators,whicharestillbeingfinalised.The increasedreportingrequirementsmaymeanthatnational governments focus their attention on specific SDGs. Whileitisnecessaryforcountriestoprioritiseandadapt theSDGstotheircontext,thegoalsarenon-bindingand aspirational, which puts at risk some of the more chal-lenging,or difficult to measure,goals. In addition, gov-ernmentsmay notbe held accountable for missing the targets[19].Moreover,ifpastprioritiesareanindication offutureones[20],thepossibilitytoselectonlyasubset of theSDGs will likelyresult in lessattention to envi-ronmental issues even if their direct relationship to prioritisedSDGsisknown.Furthermore,theheavy bur-denofreportingonallSDGsmayreduceeffortsgoinginto eachofthegoals.WhichSDGswillbetakenforwardmay dependnotonlyonnationalpriorities,butatleastinthe shorttermalsoonwhatcanbemeasured,andforwhich SDGs data already exist or can be obtained relatively readily. The indicators currently proposed within the international process primarily aim to be based on the availability of globally comparable information and are

not necessarily idealproxies locallyfor thenew targets andgoalsincludedintheSDGs.Convergenceonglobally comparabledatarisksobscuringimportantdetailatlocal andsubnationalscalestosupportinterventionstrategies aimed at thepoorest people or localities. For example, indicatorsofeconomiclossesduetonaturaldisasters[17] do not say much about the wider poverty impacts. Instead,theymayevenputhigheremphasisonthelosses ofricherpeopleornationsduetothefocusoneconomic losses andactuarial assessments.

Nationalandlocal-levelrelevance,buy-inandactionsare criticalfordeliveringontheSDGs.Thereisariskthatthe current SDG process takes an overly technocratic approach to achieve an ideal of a universal collective, leaving littlespacefor communities andlocal groupsto haveagencyasforcesofhumandevelopment.By consol-idatingglobal,nationalandlocaleffortsandprioritiesina nested system, we argue that reporting requirements mustbebalancedwithtransformativeactionandrealising the potential for local innovation [21]. This requires more emphasis on implementation by translating the SDGs intoconcreteactions.

This also advocates for concerted efforts to link and integrate the global, national and local actions, values andvoices[21].GiventhattheSDGsaimto proposea unifyingdevelopmentagenda,theyshouldaccommodate diverse worldviews on development and the environment–povertyrelationship,andthereforeengage withmultipleknowledgeandvaluesystems[22]. Inter-nationalpolicyframeworkshaveoftennotbeensensitive to the alternative ways of framing the nature–society relationship, even though the SDGs emerged out of a global consultative process under the Open Working GroupreportingtotheUNGeneralAssembly.However, there arewaysoffacilitatingindicatordevelopmentand linkagesbetweenmultipleperspectivesandacrossscales, for example based on biocultural approaches [23]. In addition,recentdiscussions withinthe Intergovernmen-tal Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) may signal the start of an engagement with differentworldviews atinternationalpolicy levels[24]. Although its processes have been criticised for lacking diversity and inclusivity[25,26], the IPBES framework explicitlyincludesdiverseworldviewsonnature–society relationships[5,27].Thisisastepintherightdirection, butverysignificantchallengesremaintoreconcile multi-plevalueslegitimately.Itwillrequirewideranddeeper futureengagementwithmultiplevisionsandknowledge systems [28],withinand across,policy, practitioner and academic spaces,in ordertoleadtotangibleaction.

Trade-offs

and

root

causes

of

environmental

degradation

and

poverty

A further set of critical perspectives on the SDGs has argued that unless the transformation of underlying

politicalandeconomicstructuresandprocessesis consid-ered, and environmental,social and economicgoalsare truly integrated (recognising potential trade-offs), the SDGs onreducingpoverty and equalityareunlikely to be met,puttingat risk thecore elements of theglobal goalsagenda[20,22].

It is encouraging that the SDGs not only put more emphasis on environmental aspects of development, but — unlike the MDGs — they are also applicable beyondlow-incomecountriesandaimtoreduce inequal-itywithinandbetweencountries(SDG10).The univer-sality oftheSDGsrepresentsanimportantethical prin-ciple,andenablesenvironmentalandpovertyissuestobe addressedfromaglobalperspective.Sinceinmanycases theultimate drivers of environmental degradationstem fromtheconsumptionofnaturalresourcesinhigh-income countries,thisshift couldleadto approachesthatassess and address environmental problems more holistically. This creates a need to better understand trade-offs between SDGs,and discusshow to addressthe unwar-rantedimpactsofconsumptionpatterns,waste,and com-moditytrade onbiodiversityandenvironmentaltargets, aswellasthedirectandindirecteffectsonpovertytargets [29,30].SDG12onsustainableconsumptionand produc-tionhasalreadybeenidentifiedas thegoalmost associ-atedwithtrade-offsinmeetingotherSDGs[31].Further research triggered by the SDGs’ focus on sustainable consumption and productionwill benecessary to make integratedlinksfromconsumptionandproductiontothe environment–relatedSDGs,especiallythosewhichdeal withfoodsecurity(SDG2),waterandsanitation(SDG6), climate change (SDG 13),and the sustainability of the marine(SDG14)andterrestrial(SDG15)environments.

However,theSDGsdonotexplicitlyaddresstheseroot causes,ordrawattentiontothecontradictionsthatmight emerge from trade-offs between SDG targets. In fact, someSDGtargetscouldparadoxicallyresultinpromoting pathwaystodevelopmentthatwilldeepenenvironmental problems rather than reducingthem [22],such as pro-moting sustained economic growth (target 8.1) or the increase in air transport (see SDG 9 [32]). Although SDG8‘endeavour[s]todecoupleeconomicgrowthfrom environmental degradation’ (target 8.3), this is not a strong enough commitment to ensure that economic growth doesnot continueatthedetriment of the envi-ronment[20].Insteadthereisariskthateconomicgrowth is seen as an end in itself, rather than as a means for achieving socialand environmental goals [33],and pro-motingthewellbeingof bothpeopleandtheplanet.

Moregenerally,theSDGsandtheconceptof‘sustainable development’ have been criticised for maintaining the status quo, rather than seeking transformations that address the uneven power dynamics and deeper struc-tural causes of environmental degradation and poverty

[34,35]. For example, the SDGs have been argued to promoteahighlycontestedneoliberalcapitalistapproach to development[36,37],includingthrough itsemphasis onsustainedeconomicgrowthasmeasuredinGDP(e.g. target 8.1) [38] and the promotion of an open trading system under the World Trade Organization (target 17.10). Although the SDG agenda has been framed as auniversal project of ‘leaving noone behind’ and pro-motingpeaceful development,this lineof critique sug-gests that the SDGs undermine political struggles of those demanding more ecologically sustainable and socially just approaches to development [37,39]. Simi-larly, building on the ambivalent relationship between the private sector and international development, the SDGshavebeencriticisedforfailingtocreateobligations forbusinessesthattheycanbeheldaccountablefor[40]. Thisisargued to underminemoretransformative shifts towards people-centred development, for example by empowering people and guaranteeing the provision of life-sustaining resources to those in need [37]. From a different perspective, the SDGs have to ensure they resultin sufficientlystrongactionsfor steering develop-mentawayfrompotentiallydisastrousecological thresh-olds and tipping points which might threaten the bio-sphere[21].Suchcritiquesarguethatcurrentframings will encourage a business-as-usual approach, whereas what is needed are more radical transformations of social-ecologicalsystems,includingtheireconomic struc-turesand underlyingpowerdynamics.

There is a clear need for thinking critically about the trade-offsinvolvedintheSDGsandthesystemiccauses of both poverty and environmental loss. Making these trade-offsexplicit canprovideaninformationalbasisfor suchadebate.Theuniversalityandsolidarityprinciples of theSDGs provideimperatives for richernationsand privatesectoractorstostructurallychangetheireconomic patterns.Moreover,greaterinsightisneededintowhich interactionsbetweenSDGsrelatedtopovertyand envi-ronmentaremostimportant[41].

Conclusions

TheSDGsofferimportantnewopportunitiesfor addres-singenvironment–povertylinkagesinamoreholisticand integratedmanner.Therearehowever,anumberofways theSDG agendacan beinterpreted and implemented, which could likely lead to a failure in realising this potential. We suggest that achieving these ambitious goals will need to stay clear of maintaining the status quo and to result in more radical transformations. This requiresprofoundchangesinhowwemeasureand under-stand development, and in development and environ-mentalinterventions thatare designed to havepositive impactsonwellbeing.

We have highlighted three issues that need to be addressed in particular to enhance the potential of the

SDGsto contributetowards transformation.Firstly, the needfirstlytodevelopinnovativepovertyindicatorsand measures, which acknowledge diverse values of nature includingtheconstituentelementsoftheenvironment– wellbeingrelationship.Secondly,to fosterandintegrate locally secondly to develop locally shared visions of sustainable development that lead to concrete actions andinform whatis measuredand reportedon. Thirdly, to make explicit the root causes of environmental loss and poverty, as well as the trade-offs involved. This includes more fully accounting for the global impacts ofconsumptionchoicesandtrade ontheecological per-formanceofnations.

Acknowledgements

Wethankallteammembersoftheresearchprojects‘Developingan Environmentally-adjustedIndexforMultidimensionalPoverty’and ‘EcosystemServicesasaMissingDimensionofPoverty’;andfour anonymousreviewersforhelpfulcommentsonanearlierdraftofthispaper. ThisworkwassupportedbytheEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil [grantnumberES/P003583/1];theCambridgeHumanitiesResearchGrant Scheme;andtheEcosystemServicesforPovertyAlleviation(ESPA) programme[grantnumberNE/M00760X/1].TheESPAprogrammeis fundedbytheDepartmentforInternationalDevelopment(DFID),the EconomicandSocialResearchCouncil(ESRC)andtheNatural EnvironmentResearchCouncil(NERC).

References

and

recommended

reading

Papersofparticularinterest,publishedwithintheperiodofreview, havebeenhighlightedas:

ofspecialinterest

1. SachsJD:Frommillenniumdevelopmentgoalstosustainable developmentgoals.Lancet2012,379:2206-2211.

2.

LedevelopmentBlancD:Towardsgoalsasintegrationanetworkatoflast?targetsThe.SustainSustainableDev2015,

23:176-187.

ThearticleexplorestheextenttowhichtheSustainableDevelopment Goals(SDGs)andassociatedtargetsreflectabetterintegrationacross sectors.Drawingonnetworkanalysistechniques,theauthorhighlights thattheSDGsareamoreintegratedsystemthantheMillenium Devel-opmentGoals;however,theSDGsareunevenlyintegrated,withsome documentedlinksacrossbiophysical,economicandsocialdimensions notbeingreflected.

3. MaceGM:Ecology.Whoseconservation? Science2014,

345:1558-1560.

4. HelneT,HirvilammiT:Wellbeingandsustainability:arelational approach.SustainDev2015,23:167-175.

5. Dı´az S,DemissewS,CarabiasJ,JolyC,LonsdaleM,AshN, LarigauderieA,AdhikariJR,AricoS,Ba´ldiAetal.:TheIPBES conceptualframework—connectingnatureandpeople.Curr OpinEnvironSustain2015,14:1-16.

6. Milner-GullandEJ,McGregorJA,AgarwalaM,AtkinsonG, BevanP,ClementsT,DawT,HomewoodK,KumpelN,LewisJ etal.:Accountingfortheimpactofconservationonhuman well-being.ConservBiol2014,28:1160-1166.

7. Bojo¨ J,GreenK,KishoreS,PilapitiyaS,ReddyR:Environmentin PovertyReductionStrategiesandPovertyReductionSupport Credits.2004.

8. NunanF,CampbellA,FosterE:Environmentalmainstreaming: theorganisationalchallengesofpolicyintegration.PublicAdm Dev2012,32:262-277.

9. ViraB:Takingnaturallimitsseriously:implicationsfor developmentstudiesandtheenvironment.DevChange2015,

10. McKinnonMC,ChengSH,DupreS,EdmondJ,GarsideR,GlewL, HollandMB,LevineE,MasudaYJ,MillerDCetal.:Whatarethe effectsofnatureconservationonhumanwell-being?A systematicmapofempiricalevidencefromdeveloping countries.EnvironEvid2016,5.

11. MartinA:JustConservation:Biodiversity,Wellbeingand Sustainability.Routledge;2017.

12. MillenniumEcosystemAssessment(MA):EcosystemsandHuman Well-Being.Island;.2005.

13. TEEB:TheEconomicsofEcosystemsandBiodiversity:Ecological andEconomicFoundations.EditedbyPushpamKumar. Earthscan;.2010.

14. SchleicherJ,SchaafsmaM,BurgessND,SandbrookC,DanksF, CowieC,ViraB:Poorerwithoutit?Theneglectedroleofthe naturalenvironmentinpovertyandwellbeing.SustainDev 2018,26:83-98.

15. DasguptaP:Constituentsanddeterminantsofwell-being.In HumanWell-BeingandtheNaturalEnvironment.Editedby DasguptaP. OxfordUniversityPress;2001.

16. KeitschM:Structuringethicalinterpretationsofthe

sustainabledevelopmentgoals—concepts,implicationsand progress.Sustainability2018,10.

17. UnitedNations:ResolutionAdoptedbytheGeneralAssemblyon WorkoftheStatisticalCommissionpertainingtothe2030Agenda forSustainableDevelopment(A/RES/71/313),Annex.2017. 18. UnitedNationsSecretary-General:VoluntaryCommonReporting

GuidelinesforVoluntaryNationalReviewsattheHigh-Level PoliticalForumforSustainableDevelopment(HLPF).2017. 19. BiermannF,KanieN,KimRE:Globalgovernanceby

goal-setting:thenovelapproachoftheUNSustainable

DevelopmentGoals.CurrOpinEnvironSustain2017,26–27 :26-31.

20. StewartF:TheSustainableDevelopmentGoals:acomment.J GlobEthics2015,11:288-293.

21.

ThompsonLeachM,Rockstro¨mJ,MillstoneJ,RaskinE,ElyA,P,ArondScoonesEetI,al.:StirlingTransformingAC,SmithA, innovationforsustainability.EcolSoc2012,17:11.

Inthisarticle,theauthorsarguethatdeliveringontheSDGsrequires majortransformationinpolicy,technologiesandmodesofinnovation. Accordingtotheauthors,thelatterneedstogivemuchgreater recogni-tionandpowertolocalactorsandprocesses,connectingthemtoglobal effortslinkedtotheSDGs.Illustratedthroughexamplesofinnovationin agricultureinEastAfricaandruralenergyinLatinAmerica,theauthors highlightasetofthreeunderlyingprinciplestoguidethedevelopmentand meeting ofthe SDGs, along the interlinkeddimensions of direction, diversity,anddistribution.

22.

KopninasustainableH:Thedevelopmentvictimsofgoalsunsustainability:.IntJSustainaDevchallengeWorldtoEcol 2016,23:113-121.

Theauthorarguesthat theSDGs areunlikelytosolveinequalityand environmental problems and that therewill remain human and non-humanvictims.Toaddressthis,thepaperarguesforagreateremphasis ondutytowardenvironmentalsustainability,transformationof econo-mies, addressing population growth, andmoving towards ecological justiceandbiosphericegalitarianismconsiderations.

23. SterlingEJ,FilardiC,ToomeyA,SigouinA,BetleyE,GazitN, NewellJ,AlbertS,AlviraD,BergaminiNetal.:Biocultural approachestowell-beingandsustainabilityindicatorsacross scales.NatEcolEvol2017,1:1798-1806.

24.

WatsonPascualRT,U,BalvaneraBaşakDessaneP,Dı´az S,E,IslarPatakiM,KelemenG,RothE,EetStensekeal.:ValuingM, nature’scontributionstopeople:theIPBESapproach.Curr OpinEnvironSustain2017,26–27:7-16.

Thearticlereviewstherationaleforaninclusivevaluationofthe con-tributionsofnaturetopeople,whichreflectsthediversityofwaysinwhich natureisperceivedandvaluedbypeopleandwhichwasanapproach

developedaspartoftheIntergovernmentalScience-PolicyPlatformfor Biodiversity andEcosystem Services(IPBES).Theauthorsarguethat practicesaimedatdevelopingmoresustainablefutureswouldbenefit fromembracingthediversityofviews onnature’s values.Thiswould requirerecognizingandaddressingpowerrelationshipsbetween stake-holderswhoholddifferentvaluesinthisrespect.

25. TurnhoutE,BloomfieldB,HulmeM,VogelJ,WynneB:Listento thevoicesofexperience.Nature2012,488:454-455.

26. HeffernanO:Major biodiversity panel desperately seeks social

scientists.NatNews2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/

nature.2016.19778.

27. Dı´az S,PascualU,StensekeM,Martı´n-Lo´pezB,WatsonRT, Molna´rZ,HillR,ChanKMA,BasteIA,BraumanKAetal.:

Assessingnature’scontributionstopeople.Science2018,

359:270-272.

28. PetersonGD,Harma´ckova´ ZV,9 MeachamM,QueirozC, Jime´nez-AceitunoA,KuiperJJ,MalmborgK,SitasN,BennettEM:

WelcomingdifferentperspectivesinIPBES:“nature’s contributionstopeople”and“ecosystemservices.”.EcolSoc 2018,23:39.

29. GodarJ,SuavetC,GardnerTA,DawkinsE,MeyfroidtP:

Balancingdetailandscaleinassessingtransparencyto improvethegovernanceofagriculturalcommoditysupply chains.EnvironResLettResLett2016,11:35015.

30. WiedmannT: In ImpactsEmbodiedinGlobalTradeFlows.In TakingStockofIndustrialEcology.EditedbyCliftR,DruckmanA. Springer;2016:159-180.

31. PradhanP,CostaL,RybskiD,LuchtW,KroppJP:Asystematic studyofSustainableDevelopmentGoal(SDG)interactions. Earth’sFuture2017,5:1169-1179.

32. UnitedNations:SustainableDevelopmentGoalsReport2017. 2017.

33. vanEgmondND,deVriesHJM:Sustainability:thesearchforthe integralworldview.Futures2011,43:853-867.

34.

Koehlersocialpolicy:G:AssessingusingthetheSDGsSDGssubversivelyfromthestandpoint.JIntCompofSoc eco-Policy2016,32:149-164.

ThearticleassessestheextenttowhichtheSDGsaretransformativeand whethertheSDGagendareferstoeco-socialpolicy,throughthelensesof criticaltheoryandsufficiencyeconomics.Theauthorhighlightsnumerous omissionsandclashesamongtheSDGs,andarguesforinstrumentalising thecommitmentsofthe2030agenda,butinstillingradicalthinkingand actionforenvironmental,socialandeconomicjustice.

35. SachsW:TheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsandLaudatosi’: varietiesofpost-development? ThirdWorldQ2017,6597:1-15.

36. WeberH:Whengoalscollide:politicsoftheMDGsandthe post-2015sustainabledevelopmentgoalsagenda.SAISRev IntAff2014,34:129-139.

37. WeberH:Politicsof“leavingnoonebehind”:contestingthe 2030sustainabledevelopmentgoalsagenda.Globalizations 2017,14:399-414.

38. GuptaJ,VegelinC:Sustainabledevelopmentgoalsand inclusivedevelopment.IntEnvironAgreem2016,16:433-448.

39. KothariA,DemariaF,AcostaA:BuenVivir,degrowthand ecologicalSwaraj:alternativestosustainabledevelopment andtheGreenEconomy.Development2014,57:362-375. 40. ScheyvensR,BanksG,HughesE:Theprivatesectorandthe

SDGs:theneedtomovebeyond“businessasusual.”.Sustain Dev2016,24:371-382.

41. Stafford-SmithM,GriggsD,GaffneyO,UllahF,ReyersB,KanieN, StigsonB,ShrivastavaP,LeachM,O’ConnellD:Integration:the keytoimplementingtheSustainableDevelopmentGoals. SustainSci2017,12:911-919.