Partnerships for the Goals (Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals) 331995962X, 9783319959627

Citation preview

Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals Series Editor: Walter Leal Filho

Walter Leal Filho · Anabela Marisa Azul Luciana Brandli · Amanda Lange Salvia Tony Wall  Editors

Partnerships for the Goals

Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals Series Editor Walter Leal Filho

The problems related to the process of industrialization such as biodiversity depletion, climate change, and a worsening of health and living conditions, especially but not only in developing countries, intensify. Therefore, there is also an increasing need to search for integrated solutions to make development more sustainable. The current model of economic growth used by many countries is heavily based on the exploitation of natural resources, which is not viable. Evidence shows that a more careful, that is, a more sustainable, approach to the use of our limited resources is needed. The United Nations has acknowledged the problem, and among other measures, it produced a set of documents at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2012. In 2015, the UN General Assembly approved the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” On January 1, 2016, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the Agenda officially came into force. These goals cover the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection. There are to date no comprehensive publications addressing the SDGs in an integrated way. Therefore, the Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is being published. It encompasses 17 volumes, each devoted to one of the 17 SDGs. More information about this series at https://www.springer.com/series/15893

Walter Leal Filho • Anabela Marisa Azul • Luciana Brandli • Amanda Lange Salvia • Tony Wall Editors

Partnerships for the Goals With 185 Figures and 77 Tables

Editors Walter Leal Filho European School of Sustainability Science and Research Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Hamburg, Germany Luciana Brandli Faculty of Engineering and Architecture Passo Fundo University Passo Fundo, Brazil

Anabela Marisa Azul Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology Institute for Interdisciplinary Research University of Coimbra Coimbra, Portugal Amanda Lange Salvia University of Passo Fundo Passo Fundo, Brazil

Tony Wall International Centre for Thriving University of Chester Chester, UK

ISSN 2523-7403 ISSN 2523-7411 (electronic) ISBN 978-3-319-95962-7 ISBN 978-3-319-95963-4 (eBook) ISBN 978-3-319-95964-1 (print and electronic bundle) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Series Preface

The United Nations General Assembly agreed and approved in September 2015 the document “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, which contains a set of measures aiming to balance economic progress and protection of the environment, while at the same time remain aware of the need to address the many disparities still seen between industrialized and developing countries. The Agenda document consists of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These Goals build on the successes of the Millennium Development Goals, while including new areas such as climate change, economic inequality, innovation, sustainable consumption, peace and justice, among other priorities. The goals are interconnected – often the key to success on one will involve tackling issues more commonly associated with another. The 17 SDGs are: SDG 1, placing an emphasis on ending all forms of extreme poverty. SDG 2, which aims to end hunger and achieve food security with improved nutrition SDG 3, focusing on ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all SDG 4, touches on one of the most important areas, namely inclusive and quality education SDG 5, focusing on gender equality SDG 6, which emphasizes the need for clean water and sanitation SDG 7, advocates the need for affordable and clean energy SDG 8, sustaining inclusive and sustainable economic growth with productive and decent working conditions for all SDG 9, which intends to foster industry, innovation, and infrastructure SDG 10, being about reducing inequalities among countries SDG 11, an attempt to ensure that human settlements and cities are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable SDG 12, with a focus on sustainable consumption and production patterns SDG 13, with an emphasis on the need for climate action SDG 14, raises the need to preserve life below water, especially rivers and oceans SDG 15, draws attention about the need for a greater care about life on land SDG 16, which advocates peace, justice, and strong institutions SDG 17, a cross-SDGs effort to foster the partnership for the goals and their delivery

v

vi

Series Preface

The SDGs and their specific objectives are very complex. The mandate of the Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is, therefore, to clarify and explain a wide range of terms associated with each SDG. It does so by gathering and presenting inputs provided by experts from across all areas of knowledge and from round the world, who explain each term and their implications, drawing also from the latest literature. With 17 volumes and involving in excess of 1,500 authors and contributors, the Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is the largest editorial project on sustainable development ever undertaken. We hope that this publication will be helpful in fostering a broader understanding of the SDGs, and that this process may inspire and support a wide range of initiatives aimed at their implementation, thus realizing the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Germany

Walter Leal Filho

Volume Preface

The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals can only be achieved through a strong global partnership. This applies to challenges such as the eradication of hunger and poverty, fair trade, clean water, or climate protection, where international cooperation is greatly needed. In this context, SDG 17 can play a key role. Its implementation requires that more resources are mobilized, including international support for developing countries, and improving national capacities to pursue their own goal of democracy and prosperity. The principle of “leave no one behind” (LNOB) describes the common responsibility to help all people on the way to sustainable development. It is a central guiding principle in tackling the global challenges of Agenda 2030 and a guideline for a global partnership. SDG17 aims to especially address the needs of the poorest and most disadvantaged and reiterates the need to provide social services to all, to enable economic and political participation, and to promote equal opportunities – within a society and in the global community. Inclusive societies and an inclusive and just global world order are prerequisites for sustainable peace and thus sustainable development. Operationally, SDG17 can be implemented by fostering more solid and continuous partnerships, in particular via the mobilization of additional financial resources from various sources for developing countries. An important step in this direction is for developed countries to honor their commitments in the area of fully respecting the rules on official development assistance, including the commitment made by many rich countries to meet the target of 0.7% of their gross national income for official development assistance to developing countries and 0.15–0.20% to the least developed countries. Donors of official development assistance are also encouraged to provide at least 0.20% of their gross national income in favor of the least developed countries. In the field of technology, efforts to implement SDG17 can be supported by implementing and promoting regional and international North-South and South-South cooperation, as well as a triangular cooperation in the field of science, technology, and innovation. In addition, the development, transfer, dissemination, and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries should be promoted and mutually agreed favorable conditions, including concessions and preferential terms, should be put in place. Capacity building is also important, and international support for the implementation of effective and targeted capacity building in developing countries should also be strengthened to support national plans to implement all sustainable development objectives, vii

viii

Volume Preface

notably in the framework of North-South and South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation. With this volume, we attempt to emphasize and also showcase the advantages of embracing and implementing partnerships to implement SDG17. To this purpose, it contains information on research, analyses, case studies, and practical experiences, which showcase many activities, projects, practical initiatives, and the thinking of various experts, on how to foster partnership to implement SDG17. We also hope that the contributions in this volume will provide a timely support toward the implementation of SDG 17 and will help to foster the ongoing global efforts toward taking better advantage of the many opportunities which partnerships provide. March 2021

Walter Leal Filho Anabela Marisa Azul Luciana Brandli Amanda Lange Salvia Tony Wall

List of Topics

Section Editor: Adriana Consorte-McCrea Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject in Zimbabwe’s Secondary Schools Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change Governance for Sustainable Development International Environmental Protection Initiatives: Direct and Indirect Drivers of Change International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals National Sustainable Development Strategies Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance Partnership for Flood Disaster Management Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator

Stakeholder Partnerships: Collaborative Modeling as a Mechanism for Sustainable Development Sustainable Tourism: A Conflict of Interest Section Editors: Elena Shabily and Sonja Rewhorn Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa Section Editor: Elena Shabliy Attaining SDGs in Africa Through Bilateral and Multilateral Partnerships Binomial Technology and Sustainability: Four Elements of Nature and Key Geostrategic Sectors China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan Corporate Shared Value for the Wellbeing of Local Community Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability Financing for SDGs: Toward a Responsible Public-Private Tax Approach Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future Intercultural Responsibility: Critical Interepistemic Dialog and Equity for Sustainable Development Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals ix

x

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda Multispecies Livelihoods: Partnering for Sustainable Development and Biodiversity Conservation Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals Role of Science, Technology, and Innovation Towards SDGS Social and Solidarity Economy or How Not-forProfit Organizations Participate to SDGs’ Implementation? Social Remittances: A Pathway to Partnerships for Sustainable Development South East Asia Sustainability Network (SEASN) Storytelling for the SDGs: Social Impact of Entertainment and Media Tripartite Partnerships: Promoting Sustainable Consumption in the Context of Brazil Water Safety Plans and Climate Change Mitigation Section Editor: Marco Tortora Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF): Integrating LDCs with the Global Trading System Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

List of Topics

Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact Social Impact Investment for Sustainable Development Strengthening International Partnership to Support Higher Education Institutions Systemic Issues and Multi-stakeholders Partnerships for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals Transborder Cooperation for Sustainable Tourism in the Baltic Sea Region Volunteering: Connecting the Global Agenda on Sustainability to the Community Level Section Editor: Monica Thiel Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture BRICS Consortium: Toward Implementing Sustainable Development Goal 6 Business as a Partner for the Global Goals Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations as Enablers of Children’s WellBeing Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

List of Topics

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management Long-Term Investments Nature-Based Solutions Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development Through International Volunteering Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement Role of Transnational Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals Social Dialogue in Partnerships and Gender Equality: Focus on Garment Industry in Bangladesh Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development Sustainable Public Systems: Global Norms and Partnerships for National Implementation Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World Transdisciplinary Collaborations for Achieving the SDGs Universal Health Coverage: Healthcare System for Universal Health Coverage Under Partnerships

xi

Water Security Women-Led Partnerships and the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals Section Editor: Sonja Rewhorn Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17 Civil Partnership and Social Protection Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals Development Cannibalism and the Sustainable Development Goals Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Education for Sustainable Development: A Framework for Global Partnership and Sustainability in India Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19 Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance Partnership-Oriented Reverse Supply Chain Toward Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government Sustainable Development Through AcademicIndustrial Partnerships: A Perspective on the Chemical Sciences Systems and Systemic Approaches for Attaining the SDGs Across Partnerships

xii

List of Topics

Section Editor: Tony Wall Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

About the Editors

Walter Leal Filho (B.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Phil., D.L., D.Litt., D.Ed.) is Professor and Director of the European School of Sustainability Science and Research, whose Headquarters are at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences in Germany. He also holds the Chair of Environment and Technology at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. He is founding editor of the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education and heads the Inter-University Sustainable Development Research Programme (IUSDRP), the world´s largest network of universities engaged on sustainable development research. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the World Sustainable Development series with Springer. Prof. Walter Leal serves on the editorial board of various journals. He has in excess of 400 publications to his credit, among which are groundbreaking books such as Universities as Living Labs for Sustainable Development: Supporting the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, Social Responsibility and Sustainability, and Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. He has nearly 30 years of field experience in project management and has a particular interest in the connections between sustainability, climate change adaptation, and human behavior.

xiii

xiv

About the Editors

Anabela Marisa Azul is a Researcher at the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology (CNC) and Institute for Interdisciplinary Research of the University of Coimbra (UC, Portugal). She holds a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences, with specialization in Ecology (2002, UC), and pursued her investigation on biology and ecology of fungi to pinpoint the role of mycorrhizal symbiosis for sustainability of Mediterranean forests under different land use scenarios, at the Centre for Functional Ecology (CFE-UC), where she became an Associate Researcher (from 2009 to 2014). At CFE-UC, Marisa Azul developed a holistic approach that combined innovation in food production with sustainable development and public scientific awareness to multiple actors. At CNC, from 2014 onward, she focuses her investigation on basic research and participatory research dynamics to pinpoint links between fungimetabolism-health/disease-sustainability. She has coedited over 40 scientific publications and book chapters, coedited four books for children and two comics, and coproduced an animation. Luciana Brandli Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the University of Passo Fundo, Brazil, working in the Ph.D. Program in Civil and Environmental Engineering. Her current research interests include sustainability in higher education and green campus, management of urban infrastructure and sustainable cities, and the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. She supervises a number of master’s and doctoral students on engineering, environment, and sustainability issues and has in excess of 300 publications, including books, book chapters, and papers in refereed journals.

About the Editors

xv

Amanda Lange Salvia has a degree in Environmental Engineering from the University of Passo Fundo, Brazil, and graduate studies focused on sustainable cities and universities. Her work focuses on the Sustainable Development Goals, the role of universities towards sustainability and the impacts of climate change. Amanda has experience with international studies assessing aspects related to the 2030 Agenda and sustainability in higher education. She is a reviewer for various journals and is also a member of the editorial board of the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.

Tony Wall is Founder and Head of the International Centre for Thriving, a global-scale collaboration between business, arts, health, and education to deliver sustainable transformation for the common good. He is passionate about thriving and has published 200+ works, including articles in quartile 1 journals such as The International Journal of Human Resource Management and Vocations and Learning, as well as global policy reports for the European Mentoring & Coaching Council in Brussels. Overall, his leadership and international impact in these areas have attracted numerous accolades including the prestigious Advance-HE National Teaching Fellowship and three Santander International Research Excellence Awards.

About the Section Editors

Carolina Collaro University of Bayreuth Bayreuth, Germany

Sonja Rewhorn School of Social Sciences and Global Studies Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences The Open University Milton Keynes, UK

Elena Shabliy Columbia University European Institute New York, USA

xvii

xviii

About the Section Editors

Monica Thiel University of International Business and Economics Beijing, P.R. China

Marco Tortora Polimoda Fashion Institute Florence, Italy BABEL – Blockchain and AI for Business Economics and Law University of Florence Italy FAIR Italy Association Florence, Italy

Tony Wall International Centre for Thriving University of Chester Chester, UK

Contributors

Roberto Adami Climate Change, Risk and Resilience Laboratory – DAStU, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy Edidiong Samuel Akpabio Department of Political Science, University of Benin, Benin, Edo State, Nigeria Douglas Alencar Graduate Program in Economics, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Brazil Ryan Allard Project Drawdown, Tobago, Trinidad and Tobago Diogo Almeida Alves University of Lisbon - Institute of Social and Political Sciences (ISCSP - Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas), Lisbon, Portugal German Federal Association for Sustainability, Berlin, Germany Valérie Amato ESCP Business School, Paris, France Pearson College London, London, UK School of International Business and Entrepreneurship (SIBE), Steinbeis University, Herrenberg, Germany Susan Ang School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University Australia, Geelong, VIC, Australia Kumari Anjali SOS, IGNOU, New Delhi, India Raquel Antolin-Lopez Department of Economics and Business Administration, University of Almeria, Almeria, Spain Benedict Arko Department of Geography Education, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana Mohammed Asaduzzaman Department of Public Administration, Islamic University, Kushtia, Bangladesh Sarah Austin Boston College School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA Siti Izaidah Azmi Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

xix

xx

Vaishali Baid CBS International Business School, Cologne, Germany Behafarid Barzegar Development Policy and Practice, School of Social Sciences and Global Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Laura Basco-Carrera Department of Water Resources and Delta Management, Inland Water Systems, Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands Cécile Batisse ERASME, CERDI, UCA, Clermont-Ferrand, France Kevin Bayuk Project Drawdown, San Francisco, CA, USA Rhydian H. Beddoe Centre for Doctoral Training in Sustainable Chemistry, GlaxoSmithKline Carbon Neutral Laboratory for Sustainable Chemistry, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Thérèse Bennich ERASME, University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden Julia Blanc Faculty of Theology, Center for Religion, Economics and Politics, Universität Basel, Basel, Switzerland Antonio Erlindo Braga Jr. Department of Design, State University of Pará, Belém, Brazil Rayra Brandão Business School, Rural Federal University of the Amazon, Belém, Brazil Abigail Bray Poche Centre for Indigenous Health, School of Indigenous Studies, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia Alexandra Bussler Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal Maria Canepa Department of Architecture and Design, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy Candace Carter MBA Sustainable Business Practices Program, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Esperança Edna Alexandre Chibite Faculty of Natural Sciences, Lúrio University, Pemba, Mozambique Lúcio F. Cirne UNICAP /Humanitas Institute, Recife, Brazil Tracy Collier School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Philippa Collin Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia David Collste ERASME Jean Monnet Excellence Centre on Sustainability, University of Clermont-Ferrand, Aubiere, France Centre d’Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International (CERDI), Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Contributors

Contributors

xxi

Kellen Copeland Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA Peter Cox Department of Social and Poltical Science, University of Chester, Chester, UK Kenny Crossan B-School for Purpose-Driven Organisations, International Centre for Management and Governance Research (ICMGR), Edinburgh Napier University Business School, Edinburgh, Scotland Stuart Cunningham Department of Computing and Mathematics, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK Gabriela da Silva Brandão University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Renata Welinski da Silva Seabra Department of International and Comparative Law, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil Deborah E. de Lange Global Management Studies, Ted Rogers School of Management Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada Diego de Souza Universidade Franciscana, Santa Maria, Brazil Nair Bernardo de Oliveira Fortunato de Sousa Centre for Sciences and Sustainability, Angolan Society of Geosciences, Luanda, Angola Fronika de Wit Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal Astrid E. Delorme Centre for Doctoral Training in Sustainable Chemistry, GlaxoSmithKline Carbon Neutral Laboratory for Sustainable Chemistry, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Dunja Demirović Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić”, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation Arnaud Diemer ERASME Jean Monnet Excellence Centre on Sustainability, University of Clermont-Ferrand, Aubiere, France Centre d’Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International (CERDI), Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France Duška Dimović WWF Adria-Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia Alberto do Amaral Junior University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Bruno do Canto Salles Universidade Franciscana, Santa Maria, Brazil Pat Dudgeon Poche Centre for Indigenous Health, School of Indigenous Studies, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia Patrick Elf Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research (CEEDR), Middlesex University, London, UK

xxii

Noraida Endut Centre for Research on Women and Gender (KANITA), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), George Town, Malaysia Gamze Erdem Türkelli Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), Law and Development Research Group, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Institute for Environmental Studies - Environmental Policy Analysis (IVMEPA), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands S. C. Boris Erg IUCN Regional Office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Belgrade, Serbia Abentin Estim Borneo Marine Research Institute, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia Robyn Eversole Swinburne University, Hawthorn, Australia Uju R. Ezenekwe Economics Department, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria Bianca Fadel Centre for International Development, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Harith Farooq Faculty of Natural Sciences, Lúrio University, Pemba, Mozambique Chad Jonathan Frischmann Project Drawdown, Berkeley, CA, USA Elisabeth Fröhlich CBS International Business School, Cologne, Germany Nicolás Gambetta Universidad ORT Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay Nieves Garcia-de-Frutos Department of Economics and Business Administration, University of Almeria, Almeria, Spain Ganna Gladkykh ERASME, CERDI, UCA, Clermont-Ferrand, France Shalini S. Gopalkrishnan Middlebury Institute of International Affairs, Monterey, CA, USA Menlo College, Atherton, CA, USA Miranda R. Gorman Project Drawdown, San Jose, CA, USA João Pedro Gouveia Project Drawdown and CENSE – Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University, Lisbon, Portugal M. A. Grau Ruiz Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Northwestern University, Chicago, USA Manuela Guilherme Centro de Estudos Sociais, Universidade de Coimbra, Lisbon, Portugal Nuno Guimarães da Costa ICN Business School, CEREFIGE – Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France Aswati Hamzah School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

Contributors

Contributors

xxiii

Ahsan Hanif School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Mohd Sayuti Hassan Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Wendy Hein Department of Management, School of Business, Economics and Informatics, Birkbeck University of London, London, UK Erecia Hepburn Department of Biology, University of The Bahamas, Nassau, Bahamas Jennifer Hinton Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden ERASME Jean Monnet Excellence Centre on Sustainability, University of Clermont-Ferrand, Aubiere, France Scott A. Hipsher Bangkok Academic Centre, Webster University, Bangkok, Thailand Angela Min Yi Hou Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland A. H. M. Belayeth Hussain Centre for Research on Women and Gender (KANITA), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), George Town, Malaysia Reina Ichii School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia S. A. Igbatayo Department of Economics, Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti, Nigeria Mohammad Tarikul Islam Department of Government and Politics, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Bangladesh Christopher U. Kalu Economics Department, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria Kevin Kane Western Washington University, Bellingham, USA Nikhil Kant SOMS, IGNOU, New Delhi, India Tarisai Kanyepi Pan African University Institute of Water and Energy Sciences (including Climate Change), Faculty of Water Sciences, PAUWES c/o Tlemcen University, Tlemcen, Algeria Allison Karpyn Center for Research in Education and Social Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA Akiharu Kitagawa Centre for Doctoral Training in Sustainable Chemistry, GlaxoSmithKline Carbon Neutral Laboratory for Sustainable Chemistry, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Hock Lye Koh Jeffrey Sachs Center on Sustainable Development, Sunway University, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia

xxiv

Ryo Kohsaka Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan Elena G. Kropinova Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russia Praveen Kumar Boston College School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA Rakesh Kumar School of Ecology and Environment Studies, Nalanda University, Rajgir, Bihar, India Mothilal Lakavath Department of Management Studies, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India Jennifer Lenz Sustainability Management Supply Chain, Automotive Industry, Saarbrücken, Germany Kelvin Leong Chester Business School, University of Chester, Chester, UK Peter Licence Centre for Doctoral Training in Sustainable Chemistry, GlaxoSmithKline Carbon Neutral Laboratory for Sustainable Chemistry, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Rafael Gustavo Lima Centre for Sustainable Development/Research Group on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability (Greens), Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil Ignacio López-Forniés Department of Design and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain Marcello Magoni Climate Change, Risk and Resilience Laboratory – DAStU, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy Jessica L. Mann Center for Community-Engaged Teaching and Research, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Darcy D. Marciniuk College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada Grzegorz Mazur Institute of International Business and Economics, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland Kathleen McCallops Center for Research in Education and Social Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA Christa McCartney University College Man, Douglas, Isle of Man Aqilah Nadiah Md Sahiq Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Cawangan Melaka, Melaka, Malaysia Mamta Mehra Project Drawdown, Bethesda, MD, USA Gavin Melles Centre for Design Innovation, Swinburne University, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia

Contributors

Contributors

xxv

Svjetlana Miše Department of Heritage, Architecture, Urban Planning, Università degli Studi “Mediterranea”, Reggio Calabria, Italy Elisabetta Mocca Department of Sociology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Atasi Mohanty Centre for Educational Technology, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India Md Nurul Momen Department of Public Administration, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh Claudia Patricia Moreno Silva Business, Economics and Law, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Fernando Morgado Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM) and Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal Patrick J. Morgan Centre for Doctoral Training in Sustainable Chemistry, GlaxoSmithKline Carbon Neutral Laboratory for Sustainable Chemistry, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK João Mourato Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal Chandrima Mukhopadhyay School of Arts and Science, University, Ahmedabad, India

Ahmedabad

Marlinah Muslim School of Biological Studies, Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Student Affair Division, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia Saleem Mustafa Borneo Marine Research Institute, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia Nidhi Nagabhatla United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health, School of Geography and Earth Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada Azad Hind Gulshan Nanda School of Historical Studies, Nalanda University, Rajgir, Bihar, India Nora Ndege Climate Resilient Economies, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi, Kenya Claudiu Eduard Nedelciu Earth Sciences Institute, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland ERASME Jean Monnet Excellence Centre on Sustainability, University of Clermont-Ferrand, Aubiere, France Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

xxvi

Samara da Silva Neiva Center of Sustainable Development/Research Centre on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability (Greens), University of Southern Santa Catarina (UNISUL), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil Theam Foo Ng Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Mika Niemelä Faculty of Medicine, Center for Life Course Health Research, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland Nik Norma Nik Hasan School of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Radieah Mohd Nor Center for Global Sustainability Studies, Level 5, Hamzah Sendut Library, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Denner Nunes Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Oluwaseun James Oguntuase Centre for Environmental Studies and Sustainable Development, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria Jennifer C. Okoye Centre for Doctoral Training in Sustainable Chemistry, GlaxoSmithKline Carbon Neutral Laboratory for Sustainable Chemistry, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Aya Ono School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Joel Onyango Climate Resilient Economies, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi, Kenya African Researchers Consortium, Nairobi, Kenya Jochen Ostheimer Faculty for Catholic Theology, Institute for Ethics and Social Science, Department of Theology, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Graz, Austria Minal Pathak Global Centre for Environment and Energy, Ahmedabad University, Ahmedabad, India Silke Peters INA Initiative Nachhaltige Agrarlieferketten, Bonn, Germany Marko D. Petrović Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić”, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation Chiara Piccardo Department of Architecture and Design, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy Antoinette P. Pinder-Darling University of The Bahamas, Nassau, Bahamas Carol Pomare Ron Joyce Center for Business Studies, Mount Allison University, Sackville, NB, Canada

Contributors

Contributors

xxvii

Julia M. Puaschunder The New School, Department of Economics, Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, New York, NY, USA Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA CIBER Center for International Business Education and Research, Duquès Hall, George Washington School of Business, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA Cláudio Castelo Branco Puty Graduate Program in Economics, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Brazil Rachele Radaelli Climate Change, Risk and Resilience Laboratory – DAStU, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy Siti Fairuz Mohd Radzi Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Meghna Ramaswamy International Research, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada Daru Setyo Rini Environmental Management Expert, Ecological Observation and Wetlands Conservation NGO, University of Brawijaya, Surabaya, Indonesia Tiina Ristikari Itla Children’s Foundation, Helsinki, Finland Department of Children, Adolescents and Families, Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland Alexandra Roeger School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Marie Rogel Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan Serenella Sala European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Directorate D: Sustainable Resource, Bioeconomy Unit, Ispra, VA, Italy Rhona E. Savin Centre for Doctoral Training in Sustainable Chemistry, GlaxoSmithKline Carbon Neutral Laboratory for Sustainable Chemistry, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Marie K. Schellens Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden ERASME Jean Monnet Centre on Sustainability, Clermont-Ferrand, France Sonja Schenkel Paititi Lab, Zurich, Switzerland Rita S. Senise Tekinnova Nordic, Stockholm, Sweden Tal Septon United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health, Peace Studies Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

xxviii

Mohd Rizaimy Shaharudin Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Kedah, Malaysia Sitti Raehanah M. Shaleh Borneo Marine Research Institute, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia Prabhakar Sharma School of Ecology and Environment Studies, Nalanda University, Rajgir, Bihar, India Rajesh Sharma School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Lata Shukla Department of Biotechnology, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India Jorge Sierra-Pérez Department of Design and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain Amadeu Soares Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM) and Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal José Heitor Soares Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Nathalie Spittler ERASME Jean Monnet Excellence Centre on Sustainability, University of Clermont-Ferrand, Aubiere, France Centre d’Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International (CERDI), Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France Robert Sroufe MBA Sustainable Business Practices Program, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Laurel Steinfield Marketing Department, Bentley University, Waltham, MA, USA Joel Stokes University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Sumena Sultana Centre for Research on Women and Gender (KANITA), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), George Town, Malaysia Anna Sung Chester Business School, University of Chester, Chester, UK Julia Swart Utrecht School of Economics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands Teresa Swist Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia Hock Tan B-School for Purpose-Driven Organisations, International Centre for Management and Governance Research (ICMGR), Edinburgh Napier University Business School, Edinburgh, Scotland Vincent Itai Tanyanyiwa Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, Zimbabwe Open University, Harare, Zimbabwe Jorge Tarifa-Fernández Department of Economy and Business, University of Almería, Almería, Spain

Contributors

Contributors

xxix

Ai Tashiro Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan António F. Tavares School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Operating Unit on Policy Driven Electronic Governance, United Nations University, Guimarães, Portugal Su Yean Teh School of Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia Cedric Teissier World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland Finexkap, Paris, France Bastian Thomsen University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Boise State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA Jennifer Thomsen Boise State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA Jelena Tomićević-Dubljević Department of Landscape Architecture and Horticulture, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Forestry, Belgrade, Serbia Yuta Uchiyama Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan Mary Ulseth Boston College School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA Luis R. Vieira Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research (CIIMAR) and Institute of Biomedical Sciences of Abel Salazar (ICBAS), Laboratory of Ecotoxicology, Porto, Portugal Petri Virtanen ITLA (The Finnish Children’s Foundation), Helsinki, Finland University of Vaasa (Social and Health Management), Vaasa, Finland Domenico Vito Resilience Lab, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy Fernanda Torres Volpon Law School, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Dina Wahyuni Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia Miles Weaver B-School for Purpose-Driven Organisations, International Centre for Management and Governance Research (ICMGR), Edinburgh Napier University Business School, Edinburgh, Scotland Duane Windsor Jones Graduate School of Business, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA Ruth Wolf Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

xxx

Henry Wolgast Center for Research in Education and Social Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA Ely Caetano Xavier Junior Department of Legal Sciences, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, Brazil Fan Yang Harris School, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Yu Yangyue Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, Hubei, China Eric Yankson Faculty of Natural Resources and Spatial Sciences, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek, Namibia Ricardo Yogui PUC Rio Innovation Agency (AGI), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Amir Imran Zainoddin Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Kazi Arif Uz Zaman Financial Stability Department, Bangladesh Bank (the Central Bank of Bangladesh), Dhaka, Bangladesh Tomas Zuklin Ecosystem Governance Thematic Group, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland International Cooperation Department, Vietnam National University of Forestry, Hanoi, Vietnam

Contributors

A

Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa Joel Onyango1,2 and Nora Ndege1 1 Climate Resilient Economies, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi, Kenya 2 African Researchers Consortium, Nairobi, Kenya

Synonyms Academic-to-business partnerships; Fourth industrial revolution; Industrial growth in Africa; Research and enterprises; Technology revolution

Definition The fourth industrial revolution (4IR) has received attention in various fields. The technological breakthrough associated with this revolution is critical for sustainability (Balatsky 2019). It is framed as a pending transition driven by technological innovations (Singh 2019) including “the fusion of technologies ranging from a variety of digital technologies to new processes like artificial intelligence and synthetic biology” (Li et al. 2017; OECD 2016).

Introduction Context of the Chapter The fourth industrial revolution is envisioned to impart all aspects of life, sectoral and global (Singh 2019; Balatsky 2019). Both private and public institutions expect higher productivity, economic opportunities, and the future of work. However, it has received criticism from various scholars like Pelline et al. (2019) who argue that 4IR could inhibit or enable the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Others argue of its exclusionary potential (Rose and Chilvers 2018) reinforcing present injustices and environmental impacts associated with industrial production systems. Despite these counterarguments, it might be possible for the prioritization of the technological advancements in SDGs (Pellini et al. 2019). A detailed road map for achieving industrial 4.0 is still missing (Liao et al. 2017). Even so, there is a need to enhance the convergence of digital, physical, and biological drivers of the 4IR to minimize its negative effects through various partnerships and collaboration. The 4IR being a highly interdisciplinary topic (involving a wide set of knowledge domains (e.g., automatic controls, robotics, sensors, computer science, and management) and actors (e.g., researchers, companies, technology providers, policy makers, schools)) requires that partnerships are formed

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

2

Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

and supported including a further investigation as to how they are pursued for sustainability. To this end, there is growing momentum for various partnership approaches between academic, policy, and industry to accelerate social, environmental, and economic progress (Maynard 2015) to advance 4IR. These partnerships are understood differently in various contexts (Fransman and Newman 2019; D’Este et al. 2013). They range from various collaborative research to contract research and consulting aimed at developing new ideas and knowledge (Dodson 2017; de Wit-de Vries et al. 2019). From the university and industry collaboration, partnerships are pursued as mechanisms for knowledge and technology transfer (D’Este et al. 2013; de Wit-de Vries et al. 2019; Anrah 2013) ranging from patents, expertise, and commercialization of research results. There are often very clear benefits of research partnerships pursued between academia and industry. These included access to data and technical expertise to infrastructural support (Dodson 2017). Others include coordinating research agenda, more private sector investments, and increasing mobility of expertise from the university to the industry (Guimon 2013; Fransman and Newman 2019). However, other literature identifies challenges to these partnerships that include divergent priorities, schedules, and constraints to participation (Fransman and Newman 2019). Current 4IR academic research globally is led by universities (around two-thirds), with the collaboration of companies and research centers (Liao et al. 2017). Africa is starting to draw on Industry 4.0 (Liao et al. 2017) although there has been far less analysis, how 4IR might reshape the business academic partnership in both public and private sectors in different countries – more so in developed economies. This revolution points to the integration of context perspective with specific implications as collaboration perspective, research effort perspective, and application perspective (Liao et al. 2017). Indeed, a successful transition toward Industry 4.0 requires a joint effort of the university business actors to create a successful ecosystem including understanding the various challenges and opportunities that these

partnerships present. This chapter therefore seeks to understand the transformation of partnerships in the business academia and the role these partnerships would achieve through the 4IR towards sustainable development. Methodology The framing used in this chapter is centered on the education and economic development theory. This is in consideration that education is instrumental in any aspect of development, including development associated with the 4IR. Education has been documented to improve the quality of life, with broader social benefits and creativity towards entrepreneurship and technological development (Ozturk 2011). Data for this study was collated through a literature review. To apply initial heuristic scaffolding, a detailed analytical framework was developed for a systematic basis on a corpus of relevant empirical literature. The analytical framework was further developed on this basis, in iteration with the emerging analytical results. The study used four protocols in the selection of corpus material as presented in Table 1. With the corpus of material selected based on the protocol, the heuristic scaffolding described at the outset was used to develop the final analytical framework and its associated findings. As a starting point for this process, each of the aspects of 4IR identified in relation to globalizing academic and business partnerships was translated into a more operational form for analysis for the interrogation of implications of partnerships to SDGs. Treated as open-ended questions (not all of which will be equally relevant in every instance), each aspect of partnership served as a possible cue for resolving salient features in relation to African settings.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution The History of 4IR The last 250 years have been characterized by emblematical technologies referred to as industrialization. The first industrial revolution (1748) harnessed water and steam technology for manufacturing (Atiku and Boateng 2020; Yahya

Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa, Table 1 Literature search protocols for the study Protocol Selection of top cited academic papers

Key government documents

Corporations connected with 4IR

Critical NGO reports

Description The top cited academic articles on 4IR, academic partnerships, business partnerships, and academic-business partnerships of relevance to SDGs globally and in Africa over the last 10 years were explored. To identify these papers, the web of science was used with relevant Boolean search terms to select the most relevant papers from these for the analysis. To identify key governmental documents, Google advanced search was used to look for materials in relevant governmental department websites for a focal area. The study was not prescriptive as such the number of these documents varied for each thematic area. The study also reviewed documents from corporations connected with the thematic areas and selected a limited corpus of material from these (to include, e.g., prominent reports, blogs, promotional video). Any critical NGOs working in Africa with a focus on 4IR, contextual and with prominence, were reviewed.

2018), while the second revolution, 30 years later, introduced conveyor belts powered by electricity, making mass production possible (Zambon et al. 2019; Yahya 2018). Digital automation and information technology marked the third industrial revolution. Although these revolutions have supported economic growth and productivity, they still heralded high inequalities, exacerbated further by climate-related challenges and other sustainable development issues (Morrar et al. 2017). These challenges continue to affect several LMICs who lacked comparative advantage over the high-income countries in previous revolutions in terms of resource endowment. These resources

3

enabled high-income countries continued to focus on high technological goods and services, whereas LMICs struggled with only production and exports of low value goods (Adhikari 2020). Even with the advancement of the new industrial revolution termed as “Industry 4.0 (4IR),” African countries are still grappling with the challenges of the third and fourth industrial revolutions (Markowitz 2019). Yet, some scholars have noted that, with the advent of the 4IR, it offers potential for LMICs to leapfrog in certain areas like ICT, which is already supporting these countries to establish new business models (Adhikari 2020). The 4IR began when the industry was impacted by the integration of physical and cyber systems, referred to as cyber-physical systems (Burritt and Christ 2016; Yahya 2018). It is characterized by novel paradigm shift that places an emphasis on sustainable value creation, spread, pace of technical, and institutional innovations as well as their low cost (Penprase 2018; Li et al. 2017; Stock et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2018; Liao et al. 2017). Compared to previous revolutions underpinned by “mass production, transportation, rapid electricity utilization and communication technology utilization” (Naudé 2017; Makridakis 2017; Balatsky 2019; Maynard 2015), the 4IR is a heuristic fusion of the physical, digital, and biological worlds, thereby imparting the society holistically (Maynard 2015; Li et al. 2017). Current fusion is already being applied in various sectors of the society, for example, in the health sector, smartphones and wearable devices are providing consumers with health information (Maynard 2015). This fusion, as much as anticipated, will cause challenges which will either complete one another or compete creating multiple scenarios that are difficult to predict. The various actors including academia and policy makers including businesses may find it difficult to provide solutions if they are not already collaborating. Therefore, this fusion calls for various partnerships among stakeholders including university-industry partnerships that can support inclusion, transdisciplinarity, and sustainability efforts. Even if diverse stakeholder sets are called to action, the 4IR is not exempted from the

A

4

Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

challenges the past revolutions experienced and might be essential that these challenges are relooked to enable further progress. Various scholars have argued that 4IR will bring both immense benefits as well as challenges (Morrar et al. 2017; Kiel et al. 2017). For example, social and educational transformations associated with the first three revolutions are foreseen within the 4IR (Newman et al. 2019). Further, it is postulated that the current 4IR applications have the potential for sustainability benefits including improving productivity and use or resources efficiently while reducing waste and overproduction (De Man and Strandhagen 2017), for example, Kiel et al. (2017) outline automation and mechanization potential to help cross-sharing of renewable energy surplus among plants. However, there are increasing fears that the 4IR will alleviate present injustices as well, undermining environmental sustainability initiatives (Maynard 2015). Particularly in Africa, these challenges are exacerbated due to the nature of African economies largely informal and marred by large subsistence agricultural sectors which are highly labor-intensive (Ayentimi and Burgess 2019). Despite this, Africa has already adopted some facets of Industry 4.0 through the adoption of digital technologies. Digital technology, one of the fundamental drivers of the 4IR, is manifested in key aspects as the “Internet of Things, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, big data and cloud computing, and digital platforms” (Li et al. 2017). We begin to see potential transformation through the application of digital technologies in areas such as the energy and agricultural sector particularly in SSA. In the agricultural sector, for example, we observe initiatives that use predictive and satellite data to provide geo-data for farming and agricultural systems (Baumuller 2016) including leveraging blockchain technologies to organize farm production systems by facilitating interactions (Bore et al. 2020). Rural areas are already benefiting from wind and solar generation and purified water in Africa (Ayentimi and Burgess 2019). Yahya (2018) emphasizes that advanced water purification is among the most disruptive technologies expected to make their

way by 2025 including fusion power, carbon sequestration, and quantum computing. Still, these technologies are characterized by high uncertainty, applicability, and impact (Yahya 2018) and will therefore benefit from much indepth research around their use and impact. Key Factors of 4IR with Relevance to the SDGs The 4IR and the SDGs continue to be the two current discourses dominating what societies and economies will look like in the coming years. While there are growing technological advancements including digitalization, the world continues to face unprecedented sustainability challenges (De Man and Strandhagen 2017). The world recently agreed to a set of common goals and targets, the SDGs, aimed at achieving inclusion and equality. This global agenda calls for the global partnership between countries and stakeholders to achieve the goals and targets (Caiado et al. 2018). Besides partnerships, digital technologies are embedded in the SDGs targets at least in every SDG although the 4IR has not prioritized the various facets of 4IR that may impact usefully on society (Prisecaru 2016; Burritt and Christ 2016). Several countries are already experimenting with 4IR (Ally and Wark 2019) for SDGs. For example, Hughes et al. (2019) highlight blockchain as one key in 4IR technologies with the potential to achieve the SDGs and with potential applications in India. Blockchain has enabled smart food cards and could help immigrants in India with language interpretations, e-carry of documents, and billing of various state revenues (Hughes et al. 2019). At the same time, Internet of Things (IoT) could be used to design smart cities’ infrastructure (Jia et al. 2019) and managing supply chains in the distribution of food, water, and medicine locally and internationally (Ally and Wark 2019). Other technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) are being recognized for the promotion of decent jobs, quality education, affordable clean energy, and sustainable cities and climate action. However, applications of AI require further development and strengthening (Butler-Adam 2018) currently lacking in Africa including technological

Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

advancements, responsive innovations, and skill set development (Ayentimi and Burgess 2019). The Areas of Academic-Business Focus Growing the various facets of 4IR requires academic business partnerships previously pursued in the past revolutions. These types of partnerships have been pursued in more advanced economies like America and Europe and remain marginal in African countries. An analysis by Machado et al. (2020) reveals that partnerships have been supported and built to pursue topics like energy efficiency, life cycle management, use and analysis of big data, and systems integration models while areas as sustainable products and service development in the context of 4IR present opportunities for further exploration. Specifically, the development of specific use cases of 4IR including more targeted investments towards building and sustaining digital capabilities (Schneider 2018) is needed. Key building blocks for such 4IR high-tech investments including data access and affordability, digital skills, and innovation ecosystems are (Markowitz 2019) missing in developing countries. Much business academic focus is needed to help integrate these elements for Africa’s greater gains. However, this chapter established emerging continental partnerships being pursued for the 4IR that require strengthening. A study of the SADEC region in pursuit of 4IR mentions skill set promotion as the top of its focus (Markowitz 2019). So far, investments in information and communication technologies (ICT) and data collection for evidence have been pursued through academia and business partnerships leading to centers of excellence in academic institutions being supported by the business sector (Markowitz 2019). In general, there are numerous 4IR technologies highlighted in literature including AI, augmented and virtual reality (AR and VR), Big Data, blockchain, cloud computing/technology, cyberphysical systems, ICTs, Internet of services (IoS), interoperability, IoT, mobile learning, networking, smart factory, smart sensors, and teaching factories (Ally and Wark 2019). However, these areas are underdeveloped in Africa and potential

5

exists for academic-business partnerships to pursue for sustainable development.

A Academic-Business Partnerships Partnerships for Development Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, the need for partnerships towards achieving collective development has grown. Throughout history, partnerships have been promoted for international cooperation aimed at specific agenda from international peace (for instance, the League of Nations). The International Space Station (ISS) brought together partner nations as a foundation for developing space-based commerce and to create greater worldwide interest in space- and science-related education (DeLucas 1996). Since the 1980s, scientists from the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization have partnered in developing recommendations against the potential threats presented by the changing climate. Essentially partnerships have developed to objectively tackle emerging and pressing challenges and pursue opportunities. Traditionally, partnerships have followed both geographical and contextual alignments. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) platform was founded in 1961 aimed at stimulating progress and world trade. Working with governments, policy makers, and citizens in 37 nations, the OECD establishes evidence-based international standards and finds solutions for a range of social, economic, and environmental challenges. The Commonwealth of Nations, founded in 1931, has brought together 54 independent nations of political interest to the former territories of the British empires. The overarching ideas to promote prosperity, democracy, and peace amplify the voice of small states and protect the environment. Both the OECD and the commonwealth demonstrate contextual partnerships, brought together to solidify economic or political growth. At regional scales, the European Union is a platform for both political and economic partnership of 27 states formerly founded

6

Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

in 1992 with the Maastricht Treaty, to promote the four freedoms of movement of goods, services, people, and money (Ottmann et al. 2018). On the other hand, the African Union (formally Organisation for African Unity) brings together 55 member states in Africa, as announced in the Sirte Declaration in Sirte, Libya, on 9 September 1999, and officially launched in July 2002 in Durban, South Africa (Jackson 2014). The African Union (AU) focuses on an integrated, prosperous, and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens and representing a dynamic force in the global arena. Consequently, partnerships have evolved through time to be dynamic and enhance the promotion of peace, justice, growth, and equity, in contextual moments and across geographies. Evolution of Partnerships Over the decades, contextual and objective partnerships have evolved from simply the congregation of nations to providing a measurable evaluation of collaborative actions. The evolution of partnerships for development goes through four main epochs (see Fig. 1) including the contextual collaboration phase, the economic growth and prosperity phase, the regrowth phase, and the rebranding phase. The contextual collaboration phase: The contextual collaboration phase is strongly associated with contextual objectives within the initial stages of collaboration. The initial setup of the AU (formally the Organisation for African Unity) was centered along the contextual challenge associated with colonialism. In the early 1960s, the AU was formed to recognize freedom, equality, justice, and dignity as essential objectives (Jackson 2014). Similarly, the initial objectives of setting up the EU collaboration in 1945 was

1 to 10 years Contextual collaboration

anchored on the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors, which culminated in the Second World War (Ottmann et al. 2018). These are case examples demonstrating the relationship between contextual challenges and the development of partnerships. Economic growth and prosperity phase: The initial achievement of the contextual objectives in partnerships is succeeded by the need for collective prosperity. Collective prosperity is envisioned to build the strength of the nations for economic responsibility. The EU collaborations between the 1960s and 1970s focused on opening trading options including the stop of charging custom duties through cross-border trading. The push for prosperity is seen as an opportunity to build an enabling environment for the flourishing of collaborations. Regrowth of collaborations: The strategic focus of collaboration with clear economic and contextual understanding has transformed collaborations and brought in the interest of nonmembers to join the call for collaboration. From the 1990s, the OECD collaboration has since grown in numbers and affiliations. The EU also sees a similar trend, with the 1970s seeing the incorporation of Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. The revamping of collaborations: In the fourth decade of collaborations, partnerships evolve into new brands. For instance, existing from the early 1960s, in the 1990s, the Africa Union was born off the Organisation for Africa Unity (OAU). In this fourth decade of OAU, the need to rebrand and reprioritize the action had grown, requiring innovation and recalibration. In Europe, the push for a single market was enhanced in the fourth decade of interaction, and the fall of the Berlin wall signified a new face for Europe.

20 to 30 years Regrowth of the collaboration

Economic growth and prosperity 10 to 20 years

Revamping of the collaboration 30 to 40 years

Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa, Fig. 1 Evolution of partnerships in development

Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

In light of the industrial revolutions, the initial phases have had partnership evolutions initially to build solutions for imminent challenges, which turned to commercializing the solutions, the growth of the partnerships for solutions and economic benefits, and in Industry 4.0, the rebranding of the role of the revolutions. Key Areas of Academic-Business Partnership The rebranding of the 4IR comes with the implication to redefine the relationship between academia and business platforms. Since the inception of the UN, partners have worked together through informal and formal collaborative systems. In the last two decades, the international partnership platforms, including the UN – in its millennium development goal (MDG) platform – recognized the importance of harnessing partnerships that would enable the success of achieving the goals. In Goal 8 of the MDGs, the UN signatories prioritized the development of global partnership for development, formulated in the “Road map towards implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration” to foster an enabling environment for development (Alexander 2008). In the transition, the goal has been expanded within the SDGs in Goal 17 alongside strengthening equity, human rights, and nondiscrimination (Kumar et al. 2016). SDG 17 “Partnerships for the goals” provide an opportunity for strategic partnerships to achieve the SDG targets. The academic-business partnerships provide an opportunity to contribute to the SDGs through four main mechanisms including innovative engagement methodologies, strategic arrangements for capacity building, transfer of technology, and mechanisms to govern and coordinate partnerships. Engagement methodologies: Academic science prioritization has shown a shift from “little science” (single investigator) to “big science” (increasingly large, expensive, multinational, interdisciplinary, and interdependent investigations) (Vermeulen et al. 2013). The rise in the need for collaborative research is an opportune engagement strategy towards enhancing academia and business partnerships. With the opening potential for integration into “big science”

7

contributions, the business partnerships would enhance the capacity of achieving the SDGs. Arrangements for capacity building: The capacity building arrangements associated with partnerships would ensure contextualization of capability development to the business needs that would promote the achievement of the SDGs. These arrangements are able to bolster the entrepreneurial capacity for achieving the SDGs (Dooley and Kirk 2007). Transfer of technology: Business partners – among other industry partnerships – are an entrepreneurial space that academia has an opportunity to explore in the context of the 4IR. From customizing technology, to making technologies accessible and downscaled, a collaboration between the academia and the business community thrives in technology transfer. Governance and coordination of partnerships: Coordinated business and academia engagements draw on the core competencies of both academia and business partners, recognizing that business partners can bring skills, market knowledge, institutional expertise, constituents, and research funding (Dobalian et al. 2014) while academia partners would bring the cuttingedge scientific solution to enhance the effectiveness of business solutions (Trencher et al. 2014).

Further Directions on 4IR for SDGs Key Messages for Building Academic-Business Partnerships The expansive nature of the focus of business academic partnerships may bring both intended and unintended consequences. These partnerships are likely to spur development in Africa benefiting both academia and the industry. More broadly with the focus on “big science” previously highlighted, there is likely to be a development of “4IR for good” large-scale funding platforms that will see investments, for example, in clean energy solutions (Herweijer et al. 2018) by the academia and the industry. There is likely to be a win-win situation where perceived benefits may include institutional benefits, economic benefits, as well as personal or private benefits. However,

A

8

Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

partnerships as highlighted by many are problematic, especially in the African developing context. Learning from the global North and South partnerships which dominate several African countries, two observations are made in this chapter. Firstly, these partnerships may bring about technology and path-dependent approaches where innovations are locked into specific ways as defined by Northern contexts. As highlighted by Tandon and Kaustuv (2018), the partnerships may fail to foster the inclusiveness of local actors, thereby increasing the marginalization of already marginalized groups. Secondly, these partnerships are foreseen as areas of power struggles where ideas are contested and reinforced by those in charge (Mert and Chan 2012). As several 4IR solutions are advanced by the global North, agenda relating to their visions may be pursued to the disadvantage of the global South partners – especially in Africa. This is further echoed by Campagnon (2012) who outlines that a number of SSA countries lack the political will and resources to initiate partnerships on their own and thus tend to jump to any types of partnerships failing to address their national priorities. However, an opportunity exists to define partnerships for 4IR that can deliver for SDGs more broadly including setting up of frameworks, rules, and procedures through the establishment of proper platforms to facilitate interactions among the various actors (Haywood et al. 2019). This should be further supported by building organizational capacity, funding, and transparency to achieve the SDGs (Tandon and Kaustuv 2018). Also, reporting and monitoring and evaluation frameworks will need to be further developed to help achieve set objectives for the partnerships. Nevertheless, academic-business partnerships offer potential among developing nations to build the capacity of their academic institutions on skills, resources, and capabilities for 4IR. Businesses also have an opportunity to be change agents in mobilizing resources to advance 4IR for SDGs (Haywood et al. 2019). Policy Recommendations The 4IR will need to address issues to do with the directionality of innovation and technological

processes within the various developing countries as this is a key concern established in this chapter. What this implies is that there is a need even as the 4IR technologies become apparent, they address and adapt to local realities and the national agendas of the various countries. To this end effective partnerships should be relevant in addressing the various countries’ developmental pathways and visions including visions of the organizations participating in the various partnerships. Furthermore, there is a need for continuous monitoring and measurement of outputs of the various partnerships formed as this will remain a key challenge specifically in activities pertaining to 4IR than can deliver for the SDGs. Also, there will be a need to ensure that the partnerships developed and pursued are very inclusive in nature encompassing local actors. The partnership platforms should be initiated and where they exist be strengthened, to ensure that all actors in these fields are included and access knowledge and outputs from these partnerships. In addition, partnerships may need to be structured to incorporate all forms of knowledge relying on indigenous knowledge, practical knowledge, nonformal knowledge, and knowledge held by academia including transdisciplinary and multidisciplinary to deliver for SDGs. All these recommendations call for investments in the processes of building these partnerships to make them work, and countries may need to invest in these processes by creating an enabling environment for the partnerships to thrive and effective policies and regulations for the various businesses to contribute effectively.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development

Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

References Adhikari R. (2020) Harnessing the Potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution in South Asia. In: Raihan S., De P. (eds) Trade and Regional Integration in South Asia. South Asia Economic and Policy Studies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-39329_16 Alexander D (2008) A global partnership for development. UN Chron. https://doi.org/10.18356/18347fee-en Ally Mo, Wark N (2019) Learning for sustainable development in the Fourth Industrial Revolution M. PanCommonwealth Forum 9. http://hdl.handle.net/11599/ 3393 Anrah S (2013) University-Industry interorganisational relationships for technology/knowledge transfer: a systematic literature review. SSRN Electron J. https://doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.2241333 Atiku SO, Boateng F (2020) Rethinking education system for the fourth industrial revolution, pp 1–17. https://doi. org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9810-7.ch001 Ayentimi DT, Burgess J (2019) Is the fourth industrial revolution relevant to sub-Sahara Africa? Technol Anal Strategic Manag 31(6):641–652. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09537325.2018.1542129 Balatsky EV (2019) Global challenges of the fourth industrial revolution. Terra Economicus. https://doi.org/10. 23683/2073-6606-2019-17-2-6-22 Baumuller, H. (2016). Agricultural service delivery through mobile phones: local innovation and technological opportunities in Kenya. In F. W. Gatzweiler & J. Von Braun (Eds.), Technological and institutional innovations for marginalized smallholders in agricultural development, pp 1–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-25718-1 Bore, N., Kinai, A., Waweru, P., Wambugu, I., Mutahi, J., Kemunto, E., . . . Weldemariam, K. (2020). AGWS: Blockchain-enabled Small-scale Farm Digitization. Nairobi, Kenya: IBM Research Africa. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/icbc48266.2020.9169450 Burritt R, Christ K (2016) Industry 4.0 and environmental accounting: a new revolution? Asian J Sustain Soc Responsib 1(1):23–38. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s41180-016-0007-y Butler-Adam J (2018) The fourth industrial revolution and education. S Afr J Sci 114(5–6):17159. https://doi.org/ 10.17159/sajs.2018/a0271 Caiado GRG, Leal Filho W, Quelhas OLG, Luiz de Mattos Nascimento D, Ávila LV (2018) A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation of the sustainable development goals. J Clean Prod 198:1276–1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2018.07.102 Campagnon D (2012) Africa’s investments in partnerships for sustainable development: holy grain or business as usual? In: Pattberg PH, Biermann F, Chan S, Mert A (eds) Public-private partnerships for sustainable development: emergence. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

9

D’Este P, Guy F, Iammarino S (2013) Shaping the formation of university-industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter? J Econ Geogr 13(4):537–558. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/ lbs010 De Man JC, Strandhagen JO (2017) An industry 4.0 research agenda for sustainable business models. Proc CIRP 63:721–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir. 2017.03.315 de Wit-de Vries E, Dolfsma WA, van der Windt HJ, Gerkema MP (2019) Knowledge transfer in university–industry research partnerships: a review. J Technol Transfer 44(4):1236–1255. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10961-018-9660-x DeLucas LJ (1996) International space station. Acta Astronaut. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-5765(96)00056-2 Dobalian A, Bowman CC, Wyte-Lake T, Pearson ML, Dougherty MB, Needleman J (2014) The critical elements of effective academic-practice partnerships: a framework derived from the Department of Veterans Affairs Nursing Academy. BMC Nurs. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12912-014-0036-8 Dodson J (2017) Building partnerships of equals: the role of funders in equitable and effective international development collaborations. UK Collaborative on Development Science, London. (Issue Cc) Dooley L, Kirk D (2007) University-industry collaboration: grafting the entrepreneurial paradigm onto academic structures. Eur J Innov Manag. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14601060710776734 Fransman J, Newman K (2019) Rethinking research partnerships: evidence and the politics of participation in research partnerships for international development. J Int Dev 31(7):523–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid. 3417 Guimon J (2013) Promoting University – industry collaboration in developing countries (Innovation Policy Platform, OECD and World Bank) (Issue January 2013). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5176.8488 Haywood LK, Funke N, Audouin M, Musvoto C, Nahman A (2019) The sustainable development goals in South Africa: investigating the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships. Dev South Afr 36(5):555–569. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2018.1461611 Herweijer, Celine et al. (2018) Enabling a sustainable Fourth Industrial Revolution: How G20 countries can create the conditions for emerging technologies to benefit people and the planet, Economics Discussion Papers, No. 2018-32, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), Kiel Hughes L, Dwivedi YK, Misra SK, Rana NP, Raghavan V, Akella V (2019) Blockchain research, practice and policy: applications, benefits, limitations, emerging research themes and research agenda. Int J Inf Manag 49(February):114–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijinfomgt.2019.02.005 Jackson P (2014) African union. In: Handbook of governance and security. https://doi.org/10.4337/ 9781781953174.00040

A

10

Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

Jia M, Komeily A, Wang Y, Srinivasan RS (2019) Adopting internet of things for the development of smart buildings: a review of enabling technologies and applications. Autom Constr 101(January):111– 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.01.023 Kiel D, Müller JM, Arnold C, Voigt KI (2017) Sustainable industrial value creation: benefits and challenges of industry 4.0. Int J Innov Manag 21(8). https://doi.org/ 10.1142/S1363919617400151 Kumar S, Kumar N, Vivekadhish S (2016) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): addressing unfinished agenda and strengthening sustainable development and partnership. Indian J Community Med 41:1–4. https://doi. org/10.4103/0970-0218.170955 Lee J, Noh S, Kim H-J, Kang Y-S (2018) Implementation of Cyber-Physical Production Systems for Quality Prediction and Operation Control in Metal Casting. Sensors, 18(5), 1428. https://doi.org/10.3390/ s18051428 Li G, Hou Y, Wu A (2017) Fourth industrial revolution: technological drivers, impacts and coping methods. Chin Geogr Sci 27(4):626–637. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11769-017-0890-x Liao Y, Deschamps F, Loures E d FR, Ramos LFP (2017) Past, present and future of industry 4.0 - a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. Int J Prod Res 55(12):3609–3629. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00207543.2017.1308576 Machado CG, Winroth MP, Ribeiro da Silva EHD (2020) Sustainable manufacturing in industry 4.0: an emerging research agenda. Int J Prod Res 58(5):1462–1484. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1652777 Makridakis S (2017) The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms. Futures, 90, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures. 2017.03.006 Markowitz, C. (2019) Harnessing the 4IR in SADC: Roles for policymakers. Johannesburg, South Africa: South African Institute of International Affairs. Retrieved from https://media.africaportal.org/documents/Occa sional-Paper-303-markowitz.pdf Mert A, Chan S (2012) The Politics of Partnerships for Sustainable Development. In P. Pattberg, F. Biermann, S. Chan, & A. Mert (Eds.), Public–Private Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Emergence, Influence and Legitimacy (p. 23). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/ 9781849809313 Maynard AD (2015) Navigating the fourth industrial revolution. Nat Nanotechnol 10(12):1005–1006. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.286 Morrar R, Arman H, Mousa S (2017) Value propositions for the internet of things: guidance for entrepreneurs selling to enterprises. Technol Innov Manag Rev 7 (11):5–11. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1116 Naudé W (2017) Entrepreneurship, Education and the Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa. IZA Discussion Papers.

Newman SL, Gowland RL, Caffell AC (2019) North and south: A comprehensive analysis of non-adult growth and health in the industrial revolution (AD 18th–19th C), England. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 169(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa. 23817 OECD (2016) Automation and independent work in a digital economy. Policy Brief on the Future of Work. https://doi.org/10.1787/5JLZ9H56DVQ7-EN Ottmann H, Weber K, Ottmann H, Weber K (2018) I. History of the European Union. In: Reshaping the European Union. https://doi.org/10.5771/978384 5287201-29 Ozturk I (2011) The role of education in economic development: a theoretical perspective. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1137541 Pellini A, Weyrauch V, Malho M, Carden F (2019) State capability, policymaking and the fourth industrial revolution: do knowledge systems matter? (pp 1–22). http://southernvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ KS4IR-Discussion-Paper.pdf Penprase BE (2018) The fourth industrial revolution and higher education. In Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-13-0194-0_9 Prisecaru P (2016) Challenges of the fourth industrial revolution. Knowl Horizons-Econ 8(1):57–62. https:// doi.org/10.23683/2073-6606-2019-17-2-6-22 Rose DC, Chilvers J (2018) Agriculture 4.0: broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming. Front Sustain Food Syst 2(December):1–7. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fsufs.2018.00087 Schneider P (2018) Managerial challenges of industry 4.0: an empirically backed research agenda for a nascent field. Rev Manag Sci 12(3). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846018-0283-2 Singh, S. (2019). The fourth industrial revolution, women engineers and SDGs: an exploratory study with special reference to India. New Delhi, India. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Seema_Singh23/ publication/337136765_The_fourth_industrial_revolu tion_women_engineers_and_SDGs_an_exploratory_ study_with_special_reference_to_India/links/ 5dc653914585151435f7fbe3/The-fourth-industrial-rev olution-women-engineers-and-SDGs-an-exploratorystudy-with-special-reference-to-India.pdf Stock T, Obenaus M, Kunz S, Kohl H (2018) Industry 4.0 as enabler for a sustainable development: a qualitative assessment of its ecological and social potential. Process Saf Environ Prot 118:254–267. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.psep.2018.06.026 Tandon, R., & Kaustuv, C. (2018). Partnering with higher education institutions for SDG 17: The role of higher education in multi-stakeholder partnerships. In J. M. Vilalta, A. Betts, V. Gómez, & M. Cayetano (Eds.), Approaches to SDG 17 Partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (pp. 75–85). Barcelona: Global University Network for Innovation

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability (GUNi). Retrieved from https://collections.unu.edu/ eserv/UNU:6602/approaches_to_sdg17-partnerships_ for_the_sdgs.pdf#page¼75 Trencher G, Bai X, Evans J, McCormick K, Yarime M (2014) University partnerships for co-designing and coproducing urban sustainability. Glob Environ Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.009 Vermeulen N, Parker JN, Penders B (2013) Understanding life together: a brief history of collaboration in biology. Endeavour 37:162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. endeavour.2013.03.001 Yahya N (2018) Agricultural 4.0: its implementation toward future sustainability. Green Energy Technol (9789811075773):125–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-10-7578-0_5 Zambon I, Cecchini M, Egidi G, Saporito MG, Colantoni A (2019) Revolution 4.0: industry vs. agriculture in a future development for SMEs. PRO 7(1):36. https:// doi.org/10.3390/pr7010036

Academic-to-Business Partnerships ▶ Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

11

combined with the obligation to report on the discharge of those responsibilities, and (ii) framework, which makes roles, responsibilities, and expectations clear to all stakeholders, supporting the availability of reliable and timely monitoring on intended and actual outcomes. The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are related to the issue of industrialization and associated consequences in terms of possible biodiversity depletion, worsening of health or living conditions, and climate change, especially in developing countries (United Nations 2017a). In this context, a model of economic growth based on the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources is seen as possibly not viable, and a more sustainable approach to the use of natural resources is advocated for (United Nations 2017a). The contribution of this entry is to provide a synthesis of the field of research related to accountability frameworks for SDGs in a policy making and business environment. More specifically, this entry seeks to highlight contemporary issues surrounding the engagement of policy makers and businesses in promoting collaboratively the SDGs.

Accountability ▶ Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development Through International Volunteering

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability Carol Pomare Ron Joyce Center for Business Studies, Mount Allison University, Sackville, NB, Canada

Definition Accountability Frameworks: Accountability frameworks are related to (i) accountability, which is the ownership of responsibilities

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Partnership for the Goals The first step in understanding accountability frameworks for SDGs consists in (i) defining the SDGs using a multinational approach and a national approach and (ii) describing the role the UN or national stakeholders play in setting up worldwide priorities (United Nations 2017a). For more details in relation to sustainable development, please see Pomare (2015) for the case of Chile, Pomare (2018a) for some applications related to entrepreneurship, Pomare (2018b) for some applications related to responsible managers, and Pomare (in process) for a review of litterature. For Stafford-Smith et al. (2017), as an accountability framework, the SDGs extend the previous Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in many ways, but particularly in seeking to link the

A

12

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability

environmental, social, and governance (ESG) aspects to economic aspects through the SDG17 (Pomare, 2018a). This perspective relies on interlinkages across time to ensure that the short-term achievements of improved human well-being do not occur at the cost of undermining human well-being in the long term (StaffordSmith et al. 2017). In other words, this perspective implies that sustainable development is a type of development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their needs (Brundtland Report, World Commission on Environment & Development, WCED 1987). In this context, a lesson from the MDGs was that individual UN agencies were believed to implement specific targets with limited regard for other (i.e., particularly environmental) targets and accountability frameworks (Stafford-Smith et al. 2017). At a multinational level, a significant policy innovation with the SDGs was the creation of the UN’s High-Level Political Forum (HLPF), which was to meet annually at the ministerial level and every 4th year at the heads of state level (Stafford-Smith et al. 2017). At a national level, the implementation of the SDGs was to depend on the alignment and integration between national targets, strategies, and plans for implementation, as well as on local delivery programs (StaffordSmith et al. 2017). These two overarching levels are critical to producing true policy coherence or salient cues and linkages across sectors (Pomare, in process). This section is focused on SDGs and on multinational and national partnerships for the SDGs. Multinational Accountability Framework Understanding accountability frameworks for the SDGs consists in defining SDGs using a multinational approach and describing the role the UN plays in setting up worldwide priorities for 2030 (United Nations 2017a). For more details, please see Pomare (2018a) and Pomare (in process). For the UN, human well-being is based on sustainable development, which is based on sustainable consumption and production that

promotes exploitation of natural resources efficiently around the world (United Nations 2017a). First, when focusing on water, it is advocated that less than 3% of the world’s water is fresh (i.e., drinkable water) of which 2.5% is frozen in the Antarctic or in the Arctic. Therefore, humanity is believed to rely on 0.5% of all its ecosystems for fresh water (United Nations 2017a). Second, when focusing on food, it is advocated that while substantial environmental damage occurs in the production phase of food (e.g., agriculture, food processing), households also have a negative impact through possibly unsustainable dietary habits (e.g., mostly meat-based diet as opposed to mostly plant-based diet). Also, one third of all the produced food, equivalent to 1.3 billion tons (i.e., possibly worth around $1 trillion), is estimated to end up in waste bins or spoiled due to poor practices in transportation or harvest (United Nations 2017a). This, consequently, affects the environment through food-related energy consumption and/or waste generation (United Nations 2017a). Third, when focusing on energy, it is advocated that despite technological advances to promote energy efficiency, unsustainable energy use in the Organizations for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries will continue to grow 35% by 2020. As well, commercial and residential unsustainable energy use is described as the second most rapidly growing area of global energy use after transportation (United Nations 2017a). For the UN, sustainable consumption and production is to be implemented within a 10-year framework, with developed countries taking the lead and helping developing countries (United Nations 2017a). First, when focusing on water and food, the goal for the UN is to halve the per capita global water and food waste at the retail and consumer levels by 2030, as well as to reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses by 2030 (United Nations 2017a), and substantially reduce water waste through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse by 2030 (United Nations 2017a).

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability

Second, when focusing on energy, the goal for the UN is to achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources by 2030 (United Nations 2017a) and to achieve an environmentally sound management of chemicals wastes throughout life cycle, in accordance with agreed international and national regulatory frameworks, as well as significantly reduce release to air, water, and soil in order to minimize adverse impacts on human health and on the environment (United Nations 2017a). This information provided by the UN is believed to be pivotal in addressing the current global economic and social challenges facing individuals internationally and nationally, for example, when economic growth is limited, because of scarce natural resources or increasing inequalities in some countries (United Nations 2017a). Therefore, to face these challenges, the goal of SDG17 “Partnership for the Goals” is to focus on the way the world is interconnected and the way to improve access to knowledge and interlinkages to foster sustainable development (United Nations 2017a). The goal of SDG17 “Partnership for the Goals” is to strengthen the means of sustainable development with multistakeholder partnerships that share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources, to support the achievement of the SDGs in all countries, in particular developing countries (United Nations 2017a). A series of indicators by targets are associated with SDG17 “Partnership for the Goals,” with a focus on finance, technology, capacity building, trade, policy and institutional coherence, multi-stakeholder partnerships, data monitoring, and accountability frameworks. More specifically, SDG17.16.’s goal is to enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships, with (i) indicators like the number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholders development effectiveness, monitoring and accountability frameworks and (ii) indicators like the availability of high-quality, timely, and reliable data on sustainable development as per accountability frameworks (United Nations 2017a). As such, high-quality data and statistics that are disaggregated by relevant population

13

groups are essential for key stakeholders to make effective decisions. In this context, accountability frameworks help (i) achieve overall development plans; (ii) reduce future environmental, social, and governance (ESG) costs and economic costs; and (iii) strengthen economic competitiveness to reduce poverty (United Nations 2017a). For more details on accountability and regulation, please see Pomare and Lont (in process a and b) and well as Pomare (in process). As a summary, a network of multinational stakeholders contribute to the accountability framework for SDGs supporting different countries to strengthen their capacity to move toward more sustainable patterns (United Nations 2017a). Accountability frameworks for sustainable development are also promoted by a wide range of stakeholders in the public and private sector in order to foster economic growth through innovative ways at the national level (United Nations 2017a). This leads to the next section. National Accountability Framework Understanding accountability frameworks for SDGs consists in defining SDGs using a national approach (e.g., public national and local policy makers or public and private corporations) and describing the role national stakeholders play in following worldwide priorities for 2030 within their own countries (United Nations 2017a). For more details, please see Pomare (2018a) and Pomare (in process). On the one hand, a network of national stakeholders develops and implements tools to monitor sustainable development within their own countries from the viewpoint of national policy makers (United Nations 2017a). National stakeholders impact various areas of life by promoting public practices that are sustainable in accordance with multinational priorities (United Nations 2017a). For example, national stakeholders help rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption: (i) by removing market distortions in line with their own national circumstances, including restructuring taxation and phasing out harmful subsidies (United Nations 2017a), and (ii) by taking into account the specific needs of their nation to minimize any possible adverse

A

14

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability

economic impact of the multinational SDGs (United Nations 2017a). As well, a network of national stakeholders develops and implements tools to monitor sustainable development within their own countries from the viewpoint of local policy makers (United Nations 2017a). More than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase up to 66% by 2050 (United Nations 2017a). As such, local stakeholders are largely urban stakeholders. Smart cities are cities where innovation in sustainability and ecological design creates a responsible and clean experience for its citizens with a wise management of natural resources (United Nations 2017a). A network of smart cities is a necessary tool for the promotion of sustainability locally (United Nations 2017a). For more details, please see Pomare (2018a) and Pomare (in process). On the other hand, a network of national stakeholders develops and implements tools to monitor sustainable development within their own countries from the viewpoint of public and private corporations (United Nations 2017a). National stakeholders impact various areas by promoting business practices that are sustainable in accordance with multinational priorities (United Nations 2017a). For Wichaisri and Sopadang (2018), sustainable development is defined as meeting the needs of a corporation’s direct and indirect stakeholders without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future shareholders (Brundtland Report, WCED 1987). From the business perspective, the three pillars of sustainable development are economic, environmental, and social pillars which are referred to as the triple bottom line (TBL). The TBL is a sustainable concept applied to public and private corporations that balances economic (i.e., shareholders value), social, and environmental (i.e., stakeholders value) performances to create value for businesses (i.e., for a review, see Wichaisri and Sopadang 2018). The TBL relies on stakeholders’ engagement, in terms of the environment (Ketola 1997), or the impacts on employees, customers, suppliers, and communities (i.e., for a review, see Wichaisri and Sopadang 2018; Boele et al. 2001). Since sustainable development has long-term economic benefits for businesses (i.e., shareholders’ value),

a growing number of public and private corporations consider their environmental and social impact (i.e., stakeholders’ value) in order to sustain long-term economic benefits (Wichaisri and Sopadang 2018). For more details, please see Pomare (2018a) and Pomare (in process). As a summary, a network of national stakeholders contribute to the accountability framework for SDGs supporting different countries to strengthen their capacity to move toward more sustainable patterns (United Nations 2017a). Accountability frameworks for sustainable development have a series of strengths and weaknesses, however. This leads to the next section. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Accountability Framework Understanding accountability frameworks for sustainable development consists in focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of the accountability frameworks when setting up worldwide priorities for 2030 within their own countries (United Nations 2017a). On the one hand, the UN SDGs are a major achievement, as the SDGs have been agreed to by most UN member states and they focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) targets and economic targets. For more details on ESG factors and investing strategies, please see Pomare (2018c and d) and Pomare (in process). First, for Engelbretsen et al. (2017), the SDGs were developed through a highly consultative and iterative process that included multiple meetings with expert groups, civil society, and governments. Second, for Wichaisri and Sopadang (2018), when looking at keywords in titles, abstracts, and full papers related to the SDGs, it was observed that three key sustainable dimensions (i.e., economic, environment, and social) were well represented. From 1995 to 2015, most SDGs’ research concentrated on the economic dimension (Wichaisri and Sopadang 2018). From 2011 to 2015, most SDGs’ research focused on the three dimensions (i.e., economic, environment, and social factors) with leaner managerial strategies being applied to the manufacturing industry (Wichaisri and Sopadang 2018).

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability

On the other hand, the UN SDGs are a major achievement that may not have a clear path to implementation in terms of an accountability framework. First, for Engebretsen et al. (2017), the process of developing the SDGs and associated targets has not been without its critics. In both academic and media settings, critics have been focusing on the SDGs list and their reported lack of realistic and measurable outcomes (Engebretsen et al. 2017). Second, for Costanza et al. (2016), the SDGs lack an overarching goal and an effective aggregate indicator of progress toward SDGs. One may argue that such an aggregate indicator is not necessary and that the pursuit of individual goals is sufficient to achieve sustainable development. However, for Costanza et al. (2016), the implementation of the SDGs agenda requires a strong commitment to accountability. The SDGs need an overarching goal with clear metrics of progress that are geared to integrate all sub-goals (Costanza et al. 2016). Conventional measures of national progress for SDGs, like the gross domestic product (GDP), are based on production and consumption of goods and services exchanged in markets, and GDP was not designed as a measure of societal well-being (Costanza et al. 2016). Conventional measures of national progress for SDGs, like an aggregation of all of the SDGs indicators into a unit-less index of 200–300 SDG indicators, lead to the unresolved question of how to weight the different indicators’ impact into the index (Costanza et al. 2016). Conventional measures of national progress for SDGs, like the contribution to subjective well-being through life satisfaction scores or World Happiness Reports (for a review, see Costanza et al. 2016) developed on the basis of regressions of life satisfaction scores against a range of independent variables, only explained 73% of variations across countries (Costanza et al. 2016). Therefore, the question remains as to what hybrid indicator may be used to issue a comprehensive system and dynamic model of (i) net economic contributions, (ii) natural capital or ecosystem services contributions; and (iii) social capital or community contributions (i.e., economic, environment and social factors) (for a

15

review, please see Costanza et al. 2016). In order to answer this question, one needs to develop a framework of policy reforms and societal change that makes the achievement of the SDGs possible at both the multinational and national level (Costanza et al. 2016). As a summary, a network of multinational and national stakeholders contribute to the accountability framework for sustainable development supporting different countries to strengthen their capacity to move toward more sustainable patterns (United Nations 2017a). Accountability frameworks for sustainable development are, as such, promoted by a wide range of stakeholders in the public and private sector (United Nations 2017a). However, the success of accountability frameworks for sustainability in a national public and private sector is uncertain, as what may be described as procrastination in tackling global challenges from the public sector (e.g., counterpressure from taxpayers and/or electors for national governments) or the private sector (e.g., counter-pressure from shareholders to focus on profit as opposed SDGs) may sometimes result in drawbacks (United Nations 2017a). This leads to the next section.

Challenges and Opportunities for Accountability Frameworks The second step in understanding accountability frameworks for SDGs is to explore the challenges and opportunities related to existing accountability frameworks focusing on sustainable consumption and production patterns. For more details in relation to sustainable development, please see Pomare (2015) for the case of Chile, Pomare (2018a) for some applications related to entrepreneurship, Pomare (2018b) for some applications related to responsible managers, and Pomare (in process) for a review of litterature. By definition, future risks and returns related to SDGs are ambiguous and uncertain, which means that ethical paradoxes may arise when one generation is asked to limit their potential for immediate rewards (i.e., ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns) in order

A

16

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability

to give the future generations the possibility to get some future rewards, as well (i.e., meet the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs) (Brundtland Report, WCED 1987). This is related to a fundamental principle of distributive justice as opposed to self-interest that may impact most decision-makers’ actions (e.g., policy makers, management of public and private corporations, etc.). Therefore, the existing accountability frameworks for SDGs may face psychological and economic motives of self-interest and sticky anchors (i.e., situational salient cues), which may be counterproductive in the application of the distributive justice principles underlying SDGs. As a consequence, salient cues of distributive justice may need to be reinforced through parallel accountability frameworks in policy making and accounting standard setting to reduce self-interest motives and sticky anchors. The focus of this section is on the challenges and opportunities for a culture of accountability for the SDGs, with multiple actors like policy makers and professional accountants that may enhance the strength of the accountability framework for SDGs through more open and more transparent review of actions in parallel accountability frameworks. Challenges to Accountability Frameworks Understanding accountability frameworks for SDGs consists in identifying challenges in terms of self-interest or sticky anchors and their impact on most decision-makers (e.g., policy makers, management of public and private companies, etc.). For details on some applications related to responsible managers, please see Pomare (2018b). In terms of the psychological motives, the key for decision-making in line with distributive justice as opposed to self-interest may be self-control (for a review, see Banker et al. 2017). When decision-makers use self-control as a basis for their decisions as opposed to primitive impulses, decision-makers are believed to become more able to overcome their natural tendency to be selfish if pressured to focus on distributive justive. Interestingly, abundant literature indicates that

self-regulation functions as if dependent on a limited cognitive resource, which means that after an initial act of self-control, subsequent acts of self-control tend to diminish (for a review, see 2017 Banker et al. 2017). A first model states that self-control may enable humans to overcome their natural innate motive of selfishness (Banker et al. 2017) and to follow rules that enable society to function (e.g., do what is best for the group as opposed to what is best only for the individual). As such, self-control is like a “moral muscle” with a set of society rules that curb selfishness in favor of others. Research shows that depleted people as compared to nondepleted people: (i) act more on impulses; (ii) score higher on narcissism, a state characterized by inflated self-views and a strong sense of entitlement; (iii) show heightened willingness to lie and cheat in order to acquire money; and (iv) have a decreased concern for others (for a review, see Banker et al. 2017). A second model states that ego depletion may weaken central executive control, thereby increasing susceptibility to salient cues from the environment (Banker et al. 2017). Those cues from the environment serve as sticky anchors for the decision-making process, most of all when the ego is depleted. Research shows that depleted people as compared to non-depleted people: (i) buy more and eat more depending on social cues (i.e., respond more to salient cues to eat and spend); (ii) engage more in both good and bad habits depending on social cues and (iii) engage less or more in socially desirable behavior when cues regarding the interpersonal impact of one’s actions are not or are made salient (for a review, see Banker et al. 2017). As such, the selfishness model holds that ego depletion increases self-serving behaviors per see, including doing what benefits the self even at the expense of others (Banker et al. 2017). However, the sticky anchor model shows that ego depletion may not increase self-serving behaviors per see, but that ego depletion may intensify the effects of external cues (i.e., sticky anchors) on behaviors whether these salient cues are in favor of selfishness or in favor of distributive justice (Banker et al. 2017).

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability

In terms of the economic motives, some have explored distributive justice as opposed to selfinterest: (i) in the context of climate change, to infer a felicity function (i.e., the utility for a given household member of sustainable consumption and production patterns at any given point in time) of the choices today’s generations make to help the generations of the future (Dasgupta 2008), or (ii) in the context of cost behavior for corporations, to understand the choices today’s managers make in relation to the costs of the future (Banker and Byzalov 2014). On the one hand, in terms of the economics of climate change, discount rates are related to the present value of a present action (e.g., ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns today) where the actors (e.g., today’s generations) discount the future value of this actions’ future consequences (e.g., future benefits to future’s generations at a cost to today’s generations). In this context, as well, social discount rates are derived from economic forecasts and society’s conception of distributive justice, when it comes to the allocation of goods and services across personal identities, time and events, and above and beyond the motive of self-interest today (Dasgupta 2008). First, economists support the idea that all human beings, and by extension all decisionmakers, are selfish which means that their decisions are always motivated by self-interest (Dasgupta 2008). The hypothesis of self-interest has been successful in providing accurate predictions in most economic domains (Dasgupta 2008). Most human beings behaved selfishly, even when they are given a chance to affect other people’s well-being at a relatively low cost (Dasgupta 2008). Second, an important insight provided by some of the newly developed models of fairness is that the self-interest model is accurate, mostly in competitive environments with standardized goods and services (Dasgupta 2008). In other less competitive environments, however, human beings are more motivated by fairness and reciprocity and are more willing to reward other human beings at a cost to themselves (Dasgupta 2008). As such, in some competitive environments, most human beings behave more selfishly, while

17

in some less competitive environments, most human beings behave more fairly (Dasgupta 2008). On the other hand, in terms of public and private corporations, Banker and Byzalov (2014) demonstrate that while traditional cost behavior models expect a mechanistic relation between sales and costs, an alternative view recognizes the primitives of a cost behavior that are related to “sticky” and “anti-sticky” costs alongside traditional “fixed” and “variable” costs. Indeed, Banker and Byzalov (2014) show that some costs behave asymmetrically (i.e., contrary to the traditional model where higher sales are associated with higher costs) falling less in response to sales decreases than they rise for equivalent sales increases (i.e., “sticky costs”). One explanation for sticky costs is that sticky costs may arise because of deliberate past resource commitment decisions from managers (i.e., past sticky anchors) (Banker and Byzalov 2014). As such, external salient cues of competitiveness or past behaviors (i.e., sticky anchors) have an impact on decisions in an economic or business context. As a summary, the above development is important for the accountability framework of the SDGs, as it demonstrates the importance of repeated salient cues in society in favor of distributive justice within a less competitive framework and with a focus on avoiding past sticky anchors (i.e., meeting the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs) (Brundtland Report, WCED 1987). This leads to the next section. Opportunities for the Accountability Frameworks Understanding accountability frameworks for SDGs consists in identifying opportunities in terms of salient cues that support distributive justice and its impact on decision-makers (e.g., policy makers, management of public and private companies, etc.). Opportunities in Public Accountability Frameworks

Understanding accountability frameworks for SDGs consists in defining opportunities to

A

18

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability

offer salient external cues in favor of SDGs for decision-makers in the public sector. For details, see Pomare, Lont and Griffin (in process) and Pomare and Lont (in process a and b). On the one hand, salient cues in favor of distributive justice in policy making (i.e., meeting the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs; Brundtland Report, WCED 1987) are associated with sectors and actors through strong multinational and national oversights of accountability frameworks (i.e., public accountability framework) not directly related but indirectly supportive of the SDGs (StaffordSmith et al. 2017). For Ratnatunga et al. (2011), governments adjust to pressures for sustainable development through many multinational and national oversights of integrated parallel accountability frameworks. First, the Kyoto Protocol outlined various accountability frameworks for reducing global carbon emissions (Ratnatunga et al. 2011) that included a proposal to establish an international emissions trading scheme (ETS) whereby countries could trade carbon credits in international carbon credit markets. In such a scheme, countries with surplus credits could sell credits to countries with quantified emission limitations and reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (Ratnatunga et al. 2011). Second, the Copenhagen Climate Summit attempted to establish a legally binding global climate accountability framework starting in 2012, when the first commitment period under Kyoto expired (Ratnatunga et al. 2011). Third, some believe that in the face of escalating effects of climate change, 2015 was a tipping point with international negotiations among more than 190 nations concerning carbon emission regulations (Stanley 2015). The Paris Agreement entered into force after the date on which at least 55 parties to the Convention deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession with a depositary under a stringent accountability framework (Ratnatunga et al. 2011). On the other hand, salient cues against distributive justice in policy making (i.e., meeting the needs of the present generations without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs; Brundtland Report, WCED 1987) also started to appear with a possible gap between public opinions and policy makers (Fahey and Pralle 2016). For example, Dolsak and Prakash (2016) discuss the political risks related to the 2016 presidential elections in the USA and the possible consequences in terms of different protocols. The 2016 presidential elections in the USA may have represented a political risk for SDGs with possible long-term implications that still need to be fully assessed. According to the World Economic Prospects (2016), despite initial predictions of market doom following the 2016 presidential election in the USA, the Dow Jones repeatedly set all-time highs for a while. The 2016 presidential election in the USA, however, added to the uncertainty about the global economic outlooks with fears of upcoming downturns. First, tariffs were imposed on other countries imports which triggered retaliatory actions and may undermine business confidence. Second, and in relation to SDGs, US energy policy may have changed to be more supportive of fossil fuels and coal with the appointment of selfproclamed climate sceptics in the US government and associated changes in policy and commitments to climate change agreements (Dolsak and Prakash 2016). Opportunities in Corporate Accountability Frameworks

Understanding accountability frameworks for SDGs consists in defining opportunities to offer salient external cues in favor of SDGs for decision-makers in the corporate sector. For details, see Pomare, Lont and Griffin (in process) and Pomare and Lont (in process a and b). For Simnett and Huggins (2015), increasing social awareness of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues has contributed to the transformation of the way business is conducted. Because of the usefulness of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports, shareholders have demanded transparency and questioned the reliability of CSR reporting (i.e., for a review, please see Simmett and Huggins, 2015). In response,

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability

corporations have begun to voluntarily provide external independent assurance of corporate social responsibility reporting conducted by a third party to improve credibility (Simnett and Huggins 2015). CSR reports have been important instruments for corporation in establishing transparent communication with their shareholder (i.e., corporate accountability framework), especially with regard to their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance (i.e., for a review, please see Simmett and Huggins, 2015). For Simnett and Huggins (2015), however, in contrast to financial accounting, stand-alone CSR reporting and its evaluation by a third party are still voluntary in most countries (Simnett and Huggins 2015). As such, management has extensive discretion in the portrayal of their CSR. Hence, each individual company can determine the quality of its CSR reports and selectively modify their information value according to its information policy (Simnett and Huggins 2015). As a consequence, the domain of CSR needs to include the participation of three distinct groups: (i) the professional accountants (i.e., big four and other professional audit firms), (ii) the consultants, and (iii) the internal auditors (Simnett et al. 2009a). First, professional accountants, especially big four audit firms, are believed to be independent and highly reputable and can guarantee highquality assurance procedures (Simnett et al. 2009a). In a related vein, although standards continue to evolve, having a clear understanding of today’s expectations and producing reliable information around sustainable performance is advocated to be priorities for emission-intensive companies in the USA (for example, Ernest and Young, 2016). Second, when managers lack subject expertise, assurance standards outline the process for the involvement of individual experts to assist during CSR engagements (Simnett 2012). In this context, corporations may engage external CSR consultants to provide assurance (Simnett et al. 2009a). Third, internal auditors may be an important source of assurance within a firm’s corporate governance system (Simnett et al. 2009b). The assurance of CSR reports is predicted to be one of the

19

most significantly increasing activities of internal auditors in the near future. As a consequence, as well, the need to improve CSR has increasingly motivated accounting standard setters to consider more stringent environmental regulations and standards to support a more stringent accountability framework (Simnett et al. 2009a). For example, there are three major issues that are being scrutinized by professional accountants and/or auditors in relation to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: (i) the valuation and reporting of GHG emission permits, (ii) the measurement of tangible and intangible assets capable of creating GHG emission, and (iii) the reporting of how a company is meeting its environmental and social responsibilities (Jones and Belkaoui 2009). First, with regard to the valuation and reporting of GHG emission permits, varying accounting practices have emerged (Ernest and Young 2016). For example, under an inventory accounting model, emissions credits are measured at a weighted-average cost, whereas under the liability and gain recognition accounting model, the entity does not record an obligation to deliver emissions credits to the regulatory agency until the actual level of emissions for a given period exceeds the credits held on the balance sheet (Ernest and Young 2016). Second, with regard to the measurement of tangible and intangible assets capable of creating GHG emission, the cap-and-trade approach remains the preferred political and economic approach to reducing carbon emissions in many countries (Ratnatunga et al. 2011). Third, with regard to the reporting of environmental and social responsibilities, many emission-intensive companies are quantifying their GHG emissions for internal management purposes and for external management purposes. In terms of internal factors related to GHG emission assurance, some observed that carbon reduction programs and corporate emissions reporting had expanded rapidly across emission-intensive companies in response to climate change and global warming (Ratnatunga et al. 2011). In terms of external factors related to GHG emission assurance engagements, Green and Zhou (2013) observed that the demand for

A

20

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability

assurance services was mainly fund in Europe and emission-intensive industries, with a majority of these engaging specialist assurers. MartinovBennie and Hoffman (2012) showed an increase in the accounting profession’s influence in this internal process. In terms of external factors related to GHG emission assurance, external disclosures were (i) published as a stand-alone document, (ii) included as part of a broader sustainability report or in an emission-intensive company’s annual report, or (iii) made to support inclusion in a “carbon register.” Currently, the accountability framework of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the accountability framework of the AA1000 Series of Standards may be the most commonly used guidelines for the preparation of a stand-alone CSR reports (Simnett et al. 2009b; Simnett 2012). In addition to its increased significance in business practice, this topic has also been a focal point of recent empirical CSR research. At its December 2007 meeting, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) reportedly approved a project to consider the development of a standard aimed at promoting trust and confidence in external disclosures of GHG emissions, including disclosures required under emissions trading schemes (Simnett et al. 2009a; Simnett 2012). For details, see Pomare, Lont and Griffin (in process) and Pomare and Lont (in process a and b). As a summary, the above developments are important for the accountability framework of the SDGs, as these demonstrate the importance of parallel accountability frameworks and repeated salient cues in society in favor of distributive justice (i.e., meeting the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs) (Brundtland Report, WCED 1987).

Conclusions The entry was organized the following way: (i) section “Definition” focused on the SDGs and on multinational and national partnerships for the

SDGs; and (ii) section “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Partnership for the Goals” focused on accountability frameworks in terms of opportunities and challenges. This section concludes the entry. By definition, future risks and returns related to the SDGs are ambiguous and uncertain, which means that ethical paradoxes may arise when one generation is asked to limit their potential for immediate rewards (i.e., ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns) in order to give the future generations, the possibility to get some future rewards as well. This paradox is related to a fundamental principle of distributive justice as opposed to self-interest that may impact some decision-makers’ actions (e.g., policy makers, management of public and private corporations, etc.). The research on accountability framework for the SDGs was presented to identify a network of multinational and national stakeholders (i.e., focus on partnerships for SDG17) that contribute to the accountability framework for SDGs in supporting different stakeholders in their effort to move toward more sustainable patterns of consumption and production (United Nations 2017a). This research supports the notion that situational cues, are important to strengthen accountability frameworks based on the principle of distributive justice. Thus, situational cues related to parallel accountability frameworks, like parallel policies and accounting standards, indirectly support SDGs. This field of research was briefly presented to identify opportunities and challenges for the SDGs to improve accountability frameworks.

Disclaimer Although the author and publisher have made every effort to ensure that the information in this book was correct at press time, the author and publisher do not assume liability and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, or copyright issue, or injury to a person or a company or a group of companies’s reputations,

Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability

whether such errors or omissions, copyright issues, defamation or libel claim result from negligence, accident, or any other cause.

Cross-References ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator Acknowledgments I would like to thank the Canadian Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA) and the Canadian Academic Accounting Association (CAAA) for their joint financial support through a Financial Accounting Research Grant. I would also like to thank the Marjorie Young Bell Faculty Fellowship for financial support.

References Banker RD, Byzalov D (2014) Asymmetric cost behavior. J Manag Acc Res: Fall. 2014 26(2):43–79 Banker S, Ainsworth SE, Baumeister R, Ariely D, Vohs KD (2017) The sticky anchor hypothesis: ego depletion increases susceptibility to situational cues. J Behav Dec Making 30:1027–1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm. 2022 Boele R, Fabig H, Wheeler D (2001) Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni. A study in unsustainable development: II. Corporate social responsibility and ‘stakeholder management’ versus a rights-based approach to sustainable development. Sustain Dev 9(3):121–135 Brundtland G (1987) Our common future: report of the 1987 world commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford Costanza R, Daly L, Fioramonti L, Giovannini E, Kubiszewski I, Mortensen L, Pickett K, Ragnarsdottir K, De Vogli R, Wilkinson R (2016) Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN sustainable development goals. Ecol Econ 130:350–355 Dasgupta P (2008) Discounting climate change. J Risk Uncertain 37:141–169 Dolsak N, Prakash A (2016) The US environmental movement needs a new message. The conversation. Retrieved from: http://theconversation.com/the-us-environmentalmovement-needs-a-new-message-70247 Engebretsen E, Heggen E, Ottersen K (2017) The sustainable development goals: ambiguities of accountability. Lancet 389:360–365 Ernest & Young (2016) Accounting guidance for emissions programs. Retrieved from: http://www.ey.com/us/en/ industries/oil%2D%2D-gas/carbon-market-readiness %2D%2D-4%2D%2D-accounting-guidance-for-emis sions-programs

21

Fahey BK, Pralle SB (2016) Governing complexity: recent developments in environmental politics and policy. Policy Study J 44:28–49 Gailliot MT, Baumeister RF (2007) Self-regulation and sexual restraint: dispositionally and temporarily poor selfregulatory abilities contribute to failures at restraining sexual behavior. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 33:173–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616720623472 Green W, Zhou S (2013) An international examination of assurance practices on carbon emissions disclosures. Aust Account Rev 23:54–66 Hawley J (2015) Carbon risks and investment implications. Insight 360. Retrieved from: https://www.insight360. io/carbon-risk-implications/ International Energy Agency (2016) World energy outlook 2016 sees broad transformations in the global energy landscape. Retrieved from: http://www.iea. org/newsroom/news/2016/november/world-energyoutlook-2016.html Jones S, Belkaoui A (2009) Financial accounting theory. Cengage Learning Australia Ketola T (1997) A map of Neverland: the role of policy in strategic environmental management. Bus Strateg Environ 6(1):18–33 Martinov-Bennie N, Hoffman R (2012) Greenhouse gas and energy audits under the newly legislated Australian audit determination: perceptions of initial impact. Aust Account Rev 22:195–207 McKenna B (2016) Team trump. The globe and mail. Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/ world/donald-trumps-cabinet-picks-reflect-republicanspartys-conservativewing/article33306218/ Otgaar H, Alberts H, Cuppens L (2012) How cognitive resources alter our perception of the past: ego depletion enhances the susceptibility to suggestion. Appl Cogn Psychol 26(1):159–163 Pawłowski A (2007) How many dimensions does sustainable development have? Sustain Dev 16(2):81–90 Pomare C (2015) A corporate social responsibility and sustainable development: The case of Chile. In: Vajpeyi D, Oberoi K (eds) Corporate social responsibility and sustainable development in emerging economies. Lexington Pomare C (2018a) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and entrepreneurship: Opportunities and challenges for enterprises contributing to the SDGs. In: Apostolopoulos N, Al-Dajani H, Holt D, Jones P, Newbery R (eds), Contemporary issues in entrepreneurship research, Emerald Series Pomare C (2018b) Responsible managers and responsible management education. In: Christopher E (ed) Meeting expectations in management education social and environmental pressures on managerial behavior. Palgrave Macmillan, Springer Pomare C (2018c) Responsible investing and environmental economics. In: Dhiman S, Marques J (eds) Handbook of engaged sustainability. Meteor, Springer Pomare C (2018d) Socially responsible investing. Continuing education course and presentation at the 2018

A

22 Annual Conference of the Canadian. Institute of Financial Planning, Continuing Education for Certified Financial Planners (CFP), Halifax, Canada. Pomare C, Lont D, Griffin P (In process) The market relevance of Greenhouse Gas Emission disclosures by Canadian firms. Working paper. Mount Allison University, Canada Pomare C, Lont DH (In process a) Transition to a sustainable economy: Accounting for societal and organizational domains of sustainability. Working paper. Mount Allison University, Canada Pomare C, Lont DH (In process b) Environmental policy and legislation: An economic perspective. In: Walker T, Sprung N, Barabanov S (eds) Environmental policy and legislation: An economic perspective. Wiley Blackwell. Ratnatunga J, Jones S, Balachandran KR (2011) The valuation and reporting of organizational capability in carbon emissions management. Account Horiz 25(1):127–147 Santiteerakul S, Sekhari A, Bouras A, Sopadang A (2015) Sustainability performance measurement framework for supply chain management. Int J Prod Dev 20(3):221–238 Seuring SA, Koplin J, Behrens T, Schneidewind U (2003) Sustainability assessment in the German detergent industry: from stakeholder involvement to sustainability indicators. Sustain Dev 11(4):199–212 Simnett R (2012) Assurance of sustainability reports. Revision of ISAE 3000 and associated research opportunities. Sustain Account Manag Policy J 3:89–98 Simnett R (2014) Assurance of environmental, social and sustainability information. In: Hay D, Knechel R, Willekens M (eds) The Routledge companion to auditing, Routledge, pp 325–337 Simnett R, Huggins AL (2015) Integrated reporting and assurance: where can research add value? Sustain Account Manag Policy J 6:29–53 Simnett R, Nugent M, Huggins AL (2009a) Developing an international assurance standard on greenhouse gas statements. Account Horiz 23(4):347–363 Simnett R, Vanstraelen A, Chua WF (2009b) Assurance on sustainability reports: an international comparison. Account Rev 84(3):937–967 Stafford-Smith M, Griggs D, Gaffney O (2017) Integration: the key to implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustain Sci 12(6):11–23 Stanley M (2015) The investors guide to climate change. Morgan Stanley & Co LLC. Retrieved from: https:// www.morganstanley.com/articles/the-investor-s-guideto-climate-change United Nations (2017a) Sustainable Development Goals. | UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainabledevelopment-goals/ United Nations (2017b) World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas | UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www. world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html

Adolescents Velte P, Stawinoga M (2017) Empirical research on corporate social responsibility assurance (CSRA): a literature review. J Bus Econ 87(8):1017–1066 Wichaisri S, Sopadang A (2018) Trends and future directions in sustainable development. Sustain Dev 26 (1):1–17 World Economic Prospects (2016) Economic Outlook, 40:1–33 Wouters J, Bijlmakers S, Hachez N, Lievens M, Marx A (2013) Global monitoring and accountability frameworks for sustainability and democratic legitimacy: a bottom-up approach. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 26 (3):197–200

Adolescents ▶ Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture S. A. Igbatayo Department of Economics, Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti, Nigeria

Definition Food and nutrition security lies at the heart of development prospects, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, which have assumed serious dimensions in recent times. Food security can be aptly defined as the availability, accessibility, affordability, stability, and utilization of sufficient food for a population, at all times, for a healthy and active life. The definition identifies four food security dimensions, accompanied by nutrition linkages: availability, accessibility, stability, and utilization. However, analysts aver that this definition of food security, which became popular in literature, did not clearly spell out the nutrition dimension to which it referred. For

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture

example, the dimension of food consumption was hardly noted in the definition. Consequently, a more comprehensive approach to the definition emerged in literature, acknowledging that food and nutrition security is deemed to exist, when all people, at all times, have (unfettered) physical, social, and economic access to food, accompanied by sufficient quantity and quality to meet their dietary needs and food preferences, while also supported by an environment of adequate sanitation, health services, and care, which foster a healthy and active life. On the other hand, sustainable agriculture can be defined as those agronomic practices that employ robust methods and processes, which improve soil productivity and minimize the harmful effects on climate, soil, water, air, biodiversity, and human health and are accompanied by inputs sourced around the farm. The definition also aims at the use of inputs from nonrenewable sources, such as petroleum products, and replacing them with renewable resources, with a particular focus on local people and their knowledge, skills, socio-cultural values, and institutional structures.

23

Introduction Food security has assumed a critical dimension on the global development agenda, becoming a critical element of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a global blueprint adopted by the international community in 2015 to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. Indeed, SDG 2 aims at achieving zero hunger around the world by 2030. Perhaps, there is no other major region in the world confronted with severe food and nutrition insecurity than Africa. The continent remains the region with the highest prevalence of undernourishment (PoU), with about 21% of its population or more than 256 million people affected in 2016, as revealed in Fig. 1. Figure 1 shows that while prevalence of undernourishment was highest in Africa, with more than 20% of its population affected in 2016, Asia reveals the highest number of undernourished people in any region, placed at more than 500 million people in the same year. The state of food and nutrition security in sub-Saharan Africa is particularly alarming, with an estimated 23.2%

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture, Fig. 1 Prevalence of undernourishment around the world, 2009–2016. (Source: FAO 2017, 7)

A

24

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture

of its population suffering from chronic food deprivation in 2017 (FAO 2018, 3). The worrisome trend associated with Africa’s high prevalence of undernourishment lies at the heart of the Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security. The initiative aims at strengthening food production systems to sustainably respond to the region’s food insecurity challenges and the emergent demographic explosion, with its population projected to double by 2050 to 2.1 billion. The major objective of this entry is to elaborate the Africa-EU Research and Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture in Africa as a tool to tackle food and nutrition insecurity and foster the region’s efforts to achieve the 2030 SDG 17, which seeks to foster global partnerships to meet the SDGs. The entry employs empirical data to analyze the challenges associated with food and nutrition insecurity across the region. The study relies on secondary data sourced from various publications by the World Bank, the United Nations and its agencies, the African Union Commission, and the European Union Commission, among others, as well as academic journals, monographs, and other periodicals. The analytical tools comprise both descriptive and inferential statistics, complemented by interviews of stakeholders. Findings reveal that food and nutrition insecurity persists in sub-Saharan Africa, despite more than a decade of concerted efforts to stem the tide with tools driven by novel technologies. However, indications are that the political will exists at the highest levels, in both the African Union and the European Commission, to leverage research and innovation for knowledge creation and dissemination critical to transforming Africa’s agriculture for food and nutrition security. The entry is structured into four parts. Section “The Emergence of Sustainable Development Goals” introduces the SDGs, critical for mobilizing resources to meet the 2030 global transformation agenda. Section “Food and Nutrition Security: Concepts and Recent Trends in Africa” examines the state of food and nutrition security in Africa, while section “The Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security”

discusses Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security. Finally, section “Concluding Summary” ends the entry with concluding summary.

The Emergence of Sustainable Development Goals The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emerged in 2015 as international frameworks to drive the global transformational agenda. Succeeding the Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs are a universal call to action at ending poverty, protecting the planet, and ensuring that all people enjoy peace and prosperity, with targets set for 2030. The SDGs are also interconnected, allowing success on one to provide momentum critical for addressing issues more commonly associated with another. Also known as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the SDGs embrace a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity around the world, now and into the foreseeable future (United Nations 2019a, b, 1). Unlike previous development agendas, which largely focused on developing countries, the SDGs are an urgent call for action by all countries – developed and developing – in a global partnership. Horoszowski (2015, 1) lists the 17 SDGs as follows: Goal 1: End poverty in all forms everywhere. Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages. Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Goal 5: Achieve gender equality of all women and girls. Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture

Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation. Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries. Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. Goal 13: Target urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development. Goal 15: Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable management, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. Despite the lofty ideals that underpin the SDGs, Woodbridge (2015, 3) identified the following potential challenges associated with their successful implementation: (i) Missing out on integration potential: In implementing the SDGs, some national governments may choose to focus only on those goals that align with their own development agenda, which may compromise the ability to achieve other goals successfully. (ii) Data monitoring challenges: It is acknowledged that several countries may be unable to access the capacity critical to collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data necessary for reporting progress on the SDGs. (iii) Financing and the North-South divide: With a projection of US$17 trillion necessary to finance implementation and monitoring the SDGs, a huge challenge has emerged with contentious debates between “developed” and “developing” countries. While

25

the former are pushing for mobilization of domestic resources to secure the funding for the SDGs, the latter are proposing finance be provided by the former through aid agreements.

Food and Nutrition Security: Concepts and Recent Trends in Africa The Concepts of Food and Nutrition Food security is an important issue, particularly in the developing world. The critical nature of food security in several nations explains its inclusion alongside the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. However, there is hardly a precise definition of food security, as the concept is associated with more than 200 definitions and 450 indicators (Bajagai 2013, 1). Consequently, the concept of food security has evolved over time, embracing several attempts at definitions in research and policy frameworks. The initial focus of food security, reflecting the global concerns of 1974, was placed on the volume and stability of food supplies. Thus, food security was defined in the 1974 World Food Summit as (FAO 2002a, b, 1): “availability at all times of adequate food supplies of basic food stuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices.”

However, in 1983, FAO embellished a concept of food security to include both physical and economic access by vulnerable people to available supplies, implying that attention should be balanced between the forces of demand and supply in the food security challenges: “ensuring that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to the basic food that they need.”

A World Bank (1986, 16) report on poverty and hunger focused on the temporal dynamics of food security, introducing the widely accepted differences between chronic food insecurity, associated with the challenges of continuing or structural poverty and low incomes, and transitory food

A

26

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture

insecurity, involving periods of intensified pressure attributed to natural disasters, economic collapse, or conflict. This concept of food security is further reinforced in terms of: “access of all people, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life.”

Against the backdrop of the impacts of structural adjustment programs in several developing countries in the 1980s and 1990s, food insecurity acquired increasing dimensions, particularly with protein-energy malnutrition. Thus, the concept of food security was broadened to incorporate food safety and nutritional balance, in a development reflecting concerns about food composition, as well as minor nutrient requirements for an active and healthy life. The 1994 Human Development Report elaborated the construct of human security, including a number of elements, of which food security was only one. The thinking also evolved into the human rights perspective on development (UNDP 1994, 24). Against the increasing challenges associated with global food security in the mid-1990s, the 1996 World Food Summit adopted yet more complete definition: “Food security, at individual, household, regional and global levels (is achieved) when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” (FAO 1996, 1)

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture, Fig. 2 Consequences of food insecurity in households. (Source: Bajagai 2013, 1)

Once again, the concept of food security was refined in the FAO publication, the State of Food Insecurity 2001, thus: “Food Security (is) a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” (FAO 2002a, b, 1a)

The refinement of the concept of food security brought into sharp focus the emphasis on consumption, the demand side, as well as the issues of access by vulnerable people to food that was associated with the scholarly studies of Amartya Sen (Sen 1981, 19). Bajagai (2013, 1), in a study on food security, reveals that a household is food secure when it has physical and economic access to dietary and food preferences, critical for a healthy and active life of all its members. The household unit is a critical element in food security, as global and national policy makers often fail to address the phenomenon at household levels, the study reveals. Food insecurity can pose a serious threat to individual members of households, particularly children, the handicapped, infirmed, women, and girls. This is often the case, even when there may be sufficient food at the national level. Figure 2 reveals intrahousehold food dynamics and consequences associated with food insecurity. Figure 2 shows that as household resources diminish, it provokes anxiety with household

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture

members, with dietary intake reducing even further among parents and children. In a report on the concept of food security, FAO (2008, 1) identifies four main dimensions of food security: (i) Physical availability of food: This addresses the “supply side” of food security, which is determined by the level food production, stock levels, and net trade. (ii) Economic and physical access to food: An adequate supply of food at the national or international level may not guarantee household-level food security. Thus, policy focus has emphasized the imperatives of income, expenditure, markets, and prices to foster food security. (iii) Food utilization: This refers to the way the body makes the most of the nutrients in food. Thus, sufficient energy and nutrition intake by individuals is usually an outcome of good care and feeding practices, food preparation, diversity of diet, as well as intra-household food distribution. (iv) Stability of the other three dimensions over time: Despite sufficient food intake at present, households are not considered food secure in the absence of access to food on a periodic basis. According to the FAO (2008, 2) report, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has emerged as a tool to address food security crises based on a range of livelihood needs, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Figure 3 shows the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification as a veritable tool to classify

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture, Fig. 3 The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. (Source: FAO 2008, 2)

27

severity of food insecurity, based on a variety of livelihood needs. It has emerged as a standardized framework, expressed in a scale that integrates food security, nutrition, and livelihoods-related information into a concise statement of food security status (Bajagai 2013, 1). In a major assessment of food insecurity and hunger in the United States, the National Academies Press (2006, 44) reveals that food insecurity is usually accompanied by poor dietary intake and malnutrition. The negative consequences lead to the emergence of chronic diseases, impaired performance, and low life expectancy, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Malnutrition, a common ailment associated with food insecurity, is characterized by the intake of dietary nutrient that is either too high, too low, or poorly balanced (Nordqvist 2017, 1). While excess intake of nutrients or energy is more commonly associated with affluent societies or highincome countries, undernourishment, on the other hand, is prevalent in low-income countries (FAO 2010, 13). Defined as consumption of inadequate dietary nutrients and energy to meet specific functions, undernourishment holds grave consequences for human well-being. In a study assessing the impact of long-term undernourishment in humans, Martins, Florencio, Grillo, Martins, and Sawaya (2011) identified undernourishment as one of the most problematic public health issues in the world; Martins et al. (2011, 3) also attribute undernourishment to the highest mortality rate in children across the world. The study also reveals undernourishment with long-lasting physiologic impacts, including increased susceptibility to fat accumulation, particularly in the central region of the body, lower fat

IPC Phase Classification

Indicators

Generally Food Secure

- Crude mortality rate

Chronically food insecure

- Malnutrition Prevalence

Acute food and livelihood crisis

- Dietary diversity

Humanitarian emergency

- Coping strategies

Famine/Humanitarian Catastrophic

- Livelihood assets

A

28

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture

Physical Environmental & personal factors

Consequences such as chronic

poor Food Security

dietary intake

Malnutrition

diseases, impaired performance

Medical conditions Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture, Fig. 4 Core concepts related to nutritional state. (Source: The National Academies Press 2006, 44)

oxidation, insulin resistance in adulthood, hypertension, dyslipidemia, as well as a reduced capacity for manual work, among other ailments.

An Overview of Africa’s Agriculture Agriculture plays a significant role in the African economy, accounting for one-third of the region’s annual GDP and providing livelihood support to 65% of the labor force. However, the sector suffers from centuries of over-exploitation and decades of underinvestment, leaving hundreds of millions who depend on it severely impoverished (Igbatayo 2010, 10). These developments have unleashed severe challenges on the sector. Of particular note is low productivity, which fuels farmers’ low income and food insecurity across the continent. While more than 25% of the world’s arable land lies on the continent, the region accounts for only 10% of the global agricultural output. Jayaram, Riese, and Sanghvi (2010, 2), in a study, identify four major challenges undermining the growth of Africa’s agricultural output: 1. Fragmentation. Africa’s agriculture is dominated by small holders, with 85% of farms in the region occupying less than two hectares and leaving production highly fragmented

(Sibhatu and Qaim 2017, 1). In contrast, only 11% or less of farms in Brazil, Germany, and the United States operate on this scale. 2. Interdependence and complexity. African farmers face a litany of obstacles that undermine production output. These include access to finance, high-quality seeds, fertilizer, and water. The challenges are exacerbated by the dearth of robust domestic markets that could absorb a higher level of agricultural output, a solid post-harvest value chain for the output of farmers, as well as effective training programs in best practices critical to raising productivity. 3. Underinvestment. Most African governments have marginalized the agricultural sector since the mid-1950s, when nations across the region began to gain political independence from colonial rule. This is particularly alarming in sub-Saharan Africa, where experts estimate that the region requires as much as US$50 billion annually as additional investments to spur growth in the agricultural sector. 4. Enabling conditions. Africa requires a robust agricultural transformation agenda, critical to leveraging the sector’s potential for inclusive growth. The dearth of basic infrastructure is a major impediment. While several countries are striving to reverse the trend, many are lagging behind.

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture

29

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture, Table 1 Undernourishment in sub-Saharan Africa and sub-regions, 2000–2016 Prevalence (%) Region/year Sub-Saharan Africa Western Africa Middle Africa Eastern Africa Southern Africa

2000 28.1 15.1 37.4 39.3 7.1

2005 23.7 12.0 29.4 34.3 6.4

2010 20.6 10.0 23.8 30.9 6.7

2016 22.7 11.5 25.8 33.9 8.0

Number (millions) 2000 2005 178.4 171.4 35.6 32.2 35.9 32.9 112.7 112.7 3.6 3.5

2010 171.2 30.9 31.1 116.6 4.0

2015 200.2 36.8 37.1 122.2 4.1

2016 224.3 41.6 40.4 137.2 5.0

Source: FAO (2017, 6)

Africa’s low agricultural output holds grave implications for the region’s economic growth and development. This has forced several countries in the region to become dependent on food imports. While the region accounted for 8% of the world’s agricultural exports in the 1970s, the trend has declined sharply, to a paltry 2% (Veras 2017, 1). The negative trend associated with low agricultural productivity in Africa’s agriculture, sustained by prolonged neglect, is blamed for the sector’s poor performance, which has turned several African countries from being exporters of agricultural products in the 1960s to net importers of agricultural and food products in recent times. While Africa’s agricultural economy is characterized by poor performance, the sector actually has a huge potential. For example, sub-Saharan Africa is home to nearly one-half of the world’s uncultivated land that can be put into production; the continent also puts into use a paltry 2% of its renewable water resources, compared to 5% globally (Diop 2016, 1). In addition, Africa’s food and beverage markets are huge and growing, projected to exceed US$1 trillion by 2030, according to Diop. This is particularly significant against the backdrop of Africa’s emerging middle class and the continent’s emergent demographic explosion, with a population expected to double by 2050 to 2.1 billion.

The State of Food and Nutrition Security in Africa Declining economic growth in Africa over the past few years has fuelled food and nutrition

insecurity, reversing robust progress in the prevalence of undernourishment (PoU), which declined from 28.1% in 2000 to 20.6% in 2010 in subSaharan Africa (FAO 2017, 6). The decline was most rapid in Central Africa, while Eastern and Western Africa also witnessed a reduction in the phenomenon. However, beginning from 2010, the PoU across sub-Saharan Africa stalled at 20.6% and began to rise from 2015, increasing from 20.8% to 22.7%, as illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 reveals the prevalence of undernourishment, as well as the total number of people affected in sub-Saharan Africa and its sub-regions between 2000 and 2016. The data show PoU in the region was highest in 2000, at 28.1%, and lowest in 2010, at 20.6%. The total number of the population affected across the region was highest in 2016, at 224.3 million, and lowest in 2010, at 171.2 million. The FAO (2017, 6) report also shows that almost all countries witnessed a decline in both the prevalence and the absolute number of undernourished people in Western Africa between 1999 and 2001, as well as 2009–2011; however, in the following years, from 2014 to 2016, most of the countries witnessed a resurgence in the prevalence of undernourishment, which assumed severe dimensions in Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. On the other hand, Mali, Mauritania, and Togo experienced reductions that significantly exceeded the regional average over the period in view. In a report on regional food security, FAO (2017, 6) further reveals a large drop in the rate of undernourishment in Middle Africa between 1999 and 2001, as well as 2009–2011, with the situation improving in all countries for which data

A

30

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture

are available. Indeed, Angola, Cameroon, and the Central African Republic (CAR) witnessed the sharpest decline in PoU over 1999–2001 to 2009–2011 periods. Although fewer countries achieved reductions in PoU in the 2009–2011 to 2014–2015 periods, Chad and Angola reduced undernourishment by 7.4 and 5.4%, respectively. On the other hand, conflict-prone CAR witnessed an increase in PoU, rising by 25.3% during 2009–2011 and in 2014–2016, increasing to a staggering 58.6%. In Eastern Africa, undernourishment fell significantly between 1991–2001 and 2009–2011, but remained flat a few years thereafter and rising in 2014–2016 to 36%, according to the FAO (2017, 8) report. Several countries in the subregion experienced reductions in food production, with consequences for food price increases, largely fuelled by the El Niño phenomenon. However, Djibouti, Rwanda, and Ethiopia all witnessed the largest falls in PoU, while Uganda and Zambia experienced a slight increase. On the other hand, Kenya witnessed a slight decline in PoU consistently over 1999–2001 to 2014–2016 period, while the reduction has slowed over the past years. In Southern Africa, except South Africa, the rate of undernourishment is high. Despite some fluctuations over time, the trend has remained largely unchanged since 2000, according to the FAO (2017, 8) report. Most countries in the subregion have been undermined by drought, with 2015/2016 becoming the driest agricultural season in 35 years. Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe witnessed massive crop and livestock losses, fuelling a spike in the PoU across the sub-region. In its report on the state of food and nutrition in Africa, the FAO (2018, 4) edition reveals a prevalence of undernourishment at 20.4% in 2017, with 256.5 million people affected, up from 222 million in 2016. According to the report, the greatest deterioration between 2015 and 2017 occurred in Central and Western Africa. In a study on the impact of population growth and climate change on food security in Africa, with projections to 2050, Hall, Dawson, Macdiarmid, Mathews, and Smith (2017, 1) examined

trends in 44 African countries and reveal that rapid population growth will be the leading cause of food and nutrition insecurity across the continent. In an affirmation of the severe state of food and nutrition insecurity in Africa, Rao (2018, 1) reveals the performance of different countries on the 2018 Global Hunger Index (GHI). Findings reveal that while global hunger and undernutrition have declined by 28% since 2000, the decline may be too slow to eliminate hunger and undernourishment by 2030. The GHI reveals the Central African Republic as the only country with extremely alarming levels of hunger and malnourishment, with a GHI score of 53.7. In addition, other African countries with high levels of undernourishment include Chad, Madagascar, Sierra Leone, and Zambia, with a score of 45. Food insecurity and undernourishment hold grave consequences for human health. Their impacts on children can be particularly alarming, given children’s vulnerability and their dependence on adult members of households for their dietary requirements. The impacts of undernourishment and food insecurity in Africa were brought into sharp focus by the World Health Organization (WHO) (2017, 20) report on nutrition across the WHO Africa region. A major finding in the report reveals that undernourishment remains a persistent challenge across the region, with major implications for health, particularly among poor and vulnerable elements of society. The report shows that 25 of the region’s 47 countries feature high (40%) rates of stunting, with trend analysis revealing a rising incidence in the prevalence, rather than a reduction to meet the target of reducing the number of stunted children by 40%. Indeed, only 17 countries have “acceptable” levels of wasting (3.2 million citizens with less than basic water access, and >24 million citizens with less than basic sanitation services (WHO and UNICEF 2017). According to JMP’s drinking water ladder, less than basic water access includes “limited,” “unimproved,” and “surface water” access, and less than basic sanitation includes “limited,” “unimproved,” and “open defecation” services (Table 2). Challenges to safe water access also apply to urban centers such as Sao Paulo, one of Brazil’s megacities that recently reported one of its worst water crisis episodes (Coutinho et al. 2015). Elsewhere, the Municipal Department of Water and Sewerage in Porto Alegre is using participatory budgeting in its decision-making

process. The city managed to provide treated water access to 99.5% of all dwellings and has sustained service levels despite a growing population and expanding urban areas (Brennan et al. 2007). Brazil’s National Water Resources Information System collects and organizes water resource data for efficient water management and public access (Agência Nacional de Águas n.d.) with the vision to improve water access and management and alleviating water security challenges. Russia’s renewable water resources and TRWR per capita levels are in Table 3. Russia houses one of the world’s largest water infrastructure and is a global leader in large-scale water infrastructure, with 300 large and >3000 small and medium dams (Likhacheva 2019). Household water security is another pressing concern. Russia has >3.2 million citizens with less than basic water access, and >13.5 million citizens with less than basic sanitation services (WHO and UNICEF 2017). Approximately 40% of citizens who rely on surface water collect water that is below standard hygienic norms (Okorie et al. 2019). This is compounded by the fact that 28% of Russian drinking water contains high mineral contents that increase disease burdens (Dudarev et al. 2013). The country also struggles with aging

BRICS Consortium: Toward Implementing Sustainable Development Goal 6, Table 3 BRICS’ National Water Profiles. (Data source: FAO. 2016. AQUASTAT

Main Database, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Website accessed on [27/04/2020 23:24] (data reused with permission)) BRICS national water profiles (2017)

Total population in millions Total renewable water resources (109 m3/year) Total renewable water resources per capita (m3/ inhabitants/year) Water dependency Agricultural water withdrawal as percentage of total water withdraw Industrial water withdrawal as percentage of total water withdrawal Municipal water withdrawal as percentage of total withdrawal SDG 6.4.2. water stress

Brazil 209 M 8,647 41,316

Russia 143 M 4,525 31,426

India 1,339 M 1911 1427

China 1,441 M 2,840 1,971

34.5% 60%

4.7% 29%

14.5%

43.6%

25.5%

27.5%

3.1%

4.1%

30.5% 90% (2010) 2.2% (2010) 7.4% (2010) 66.5% (2010)

0.96% 64% (2015) 22.3% (2015) 13.3% (2015) 43.4%

South Africa 56 M 51.35 905.4 12.84% 58.8% 21.2% 20% 62.1%

B

72

BRICS Consortium: Toward Implementing Sustainable Development Goal 6

water infrastructure, which in turn continues to influence water quality and water security for the country’s citizens (Likhacheva 2019). India hosts the second largest population globally and faces unprecedented challenges in water security. Unlike Brazil and Russia, India has the second lowest TRWR per capita among BRICS countries (Table 3). India has >97 million citizens with less than basic water access and >541 million citizens with less than basic sanitation services (WHO and UNICEF 2017). A lack of sanitation services holds back economic growth, equivalent to 6.4% of annual GDP in India (UN-Water 2018). Ethnicity and a lingering caste system impact access to water and sanitation services. A child born into the lowest caste is three times more likely to defecate openly than a child born into a higher caste (World Bank Group 2017). Intense urbanization and economic growth have strained the water supply and quality nationally. UNEP has documented some of the highest levels of human impact on water quality globally in India from urban, industrial, agricultural, road surfaces, oil and gas, and mining sources (2016). For instance, Mumbai requires 3,900 million liters of water/day but only secures 3,100 million liters/ day (Safe Water Network 2016). India also suffers from high levels of water loss in its distribution networks, namely 119 m3/km of water/day, the highest among BRICS nations (Okorie et al. 2019). As shown in Table 3, water extraction for agriculture and water stress (water stress measures total freshwater withdraws divided by the TRWR minus the environmental flow requirements, corresponding to SDG 6.4.2) are highest in India within BRICS (FAO 2017a). Although innovative microfinancing projects included in the Clean India Campaign have provided private capital for water connections and latrine facilities (UN-Water 2018), high levels of water stress, compounded by intensive economic growth and rising urbanization, are increasing water sector vulnerability and insecurity across the country. China has the largest population globally, and with fast-paced development, urbanization, and industrialization, China reports high water stress (Tables 1 and 3). The country is faced with waterrelated challenges as a major structural barrier

to economic growth (Likhacheva 2019). Water stress is affected by increasing energy demand, natural resource consumption, and deforestation, and higher water stress affects the nation’s biodiversity and agricultural productivity (Ozturk 2015). For instance, the industrial sector lost $1.7 billion in 1992 to water pollution (Palaniappan et al. 2010). Around 13% of China’s lakes dried up over the past 40 years along with half its coastal wetlands, and China is among 13 countries battling extreme water shortages (Okorie et al. 2019). China has >90 million citizens with less than basic water access and >214 million citizens with less than basic sanitation services (WHO and UNICEF 2017). The country is also facing severe annual per capita water deficiencies. Global water per capita average consumption is 6,225 m3, while China’s annual per capita water consumption is only 2,079 m3 (Ghose 2014). China is turning its focus to water conservation practices to alleviate water stress in major cities. For instance, a water conservation campaign in Beijing saved 100 million m3, the equivalence of water usage of 40,000 three-member families for a year (May 2008). Access to water plays a critical role in Chinese development, and meeting water security needs is critical for China. South Africa is the least populous country in BRICS, with low TRWR per capita and the second-highest water stress level, marginally lower than India’s. South Africa is the 13th driest country globally (Water Research Commission 2017). South Africa has >3 million citizens with less than basic water access, and >12 million citizens with less than basic sanitation services (WHO and UNICEF 2017). The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry of South Africa estimates that 98.6% of water availability in the country is already allocated (May 2008). In 2015, South Africa experienced its worst drought since 1982, which severely affected water availability for domestic and commercial usage (BBC 2015; Department of Water and Sanitation 2015). The effects of lower than normal levels of rainfall and water access are particularly acute for the agricultural sector, which accounts for approximately 60% of total water extraction (Table 3). In contrast, domestic water access is divided by poverty and urban-rural

BRICS Consortium: Toward Implementing Sustainable Development Goal 6

73

disparities. About 49.2% of the adult population (18 years and older) live below the upper-bound poverty line (Statistics South Africa 2019). Approximately 70% of those in poverty live in rural areas (Schreiner and Van Koppen 2002). Close to 20% of South Africa’s rural population source water from “unimproved,” “limited,” or “surface water” sources, making this the highest rural proportion among BRICS countries (WHO and UNICEF 2017). Water stress, food insecurity, and domestic water challenges characterize the water crisis in South Africa and point to why water security planning remains fundamental.

the “water, sanitation, and flood protection” sector (NDB 2018). The NDB mainstreams south-south cooperation (Xiaoyun and Carey 2014). China and Russia, two primary lenders of the NDB, are critical of the conditional aid of the WB and IMF loans (Varela and Delgado 2019; Green Dreams 2014). NBD’s focus in the water sector and water-related areas is helping reposition BRICS’s agenda toward sustainable investment mechanisms, knowledge, and technology-based partnerships, as it provides funding to states without liberalizing reform conditions and restructuring requirements.

BRICS Repositioning Focus on Water

BRICS University Network BRICS University Network is a platform to exchange information and lessons learned from shared challenges. Aiming to facilitate academic exchange and investigation in water, the Network’s International Thematic Group (ITG) comprises two universities from each BRICS state and investigates water resources and pollution treatment. The ITG has three key areas:

BRICS member states face a variety of challenges related to water sector. Intra-BRICS cooperation can address several shared challenges. BRICS’s trade and economic agenda are already expanding to include nontraditional elements of security. This is a critical first step to building the foundation for cooperation on water security and waterrelated SDGs. As Okorie et al. (2019, p. 33) note, the “invisible hand of the market alone cannot solve the water and food crises facing BRICS.” Market forces play a role in the water sector, but issues of social justice and equity require conscious planning to alleviate (Okorie et al. 2019). For instance, sharing domestic and industrial knowledge and technology in water conservation can assist BRICS’s efforts to include water-related challenges and capacity in its agenda. Some examples of programs and initiatives that can help advance water security in BRICS are detailed below. The National Development Bank (NDB) The NDB is BRICS’s key force in the water sector. Established in 2015, the NBD is committed to green economic growth and expects 60% of its funding to support renewable projects (Kamath 2016). Its New General Strategy (2017–2021) prioritizes the “reduction of air, water and soil pollution in the energy sector” as one of its “key areas of operation” (NDB 2017). As of June 1, 2018, 28% of the NDB’s loan approvals went to

• “Developing joint educational and professional training programs on protection of water resources and pollution treatment tailored to the BRICS countries” • “Conducting research on the formation of water resources and the origin of groundwater and surface water composition in the BRICS countries” • “Developing rational methods of natural and wastewater treatment and water conservation” (BRICS Network University n.d.-a) The Network also hosts workshops and conferences on water resource and pollution treatment, student exchange programs, and a joint Masters of Science program in water quality and water treatment (BRICS Network University n.d.-b). The Water Forum The idea for BRICS first Water Forum (2016) developed from the “Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Science, Technology, and

B

74

BRICS Consortium: Toward Implementing Sustainable Development Goal 6

Innovation” (STI). “Water resources and pollution treatment” was one of five STI thematic areas of the Moscow Declaration. Russia organized and hosted this Forum in 2016 (HSE University 2020) with a two-point agenda: • “To strengthen the common water resources community of BRICS researcher and experts’” • “To report on existing opportunities to undertake joint research and development, as well as technology transfer to address the needs of the water and related sectors” (HSE University 2020) Also, in 2018, BRICS Ministers of Environment met in South Africa and committed to improving water infrastructure toward enhanced water security and sustainable development (Water Briefing Global 2018). These forums and summits establish clear priorities and reaffirm the importance of water security in BRICS.

Discussion and Conclusions The BRICS consortium aims to be an economic block facilitating the needs of developing economies. The expanding portfolio of BRICS is beyond its original mandate of trade and economic growth to reposition itself as a partnership model for sustainability – thus an illustration for SDG 17. Past evidence in the context of the MDGs exemplifies BRICS capacity as individuals and as a partnership to advance the SDG Agenda. For instance, BRICS nations halved undernourishment by 2015 per the MDG 1 (FAO 2017b). The entry also emphasizes BRICS’s approach to water challenges and water demand-supply dynamics. The consortium demonstrates the potential to be a driver for SDG 17 while facilitating the goals and objectives outlined in SDGs 2, 6, 11, and 13. BRICS can play a role in alleviating water insecurity for millions, but this potential is yet to be fully realized. Opportunities have yet to be explored for BRICS to benefit from trading in water-intensive commodities and hydro-power partnerships. Toward SDG 6, BRICS’s water activities need to expand beyond declarations

and verbal recognition of the value of water for development. Between BRICS states, concrete water cooperation with tangible outcomes remains limited. Note that geographic significance of Brazil’s and Russia’s access to an abundance of TRWR places them well to export water-intensive commodities to China, India, and South Africa (Likhacheva 2019). BRICS newness limits this study, for there exists a lack of research on the strengths, weakness, and impacts of BRICS activities. A more indepth study is required to observe and analyze the short- and long-term outcomes of BRICS policies and commitments. This will help establish the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for BRICS as a global development partnership. However, the social and economic implications of the partnership are already materializing in response to humanitarian disasters, such as the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). China has sent out shipments of medical supplies including respirators and personal protective equipment to Italy and Iran, and Russia has sent medical supplies and experts to the United States (Aneja 2020). Furthermore, India is exporting hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial medication, globally, and is setting the framework for a BRICS-drive pharmaceutical alliance with the potential to produce needed vaccinations to pandemic mitigation (Aneja 2020). Pandemic presented an opportunity for BRICS members to “overcome [a] lack of common vision . . . and lead the group towards filling the void of governance” (Kondratieva 2020), while reflecting on the capacity and potential of the BRICS partnership to tackle a crisis situation. The progress illustrated through existing initiatives and programs in academia and development, such as the NDB, BRICS’s University Network, or BRICS’s Water Forum, is noteworthy. However, for BRICS to realize its full cooperative potential as a global leader in water, it will need to take progressive steps in future planning and action. BRICS can serve as a strong advocacy partner in sustainable development for implementing the 2030 Agenda through strategic alliances in food, water, and energy governances. BRICS’s capacity to support domestic and

BRICS Consortium: Toward Implementing Sustainable Development Goal 6

industrial knowledge and technology in water conversation strategies is abundant but is work in progress. This consortium’s leadership, financing, and capacity-building agenda can lead the way to build consensus among developing nations and progressively realizing the SDGs.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains ▶ Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment ▶ Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development ▶ Water Safety Plans and Climate Change Mitigation ▶ Water Security

References Agência Nacional de Águas (n.d.) Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre Recursos Hídricos [Capa]. Retrieved 30 Apr 2020, from https://www.ana.gov.br/ acesso-a-sistemas/sistema-nacional-de-informacoessobre-recursos-hidricos-snirh Aneja A (2020) BRICS against COVID-19. The Hindu, May 4. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/ brics-against-covid-19/article31495439.ece BBC (2015) SA grapples with worst drought in 30 years. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa34884135 Biswas AK, Tortajada C (2009) Changing global water management landscape. In: Biswas AK, Tortajada C, Izquierdo R (eds) Water management in 2020 and beyond. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–34. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-540-89346-2_1 Blumstein S (2016) Water and climate diplomacy. Adelphi, Berlin

75

Brennan B, Hoedeman O, Terhorst P, Kishimoto S, Balanva B (2007) Reclaiming public water: achievements, struggles and visions from around the world. Transnational Institute. https://www.tni.org/en/ tnibook/reclaiming-public-water-book BRICS (2018) 10th BRICS Summit Johannesburg Declaration. http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/pt-BR/notasa-imprensa/19236-x-cupula-dos-brics-declaracao-dejoanesburgo-27-de-julho-de-2018-ingles BRICS (2019) 2019 Brasilia Declaration. http://www. brics.utoronto.ca/docs/191114-brasilia.html BRICS Information Centre (2013) Third meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Agriculture and Agrarian Development. http://www.brics.utoronto.ca/docs/ 131029-agriculture.html BRICS Information Centre (2015a) Joint Declaration of the 4th meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Agriculture and Agrarian Development. http://www.brics.utoronto. ca/docs/150315-agriculture.html BRICS Information Centre (2015b) Joint Declaration of the 5th meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Agriculture and Agrarian Development. http://www.brics.utoronto. ca/docs/151009-agriculture.html BRICS Ministers of Environment (2019) Joint statement for the 5thBRICS Ministers of Environment meeting. http://brics2019.itamaraty.gov.br/images/documentos/ PDFBRICS2019_Draft_FINAL_STATEMENT_5th_ BRICS_Environment_Ministerial_Meeting_Rev1.pdf BRICS Network University (n.d.-a) ITG: water resources and pollution treatment. Retrieved 10 Mar 2020, from https://nu-brics.ru/itg/6/about/ BRICS Network University (n.d.-b) ITG: water resources and pollution treatment road maps. Retrieved 10 Mar 2020, from https://nu-brics.ru/itg/6/roadmaps/ BRICS Water Forum (2020) Resolution of the international scientific and practical conference. https://bricswater. hse.ru/en/ Cape Town’s Water Strategy (n.d.) Retrieved 12 Apr 2020, from http://resource.capetown.gov.za/documentcentre/ Documents/City%20strategies%2c%20plans%20and %20frameworks/Cape%20Town%20Water%20Strat egy.pdf Climate News Home (2014) Green dreams: judging the BRICS bank climate ambitions. Climate Home News. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2014/07/22/ green-dreams-judging-the-brics-bank-climateambitions/ Clisby R (2019) Chennai is at the top of India’s water stressed cities. Verisk Maplecroft. https://www. maplecroft.com/insights/analysis/chennai-is-the-tipof-the-iceberg-for-indias-water-stressed-cities/ Cohen SB (2003) Geopolitics of the World System. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC Columbia Public Health (n.d.) Content analysis. Retrieved 23 June 2020, from https://www.publichealth.colum bia.edu/research/population-health-methods/contentanalysis Coutinho RM, Kraenkel RA, Prado PI (2015) Catastrophic regime shift in water reservoirs and São Paulo water

B

76

BRICS Consortium: Toward Implementing Sustainable Development Goal 6

supply crisis. PLoS One 10(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0138278 de Albuquerque C (2012) On the right track: good practices in realising the rights to water and sanitation. UNESCO WWAP. https://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/ water/bookongoodpractices_en.pdf Department of Water and Sanitation (2015) Annual report 2015/2016. http://www.dwa.gov.za/documents/ AnnualReports/ANNUALpercent20REPORTperc ent202015-16.pdf Dudarev AA, Dushkina EV, Sladkova YN, Alloyarov PR, Chupakhin VS, Dorofeyev VM, Kolesnikova TA, Fridman KB, Evengard B, Nilsson LM (2013) Food and water security issues in Russia II: water security in general population of Russian Arctic, Siberia and Far East, 2000–2011. Int J Circumpolar Health 72 (1):22646. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v72i0.22646 ECOSOC (2019) Special edition: progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (E/2019/68-E-E/ 2019/68). UN. https://undocs.org/E/2019/68 FAO (2015) The state of food and agriculture 2015: social protection and agriculture – breaking the cycle of rural poverty. UN. https://doi.org/10.18356/88b78e6f-en FAO (2016) AQUASTAT Main Database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Website accessed on [27/04/2020 23:24] http://www. fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html FAO (2017a) AQUASTAT: SDG 6.4.2 water stress. www. fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/popups/itemDefn.html? id¼4550 FAO (2017b) BRICS countries: investing in partnerships and cooperation for nutrition-sensitive social protection. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7173e.pdf FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO (eds) (2017) Building resilience for food and food security. FAO. Rome Geneva Water Hub (2017) A matter of survival: report on the global high level panel on water and peace. Geneva Water Hub, Geneva Ghose B (2014) Food security and food self-sufficiency in China: from past to 2050. Food Energy Secur 3 (2):86–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.48 Global Affairs Canada (2017) Water in developing countries. GAC. https://www.international.gc.ca/ world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_ developpement/environmental_protection-protection_ environnement/water-eau.aspx?lang¼eng Global Hunger Index (2019) 2019 Global Hunger Index by severity. Global Hunger Index – peer-reviewed annual publication designed to comprehensively measure and track hunger at the global, regional, and country levels. https://www.globalhungerindex.org/results.html Halperin S, Heath O (2017) Political research: methods and practical skills, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford HSE University (2020) Third BRICS Water Forum. http:// bricswater.org/ IPCC (2013) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. http://www. climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ SPM_FINAL.pdf

JMP (n.d.-a) Drinking water. Retrieved 5 Mar 2020, from https://washdata.org/monitoring/drinking-water JMP (n.d.-b) Sanitation. Retrieved 30 Apr 2020, from https://washdata.org/monitoring/sanitation Kamath KV (2016) NDB president: 60% of funding will be for renewables. New Development Bank. https://www. ndb.int/president_desk/ndb-president-60-funding-willrenewables/ Kirton J, Larionova M (2018) BRICS and global governance. Routledge, London Kondratieva K (2020) For BRICS, challenges and opportunities. The Hindu, April 25. https://www. thehindu.com/news/international/for-brics-challengesand-opportunities/article31433942.ece Kosolapova E (2019) BRICS Ministers Commit to Urban Environmental Management, global climate and biodiversity issues. https://sdg.iisd.org:443/news/ brics-ministers-commit-to-urban-environmental-man agement-global-climate-and-biodiversity-issues/ Kulkarni S (2018) The huge potential role of BRICS in achieving the 2030 agenda. Impakter. https://impakter. com/huge-potential-role-brics-achieving-2030agenda/ Likhacheva A (2019) Water challenge and the prospects for BRICS cooperation. Strateg Anal 43(6):543–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2019.1669944 Macrotrends (2020) Urban population 1960–2020. https:// www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/urbanpopulation Mara D, Lane J, Scott B, Trouba D (2010) Sanitation and health. PLoS Med 7(11):e1000363. https://doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pmed.1000363 Matthews N, Motta S (2015) Chinese state-owned enterprise investment in Mekong hydropower: political and economic drivers and their implications across the water, energy, food nexus. Water 7(11):6269–6284. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7116269 May PH (2008) Overcoming contradictions between growth and sustainability: institutional innovation in the BRICS. Chin J Popul Resour Environ 6(3):3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2008.10684876 Mielniczuk F (2013) Brics in the contemporary world: changing identities, converging interests. Third World Q 34(6):1075–1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597 .2013.802506 Monpetit K (2010) 2010 BRICS Brasilia summit compliance assessment: millennium development goals, p 13 National Geographic Society (2019) Water table. National Geographic Society, July 30. http://www.national geographic.org/encyclopedia/water-table/ NDB (2017) NDB’s general strategy: 2017–2021. https:// www.ndb.int/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NDB-Strat egy.pdf NDB (2018) NDB in numbers. https://www.ndb.int/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/in-numbers.pdf Okorie VO, Mphambukeli TN, Amusan SO (2019) Exploring the political economy of water and food security nexus in BRICS. Afr Insight 48(4):21–38 Otto B, Schleifer L (2020) Domestic water use grew 600% over the past 50 years. World Resources Institute.

BRICS Consortium: Toward Implementing Sustainable Development Goal 6 https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/growth-domesticwater-use Ozturk I (2015) Sustainability in the food-energy-water nexus: evidence from BRICS (Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China, and South Africa) countries. Energy 93:999–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy. 2015.09.104 Palaniappan M, Gleick P, Allen L, Cohen M, ChristianSmith J, Smith C (2010) Clearing the waters: a focus on water quality solutions. UNEP. https://pacinst.org/ publication/clearing-the-waters-focus-on-water-qual ity-solutions/ Pimentel D, Berger B, Filiberto D, Newton M, Wolfe B, Karabinakis E, Clark S, Poon E, Abbett E, Nandagopal S (2004) Water resources: agricultural and environmental issues. Bioscience 54(10):909– 918. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[ 0909:WRAAEI]2.0.CO;2 Rinaldi AL, Martuscelli PN (2016) The BRICS on climate change global governance. Meridiano 47 17. https:// doi.org/10.20889/M47e17020 Safe Water Network (2016) 2016 India beyond Urban Water Forum. http://www.safewaternetwork.org/ insights-actions/2016-india-beyond-pipe-forum Schreiner B, Van Koppen B (2002) Catchment Management Agencies for poverty eradication in South Africa. Phys Chem Earth 27:969–976. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S1474-7065(02)00100-6 Statistics South Africa (2019) Five facts about poverty in South Africa. http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p¼12075 Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (2017) Water as an asset for peace. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), Bern The Economist (2018) Cementing relations – has BRICS lived up to expectations? https://www.economist.com/ free-exchange/2018/07/27/has-brics-lived-up-toexpectations UN DESA (2009) Urban and rural areas. United Nations Population Division. https://www.un.org/en/develop ment/desa/population/publications/urbanization/ urban-rural.asp UN DESA (2018) 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/ news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbaniza tion-prospects.html UNDP (2019) Human development report 2019: beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: inequalities in human development in the 21st century. UNDP, New York UNEP, GRID Arendal (2009) Water Scarcity Index. http:// www.grida.no/resources/5586 UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, & International Union for Conservation of Nature (2016) Protected Planet Report. https://www.iucn.org/theme/ protected-areas/publications/protected-planet-report UNESCO (n.d.) Fact 38: investments & economic health. Retrieved 14 Apr 2020, from http://www.unesco.org/ new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/

77

facts-and-figures/all-facts-wwdr3/fact-38-investmentseconomic-health/ Union of Concerned Scientists (2019) Each country’s share of CO2 emissions. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ each-countrys-share-co2-emissions United Nations (2013) Towards global partnerships: A principle-based approach to enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners. United Nations. https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol¼en/A/ RES/68/234 United Nations (2019a) Goal 2: sustainable development knowledge platform. https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/sdg2 United Nations (2019b) Goal 11: sustainable development knowledge platform. https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/sdg11 United Nations (n.d.) Goal 17: sustainable development knowledge platform. Retrieved 30 Apr 2020, from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17 UN-Water (2013) Water security and the global water agenda: a UN-water analytical brief. United Nations University – Institute for Water, Environment and Health. http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/237295 UN-Water (2018) SDG 6 synthesis report 2018 on water and sanitation archives. United Nations. https://www. unwater.org/publication_categories/sdg-6-synthesisreport-2018-on-water-and-sanitation/ UN-Water (2019) United Nations world water development report 2019: leaving no one behind. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris Varela A, Delgado R (2019) The BRICS in the contemporary global order: objectives, capabilities, and limitations. Otoritas 9(2):89–106. https://doi.org/10. 26618/ojip.v9i2.2106 Wang AX, Hou AM, Warren B, University of Toronto BRICS Research Group, Popova I, Shelepov A, Sakharov A, Ignatov A, Center for International Institutions Research of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow (2018) 2017 Xiamen summit compliance report. http://www.brics.utoronto.ca/compliance/2017-xia men.html Water Briefing Global (2018) BRICS nations commit to enhance cooperation on water infrastructure and water resource management. https://www.waterbrie fingglobal.org/brics-nations-commit-enhanced-cooper ation-improve-water-infrastructure-water-resourcemanagement/ Water Research Commission (2017) Fluid thoughts. http:// www.wrc.org.za/wp-content/uploads/mdocs/WW% 20May-June%202017_Upfront.pdf WHO, UNICEF (2017) Drinking water, sanitation and hygiene service levels (2017). https://washdata.org/ data/household#!/dashboard/new WHO, UNICEF (n.d.-a) Household data. Retrieved 14 Apr 2020, from https://washdata.org/data/info/household WHO, UNICEF (n.d.-b) JMP. Retrieved 14 Apr 2020, from https://washdata.org/data/household#!/dash board/new

B

78

Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17

World Bank (2017) Prevalence of undernourishment (% of population). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SN. ITK.DEFC.ZS World Bank (2019) Mainstreaming gender in water and sanitation. Water and sanitation program working paper. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/ 10986/17274 World Bank Group (2017) Reducing inequalities in water supply, sanitation, and hygiene in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals: synthesis report of the WASH Poverty Diagnostic Initiative. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/27831 World Economic Forum (2020) Global risk report 2020 (No. 15). http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ Global_Risk_Report_2020.pdf WRI Aqueduct (2019) Aqueduct country ranking. https:// www.wri.org/applications/aqueduct/country-rankings/ WSP (n.d.) Why invest in sanitation? Retrieved 14 Apr 2020, from https://www.wsp.org/content/why-investsanitation Wu R, Geng Y, Liu W (2017) Trends of natural resource footprints in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries. J Clean Prod 142:775–782. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.130 WWAP (2009) The United Nations world water development report 3: water in a changing world. UNESCO, Paris WWAP (2020) The United Nations world water development report 2020: water and climate change. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000372882 Xiaoyun L, Carey R (2014) Rising powers in international development. Institute of Development Studies. https:// opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20. 500.12413/3599/ER58%20The%20BRICS%20and% 20the%20International%20Development%20System % 2 0 C h a l l e n g e % 2 0 a n d % 2 0 C o n v e rge n c e . p d f ; sequence¼5

gender identity (n.d., para. 1). The definition implies that the gender identity of individuals should not constrain their needs and priorities. The United Nations (UN) defines partnerships as voluntary and consenting association between parties (public or nonpublic) agree to work together toward a mutually agreed set of common goals. They also agree to share risks, responsibilities, resources, and returns from the partnership. (UN 2016, p. 4). Dr. A.H. Monjurul Kabir, from the UN Women, defines south–south cooperation (SSC) as a “framework for collaboration among the developing countries of the global south to advance their political, economic, social, cultural, environmental and technical goals. SSC includes mutual sharing of knowledge, innovation, skills, and resources to meet developmental goals” (2016, para. 1). It differs from the north-south cooperation (NSC). NSC follows a traditional type of cooperation wherein a developed country supports a less developed country with resources. For instance: international aid for development or financial aid during a natural disaster or a humanitarian crisis. (UN 2019, March 19). Triangular cooperation (TrC) refers to a collaboration between developed countries and multilateral organizations with developing countries. TrC advances south-south cooperation by leveraging support from developed countries. The support could be financial, technical, training, or for capacity building. (Kabir 2016, para. 3).

Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17

Introduction to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Praveen Kumar, Mary Ulseth and Sarah Austin Boston College School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

Definition The UN Women defines gender equality as access to equal rights, opportunities, and resources for women, men, girls, and boys regardless of their

The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development was adopted by all UN member states in 2015, with the 17 SDGs serving as an action plan for a global partnership among all countries. The agenda describes itself as a plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity that seeks to strengthen universal peace (UN 2015). The SDGs focus on people-centered development, seeking to realize human rights while balancing economic, social, and environmental sustainable development. Although the SDGs consist of 17

Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17

separate goals with a total of 169 targets, these goals must build upon and reinforce one another in order to effectively shift the world toward a pathway that is more sustainable and resilient (UN n.d.). The SDGs have been met with some criticism, as the agenda does not contain a specific and clear goal regarding the growth of the world population or much reference to the new goals that will be adopted in 2030 (Caiado et al. 2018). The SDGs are lofty and, as a result, face some barriers to implementation, such as relying on countries worldwide to cooperate with adopting and monitoring targets. Furthermore, requesting countries to report their own data regarding achievement of targets raises additional challenges and risks, including private interests, lack of transparency, and unwillingness to report numbers that do not demonstrate improvement within the reporting country (Waage et al. 2015). Another aspect of the SDGs that has drawn criticism is the lack of consistency with regards to improving gender inequality, particularly through policy (Caiado et al. 2018). According to Koehler (2016), the SDGs are modest when discussing inequalities generally, but specifically so with gender, as political proposals concerning gender are often sparse and fragmented. In a report produced by UN Women in 2019, it was acknowledged that across the world, women and girls are being left behind in regards to the SDGs. According to data collected by the UN between the adoption of the SDGs and 2018, women and girls are facing the compounded effects of genderbased discrimination, which is contributing to differences pertaining to wealth, location, and ethnicity (UN Women 2019). As a result, women and girls are being deprived of benefits connected to other SDGs such as access to education and decent work. Despite these barriers, some countries have reported headway in achieving the SDGs, although the amount of data reported varies. In this paper, the progress of gender equality and global partnership, SDG 5 and SDG 17 respectively, will be considered, with a focus on data collected from South Asia and sub-Saharan African countries.

79

Sustainable Development Goal 5 Overarching Goals and Key Indicators SDG 5 focuses on achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls. This goal consists of 9 targets and 14 indicators, which include ending current practices relating to gender inequality such as discrimination, violence, and harmful practices including child marriage and genital mutilation. Additionally, SDG 5 calls for improving the lives of women and girls through recognition of domestic work, participation in leadership, access to sexual and reproductive health care, reforms for equal rights, use of technology to empower, and enactment of policies focused on gender equality. While progress has been made with some indicators of gender equality, such as a significant decline in the prevalence of female genital mutilation and child marriage, the overall advancement of the goal has been less than desired by the UN. According to the UN (n.d.), the ability to achieve SDG 5 has been undermined by insufficient progress on structural issues at the root of gender inequality, including legal discrimination, unfair social norms, and low levels of political participation. SDG 5 in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia In a 2019 report on progress towards the SDGs, the UN secretary general provided an update on each of the 9 targets outlined in SDG 5. Targets 5.1–5.3 pertain to discrimination and violence against women. For these targets, data collected from 106 countries found that 18% of partnered females between the ages of 15 and 49 have experienced either or both physical and sexual partner violence in the previous 12 months, with a prevalence of 24% in the least developed countries (UN Secretary General 2019). In 2016, the South Asian country of Nepal reported the lowest rate at 11.2%, while India had recorded the highest proportion at 22%. In sub-Saharan Africa in 2017, Senegal reported the lowest proportion at 12.2%, while Burundi reported the highest proportion at 27.9% (UN Statistics Division 2019). According to the secretary general’s report, child marriage has decreased in practice around

B

80

Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17

the world. In South Asia, female child marriage has declined by approximately 25% since 2013, while rates in sub-Saharan Africa has lessened more modestly. Similarly, the practice of female genital mutilation declined by approximately 25% since 2000 in the 30 countries where female genital mutilation prevalence is the most representative, although there is limited data available from South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa post-2015. Targets 5.4 and 5.5 pertain to recognition of public service and equal opportunities for women in leadership positions. Data provided to the UN by 90 countries indicated that women devote approximately three times more hours a day to unpaid care and domestic work than men (UN, n.d.). No data from South Asia or sub-Saharan Africa has been reported for this indicator since the SDGs were established in 2015 (UN Statistics Division n.d.); however, there is inconsistency in countries’ prior recordings in the proportion of time spent on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age, and location. Measurements collected from 99 countries show that women’s representation in elected leadership positions vary from less than 1–48%, with a median distribution of 26%. Likewise, women’s representation in national parliaments ranged from 0 to 61.3%, with an average prevalence of 24.2% (UN Secretary General 2019). As of 2017, in South Asia, Afghanistan and Nepal measured the highest percentages of seats held by women in national parliaments, at more than 27%, while Sri Lanka and the Maldives had the lowest percentages, with figures under 6%. In sub-Saharan Africa in 2017, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, and Rwanda had the highest percentages of seats held by women in national parliaments, with figures reported above 40%, while Nigeria, Comoros, Eswatini, and Benin had the lowest percentages, reported to be below 7% (World Bank n.d.). Targets 5.6–5.C can be considered more miscellaneous, focusing on decision-making in sexual relations and health, women’s rights in legal frameworks, and systems for tracking gender equality. Data gathered from 51 countries for the secretary general’s report (2019) indicated that only 57% of partnered women ages 15–49 make their own decisions about sexual relations and the

use of contraceptives and health services. According to data sourced for the secretary general’s report (2019) from 53 countries in 2018, more than a quarter have legal gaps in the area of violence against women, 29% have legal gaps in employment and economic benefits for women, and 24% have legal gaps relating to family law practices. Based on data reported by 69 countries in 2018, 13 countries fully met the criteria of having a tracking system for measuring and making public gender budget data and an additional 41 countries were approaching the requirements. In 2018, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal had the highest proportion of South Asian countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment at 2%, while Afghanistan had the lowest percentage, as no such systems reported. (UN Statistics Division n.d.). Of the sub-Saharan African countries, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Rwanda have the highest percentage of systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment, at 2%. Burundi, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau, and Tanzania reported no such systems (UN Statistics Division n.d.).

Sustainable Development Goal 17 SDG 17, the final goal of the SDGs, focuses on strengthening and revitalizing global partnerships in order to integrate and implement the remaining 16 SDGs (UN 2015). This goal, consisting of 19 targets and 25 indicators, highlights the importance of having shared goals and a shared vision and the need for collaboration and participation amongst all stakeholders involved: national governments, the international community, civic society, the private sector, and the local communities. Additionally, it calls attention to the need for NSC, SSC, and TrC (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP] 2017). These targets focus on the role finance, technology, capacity building, trade, and systemic issues play in building and implementing partnerships. In the UN secretary general’s 2019 report, he reviews the overall progress that has been made,

Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17

noting that although progress was not evenly distributed across countries, positive momentum can provide a platform for further advancement. Targets 17.1–17. 5 focus on finance, noting that annual remittance flows (the sending of money from host country to country of origin) to lowand middle-income countries has increased by more than 9.6% from 2017, making remittance flows larger than the official development assistance (ODA) and foreign direct investments combined (UN Secretary General 2019). This reveals a challenge, which is the decrease in ODA flows: Net ODA fell by 2.7% from 2017, bilateral ODA to least developed countries fell by 3%, aid to Africa fell by 4%, and humanitarian aid fell by 8% (UN Secretary General 2019). This demonstrates the targets shortfall, as many developed countries committed to giving 0.7% of their gross national income for ODA to developing countries to help them reach the other SDGs (Ritchie et al. 2018). Targets 17.6–17.8 focuses on increasing NSC, SSC, and TrC, where progress towards the goal was observed; by the beginning of 2019, more than half of the global population had access to the Internet, although there was still noticeable difference between the countries (UN Secretary General 2019). Twenty percent of people were online in least developed countries, 45% in developing countries, and 80% in developed countries (UN Secretary General 2019). In sub-Saharan Africa, 40% or below of the population are Internet users, the exceptions being South Africa, Gabon, Cote d’Ivoire, and Djibouti, which are at 50–60% (Ritchie et al. 2018). In South Asia, all countries have 30% or below of the population as Internet users (Ritchie et al. 2018). These statistics reveal the inequalities across countries in their access to reliable Internet, which in turn impacts the ability of the population to access and disseminate knowledge and technology. Target 17.9 focuses on capacity building and enhancing international support so that effective and targeted capacity building strategies can be implemented in developing countries. It calls attention to the need for NSC, SSC, and TrC. In 2017, the total ODA for capacity building and national planning was $33.5 billion, an amount

81

that has been generally static since 2010. This amounts to 14% of the total sector-allocable aid. Out of this amount, sub-Saharan Africa received $6.1 billion and South Asia received $5 billion (UN Secretary General 2019). The main sectors assisted were public administration, energy, and the financial sector. However, the past decade has seen large-scale humanitarian crises, brought on by conflict and natural disaster, which requires much-needed financial resources and aid, which, as a result, has diverted money away from efforts that would encourage economic growth and trade. However, the last 40 years has seen a large increase in SSC. According to a survey conducted by UNDP Africa in 2017, the majority of subSaharan African countries have participated in SSC and TrC, with Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Kenya, Mali, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Uganda among the top countries engaging in such initiatives (UNDP 2017). In South Asia, SSC and TrC has been one of the driving forces behind regional cooperation and has led to an increase in south-south trade, foreign direct investment flows, and technology transfer (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific [UNESCAP n.d.]). Target 17.10–17.12 focuses on trade, and in particular the importance of promoting a multilateral trading system and decreasing tariffs, in order to have a more open trading system and wider access to goods. Although tariffs have decreased and the volume of world trade has increased, the participation of least developed countries in global exports has also continually decreased since 2011 (UNOSSC 2019). Creating an equal international trading playing field has only continued to be more challenging, due to trade barriers and retaliatory measures, which undermines the strength and sustainability of global growth, especially impacting regions such as South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, which have developing economies and are more vulnerable to changes in the global economy (UNOSSC 2019). Targets 17.13–17.19 focus on various systemic issues, regarding policy and institutional coherence, multistakeholder partnerships, and data, monitoring, and accountability. These targets are essential in order to help fully monitor, track, and

B

82

Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17

report progress and challenges of the SDGs. One of the challenges noted by the UNOSSC in advancing SSC/TrC is the lack of methodology and data, so there has been a greater push to report, measure, and monitor SSC initiatives, and develop institutional frameworks (UNOSSC 2019). Progress was noted, and many countries were creating and implementing national statistical plans, with sub-Saharan Africa at the lead, with 31 countries implementing such plans (UN 2018). However, funding remains a large barrier in completing this data gathering, and will require developed countries to fulfill their commitment of increasing capacity building support (UN 2018). It is important to note that simply increasing the quantity of resources for the SDGs will not be sufficient, it will require a focus on improving quality and coherence, supported by strong partnerships that are driven by policy, institutional, and broader systematic efforts (UN 2018). Which brings us to our next point is the importance of centering SDG 5 and gender-responsive implementation.

Significance of Gender Equality for Two Key Targets of SDG 17: (1) Capacity Building and (2) Systemic Issues The 2030 Agenda declares that “justice for women and girls and their human rights matter because they are half of humanity and their needs and potential cannot be ignored” (UN Women 2016, p. 5). This statement helps shed light on the fact that making progress towards gender equality will not only contribute to the realization of SDG 5 but will contribute to large gains for all of the SDGs (Wahlén 2017). For that reason, the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development has established gender-responsive implementation so that gender equality and women empowerment can be prioritized and interwoven across all the SDGs. Across the 17 SDGs, a total of 53 indicators are gender specific. This means they are either focused on the impact on women and girls, call for disaggregation by sex, or refer to gender equality as the underlying objective (UN Women 2019). Although this demonstrates progress, the lack of

gender data and gender-specific indicators in all of the goals make it difficult to measure the overall impact. For that reason, goal 17 and gender equality are inextricably linked; the advancement of gender equality will require action that is multidisciplinary (involving social sciences, statistics, and political economy), multisectoral (involving different sectors and levels of government), and multistakeholder (going beyond the government to include civil society, private sector, and academia) (Manandhar et al. 2018). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Gender Snapshot 2019, observes for SDG 17 that only 1 out of 25 total indicators is a gender-specific indicator (UN 2019). Goal 17.3, which calls for an increased mobilization of financial resources for developing countries, can be observed from a gender equality lens by looking at the ODA developing countries received. This indicator is essential in measuring progress, as ODA is currently the only source of finance that can be tracked by gender (UN Women n.d.-a). Isabela Vera and Francesca Sanders (2019, August 13) look at the progress donor countries are making in funding gender equality, and compare if gender equality is a principal objective of the program, a significant objective (important and deliberate, but not the main objective), or not targeted (does not target or specify). They found that although funding for projects that integrate gender equality as one of the significant goals had increased between 2016 to 2017, funding for projects with gender as the principal goal had decreased by 5% between 2016 and 2017 (Vera and Sanders 2019). This same trend was observed in 2019, where 62% of the $117 billion in ODA funds were gender “blind,” while 34% of funds had a significant focus on gender equality, and the remaining 4% placed gender equality as the principal focus (UN Women 2019). This reveals a disconnect between developed countries’ commitment to give 0.7% of ODA to developing countries and their policy emphasis on gender equality, with the funding they are actually willing to contribute. The majority of this funding flows into a few different sectors; in 2017, 19% went to government and civil society, 18% went to health and population, 13%

Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17

went to humanitarian aid, and 11% went to education (Vera and Sanders 2019). Although these sectors are important, it is essential to expand investment for gender equality and womens’ empowerment across all sectors, including justice, culture, economy, care services, infrastructure, agriculture, social protection, and more (Wahlén 2017). The Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative (W-GDP) recognizes the importance of including women: “When women are economically empowered, they re-invest in their families and communities, producing a multiplier effect that spurs economic growth and contributes to global peace and stability” (Whitehouse n.d., para. 1). Falling in line with SDG 17, this initiative seeks to utilize collaboration and participation among all stakeholders involved – national governments, the international community, civic society, the private sector, and the local communities in order to advance women in the workforce and the economy, and their opportunities as entrepreneurs (USAID n.d.). USAID has increased the total funding to $100 million, which aims to fund 50 million women in the development world by 2025, through US Government activities, public–private partnerships, and an incentive fund (USAID n.d.), focusing specifically on Southeast Asia, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In Lesotho, the focus will be on increasing women’s safety and productivity at four major manufacturing facilities that employ more than 8,000 women (USAID n.d.) In Ghana, the partnership will work to address women’s economic empowerment in the shea supply chain and seeks to provide resources to women-led businesses (USAID n.d.). This demonstrates how programing that incorporates and prioritizes gender equality and women’s empowerment can lead to further advancement and progress in other goals and indicators, such as Target 17.9, which focuses on capacity building and enhancing international support for implementing effective and targeted efforts in the form of NSC, SSC, and TrC (UN Women n.d.-b). While the aforementioned was an example of NSC, UN Women has sought to foster SSC, utilizing it in its programing, operational

83

support, and related advocacy efforts (UN Women 2016). As previously discussed, SSC is one form of development that has been growing in the past few decades. It is a newer model of development and is largely in response to the north-to-south traditional model of development, which is not always suited to address the complex and nuanced needs of each region (UN Women 2016). SSC allows for a greater sense of ownership within the country and region, which is necessary to create sustainable change. A relevant example is the use of genderresponsive budgeting in different economic sectors. By using this inclusive framework, countries in the south can integrate gender equality into national budget planning and increase their mutual support initiatives. This is necessary so that women and girls can benefit from budgetary allocations that meet their needs and priorities (Kabir 2016, November 10). Afghanistan utilized SSC to learn best practices of using a genderresponsive framework, so they could then inform their national security and defense budget with this mind. As a result, Afghan women were considered and involved in security sector discussions, and chosen to make the Afghan Security personnel uniform, instead of outsourcing them (Kabir 2016, November 10). Changes such as these increase women’s capacity as entrepreneurs and workers, advance their economic empowerment, and lead to the betterment of the country as a whole. Target 17.13–17.19 focuses on systemic issues, with target 17.19, emphasizing the importance of enhancing the availability of “high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts” (Ritchie et al. 2018, Target 17.18 section). This is especially relevant in pushing forward genderresponsive implementation, as one of the greatest barriers that has been identified is the lack of gender-sensitive data, including data that is disaggregated by sex, age, and other characteristics (Wahlén 2017; Manandhar et al. 2018). This restricts implementing and monitoring the progress of SDG 5, and therefore impacts the

B

84

Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17

progress of the other SDGs. Therefore, governments and international bodies need to focus on strengthening national statistical systems, to monitor all SDG indicators and support evidencebased policy formulation. Which brings us to Target 17.14 highlights the need for improving policy coherence and policy coordination. Wahlén (2017) and Manandhar et al. (2018) recognize that although partnerships and progress has been made, the lack of data on legal frameworks and methodologies make it challenging to monitor the degree to which countries are promoting and enforcing gender equality. In her article, Achieve Gender Equality to Deliver the SDGs, Wahlén (2019) recognizes efforts are taking place at the national level, such as Nepal’s local-level gender equality mechanisms, and Kenya’s emphasis on gender mainstreaming as a central policy for development policies. At the regional and global level, mechanisms for reporting and tracking progress include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the International Gender Champions Initiative, two examples of mechanisms that could help achieve not only gender equality but ensure progress across all the goals and targets.

Roadmap for Realizing SDG 5 to Address SDG 17 in SSA and SA Policies on SDG 5 Currently in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia The final target of SDG 5 is for countries to adopt and strengthen policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women. This call for policies at the global level must be translated into local policies, which may be challenging due to various understandings of gender within different social contexts. Gender is defined by a particular social, cultural, and historical context, which is specific to the society and is ever changeable (Mannell 2014). The difficulties of achieving gender equity in North America are well documented, yet the magnitude of the problem of gender equity in much of Asia and Africa is

perhaps of greater concern (Hayward and Karim 2019). In sub-Saharan Africa, strides have been made towards achieving SDG 5; however, willingness to address women’s issues in policy and legislation has not necessarily indicated changes at the local level. In the country of South Africa, gender policy is being adopted through disseminating information about gender and empowering women by developing their skills. Yet, policy in this region has been found to be lacking in several respects including loss in development potential due to gender inequalities, barriers that prevent women from reaching their full potential, and harmful structural relations of power (Mannell 2014). One area that has drawn significant attention is the obstacles that women face in the workforce. Feminist scholars in South Africa have focused on identifying organizational factors that can improve gender equality in the workplace to meet the global criteria, as many organizations have failed to adopt gender policies at the local level. These gender policy recommendations include developing formal support of management, creating human resource policies, utilizing gender-sensitive budgets, and addressing gender norms both internal and external to the workplace (Mannell 2014). In the sub-Saharan African country of Ethiopia, tremendous progress has been made in reforming laws and developing new policies to enhance women’s rights. Ethiopia issued its first National Policy on Ethiopian Women in 1993, which was a comprehensive and strategic document focused on raising awareness to eliminate prejudices against women (Blystad et al. 2014). Since that time, significant amendments have been made in policies and legislation, although critiques have arisen regarding the general approach to gender issues in Ethiopia. While the government appears to be interested in addressing women’s issues, there is a preoccupation with other challenges within Ethiopian society. During interviews conducted by Blystad, Haukanes, and Zenebe (2014), a representative for the Ethiopian government reported that there is a great need for global frameworks to strengthen policies and enforce the interventions that Ethiopia has already put into place.

Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17

Rwanda has faced similar difficulties in developing policy and legislation geared towards gender equality, despite a desire to develop opportunities for women. According to Debusscher and Ansoms (2013), the neglect of the domestic labor of women, the limited scope of voices on the ground level to influence policy, and the lack of grassroots participation all contribute to the current shortcomings in Rwanda’s strivings toward gender equality. Regardless of these failings, the government has expressed a commitment to expanding the rights of women and has made efforts to increase equal political participation. In addition to efforts to include women politically, legislation has been enacted to assist in the collection and monitoring of data related to the country’s national policies and projects (Debusscher and Ansoms 2013). Of the sub-Saharan African countries discussed, Namibia has perhaps made the most progress in achieving SDG 5’s target regarding policy and legislation. In 1997, Namibia developed and adopted the first National Gender Policy, which was aimed at closing the gaps that were created by past socioeconomic, political, and cultural inequalities and ensuring integration and mainstreaming of gender perspectives (Shehavali 2014). The policy addresses gender issues in terms of poverty and rural development, education and training, reproductive health, gender-based violence, trade and economic empowerment, the environment, legal affairs and human rights, and more. The National Gender Policy provides numerous recommendations for creating an institutional framework for realizing the various policy objectives, which includes the establishment of a National Permanent Gender Task Force and a Parliamentary Gender Caucus to oversee implementation (Shehavali 2014). South Asia has encountered its own troubles in implementing sound policies to improve gender inequality, as women’s contributions remain undervalued by the policy-making and implementation processes that occur in the region. Although these inequalities exist across South Asia, there has been a recent cultural shift that favors producing change through legislative measures (Jafry 2016). At the local level, India, Nepal, and

85

Bangladesh have action plans for equal rights for all citizens with special guidance for the underprivileged. At the national level, all countries have made a strong effort to provide equal opportunities for both men and women, while at the international level Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan have all ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (Jafry 2016). Notwithstanding these positive outcomes, there are countries in South Asia that have made little to no progress in improving gender equality. One such country is Afghanistan, which was listed as 170th out of 187 countries on the United Nations Gender Inequality Index in 2018. The government made efforts to foster gender equality by adopting the National Action Plan for Women of Afghanistan in 2007, as well as by supporting the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women; however, these commitments provided targets that did not necessarily translate to the local level in the country (Hayward and Karim 2019). Similarly, Pakistan has made commitments at the global level, but the contradiction of gender equality and the traditional Islamic religion has slowed the adoption of policies to address gender inequality (Ali and Asma 2018). Needed Efforts for Realizing Policies on SDG 5 As is indicated by reviewing current gender equality policies in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, there is space for the adoption of transformative policies that allow marginalized voices to be heard and push against existing power relations (Debusscher and Ansoms 2013). The 2030 Agenda does not focus solely on enhancing data collection for monitoring purposes, but also on putting effective policies in place that will bring about change in the lives of women and allow them enjoyment of their rights (UN Women 2018). Interlinkage exists between gender equality targets and other SDGs, highlighting the need for policies to be integrated for increased implementation. Progress on gender equality policies and legislation at the global and regional level should continue to be evaluated, with governments being encouraged to prioritize policy change (UN Women 2018).

B

86

Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17

Conclusion The SDGs are an ambitious mission that encompass economic, social, and environmental sustainable development. To achieve them will require a collective and collaborative effort, and changes to many of our current systems and policies, at the individual, local, national, and international level. Since the formation of the SDGs in 2016, progress has been observed and measured; however, that progress has not been equally distributed across the countries and are falling short of meeting many of the designated timelines. As this paper has explored, one of the most essential components in accelerating progress across all of the SDGs, and within each country, is prioritizing and incorporating SDG 5 – gender equality and gender-responsive implementation – throughout each of the targets and indicators (Wahlén 2017). Throughout this paper, specific attention has been focused on South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, two regions with many countries that have made little to no progress in improving gender equality. Tangentially, this prevents them from making advancements towards their other goals as well. However, as SDG 17 outlines, this journey is not one that can be accomplished alone; progress will only be possible with countries working together. As discussed, one powerful strategy that has been effective in advancing gender equality and inclusion in the Global South has been an increase in SSC and a focus on partnership and capacity building. It demonstrates that NSC, the traditional way of development and aid, is not the only way to progress and develop (Kabir 2016, November 10). By exchanging knowledge, innovation, skills, and resources, these regions have been able to develop solutions, frameworks, and policies that are more relevant, politically sensitive, and sustainable to other developing countries. Global North countries, however, are still responsible for upholding their commitment to give 0.7% of their gross national income for ODA and expand investment, with gender equality and women’s empowerment as a principal objective of their donation, across all sectors (Wahlén 2017). Across all countries, there is a need for gender-sensitive data and gender-

responsive implementation and monitoring to be enforced, at the local and national level. These will not come to fruition until every individual and community recognizes what is at stake and recognizes that when gender equality, and the empowerment of women and girls, is realized, there will be progress and advancement across all goals and targets. The advancement and progress across all goals means there is the elimination of poverty and hunger, inequality and discrimination, and the fulfillment of inclusive, just, educated, and peaceful societies.

Cross-References ▶ Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa ▶ Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Systems and Systemic Approaches for Attaining the SDGs Across Partnerships

References Ali S, Asma M (2018) Problems and possibilities in reconciling Islam and gender equality policies in Pakistan. J Islam Thought Civil 8(1):93–104 Blystad A, Haukanes H, Zenebe M (2014) Mediating development? Exchanges on gender policies and development practices in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Africa Today 60(4):25–45. https://doi.org/10.2979/africatoday.60.4.25 Caiado RGG, Filho WL, Quelhas OLG, Nascimento DLDM, Ávila LV (2018) A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation of the sustainable development goals. J Clean Prod 198:1276–1288. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.102 Debusscher P, Ansoms A (2013) Gender equality policies in Rwanda: public relations or real transformations? Dev Chang 44(5):1111–1134. https://doi.org.proxy.bc. edu/10.1111/dech.12052 Hayward FM, Karim R (2019) The struggle for higher education gender equity policy in Afghanistan: obstacles, challenges and achievements. Educ Policy Anal Arch 27 (139):1–25. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3036 Jafry T (2016) Making the case for gender sensitive climate policy – lessons from South Asia/IGP. Int J Clim Change Strateg Manag 8(4):559–577. http://doi.org. proxy.bc.edu/10.1108/IJCCSM-04-2015-0049

Bridging the Gender Gap to Realize Capacity Building: The role of SDG 5 for SDG 17 Kabir M (2016, November 10) Take five: South-South cooperation, a tool for advancing gender equality and inclusive development. UN Women. Retrieved from https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2016/11/ take-five-south-south-cooperation Koehler G (2016) Tapping the sustainable development goals for progressive gender equity and equality policy? Gend Dev 24:53–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13552074.2016.1142217 Manandhar M, Hawkes S, Buse K, Nosrati E, Magar V (2018) Gender, health, and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Bull World Health Organ 96:644–653. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.18.211607 Mannell J (2014) Adopting, manipulating, transforming: tactics used by gender practitioners in South African NGOs to translate international gender policies into local practice. Health Place 30:4–12. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.07.010 Ritchie, Roser, Mispy, Ortiz-Ospina (2018) Sustainable Development Goal 17: revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. SDG Tracker. Retrieved from https://sdg-tracker.org/global-partnerships Shehavali N (2014) Namibian national gender policy (2010–2020). Sister Namibia 26(2):23 United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1. United Nations. Retrieved from https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030% 20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development% 20web.pdf United Nations (2016) General Assembly Resolution A/ RES/70/224, Towards global partnerships: a principlebased approach to enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners. Retrieved from http://undocs.org/A/RES/70/224 United Nations (2018) 2018 HLPF review of SDGs implementation: SDG 17 – strengthen the means of implementation and the global partnership for sustainable development. High-level political forum on sustainable development. Retrieved from https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/content/documents/195972018_ background_notes_SDG_17.pdf United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN) (2019, March 20) What is ‘South South Cooperation’ and why does it matter? Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/inter governmental-coordination/south-south-cooperation2019.html United Nations Development Program (2017) South-South cooperation: sub-Saharan Africa: strategies for UNDP engagement. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Praveen% 20Kumar/Downloads/UNDP_RBA_South-South%20 Cooperation%20in%20Sub-Saharan%20Africa_EN.pdf United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) (n.d.) South South cooperation. Retrieved from https://www.unescap.org/ south-south-cooperation United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (2019) HPLF: Strengthening SDG 17 through South South

87

and triangular cooperation. Retrieved from https:// www.unsouthsouth.org/2019/07/18/hplf-strengthen ing-sdg-17-through-south-south-and-triangularcooperation/ United Nations Secretary General (2019) Special edition: progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from https://undocs.org/E/2019/68 United Nations Statistics Division (n.d.) SDG indicators – metadata repository. Retrieved from https://unstats.un. org/sdgs/metadata/ United Nations Women (2016) Driving the gender-responsive implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://www. unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sec tions/library/publications/2016/driving-gender-respon sive-implementation-2030agenda.pdf?la¼en& vs¼5353 United Nations Women (2019) Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: the gender snapshot 2019. https:// www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attach ments/sections/library/publications/2019/rogress-onthe-sdgs-the-gender-snapshot-2019-two-page-spreadsen.pdf?la¼en&vs¼5814 United Nations Women (n.d.-a) Gender mainstreaming: concepts and definitions. Retrieved from https://www. un.org/womenwatch/osagi/conceptsandefinitions.htm United Nations Women (n.d.-b) SDG 17: strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/ women-and-the-sdgs/sdg-17-partnerships-for-the-goals USAID (n.d.) Factsheet: Women’s global development and prosperity (WGD-P) initiative fund increases to $100 million in its first year and launches new partnerships. Retrieved from https://www.usaid.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/1865/FINAL_WH_Factsheet_ Nov_18_FINAL.pdf Vera I, Sanders F (2019, August 13) Words to action: the state of ODA funding for gender equality. Donor Tracker. Retrieved from https://donortracker.org/ insights/words-action-state-oda-funding-genderequality Waage J, Yap C, Bell S, Levy C, Mace G, Pegram T, Unterhalter E, Dasandi N, Hudson D, Kock R, Mayhew S, Marx C, Poole N (2015) Governing the UN Sustainable Development Goals: interactions, infrastructure, and institutions. Lancet Glob Health 3(5):251–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15) 70112-9 Wahlén CB (2017) ICT report showcases role of ICTs in accelerating SDG achievement. SDG Knowledge Hub Wahlén CB (2019) Second Belt and Road Forum Results in Over 283 Deliverables. IISD SDG Knowledge Hub, 2 Whitehouse (n.d.) Women’s global development and prosperity initiative (W-GDP). Retrieved from https://www. whitehouse.gov/wgdp/ World Development Indicators (n.d.) World Bank. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/data-cata log/world-development-indicators

B

88

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals Valérie Amato ESCP Business School, Paris, France Pearson College London, London, UK School of International Business and Entrepreneurship (SIBE), Steinbeis University, Herrenberg, Germany

Synonyms Global Goals

Definition Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships In this entry, “multi-stakeholder partnerships” refer to multiple actors from all sectors (public, private, and not-for-profit), who, animated by a shared interest and a common purpose, work together to achieve common goals, by pooling their diverse and complementary resources, expertise, and experience (OECD 2015). The UN Sustainable Development Goal 17 (which is designed to “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development” (UN DSDG 2020a) identifies multi-stakeholder partnerships as an essential way of delivering all other 16 Sustainable Development Goals, in all countries. This can be done through the mobilization and sharing of financial and other resources by committed individuals and organizations working together, across a multitude of boundaries. With reference to the specific targets and indicators to be achieved under SDG17 (UN DSDG 2020b), the private sector is expected to play a key role in contributing to finance and trade in favor of developing countries, facilitating the access of technology and the sharing of knowledge, and in pooling and mobilizing expertise, experience, and other key resources in all countries, working in partnerships with multiple stakeholders (including with the public sector and civil society). Such multi-stakeholder partnerships are also

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

considered as systemic issues necessary to address the transformative and interconnected nature of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Introduction The Sustainable Development Goals (also commonly called and hereafter referred to as “SDGs” or “Global Goals”) were formally adopted at the UN summit on 25 September 2015, reflecting an ambitious agenda (the “2030 Agenda”) (UN DSDG 2020c), with key defining features. In contrast to their predecessors the Millennium Development Goals (or “MDGs”) (UN 2015a), the SDGs are universal (applying to all (not only developing) countries, “Leaving no one behind” and “Forging a new global partnership”) and “transformative” (addressing sustainability, inclusiveness, and institutional change) (UN 2013). The 2030 Agenda also examines sustainable development in its different dimensions (social, economic, environmental), which therefore need to be fully integrated. The SDGs were borne out of a widely consultative approach, reflecting an open and inclusive process, by reaching out to multiple stakeholders, and collating views and perspectives across geographical and sectoral boundaries. The core themes of Universality, Transformation, Integration, and Inclusiveness therefore constitute the essence and the spirit of the Global Goals. These ambitious intentions, insofar as they represent a rupture from the pre-2015 era, naturally pose key new challenges in terms of being translated into effective, impactful, and meaningful action. Indeed, in its report to the UN Secretary General on the post-2015 development agenda (UN 2013), which shaped the 2030 Agenda, the High Level Panel had acknowledged and foreseen the challenge of identifying the concrete mechanisms enabling the realization of such an ambitious and coherent set of goals for development. While the Global Goals call for an integrated, holistic, multi-stakeholder approach to successful delivery, they also represent a “complex interlinked system” (UN 2015c), toward which businesses, along multiple other actors and partners, are invited to contribute effectively.

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

To this date, the process of delivering this transformative agenda remains a key area of concern, given the slow progress being realized 5 years following its formal adoption by all UN members. In particular, in his latest report on the SDGs, the UN Secretary-General states that “the most vulnerable people and countries continue to suffer the most and [. . .] the global response thus far has not been ambitious enough” (UN Economic and Social Council (ESOC) 2019). Insofar as SDG17, which attempts to address the “How to?” question, is linked to and underpins all other 16 goals, with its twin aim to “Strengthen the means of implementation” [of the ambitious agenda], while also “revitalis[ing] the global partnership for sustainable development” (UN DSDG 2020b), it provides some key insights into promises of effective delivery of the whole set of SDGs. The aim of this entry, which focuses on SDG17, is to ascertain the critical, transformative role business is expected to play as a Global Goals implementation partner. In the first instance, the entry briefly looks at the historical context in which this key role emerged and evolved. It then situates the business case for partnering in the present, compelling set of conditions. Drawing on key examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) engaging business, the entry then shows how the Global Goals, when aligned with core corporate strategies, can drive sustainability on multiple fronts and in an impactful way. It also considers the importance of providing an enabling environment for engaged partnering and the difficulties of evaluating effective MSPs. This entry also provides potential sources of inspiration and resources to businesses and their partners, who are committed to delivering the Global Goals by way of multi-stakeholder partnerships.

The Emerging and Increasing Role of Business in the Global Goals Agenda Spotlight on Business as a Key Contributor to the Global Goals The following timeline provides a historical background to the evolution and expectations of the role of business in the 2030 Agenda (Table 1).

89

Business as a Main Driver of the Sustainable and Inclusive Growth Agenda While the Global Goals were adopted in 2015 by all UN member countries, who therefore assume prime responsibility for delivering them, it is deemed to be everyone’s duty, acting collectively, to contribute to their successful implementation. Business has been identified as a key actor and partner in this collective endeavor. As stated on the UN official website dedicated to the SDGs (UN DSDG 2020e), “We need everyone to come together— governments, civil society, scientists, academia and the private sector— to achieve the sustainable development goals.” In the report to the UN on recommendations that shaped the SDG Agenda (UN 2013), the High Level Panel had identified the following specific areas in which business was expected to play a key role: • “The potential of private business to create more value and drive sustainable and inclusive growth” • The business community’s contribution to “forg[ing] a new global partnership,” in a “new spirit of solidarity, cooperation and mutual accountability” • The adoption of an “integrated approach reflecting all three pillars of sustainability social, economic and environmental - with one set of combined goals” • The promotion of “scalable and transformational partnerships” for development as a critical enabler • The adoption of “the ten principles of the UN Global Compact (covering human rights, labor, environmental and anti-corruption measures), [. . .] as a basis for [business] standards” • The adoption by businesses of “inclusive and sustainable business models” • “Innovation and new technology in developing countries; investment in telecommunications and infrastructure” • “Increased and better targeted financial flows from private finance; in-country hubs of public-private partnership supported, foreign direct investment [being] encouraged as way to move beyond aid”

B

90

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals, Table 1 The Emerging role of business in the SDGs – key milestones Year 1998 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2002 2006 2009 2011 2012 2013 2015 2015 2015

Key milestone UN Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP) established (UN 2020) Millennium Development Goal 8 (MDG 8) mentions cooperation with the private sector (UN 2015a) UN Global Compact (UNGC) launched; promotes ten principles covering human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption Guidelines on Cooperation between the UN and the Business Community issued (UN-Business Action Hub 2020) Resolution of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) (56/76.) “Towards global partnerships” adopted Bali guiding principles for partnerships established, mentioning the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to sustainable development (UN DESA 2020) World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) places partnerships prominently as means of implementation (UN DSDG 2020d) UN Office for Partnerships (UNOP) created as a hub for collaboration between the UN and the private sector and foundations First revision of the UNSG’s Guidelines on Cooperation between the UN and the business community; greater emphasis placed on impact assessment, transparency, and accountability UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopts Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Business and Human Rights Resource Centre 2020) UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, or Rio + 20): partnerships and other voluntary initiatives are again seen as means of implementation High-level Political Forum established; mentions a future “platform for partnerships” 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by all 193 UN Member States, announcing the new 17 SDGs and 169 targets; SDG 17.16/17.17 deal with MSPs (UN DSDG 2020c) Addis Ababa Action Agenda (“Financing for Development”) (UN 2015b) refers to partnerships as complementary instrument for mobilizing human and financial resources, expertise, technology, and knowledge Second revision of the Guidelines on a Principle-based Approach to the Cooperation between the UN and the Business Sector (UN-Business Action Hub 2020)

Source: Summarized and adapted from Beisheim and Simon (2016)

As a preamble to the CEO Study on Sustainability 2019 Report (UNGC-Accenture 2019), the UN Secretary-General is unequivocal as to the crucial role of business in contributing to the 2030 Agenda: “We have to mobilise the private sector, it is 75% of the global GDP. Moving forward, collaboration with business - and the key CEOs in the world - is crucial when it comes to fighting climate change; but also, to meet sustainable development goals, eradicate all extreme poverty by 2030, and we’re not on track on this.”

The Business Case for Partnering for the Global Goals Addressing Complexity and Multiple Stakeholders’ Needs Through Partnerships The issues relating to sustainability are complex, with a lack of universal views or models to be

systematically applied. Businesses, including large, long-established multinationals, are still exploring fresh thinking and experimenting on these issues. Even the most advanced, sophisticated, and enlightened ones, who have decided to embed sustainability in their core strategies, recognize that they are still on a learning journey, constantly and actively seeking, sharing, comparing, and contrasting different perspectives and examples of best practice. They can turn to the SDGs as a useful guiding framework, which invites them to work in partnership to deliver this global, ambitious and integrated agenda. The uncertain, fast-changing and complex environment in which businesses currently operate is probably the most critical challenge, not only facing them but also citizens and governments. Businesses are also expected to meet the needs of a variety and multitude of actors and stakeholders, in a highly difficult and

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

unpredictable operating context. Increasingly, corporates are strongly encouraged to report not only on the traditional financial aspects of their businesses but also on their social and environmental impact. This is reflected in the ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) metrics that, in addition to the traditional financial ones, are used to allow for more transparency on these key issues, via main reporting channels (annual and sustainability reports). According to the CFA Institute (2020), “investors are increasingly applying these non-financial factors as part of their analysis process to identify material risks and growth opportunities.” The SDG Investment Case “The public increasingly and rightly expects businesses to have a more positive impact on society and the environment. Corporate support for the SDGs offers a strong signal to shareholders and third parties – such as consumers or employees – that the company is aligning their purposes and practices with the greater good. Engaging with companies around their ability to contribute towards the Goals paints a comprehensive picture of a company’s intrinsic sustainability as well as providing us as investors with valuable insights into investment risks and longerterm commercial opportunities.” Hermes Investment Management (PRI 2019)

Certain major investors and asset management firms like Hermes Investment Management (which managed USD 45.8bn global assets in December 2019 (PRI 2019)) play an active stewardship role in engaging with companies on the SDGs. Recognizing their role as a long-term investment partner, they launched the “Hermes SDG Engagement Equity Strategy” in December 2017. The strategy was designed to “promote and support sustainable business practices” among their portfolio of companies. It had a “dual purpose of aiming to deliver both attractive returns and, via engagement with companies, real-world impact” (PRI 2019). Hermes Investment Management is one of the 3,054 signatory firms, who have committed to the UN Principles of Responsible Investment (“PRI”), a “voluntary and aspirational set of investment principles” inciting the incorporation of ESG [. . .] issues into investment practice, thereby contributing to “developing a more

91

sustainable global financial system” (PRI 2020). The preamble to the PRI states: “We recognise that applying these Principles may better align investors with broader objectives of society.” PRI (2017) affirm that “the SDGs act as welcome guidance as to what the ‘broader objectives of society’ are, and should play an important role in the development of a responsible investment agenda for the years ahead.”

Toward a Strategic Alignment of Business and Sustainable Development Goals Repurposing Business Beyond increasing transparency and accountability requirements driven by the investor community, businesses are therefore also expected to act in a more responsible and proactive way, by bringing solutions, as opposed to “negative externalities” (Corporate Finance Institute 2020), to a world characterized by key issues of complexity, interconnectedness, and global scale, such as climate change, increasing inequality, and, more recently and critically, public health. Consideration of and active care for society and the environment is no longer the exclusive remit of not-for-profit organizations. As argued by the British Academy (2019), in their researchbased report entitled “Principles for Purposeful Business,” “purposeful businesses will be essential contributors to solving the global challenges of the twenty-first century, best expressed in an integrated way by the UN Sustainable Development Goals.” The report highlights partnerships as one of the key pathways for “aligning [the] [interests of] stakeholders in a range of relationships around corporate purpose and its delivery.” Through a clear and strategic alignment of renewed and reasserted corporate purpose with the SDGs, global and systemic challenges can be translated into opportunities. Creating Value Through Systems Thinking and Integrated Sustainability Approaches In order to better understand and tackle the uncertainty and complexity of the current business

B

92

environment and actively and strategically position themselves as solution providers to these interconnected issues, businesses can use systems thinking (LfS 2020; Meadows 2008; Waddell 2016) not only as a powerful tool and accelerator of learning and understanding but also as an integrated, holistic approach to delivering the set of interlinked SDGs. As argued by Reynolds et al. (2017), systems thinking in practice plays a key role in implementing this complex agenda, as it facilitates a stronger dialogue and higher level of cooperation among multiple stakeholders, potentially leading to innovation and co-creation. Businesses should seize the new opportunities offered by shared, global social and environmental issues – all calling for innovative solutions (such as health, education, nutrition, access to water and infrastructure, renewable energies, etc.). Beyond focusing their prime (inward-looking) attention on short-term financial targets, businesses now need to align their values and objectives with what the world needs and demands, if they are to prosper and survive. Indeed, key social and environmental issues as highlighted in the SDGs framework increasingly affect them and disrupt their operations on a daily basis, in certain instances in a sudden and dramatic way, or over a continuous period of time. When placing sustainability in a strategic center stage, with the view to aligning business ambitions with higher Global Goals, interplaying opportunities and challenges present themselves in terms of creating financial, social, and environmental value. Considering key trade-offs and priorities, leading to balanced, careful, and thoughtful decisions, allows corporates and enterprises to act and be recognized as a force for good by and earn the respect and license to operate of key stakeholders (including shareholders, investors, funders but also suppliers, customers, members of staff and contractors, the public, and ultimately the states, communities, and different parts of the society they operate in and therefore affect and (directly or indirectly) impact). On the value creation front, in order to be sustainable and gain the continuing trust and approval of multiple stakeholders, businesses not only need to make a profit (which is a condition for survival) but also operate with due and serious consideration

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

to planetary constraints and social expectations. Sustainability can therefore be considered as a fine and delicate balancing act, with key trade-offs and competing priorities playing out when formulating plans and making decisions. The effective counterbalancing and reconciliation of these priorities (profit, planet, and people) is usually referred to as the “Triple Bottom Line” (Elkington 2018), a key approach to corporate sustainability which echoes the people, planet, and prosperity concurrent themes underpinning the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN DSDG 2020c). Unfinished Business: An urgent Call for Systems Transformation, Collaborative Action, and Responsible Leadership While sustainability and social purpose clearly do matter for the long-term viability of business, the required core strategic alignment journey with the 2030 Agenda for the SDGs is however fraught with difficulties, particularly in view of its inclusive and transformative ambition (Ellersiek 2017). As recognized in a recent OECD report (Gestrin 2019), the contribution of business to the SDGs beyond infrastructure investment (e.g., through “Foreign Direct Investment” in developing countries) is still deemed difficult to measure. Indeed, in the UN Global Compact-Accenture Strategy CEO Study on Sustainability 2019 jointly conducted by the United Nations Global Compact and Accenture Strategy among more than 1,000 top executives across 21 industries and 99 countries (UNGC-Accenture 2019), while recognizing the fact that “Economic constraints and business pressures are stalling corporate action,” CEOs also say that “businesses should be making a far greater contribution to achieving a sustainable global economy and society by 2030.” The Survey showed that “76% say citizen trust will be critical to business competitiveness in their industry in the next five years,” “78% of CEOs from both, Asian and North American businesses believe [they] need to decouple economic growth from the use of natural resources and environmental degradation,” and “88% believe our global economic systems need to refocus on equitable growth.” In view of these key challenges (but also opportunities) for business to meaningfully engage in and contribute to the

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

SDGs, these CEOs are “calling for their sectors and peers to step up impact and to course-correct the private sector contribution to 2030’s targets, with three main calls to action”: (1) “Raising ‘threshold’ ambition and systems transformation”; (2) “Collaborating to shape realistic, science-based solutions”; and (3) “Defining responsible leadership for 2030.” These three core needs of “transformation,” “collaboration,” and “responsible leadership” are further explored and illustrated below, through specific thinking and/or action frameworks. The key theme of transformation is echoed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (“WBCSD”), which has organized six work programs to drive this transformative agenda. They are specifically inviting a focus from the private sector on circular economy, cities and mobility, climate and energy, food and nature, people, and redefining value (WBCSD 2020). The call is for a strategic alignment of businesses around these areas, “to achieve systems transformation,” and is a clear intent to address the multiple dimensions of the Global Goals and potentially trigger new thinking around the key concept of “value” (as evoked in the previous section). In parallel, in a direct (albeit delayed) response to the need for inclusive growth advocated for in the 2030 Agenda (UN 2013) and reiterated at the G7 Summit 2019, the CEOs of 34 leading multinationals (together employing more than three million employees and generating more than USD 1 trillion turnover) built a new “Business for Inclusive Growth” (or “B4IG”) coalition, pledging to tackle inequalities, working in partnerships with the G7 governments (OECD 2020). This CEOled coalition of the willing, launched in August 2019, takes into consideration the various themes evoked in the SDGs, including “inequality” in its different forms (regional, or in terms of access to opportunities, lack of diversity and inclusion, or gender imbalances), but also “transformation” and “innovation” (through a B4IG Incubator designed to “build, pilot and scale models of inclusive business”) (ibid). This initiative also represents a “multi-stakeholder” approach to advancing the inclusive growth agenda. The B4IG Coalition also illustrates the notion of “responsible leadership,” which, according to

93

Maak (2007:334), can be defined as “the art and ability involved in building, cultivating and sustaining trustful relationships to different stakeholders, both inside and outside the corporation, and in coordinating responsible action to achieve a meaningful, commonly shared business vision.” This leadership perspective echoes the multistakeholder approach required to delivering the Global Goals Agenda (and clearly outlined in SDG17). As illustrated by a study recently undertaken at a Brazilian business school that implemented a sustainability training module on the UN 2030 Agenda (Arruda Filho et al. 2019), higher education can also play a crucial role in “developing a new mindset for sustainable leadership” and forming “sustainable future value generators for business and society in general.cc

Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in Action “Multi-stakeholder partnerships will be crucial to leverage the inter-linkages between the Sustainable Development Goals to enhance their effectiveness and impact and accelerate progress in achieving the Goals.” (UN DSDG 2020e)

Lessons Learnt The sense of urgency and dissatisfaction with the status quo, implied within the very definition of SDG17 (“Strengthen the Means of Implementation and Revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development”), is reinforced today (UN DSDG 2020a, 2020g), with only a decade left to implement the ambitious 2030 Agenda. Progress on the 19 targets of SDG 17 is reviewed during the UN High Level Political Forum (HLPF) each year along with a set of other selected SDGs. In April 2019, according to IISD SDG Knowledge Hub (2019), “discussions highlighted a dilemma in which some partners may look for financial profit from partnerships, and thus lack motivation to engage in vulnerable settings where resources are most needed.” This observation highlights the fact that inclusive business, together with the associated need to revise and revisit existing business models, is still not part of

B

94

the mainstream thinking and strategy of potential corporate partners. Other shared learning focused on the lack of partnership designing and building skills, accountability, and the imbalance between the need to work toward transformative, systems changing goals, and the limitation or inadequacy of partnering resources or unaligned motivations. As argued by Göpel (2016), “sustainability transformations” require a significant “mindshift.” A detailed review of the MSPs and voluntary commitments registered on the UN Partnerships for SDGs online platform (UN DSDG 2020f) shows a limited number of active MSPs engaging business in the delivery SDG17 and other Global Goals (in other words, working in partnership toward the SDGs). Toward Transformative and Inclusive Partnerships The following MSPs, listed in Table 2, have been selected for their ambition, scope, and scale, in line with the global and systemic issues they aim at addressing. These three MSP initiatives all have a strong focus on inclusiveness and pool resources and commitments across various sectors, industries, and geographies. They also confirm the need for strong ownership, leadership, and conveying power.

Enablers and Accelerators of Business Partnerships for the Global Goals In line with SDG17, which focuses on the means of implementation of the Global Goals (i.e., to “Strengthen the means of implementation” [of the ambitious agenda], while also “revitalis[ing] the global partnership for sustainable development” (UN DSDG 2020b), a vital ecosystem of interconnected actors is required to create and sustain such an enabling environment, where multi-stakeholder partnerships can meaningfully engage business and flourish. Within the very spirit of MSPs (as defined at the beginning of this entry), an effective pool of tools, resources, tools, expertise, and experience, together with an active, inspiring, solution-driven

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

network of initiatives, organizations and actors have to sit at the core of this partnership agenda. By bringing together and making some impactful connections between all these ecosystem elements, learning and understanding can be shared and accelerated to build and strengthen partnering capacity, new ideas can emerge and inspire action, open and transparent dialogue can take place, and trust-based relationships can be established. All these ingredients are required to drive a cohesive and collaborative action framework for the Global Goals. Table 3 (partnering tools and resources) and Table 4 (initiatives and organizations committed to advance partnerships for the SDGs) include some of them, in order to guide businesses on their partnerships for the Global Goals journeys. Facilitating Strategic Alignment The following resources invite businesses to formulate, confirm, and translate strategic intents into purposeful, value creating multiple-stakeholder partnerships for the Global Goals. Accelerating Learning, Building Capacity, and Advancing Partnerships for the SDGs As part of the overall partnering ecosystem, each of the following convenors offers specific technical expertise and/or resource pooling experience, potentially acting as a catalyst or enabler of future partnerships.

Measuring and Driving Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships Effectiveness “In a best-case scenario partnerships are all about creating coalitions of the willing and win-win alliances through the pooling of complementary resources. They profit from a greater degree of flexibility, an ability to move quickly, and a high level of innovation. At the same time, they build business cases for implementing international goals and enhancing the collective good. Many case studies show that individual MSPs contributed innovative solutions with an in-depth or broad-scale impact that otherwise would not have been achieved. They also helped mobilise additional investment and resources.” Beisheim and Simon (2016)

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

95

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals, Table 2 Examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships engaging business Description of initiative/action “Electricity for All”

Start: 01 January, 2014 Completion: 31 December, 2030 Three lines of action: a) Financing projects through investment in capital including technological investments with other financing programs aimed at suppliers or business projects with a high social component (“impact investing”) b) Activities of high social impact carried out by Iberdrola’s businesses in countries of operation. (e.g., working together with the Government of Brazil, in a program for the rural electrification of the Latin American country, for clients in rural areas and with low income) c) Development of projects with a high social component, through NGOs and corporate volunteering “YouthCan! Global partnership for youth employability”

Start: 01 March, 2017 Completion: 31 December, 2020 (Pilot Phase) Global partnership supporting disadvantaged young people to successfully manage the transition from school to independent adulthood. By mobilizing employees, activating their networks, and providing expertise, corporates aim to make a measurable impact in the lives of young people around the globe while efficiently working to reduce youth unemployment “Business Ambition for 1.5 °C: Our Only Future”

Start: 13 June, 2019 Completion: 31 December, 2020 Call-to-action was announced by more than 25 business, civil society, and UN leaders in June 2019 and invited

Main entity and its partners/joint partners IBERDROLA (private sector), in partnership with Ilumexico (B Corp*), Sunfunder (private sector), University Politécnica de Madrid (Scientific community), NGOs * https://bcorporation.net

Expected impact Beneficiary countries: Brazil, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mexico, Tanzania Other target beneficiaries: Global access to electricity in other developing and emerging countries Contributed to more than 5,400,000 people benefiting from access to electricity through projects carried out in different countries in Latin America and Africa. Electricity for all aims to reach 16 M of beneficiaries in 2030 (please consult https://www. iberdrola.com/about-us/society/ disadvantaged-groups/electricity-allprogram for an update)

SOS Children’s Villages (NGO), in partnership with private sector employers (Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust; Thyssen Krupp Elevator AG; Allianz SE; AkzoNobel; Siegwerk; Deutsche Post DHL Group) and 130 local actors

Beneficiaries: In 2018, YouthCan! reached out to a total of 5,060 young people in 25 countries, equally supporting girls and boys. This is an increase of 30% from the first year of the project implementation in 2017. An additional 15 countries have joined the program since then, enabling a scaling-up of YouthCan! First results show that the self-reliance rate of young people leaving the care of SOS Children’s Villages develops 7% better in YouthCan! countries compared to the global average (please consult https://www.soschildrensvillages.org/youthcan for an update)

UN Global Compact, in partnership with other UN and business actors

Beneficiary countries: 25 “More than 75 Chief Executive Officers committed to the 1.5 °C pledge as of 2019. The companies represent 26 countries with 2.10 million employees, as well as a wide range of 22 sectors, such as telecommunications (16%), chemicals (9%), construction and materials (9%), pharmaceuticals and biotechnology (7%), financial services (7%), and electronic and (continued)

B

96

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals, Table 2 (continued) Description of initiative/action companies to commit to setting verifiable science-based targets at 1.5 °C and achieve net-zero emissions economy by 2050

Main entity and its partners/joint partners

Expected impact electrical equipment (7%) (please consult https://www. unglobalcompact.org/take-action/ events/climate-action-summit-2019/ business-ambition for an update)

Source: UN SDG Partnerships Platform (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnerships/); see also https://www. globalgoals.org/resources for Global Goals icons used

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals, Table 3 Partnering tools and resources “Maximizing the value of Partnerships for the SDGs” Guidebook (The Partnering Initiative and UNDESA) Partnerships for SDGs online platform (UN and voluntary contributors to MSPs)

SDG Compass (Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the UN Global Compact (UNGC) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)) SDG Industry Matrix (KPMG/UN Global Compact)

Long-Term Impact and Systems Transformation as Key Measures of Success The systemic, transformational change envisaged through the MSPs is too challenging and complex to deliver and measure in the short term. The very process of designing and delivering multi-stakeholder partnerships can be considered as a distinct “systemic issue” and indeed is identified as such under SDG17 (UN DSDG 2020b). Yet, as per their two indicators of success (ibid), the progress of MSPs is only measured (and therefore officially reported) in quantitative terms. Indicator 17.16.1 refers to the “Number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks that support the achievement of the sustainable development

Guidance on maximizing value through collaboration https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnerships/ guidebook UN global registry of voluntary commitments and multistakeholder partnerships, with periodic updates on their progress. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ partnerships/ Guidance for companies on how they can align their strategies as well as measure and manage their contribution to the realization of the SDGs. https:// sdgcompass.org Six industry matrices (for financial services; food, beverage and consumer Goods; healthcare and life sciences; industrial manufacturing; transportation; and energy, natural resources and chemicals), profiling opportunities for companies to create value for shareholders and for society. https://home.kpmg/xx/en/ home/about/our-role-in-the-world/citizenship/ sdgindustrymatrix.html

goals”, while Indicator 17.17.1 refers to the “Amount of United States dollars committed to public-private and civil society partnerships” (ibid). Assessing the quality and long-term positive impact of such multi-stakeholder partnerships (“MSPs”), in terms of their effectiveness at delivering the SDGs, requires other (complementary) and refined measures of success (focusing on impact). To a certain extent, these can be found on the partnerships for SDGs online platform (UN DSDG 2020f), but actors and partners in these initiatives only report their efforts and achievements and impact on a voluntary basis. The Progress of Goal 17 in 2019 was disappointing, as “In 2018, 51 of 114 countries reported

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

97

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals, Table 4 Initiatives and organizations committed to the advancing of partnerships for the SDGs 2030 Agenda Partnership Accelerator (UN DESA and The Partnering Initiative, in collaboration with United Nations Office for Partnerships (UNOP), UN Global Compact, and the UN Development Coordination Office) Accenture Development Partnerships

BSR (“Business for Social Responsibility”)

Business fights Poverty

Business Partnership Action

Convergences

Inclusive Business Action Network (iBAN) (Funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Union. It is implemented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH) OECD (“Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development”)

Promoting Effective Partnering (PEP) Facility (Joint initiative from Collective Leadership Institute, Partnership Brokers Association, Partnerships in Practice, Partnerships Resource Centre, and The Partnering Initiative)

Initiative aiming at accelerating and scaling up effective partnering across all stakeholders to deliver transformational impact for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), through the building of partnership skills and competencies https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/PartnershipAccelerator Social impact business, working with leading international development organizations to address global social, economic, and environmental issues, through the development of “sustainable, innovative and market-based solutions to maximize value while driving measurable impact” https://www.accenture.com/us-en/about/company/accenturedevelopment-partnerships-index?c¼acn_glb_ accenturedevelovanityurl_11099002&n¼otc_1219 Global nonprofit organization working with over 250 member companies and other partners to deliver a common vision of “building a just and sustainable world,” through consulting, research, and crosssector collaboration services https://www.bsr.org/en/about Business-led collaboration network focused on social impact. The community of more than 25,000 professionals from business, government, and civil society are inviting actors/members to work together on key challenges linked to the SDGs https://businessfightspoverty.org/challenges/ Supports the creation of locally owned and run country-level platforms or hubs bringing together government, business, donors, the UN and NGOs in support of partnerships for the SDGs https://thepartneringinitiative.org/global-impact/businesspartnership-action/ Collaborative, cross-sector platform promoting the SDGs and the development of a world of “Zero Exclusion, Zero Carbon, Zero Poverty.” Through an annual World Forum, they engage with various stakeholders in order to build high impact and innovative partnerships. They place SDG17, in the form of “Alliances for a more inclusive and sustainable world” at the core of their raison d’être http://www.convergences.org/en/about/about-us/ Global initiative supporting the scaling and replication of inclusive business models. It aims at creating a space where evidence-based knowledge transforms into learning and new partnerships through online knowledge platform and a capacity development program https://www.inclusivebusiness.net/IB-Universe/sustainabledevelopment-goals International organization with a goal to “shape policies that foster prosperity, equality, opportunity and well-being for all.” They work on establishing evidence-based international standards and finding solutions to a range of social, economic, and environmental challenges, and also advise governments and business on private business investment benefiting the SDGs. They promote the OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and associated Due Diligence Guidance, and support policy dialogue on the SDGs http://www.oecd.org/dac/sustainable-development-goals.htm Platform offering opportunities to promote shared learning and peerto-peer support www.effectivepartnering.org

(continued)

B

98

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals, Table 4 (continued) SDG Business Hub (Hosted by WBCSD) The Partnering Initiative

UN Global Compact (“UNGC”)

WBA (World Benchmarking Alliance)

WBCSD

Shares insights, developments, and emerging trends on the SDGs https://sdghub.com Promotes collaboration among business, government, NGOs, and the UN to achieve the shared vision of a prosperous economy, thriving societies and a healthy environment. Provides tools and guidebooks on all aspects of partnering and training in effective partnering https:// thepartneringinitiative.org/about-us/ Voluntary corporate sustainability initiative based on CEO commitments to implement a set of ten universal sustainability principles (in the areas of human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption) and to take steps to support UN SDGs. Provides a framework for developing “a more sustainable and responsible business.” Currently includes over 10,000 companies and 3,000 non-business signatories based in over 160 countries and more than 60 Local Networks https://www.unglobalcompact.org Builds a movement with the aim “to measure, incentivize and accelerate business impact toward a sustainable future that works for everyone” They focus on seven systems transformations to develop benchmarks and identify “keystone” companies with a key contribution to achieve the SDGs https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org Global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world. The SDGs program area focuses on supporting companies as they look to strategically integrate and communicate around the SDG agenda https:// www.wbcsd.org/Programs/People/Sustainable-Development-Goals

overall progress towards strengthening multistakeholder partnerships and the means of implementation of the 2030 Agenda.” Going forward, “[. . .] There was a need to increase the space for civil society’s contribution to sustainable development, [. . .] [and for] a more inclusive and relevant dialogue between the public and private sectors” (UN DSDG 2020b). The full Progress Report (UN ESOC 2019) notes that despite “positive trends and the breadth of action and initiatives that the 2030 Agenda has inspired, the shift in development pathways to generate the transformation required to meet the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 is not yet advancing at the speed or scale required.” Benchmarking, Accountability, and Integrated Reporting as key Drivers and Measures of Transformation This theme of transformation is also echoed by the World Benchmarking Alliance (an organization driving the private sector’s engagement in the

SDGs through benchmarks) in their July 2019 report, entitled “Measuring what matters most: Seven systems transformations for benchmarking companies on the SDGs” (World Benchmarking Alliance 2019). The twin aim of the Alliance is to create a global accountability system, which is currently missing, while also raising the ambitions of business commitment to and engagement in the SDGs agenda, through a system, multi-stakeholder approach. Focusing also on accountability, ISEAL Alliance, a global membership organization driving sustainability standards by working in partnership with business, governments, and researchers and standard experts (ISEAL Alliance 2020), is, according to Beisheim and Ellersiek (2017), offering its members “considerable credibility,” as ISEAL members must comply with “a series of principles and three codes of good practice for partnerships that want to develop and implement voluntary standards.” Compliance is verified using external evaluations. According to ISEAL

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

Alliance (2020), “Credible Sustainability Standards [act] as SDG Indicators” and can be considered as a “critical tool for helping businesses contribute towards achieving the SDGs.” Benchmarking and accredited standards can indeed provide powerful incentives for businesses to join, learn from, and commit to peer communities of best practice. Finally, and perhaps also at a more fundamental level, the SDGs represent a key opportunity to revisit and rethink traditional ways of accounting and reporting (beyond pure financial considerations), as sustainability is defined by (and longterm action therefore orientated toward) three key, integrated dimensions (economic, environmental, and social). A framework encouraging businesses to think and report in a more integrated, systemic way (in line with the nature of the SDG framework) is offered by the IIRC (the International Integrated Reporting Council) – a global coalition of regulators, investors, companies, standard setters, accounting professionals, and NGOs, calling for a new alignment and integration of thinking and reporting for the attainment of financial stability and sustainable development goals. This integrated and holistic approach allows businesses to give due consideration to (social and environmental) externalities and multiple capitals investment trade-offs (IIRC 2020).

Conclusive Summary “The coming years will be a vital period to save the planet and to achieve sustainable, inclusive human development.” António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations (UN 2019). Reconciling business strategic intentions with the ambitious, transformative, integrated, and inclusive Global Goals agenda has been recognized as an urgent and shared priority by key parties concerned, in view of the need to multiply, accelerate, and scale up the multi-stakeholder partnership initiatives required to lead to the successful implementation of the SDGs. At the intersection of the 2030 Agenda (UN DSDG 2020c) and global business leaders’ joint

99

call for action (UNGC-Accenture 2019), the following key themes can be found:”[acceleration] of broader action and systems transformation,” “collective action,” “local partnerships,” “honest dialogue,” “[non-competitive] co-ordination, collaboration and exchange,” “[pioneering] systems change,” “[building] cultures of responsibility and sustainability,” “science-based leadership,” “responsibility [at] ecosystems and industry [level],” and “personal responsibility, accountability, and authenticity.” These shared, common values can represent solid foundations for businesses and their potential partners in the Global Goals. Achieving this common ambition will however require a renewed and sustained effort of determination, collaboration, and innovation on the part of business, especially at a time when all minds will still be focused on addressing and mitigating the 2019/2020 global pandemic affecting citizens, communities, organizations, and countries. The next decade will certainly be challenging but may well prove to be transformative in opening new avenues for innovative, systems thinking and cross-boundary collaboration.

Cross-References ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ▶ Systems Thinking

References Arruda Filho NP, Hino MC, Przybylowicz Beuter BS (2019) Including SDGs in the education of globally responsible leaders. Int J Sustain High Educ 20 (5):856–870. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-20190032. Accessed on 19 May 2020 Beisheim M, Ellersiek A (2017) Partnerships for the 2030 agenda for sustainable development - transformative, inclusive and accountable? https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/content/documents/24722017RP14_ bsh_elk_01.pdf. Accessed on 11 May 2020 Beisheim M, Simon N (2016) Multi-stakeholder partnerships for implementing the 2030 agenda: improving accountability and transparency. Analytical paper for the 2016

B

100 ECOSOC partnership forum. https://www.un.org/ecosoc/ sites/www.un.org.ecosoc/files/files/en/2016doc/partner ship-forum-beisheim-simon.pdf. Accessed on 11 May 2020 British Academy (2019) Principles for purposeful business. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publica tions/future-of-the-corporation-principles-for-purpose ful-business. Accessed on 11 May 2020 Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2020) UN Guiding Principles. https://www.business-humanrights. org/en/un-guiding-principles. Accessed on 11 May 2020 CFA Institute (2020) ESG investing and analysis - what is ESG investing? https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/ research/esg-investing. Accessed on 11 May 2020 Corporate Finance Institute (2020) What are negative externalities? https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/ resources/knowledge/economics/negative-externali ties/. Accessed on 11 May 2020 Elkington J (2018) 25 years ago I coined the phrase “Triple Bottom Line.” Here’s why it’s time to rethink it. https:// hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triplebottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it. Accessed on 11 May 2020 Ellersiek A (2017) SDG 17: transformative partnerships? http://www.unrisd.org/flagshipblog-ellersiek. Accessed on 19 May 2020 Gestrin M (2019) The contribution of international business investment to the sustainable development goals: key actors and recent trends. OECD, Paris. http://www. oecd.org/investment/investment-policy/The-contribu tion-of-international-business-investment-to-the-sustain able-development-goals.pdf. Accessed on 19 May 2020 Göpel M (2016) The great mindshift. How a new economic paradigm and sustainability transformations go hand in hand. Springer International Publishing, New York. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F9783-319-43766-8.pdf. Accessed on 19 May 2020 IIRC (2020) The sustainable development goals, integrated thinking and the integrated report. https://integrated reporting.org/resource/sdgs-integrated-thinking-and-theintegrated-report/. Accessed on 11 May 2020 IISD SDG Knowledge Hub (2019) Experts examine multistakeholder partnerships’ challenges, potential. https:// sdg.iisd.org/news/experts-examine-multi-stakeholderpartnerships-challenges-potential/. Accessed on 19 May 2020 ISEAL Alliance (2020) Business, standards and the SDGs. https://www.isealalliance.org/working-partnership/ businesses/business-standards-and-sdgs. Accessed on 11 May 2020 LfS (The Learning for Sustainability Site) (2020) Systems thinking https://learningforsustainability.net/systemsthinking/. Accessed on 11 May 2020 Maak T (2007) Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital, J Bus Ethics. 74. 329–343. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s10551-007-9510-5. Accessed on 19 May 2020 Meadows D (2008). Creating change - in systems and in our philosophy. In: Thinking in systems – a primer, Sustainability Institute, pp 145–165 https://wtf.tw/ref/ meadows.pdf. Accessed on 19 May 2020

Business as a Partner for the Global Goals OECD (2015) Development co-operation report 2015: making partnerships effective coalitions for action. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://www.oecd-ilibrary. org/development/development-co-operation-report2015/the-promise-of-partnerships-in-a-post-2015world_dcr-2015-8-en. Accessed on 11 May 2020 OECD (2020) The B4IG international coalition united against the inequalities deepened by the COVID-19 pandemic https://www.oecd.org/inclusive-growth/ businessforinclusivegrowth/. Accessed on 19 May 2020 PRI (2017) Investors and the sustainable development goals. https://www.unpri.org/sdgs/investors-and-thesustainable-development-goals/304.article. Accessed on 11 May 2020 PRI (2019) Engaging for impact – SDG case study: Hermes investment management. https://www.unpri.org/ sdgs/sdg-case-studies/engaging-for-impact. Accessed on 11 May 2020 PRI (2020) What are the principles for responsible investment? https://www.unpri.org/pri/an-introduction-toresponsible-investment/what-are-the-principles-forresponsible-investment. Accessed on 11 May 2020 Reynolds M, Blackmore C, Ison R, Shah R, Wedlock, E (2017) The role of systems thinking in the practice of implementing sustainable development goals. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/320291418_The_Role_of_Systems_Think ing_in_the_Practice_of_Implementing_Sustainable_Devel opment_Goals. Accessed on 19 May 2020 UN (2013) A new global partnership: eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development – the report of the high-level panel of eminent persons on the post-2015 development Agenda. https://europa.eu/ capacity4dev/unep/documents/high-level-panel-reportpost-2015-development-agenda. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN (2015a) Millennium development goals and beyond 2015. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN (2015b) Addis Ababa action agenda of the third international conference on financing for development. https://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 08/AAAA_Outcome.pdf. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN (2015c) Global sustainable development report, 2015 edition https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/publi cations/global-sustainable-development-report-2015edition.html. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN (2019) The sustainable development goals report 2019. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustain able-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdf. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN (2020) What is UNFIP. https://www.un.org/partner ships/content/what-unfip. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN DESA (2020) Bali guiding principles. https://www.un. org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_par/par_mand_baliguidprin. shtml. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN DSDG (2020a) Multi-stakeholder partnerships & voluntary commitments. https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/sdinaction. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN DSDG (2020b) Progress of goal 17 in 2019. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17. Accessed on 11 May 2020

Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development UN DSDG (2020c) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustaina bledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourw orld. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN DSDG (2020d) World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Johannesburg Summit. https://sustainable development.un.org/milesstones/wssd. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN DSDG (2020e) Partnerships: why they matter. https:// www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/ uploads/2018/09/17.pdf. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN DSDG (2020f) The partnerships for SDGs online platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/part nerships. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN DSDG (2020g) SDG acceleration actions. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgactions/about. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN Economic and Social Council (ESOC) (2019) Special edition: progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals Report of the Secretary-General. https://undocs. org/E/2019/68. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UN-Business Action Hub (2020) Guidelines on a principlebased approach to the cooperation between the United Nations and the Business Sector. https://business.un.org/ en/documents/5292. Accessed on 11 May 2020 UNGC-Accenture (2019) The decade to deliver – a call to business action: the United Nations global compact — accenture strategy CEO study on sustainability 2019. https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-109/ Accenture-UNGC-CEO-Study.pdf#zoom¼40. Accessed on 11 May 2020 Waddell S (2016) Societal change systems: a framework to address wicked problems. J Appl Behav Sci 52(4):422– 449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316666374. Accessed on 19 May 2020 WBCSD (2020) What we do. https://www.wbcsd.org/ Overview/Our-approach. Accessed on 11 May 2020 World Benchmarking Alliance (2019) Measuring what matters most: seven systems transformations for benchmarking companies on the SDGs. https://www. worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/10/WBA-sevensystemstransformations-report. pdf. Accessed on 19 May 2020

101

Leadership; Networks; Partnerships; PRME; Responsible leadership; SDGs; Social responsibility; Sustainability; Teaching

Definition

Christa McCartney University College Man, Douglas, Isle of Man

The term business education is used to denote all higher-level education in business: university business degrees, independent business schools, and management education institutions. There are two definitions of sustainability within business education. The first, and once primary, definition is the economic imperative of business to sustain itself, profitably. This has been taught in business schools everywhere since their inception. Traditionally it placed the business school on the neoliberal political “right” where the business of business was simply business. The second definition, discussed here, which incorporates the sustainability goals defined by the UN, is more recent, now the most written about, but still not ubiquitously taught. It considers the impact of business and is sometimes perceived to place the business school, less comfortably, on the political “left.” Work is being done to remove political stigmas attached to words like sustainability and responsibility as these terms, like the word profit, have not always been understood in the same way by all stakeholders in a collaboration (Leal Filho 2000; Owens and Legere 2015). The UN has been working with business for over 25 years, and with business schools since 2007 to bridge this semantic divide. Partnerships and publications are helping to clarify and embed these terms into general business language, an essential element in creating a globally accepted doxa. This is conferring “symbolic capital, in a Bourdieusian sense” (Storey et al. 2019) to sustainability. Business education has an important part to play in embedding values and removing stigmas and where it is doing this, it is taking place, in a large part, through collaboration and partnership.

Synonyms

A Historical Introduction

Business school; Business schools; Collaboration; Curricula; Ethical business; Green business;

In 1983 the UN General Assembly, realizing the deterioration of the human environment and

Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

B

102

Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

natural resources, established the World Commission on Environment and Development which came to be known as the Brundtland Commission. The aim of this commission was to unite countries in pursuit of the means to continue economic growth without simultaneously causing undue harm to the environment. The UN wished to assess the impact of the increasingly socio-ecologically damaging economic policies prevalent in the 1980s and “cut across the divides of national sovereignty, of limited strategies for economic gain, and of separated disciplines of science” (Brundtland 1987) in order to find more sustainable economic and social solutions which would work for the whole world multilaterally. Their report “Our Common Future,” in which the term “sustainable development” was coined, was published in 1987. The UN followed this up in 1990 by recruiting CEO’s to the cause, establishing the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in 1991. The WBCSD presented “Changing Course” at the Rio Earth Summit (UNCED) in 1992 (Schmidheiny and Timberlake 1992), incorporating an array of case studies on best practice, backed by the expertise of over 50 CEO’s, and was able to report in 1997 that “The WBCSD has collected evidence, mostly from its membership, which indicates some ‘signals of change.’ These signals add up to an identifiable change of course, a paradigm shift, away from a fractured view of environment and development issues, to a holistic view of business and sustainable development” (Schmidheiny et al. 1997, p. 145). This paradigm shift has become increasingly evidenced through business actions seeking to educate others about their positional shift and to apply research in order to help build new business models and we have seen partnerships and affiliations between theory Higher Education Institution (HEI) and praxis (business) becoming increasingly common. The UN also established the Global Compact in 2000. The Global compact has been widely influential and is being adopted into the paradigm of several national governments, including that of the United Kingdom (cabinet office 2017). Partnerships tasked with working toward these goals

have increasingly been a component part of political strategy since 2000 (Reid et al. 2014). In February 2019 the global compact published the report “Business School Rankings for the 21st Century” (Pitt-Watson and Quigley 2019). This report included 20 suggestions for ways of aligning business school provision to the evolving needs of business.

Business Schools in Partnership Business schools are places where subjects such as economics, management, and finance are taught; they are also places where curriculums tend to change more slowly than the world they wish to prepare their students for. Business in the fourth industrial revolution (Schwab 2017), and with global awareness of their business impact (Cramer 2017), is responding to changes in its environment quickly; schools without aware faculty, or with outdated curricula, are in danger of perpetuating increasingly irrelevant models and thereby producing alumni who are not suited for this evolved business environment (DeAngelo et al. 2005; Mitroff et al. 2015; McDonald 2017). Modules on social responsibility are entering the curriculum faster than faculty can adapt without additional input and expertise. According to Turner (2012) in 2008 just 20 universities offered such courses, by 2012 there were over 120 and this has continued to expand, both in the established sector, and through alternative providers. In schools which see sustainability modules as bolt-on components of a traditional curriculum, this approach potentially results in poor understanding of the interconnectedness of social responsibility to other businesses classes. This in turn risks the resulting modules being rendered weak and therefore incapable of leading the paradigm change that business increasingly requires. Business schools seeking to understand this shift have reached out to find help that can assist them in navigating these changes. This has resulted in partnerships between business schools, the creation of globally responsible leadership initiatives, management education initiatives,

Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

CEO initiatives, and networks of practitioners from different fields connecting to each other and contributing practical advice and encouragement through a range of media. These partnerships will be explored in this entry. The entry provides an overview of current participatory initiatives and publications which may be of immediate use to business schools looking to broaden their sustainability provision. It looks at how the partnerships necessary for this next step; specifically that of integration of sustainability into a business education habitus through the mechanisms of curricula, assessment, teaching resources, student and faculty engagement, are taking shape. The entry is divided into sections of the various participation forms, namely collaboration between the UN and business schools; students and academics contributing to business school collaboration; NGOs/NFPs and business schools; business and business schools; business leaders and business schools; and business schools collaborating with other business schools. The UN has been at the forefront of awareness with several commissions and the establishment of collaboratory efforts to help the goals and propositions raised by the commissions to be met. Business education entered the UN sustainability family with the development of the Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME) in 2007 which was established for the purpose of building responsible leadership into management education. The UN Principles for Responsible Management Education (UNPRME) connects over 650 organizations in over 85 countries and has resulted in “the largest organised relationship between the United Nations and management-related higher education institutions” (PRME 2018). PRME currently have active partnerships with UNESCO’s Global Action Programme (GAP) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) platform; with business and management schools which commit to put the SDGs into the curriculum, with Greenleaf publishing (part of Routledge since 2017), and open access reporting on corporate Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) achievements. A portion of their governance is provided by the main business school accreditation bodies.

103

PRME is a developmental collaboration, looking to measure incremental improvements, and therefore accepts and offers support to business schools looking to develop a curriculum as well as those whose curriculum is already well developed. Schools commit to the process and report on progress toward it. PRME thereby provides a community of practice along with peer examples. PRME has been active in helping bond together management education institutions that are seeking to undertake change. Through tools such as social media and website updates PRME are able to publicize the success of business schools which are seen as leading the field in proactive sustainability approaches that address the UN’s 17 SDGs. Inspirational case studies are published through Greenleaf (Murray et al. 2017). There are other such networks. The Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) is a partnership established in 2012 between the UN and over 300 universities around the world. It has a unique interface between higher education, science, and policy making. All HEIs are free to join the network provided that they commit to: (a) Teach sustainable development across all disciplines of study (b) Encourage research and dissemination of sustainable development knowledge (c) Green campuses and support local sustainability efforts (d) Engage and share information with international networks (UN 2019) Within individual business schools, whether or not they are part of the UNPRME and HESI framework, students and academics can make a difference. Business school decisions are complex, and schools may have academics, researchers, and students committed to sustainable goals earlier than commitments are made across the entire organization. Individual voices within the organization can and do collaborate globally toward the SDGs independently of the institution. Oikos International is a global, solely student led network committed to embedding sustainable

B

104

Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

development, economics, and management in business schools, working to change curriculums through almost 50 student chapters (Oikos International 2019). Oikos is now a global network which manages to retain alumni, a key strength and a vital component in student network survival. It is building momentum through conferences, which are multidisciplinary in nature and workshop based, operating alongside online workshops, and competitions. The key focus is not about creating awareness but instead about finding solutions and embedding change. The Oikos case writing initiative is a competitive writing competition through which excellent teaching practice is explored and has resulted in several studies being collected and published (Hamschmidt and Pirson 2018). Oikos and PRME have partnered together to create the Oikos-PRME Research Hub. A student platform on which finalized or ongoing research on sustainability in economics, finance, or management can be shared. COMMIT (Change Of Management Education & Methods In Teaching) is an initiative in development; built on a partnership between Oikos and the Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative (GRLI) it is intended to become a platform where international student networks and young professionals develop a “next generation” perspective on management education for the future (GRLI 2019a). The Green Office movement is another student-led initiative which is working to advance sustainability in and through higher education. It operates in collaboration with Students Organising for Sustainability (SOS) International, a UNESCO award-winning body which works with educational institutions to deliver sustainability programs and campaigns as well as promoting education for sustainable development and sustainability governance. Both these movements are active on social media, pushing for curriculum change and highlighting good, sustainable business practices. The world has experienced striking changes in the past three decades and in response academics in business schools have been researching, writing, trialing ideas, and testing theories. They are often generous with their findings. Collaboration

is increasingly evolving around the idea of open access programs which are at first developed and tested in one school by academics, but then made freely available to others, with the data being produced being fed back into further research. Examples include the following: CARL – The Competency Assessment for Responsible Leadership is a GRLI and PRME endorsed free online assessment tool which can be used by business schools to measure their students’ knowledge, action, and attitudes (Datar et al. 2010) in five competency dimensions: stakeholder dimensions; ethics and values; self-awareness; systems thinking and change; and innovation. CARL suggests measuring competency at the start of a module to allow the tutor to tailor the course to fill the gaps in competency which become apparent (CARL 2017). The Sulitest is a literacy tool for sustainability which has emerged from the Rio Summit as a part of the commitment of the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI). It is one of the featured initiatives of the UN partnerships for the SDGs and built around the concept of sustainable literacy. Sustainable literacy is defined by Sulitest as “the knowledge, skills and mindsets that allow individuals to become deeply committed to build a sustainable future and that help them to make informed and effective decisions to this end.” The Sulitest is a tool for all HEI’s and aims to provide an international and universal applicable knowledge assessment tool for use by the academic world. To date 129,692 users have taken the online test (Sulitest 2019). The quiz is free for organizations and it has incorporated a learning mode, which is similar to a short course in which the correct answers and sources are provided in order to deepen learning about Sustainable Development issues. Sulitest also includes a certificate mode which is examined and provides accreditation. This can be used to validate a course, provides European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits and adds value to applications and interviews. The Sulitest is also a useful academic resource for HEI’s to measure sustainability literacy worldwide. Doughnut economics (Raworth 2012) is a model of economics designed using the SDGs to define safe boundaries for business and challenge

Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

existing economic assumption; it is summarized in the form of an accessible diagram, with video explanation, blogs, and speeches available online. An open competition, with a category for university students, “the 8th way to think like a 21st century economist” was successfully run in 2019. Giving Voice to Values: How to Speak Your Mind When You Know What’s Right (Gentile 2010) is a responsibility teaching resource which spread from word-of-mouth recommendations into global use and now is complemented by an online program which is available free to educators with teaching notes available for faculty (Gentile 2019). Its aim is to empower individuals to feel comfortable voicing and enacting their values when they are placed in challenging ethical situations; it presupposes all students will, at some time in their career, be placed in this situation and therefore practice in responding effectively is necessary. Based on reflective praxis and research this course does not teach what ethics or values are, but how to respond effectively once a decision has been made to act on values, as such it helps the SDG initiative by giving confidence to act on social values. AASHE, the Association for Sustainability in Higher Education, operates a Campus Sustainability Hub; “a one-stop shop for AASHE members to access toolkits and resource collections about all aspects of sustainability in higher education” (AASHE 2019) through which business school curriculum resources, course materials, case studies, conference presentations, publications, tools, videos, and webinars uploaded by partner HEI’s are available free for members. EUAC, the alliance for sustainability leadership in education, provides an open resource hub called the Sustainability Exchange which any one is able to access and which aims to be the world’s leading resource of sustainability information (EAUC 2019).

NGO Partnerships Non Government Organization (NGOs) are results led businesses which benefit from business school expertise as, often, the organization is run by those qualified in areas of expertise other than business

105

(Tieman 2016). It is no surprise they are forming mutually beneficial relationships and, in a growing number of cases, creating curriculums together. The benefit to the school is a socially based curriculum, addressing real problems with empirical evidence and experience. It prepares students for an expanding job market and offers them incentive to be innovative. For the NGO the theoretical framing and methodological expertise of their academic partner brings clarity and focus to their goals and allows them to demonstrate their effectiveness, which helps them compete for funding. Co-production of research (Jung et al. 2012), working together from the initial stages of a research project through to analyzing conclusions, is found in an increasing number of business schools, and others are increasing involvement in less labor-intensive ways through the use of intermediary organizations that can organize short courses or the invitation of speakers to deliver a talk and engage in dialogue with students. Speakers from NGOs bring stories that can catalyze buy in and integrate two-dimensional facts into three-dimensional systems. As Sullivan and Skelcher (2002) describe, it gives both vertical and horizontal engagement. NGOs are looking for engagement to their cause, helpful ideas and future recruitment. For this reason universities and NGO representatives can be brought together to their mutual benefit (Aniekwe et al. 2012). International NGO Training and Recruitment Centre (INTRAC) for civil society is an NGO based in the United Kingdom which works on all continents. It was founded in 1991 to “strengthen the effectiveness of civil society.” It works with “foundations, NGOs, networks, governments, multilateral agencies, private companies, and research institutions around the world to design and deliver training.” It sees itself as a bridge between theory and practice and is responsible for editing the journal Development in Practice (INTRAC 2019). The initials indicate the roots of the organization, the International NGO Training and Recruitment Centre. NGO’s working together with academic institutions was the original vision and is still the major focus of their work. INTRAC’s expertise is in both long-term research collaboration with universities and in shorter courses.

B

106

Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

INTRAC is part of a collaboration called the Rethinking Research collaborative which has produced research that Christian Aid’s Centre for Excellence in Research, Evidence and Learning have used to create modules suitable for Higher Education in the global South and the United Kingdom (Christian Aid 2018). For-profit companies are also working closely with business schools. ABIS, the Academy of Business in Society, is a network of over 130 HEIs and companies “whose expertise, commitment and resources are leveraged to invest in a more sustainable future for business in society” (ABIS 2019). Partnered HEIs can summarize their courses and link to their websites through ABIS which also lists collaborative publications. ABIS has created a platform of connectivity allowing business and business schools to share a common space. Links to resources and publications are a rich source of literature in the field; research and presentation opportunities are offered, and colloquium, conferences, and workshops provide opportunities to interact. Sometimes the direction is reversed, and a school takes initiative and creates a tool that enables business to develop sustainability agendas. An example of this is gapframe.org. Initially a product of collaboration between two business schools it became part of the Swiss Sustainability Hub, a cross sector initiative. “Gapframe is a normative framework that translates the SDG’s into nationally relevant issues and indicators for business” (Muff et al. 2018). It can also be used as an educational tool for business schools, and developed out of a curriculum with four weeks of the year dedicated solely to analyzing business impact on the SDGs and looking for ways business could address aspects of this profitably. Gapframe provides country-by-country data to help business identify opportunity, it is a free internet resource developed by two leading academics in sustainable business (gapframe 2017). Gapframe now works with NGOs, multinational businesses, investment companies, government agencies, and business schools across Europe through Oikos International. Aim2Flourish, like Gapframe and Oikos, originated from a business school. They connect

students with business innovators aligned with the UN global goals through a simple idea. Students research a “for–profit” business which is working to achieve one or more of the SDG’s, and directly interview the business leader. They then upload their report to a competitive writing forum. The work produced is available as a “case bank,” a resource which can then be used in teaching, and the best writing for each SDG is awarded a Flourish Prize. This brings the SDGs into the focus of the business community, creates direct student engagement, and provides resources for business educators.

Responsible Business Impact investment, sometimes called Socially Responsible Investing (SRI), is beginning to be found in HEI business curriculums, especially MBA modules, but has yet to become as integrated into the partnership networks as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). MIINT (The MBA Impact Investing Network & Training) is an experiential lab designed to give students at business and graduate schools a hands-on education in impact investing in the United States by building meaningful links between innovative mission-driven companies and leading business and graduate schools (MIINT 2014). Their annual competition sees student from more than 30 countries in the United States and in Europe competing to identify a social enterprise which will receive investment. As companies begin to align more closely with the SDGs their staffing needs are altering too. It is also becoming apparent that the brightest and the best seek out employment in workplaces that not only pay them well but make them feel proud of what the company does (PwC 2018; Thompson 2018). Companies in turn need employees and future leaders who can help them navigate the change to the new business paradigms. This need to align values and remain competitive in recruitment is driving business leaders into engagement with business schools and they are being encouraged to do so by the example of their peers.

Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

In proactive moves from CEOs global NFP (not for profit) alliances of business leaders have established networks to establish a plan for “good” business. The B Team is not primarily business school focused; however, it is rooted in radical action, and is focused on encouraging participant business leaders to speak out about ending the business as usual model they term plan A (The B Team 2019). They are advocating change to many globally accepted business policies and for business schools looking to find role models and reasons for teaching from a different paradigm, and this is a resource where some of the biggest names in business can be seen to be fighting for change, as a collective, but also with individual voices. Several members of the B Team are actively involved with business schools delivering presentations, workshops, and talks in the classroom environment. For example, one voice in the B team is the Yunis Social Business Centre (YSBC) which has partnerships with 78 universities, some offering certificates, some research, some competitions, workshops, or Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). BSR (Business for Social Responsibility) is a business leader led NFP of 250 businesses working through consulting, research, and cross-sector collaboration. BSR has stated as one of its objectives the need to “tackle systemic challenges related to the SDG’s” (BSR 2019). One way in which it seeks to achieve this is through the provision of reports and case studies which are utilized within the business school classroom. Enactus is an NFP collaboration that brings business leaders and business schools together with the specific aim of engaging students with the UN’s 17 SDGs through encouragement of student entrepreneurship (Enactus 2019). Enactus provides a prestigious, global, competitive environment in which ambitious business students work to solve environmental and social problems in a way which most impresses a panel of business leaders. It has a network of 36 countries, across 1,730 campuses connected to over 550 business partners. The use of popular social media platforms is becoming increasingly influential as a forum for collaborative practice. A complex network of

107

interconnected individuals and organizations (businesses, economists, universities, students, NGOs, and NFPs) has emerged on the platforms over the past few years which allow business schools to stay up to date with developments and allow students to connect to organizations which can help with their research and access speeches and interviews. It is increasingly almost compulsory for organizations to maintain a Twitter account, and many organizations place great emphasis on its maintenance, the quality of posts, and the connections made. One use of these tools used by business schools is to create lists of influential thinkers, business leaders, and change-makers active on social media in order to encourage students to “follow” inspirational figures. This is not only useful for learning about responsible leadership but is also a way of keeping the curriculum fresh and current. Such platforms have become valuable tools for the development of a community of practice; posts regularly contain links of new developments that business leaders know about before faculty or links to research which is being shared between academics and business leaders. This creates a body of swiftly emerging literature which is presented at the time of publishing rather than through the far slower mechanism of the college reading list, a list which is usually only annually updated. It is noteworthy that recommendations of business leaders to follow differ between institutions depending on their teaching focus, but, regardless of these variations, well-maintained twitter accounts from PRME-affiliated business schools can affirm their focus through linking their praxis and research to that of business activity. Accounts also help link students to CEOs with relevant twitter feeds endorsing the ethos that what is “good for business” is a “business for good.” Business schools can also collaborate among themselves through various channels. GRLI is focused on catalyzing the development of globally responsible leadership and practice through a working partnership of global networks, companies and learning institutions (GRLI 2019b). An early example of international cooperation between business school academics and deans

B

108

Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

was 50+20. This emerged from the Rio Summit with the vision of transforming management education by bringing together deans and faculty committed to creating business leaders who will achieve what’s best for the world rather than trying to be the best in the world. According to the 50 +20 Agenda this involves three fundamental roles: educating and developing globally responsible leaders, enabling business organizations to serve the common good, and engaging in the transformation of business and the economy. 50 +20 is now part of the GRLI but retains a useful website and helpful videos (50+20 2012). It has developed through the GRLI into a Deans and Directors Cohort (GRLI 2019c). GBSN, The Global Business School Network, is an NFP which partners with business schools, industry, foundations, and aid agencies to improve management education for the developing world. Member schools offer student scholarships, faculty and doctoral fellowships, visiting faculty opportunities, and collaborative teaching projects. EUAC, the alliance for sustainability leadership in education, is a British platform promoting awareness of issues of environmental sustainability among over 200 HEIs across the United Kingdom and Ireland. It provides several platforms of global interest such as LiFE (Learning in Future Environments), a planning and self-assessment tool, and PSPE, the Platform for Sustainability Performance in Education, which brings together the organizations that have created sustainability assessment tools, and encourages other universities and colleges around the world to adopt them.

and offer new financing options, the shift to sustainability thinking becomes more comfortable, and the speed of adoption of the 17 SDGs in business schools becomes faster. PRME shows us many good examples of business schools that have adapted well, and the UN is committed to continuing their work to help responsible management education thrive. Business schools are becoming increasingly linked and connected as affiliations and networks establish themselves and curricula broaden. The influence of responsible leadership initiatives, resource sustainability campaigns, and awareness of the benefits of increasing stakeholder as well as shareholder profit mean these are becoming more obviously relevant to business education and business is seeing itself as more deeply connected to the world in which it operates. New models that reflect the changing business environment and how business impacts the world are being created collaboratively, researched, and shared through some proactive business schools, and there is much scope for the number and influence of such schools to continue to grow. It is the UN that began, and continues to drive, the paradigm shift from sustainable growth to sustainable development with the understanding of a “common future.” Business sustainability, to be effective, has often considered a triple bottom line (Elkington 1998) “people, planet and profit”; we now see the UN SDGs helping to expand this further into five Ps: People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, Partnerships (United Nations 2015). Business schools, as well as businesses, are very much looking to partnerships to help understand prosperity.

Conclusion Business schools seeking to integrate the 17 SDGs into their teaching ethos are to a large extent reliant on partnerships. This is because of the relative recency of the sustainability imperative, the gradual nature of acquiring expertise, and the still too common paradigm divide of good for business and business for good. The shift maybe seen as desirable but its importance is not always easily understood. By including partnerships which reflect current reality, provide gravitas,

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

▶ Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development

References 50+20 (2012) 50+20 Agenda. http://50plus20.org/5020agenda AASHE (2019) Campus sustainability Hub. In: AASHE. https://hub.aashe.org. Accessed 2 Oct 2019 ABIS (2019) about ABIS. In: ABIS – The Academy of Business in Society. https://www.abis-global.org/ about. Accessed 1 Oct 2019 Aniekwe CC, Hayman R, Toner A (2012) Academic-NGO collaboration in International Development Research: a reflection on the issues. University of Bradford, Bradford, UK Brundtland GH (1987) Chairman’s foreword. In: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: our common future. UN World Commission on Environment and Development. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-com mon-future.pdf BSR (2019) Building the business of a better world. In: BSR. https://www.bsr.org/en/about/story. Accessed 23 Sept 2019 cabinet office (2017) Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals – December 2017. In: gov.uk. https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementingthe-sustainable-development-goals/implementing-thesustainable-development-goals. Accessed 23 Sept 2019 CARL (2017) The competency assessment for responsible leadership. In: CARL. https://carl2030.org. Accessed 23 Sept 2019 Christian Aid (2018) Fair and equitable research partnerships for international development research. https:// www.christianaid.org.uk/about-us/programme-policypractice/resources-fair-and-equitable-developmentresearch-partnerships. Accessed 23 Sept 2019 Cramer J (2017) Corporate Social Responsibility and Globalisation: an action plan for business. Routledge, London, UK Datar SM, Garvin DA, Cullen PG, Cullen P (2010) Rethinking the MBA: business education at a crossroads. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA DeAngelo H, DeAngelo L, Zimmerman JL (2005) What’s really wrong with U.S. Business Schools? SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.766404

109

EAUC (2019) Sustainability exchange. In: Sustainability Exchange. https://www.sustainabilityexchange.ac.uk/ home. Accessed 2 Oct 2019 Elkington J (1998) Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ Qual Manag 8:37–51 Enactus (2019) Our story. In: Enactus. https://enactus.org. Accessed 23 Sept 2019 Gapframe (2017) Towards a safe space for us all. In: gapframe. https://gapframe.org. Accessed 23 Sept 2019 Gentile MC (2010) Giving voice to values: how to speak your mind when you know what’s right. Yale University Press, New Haven Gentile MC (2019) Resources for educators. In: Giving voice to values. https://www.givingvoicetova luesthebook.com/resources-for-educators. Accessed 23 Sept 2019 GRLI (2019a) COMMIT. In: GRLI. https://grli.org/ initiatives/commit. Accessed 2 Oct 2019 GRLI (2019b) Globally responsible leadership initiative. In: GRLI. https://grli.org/about. Accessed 29 Sept 2019 GRLI (2019c) Deans and Directors Cohort. In: GRLI. https://grli.org/initiatives/deanscohort. Accessed 2 Oct 2019 Hamschmidt J, Pirson M (2018) Case studies in social entrepreneurship and sustainability: the Oikos collection. Routledge, London, UK INTRAC (2019) INTRAC for civil society. In: INTRAC. org. https://www.intrac.org. Accessed 22 Sept 2019 Jung T, Harrow J, Pharoah C (2012) Co-producing research: working together or falling apart? CGAP briefing note 8. CASS Business School, London Leal Filho W (2000) Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability. Int J Sustain High Educ 1:9–19 McDonald D (2017) The golden passport: Harvard Business School, the limits of capitalism, and the moral failure of the MBA elite. HarperCollins, New York MIINT (2014) The MBA Impact Investing Network & Training. In: MIINT. http://www.themiint.org/. Accessed 4 Oct 2019 Mitroff II, Alpaslan CM, O’Connor ES (2015) Reflections: what’s wrong with business schools and why they need to change. J Change Manag 15:85–91. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14697017.2015.1014643 Muff K, Kapalka A, Dyllick T (2018) Moving the world into a safe space–the GAPFRAME methodology. Int J Manag Educ 16:349–369 Murray A, Baden D, Cashian P et al (2017) Inspirational guide for the implementation of PRME: UK & Ireland Edition. Routledge, Abingdon Oikos International (2019) Oikos International. In: Oikos. https://oikos-international.org. Accessed 4 Oct 2019 Owens KA, Legere S (2015) What do we say when we talk about sustainability? Analyzing faculty, staff and student definitions of sustainability at one American university. Int J Sustain High Educ 16:367–384 Pitt-Watson D, Quigley E (2019) Business School Rankings for the 21st century. UN Global compact

B

110 PRME (2018) Introducing the principles for responsible management education. In: PRME. https://www. unprme.org/resource-docs/PRMEBrochure2018.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2019 PwC (2018) Workforce of the future. In: PwCttttt. https:// www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/people-organisation/ workforce-of-the-future/workforce-of-the-future-thecompeting-forces-shaping-2030-pwc.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2019 Raworth K (2012) A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut. Oxfam Policy Practice Clim Change Resilience 8:1–26 Reid S, Hayes JP, Stibbe D (2014) Platforms for partnership. The partnering initiative Schmidheiny S, Chase R, De Simone L (1997) Business progress toward sustainable development. Yale School Forestry Environ Stud Bull 101:143–156 Schmidheiny S, Timberlake L (1992) Changing course: a global business perspective on development and the environment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Schwab K (2017) The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Publishing Group, New York, NY Storey M, Killian S, O’Regan P (2019) Business education for Sustainable Development. In: Encyclopedia of sustainability in higher education. Springer, Cham, pp 1–10 Sulitest (2019) The Sulitest initiative. In: Sulitest. https:// www.sulitest.org/en/the-sulitest-initiative.html. Accessed 1 Oct 2019 Sullivan H, Skelcher C (2002) Working across boundaries: collaboration in public services. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke The B Team (2019) The end of business as usual. In: The B Team. http://www.bteam.org. Accessed 21 Sept 2019

Business School Thompson AB (2018) Do good: embracing brand citizenship to fuel both purpose and profit. AMACOM Tieman R (2016) Why business schools are tailoring leadership courses to NGOs’ needs. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/c6356c8c-168f-11e6b197-a4af20d5575e Turner B (2012) Social entrepreneurship. Tennessee’s Bus 20:11–13 UN (2019) HESI. In: Sustainable Development Goals knowledge platform. https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/sdinaction/hesi. Accessed 1 Oct 2019 United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. UN General Assembly, Geneva. Available online at: https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transforming ourworld/publication

Business School ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

Business Schools ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

C

Catholic Church ▶ Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development Julia Swart Utrecht School of Economics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Synonyms Climate change scenarios; Pathways to sustainable development; Strategic environmental assessment; Sustainability forecast; Trend analysis for sustainable development

Definition Change scenarios for sustainable development consider alternative viable assumptions about future socioeconomic indicators and policies which affect local, regional, or global sustainable development. Scenarios are according to the United Nations (2014, p. 62) “plausible and internally consistent picture of the future. They are useful tools – often making use of quantitative

models – to systematically explore the feasibility of visions and proposed future pathways towards their achievement. They provide information on the means of implementation that are needed and can be useful in monitoring progress.” Change scenarios differ from trend analysis for sustainable development by incorporating uncertainty, in particular in terms of environmental issues. UNEP (2004) argues that “scenarios offer a means for examining the forces that shape our world, the uncertainties that lie before us and the implications for tomorrow of our actions today. A scenario is also a story, told in words and numbers, concerning the manner in which future events could unfold; analysis of a range of scenarios offers lessons on how to direct the flow of events towards sustainable pathways and away from unsustainable ones.” Thus, whereas scenarios do not set in stone how the future will look like in terms of sustainability and economic development, it does allow us to make a more conscious choice of how society wants to live today, given how these choices could affect the lives of future generations.

Introduction Imagine a world where we could predict with certainty the environmental consequences of human actions such as consumption, production, and technological discoveries. Could we then increase our well-being today? If individuals

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

112

only care about the present, then the answer would be closer to a no (unless environmental impacts were felt instantaneously). However, in reality we all care to some extent about the future (in particular the near future). Given that we care about the future, knowing how our actions today affect the environment provide us with valuable information to improve our own well-being. Alternatively, lack of knowledge about the environmental impact of our actions decreases our well-being without us even noticing it. Predicting the future, however, is not possible. If it was, numerous environmental and humanitarian catastrophes could have been prevented. An historical example can help illustrate this. From the production side, we are nowadays aware that ingestion of fishes from water contaminated with methyl mercury leads to the Minamata disease. The name of this disease makes reference to the hefty poisoning of residents from the surroundings of the Minamata Bay, in Japan, in the beginning of the 1950s. Ekino et al. (2007) report more than 2000 deaths from this disease since then and about 200,000 cases of poisoning. Negligence from the manufacture firm disposing contaminated wastewater on the Minamata Bay has led to large compensation costs to the victims. All parties involved lost from this ecological disaster. It was certainly better from an economic, environmental, and well-being point of view to have prevented the mercury to enter the river and from there the sea. This environmental impact was not known to the policy makers in the early twentieth century. Given that it is known today, countries and regions can analyze different scenarios of mercury contamination on future wellbeing (for an instance, based on different regulation levels and production levels) to decide on the most fair, environmental-friendly, and efficient policy. This example shows that society can benefit from understanding the possible impacts of socioeconomic factors (or most straightforwardly, human action) on the environment. The closer we can forecast these impacts, the more equipped we are to make well-informed decisions about what we eat, how we commute, what we dress, and more generally how rules and regulations can

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

be implemented to increase society’s well-being today while considering the well-being of future generations. While making forecast or trying to predict the future might be intangible, thinking about different possible scenarios allows us to envision how the future might disclose. The idea behind forming scenarios is to create a roadmap of alternatives to which decision-making can be reliably made. Different scenarios can be set out by changing factors such as regulation and production level. Van Notten (2006) emphasizes that there are different definitions of scenarios, but they all have in common that scenarios are not predictions of the future; and these alternative definitions all characterize scenarios as “hypothetical, causally coherent, internally consistent, and/ or descriptive.” Furthermore, through scenario analysis, a plan of actions can be set. Methodologically speaking, Van Notten (2006) distinguishes scenario analysis into two: analytical and intuitive design. Analytical approaches encompass model-based techniques which involve quantifying uncertainties but can also be “desk research,” that is, document analysis and archival research. Intuitive design, on the other hand, is based on qualitative knowledge to develop the scenario. Scenarios can be related to modeling activities, but are not to be confused with Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment quantifies the environmental impact of a specific economic activity for given parameters and circumstances. Glasson et al. (2005) provide a few often-cited definitions of Environmental Impact Assessment, one of them being the broad definition of Munn (1977) who defines it as “an activity designed to identify, predict, interpret and communicate information about the impact on man’s health and wellbeing, of proposed major actions such as the construction of large engineering works, land reform, and legislative policy and program proposals” (p. 135). This definition approximates the one from change scenarios, causing the confusion. A more succinct definition adopted by the United Nations defines Environmental Impact Assessment as a “systematic process to identify, predict and evaluate the environmental effects of proposed actions

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

and projects” (UNEP 2002, p. 103). It can therefore be seen as a policy tool to evaluate specific projects, such as adoption of new technologies and infrastructure.

Change Scenarios: A Relatively New Approach Environmental concerns started to increasingly take part of policy decisions in the 1950s. In the academic sphere, environmental studies developed to be a fast-growing discipline in the 1970s. By then sustainability became as well a sub-discipline from different fields, such as economics and geography. Nowadays, a diversity of disciplines has sustainability as a core focus area (e.g., philosophy, political sciences, and cultural studies). Robertson (2017) argues that in the 1960s–1970s public awareness of environmental problems arising from, for example, pesticide use and population growth promoted the formation and development of environmental framework and regulation. In the USA, for example, the National Environmental Policy Act was signed into law in 1970. The year 1972 was, in particular, an important year for the field of sustainability. It was the year of the publication of Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome (Meadows et al. 1972). The Limits to Growth was influential and set a turning point in the sustainability field because it provoked different stakeholders to rethink the impact of economic activities onto the future generations. The authors have analyzed trends of five indicators – population, capital, food, nonrenewable resources, and pollution – while taking the interrelationships among them, to set up a world model through which they could investigate the world system’s “behavioral tendencies” (p. 93). The authors analyzed a few scenarios (which they name alternatives or runs) which are based on a specific set of assumptions (e.g., constant population growth) to analyze the impact on the world system for a period of 100 years. The Club of Rome was the first work to present a comprehensive change scenario analysis undertaken at a global scale.

113

At around the same period, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was established, first in the USA (1969) and soon after in Europe and other developed countries (e.g., Canada and Australia). UNEP (2002) identifies four overlapping phases in its evolution, which in a nutshell consists of (i) development of EIA in developed countries (1970s); (ii) increasing scope and sophistication of EIA and diffusion to developing countries (mid-1970s to early 1980s); (iii) process strengthening and integration (early 1980s to early 1990s); and (iv) strategic and sustainability orientation (early 1990s onward) (p. 109). Furthermore, more recently countries, such as in the European Union, have introduced Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), which “informs a higher, earlier, more strategic tier of decisionmaking” (Glassan et al. 2005, p. 7). Strategic Environmental Assessment is more comprehensive than Environmental Impact Assessment in the sense that it not only analyzes projects, but it also does so for policies. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has a protocol on SEA, which defines it in Article 2.6 as “. . . the evaluation of the likely environmental, including health, effects, which comprises the determination of the scope of an environmental report and its preparation, the carrying-out of public participation and consultations, and the taking into account of the environmental report and the results of the public participation and consultations in a plan or programme” (UNECE 2016, p. 3). To conclude this introduction section, we turn back to the water contaminated with methyl mercury case, to emphasize the difference and interconnectedness between change scenarios for sustainable development and Environmental Impact Assessment. Through Environmental Impact Assessment, one can define what the environmental impact of a factory dumping methyl mercury would be to the local biodiversity, human health, and other relevant indicators. Such data can thereafter be used in a model looking at trends in different indicators (e.g., population size, industrialization rate, etc.) and their impact on local, regional, or world systems. Furthermore, although most academic articles

C

114

emphasize quantitative change scenarios, scenarios can involve both qualitative and quantitative analysis and can be grouped into three distinct types: predictive, explorative, and normative (Börjeson et al. 2006). In the following two sections, we discuss first, the connection between change scenarios and the Sustainable Development Goals, and second, the interdisciplinary nature of scenario analysis and a well-known application of scenario analysis coordinated by the IPCC, whose contribution allows policy makers to think through policies which foster sustainable development. The final section provides concluding remarks.

Change Scenarios and the Sustainable Development Goals In September 2015, 193 world leaders met in New York under the umbrella of the United Nations. These leaders agreed to follow 17 Sustainable Development Goals and meet 169 targets by 2030. These goals envisage to foremost end extreme poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and fix climate change, thus embracing social, economic, and environmental aspects. The Sustainable Development Goals (henceforth: SDG) expand on the Millennium Development Goals (a global effort starting in the year 2000 to combat poverty) by incorporating new areas such as climate change and sustainable consumption. To meet these goals, countries and regions should consider that these goals are integrated. Thus, for example, fighting poverty goes hand in hand with providing solutions to climate change; fighting inequality within countries (SDG 10) requires promotion of decent work for all (SDG 8), good health and well-being (SDG 3), and quality education (SDG 4), to name a few. Meeting these integrated goals demands an integrated system of solutions (UNEP 2019). The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has for that purpose setup four workstreams to provide support to countries to outline policies and programs which are conducive to meet the SDGs while recognizing the complexity and integration of these goals. One

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

of the workstreams is “data and analytics,” which uses integrated modeling frameworks as a tool to assist countries in identifying future scenarios. These scenarios, in turn, are recognized as fundamental to the establishment of policies which guarantee that the SDGs are met. An example of a toolkit to explore forecasting based on alternative scenarios is the International Futures (IFs) which is used by different planning and development organizations, including the UNDP (Hughes et al. 2004 explain the structure of the IFs modeling system). Scenario analysis has been overall widely used to analyze long-term impact of alternative states and situations, thus facilitating decision-making. While it is broadly accepted that scenario analysis is an integral part to assist in the implementation of the SDGs, there is a range of models used in the academic literature. Some models might be more suitable to analyze specific circumstances, but there is no consensus in the literature on which model to adopt to analyze policies to achieve the SDGs. Dynamic computable general equilibrium models (dynamic CGE models) are often adopted, for example, when there is a solid theoretical framework which incorporates feedbacks across different sectors and spillovers from policy changes. CGE models are one of the most used models to analyze climate change impacts. Nonetheless, an alternative type of model for climate change, integrated assessment models (IAMS), is also often adopted, in particular when larger focus on the interactions between the economic and the biophysical system is described (see e.g. Wellman and Hunt 2016; and OECD 2015). Allen et al. (2016) conduct a comparative assessment of 80 models to address their relevance for national SDG planning. As part of their research, they surveyed 70 modeling experts from diverse backgrounds (academia, research, national development planning) regarding a review of criteria used in comparative assessments of models and regarding attributes of the SDGS which are relevant for modeling. From the selection of the 80 models, the authors made an inventory of the modeling options used in national SDGs planning and identified eight model categories: (i) hybrid models; (ii) CGE models; (iii)

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

top-down system dynamics models; (iv) bottomup optimization/partial equilibrium models; (v) bottom-up simulation models; (vi) macro-econometric models; (vii) input-output models; and (viii) bottom-up multi-agent models (the next subsection provides a brief description of each of these model categories). The first two – hybrid models and CGE models – account for close to 60% of all models analyzed. Furthermore, their finding shows that the selection of the most effective modeling approach and type depends on various factors (e.g., data availability, cost limitations, sector of analysis, and interactions between sectors), which need to be considered in order to select the model. Additionally, with respect to the SDGs, the authors recommend combining different models which address the relationship of particular sectoral issues. Table 1 summarizes some of the findings from Allen et al. (2016) by indicating the number of models which are relevant for the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, disaggregated by the model category. Figure 1 shows the finding when we add up through the model categories. Table 1 and Fig. 1 show that the three SDGs which have been represented the most in the models (“highly relevant” and “somewhat relevant”) are SDG8, Decent work and economic growth, with 64 out of 80 models taking this SDG into account; SDG13. Climate Change, with 61 out of the 80 models; and SDG7, Affordable and clean energy, with 59 out of the 80 models. On the other extreme, the less represented SDG in scenario analysis models were SDG16, Peace, justice, and institutions, represented by only 3 models; SDG 5, Gender equality, with 4 models; and SDG 14, Life below water, with 6 models.

Eight Model Categories for Scenario Analysis Hybrid Models

Hybrid models are used for analyzing complex environmental systems (e.g., where social and ecological interactions are present). Vincenot et al. (2016) define it as “the combination of simulatory approaches aimed at the accurate mechanistic modeling of complex dynamic

115

systems. It basically consists in the coupling – to a varying degree ranging from simple comparison to bridging to total fusion – of models based on different existing modeling techniques.” Hybrid models emerge when separate models describe parts of a larger system under investigation. Furthermore, they are often used when bottom-up and top-down views of a system need to be aligned. Examples of hybrid models are International Futures, DICE and RICE, and PAGE. CGE Models

Computable general equilibrium models are widely used by economists as a tool for policy analysis. All CGE models start from the basic representation of the circular flow model of commodities in a closed economy, represented by consumers, firms, and a government. As defined by Sue Wing (2004), CGE models “are simulations that combine the abstract general equilibrium structure formalized by Arrow and Debreu with realistic economic data to solve numerically for the levels of supply, demand and price that support equilibrium across a specified set of markets.” This type of models is widely used to analyze the impact of policies on income distribution and on welfare while taking the interactions in various markets. As such, CGE models are used across diverse areas, including environmental regulation; and they serve as a tool for empirical analysis. An example of a CGE model is the GEM-E3 (UN 2020) which is a recursive dynamic CGE model that takes into account links between the economy, the energy system, and the environment. Top-Down System Dynamics Models Top-down approaches to complex problems focus on the broad view of the problem, as opposing to the bottom-up approach which focuses more on the details (e.g., heterogeneity) underlying the systems. Top-down system dynamics models provide the tools to understand the dynamic behavior of systems while considering that various aggregated system compartments are interrelated and connected. Pruyt (2013) defines system dynamics as “a method to describe, model, simulate and analyze dynamically complex issues and/or

C

116

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development, Table 1 Scenario analysis models analyzed by Allen et al. (2016) and the relevance to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals First row

Number of models that are highly relevant for the SDG

Second row

Number of models that are somewhat relevant for the SDG

Third row

Number of models that are not relevant for the SDG

Analytical Approach & Model Category

Number of models

Top-down input-output models

5

Top-down econometric models

Top-down CGE models Top-down system dynamics and simulation models Bottom-up optimisation/ Partial equilibrium models Bottom-up simulation models

Bottom-up multi-agent models

Hybrid models

6

15

8

8

6

1

31

SDG 1

SDG 2

SDG 3

SDG 4

SDG 5

SDG 6

SDG 7

SDG 8

SDG 9

SDG 10

SDG 11

SDG 12

SDG 13

SDG 14

SDG 15

SDG 16

SDG 17

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

4

1

0

0

4

4

3

4

2

0

3

3

1

0

1

2

5

1

4

5

5

1

1

0

1

3

5

1

2

4

5

4

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

4

0

4

0

1

1

3

0

0

0

4

6

5

6

6

6

6

2

0

2

6

5

5

3

6

6

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13

7

3

1

2

0

1

9

1

13

5

0

0

7

0

0

0

2

8

12

14

13

15

14

6

0

2

10

15

15

8

15

15

15

0

0

2

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

4

1

1

0

4

4

6

5

2

4

3

7

1

3

0

3

7

2

6

7

8

3

3

1

2

6

4

4

1

7

5

8

5

0

1

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

2

0

0

0

7

0

0

0

6

8

7

8

8

8

7

0

7

6

8

8

8

1

8

8

8

2

0

1

0

0

0

1

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

3

1

0

0

1

4

0

0

0

3

6

5

6

6

6

5

1

3

5

6

6

5

2

6

6

6

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

3

14

4

3

2

12

17

18

2

1

0

0

10

2

5

1

5

2

5

5

2

2

2

7

8

11

5

3

10

19

2

5

1

16

26

12

22

26

27

17

7

5

18

25

28

21

2

27

21

29

10

systems in terms of the processes, information, organizational boundaries and strategies.” Furthermore, it applies “the principles and techniques of control systems to organizational and socialeconomic-environmental-. . . problems.” The Limits to Growth report by the Club of Rome (Meadows et al. 1972), the first work to present a comprehensive change scenario analysis

undertaken at a global scale, is based on system dynamic models. Bottom-Up Optimization/Partial Equilibrium Models

Bottom-up optimization or partial equilibrium models analyze specific markets within the economy, as opposed to general equilibrium models

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

117

C

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Relevance of 80 scenario-based models for the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. (Based on Table G from the Supplementary Material in Allen et al. (2016))

which deal with the entire economy. Partial equilibrium models show how a change within a specific market (e.g., on preferences or costs) affects production and consumption in that market. This type of models is behind influential models used for environmental policy decisions, including FUND, GCAM, IMAGE/TIMER, and PRIMES. The PAGE (Policy Analysis of Greenhouse Effect) Model has elements of a partial equilibrium model. This model received a lot of attention in the policy debate, as it was applied in the Stern Review (Stern 2007). The Stern Review had strong policy implications and recommended immediate action to contain greenhouse gases emissions. As another example, the European Commission uses the PRIMES energy model (EC 2020), created in 1993 (E3MLab 2014) to analyze energy markets, by simulating energy consumption and the energy supply system. This model allows forecasting, change scenarios, and analysis of policy impact. Bottom-Up Simulation Models

Bottom-up simulation models are similar to bottom-up optimization models in the sense that they

also center on a specific market, for example, the energy market or the irrigation sector. An additional characteristic from these types of models is that they adopt a technological representation which is based on a rational-decision process. That is, the model assumes that decision-makers have perfect knowledge of which technologies are more efficient and face little barriers to adopt them (Fleiter et al. 2011). Fleiter et al. (2011) compare bottom-up optimization models with bottom-up simulation models used in energy markets and state that “while optimization models optimize the choice of technology alternatives with regard to the total system costs to find the least-cost path, simulation models lack this system optimization perspective. They are very heterogeneous and some of them optimize from a firm perspective, while other do not optimize and instead consider other non-financial factors for the technology adoption decision.” Simulation models are used often for scenario analysis of the energy market (see, e.g., Worrell and Price 2001 who analyze three policy scenarios to improve energy efficiency in the US industry).

118

Macro-econometric Models

Macro-econometric models are forecasting models based on mainly economic data. They differ from other models by the use of long-run time-series data and by their solid empirical base. Whereas CGE models rely on the Arrow-Debreu framework, the macro-econometric models adopt the neo-Keynesian framework, in which economies follow a demand-driven structure and underutilization of productive capacity is allowed in the model (Di Comite and Kancs 2015). These models use a system of dynamic equations to represent the economy and estimate the parameters of the model using long-run timeseries data. In this sense, forecasts are based on past correlations. Macro-econometric models are used by diverse organizations and national institutes, including the IMF and the World Bank. The EU, for example, has supported the development of the NEMESIS (New Econometric Model of Evaluation by Sectoral Interdependency and Supply) model, which is a system of economic models for the EU countries, Norway, USA, and Japan. The model allows forecasts for different scenarios for about 30 years to facilitate policy decisions in different economic aspects, including energy regulation and fiscal reforms (Zagame et al. n.d.). Input-Output Models

Input-output models are an analytical framework used to analyze the interdependencies of industries within an economy. It was originally developed by Leontief (1941) and consists of a mathematical structure of a set of n linear equations and n unknowns. Assuming a single economy with n sectors, an input-output representation of this economy would then have the “selling sector” on the rows of the matrix (the input-output table) and the “buying sector” on the columns of the matrix, in which the entries would identify the interindustry flows of goods in monetary terms (Miller and Blair 2009). By applying an inputoutput analysis, one can estimate the impact of shocks in the economy. It is used, for example, to analyze different long-term scenarios based on technological advances, environmental effects, and supply and demand developments. The

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, for example, uses the DIMITRI model, which is an input-output model, to study the impact of technology-related shocks (see, e.g., Faber et al. 2007 who uses the model to describe the relations between production, consumption, and emissions at the sectoral level while basing on IPCC’s scenario framework). The input-output models have also been used in support of the Sustainable Development Goals. Costanza et al. (2016), for example, while investigating alternative methods to relate the SDGs to measures of well-being, propose embedding the input-output model into a dynamic, nonlinear, systems model of the economy, the society, and the natural environment. Gustavson et al. (1999) use an input-output model which accounts environmental impacts to analyze sustainable development indicators for the Fraser River Basin in British Columbia. Bottom-Up Multi-Agent Models

Multi-agent models simulate the interactions of multiple agents through the use of computational models. Agents can be any decision-maker, from autonomous consumers and producers to groups and organizations. A bottom-up approach to a multi-agent model starts with defining the individual components, the rules, and the institutions, and as a result of the interactions between the components, the global effect can be derived. Farmer and Foley (2009) argue for the use of multi-agent models in economics as it has the advantage of not assuming that the economy will move to a certain pre-defined equilibrium. Alternatively, in this type of models, the authors explain, “at any given time, each agent acts according to its current situation, the state of the world around it and the rules governing its behaviour. An individual consumer, for example, might decide whether to save or spend based on the rate of inflation, his or her current optimism about the future, and behavioural rules deduced from psychology experiments. The computer keeps track of the many agent interactions, to see what happens over time. Agent-based simulations can handle a far wider range of nonlinear behavior than conventional equilibrium models. Policy-makers can thus simulate an artificial economy under

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

different policy scenarios and quantitatively explore their consequences.”

Change Scenarios and Fields of Research The previous section showed that, according to Allen et al. (2016), SDG13 – Climate change – is very well represented in scenario analysis. An intuitive reason for this is the uncertainty and long-term impact associated to climate change. Given the prominent attention to climate change in the news, it is therefore understandable that change scenarios are often linked to climate forecasts. The previous section showed, nonetheless, that change scenarios encompass diverse topics. Additionally, scenario analysis can be applicable to all Sustainable Development Goals and is an important tool to better comprehend policy implications to achieve the goals. Nonetheless, the work by Allen et al. (2016) indicates that a few of the Sustainable Development Goals are still less represented by scenario analysis (see Table 1). Scenario analysis does not, however, pertain exclusively to research. Many private organizations also conduct scenario analysis to make their business plan. Discipline wise, scenario analysis can be seen as method which crosses disciplines. In fact, all Sustainable Development Goals, such as climate change, are interdisciplinary by nature. There is a wide range of disciplines which work with scenario analysis, including geography, mathematics, engineering, and social sciences. Van Notten (2006) points out that “the process of scenario development provides a language to cross disciplinary boundaries. In organisations, it may provide a basis for ‘strategic conversations,’ to discuss perceptions on strategy, opportunities, and threats.” Scenario analysis promotes a connection between disciplines which is fundamental to the understanding of complex issues. Laurent et al. (2015) argue that different disciplines analyze the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin, a transboundary watershed between the USA and Canada. Nonetheless, these disciplines remain isolated within their field, often using different

119

methodologies with uncertain predictions. The authors provide five reasons for considering scenario analysis for analyzing Great Lakes basin resource management as an effective and valuable methodology: scenario analysis crosses disciplines; it takes uncertainty into account; it facilitates the creation of a common language within academia and between academia and stakeholders; scenario analysis considers diverse overlapping and interacting scales; and finally, scenario analysis opens to new insights and inquiries for future research. Despite contributing to a more holistic understanding of social, economic, technological, and environmental dimensions of the world, scenario analysis also has its critics. A common critique is that model-based quantitative scenarios do not represent the social dimensions well enough, requiring a more systemic and integrated approach. In this sense, scenario analysis has benefited from the link created with participatory approach. In this approach, knowledge is created about how a local community or region is organized and how it functions, by counting with the participation of local actors. Walz et al. (2007), for example, use a case study on changes in agriculture in a region in Switzerland, to investigate whether and how participatory involvement has contributed to define the scenarios for a numerical simulation.

The IPCC Scenario Framework The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a body from the United Nations, which was created in 1988 to provide policy makers scientific assessments related to climate change. Since its creation, the IPCC has produced and made publicly available Five Assessment reports, in addition to other reports on more specific topics. Currently, the IPCC is on its sixth assessment cycle, which has already resulted in three special reports. The dates of the Assessment Reports are 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013/ 2014. The sixth cycle started to produce reports in 2016 and is expected to end by 2022 with the release of the Synthesis Report. This section is

C

120

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

based on the Fifth Assessment Report to discuss the role of change scenarios in the IPCC framework. IPCC (2014) bases extensively on climate models to project future climate and therefore climate change. Various climate models are used, from simple idealized models to general circulation models. To produce robust projections, the climate models are tested against historical observations. To obtain the projections, the models work with a set of alternative scenarios (the Representative Concentration Pathways – RCP) of greenhouse gases emissions, air pollutant emissions, and land use patterns. The Representative Concentration Pathways comprise five scenarios: a stringent mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), two intermediate scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP6.0), and a scenario with very high GHG emissions (RCP8.5). The baseline scenario (business as usual – BAU) lies between RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, that is, on the upper-level of GHG emissions. Figure 2 shows emission scenarios from the Fifth Assessment Report. Panel (a) shows, for example, the emissions of carbon dioxide from 1950 until 2100 for four RCPs and historical emissions. Panel (e) shows future radiative

forcing levels for the RCPs which was calculated using the MAGICC model (MAGICC – Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change, http://www.magicc.org/), for the RCPs (per forcing agent) and for the WGIII scenario categories, which represents the categories considered in the Working Group III of IPCC. (The IPCC Synthesis Report considers the reports from three working groups. Working Group I focuses on the Physical Science Basis; Working Group II on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability; and Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change.) After setting-up these scenarios, the next step is to assess different impacts on temperature, which is done for surface temperature change but also to sea ice extent, sea level rise, and the effect on surface ocean pH. A comprehensive assessment is built around these essential, but not exclusive, elements. It is an interdisciplinary if not transdisciplinary endeavor, which supports policy makers around the world. The work from the IPCC was influential in reaching, among others, the Paris Agreement in 2015 and shows the fundamental role of scenario analysis on socioeconomic and environmental dimensions of life.

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 IPCC (2014) emission scenarios and the resulting radiative forcing levels for the Representative

Concentration Pathways (RCPs, lines) and the associated scenarios categories used in WGIII (colored areas)

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

Concluding Remarks Scenario analysis creates a roadmap of alternatives to which decision-making can be reliably made. There are a variety of approaches to conduct scenario analysis and within quantitative approaches a range of models adapted to specific regions, sectors, or variables of interest. Advances in this area of research are fast and far-reaching. Different private organizations – from middle size to large – (e. g., Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey, Shell, Unilever), institutes, and national and supranational organizations and agencies use scenario analysis to guide their strategies and policy choices. It makes a fundamental impact on an individuals’ life and determines course actions pertaining areas crossing a variety of fields. Scenario analysis is also a fundamental tool given the constant changes the world faces. Society needs to create awareness of scenarios of change, that is, changes in indirect variables which affect the scenario of the interested variable in question. For example, while making a scenario analysis of biodiversity, one needs to consider the scenario of changes in variables such as carbon dioxide emissions and land use. These changes will then define how sensitive biodiversity is to different scenarios. For the Sustainable Development Goals, scenario of changes implies analyzing the links between the actions to achieve all goals simultaneously. This work showed that there is considerable amount of academic literature using scenario analysis to analyze Sustainable Development Goals. Nonetheless, not all Sustainable Development Goals are equally represented in the literature. In particular, there is less literature on scenario analysis and SDG 16 (Peace, justice, and institutions), SDG 5 (Gender equality), and SDG 14 (Life below water). Future research should make use of the vast knowledge already available to provide better information for policy makers to reach the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and associated targets in the near future. Furthermore, it is imperative that the goals are taken together into consideration, as much as possible, in order to exploit synergies and opportunities and take eventual trade-offs of policies into account. This is off course a big challenge, as the broader the models

121

become, the more synergies and trade-offs might become unresolved (UN 2014). Additionally, there is not one pathway to sustainable development, but scenarios can facilitate the visualization of the consequences of certain (in)actions. Finally, pathways for distinct issues, countries, regions, and sectors might also differ; thus it is important to conduct a more holistic scenario analysis which takes these specificities into account.

Cross-References ▶ Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework ▶ Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs ▶ Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

References Allen C, Metternicht G, Wiedmann T (2016) National pathways to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a comparative review of scenario modelling tools. Environ Sci Policy 66:199–207. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1462901116306712?casa_ t o k e n ¼Z e X G g m E L H J c A A A A A : R x y J 5 _ rXmNalCG6M6TkbXB5JbIBbU3XCt7XYsFGNCqnl BiQvsIbMNEXpLcyu-ZMsbhbXTV2qHw. Last access 28 Apr 2020 Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739. https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0016328705002132?casa_ token¼dY6OT5guCQAAAAAA:3AypMhkhVcDHaDs KS5dpk5hyhQ6KHNHhE5rMFUayow_ xcYu6vLR4niKrsP9BeOMvW1Dpemgy3A. Last access 23 Apr 2020 Costanza R, Daly L, Fioramonti L, Giovannini E, Kubiszewski I, Mortensen LF, Pickett KE, Ragnarsdottir KV, de Vogli R, Wilkinson R (2016) Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ecol Econ 130:350– 355. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0921800915303359?casa_token¼3Zh_EOslGeYAAAAA: JeMuyMo-KJSE7Md7VudJMsmv7MpCBqv8zr7DitbSx1t g0eHcqk1RynW6REdovPuWlG_cMfc_wQ. Last access 29 Apr 2020 Di Comite F, Kancs D (2015) Macro-economic models for R&D and innovation policies. IPTS working papers on

C

122 corporate R&D and innovation, no. 03. https://www. econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/202155/1/jrc-wp201503. pdf. Last access 23 Apr 2020 E3MLab (2014) PRIMES model 2013-2014: detailed model description. E3MLab/ICCS at National Technical University of Athens. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/ sites/clima/files/strategies/analysis/models/docs/ primes_model_2013-2014_en.pdf. Last access 28 Apr 2020 EC (2020) https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/ analysis/models_en. Last access 28 Apr 2020 Ekino S, Susa M, Ninomiya T, Imamura K, Kitamura T (2007) Minamata disease revisited: an update on the acute and chronic manifestations of methyl mercury poisoning. J Neurol Sci 131–144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/sci ence/article/pii/S0022510X07004558?casa_ token¼MFsOC-I0sQAAAAAA:fvW0AU33WHf fOjsxGfk-8e62-LD_AwAmk6x2S77eCUWwadH Q2uIkmRnsBjdRwjMfRprsoMjLBA. Last access 23 Apr 2020 Faber A, Idenburg AM, Wilting HC (2007) Exploring technoeconomic scenarios in an input-output model. Futures 39 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.03.011 Farmer JD, Foley D (2009) The economy needs agentbased modelling. Nature, Opinion vol 460/6, August. https://www.nature.com/articles/460685a. Last access 23 Apr 2020 Fleiter T, Worrell E, Eichhammer W (2011) Barriers to energy efficiency in industrial bottom-up energy demand models – a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:3099–3111. https:// w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m / s c i e n c e / a r t i c l e / p i i / S1364032111001286?casa_token¼QxMzhhwK QEIAAAAA:u9XQVv_61ujv0C2TfLWvQ2Sq ZESmpnxKZih54WCFIno0cU2vhJmGyMNOaam586oiyPJQV0VyA. Last access 29 Apr 2020 Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A (2005) Introduction to environmental impact assessment. The natural and built environment series, 3 edn. Taylor & Francis e-library, London and New York Gustavson KR, Lonergan SC, Ruitenbeek HJ (1999) Selection and modelling of sustainable development indicators: a case study of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia. Ecol Econ 28:117–132. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800998000 329?casa_token¼hA3j7ZYxJAsAAAAA:4JuGZPda d w w _ 5 4 h 4 j v y k g 3 O Q v x H h X g Yq j _ R z MoXcpBMx8fmLP3A4AtDNNko-UOrKOzla en3_Vw. Last access 29 Apr 2020 Hughes BB, Hossain A, Irfan MT (2004) The structure of international futures (Ifs). Working paper 2004.07.19, Pardee Center for International Futures, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, Denver, CO. https://pardee.du.edu/structure-interna tional-futures-ifs. Last access 23 Apr 2020 IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014 synthesis report. IPCC fifth assessment report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ syr/. Last access 23 Apr 2020 Laurent KL, Friedman KB, Krantzberg G, Scavia D, Creed IF (2015) Scenario analysis: an integrative and effective method for bridging disciplines and achieving a thriving Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. J Great

Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development Lakes Res 41(1):12–19. https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/abs/pii/S0380133014002007. Last access 23 Apr 2020 Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) The limits to growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New York Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Munn RE (1977) Environmental impact assessment. In: Science for better environment: proceedings of the international congress on the human environment, Pergamon Press OECD (2015) The economic consequences of climate change. OECD Publishing, Paris Pruyt E (2013) Small system dynamics models for big issues: triple jump towards real-world complexity. TU Delft Library, Delft Robertson M (2017) Sustainability principles and practice, 2nd edn. Routledge, London Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Sue Wing I (2004) Computable general equilibrium models and their use in economy-wide policy analysis. MIT joint program on the science and policy of global change, Technical note 6, Cambridge, MA. http://web. mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_TechNote6. pdf. Last access 23 Apr 2020 UN (2014) Prototype global sustainable development report. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, New York, July. https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/globalsdreport/2014. Last access 23 Apr 2020 UN (2020). https://unfccc.int/topics/mitigation/ workstreams/response-measures/modelling-tools-toassess-the-impact-of-the-implementation-of-responsemeasures/responses-measures-models-gem-e3. Last access 28 Apr 2020 UNECE (2016) Protocol on strategic environmental assessment: facts and benefits. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/ DAM/env/eia/Publications/2016/Protocol_on_SEA/ 1609217_UNECE_HR.pdf. Last access 23 Apr 2020 UNEP (2002) Environmental impact assessment training resource manual, 2nd edn, eds. Sadler B, McCabe M. Geneva. https://unep.ch/etb/publications/EIAman/ IntroManual.pdf. Last access 23 Apr 2020 UNEP (2004) Global environment outlook scenario framework. Background paper for UNEP’s third global environment outlook report (GEO-3). https://www. unenvironment.org/resources/report/global-environ ment-outlook-scenario-framework-background-paperuneps-third-global. Last access 23 Apr 2020 UNEP (2019) Global Environment Outlook – GEO-6: healthy planet, healthy people, ed. Ekins P, Gupta J, Boileau P. Cambridge University Press. https://wedocs. unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/27539/ GEO6_2019.pdf?sequence¼1&isAllowed¼y. Last access 29 Apr 2020 United Nations (2014) Prototype global Sustainable Development Report. United Nations Department of

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, New York, July 2014. https://sustaina bledevelopment.un.org/globalsdreport/2014. Last access 23 Apr 2020 Van Notten P (2006) Scenario development: a typology of approaches, chapter 4. In: Think scenarios, rethinking education. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/site/schooling fortomorrowknowledgebase/futuresthinking/scenar ios/37246431.pdf. Last access 23 Apr 2020 Vincenot CE, Mazzoleni S, Parrott L (eds) (2016) Hybrid solutions for the modelling of complex environmental systems. Frontiers Media, Lausanne Walz A, Lardelli C, Behrendt H, Grêt-Regamey A, Lundström C, Kytzia S, Bebi P (2007) Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling. Landsc Urban Plan 81:114–131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ p i i / S 0 1 6 9 2 0 4 6 0 6 0 0 2 3 9 8 ? c a s a _ t o k e n ¼_ 7 1 l 5 HZCDPIAAAAA:gQjInUZTVL4LZaLC_7HhtqFTrugaH ziE4ACW2bLQKhMHqWakC-KAWciuW7dD8fi BEY44UMOOZg. Last access 23 Apr 2020 Wellman J, Hunt A (2016) Methods for the assessment of systemic change. Deliverable 3.3. EC DG Research ECONADAPT Project. Grant agreement no 603906. https://econadapt.eu/sites/default/files/docs/Deliver able-3.3-approved.pdf. Last access 28 Apr 2020 Worrell E, Price L (2001) Policy scenarios for energy efficiency improvement in industry. Energy Policy 1223– 1241. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ abs/pii/S0301421501000696. Last access 28 Apr 2020 Zagamé P, Boitier B, Fougeyrollas A, Le Mouel P (n.d.) The NEMESIS reference manual. www.erasme-team. eu, http://www.erasme-team.eu/files/Manual_Part_I. pdf. Last access 28 Apr 2020

123

attainment of development and prosperity for all countries. The UN sustainable development goals also highlight the assurance and accessibility of standard living provision and growth opportunities for all human residing in underdeveloped, developing, and developed countries. To achieve the desired outcomes, the importance of foreign investments and trade agreements is acknowledged in the SDG 17. The notion of this goal implies that global partnerships are developed for collective pursuance of sustainable development utilizing foreign investment and global trade (United Nations, UN 2015). The dawn of globalization has broken down the chains of feudal economies. This led to an increase in mutual trade and international development. Cultural values, norms, and ideologies are shared beyond countries and regions to create a sense of a globally connected world with an aim of global solidarity (Romano 2000). The upward trend of the FDIs and trade agreements are proven to be a major catalyst for attaining the desired goals of sustainable development, especially in the regions of less developed and developing countries. The platforms of the FDI and trade agreements can be used as tools of globalization where trading partners can work together by sharing wealth, resources, and technologies (BendeNabende 2017).

Children ▶ Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan Reina Ichii, Rajesh Sharma and Ahsan Hanif School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Definition The United Nations framework for sustainable development strongly emphasizes on the

Introduction Belt and Road Initiative is China’s investment in developing countries to revitalize global partnerships for achieving the sustainable development agenda. The BRI is associated with the revival of ancient silk routes used by Chinese merchants for top trade silk, spices, and other commodities across the continents (Cai 2017). The BRI includes two major components. One component is the Silk Road Economic Belt, the land-based route that will connect the countries of Central Asia, West Asia, the Middle East, and Europe through multimode connectivity. The other component is the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road which provides member states with economic connectivity along the South China Sea, the South Pacific Ocean, and the wider Indian Ocean

C

124

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan

(Lu et al. 2018). It proposes six economic corridors along the BRI, including the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as one of these corridors. It has been estimated that the BRI will impact more than two-thirds of the world’s population from its massive investment of around US $1 trillion in more than 65 countries. The BRI projects are mainly financed by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Silk Road Fund (Zhai 2018). The BRI projects are related to energy, construction, industrial development, infrastructure, and other related sectors to achieve economic development and prosperity for all stakeholders in participating countries. With impacts on 30% of the world’s GDP, the BRI shifts the global political and economic situation by stimulating the regional economy in Asia, Europe, and Africa (Huang 2016). The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor is a major enterprise under the BRI, which contributes to strengthening a partnership between China and Pakistan. The CPEC comprises of land networks that connect Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang province with the Gwadar seaport on the Balochistan coast in Pakistan. The notion of the CPEC was first conceived in May 2013 when a possibility of linking Gwadar port with northwest China was discussed by Chinese and Pakistani governments (Faqir and Islam 2013). In the same year, the Prime Minister of Pakistan signed Memorandums of Understanding to pursue the idea of mutual coordination and facilitation of Chinese investment in Pakistan. In 2015, a mutual agreement to pursue the CPEC was unveiled (Bandyopadhyay et al. 2017). The concept of the CPEC was officially created, with 51 signed MoUs and an initial investment of US $46 billion allocated for the implementation of the CPEC. In 2017, the initial investment had substantially increased from the preceding years to over US $60 billion. In Pakistan, the CPEC is a “game-changer,” whereas in China, it is regarded as the “flagship project” of the BRI (Esteban 2016). The CPEC is politically and economically important for both Pakistan and China. Since its official inception in 2015, the CPEC has been a flagship project of the BRI. Linking the Xinjiang province in China and the Gwadar seaport in

Pakistan, the CPEC strengthens the partnership and cooperation between the two governments (Abid and Ashfaq 2015). The CPEC is designed to be implemented according to the “1+4 formula” with the development of the CPEC at the center. This investment will be carried out in four potential areas, such as Gwadar port, energy, industry, and infrastructure (Lu 2014). Occurring in multiple layers of strategic sectors (Ali et al. 2016), the total investment is estimated to be over the US $60 million as of 2017 (Ali 2020). The CPEC projects include 17 energy projects, 4 infrastructure projects, 8 Gwadar-based projects, 2 other projects, for rail mass transit projects, 4 new provincial projects, 9 economic zones projects, 4 social sector project, and 6 western route projects (CPEC official site 2020). This investment will assist Pakistan to cope with a lack of foreign direct investment, employment opportunities, and the domestic generation of energy for achieving sustainable development. The CPEC is also beneficial for China, as it enables access to the Arabian Sea as an alternative route for global trade. This will increase China’s political and economic influence in the South-Asia region. The CPEC contributes to economic prosperity and regional connectivity in both countries. Particularly, both countries involve geopolitical issues in the region. The CPEC will enable these countries to enhance their partnerships to achieve sustainable development. This entry utilizes economic corridor as a concept to examine how sustainable development in Pakistan can be achieved by the CPEC. As the EC is an inclusive and comprehensive concept compared to trade corridors and other types of foreign investments, this helps to understand several key features relevant to sustainable development. These features include multisectoral development and infrastructure connectivity; economic development and resource availability; consensus development; regional connectivity; and linkages to global supply chains. With a focus on these features of the EC, this entry analyzes the CPEC as a case of China’s foreign investment in Pakistan. The analysis also examines the impacts of the CPEC on the progress of sustainable development in Pakistan.

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan

Economic Corridors Ancient history tells the story of how routes, roads, and infrastructure led to the development of the modern world. The importance of these roads and corridors is recognized as an element for the socioeconomic uplift of human civilization (Hall et al. 2011). The concept of such road connectivity for trade and commerce is often referred to as trade corridors. This includes road, sea, air, or multimodal transport systems used for the movement of goods, services, information, and people along geographical lines either nationally or internationally mainly for economic purposes. The major components of TCs are commercial, physical, and technical infrastructure along with features such as multimarket accessibility, business expertise, plus well developed social, political, and business linkages (Cuttino and Protasio 2013). Following the concept of the TC, the economic corridor emerges as a new concept of connectivity and economic development. It was coined during a meeting of the Greater Mekong Subregion in 1998 to foster economic activity in member regions. Several initiatives were taken across the years to increase the trade and coordination among the member states to achieve mutually beneficial development. The guiding ideology behind this investment was to develop the North-South Economic Corridor that would stimulate cumulative integrated economic development for mutual benefits of all stakeholders (Fau et al. 2014). The EC signified this potential investment calls for a comprehensive economic development package in multiple sectors to amplify the effects on the economy and all stakeholders. Different from the TC, the EC emphasizes the connection of economic hubs along geographical lines for commerce with investment in physical infrastructure, energy, technology, and other sectors to encourage economic cooperation and development. The key features of the EC include (i) ensuring constant connectivity via road, rail, and air; (ii) access to the global market via global supply chains to ensure connectivity and mutual growth for all stakeholders; (iii) maintaining the availability of safe spaces for business activity

125

through the means of mutual consent for development by potential stakeholders; and (iv) economic transformation and inclusive growth aggressive economic development over a while (Plummer et al. 2016; Perdiguero 2016; Wolf 2016). An the EC also considers environmental implications (Brunner 2013). This must prevail to achieve the desired outcomes of such development. All ECs are not the same. The ECs do not necessarily include all of the features (Brunner 2013). Each EC differs based on characteristics, opportunities, and comparative advantages (Masviriyakul 2004; Perdiguero 2016). For this reason, the definition of the ECs is not universally agreed among scholars and policymakers.

Characteristics of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor Connecting Kashgar to Gwadar, the CPEC provides an ideal platform for the establishment of an EC. It gives access to a deep-sea port, natural resources, land for economic zones, physical infrastructure, and investment opportunities for generating economic activity along the lines (Khan 2015). The other key prospects of the CPEC include rapid economic development, connection to global supply chains, multimodal connectivity, and multisectoral development in several potential sectors of Pakistan that further have multiplier impacts on economy and stakeholders (Farooq and Khawaja 2019). Despite the tremendous potential opportunities, the CPEC projects face potential risks. Corruption, security threats, poor governance, and transparency issues create hurdles, and uncertainty in the attainment of its true potential and goal of sustainable development (Hussain 2018). These issues lie with lack of sociopolitical consensus, which will increase inclusiveness among all stakeholders, eliminating security concerns and provision of a secure and conducive environment for trade and development (Sajjad et al. 2019). This will be achieved with proper planning and execution by both partner countries. Mitigating these potential risks enables the countries to achieve sustainable development and the desired

C

126

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan

outcomes defined as key characteristics of the ECs (Brunner 2013; Perdiguero 2016). The following section analyzes the CPEC based on the key features of the ECs. These key features include: 1. Multisectoral development and infrastructure connectivity 2. Economic development and resource availability 3. Consensus development and inclusiveness 4. Regional connectivity and linkages to global supply chains

• Multisectoral Development and Infrastructure Connectivity Multisectoral development and infrastructure connectivity are characterized as a feature of the EC to attain sustainable development (Anees 2019). The CPEC projects are planned and implemented under the arrangement of 1 +4 investment package in Pakistan (CPEC official site 2020). The overall investment is centered around the CPEC projects and corridors for connecting Gwadar with Kashgar, while at the same time it prioritizes four potential investments, i.e., development of Gwadar as a model seaport city, potential energy sectors, transport infrastructure, and industrial development. The investment through the CPEC provides a comprehensive package for the overall socioeconomic upliftment of Pakistan (Malik 2018). The CPEC also advances multisectoral development and infrastructure connectivity. The Long-Term Plan for CPEC 2017–2030 provides comprehensive information on the CPEC structure and potential investment objectives over three phases: the first phase to be completed by the end of 2020, the second phase in between 2021 and 2025, and the third phase in between 2026 and 2030 (CPEC official site 2020). The CPEC projects address major bottlenecks for socioeconomic development of Pakistan, including the development of a new airport, a smart port city master plan, and express highway for Gwadar.

Furthermore, the projects include wind farms, coal, and hydropower plants across the county for addressing energy security issues, Karakoram highway Phase-II, plus rail and road networks for connecting Gwadar and Kashgar (CPEC official site 2020). These projects help to establish free economic zones and to invest in key industries in Pakistan, which enable multisectoral development and infrastructure connectivity to be further strengthened. Also, multisectoral development is addressed with transport connectivity through the CPEC. Connecting China and Pakistan on the regional nodes of Kashgar and Gwadar, the CPEC projects have a potential to provide uninterrupted connectivity for goods, services, information, and people via road, train, air, and other transports modes. The CPEC’s route is divided into three sub-routes to ensure uninterrupted connectivity within the region. This includes the Eastern alignment between central Punjab and Sindh, the Central alignment connected Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with Punjab and Sindh, and Western alignment between Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. These three sub-routes intersect at the destination of Gwadar port. Land connectivity across Pakistan via rail and road offers investment opportunities in energy, infrastructure, agriculture, and cross-border business opportunities for all stakeholders in Pakistan (Hussain 2017). • Economic Development and Resource Availability Another feature of the EC is the attainment of economic development and the availability of potential resources. To achieve the desired outcomes of the CPEC, a strong platform is needed to achieve rapid economic development in a comparatively shorter period while utilizing the potential resources. The rationale of the CPEC is based on the agenda of multisectoral investment that will trigger economic development by aligning potential resources for industrialization, integrating regional connectivity, and linking to global supply chains for trade purposes.

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan

Pakistan is affluent in natural resources. Surrounded by mountains, vast land sand coastlines along the Arabian Sea, the country has untapped natural resources, such as minerals and natural gas. These natural resources are ideal for developing the CPEC as an EC, especially for the establishment of infrastructure and free economic zones (Javaid 2016). The availability of untapped natural resources along with potential human resource can be a foundation for prosperous investment potentials in the country. Aligned with the availability of the enrich natural resources, the CPEC projects are carried out as the multisectoral investments (CPEC official site 2020). A special emphasis of the CPEC is on capacity building of human resources of Pakistan. A key issue of the labor market is a shortage of educated and skilled labor. The projects of CPEC offer human resource development opportunities to the country. Pakistani people working in medicine, education, public policy, and the other professions are given these opportunities. Also, the CPEC provides technical training and vocational education for students (Kanwal et al. 2019). These capacitybuilding opportunities contribute to the improvement of the quality of human resources. The geopolitical position of Pakistan also adds an attractive advantage to the package. The Gwadar seaport provides access to global supply chains and also opens up global trade opportunities, which increases the chances of rapid economic development. Access to the potential markets of Middle East, Central Asia, and African countries creates a comparative advantage to enhance global trade (Ashraf et al. 2017). The CPEC projects have a promising potential for sustainable economic development in the world and also provide significant potentials to utilize untapped natural and human resources. • Consensus Development and Inclusiveness Featured in the EC, the consensus among the stakeholders is required for the CPEC. As an EC, the success of the CPEC depends on the formation of the consensus among agents

127

regarding political, social, institutional, and economic challenges. Harmony between economic agents, potential stakeholders, and local people of each region is imperative to provide a business-friendly environment. Also, this ensures the timely implementation of the CPEC projects. The process of consensus formation can be hindered with several challenges including the issues of transparency, biased government policies, incorrect project beneficiaries, fear and mistrust among local people, communication gaps and ethnic issues (Hussain 2017). These challenges are more apparent, particularly in the least developed provinces, such as Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Bhatti et al. 2020; Shapiee and Idrees 2017). In Pakistan, ethnic issues play a vital role to encourage political and community engagement. In the finalization of the CPEC routes, a major issue was raised as a political furor because the Pakistani government gave a priority to Punjab, the most populated province of Pakistan. Political leaders from the other provinces criticized the pro-Punjab policies and even termed the CPEC as the “China-Punjab Economic Corridor” (Shafique and Kanwal 2018). Political uncertainty was addressed by the Pakistani government when a political consensus was made during the All-Parties-Conference by proposing three sub-routes connecting all provinces across Pakistan (Khetran 2016). This political consensus was highlighted as a major milestone in the progress of the CPEC to ensure that political harmony is vital. Nevertheless, similar milestones still need to be achieved to realize the considerable potentials through the CPEC. The national government has strongly emphasized on creating a sociopolitical consensus on the CPEC projects while keeping in view its economic importance for both China and Pakistan. The government ensures the inclusiveness of all stakeholders while addressing controversial issues, along with concerns of political consensus, law, and order. These efforts aim to create an enabling environment to bring all stakeholders together

C

128

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan

and acknowledge the geopolitical and socioeconomic importance of the CPEC for the country. The national government is optimistic over time. Further disagreements can be addressed as the project proceeds through the second and third phases in 2025 and 2030, respectively (Abid and Ashfaq 2015). Another key challenge of the CPEC is inclusiveness. By supporting community linkages, the CPEC aims to provide sustainable growth for all stakeholders through the equal distribution of benefits. The governments of Islamabad and Beijing have undertaken several initiatives to increase community engagement. For example, a joint working group for social and economic development is included in the institutional framework of the CPEC governance committee (CPEC official site 2020). This joint working group focuses on people’s socioeconomic development and their participation in the CPEC by providing scholarships, training visits, technical and vocational education, and cultural exchange programs. It is imperative to counter the abovementioned governance and non-governance issues, which seriously impacts and shapes the perception of the CPEC among Pakistani people. As an EC, the desirable goals of the CPEC can be achieved ensuring the fair distribution of the benefits from the CPEC and creating an environment of mutual consent among all stakeholders. • Regional Connectivity and Linkages to Global Supply Chains An important feature of the EC is the provision of integrated economic development in the region by linking economic hubs with neighboring countries. Creating a partnership with these countries is necessary to connect with global markets and supply chains. An EC cannot be achieved by China and Pakistan. Regional integrity is vital for achieving the desired results of the EC. This provides a comprehensive plan for integrating regions into the socioeconomic fabric of Pakistan. As implemented through the CPEC, the concept of ECs mandates the development of the regions involved, including Xinjiang, China’s

northwest region and Pakistan. Associated development initiatives aim to integrate across the whole regions rather than capital cities and specified economic hubs, such as Gwadar, Kashgar, industrial projects, and proposed industrial zones. The CPEC framework prescribes a comprehensive network of such initiatives across the region which matches the core principles of the ECs (Butt and Butt 2015). The geopolitics surrounding of the CPEC is significant mainly due to its linkages and possible impacts on global supply chain and global market. The major attraction on the CPEC for China is not just the Gwadar seaport to access to the Arabian Sea. The CPEC also increases their access to the Middle East and South Asia as conflicts over the South China Sea pose a major bottleneck for China’s maritime trade. Much of China’s imported energy resources are brought in through the US-dominated Malacca Strait, a key global shipping route accounted for around 25% of world trade. The CPEC provides an alternate, cost-efficient route for China. Most importantly, it connects the region with the other global trade routes by directly linking them to the Middle East via the Arabian Sea (Roy 2019). In analyzing the CPEC’s potentials to increase regional integrity and linkages to global supply chains, a critical issue emerges that calls for connecting this potential investment opportunity with neighboring countries surrounding the CPEC. The CPEC includes only two countries: China and Pakistan. The ECs propose to connect neighboring countries and create clusters to achieve economic development. However, the Indian government has openly opposed the CPEC at different forums (Iqbal 2018). Moreover, the close association of India with Iran through the Chabahar port runs in direct competition with Gwadar port. The political linkages between India and Iran with Afghanistan have also created a serious question on the involvement of all these countries in the CPEC. At the initial phase of the CPEC, there was a discussion about regional connectivity through Afghanistan and Iran

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan

(Wolf 2020). For this reason, the CPEC must integrate with neighboring countries to ensure a positive impact on development in the South Asian region (Ali 2015a, b; Amir 2016). In pursuing this objective, the Chinese and Pakistani governments have offered participation to not only India, Iran, and Afghanistan but also to many other countries. The CPEC is in its initial phase and as it proceeds, it is hoped that other countries will become involved to achieve the desired potential of the EC (Wolf 2018). Regional integrity and access to global trade are imperative features of the EC and thus become crucially important for achieving sustainable development. The CPEC offers real potential for regional development and access to global trade. However, managing expectations among neighboring countries remains a persistent challenge for the governments of Islamabad and Beijing. Without engaging the neighboring countries, the CPEC cannot achieve its true potentials and progress the SDGs.

Major Challenges The comprehensive project of CPEC provides an ideal basis to attain the desired objectives of SDGs by countering and emphasizing on the abovementioned features of the EC. Despite the benefits and promises of the potential proximity of the CPEC for both China and Pakistan, the CPEC faces other crucial challenges that may impact its overall performance and successful implementation. These challenges include good governance and environmental concerns. • Good Governance through the CPEC Good governance plays an important role in each step of the CPEC, from its planning to successful implementation in the project year of 2030. The CPEC has been criticized heavily in terms of governance issues due to a lack of transparency, weak provincial structures, bias policy concerns, corruption, and security challenges (Hussain 2018).

129

The role of good governance in the implementation of the CPEC is imperative for achieving the goal of sustainable development. The term good governance refers to the management of government structures, as well as the implementation of policies through a decision-making process for social and economic welfare (Srivastava 2009). Good governance is reflected in how the government shapes public policies and exercises its authority for the provision of public goods and services. At a minimum stance, the aim of governance includes efficiency, effectiveness, the rule of law, as well as respect and equality in crafting and implementing public policies (Khan 2016). The CPEC has been highly criticized regarding its governance, especially on the issue of transparency. The MOUs of the CPEC are not accessible to the general public which raises questions regarding the integrity of the project. This transparency needs to be urgently addressed as it directly affects many correlated issues (Arifeen 2017). Other governance loopholes also compromise the project, such as weak provincial structures, centralized decision-making, corruption, biased policymaking, security, plus the law and order situations of Pakistan and Balochistan in particular (Abid and Ashfaq 2015). The threats of violence and social unrest pose a significant risk on the CPEC, particularly from groups like Tehreek Taliban Pakistan, Daesh, Balochistan Liberation Army, and Balochistan Liberation Front. The armed forces have successfully conducted several operations to try and eliminate these movements. However, unrest still exists and puts the security of the CPEC in jeopardy (Hussain 2017). Fundamentalist movements have also impacted China’s province of Xinjiang. Beijing believes that the Taliban are encouraging local Uyghur Muslims to fight against the Chinese government and asked the Islamabad government to act urgently (Han 2010). This complex security is prominent in the province of Balochistan, where nationalist separatist movements such as the BLA and BLF have killed Chinese people, attacked CPEC

C

130

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan

installations and infrastructure, and even targeted the Chinese consulate in Karachi. The government of Pakistan has established a Special Security Division and Maritime Security Force to counter these security threats. Deployment of this security personnel has enhanced safety in the region. However, it has also increased the associated security costs of CPEC projects which reduce efficiency (Hussain 2018). Other governance issues such as corruption and political instability also call for immediate attention. The Pakistani government must urgently rectify these governance matters in the best interest of the CPEC. Otherwise, transparency and security will remain major obstacles in achieving the true potential of the EC and thus may delay the realization of sustainable development goals through the CPEC. • Environmental Concerns Safeguarding the environment is another challenge for the CPEC in the context of sustainable development and becoming an EC. Road connectivity, free economic zones, industrial hubs, and infrastructure developments are imperative for achieving the desired economic outcomes; however, each has its associated environmental costs. For example, the direct impacts of improved road connectivity include increased air pollution, impacts on species due to intensive cutting of trees, levelling of mountains, biodiversity loss, deforestation, and massive changes in topography (Durani and Khan 2018). The BRI has had significant impacts on local people and communities. The Chinese government is prioritizing the vision for the BRI within the agenda of sustainable development, as outlined in the UN 2030 Vision of Sustainability. In pursuance of this agenda, the Chinese government has announced its priorities for greening the BRI via two key policies – Guiding Opinions on Promoting the Green BRI and the Belt and Road Ecological and Environmental Cooperation Plan. These two strategies provide guiding principles to prioritize BRI projects that include environment-friendly initiatives (Cuiyun and Chazhong 2020).

The CPEC projects will bring socioeconomic prosperity but it needs to be planned to address the environmental concerns associated with the project. Coal-based projects such as the Tharparkar coal plant for energy creation not only damage the environment but also displaces resident, which has significant impacts on their livelihood (International Crises Group 2018). Potential environmental degradation caused by the CPEC projects must be minimized. If the environment is irreparably damaged, the legacy of the CPEC will be compromised on account for green development. It is imperative for both Sino-Pak governments to closely associate the several planned energy, infrastructure, and other projects on the parameters of eco-sustainable development.

Conclusion The CPEC offers great potential in terms of sectoral investment, economic prosperity, and infrastructure connectivity within the included regions. The concept of the CPEC as an EC can be further strengthened by cooperative and inclusive development between all stakeholders and neighbor countries. The CPEC projects remain in the initial phase. The implementation of the CPEC projects could be suffered from foreseen issues including regional integration, national security, community engagement, environmental concerns, and governance issues. The Chinese and Pakistani government must identify and address these issues on a project by project basis. Particularly, environmental damage needs to be minimized in the pursuit of economic development; otherwise, the SDGs will remain unfulfilled. An adequate response to arising challenges by the governments will enable the efficient and effective implementation of the CPEC, which enhances sustainable development and economic transformation in the region.

Cross-References ▶ Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development

China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan

▶ International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development ▶ Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment ▶ Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government

References Abid M, Ashfaq A (2015) CPEC: challenges and opportunities for Pakistan. J Pak Vis 16(2):142–169 Ali A (2015a) China Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC): prospects and challenges for regional integration. Int J Soc Sci Humanit Stud 7:1: 1–1:15 Ali S (2015b) Importance and implications of CPEC in South Asia: the Indian factor. J Indian Stud 1(1):21–36 Ali W, Gang L, Raza M (2016) China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: Current developments and future prospect for regional integration. Int J Res 3(10):210–222 Ali M (2020) China–Pakistan economic corridor: prospects and challenges. Contemp South Asia 28(1):100–112 Amir F (2016) CPEC and regional integration. Pak Dev Rev 56(4):579–596 Anees H (2019) Pakistan’s strategic position and CPEC-A game changer for regional and global prosperity. Defence J 23(1):16 Arifeen M (2017) Transparency in the execution of CPEC needs to be resolved. Pak Gulf Econ 36(22):26–27 Ashraf M, Shafiq A, Batool S (2017) China Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC): analysis of internal and external challenges. Int J Bus Econ Manag 4(5):106–111 Bandyopadhyay S, Torre A, Casaca P, Dentinho T (eds) (2017) Regional cooperation in South Asia: Socio-economic, spatial, ecological and institutional aspects. Springer, Cham Bende-Nabende A (2017) Globalisation, FDI, regional integration and sustainable development: theory, evidence and policy. Routledge and Francis Group, London and New York Brunner HP (2013) What is economic corridor development and what can it achieve in Asia’s subregions? Asian Development Bank. Available via http://www20. iadb.org/intal/catalogo/PE/2013/12562.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020 Bhatti MN, Mustafa G, Ahmad F (2020) China Pakistan economic corridor: prospects and challenges. Pak Soc Sci Rev 4(1):292–305 Butt KM, Butt AA (2015) Impact of CPEC on regional and extra-regional actors. J Polit Sci 33:23 Cai P (2017) Understanding China’s belt and road initiative. Available via Lowy Institute for International Policy. https://think-asia.org/bitstream/handle/11540/ 6810/Understanding_Chinas_Belt_and_Road_Initia tive_WEB_1.pdf?sequence¼1. Accessed September 13, 2020 Cuttino J, Protasio P (2013) Development of a SouthSouth-North Maritime Corridor available via

131

http://www20.iadb.org/intal/catalogo/PE/2013/ 13119a11.pdf Cuiyun C, Chazhong G (2020) Green development assessment for countries along the belt and road. J Environ Manag 263:110344 CPEC Official site (2020) CPEC register. http://cpec.gov. pk/progress-update. Accessed 20 Apr 2020 Durani MQ, Khan MB (2018) The environmental impact of The China-Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC): a case study. Abasyn Uni J Soc Sci 11:1 Esteban M (2016) The China-Pakistan Corridor: a transit, economic or development corridor. Strat Stud 36(2):63–74 Farooq U, Khawaja AS (2019) China-Pakistan economic corridor: geopolitical implications, regional constraints and benefits of CPEC. South Asian Stud 34(2):599 Faqir K, Islam F (2013) Pak-China and Central Asia strategic partnership: an analysis. Pak Perspect 18(2):121– 132 Fau N, Khonthapane S, Taillard C (eds) (2014). Transnational dynamics in Southeast Asia: the greater Mekong subregion and Malacca straits economic corridors. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore Hall PV, McCalla RJ, Comtois C, Slack B (2011) Integrating seaports and trade corridors. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., England Han E (2010) Boundaries, discrimination and interethnic conflict in Xinjiang, China. Int J Confl Violence 4 (2):245–256. https://doi.org/10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.77 Huang Y (2016) Understanding China’s belt & road initiative: motivation, framework and assessment. China Econ Rev 40:314–321 Hussain M (2017) China Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC): challenges and the way forward. Naval Postgraduate School, United States, Monterey Hussain E (2018) CPEC: governance and security challenges—implications for the belt and road initiative. Chin Polit Sci Rev 4(1):1–13 Iqbal K (2018) Securing CPEC: challenges, responses and outcomes. In: Securing the belt and road initiative. Palgrave, Singapore, pp 197–214 International Crises Group (2018) China-Pakistan economic corridor: opportunities and risks. https://www.crisis group.org/asia/south-asia/pakistan/297-china-pakistaneconomic-corridor-opportunities-and-risks. Accessed 19 Apr 2020 Javaid U (2016) Assessing CPEC: potential threats and prospects. J Res Soc Pak 53(2):254–269 Kanwal S, Chong R, Pitafi AH (2019) China–Pakistan economic corridor projects development in Pakistan: local citizens benefits perspective. Public Aff 19(1):e1888 Khan M (2015) CPEC: we will succeed. Pakistan Observer. Available via http://epaper.pakobserver.net/ 2015/05/28?page¼5. Accessed 20 Apr 2020 Khan HA (2016) The idea of good governance and the politics of the global South: an analysis of its effects. Routledge, New York Khetran MS (2016) CPEC benefits for Balochistan. Issue Brief, Institute of Strategic Studies, http://issi.org.pk/ wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Final-Issue-brief-MirSherbaz-Khetran-dated-15-2-2016.pdf. Accessed 9 November 2020

C

132 Lu S (2014) China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: A Flagship and exemplary project of “One Belt and One Road. Strat Stud 34/35(4):165–173 Lu H, Rohr C, Hafner M, Knack A (2018) China belt and road initiative. RAND Cooperation Santa Monica, Calif, and Cambridge, UK Malik AR (2018) The China–Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC): a game changer for Pakistan’s economy. In: China’s global rebalancing and the new silk road. Springer, Singapore, pp 69–83 Masviriyakul S (2004) Sino-Thai strategic economic development in the greater Mekong subregion (1992– 2003). Contemp Southeast Asia 26:302–319 Perdiguero A (2016) Economic corridor development: the greater Mekong subregion experience available via http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/pubdocs/publicdoc/ 2016/5/83941462934380573/Alfredo-perdiguero-G20-Connectivity-Forum-27-April-2016-short-version2-Singapore-GMS-corridors.pptx Romano P (2000) Sustainable development: a strategy that reflects the effects of globalization on the international power structure. Houst J Int Law 23(1):91 Roy N (2019) China-Pakistan economic corridor - is it the road to the future? Asian Aff 50(2):268–282. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2019.1614767 Sajjad A, Zhijun Y, Nadeem, J, Ahmad A, Islam M, Abdul N (2019) The analysis of China, Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) through the SWOT technique. Paper presented at International Conference on Education Research, Economics and Management (ICEREM), Singapore, 29-30 June 2019 Shafique M, Kanwal L (2018) Geo-ethnic dynamics of CPEC in Pakistan. J Res Soc Pak 55:1 Shapiee R, Idrees RQ (2017) China Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC); most valuable dream for Pakistan through economic integration in the region but may not become true without upgradation of physical infrastructure and legal system. Beijing L Rev 8:481 Srivastava M (2009), Good governance – concept, meaning and features: a detailed study SSRN. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract¼1528449 or https:// doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1528449 UN (2015) General assembly resolution A/RES/70/224, Towards global partnerships: a principle-based approach to enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners. http://undocs.org/A/ RES/70/224. Accessed 2 Aug 2020 Wolf SO (2016) The China-Pakistan economic corridor: an assessment of its feasibility and impact on regional cooperation SADF working paper. Available via. https://ssrn.com/abstract¼2834599 Wolf SO (2018) China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): Regional Cooperation in the Wider South Asian Region. In China’s Global Rebalancing and the New Silk Road (pp. 85–100). Springer. Wolf SO (2020) Afghanistan within the BRI vision and the feasibility of enlarging the CPEC. In: The China-

Civil Partnership and Social Protection Pakistan economic corridor of the belt and road initiative. Springer, Cham, pp 261–280 Zhai F (2018) China’s belt and road initiative: a preliminary quantitative assessment. J Asian Econ 55:84–92

Civil Partnership and Social Protection Christopher U. Kalu and Uju R. Ezenekwe Economics Department, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria

Synonyms Civil society organization; Social assistance; Social insurance; Social safety net; Social security

Definition Partnership has been defined in several ways by various authors. However, those definitions are characterized by the voluntary nature, collective activity, and mutual benefits to those involved in partnership. Therefore, civil partnership refers to civil society organizations (e.g., nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)) and community-based organizations (CBOs), among others, formed to promote developmental aspirations toward directions that are more sustainable. Social protection involves measures of social insurance, social assistance, social safety net, and social security provided by the government, nongovernmental organization, private sector players, and others to reduce poverty and vulnerability (ODI 2012).

Introduction The overall objective of social protection measures is to reduce the economic and social vulnerability of the poor and marginalized groups and, in particular, to aid the poor to overcome the demand-side barriers which prevent them from having access to the basis of life.

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

According to Sabates-Wheeler and Stephen (2004), the transformative social protection framework offers the best conceptual approach, and it goes beyond the safety nets and social securities to include: • Protective: This involves protecting the households’ income and consumption, which includes social assistance programs such as cash transfers, in-kind transfers, and fee waivers to support access to basic and social services. • Preventive: This involves preventing households from falling further into poverty, by using health insurance programs and subsidized risk pooling mechanism, among others. • Promoting: This involves promoting the household’s ability to engage in productive activities and increase income through public works, employment schemes, and agricultural input transfers or subsidies. • Transformative: This involves addressing social inequalities and discrimination through core social protection programs which tackle gender inequality and promote child’s rights and linkage to awareness-raising programs or tackling discrimination. The importance of the transformative measures has been harped and emphasized in understanding and addressing societal power imbalances that encourages, creates, and sustains poverty and inequality-extending social protection to scenarios including equity, empowerment, and economic, social, and cultural rights (Holmes and Jones 2010; UNICEF 2010). However, the transformative approach requires complementary measures, which may not be considered a core element of social protection, but are necessary to enhance an effective enabling environment to achieve social protection objectives. These complementary services are social services including quality health and education services and social welfare services. A child-sensitive approach to social protection has also been emphasized and canvassed for in the literature. It is defined as the prevention of the child from violence, exploitation, and abuse and

133

unnecessary separation from family. Such an approach includes social protection measures which benefit children without explicitly targeting them (e.g., pensions, household grants, public work programs) or those which benefit children directly (e.g., child grants or targeted fee waivers). The child-sensitive approach to social protection has the power to benefit not specifically children but also their family and community and national development as a whole. Jones (2009) framework for child-sensitive protection suggests that children’s experiences of risk, vulnerability, and deprivation are shaped by four characteristics of childhood poverty and vulnerability: • Multidimensionality: This relates to multiple (income and non-income) dimensions to human experiences of vulnerability, e.g., gender, geography and location, ethnicity, etc. In the case of children, these vulnerabilities are hyped by risks to their survivals (e.g., sickness, nutrition), development (e.g., education), protection (e.g., abuse and neglect), and participation in decisions that affect their lives. • Changes over the course of childhood: This relates to vulnerabilities and coping capacities (e.g., young infants have much lower capacities than teenagers to cope with shocks without adult case and support). • Relational nature: Consequent upon the dependence of children on the care, support, and protection of adults, especially in the earlier parts of childhood, their individual vulnerabilities are often heightened by the vulnerabilities and risks experienced by their caregivers (following their gender/sex, ethnicity-spatial locations, and so on). • Voicelessness: The marginalized group in most cases lack voice and opportunities for participation in the society. The children are particularly voiceless because of legal and cultural systems that reinforce the marginalization (Jones and Summer 2007). Social protection helps to build a protective environment for children by reducing the socioeconomic barriers to child protection (UNICEF 2011) through policies that contribute to

C

134

economic security, access to basic social services, and preventing violence and exploitation. Therefore, social protection helps to understand and reduce socioeconomic barriers to child protection as a necessary element in addressing violation of children’s rights. However, there are opportunities and avenues for enlarging and strengthening the linkages between social protection and child’s protection in order to address children vulnerabilities. Such opportunities include linking cash transfer beneficiaries to complementary supportive programs, including preventative and responsive social welfare services (e.g., measures to tackle harmful forms of child labor or human trafficking) (Jones and Holmes 2010). Although civil society organizations have been defined, it must be noted that civil society includes a vast number of associations and groups including trade unions, professional associating religious groups, cultural and sports groups, and traditional associations, many of which are informal organizations that are not registered. Moreover, it is important at this juncture to state that the literature viewed civil society organizations (CSOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) differently separately (Clayton et al. 2000). For reasons of their impacts to social protection, they are to be used together in the analysis. The literature also revealed that CSOs are generally accepted to be more efficient and amenable to tackling poverty and vulnerability than the public/government sector in the developing countries. This assertion has been buttressed by the recent impact assessment studies, which have all supported the claim that CSOs are more efficient and effective than the public sector in addressing poverty. For example, the Danish NGO Impact Study (1997) has shown that service delivery projects aimed at poor people have a significant impact on satisfying the needs of poor people through the provision of basic healthcare, education, and water supply services but found little evidence to suggest that these efforts can also improve income levels in order to bring about long-term poverty reduction (Oakley 2003). In a similar study, Bierkart (1998), in his review of NGO’s impact in Central America, averred that

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

while there is little evidence that NGO interventions reduce poverty, they do, nonetheless, perform effectively in the area of delivering services to the poor. The author, however, concluded that there is still little evidence to show whether or not they are better at delivery services to the poorest and the most marginalized group. The objective of this entry is to review the literature on civil society organizations and social protection. Specifically, it aims to examine how civil society organizations and social protection are related to the achievement of the overall Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and in particular Goal 17 (Partnership for the Goals). This entry is structured into four sections: first section is the introduction, which presents the overview of civil society organizations and social protection, with a sub-section on poverty and vulnerability. Section “Social Protection and the Sustainable Development Goals” is on social protection targets within the SDGs, while section “The Role of Civil Society Organizations in Social Protection” presents a developmental role of society organizations. Section “Key Messages and Concluding Remark” presents the lessons learned, the implications of these lessons, and the recommendations for addressing the challenges of civil society organizations toward achieving the social protection targets of the SDGs. To achieve the aims of this entry, the desk-based literature review, figures, and tables were employed (Table 1). Poverty and Vulnerability: Concepts and Measures Different perspectives have emerged on how poverty can be observed and measured. The first of these perspectives is the “resource” perspective which defines poverty as the inability of the household to provide the basic necessities of life (Fields 2001). This perspective dominates discussions on poverty and its measurement in developing countries. The second perspective is the social participation and inclusion perspectives which define poverty as the inability of an individual or household to participate in the social life of a community at an acceptable minimum standard (Kanbur 1987). Meanwhile, Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel Prize laureate in Economic Sciences

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

135

Civil Partnership and Social Protection, Table 1 Taxonomy of social protection instruments Category Social transfer

Social insurance

Social services

Labor market policies

Informal social protection Legislation and transformative polices

Programs Cash transfers; unconditional cash transfers, conditional transfers, child grants, foster care grants, housing allowance, emergency support, scholarships, old-age pensions, disability allowance/benefits, war veterans’ benefits, burial allowance, cash for work, payment for environmental services Food, in-kind, or near-cash transfer: food stamps and vouchers, supplementary feeding, school feeding, nutrition programs, emergency support, health subsidies or waivers, education subsidies or waivers, agricultural subsidies, housing subsidies, utility subsidies, food for work Other transfers: land tax exceptions Old-age pensions, survivor pension, disability pension, unemployment insurance, sickness/injury insurance, maternity/paternity benefits, health insurance

Children: day care services for children/orphans, early childhood development programs, foster care, specialized care for children (abandoned, neglected, abused, orphaned), non-residential psychological services, social care for substance abuse Family: preservation and unification counseling services, domestic violence victim’s services, rehabilitation service, community development services, mother care and counseling services Working age: social care for the homeless, immigrant counsel and care services People living with disabilities (PLWD): residential care for PLWD, psychosocial care, personal assistance and day care, transportation services specialized for PLWD Intermediate services, training (vocational, life skills, cash for training), job rotation and job sharing, employment incentives/wage subsidies, employment measures for PLWD, public works and direct job creation, start-up incentives (cash and in-kind loans), unemployment benefits (contributory and noncontributory), early retirement based on labor market Funeral insurance services, village grain banks, rotating services and credit groups, community-based health insurance Institutional: legislation on economic, social, and cultural rights, anti-corruption measures, citizen juries Societal: sensitization and anti-discrimination campaigns (i.e., HIV/AIDS anti-stigma campaign) Legal: minimum wage legislation, worker’s rights legislation (e.g., maternity leave), children rights (laws against child labor) social funds that invest in infrastructure pertinent to the poor, agricultural policies that improve productivity of small land owners

Source: ILO (2016a) and UNDP (2016)

Benefits Increased income, consumption, expenditure and asset accumulations, increased human capital accumulations, improved health outcomes, reduced unpaid care and domestic work

Increased income consumption, expenditure and asset accumulation, reduced exposure to risk, improved coping mechanisms, consumption smoothing Reduced unpaid care and domestic work, improved health outcomes, increased human capital formation, reduced gender-based violence

Increased employment both by increasing the supply and demand for labor and improved labor conditions

Consumption smoothing, reductions in unpaid care and domestic work Remove barriers for marginalized groups. Improved outcomes (income) and opportunities for all reductions in unpaid care and domestic work, reductions in gender-based violence, reductions in social conflicts

C

136

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

through his social choice theory, demonstrated the limitations of resource approach to poverty by underlining the distance existing between resources and well-being (Sen 1985). He maintains that the most viable option to gauge wellbeing and, therefore, poverty is that of capabilities and functioning generally understood as the capacity to achieve rational life plans. Can poverty be measured? The answer is in the affirmative. Poverty headcount rate has been used. Poverty headcount measures the incidence of poverty in a population. It denotes the share of a population who are in the poverty trap. It is normally estimated using the estimates of the number of households and individuals whose income or consumption are below the poverty line, a socially defined minimum standard. This estimate of the number of households and individuals is then standardized as a proportion of the total population. The aggregate poverty gap (APG) is another measure of poverty. The gap between observed income and consumption and the poverty of those in poverty yields the aggregate poverty gap. When this gap is distributed across the population and divided by the poverty line, it provides a measure of the average depth of poverty. The poverty headcount rate and the poverty gap rate are the most often used aggregate poverty measures, capturing, respectively, the incidence and depth of poverty in a population. Algebraically, some mathematical derivations can be used in measuring poverty and the intensity of poverty: P • PG ¼ pi¼1 ðu  xi Þ, where PG is the poverty gap, u represents the poverty threshold, xi is the equivalent income of person i, and p is the number of poor people in the population. mp • I ¼ PG Pu ¼ 1  u , where mp is the average income per poor people. This is the income gap (I) which expresses the poverty gap among the minimum income the poor people would have in order to stop being poor. • Relative ¼ Poverty  gap ðHIÞ ¼

Pp

i¼1 ðu  xi Þ

nu

¼

TP  1, where u is the poverty threshold, xi is the equivalent income of person i, and n is the total number of people in the population.

This is the relative poverty gap (HI). It expresses the coefficient between the poverty gap and the number of people in the poverty threshold. • Eurostat

poverty

gap

¼

ððThresholdÞðMedianPoor peopleÞÞ Threshold

•

• •

•

; this expresses the Eurostat poverty gap, which defines the difference between the threshold and the median of income of poor people placed below this threshold, expressed as a percentage of the poverty threshold. The Sen index: S ¼ TP  (1 + (1  1) GP), where GP is the Gini index for the total poor population: this expresses a weighted total of individuals’ poverty gaps. The Sen index weightings depend on the relative expression of how the number of poor people grows. The Thon index (a variation of the Sen index): T ¼ TP  (S + 2 (1  TP)1). Family of poverty indices by Foster, Greer, and Thorbecke: FGT (/) ¼ Pp uxi / 1 , / 0 (poverty aversion i¼1 u n parameter). h i Log uLog mp , The Hagenaars index: HAG ¼ pn Log u

where mp is the geometric average of the people’s income. With regard to vulnerability analysis, it provides a more dynamic prospective on poverty. Vulnerability is defined as the continued existence of the household, community, or individuals into the ad infinitum poverty trap (Barrientos 2007). However, it is not only a dimension of poverty, but can also be a cause of poverty and its persistence. The view that “poverty begets poverty” is in line within the confines of vulnerability analysis of poverty. Evidence have shown that the likelihood of future poverty may force households currently in poverty to adopt protection strategies that may end up reinforcing poverty and could even trap the household into long-term poverty, therefore the essentiality of social protection measures. No doubt, social protection has emerged as a policy framework employed by economic development actors to address poverty and vulnerability

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

among the population. It is a key component of development policy on poverty reduction and on providing support to the poorest in development countries (de Haan 2000; Barrientos and Hulme 2005). In developed countries, the emphasis of social protection is on income maintenance and on protecting living standard for all (especially worker), while in the developing countries, the major concern of social protection is on finding solutions to the causes of poverty and not simply its symptoms (World Bank 2001). The focus of social protection is not just limited to compensating those in poverty for their income shortfall, but also intends to have a broader developmental aspiration. Social protection in developing countries is also characterized by its focus on risk and vulnerability. This is consequent upon the apprehension that the incidence of poverty is to be found in the challenges faced by the poor in taking advantage of economic opportunity, which has greatly been explained by the vulnerability of the poor to the impact of economic, social, and natural hazards. Within the field of social protection, two general kinds of actions are distinguished: • Social assistance, which encompasses public actions which are designed to transfer resources to groups deemed qualified due to deprivation. Deprivation may be defined by low income or in terms of other dimensions of poverty (e.g., social or nutritional status). • Social insurance is a social security that is financed by contributions on the insurance principles: that is, individuals or households protect themselves against risk by combining to pool resources with a larger number of similarly exposed individuals or household. In developed countries, social assistance is largely a residual safety net charged with protecting a small minority of individuals and households from the effects of poverty (Gough et al. 1997). In developing countries, where social insurance covers at best a minority of the labor force, basic services are highly stratified, labor market regulations are thin and poorly enforced, and the incidences of poverty and vulnerability

137

are high, social assistance is the primary and sometimes the only social protection instrument for addressing poverty and vulnerability. In developing countries, social assistance is believed to play a broader role than in developed countries, as a key component of development policy. In addition, social assistance in developing countries is expected to strengthen productive capacity, whether through investment in human or physical assets. It is also expected to bridge access to basic services and therefore weaken social exclusion, advancing the participation of the poorest in their communities and societies. In developed countries, social assistance aims to ensure minimum levels of consumption which protect poor households from the worst effects of deprivations. By comparison with its essentially residual and compensatory role in developed countries, social assistance in developing countries has a primary role within social protection and is developmental in scope. It is worthy to note that discussions on social protection in developing countries have focused on the advantages and disadvantages of specific instruments. Income transfers of social assistance have some advantages relative to alternative design options; they can be implemented and scaled up quickly, have an immediate impact on consumption, and are capable of reaching the very poor. With this taken, it therefore becomes highly probable that a single social protection instrument could achieve the objectives of protecting household consumption, promoting asset accumulation, strengthening productive capacity and inclusion, and reducing poverty, vulnerability, and inequality. It then becomes imperative that discussions around design options move from the focus on single instruments to a broader focus on integrated programs or a mix of programs, capable of progressing the different objectives of social protection among the poor and the poorest. The high incidence of poverty in developing countries makes the selection of beneficiaries a necessity where resources for poverty reduction are insufficient to reach everyone. Selection is also discussed within the context of the dynamics

C

138

of poverty reduction in a political economy context. Using the Latin American model, the selection of beneficiaries through a means of grouping households based on their poverty status has formed a response to broadly held opinions that anti-poverty programs have proved ineffective as a result of corruption. However, the selection of beneficiaries through agreed and transparent methods can build transparency and credibility and political support for social protection interventions. The linkage between government social protection expenditure and poverty reduction has also been examined, for example, Baulch et al. (2005) developed a social protection index for six countries in Asia to be used as a policy instrument by the Asian Development Bank. A key innovation in the study is the attempt to connect overall social protection expenditure to poverty reduction. The index combines measures of expenditure, coverage, poverty targeting, and impact on the poverty. A comparison of the index with the Human Development Index (HDI) rankings for the six countries shows a high correlation; as GDP per capita (one of the HDI components) increases, the amount spent on social protection will increase. In another study, Gebregziabher and NinoZarazua (2014) examined social spending and aggregate welfare in developing and transition countries using the General Maximum Moment (GMM) and Two Stage Least (2LSS) approaches. The result of the study provided a strong evidence to support the preposition that social protection is a strong predictor of improved aggregate welfare. The findings further revealed that government spending on the social sectors can improve the standard of living even in countries with lessadvanced democratic institutions, supporting previous studies (Annes 1987; Alesina and Rodrik 1994). Furthermore, Mustafa and Nishat (2017) using the Autoregressive Distributed Dynamic Model (ARDL) examined the “role of social protection in poverty reduction on Pakistan.” The study concluded that outreach of social protection via expenditures on education, foreign aid, and “Zakat” plays a significant role in poverty reduction even within the autocratic period. The study concluded that social protection proved itself a

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

mechanism for reducing poverty in Pakistan. Stefan Dercon in a Centre for the Study of African Economies Working Paper WPS (2011–17) concluded that social protection reduces poverty and has a positive impact on efficiency and economic growth. These studies and many more point to the fact that social protection expenditure has a positive impact on poverty reduction. The rationale for social protection is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1.

Social Protection and the Sustainable Development Goals The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) attempts balancing the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Underlying the pivotal of the Agenda is the commitment and averment to leave no one behind and to reach the unreached. The 2030 Agenda is indeed a paradigm shift from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in that it targets eradicating poverty by seeing beyond the narrow focus of providing individuals with the specific needs they lack to more of removing the structural drives that prevent individuals/households from living the lives they value. This shift requires looking at development policy in a different perspective: the perspective of social protection that will promote peoples’ welfare by tackling the connecting issues that lead to poverty and deprivations (UNDP 2018). Social protection systems that are inclusiveoriented and risk-sensitive are a powerful tool to fulfill this commitment. By advancing human rights and tackling inequalities, exclusion, vulnerability, and deprivations, social protection therefore becomes a means to reach those left behind. Social protection has gain significant prominence world over. A wide body of evidence have also shown that social protection programs can be effective tools to reduce poverty and inequality, increase human capital, and protect men, women, girls, and boys from risks. Social protection is not only specific targets (1.3; 3.8; 5.4; 8.5; 10.4) but also a critical tool to achieve progress in many

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

139

Civil Partnership and Social Protection, Fig. 1 The imperative of social protection. (Source: World Bank 2015)

Resilience for the vulnerable

Opportunity for all

Insuring against impact on different shocks

Promoting human capital and access to productive work Equity for the poor Protecting against dire poverty and loss of human capital

fundamentally interlinked Goals and Targets of Sustainable Development.

Box 1 Social Protection as Featured in the SDGs (Targets) Targets 1.3

3.8

5.4

8.5

10.4

SDG descriptions Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and vulnerable Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential healthcare services, and access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure, and social protection policies and promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work for equal value Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage, and social protection policies, and progressively achieve equality

Social protection, including social protection floors (SPF), is essential to address persistent vulnerability and poverty and an important key for decent work. Furthermore, it contributes to other SDGs as indicated in Box 1. No doubt, as a key element of sustainable poverty reduction strategy, it protects individuals from economic insecurity and social exclusion. It also ensures greater productivity and consequently increased inclusive growth and social cohesion. Decent work became an essential element of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The importance of decent work in achieving sustainable development is highlighted by SDG 8 which aims to “promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.” As observed by the International Labour Organization (ILO 2015b), one of the pillars that makes work decent is social protection. Insufficient health coverage causes long-term problems for societies, disrupting essential employment and productivity returns. As observed also by the International Labour Organization in the SDG NOTE (2017), about 90% the population in low-income countries remains without legal health coverage (i.e., not afflicted to any health scheme or system), and about 39% of the world’s population has no social health protection. Much significance of the discussion on social protection and SDG 3 (ensuring healthy lives and

C

140

promotion of well-being for all ages) is the out-ofpocket payments, the most regressive form of healthcare financing, which constitute about 40% of health expenditure over the world. From the same SDG NOTE of ILO (2017), about 10.3 million health workers are lacking globally. The aftermath of insufficient access to healthcare services can contribute to child labor, as households are compelled to compensate for income losses. Discrimination and lack of quality and effective public service provision neglect the social contract obligations to societies. The unequal sharing of care leads to a situation where unpaid care and domestic works are disproportionately borne by women and are not valued. This situation prevents women’s access to decent employment. Income security and access to basic services like nutrition, education, and healthcare services are quite important made possible by social protection. This ensures women’s empowerment. Inadequate social protection measures, no doubt, weaken full and productive employment and decent work outcomes. Social protection is critical for achieving SDG 8 and also an important requirement for all women and men to be gainfully employed. In situations of unemployment, sickness, injury, or disability, people are exposed more to poverty especially in the case of no access to social protection coverage. Also, rising inequality is a great barrier to social peace, political stability, and social cohesion. Inequalities thus present a risk to sustainable economic growth and development. Access to social protection transfer and services, especially for the vulnerable groups, contributes to making societies more equitable. To buttress further the impact of social protection on the Sustainable Development Goal, in 2011, the Department for International Development (DFID) submitted that the impact of cash transfers on hunger has been most noticed in the underdeveloped countries where poverty is generally more serious. In these countries according to DFID observation, households receiving additional income are likely to prioritize spending on upgrading the quality and the quality of food consumption. Commenting further Kabeer (2010) noted, in the case of Rwanda, that the

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

introduction of community-based health insurance (CBHI) scheme has promoted utilization of healthcare from 31% in 2003 to 107% in 2012. In Brazil, the labor participation rate of women beneficiaries from the Bolsa Familia is 16% greater than for women in similar non-participating households. This follows social protection measures. Again, in 2016, the International Labour Organization (ILO) stated that about US$1.08–US$2.52 for each cash transfer dollar spills over into the local economy because beneficiaries invest in their livelihoods. In Nicaragua, Mexico, and Zambia, beneficiaries of transfers, feeding programs, or fee waivers are more likely to start up micro-enterprises than non-beneficiaries. The New America Foundation which tracks 84 social protection programs in 43 countries also observed that about 64% of cash transfers enabled savings by providing access to bank account, while 27% of cash transfers actively encouraged savings. According to Rava and Josh (2012), the correlation between public social protection expenditure and inequality measured by Gini coefficient is not weak at R2 ¼ 0.3893. On further evidence of impact of social protection on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Barrientos and Nino-Zarazua (2011) alluded to the fact that Brazil’s Bolsa Verde program provided additional income to 73,000 Brazilian families at end of 2014 in exchange for maintenance and sustainable use of natural resources improving both forest health and economic conditions. The World Bank (2015) also submitted that the Hunger Safety Net Programme (HSNP) cash transfer scheme in northern Kenya was successful in introducing rights education and enhancing the ability of community groups to claim priority public services.

The Role of Civil Society Organizations in Social Protection A key influence on CSOs’ involvement in service provision is the relationship with government within the notion of “partnership.” The civil societies’ role is summarized:

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

• Watchdog holding government and institutions accountable especially human right abuses (Kreienkamp 2017) • Raises awareness of issues, giving a voice to the marginalized and advocating for a change (http://copinhenglish.blogspot.com) • Services provider The Asian Development Bank also outlined five roles for civil society organizations in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): • Complementing government poverty alleviation programs with community-based tailored assistance using evidence-based, innovative, and sustained solutions • Localizing the SDGs and monitoring progress • Promoting citizen-center, collaborative governance and production • Advocating for the poor, including lobbying government • Empowering women for climate action (Nazal 2018) • Promotion of grassroots associations and activities at local level Role of Civil Society in Development The developmental roles of CSOs are mired in debates just like a precise meaning of civil society organizations (Ibrahim and Hulmes 2010; Pearce 2000). Notwithstanding this, Rooy and Robinson (1998) averred that the civil society has two main roles: (a) building democracy and (b) improving development. Notably, the democratic building role addresses the politics of poverty reduction, and the improving development role seeks to address poverty duration directly. Civil society organizations promote democracy by supporting good governance and administration, stimulating political participation, and promoting the protection of human rights and freedom (Diamond 1991). In performing the role of addressing poverty reduction (improving development), the civil society uses three domains: (1) advocacy, (2) policy change, and (3) servicing delivery.

141

Advocacy

Advocacy is considered an effective means of promoting poverty reduction by inspiring the marginalized and the poor to organize themselves and advocate for their own rights. Advocacy movements can promote poverty reduction by bringing the poor’s struggle to public attention (Ibrahim and Hulmes 2010). Advocacy is a key domain through which civil society organizations seek to reduce poverty. The reasons for using advocacy are as follows: first, the realization that despite donor aids, the causes of poverty have not been resolved; second, the growth in size and structure of CSOs/NGOs; and third, the success of various campaigns including but not limited to debt relief campaigns. Advocacy on poverty reduction by CSOs has been by advocating for citizens’ rights and pressuring local authorities to provide the adequate infrastructure, services, and land tenure to the poor (Mitlin and Satterthwaite 2004a). Advocates of poverty reduction focus on the poor’s land-use rights on landlord-tenant relationship as well as on the rights of informal workers and women in squatter areas. The Shack Dwellers International presents a case model for civil society’s advocacy efforts to address urban poverty at the national level (Patel et al. 2001) (Table 2). Policy Change

In addition to advocating for the poor’s rights, civil society organizations in most cases lobby the government for specific reforms to render policies that are pro-poor. They aim to lobby policy changes by pursuing some strategies. First, they try to monitor the government and its resource allocation in favor of the marginalized, e. g., by calling for participatory and gender budgeting. Second, they try to raise a public debate around poverty-related problems so as to influence policy design, build new alliances, gain new supporters, and encourage policy makers to establish programs to address problems related to poverty. Civil society organizations in this domain try working with local councils to gain their acceptability and use a non-confrontational approach to ensure that their opinions are

C

142

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

Civil Partnership and Social Protection, Table 2 Some evidence of social protection impact on nutrition, health, and schooling Programs Child Support Grant (South Africa) Old-Age Pension (South Africa) Mexico’s ProgresaOportunidades

Nutrition 3.5 cm increase in height as adults. Increased future earnings, 60–130% greater than the cost of the grant Significant impact on nutritional status of children in beneficiary households One centimeter gain in height for age 2 years after the start of the program

Bono de Desarrollo Humano in Ecuador Familias en Acción (Columbia)

Increased food expenditure by 25%

Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme Chile Solidario

Decreased seasonal malnutrition and income variability among poor households

Reported increase in intake of protein-rich foods and vegetables

Health

Schooling

Pensions regularly used to pay grandchildren’s school fees Doubled per capital healthcare visits in rural communities; 12% lower incidence of illness among children Increased school enrollment for children aged 6–17 by about 10 percentage points Increased percentage of children attending health checkups. Decline in proportion of children affected by diarrhea

Ten percent improvement in schooling for children aged 12–17 living in rural areas and 15.2% improvement for those in urban areas

Preventative healthcare among children living in rural areas improved by four to six percentage points

Participants report that their school enrollment in primary education improved by 7–9%, relative to non-participants in the program

Source: Barrientos and Nino-Zarazua (2011)

considered (Mitlin and Satterthwaite 2004b). They also seek to cooperate with political parties so long as they are interested in helping the poor. Civil society organizations thus can affect the formulation of poverty reduction strategies by building a “working relationship” with their respective governments. To enhance the performance of CSOs within the domain of policy change, it therefore becomes imperative for civil societies to build capacity. They once again need to understand policy formulation and processes better, access information more effectively, and improve their advocacy, monitoring, and evaluation skills. It is also necessary that they build partnership and bridge the gap between their staff, local commodities, and policy makers. Civil society organizations can thus

achieve success by inducing pro-poor policies and enhancing understanding of poverty and poverty reduction and forming alliances with the government and other development stakeholders (Hughes and Atampugre 2005). Service Delivery

Civil society organizations seek also to help the poor through service delivery. Rahman (2006) and Mitlin and Mogaladi (2009) have all pointed out that CSOs as social movements are mostly concerned with various problems related to poverty reduction, such as shelter provision, human rights defense, mediating on labor-related issues, promotion of gender equality through campaigns, and enhancing work environment-friendly. In order to achieve these objectives, they focused

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

on service delivery. They also help the poor by allowing them access and freewill to credit and infrastructure services among others. Through service provision, they can contribute to poverty reduction. This domain is however constrained by the lack of sustainability because of their high dependence on external funding, the shifting of responsibility and accountability, and the lack of sustainability that it generates. The interlinkages between the three domains are straightforward; accordingly, advocacy and service delivery are two interdependent domains in which civil society organizations operate to achieve positive impacts on poverty reduction in geographical areas. On the contrary, service delivery can create the necessary knowledge base for advocacy work because CSOs providing services to the poor are in a better position to collect the necessary data needed to lobby for policy change. The Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) presents a case model for providing services to the poor by civil society organization. Civil society organizations can also play an active role in achieving social protection for the disabled. These organizations aim at achieving a general goal of providing for the disabled, coping with their problems, and investing their energies in a manner consistent with their remaining physical, mental, and psychological capacities and helping them to adapt and stabilize (El-Srouji 2001). Furthermore, the orphans and widows also need social protection. This is to help them move away from the poverty trap and vulnerabilities of life.

Key Messages and Concluding Remark Key Messages and Lessons From the foregoing review of literature on civil society organizations and social protection under the realm of SDG 17-Partnership for the Goals, some reflective messages are deduced which calls for stakeholder’s actions all at levels (national, regional, and international) for achieving SDG 17 and the SDGs in general.

143

• Social protection measures are veritable tools for leaving no one behind as they help to reduce poverty and inequality, increase human capital development, and protect men, women, girls, and boys from risks. • As nations, regions, and the world align their priorities with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), social protection becomes a potential instrument that can contribute meaningfully to the 2030 Agenda. • There is every need for designers and implementers of social protection measures to look beyond providing for specific lacks but how to overcome the constraints that limit the vulnerable in a systematic way. • Social protection when properly designed and implemented has the capacity to provide income support and facilitate access to goods and services by all households and individuals at a minimally accepted level and to protect the deprived from deprivations and social exclusion, particularly during periods of insufficient income and incapacity or inability to work. • For social protection to be effective in reducing inequalities and leaving no one behind, it must be coordinated, coherent, and flexible to complement each other across the sustainable development objectives. • Civil society organizations (CSOs) are partners in progress toward the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. • There is a significant relationship between the partnership of the state and civil society organizations toward poverty alleviations and risk reduction. • The impact of advocacy of CSOs on poverty, inequality, and total deprivation should be assessed on a long-term basis rather than on the short-term basis. It is also expedient to account for the value aimed, the changes introduced, and the flexibility of the approach in advocacy campaigns by CSOs. • Although many countries have employed health insurance mechanisms and other health services’ prepayment pattern, these tend not to cover poorer children whose parents are typically outside the formal labor force. The leave

C

144

no one behind agenda suffers some setback on this scenario. • Some of the barriers and challenges to social protection include but are not limited to financial barriers, fragmentation of provision, lack of citizens’ awareness to instituted social protection measures, and local-level difficulties in obtaining the correct documentation of benefits. Coordinated efforts are required to solve these challenges for civil organizations to contribute effectively to achieving the goals of social protection and to the Sustainable Development Goals. Concluding Remark The 2030 Agenda is a paradigm shift in context, content, and approach to the MDGs. These shifts require x-raying developing policies aimed at addressing poverty, deprivation, and social insecurity among others, using a different searchlight – the social protection mechanism. Social protection has been evidenced to be useful in achieving the overall SDGs and in particular (No Poverty; Zero Hunger, Good Health, Gender Equality; Decent Works and Economic Growth; Reduced Inequalities, Climatic Action and Live on Land) as demonstrated in the different targets. In this regard, social protection and its effectiveness and efficiency matter for achieving the overarching Goals/Targets of the SDG and in particular the SDG 17-Partnership for the Goals. In consonance with the key lessons drawing from the review, there is need for concrete policy actions on the part of stakeholders particularly on civil partners (civil society organizations). First, the government should strengthen civil society organizations through enactment of laws and regulations to ensure their participation in decision-making processes aimed at reducing poverty and total deprivation. Second, there is also a need to strengthen partnership between civil society organizations, government agencies, and private sector players, on one the hand, and, on the other hand, development partners and donors in order to provide fruitful cooperation and coordination of social protection measures. Third, civil society organizations on their

Civil Partnership and Social Protection

own are called upon to update and revitalize their visions and innovate new strategies that incorporate accountability and transparency in order to enable them to cooperate with the donor partners and development agencies in terms of donor funds toward providing social protection to the poor and most vulnerable. Fourth, there is an urgency for civil society organizations to provide and maintain accurate and up-to-date database that allows for the evaluations and monitoring of social policies and social protection programs for constructive planning and good decisionmaking for both the government and development partners. Fifth, the civil society organizations in conjunction with the government and development partners must promote awareness of the right of disadvantaged and deprived populations to basic service provision. Sixth, civil society organizations must partner with the government and development partners in infrastructure provisions for poverty and vulnerability reductions.

Cross-References ▶ International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development

References Alesina A, Rodrik D (1994) Distributive politics and economic growth. Quaterly Journal of Economics 109:465–490 Annes B (1987) Political survival: Politicians and public policy in Latin America. Berkely, Calif.: University of California Press Barrientos A (2007) Poverty reduction and policy regimes: Thematic paper-Social Policy and Development Paper No. 42 Barrientos A, Hulme D (2005) Chronic poverty and social protection: introduction. Eur J Dev Res 17(1):1–7 Barrientos A, Nino-Zarazua A (2011) Social transfers and chronic poverty: objectives, design, reach and impact. C h r o n i c P o v e r t y R e s e a r c h C e n t r e . w w w. chronicpoverty.org/uploads/...files/socialtransfersfull report.pdf Baulch B, Nood J, Weber A (2005) Developing a social protection index for committed poverty reduction in Asia. Mimeo, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Brighton

Civil Partnership and Social Protection Bierkart K (1998) The Politics of Civil Society Building: European Private Aid Agencies and Democratic Transitions in Central American, International Books/ Transnational Institute Clayton A, Peter O, Jon T (2000) Civil Society Organizations and Services Provision. Geneva: UNRISD Publication. http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/ search/19AB2604214382A38025B5E004C94C5? Open Document de Haan LJ (2000) Globalization, Localization and Sustainable Livelihood. Sociological Ruralis 40(3):339–356 Diamond L (1991) The democratic revolution: struggles for freedom and pluralism in the developing world. Freedom House (cited in Van Rooy and Robinson), New York El-Srouji TM (2001) Civil Society and its implications for Social Welfare policy making: Eygpt Society as a model, paper for the Fourtheen Scientific Conference, Faculty of Social Work, Helwan University Fields GS (2001) Distribution and development: a new look at the developing world. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Gebregziabher F, Nino-Zarazua M (2014) Social spending and aggregate welfare in developing and transition economic. UNU-WIDER World Institute for Development Economic Research. http://doi.org/10.35188/ UNU-WIDER/2014/803-2 Gough I, Bradshaw J, Ditch J, Eardley T, White Ford P (1997) Social assistance in OECD countries. J Eur Soc Policy 7(1):17–43 Holmes R, Jones N (2010) How to design and implement gender-sensitive social protection programmes. ODI toolkits. https://www.odi.org/resources/docs/6262.pdf Hughes A, Atampugre N (2005) A critical look at civil societies’ poverty reduction monitoring and evaluation experiences. Participatory learning and action 51: civil society and poverty reduction. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, pp 10–20 Ibrahim S, Hulmes D (2010) Has civil society helped the poor? A review of the roles and contributions of civil society to poverty reductions. BNPI working paper 114. The University of Manchester, Brooks World Poverty Institute, Manchester ILO (2015a) Social protection. RSBY: extending social health protection to vulnerable population by using new techniques. http://www.social-protection.org ILO (2015b) World social protection report 2014–2015. http://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/ world-social-security-report/2014/long%2D%2Den/ index.htm ILO (2016a) Social protection assessment-based national dialogue: a global guide. http://www.social-protection. org/gini/gess/resourcespdf.action?resource.resource id¼53462 ILO (2016b) Social protection progress towards universal health coverage Rwanda. http://www.social-protection.org ILO (2017) SDG Note on Social Protection. International Labour Organization on Sustainable Development Goals

145 Jones N (2009) Promoting synergies between child protection and social protection in West and Central Africa. Briefing paper. UNICEF WCARCO and ODI, London Jones N, Summer A (2007) Does mixed methods research matter to understanding childhood wellbeing? Working paper 40. Wed, Bath Jones N Holmes R (2010) Gender, Politics and Social Protection. ODI Briefing Paper 62 Kabeer (2010) Can the MDG provide a Pathway to social Justice? The challenge of intersecting inequalities. Institute for Development Studies, Sussex. www. mdgfund.org Kanbur R (1987) Measurement and alleviation of poverty. IMF Staff Pap 34(1):60–85 Kreienkamp J (2017) Responding to the Global Crackdown on Civil Society. Policy Brief, Global Governance Unit, UCL. Retrieved from http://www.ucl.ac. uk/global-governance/sites/global-governance/files/ policy-brief-civil-society.pdf Mitlin D, Mogaladi J (2009) Social movements and poverty reduction in South Africa. SED research paper. http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/socialmove ments/publications/reports/mithin-magaladisouthafri canmappinganalysis.pdf Mitlin D, Satterthwaite D (2004a) Introduction. In: Mitlin D, Satterthwaite D (eds) Empowering squatter citizens: local government, civil society and urban poverty reduction. Earthscan, London, pp 3–21 Mitlin D, Satterthwaite D (2004b) The role of local and extra-local organizations. In: Mitlin D, Satterthwaite D (eds) Empowering squatter citizens: local government, civil society and urban poverty and urban poverty reduction. Earthscan, London, pp 278–305 Mustafa RA, Nishat M (2017) Role of social protection in poverty reduction in Pakistan: a quantitative approach. Pak J Appl Econ 22(1):67–88 Nazal S (2018) 5 Ways CSOs can help advance the SDGs. Asian Development Blog, 24. Retrieved from https:// blogs-adb.org/blog/5-ways-Csos-can-helpadvancesdgs Oakley P (2003) Strengthening civil society: concept and approaches. In: Pratt B (ed) Changing expectations: the concepts and practice of civil society in international development. INTRAC, Oxford, pp 31–42 ODI (2012) Social Protection in Nigeria: Mapping Programmes and their effectiveness. February Patel J, Burra S, D’Cruz C (2001) Slum/Shack Dwellers International (SDI)-foundations to treetops. Environ Urban 13(2):45–59 Pearce J (2000) Development, NGOs and civil society: the debate and its future. In: Eade D (ed) Development, NGOs and civil society: selected essay from development in practice. Oxfam GB, London/Oxford, pp 15–43 Rahman S (2006) Development, democracy and the NGO sector: theory and evidence from Bangladesh. J Dev Soc 22(4):451–473 Rava A, Josh N (2012) From protection to investment: Undersatanding the Global Shift to Financially Inclusive Social Protection Payment System. Global

C

146 Savings and Social Protection Iniative(GSSP), Global Assets Project, New American Foundation. Available from http://www.newamerica.org/assetsbuilding/pol icy-paper/from-protection-to-investment Sabates-Wheeler R, Stephen D (2004) Social protection for transformation. IDS Bull 38(3):23–28 Sen A (1985) Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland, Amsterdam UNDP (2016) Our projects. http://open.undp.org/#2016 UNDP (2018) Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update UNICEF (2010) Towards universal social protection for children: Achieving SDG 1.3. ILO-UNICEF Joint Report on Social Protection for Children Van Rooy A, Robinson M (1998) Out of the ivory tower: civil society and the aid system. In: Van Rooy A (ed) Civil society and the aid industry. Earthscan, London, pp 31–70 World Bank (2001) Social protection sector strategy: from safety net to springboard. Sector strategy paper. The World Bank, Washington, DC World Bank (2015) The state of social safety nets. http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/07/ 24741765/state

Civil Society Organization ▶ Civil Partnership and Social Protection

Climate Change Scenarios ▶ Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept Nikhil Kant1 and Kumari Anjali2 1 SOMS, IGNOU, New Delhi, India 2 SOS, IGNOU, New Delhi, India

Synonyms Environmental management proactivity; Environmental responsiveness; Green business practices;

Civil Society Organization

Proactive climate change strategy; Proactive environmental strategy; Proactive environmentalism

Definition Climate strategy proactivity (CSP) denotes the proactive strategic behavior of corporate for the purpose of meeting stakeholders’ expectations, demonstration of which is marked by the voluntary adoption of climate-conscious preventive practices beyond the mere compliance of the mandatory regulations with respect to pollution and climate conservation.

Introduction Processes of industrialization have intensified plethora of environmental, social, and economic challenges such as depletion of biodiversity, climate change, and degradations in the living and health conditions more prominently in developing countries than developed countries, increasingly underscoring the urgent need to find integrated solutions to ensure sustainable development; more at a time when the arguments provided by Thiel (2017), in favor of considering organizational competition as a troublesome problem based on the way competition is deeply embedded within human-social-relational-organizational structures, amply highlight the inadequacies inherent in evaluation of societal ability and capacity of shaping and directing sustained competitive advantage. These arguments are relevant for the efforts of attaching significance to stakeholders having their societal expectations linked to the ambitions of corporate which must be satisfied for enhancing corporate performance (Ruf et al. 2001; Waddock and Graves 1997; Whetten et al. 2002), by avoiding harm against stakeholders’ interests, and making amends as soon as any such damage to them is detected (Campbell 2007). Normative approach of stakeholder theory is considered to be central to the determination of organizational responsibility toward all stakeholders and not toward stockholders only

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

(Donaldson and Preston 1995). Companies develop product stewardship strategic capabilities making efforts to meet successfully stakeholders’ expectations related to reducing GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions with the help of increased use of renewable energy resources and other voluntarily adopted climate-conscious practices (Michalisin and Stinchfield 2010) displaying climate strategy proactivity (CSP). Although different concepts similar to CSP have been discussed in studies prior to its emergence with different terms, they primarily reflect on something else but the unique corporate strategic behavior focused primarily on adoption of self-regulatory practices instead of strategic behavior displayed by responsible companies. While the synonyms section of this entry provides the terms used for the few such concepts, for example, other concepts such as CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), corporate responsibility, sustainability, TBL (Triple Bottom Line), and corporate citizenship might also appear to be similar by virtue of their proactive and transformative relationships with stakeholders (Mirvis and Googins 2007). Despite the fact that CSP strikes minor similarity with these concepts for their association with people, planet, and profit (societal inclusion, environmental protection, and economic growth) in more or less equal quantum reflecting intentions of corporate to meet expectations of their stakeholders, they are not same as CSP. CSP differ significantly from them for having potential to develop new survival strategies, enhance market positioning, and finally ensure sustainable development primarily focusing on natural climate – a subset of environment – more than society and economy while tending to attain competitive advantage. CSP specifically increases corporate attention of demonstrating climate-consciousness, in particular, as first mover to be imitated later by others (Prajogo et al. 2012; Sarkis 2003) in displaying it. Realizations of responsible corporate as regards dependence of their growth and survival on sustainable natural resources utilization (Clarke et al. 1994) should be seen with their sincere efforts in this regard which they ensure by acting beyond what they are required as per existing regulations, referred to as CSP

147

which is believed to have been shown by them to ensure not only their survival but competitive advantage also, attained through enhanced stakeholders’ relationship and image (Singh 2015). López et al. (2007) strongly argue that companies and stakeholders show confidence in sustainability strategies exploiting their capacity to build long-term value and improved stakeholders’ satisfaction. Kant (2020) defines CSP appropriately as the corporate strategic behavior displayed by corporate through voluntary adoption of climate-conscious preventive practices going beyond mandatory compliance of extant regulations related to pollution and climate conservation in order to meet their stakeholders’ expectations. Practices adopted under compulsions of merely complying with existing regulations – as reactive end of pipe pollution control behavior – can at most reduce impacts of already occurred irreversible climatic degradations while CSP can prevent it from occurrence. The decade of 2010–2020 in general and the year 2015 in particular are very special for concepts such as CSP highlighting the need of displaying voluntariness and proactivity by corporate for climate conservation. In 2015, when the UN brought out SDGs in September, ILO brought out the Guidelines on a Just Transition towards Environmentally Sustainable Economics and Societies for All in October, and UNFCCC brought out the set of NDCs under Paris Climate Agreement in December, implying that they should assume responsibility by adopting pollution preventive and climate-conscious practices in their pathways to sustainable development (ILO n.d.), marking shift from binding to nonbinding commitments by all major parties. Amid resource scarcity, achievements of organizational goals happen because of corporate strategy showcasing the pattern of natural climate adaptation practices (Freedman 2013). Despite that, studies focusing on cleaner production technologies and environmental sustainability have not been prominently conducted compared to other sustainability issues, and require due attention (Awan et al. 2018). Situation with studies focusing on corporate proactive voluntary

C

148

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

behavior toward preventing pollution and protecting climate by acting beyond mere compliance of existing regulations in context of developing countries is also not encouraging. In such situations, while despite the presence of various terms used to describe the balancing efforts of the executives of the stakeholders’ expectations as enumerated above (CSR, corporate citizenship etc.), the concept of corporate citizenship created a niche for itself exploiting the paucity of status gauging mechanisms of a company in the work of “The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College” to provide such a tool through the monograph and the developmental framework, by defining the essence of citizenship for a company delivering on the core values by ensuring minimum harms – maximum benefit – accountability and responsiveness to key stakeholders – support to strong financial results (Mirvis and Googins 2007); the concept of CSP too creates a niche for itself by presenting for a company opportunity to attain and sustain competitive advantage through the proactive strategic behavior displayed by adoption of climate-conscious preventive practices going beyond mere compliance of basic regulations. Given that CSP is still an evolving concept lacking exhaustiveness in conceptual and descriptive discussions, this entry aims to put forth a set of likely possibilities explaining motives behind manifestation of such corporate behavior with the combined support of conceptual and descriptive discussions. The purpose of this entry is to provide much required stakeholders’ perspective to this emerging and complex concept to strike a common agreement for presenting it as reference point for different stakeholders helping them anticipate future trends and stay prepared. This entry promises to contribute immensely to the evolution of stakeholder/strategic management by presenting CSP as a stakeholder-centric concept serving the needs of empirical research and management practices adopted for competitive advantage. The structure of this entry is as follows. Second section illustrates common understanding of the concepts of CSP, stakeholders, and SDGs to provide enhanced conceptual understanding. Third section elaborates the linkages of CSP and

stakeholders with the theoretical underpinnings. Fourth section discusses the salient aspects of CSP as a stakeholder-centric concept, while the final section presents the conclusion. Scholarly value of this entry lies in highlighting the significance of CSP as a stakeholder-centric concept which companies display to attain and sustain competitive advantage by meeting the dynamically changing and rising expectations of climate-conscious stakeholders for enhancing multistakeholder partnerships and ensure sustainable development as envisaged by SDG 17.

Common Understanding of the Concepts Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP) The SDG 17 of the UN SDGs acknowledging the problem and covering the economic-socialenvironmental dimensions of sustainable development – with an aim to strengthen the implementation means, and to revitalize the global partnership in order to ensure development in a sustainable manner describing various terms to permit an enhanced understanding and knowledge – emphasizes heavily on the issues of combating climate change with the concerted efforts of stakeholders. CDP (2017) informs that in developing countries such as India, in order to embrace a sustainable future, corporate need to be proactive in seeking urgent remedy to climate risks which are being increasingly considered to be the biggest market failure. Grant and Ashford (2008) posit that proactivity is the anticipatory behavior as per demand of the situation which is necessarily voluntarily initiated and change oriented. McKeown (2012) posits that strategy is an attempt made by humans for meeting purposeful ends to shape future in the real scenario of the world suffering from scarcity of resources. Implications elaborated by Awan et al. (2018) highlight the significance assumed by the issues of environmental and social sustainability arising from the importance they have for ensuring sustainable development in recent past decades. Increasing efforts are being reflected in proactive actions of responsible companies, e.g.,

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

Hindustan Zinc, Mahindra Sanyo Steel, Tech Mahindra, and Wipro, which have displayed great resolve in measuring, managing, disclosing, and evaluating their climate performance derived from the science-based targets of GHG emissions reduction despite they fall beyond mere compliance of existing regulations (CDP 2017). In a recent study, Barba-Sánchez and AtienzaSahuquillo (2016) highlight willingness shown by responsible companies for recognizing the role that climate proactive strategy plays to ensure conservation of natural climate, who also favor for considering natural climate as a differentiating factor for competitive advantage. Nonetheless, they do not forget to emphasize the need to explore many unknown factors to be addressed in studies focused on creation of source of competitive advantage through CSP which is anticipated to affect performance and improve efficiency directly. While huge negative effects of conventional corporate strategies are found to be on natural climate threatening humans’ very existence in society (Michalisin and Stinchfield 2010), corporate show CSP as their responses to anthropogenic climate change keeping in view their responsibilities toward life of societies and human beings (Mildawati et al. 2018) reflecting their sincere intentions through redesigning more pollution preventive products and processes (Carroll 1979; Sharma and Henriques 2005). CSP, therefore, arises from their voluntariness displayed to capture climate-conscious initiatives and initiate adoption of climate protective practices (Gonzales-Benito and Gonzales-Benito 2006; Hart 1995; Henriques and Sadorsky 1999). Nonetheless, corporate give attention to issues and concerns related to climate change to incorporate them into core strategy beyond regulatory compliances to meet stakeholders’ expectations (Gladwin 1993) only because they consider stakeholders to be central to CSP. They have amply realized that sustainable usage of natural resources is mandatorily required for their survival (Clarke et al. 1994) though suitable regulations have not been enacted by respective developing countries’ Governments due to political compulsions. They have also realized that generating self-motivations for

149

demonstrating CSP can fetch competitive advantage with the help of enhanced image and better stakeholder relations (Singh 2015) than their competitors. Stakeholders Focus of SDG 17 is on dismantling procedures and structures built on the access inequality for developing strategies to ensure collaboration and sharing among stakeholders with emphasis on the capacity-building, systemic issues, and sustainability for developing countries, calling for policy coherence and effective stakeholders’ partnerships. “Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach” (Freeman 1984) is considered to be a seminal book for having evaluated the perspective of stakeholders in terms of varied issues, which argues that a stakeholder is one who is a group or individual affecting or affected by achievement of organization’s objectives (Freeman 1984), has a stake/claim on the organization (Evan and Freeman 1988), and thus assumes greater significance for the organization for the purpose of ensuring survival and success (Freeman 2004). Studies have attempted to broadly group them into internal and external stakeholders who bear risks voluntarily or involuntarily (Clarkson 1995; Mitchell et al. 1997). Societies are represented by different stakeholders and their intertwined relations with business urge corporate to avoid any harmful action against their interests and make amends immediately after discovery of any damage to them (Campbell 2007). Continuous growth in stakeholders’ pressure of demand to get them fulfilled by companies compels these companies to sincerely consider their demands in decision-making and strategies (Hart 1995; Kassinis and Vafeas 2006). Satisfying different stakeholders’ needs, requiring different strategies due to difference in their interests (Aragon-Correa et al. 2008), urges corporate to be aware which type of stakeholder is relevant to them, to successfully identify and satisfy their expectations (Freeman 1984) underscoring significance of stakeholder analysis in fulfilling strategic objectives (Reed et al. 2009). Stakeholder analysis, therefore, as a strategic approach has assumed significance to identify salient, in terms

C

150

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept, Fig. 1 Stakeholder analysis: matrix classification. (Source: Adapted from ODA (1995))

of importance and influence, stakeholders likely to affect substantially the achievements of corporate objectives which can be understood with the help of matrix classification of stakeholders (ODA 1995) presented in Fig. 1. Further to studies proposing primary and secondary stakeholders’ categories as per the presence and absence of formal transactional relationship with organizations respectively (Clarkson 1995), Mitchell et al. (1997) have elaborated them on power, legitimacy, and urgency attributes emphasizing that organizations adopt different appropriate strategies for managing different types of stakeholders. Stakeholder management approaches have emphasized immensely on satisfying interests of salient stakeholders, in recent times. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) United Nations’ “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” was adopted by different countries for the purpose of ensuring environmental simultaneously with economic and social sustainable development to enhance human welfare in developing countries especially. Ambition of achieving SDGs by 2030 is based on the foundation of precious learning received from the deficiencies of the erstwhile MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) later replaced by SDGs – comprising a set of 17

sustainable development goals encompassing 169 targets and 230 indicators. Intent behind this was adoption of suitable plan of actions to ensure longevity of Earth, resources, and inhabitants, by all the countries. While some of them relate directly to the novel concept of CSP (for e.g., climate change-responsible consumption and production-innovation and infrastructure-partnerships) seeking corporate engagements for their clear and critical roles keeping in view increasing attention and expectations of their salient stakeholders, other SDGs-targets-indicators too relate to corporate indirectly at the economy or industry levels but significantly at the industry or sector levels.

CSP, Stakeholders, and Complementary Noncompeting Relevant Theories CSP being a novel concept in the context of developing countries’ companies displayed to attain much sought-after competitive advantage essentially requires underpinnings of relevant theories for a comprehensive understanding given that such concepts are heavily dependent on a set of complementary noncompeting theories for achieving completeness (Gray et al. 2010; Gray et al. 1995). CSP extends conventional discourse on and seeks support primarily from stakeholder

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

theory holding prominence amongst strategic management theories assigning greater attention to the stakeholders’ perspective giving attention to their power-legitimacy-urgency attributes as posited by Mitchell et al. (1997) and supported by different studies emphasizing the managerial need to analyze salient stakeholders’ interests for the purpose of meeting their expectations for organizations sustained survival and growth. Normative approach of stakeholder theory emphasizes significance of stakeholders in determining corporate responsibility to other stakeholders than shareholders only (Donaldson and Preston 1995) being immensely useful in the context of CSP not only because of being ethically superior but also for motivating managers adequately for taking care of stakeholders’ rights and interests beyond regulatory requirements to ensure attainment of sustained success (Clarkson 1995; Melé 2008). Stakeholders, considered true representatives of societies, compel corporate to engage in social contracts with them to secure approval of organizational objectives which urge them to adopt climate-conscious practices to meet their demands. Another theory in the realm of strategic management, viz., Legitimacy theory, explains the intention of corporate behind making climate-related disclosures voluntarily for soliciting legitimacy of their actions (Hogner 1982; Preston and Post 1975) showing CSP. This proactivity toward climate can be an important channel of securing preferential financial aids and favorable policies (Garriga and Melé 2004) enhancing corporate performance as it provides solutions to climate-related problems (Guthrie and Parker 1989; López et al. 2007). This theory also emphasizes the need for them to be fearful of the societal sanctions on them – with access restrictions on using natural resources, and products demand reduction – if they fail to protect the rights of public (Deegan 2009). Voluntary responses in the form of disclosure as a proactive climate strategy are also used by corporate for ensuring better image which enhances value and performance (Deegan 2002) indirectly resulting from the legitimacy earned. Institutional theory provides underpinnings to CSP by explaining motivations resulting from the pressure of

151

institutions and the role of pressures of society and culture on corporate for acting, according to norms – earning legitimacy – ensuring survival (DiMaggio and Powell 1983) highlighting that institutional pressures are responsible for CSP (Manatsa 2017) and plethora of other benefits and motives (Prajogo et al. 2012). Dynamic capabilities view (DCV) theory has emerged in the field of strategic management emphasizing that resources with valuable, rare, inimitable, nonsubstitutable (VRIN) characteristics are not sufficient for sustaining competitive advantage (Gasbarro et al. 2016; Hart and Dowell 2011). Therefore, theories such as natural resource-based view (NRBV) emphasizing the need for sustainable utilization of natural resources by corporate – by providing adequate motivations for ensuring pollution prevention and by prioritizing product stewardship and sustainable development (Hart 1995; Hart and Dowell 2011); Resource-based view (RBV) emphasizing the efforts of corporate – for developing competencies utilizing internal resources to sustain competitive advantage their VRIN characteristics (Barney 2001); and DCV emphasizing the timely responsiveness, fast and flexible innovations and effectiveness in abilities – for the purpose of coordinating and redeploying resources (Teece and Pisano 1994), sufficiently highlight the significance of proactivity collectively embedded in CSP which acts as a critical influencer in achieving competitive advantage. Further, generic strategies theory of competitive advantage (Porter 1980) also emphasizes significance of the generic strategies viz., cost leadership, differentiation, and focus, with further clarifications by Cater and Pucko (2005) that cost leadership and differentiation strategies if engaged simultaneously can secure competitive advantage more successfully than their separate engagement. While Barney (2001) defines competitive advantage as methods-skills-organizational capabilities used by corporate for exploiting resources to compete with rivals, NRBV highlights the significant interconnections of corporate strategic capabilities with natural resources to ensure pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development receiving commensurate support of

C

152

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

RBV and DCV with the emphasis VRIN characteristics in resources and dynamic capabilities to sustain competitive advantage (Porter 1980; Teece et al. 1997). Arguments of Barney (1991) through RBV positing that competitive advantage can be sustained through resources with VRIN attributes, DCV compliments RBV to offset the criticism of its stubbornness and the insufficiency of VRIN emphasizing on the rapid-flexible-timely responsiveness-innovations of organizations with the arguments that sustained competitive advantage can be achieved by the resources integrating and reconfiguring organizational capabilities – sensing opportunities/threats, seizing/managing them, and reconfiguring according to the need (Teece 2007; Teece and Pisano 1994). Prahalad (2009) too argues that companies need to be ready for adjustment/redesigning/adapting their capabilities rapidly given the volatility of business environment resulting from dynamic customer demands-pressure on costs due to stiff competition-stricter disclosure requirements, etc. Arguments of Awan et al. (2017), that organizational level sustainability performance shows the ability to maintain a certain state of stakeholder’s needs in the current time as well as future, emphasize the significance of the support of social and political theories, viz., stakeholder, legitimacy, and institutional theories for encouragements provided for adopting responsible corporate practices, in gaining sufficient insight into climate-conscious corporate practices more than pure economic theories (Deegan 2009; Gray et al. 1995). Emphasis of institutional theory on corporate climate-conscious proactive actions as per institutional and stakeholders’ expectations which protect and enhances their legitimacy (Aldrich et al. 1994; DiMaggio and Powell 1983) also helps them attain competitive advantage through value creation arising from the satisfaction of stakeholders’ interests.

CSP: A Stakeholder-Centric Concept This entry examines the evolving concept of CSP within the broader framework of the UN SDG 17 (encompassing 19 targets and 25 indicators)

which requires from countries and organizations to cooperate and not compete for furthering the cause of cooperation by developing multistakeholder partnerships for the purpose of sharing knowledge-expertise-technology-financial supports. This SDG is critical for overall success of not only all SDGs but also of development assistance commitments of developed countries to developing countries (UN SDG Knowledge Platform n.d.). Despite lack of clarity in SDGs in highlighting voluntariness enshrined in CSP, their interpretations throw light on the linkage of CSP with SDGs emphasizing critical roles of corporate irrespective of their size or sector in contributing to SDGs which urge them to operate responsibly with integrity and values as suggested by the “UNGC’s The Ten Principles” applying innovation, good practices, and collaboration and minimizing harm to provide solutions to societal challenges, also emphasizing simultaneously that survival and growth of business is important (UN Global Compact n.d.). Stakeholders’ expectations from corporate have substantially increased urging them to demonstrate voluntarily initiated behavior – to change themselves, and the situations – to be prepared to seize situation improving initiatives (Crant 2000; Grant and Ashford 2008). Potential impacts of climate change also include social-political-economic repercussions in addition to irrecoverable climate degradations. They are found to be arising from irresponsible business operations and their impact on sustainability must be assessed. Anthropogenic climate imbalances and degradations are found to be arising from irresponsible corporate behaviors (Gladwin et al. 1995). Corporate cannot be permitted to continue businessas-usual in the fast changing dynamics which urge them for redesigning their models and priorities integrating significant climate change issues in their quest of competitive advantage. Efforts, of keeping global temperature increase below 2 °C of the benchmark, of the few responsible companies in developing countries have started reflecting in their willingness to show proactivity. One such company Wipro is developing targets for 2025 and 2030 covering not only emissions under Scope 1 but Scope 2 also. Similarly, Tech

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

153

Passivity (Non-Compliance of Regulations; Crisis Mode) (1960s & 70s)

C Reactivity (Compliance of Regulations; Cost Mode) (1980s & 90s)

Proactivity (Beyond-Compliance of Regulations; Sustainable Business Mode) (1990s onwards)

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept, Fig. 2 Corporate changing approaches in terms of climate-consciousness. (Adapted from Berry and Rondinelli 1998)

Mahindra is engaged in developing a 5-year roadmap and long-term target for 2050 intended to decrease emissions. Mahindra & Mahindra and Infosys are also making trendsetting commitments in technological investments to reduce carbon footprint and achieve carbon neutrality (CDP 2017). Corporate acknowledging their responsibility toward minimizing these impacts must adapt themselves to move ahead in the pathways to sustainable development realizing that not adapting will cost much more than adapting now. Since publication of seminal Brundtland Commission Report in 1987, interests of researchers in sustainable development have continuously been rising reflected in the efforts of building typologies on the basis of the models developed by Carroll (1979) and Cochran and Wartick (1985). They highlighted different corporate behaviors toward climate which started from passive approach to proactive approach through intervening reactive approach (Sharma and Vredenburg 1998; Aragon-Correa and Sharma 2003). Berry and Rondinelli (1998) underscore parallel growth in corporate changing approaches in terms of climate-consciousness from crisis mode denoting noncompliance passivity to sustainable business mode denoting beyond compliance proactivity

(Fig. 1), also indicating their willingness of adopting a sustainable business model and aligning their strategy to SDGs (Fig. 2). Ruf et al. (2001), Waddock and Graves (1997), and Whetten et al. (2002) suggest that stakeholders have their societal expectations linked to ambitions of corporate and should be satisfied for an enhanced performance. Societies, represented by different stakeholders, with their intertwined relations with businesses urge corporate to avoid any harmful action against their interests and make amends after the discovery of any damage to them as soon as possible (Campbell 2007). Increasing cooperation, therefore, is vital for developing multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development engaging not only public– private partnerships involving civil societies, NGOs, etc. but different other stakeholders also (UN SDG Knowledge Platform n.d.) as emphasized by SDG 17. Studies such as Chapple and Moon (2005) and Lindgreen et al. (2009) highlight the negative perceptions of stakeholders toward corporate for their huge contributions to climate change which also remind that they themselves are not insulated from negative impacts resulting from their own irresponsible operations. Responsible companies, therefore,

154

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

have started to show willingness – for integrating CSP in their strategy to conserve natural climate (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo 2016), also realizing dependability of their growth and survival on the sustainable utilization of natural resources (Clarke et al. 1994). Junquera (2012) and Petraru and Gavrilescu (2010) suggest that severe irreversible climatic degradations urge all the major parties including corporate to take all possible steps for integrating emissions reduction efforts, and conduct their operations in climateconscious manner. Findings of recent studies encourage corporate to adopt climate-conscious practices for gaining sustained growth by maintaining enhanced legitimacy at a time when stakeholders’ expectations have substantially increased (ICSI n.d.), considering that the goals and commitments under SDGs-NDCs-Just Transition Guidelines require proactivity from all the parties. The level of CSP is determined by voluntariness demonstrated for adopting climate-conscious practices (Gonzales-Benito and Gonzales-Benito 2006; Hart 1995; Henriques and Sadorsky 1999) to negate impacts, of their huge contributions in the anthropogenic climate change, on the entire planet threatening their own existence and survival too, owing to increased significance (Chapple and Moon 2005; Lindgreen et al. 2009) and awareness of stakeholders especially in developing countries where CSP is still not accorded priority. Nonetheless, in developing countries such as India, actions of a few sincere companies in recent times hint at the increasing trends of CSP. CDP (2017) reports that more than 80% of Indian companies, reporting to its climateconscious practices-based questionnaire, have adopted at least one emissions reduction initiative in 2017, further reporting an increased number of Indian companies having responded voluntarily to it clearly suggesting demonstration of CSP underscoring the realization by them of their significant contributions in developing countries. Active leadership of the UN giving appropriate directions through multiple conferences’ outcome urge corporate for making sincere efforts through voluntarily adopted climate-conscious practices to demonstrate their commitments and earn

support/legitimacy from stakeholders. SDGs in general and SDG 17 in particular reflect the emphasis of the UN demonstrated since UN Conference on Human Environment (UNCHE) held in 1972 focused on the individual’s rights for a healthy environment discussing the emissions issues and highlighting the significance of cooperativeness and shared resource management (Basiago 1995). The critical linkages of unsustainable exploitation of scarce natural resources and economic development have given birth to enormous discussions on challenges and constraints including but not limited to poverty, disparity, resource over-consumption, and climate degradations (Coulson and Monks 1999; Jeucken 2001) continuously underscoring the requirements of increasing homogenous promotional efforts for sustainability and emergence of guiding standards, e.g., UNGC, GRI, ISO, DJSI, for companies for sustainable development (Halme et al. 2009). Further, the Brundtland Commission Report brought out by WCED in 1987 is vital for providing adequate motivations to corporate for integrating climate issues in their corporate strategy adequately supported by seminal NRBV theory (Hart 1995) emphasizing development of corporate strategic capabilities and their interconnections with natural resources to ensure pollution prevention – product stewardship – sustainable development. In recent times, as reported by CDP (2017), the upswing of climate actions at global-national-organizational levels, which are simultaneously unfolding multiple concurrent initiatives serving as impetus for such actions, receive ample support from SDGs where corporate have significant role to play also getting ample support from intergovernmental agencies such as ILO and IPCC. The significance of partnership, cooperation, and stakeholders could also be sensed in the efforts of service providers, e.g., ERM (Environmental Resources Management), which help companies in locating sustainability infrastructure to minimize ecological disruptions, and in orienting resources toward climate change adaptation considering the severity of the consequences requiring a proactive stance (CDP 2017). These private

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

and governmental efforts urge corporate for prioritizing adoption of climate-conscious practices displaying CSP instead of end-of-pipe reactive solutions. By doing so, they can fulfill the increasing demands of aware stakeholders in a fast changing market dynamics which can fetch benefits of innovations in carbon markets-productsservices and ultimately competitive advantage. Positive outcome of collectively using resources and capabilities in an effective way creates the motivations for corporate to demonstrate CSP to attain competitive advantage (Aragon-Correa and Sharma 2003; Darnall and Edwards 2006) receiving ample support from the capabilities, e.g., enhanced reputation arising from displaying CSP through adoption of climate-conscious strategies (Amit and Schoemaker 1993), also positively influencing their resource value. Accordingly, market leaders are assuming responsibilities of sharing, in addition to deploying themselves internationally recognized tools and best practices, with others the practices such as carbon pricing, to achieve the ambitious level of climate actions (CDP 2017) through CSP. This is happening at a time when in background, transition to Paris Climate Agreement from Kyoto Protocol and to SDGs from MDGs are being witnessed indicating the onus-shift from developed countries only to all countries. These shifts mark significantly the transition from binding to nonbinding commitments necessarily requiring higher proactive roles of corporate in helping respective Governments; and collectively underscore the urgent need for corporate for redesigning their strategy-objectives-targets as per demands of SDGs and NDCs, adopting allinclusive robust business models across the entire value chain addressing the critical issues and concerns for ensuring a sustainable future. As the concept of CSP still evolving in developing countries and lacking exhaustiveness, understanding it within the broader framework of the UN SDG 17 emphasizing on the commitments sought from all developed and developing countries for actions as per their respective capabilities for ensuring sustainable future, requires comprehensive understanding of the stakeholders’ general and climate-related expectations. Knowing and evaluating them assume

155

greater significance in helping corporate adopt such climate-conscious practices that constitute CSP not only for achieving and sustaining competitive advantage through business goals but also for conserving natural climate through sustainable development goals. Increased competition, globalization, innovations, and various other dynamically changing factors urge them to keep themselves abreast of dynamically changing expectations of their salient stakeholders (see Table 1) which significantly motivate them to display CSP. With companies in developing countries sensing and seizing the advantages emerging from green innovations, Governments too can be mutually benefitted by facilitating cooperation and partnerships through policy coherence. Integrating climate strategy in corporate strategy would be in line with the emphasis of IFC – a World Bank subsidiary – on the urgent need of policy reforms, appropriate business conditions, and innovative corporate actions to achieve NDCs. CDP (2017) also informs that responsible companies in developing countries have started to recognize real opportunities being brought by climate change which they can grab by transitioning to a lowcarbon economy, further informing that they have already integrated climate change issues, considering them immensely helpful in their pathways to sustainable development, into their sustainability roadmap strategy demonstrating CSP. The suggestions of Ruf et al. (2001), Waddock and Graves (1997), and Whetten et al. (2002) that stakeholders have their societal expectations linked to the ambitions of corporate requiring corporate to satisfy them to attain an enhanced performance; and of Campbell (2007) that societies which are represented by different stakeholders have their intertwined relations with businesses, emphasize the need for corporate not only to minimize harmful action against stakeholders’ interests but also to make amends immediately after their detection. These are in line with the SDG 17 emphasizing on increasing cooperation to develop multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development engaging different stakeholders (UN SDG Knowledge Platform n.d.) by displaying stakeholder-centric CSP, giving attention to climate change issues and concerns to

C

156

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept, Table 1 Expectations of salient stakeholders of corporate 1.

Stakeholder Customer/buyer

Type Internal

2.

Supplier/seller

Internal

3.

Investor

Internal

4.

Owner of a business

Internal

5.

Lender including banker Management employees

Internal

Nonmanagement employees Students of higher/technical education Media

Internal

Creditworthiness, security, lower risk profile Improvised internal management, perks and financial benefits Pay and allowances

External

Employment

External

Enhanced image

6.

7. 8.

9.

Internal

Primary expectation Quality, suitably priced and differentiated products/services Timely/appropriate payments, long-term relationships Enhanced returns, value addition, lower risk profile Enhanced productivity, cost-saving, value addition

10.

Environmental NGOs

External

Better usage of resources, safety/security

11.

Regulatory agencies

External

Compliance

incorporate them into core strategy acting beyond the regulatory compliances with the intent to meet stakeholders’ expectations (Gladwin 1993). Figure 3 provides a basic framework of the entire viewpoints of this entry.

Conclusion Despite the availability of numerous terms describing the managerial efforts to maintain balance with stakeholders’ expectations, the way the concept of corporate citizenship created a niche for itself exploiting the paucity of status-gauging mechanisms of a company by defining the essence of citizenship for a company delivering on the

Climate related expectation Green products/services

External green certification, climate-conscious supply chain for own enhanced reputation Less climatic vulnerability, attention to climate issues Preventing penalties, enjoying exemptions/ incentives/subsidies, climate-conscious supply chain for own enhanced reputation, attention to climate issues External green certification, preventing penalties, enjoying exemptions/incentives/subsidies Better climate-conscious reputation, trainings to enhance climate-consciousness Better conscious reputation, trainings to enhance climate-consciousness Prospective employer with better conscious reputation Adaptation and mitigation activities with more transparent practices, raise awareness through advertisement Support to evolution of new climate regulations/ norms; adaptation and mitigation activities with more transparent practices Compliance of environmental regulations

core values by ensuring minimum harms – maximum benefit – accountability – responsiveness to key stakeholders – support to strong financial results (Mirvis and Googins 2007); the concept of CSP also creates a niche for itself by presenting for a company opportunity to attain and sustain competitive advantage through the proactive strategic behavior displayed by adoption of climateconscious preventive practices going beyond mere compliance of regulations. Irresponsible corporate engaged in unsustainable exploitation of natural resources and irresponsible toward natural climate in their quest of competitive advantage are known to cause irreversible climate damages, the impact of which is visible through fast-changing weather patterns, intense heat

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

157

C

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept, Fig. 3 Basic framework

waves, rapid snowmelt, rising sea levels, unpredictable floods and droughts, etc. Despite importance of business operations for development, appropriate actions based on assessment of their negative impacts on climate and vice versa are imperative. In changing dynamics, they should make efforts to achieve goals with their corporate strategy which also showcases the pattern of natural climate adaptation practices giving due attention to scarce natural resource (Freedman 2013). However, studies focusing on cleaner production technologies and environmental sustainability have not been prominently conducted in comparison to other sustainability issues (Awan et al. 2018). The concept of CSP still evolving in developing countries lacks exhaustiveness in both conceptual and descriptive discussions. This entry presents a set of likely possibilities explaining the motives behind manifestation of such corporate

behavior with the help of combined conceptual and descriptive discussions within the broader framework of the UN SDG 17 which emphasizes to solicit commitments from all countries for actions as per their respective capabilities for ensuring sustainable future. In this scenario, understanding the stakeholders’ general and climate-related expectations from corporate assumes greater significance in helping them adopt such climate-conscious practices that constitute CSP not only for achieving and sustaining competitive advantage through business goals but also for conserving natural climate through sustainable development goals. Despite the apparent silence of majority of SDGs on their voluntary or mandatory consideration by corporate, some of them – underscoring the significance of partnerships across Governments, businesses, NGOs, and other stakeholders in boosting cooperation, coordination, and

158

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

partnerships among them – suggest suitably for displaying voluntary approaches such as CSP which are specifically related to the high priority issues such as climate change directly linked to corporate actions. The onus-shifting – to all the countries through their NDCs under Paris climate accord from the select few developed countries under replaced erstwhile Kyoto Protocol – clearly highlights the need of showing voluntariness and proactivity in adopting climate-conscious actions to protect climate from further degradations keeping in view increased stakeholders’ awareness and expectations for enhanced legitimacy and responsibility. Meanwhile, their Governments too are in dire need of increased supports of corporate to achieve goals and commitments with respect to mitigation and adaptation under SDGs/NDCs. The ambitions and compulsion of keeping Earth livable for future generations minimizing the huge impacts of irreversible natural climate damages due to anthropogenic activities require demonstration of CSP by corporate given their significantly huge contributions substantiated by evidences. In developing countries, CSP needs to be displayed by corporate as their fundamental characteristic to ensure growth and survival given that these countries not only are faced with regulatory inadequacies and ineffective enforcements, but with the political compulsions of their Governments also, although there has been continuous enhancement in the stakeholders’ awareness and expectations. CSP, with emphasis on the need of greater resource-use efficiency and adoption of clean and environmentally sound practices-processes-technologies, is found to have immense potential in developing countries in this entry sufficiently signifying the proactivity ingrained in CSP displayed by sincere corporate to live up to the rising expectations of their stakeholders vis-a-vis providing solutions to climate change problems. The environmental-social-politicaleconomic factors and their interrelations require corporate to consider CSP as a significant strategic behavior especially in developing countries by virtue of underlying voluntariness where CSP has yet not been included in their priority list, inclusion of which as the fundamental corporate

characteristic promises to ensure their sustainable growth and survival minimizing the effects of the regulatory inadequacies and ineffective enforcement mechanism. Increasing cooperation is vital for developing multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development engaging not only public–private partnerships involving civil societies, NGOs, etc. but also different other stakeholders (UN SDG Knowledge Platform n.d.) as emphasized by SDG 17. Studies suggest that this is an area which has started to attract the interests of different stakeholders with varied purposes, stakes, backgrounds, values, and/or perspectives, and also that corporate in different locations with different size and sectors have shown willingness to display CSP. This entry provides much required stakeholders’ perspective to this emerging and complex concept to strike a common agreement in order to present itself as reference point for academics, researchers, managers, professionals, regulators, environmental NGOs, and most importantly policymakers helping them anticipate future trends and stay prepared. This entry promises to contribute immensely to the evolution of stakeholder management and of strategic management by presenting CSP as a stakeholder-centric concept serving the needs of empirical research and management practices adopted for competitive advantage. The future researchers should conduct researches getting support from this study to develop models using suitable variables to test the direct, indirect, mediating, and moderating effects for the purpose of understanding the complexities in the intertwined relationship of CSP and competitive advantage keeping in view the perspective of salient stakeholders.

Cross-References ▶ Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions ▶ Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship ▶ Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

References Aldrich HE, Fiol CM, Aldrich HE (1994) Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Acad Manag Rev 19(4):645–670 Amit R, Schoemaker PJH (1993) Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strateg Manag J 14(1):33–46 Aragon-Correa J, Sharma S (2003) A contingent resourcebased view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Acad Manag Rev 28(1):71–88 Aragon-Correa J, Rueda-Manzanares A, Sharma S (2008) The influence of stakeholders on the environmental strategy of service firms: the moderating effects of complexity, uncertainty and munificence. Br J Manag 19(2):185–203 Awan U, Kraslawski A, Huiskonen J (2017) Understanding the relationship between stakeholder pressure and sustainability performance in manufacturing firms in Pakistan. Procedia Manuf 11:768–777 Awan U, Kraslawski A, Huiskonen J (2018) Governing interfirm relationships for social sustainability: the relationship between governance mechanisms, sustainable collaboration, and cultural intelligence. Sustainability 10(12):4473 Barba-Sánchez V, Atienza-Sahuquillo C (2016) Environmental proactivity and environmental and economic performance: evidence from the winery sector. Sustainability 8(12):1014 Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120. https://doi.org/10. 1177/014920639101700108 Barney JB (2001) Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten-year retrospective on the resourcebased view. J Manag 27(6):643–650 Basiago AD (1995) Methods of defining ‘sustainability’. Sustain Dev 3(3):109–119 Berry MA, Rondinelli DA (1998) Proactive corporate environmental management: A new industrial revolution. Acad Manag Exec 12(2):38–50. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/ame.1998.650515 Campbell JL (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manag Rev 32 (3):946–967 Carroll AB (1979) Three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad Manag Rev 4(4):497– 505 Cater T, Pucko D (2005) How competitive advantage influences firm performance : the case of slovenian firms. Economic and Business Review for Central and South - Eastern Europe 7(2):119–135 CDP (2017) CDP India Climate Change Report 2017: India Inc. aligns with NDC and Paris Agreement to seize opportunities. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal. org.in/files/file/India-edition-climate-change-report2017.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2018 Chapple W, Moon J (2005) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Asia: a seven country study of CSR web site reporting. Bus Soc 44(4):415–441

159

Clarke RA, Stavins RN, Greeno JL, Bavaria JL, Cairncross F, Esty DC, . . . Schot J (1994) The challange of going green. Harv Bus Rev 72(4):37–50 Clarkson ME (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):92–117 Cochran P, Wartick SL (1985) The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Acad Manag Rev 10 (4):758–769 Coulson AB, Monks V (1999) Corporate environmental performance considerations within bank lending decisions. Eco-Management and Auditing 6(1):1–10 Crant JM (2000) Proactive behavior in organizations. J Manag 26(3):435–462 Darnall N, Edwards D (2006) Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: the role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strateg Manag J 27(4):301–320 Deegan C (2002) The legitimising effect of sosial and environmental disclosure. Account Audit Account J 15(3):282–311 Deegan C (2009) Financial accounting theory. McGrawHill Education (Australia) Pty Ltd, New South Wales DiMaggio P, Powell WW (1983) The Iron Cage revisited: collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48 (2):147–160 Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):65–91 Evan WM, Freeman RE (1988) A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In: Beauchamp TL, Bowie NE (eds) Ethical theory and business, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 97–106 Freedman L (2013) Strategy: a history, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, New York Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston Freeman RE (2004) The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift Für Wirtschafts-Und Unternehmensethik 5 (3):228–241 Garriga E, Melé D (2004) Corporate social responsibility theories : mapping the territory social responsibility corporate theories : mapping the territory. J Bus Ethics 53(1/2):51–71 Gasbarro F, Rizzi F, Frey M (2016) Adaptation measures of energy and utility companies to cope with water scarcity induced by climate change. Bus Strateg Environ 25 (1):54–72 Gladwin TN (1993) The meaning of greening: a plea for organizational theory. In: Fischer J, Schot K (eds) Environmental strategies for industry: international perspectives on research needs and policy implications. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 37–61 Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause T (1995) Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):874–907

C

160

Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

Gonzales-Benito JC, Gonzales-Benito OC (2006) A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. Bus Strateg Environ 15(2):87–102 Grant AM, Ashford SJ (2008) The dynamics of proactivity at work. Res Organ Behav 28(1):3–34 Gray R, Kouhy R, Lavers S (1995) Corporate social and environmental reporting. A review of the literature and longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Account Audit Account J 8(2):47–77 Gray R, Owen D, Adams C (2010) Some theories for social accounting?: A review essay and a tentative pedagogic categorisation of theorisations around social accounting. In: Freedman M, Jaggi B (eds) Sustainability, environmental performance and diclosure: advances in environmental accounting and management. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp 1–54 Guthrie J, Parker LD (1989) Corporate social reporting: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Account Bus Res 19 (76):343–352 Halme M, Roome N, Dobers P (2009) Corporate responsibility: reflections on context and consequences. Scand J Manag 25(1):1–9 Hart SL (1995) A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):986–1014 Hart SL, Dowell G (2011) A natural-resource-based view of the firm: fifteen years after. J Manag 37(5):1464– 1479 Henriques I, Sadorsky P (1999) The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Acad Manag J 42 (1):87–99 Hogner RH (1982) Corporate social reporting: eight decades of development at US steel. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 4:243–250 ICSI (n.d.) Sustainability & the regulatory environment. In: ICSI. https://www.icsi.edu/. Accessed 29 Jan 2018 ILO (n.d.) Promotion of sustainable enterprise for innovation, growth, more and better jobs. https://www.ilo.org/ empent/Publications/WCMS_175537. Accessed 08 May 2020 Jeucken M (2001) Sustainable finance and banking: the financial sector and the future of the planet. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London Junquera B (2012) Research effort, functional integration, and environmental action-based competitive advantage: an empirical study. International Journal of Environmental Research 6(3):585–596 Kant N (2020) Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): theoretical underpinnings. In: Leal Filho W et al (eds) Industry, innovation and infrastructure, encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer Nature, Switzerland Kassinis G, Vafeas N (2006) Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Acad Manag J 49 (1):145–159 Lindgreen A, Swaen V, Campbell TT (2009) Corporate social responsibility practices in developing and transitional countries: Botswana and Malawi. J Bus Ethics 90 (SUPPL 3):429–440

López MV, Garcia A, Rodriguez L (2007) Sustainable development and corporate performance: a study based on the Dow Jones sustainability index sustainable development and corporate performance: a study based on the Dow Jones sustainability index. J Bus Ethics 75:285–300 Manatsa A (2017) Dynamic capabilities, institutions and firm performance of firms responding to climate change: the case of Australia and South Africa. Sydney Business School, University of Wollongong McKeown M (2012) The strategy book, 2nd edn. Pearson, Edinburgh Gate Melé D (2008) Corporate social responsibility theories. In: The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 47–82 Michalisin MD, Stinchfield BT (2010) Climate change strategies and the company’s performance: an empirical investigation of the natural resource-based view of the firm. J Bus Strateg 27(2):123–149 Mildawati T, Agustia D, Soewarno N (2018) The climate change strategy-the company’s performance: examining the mediating role of the disclosure of climate change in Indonesia. Int J Sci Res Publ 8(1):451–460 Mirvis P, Googins B (2007) Stages of corporate citizenship. Engineering Management Review, IEEE 34:145– 145 Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag J 22(4):853–886 ODA (1995) Guidance note on how to do stakeholder analysis of aid projects and programmes. https:// beamexchange.org/uploads/filer_public/5d/4c/ 5d4c7b02-a25d-43ab-ae33-0e4811b7c5fb/guidance_ stakeholderanalysis.pdf. Accessed 9 Jul 2018 Petraru M, Gavrilescu M (2010) Pollution prevention, a key to economic and environmental sustainability. Environ Eng Manag J 9(4):597–614 Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy. Free Press, New York Prahalad CK (2009) In volatile times, agility rules. BusinessWeek, (September 21) Prajogo D, Tang AKY, Lai KH (2012) Do firms get what they want from ISO 14001 adoption?: An Australian perspective. J Clean Prod 33:117–126 Preston LE, Post JE (1975) Private management and public policy: the principle of public responsibility. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, . . . Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90(5):1933– 1949 Ruf B, Muralidhar K, Brown R, Janney J, Paul K (2001) An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: a stakeholder theory perspective. J Bus Ethics 32(2):143–156

Collaborative Governance Sarkis J (2003) Corporate environmental benchmarking. BIJ 10(2):25–33 Sharma S, Henriques I (2005) Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strateg Manag J 26(2):159–180 Sharma S, Vredenburg H (1998) Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Source: Strategic Management Journal 19(8):729–753 Singh N (2015) Environmental determinants and their impact in various Indian industries a study of environmental performance under EMS framework (Doctoral Dissertation). Department of Natural Resources Management, TERI University Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28(13):1319–1350 Teece D, Pisano G (1994) The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Ind Corp Chang 3(3): 537–556 Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509– 533 Thiel M (2017) The power of the social domain in sustainable development: non-market strategies for generating sustainable competitive advantage. Int J Innov Sustain Dev 11:213–229 UN Global Compact (n.d.) All companies can play a role. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/sdgs/about. Accessed 19 May 2019 UN SDG Knowledge Platform (n.d.) Sustainable development goals. https://www.sustainabledevelopment.un. org/sdgs. Accessed 19 May 2019 Waddock S, Graves S (1997) The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strateg Manag J 18 (4):303–319 Whetten DA, Rands G, Godfrey P (2002) What are the responsibilities of business to society. In: Whetten DA, Rands G, Godfrey P (eds) Handbook of strategy and management. Pluto Press, London, pp 373–408

161

Co-creation of Services ▶ Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations as Enablers of Children’s WellBeing

Collaboration ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development ▶ Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations as Enablers of Children’s WellBeing

Collaborations ▶ Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals

Collaborative ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

Collaborative Economy Climate-Conflict (Subtype) ▶ Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

▶ Social and Solidarity Economy or How Notfor-Profit Organizations Participate to SDGs’ Implementation?

Collaborative Governance Co-creation Governance ▶ Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

▶ Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance ▶ Tripartite Partnerships: Promoting Sustainable Consumption in the Context of Brazil

C

162

Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making Elisabetta Mocca Department of Sociology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Synonyms Collaborative government; Co-management regime; Multi-partner governance; Participatory governance

Definition The concept of Collaborative Governance describes a type of governance characterized by the nonhierarchical engagement of public, private, state and non-state, government and nongovernmental, as well as collective and individual actors in the decision-making and policy-making process. Notably, governance indicates a mode of governing whereby power is not exclusively held by top-down state institutions but is decentralized and redistributed to non-state and/or private actors (for a definition of governance, see inter alia Pierre and Peters 2000; Rhodes 1997). Therefore, the term governance associated with the adjective collaborative further stresses the role of non-state actors in decisional processes through cooperative linkages between public decision-makers and the civil society. In particular, Collaborative Governance, broadly understood, can be seen as a public management instrument that permits to move away from a passive to a proactive conceptualization of citizens, which are recognized not simply as subjects to policy decisions but also as proactive actors capable of shaping those decisions. In the dedicated literature, a variety of definitions have been elaborated to describe Collaborative Governance. For instance, for Huxham et al. (2000), Collaborative Governance equates with every type of interorganizational governing system in which actors across different bodies

develop liaisons with each other. According to Ansell (2012), stricto sensu, Collaborative Governance can be thought of as tool to develop crosssector collaborative – in lieu of contentious – relations among a variety of actors. More broadly, Collaborative Governance is understood as a tool for enabling a less top-down type of democracy (Ansell 2012). It is a mode of governance recommended whenever conflicts are likely to emerge or to engage community members in choices of public relevance (Ansell 2012). In effect, Collaborative Governance is deemed to have a transformative potential, changing the relations between the central state, private actors, and non-state, nonpublic entities, and the civil society (Ansell 2012). For this, Collaborative Governance overcomes vertical and antagonistic governing styles (Ansell and Gash 2008), constituting a tool for conflict resolution (Huxham et al. 2000). A more fine-grained and broader definition is provided by Ansell and Gash (2008), who depict Collaborative Governance as a system in which nonpublic and nongovernmental actors are involved by governmental authorities in a joint decision mechanism whose purpose is to design, carry out, and oversee policy measures and which is characterized by a set of specific requirements, namely formalization, consensual decision-making, and deliberation. Some scholars have underscored how collaborative arrangements span across different institutions and sectors, therefore entailing both vertical and horizontal cooperative relations (Emerson et al. 2012). While vertical connections enable interlevel cooperation, horizontal connections bring together different actors (public, private, NGOs) at the same territorial level. Drawing on the previous discussion, two accounts of Collaborative Governance may be distinguished in the dedicated literature. Firstly, a more “associational” interpretation, which defines Collaborative Governance as a governing arrangement comprising those multi-actor, inter- and intra-level collaborations among representatives of public, private, and nongovernmental interests. Secondly, a broader and more participatory interpretation foresees Collaborative Governance as a cooperative mode of governing including, in addition to the

Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

actors above mentioned, ordinary citizens, considered as parties directly affected by public decisions (see for instance, Ansell and Gash 2008; Bevir 2009; Bingham 2011; Emerson et al. 2012). This latter account places significant emphasis on the involvement of citizens in the decision-making process and embeds the notion of Collaborative Governance within the debate on civic engagement and participatory democracy (on this debate, see, for instance, Fung and Wright 2003). For what concerns the use of Collaborative Governance as a decision-making process, some authors seem to suggest that Collaborative Governance should not become a mainstream mode of governing, but rather an arrangement to be employed occasionally (Webb 1991 in Huxham et al. 2000), or as the ultimate instrument to be deployed to achieve a goal that cannot be realized in any other ways (Ansell 2012; Emerson et al. 2012). By way of contrast, other authors – and especially in the realm of environmental governance – incline towards a more regular use of collaborative arrangements in public decisionmaking, considered as the optimal mode of governance to tackle issues affecting civil society at large (Huxham et al. 2000).

163

engagement collaborative government; community advisory council; community-based collaborative; corporatism; hybrid sectoral arrangement; interactive policy-making; intergovernmental collaborative structure; joined-up government; joint working; multi-party working; multi-stakeholder roundtable; negotiated regulatory rulemaking process; participatory management; policy networks; private-social partnership; public service networks; public-private partnership; regulatory negotiations; stakeholder governance; and stakeholder partnership (Ansell and Gash 2008; Bingham 2011; Emerson et al. 2012; Emerson and Nabatchi 2015; Huxham et al. 2000; Leach 2006; Purdy 2012). Amid such a plethora of synonymous concepts, Ansell and Gash (2008) draw a line between Collaborative Governance and similar notions. For these authors, while sharing many aspects – being them the presence of multiple and divers actors and the willingness to cooperate – Collaborative Governance is a distinctive mode of governance, as it possesses a specific set of characteristics (Ansell and Gash 2008) – as will be discussed in the ensuing paragraphs.

The Diffusion of the Concept and Practice of Collaborative Governance Introduction This entry illustrates the concept of Collaborative Governance, a type of governance characterized by the involvement of nonhierarchical engagement of public, private, state and non-state, government and nongovernmental, as well as collective and individual actors. In the following sections, a comprehensive definition of this notion is provided, zooming in on its constitutive components. Additionally, the strengths and weaknesses of Collaborative Governance are identified. Given the growing academic interest for collaborative governing arrangements, governance, public policy, and public management literatures is replete with synonyms for Collaborative Governance. To illustrate the variety of cognate concepts (some of which are listed under “Synonyms”), some examples are the following: alternative dispute mediation; associational governance; civic

The concept of Collaborative Governance has gained currency at the turn of the new century. The idea of a public decision-making mode resting on collaboration among multiple and diverse actors has entered the scholarly and policy debate on the nature of the state in the new century (Koontz and Thomas 2006; Newman et al. 2004). To gain a better understanding, the notion of Collaborative Governance has to be contextualized in the corpus of empirical and theoretical contributions that has theorized the gradual and ineluctable dismantle of the nation-states (Newman et al. 2004) – what is often referred in the international relation literature as their “withering away” – paving the way to a post-Westphalian order where states would not be the only holders of power and authority. Despite the increasing interest of scholars and practitioners in Collaborative Governance, this is

C

164

Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

not a brand-new concept. Indeed, it has been observed that the scholarship on Collaborative Governance draws on consolidated theoretical bodies, including the studies on federalism in the USA as well as on group and collective action theories, whose main harbingers were, among others, Bentley, Olson, and, more recently, Ostrom (Emerson et al. 2012). In particular, the concept of polycentrism developed by Elinor Ostrom chimes with Collaborative Governance, in that both governance systems are cooperative, multi-scale, and multi-party. From a theoretical perspective, the concept of Collaborative Governance intersects other akin strands of literature, in particular, the multilevel governance (Newman et al. 2004) and participatory governance – the latter sometimes defined as deliberative democracy (see on this point Bingham 2011; Gollagher and Hartz-Karp 2013). With the first notion, Collaborative Governance shares the multi-/cross-scale and multi-actor dimension, which stresses how power and authority have become dispersed, since some competencies have been transferred from the central state to non-state and nonpublic actors. However, in the multilevel governance framework, the centrality of citizens’ participation is not as marked as in the Collaborative Governance literature. With regard to the second thread of research, both collaborative and participatory governance literatures highlight the importance of bottom-up and deliberative processes (Gollagher and HartzKarp 2013). Nonetheless, participatory governance entails a more radical conceptualization of civic engagement than Collaborative Governance, which might exclusively include the political and professional class (Fung and Wright 2003). The growing debate both in academic and public arenas highlights the need to move away from centralized, top-down, closed-door modes of governance and to embrace more participatory and open-door methods of decision-making and policy design. The reasons underlying such a contemporary demand for greater participation in the decision-making process are various: the growing average education level of the population, the greater access to information sources enabled by the new technologies, and the difficulties of

representative democracy to respond to social and environmental issues. More recently, the widespread popular discontent for the political class, fuelled by the negative economic conjuncture, has bolstered a narrative that opposes the people against privileged and self-interested political elites and has brought about more pressing bottom-up requests for major citizens’ involvement into the policy-making process. At the same time, the political class, in light of challenging policy decisions that may yield a significant societal impact, have tried to open up the decision-making process to citizens. In addition to the greater request for civic engagement, the motivations underpinning Collaborative Governance rests with a set of drivers. In this respect, Huxham et al. (2000) identify three main determinants of Collaborative Governance: government’s attempt to supply effective services, knowledge exchange, and cost division. Moreover, it is argued that the rationale for engaging in Collaborative Governance may be either functional, whenever the actors seek to achieve a specific goal, or belieforiented, when actors are motivated by the conviction that non-state and nonpublic actors have to be engaged in decision-making (Huxham et al. 2000). To clarify the concept under scrutiny, a cursory discussion on how Collaborative Governance has been applied in the field of environmental governance is provided in the following paragraph. Indeed, it is claimed that collaborative governance arrangements have been increasingly employed in environmental management (Koontz and Thomas 2006). Collaborative Governance and Environmental Policy The concept of Collaborative Governance has gained currency in the field of environmental governance, since environmental issues are complex, multidimensional problems, whose impact extends across various administrative levels, from local to global, and affect multiple realms – the societal system as well as physical and natural environments. For this reason, the solution to problems such as air, land, and water pollution, climate change, natural disasters, waste disposal,

Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

and so forth cannot be effectively addressed by one level and type of authority. By way of contrast, such complexity may be managed by pooling expert knowledge and skills, professional and lived experience, and insights of a broad gamut actors, including policy-makers at different level of government, nongovernmental associations, business sector experts, grassroots groups, and end users. Therefore, collaborative governance arrangements foster a multidimensional understanding of environmental issues that may support a more responsive problem-solving through the joint development of joint solutions. In this respect, the importance of the participation of actors endowed of the adequate knowledge to better approach the issue has been underscored (Gerlak and Heikkila 2006). As anticipated previously, another akin concept is that of polycentrism, which has been widely studied in the field of environments governance. Drawing on extensive research on natural resource management, Ostrom (2005) concludes that polycentric types of governance, which enable citizens’ self-organization at different spatial scales, provide an effective and efficient mode of management for environmental commons. As a result, by drawing a variable geometry of cross-level, cross-sector, multicentered, and multi-actor collaborations in environment policy-making, environmental governance has overcome a system where command and control functions are a prerogative of sovereign states (Karkkainen 2004). In the next paragraph, the notion of Collaborative Governance will be unpacked by pinpointing and discussing the elements that qualify this concept.

The Constitutive Elements of Collaborative Governance Drawing on the definitions provided by scholars studying Collaborative Governance – some examples of which have already been mentioned – it is possible to identify the constitutive components of Collaborative Governance. These are: the diversity of actors, participation, collaboration,

165

commonality of interests, and planning. In what follows, these elements will be discussed in detail. Heterogeneity Firstly, Collaborative Governance is characterized by the engagement of heterogeneous actors (Huxham et al. 2000; Leach 2006). As acknowledged in the previous sections, Collaborative Governance draws, both theoretically and practically, on the collaboration among different public agencies at various levels of governments, private sector stakeholders, and members of the wide constellation of civil society organizations as well as end users. Therefore, a primary factor that distinguishes Collaborative Governance from other types of governance is the compresence of actors representing different interests at stake in the decisional process. It has been suggested that governmental entities are responsible for establishing the collaboration with nongovernmental and nonpublic actors, indicating both collective as well as single actors (Ansell and Gash 2008). Participation The diversity of the actors involved in a decisionmaking process does not suffice to classify the latter as Collaborative Governance. As a result, a second prerequisite of Collaborative Governance is the participation of the actors involved in the collaborative process. The scope of participation varies according to the breadth of actors engaged (for example, if citizens are included) and the depth of their involvement in the decision-making and policy-making processes (Gollagher and Hartz-Karp 2013; Wanna 2008). Furthermore, as pointed out previously, Collaborative Governance responds to the greater demand from civil society to take part and have a say in the management of the res publica. Such greater civic willingness to engage in the decision-making and policy-making process may be seen as the outcome of the postmaterialist society – as Inglehart (1971) would posits it. In other words, once basic needs are satisfied, as in the case of more affluent societies, citizens advocate for more advanced nonbasic rights (also known as third generation rights), such as environmentalism or feminism (Inglehart

C

166

Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

and Abramson 1994), which gradually become embedded in the political culture. To date, civic participation is at the core of the contemporary political debate and is vigorously advocated by social and political movements and nongovernmental associations. Given the growing bottom-up demand for greater involvement in the public life, it is suggested that government has to facilitate citizens’ social and political innovation capacity (Sirianni 2010). With regard to the ways with which to facilitate participation in Collaborative Governance, it is argued that the personal interaction and the establishment of a communicative relationship among the parties involved in the collaborative process play an important role (Ansell and Gash 2008). Moreover, the development of trustworthy rapports and the ability to bargain the different views and proposals to reach a consensus help to overcome potential adversarial positions (Ansell and Gash 2008). In this respect, facilitation is also deemed as a key factor in achieving fruitful collaborations, in that it helps forging positive relations among the participants and reaching consensual positions (Ansell and Gash 2008). As a result, the role of a facilitator may ensure the participation of those actors with less political clout and contribute to empower them (Ansell and Gash 2008). Collaboration A third element of Collaborative Governance strongly related to participation is, intuitively, collaboration. As its etymology indicates – conlaborare, meaning working together – Collaborative Governance can be defined as such only if decisions are taken collectively, cooperatively, and horizontally by the whole range of participants. The togetherness and heterarchical dimension of Collaborative Governance are captured by the prefix con- shared by other two terms, namely, collectivity (from the latin colligere, con-ligere, to gather together) and consensus (from the latin con-sentio, to think together, i.e., in agreement). Notably, collaborative processes rest on a collective approach to decision-making, thus entailing an equal degree of participation and contribution from the parties engaged (Ansell and Gash 2008).

Further, collaboration entails cooperation, which implies a constructive relationship among the stakeholders. However, it has been observed that collaboration displays a more circumscribed meaning than cooperation, the latter indicating a loose and unstructured type of concerted action (Bingham 2011). To ensure greater participation and foster effective cooperation, Collaborative Governance draws on consensual decision-making mechanisms, whereby the parts involved endeavor to achieve consensual decisions, whereas that may not always be feasible (Ansell and Gash 2008). It should be noted that consensual decision-making does not seek to achieve unanimous consent, fending off any potential blockages in the decision process (Karkkainen 2004). Finally, collaborative efforts are not only initiated spontaneously but they may be also compulsory, whenever the cooperation between state and non-state actors is prescribed by public authorities (Bingham 2011). The cooperative, collective, and consensual character of Collaborative Governance resonates with the concept of deliberative democracy, which postulates a more participatory and democratic decision-making system, where decisions are taken through a constructive and ongoing discussion among the actors affected by a given public choice (Bingham 2011; Emerson et al. 2012; Gollagher and Hartz-Karp 2013; Nabatchi 2010; Roberts 2004). Understood as such, Collaborative Governance draws on the development of discursive relationships among the parties. Therefore, another key element of collaborative arrangements is the exchange of knowledge among the actors involved (Huxham et al. 2000). The sharing of information, practices, and knowledge is indeed an important driver of participation in cooperative structures: the participants may access a considerable knowledge base and a repertoire of practices, which may assist them in producing innovative ways to tackle a problem. As a result, the flow of information and knowledge occurring within collaborative processes enables the concerted production of knowledge (Leach 2006). In this sense, in collaborative modes of governing knowledge is co-created, insofar as meanings are jointly and constructively

Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

defined and interpreted by the collectivity of the parties engaged. Given the importance of the knowledge sharing and learning potential of Collaborative Governance, specific methods to regulate communication and learning among the participants are deemed crucial to make collaborative governance systems working effectively and to avoid conflicts among the parts involved (Van Buuren 2009). More precisely, these methods are aimed at establishing procedures to reach a consensual and joint comprehension of a given issue and the way to tackle it (Van Buuren 2009). Commonality of Interests Another crucial element of Collaborative Governance is the existence of a commonality of interests (Ansell and Gash 2008). It can be argued that Collaborative Governance is more likely to succeed if different parties have a shared interest in cooperating and to achieve the same objective. While the existence of at least some common interests and objectives may facilitate collaborations, this does not rule out the possibility of initiating a fruitful collaboration even when actors do not share common objectives: in this sense, collaborative arrangements serve to find an agreement between dissenting positions (Ansell and Gash 2008; Bingham 2011; Emerson et al. 2012). However, the quest for commonalities in the collaborative process does not annihilate actors’ divergent and competitive aims (Bingham 2011). This suggests that, as with any instances of collective action, the establishment of cooperative relationships among the actors involved in the collaboration may reduce but not suppress economic and political rivalry. Planning Finally, planning is another factor ensuring the effectiveness of Collaborative Governance. As mentioned above, collaboration, as opposed to cooperation, entails structured interactions among the participants involved (Bingham 2011). Therefore, collaborative processes are not one-off or sporadic gatherings. Rather, Collaborative Governance is described as repetitive and circular, inasmuch as the experience from

167

previous collaborative efforts shape and affect future cooperation (Ansell and Gash 2008). As a result, the regularity of participants’ encounters is pivotal to agree on, design, and/or carry out policy solutions; this means that the parties involved have to remain engaged in the process over a certain timespan, ranging from months to years (Leach 2006). In other words, collaborative processes have to be formalized: in this sense, Collaborative Governance is conceptualized as a planned process rather than an occasional and unstructured activity (Ansell and Gash 2008). In order to formalize the collaborative efforts, rulesetting is a paramount strategy. In this vein, Leach (2006) points out how transparent norms regulating a collaboration are essential to make Collaborative Governance working effectively. Having illustrated the main pillars of Collaborative Governance, the ensuing section will be devoted to highlight the benefits and challenges associated with this type of governance arrangements.

The Benefits and Challenges of Collaborative Governance Following from the previous discussion, it emerges how Collaborative Governance has several advantages and serves multiple purposes. At the same time, there are also some challenges associated to this mode of governance. In the ensuing paragraphs, the pros and cons of Collaborative Governance are identified. Benefits Direct Engagement

Needless to say, the most prominent advantage is the greater engagement of those actors that may be affected by a public decision (Gerlak and Heikkila 2006). In effect, Collaborative Governance theorists postulate that the key element of this type of governance is the direct participation in decisionmaking, hence distancing itself from other forms of consultation, where participation is only apparent (Ansell and Gash 2008). However, collaborative arrangements, while broadening the spectrum of the stakeholders, may not include ordinary

C

168

Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

citizens (Bingham 2011; Emerson et al. 2012). It has been noted that an important advantage is that the solutions obtained through Collaborative Governance processes tend to find more agreement among the public (Purdy 2012). Similarly, the parts involved in Collaborative Governance are responsible for the results produced in the process (Ansell and Gash 2008). In this sense, the involvement of citizens, both as representatives of third sector organizations and as individuals, has a twofold purpose: on the one hand, it widens and enriches the decision-making process with different perspectives, experiences, and ideas; on the other hand, it makes the participants, not only the power-holders, responsible for their choices. Co-creation of Knowledge and Solutions

Moreover, Collaborative Governance permits to take advantage of a wide and varied gamut of participants (Huxham et al. 2000), enabling to tap into a composite range of expertise and visions, which help to better grapple with a problem of public relevance and elaborate more effective solutions (Bevir 2009). The answers to public issues developed through Collaborative Governance processes are deemed to be more innovative and built on a more adequate knowledge base than those developed through usual top-down processes (Gerlak and Heikkila 2006).

indirect experience of a problem are pooled, deconstructed, and reassembled to co-create a joint and multifaceted understanding of an issue, which may benefit participants’ knowledge and skills. Limitation of Antagonism

Thanks to the establishment of cooperative relations among the participant’s, Collaborative Governance may help to limit and cope with conflictual relations (Ansell and Gash 2008; Bingham 2011; Emerson et al. 2012; Emerson and Nabatchi 2015). In effect, collaborative processes may help public actors to thread positive relations with citizens (Gerlak and Heikkila 2006). Associated with the conflict management potential, the creation and strengthening of trust among the actors engaged is crucial for making Collaborative Governance work (Ansell 2012; Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012). As research on environmental resource management has shown, reiterate personal contacts favors cooperation (Basurto and Ostrom 2009). Challenges In addition to the advantages above outlined, the literature on Collaborative Governance has identified a range of challenges hindering the effectiveness of collaborative modes of governance. The main barriers to collaboration can be categorized as follows:

Empowerment

Thanks to its participatory nature, empowerment is an important outcome of Collaborative Governance (Huxham et al. 2000). In effect, collaborative modes of governance enable less powerful actors to acquire more capacity to act and influence over public choices. In so doing, collaborative processes move away from an exclusively top-down and vertical approach to embrace a more cooperative and horizontal and mode of governing. The empowering potential of this type of governance goes hand in hand with the improvement of participants’ skills and competencies – in other words, their social capital, as underscored by some authors (Ansell 2012; Ansell and Gash 2008; Bingham 2011; Leach 2006). In this respect, in collaborative governance agreements, lay and expert knowledge, direct and

Symbolic Participation

The proactive involvement of the agents engaged in Collaborative Governance has to be genuine, not simply tokenistic. This is especially true for the participation of less powerful actors – i.e., individual citizens and civil society, which may be invoked but not realized in practice. The importance of participation in public policy-making has been underscored by a conspicuous body of literature in political science, public management, and business study. An influential example is Arnstein’s (1969) thought-provoking article proposing a taxonomy of civic engagement. There, Arnstein (1969) warns about the existence of governing arrangements, such as in consultative practices, which provide only symbolic citizens’ involvement, in that the decisional capacity still

Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

rests with those in power. To realize a fully fledged civic participation, it is paramount to redistribute power between the powerful elite and the broad base who does not hold formal decisional authority (Arnstein 1969). Coordination Problems

As with any collective organizations, collaborative arrangements may be hindered by coordination problems. Collaborative modes of governance draw on consensual and deliberative processes seeking to reach a collective agreement. However, the actors involved in a collaborative arrangement may have diverging interests, objectives, or visions (Gerlak and Heikkila 2006). Additionally, while the inclusion of a diverse range of actors can be an additional value to collaborative modes of governance, the participants may not share the same type and level of knowledge (Ansell 2012; Ansell and Gash 2008; Huxham et al. 2000). Therefore, the achievement of a shared decision or solution requires the negotiation of the different positions. This bargaining procedure may thus encounter the resistance of some of the parties involved. Overcoming such impasse may be timeconsuming, requiring more time and resources to reach an agreed solution and thus slowing down the decision-making process.

169

dilemma is the creation of a series of assemblies grouping the actors involved in the collaborative process around their common goals, each represented by one or (even more) elected spokesperson(s) (Leach 2006). Further, by broadening the scope for participation through the inclusion of several actors with different objectives, the effectiveness of the decision-making outcomes may be undermined (Rasche 2010). Unequal Power and Influence

Given that Collaborative Governance comprises different actors endowed of different roles, spanning from policy-makers to citizens, an issue at stake is that of the distribution of power among the agents involved (Ansell and Gash 2008; Huxham et al. 2000; Purdy 2012). An uneven distribution of power among the participants in the collaborative process leads to an asymmetrical capacity to influence the outcomes, which may compromise the horizontality and equality of the participation (Ansell and Gash 2008; Huxham et al. 2000). Therefore, the actors who find themselves in a stronger position may force the process to their advantages, in turn marginalizing the least influential parts – such as ordinary citizens (Ansell and Gash 2008; Purdy 2012).

Representativeness

Lack of Commitment

Another issue hindering Collaborative Governance’s effectiveness is related to the extent to which the actors involved may speak for the collective entity they are part of and the extent to which they may be held accountable for the processes and decisions adopted (Huxham et al. 2000). What is more, the openness of collaborative decision-making to a broad range of actors engenders the tension between representation and inclusion (Leach 2006) as well as between the latter and the deliberative character of Collaborative Governance (Rasche 2010). In effect, while it is paramount to make sure that no actors are excluded from the decision-making process, there could be the risk that the different parties are not equally represented (Leach 2006). Furthermore, the fuzziness about the identity of the actors may hinder the collaborative efforts (Huxham et al. 2000). It is suggested that a way out of this

As mentioned above, in order to work effectively, Collaborative Governance requires the iterative participation and proactive contribution to the process (Ansell 2012). The different depth and frequency of engagement in collaborative arrangements of different types of actors may determine the success of collaborative endeavors (Huxham et al. 2000). Nevertheless, the actors engaged in joint initiatives may contribute in different ways and may display different levels of commitment (Ansell 2012; Huxham et al. 2000). In the same vein, Ansell and Gash (2008) point out that the actors’ motivations to get involved in cooperative efforts may affect the outcomes of collaborations. On this point, the authors observe that Collaborative Governance may prove successful whenever collaboration is the only means to achieve actors’ objective and/or actors are strongly reliant on each other (Ansell and Gash

C

170

Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

2008). Finally, preexisting oppositional relations among actors may impact negatively on the success of Collaborative Governance process (Ansell and Gash 2008). However, the authors acknowledge that there may the conditions for collaborations if the agents involved are mutually dependent or they are willing the overcome their conflictuality (Ansell and Gash 2008). Furthermore, it has been noted that collaborative structures may transform over time, due either to governmental intervention or to single or collective members engaged (Huxham et al. 2000). Indeed, collaborative processes where actors change or participate intermittently may frustrate the development of cooperative and trustworthy relationships, which underlie collaborations. In addition to the issues above discussed, other barriers identified in the dedicated literature are: • Lack of appropriate resources: These may be either financial, which may indicate both limited budget to be allocated for cooperative arrangements that, when comprising several participants, may require significant financial costs (Gerlak and Heikkila 2006), or lack of time (Ansell and Gash 2008). • Procedural issues: Another impeding factor of Collaborative Governance are the rules and practices of public actors may bound their room for maneuver (Gerlak and Heikkila 2006). Similarly, Huxham et al. (2000) identify as a barrier to collaborations governing arrangements, that is how the collaboration is organized in and managed by governing bodies. • Finally, the growing number of nested collaborative forms and the over-engagement of actors in different collaborative fora (Huxham et al. 2000) may dissipate collaborative synergies.

Concluding Remarks The barriers listed previously, while may hinder collaborative efforts, do not necessarily render Collaborative Governance a pointless exercise, nor they make it less preferable than other modes of governance. As discussed in this entry,

the growing diffusion of this type of governing responds to recent and pressing bottom-up demands for participation in public decision-making. Surely, the success of collaborative arrangements depends on the balance between the pros and cons highlighted above. More importantly, it is paramount to avoid a tokenistic collaboration: if participation is reduced to a rhetorical device, the trust between public agencies, nonpublic actors, and civil society may be eroded. Therefore, ensuring a truly horizontal, non-conflictual, and inclusive engagement of all the stakeholders is crucial to establish a long-lasting and fruitful collaboration.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Multi-stakeholder Partnerships ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement

References Ansell C (2012) Collaborative governance. In: The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, New York Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(4):543– 571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01944366908977225 Basurto X, Ostrom E (2009) Beyond the tragedy of the commons. Economia delle Fonti di Energia e dell’Ambiente LII:35–60 Bevir M (2009) Key concepts in governance. Sage, Los Angeles Bingham LB (2011) Collaborative governance. In: Bevir M (ed) The SAGE handbook of governance. Sage, London, pp 386–401 Emerson K, Nabatchi T (2015) Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes: a performance matrix. Public Perform Manag Rev 38(4):717–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1031016 Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S (2012) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J Public Adm

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework Res Theory 22(1):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/ mur011 Fung A, Wright EO (2003) Deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance, vol 4. Verso, London/New York Gerlak AK, Heikkila T (2006) Comparing collaborative mechanisms in large-scale ecosystem governance. Nat Resour J 46(3):657–707 Gollagher M, Hartz-Karp J (2013) The role of deliberative collaborative governance in achieving sustainable cities. Sustainability 5(6):2343–2366 Huxham C, Vangen S, Huxham C, Eden C (2000) The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Manag Int J Res Theory 2(3):337–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14719030000000021 Inglehart R (1971) The silent revolution in Europe: intergenerational change in post-industrial societies. Am Polit Sci Rev 65(4):991–1017 Inglehart R, Abramson PR (1994) Economic security and value change. Am Polit Sci Rev 88(2):336–354 Karkkainen BC (2004) Post-sovereign environmental governance. Glob Environ Polit 4(1):72–96. https://doi. org/10.1162/152638004773730220 Koontz TM, Thomas CW (2006) What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Adm Rev 66:111–121 Leach WD (2006) Collaborative public management and democracy: evidence from western watershed partnerships. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):100–110. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00670.x Nabatchi T (2010) Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: the potential of deliberative democracy for public administration. Am Rev Public Adm 40 (4):376–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507400 9356467 Newman J, Barnes M, Sullivan H, Knops A (2004) Public participation and collaborative governance. J Soc Policy 33(2):203–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727940 3007499 Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity, vol 41. Princeton University Press, Princeton Pierre J, Peters GB (2000) Governance, politics and the state. Macmillan, Basingstoke Purdy MJ (2012) A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public Adm Rev 72(3):409–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210. 2011.02525.x Rasche A (2010) Collaborative governance 2.0. Corp Gov Int J Bus Soc 10(4):500–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14720701011069713 Rhodes RA (1997) Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press, Buckingham Roberts N (2004) Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. Am Rev Public Adm 34(4):315–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004269288 Sirianni C (2010) Investing in democracy: engaging citizens in collaborative governance. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC

171

Van Buuren A (2009) Knowledge for governance, governance of knowledge: inclusive knowledge management in collaborative governance processes. Int Public Manag J 12(2):208–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/109 67490902868523 Wanna J (2008) Collaborative government: meanings, dimensions, drivers and outcomes. In: O’Flynn J, Wanna J (eds) Collaborative governance: a new era of public policy in Australia, pp 3–12. ANU E Press, The Australian National University: Canberra, Australia Webb A (1991) Coordination: a problem in public sector management. Policy Polit 19(4):229–242. https://doi. org/10.1332/030557391782454188

Collaborative Government ▶ Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework Jorge Sierra-Pérez and Ignacio López-Forniés Department of Design and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

Definition The United Nations has established the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to provide peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) comprise the main challenges to address, which will require the search for specific solutions to real problems. Due to the inherent complexity of SDGs and their multidisciplinarity, there must be integration between involved actors in a framework of collaborative creation. This collaboration will promote the approach between different fields of knowledge, of social strata or countries, and between different hierarchical levels. For this reason, co-creation methodologies, originating in the design field,

C

172

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework

can contribute as a facilitator during the process of the achievement of the SDGs since they are successfully applied in complex and multidisciplinary work environments.

Introduction The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, approved in September 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly, being a set of priorities and aspirations to guide to the most urgent challenges in the world. This agenda comprises 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their 169 targets, establishing a transformative vision toward environmental, social, and economic sustainability. From an environmental approach, the priority focuses on the protection of life both on land and below water, to ensure food security and help combat the climate emergency through the transformation of our development model toward a low carbon economy and, in addition, to ensure access to clean water and adequate hygiene conditions. From a social approach, most objectives come from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (United Nations (UN) Millennium Project 2005), which were not fully achieved. There are additional ones related to energy resources and urban environments (by 2050, 75% of the population will live in them (United Nations (UN) 2010), as well as an implication of the institutions in increasing their permeability to society and its citizens. From an economic approach, efforts focus on developing an innovative industrial fabric and a reliable and sustainable infrastructure system that ensures sustained economic growth through an increase in decent work opportunities. All this development in an inclusive way between and within countries, and under responsible production and consumption patterns (United Nations (UN) General Assembly 2015). The 2030 Agenda presents several challenges, mainly those related to complexity of SDGs and the multidisciplinarity required to reach them. On the one hand, each SDG focuses on general aspects and has some targets that intend to concrete specific objectives to reach it. Their complexity is inherent in their own objectives, due to

their scope and dimension. In addition, complexity is affected by not only each challenge and objective but a high number of interlinkages between different ecosystems (Schick et al. 2017). On the other hand, multi-stakeholder partnerships have been identified as an important strategy that seek to mobilize all stakeholders around the new agenda, within a range of sectors including business, sub-national and local governments, youth, civil society, philanthropic organizations, and development banks. Leading successful projects in multi-stakeholder settings requires a broad skill set in the area of dialogue and collaboration (Kuenkel and Schaefer 2013). Empathy, listening skill, and holistic thinking are key skills for collaboration process between different fields and thinking styles. One key distinction of SDGs with respect to their predecessor, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), is the requirement of the involvement of all stakeholders: the governments of development and underdevelopment countries, the private sector, civil society organizations (CSOs), and, most importantly, people (Sriskandarajah 2018). With the new challenges posed, all involved actors should be included in the process of finding solutions to the problems raised in the framework of the SDGs. For that, there is a need of creative thinking to find new ways to the SDGs achievement, in which collaboration is a potential strategy to reach a solution to the goals of each objective.

Collaboration as a Key Factor for the Achievement of SDGs The political and academic spheres have traditionally concentrated decision-making and knowledge generation centers, respectively. However, with the new challenge posed, and following the target 7 of SDG16 “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels,” all the actors involved should be included in the process of finding solutions to the problems raised in the framework of the SDGs. The collaboration process has to take place between different levels or fields, with diverse functions as indicated

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework

by the quadruple helix model, university-industrygovernment-society. Depending on the sectors involved in the collaborative process, it may have a vertical or horizontal structure or direction, which are widespread concepts in supply chain management (Simatupang and Sridharan 2002). The vertical collaboration is the type of collaboration that takes place between actors of different hierarchical levels. For instance, within an industrial company, collaboration should be carried out including CEO, directors, managers, coordinators, supervisors, and operators. On the other hand, the horizontal collaboration is done between equals within the decision chain or with the same hierarchical level, for example, collaboration between companies in the same productive sector or between directors of a company but from different departments. In this regard, each type of collaboration implies different aspects to consider. On the one hand, vertical collaboration requires the participation of all the actors in the decision chain during the process of formulation of a solution to an existing problem. However, the application of co-creative methodologies that enhance or facilitate processes where actors from different fields and backgrounds collaborate with the same objective does not seem to be the biggest challenge to address but also the need to change the way to relate to each other, without underestimating the role of any actor because of their background or the social strata or country to which they belong. The SDG approach is based not only on knowledge but also on values. On the other hand, horizontal collaboration allows greater ease of work and cooperation to achieve a common goal because collaborators have similar views of the problem. However, suspicions may occur during the process due to crossed interests between different collaborating entities. Therefore, and as previously mentioned, collaboration, in addition to being based on knowledge and experience, must be based on values. For that, solutions must be integrating knowledge and experience within a productive or social sector. Therefore, the change begins in each one, having to dare to cross the barrier that separates from the equals.

173

To facilitate the minimization of the difficulties presented in both types of collaboration, it has been identified the introduction of collaborative creation methodologies during the creative process necessary for the search for solutions within the framework of the SDG.

Creative Process and Co-creation The creative process is the passage from a situation of departure, unwanted or problematic, to a future and desired situation in the form of a final solution, represents the path from problem to solution. The starting situation can be presented as a social, cultural, economic, technical problem, etc. or as a detected need, while the final situation is presented as the creative result that solves the problem or satisfies that need. A creative process presents a result that is both new and useful or improves the initial situation. Since the creative process is complex, due to the high number of influencing variables and the particularities of each problem, there are many versions and representations of the creative process. In the case of the first solar school in Brazil (Filho et al. 2017), the University of Southern Santa Catarina in Tubarão in Brazil intends to make improvements to a children’s school generating solar energy, improving their energy efficiency and luminous and thermal comfort, and promoting awareness on renewable energy and sustainability. This objective poses a complex problem for dealing with environmental, educational, energy, social, technical, and economic variables, which imply different stakeholders and participants in the project. From the practical application, three phases are observed: (1) definition of the problem, (2) search and generation of ideas, and (3) establishment of the criteria for the selection and application of the solution. These three phases, problem-ideationsolution, are observed in the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) (Osborn 2001). Creative processes are characterized by having an initial stage of recognition and awareness of the problem in which all available information is collected to determine the causes. Next, there is a stage generating ideas and conceptual solutions

C

174

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework

that finally leads to the stage of configuring several solutions that will be evaluated to select and implement the most optimal. In addition, they are characterized by working with divergent and convergent mental processes. Divergent processes are associated with creative thinking and aim to analyze, open, and increase the number of possibilities of both the problem and the diversity of ideas. Convergent processes are associated with rational thinking, and its objective is to synthesize the new formulation of the problem and the selection of the best solution based on previously established criteria. In this context, a simple model that represents these stages and the divergent-convergent process is the Double Diamond of the Design Council (2004) (Fig. 1). It begins with the analysis of the problem and its discovery by a divergent process for the search of the factors and variables that affect it, and that ends in a convergent process that focuses on a redefinition of the problem with its specifications and limitations that represents the opportunity to improve the initial situation. Next, there is another divergent process of exploring ideas and alternatives that are filtered and selected in a convergent process, applying the criteria previously set based on the objectives pursued, and tested by functioning prototypes of the concept. A factor that affects the variability of complexity in the creative process is the type of design problem to face. Having focused and fully defined problems, related to routine design, versus fuzzy or ill-defined problems, related to creative design. Routine design comprises a type of design that

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework, Fig. 1 Representation of Double Diamond illustrating the design-thinking framework created by the Design Council (UK) (Design Council 2004)

arises from known problems with known variables and solutions that can be intuitively anticipated. This type of design has precise, rigid, predetermined, and systematic characteristics and shows a more mathematical character than creative design (Gero 1990). Creative design adds unknown variables to the product. These variables use unexpected parameters and store unexpected knowledge during the design process. This definition of new variables allows the designer to generate alternatives outside the expected solution space. In solving social problems, both situations can occur, depending on the amount of variables and information available, increasing or decreasing the complexity. The way in which participants relate to each other and how they work as a group is a factor that also affects the creative process. Cooperative groups work with shared and multiple objectives, and all share the final achievement, but it is made up of the achievements of each participant. This approach has been changed by collaborative work in which the goal is unique and common and all participants must be participants in their achievement. In this context, co-creation is proposed, a management initiative or form of economic strategy that brings together different to jointly produce a mutually valued result (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). This win-win situation must always occur and meet the expectations of all participants; otherwise this initiative will fail and will not have continuity. Co-creation generates a diversity of ideas, in which all agents participate. Another definition aimed at explaining the need to produce a broad change exposes that the creative energy of many people must be released, in such a way that it transforms both their individual experience and the ultimate benefit of those who allowed it (Ramaswamy and Gouillart 2010). In the achievement of the SDGs, the stakeholders of the triple helix, university-industrygovernment, propose collaborative processes for integrating the ultimate beneficiaries, people and society; in this sense the proposed methodologies are User-Centered Design (UCD) (Abras et al. 2004; Pallot et al. 2010). These methodologies have evolved from taking the user or beneficiary as a set of data and variables to work with

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework

on the solution to a process in which users or beneficiaries actively participate in the whole process from the definition of the problem, the co-creation phases, until the construction and implementation of the solution. In this sense, methodologies have been developed that encompass the whole process such as design thinking or open innovation or others that are characteristic of some part of the process based on social interaction (Living Labs, Mass Collaboration, Social Interaction, Collective Intelligence, Citizen Science), in the process of co-creation (User Cocreation, User Content Creation), or in the processing of data generated by users (Cloud Computing, Future Internet). Co-creation has emerged in the field of the company with the producer-consumer relationship, but it can be applied to other areas, particularly the social one. It has proposed a definition that moves away from the business focus and is closer to the collaborative and participatory field, also noting the social element (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). Co-creation is “an active, creative and social process, based on collaboration between producers and users.” Another definition aimed at explaining the need to produce a broad change is that of Gouillart (Gouillart 2009), “the idea of co-creation is to release the creative energy of many people, in such a way that it transforms both their individual experience and the economy of the organization that allowed it.”

Disciplinary Work in Group Projects Working in groups that mix various disciplines is conditioned by factors like number of disciplines, size of the group, interaction between participants, objectives of the project for each individual in the group, changes in disciplines, and flexibility of thinking. The number of disciplines or areas of knowledge involved in the creative process is the main factor that affects the complexity. Multidisciplinarity is the joint work between disciplines; they remain autonomous from each other, working within each sphere of knowledge. Coordination is the minimum interaction between disciplines, objectives are established in a specific

175

way by each discipline, and the decision-making is done independently according to the orientation of each discipline and within the fragment of the problem that has been entrusted to. The coordination of the work teams can be established in parallel or sequentially through work phases. From the methodological point of view, each discipline remains within its limits. Each specialist continues to use his or her own theories, methods, methodologies, and tools belonging to his or her fields of knowledge. Interdisciplinarity implies the existence of a common shared framework where teams work together, and the organization is established in disciplinary subgroups that provide specific knowledge that cannot be contributed by others, setting the objectives within the limits of each of them. In this case, the level of coordination required is obviously higher, with interdependence being necessary, a greater effort in management and effort by the members of the group. In this way, the result is produced within a collaborative environment so that team members are involved in solving problems a little beyond their branch of knowledge. From the methodological point of view, an exchange flow is established, which can be done either by using methods of one methodology within another or by carrying out an understanding of a problem in one area through rules of a different one. Transdisciplinarity can be defined as the true transgression of disciplinary boundaries, becoming contemplated as a meta-discipline. It involves mixing, unity of knowledge, and, as one of its most outstanding characteristics, the creation of new doctrines that will generate unique findings and results. Methodologically there is a major change: Just as interdisciplinarity entailed the existence of a common framework and certain cooperation between specialties, transdisciplinarity involves a common theoretical understanding and a shared language, a common reformulation of the problem so that it does not focus only on the solution but on the choice of the problem itself, and finally a shared conceptual framework in which new concepts, theories, and approaches will be framed. The coordination of the work must be maximum, with constant communication

C

176

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework

and a high degree of flexibility, in order to share knowledge, skills, and responsibilities. The training of teams makes the organization of work much more fluid and natural, since a true transdisciplinarity facilitates in itself understanding. The limits “beyond the disciplines” also imply the type of participants, considering the generation of collaborative knowledge, not only from the disciplines in their academic sense but from those agents related in one way or another to the project: the total of stakeholders, those communities or people who will be affected by the outcome, people from other cultures, etc. Moreover, a final factor is defined by how the working group is constituted by the roles of each participant; initially the working groups were based on triple helix models that involve three innovation engines: university-industry-government. But the need to eliminate the gap between the engines of innovation and civil society has evolved into a quadruple helix model that integrates users or beneficiaries by participating in a UCD process (Carayannis and Campbell 2009). In addition, the emergence of design-driven innovation (Verganti and Dell’Era 2014) in radical innovation developed in diverse co-creation groups.

Co-creation Methodologies SDGs need a global participation, vertical and horizontal, to be achieved so a series of methodologies that are characterized by creating collectively, being participatory, generating knowledge, and focusing on the final beneficiary are presented in this section. Design thinking is initially described as being an applicable and useful method in others such as Living Labs, Citizen Participation, and Collective Intelligence. Design thinking (DT) is the methodology to develop people-centered innovation, seeking a balance between desirability, what people need, and technical and economic feasibility (Brown 2008). DT uses creative methods and tools for analyzing and generating ideas, iterating solutions quickly and frequently until they are implemented, under a holistic approach. The solutions obtained focus on innovation and

community entrepreneurship. It focuses mainly on an innovation model that impacts society by providing an integral benefit to the individual and its ecosystem. The tools used are widespread and easy to implement in SDGs projects, belonging to inspiration, ideation, and implementation methods, and accessible and open from the Internet (IDEO 2015) (Table 1). Design thinking has become popular as a basic tool for working in co-creation and codesign, and creative facilitation by designers allows the user to be integrated as a participatory member; the designer manages the creative process and other interlocutors participate. The methodologies of UCD have been democratized and have made a qualitative leap by having varied profiles in creative sessions, but it requires greater control and group management and increases the difficulty due to the interaction of multidisciplinary profiles and having different levels of knowledge of the problem to be solved. This popularization has led to its characteristics being integrated into other methodologies such as open innovation or Living Labs among others. The process in DT is equivalent to creative process Problem/Ideation/Solution. The problem analysis phase corresponds to the discovery and ethnography phase to know the problem in detail and create the “Insight.” The creative phase is identical to other creative processes but is collaborative and aims to co-create. And the solution definition phase is common, but in DT an immediate approximation is made by prototyping to obtain a first experience in testing the solution. The DT places great emphasis on the group phases; the participatory aspect is a characteristic that is imposed today as mandatory when in the past it was circumstantial and only on demand. The term Co- has been popularized and has reached many areas, thanks to the DT, especially in aspects where human relations predominate, such as health, society, and participatory processes of citizenship. The DT is multidisciplinary but not interdisciplinary; it is a very good approach to work in groups of different disciplines, but it is difficult to find cases in which the DT methodology has led to interdisciplinary processes, from beginning to end.

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework

177

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework, Table 1 Methods proposed in the different phases of design thinking (IDEO 2015) Inspiration Frame your design challenge Create a project plan Build a team Recruiting tools Secondary research Interview Group interview Expert interview Define your audience Conversation starters Extremes and mainstreams Immersion Analogous inspiration Card sort Peers observing peers Collage Guided tour Draw it Resource flow

Ideation Download your learnings Share inspiring stories Top five Find themes Create insight statements Explore your hunch How might we Create frameworks Brainstorm Brainstorm rules Bundle ideas Get visual Mash-ups Design principles Create a concept Co-creation session Gut check Determine what to prototype Storyboard Role playing Rapid prototyping Business model canvas Get feedback Integrate feedback and iterate

IDEO design and innovation company presents in its book The Field Guide to HumanCentered Design the whole design process, useful tools, and real cases in various contexts, like “Clean Team, In-Home Toilets for Ghana’s Urban Poor.” It is a comprehensive sanitation system to serve the needs of low-income Ghanaians. The Clean Team service is a custom-designed stand-alone rental toilet as well as a waste removal system, but the design work extended to the entire service ecosystem including branding, uniforms, a payment model, a business plan, and key messaging (IDEO 2015). Living Labs (LL) are defined as open innovation and user-centered ecosystems, based on a systematic approach to user co-creation, which integrates research and innovation processes in real-life communities and environments (Pallot et al. 2010). Living Labs operate as intermediaries between citizens, research organizations, private

Implementation Live prototyping Roadmap Resource assessment Build partnerships Ways to grow framework Staff your project Funding strategy Pilot Define success Keep iterating Create a pitch Sustainable revenue Monitor and evaluate Keep getting feedback

sector, cities, and regions for the joint creation of values, the creation of rapid prototypes, or validation to expand innovation. The Living Labs empower the participant to be able to innovate and participate in the innovation process, being part of the co-creation process. The benefits produced by the Living Labs are increased knowledge of users or beneficiaries, increased customer satisfaction, better business models, better accepted or desired products and services and generation of new knowledge, engaging of all stakeholders, and sharing of a diversity of views, constraints, and knowledge. There is no structured and defined work process for the realization of projects in LLs; however, various models of User-Centered Design, such as Cooperative Design, Participatory Design, and Contextual Design, are used that are intended to consider user requirements right from the beginning (Pallot et al. 2010).

C

178

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework

The working groups can be very diverse and multidisciplinary, by the type of participant and their disciplines, since they are configured in an open way and in specific problems of the community, problems that are unfocused so that a previous investigation phase is necessary. ENoLL (European Network of Living Labs) published a report that is a compilation of the papers presented as part of the Open Living Lab Days 2019 conference, presenting the most up-todate methodologies, tools, projects, and cases related to Living Labs. Contributions are classified into three different categories to stimulate a diverse participation of actors: Research Papers providing consolidated scientific research; Innovation Papers showing case studies from a practitioner perspective; and Research in-Progress works, presenting relevant preliminary results. Figure 4 presents the active LL worldwide by country. Collective intelligence (CI) is defined as “the capacity of a human community to evolve toward higher order complexity thought, problem-solving and integration through collaboration and innovation” (Pór 2004). Also, it is the ability of large groups of individuals doing things collectively that seem intelligent applying knowledge to adapt to a changing environment, being the result more than the sum of their parts (Mulgan 2018). It is connected to consensus decision-making and group behavior in harmony that prioritizes collaboration in which everyone wins against competition (Center for Collective Intelligence. 2012). The most characteristic elements of the CI are: Group magic through dialogue, including methodologies of group co-creativity. Open source challenges allowing outsiders to approach the group and establish mutually beneficial relationships. Participatory and collaborative practices in a wide diversity of application environments; the more diverse the community, the broader range of possible information and insights can inform the deliberative process. Revitalization of community and democracy, deliberative democracy.

Emergence as self-organization activities in a group. Holistic studies, including general exploration of the nature of wholeness and the relationship between parts and wholes. Group and organizational dynamics, particularly studies of groupthink as well as the theory and practice of learning organizations and similar approaches to organizational development (Atlee 2009). The process is not defined, since each problem will take a different form, generally working in cooperative and multidisciplinary teams, which define the process and then involve the rest of the participants. In addition, it is not defined because a large number of different methods are applicable (Co-Intelligence Institute 2003). Nesta, an innovation foundation, published The Collective Intelligence Design Playbook (Peach et al. 2019). This book includes methods and tools to apply in SDGs projects. For example, a case study PatientsLikeMe, a project in which peer support among patients living with a chronic health condition can help people better manage their conditions, sharing knowledge and providing a level of ongoing assistance where formal healthcare cannot. PatientsLikeMe is a patient network and real-time research platform with over 600,000 members, through which patients connect with others who have the same disease or condition and track and share their own experiences. Public participation (PP) encompasses a group of procedures designed to consult, involve, and inform the public to allow those affected by a decision to have an input into that decision (Verganti and Dell’Era 2014). Public participation may be regarded as a way of empowerment and as vital part of democratic governance; empowerment is a common element in UCD (Co-Intelligence Institute 2008). Social collaboration is the process that helps groups of people to interact and share information to achieve common goals; one of the targets of SDGs (SDG16.7) refers to “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels” that fits perfectly with this co-creation methodology.

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework

Public participation belongs to UCD methodologies and represents the “people first” paradigm, with the central concept of “more heads are better than one” and arguing that public participation can sustain productive and durable change (Jennings 2000). The working group is formed by public agencies that form citizen councils for the administration or evaluation of public policies, formed by interested citizens and independent experts, with whom to collaborate. The PP does not always work in quadruple helix, since it directly relates government to society, although it does not exclude the participation of industry and academy. The PP serves to collect data and opinion of complex issues, to be able to work directly with those affected, especially in processes of co-creation or collective reflection. It allows collecting valuable information but also allows a better understanding of the needs, expectations, and fears citizens or stakeholders have. The creative process can be bidirectional, from the government that consults the citizen or from the citizen initiative that it proposes to governance. The problems raised are usually related to a territory, such as a small community, a neighborhood, a small population, a country, or group of countries. The experts of the disciplines involved focus on specific problems and are smaller in number than in other methodologies. There are work groups that carry out the consultations to the citizens to obtain the information; these groups can collaborate with the participants in all the stages of the project, including the design of the study, definition of questions, interpretation of the data, discussion of results, drawing of conclusions or dissemination the results, etc. On the other hand, there is a massive participation of the citizens, contributing to the data collection and promptly helping analyze and disseminate results. The web participaedia.net (participaedia.net) is a site that presents almost 2200 entries filtered by methods, cases, and organizations from all over the world. An example is the online Rahvaalgatus. ee (Rahvaalgatus.ee) platform, where Estonian citizens are able to draft, debate, and vote on legislative proposals. Proposals with 1,000

179

signatures are sent to the relevant Parliamentary Committees for discussion with the chance of being signed into official law. Rahvaalgatus.ee is used by citizens interested in societal issues for creating discussions and initiatives, advocacy organizations for creating discussions and initiatives, citizens interested in participating in discussions and in co-creating collective initiatives, and people willing to support initiatives with their digital signature.

How to Apply Co-creation Methodologies in a Real Experience? The resolution of a challenge in the field of SDGs through the use of co-creation methodologies presents two main difficulties. The first of these is the identification of the relationships between the existing problem and the SDGs. The second of these is the selection, approach, and development of the appropriate co-creation methodology. This section presents a list of recommendations by chronological order to carry out a creative process in a collaborative way using a real experience. • The initial challenge of this case study was the diversification of the cork market, through developing new products with higher added value, beyond stoppers for wines and other beverages (Sierra-Pérez et al. 2016). The recommended steps to follow for proper development are the following: 1. Identification of relationship between the activities with respect to each SDG. Understand the approach of the SDGs, and reflect on our profile, our strengths, and points to strengthen and expand through training in SDGs. In this case, due to the global approach of sustainability, it is relevant to avoid bias from an aspect of sustainability. There are several tools that can help identify these relationships in a visual way (SDSN 2019). • In the case of the use of cork material, the relation between the initial challenges with each SDG is presented in Table 2.

C

180

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework, Table 2 Relation between the case study objectives with SDGs The empowerment of the cork industry, located in rural areas, through the diversification of its market means a strengthening of the industrial and an increase in the competitiveness of the sector The need to produce a new product in an efficient manner should lead the cork industry to develop new manufacturing technologies and processes or just adapt the existing ones, so it does not necessarily imply high investment in R&D The development of industrial sectors located in rural areas, in addition to encouraging the emergence of new companies, will increase employment opportunities and thereby the population fixation The use of forest-based building materials will support an increase in the sustainability in the building sector

The consumption of natural and renewable materials in highquality products will encourage more sustainable and responsible consumption habits The use of forest-based materials involves the compensation of the carbon dioxide generated in its transformation due to the biogenic carbon of the material Cork oak forests have a relevant role to play against desertification and for soil conservation

2. Setting achievable and unique goals for all parts. The concepts of sustainability, especially in the environmental aspect, are complex.

Therefore, it is essential, during first experiences on SDGs, to define approachable objectives to avoid the frustration of the team. In addition, the objective must be established in a unique way to facilitate collaboration instead of cooperation. • Although the objective was the diversification of the cork market, it was decided to focus the ideation process on the construction sector. This was due, first, to the fact that the material was already partially introduced. And secondly, it was a more extensive market and its application could reach a more massive market. 3. Identification of all approaches involved in the development of the activity and selection of collaborators. The need for multi- and interdisciplinary work during the collaborative process, due to the different visions necessary for the achievement of the goal, bearing in mind their complexity. • The creative process in the cork experience was structured in two sessions, the first for generating ideas and the second for concept evaluation. For the first session of idea generation, a panel of nine participants was invited, in addition to the two organizers. Product designers composed the creative group, and people with different fields of expertise composed the group of experts: environment, energy efficiency of buildings, architecture, and building. The invited experts were chosen for their experience and for their professional and research knowledge in different fields related to the topic. For the second session, all participants belong to the cork sector, and so the Catalan Cork Institute hosted the celebration. There were 25 participants with different areas of expertise, including commercial specialists, design and architecture specialists, and marketing or production specialists. 4. Selection of co-creation methodology. When the participants represent the quadruple helix, LL or DT can be applied; LL will include all stakeholders, while DT will apply to

Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework

users and the private sector allowing the participation of government and academia. When citizens participate as a source of knowledge, to define the objective and/or participate in the solution, PP or CI, PP will be applied if the innovation engine is the government or a citizen initiative and CI if they are public, academic, or private sector. • Due to the participation of experts in the field of cork, the methodology used was DT, due to the many points of view involved and the technical information generated during the process. In addition, due to the complexity of the information provided during the sessions, citizen participation during the process was not considered adequate. In addition, the invited experts came mostly from the private sector. 5. Measure before and after the activity. In sustainability it is essential to measure what is acted on and how it has been acted upon. Measuring without acting is not helpful, since the situation is not improved. Acting without measuring does not help to know what has been improved or how much and or how it has been improved. Measuring is the first step, to know and evaluate, and is then followed by acting and remeasuring, to know what and how it has been improved. There are quantitative tools as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (ISO/EN 2006), but it can also be assessed qualitatively (López-Forniés et al. 2017). • The study authors designed a metric to assess the novelty, utility, or technical feasibility of an ideation process along with its environmental indicators; comparing its environmental implications of the idea generated with an existing product that develops similar functions.

Conclusions The achievement of SDGs represents significant challenges, due to the complexity of the established challenges, as well as their inherent

181

multidisciplinarity. Co-creation methodologies represent promising tools to facilitate the search for specific solutions to the local identified problems. But the greatest difficulty does not seem to be the application of these methodologies, but changing the way in which we are going to interact between each other, in addition to incorporating new decision and behavior generation centers, beyond academia and politics. Therefore, the importance of the preparation of the process of finding solutions is highlighted, following the trends already applied in the field of sustainability.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda ▶ Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development ▶ Stakeholder Partnerships: Collaborative Modeling as a Mechanism for Sustainable Development ▶ Transdisciplinary Collaborations for Achieving the SDGs

References Abras C, Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J (2004) Usercentered design. In: Bainbridge W (ed) Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Atlee T (2009) Co-intelligence, Collective Intelligence, and Conscious Evol. P2P Found Wiki 2009. https:// wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Co-intelligence,_Collective_ Intelligence,_and_Conscious_Evolution. Accessed 13 Sept 2019 Baguma R, Carvalho JÁ, Cledou G, Estevez E, Finquelievich S, Janowski T, López NV, Millard J (2016) Knowledge societies policy handbook. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/knowl edge_socities_policy_handbook.pdf

C

182 Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harv Bus Rev 86:84–92, 141. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5503003 Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2009) “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag 46: 201–234 Center for Collective Intelligence (2012) Center for collective intelligence. Handb Collect Intell 2012. http:// scripts.mit.edu/~cci/HCI/index.php?title¼Main_Page. Accessed 25 June 2019 Co-Intelligence Institute (2003) Co-intelligent practices, approaches, processes and organizations 2003. www. co-intelligence.org/CI-Practices.html. Accessed 13 Sept 2019 Co-Intelligence Institute. Principles of Public Participation (2008). http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_public participation.html. Accessed 13 Sept 2019 Design Council (2004) Double Diamond 2004. https:// www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-frame work-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-dia mond. Accessed 13 Sept 2019 Filho W, Andrade Guerra JB, Mifsud M, Pretorius R (2017) Universities as living labs for sustainable development: a global perspective. Environmental Scientist 26(4):8–15 Gero JS (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Mag 11:26 Gouillart F (2009) The co-creation effect. Fr Gouillart’s Blog Co-Creation 2009. http://francisgouillart.com/. Accessed 13 Sept 2019 IDEO (2015) The field guide to human-centered design. San Francisco. 61. https://www.ideo.org/ ISO/EN 14040 (2006) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006) Jennings R (2000) Participatory development as new paradigm: the transition of development professionalism. Community Based Reintegration Rehabil. Post-Conflict Settings Kuenkel P, Schaefer K (2013) Shifting the way we cocreate. How we can turn the challenges of sustainability into opportunities López-Forniés I, Sierra-Pérez J, Boschmonart-Rives J, Gabarrell X (2017) Metric for measuring the effectiveness of an eco-ideation process. J Clean Prod 162: 865–874 Mulgan G (2018) Collective intelligence and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nesta 2018. https:// www.nesta.org.uk. Accessed 13 Sept 2019 Osborn AF (2001) Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. Creative Education Foundation, Buffalo Pallot M, Trousse B, Senach B, Scapin D (2010) Living lab research landscape: from user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. In Proc.

Collective Impact of the first european summer school living labs. Paris, France Pór G (2004) Blog of collective intelligence. https://web. archive.org/web/20040802231025/http://www.commu nity-intelligence.com/blogs/public/. Accessed 13 Sept 2019 Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V (2004) Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J Interact Mark 18:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir. 20015 Ramaswamy V, Gouillart F (2010) Building the co-creative enterprise. Harv Bus Rev 88:100–109, 150 Schick A, Hobson PR, Ibisch PL (2017) Conservation and sustainable development in a VUCA world: the need for a systemic and ecosystem-based approach. Ecosyst Heal Sustain 3:e01267. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2. 1267 SDSN (2019) SDG impact assessment tool. https://www. unsdsn-ne.org/our-actions/tools-for-assessing-sdgachievement/ Sierra-Pérez J, López-Forniés I, Boschmonart-Rives J, Gabarrell X (2016) Introducing eco-ideation and creativity techniques to increase and diversify the applications of eco-materials: the case of cork in the building sector. J Clean Prod 137:606–616 Simatupang TM, Sridharan R (2002) The collaborative supply chain. Int J Logist Manag. https://doi.org/10. 1108/09574090210806333 Sriskandarajah D (2018) Toward an accountability revolution? Citizen participation and the SDGs. In: Kharas H, Kato H, McArthur J, Desai R (eds) From summits to solutions, innovations in implementing the sustainable development goals. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC United Nations (UN) (2010) World population prospects: the 2010 revision. UN DESA, New York United Nations (UN) General Assembly (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1 United Nations (UN) Millennium Project (2005) Investing in development: a practical plan to achieve the millennium development goals. Earthscan, New York Verganti R, Dell’Era C (2014) Design-driven innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Collective Impact ▶ Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations as Enablers of Children’s WellBeing

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations as Enablers of Children’s Well-Being Petri Virtanen1,2, Tiina Ristikari3,4 and Mika Niemelä5 1 ITLA (The Finnish Children’s Foundation), Helsinki, Finland 2 University of Vaasa (Social and Health Management), Vaasa, Finland 3 Itla Children’s Foundation, Helsinki, Finland 4 Department of Children, Adolescents and Families, Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland 5 Faculty of Medicine, Center for Life Course Health Research, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

183

process aiming at the creation of a common agenda and mutually agreed activities and consisting of five integral parts: a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone support organizations. This entry, based on a systematic review of the topic, maintains that partnership – approached from the point of view of children and through the lens of collective impact – constitutes a crucial mechanism in the creation of safe and comprehensive wellbeing for children. Thus, this entry – using Kania and Kramer’s (2011) definition of collective impact and focusing on the structure of partnerships and the nature of trust in organizations as the prerequisite for partnership – advocates the importance of the UN SDG17 principle as the bringer of inclusive society built upon principles and values, a shared vision, and shared goals that place people at the center of human endeavor.

Synonyms Introduction Backbone organization; Co-creation of services; Collaboration; Collective impact; Common agenda; Cooperation; Mutual understanding

Definition In this entry, the question of partnership is approached from a perspective centered around the creation of a common agenda based on trust and from the children’s point of view. Partnership and collaboration have traditionally been viewed as mechanisms to create bridges between organizations and institutions from the private, public, and nongovernmental sectors in order to enhance funder collaboratives, public–private partnerships, multistakeholder initiatives, social sector networks, and collective impact initiatives. It was not however until Kania and Kramer’s (2011) seminal work on collective impact when this subject came to be viewed as a developmental

The aim of this entry is to advance the theorization and conceptualization of partnership and its links with children’s well-being with the tools and distinctions provided by the analysis of the more general research problem of collaborative action based on the principles of collective impact (Kania and Kramer 2011). This approach is necessary because the concept of partnership has been and remains ambiguous unless different types of partnerships and backbone organizations are not adequately distinguished, problematized, and analyzed in detail. This entry approaches CI from a system’s thinking perspective – i.e., it tries to see CI initiatives occurring in systems maintaining that a system is an entity that manifests its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts. Systems thinking suggests that one can only understand (and subsequently improve) a system by looking at how all the parts interact with each

C

184

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

other and how they are integrated. From this perspective, understanding CI initiatives proceeds from the whole to its parts, not from the parts to the whole as occurs more generally in respect of knowledge. This entry aims to disentangle the concepts of partnership and backbone organizations – while reaching out toward the phenomenon of organizational trust – from the perspective of children’s well-being by systematically reviewing 32 articles. In this entry, the concept of partnership and backbone organization is explored through the lens of collective impact, in the context of creating health and well-being for human beings and particularly for children. By investigating the structure of partnership and the rationale and logic of trust as the driver for partnership, this entry paints a detailed picture of partnership’s empirical manifestation. Focusing on partnership structure in CI initiatives aims to provide knowledge about how to encourage and promote effective public, public–private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships, which are essential objectives of the SDG17. In this entry, partnership and backbone organizations, grounded on organizational trust and aiming at collective effects, are considered to act as the drivers or enablers that contribute to children’s health and well-being as an outcome. This entry thus asks how partnerships and the varieties of backbone organizations contribute to children’s well-being when the outcome (well-being) is approached in the light of collective impact (Kania and Kramer 2011): more precisely, this entry focuses on the structure of partnership and the rationale and logic of backbone organizations as enabling factors and contributors to children’s well-being. The key concepts of this entry are defined as follows: Partnership is a reciprocal engagement among human beings, between human beings and institutions or between institutions per se aiming at a better future and well-being. Defined in this way, partnership occurs between family members, but also reaches

further than the core family to the extended family and beyond, including the institutions of modern society. From the perspective of collective impact, the available research literature offers a set of consistent findings regarding neighborhood effects and their relevance to children and adolescents (e.g., Sampson et al. 2002; Turner et al. 2012): these effects fall into the categories of social inequality and social and health problems (such as crime, mental health problems, and school dropout) and can be traced through the following five interconnected domains: physical, social, service, socioeconomic, and governance (e.g., Goldfeld et al. 2010). Approached in this way, partnership involves the idea of social change (Clarke and Crane 2018) and requires the adoption of multidisciplinary working methods and co-creation/co-production incorporating citizens, service users, and professionals from different sectors to contribute to children’s well-being (Dolan et al. 2018; Cahn 2004; Fisher et al. 2018; Townsley et al. 2004). Backbone organization is a separate organization and staff with specific skills designed to promote coordination, cooperation, and leadership (Kania and Kramer 2011, pp. 7–8). From the perspective of achieving longenduring effects, backbone organizations promote facilitation, communication, quality assurance, data obtaining and management, as well as various technological aspects with a view to achieving collective impact. In this kind of operational context, leadership practice must be adaptive and stem from the best use and understanding of leadership metaskills to not only be able to navigate in the activity systems that are complex and multifaceted by nature, but also make the best use of human creativity and organizational trust (e.g., Uhl-Bien et al. 2007; Tammeaid et al. 2020). Trust is a support mechanism existing between persons and also between institutions more generally. In order for it to be beneficial to all parties, this mechanism should be reciprocal, thus benefitting all parties involved. Evidence from the existing research literature

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

suggests that trust is a complex, multidimensional construct, rendering it amenable to diverse interpretations in different social situations and differing depending on the stage of relationship development at which it takes place (Fletcher et al. 2000; Kramer and Carnevale 2001). Trust entails generalized beliefs and attitudes about the degree to which other people are likely to be reliable, cooperative, or helpful, independent of the specific context or situation in which an interaction with them might take place (e.g., Wrightsman 1991). Collective impact (CI) is a theoretical, conceptual, and practical entity which has attracted significant attention over the last decade in collaborative and partnership-based activities not only in the domain of families with children but also in relation to various categories of public policies and services at the transnational, national, regional, and local levels of governance. The notion of collective impact, which emerged in the early 2010s, postulates that large-scale social improvement entails coordination across various programs and sectors. CI initiatives have been grounded on Kania and Kramer’s (2011) seminal work on collective impact in which collective impact has been viewed as a developmental process consisting of five integral parts: a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone support organizations. Acknowledging that not all cooperation necessarily calls for a CI framework to be functional and successful, these five conditions nevertheless point to the thesis that the programs or interventions have to work with each other to make a collective impact (Gao et al. 2019). Overall, CI is based in systems and complexity theories and therefore it does not function as an evidence-based model, where fidelity to a set of instructions or guidelines leads to success. Rather, the success of CI-based initiatives remains largely elusive, relying on the participants to work together to generate solutions to complex social issues. In their seminal

185

work, Kania and Kramer’s (2011) definition of collective impact advocates the importance of the UN SDG17 principle as the promoter of an inclusive society built upon principles and values, a shared vision and shared goals that place people at the center of human endeavor. Overall, CI adopts a systems perspective and allows evaluators to focus on the processes and dynamics that give rise to synergies beyond individual-level outcomes (for a critique of CI, see, e.g., Barata-Cavalcanti et al. 2020; Demant and Lawrence 2018). Well-being is an outcome of a commonly agreed agenda and of commonly or jointly implemented activities. The science of wellbeing and the related academic literature has yielded extensive knowledge and measurement instruments over the last three decades. Well-being and related concepts such as social inclusion and its counterpart social exclusion are context-specific concepts in at least three senses: in normative terms, in cultural/institutional terms, and in geographical terms (where one lives makes a material contribution to wellbeing and happiness, shaping access to material, social, cultural and political resources and increasing the probability of contact with other human beings and communities). At the individual level, a low level of well-being occurs as an outcome of the process of declining participation, access, material, and spiritual deprivation and solidarity whereas a high or enhanced level of well-being refers to a capacity to participate in normatively expected social activities and to build meaningful social relations (Giugni and Lorenzini 2017). In the context of this article, scientific development in the field of positive psychology has been interesting: focusing on the scientific study of flourishing individuals, institutions, and societies has meant that the field of well-being science has evolved and expanded. Well-being is now understood not simply as the outward display of positive emotion, but rather, as thriving across multiple domains of life. From this perspective, Seligman’s (2011; Forgeard et al. 2011) wellbeing theory has been highly influential by delineating five domains of life that people

C

186

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

pursue for their own sake – positive emotion, engagement or flow, positive relationships, meaning or purpose, and achievement – and linking them with Antonovsky’s theory of sense of individual and collective coherence (e.g., Eriksson and Lindström 2006). This entry progresses as follows. First, the conceptual resources deployed in the article are discussed and the research design is presented. Secondly, the methodology of the systematic review is presented as well as the collation process for the data. Third, findings from the systematic review are reported. Fourthly, the main findings are discussed and they are linked to the practice of CI. To conclude, the entry draws together the main conclusions and sketches out a future research agenda around the topic of partnership as embedded in the creation of wellbeing.

Data Collation Process for the Referenced Scientific Literature This entry follows the idea of systematic literature review method (Gough et al. 2012) and more specifically, it deploys the seven-step model put forward by Fink (2013). The review process consisted of seven components, including selecting research questions, selecting article databases and sources, choosing search terms, applying practical screening criteria, applying methodological screening criteria, doing the review, and finally synthesizing the results. The review was compiled from the following electronic databases: Proquest, Scopus, Wiley, Ebsco, Web of Science, Sage Journals, Emerald, ScienceDirect, JSTOR, and Pubmed. The entry search covered the period 2000–2020 and was focused on academic articles published in the English language. Search terms were applied to abstract titles and key word listings. Only journal articles were considered. The search was carried out in March 2020. The systematic review process is made explicit in Fig. 1 below. The Boolean search term combinations used were “CHILD” and “WELL-BEING” and

“COLLECTIVE IMPACT.” The search produced 221 articles; this was reduced to 93 after removing duplicates (128) using RefWorks. The remaining 93 articles were scrutinized by reading their abstracts in the screening phase of the analysis. The main inclusion criterion was the prevalence of the five CI criteria as put forward by Kania and Kramer (2011) and especially the availability of two main research dimensions in the study – the structure of partnership and the role of backbone organizations. In the screening phase, special attention was also given to articles which had taken up the question of organizational trust. The remaining 51 articles were screened to ensure that this entry included only empirical cases of partnership with reference to children and with a connection to CI. To meet this criterion, articles needed to contain an explicit reference to methodology for primary data collection and analysis and contain, or refer to, a definition of partnership, well-being, and CI. Altogether, 32 articles passed the screening phase’s eligibility test and were thus include in the final article sample. The article sample was analyzed by reading the full texts and by carrying out a content analysis. The references in the selected articles were also reviewed in order to identify additional relevant publications. In this entry, content analysis refers to systematic analysis of contents drawn out and made explicit by selected article sample (32 articles) by deploying selection criteria which concern CI partnership structure and the functions and role of backbone organizations. The principles of contents analysis involved the interaction of two interlinked processes – the specification of the content characteristics and the application of the rules for identifying the characteristics when they appear in the articles to be reviewed (see, e.g., Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996).

Collective Impact Partnerships Contribute to Children’s Well-Being General Characteristics This section contains the main findings from the data collation process. The reviewed articles

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

187

C

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations as Enablers of Children’s Well-Being, Fig. 1 The systematic review process based on the PRISMA flow diagram

were first authored by scientists from the USA (N ¼ 20), Canada (N ¼ 5), Australia (N ¼ 5), New Zealand (N ¼ 1), and Finland (N ¼ 1). The reviewed CI initiatives were undertaken in the same countries represented by the first author of the papers, except for one paper that reported on a CI initiative that was undertaken in seven South East Asian countries: Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, and Timor–Leste (Michaud-Létourneau et al. 2019). The reviewed articles were published in journals covering disciplines such as public and maternal health, pediatrics, management sciences,

prevention science, social sciences, psychology, and psychiatry. The vast majority of the reviewed articles were however published in public health journals. Next, the objectives and structures of the partnerships described in the reviewed CI initiatives are reported. The reviewed CI initiatives can be categorized into international initiatives and national initiatives that included both regional and local partnerships. Some CI initiatives were also operated as multiregional partnerships. The structure of the backbone organizations supporting the type of CI initiatives is also described.

188

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

International Partnerships and their Their Backbone Structures: Two Case Studies The results of review show that only two studies addressed international CI initiatives. These CI initiatives utilized two international programs; the Alive & Thrive (Michaud-Létourneau et al. 2019) and the 1000 days movement (Ritte et al. 2016). The Alive and Thrive CI initiative was established with a focus on enhancing the feeding policies of seven countries in Southeast Asia. The partnerships involved A&T and UNICEF as well as national partners in each country (Michaud-Létourneau et al. 2019). The national partners were sought and incorporated into the CI initiative by using a stepwise process to initially form a national layer of partnerships. During the next phase, a second layer of partnerships was formed internationally from the seven participating countries. A&T’s role in the CI initiative was to serve as a backbone organization, with staff on the ground in each participating country. In its backbone role, A&T organized large events in each of the participating countries in order to create momentum for the initiative, provided funding for the local actions within the initiative, and supported capacity building activities as well as the local policy advocacy processes. Furthermore, as part of its backbone activities, A&T served as a data manager, making use of the data to form key messages and materials for advocacy. The goal of the CI initiative utilizing the 1000 days movement was to enhance early childhood well-being among Australian indigenous families. The initiative was prepared in a process where members of indigenous communities from Indonesia and Norway were in dialogue with Australian key indigenous stakeholders (e.g., organizations and families), as well as with researchers, policy-makers, professional associations, and human rights activists to define “what the Australian interpretation of the first 1000 days might look like.” The CI initiative was operated as a series of symposiums that, through an iterative process, developed an adaptation of the 1000 days program suitable for Australian indigenous families. Though not explicitly calling itself a

backbone organization, participating indigenous scholars together with Australian Indigenous organizations held the role of a backbone supporting the dialogue process with all of the participating stakeholders. Multiregional and Local Partnerships and their Their Backbone Structures: Case Examples from Three Thematic CI Areas Thematically, most of the reviewed articles consisted of CI initiatives related to (1) children’s nutrition, food, and obesity. For example, enhancing healthy eating and breastfeeding, healthy food consumption, obesity reduction, and assessing the impacts of nutrition-related CI initiatives provided the primary focus for the majority of the reviewed CI initiatives (Amed et al. 2015, 2016; Blake-Lamb et al. 2018; Bonnevie et al. 2020; Christens et al. 2016; Grumbach et al. 2017; Leruth et al. 2017; Hermann et al. 2017; Meinen et al. 2016). All CI initiatives related to food and nutrition, except for one which dealt with breastfeeding promotion (Leruth et al. 2017), covered multiple regions, and included local partners. The local collaborative partners involved in these regional CI initiatives were typically local government (Amed et al. 2015, 2016), community stakeholders such as schools, community services, local media, NGOs (Blake-Lamb et al. 2018), healthcare professionals such as community health centers (Meinen et al. 2016; Landry et al. 2020; Weaver et al. 2017) and/or organizations directly serving low-income, ethnic minority populations (Leruth et al. 2017; Blake-Lamb et al. 2018), and local businesses such as store owners providing “healthy products” (Bonnevie et al. 2020). Some of the reviewed CI initiatives were structured such that the local partnerships were connected to a wider, multiregional network, for example through the use of a widely used intervention or program (Amed et al. 2015, 2016; Blake-Lamb et al. 2018; Bonnevie et al. 2020; Leruth et al. 2017). One article described a CI initiative that had partnered with a previously constructed large coalition, aimed at disseminating best practices to improve maternal and child health. The preexisting coalition began to utilize the CI approach in the collaboration with the help

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

of an intermediary organization (see Weaver et al. 2017). The second most common focus area of the reviewed CI initiatives is related to (2) supporting children’s and families’ health and psychosocial well-being, typically describing partnerships between various regional actors. Many of the CI initiatives in this category were related to supporting psychosocial well-being among families with children with various adversities such as homelessness and adverse childhood experience and factors such as parental mental health problems, poverty, and violence (Cox 2018; Cox et al. 2018; Evans et al. 2014; Cutuli and Willard 2019; Forstadt et al. 2015; Cohen and Price 2015; Homel et al. 2015, Niemelä et al. 2019; Terrile 2016; Wills et al. 2019). In this thematic area, partnerships included social and healthcare professionals as in the case of one CI focusing on crime prevention (Homel et al. 2015) and another CI dealing with childhood trauma (Wills et al. 2019). Other partners outside the traditional service providers included all available nongovernmental organizations like churches and NGOs (Niemelä et al. 2019) and local libraries (Terrile 2016). All CI initiatives were related to psychosocial well-being and health, except for two (Terrile 2016; Cox 2018; Cox et al. 2018) which were operated in multiple regions and included local partners. Improving specifically the health of children or their parents (oral health, maternal and child health, chronic disease prevention, early childhood development) was the objective for the following partnerships reported by Grumbach et al. (2017), Morgan et al. (2020), Wilk and Cooke (2015), Gillam et al. (2016), Vermilya and Kerwin (2017), Weaver et al. (2017), Landry et al. (2020), and Morgan et al. (2020). Some of these healthfocused CI initiatives’ stated goal was to reduce health- or developmental disparities among minorities (Grumbach et al. 2017; Wilk and Cooke 2015). Within these articles, partnerships varied and included local professionals such as local health departments (e.g., Morgan et al. 2020), but also, for example, experts outside the community giving lectures on the health-related topic that was relevant to the local community

189

(Wilk and Cooke 2015). One report included a description of the specific “site-coordinator” who was actively searching for collaborative partners among local health service providers (Wilk and Cooke 2015). This was found to be time consuming, but nevertheless crucial in achieving the aimed impact. Another article described the “partnership working groups” formed for each initiative (Grumbach et al. 2017). The partnership working groups aimed to “develop and implement action plans emphasizing feasible, scalable, translational science-informed interventions and consider sustainability early in the planning process by including policy and structural interventions.” The partners represent core social and health service organizations. Some CI initiatives focusing on support for early childhood development and maternal and child health had, in addition to a local collaborative structure between local hospitals and local community organizations, an additional collaborative structure across several districts (Gillam et al. 2016; Landry et al. 2020; Morgan et al. 2020, Weaver et al. 2017). In these multiregional CI initiatives, the local stakeholders highlighted the significance of policy mandates and informal relationships between partners as having a positive impact on collaboration between partners (Gillam et al. 2016). In addition, “an influential champion” – a recognized expert in the field – was seen as a key person to help bring the required partners together to engage in collaboration (Landry et al. 2020). Moreover, CI initiatives were reported on injury prevention, where a partnership was created between hospital and community organizations (Peterson et al. 2016), one was focused on HIV prevention through a partnership of local government, university, and local civic stakeholders (Buchbinder and Havlir 2019). The “Getting to Zero” San Francisco CI was a city-wide (together with San Francisco county) initiative launched by a small group of academic, civic, and community leaders (public and private) with the shared goal of having zero HIV infections, zero HIV-related deaths, and zero HIV stigma and discrimination (Buchbinder and Havlir 2019). The injury prevention CI initiative was

C

190

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

conducted in a single district (Peterson et al. 2016). A collaborative partnership to address complex health risks was described in one article. The CI initiative was conducted with a broad network which was established previously and included both regional and provincial senior managers from 11 child and youth service sectors. The specific focus of this CI initiative was to provide support in complex health risk situations among minority populations which individual agencies were not able to address effectively alone (McPherson et al. 2017). The key actors in these CI initiatives were the robust network of community level stakeholders and target population-specific services such as regional school boards, child welfare agencies, regional health boards, youth criminal justice programs, family resource centers, and several government departments (McPherson et al. 2017). The network was described as a long-lasting partnership that nevertheless operated on a voluntary basis. Thirdly, one of the reviewed articles focused on (3) education-related CI initiatives. Support for young people at risk of disengaging from education was addressed in an article describing a broad community level partnership. The CI initiative was undertaken as a local collaboration between city mental health and drug treatment and housing services, the police, local government, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, Employment, and Training. The authors highlighted a need for multisectoral partnerships to enhance education among groups of young people at risk of dropping out of the education system. The Structures of Backbone Organizations in the Multiregional and Local CI Initiatives The backbone organizations supporting national or multiregional CI initiatives had several different structures. The most common backbone structure was a program under the auspices of a participating university hospital (e.g., Amed et al. 2016) or university department (e.g., Meinen et al. 2016; Weaver et al. 2017) with staff dedicated specifically to help coordinate, support continuous communication and manage data used for the program evaluation.

For some CI initiatives, an executive committee consisting of representatives of the participating organizations took on the role of the backbone organization (e.g., Blake-Lamb et al. 2018) while in other multiregional CI initiatives backbone support was organized locally with added support provided by a university team across regions functioning as an academic practice partnership (e.g., Christens et al. 2016, Morgan et al. 2020). In one CI initiative, a multiagent management group (MMG) including leaders from all relevant sectors, such as social and health services, education, early childhood education, local NGOs, and the churches and also supported by a private consultant, was acting as the initiatives backbone. Backbone organizations supporting local CI initiatives were most commonly constituted as a set of staff members from a public services department, such as social services (e.g., Homel et al. 2015), local health department (e.g., Morgan et al. 2020), or a local health board (e.g., Wills et al. 2019). Sometimes the backbone structure was very streamlined with only one to two staff members, with additional help provided by volunteers from the organizations participating in the initiative (Buchbinder and Havlir 2019). From the perspective of capacity building – which is an important content for SDG17 – this finding is important. It seems that capacity building is not sufficient in the reviewed articles and calls for further scrutiny. The tasks performed by the backbone structure varied across the reviewed initiatives, but mostly related to the provision of a guiding vision and strategy, supporting partners aligned activities, establishing shared measurement practices, building public will, advancing policy and mobilizing funding. Overall, the structure and objectives of the backbone organization in the CI initiatives outlined here were described in only approximately one third of the reviewed articles.

The Role of Collective Impact Initiatives in Systemic Society Seeing partnerships and institutions as systems can be categorized in multiple ways, but analytically in the case of CI these varieties fall into two

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

main categories: closed and open systems (e.g., von Bertalanffy 1956, 1968). Closed and open systems share common features but also differ from each other in significant ways. For instance, closeness means that a closed system is responsive only to changes initiated by its own elements, whereas an open system receives inputs from its environment. To conceive of CI initiatives as open systems would help to understand the role of CI in a novel way – as a tool to interconnect with other systems, thus laying the foundation for complex systems that are hard to predict because they are difficult to engage and often very hard to understand. CI initiatives also bring to life the individual and collective actors existing on the boundaries of public policy. Approached from the point of view of policy analysis and process perspectives, Schneider (2020, pp. 60–61), for instance, has recently underlined an important point by “bringing in individual, collective and institutional actors” to the public policy domain. Schneider (ibid.) argues that it would be particularly important to embed the analysis of actor constellations into structures of societal differentiation on the macro level. In addition, actor positions with regard to specific network roles should also be taken into account. CI initiatives are then located at the heart of societal institutions building bridges between various actors. The point addressed here is that crosssectoral collaboration is a promising route to solving complex problems, but there remains the need for stronger partnerships where local practice issues become questions for academic research. Questions surrounding the CI initiative issue, however, remain scientifically under-theorized are thus require more research. Moreover, it would be additionally advantageous if the pertinent questions in relation to this task were derived from real-world practice. An investigation of the relevant research literature by means of a systematic review, however, helps one to realize that systems thinking has a lot to offer in terms of implementation and research in relation to CI initiatives. According to analysis in this entry, place-based or local CI initiatives are important (i.e., a common local agenda has to be accepted locally), but when

191

using systems thinking we know that the work is not over after one system-wide issue has been (temporarily) resolved, as new issues emerge and the boundaries of the system expand or pressures from national actors to step in increase. This suggests to us that there should be a vertical governance and meta-governance structure that helps to deal with at least the national level pressures and help solve the local problems that the locals themselves cannot address on their own (e.g., lack of qualified staff and insufficient capacity building). As the results of this entry suggests, the reported CI initiatives’ partnerships included local level stakeholders (including target populations) in the design and creation of the initiative’s aims and actions. This practice of cocreation helps in and of itself to generate social inclusion, an integral aspect of well-being at the local level. At the same time, if the local level CI initiatives do not have a vertical meta-governance and governance structure, they face the risk that local level questions become marginalized in relation to national level decision-making processes, thus increasing social exclusion. In the context of reviewed CI initiatives in this entry, an important question relates to policy coherence, which is highlighted profoundly in SDG17 ideology. Namely, one key finding from the research literature relates to fact that across all CI initiatives, regardless of their system level base (international, regional, or local), the formation of the partnership builds upon common agendas and jointly agreed goals, which enhances policy coherence. In the reviewed articles, the key stakeholders were identified based on the objective of the initiative and the partners were sought based on their ability to contribute to the shared goal. Several of the reviewed CI initiatives also established their partnerships based on existing networks and refined their prior goals and actions utilizing the CI approach. Some existing networks also added new partners during the formation of the CI initiative. In terms of innovativeness, this indicates that CI initiatives have relied more on “the usual suspects” rather than on “out-of-thebox partisans,” which definitely is a challenge for policy coherence.

C

192

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations as Enablers of Children’s Well-Being, Table 1 Key findings in this systematic review and their

relevance to other selected SDGs related to the outcome (children’s well-being) of this systematic review (authors’ interpretation)

Relevance of this systematic review´s key finding with other SDGs from the perspective of targeted outcome (children´s wellbeing) Key finding 1. The identification and selection process of stakeholders to contribute common goals and agenda 2. The most common focus areas of CI partnerships relate to children´s nutrition, food and obesity and children´s health and psycho-social wellbeing. 3. The adoption of systems thinking in achieving best results from CI partnerships

SDG1

SDG2

SDG3

SDG4

SDG5

SDG10

SDG11

SDG16

Strong relevance

Strong relevance

Strong relevance

Strong relevance

Strong relevance

Strong relevance

Medium relevance

Medium relevance

Strong relevance

Strong relevance

Strong relevance

Strong relevance

Medium relevance

Medium relevance

Weak

Weak relevance

Strong relevance

Strong relevance

Strong relevance

Strong relevance

Medium relevance

Medium relevance

Secondly, the two most common focus areas through which CI initiatives have been put together in order to help the children concerned are children’s nutrition, food, and obesity and children’s health and psychosocial well-being. Third, it is apparent that the adoption of systems thinking would benefit CI partnerships in achieving jointly planned goals and the implementation of agreed common agendas by creating most appropriate cooperation networks aiming at best possible implementation of CI initiatives. Finally, Table 1 summarizes the findings in this literature review vis-á-vis other relevant SDGs from the perspective of the outcome of this systematic review (children’s well-being). Table 1 also makes explicit the need to boost policy coherence as the key ingredient and goal of SDG17 to enhance cooperation networks working together to alleviate effects of social exclusion, poverty, and low-quality education.

Conclusions: Partnership Is Crucial for CI Initiatives SDG17 strengthens sustainable development by putting together multistakeholder partnerships, based on cooperative networks that mobilize and

relevance

Medium relevance

Weak relevance

share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources. Without partnerships, CI initiatives cannot operate. Moreover, according to this entry, partnership is essential in strengthening children’s well-being. Partnership – supported and framed by backbone organizations – constitute a crucial element of all reviewed CI studies. The downside is that there remains a paucity of research around the topic of partnership within the context of CI initiatives which is odd given that the ideology of CI rests upon ideas related to cooperation, mutual understanding, and creating common agendas to help children and their families. Backbone support for the reviewed CI initiatives most commonly involved a program or dedicated staff within a university or public service department, or a formation where the executive board of the CI initiative, either by itself or supported by a consultant or volunteers, took on the role of backbone support. Overall, the structures of these backbone organizations were rather poorly described in the reviewed referenced literature. As the role of backbone organizations has been highlighted in the study “when collective impact has impact” as a key factor in their success (Lynn and Stachowiak 2018), it is noteworthy to draw attention to the need to describe the structure

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

and objective of the backbone organization more thoroughly. This would allow CI initiative planners to learn from the experiences of previous CI initiatives, highlighting their key success factors. One potential explanation for this finding is offered by Weaver et al. (2017 p. 69): “However, despite the rich theoretical underpinnings of coalitions and collaboratives, many intermediary organizations struggle when describing, reporting and highlighting their successes.” From the perspective of organizational theory, the question of trust is essential in developing partnership and backbone organizations. Trust – or the lack of it – was discussed in some of the reviewed articles for this study but somewhat surprisingly not in a profound or extensive manner. Weaver et al. (2017), for instance, forward the idea that effective responses, such as feelings of trust, can serve as important mediators of cognitive and behavioral impact in CI initiatives. Gillam et al. (2016) concluded from their quasi-experimental study on the role of collaboration facilitators that the only significant predictor of collaboration is informal relationships. Their analysis suggests a hybrid process of partnership creation combining key elements of CI with a focus on relationship building, to support effective collaboration practices. Gillam et al.’s (2016, p. 4) conclusion is that trust among partners is a key factor that facilitates or impedes effective interagency coordination. Communities in which there are personal relationships among partners or where there is a history of collaboration have more success (Bunger 2010). Bunger (2010, p. 393) further emphasizes this issue, noting that “[t]he personal relationships that providers develop with one another are key drivers of service coordination” (p. 393). There are limitations in interpreting the referenced research literature in this entry. First, most of the reviewed studies came from North America which certainly gave to the body of research literature the heavy focus on the United States (and North America) context. This literature review excluded non-English publications and those studies which were not published in

193

peer-reviewed journals. The evidence of nonEnglish countries has most likely been published in local publication forums and in non-English languages. Second, the reviewed studies included used varying study settings, which may have affected the way partnership and backbone organizations were scrutinized in the selected articles. Thus, selection bias of included studies may have affected the conclusions. Third, this systematic review was based on peerreviewed publications, which meant that working papers and non-peer reviewed reports were left out from the sample. This entry highlights various challenges involved in embarking upon future research in this area. These include the need for a more detailed empirical cultivation of the role of trust in putting together and implementing partnerships designed to get the best out of interconnected network actors around the CI initiative topic. Moreover, further elaboration on the issue of selection processes for partnership structure would help to understand the role and nature of innovativeness in CI initiatives. Such analysis would necessarily involve investigating what processes trigger the emergence of a partnership shaped by trust and how organizational processes pave the way for the best possible outcomes in implementing CI initiatives. It is assumed that important research themes and topics from this perspective relate to organizational meta-skills, strategic sensitivity in organizations, and ethical frames that could be seen as counter-poison in alleviating the effects of organizational malevolence and inefficiency in CI initiatives. In addition, studying the role of children as beneficiaries, participants, and co-creators of services and programs also merits more extensive empirical research.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals

C

194

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations

▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Role of Transnational Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development ▶ Sustainable Public Systems: Global Norms and Partnerships for National Implementation ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World ▶ Transdisciplinary Collaborations for Achieving the SDGs ▶ Universal Health Coverage: Healthcare System for Universal Health Coverage Under Partnerships ▶ Women-Led Partnerships and the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

References Amed S, Naylor P, Pinkney S, Shea S, Mâsse LC, Berg S, Collett JP, Wharf Higgins J (2015) Creating a collective impact on childhood obesity: lessons from the SCOPE initiative. Can J Public Health 106(6):426–433. https:// doi.org/10.17269/cjph.106.5114 Amed S, Shea S, Pinkney S, Higgins JW, Naylor P (2016) Wayfinding the live 5-2-1-0 initiative – at the intersection between systems thinking and community-based childhood obesity prevention. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(6):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060614 Barata-Cavalcanti O, Leung MM, Costa S, Mateo KF, Guillermin M, Palmedo C, Huang TT (2020) Assessing the collective impact of community health programs funded by food and beverage companies: a new community-focused methodology. Int Q Community Health Educ 40(2):75–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0272684X19862359 Blake-Lamb T, Boudreau AA, Matathia S, Tiburcio E, Perkins ME, Roche B, Kotelchuck M, Shtasel D, Price SN, Taveras EM (2018) Strengthening integration of clinical and public health systems to prevent maternal-child obesity in the first 1,000 days: a collective impact approach. Contemp Clin Trials 65:46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2017.12.001 Bonnevie E, Morales O, Rosenberg SD, Goldbarg J, Silver M, Wartella E, Smyser J (2020) Evaluation of a

campaign to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in New Jersey. Prev Med 106062. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106062 Buchbinder SP, Havlir DV (2019) Getting to zero San Francisco: a collective impact approach. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 82(3):176–182. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002200 Bunger AC (2010) Defining service coordination: a social work perspective. J Soc Serv Res 36(5):385–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2010.51093 Cahn ES (2004) No more throw-away people: the coproduction imperative. Essential Books, Washington, DC Christens BD, Inzeo PT, Meinen A, Hilgendorf AE, Berns R, Korth A, Pollard E, McCall A, Adams A, Stedman J (2016) Community-led collaborative action to prevent obesity. Wis Med J 115(5):259–263 Clarke A, Crane A (2018) Cross-sector partnerships for systemic change: systematized literature review and agenda for further research. J Bus Ethics 150:303–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3922-2 Cohen J, Price H (2015) Driving youth outcomes through collective impact. Harv Kennedy School Rev 15 (1):28–33 Cox MH (2018) Logan together: how working across sectors for our kids is the answer to everything. Int J Integr Care 18(1–2). https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s1062 Cox M, Statham M, Olive GAL (2018) The complexity of partnering across sectors and community, a case example of Logan together. Int J Integr Care 18(1–2). https:// doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s1103 Cutuli JJ, Willard J (2019) Building early links for learning: connections to promote resilience for young children in family homeless shelters. Zero Three 39(4): 43–50 Demant L, Lawrence J (2018) Back on track: the challenges of implementing a small place-based collective impact initiative. Health Promot J Austr 29(3):60–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.36 Dolan P, Shannon M, Smyth B (2018) Family support in practice: voices from the field. Eur J Soc Work 21 (5):737–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1 320533 Eriksson M, Lindström B (2006) Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and the relation with health: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health 60(5):376–381. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.041616 Evans SD, Rosen AD, Kesten SM, Moore W (2014) Miami thrives: weaving a poverty reduction coalition. Am J Community Psychol 53(3–4):357–368. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10464-014-9657-z Fink A (2013) Conducting research literature reviews: from the Internet to the paper. SAGE, London Fisher P, Balfour B, Moss S (2018) Advocating co-productive engagement with marginalised people: a specific perspective on and by survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Br J Soc Work 48(7):2096–2113 Fletcher GJO, Simpson JA, Thomas G (2000) Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship

Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations development. J Pers Soc Psychol 79(6):933–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.933 Forgeard MJC, Jayawickreme E, Kern M, Seligman MEP (2011) Doing the right thing: measuring wellbeing for public policy. Int J Well Being 1(1):79–106. https://doi. org/10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15 Forstadt L, Cooper S, Mackey Andrews S (2015) Changing medicine and building community: Maine’s adverse childhood experiences momentum. Perm J 19 (2):92–95. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/14-169 Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D (1996) Research methods in the social sciences. Edward Arnold, London Gao X, Shen J, Wu H, Krenn HY (2019) Evaluating program effects: conceptualizing and demonstrating a typology. Eval Program Plann 72(1):88–96. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.10.008 Gillam RJ, Counts JM, Garstka TA (2016) Collective impact facilitators: how contextual and procedural factors influence collaboration. Community Dev 47 (2):209–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2015. 1133684 Giugni M, Lorenzini J (2017) Jobless citizens. Political engagement of the young unemployed. Palgrave Pivot, London Goldfeld S, Mathews T, Brinkman S, Woolcock G, Myers J, Kershaw P (2010) The kids in communities -study: measuring community level factors influencing children’s development. Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne Gough D, Thomas J, Thomas J (2012) Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 Grumbach K, Vargas RA, Fleisher P, Aragón TJ, Chung L, Chawla C, Yant A, Garcia ER, Santiago A, Lang PL, Jones P, Liu W, Schmidt LA (2017) Achieving health equity through community engagement in translating evidence to policy: the San Francisco health improvement partnership, 2010–2016. Prev Chronic Dis 14:E27. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd14. 160469 Hermann LK, Henry B, Hogan L (2017) Building collective impact to improve health and reduce obesity among children: a report on a participatory research approach. Am J Health Stud 32(2):111–135 Homel R, Freiberg K, Branch S (2015) CREATE-ing capacity to take developmental crime prevention to scale: a community-based approach within a national framework. Aust N Z J Criminol 48(3):367–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865815589826 Kania J, Kramer M (2011) Collective impact. Stanf Soc Innov Rev 9(1):36–41 Kramer RM, Carnevale PJ (2001) Trust and intergroup negotiation. In: Brown R, Gaertner S (eds) Blackwell handbook of social psychology: intergroup processes. Blackwell, Malden, pp 431–450 Landry S, Collie-Akers V, Foster K, Pecha D, Abresch C (2020) Assessing the development of collective impact initiatives addressing maternal and child health. Matern

195

Child Health J 24(4):405–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10995-020-02894-7 Leruth C, Goodman J, Bragg B, Gray D (2017) A multilevel approach to breastfeeding promotion: using healthy start to deliver individual support and drive collective impact. Matern Child Health J 21:4–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-017-2371-3 Lynn J, Stachowiak S (2018) When collective impact has an impact: a cross-site study of 25 collective impact initiatives. https://www.orsimpact.com/DirectoryAttachments/ 10262018_111513_477_CI_Study_Report_10-26-2018. pdf. Retrieved 4 May 2020 McPherson C, Ploeg J, Edwards N, Ciliska D, Sword W (2017) A catalyst for system change: a case study of child health network formation, evolution and sustainability in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res 17(1):100 Meinen A, Hilgendorf A, Korth AL, Christens BD, Breuer C, Joyner H, Polzin M, Adams A, Wolfe D, Braun A, Holting J, Paulson J, Cullen B, Stader K (2016) The Wisconsin early childhood obesity prevention initiative: an example of statewide collective impact. WMJ 115(5):269–274 Michaud-Létourneau I, Gayard M, Mathisen R, Phan LTH, Weissman A, Pelletier DL (2019) Enhancing governance and strengthening advocacy for policy change of large collective impact initiatives. Matern Child Nutr 15. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12728 Morgan IA, Tucker C, Urlaub DM, Shuler TO, Cilenti D (2020) Leveraging an academic-practice partnership to improve maternal and child health outcomes in North Carolina. N C Med J 81(1):5–13. https://doi.org/10. 18043/ncm.81.1.5 Niemelä M, Kallunki H, Jokinen J, Räsänen S, Ala-Aho B, Hakko H, Ristikari T, Solantaus T (2019) Collective impact on prevention: Let’s talk about children service model and decrease in referrals to child protection services. Front Psych 10:64. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyt.2019.00064 Peterson N, Savage J, Vesely N, Eithun R (2016) 652 strengthening a culture of safety for children: developing hospital and community collaborations. Inj Prev 22: A234. https://doi.org.libproxy.tuni.fi/10.1136/ injuryprev-2016-042156.652 Ritte R, Panozzo S, Johnston L, Agerholm J, Kvernmo SE, Rowley K, Arabena K (2016) An Australian model of the first 1000 days: an indigenous-led process to turn an international initiative into an early-life strategy benefiting indigenous families. Glob Health Epidemiol Genom 1:e11. https://doi.org/10.1017/ gheg.2016.7 Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Gannon-Rowley T (2002) Assessing ‘neighbourhood effects’: social processes and new directions in research. Annu Rev Sociol 28 (1):443–478. https://doi.org/10.1146/aanurev.soc.28. 110601.141114 Schneider V (2020) Bringing society back in: actors, networks, and systems in public policy. In: Lehtimäki H et al (eds) Society as an interactive space. Springer, Cham, pp 41–65

C

196 Seligman MEP (2011) Flourish. Simon & Schuster, New York Tammeaid M, Virtanen P, Meyer J (2020) Leadership meta-skills in public institutions. Unpublished article, in review Terrile VC (2016) Public library support of families experiencing homelessness. J Child Poverty 22(2): 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10796126.2016.1 209166 Townsley R, Watson D, Abbott D (2004) Working partnerships? A critique of the process of multiagency working in services to disabled children with complex health care needs. J Integr Care 12(2):24–34. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14769018200400013 Turner S, Merchant, K, Kania J, Martin E (2012) Understanding the value of backbone organizations in collective impact: part 1. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/ understanding_the_value_of_backbone_organizations_ in_collective_impact_1 Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, McKelvey B (2007) Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadersh Q 18(4):298– 318 Vermilya L, Kerwin D (2017) Early childhood investment zones: a learning approach for authentic community partnership. Zero Three 38(1):11–18 Von Bertalanffy L (1956) General systems theory. Gen Syst 1:1–10 Von Bertalanffy L (1968) General systems theory: foundations, development, applications. George Braziller, New York Weaver NL, Thompson J, Shoff CR, Copanas K, Mcmillin SE (2017) A conceptual model for the pathways of effect for intermediary organizations: a case study from maternal and child health. Eval Program Plann 63(1):69–73 Wilk P, Cooke M (2015) Collaborative public health system interventions for chronic disease prevention among urban aboriginal peoples. Int Indig Policy J 6(4):UNSP 3 Wills R, Gabriel B, Matthews KM (2019) The Ngātahi project: competency development for the vulnerable children’s workforce. Policy Q 15(1):73–79 Wrightsman LS (1991) Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward human nature. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS (eds) Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Academic, San Diego, pp 373–412

Co-management Regime ▶ Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

Co-management Regime

Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence Kellen Copeland Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

Definition Multispecies livelihoods refers to the right for human and nonhuman animal species to not only (co)exist, but to not infringe on another species’ right to live with the exception of sustenance hunting or legitimate safety concerns (Thomsen 2020).

Introduction The set of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) targeted at ending poverty, protecting planet, and ensuring prosperity for all by 2030 were enacted on January 1, 2016 and agreed upon by 193 United Nation (UN) member countries. These goals provide a blueprint for nation-states to incorporate into their national development agendas and can be viewed as holistic strategies that encompass economic sustainability, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. However, in an unprecedented time of global climate change, collaboration that extends beyond national borders as well as human interests is perhaps the only way forward. In this chapter, transnational development that crosses regional boundaries is intended to examine a more-than-human approach to the SDGs. While strict collaboration between national and regional governments are required to enact policy that fosters transformational economies, local actors must work together to implement actionable and measurable solutions towards the global goals in the wake of a global climate crisis. The UN views partnerships as voluntary and collaborative relationships where participants agree to work together to achieve a common mission and vision; collaborative networks share

Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence

risk, responsibilities, resources, and benefits to mobilize efforts in support of the 2030 agenda. Commodifying biodiversity is meant to theorize approaches to collaborative economies in which solutions to restoring nature are enacted in pursuit of connecting environments that promote multispecies coexistence – stretching beyond human livelihoods. This chapter is structured in five sections that categorize the makeup of collaborative networks in the formation of social, ecological, and economic systems. The section “Biodiversity Conservation: Maximizing ROI Through Diverse Portfolios” identifies the approach to conservation that supports active management and builds upon collaborative economies. Section “Wildlife Corridors: Connecting Transnational Landscapes” provides an overview of human wildlife conflict in efforts to restore habitat connectivity. Section “Ecosystem Services: Commodification for Nature” frames economic systems in a socialecological context that promotes biodiversity conservation. Section “Measuring for Direct Impact” explores the role of the firm for measuring success in the twenty-first century. Section “Collaborative Economies: Putting It All Together” discusses ways in which conservationists, activists, and grassroots efforts can work in tandem to fulfill promises of transparency and bring autonomy for environmental progress.

Biodiversity Conservation: Maximizing ROI Through Diverse Portfolios Simply put, biodiversity is the variability among living organisms; within species, between species, and of ecosystems (Gaston and Spicer 2013). Arguably, if revitalizing global partnerships and strengthening implementation towards the SDGs are to be achievable, a more-than-human approach will have to be adopted from municipal, regional, and federal governments; the private sector; social sector; and leading international bodies which make up the entirety of the United Nations. While two decades of scientific rigor has recorded the effects of global climate change, actionable steps to increase biodiversity efforts

197

are essential by means of educating, planning, and developing structures to host thriving and interconnected ecosystems. In the study of ecology, two major drivers of biodiversity are understood to be species richness and functional diversity (Gotelli and Colwell 2011; Whitfeld et al. 2014; Huang et al. 2018). Species richness, in the form of both flora (plant) and fauna (animal), is the number of species within an ecosystem. Functional diversity then refers to the range of activity that organisms experience – and are able to experience – in communities and ecosystems. Hannah et al. (2002) assess the role of global climate change on earth’s biomass, calling for an urgent response in biodiversity conservation to address issues of habitat loss, fragmentation, and land use change. Since, numerous studies have contributed to observations that cite unprecedented rates of anthropogenic biodiversity loss, contributing to the earth’s sixth mass extinction event of the twentyfirst century (Hooper et al. 2012; Dirzo et al. 2014; Ceballos et al. 2015). Inclusive Conservation Networks: Reduce, Prevent, and Recover Globally 66% of the marine environment has been significantly altered by human activity, 75% of freshwater resources are devoted to crop or livestock production, and 60 billion tons of renewable and nonrenewable resources are being extracted every year. Land-use productivity has been reduced by 23% due to degradation, 33% of marine fish stocks are being harvested unsustainability, the number of alien species per country has increased 70% since 1970, and over one million animal and plant species are currently threatened with extinction. Considering the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2010 targets, broadening the sciences to include interdisciplinary models that describe the interaction of human, biological, chemical, and physical earth systems are integral to revitalizing global partnerships toward reducing the rate of plant and animal species loss, preventing depletion, and recovering biodiversity towards the SDGs (Hannah et al. 2002; Balmford et al. 2005). Likewise, Stem et al. (2005) offer that approaches to

C

198

Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence

conservation vary by context and stakeholder interest; therefore, using quantitative and qualitative data in monitoring biological, social, political, and cultural realities are equally important to the structure of collaborative networks. Welldesigned approaches to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is viewed vital to demonstrating progress toward protecting earth’s biological resources; the question then arises, under what context and for whose outcomes? A Paradigm Shift: Diversifying “Active” Conservation Strategies Environmental impact assessments (EIA) have been a crucial component in efforts to strengthen environmental protection, mandated by the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 and enacted globally. The logic behind EIAs is identifying, predicting, and evaluating potential environment outcomes of development to inform key decisions (Glasson et al. 2012). Hence, a major emphasis regarding the study of ecology is to understand the factors that underpin the stability of ecological systems; however, the drivers of which tend to be far more complex and multidimensional than traditionally understood (Gotelli and Colwell 2001; de Mazancourt et al. 2013). While predict-and-prescribe strategies to conservation are intended to identify favorable outcomes by narrowing the focus on a subset of genotypes, species, or geographic locations, this approach undermines the value of biological diversity. To offset unpredictable future outcomes, portfolio theory is drawn upon to emphasize the importance of biodiversity richness in ecological systems (Crowe and Parker 2008; Ando and Mallory 2012; Anderson et al. 2015). In financial markets, the theory denotes the spread of investment across varied options (stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.) to mitigate risk and optimize expected return, both in the short and long term. The formation of “adaptation networks” (Webster et al. 2017) emphasizes theories of physiological acclimatization, ecological reorganization, natural selection, and other forms of naturebased processes which promote species richness and spread investments to increase functional diversity. Strengthening the means of

implementation for adaptation involves collaboration between conservation, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academic researchers, governments, as well as local stakeholders. The complexity of efforts spans across seas, public and private lands, political boundaries, and geographical borders. Likewise, while biodiversity conservation will continue to mobilize at local scales, national governments will need to catalyze efforts in forming regional and transnational conservation networks. Due to the dynamic nature of such systems, Schindler and Hilborn (2015) provide a policy framework consisting of a robust, flexible, and monitored approach to governance that supports it.

Wildlife Corridors: Connecting Transnational Landscapes From broader national, transnational, and geographical scales, biodiversity conservation supports the recreation and further protection of wildlife corridors by implementing active management strategies, using ecological theory and applied methods. Defaunation is the term used to describe the loss of species and populations of wildlife at local, national, and global scales. The term is critical to addressing global climate change as 60% of the world’s wildlife has died off in the last 50 years. Although largely underrecognized as a form of global environmental change, anthropogenic defaunation (Dirzo et al. 2014) is critical to addressing our current environmental crises and progressing SDGs toward multispecies coexistence. Major threats to wildlife include habitat destruction and fragmentation (Tilman 2001; Krauss et al. 2010), urban sprawl (Pauchard et al. 2006), human–wildlife conflict (Hill 2015), and human–human conflict (Dickman 2010). Community-based conflict mitigation and financial incentives to sustain human and nonhuman livelihoods are viewed as vital tasks to governance in the twenty-first century. Mawdsley et al. (2009) review the scientific literature to synthesize 16 “adaptation strategies” aimed to address the loss of wildlife corridors; they are categorized as (1) land and water

Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence

management, (2) species management, (3) monitoring and planning, as well as (4) law and policy. Mitigating Conflict: Towards Wildlife Human Coexistence However, while the public sector is responsible for adapting policy that ensures corridor connectivity and biodiversity conservation, this vision must be recognized and enacted by private landowners, sportspersons, industry, citizen scientists, and NGOs alike. While roughly 12.9% of the worlds land surfaces are identified as protected areas (PAs) (Chape et al. 2008), wildlife populations are still in decline within these boundaries (Craigie et al. 2010), and others remain at risk due to increased human impact (Kiffner et al. 2016). Van Eeden et al. (2018) perform a metaanalysis on large carnivore mitigation literature to conclude that lethal control is among the top global forms of conservation management; however, educational training towards livestock prevention may provide mutually beneficial conservation outcomes towards a multispecies livelihoods framework, as one example. Given the study area of the US Department of Interior’s South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (SA LCC), Leonard et al. (2017) theorize that urban development and sea level rise (SLR) are to be the greatest risk for already fragmented and densely populated landscapes, estimating a 41% reduction to low-resistant habitat cores and a 35% decrease in the mean area of remaining core by year 2100. Buffer zones, the proximal area between PAs and private or regional lands, are seen as essential to the protection of biodiversity and are often used to extend coexistence between humans and animals (Kati et al. 2004). Expanding protected lands on earth’s surface, actively managing lands for biodiversity expansion, and regulating buffer zone protections are viewed as necessary strategies to meeting global SDGs. A Case for Corridor Connectivity It is estimated that 50 Apennine brown bears (Ursus arctos marsicanus), a subspecies of the European brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos), remain in the wild and is best attributed to historic anthropogenic disturbances of the last several

199

decades (Falcucci et al. 2008; Benazzo et al. 2017; Gervasi and Ciucci 2018). Despite a number of resources devoted to its conservation in the last 20 years, the endemic species of Italy is still considered high risk for extinction. Falcucci et al. (2008) first used distribution models to show that the landscape scale of Central Italy is appropriate to host larger bear populations, allowing for natural recolonization within the area, while Ciucci and Boitani (2008) critically examine historic human–human and human–animal conflict within the National park of Abruzzo Lazio and Molise (PNALM). While the PNALM represents a number of communities with their own distinct historical and geographical identities, interviews of 1,611 residents conducted by Glikman et al. (2019) determine the attitudes, cognitive perceptions, and normative beliefs toward the Apennine brown bear (Ursus arctos marsicanus) to be in support of its conservation. Since, it has been understood that habitat fragmentation and connectivity loss have isolated bear populations, putting them at risk of inbreeding, genetic drift, and low levels of variation among genotypes (Benazzo et al. 2017). Gervasi and Ciucci (2018) use deterministic and stochastic models to conclude that the bear populations are likely to remain small and exposed to high risk for extinction, unless average survival and reproductive rates increase. Maiorano et al. (2019) construct a multistate species distribution model for the protection and development of structural corridors in human-dominated landscapes; authors suggest that coordinated efforts between local communities, conservation agencies, national administrations, and governed regions are vital for the survival of the Apennine brown bear (Ursus arctos marsicanus) and that of European wildlife altogether.

Ecosystem Services: Commodification for Nature The green revolution throughout the 1960s and 1970s relied on the use of biotechnology and industrialized agrarian systems to double grain yield and stunt global food shortages, albeit at

C

200

Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence

the expense of the environment. The “environmental economics” approach to payment for ecosystem services (PES) is to force ecosystems into the economic model, prioritizing efficiency and maximizing shareholder value. Here, it is the value that stems from resource extraction for the material use or consumption by human populations in which money-mediated exchange of different products or services is used as part of the commodification process, i.e., “payment” for “service.” Similarly, neoliberal economic policy has dominated global economics over the last 50 years, emphasizing free market competition with the philosophy that markets are best suited to meet the demands of both private and public sectors. This form of “environmental economics” also assumes legal mandates to privatization, alienability (physical or moral separation from sellers provided to free market), individuation (representation of legal and material boundaries of individuals, groups, or institutions), abstraction (assimilated for quality), valuation (denoting value to the real subsumption of capitalist accumulation, i.e., agro-food industries rather than chickens or seeds), and displacement (the blind process of profit-driven commodity production and sale) (Castree 2003). To hold firms accountable in a world of global economic systems, sustainability efforts are recognized and implemented to lower environmental damage. The United Nations Program on the Environment (UNEP) promotes the transition to low-carbon, resource-efficient, and socially inclusive economies; blue and green economies are a global commitment to reduce the industrial footprint on land and sea by way of monitoring and lowering water and energy consumption as well as effects on greenhouse gasses, among others (see Altenburg and Assmann 2017). The Green Economy of Ecology “Doubling Down” on the green economy requires a diverse range of participatory approaches that involve farmers as analysts, designers, and experimenters, combined with biotechnology and ecology (Conway 2007). In this way, the ecological economics approach to PES is transdisciplinary in nature and seeks to adapt economic institutions to

the physical characteristics of ecosystems, prioritizing ecological sustainability. McCauley (2006) refutes the term “ecosystem services” for its overemphasis on nature’s economic value to humans in the form of commodification while Norgaard (2010) analyzes “nature as a stock to provide a flow of service” as limiting to market-based frameworks. Thus, ecosystem services are funds to be allocated by naturally occurring systems, not private commodities to be traded on open markets. Therefore, ecological economics position PES as open and accessible public goods legitimized by collective institutions (Farley and Costanza 2010). In ecological economics, ecosystem services are the accumulated functions and processes of ecosystems that benefit people either directly or indirectly: coastal wetlands provide hurricane protection, forests mitigate flood damage, coral reefs enable fish habitat to thrive, and bees pollinate crops, to name a few. Inherently, healthy ecosystems are natural public services that promote the well-being of human and nonhuman livelihoods. Accordingly, value exchange exists between the presence of people (i.e., human capital), their communities (i.e., social capital), and their infrastructure (i.e., built environment) and can be categorized as provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting (Costanza et al. 2017). Ecological Systems: Reciprocal Value Exchange When economists prescribe “value” to systems, this assumes a natural trade-off, either implicit or explicit. For example, opportunity cost is the trade-off of having “A” at the expense of not having “B.” This makes the valuation of ecosystems in the form of monetary estimates relative to the perceptions of people and the goals they aim to achieve. Likewise, business valuation is a derivative of a firm’s capital structure, market value, discounted cash flows, estimated future earnings, etc., as well as the perception of management, culture, public image, innovation, and so on. Hence, valuations among analysts can differ widely based on individual perceptions of costs and benefits or risk and reward. Modern economic systems are equally strengthened by the public’s faith in them. This is true in the consumer

Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence

confidence indicator as one example. Recent updates estimate the value of ecosystems services at roughly USD $145 trillion/year, contributing land use change to a loss of nearly USD $20.2 trillion/year (Costanza et al. 2014). Thus, community-based collaboration and reciprocal value exchange are essential to protecting and reestablishing ecosystem services to maximize social and environmental well-being. However, this can only be accelerated by the change in perception of how largely capitalist societies view and valuate economic systems. While it is widely generalized that urban dwellers are provided much of the benefit to biodiversity enrichment and rural populations are burdened with the costs; education, community development, diverse portfolios, risk mitigation strategies, and financial payments to cover the burden of shortterm livelihood depletion are top priorities toward thriving ecosystem services. Wetlands in Climate Change Wetlands provide a number of vital ecosystem services including the recharging of aquifers, flood control, wildlife and fisheries habitat, air purification, and carbon sequestration, among others. Currently, 5–8% of earth’s terrestrial landmass is covered by wetlands, which are known to be among the topmost productive habitats on earth. Considering the global carbon cycle, wetlands account for 20–30% of earth’s soil pool of carbon. Mitsch et al. (2013) analyze GHG emission data of 15 total wetlands (tropical, temperate, and boreal regions) to conclude that these landscapes are significant sinks of carbon to earth’s atmosphere. However, global wetlands are disappearing three times faster than the earth’s forests and 61% have been destroyed for commercial development. The process of wetlands degradation can be characterized in four stages: intact, slight or dryland, severe or wasteland, and extreme or badland. Drylands are considered to be reversible in that only the water reserve has become damaged. More intense forms of degradation requires active management by human populations in the form of restoration, eco-engineering, and minimizing human impact. Garone (2020) tells how California’s wetlands

201

were nearly extirpated due to increased irrigation and reclamation projects but have been brought back by the organized efforts of duck hunters, whistle-blowing scientists, and a broad coalition of conservationists. Wetland Degradation Human activity, development, and social stigmas towards wetlands undervalue their significance. Hence, many of these landscapes experience overexploitation, mismanagement, grounds for waste disposal, agricultural use, and livestock grazing. Doshi (2019) describes how urban development in Mumbai has forced displacement and resettlement of lower-income and middle-class residents under the guise of “environmental improvement strategies” on degraded wetland ecosystems. Wildayana et al. (2017) discuss Indonesia’s transmigration program by analyzing various farmer groups in South Sumatra to determine indigenous knowledge which promotes diverse cultivation and harmonious contact with nature reduces risk and operational costs, resulting in increased socioeconomic livelihoods compared with agrarian monoculture practices. Constructed wetlands are engineered systems designed to mimic natural processes involving wetland vegetation, soils, and associated microbial accumulations and have been designed to aid wastewater treatment for over 50 years across numerous industries (Vymazal 2014).

Measuring for Direct Impact Key performance indicators (KPIs) help organizations define and measure progress towards organizational objectives. Traditionally, this meant tracking financial performance that aligned with a company-stated mission, vision, and goal. Using the shareholder model, this may have meant improving measurements such as return on invested capital (ROIC), free cash flows, return on equity (ROE), or driving down EBIT (Marr 2013). However, while it is important to measure indicators of financial success, a qualitative understanding of leadership decision-making matched with stakeholder principles bring an

C

202

Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence

intended level of depth for investors to discern, adding value to the reporting processes. Integrated reporting has found positive impact in creating a narrative for investors as well as integrating alignment between strategy, risk, and the way in which companys track them. The aim is to ensure businesses remain competitive and focused on longterm value creation rather than short-term profit motives. Integrated reporting may involve frameworks such as the balanced scorecard to address the needs of multiple key business functions: shareholders, customers, internal management, and innovation capabilities, to name a few (Kaplan and Norton 1998). Correspondingly, triple-bottom-line reporting (TBL) seeks to further the development of stakeholder engagement by measuring both internal progress as well as externalities using financial, environmental, and social indicators, measuring progress based on firm-specific KPIs. For example, Natura Cosmetico provides a triple-bottom-line sustainability report, highlighting “direct economic value” such as revenue and internal cash generation; “environmental indicators” such as greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and water consumption; and “social indicators” such as the number of families benefiting in the Pan-Amazon supplier communities as well as revenue created from their Crer Para Ver (believe to see) community program. Tracking Sustainability for CSR Like TBL, there exist numerous frameworks to guide management in measuring sustainability outcomes. Perhaps most popular in leading modern sustainability reporting is B Corp which categorizes several characteristics of sustainability including community, environment, governance, and workers. Along with specific guidance, B Corp provides companies with several input measurements and verifies their performance through a points-based system for sustainability outcomes. Although helpful for management to track sustainability and report these findings in a way that are universally understood, these frameworks are still rife with criticism. For one, the metrics are used as a guide to measure levels of inputs and outputs such as water consumption or GHG. Rather than fundamentally challenging the way we view or conduct business, sustainability

frameworks often provide the guidance to overcome marginal sustainability challenges, developing “eco-efficiencies” to justify business-as-usual practices. Likewise, the corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature largely ignores that businesses are self-interest forces of power that tend to shape sustainability in their favor (Isil and Hernke 2017). However altruistic, these frameworks often lack the ability to capture direct impact and value creation of the firm in social, financial, and environmental ways. The Role of the Firm: Impact Reporting A key stakeholder in value creation and transparent reporting is the field of impact accounting. While several debates and frameworks exist, the aim of impact reporting is to hold firms accountable to what they omit while providing tools to firms that are looking to capture social value in which they generate. Ebrahim and Rangan (2014) establish the logic model, a KPI framework for management to report their creation of social value. The logic model consists of five overall themes including inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Using these themes to capture KPIs is inducive to measuring the impact that firms contribute towards society, the scope, and the scale of these contributions. Like modern integrated reporting standards, these themes describe qualitative and quantitative measurements towards the logic model. To name a few specifically, inputs consist of funds (whether donated or raised), i.e., sales, grants, and revenue; equipment and supplies; and knowledge transfer/technical expertise. Activities may include basic needs delivery like food or shelter; service delivery such as job training and counseling; and infrastructure construction such as corridor connectivity. Outputs are measured in the short term and are related to results such as animals saved, housed, or treated; people trained or educated; conflict mitigation infrastructure built, and goods transferred to market. Outcomes exist in the medium to long term and encompass results like improved quality of life, health, and educational attainment, and increased incomes at the individual level. Lastly, impact include results that have effects on root causes and sustained significant change including sustained drops in poverty, defaunation, or

Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence

deforestation; and improvements in development indicators measured in terms of communities, populations, or ecosystems (Ebrahim and Rangan 2014). The core to this KPI framework is relatively simple: clarify the operational mission, specify the set of activities to address the mission (scope), and identify the size of the problem (scale). As the social sector becomes more integrated with for-profit social enterprise and large NGO actors, measurement can be more efficiently tracked in a way that provides direct value creation through firm-specific actions. Likewise, as technology advances, leaders can shift from reactionary methods of impact measurement to also using measurement during program design and implementation to record real-time feedback and inform processes and decisions.

Collaborative Economies: Putting It All Together Habitat restoration is viewed as vital to connecting fragmented landscapes and combating species loss. Correspondingly, anthropogenic mobilization has the potential to impact global ecosystems by adapting institutions, communities, and livelihoods to ecological processes. Rewilding efforts and their effective ecotourist developments have brought significant ecological and economic prosperity to various parts of the world; however, they are relatively isolated as examples are far too lacking in number compared to the status of the global environmental crisis. While there tends to be a delay in species extinction after habitat loss, it is suggested that opportunity lies in the restoration of local habitat. Newmark et al. (2017) analyze targeted biodiversity hotspots in 11 study areas of the Eastern Arc Mountains in Tanzania and the Atlantic Forest of Brazil to model fragmented forest regeneration and species conservation at an estimated cost of $21–49 M USD. Global biodiversity hotspots contain unusually high numbers of endemic plant and animal species and are defined as having lost greater than 70% of their original habitat. Restoring these habitats are crucial in sustaining economic livelihoods and are revered as having the highest return on

203

investment (ROI) for biodiversity conservation worldwide. Restoring Habitats and Rewilding Landscapes In efforts to “fill in the gaps,” Török and Helm (2017) provide a framework to link practical application of habitat restoration to ecological theory while Ponisio et al. (2016) provide that on-farm habitat restoration in the form of native plant “hedgerows” boost community composition and functional diversity in intensely managed agricultural landscapes within the Central Valley of California. In this way, habitat restoration is accomplished through management, protection, and reintroduction of native plant species by restoring natural carbon cycles, enriching soil composition, and finding organic processes to control diverse yields of harvests. Likewise, rewilding projects of North America Beavers (Castor canadensis) as well as Eurasian Beavers (Castor fiber) have also served effective for their potential use as agents of stream and wetland restoration. These nonhuman animals are known to regenerate landscapes, encourage wildlife, and prevent flash flooding for rural communities. Bioengineering beaver analogs combined with species reintroduction is gaining traction among conservation bodies, water resource managers, and private landowners as part of a shift towards landscape-scale connectivity and process-based management. In many cases, landowners and municipal agencies are coming together in efforts to restore native habitat. In the case of bees (Apis), pollinator conservationists are often local residents that house bee farms on their property. Individuals, place-based communities, environmental groups, and government agencies around the world are taking action and promoting environmental stewardship. The push for continuous action in the creation of biodiversity can be discerned from environmental policy management in the form of community-based conservation (CBC), community-based management (CBM), community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs), locally managed marine areas (LMMAs), and urban stewardship among others.

C

204

Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence

Environmental Activism and Grassroot Mobilization Similarly, citizen science has been significantly deployed over the last decade to advance the fields of conservation biology, natural resource management, and various other domains of science. McKinley et al. (2017) discuss the benefits of citizen science in the further development of scientific rigor by building a use case and providing a framework for citizen science projects commonly used to meet the needs of science and public engagement. For example, the North American Breeding Bird Survey, USGS Social Values of Ecosystem Services, Hail and Snow Network, and Clean Air Coalition can be attributed to addressing a range of scientific and management goals by providing data on species, mapping ecosystem services, assessing the status of climate change, monitoring invasive species, and detecting air and water hazards. Cho et al. (2018) examine a sample of large US oil and gas firms in response to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Bill (ANWR) to find the unregulated nature of the sustainability reporting scheme to be of high societal and ethical concern which allows companies to hide behind the guise of public service to exploit sensitive environmental ecosystems. Thus, strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing global networks calsl for transparency in reporting and deploying activists within our communities to establish guidelines for large firms. Through species ambassador programs, wildlife educations, and ecological educations companies, wildlife, and our communities can make a direct impact to conserve biodiversity while meeting economic interests. Firms have the resources and responsibility to provide CSR initiatives that engage with collaborative economies and measure direct impact to sustain biodiversity and strengthen ecosystem services.

Conclusion Partnering with the SDGs for the 2030 agenda will require collaboration within communities, by conservationist, and throughout transnational borders. Municipal, regional, and federal authorities are responsible for generating policy that supports active biodiversity conservation efforts

and providing incentive for both rural and urban communities to engage with the process in forms of education, economic livelihoods, and landscape change. NGOs, research institutions, private sector businesses, and grassroots participation are essential to establishing collaborative economies and generating resources for the creation of social-ecological prosperity. Direct impact on landscapes is essential to developing more-than-human approaches towards sustainability. If done with the greatest ecological knowledge and unique partnerships, sustainable economies can become degenerative by design (works within the cycles of the living world) and distributive by design (shares values far more equitably by those that co-create it); thus supporting ecotourism, corporate revenue, small business, and the species that inhabit their landscapes. The well-being of natural ecosystems and the species within them are shared values in which human populations must adopt throughout the process. No longer can commodification refer to the process of strengthening human livelihoods. In the creation of diverse portfolios for conservation, private and public landowners must utilize and expand upon ecosystem services to build ecological funds for future generations. Macro perspectives to building collaborative economies include increased legal designations for PAs, securing land tenure for place-based communities, building ecosystems for sustainable livelihoods, diversifying ecological portfolios, and strategizing targeted biodiversity hotspots to maximize social-ecological value. Micro perspectives include community engagement, ecological education, and mobilizing democratic processes for the maximization of biodiversity conservation. With that vision and perspective in mind, collaboration among communities, firms, organizations, and governments of all sizes can create more-than-human environments for the betterment of future generations.

Cross-References ▶ Multispecies Livelihoods: Partnering for Sustainable Development and Biodiversity Conservation

Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence

References Altenburg T, Assmann, C (2017) Green industrial policy. Concept, policies, country experiences. UN Environment; German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitk (DIE), Geneva Anderson SC, Moore JW, McClure MM et al (2015) Portfolio conservation of metapopulations under climate change. Ecol Appl 25(2):559–572. https://doi.org/10. 1890/14-0266.1 Ando AW, Mallory ML (2012) Optimal portfolio design to reduce climate-related conservation uncertainty in the Prairie Pothole Region. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(17): 6484–6489. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114653109 Balmford A, Bennun L, Ten Brink B et al (2005) The convention on biological diversity’s 2010 target. Science 307(5707):212–213 Benazzo A, Trucchi E, Cahill JA et al (2017) Survival and divergence in a small group: the extraordinary genomic history of the endangered Apennine brown bear stragglers. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(45):E9589–E9597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707279114 Castree N (2003) Commodifying what nature? Prog Hum Geogr 27(3):273–297. https://doi.org/10.1191/03091 32503ph428oa Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD et al (2015) Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci Adv 1(5):e1400253. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400253 Chape S, Spalding M, Jenkins M (eds) (2008) The world’s protected areas: Status, values and prospects in the 21st century, Clothbound edn. University of California Press, Berkeley Cho CH, Laine M, Roberts RW, Rodrigue M (2018) The frontstage and backstage of corporate sustainability reporting: evidence from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Bill. J Bus Ethics 152(3):865–886. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-016-3375-4 Ciucci P, Boitani L (2008) The Apennine brown bear: a critical review of its status and conservation problems. Ursus 19(2):130–145. https://doi.org/10.2192/ 07PER012.1 Conway G (2007) A doubly green revolution: ecology and food production. In May R, McLean A (ed) Theoretical ecology: principles and applications. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 158–17 Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P et al (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 26:152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014. 04.002 Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L et al (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008 Craigie ID, Baillie JEM, Balmford A et al (2010) Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biol Conserv 143(9):2221–2228. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.007 Crowe KA, Parker WH (2008) Using portfolio theory to guide reforestation and restoration under climate

205

change scenarios. Clim Chang 89(3–4):355–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9373-x de Mazancourt C, Isbell F, Larocque A et al (2013) Predicting ecosystem stability from community composition and biodiversity. Ecol Lett 16(5):617–625. https:// doi.org/10.1111/ele.12088 Dickman AJ (2010) Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict: social factors affecting human-wildlife conflict resolution. Anim Conserv 13(5):458–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795. 2010.00368.x Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M et al (2014) Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345(6195):401–406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817 Doshi S (2019) Greening Displacements, Displacing green: environmental subjectivity, slum clearance, and the embodied political ecologies of dispossession in Mumbai: GREENING DISPLACEMENTS, DISPLACING GREEN. Int J Urban Reg Res 43 (1):112–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12699 Ebrahim A, Rangan VK (2014) What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. Calif Manag Rev 56(3):118–141. https://doi. org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.118 Falcucci A, Maiorano L, Ciucci P (2008) Land-cover change and the future of the Apennine brown bear: a perspective from the past. J Mammal 89(6):1502–1511. https://doi.org/10.1644/07-MAMM-A-229.1 Farley J, Costanza R (2010) Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol Econ 69(11):2060– 2068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.010 Garone P (2020) Fall and rise of Wetlands of California’s Great Central Valley. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles Gaston KJ, Spicer JI (2013) Biodiversity: an introduction. Wiley, Oxford Gervasi V, Ciucci P (2018) Demographic projections of the Apennine brown bear population Ursus arctos marsicanus (Mammalia: Ursidae) under alternative management scenarios. Eur Zool J 85(1):242–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750263.2018.1478003 Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A (2012) Introduction to environmental impact assessment, 4th edn. Routledge, Abingdon Glikman JA, Ciucci P, Marino A et al (2019) Local attitudes toward Apennine brown bears: insights for conservation issues. Conserv Sci Pract 1(5):e25. https:// doi.org/10.1111/csp2.25 Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4(4):379–391. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2011) Estimating species richness. Biol Divers Front Meas Assess 12:39–54 Hannah L, Midgley GF, Lovejoy T et al (2002) Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate. Conserv Biol 16(1):264–268. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739. 2002.00465.x Hill CM (2015) Perspectives of “conflict” at the wildlife– agriculture boundary: 10 years on. Hum Dimens Wildl

C

206 20(4):296–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2015. 1004143 Hooper DU, Adair EC, Cardinale BJ et al (2012) A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486(7401):105–108. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11118 Huang Y, Chen Y, Castro-Izaguirre N et al (2018) Impacts of species richness on productivity in a large-scale subtropical forest experiment. Science 362(6410):80– 83. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6405 Isil O, Hernke MT (2017) The triple bottom line: a critical review from a transdisciplinary perspective: TBL: a critical review from a transdisciplinary perspective. Bus Strateg Environ 26(8):1235–1251. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/bse.1982 Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1998) Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Econ Impact Knowl 27(4):315–324 Kati V, Dufrêne M, Legakis A et al (2004) Conservation management for Orthoptera in the Dadia reserve, Greece. Biol Conserv 115(1):33–44. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00091-0 Kiffner C, Nagar S, Kollmar C, Kioko J (2016) Wildlife species richness and densities in wildlife corridors of Northern Tanzania. J Nat Conserv 31:29–37. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2016.02.006 Krauss J, Bommarco R, Guardiola M et al (2010) Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels: immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss. Ecol Lett 13(5):597– 605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01457.x Leonard PB, Sutherland RW, Baldwin RF et al (2017) Landscape connectivity losses due to sea level rise and land use change. Anim Conserv 20(1):80–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12289 Maiorano L, Chiaverini L, Falco M, Ciucci P (2019) Combining multi-state species distribution models, mortality estimates, and landscape connectivity to model potential species distribution for endangered species in human dominated landscapes. Biol Conserv 237:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.06.014 Marr B (2013) Key performance indicators (KPI): the 75 measures every manager needs to know. Pearson Education UK. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/ choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p¼5138344 Mawdsley JR, O’Malley R, Ojima DS (2009) A review of climate-change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 23(5):1080–1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739. 2009.01264.x McCauley DJ (2006) Selling out on nature. Nature 443 (7107):27–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/443027a McKinley DC, Miller-Rushing AJ, Ballard HL (2017) Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biol Conserv 208:15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.biocon.2016.05.015 Mitsch WJ, Bernal B, Nahlik AM et al (2013) Wetlands, carbon, and climate change. Landsc Ecol 28(4):583– 597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9758-8 Newmark WD, Jenkins CN, Pimm SL et al (2017) Targeted habitat restoration can reduce extinction rates in

Common Agenda fragmented forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(36):9635– 9640. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705834114 Norgaard RB (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69(6):1219– 1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009 Pauchard A, Aguayo M, Peña E, Urrutia R (2006) Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: the case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepción, Chile). Biol Conserv 127(3):272– 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.05.015 Ponisio LC, M’Gonigle LK, Kremen C (2016) On-farm habitat restoration counters biotic homogenization in intensively managed agriculture. Glob Chang Biol 22 (2):704–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13117 Schindler DE, Hilborn R (2015) Prediction, precaution, and policy under global change. Science 347(6225):953– 954. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261824 Stem C, Margoluis R, Salafsky N, Brown M (2005) Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches. Conserv Biol 19(2):295–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00594.x Thomsen B, Copeland K, Thomsen J et al (2020) Multispecies livelihoods: wildlife ecotourism as a mechanism for sustainable development and biodiversity conservation? J Sustain Tourism. Manuscript in preparation Tilman D (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292(5515):281–284. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057544 Török P, Helm A (2017) Ecological theory provides strong support for habitat restoration. Biol Conserv 206:85– 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.024 Van Eeden LM, Crowther MS, Dickman CR et al (2018) Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock: livestock-carnivore conflict. Conserv Biol 32 (1):26–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12959 Vymazal J (2014) Constructed wetlands for treatment of industrial wastewaters: a review. Ecol Eng 73:724–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.09.034 Webster MS, Colton MA, Darling ES (2017) Who should pick the winners of climate change? Trends Ecol Evol 32 (3):167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.12.007 Whitfeld TJS, Lasky JR, Damas K et al (2014) Species richness, forest structure, and functional diversity during succession in the New Guinea Lowlands. Biotropica 46(5):538–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp. 12136 Wildayana E, Adriani D, Armanto M (2017) Livelihoods, household income and indigenous technology in South Sumatra Wetlands. Sriwijaya J Environ 2(1):24–29. Retrieved from http://ojs.pps.unsri.ac.id/index.php/ ppsunsri/article/view/42

Common Agenda ▶ Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations as Enablers of Children’s WellBeing

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

Common Property Resources ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

Common-Pool Resources ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management Domenico Vito Resilience Lab, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

207

Disaster risk management (DRM), finally, can be considered as the application of disaster risk reduction policies and strategies to prevent new disaster costs, reduce existing disaster risk, and manage residual risk, contributing to the strengthening of the resilience of communities and reduction of disaster losses (UNISDR 2002). Crowdmapping is the aggregation of crowdgenerated inputs such as text messages and social media feeds with geographic data to provide real-time, interactive information on events such as wars, humanitarian crises, crime, elections, or natural disasters. If properly implemented, crowdmapping can bring a level of transparency to fast-moving events that are difficult for traditional media to adequately cover in real time or to longer-term trends that may be difficult to identify through the reporting of individual events.

Introduction Definition Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is defined by the former UNISDR, UN Office of International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (now UNDRR UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction UN DRR), as “the potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets which could occur to a system, society or a community in a specific period of time, determined probabilistically as a function of hazard, exposure, and capacity”. In the technical sense, it is defined through the combination of three terms: hazard, exposure, and vulnerability (UNISDR 2002). Disaster risk reduction, always following UNISDR, can be considered as “the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events” (Munang et al. 2013). Disaster risk reduction aims to reduce the level of risk already faced by a community.

The management of natural disaster is of primarily importance nowadays due to the increasing of risks related to extreme events and climate change. Worsening factors such as population growth and destruction of the natural ecosystem contribute to even worsen the scenarios, making the probabilities of loss and damages for the communities higher than expected. In our findings a key strategy to prevent and to reduce the vulnerability of communities stands in turning communities from just a subject of protection to an active actor in prevention and acknowledge of risks. With the widespread diffusion of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) systems and mobile devices, nowadays it is possible to directly involve citizen in mapping emergencies and disaster. Such approach frames the disaster risk management into the 2030 agenda, following the guidelines of the SDG 17 that seeks to strengthen global partnership, bringing together national governments, the international community, civil society, the private sector, and other actors.

C

208

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

This vision allows to directly involve citizens in Disaster Management using crowdmapping initiatives. Crowdmapping is the aggregation of crowd-generated inputs such as text messages and social media feeds with geographic information to provide real-time data. Crowdmapping could allow a more effective Disaster Risk Management, as it involves directly the citizens in disaster risk management. Standing on the Sendai framework an effective disaster risk management (DRM) requires robust data to inform decisions about investments in preparedness, mitigation, and response. Data indeed are essential to figure out a picture of the territory and its hazardous changes: a robust monitoring for a timely prevention indeed comes from a capillary diffuse sensing of all the dangerous areas. With the involvement of communities, these data could be furnished by the direct involvement of the population. Among all the ICT tools available particularly, OpenStreetMap can help to implement the participation of local communities, to work together to collect and share detailed information about a given area. OpenStreetMap (OSM) is a free, editable map of the whole world that is being built by volunteers largely from scratch and released with an Open Content License (Wiki Open). OpenStreetMap encourages a communitydriven approach to DRM that could be helpful to follow up the Agenda 2030. Specifically the HOT (Humanitarian OpenStreetMap) represents a great effort in the OpenStreetMap community to apply the principles of open source and open data sharing for humanitarian response (HOT 2017; Soden and Palen 2014) and implements the crowdsourcing approach, allowing a diffuse participatory mapping initiative valorizing the local knowledge in disaster risk management. The use of OpenStreetMap can foster a Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) that has been used in several peculiar situations as the Haiti earthquake in 2010. In the chapter the CBDRR will be discussed, offering a methodological view of the use of data to foster it to prevent it in communities.

Disaster Risk Reduction and CommunityBased Disaster Risk Management The recent year has seen a rapid increase of natural catastrophes that have caused a huge damage to human settlements and economic and social structures. An estimation of the UNISDR focused on, during the last 40 years, economic losses which due to natural hazards have increased ten times (UNISDR 2015). Such rapid excursus of extreme events and devastating consequences has led to focus on the link between hazard sources and elements of the human environment and communities. In particular, since the Hyogo Framework (UNISDR 2015), the nexus between development, environment, and natural hazards led to disasters being clearly recognized and discussed (Stanganelli 2008). Within the UN system, the successor of the Hyogo Framework, the Sendai Framework (UN DRR 2015), highlights that “Disaster risk management needs to be based on an understanding of disaster risk in all its dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, exposure of persons and assets, hazard characteristics and the environment” (Aitsi-Selmi et al. 2015). Such statement includes several concepts related to hazard and consequently its management. The primary ones are risk and vulnerability. Disaster risk arises when hazards interact with physical, social, economic, and environmental vulnerabilities. Indeed, it is possible to argue that “vulnerability to disasters is a function of human action and behavior”. Vulnerability can result as a combination of several factors, including awareness of hazard, the condition of human settlements and infrastructure, public policy and administration, the wealth of a given society, and organized abilities in all fields of disaster and risk management (UNISDR 2015). On this argument, disaster risk reduction (DRR) has been defined by UNISDR as “the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

209

through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events” (Munang et al. 2013). At the end we can consider disaster risk management (DRM) as the application of disaster risk reduction policies and strategies to prevent new disaster costs, reduce existing disaster risk, and manage residual risk, contributing to the strengthening of the resilience of communities and reduction of disaster losses (UNISDR 2002). As Stanganelli pointed out (2008), disaster risk management has several activities or dimensions: particularly, prior to a hazardous event, the assessment, prevention, mitigation, and monitoring during a catastrophic event; the activities of early warning systems and emergency preparedness; and, following a disaster, the reconstruction and the resilience increase of communities to future extreme events. Such activities stand in a comprehensive interconnected framework where each one can provide feedbacks to all other (Fig. 1). Despite the growing understanding and acceptance of the importance of disaster risk reduction and increased disaster response capacities, disasters and in particular the management and reduction of risk continue to pose a global challenge. Particularly the development and implementation of multi-hazard early warning system along

with the effective planning and risk management are strongly in line with the global targets of the Sendai Framework and the SDGs (Adaptation Gap Report UN 2018) for a development that contributes to an adaptation progress. In order to enhance the effectiveness of DRM in particular on preparedness processes and early warning and risk assessment phases, a strong involvement of local community is needed. Particularly, information sharing among all the actors involved in the DRM contributes to reduced risks in disaster risk governance and coordination.

Participation as a Dimension to Catalyze Decision-Making In 1987 the World Commission on Development and Environment – commonly known as Brundtland Commission – announced the strategy by which communities can apply to live and grow in a balanced relationship with their natural settlement was the sustainable development. Sustainability became a key word in modern policies, and since the Rio+20 conference, this concept became the basic one underlining the framework of SDGs presented in Addis Abeba in 2015. It can be argued that sustainability basically derives from a good interrelationship between the satisfaction of primary needs and the maintenance of the natural capital through actions that can balance its inflows and outflows.

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management, Fig. 1 Disaster risk management process (Stanganelli 2008)

C

210

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

This condition can be fostered if communities are empowered and acknowledged in the direction of a fair environmental conservation and an optimal use of resources. The relationship between communities and their natural settlement indeed is not just a linear cause-effect, but indeed it is made by a series of interdependence in a circular shape. Sustainability is thus not only related to environment, but it has human dimensions too, and social and economic states of the community persisting within a land are equally contributive elements to the relationship between humans and nature. Classical models of sustainability are used to split it into three dimensions (Alisa 2007): visually they can figure out sustainability as the intersections among economic, social, and environmental dimensions (Fig. 2). The classical models imply that some spaces in economic systems are independent from the social dimension, as well as some elements of the social structure could exist without a natural system which supplies natural resource. However, successful sustainable processes need also to include people’s involvement in environmental management at the local level. As citizens are acknowledged on the environmental

status and priorities, environmental management strategies can be applied in a more compliant way. Figure 3 depicts a model of sustainability proposed by Alisa et al. (2007) on which a fourth dimension of sustainability is added in a concentric vision to have a more exhaustive representation: the participative democracy. Standing to Alisa’s model, participative democracy will be contained by the social dimension and intersect the economic dimension since some decisions that deal with economy, for some productive and consume choice need the involvement of participative processes as well as some community strategies planning considered in public institution are not directly linked to the economic system but concern policy issues (Alisa 2007). Participation is a societal issue that is long debated in political sciences as a fundamental element of human communities. Even since the Greek philosopher Aristotle defined citizens as “all who share in the civic life of ruling and being ruled in turn, and considered as good citizens who brings the knowledge and the skills both to rule and to be ruled” (Mansbridge 1999). Participation indeed reminds a sense of belonging to a community and it’s linked with the concept of citizenship even if is something more beyond the pure affiliation. A full participation insists when an active involvement of citizen in decision-making is promoted, and this is effective only if the citizenship is accompanied by empowerment. Empowerment is intended to be formed three concepts: participation, transparency, and accountability (Gigler and Savita 2014). Participation is about people: political participation is both an ancient and recent phenomenon. It’s old because it exists since the formation of the first human communities. Hurt (Hart 1992) defined the concept of participation as “the process of appropriation of power, development of the individual and collective capacities on the part of individuals to buy more and more control over their destiny and improve their lives” Transparency instead can be defined as “any attempt (by the States or citizens) to make information or processes that previously were opaque in the public domain, accessible and

ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION

ECONOMIC DIMENSION

SOCIAL DIMENSION

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management, Fig. 2 Dimension of sustainable development (Alisa 2007)

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

211

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management, Fig. 3 Dimension of sustainable development with participative democracy dimension (Alisa 2007)

ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION

SOCIAL DIMENSION

ECONOMIC DIMENSION

usable by citizens groups, suppliers and policy makers” (Joshi 2013). Transparency indeed is connected to informative flows. The last constitutive concept of empowerment is accountability, which is defined by Schedler as the relationship between the power holder (account provider) and delegator (account demander) (Schedler 1999): basically it can be divided into responsiveness seen as the ability of the institutions to inform and explain their activities to the public, and implementation capacity of the bodies and civil society, intended for the first as the ability to apply strategies and sanctions and for the second as the capacity to react to power in this case is in violation of its mandate obligations (Schedler 1999). Among empowerment and participation relationships, information systems and ICT platforms are able to let information and data flow down from the government to the citizen. They enhance also the possibility of upward flows of information, from a citizen of government, which are

PARTECIPATIVE DEMOCRACY DIMENSION

essential to better set the decision-making process. Through ICT platforms, information can flow also horizontally, flattening hierarchical power relationships (Fig. 4). Information flows are strictly connected to decision-making by deputy authorities. This assertion is valid both for environmental policy making and early warning and disaster risk reduction strategies, where quick feedback can be provided by these information/decision flows. Key point of the process is how to close the “feedback loop” between citizens and deputy institutions. The very point was technology and information systems can act as the “credibility gap” between the supply side of government (government reforms) and the demand side of the citizens (Gigler and Savita 2014). One approach is to “put citizens in the circuit” (Fraternali et al. 2012). Regarding risk reduction, it can be argued that ICT systems act on “feedback loops” between “communities”, “decision-makers,” and

C

212

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management, Fig. 4 Informational flux between institution, citizens, and providers (Vito 2018)

“environment” catalyzing participation and empowerment on environmental perception.

Participatory Use of ICT Technologies: How to Create Informational Feedback Loops The involvement of the communities for signaling adverse event and mapping emergencies is a key element of modern disaster risk management (DRM). The Sendai Framework itself recognizes the community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) as an approach of DRM that “promotes the involvement of potentially affected communities in disaster risk management at the local level. This includes community assessments of hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities, and their involvement in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of local action for disaster risk reduction” (UNISDR 2015). Nowadays the widespread use of mobile devices to form sensor networks enables interaction and participation of public and private users to collect, analyze, and share local knowledge in a participatory sensing paradigm. Mobile devices in fact are increasingly capable of capturing, classifying, and transmitting image, acoustic, location, and other data, interactively or

autonomously. Given the right architecture, they could act as sensor nodes and location-aware data collection instruments. The participatory sensing is used to exchange data through the collaboration of the users of mobile devices, thus obtaining a direct mechanism with individuals (Burke et al. 2006). The application of participatory sensing realizes the implementation of the paradigm of “human computation” (HC) (Fraternali et al. 2012) that is the basis for a participatory use of ICT technologies. The participatory use of ICT creates the conditions for upward flows of information directly from the citizens. These flows are a direct connection with each single person and allows information to flow horizontally, flattening the hierarchies (Fig. 2). In this sense ICT systems act on “feedback loops” between “communities,” “decisionmakers,” and “environment” (Fraternali et al. 2012) catalyzing participation, empowerment, and the perception of risk (Fig. 5). Even if the use of ICT technologies presents several advantages, their full application has to consider the possible barriers to their use. Two of the main uses that affect ICT application are the access to ICT markets and Internet and informatic alphabetization.

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

213

C

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management, Fig. 5 Informational flux between institutions, citizens, and providers (Vito 2018)

The so-called digital divide, resulting from unequal provision for access to information, usually leads to a widening of inequality no. ICTs have become an essential component of modern life both in developing and least developed countries. Over the last years, the access to ICT technologies and the Internet within the least developing countries has been experiencing a progressive diffusion (Delponte et al. 2015). This is the very case of mobile phones which have been surprisingly fast and socially penetrated, giving the space to emerging ICT-based applications coming from the grass roots. In such context, ICTs have the potential to contribute to tackling a variety of community critical points, catalyzing the “loops” among decision-makers’ environment and citizens. Participatory ICTs to Valorize Indigenous Knowledge in DRM The international community strongly recognizes that the use of indigenous knowledge may be

integrated to scientific knowledge to reduce community vulnerability to environmental hazards (UN ISRD 2015). However, currently there isn’t a defined framework, to integrate indigenous knowledge in DRM: only few have proposed in literature (Mercer et al. 2010), mainly based on participatory approaches (Mercer et al. 2010). The participatory use of ICT can offer indeed a useful instrument to integrate indigenous knowledge into DRM. First of all, it can be argued that indigenous knowledge could be interesting in terms of information system (Minang and McCall 2006). Standing on Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2015), an information system can refer to a work system in which activities are devoted to processing the knowledge of a community, that is, capturing, transmitting, storing, retrieving, manipulating, and displaying information. This definition is comprehensive of all the elements and operations by how the knowledge heritage of a group of people interacting between each

214

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

other and within the common space-time context is organized and operationalized in order to be a resource for the community itself. Returning to local knowledge, it can be asserted that it is a system of spatial information that is developed by the close relationship between the local population, its land, and its natural resources. Members of the community have a pool of experiential data of different categories according to their age and social status. This pool of data is described as follows:

facilitators, or other actors engaged in development or land-related planning (Lienert 2009). With the advent of GIS technologies, participatory mapping is often declined in what is called as public participatory GIS. Public participatory GIS (PPGIS), defined during two meetings of the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) (Minang and McCall 2006), is aimed to use GIS technologies to expand public involvement in the policy to promote the objectives of local communities and grassroots organizations (Sieber 2006). In a GIS, geographic information is described explicitly in terms of geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude or some national grid coordinates) or implicitly in terms of a street address, postal code, or forest stand identifier. A geographic information system contains the ability to translate implicit geographic data into an explicit map location, as geospatial and time series data. Geographical data and community maps may support the participatory approach during the data integration process realizing the participatory approach. The participatory approach becomes effective only on certain conditions. Basically, maps represent an intermediary output of the long-term process and need to be integrated into the networking and communication initiatives. The maps produced and the spatial analyses represent important steps in the process. A good PPGIS practice is embedded into longlasting spatial decision-making processes, is flexible, and adapts to different sociocultural and biophysical environments. The participatory PPGIS is frequently used as a tool to share the knowledge of the community and promote learning to the development of adaptation strategies to climate change (Minang and McCall 2006). Nowadays with the advent of social media and distributed technologies and with the spread of smartphones and mobile devices, the concept of participatory GIS is virtually extended to the global level giving rise to such phenomena as crowdmapping.

• It is an original knowledge of the local community. • The system is a “pseudo” in the sense that consists in the classification of facilities and employs certain methodologies, e.g., oral transmission. • It is a holistic system in that it uses for decision different areas of knowledge. So, we can deduce that the local knowledge inclusion is vital as an important source of information for adaptation strategies against natural hazards. However as informative system, local knowledge has obviously some drawbacks as it has no facility prediction, it has some gaps in transmission, and finally it has little quantitation. The organization and systematization of local knowledge with information technologies – such as GIS and remote sensing – may be a solution for spatial data on a spatial and temporal scale. Here, we consider the participatory mapping as a combination of local knowledge and information technologies. Participatory Mapping Participatory mapping is a well-known practice that can contribute to building community cohesion and help to engage participants to be involved in resource and land-related decisionmaking (Mwandundu 2009). In its broadest sense, participatory mapping means the creation of maps by local communities – often with the involvement of supporting organizations including governments, NGOs,

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

215

Crowdmapping can be considered cases of public participatory GIS that’s able to collect information directly from citizens. By definition crowdmapping is the aggregation of crowd-generated inputs such as text messages and social media feeds with geographic information to provide real-time, interactive information on events such as wars, humanitarian crises, crime, elections, or natural disasters. The output maps are usually referred as “crisis maps,” and if properly implemented, they can bring a level of transparency to fast-moving events that are difficult for traditional techniques to adequately cover in real-time or to longer-term patterns that may be difficult to identify through the reporting of individual events (Quaintance 2011) . A historical and much claimed example of crowdmapping is Ushahidi. Ushaidi was initially deployed during the 2007/2008 Kenyan post-election in order to assist mapping data and report connected to episodes of abuse and violence during the political crisis. The first version of the platform was developed by a team of bloggers and developers led by Ory Okolloh with the mission of empowering citizen journalism to cover the lack of professional journalists. Even if several crowdmapping platforms have been developed by citizens, the use of crowdmapping by authorities can help to increase situational awareness during hazardous event, and they can be used to support a response: this is the case of Haiti where the UN agencies decided to be supported by another example of PPGIS based on crowdmapping that is OpenStreetMap.

Since then to 2018, it has grown to over two million registered users, who can collect data using manual survey, GPS devices, aerial photography, and other free sources. OSM is considered nowadays an example of volunteered geographic information and represents a good example of participatory GIS. Rather than the map itself, the crowdsourced georeferred data generated by the OpenStreetMap project are considered its primary output. This data has been favorably compared with proprietary data sources, though data quality varies worldwide. OpenStreetMap aims to reduce socioeconomic vulnerabilities to disaster as well as dealing with the environmental and other hazards that trigger them. OpenStreetMap relies on participatory mapping conducted by local communities and private and public actors who work together to collect and share detailed information about a given area. Data collection through OpenStreetMap tools encourages a community-based DRM. The maps of OSM are open worldwide and even used during natural hazards. Particularly, The Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT) applies the principles of open source and open data sharing to humanitarian response. When major disaster strikes anywhere in the world, HOT rallies a huge network of volunteers to create, online, the maps that enable responders to reach those in need. A successful example of the HOT application has been offered during the Haiti earthquake in January 2010. Following the onset of the Haiti crisis, the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT) activated and focused the community on acting for Haiti (Fig. 6). Just a few hours after the 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit Haiti in January 2010, the OpenStreetMap community began tracing within OSM Haiti Wiki Process. This initial tracing enhanced the base data that was already present. The initial data was from responses to 2008 cyclones Ike Hanna and Gustav that was imported in OSM in Jan 2009. This data served as a starting place for the mapping that would take place after the earthquake.

OpenStreetMap OpenStreetMap (OSM) is a collaborative project to create a free editable map of the world. Created by Steve Coast in the UK in 2004, it was inspired by the success of Wikipedia and the preponderance of proprietary map data in the UK and elsewhere (Haklay and Weber 2008) (Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation https:// www.wikipedia.org/).

C

216

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management, Fig. 6 Port au Prince HOT Mapping after Haiti earthquake

Within 48 h high-resolution imagery taken post-earthquake became available. In the time since March 2010 that HOT has been working in Haiti, there have been six field missions and 3 months of continuous support (HOT 2017). Additionally hundreds have been trained in OSM through workshops and data collection programs. As a result of these actions, OpenStreetMap has been put in the forefront in Haiti disaster risk management. The OpenStreetMap data in fact had been improved since becoming an integral tool for the UN disaster risk response and part of the Haitian government Civil Protection System (Zook et al. 2010).

Conclusions The use of ICT and new media in the recent years has raised great attention in the international community of scientist that deals with disaster risk reduction. A great debate opened on public participation and civic engagement through new technologies. Furthermore, the development of social media and the switch from web 1.0 to web 2.0 brought new possibilities in the field of risk prevention and strategic planning toward a Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction.

The proliferation of initiatives related on ICTs has led to high expectations of technology as “empowering” for sustainable and effective management of hazardous events. However, the discourse on participation and furthermore on ICT applied to obtain participative information gathering doesn’t lack controversies, criticisms, and doubts. Even if ICTs have the potential to empower, how does this happen in practice? And how accurate is it to say that a participatory initiative will lead to a better decision-making even in critical situations such as hazardous events? Firstly, it’s very important that even if with the mediation of information systems, community and participative risk management become effective if the information shared in the involvement process are traduced in concrete actions. Another challenge to participation is that, even if a community does want to participate in a development project, they may simply lack the skills, resources, or time (Brett 2003). This observation helps to focus on the importance of bidirectional communication that could become essential for an ICT-based informative system. The bidirectional communication enables the exchange of knowledge: it can be pursued between expert and grassroots stakeholder or between experts and decision-makers. The exchange of knowledge creates a common basis of information and values that is crucial for

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

217

the success of a participatory action and collective response. This is basically the way on how the “accountability gap” between institutional bodies and citizen is bridged. But also, in this mechanism, attention should be paid in order to not fall in a chaotic use of participatory mechanisms. In fact, as barriers to participation fall down, due to a greater access to ICTs, a noticeable difference between “managed” participation for a particular development project and more free and unstructured citizen participation rises up. The ICT-mediated participation is in such a way perceived as ontological “free” and “self-organizing,” and there is the risk to have unwanted information that’s unuseful for the decision-making process. Compared to the “off-line” participation, where a lot of efforts are spent in the preliminary preparation of groups as in the facilitation work, this appears paradoxical. Probably the future of ICT participatory project stands in the definition of mechanism of mediation of the inputs in order to provide non-dispersive and chaotic outputs. However, the case of the Haiti earthquake shown above shows how the involvement of local community in disaster risk management is a key element to have an effective and early response to a natural hazard. If we consider the disaster response within a specific time, it can be argued that the circularity ICTs act on “feedback loops” between the main actors involved in the process that are communities, decision-makers, and environment: information systems to catalyze bidirectional communications.

Bidirectional communication contributes to strength two mechanisms related to a community within its environment that are the informationdecision mechanism and the action-reaction mechanism. Thus, if we consider any action of the community on the environment in response to a hazardous event, it’s possible to argue that the use of ICT technologies enhances sustainable actions as they help to find the best fitted solution to a specific vulnerability problem considering the boundary conditions related to environment and community needs (Fig. 7). Through ICTs the boundary conditions are better known due to the strengthening of the information-decision mechanism. Going to a deeper analysis regarding the action-reaction mechanism described above, considerations about resilience could be also advanced. The reinforcement of the action-reaction mechanism and the catalyzation of the feedback loops between environment-communities-decisionmakers could reflect on faster and better responses of communities to environmental changes. In other words, this means an improvement in resilience. Moreover, the participatory use of ICT technologies as in the case of crowdmapping allows formalized indigenous knowledge in response to the hazard that happened during the Haiti earthquake. In particular, thanks to OSM, a Community Information System (CIS) has been created to face the hazard (Fraternali et al. 2012). A CIS represents an infrastructure that is able to spread fast response and equally fast propagations over all the places where it insists.

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management, Fig. 7 Feedback loops and boundary conditions for a vulnerability problem

Sustainability

the information-decision mechanism ¶u =g ¶n r2 W

u r = u0 1

Decision Making on “Boundary Conditions”

C

218

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management

Crowdmapping inputs

Association

Observations y1, y2 ...yn

d1

d3

d2

track 1 track 2 track n

d4

d5

false alarms

Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management, Fig. 8 Association problem for crowdmapping data (Castanedo 2013)

These two features are essential to assess preparedness and early warning in the DRM work chain (Fig. 1). So under the proper conditions, it should be said that the use of ICT helps to foster also the resilience of communities in response to a hazardous event. However, if the undoubted advantages, ICT should not be considered as comprehensive solution for the disaster risk response. Conversely their use has to be evaluated and properly addressed considering the best appropriate approach for the context and considering the limits of the technology. As instance the use of crowdsourcing, crowdmapping and participatory sensing approaches produces a great amount of data that had to be properly managed. The natural doubts that should be addressed, in order to consider the problems of data management stands in how are data stored and integrated even if they come from in and which is the final information to be obtained for the final user. The side effect of this approach lies in the fact that the distributed gathering of information underlying the crowdmapping paradigm introduces problems related to spurious data, data redundancy, and spatial and temporal alignment (Castanedo 2013). A possible solution to fix the problem of data management should lay in association algorithms (Fig. 8) where association is defined as “the process of weight assignment weights to the comments and concerns traces (ordered set of points that follow a path and generated from the same destination) from a set of observations to another” (Castanedo 2013).

This type of algorithms could be based on consensus algorithms, game theory or could belong to the class of Time-Varying Stochastic Optimization Algorithms for a Networked problem (Kester 2014). This type of algorithms could be applied for crowdmapping and participatory sensing allowing, for example, to integrate the various sources related to an alert in order to locate more accurately the event and decrease the uncertainty given by the multiplicity of input. However, the real implementation of the specific solutions requires a detailed analysis of the impact on the environment in the logic of considering the most appropriate technology and compliant the specific context.

References AA.VV (2017) Humanitarian open street marketing. https://www.hotosm.org/projects. Accessed 14 May 2018 Aitsi-Selmi A, Egawa S, Sasaki H, Wannous C, Murray V (2015) The Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction: renewing the global commitment to people’s resilience, health, and well-being. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 6(2):164–176 Alisa GD (2007) Dimensions of sustainable development: a proposal of systematization of sustainable approaches. Department of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics, University of Foggia, Foggia, Quaderno n. 9/2007 Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2015) What is an information system? In: IEEE 48th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Jan 2015, pp 4959–4968 Brett EA (2003) Participation and accountability in development management. J Dev Stud 40(2):1–29 Burke JA, Estrin D, Hansen M, Parker A, Ramanathan N, Reddy S, Srivastava MB (2006) Participatory sensing.

Comprehensive Center for Embedded Network Sensing. In: Workshop on World-Sensor-Web (WSW’06): Mobile Device Centric Sensor Networks and Applications. pp 117–134 Castanedo F (2013) A review of data fusion techniques. Sci World J 2013:1–19 Delponte L, Grigolini M, Moroni A,Silvia VS, Massimiliano CM, Giguashvili M (2015) ICT in the developing world. European Parliament Research Service Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) http://www. europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/563482/ EPRS_STU(2015)563482(ANN)_EN.pdf Fraternali P, Castelletti A, Soncini-Sessa R, Vaca Ruiz C, Rizzoli AE (2012) Putting humans in the loop: social computing for water resources management. Environ Model Softw 37:68–77 Gigler BS, Savita B (2014) Closing the feedback loop: Can technology bridge the accountability gap? Directions in development, World Bank, Washington, DC: 1–50 Haklay M, Weber P (2008) Openstreetmap: user-generated street maps. IEEE Pervasive Comput 7(4):12–18 Hart, Roger A (1992) Children’s Participation: From tokenism to citizenship, Innocenti Essay no. 4, International Child Development Centre, Florence HOT (2017) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page Joshi A (2013) Do they work? Assessing the impact of transparency and accountability initiatives in service delivery. Dev Policy Rev 31:s29–s48 Kester ASL, Leus G (2014) Distributed time-varying stochastic optimization and utility-based communication, Arxiv 2014 Lienert J (2009) Participatory mapping for decision making. http://www.sswm.info/content/participatorymapping-decision-making. Accessed 28 Aug 2019 Mansbridge J (1999) On the idea that participation makes better citizens. In: Elkin S, Soltan S (eds) Citizen competence and democratic institutions. The University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia pp 291–325 Mercer J, Kelman I, Taranis L, Suchet-Pearson S (2010) Framework for integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge for disaster risk reduction. Disasters 34(1):214–239 Minang A, McCall MK(2006) Participatory GIS and local knowledge enhancement for community carbon forestry. Particip Learn Actions: 85–92. https://pubs.iied. org/pdfs/G02954.pdf Munang R, Thiaw I, Alverson K, Liu J, Han Z (2013) The role of ecosystem services in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(1):47–52 Mwandundu S (2009) Good practices in participatory mapping, The international Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). https://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/ d1383979-4976-4c8e-ba5d-53419e37cbcc. Accessed 28 Aug 2019 Quaintance K (2011) Concepts to know: crowdmapping. https://kimoquaintance.com/2011/09/04/concepts-toknow-crowdmapping/. Accessed 28 Aug 2019 Rothich et al (2008) Ushaidi. https://www.ushahidi.com/. Accessed 28 Aug 2019

219 Schedler A (1999) Conceptualizing Accountability. In: Schedler A, Diamond L, Plattner M (eds) The selfrestraining state: power and accountability in new democracies. Stanford University, Stanford, pp 13–28, Google Scholar Sieber R (2006) Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. AAG Ann, 491–507 Simonetto A, Kester L, Leus G (2014) Distributed timevarying stochastic optimization and utility-based communication. ArXiv preprint arXiv: 1408–5294 Soden R, Palen L (2014) From crowdsourced mapping to community mapping: the post-earthquake work of OpenStreetMap Haiti. In: COOP 2014 the 11th international conference on the design of cooperative systems, Nice, May 2014. Springer International Publishing, pp 311–326 Stanganelli M (2008) A new pattern of risk management: the Hyogo framework for action and Italian practice. Socio Econ Plan Sci 42(2):92–111 UN Environment DTU Partnership (2018) Adaptation gap report. https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/ adaptation-gap-report. Accessed 28 Aug 2019 UNISDR (2002) Disaster risk and sustainable development: understanding the links between development, environment and natural hazards leading to disasters, World Summit on Sustainable Development, August September: 1–50 UNISDR (2015) Making development sustainable: The future of disaster risk management. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (2015) Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. http://www. wcdrr.org/uploads/Sendai_Framework_for_Disaster_ Risk_Reduction_2015-2030.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2019 Vito (2015) http://atti.asita.it/ASITA2015/Pdf/094.pdf Vito D (2018) Enhancing participation through ICTs: How modern information technologies can improve participatory approaches fostering sustainable development. In: Petrillo A, Bellaviti P (eds) Sustainable urban development and globalization. Research for Development. Springer, Cham Zook M, Graham M, Shelton T, Gorman S (2010) Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: a case study of the Haitian earthquake. World Med Health Policy 2(2):7–33

Comprehensive ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

C

220

Cooperation ▶ Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations as Enablers of Children’s WellBeing

Cooperative Economy ▶ Social and Solidarity Economy or How Notfor-Profit Organizations Participate to SDGs’ Implementation?

Cooperative Governance ▶ Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions Duane Windsor Jones Graduate School of Business, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

Definition Corporate responsibility – law interactions are the set of relationships between conceptions of corporate responsibility and relatively formal institutions of hard law and soft law affecting the role of business in achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other broader expectations for environmental, social, and stakeholder responsibilities.

Introduction The SDGs of September 2015 – the “2030 Agenda” target date – apply to developed and

Cooperation

developing countries. The 2030 Agenda addresses 17 key issues in economic, environmental, and social development. The ultimate target is increased human welfare – especially in developing countries. Some issues bear directly on corporate responsibility (listed in an alphabetical order): climate change, innovation and infrastructure, partnerships, responsible consumption and production, and work and economic growth. All businesses have an explicit role in each of these issues. Other goals are less directly linked to businesses (clean water and sanitation, education, gender equality, health, hunger, inequality, poverty, social justice – including human rights and peace, terrestrial ecosystems, and urbanization) or involve specific industries (energy and marine resources) rather than all businesses. The SDG formulation is silent on the basic consideration of whether the content of corporate responsibility should be voluntary for businesses or mandated by national laws. The 2000 UN Global Compact (UNGC) is a voluntary association of interested parties, including businesses, which commit to ten principles concerning protection and promotion of human rights, labor rights, environment, and anti-corruption. The UN Global Compact (2018) online interprets its relationship to the Agenda 2030 as follows. First, all businesses – regardless of size or industry – have a role to play in contributing to SDGs. Second, the UNGC position is that businesses should operate responsibly (defined by the ten principles) and then apply “innovation and collaboration” to solution of “societal challenges” as opportunities are available. Third, there are many opportunities for such “innovation and collaboration.” Fourth, business “integrity and values” are important. Fifth, the UNGC statement takes a specific stance on relationships between “good practices or innovation” and “harm”: positive contribution in one dimension “cannot make up” for negative impact (“harm”) in another dimension. To amplify, positives and negatives cannot be added together to a net positive contribution: positives and negatives are independent. The implication is that businesses should strive to minimize “harms” and increase “good practices

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions

or innovation” in order to generate a net positive contribution. This entry examines interactions between “corporate responsibility” and “law.” The entry gets at a set of likely possibilities through a combined conceptual discussion (examining the logic of interaction possibilities) and descriptive discussion (illustrations of specific interaction approaches in different countries selected as exemplars). Neither conceptual nor descriptive discussions are exhaustive, because both “corporate responsibility” and relevant domestic and international “law” continue to evolve over time with key variations across countries. A fundamental consideration in examining responsibility – law interactions – is the relationship between voluntary and mandatory dimensions of responsibility. Fully voluntary responsibility and fully mandatory responsibility are polar opposites, with a possible continuum of varying combinations lying in between. The term “corporate responsibility” historically suggests strictly voluntary choice of businesses, while the term “law” historically suggests strictly mandatory compliance. McBarnet (2009, p. 1) comments that corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies never have been absolutely voluntary: typically policies have been in “response to market pressures and reputational risk.” The main shift over time has been increasing mandatory requirements in several forms: government regulation, government pressure, and private litigation. McBarnet suggests a two-way relationship of CSR and law: market pressures increase business responsibility for compliance with increasing legal requirements, increasing compliance with spirit as well as letter of law. Thus responsibility and law may increase together over time. This conception of the relationship between voluntary and mandatory dimensions concerns “responsibility” – as distinct from and superadded to any “corporate governance” requirements. Responsibility is additional to governmental licensing and governance standards. The rest of this entry is organized as follows. The second section explains conceptions of corporate responsibility (CR), corporate social responsibility (CSR), and corporate social

221

irresponsibility (CSiR). It addresses the relationship of these conceptions to the idea of corporate citizenship. Different specific conceptions are characterized as perspectives on responsibility. The third section is descriptive and examines illustrations of specific interaction approaches in several countries. Different specific interactions of responsibility and law are characterized as approaches (for distinction from conceptual perspectives). The fourth and final section discusses some implications for governments, businesses, stakeholders, and the SDGs and cross-sector SDG partnerships.

Conceptions of Corporate Responsibility Responsibility has a normative implication: someone is responsible for something. The term “corporate responsibility” is arguably “contestable” and “contested” with respect to meaning and content (Okoye 2009). The entry uses “responsibility” as a rubric under which various perspectives and approaches can be formulated. Distinction between corporate responsibility (CR) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) turns on omission of the word “social” from CR. The difference may depend on the intention of the individual adopting the specific term. For some, CR may be synonymous with CSR but possibly less controversial in public discussion through tactical omission of “social”: the two terms are then content equivalent. For some others, CR may be intended to be a substitute for and competitor to CSR. CR can mean shareowner wealth maximization: corporate managers are responsible primarily to shareowners and not to society or other corporate stakeholders. CR then effectively abandons CSR. These two interpretations are not compatible. There is an important distinction between CSR and corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR). Narrowly, CSR might mean no more than voluntary altruism or social good initiatives by businesses. Broadly, CSR may mean in addition willing compliance with laws and ethical norms and also avoidance of irresponsible actions such as generation of negative externalities. A negative

C

222

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions

externality or social cost is an economic cost imposed on an external party by a business and not internalized into the business’s cost structure. CSiR emphasizes that getting businesses to avoid or compensate for irresponsible actions – through compliance and internalization of social costs – is considerably more valuable to society than encouraging voluntary altruism (Walker et al. 2018). Referring back to the UNGC discussion of SDGs for business, CSR positive outcomes and CSiR negative outcomes cannot be added together to yield a net positive contribution (the “corporate social performance” or “corporate social impact”) for a specific business. Rather, CSiR is to be minimized, and CSR is to be increased. The conceptual or theoretical foundation for CSR remains disputed. There are six relevant perspectives on CSR: economic, ethical, legal, political, stakeholder, and strategic. In this entry, economic (or market) and legal perspectives are positioned as opposed approaches. Ethical, political, stakeholder, and strategic conceptions are perspectives positioned between economic and legal perspectives. These intermediate perspectives may be partly overlapping. Figure 1 depicts a proposed positioning of perspectives. The dashed horizontal line is a continuum with the economic and legal perspectives as polar opposites. The distinction is between a relatively free market economy and a hard law regulatory state. The vertical solid arrows suggest the opposition of economic and legal perspectives: as legal obligations increase, market freedom of action decreases (and vice versa). The ethical perspective calls for economic actors to view responsibility normatively, as a duty. The strategic perspective calls for economic actors to view responsibility instrumentally, as an opportunity to advance self-interest. The political perspective is an explanation of how the legal framework changes through political processes. Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions, Fig. 1 Positioning of six perspectives on CSR

The stakeholder perspective is a description of who participates in those political processes. Figure 1 groups the four intermediate perspectives in two different ways: vertically and horizontally. Vertically, ethical and strategic perspectives are closer to the economic perspective, in emphasizing internal self-regulation. Political and stakeholder perspectives are closer to the legal perspective, in emphasizing external influences. Horizontally, ethical and political perspectives are noneconomic in orientation. Strategic and stakeholder perspectives can be interpreted from an economic perspective, the self-interest of the business. Risk for a business is that failure of stakeholder engagement will lead to stakeholders turning to political processes for redress of grievances. Reward for a business is that effective stakeholder engagement will lead to stakeholder support. Economic Perspective The economic perspective narrows CR to shareowner wealth maximization: there is no social dimension beyond economic wealth generation on a principle of fiduciary duty. This perspective defines CSR as altruism: voluntary action to contribute to some social good beyond legal obligation. Adopting that definition, McWilliams and Siegel (2001) argue a business should not engage in such voluntary action unless profitable (in which case the action is a business decision and not a CSR decision) or alternatively some stakeholder is prepared to pay for the action such that business profit is constant. The economic perspective is compatible with compliance with minimalist (and pro-market) laws and basic ethical norms: Friedman (1970) characterizes this compliance descriptively in terms of “rules of the game.” He does posit basic ethical norms such as honesty and absence of deception or fraud. However, he argues that businesses can lobby governments for changes in laws. It may Ethical

Political

Economic (Market)

Legal (Regulatory) Strategic

Stakeholder

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions

be to business self-interest to reduce laws toward zero or to shape laws in such a way as to harm competitors. Voluntary self-regulation substitutes for government regulation. CSR may be a discretionary choice made by managers for strategic reasons (Liang and Renneboog 2018) – including reputation, sustainability, and shareowner value creation (Choller and Sandwidi 2018); there is no necessary conflict between CSR and financial performance (Bliss 2015). CSR then may transmit through international trade (Newman et al. 2018). Market forces may result in global convergence concerning corporate governance and sustainability (Salvioni et al. 2018). The United States and United Kingdom may serve as important influences in this regard (Knudsen 2018). The home country of multinational enterprises (MNEs) may influence, for instance, global labor standards through requirements for transparency and then due diligence (Rühmkorf 2018). Legal Perspective Social contract theory, created on an analogy to voluntary legal contract, rests on a rational comparison of the benefits and costs to individuals of social cooperation (Ibanga 2018). There are four different approaches to “law.” Domestic law, within a national jurisdiction, may be criminal law, civil law, or public policy (Wilson 1989). Criminal law prohibits and punishes misconduct (typically through threat of imprisonment and fine). Civil law determines whether certain acts (such as tort or contract violation) should be penalized financially. Public policy signals desired conduct (Wilson 1989). International law means treaties and similar cross-national accords or established norms for behavior when operating across national jurisdictions (Bantekas 2004). There is a distinction between “hard law” (as in a national criminal statute) and “soft law” (as in an international or industry code of conduct). Businesses will prefer self-regulation to soft law to hard law. A vital question is when CSR expectations should move from self-regulation to some form of law (Chhabra 2014). Globalization may tend to drive CSR and corporate governance toward increased government regulation (BergerWalliser and Scott 2018).

223

From a legal perspective, CSR may function as what has been termed “informal” law (Buhmann 2006). The relationship is that underlying normative principles of law are part of the same general set of social values that inform CSR conceptions (Buhmann 2006). Increasing demands on businesses for CSR activities might be viewed as “pre-formal” law (Buhmann 2006). CSR can occur in both “implicit” and “explicit” modes within each country (Matten and Moon 2008). “Explicit” has the meaning of formal institutions, including hard law and soft law. “Implicit” has the meaning of more informal understandings and expectations shaping business behavior. Ethical and Political Perspectives Figure 1 groups ethical and political perspectives horizontally on the following argument. CSR in origin was a normative argument that businesses had moral duties to obey laws and basic ethical norms, avoid generating or internalize negative externalities, and contribute to social good more broadly than simply generating goods and services, jobs, employee compensation, and profits. Political CSR extended this ethical argument to include duties to provide public goods in conditions of governmental incapacity (especially in developing countries) and to promote democracy both in society and within each business (Scherer 2018). Corporate citizenship is a conception of responsibility that can be interpreted in two basically opposed ways. One interpretation is legalistic: a business should comply with law but not exceed legal obligations. And constitutionally, businesses are free to lobby for reductions in those legal obligations. The other interpretation is closer to the political CSR perspective. Adam Smith (1759, 6th edn, VI.ii. 2) distinguished between “citizenship” and “good citizenship” as follows: a citizen obeys the laws and public policies; a good citizen is concerned with the welfare of fellow citizens in a broader way. Strategic and Stakeholder Perspectives Figure 1 groups strategic and stakeholder perspectives horizontally on the following argument. The strategic perspective constrains CSR, not to the

C

224

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions

strictly profitable requirement of McWilliams and Siegel (2001) but to the longer-term strategic selfinterest of the business. Reputation protection, risk reduction, and political connections may be strategic rationales for CSR initiatives. The stakeholder perspective broadens managerial responsibility from fiduciary duty to enhancing multiple-stakeholder support for the business and possibly through greater redistribution of profits away from shareowners (Coff 1999).

Country Illustrations of Responsibility: Law Interactions Figure 2 provides a logical structure for understanding varieties of responsibility – law interactions illustrated here by country. The horizontal (top) stub is a continuum that moves from voluntary CSR in a relatively nonregulated market economy through soft law approaches to hard law approaches. The vertical (left-side) stub differentiates between shareowner value orientation and stakeholder orientation (Ronnegard and Smith 2018). The figure generates a three-bytwo matrix of possibilities. Yan (2018) suggests looking at shareowner wealth versus CSR through lens of hard law and soft law. Key examples of different approaches to CR – law interactions are: the United States (US), China (PRC), India, and the Nordic countries. The United States and China are polar opposites. The United States is associated with the market perspective; the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is associated with hard law enacted by an authoritarian communist regime. India and the Nordics are different approaches to encouraging CSR through public policy, these approaches lying between the US market perspective and the PRC

Shareowner Value Stakeholder Orientation

Voluntary CSR United States (US)

hard law perspective. There is also a spreading legal requirement for CSR reporting, for which France is a good example. One can position various soft law approaches in between the United States and China. A code of conduct can be an internal business standard or an industry or international statement of guidance for businesses (Gribnau et al. 2018). Activists can mobilize pressure on businesses to influence their decisions (Graafland 2018). Activists engage in what can be labeled “private politics” aimed at businesses and “public politics” aimed at governments (Baron 2001). European countries, when members of the European Union (EU), should be placed within the context of the EU’s approach to encouraging CSR, stakeholder engagement, and sustainability (Kudlak et al. 2018; Mullerat 2013). The EU approach is one of encouraging CSR through public policy guidance (Steurer 2010), which can be viewed as a species of soft law. The US Market-Oriented Approach The US approach emphasizes corporate governance laws enacted by the various states, especially Delaware. Corporate governance is about protection of shareowner rights. Stock exchanges issue listing requirements emphasizing corporate governance standards. There are two CSR-oriented variations: corporate constituency statutes in something more than half of the states and benefit corporation statutes in somewhat more of the states. A constituency statute permits a board of directors to consider the interests of nonshareowner stakeholders. A benefit (or B) corporation is a for-profit entity permitted to do social good (positive social impact). Market pressures and reputational risk may serve to drive businesses toward at least an

Soft Law Guidance

Hard Law Requirements China (PRC)

Nordic Countries and European Union

France India

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions, Fig. 2 Country illustrations of CR – law interactions

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions

appearance of embracing CSR and certainly avoiding CSiR. Dyck et al. (2019) report that, across businesses in 41 countries, institutional ownership positively associates with environmental and social performance. The study reports tests that this association is causal, working from institutional ownership to performance; and that the relationship works from countries with strong preferences for environmental and social performance. The study concludes that institutional invests from such countries spread their preferences globally. In Japan, there was a prolonged period of economic stagnation featuring low profitability and de-emphasis on shareowner interests. In 2014, an index JAX400 began to report annually Japan’s 400 most profitable large businesses (Chattopadhyay et al. 2018). The cited study reports that inclusion in this index resulted in businesses increasing return on equity (ROE) significantly, but without corresponding capital market or product market benefits. Inclusion appeared to assist growth in aggregate earnings over a sample period. The PRC Hard Law Approach Assigning China (PRC) to shareowner value orientation reflects that the communist party is the ultimate controller of businesses in that country. Party policy determines the distribution of outcomes among stakeholders in any particular business. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is a communist regime: the government is fully controlled by the monopoly Communist Party of China (CPC). The PRC is an authoritarian, not a constitutional, polity. In principle, the PRC legislative process – subject to approval of the CPC which effectively selects the legislature – can simply change any “law” or “regulation” at will. There is no constitutional or judicial check to this absolute legislative power. PRC policy – on CSR, corporate governance, stakeholder engagement, and sustainability – can evolve rapidly (Pan et al. 2018; Tang et al. 2018). There is “hard law” defined and enforced at the discretion of the CPC. However, the regime can also elect to signal its wishes – including to

225

businesses. Marquis and Qian (2014) provide a political dependence model that integrates institutional theory and corporate political strategy research. Businesses dependent on the PRC government in various ways will issue CSR reports. Whether these reports are substantive, or purely symbolic, depends on the risk of governmental monitoring. Government dependence can reflect state ownership, whether business executives are members of political councils, whether the business has a political legacy, and the nature of the business’s financial resources. Symbolism means that CSR reports are decoupled from substantive CSR activities. The study’s authors test this political dependence model on CSR reports issued by some 1, 600 publicly listed Chinese businesses during the period 2006–2009. They conclude that government signaling is an important political influence mechanism, that varying kinds of governmental dependency involve different kinds of pressures on businesses, and that higher risk of governmental monitoring increases likelihood of substantive CSR actions. The PRC can influence businesses in desired directions without enacting hard law directly. The Nordic CSR Public Policy Approach Public policy is a way of encouraging desirable behavior such as CSR, as distinct from criminal and civil law enforcement (Almatrooshi et al. 2018). The essence of the Nordic approach is an equating of CSR with sustainable business practices in various dimensions of strategy and operations. The Nordic countries in effect use public policies to encourage sustainability. In doing so, the Nordic countries may be moving from a more “implicit” toward a more “explicit” institutionalization of CSR (Strand et al. 2015). The term Nordic typically signifies a set of historically interacting countries: Denmark (which includes Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland (which includes the Åland Islands), Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. The Nordic countries are strongly democratic and rank very low on measures of governmental corruption; they are typically regarded as “advanced welfare states” (Midttun et al. 2015). These countries (and associated autonomous territories) participate in the

C

226

inter-parliamentary cooperation Nordic Council (founded 1952) and the Nordic Council of Ministers (founded 1971). Scandinavia has a narrower meaning: politically Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (which are constitutional monarchies, while Finland and Iceland are republics) and sometimes geologically Norway, Sweden, and northern Finland. Swedish is spoken in some parts of Finland, including the Åland Islands. In addition to Scandinavians (Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes) and Finns, the Nordics include small populations of Inuit (Greenland) and Sami (across the north of geological Scandinavia). A point of variation across the Nordics is whether to leave and if so how much of important public welfare issues to private business discretion. This point of variation is something of a retreat from the historical approach in which negotiated agreements and strong regulations were used for control of business behavior (Midttun et al. 2015). A survey of Nordic companies with strongest CSR performance suggests that there remains considerable skepticism concerning reliance on voluntary CSR in preference to the traditionally strong government role (Gjølberg 2011). Gjølberg finds that business self-interest and increased international regulation can occur together. The Indian Companies Act 2013 Approach A developed country is one with a relatively high-income economy and supporting institutions – whether on a liberal market economy or coordinated market economy model. Most, but not all, countries with membership in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) fall into this developed country category. All other countries – including China and Russia – are still developing, meaning a relatively lowerincome economy and defects in various forms in supporting institutions. Developing countries are dependent on agriculture or natural resources (such as oil and gas or mining of minerals) or are still industrializing relative to the developed countries. Africa, Central and South America, and much of Asia are in the developing country category. A central attribute of developing countries is the desirability of attracting foreign direct

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions

investment (FDI) capital and bargaining with MNEs over conditions for FDI, in-country operation, and repatriation of earnings to MNE home countries. Within the developing country category, there is a set of countries often characterized as emerging: such countries have relatively higher rates of economic development and growth and are economically closer to the developed countries than to the low- and middle-income countries of the developing areas. China and India are typically classified as emerging. A vital problem in much of the developing world and also in the transitional countries of Eastern Europe (defined as previously under communist rule and domination of the USSR) is governmental and commercial corruption. While there is corruption in developed countries (being more prominent in some than in others), corruption in developing and transitional countries is considerably more pervasive and economically and politically destructive. The UNGC tenth principle encourages anti-corruption efforts by businesses. In 2017, Tanzania initiated new tax, royalty, and fee policies for foreign mining companies to boost governmental revenues and greater national control of mining resources. In July 2017, Acacia – listed in London – reported receiving a Tanzania claim for $190 billion ($40 billion in back taxes and $150 billion in penalties and interest) based on government assertion that Acacia had underpaid taxes on two gold mines over 17 years. Acacia stated it had paid its full taxes and rejected the government claim (Kottasová 2017). Acacia’s majority shareowner Barrick Gold conducted negotiations on its behalf with Tanzania to resolve the tax issue; those negotiations were still underway in June 2018. The Tanzania case illustrates government use of hard law including tax code in a developing country. In 2013, India promulgated a CSR law – the Indian Companies Act – that requires businesses above certain financial thresholds (for profitability, net worth, and size) to spend at least 2% of net income on CSR actions from 2015 forward (Manchiraju and Rajgopal 2017; Marques and Srinivasan 2018). This law is a movement beyond purely voluntary CSR (Gatti et al. 2018). An event study found the law resulted in a 4.1% drop in

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions

stock price of affected firms, except that businesses spending more on advertising were not so affected. Authors of the study (Manchiraju and Rajgopal 2017) argued voluntary CSR choices permit a business to maximize shareowner value, while mandatory CSR spending will be financially negative in comparison. Another study of Bombay Stock Exchange firms (BSE500) found that firms within business groups are more likely to spend only the required 2%, while firms with higher ownership by an Indian founder or greater involvement with CSR activities or with higher spending on research and development are more likely to spend more than the required 2% (Marques and Srinivasan 2018). Technically, companies that do not spend in accord with the legal requirement are obligated to report why not; there is no effective sanction within the law presently (Gautam 2018; Varottil 2018). There are arguably companies in India that have and would act concerning CSR without the law in effect (Garg and Ambrosius 2018). Corporate Social Reporting Requirements and Guidelines The CSR report may be a means of facilitating stakeholder engagement (Noked 2013). The European Commission adopted in December 2014 a directive requiring large public multinational businesses to disclose nonfinancial information. Size is more than 500 employees. Nonfinancial information includes (listed alphabetically) anti-corruption, bribery, employee, environmental, human rights, and social dimensions. This information set partly overlaps with the UNGC principles. Firms must also provide information on business model, outcomes and risks of prescribed nonfinancial dimensions, and diversity policy for management and supervision. In some European Union countries, such as Germany, there is a dual-board corporate governance system: a management board and a supervisory board. There are a number of guidance recommendations for such reports. There are two UN international guides to voluntary CSR. The 2000 UNGC, as noted earlier, asks participating businesses (and others) to act on ten principles concerning human

227

rights, labor rights, environmental responsibility, and anti-corruption (this principle was added subsequently to the previous nine). The International Organization for Standards, popularly the International Standards Organization (ISO), a UN agency at Geneva, Switzerland, has promulgated ISO 26000 (2010) Guidance on Social Responsibility. This guidance does not provide requirements and thus does not result in formal certification. ISO 37001 (2016) does provide requirements and certification for anti-bribery management systems. There are also OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the International Labour Organization (ILO) Tripartite Declaration, and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), now headquartered in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was founded in 1997 as an independent standards organization. The GRI sustainability reporting framework began functioning in 2000. GRI standards are in a fourth iteration (October 2016). A study examined 176 energy businesses issuing sustainability reports (Miras-Rodríguez and Di Pietra 2018) to determine what kinds of corporate governance mechanisms influence the decision to obtain either some form of assurance or GRI application level. The study concludes that credibility of the sustainability report of a business listed in a relation-based country is increased by an assurance and that businesses with concentrated ownership and fewer board of directors insiders are more likely to have an assurance. France is an example of mandatory social and environmental reporting within the European Union (Morris and Baddache 2012). In 2001, France promulgated a nouvelles régulations économiques (“new economic regulations”), or NRE. This NRE modernized takeover transparency, corporate governance, and antitrust policy for French firms. The NRE included provisions requiring disclosure of triple bottom line (TBL) performance information. TBL encompasses financial, social, and environmental dimensions of business performance. The NRE requires French firms to issue sustainability reports, including (a) social reporting on various aspects of human resources, community (including both

C

228

local impacts and stakeholder engagement), and labor standards (anchored on ILO conventions) and (b) environmental reporting (including emissions and resource consumption). Criticisms can include absence of specific required indicators; clear delineation of required scope for an integrated (consolidated) report, whether international or domestic operations must be included; silence on life-cycle environmental impacts; and absence of sanctions and auditing requirements.

Implications The nature and specific contents of corporate responsibility (CR) remain contested and contestable. A body of literature studies “varieties of capitalism.” Capitalism (a market economy) is distinguished from socialism (a state-owned or state-dominated economy). Within capitalism, this literature differentiates liberal and coordinated types of market economies. A “liberal market economy” orientation – illustrated by the United States – emphasizes reducing responsibility to shareowner value creation within as minimal a set of hard laws and soft laws as possible. This orientation, combined with the economic perspective, tends to denigrate corporate social responsibility (CSR) as unjustifiable corporate altruism. The orientation does not itself justify or encourage corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR). However, one might expect that unfettered market forces are likely to drive choices more in the direction of CSiR activities and outcomes. A liberal market economy relies more on informal institutions beyond corporate governance laws: these institutions combine voluntary self-regulation and soft law. A “coordinated market economy” orientation – illustrated by Germany and Japan – emphasizes increasing responsibility to greater stakeholder engagement and sustainability within an expanded set of hard laws and soft laws. A coordinated market economy relies on formal institutions to regulate business: these institutions may combine hard law and soft law. China (PRC) is a communist and authoritarian regime presently featuring a combination of

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions

privately owned and state-owned enterprises in a partly market economy. Hard law is the instrument of the PRC for addressing corporate governance, CSR, and sustainability issues. Some interpretations characterize the PRC approach as “authoritarian capitalism,” but this characterization tends to underplay what is in reality authoritarianism and not capitalism. In 2018, the communist party made its head president for life of the PRC. India has elected to encourage CSR through mandatory business spending – but one must appreciate the proviso that when a firm does not spend what is required, it can explain the decision. France has elected to encourage CSR reporting – but one must appreciate that there are no direct sanctions involved. The Nordic countries, acting within the general spirit of the European Union approach, have adopted public policies to encourage CSR. Governments face a choice among voluntary CSR, soft laws, and hard laws. The foundational hard law in many countries concerns corporate governance. The voluntary approach works with a liberal market economy. Change will be toward soft laws, developed with active participation of businesses. The formal institutional approach works with a coordinated market economy. Change will be toward hard laws. An extreme instance of the hard law approach is an authoritarian regime like China (PRC). Businesses face a choice between voluntary CSR and CSiR misbehavior. Voluntary CSR, compatible with increasing soft laws, may help postpone hard laws. CSiR misbehavior will tend to provoke increases in hard laws. Stakeholders, like governments, face a choice among voluntary CSR, soft law, and hard law strategies. Activists – for environmental, labor, or social causes – are likely to prefer hard law regulations for strong certainty; soft law guidance is a step along the road to hard law. Shareowners, and other financial investors, are likely to prefer strong corporate governance law, but voluntary CSR focused strictly on strategic considerations. Consumers and labor are likely to prefer hard law regulations for strong certainty considering issues of import to them: consumer protections, employment security, and similar considerations.

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions

The SDG formulation is effectively silent on the basic consideration of whether the role of business should be voluntary or mandatory. Bozhikin and Dentchev (2018) argue for the merits of a “plethora” of regulatory approaches for encouraging CSR. Some of the SDGs are suitable for voluntary CSR initiatives and soft law guidance: especially climate change, innovation and infrastructure, responsible consumption and production, and work and economic growth. These SDGs seem most directly linked to business operations in market conditions. An approach, stated as an SDG, is the use of partnerships across governments, businesses, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Rather than engaging in conflict, these various actors can attempt to cooperate and coordinate within voluntary CSR and soft law conditions. Partnering may be a substitute for or complement to hard laws, which are developed and enforced by national governments. CSR public policies might encourage such partnering approaches. The other SDGs being much less directly linked to businesses may require greater hard law regulation by those national governments.

Cross-References ▶ Collaborative Governance ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ▶ National Sustainable Development Strategies ▶ Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket S trategy for Sustainable Development ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement

References Almatrooshi S, Hussain M, Ajmal M, Tehsin M (2018) Role of public policies in promoting CSR: empirical evidence from business and civil society of UAE. Corp Gov Int J Bus Soc 18:1107–1123. https://doi.org/10. 1108/CG-08-2017-0175 Bantekas I (2004) Corporate social responsibility in international law. Boston Univ Int Law J 22:309–347.

229 http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/international/ volume22n2/documents/309-348.pdf Baron DP (2001) Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. J Econ Mgmt Strat 10:7–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1430-9134.2001.00007.x Berger-Walliser G, Scott I (2018) Redefining corporate social responsibility in an era of globalization and regulatory hardening. Am Bus Law J 55:167–218. https:// doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12119 Bliss RT (2015) Shareholder value and CSR: friends or foes? How to practice corporate social responsibility while maintaining shareholder value and without sacrificing analytical rigor. http://ww2.cfo.com/riskmanagement/2015/02/shareholder-value-csr-friendsfoes/ Bozhikin I, Dentchev N (2018) Discovering a wilderness of regulatory mechanisms for corporate social responsibility: literature review. Econ Altern 12(2):145–174. https://www.unwe.bg/eajournal/en/journalissues/arti cle/13890 Buhmann K (2006) Corporate social responsibility: what role for law? Some aspects of law and CSR. Corp Gov Int J Bus Soc 6:188–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14720700610655187 Chattopadhyay A, Shaffer M, Wang CCY (2018) Governance through shame and aspiration: index creation and corporate behavior. Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit Working Paper No. 18-010. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3010188 Chhabra E (2014) Corporate social responsibility: should it be a law? https://www.forbes.com/sites/eshachhabra/ 2014/04/18/corporate-social-responsibility-should-itbe-a-law/#202c49e83736 Choller P, Sandwidi BW (2018) CSR engagement and financial risk: a virtuous circle? International evidence. Glob Finan J 38:65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj. 2018.03.004 Coff RW (1999) When competitive advantage doesn't lead to performance: the resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organ Sci 10:119–133. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2640307 Dyck A, Lins KV, Roth L, Wagner HF (2019) Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence. J Financ Econ 131:693–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.08.013 Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. NY Times Mag Sept 13: 32–33, 122, 124, 126. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/ archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibilityof-business-is-to.html Garg R, Ambrosius J (2018) Whoever said corporations do not care? Evidence of CSR from India. Int J Indian Cult Bus Manag 16:206–222. https://doi.org/10.1504/ IJICBM.2018.090090 Gatti L, Vishwanath B, Seele P, Cottier B (2018) Are we moving beyond voluntary CSR? Exploring theoretical and managerial implications of mandatory CSR resulting from the new Indian Companies Act. J Bus Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3783-8

C

230 Gautam V (2018) Corporate social responsibility in India: truth behind legal façade. Int J Res Cult Soc 2:233–238. http://ijrcs.rcsjournals.org/wp-content/uploads/ 201802046.pdf Gjølberg M (2011) Explaining regulatory preferences: CSR, soft law, or hard law? Insights from a survey of Nordic pioneers in CSR. Bus Polit 13:1–31. https://doi. org/10.2202/1469-3569.1351 Graafland J (2018) Does corporate social responsibility put reputation at risk by inviting activist targeting? An empirical test among European SMEs. CSR Environ Manag 25:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1422 Gribnau H, Enden E, Baisalbayeva K (2018) Codes of conduct as a means to manage ethical tax governance. Intertax 46(5):390–407 Ibanga D-A (2018) Is there a social contract between the firm and community: revisiting the philosophy of corporate social responsibility? Int J Dev Sustain 7:355–380. https://isdsnet.com/ijds-v7n1-24.pdf Knudsen JS (2018) Government regulation of international corporate social responsibility in the US and the UK: how domestic institutions shape mandatory and supportive initiatives. Br J Ind Relat 56:164–188. https:// doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12253 Kottasová I (2017, July 25) Gold mining firm slapped with tax bill 190 times its annual revenue. Retrieved July 2, 2018 from http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/25/ investing/acacia-tanzania-gold-mine-tax-bill/index. html Kudłak R, Szőcs I, Krumay B, Martinuzzi A (2018) The future of CSR – selected findings from a Europe-wide Delphi study. J Clean Prod 183:282–291. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.119 Liang H, Renneboog L (2018) Is corporate social responsibility an agency problem? In: Boubaker S, Cumming D, Nguyen DK (eds) Research handbook of finance and sustainability. Edgar Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton Manchiraju H, Rajgopal S (2017) Does corporate social responsibility (CSR) create shareholder value? Evidence from the Indian Companies Act 2013. J Acc Res 55:1257–1300. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475679X.12174 Marques A, Srinivasan P (2018, revised June) When corporate social responsibility is an obligation: the unique case of India. WP No. 565. Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. http://www.iimb.ac.in/sites/default/ files/research/files/workingpaper/WP%20No.%20565 %20%28Revised%20June%202018%29.pdf Marquis C, Qian C (2014) Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: symbol or substance? Organ Sci 25:127–148. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0837 Matten D, Moon J (2008) “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manag Rev 33:404–424. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193 458 McBarnet D (2009) Corporate social responsibility beyond law, through law, for law. U of Edinburgh School of Law Working Paper No. 2009/03. https://doi.org/10. 2139/ssrn.1369305

Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad Manag Rev 26:117–127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001. 4011987 Midttun A, Gjølberg M, Kourula A, Sweet S, Vallentin S (2015) Public policies for corporate social responsibility in four Nordic countries: harmony of goals and conflict of means. Bus Soc 54:464–500. https://doi. org/10.1177/0007650312450848 Miras-Rodríguez M, Di Pietra R (2018) Corporate governance mechanisms as drivers that enhance the credibility and usefulness of CSR disclosure. J Manag Gov. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9411-2 Morris J, Baddache F (2012) The five W’s of France’s CSR reporting law. https://www.bsr.org/reports/The_5_Ws_ of_Frances_CSR_Reporting_Law_FINAL.pdf Mullerat R (2013) Corporate social responsibility: a European perspective. Miami-Florida European Union Center of Excellence, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, 13(6), June. http://aei.pitt.edu/43368/1/ Mullerat_CSR_Europa.pdf Newman C, Rand J, Tarp F, Trifkovic N (2018) The transmission of socially responsible behaviour through international trade. Eur Econ Rev 101: 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017. 10.013 Noked N (2013) The corporate social responsibility report and effective stakeholder engagement. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/12/ 28/the-corporate-social-responsibility-report-and-effec tive-stakeholder-engagement/ Okoye A (2009) Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: is a definition necessary? J Bus Ethics 89:613–627. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10551-008-0021-9 Pan X, Chen X, Ning L (2018) The roles of macro and micro institutions in corporate social responsibility (CSR) evidence from listed firms in China. Manag Decis 56:955–971. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-052017-0530 Ronnegard D, Smith NC (2018) Shareholder primacy vs. stakeholder theory: the law as constraint and potential enabler of stakeholder concerns. INSEAD Working Paper No. 2018/15/ATL/Social Innovation Centre. https://ssrn.com/abstract¼3165992 Rühmkorf A (2018) From transparency to due diligence laws? Variations in stringency of CSR regulation in global supply chains in the ‘home state’ of multinational enterprises. In: du Plessis JJ, Varottil U, Veldman J (eds) Globalisation of corporate social responsibility and its impact on corporate governance. Springer, Cham Salvioni DM, Franzoni S, Gennari F, Cassano R (2018) Convergence in corporate governance systems and sustainability culture. Int J Bus Perform Manag 19:7–15. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2018.088490 Scherer AG (2018) Theory assessment and agenda setting in political CSR: a critical theory perspective. Int J Manag Rev 20:387–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr. 12137

Corporate Shared Value for the Wellbeing of Local Community Smith A (1759) The theory of moral sentiments. A Strahan and T Cadell, London Steurer R (2010) The role of governments in corporate social responsibility: characterising public policies on CSR in Europe. Policy Sci 43:49–72. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11077-009-9084-4 Strand R, Freeman RE, Hockerts K (2015) Corporate social responsibility and sustainability in Scandinavia: an overview. J Bus Ethics 127:1–15. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10551-014-2224-6 Tang Y, Ma Y, Wong CW, Miao X (2018) Evolution of government policies on guiding corporate social responsibility in China. Sustainability 10(3):741 (open access). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030741. http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/3/741 UN Global Compact (2018) All companies can play a role. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/sdgs/about. Accessed 2 Jul 2018 Varottil U (2018) Analysing the CSR spending requirements under Indian company law. In: du Plessis JJ, Varottil U, Veldman J (eds) Globalisation of corporate social responsibility and its impact on corporate governance. Springer, Cham Walker K, Zhang Z, Ni N (2018) The mirror effect: corporate social responsibility, corporate social irresponsibility and firm performance in coordinated market economies and liberal market economies. Br J Manag. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12271 Wilson JQ (1989) Adam Smith on business ethics. Calif Manag Rev 32:59–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166 734 Yan M (2018) Corporate social responsibility vs. shareholder value maximization: through the lens of hard and soft law. Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 280/2018. https://ssrn.com/ abstract¼3183279

Corporate Shared Value for the Wellbeing of Local Community Amir Imran Zainoddin1 and Mohd Rizaimy Shaharudin2 1 Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia 2 Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Kedah, Malaysia

Definition Shared value can be defined as the company policies and operations that strive for achieving competitive advantage and at the same time enhancing

231

the economic and social ramifications to the peoples where the company resides. It is a contemporary business philosophy with two-fold equally important objectives, to achieve a high business competitive level and community well-being. While the focus of Corporate Share Value is for a corporate organization to identify the social needs and to enhance both business and societal value within the supply chain and stakeholders. The participation of private corporations in community-based activities, particularly in Creating Shared Value programs, is necessary not only to create a more competitive market and improve the economic status of the disadvantaged but also to contribute to human resources and community development.

Introduction Corporate Social Responsibility The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) definition, based on The World Bank (2016), refers to the company’s obligation to contribute impact on the stakeholders. CSR is one of the methods to enhance business and community links, as the final part of earning profits by the former. CSR manages to tie-up partnerships among the government, government-linked companies (GLCs), and the private sector to enhance economic sustainability in the long run (NEAC 2010). Furthermore, according to Kok et al. (2001), CSR is the commitment of the company towards ethical resources utilization and contribute to society by improving their lives. Generally, the company should not only take care of the stakeholders, but it has to be responsible to society and the community to enhance the people’s quality of life, which in the end will benefit the businesses. Organizations should realize that, nowadays, the CSR projects should not only provide valuable social benefits to the community, but also need to consider the economic benefits to society. This circumstance was further supported by Crowther and Aras (2008) who insisted that the primary importance of CSR is the relationship between all the stakeholders within the society as well as the environment which will give the most impact in the long run. In terms of the management context

C

232

Corporate Shared Value for the Wellbeing of Local Community

of the CSR, it refers to the company’s decision on the profit, society and the environment (Carroll 1999). As such, the CSR programs are usually referred to as unpaid activities and corporate events which are not profit-orientated, by trying to solve social and environmental problems (Devinney 2009). Nowadays, CSR has been adopted as a corporate routine. The majority of the companies getting involved in strategic CSR have developed policies and programs in areas such as community development, employee relations, marketplace practices, environmental stewardship, international relationships, and fiscal responsibility and accountability (Amaeshi and Adi 2006). When a company has implemented CSR, they have to make a balance between profitability and their contribution to the societies in which they operate and have to fulfill the stakeholders’ expectations, such as the owners, investors, employees, customers, government, suppliers, competitors, and the community (Suza 2005). Today, many companies follow the current CSR agendas; from an elementary charity program for the welfare institutions to activities for more pressing matters like protecting the environment, employee welfare, contributions to educational institutions, providing loans to small enterprises and ensuring product safety. Most of the companies participated in the CSR activities are based on their company-related activities and are not focused on the requirements of the local community. Those companies which implemented CSR activities have received a positive impact on their business due to the increase of confidence by their suppliers, business associates, and customers. Consequently, the sales will increase, and profits are maximized for the company (Siwar and Siti Haslina 2006). According to Haniffa and Cooke (2006), a company which is involved in the environment and society is more serious in implementing CSR for the reason that it is necessary to sustain the company in the industry. By having the program for the society and environment, it will help the company to develop a good relationship with the community (Jenkins and Yakovleva 2006). To achieve long term business success, business organization simultaneously creates value for

the shareholders and the community. Looking at the poverty issue, it is not just about lack of income, but it also involves capabilities issue. Most of the poor people have a lack of capabilities, such as sharing of knowledge, less opportunity, and creating new ideas of innovation (Simanis and Stuart 2008). Besides that, the poor have been isolated from the resources, and there is no co-operative action to improve the development goals (Evans 2002). However, when these poor people manage to have more opportunities and develop more capabilities, they can take more advantage of economic and social opportunities (Ansari et al. 2012).

Community Development Community development (CD) is the most important gesture of CSR, and the others are socially responsible production processes and socially responsible employee relations (Chapple and Moon 2005). It represents the use of resources in a “sustainable” and “progressive” manner. It is about giving companies the chance to use the resources in a proper way of achieving their current needs without compromising the community’s future socioeconomic and cultural conditions (Roseland 2000). Community development clearly shows that it is dynamic and empowered in nature and, furthermore, leads to sustainability in social development (Ismail et al. 2015). Corporate community involvement can be measured as the beginning of the broader concept of CSR, and it becomes the critical part of the companies’ CSR agenda, mainly in the developing countries (Chapple and Moon 2005). Many companies have tried to implement CfvSR for their business activities based on the environment and social consequences, but their businesses sometimes are not running as good as they expected. This happened because they run their companies against the community and the environment (Porter and Kramer 2006). Community development depends on the interactions among people and is not based on individual activity, which some of the sociologists refer to as “collective agency” (Flora et al. 1992).

Corporate Shared Value for the Wellbeing of Local Community

According to Shaffer (1989), the creation of wealth is something people value, and it is not only dollar and cents. Community development is also related to such terms as community capacity building, rural development, and empowerment. On the other hand, community development also involves community partnerships with the external organizations by empowering the individuals or groups with some knowledge and skills that are needed by the community, which in the end will enhance their standard of living (Ismail et al. 2015). These efforts are focused on utilizing local resources and creating political power through the build-up connection with large social groups (Ismail 2009). Community developers must be aware of how to work with individuals and the involvement of the communities’ positions based on the background. Firstly, a community can be defined generally as a group of people that have common principles to share, who mutually depend on the achievement of specific needs, who live in closeness and work together regularly. This community shares the same expectations for all of the group members and takes full responsibility from the group expectations. The group is respectful and appreciative of the uniqueness of other persons surrounded by the community (Ismail 2009). In a community, there is a sense of community feelings of collaboration, commitment to the group welfare, readiness to exchange a few words openly, and accountability to and for the others as well as to oneself for better social institutions. The majority of the cases that involve the main issues in CSR are usually explained from the point of view of the firms while ignoring the voice of the community (Boehm 2002). Generally, firms will control the correlation and put less concentration on the well-being of the society and community. The standard practices the company will plan are based on the Western point of view and, therefore, will not be tailored to the requirements of the local communities (Amran, et al. 2013). The company–community disagreement will also probably happen because there is a difference between the company’s and the community’s principles and standards, or there is a disjuncture in the corporate and community opportunities for

233

the part of the business in the community (Idemudia 2007). Furthermore, communities frequently put their hope on the companies to get involved in social, economic, and environmental programs that will enhance their well-being and livelihoods. On the other hand, the companies may see it differently as such demands are not their domain of responsibility and they have a lack of resources to start the programs which will meet the community’s expectations (Muthuri 2007). A further point is regarding the conflicts, where communities experience that the expected benefits from the corporate resource utilization are not worth the risks associated with the MNCs’ resource mistreatment, such as with environmental deprivation or the attrition of the local culture (Bendell 2000; Idemudia and Ite 2006). Besides that, economic development is also part of community development, which seeks to build five community pillars, which are the environment, social structures, attitudes, assets, and economy of the community (Cavaye 1989). According to Flora et al. (1992), economic development mainly aims to develop income, employment, and the economic base of the community. Based on Clarkson (1995), the main stakeholders are essential because an organization cannot be sustained without constant involvement from these groups (shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, government, and the community) that supply nonstop resources to the organization. Besides, by having such programs, the community would be proficient at determining the firm’s restrictions and strengths to help build up a better community. By having this strong relationship, it will help to create an edge and better correlation between the firm and the community, in spite of creating tension, which will lead to conflict. Through such a process, it will lead to better sustainable community development, which will create active and sustainable communities based on social justice and mutual respect (Ismail 2009). Moreover, such knowledge and skills are essential and useful to result in some changes in the community thinking and in promoting more understanding regarding the community’s role for a better sustainable livelihood through the support of CSR (Amran et al. 2013).

C

234

Corporate Shared Value for the Wellbeing of Local Community

Corporate Shared Values Corporate Share Values (CRSVs) refer conceptually to the corporate organization that exploits the social problems for the benefits of business, by maximizing the competitive value and at the same time advancing social and economic conditions of the local community. It encourages a company to not only profit-centered but also improves the socioeconomics of the local community. The majority of private corporations have plenty of resources to donate for the improvement of the community (Kuchinke 2010). The business has been identified as the tool and the factor that can give an impact on the community, especially on the poor people (Blowfield and Dolan 2014). Based on that fact, it shows that the private sector contributes towards economic growth and development, which have given a direct effect on the poverty alleviation. According to Moon (2007), business corporations are not only making profits and growth but are also contributing to community development. Lately, scholars have highlighted that poverty can be alleviated through business operations (Jenkins 2005). Nowadays, many scholars have identified that most of the business organizations contributed towards poverty issues in developing countries by getting involved in corporate social responsibilities activties (Hart 2011; Porter and Kramer 2011). As mentioned by Balabanis et al. (2001), a company is responsible for any action taken which affected the communities and the environment. According to Balabanis et al. (2001), many companies realized their responsibilities to the community by creating opportunities and sharing knowledge for the benefit of both parties. Therefore, it is crucial for businesses to become the agent to support the economy, especially the poor communities, a donation rather than just giving fund, which is not sustainable in the long run. Although most of the companies were from different backgrounds of business, they have the same target, which is to identify the needs of making business decisions that can portray the economic, social, and environmental responsibilities. This includes the responsibility for the stakeholders such as the employees, community, business partners, suppliers, customers,

government, and shareholders (Siwar and Siti Haslina 2006). The benefits of the company’s involvement in society include wealth generation, employment, skill development and transfer, and community initiatives. The companies’ commitment is translated from their policies, strategies, and innovative programs with further business and enhancement on the social, economic, and environmental issues.

Creating Shared Values : A Community Project As shown in Table 1, Company A has been involved in the rural development program by conducting two main projects in rural development: chilli and paddy projects. The first project is the chilli project community program. The company as the “project owner” has started the collaboration with Agricultural Services Department and Local Authority Department (LAD). The LAD was responsible for selecting the local participants, which comprised of the farmers who are currently planting chilli on their land. The farmers involved in this program are mandated to follow the rules and regulations set by Company A. The partnership officially began in 1995 when the farmers, as the participants, had to produce chillies which meet a certain standard outlined by the company. This collaboration was initiated to meet the global standards by improving the yields and quality of the crops. In order to maintain the quality, the company scrutinized on the chemicals used, types of seeds planted, and the proper schedule for planting the chillies. After 3 months, the farmers harvested the chillies and delivered to LAD for inspection. The company bought all of the chillies at all categories and grades; a special treatment is given to farmers compared to selective grades accepted for selling in the market. The purchase price is set at a standard rate to stabilize the market price and win-win strategy for business sustainability. Until to date, the number of participants involved is 112 farmers and managed to produce a yield of 506 metric tons of fresh chillies over 45 hectares of land.

Corporate Shared Value for the Wellbeing of Local Community

235

Corporate Shared Value for the Wellbeing of Local Community, Table 1 Company background Company A Status Paid-up capital Employees CSVs focus area Philosophy Project Participants Value gain (community)

Value gain (company)

Established 1912 in Malaysia Multinational Corporation 700 billion Approximately 200,000 Rural development The success of business today and in the future depends on the ability to improve the wellbeing of the farmers, rural communities, workers, small entrepreneurs, and suppliers. Chili project Paddy project 112 farmers 200 farmers (a) Poverty alleviation (a) Raising income (b) Technology transfer on good agriculture (b) Technology transfer and know-how practice (c) Exposure on good and sustainable farming (c) Less dependence on imports practice (d) Quality of harvested crops (e) Reduce environmental effect on the rice farming (a) Quality source of raw materials at the (a) Raw materials at the stable price stable price (b) Continuous supply of raw materials (b) Consistent supply of raw materials (c) Local and cheaper cost (c) Freshness and controllable quality (d) Safe and traceable rice

In the second project, Company A introduced paddy project with sustainable farming practices and launched in 2010 for the benefit of the people, planet, and profit. The three Ps refer to the business, local farmers, and the environment. The participants of this project were the local paddy farmers at a selected remote area of paddy farming. Altogether, there were almost 200 farmers who participated in this project. During this paddy community project, the farmers were taught environmentally friendly, innovative agricultural practices to increase yield while reducing their dependence on chemicals. All of these criteria are important to supply rice that meets the high quality and safety requirements for the company line of products. The improved product formulation is a reflection of the company’s commitment to helping bridge a critical and growing nutrition gap among young children today. Besides that, all of the farmers also were taught a new method and ecological way of paddy farming which was called as the Semi-Aerobic Rice Intensification (SARI) method. This method has been proven to save water which is suitable for the lowland paddy fields and has resulted in the reduction of water usage and methane emission in the irrigated fields. The farmers have been

encouraged to use the environment-friendly microbial supplements, such as Agri-Organica provided by the company. With the adoption of sustainable and good agricultural practices (GAP), the safety and quality of the food produced can be maintained adequately. Significantly, the adoptions also were expected to reduce the level of greenhouse gases emissions from paddy farming. As what is applied in chilli business, all of the farmers’ crop of raw paddy were delivered to the company appointed factories. Subsequently, all of the raw paddies were processed and later transferred to the main company factory for the production of final products. In this context, Company A in Malaysia is conducting a business based on corporate social responsibility (CSR) philosophy. This company expresses its CSR through the concept of Creating Shared Values (CSVs). The CSVs concept has been used globally, and according to the Company CEO, “ If we want to have long term business success, we must simultaneously create value for our shareholders and the public. We call CSV and become a fundamental principle behind the way we conduct business.” The company believes the relationship with society will create a good value in the long term success of the company. This is

C

236

Corporate Shared Value for the Wellbeing of Local Community

particularly obvious in the area of rural development whereby the well-being of the farmers, rural communities, small entrepreneurs, and suppliers is the main factor in the long term success for the company’s business. The company also managed to set up a Rural Development Framework that purposely focused on farmers and their families. Besides that, the framework also focuses on the farmworkers and the communities within their locations. The company concerns the rural development and also looking into consideration of the human rights approach. The main target is to enhance both business and societal value by monitoring the main gaps and the arrangement of the objectives within the supply chain and the stakeholders. Based on the company’s main objective, it shows that it is consistent with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which concentrated on poverty, nutrition, education, gender equality, and environmental sustainability. Currently, the company commitment through creating share values is not only concerned on the areas of nutrition, water, and rural development but also manage to highlight environmental sustainability as well as compliance. As one of the leading MNC in nutrition, health, and wellness, the company is committed to producing products with the highest quality and providing both social progress and business success for the company. The approach of CSVs is perhaps most evident where the wellbeing of the farmers is intrinsic to secure them as global food suppliers. The company relies on the farmers to provide the agricultural raw materials which are essential for their production. These farmers were assisted with agricultural support and a capacity building program to increase yields, crop quality, and income level. The interaction and social network create more opportunities for knowledge sharing, which will improve the performance among the individuals (Abbasi et al. 2012). Thus, the information flow from the company has facilitated the farmers finding broader sources of information, improving information quality, and awareness of the importance of maximizing the resources effectively. The rising of the collaboration between businesses and individuals has created the acquisition

of knowledge demand that manages to facilitate knowledge transfer and optimize the innovation process (Filieri and Alguezaui 2014). The commitment between the company and the farmers enhanced the understanding and personal relationships, which have created more opportunities in terms of sharing of knowledge and technical support for the community project. Besides that, the relationship has created strong commitment which contributed to the discovery of new opportunities and the enhancement of the cognitive skills for the individuals that have significantly improved their productivity and efficiency too (Felício et al. 2014). Therefore, it is essential to have a strong relationship and useful connections between individuals and businesses, which will ensure better conditions for the organization’s development and knowledge sharing (Filieri and Alguezaui 2014). Furthermore, through this community project, the company has provided knowledge transfer routines and exchange that in return, has benefitted the company in the form of the supply of the raw materials for their products. For the farmers, the knowledge transfer has helped them to improve their planting technique by implementing good agricultural practices. Through these practices, the farmers helped to protect the environment and produced a standard quality of output. Thus, the existence of trust supports the knowledge exchange and network among members which positively enhances the ability to access each other’s information (Levin et al. 2006). Furthermore, the interaction and communication between the company and the farmers were highly helpful to identify the abilities, overall requirements, and beneficial behaviors. The establishment of interaction is vital for the development of the interpersonal trust and significantly enhances the performance for both parties. According to the articulated goals by the company, specific procedures have been highlighted for the guidelines. Based on the identified farmers, the procedures had been explained, and the company assisted the farmers to explore new technical planting and develop new skills to enhance their competences. The current relationship has increased its business performance, and the

Corporate Shared Value for the Wellbeing of Local Community

company must utilize and manage their knowledge effectively. Thus, by having the same goals and norms, the interactions among team members can be created. This situation will eventually contribute to the fair treatment, willingness to share, and cooperation among the individuals involved in the team. The success and well-being of the farmers are the company’s concern, which the company needs to maintain for the long term supply of the ingredients for the project. Besides that, the company also plays a role by supporting the farming industry as a business and livelihood of choice, which can offer attractive incomes and opportunities. The loyalty between farmers and the company was not built through contractual mechanisms, but instead emerged based on trust of each other. This trust was developed through the support of the company in terms of planting materials, technical support, and where necessary, through financing schemes (NAR 2014).

Summary The success of the company can be assured if the company and the community jointly create the value. The establishment of the collaboration between the company and the farmers has shared the same routine and procedures which have created support creativity and innovation for rural community programs (Zainoddin et al. 2020). Thus, indirectly it has also generated the latest knowledge and technology for the partnership which has helped in the development and introduction of new products with better quality. Having this new technology and better innovation has enhanced the capability development as they have better options for resources which have finally improved the livelihoods and well-being of the farmers. As such, it is imperative to measure the effectiveness of the community development program through the well-being of the community. Typically, well-being is generally drawn from philosophy to describe what is ultimately good for a person (Crisp 2008) and is concerned about optimal functioning (Ryan and Deci 2001). The community development programs contribute to

237

the social change process by fulfilling human needs, advancing social fairness, expanding organizational performance, and raising the sustainability capacity. Human needs, in this situation, refer to both material and nonmaterial needs. Material needs include those physical necessities of life, such as adequate food, water, and shelter. Nonmaterial needs relate more to broader “quality of life” issues, such as health; political and spiritual freedom; human rights; clean, healthy, enjoyable, and accessible natural environments; and meaningful work (Roseland 2000). Numerous scientists that are involved in this area have identified well-being as a set of objective conditions. In the early 1960s, the social scientist began to believe that the actual standards that relate to people’s quality of life, other than economic growth, can be evaluated; as, such measures review where we stand and are acceptable to our values and goals (Forgeard et al. 2011). Social indicators, consequently, manage to find and evaluate physical aspects of citizens’ well-being in the targeted community (Diener et al. 2009; Gasper 2010) and provide assistance on how to improve their lives. Besides that, the social indicators are regularly being referred to as quality-of-life indicators or key national indicators (Diener et al. 2009). The growth of the world population and the rapid growth of economic activities substantially caused a change in society. The impact of these changes has led to the issue of sustainable development in society. Issues of sustainable development have been discussed for centuries. Based on the Brundtland Report in 1987, which mentions sustainable development, it can be seen as “a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”. Among the main agenda of sustainable development is to diminish poverty by increasing economic growth as well as social and human welfare through the enhancement of society in the area of economic, societal, and environmental contexts (Bečić et al. 2012; Golusin et al. 2011). In Agenda 21, business and industry can play essential roles for sustainable development by raising employment and livelihood opportunities and reduce poverty

C

238

Corporate Shared Value for the Wellbeing of Local Community

(UNSD 1992). Nowadays, companies are showing interest along with the government and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) regarding enhancing social life or well-being and reducing poverty (Ansari et al. 2012). Considering the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the corporate shared value approach by Company A in the business operations is discernible and aligned with Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals. Through both of the projects, the Company A successfully develop and transfer the environmentally sound technologies to the farmers. The projects also enhanced the international business partnerships with the local farmers in the remote area for sustainable development, knowledge sharing, and wellbeing of the farmers. Such collaboration encourages effective public-private partnerships to achieve sustainable development goals in developing countries.

Cross-References ▶ Business as a Partner for the Global Goals ▶ Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development

References Abbasi A, Chung KSK, Hossain L (2012) Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance. Inf Process Manag 48:671–679 Amaeshi K, Adi BC (2006) Corporate as responsibility social deinstitutionalization of corruption in developing economies: a case study of Nigeria. Beyond CSR? In: Business, poverty and social justice conference 22 may 2006. National Liberal Club, London Amran A, Mohamed Zain M, Sulaiman M, Sarker T, Ooi SK (2013) Empowering society for better corporate social responsibility (CSR): the case of Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia 31(1):57–78 Ansari S, Munir K, Gregg T (2012) Impact at the “bottom of the pyramid”: the role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment. J Manag Stud 49(4):813–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14676486.2012.01042.x Balabanis G, Phillips HC, Lyall J (2001) Corporate social responsibility and economic performance in the top British companies: are they linked? Eur Bus Rev 98 (1):25

Bečić E, Mulej EM, Švarc J (2012) Measuring social progress by sustainable development indicators: cases of Croatia and Slovenia. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 37:458–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03. 311 Bendell J (2000) Term for endearment: business, NGOs and sustainable development. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield Blowfield M, Dolan CS (2014) Business as a development agent: evidence of possibility and improbability. Third World Q 35(1):22–42 Boehm A (2002) Corporate social responsibility: a complementary perspective of community and corporate leaders. Bus Soc Rev 107(2):171–194 Carroll AB (1999) Evolution of a definitional construct. Bus Soc 38(3):268–295 Cavaye J (1989) Understanding community development. Reg Anal Policy Chapple W, Moon J (2005) Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: a seven-country study of CSR web site reporting. Bus Soc 44(4):415–441. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0007650305281658 Clarkson MB (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):92–117 Crisp R (2008) Well-Being. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/well-being Crowther D, Aras G (2008) Corporate social responsibility. Ventus Publishing ApS, Copenhagen Devinney T (2009) Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manag 44–55 Diener E, Lucas RE, Schimmack U, Helliwell J (2009) Well-being for public policy. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780195334074.001.0001 Evans P (2002) Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen’s development as freedom. Stud Comp Int Dev 37:54–60 Felício JA, Couto E, Caiado J (2014) Human capital, social capital and organizational performance. Manag Decis 52(2):350–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-20130260 Filieri R, Alguezaui S (2014) Structural social capital and innovation. Is knowledge transfer the missing link ? J Knowl Manag 18(4):728–757. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JKM-08-2013-0329 Flora C, Flora J, Spears J, Swanson L (1992) Rural communities: legacy and change. Westview Press, Boulder Forgeard MJC, Jayawickreme E, Kern ML, Seligman MEP (2011) Doing the right thing: measuring Well-being for public policy. Int J Wellbeing 1(1):79–106. https://doi. org/10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15 Gasper D (2010) Understanding the diversity of conceptions of well-being and quality of life. J Socioecon 39(3): 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.11.006 Golusin M, Ivanovic OM & Teodorovic N (2011) The review of the achieved degree of sustainable development in South Eastern Europe. The use of linear regression method. Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Critical Intercultural Citizenship Reviews 15(1): 766–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. 2010.07.064 Haniffa RM, Cooke TE (2006) The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. J Account Public Policy 24(5):391–430 Hart SL (2011) Taking the green leap to the base of the pyramid. Next generation business strategies for the base of the pyramid: new approaches for building. Mutual Value Idemudia U, Ite U (2006) Demystifying the Niger Delta conflict: towards an integrated explanation. Rev Afr Polit Econ (109):391–406 Idemudia U (2007) Community perceptions and expectations: Reinventing the wheels of corporate social responsibility practices in the Nigerian oil industry. Business & Society Review 112(3): 369–405. Ismail M (2009) Corporate social responsibility and its role in community development: an international perspective. Development 2(9):308–318. Retrieved from http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt2/sayi9pdf/isma il_maimunah.pdf Ismail M, Alias SN, Mohd Rasdi R (2015) Community as stakeholder of the corporate social responsibility programme in Malaysia: outcomes in community development. Soc Respon J 11(1):109–130. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/SRJ-05-2013-0053 Jenkins R (2005) Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty. Int Aff 81(3):525–540. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00467.x Jenkins H, Yakovleva N (2006) Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure, (February 2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.10.004 Kok P, Mckenna R, Brown A (2001) A corporate social responsibility audit within a quality management framework. J Bus Ethcis 31(4):285–297 Kuchinke KP (2010) Human development as a central goal for human resource development. Hum Resour Dev Int 13(5):575–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010. 520482 Levin DZ, Whitener EM, Cross R (2006) Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: the moderating impact of relationship length. J Appl Psychol 91(5):1163–1171 Moon J (2007) The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development. Sust Dev 15: 296– 306. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.346 Muthuri JN (2007) Corporate citizenship and sustainable development: fostering multi-sector collaboration in the Magadi division in Kenya. J Corp Citizsh 28:73–84 NAR (2014) Nestlé Annual Report. Retrieved from https:// www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/library/docu ments/annual_reports/2014-annual-report-en.pdf NEAC (2010) New economic model for Malaysia. Retrieved from www.neac.gov.my Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv Bus Rev Porter M, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harv Bus Rev 89(1/2):62–77

239 Roseland M (2000) Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives. Elsevier Science, 54:73–132 Ryan RM, Deci EL (2001) On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic Well-being. Annu Rev Psychol 52(1):141–166 Shaffer RE (1989) Community economics. Economic structure and change in smaller communities. Iowa State University Press, Ames Simanis EN, Stuart LH (2008) The base of the pyramid protocol : toward next generation BOP strategy. Ithaca, New York Siwar C, Siti Haslina H (2006) A study on corporate social responsibility practices amongst business Organisations in Malaysia. Retrieved May 22 2015, from http://www.csr-weltweit.de/ Suza N (2005) Corporate Social Responsibility in Malaysia. Retrieved 16 June 2015, from www.oppapers.com/ esays/corporate socialresponsibility-Malaysia/70764 The World Bank. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved 14 Feb 2016, from http://crinfo.worldbank. org/wbcrinfo/ UNSD (1992) United Nations conference on environment & development. In Agenda 21 United Nation Sustainable Development. United Nation, Rio de Janerio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11671-008-9208-3 Zainoddin AI, Amran A, Shaharudin MR (2020) The effect of social capital on the effectiveness of community development Programmes in Malaysia. Int J Infor Decis Sci 12(3):227–245

Counter-narratives ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development

Credit ▶ Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability

Critical Intercultural Citizenship ▶ Intercultural Responsibility: Critical Inter-epistemic Dialog and Equity for Sustainable Development

C

240

Cross-Border Region ▶ Transborder Cooperation for Sustainable Tourism in the Baltic Sea Region

Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals Scott A. Hipsher Bangkok Academic Centre, Webster University, Bangkok, Thailand

Introduction Cross-sector partnerships have been used and advocated as an important type of arrangement to use in addressing social problems. And while “Cross-sector partnerships and collaborations are mostly uncritically presented as good and mutually beneficial,” the reality is much more nuanced (Battisti 2009, p. 96), and results depend to some extent on how these partnerships are formed and used. While there is no single accepted definition of cross-sector partnerships, the term is usually used to refer to partnerships which are formed by different sectors of an economy that are engaged on an ongoing basis, whether short or long term, and which are specifically formed to address social issues (Selsky and Parker 2005, p. 850). This entry is intended to explore the use of cross-sector partnerships in making progress toward achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

UN’s Sustainable Development Goals The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals were designed as a tool or as guidelines to use to make the world a better place with a specific focus on improving the lives of people living in poverty. When trying to improve the standards of living of

Cross-Border Region

individuals at a global level, it might be a good idea to take stock of the current situation and the amount of progress which has been made. There are many scholars and experts who tend to present the current world situation and levels of poverty in a very negative light (e.g., Boltvinik 2016; Leff 2016; Wallerstein 2013), despite statistical evidence showing significant progress having been made over recent decades at the global level in a number of measures of standards of living and specifically in reductions in extreme poverty (e. g., Bhagwati and Panagariya 2013; Milanovic 2016; World Bank 2017). The general public, as well as experts and scholars from around the world, tend to think many aspects of quality of life in less developed countries, and general trends, are much more negative than what statistics indicate (Rönnlund and Rosling 2018). These viewpoints which are not aligned with statistical analysis are most likely partially driven by being exposed to the more numerous negative stories in the news about life in developing and least developed economies than the positive stories and also due to the human tendency to place more weight on negative rather than positive information when developing opinions and attitudes (e.g., Davidai and Gilovich 2016; Kahneman 2011; Tversky and Kahneman 1973). Despite the presence of so many stories of gloom and doom, in reality, according to available statistics, there has been substantial progress made in achieving many of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals over recent years, although progress has slowed in many area in the last few years (UN 2018). Therefore when moving forward, a review of existing situations and expansion of practices which have contributed to achieving positive results may be as, or more, important than focusing primarily on designing totally new and innovative policies and practices. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals deal with problems, using the definition provided by Rittel and Webber (1973), which could be classified as “wicked problems.” Many of the issues and problems in which the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are trying to address share many characteristics with other wicked problems, such as people having difficulty in

Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals

defining the specifics of the problems, a lack of reliable data with which to design solutions and measure progress, and there is often a lack of consensus over the priorities of addressing different problems or on the best processes to achieve specific goals. The issues and areas covered in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are often interrelated, and at times some goals might be in conflict with other goals. For example, taking action on climate change by decreasing energy usage in developing and less developed economies could have a negative impact on economic growth and poverty reduction (Brand 2012), as there has been observed a strong and positive correlation between energy usage and increases in economic growth and decreases in poverty in developing and less developed economies (Kahsai et al. 2012; Ouedraogo 2013; Ozturk et al. 2010). While it has often been proposed economic growth and reduction in energy usage can go hand in hand and discussions of the issue would seem to indicate growth with few environmental trade-offs is a theoretical possibility, to accomplish this growth without increased energy usage would seem to require conditions and use of technologies which do not currently exist. Therefore, trade-offs between achieving these two possible conflicting goals might often have to be made, especially in the least developed countries struggling to free their citizens from extreme poverty. As can be seen in the example provided, people living in relative wealth in developed economies and individuals struggling to free themselves from extreme poverty living in the least developed areas of the world might see some of the issues covered in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals from different perspectives and might prefer to make different trade-offs when assigning priorities to these or other potential conflicting goals. Furthermore, since there is no overarching organization controlling all global economic and development policies, the accomplishment of progress toward many of the UN’s goals will require contributions from a wide range of organizations and individuals. And naturally these organizations and individuals will possess widely differing

241

goals and worldviews. These different organizations and individuals can work independently on separate goals or can collaborate to jointly try to achieve objectives. One suggestion to bring different organizations together to attempt to make progress toward achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals is the use of cross-sector partnerships.

Cross-Sector Partnerships Cross-sector partnership is a fairly generic term used to describe a wide range of collaborative efforts. Selsky and Parker (2005) found crosssector partnerships created to address social issues usually took one of four forms, business-nonprofit, business-government, government-nonprofit, and trisector, which include business, nonprofit, and government actors all contributing. Cross-sector partnerships have become an increasingly popular, one might even say trendy, method to address complex problems, and it has been suggested these partnerships can be a key component of many companies’ corporate social responsibility programs (e.g., Ashraf et al. 2017; Meinharda et al. 2016; Stadtler 2018). The logic underlying the creation of cross-sector partnerships is an attempt to collaboratively leverage different resources, expertise, and competitive advantages from different sectors of the economy in an attempt to solve complex problems or to accumulate the resources needed to solve large-scale problems for which no organization possesses the resources to handle single-handedly (e.g., Battisti 2009; Schuster and Holtbrügge 2014; Stadtler 2018). Cross-sector partnerships have been seen in child welfare programs (Collins-Camargo et al. 2013), new immigrant adjustment programs (Meinharda et al. 2016), the health-care sector (Rein and Stott 2009), and in many other activities directly or indirectly related to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. In addition, from the perspective of an NGO or other type of civil society organization, a partnership with the government can often help to create a public perception of the legitimacy of its operation which can increase the organization’s

C

242

Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals

effectiveness (Rueede and Kreutzer 2015); while a partnership with an NGO or other type of civil society organization can help to verify the philanthropic nature of specific types of activities carried out by for-profit organizations. Other advantages of engaging in collaborations such as cross-sector partnerships, as opposed to straight contractual agreements, include increasing the probability of stakeholder buy-in and acceptance of decisions; the creation of new visions and perspectives therefore discovering new opportunities to implement strategies; having public officials exposed to ideas coming from different perspectives; and people in the private sector understanding the constraints and values underlying practices in the public sector to a greater extent (Wanna 2008). While the theoretical arguments of the effectiveness of bringing resources together in crosssector partnerships are often compelling, there are also many theoretical arguments pointing out the limitations of the effectiveness of these types of arrangements. Belonging to different sectors often results in having differing priorities and worldviews (Ashraf et al. 2017). These differences can result in each partner in a collaboration viewing solutions to problems from differing time horizons (long-term versus short term) (Meinharda et al. 2016); having a lack of understanding of the organizational structures and logics of partners, thus increasing the difficulties in establishing joint governance structures and systems (Cairns and Harris 2011); encountering problems from leaders of different types of organizations operating under different reward systems, therefore often having differing priorities and perspectives (O’Regan and Oster 2000); and creating an environment where there is a lack of trust of the motives of partners (Schiller and Almog-Bar 2013). Wanna (2008) believed additional challenges, or disadvantages, of using collaborative activities, such as cross-sectorpartnerships, as opposed to contractual agreements, included decreasing the probability of political or bureaucratic buy-in due to the increased complexity of projects and less direct control by public sector employees or officials. Thereby increasing the blurring of lines of

accountability; and these partnerships can often result in slowing and watering down decisionmaking as individuals involved are often more interested in defending their turf than in finding the best possible solution to a problem.

Effectiveness Despite the hype and promotion of cross-sector partnerships, the ability of these partnerships be used effectively to make progress towards achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals remains uncertain. There has been a minimal amount of large-scale research about the outcomes of cross-sector partnerships on helping societies improve the lives of people in different parts of the world, and much of the evidence supporting using these types of partnerships is anecdotal in nature. For many organizations, the primary emphasis is on participating in a partnership and attempting to be seen as working towards socially beneficial outcomes, as opposed to assessing and adjusting practices based on the actual results of the partnerships to achieve specific goals (van Tulder et al. 2016). However it should probably also be acknowledged the wicked problem nature of some of the issues being addressed and the impact of other factors on the results which are outside of the control of the partnership. The factors associated with tackling a wicked problem are likely to make evaluating the effectiveness of most cross-sector partnerships somewhat problematic. In reviewing the results of cross-sector partnerships, Koschman et al. (2012) reported, “the collectives that seem to have the potential to address society’s most complex problems often appear to produce little of value” (p. 333). Rein and Stott (2009) reported on the problems and lack of effectiveness of cross-sector partnership in providing effective health care in South Africa and Zimbabwe; Schiller and Almog-Bar (2013) found a cross-sector partnership between a for-profit pharmaceutical company, and an Israeli NGO “yielded mixed results” and required more time and resources from the NGO than originally expected; Ashraf et al. (2017) found in

Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals

investigating cross-sector partnerships involving the creation of a carbon-offset market that operates under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, there were significant problems and challenges; moreover the authors did not report on any substantial reduction in carbon emissions resulting from forming these partnerships. But there are also some anecdotal evidence showing cross-sector partnership can provide benefits to communities and contribute to making progress in achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals in some specific circumstances. For example, Wadham and Warren (2013) found an NGO/business collaboration in Gambia involving the agriculture sector often had a positive, if indirect, effect by changing the perceptions of the parties involved and in generating innovative ideas and new ways of thinking even if the specific original goals of the partnership were not completely accomplished. Therefore the authors felt the partnerships had more of a long-term and evolutionary impact on the intended beneficiaries rather than a significant short-term impact by finding solutions and solving immediate problems. In a study in the UK involving 13 NGO and government cross-sector partnerships in planning and implementing welfare services, it was found participants on both sides generally found crosssector partnerships had the potential to deliver improved services, although it was also reported for the partnerships to be effective, many problems and challenges needed to be overcome. Furthermore, many respondents of the study felt the creation of many of these partnerships was driven by political concerns from the government’s side and the fact cross-sector partnerships were currently fashionable, as opposed to the partnerships and partners being careful selected as the best approach to meet current and specific problems (Cairns and Harris 2011). Schuster and Holtbrügge (2014) found partnerships between businesses and NGO could have a positive impact on providing services and goods to customers in “bottom of the pyramid” markets where access to markets was restricted by an excessive number of government regulations or

243

lack of private sector interest due to the low potential for profits. However, creating businessgovernment partnerships to provide consumers with specific products or services can have an impact on reducing competition, which in the long-term could contribute to higher prices and reduced customer service. Thus a business-government partnership operating in a competitive market often has the unintended consequence of restricing the entry of competitors.

Factors and Practices Leading to Successful Cross-Sector Partnerships In creating successful cross-sector partnerships, it has been suggested a number of factors or characteristics of potential partners should be considered. For the most part, suggestions include trying to find partners with similar, although not exactly matching, worldviews and goals for the partnership. For example, Ashraf et al. (2017) found cross-sector partnerships in which there was some level of shared values, goals, and institutional logic as well as a high level of mutual dependency were more likely to be sustainable and successful in achieving complex and difficult goals. Soubliere and Cloutier (2015) focused on the need for trust between partners and warned against a complete reliance on contractual obligations to ensure partnerships have the flexibility to survive and thrive. Battisti (2009) believed successful partnerships need to begin at the individual level where leaders get together and negotiate agreements which then can be implemented at the organizational level; and the joint setting of objectives between leaders was usually found to be beneficial. In addition, Babiak and Thibault (2009) felt it was important for the leasders of a cross-sector partnership to focus on structural and strategic issues in order to avoid many potential problems and difficulties. Once a partnership has been created, it appears it needs to be nurtured to prosper and accomplish its intended purpose. Soubliere and Cloutier (2015) felt it took time to build trust, and therefore keeping the partnership going through the tough

C

244

Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals

times, which can be expected, will help to build the trust needed to develop a successful long-term partnership. Schiller and Almog-Bar (2013) felt open and honest dialogue between participants was of vital importance, as well as displaying substantial amounts of patience and tolerance; while Ashraf et al. (2017) focused on the importance of maintaining mutual dependency and a power balance between partners to maintain harmony and good will. “Stubborn determination seems to be central in achieving some success from partnerships and collaborations” (Huxham and Hibbert 2008, p. 48). The diversity of the organizations and individuals in these partnerships while having differing resources and worldviews which make cross-sector partnership so potentially effective in addressing complex problems may also be the sources of most conflicts and challenges in successful implementation to tackle the problems and issues associated with achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. “Even when a partnership seems to be robustly successful for one partner, it’s possible that others might disagree” (Huxham and Hibbert 2008, p. 48). Successful partnerships are created with the hopes of achieving win-win results, but reaching this outcome can be difficult if goals are not well aligned. The literature would seem to suggest successful cross-sector partnerships will usually be between organizations with varying access to different resources but have at some level, structures, strategies, and worldviews which are not completely incompatible. Also once a suitable partner has been found, maintaining the partnership and establishing and maintaining trust between partners require a high level of effort, time, and commitment to the partnership.

Recommendations In the world of development, certain structures and practices come into fashion, but often produce less than spectacular results. For example, the use of foreign aid has often been, and continues to be, advocated and has been used extensively to fight poverty as well as achieve other specific social

goals, especially in sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., Ravallion 2016; Resnick and van de Walle 2013; Sachs 2005), despite the empirical evidence showing no positive correlation between receiving foreign aid and sustained poverty reduction. Strong arguments having been made that foreign aid in reality has often contributed to sustaining high levels of poverty and corruption (e.g., Easterly 2013; Moyo 2009; Sowell 2015) despite its popularity and widespread use. Micro-financing became a very popular development tool used in poverty reduction programs and has been promoted as an effective means to improve the standards of living of the poor by many scholars and experts (e.g., Newa 2010; Tedeschi 2010; Yunus and Weber 2007). The popularity of these programs even resulted in awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 to Grameen Bank and its founder, Muhammad Yunnas, for developing a micro-financing system in Bangladesh. Yet despite the hype and initial excitement, the impact of micro-financing on poverty reduction has usually been less than spectacular (e.g., Banerjee et al. 2013; Bylander 2015; Duflo and Banerjee 2011). And a little more than a decade ago, the creation of social businesses was advocated as an effective means to alleviate poverty around the world and make progress toward achieving many of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (Yunus and Weber 2007), yet the impact of social businesses on development and poverty reduction has up to the present time been quite minimal. Because these tools which were fashionable and trendy did not turn out to be magic bullets to end poverty or greatly change the lives of the majority of people living in poverty does not imply they do not have their uses. The only consistent method shown to reduce poverty around the world has been economic growth (e.g., Acemoglu and Robinson 2010; Bhagwati and Panagariya 2013; Collier 2007). The most successful wide-scale rapid reduction of poverty seen in the history of mankind has occurred recently in China. This reduction in poverty was accomplished in an environment almost entirely without any foreign development aid, and the most significant portion of the reduction in

Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals

poverty occurred before China had even created any official policies to directly address poverty reduction (Yan 2016). The reduction in poverty was driven almost entirely by economic growth driven by private sector activities and the country’s economy reengaging with the global trading system. Yet despite the less than impressive results in tackling a complex issue such as poverty reduction, foreign aid has shown it can be an effective tool in addressing very limited and well-defined problems in specific locations, such as in providing clean drinking water, vaccines, and increasing educational opportunities for vulnerable populations (Skarbek and Leeson 2009). While micro-financing has not proven to be a very effective tool in creating and growing sustainable businesses owned by people currently living in poverty, it does seem to provide a number of limited, but significant, benefits to many individuals living in least developed countries (e.g., Chansathith et al. 2015; Habib and Jubb 2015; Khan and Sulaiman 2015). And while the creation of social businesses which do not operate on a profit basis has not been shown to be an effective response to accomplishing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals in most situations, it is likely these social businesses can and will be useful in some very specific circumstances. It might be helpful to keep in mind the lessons from the implementation of previous development fads and consider the use of cross-sector partnerships as a tool which can produce limited, but sometimes significant, results in achieving very specific objectives related to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals when used by organizations and individuals dedicated to making a difference and when following established best practices. But use of these types of partnerships should probably not be considered the single best approach to achieve progress in the majority of programs designed to make progress toward achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The results achieved are more important than the organizational form used to address the social issues. In cross-sector partnerships, Wadham and Warren (2013) found “Partnership emerges as a

245

constantly evolving relationship between a growing cast of characters with diverse, sometimes unconscious, motivations. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that it becomes a source of both anticipated and unexpected outcomes, although the latter in particular may take some time to emerge” (p. 60). Thus there is a question whether cross-sector partnerships should be primarily designed to tackle very specific problems or designed to address more general issues and allowed to evolve and figure out what the partnership is most effective in accomplishing after operating for a period of time. The answer to this question will help determine how partnerships are formed and the extent of the use of contractual agreements in operating these partnerships. “Cross-sector partnerships are diverse, reflecting the different types of organisation involved, different underlying values of the people involved, different goals and different structures. There is no one standard partnership model. It must almost always be adapted to the given situation” (Battisti 2009, p. 106). These ideas indicate it might be more important to evaluate each individual situation as opposed to promoting a single type of organizational structure to improve social welfare. Bryson et al. (2015) felt practitioners in the field of development should not rely solely on research findings to develop their own cross-sector partnership programs due to the complexities and dynamic nature of each individual collaboration. Therefore, instead of evaluating the usefulness of the general form of cross-sector partnerships, it might be more useful to evaluate the appropriateness of each individual partnership for each specific situation. The current definition used by development organizations of cross-sector partnerships might be too broad and abstract to be useful in evaluating their potential effectiveness. It is generally agreed that social welfare responsibilities in every society should be shared by the state, the private sector (the market), households, and civil society, but often in many least developed or politically repressive countries, one or more of these four core institutions may not be functioning effectively (Estes and Zhou 2015). These four core institutions each have an

C

246

Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals

important role to play in making progress toward achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and in the development of societies that improve the lives of their members, although the mix of these four would be expected to be different in each location according to level of economic development as well as being adjusted for cultural and political factors. While each country and society has somewhat evolved differently, in general the private sector has been shown to be the primary driver of economic growth and poverty reduction and to be the most effective means in meeting the needs of most consumers for products and services (Easterly 2008; Gilder 2012; Moore and Griffith 2015). While there are some disagreements on the role a government should take in regulating or intervening in an economy when there are market failures, or what specific services the government should provide, there is a general agreement the government has a critical role in improving the lives of the citizens of a nation. Some of the activities often considered to be most effectively performed by governments include creating the legal system in which the private sector operates, safety and security, creating and regulating a currency, forming monetary and fiscal policies, and responding to natural or man-made disasters (Estes and Zhou 2015). The role of households in providing social welfare is extremely important but is likely to vary based on the level of government-supplied social services and cultural factors. Households and families tend to provide more social welfare services to family or household members in collectivist societies which have fewer social safety nets and provide a lower level of service in more individualistic societies where the government has more social programs. However, as the size of families continues to shrink in much of the world, it might result in changes in the role of the household in caring for its members. Civil society, which is made up of NGOs, religious institutions, and other nonprofit organizations, plays a variety of roles, but often works to advance specific causes or to provide services to specific types of vulnerable people. However, it is not clear whether the four core institutions acting

separately in the areas in which each is best suited will in general produce more progress for societies or if forming cross-sector partnerships can be more effective in producing positive results for societies in some situations.

Conclusion “We argue that a partnership approach which has proven successful in one context can be used as a valuable learning source. However, a partnership’s work, which includes all aspects of the partnership and its activities, cannot necessarily be transferred directly to another partnership without a thorough and locally informed analysis of the context in which it is implemented” (Rein and Stott 2009, p. 79). Cross-sector partnership should remain in the toolbox used to improve the lives of the most vulnerable individuals and help societies progress toward achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, but the use of this tool should be carefully and judiciously selected for use in very specific situations where other tools would be expected to be less effective.

Cross-References ▶ Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development

References Acemoglu D, Robinson J (2010) The role of institutions in growth and development. In: Brady D, Spence M (eds) Leadership and growth. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 135–164 Ashraf N, Ahmadsimab A, Pinkse J (2017) From animosity to affinity: the interplay of competing logics and

Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals interdependence in cross-sector partnerships. J Manag Stud 54(6):793–822 Babiak K, Thibault L (2009) Challenges in multiple crosssector partnerships. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 38 (1):117–143 Banerjee AV, Duflo E, Glennester R et al (2013) The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of economics working paper series 13-09. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London Battisti M (2009) Below the surface: the challenges of cross-sector partnerships. J Corp Citizsh 35:95–108 Bhagwati J, Panagariya A (2013) Why growth matters: how economic growth in India reduced poverty and the lessons for other developing economies. Public Affairs, New York Boltvinik J (2016) Poverty and persistence of the peasantry: background paper. In: Boltvinik J, Mann SA (eds) Peasant poverty and persistence in the 21st century: theories, debates, realities and policies. Zed Books, London, pp 45–91 Brand U (2012) Green economy – the next oxymoron? No lessons learned from failures of implementing sustainable development. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 21 (1):28–32 Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM (2015) Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: needed and challenging. Public Adm Rev 75(5):647–663 Bylander M (2015) Credit as coping: rethinking microcredit in the Cambodian context. Oxf Dev Stud 43 (4):533–553 Cairns B, Harris M (2011) Local cross-sector partnerships: tackling the challenges collaboratively. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 21(3):311–324 Chansathith C, Ohno A, Fujita K et al (2015) An analysis on borrowing behavior of rural households in Vientiane municipality: case study of four villages. Southeast Asian Stud 3(Suppl):113–133 Collier P (2007) The bottom billion: why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it. Oxford University Press, New York Collins-Camargo C, Armstrong MI, McBeath B et al (2013) Promoting cross-sector partnerships in child welfare: qualitative results from a five-state strategic planning process. Child Welfare 92(1):33–63 Davidai S, Gilovich T (2016) The headwinds/tailwinds asymmetry: an availability bias in assessments of barriers and blessings. J Pers Soc Psychol 111(6):835–851 Duflo E, Banerjee AV (2011) Poor economics: a radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. Public Affairs, New York Easterly W (2008) Introduction: can’t take it anymore? In: Easterly W (ed) Reinventing foreign aid. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 1–44 Easterly W (2013) The tyranny of experts: economists, dictators and the forgotten rights of the poor. Basic Books, New York Estes RJ, Zhou H (2015) A conceptual approach to the creation of public–private partnerships in social welfare. Int J Soc Welf 24:348–363

247

Gilder G (2012) Wealth and poverty: a new edition for the twenty-first century. Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC Habib M, Jubb C (2015) Poverty alleviation with microfinance: Bangladesh evidence. In: Heshmati A, Maasoumi E, Wan G (eds) Poverty reduction policies and practices in developing Asia. Asian Development Bank/Springer, Mandaluyong/Dordrecht, pp 11–30 Huxham C, Hibbert P (2008) Hit or myth? Stories of collaborative success. In: O’Flynn J, Wanna J (eds) Collaborative governance: a new era of public policy in Australia? Australian National University E-Press, Canberra, pp 45–50 Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York Kahsai M, Nondo C, Schaeffer P et al (2012) Income level and the energy consumption-GDP nexus: evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Econ 34(3):739–746 Khan A, Sulaiman J (2015) Does microcredit help the poor and financially marginalized communities? Experience of Pakistan. In: Heshmati A, Maasoumi E, Wan G (eds) Poverty reduction policies and practices in developing Asia. Asian Development Bank/Springer, Mandaluyong/Dordrecht, pp 31–53 Koschman MA, Kuhn TR, Pfarrer MD (2012) A communicative framework of values in cross-sector partnerships. Acad Manag Rev 37(3):332–354 Leff E (2016) From the persistence of the peasantry in capitalism to the environmentalism of indigenous people and the sustainability of life. In: Boltvinik J, Mann SA (eds) Peasant poverty and persistence in the 21st century: theories, debates, realities and policies. Zed Books, London, pp 247–269 Meinharda A, Lo L, Hymanc I (2016) Cross-sector partnerships in the provision of services to new immigrants in Canada: characteristics, relevance and constraints. Hum Serv Organ Manag, Leadersh Gov 40(3):281–296 Milanovic B (2016) Global inequality: a new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Moore S, Griffith J (2015) The freedom path to economic growth: a comparative analysis of country. In: Miller T, Kim AB (eds) 2015 index of economic freedom. Heritage Foundation & Wall Street Journal, Washington, DC, pp 31–46 Moyo D (2009) Dead aid: why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York Newa FO (2010) Microfinance and the growth of micro and small enterprises (MSEs) in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Faulu Kenya. In: Munoz J (ed) Contemporary micro-enterprise: concepts and cases. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 87–101 O’Regan KM, Oster SM (2000) Nonprofit and for-profit partnerships: rationale and challenges of cross-sector contracting. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 29(1 Suppl):120– 140 Ouedraogo NS (2013) Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from the Economic Community of West African states (ECOWAS). Energy Econ 36:637– 647

C

248 Ozturk I, Aslan A, Kalyoncu H (2010) Energy consumption and economic growth relationship: evidence from panel data for low and middle income countries. Energy Policy 38(8):4422–4428 Ravallion M (2016) The economics of poverty: history, measurement and policy. Oxford University Press, New York Rein M, Stott L (2009) Working together: critical perspectives on six cross-sector partnerships in Southern Africa. J Bus Ethics 90:79–89 Resnick D, van de Walle N (2013) Democratization in Africa: what role for external actors? In: Resnick D, van de Walle N (eds) Democratic trajectories in Africa: unravelling the impact of foreign aid. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 28–55 Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169 Rönnlund AR, Rosling O (2018) Factfulness: ten reasons we’re wrong about the world and why things are better than you think. School of Economic Public Lecture, London. Podcast available from http://www.lse.ac.uk/ website-archive/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/chan nels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id¼4045 Rueede D, Kreutzer K (2015) Legitimation work within a cross-sector social partnership. J Bus Ethics 128:39–58 Sachs J (2005) The end of poverty: economic possibilities for our time. Penguin Press, New York Schiller RS, Almog-Bar M (2013) Revisiting collaborations between nonprofits and businesses: an NPO-centric view and typology. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 42(5):942–962 Schuster T, Holtbrügge D (2014) Benefits of cross-sector partnerships in markets at the base of the pyramid. Bus Strateg Environ 23:188–203 Selsky JW, Parker B (2005) Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: challenges to theory and practice. J Manag 31(6):849–873 Skarbek DB, Leeson PT (2009) What can aid do? Cato J 29 (3):391–397 Soubliere JF, Cloutier C (2015) Explaining levels of local government involvement in service delivery: the dynamic of cross sector partnerships in Malawi. Public Adm Dev 35:192–205 Sowell T (2015) Wealth, poverty and politics: an international perspective. Basic Books, New York Stadtler L (2018) Tightrope walking: navigating competition in multi-company cross-sector social partnerships. J Bus Ethics 148:329–345 Tedeschi G (2010) Microfinance: assessing its impact on microenterprises. In: Munoz J (ed) Contemporary micro-enterprise: concepts and cases. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 116–128 Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232 United Nations (UN) (2018) The sustainable development goals report 2018. United Nations, New York van Tulder R, Seitanidi MM, Crane A et al (2016) Enhancing the impact of cross-sector partnerships: four impact loops for channeling partnership studies. J Bus Ethics 135:1–17

Cross-Societal Relationships Wadham H, Warren R (2013) Inspiring action, building understanding: how cross-sector partnership engages business in addressing global challenges. Bus Ethics Eur Rev 22(1):47–63 Wallerstein I (2013) Structural crisis, or why capitalists may no longer find capitalism rewarding. In: Wallerstein I, Collins R, Mann M et al (eds) Does capitalism have a future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 9–36 Wanna J (2008) Collaborative government: meanings, dimensions, drivers and outcomes. In: O’Flynn J, Wanna J (eds) Collaborative governance: a new era of public policy in Australia? Australian National University E-Press, Canberra, pp 3–12 World Bank (2017) Monitoring global poverty: report on the commission on global poverty. World Bank, Washington, DC Yan K (2016) Poverty alleviation in China: a theoretical and empirical study. Springer, Heidelberg Yunus M, Weber K (2007) Creating a world without poverty: social business and the future of capitalism. Public Affairs, New York

Cross-Societal Relationships ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development

Cultural Diffusion ▶ Social Remittances: A Pathway to Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship Chiara Piccardo and Maria Canepa Department of Architecture and Design, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

Definition Cultural ecology is a methodological approach to investigate the relationship between humans

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship

and environments, considering culture as a key to understanding the evolutionary process, differently from other living beings. In the last decades, the change of paradigm in man-nature relationship and the broader meaning of ecology have influenced the cultural ecology approach. This concept plays a leading role in different knowledge fields, such as anthropology, archaeology, ecology, geography, and landscape urbanism, to face and manage complex systems and stimulate further reflections on the social, economic, and environmental issues for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Background Key Issues From its very beginning, the aim of cultural ecology was to provide a key to understanding the relationship between environment and society. As stated by Steward (1955), who coined the term in his Theory of Cultural Change, cultural ecology is a methodological tool to investigate changes resulting from the adaptation of a culture to its environment, assuming that cultural ecological adaptations consist of creative processes. Here the word ecology refers to the physical and biological world that is part of the human environment, while the adjective cultural highlights the interrelationship between society and nature within the evolutionary process (Fig. 1). Throughout history, human-environment balance has changed with the level of cultural development reached by communities (Sutton and Anderson 2010). Culture plays a major role in the analysis of complex societies, where cultural features

249

actually prevail over environmental ones. Indeed, this approach tends to consider society and environment as two separate spheres, according to a dualistic view between culture and nature (Haila 2000). However, cultural ecology has the merit to include the ecological environment among the factors affecting cultural change. This is consistent with ideas spreading in other fields, as human geography and philosophy, in the mid-twentieth century, which recognize the relevance of natural systems in affecting human culture evolution and patterns (Hubbell 2018). These ideas have arisen from the overcoming of the Newtonian view of the universe, as well as the dualistic view between mind and body, taking place from the late eighteenth century. This approach not only marks a transition in anthropological studies but also stimulates a more comprehensive understanding of the man-nature relationship in a transdisciplinary perspective. Another important aspect in the evolutionary process between society and nature is technology. It plays an important role in the evolution of social systems, as well as in the exploitation of natural resources. Indeed, technology can indicate the trend of the times, as the interrelationship between human culture and ecological environment (White 1949). This interrelationship changes over time, not necessarily providing benefits for human beings and environment. This aspect has been reviewed in cultural ecology in the last few decades. Steward’s concept and its later reviews emphasize the role of economic factors in shaping social organization, based on the classical political economy perspective that considers ecology as a functional rather than a structural part of human society (Patterson 1987).

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship, Fig. 1 Relationship between cultural ecology, society, and environment; technology affects the society’s boundary toward environment

C

250

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship

The productivity and economic growth of the societies strongly overshadowed the environment relevance, at least until the end of the twentieth century. In fact, only at that time, studies on cultural ecology will deepen the relationship between ecological factors and adaptive behaviors, due to new concerns about the balance between society and nature (Mora 2014). These studies will be influenced by the growing environmental problems and the emergence of ecocriticism (Zapf 2012). Environmental Crisis and Change of Paradigm Starting from the 1960s, the ecological crisis has resulted in a review of the relationship between society and environment, as well as the role of technology and technological progress in shaping human culture. Furthermore, several scientific studies have shown alarming signs of an ecological crisis at global scale. The balance between human culture and ecological environment, found in some ancient communities, seems to be lost. The ecological debate moves from the scientific community to mass media. For example, in 1962 the Carson’s report about the dangers of pesticides for human beings criticized the use of technology showing that innovation could disrupt the ecological environment (Carson 1987). She highlights the responsibility of the industrialized and technological society that endangers the ecological environment. The same principle will be assumed by the environmentalism later. Her book Silent Spring will become a best seller. Furthermore, in 1972, the report The Limits to Growth, commissioned by the Club of Rome, questions the limitless availability of natural resources based on current economic growth (Meadows 1972). Since the development of the cybernetic theory, the relationship between man and environment has acquired a broader meaning. Bateson (1972) explains the transition between a Darwinian to a cybernetic conception through the extension of the unit of survival. This unit consists of the organism plus environment and not of two separated part. Indeed, the recent environmental crisis has shown that human survival is endangered by the human exploitation of the environment itself. The author also highlights that,

if the Darwinian unit of survival includes the environment and the interaction between organism and environment, the unit of survival turns out to coincide with the unit of mind. This suggests that the dualistic paradigm is not adequate to explain the relationship between society and nature. Furthermore, Bateson (1979) extends the concept of mind to all mental phenomena concerning the organization and interaction of multiple parts. Hence, from a cybernetic point of view, there is no distinction between the human being and the surrounding ecosystem. At the same time, he describes a healthy human society as the unit of environment combined with high human civilization, a flexible and complex system, where technology must take into account the limit of the available resources (Bateson 1972). In the following years, the cybernetic view of the man-nature relationship has had an impact on the ecological theories. For example, in 1979 Lovelock refers to cybernetics to support the existence of Gaia. The author describes Gaia as a global entity that actively maintains the physical and chemical environment fit and comfortable for the life on Earth. Lovelock compares Gaia to the cybernetic systems, which are always more than the mere sum of their parts (Lovelock 2000). Furthermore, the Gaia hypothesis highlights the original belonging of human beings to the global living creature. Men can take advantage from technology to manipulate the environment, but the fast advancement in technology can alienate him from his environment. In Lovelock’s opinion, the balance between technological man and Gaia, as well as their conflict, depends on the information management. Technology can be useful to collect, store, and process information. The problem of pollution is anthropocentric, because it affects the human well-being but not Gaia. However, this does not mean to go back to nature but to choose an appropriate technology (Lovelock 2000). In his The End of Time, Tiezzi (2003) argues that the divergence between historical time and biological time is one of the major responsible of the ecological crisis. The historical time regards socioeconomic processes, while the biological time refers to natural processes. Technology has

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship

violated the time of natural cycles by increasing productivity and, hence, the exploitation of natural resources. Furthermore, the technological time is faster not only than the biological processes but also than our cultural adaptability (Fig. 2). In this regard, ecological economics proposes to investigate the link between ecologic and economic systems, leaving the neoclassical economic model and the traditional idea of economic growth. This approach has become popular in the 1990s, also thanks to Daly’s studies. Daly (1996) describes sustainable development as a development without growth that follows the regeneration and absorption capacity of the environment. Since the economic system is included into the ecological system, the first has to comply with the time of nature. Although ecological economics is based on an anthropocentric view of the world, it has the merit to introduce the concept of limit for human expansion. Human culture, including economic and political factors, plays an active role in the relationship Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship, Fig. 2 Trend of Tiezzi (2003)’s historical and biological times based on the level of technology advancement and the relevance of cultural/ environmental features in society

251

between man and environment, even when perturbations affect this relationship. Therefore, the adaptability of human culture can be a key factor to manage the environmental changes effectively and timely. In a cybernetic perspective, cultural adaptability is the ability of social systems to evaluate and manage information over time. This can shape appropriate technology. An extended view of the so-called ecological crisis is proposed by Guattari (2000), who theorizes three different ecologies: social ecology, mental ecology, and environmental ecology. The author argues that human society is facing not only an ecological crisis but also a social and political crisis. For this reason, the technocratic approach is not enough to tackle the crisis, and an ethico-political articulation between the three ecological registers, which he calls ecosophy, is necessary. According to Guattari, ecosophy can clarify the interrelationship between different registers in order to understand the non-visible part of the ecological crisis. Hence the culture cannot be

C

252

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship

separated from the ecological environment. The author proposes to increase complexity in society by supporting particular cultures, against the cultural massification caused by mass media. This process will produce new subjectivity and achieve new awareness of the man-nature relationship. This is important to consciously deal with environmental and socioeconomic degradation. For example, it is necessary not only to curb the overproduction but also to understand the aim of the current economic system. Finally, Guattari (1995) highlights the importance of art as a creative process to go beyond a mere quantitative approach, meeting the qualitative nature of ecology. A similar approach can be found in Capra (1975), who theorizes the need to find the way of physics. Physics should not be a rational, and therefore imperfect, model of reality but rather an empirical demonstration of intuitions coming from the human culture and obtained by mystical and spiritual experiences. As said by McHarg (1971), it is important not to confuse the map with the territory and therefore not to forget the actual complexity of reality. It is worth noticing that, according to contemporary thinking, the pursuit of a new balance between culture and ecology, as well as society and environment, should be based on creative processes, as Steward theorized about his cultural ecological adaptations. A sign of the current unbalance between society and nature is also evident in the way the space is managed by communities. For example, Guattari (2000) talks about deterritorialization, caused by the socioeconomic standardization of postindustrial capitalism. Inspired by Guattari, La Cecla (2011) investigates this phenomenon in deep, finding that the dwelling can shape the space according to cultural and cognitive processes. Indeed, the dwelling is the result of the long-term human adaptation to environment. However, it does concern not only the physical survival but also the social and cultural survival of individuals and communities. Humans can meaningfully live within space thanks to the insightful ability that is called local mind. Augé (2008) distinguishes between anthropological place and non-place. The first one is a place shaped by

cultural processes and social practices; the latter results from regulations or instructions for use (e.g., airports and shopping malls), so it cannot be a place but can evoke imaginary places at the most. Furthermore, La Cecla (2011) also criticizes the modern management of space, where urban regulations have alienated the society from its environment, reducing it to mere commodity. The same approach has been also put into practice to eliminate cultural differences from local communities throughout history. Today environmental disasters prevent communities from living their environment with sense of belonging.

Ecological Theories and Cultural Ecology Human-Environment Interactions Cultural ecology investigates the relationship between human groups and their environment; identifying the environment as a fundamental variable that influences culture and human adaptation, then this relationship has gone through different phases. In a first phase, whose origins are very ancient and related to the beginning of social thought, people reasoned almost exclusively under the influence that the factors linked to the characteristics of the natural environment seemed to have on the most different phenomena of human existence. However, during the last decades, the idea that humans are more influential – and dangerous – on the environments than the contrary has come forward. The influential human actions on the environment and the unlimited exploitation of resources have brought to light a series of problems that necessarily will modify the relationship between human and environment. The influences between natural environment and humans starts to be proposed in a completely reversed perspective compared to the previous one: more than the influence and conditioning that the natural environment seemed to have on human societies, authors begin to study – and to be aware of – the effects that a certain kind of development of human societies, the industrial one, has on the natural environment, examining the macroscopic impact of modern human

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship

societies on the environment itself in the form of deforestation, extension and expansion of cultivated lands, mining extraction activities, construction of large land-based communication routes, coastal excavations, land consumption, and even hunting or farming. The concept of natural environment has been linked to very large critical phenomena such as pollution, overpopulation, lack of resources on the planet, the different perception of technological risks, climate changes, and more. Humans and environment cannot be considered as distinct and opposing entities; the territory, its natural environment, and even landscape cannot be seen as something external and foreign to humans and their development – not only material but also social and cultural – due to the belief that they are not immutable and inexhaustible. However, contemporary human beings reach this position very slowly, through a very long, difficult, and problematic interiorization process, which can be actually considered as a reconquest rather than a simple conquest. Ecological thinking has profoundly influenced the cultural ecology, and it has definitively changed – communicating it to the masses – the relationship between humans and environment. It also explained his position on the use of technology, offering a key to the interpretation of how humans should interact with it, respecting the environment (Bateson 1979; Bookchin 1982; Morin 2007). On the other hand, the second and last phase of the relationship between humans and natural environment supports an ecosystemic approach (Worster 1977). It takes place under the sign of ecology, considered as the study of the complex relationships that link all living organic systems, animals and plants, within the biosphere. The environmental crisis and the affirmation of environmentalism as an ever-broadening social movement produces a process of theoretical reconstruction based on a change of paradigm, necessary to rethink the dialectical relations between human society and the natural environment. The concept of sustainable development derives from this debate and becomes a sort of a political transposition of the ecological thinking.

253

Human beings have become aware of the irreversible transformations induced by the technical development of natural processes and the longterm effects that endanger the existence of future generations. This sense of danger and threat has led to a new ethical commitment and to the birth of the principle of responsibility that makes human beings feel responsible toward nature, themselves, and their existence (Jonas 1984). According to Worster (1977), during last years it has become impossible to talk about human relation to nature without referring to ecology. This concept played a central intellectual role in different knowledge fields and influenced the thoughts of many scientists, as Rachel Carson, Eugene Odum, and others, that have become leading voices, writing books, influencing government policies, even serving as moral touchstones, defining their age as the Age of Ecology. Ecologism and Environmentalism The term ecology (from Greek oikos, house, dwelling place, habitation, and -logia, study of) was coined in 1866 by the biologist Ernst Haeckel (1910), identifying the science that investigates the relationships between human beings and the environment in which they live. But it is only during the twentieth century, according to authors like Edgar Morin (2007), that this concept widens, considering the ecosystem as an organization based on reciprocity. In his first essay, L’an I de l’ère écologique, published in 1972, Morin outlines the sense of terms like ecology, ecosystem, and biocenosis. Furthermore, the idea of breaking the barriers between the various natural and humanistic sciences and the arts is already present in this text. For Morin, ecology is the set of studies and knowledge which describes the planet situation and the causes of its degradation; ecologism concerns the multiple ideologies at the base of environmental movements, mainly in the wake of utopian thoughts, related to Marxism and critical thought toward technology. The term environmentalism that is often approached to the term ecologism generally indicates the set of policies aimed at environmental protection. Environmentalism bases its legitimacy on two levels: a scientific level and an ethical-

C

254

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship

political level. At the same time, we can distinguish between a vision of environmentalism as a collective experience (Jonas 1984) and a more strictly individual vision (Thoreau 1854; Naess 1989). The objectives that it sets are conservation instances toward the environment and, at the same time, the will to change the social and economic relations, responsible for environmental degradation. Even if the publication of Rachel Carlson’s book Silent Spring (1962) is generally considered as a crucial moment for the development of a collective environmental awareness, the environmental movement draws on far deeper roots. The Conservation Movement, which developed in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century, anticipated some fundamental themes of environmentalism, as indeed the safeguard of nature, expressed through actions that have led to the foundation of the Yosemite National Park (Worster 1977). Conservationist appreciated nature in its wilderness; authors such as John Muir emphasize the need to be in complete harmony with the beauty of raw nature. An essential thought on the relationship between man and nature is surely offered by Henry David Thoreau in his book Walden; or, Life in the Woods, which is an account of the author’s life experience, lasting about 2 years (1845–1847), in which he tried both to establish a profound relationship with nature and with a society he did not appreciate because of its purely consumerist values. With his experience, Thoreau wanted to show that men are capable of living even in conditions of material poverty, attributing greater value to small things and drawing happiness from them. He went to the woods because he wished to live in a more simple and authentic way (Thoreau 1854). Thoreau’s experience is intimist, and his isolation choice from society puts its thought close to an individualistic approach to environmentalism; however, the need to divulge his experience through a book highlights Thoreau’s interest in sharing his thoughts to society. The Conservation Movement considered the development of a collective environmental awareness as a fundamental way to reduce environmental problems. But it is only with the

advent of the 1960s that authors developed new conceptions that would significantly change the objectives and actions of environmentalists and the definition of environment itself. During the energy crisis in 1973, the awareness of the limitation of natural resources spread, and the concept of limitation characterized the Club of Rome research. The Limits to Growth criticizes the development concept itself (Meadows 1972). At the same time, a new cultural debate was forming, the “counterculture”, from which also the environmental action was partly influenced. Between the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, there was an increase of ecological associations such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the foundation of new organizations such as the San Francisco Friends of Earth (1969) or Greenpeace (1971), which contributed to develop awareness to the social and economic aspects related to the environment. Starting from the 1980s and in the following decades, the environmental movement has gradually become more and more institutionalized. During this period of transition, the concept of sustainable development is affirmed as an attempt to realize a series of cultural instances matured in previous decades. Environment and Landscape Environment is a complex concept, not always easy to interpret. At least three environmental categories can be identified: a natural environment, a modified environment, and a built environment. The way we conceive the environment – considered as an uncontaminated natural environment – influences the relationships that men establish with it. Generally, it is understood as a physical reality alien to human presence; however, it is difficult to define coherently an ideal of uncontaminated nature. Starting from the Neolithic, man-made tillages and farming transformed European forests into a cultural landscape (Behringer 2010). Uncontaminated nature is wild and spectacular and for this reason worthy of protection, while in the past nature was considered beautiful if it was anthropized and reassuring. This new approach to nature, intended as an environment to be

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship

protected, has ensured that the protection of the environment prevailed over aesthetics. At the same time, there is a certain will to refer almost exclusively to the environment, while there is much fear to refer to the landscape, because the environment is scientifically describable as a physical object, while the landscape is a perceptive and cultural one (Corbett 2006). However, the environment and the landscape are not exclusively a social reality, not existing outside of their definition. The physical world exists, but the interpretation of it determines the relationships and the value that people attributes to such brute facts that become social facts. According to changes in social reality, approaches to the environment change (Searle 1995). The way that human beings look at the environment is closely linked to their cultural formation, the context in which they live and the way in which they approach it throughout their lives. The experiences with the environment can be direct, when it is physically experienced in a natural context, or indirect when this experience is filtered by communication, manipulation, or any programmatic intervention (Corbett 2006). Gilles Clément (2015) sees himself as a gardener of the world, conceiving the Earth as a closed system, a large enclosed garden, where resources are not infinite. With the expression Third Landscape, he indicates all the places abandoned by humans: the parks and nature reserves, the large uninhabited areas of the planet, but also smaller and more widespread, almost invisible spaces. They are different spaces united only by the absence of all human activity, but which taken together are fundamental for the conservation of biological diversity. This kind of environment is not directly related to human culture, but humans are culturally responsible for it and for its conservation. The American biologist Edward O. Wilson (1984) believes that human beings have an innate tendency to focus their interest on the vital processes, defining it as a biophilia phenomenon. Man is therefore by its nature brought to be emotionally linked to the forms of life that surround him and being attracted to the environment.

255

The different dimensions of the environment (natural, modified, built) identified so far can be included in a single systemic approach in which the environment is thought as a global system, consisting in a series of subsystems in mutual interaction that represent the conditions and determinants also for social interaction. This holistic perspective definitively rejects the idea of nature as a field of man’s unlimited domination and exploitation in order to restore to it an absolute value. For Merleau-Ponty (2012) nature is meant as a relationship, and the meaning of limit in ecology also represents inclusion; therefore, man and the environment are inseparable.

Cultural Ecology and Contemporary Debate Sustainable Development and Cultural Ecology Sustainable development represents a new paradigm for defining the relationship between human beings and the environment and constitutes a change of perspectives for society. It seems that in the last decades, the critical maturity necessary to leave the traditional thoughts typical of modernity has been reached, replacing them with new concepts like indeterminacy and complexity, becoming catalysts of new perspectives, like sustainable development. Although postmodernity is characterized by uncertainty, due to the transformation of its protagonists from producers to consumers, at the same time, it is more aware of the risks, offering a deeper wisdom (Bauman 2007). The path offered by sustainable development links together different disciplines, embracing concepts such as culture, human capital, balance, and equity as a solution to environmental, economic, and social issues. To guarantee the protection of natural resources, it is necessary to defend the environment and the ecosystems, considered fundamental for the future of human life, through a resource management that guarantees their conservation and renewability through the control

C

256

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship

and limitation of human activity. The environment, as a natural capital, must be preserved as it provides the resources and conditions for human existence. For this reason, the resources should not be consumed beyond their capacity of regeneration. According to Enzo Tiezzi (2003), sustainability is therefore the set of relationships between human activities and the ecosystem; such relationships must allow human cultures to develop while maintaining the global balance of the ecosystem. Sustainable development must use the principles of resilience, focusing on the capacity of an ecological-social system to absorb and prevent any traumatic events, adapting to changes, and reacting to emergency situations. Human-Environment Resilience According to the systemic approach, the unit of survival composed by the organism and its environment can only strive for stability if both the subsystems are stable. As argued by Bateson and Guattari, the relationship between society and ecological environment changes over time, and this dynamic process takes place in the domain of ideas, continuously inventing new ways of life. This suggest that, to tackle the environmental issues, it is also necessary a deep cultural renewal. In the last few decades, the scientific debate has extended some theories on ecological systems to social systems, coining the term socio-ecological systems (Adger 2000; Carpenter et al. 2001; Gunderson and Holling 2002). As ecological system, socio-ecological systems can be affected by perturbations. Depending on their resilience, these systems can resist, adapt to, and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner (UNISDR 2007). In the climate change era, resilience is the ability to anticipate, face, and recover from the effects of extreme events (IPCC 2012). Resilience is different from resistance, which simply measures the impact of perturbations (Holling 1973; Pimm 1984). Furthermore, in socio-ecological systems, resilience has to do with economic, spatial, and social aspects. For this reason, the observation and analysis of resilience in socioecological systems should follow a transdisciplinary approach (Adger 2000). Cultural ecology can

also be a possible key to explaining the resilient process of socio-ecological systems. Literature underlines the link between stability and complexity of systems, even if it is not always ascertained. The more a system is complex, the more it can adapt to environmental changes. Holling (1973) states that stability depends on the available resources. This is particularly important for the anthropic system. Adger (2000) considers the dependency on nonrenewable resources and the promotion of specialization in economic activities as risks for individuals and communities, in both ecological and social terms. In general, it could lead to a progressive depletion of common physical resources and hence to a loss of stability that Rifkin (2014) describes in social and economic terms and relates to the failure of capitalism. The concept of adaptive cycle plays a significant role in understanding the resilience of complex systems. Complex socio-ecological systems go through four different phases: exploitation, conservation, creative destruction, and renewal (Gunderson and Holling 2002). When a system cannot resist to a perturbation any longer, it should adapt its own biophysical, social, and economic subsystems through reversible or, eventually, not reversible processes, increasing its resilient capacity. Hence the level of adaptability depends on the ability of a system to transform its own ecological, social, and economic subsystems when they are not sustainable anymore (Carpenter et al. 2001). These transformations can be planned and carried out by creative communities. In this way, the system sustainability is strictly related to resilience. This perspective also shows how cultural and biological changes occur according to combined accumulative and substitutive principles. Over many decades the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has focused on the mitigation of climate changes rather than on adaptive strategies (IPCC 2012). The environmental disasters, as well as the level of uncertainty related to their happening and intensity, have gradually resulted in the need of new adaptive measures (Yan and Galloway 2017). In the last few years, the effects of climate change on the urban environment have gained a

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship

257

Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship, Fig. 3 Flood adaptive design of the new riverbank of the Rhône river in Lyon

C

lot of attention in the literature. The need to measure and improve the resilience of cities and their surrounding areas has increased (Doherty et al. 2016). Cultural ecology tells us that the adaptation of urban systems should take into account the way of living adopted by local communities in their built environment (Fig. 3).

Conclusions The approach of cultural ecology suggests some reflections on the role that the scientific debate plays in tackling new human challenges, as climate change. Firstly, it is necessary to discuss not only the content of technological innovation coming from research advances but also how the new techniques should be used considering society and environment in a systemic perspective. Secondly, it is necessary to shift from the current segmentation of knowledge to an integrated and comprehensive management of the links between different domains. The more scientific debate can change itself over time under the influence of technological innovation, new data, and ideas from different disciplines, the more it will be able to develop new adaptation strategies (Pickett et al. 2013). Cross-sectoral strategies and initiatives should concern all the levels of the socioecological system, including institutional and educational bodies.

Cross-References ▶ Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Nature-Based Solutions ▶ Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World

References Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24(3):347–364 Augé M (2008) Non-places: An introduction to anthropology of supermodernity. Verso Books, London Bateson G (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chandler Publishing Company, San Francisco Bateson G (1979) Mind and nature: A necessary unit. E. P. Dutton, New York Bauman Z (2007) Liquid times: Living in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge Behringer W (2010) A cultural history of climate. Polity Press, Cambridge

258

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development

Bookchin M (1982) The ecology of freedom. The emergence and dissolution of hierarchy. Chesire Books, Palo Alto Capra F (1975) The Tao of physics. Shambhala Publications, Boulder Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies JM, Abel N (2001) From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765–781 Carson R (1987) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston Corbett J (2006) Communicating nature: How we create and understand environmental message. Island Press, Washington Daly H (1996) Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Beacon Press, Boston Doherty M, Klima K, Hellmann JJ (2016) Climate change in the urban environment: Advancing, measuring and achieving resiliency. Environ Sci Pol 66:310–313 Gillés C (2015) The planetary garden and other writings. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia Guattari F (1995) Chaosmosis: An ethico-aesthetic paradigm. Indiana University Press, Bloomington Guattari F (2000) The three ecologies. The Athlone Press, London Gunderson L, Holling CS (eds) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington Haeckel E (1910) Last words on evolution. Watts, London Haila Y (2000) Beyond the nature-culture dualism. Biol Philos 15:155–175 Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23 Hubbell JA (2018) Byron’s nature: A romantic vision of cultural ecology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham IPCC (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: A special report of working groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Jonas H (1984) The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago La Cecla F (2011) Mente locale: Per un’antropologia dell’abitare (Local mind: For an anthropology of dwelling). Elèuthera, Milan Lovelock J (2000) Gaia: A new look at life on earth. Oxford University Press, Oxford McHarg I (1971) Design with nature. Natural History Press, Garden City Meadows D (1972) The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New York Merleau-Ponty M (2012) Phenomenology of perception. Routledge, Oxford Mora S (2014) Cultural ecology in archaeology. In: Smith C (ed) Encyclopedia of global archaeology. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, pp 1848–1855 Morin E (2007) L’an I de l’ère écologique: La Terre dépend de l’homme qui dépend de la Terre. Editions Tallandier, Paris Naess A (1989) Ecology, community, lifestyle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Patterson TC (1987) Development, ecology, and marginal utility in anthropology. Dialect Anthropol 12:15–31

Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, McGrath B (2013) Ecology of the city as a bridge to urban design. In: Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, McGrath B (eds) Resilience in ecology and urban design: Linking theory and practice for sustainable cities. Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, pp 7–28 Pimm SL (1984) The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307:321–326 Rifkin J (2014) The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan, New York Searle J (1995) The construction of social reality. The Free Press, New York Steward J (1955) Theory of culture change: The methodology of multilinear evolution. University of Illinois Press, Urbana Sutton MQ, Anderson EN (2010) Introduction to cultural ecology. AltaMira Press, Lanham Thoreau HD (1854) Walden or life in the woods. Ticknor and Fileds, Boston Tiezzi E (2003) The end of time. WIT Press, Southampton UNISDR (2007) Resilience. In: Terminology on disaster risk reduction. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. https://www.undrr.org/terminology. Accessed 14 February 2020 White LA (1949) The science of culture: A study of man and civilization. Grove Press, New York Wilson E (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Worster D (1977) Nature’s economy. The Roots of Ecology. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco Yan W, Galloway W (2017) Rethinking resilience, adaptation and transformation in a time of change. Springer International Publishing, Cham Zapf H (2012) Ecocriticism and cultural ecology. In: Middeke M, Müller T, Wald C, Zapf H (eds) English and American Studies. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart, pp 253–258

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development Joel Stokes University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Synonyms Archaeology; Counter-narratives; Cross-societal relationships; Ethical heritage; Historical narratives; Identity; Inclusivity; Nation-building; Oppositional knowledge; Peace initiatives; Public policy; Representation; Shared heritage; Tourism

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection

Definition The present entry examines the underrepresented role of cultural heritage, historical narratives, and ideas of identity within the UN’s 2015 SDGs, with specific reference to SDG 17. The role of cultural heritage within sustainable development is presented here both as the cause and as the solution to many of the objectives set in place within the SDGs. The present chapter uses a specific case example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to examine the issues causes by cultural heritage destruction, and the role that cultural heritage has in any meaningful and sustainable development in the region.

Introduction History and its related disciplines hold a command over the way perceptions of the present are constructed, and have done so for as long as history has been recorded (Boytner, Dodd and Parker 2010; Verovšek 2016). Sense and understanding can be created using past phenomena, and in doing so, the history of someone or something is provided with a perception of identity that links the past to the present. It is also through the use of the past, that societies are able to change, using an otherwise negative history as an educational reference point. Through these processes, ideas of heritage can be constructed. This was shown eloquently in Claude Levi-Strauss’ conception of “hot” and “cold” societies (LéviStrauss 1966: 233–36) wherein “cold” societies recreate the past for purposes of identity creation in the present and “hot” societies are conscious of present change brought around by a historical narrative that cannot be altered. Nevertheless, the influence of the past to shape present identities has seen historical sense-making lend itself to the dissemination of harmful political rhetoric and ideologies. As such, while the lessons taken from historical phenomena can provide a platform for identity heritage formation, they can equally contribute towards the deformation of cultural heritage, identity, and historical narratives in contemporary contexts. It is thus no surprise that the interpretation of cultural heritage objects and sites

259

so often finds itself at the centre of political, religious, and socioeconomic conflict. Yet as well as being a potentially divisive factor in working towards sustainability partnerships in society, the use of the past as an foundation for identity can likewise present an opportunity to build new attitudes and approaches for peace and social inclusion in post-conflict societies. Set in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are, according to the UN, the “world’s best chance” (sustainabledevelopment. un.org 2020) at ending critical humanitarian issues such as starvation, conflict, poverty, and gender inequality. However, it has been noted that the SDGs contain contradictory objectives, which make the simultaneous realization of all the Goals difficult to achieve without trade-offs between economic development and environmental sustainability (Obersteiner et al. 2016). Previous sustainable development goals, such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), were widely praised for their succinct, specific, and quantifiable objects and have been lauded as more attainable than the recent SDGs (Bali Swain 2018: 343). Indeed, outside the world of governments, NGOs, and academia, the majority of any given population are more concerned with micro-tangible quotidian issues, rather than macro-idealistic thinking (Easterly 2015: 322– 323). Given that the SDGs are a nonlegislative framework of recommendations for each country or region to implement as they see fit, there also exists questions regarding action and accountability (Easterly 2015: 324; Bali Swain 2018: 343). Moreover, the contemporary monitoring of “Big Data” to track a country’s SDG progress has raised concerns about the posed threat to cybersecurity, privacy, and personal data rights. All of the above issues draw specific relevance to SDG 17, which as the final SDG, focuses upon developing technological, financial, and knowledge support networks between different countries and between private and public sectors in order to facilitate the other 16 SDGs. Explored below is the notion that history and its presence in contemporary societies must not be overlooked as a significant factor in the success or failure of sustainable development and partnerships.

C

260

Concurrently, cross-party partnerships for the protection and conservation of heritage sites, as places of identity, are similarly crucial to the success of the proposed UN SDGs. In the present discussion, this is exemplified by use of the Israel-Palestine context. The discussion of the SDGs in this entry is aided by extant conservation frameworks produced by the United Nation Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and its respective advisory bodies, such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). These idealized frameworks can then be contrasted against the “facts on the ground” (Abu El-Haj 2001), and in doing so, one can observe the gaps in progress that still need to be addressed. Disputes over cultural ownership and historical narratives are frequently prominent in (post-)conflict contexts and attempts to construct agreements and partnerships therein. This entry exemplifies the general principles through a case study in the form of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian archaeological struggle over land, historical narratives, and most prominently cultural heritage. It will be demonstrated that the failure to form workable and sustainable partnerships over the protection of heritage has a sprawling effect upon larger sociopolitical issues and the failure to facilitate a meaningful peace.

The Role of Cultural Heritage in the Successful Application of SDG 17 In 2019, five major reports concerning the progress of SDGs in countries around the world were published. The UN’s Department for Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) was responsible for three of these reports, and the additional two reports were produced by the Bertelsmann Foundation (see sdgindex.org) and the European Union (for EU Countries only). The Basel Institute of Commons and Economics (BICS), which conducts the “World Social Capital Monitor” reviewed the five reports for major themes. From the sum of total mentions, the BICS found that “peace” (282 mentions) and “social inclusion” (22 mentions) were two terms that were largely

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection

underrepresented across the report. For purpose of perspective, the term “Health” had 1,814 mentions (Sachs et al. 2019). The lack of attention to “social inclusion” in particular is indicative of the work that still needs to be done for creating inclusive cultural heritage spaces and engagement. As was highlighted by ICOMOS, SDG 11.4 aims to “‘protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage’ in order to ‘make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.’” (Goal 11). With consideration of SDG 17’s purpose for the other 16 SDGs, the protection of cultural heritage that features is SDG 11 is again indicative of a set of objectives that can be potentially counterintuitive. It is untenable to perceive that the public-private and crosssectorial partnerships outlined in SDG 17 can be effective in aiding the success of the other 16 SDGs, without first ensuring that the societies and cultures are inclusive to all heritages and pasts, and this issue has been prominent in the international press during recent years. In 2015, several universities faced significant public and student pressure from anti-imperialist movements to remove statues of slave traders and owners and/ or British imperialists from campuses, and in recent months, the debate surrounding the memorialization of certain historical figures in the United Kingdom has once again been reignited. Similar protests have also occurred in America, with statues of Confederate generals being at the centre of cultural heritage disputes. Indeed many of these protests are about more than the historical figure, or action itself, as one protest organization website states, they are about a wider societal effort to: “decolonise the space, the curriculum, and the institutional memory, and to fight intersectional oppression” (rmfoxford.wordpress. com) and therefore increase “social inclusion” in all its forms. The past, or the perception and interpretation of it, therefore carries substantial influence in the construction of present identities and culture. The purposes of such an exercise are myriad, however, historical sense-making (Weick 1995; Klein et al. 2006), memorialization, narrativization or counter-narrativization (Gutman 2017), and didacticism are perhaps the most ubiquitous. It thus

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection

stands to reason that engagement with history’s kindred disciplines – in particular archaeology – should also be recognized as vital tools in unpacking contemporary questions gravitating around identities and cultural heritage. The appeal of archaeology for purposes of identity creation and sense-making is likely due to the fact that it is so often manifested in the tangible, the physical and the (semi-) permanent and can therefore be popularized among the masses (De Groot 2016: 285). On occasion, such a popularization results in a degree of historical embellishment, in order to aid the process of identity formation or justification of a political or religious ideal. Consider, by way of example, the use of Christian crusader imagery by far-right British and American political groups (Koch 2017). A deviation towards embellishment can most cogently be observed within post-conflict contexts. As the stakes for social inclusion and historical recognition are raised, so too is the tendency for historical falsehood and manipulation. Before moving on, it is necessary to define what is understood by post-conflict. The phrase “post-conflict” is not meant to be indicative of a conflict that is no longer actually occurring in different political, religious, military, and social settings. The term post-conflict instead refers to a context whereby the standard deviation of violent and/or armed struggle has become an undulating facet of society. In this sense, creating sustainable partnerships in cultural heritage creation, protection, and conservation may be likened metaphorically to trying construct a building while it is actively on fire. However, rather than an afterthought of successful partnership, the solution at present represents part of the issue. It is crucial for any conflict that resolves around issues of identity, culture, heritage, and ownership to be resolved from inside the societal milieu, by the battling groups’ own respective volition. In terms of the post-conflict Israel-Palestine case example discussed below, history and cultural heritage have played a prominent role in issues of identity as well as political engagement with the conflict. For example, specifically due to its connection with the Jewish, Muslim, and

261

Christian biblical traditions, Jerusalem has been, and continues to be, the focus of much contentious archaeological activity and interpretation. The UN perceives Jerusalem to be a “final status issue” (UN News 2020) for a sustainable peace, and therefore so too should the archaeological and historical representation of the city on a local, regional, as well as global scale. Sustainable Development Goal 17 of the UN’s SDGs rightly addresses issues of finance, trade, internet access, and data monitoring as a means of measuring successful partnerships and development within national boundaries as well as our global society, yet the issue of heritage is seldomly viewed as a priority in such initiatives. UN SDG 17 states: “These inclusive partnerships built upon principles and values, a shared vision, and shared goals that place people and the planet at the centre, are needed at the global, regional, national and local level.”

The relative stalemate in which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict finds itself (and indeed many similar stand-offs across the globe, for example, Northern and Southern Cyprus) requires consideration of a whole range of nuances not adequately acknowledged in SDG 17, or in many of the other 16 SDGs. For instance, what if a government is not fully functioning or even experiencing institutional void (a situation of weak or near-absent governance) (Khanna and Palepu 1997)? What if a portion of civil society refuses to accept the present government? What if the shared principles, values, and visions are in fact at the very epicenter of the issues preventing any further development, sustainable or not? Indeed, while Israel sits relatively highly in the world rankings for its average progress across many of the SDGs (49th rank), its progress for SDG 17, tellingly, is placed at the rank of 122nd (Sachs et al. 2019). Thus, postconflict societies’ capacity to co-operate and align with the initiatives set out in the UN’s SDG are often preceded by the very issues that lay at the heart of the conflict in the first place, those being, collective memory, heritage ownership and a “setting straight” of the historical record. Ensuring recognition of one’s own rightful place in the historical record is paramount for creating a secure

C

262

foundation from which the desired goals of SDG 17 can be achieved. In considering the role of historical narratives as a precursor to building sustainable partnerships, the issue with many of the SDGs is that they tend to privilege and focus attention on tangible objects, places, and people. For example, the SDGs often reference buildings, institutions, and demographics, rather than ideas, processes, and issues of metaphysical identity – such as sense-making through cultural heritage interpretation. SDG 17 stands out from the rest in that its objective cannot be achieved by financial investment alone, but investment into improving the frameworks of identity creation in contemporary societies.

A Case Example – Israeli and Palestinian Archaeological Heritage: Partnerships and Oppositional Knowledge Israeli and Palestinian culture exists in an environment of geopolitical high stakes. In order to move successfully towards a sustainable cultural partnership, there is a responsibility to acknowledge the contemporary as well as historical circumstances of both groups. Israelis and Palestinians have both experienced considerable collective trauma within living memory (Gutman 2017: 58). For Arab Palestinians, who have become the largest population of refugees worldwide (UNRWA 2019) since the 1948 Israeli War of Independence or Naqba (“catastrophe” in Arabic), the daily oppression that has come with over 50 years of military occupation forms part of an ongoing struggle to keep Palestinian heritage, as well as hope for self-determination alive. For Israeli Jews, the systematic murder of over six million European Jews between 1936 and 1945 and Israel’s defensive wars since its foundation, continue to represent open wounds in society, meaning that immense importance is placed upon the sustainment of Jewish cultural heritage and Jewish historical memory in a Jewish sovereign state (Yahya 2010: 144). Both Israelis and Palestinians lay claim to the land that is now Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) through a belief that their respective ancestry can

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection

be traced to some of the earliest settlement in the region. Jerusalem, Israel’s capital since 1949 and the proposed capital of a Palestinian state, remains a religiously and politically important city for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Thus, control over how, where, when, and through which means the cultural heritage of Jerusalem is represented also remains a major source of tension. Peace initiatives have not been in short supply, however, most if not all have unilaterally stalled due to their failure to consider the fundamentals of Israel-Palestinian identity and cultural heritage. With the United States Administration’s most recent Two State Solution peace plans branded a “one and a half state solution” (UN News 2020) by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Palestine (largely due to its ignorance of Israeli settlements as a roadblock to peace), it is clear that the UN’s commitment to two states with “recognised borders” (ibid) must also consider matters of heritage, culture, history, and identity that are unilaterally associated with the physical issues of land rights and recognized borders. This has not been paralleled by any indication that Israel or its allies have ceased to promote the idea that preserving Jewish Israeli, over Palestinian or Muslim, physical cultural heritage remains of paramount importance to justifying the modern Israeli state. The platforming of history and archaeology for the political “security” of a Jewish state can perhaps best be seen in a recent speech delivered by the United States’ ambassador to Israel, during a tour of the contentious archaeological site at the City of David, Jerusalem: “no quantity of bombs, or fighter jets, or troops really guarantees security. . .what makes a people safe is when they. . .collectively share values, beliefs, goals and a shared history” (City of David 2019 – emphasis added).

The “historical,” in all of its forms, has been worked into the fabric of both Israeli and Palestinian narratives as a rationale, rather than simply a prelude for contemporary events and as such forms an integral facet of the cyclical debates that continue to this day. Within post-conflict contexts such as Israel-Palestine, an “obsession with

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection

accuracy” throughout archaeological sense-making seems “fruitless” (Weick 1995: 61) as it continues to be used as a wedge driven between attempts at joint heritage and identity recognition, as well as partnerships for a sustainable peace in the region. In taking stock of where the Israeli-Palestinian reality sits in respect to SDG 17, there are several points to address. First, the Palestinian Authority has recognized that current trade and movement restrictions imposed by Israel limits Palestinian society’s development and sustainable growth and thus “remains an obstacle to the implementation of the [SDG] Agenda” (State of Palestine Voluntary National Review 2020). Second, the Palestinian Authority’s proposal of an 18th SDG, aimed at “ending the occupation, and the consolidation of the independent State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital” (ibid), reaffirms the significance of Jerusalem and its heritage for possible solutions to the current conflict. Third, the World Bank estimates that the Palestinian economy forgoes up to $3.4 billion of revenue due to Israel’s various restrictions. As a result, it is noted that Palestinian infrastructure simply cannot facilitate even the reliable tracking of SDG progression, let alone administration and application of resources to the actual goals themselves. Palestinian adherence to SDG 17.10– 17.11, concerned with export of trade and product capacity is currently severely limited by Israeli air, land and sea blockades of Gaza, as well as strict regulation on movement of Palestinians entering and exiting the Occupied Territories. However, the fourth and by far the most pressing issue for Palestinian society in relation to SDG 17, the need for a sustainable peace plan and the prevention of Palestinian cultural heritage from being eroded from the landscape, are the political consequences of the projected Palestinian population growth by 2030 – the target year when the 2015 SDGs are due to mature. At an estimated growth rate of 2.8% in 2017 (State of Palestine Voluntary National Review 2020), the UN predicts that within 10 years, the Palestinian population will need 1650 new schools, 36 new hospitals, and one million new jobs (ibid). Such rapid population growth in just a decade is perhaps part of the

263

reason for Israel’s aggressive focus on legitimizing archaeological as a historical means of building and justifying a Jewish State in region. The Palestinian population will soon rapidly outgrow that of Israel’s, meaning that the occupation of Palestinian populations in its current format will become spatially and economically unsustainable and a political solution to the conflict will become more difficult. Such population growth all but eliminates any possibility of Israeli co-operation in a one-state solution peace plan (a notion whereby all Israeli and Palestinian populations live under a single democratic state). With an Arab Palestinian majority, current Israeli governments are simply not prepared to risk the existence of a Jewish society should such a state function democratically. Thus a two-state solution, or some derivative of this plan, is the only feasible suggestion for a sustained peace, and with this comes a dire need for recognition and protection of Palestinian cultural heritage, as well as their legitimate calls for political self-determination. Not only is the protection of Palestinian cultural heritage important contemporaneously, but it will also inevitably be a crucial foundation stone in the creation of a historical landscape within any future Palestinian state. Compared to the traditionally sporadic Palestinian cultural investment in archaeology (Greenberg 2013) as a method of identity heritage engagement, Israeli archaeological activity disproportionately influences Palestinian livelihood and security. Palestinian cultural identity focuses on “cultural continuity and familial ties” (Scham 2001: 185) and therefore does not rely so heavily upon more temporally disjointed archaeological phenomena to corroborate historic identities as is the case in Israeli society (Silberman 1989). The disproportionate engagement with archaeology between Israeli and Palestinian society is represented at the highest levels of education. For example, while Israeli archaeology continues to be at the forefront of the discipline’s worldwide research and its best academics near celebrities in Israeli society, in 2009, only 5 out of 13 Palestinian universities offered or had previously offered “undergraduate and/or graduate education in archaeology” (Al-Houdalieh 2009: 165). Indeed,

C

264

as Glock noted, Israel’s Arab Palestinian population do not view their attachment to the land as grounded in the “biblical connection but rather on a long-term presence” (Glock 1985: 469–70; see also Scham 2009: 170). Therefore, Palestinians tend not to rely as heavily upon archaeological remains to formulate their historical identity or collective memory (Greenberg 2013). Yet the “physical attachment” to the land described by Palestinians is crucial to understanding the obstructiveness of forced relocations for purposes of Israeli archaeological excavations. For many Palestinians, the land upon which they live is their means of heritage memorialization and preservation (Yahya 2010). Indeed “the kind of physical attachment to the land often described by Palestinians, that is as essential to the individual as a body part, is distinct from the kinds of ties to the land that are uniquely Jewish. History . . .permeates Jewish conceptions of the Land” (Scham 2001: 185). This is an important dichotomy for understanding the development historical engagement within both groups. For Israeli Jews, archaeology, particularly of a biblical nature “hovered like black clouds over both academic research and public discussion for decades” (Finkelstein et al. 2007: 9) and continues to permeate numerous areas of society (Katriel 1995: 7; Zerubavel 1995).

Salvage Excavations: The Role of Archaeology in Consuming Cultural Heritage Space Following the 1967 Six-Day War, East Jerusalem and the West Bank of the Jordan River came under Israeli control. Almost immediately, Israeli archaeologists began to survey and excavate what had formerly been Jordanian territory (Greenberg and Keinan 2009: 4; Reich 2011: 4). This project was termed the “Emergency Survey” as it was the common belief that the territories annexed in 1967 would soon be returned as an integral part of a long-term peace agreement between Israel and its neighbours (Greenberg and Keinan 2009: 5). So-called “salvage excavations” (excavations to prevent the destruction of

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection

antiquities – often prior to building work) became a frequently acquiesced legal loophole (Emek Shaveh 2017) which allowed Israeli archaeologists access to Palestinian lands. Data assembled from upwards of 6000 archaeological survey and excavation sites in the West Bank during the period between 1967 and 2007 shows that up to 75% of these excavations were overseen by the Staff Officer for Archaeology (SOA), a position financially and logistically supported by the Israeli Military (Greenberg and Keinan 2009: 5). The relevance of this is that in the context of occupation, the SOA is not necessarily required to report to the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) (Yahya 2008: 49) and thus can conduct archaeological work in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) with a reasonable degree of impunity. As a result, many of the SOA excavations were initiated “without the minimum required documentation” (Al-Houdalieh 2009: 339) meaning limited regulation and perhaps even limited scientific rigor or serious conservation concerns. Under the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954), the occupying power has to right to excavate on occupied land, however, it is not advised, nor is it permitted for artifacts to be removed or sold from the territory (Stahl 2017: 5). The legacy of military involvement with archaeological affairs (see also “Operation Scroll”) (Greenberg and Keinan 2009: 7) can be seen clearly in the Emergency Survey preliminary report presented to the President of Israel in 1968: “Without the help of the army, the Border Guard, the police, the military governors. . .the survey teams could not have achieved what they achieved” (Hadashot Arkheologiyot 1968: 1–2; Greenberg and Keinan 2009: 5). The achievement referred to here is the surveying of “about three thousand sites” (Greenberg and Keinan 2009) in 12 months, or 60 sites every week. The belief that archaeology would provide Israel with the historical validation it needed to strengthen claims over the OPT (the geographical setting for much of the Bible) was aided by the Israeli authorities’ apathetic approach to preventing the looting of historically “Palestinian” archaeological sites in the West Bank

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection

(Al-Houdalieh 2009: 339; Yahya 2008). The removal, destruction, and ignorance of Palestinian archaeological cultural heritage in Israel and the Occupied Territories has been a method of delegitimizing Palestinian precedence in the land, as well as their current political agency pushing for national self-determination. The Israeli government’s settlement program in the West Bank has undoubtedly benefitted from joint IAA-SOA archaeological excavations. Between 2007 and 2014, 72% of excavations in Area C of the West Bank were characterized as “salvage excavations” and 42% of those excavations were determined to have occurred in order to facilitate construction in settlements (Emek Shaveh 2017: 3). Indeed, one of the largest settlements in the West Bank (Sayej 2010: 61), Khirbet Seilun Shilo, was originally set up as a temporary archaeological camp (Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999: 56). Thus, archaeological oppression has become a norm of Israel’s occupation and a tool to undermine Palestinian agency in a sustainable partnership.

Israeli and Palestinian Cultural Heritage Tourism: A Case Study of a Unsustainable Non-partnerships UNESCO states that cultural heritage tourism is meant to provide a platform for economic development, improved employment opportunities, and a route out of poverty (De Giovine 2008). However, this idea is grounded in UNESCO’s mission to create a worldwide network of cultural heritage, something De Giovine calls the “Heritage Scape” (2008). The fundamental notions of the Heritage Scape require individuals to relinquish any ideological or physical ownership of “place” and instead celebrate a collective of differences. At present, it is difficult to see this approach producing successes in the Israel-Palestinian context. For sustainable partnerships to be formed, the social inclusion of the cultural heritage context must first be adequately addressed. The UN World Tourism Agency aims to “maximize tourism’s socio-economic contribution

265

while minimizing its possible negative impacts, and is committed to promoting tourism as an instrument in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” (UNWTO.org). However, at present, there are areas of the Israeli tourist landscape that continue to directly contribute to Palestinian cultural heritage degradation and therefore heightened tensions. A prime example of unsustainable historical tourism in Israel is the archaeological site situated at the City of David. The City of David is located on the south eastern hill of Jerusalem, at the center of the Arab-Palestinian neighborhood of Wadi Hilwah, Silwan. In the last decade, close to half a million tourists have visited the City of David each year (Shilo and Collins-Kreiner 2019: 530), making it the second-most popular archaeological tourist site in Israel after Masada (Noy 2012: 29). The site has been the focus of dozens of archaeological excavations since the mid-nineteenth century, yielding evidence of human occupation from as early as the Epipalaeolithic period (Reich 2011: 281). In the late 1980s, Jerusalem’s Mayor commissioned the redevelopment of the City of David into a large tourist attraction (Shilo and Collins-Kreiner 2019: 532) and shortly after in 1991, all archaeological work became the joint venture of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and the City of David Foundation (Emek Shaveh 2013: 1), a private organization with a religious, political, and economic agenda to illegally settle Jews in the largely Arab-Palestinian populated East Jerusalem. The juxtaposition between cultural heritage conservation efforts, and settlement in occupied territory is obvious, and laid out in more broad terms between principles 4.1 and 5.3 of the ICOMOS 2008 charter (2008: 10–11). However, in the last decade, a state of affairs has developed whereby the IAA, a governmental agency, has essentially become the “subcontractor” (Kletter 2020: 60–62) for a highly politicized religious-settler organization. The organization runs its own tours of the City of David and is the minority co-financier of the ongoing excavations. However, the private nature of the organization means that their religious and political compass, which bares the belief that Jews have a historical and religious right to the Occupied Palestinian

C

266

Territories, can be used to control and disseminate a particular “version of history” (Soueif 2010: 12). Despite the illegality of settlement upon occupied land under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949: 185), The City of David’s website is forthcoming about the organization’s motivations, claiming to continue “King David’s legacy. . .through four key initiatives: archaeological excavation, tourism development, educational programming and residential revitalization.” It must be understood that the four initiatives set out by the proprietors of the City of David do not exist in isolation of each other, rather, they are mutually complementary. The use of archaeological remains to justify Jewish Israeli settlement in the Palestinian occupied territories considerably reduces the possibility for an independent Palestinian nation-state. The results of an increased amount of academic attention at the City of David have shown the that site’s official tour guides, information points, and public facing media all deploy politicized language in order to create a “hegemonic” (Noy 2012: 30–32) pro-settlement historical perspective at the site. A part of this process, contradicting ICOMOS principles 3.3 and 6.2 (2008: 9–12), is the active effacement of Palestinian populations from the present and historical landscape, for example, through removing Arabic labels from streets signs, presenting tourists with historical timelines that exclude recognition of Palestinian/ Muslim history (Landy 2017), and the deliberate shielding of the tourist gaze (Urry and Larsen 2011) from Palestinian populations living in the surrounding neighborhood (Landy 2017). Principles 3.1 and 3.4 of the 2008 ICOMOS Charter specifically highlight the issues with a religious pre-settler approach to historical narration at the City of David, stating that where possible, interpretation of a historical site “should consider all aspects of the site’s cultural, social, and environmental significance and values” (2008, 9), and that “the surrounding landscape, natural environment, and geographical setting. . .should [also] be considered in its interpretation” (ibid). Religious and pro-settler representations of the archaeology at the site have also been found to be misleading – all for the purpose of strengthening

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection

the Jewish narrative within the historical landscape. For instance, a proto-Aeolic capital exhibited at the City of David is portrayed (both through narration and by its physical location at the site) to have been part of Mazar’s 2005 “Large Stone Structure” excavations. One is led to believe that the stone capital therefore represents irrefutable evidence that a palace of David once stood on that spot. Nowhere is it mentioned that it was actually during excavations between 1961 and 1967 that the capital was unearthed (Kenyon 1974; see also Davis 2004). Elsewhere, one Israeli archaeologist stated “I found a Byzantine water pit...They said it was Jeremiah’s pit. I told them that was nonsense” (Soueif 2010), and yet the tour guides affiliated with the City of David Foundation have continued to use the pit as a biblical narration point with tourists (Klein 2014: 259). The invention of history for purposes of narrative embellishment, and ultimately political gain is restricted under ICOMOS principle 2, which states that information sources at historical sites should: “be based on evidence gathered through accepted scientific and scholarly methods as well as from living cultural traditions” (2008: 8). Yet, in the most extreme acts against Palestinian cultural heritage conservation, documents acquired by an Israeli NGO highlighted the religious organization’s direct role in the deliberately destruction of non-Jewish archaeological remains from the Givati Parking Lot excavations, such as a fifteenth century Islamic grave site (Greenberg 2014: 32–33; see also Pullan and Gwiazda 2009: 115–16). There have been attempts in the last two decades to highlight the use of archaeology in Israel and Palestine for political, and not epistemological gain. However, like many post-conflict settings, the complexities of contemporary IsraelPalestinian affairs are often mirrored by how viscerally archaeological storytelling is contested in the same context. Most notably was the instance of American-Palestinian anthropologist Nadia Abu El-Haj. After the release of her monograph, which provided in-depth analysis of politicized archaeology in Israel and the deformation of Palestinian heritage, El-Haj’s application for tenure at a high-ranking American University was

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection

suspended and subject to online public deliberation (Rabinowitz and Shamir 2008: 45–6). Due to El-Haj’s claim that archaeological data which, “... did not serve their [Israeli archaeologists] religionationalist agenda,” have been subject to deliberate destruction or neglect, she was publicly labeled a, “leading figure in a global campaign of anti-Jewish aggression” (Scham 2009: 172–3). El-Haj’s claims have since been widely corroborated by Jewish Israeli academics (without the same academic backlash) (Kletter 2005: 57; Greenberg and Keinan 2009; Greenberg 2014). The issue to note from this episode is not ElHaj’s research per se, but the fallout that ensued. In some ways, the reaction to El-Haj’s alternative narrative is more representative of the contemporary sociopolitical context surrounding archaeology in Israel, than anything written in her publication/s. Ultimately, the mistreatment of non-Jewish cultural heritage and historical phenomena by some parties in Israel does not soley stem from either ignorance, malpractice, or malice. It is done in order that the agency of any historical and archaeological Palestinian nationalism can be undermined and a Jewish-Israeli presence in the land becomes dominant and secure. With respect to the SDG 17 Partnerships for Goals, the mistreatment of non-Jewish archaeological remains carries ramifications well beyond the realm of historical study. Just as biblical archaeology has aided Israelis in their connection to a common past, an acknowledgement of archaeological evidence linked to a Palestinian physical past also carries justification for a rightful Palestinian presence on the land. When remains that are potentially significant to Palestinian populations are destroyed, the scope for using archaeological objects as a medium for historical education becomes limited – as does the ability for Palestinians to turn to archaeology and say: “we were also here.” Thus, with their historical legitimacy stripped away, the Palestinian seat at the negotiating table is figuratively pulled from underneath them. Not only has the basis for sustaining peaceful social development between Israel and Palestine been undermined, but the role of

267

Palestinians in this negotiation is being deliberately minimized all together.

Future Direction for Cultural Heritage Partnerships The struggle over the creation, control, and dissemination of historical memory in a society is not only a factor but often a prerequisite for the development of sustainable partnerships between different groups. Understandably, the influence of such matters is greater in societies that are currently or have recently experienced conflict of sorts. Nonetheless, the destabilizations that cultural heritage disputes create tend to show fault lines in societies worldwide. In order to successfully achieve the goals set out in SDG 17, populations and institutions need to feel included, secure, and acknowledged as a legitimate member of society with recognized and accepted heritage. Cultural heritage, and how it is applied to contemporary society, defines the members of that society. As was mentioned in the introduction, some have suggested that the SDG framework as a whole has somewhat “jumped the gun” with global objectives that are idealistic but often counterintuitive. This current discussion is not the place to say whether this is the case or not. Rather, from a review of the role of cultural heritage in society (with particular reference to the IsraeliPalestinian case study), it is clear that material investment can only go so far. The progression of a global society towards a fairer and more sustainable future is also about changes in attitudes, perspectives, and ideas. Indeed, how issues of cultural heritage, identity, and historical narrative disputes are approached in different societal contexts is an equally significant challenge to overcome.

Cross-References ▶ Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development

C

268

▶ Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Role of Transnational Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World

References Abu El-Haj N (2001) Facts on the ground: archaeological practice and territorial self-fashioning in Israeli Society. University of Chicago Press, London Al-Houdalieh SHA (2009) Archaeology programs at the Palestinian Universities: reality and challenges. World Archaeological Congress 5(1):161–183 Bali Swain R (2018) A critical analysis of the sustainable development goals. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Handbook of sustainability science and research: world sustainability series. Springer, Cham, pp 341–355 Boytner R, Dodd LS, Parker BJ (eds) (2010) Controlling the past, owning the future: the political uses of archaeology in the Middle East. University of Arizona Press, Arizona City of David (2019) US Officials Affirm Significance of Pilgrimage Road in City of David, Rejecting Palestinian Denial. Available via: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v¼BowhHz4lL7s. Accessed 09 Sept 2019 Davis TW (2004) Shifting sands: the rise and fall of biblical archaeology. Oxford University Press, London De Giovine MA (2008) The heritage-scape: U.N.E.S.C.O., World Heritage, and Tourism. Lexington Books, Washington De Groot J (2016) Consuming history: historians and heritage in contemporary popular culture, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York Easterly W (2015) The trouble with the sustainable development goals. Current History 114(775):322–324 Finkelstein I, Mazar A, Schmidt BB (eds) (2007) The quest for the historical Israel: debating archaeology and the history of early Israel. Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta

Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection Geneva Convention: Relative to the Protection of Civilians Persons in Times of War, 12 August 1949, 4th GC Article 49: 185. Available via: un.org/en Glock AE (1985) Tradition and change in two archaeologies. American Antiquity: Golden Anniversary Issue 50(2):464–477 Greenberg R (2013) Archaeology and Identity in Modern Israel and Palestine. Available via: https://youtu.bbe/v_ zam6wYW_s. Accessed 28 Apr 2020 Greenberg R (2014) A privatized heritage: how the Israel Antiquities Authority Relinquished Jerusalem’s Past. Emek Shaveh 1–52 Greenberg R, Keinan A (2009) Israeli Archaeological Activity in the West Bank 1967–2007: a sourcebook. The West Bank and East Jerusalem Archaeological Database Project 1–184 Gutman Y (2017) Looking backward to the future: counter-memory as oppositional knowledge-production in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Curr Sociol 65 (1):54–72 ICOMOS (2008) The ICOMOS charter for the interpretation and presentation of cultural heritage sites. The ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Interpretation and Presentation, Quebec Katriel T (1995) Touring the land: trips and hiking as secular pilgrimages in Israeli culture. Jewish Folklore & Ethnology Review 17(1/2):6–13 Kenyon KM (1974) Digging up Jerusalem. Ernest Benn Limited, New York Khanna T, Palepu K (1997) Why focused strategies may be wrong from emerging markets. Harv Bus Rev 75 (4):41–51 Klein M (2014) Lives in common: Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Hebron. University Oxford Press, New York Kletter R (2005) Just Past?: The Making of Israeli Archaeology. Routledge, Oxford Kletter R (2020) Archaeology, heritage and ethics in the Western Wall Plaza, Jerusalem: darkness at the end of the tunnel. Routledge, New York Koch A (2017) The new crusaders: contemporary extreme right symbolism and rhetoric. Perspectives on Terrorism 11(5):13–24 Landy D (2017) The place of Palestinians in tourist and Zionist discourses in the ‘City of David’ occupied East Jerusalem. Crit Discourse Stud 14(3):309–323 Lévi-Strauss C (1966) The savage mind. University of Chicago Press, Paris Noy C (2012) The political ends of tourism: voices and narratives of Silwan/the City of David in East Jerusalem. In: Ateljevic I, Morgan N, Pritchard A (eds) The critical turn in tourism studies: creating an academy of hope. Routledge, Amsterdam, pp 27–41 Obersteiner M, Walsh B, Frank S, Havlík P, Cantele M, Liu J, Palazzo A, Herrero M, Lu Y, Mosnier A, Valin H, Riahi K, Kraxner F, Fritz S, van Vuuren D (2016) Assessing the land resource–food price nexus of the sustainable development goals. Sci Adv 2(9): 1–10 Pullan W, Gwiazda M (2009) Designing the biblical present in Jerusalem’s ‘City of David’. In: Staiger U et al

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals (eds) Memory culture and the contemporary city. AIAA, London, pp 106–125 Rabinowitz D, Shamir R (2008) Who Got to Decide on Nadia Abu El-Haj's Tenure? Academe 94(1):45–46 Reich R (2011) Excavating the City of David: where Jerusalem’s history began. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem Sachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, Lafortune G, Fuller G (2019) Sustainable development report 2019. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), New York Sayej GJ (2010) Palestinian archaeology: knowledge, awareness and cultural heritage. Present Pasts 2 (1):58–71 Scham S (2001) The archaeology of the disenfranchised. J Archaeol Method Theory 8(2):183–213 Scham S (2009) Diplomacy and desired past. J Soc Archaeol 9(2):163–199 Shahak I, Mezvinsky N (1999) Jewish fundamentalism in Israel. Pluto Press, London Shaveh E (2013) Elad’s Settlement in Silwan’. Emek Shaveh. Available via https://alt-rich.org. Accessed 01 May 2020 Shaveh E (2017) “Salvage Excavations” in the West Bank for settlers only: an analysis of the scope and objectives of archaeological excavations in Area C of the West Bank 2007–2014. Available via: http://alt-arch.org. Accessed 05 May 2020 Shilo S, Collins-Kreiner N (2019) Tourism, heritage and politics: conflicts at the City of David, Jerusalem. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 24(6): 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2019. 1596959 Silberman NA (1989) Between past and present: archaeology, ideology, and nationalism in the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt & Company Inc, New York Soueif A (2010) The Dig Dividing Jerusalem. The Guardian, 26th May. Available via: https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2010/may/26/jerusalem-city-of-davidpalestinians-archaeology. Accessed 27 Apr 2020 Stahl Z (2017) Appropriating the Past Israel’s Archaeological Practices in the West Bank. Emek Shaveh & Yesh Din, pp 1–40 UN (2020) State of Palestine Voluntary National Review. Available via sustainabledevelopment.un.org/member states/palestine. Accessed 01 May 2020 UN News, 4th February 2020. Available via: news.un.org/ en/story/. Accessed 30th April 2020 UNRWA (2019) Palestinian refugees: United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East. Available via: https://www.unrwa.org/ palestine-refugees. Accessed 01 May 2020 Urry J, Larsen J (2011) The tourist gaze 3.0. Sage, London Verovšek PJ (2016) Collective memory, politics, and the influence of the past: the politics of memory as a research paradigm. Politics Groups and Identities 4 (3):529–543 Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in organisations. Sage, London Yahya AH (2008) Looting and ‘salvaging’ how the wall, illegal digging and the antiquities trade are ravaging

269

Palestinian cultural heritage. Jerusalem Quarterly 33:39–55 Yahya AH (2010) Heritage appropriation in the holy land. In: Boytner R, Dodd LS, Parker BJ (eds) Controlling the past, owning the future: the political uses of archaeology in the Middle East. University of Arizona Press, Arizona, pp 142–158 Zerubavel Y (1995) Recovered roots: collective memory and the making of Israeli National Tradition. University Chicago Press, Chicago

Cultural Remittances ▶ Social Remittances: A Pathway to Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Curricula ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals Peter Cox Department of Social and Poltical Science, University of Chester, Chester, UK

Definition Cycle transport partnerships are multistakeholder initiatives designed to support the growth of cycling as part of a contribution to sustainable transport futures in line with the sustainable development goals. While transport and mobility issues are not a goal in themselves, accessible and affordable transport is an important contributor to a range of individual goals as noted in the text. The range of stakeholders involved in developing cycle transport depends on type of initiative, but all work within a broader focus on sustainable transport. Transport cycling includes

C

270

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals

the use of electrically assisted cycles (e-cycling), transport of people and goods by cycle, and public-use cycles. It should also be noted that in maximizing efficiency for sustainable mobility that cycling may not always involve traditional bicycle designs, but for the carriage for good and for intermodal use, numerous design possibilities may be appropriate (Cox 2015). Significant shifts in modal share within the transport sector require more than individual-level behavioral change (Banister 2005; Horton and Parkin 2012). While the bulk of recent research on transport cycling is focused on urban mobility, this is a reflection of the largely urban location of the studies in industrialized nations; the potential scope of cycle transport extends beyond the urban (Cox 2010).

Introduction In 2016, the European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF) and World Cycling Alliance (WCA) published an audit summarizing almost a decade of research into the benefits of increased cycling as it pertained to the recently declared SDGs (ECF 2016). The ECF is the umbrella federation of cycle user organizations in Europe and beyond, whereas the WCA is a global network of NGIs with substantial interests in promoting cycling. Both work to identify the benefits of cycling as everyday transport and to act for the full integration of cycling strategies and policies at all levels into sustainable transport solution planning. As such the ECF’s work involves “collaborating with civil society and governmental organizations, politicians, experts, civil servants, the bicycle industry and the public transport sector” (ECF 2016, p. 6). This is conducted through the fostering of international networks and an annual global summit, “Velo-City.” While the ECF takes a key role in fostering interactions and allowing for conversation between diverse partner organizations, numerous initiatives continue globally of course beyond these networks. Their initial publication on the sustainable development goals (SDGs), Cycling Delivers on the Global Goals identified how, based on recognizable metrics and evidence, increased levels

of cycling as everyday transport addressed 11 of the 17 goals. Ongoing work to identify the measurable benefits of cycle transport has consistently consolidated and expanded this connection. Central to the work of advocacy organizations in the realm of cycle transport is partnership working. Cycling for everyday transport has benefits that address multiple goals but all of the work to increase transport cycling levels requires partnership working with multiple stakeholders. This analysis considers how, against a background of the potential multiple benefits, case studies reveal the extent to which analysis of initiatives to implement cycling policies reveals both barriers and opportunities arising in relation to partnership working in pursuit of the SDGs in general. A further observation can made alongside this analysis on the intrinsic values revealed by different forms of partnership working and the means by which they further contribute to the values of the sustainable development goals or work against them.

Transport Cycling and the Sustainable Development Goals Before looking at specific case studies, it is useful to lay out the potential contribution of cycle transport to individual sustainable development goals before considering issues that arise in specific relation to partnership working. Goal Goal 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food security, and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Contribution of transport cycling to realization Cycling is an affordable and simple mode of transport. Its use enables accessibility to education, jobs, markets, and community activities at minimal cost. There is high potential for economic growth through cycling-related job creation and investment produces high rates of return Cycling plays an important role for many small-scale food producers. It can provide secure and equal access to land, resources and inputs, knowledge centers, financial services markets, and opportunities for (continued)

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals

Goal

Goal 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages

Goal 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Goal 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all

Goal 8 Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth; full and productive employment and decent work for all

Goal 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation

Contribution of transport cycling to realization nonfarm employment. It widens access to food markets, increasing nutrition options, and ensures sustainable transportation of food products Cycling generates healthy and non-air-polluting lifestyles. The (low-stress) physical activity involved plays a part in reducing heart disease and other negative impacts of sedentary lifestyles. Creating safe conditions for cyclists contributes to reducing global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents Cycling provides access for women and girls to water, schools markets, and jobs, otherwise inaccessible through available transport means or walking. Safe infrastructure supports gender equality as it increases the number of women and girls that take advantage of cycling Cycling and e-cycling improves the energy efficiency of transport using renewable human power to move people and goods. Cargo cycle systems offer valuable solutions for first- and last-mile logistics. Good conditions for cycling offer individuals access to an energy-efficient and affordable transport mode The cycling industry sector including services and cycle tourism sector delivers products and services for sustainable, inclusive transport of people and goods as well as sustainable tourism and healthy leisure activities. The cycling sector creates more jobs for the same turnover as any other transport sector Cycling enables people to switch from the use of individualized motor transport to a combination of active mobility (walking and cycling) and public transport. More people cycling more often makes it easier to build resilient infrastructure and sustainable transport systems for economic development and human well(continued)

Goal

Goal 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable

Goal 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Goal 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

271

Contribution of transport cycling to realization being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all. Product innovation in zeroemission cycles and e-cycles adds to the potential range and scope of cycle use and usability Increased cycling makes cities and human settlements more inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable as cycling is safe, nonpolluting, and healthy and promotes a sustainable economy. One the one hand it is largely independent from complex hightech technology and therefore an extremely resilient mode of transport. On the other hand modern communication and e-cycling technologies integrate cycling into intelligent transportation systems of cities. The higher the modal share of walking, cycling, and public transport, the more sustainable the transport system is The transportation of people and goods by cycle offers the opportunity to move around – as commuters, consumers, and tourists – as well as the production, consumption, and delivery of goods in a sustainable way. Cycling matches perfectly with the diversity and scale of regional and local economies. In Europe, cargo bikes have the potential to replace 25% of commercial deliveries in cities, 50% of commercial service and maintenance trips, and 77% of private logistics trips (shopping and leisure child transport). Furthermore, the increase of the cycle tourism sector creates more options for people to choose sustainable tourism The bicycle is a symbol for decarbonizing transport and societies; it offers the possibility for immediate climate action. Governments at all levels can take action by integrating cycling into their climate action policies, strategies, and awareness raising (continued)

C

272

Goal Goal 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals

Contribution of transport cycling to realization The cycling movement, civil society organizations, and experts working on the promotion of cycling worldwide are supporting the global partnership for sustainable development. They encourage and promote effective public–private and civil society partnership to promote cycling. In addition, they seek to significantly increase the availability of highquality, timely, and reliable data on cycling to support the global development and dissemination of successful environmentally sound cycling technologies and the development and implementation of cycling policies in developing countries

Adapted from ECF (2016, 2018)

The benefits tabulated above reflect, of course, ideal scenarios. Analysis of existing projects and their delivery processes reveals the difficulty of creating meaningful partnership working to achieve these aims. On a more positive side detailed analysis of implementation reveals further areas of partnership and cooperative working that produce social and economic benefit in the delivery of schemes to support cycling as transport.

Scope and Problems Cycling is commonly recognized as an essential part of the sustainable transport modal mix (Donaghy et al. 2004; Cox 2010; Pooley et al. 2013; Béland 2014; Zipori and Cohen 2015; Pucher and Buehler 2017). As the tabulated summary above shows, sustainability impacts are multiple and multidisciplinary analysis both frequent and necessary to bridge between sectoral specializations. Quantifying, for example, the CO2 emissions saved by shifting different proportions of transport activities to cycling is a relatively straightforward modeling exercise (ECF 2011) but realization of those potential savings through the achieved modal shift requires multilayered policy intervention.

Long-term planning in mobility has always recognized the need for partnership working as central (Mailer et al. 2014). To achieve a shift from increased levels of cycling whatever the background conditions requires a process of transition from existing levels. The scale of transition and the type of change required (in relation to prior and existing modes of transport, for example) are context dependent. As de Boer and Caprotti (2017, p. 613) point out, cycling transitions often involve the overcoming of systemic institutional and civil society obstacles. These require multiagency working not only within institutions but between different social levels. The relationship between actors is often asymmetric (Spinney 2010). Frequently, citizen activists in the field of cycling work “to establish public-state partnerships guided by the principles of economic redistribution and social well-being” as a contrast to the more recognizable form of state–private capital partnership. This latter has been the subject of criticism as excluding the idea of the public commons (Martínez López 2019, p. 26). Public– private partnership has become a widespread and powerful mode of governance (Sager 2006; Aldred 2012) often experienced as exclusionary, as areas previously assumed as common city space are allocated to development and investment bodies (Peck 2005; Spracklen et al. 2013). For cycle transport that takes place in public space, the road as a commons for all traffic rather than the exclusive domain of the motor vehicle is an important key to maintaining equity and accessibility. Ensuring citizens groups are included in any partnering process is one means to ensure that this problem is alleviated, although it does not guarantee open and equitable resolutions. Public–private partnerships in transport planning have also been identified as problematically interconnected with fracturing relations between strategic and project-level transport planning (Legacy et al. 2017). Concerns with sustainability demand attention within long-term strategic thinking concerning metropolitan development across a number of scales: project developments on shorter timescales may have different priorities. High degrees of mismatch between the idea and the delivery of cycling infrastructures,

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals

even as part of a meaningful sustainable mobility plan, frequently undermine the capacity to built infrastructures to deliver the sustainability gains desired (Koglin 2017).

Cycle Transport Interventions and Partnership Working Recognizing that modal shift to increase levels of transport cycling requires specific interventions, a range of initiatives has been undertaken across a diverse set of locations. Capacity for the design and delivery of interventions depends upon the governance capacity and funding structures pertaining to the delivery of transport policy. However, due to the multidimensional impact of cycling (above), policy design and delivery may involve cross-jurisdictional initiatives, or at least coordination between departmental responsibilities. The responsible agencies in such multidepartmental and cross-jurisdictional interventions (for example, health, transport, and education) may not be at the same tier of governance (are they central or distributed functions?), making further cooperation more problematic. This problem at the governance level leads to a dominant pattern of separated, localized intervention, restricted to the individual cities which have the capacity to coordinate functions at a local level. Intervention types can be grouped under a number of headings as follows. Physical Infrastructure Physical infrastructures are the most obvious and usually the first item to be considered in interventions for transport cycling. Recognized guidance exists to indicate appropriate solutions and to outline the design requirements for different uses and situations (CROW 2016; Parkin 2018). Infrastructure is more than just cycleways and cycle lanes however. The physical infrastructures of cycle transport systems include extra household elements (roads, bridges, tunnels, cycle tracks, and cycleways) and intra-household elements (cycles), services (for maintenance and supply), and capacities (skills and ease of use of facilities) (Gartner 2016). Some of these latter

273

elements will be dealt with separately, below. It is also worth noting that infrastructures of all kinds are not simply neutral. Interventions are a political act whose design and location is a declaration of how the user fits into a social hierarchy of value and provision, and of how they should behave (Cox and Koglin 2020). Demand for infrastructure can have different initiation points. Citizen user and advocacy groups have a long history of making demands for adequate infrastructure provision, but initiation also comes from governmental agencies responding to broader sustainability requirements and in fulfillment of international commitments. Even when demands for physical infrastructure come from civil society groups, often themselves in partnerships representing a number of constituencies, realization requires action from governmental planning authorities. Disconnect between these elements can lead to problematic tensions. Analyzing the development of local cycling infrastructure provision in the UK, Aldred (2012, p. 100) notes how “many partnerships with varying levels of formality were set up between user-run organisations, lobbygroups, and local public and private sector organisations.” This multiplicity of actors, with different degrees of capacity expertise and insight requires careful coordination and mechanism to ensure adequate inclusion. Failure to ensure that all stakeholders are fully involved runs a risk that, while provision for cycling is made within the transport infrastructure, the social impact of this process is to reinforce social inequalities. Inadequate engagement may provide for environmentally sustainable mobility while simultaneously undermining social equity and creating social unsustainability, thus undermining the wider sustainability impact of infrastructure intervention (Stehlin 2014; Hoffmann 2016). Indeed, Hoffmann and Lugo (2014) document analyses of partnerships between advocacy bodies and government being deliberately used to undermine the mobility and rights of those who do not fit the image of the creative citizen held by developers and favored by political incumbents. Extending the intimate connection between physical infrastructure as the final outcome of

C

274

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals

a process and its initiation we see that there are important planning infrastructural requirements, as shown by Van Neste and Sénécal (2018). In a study of francophone Canada, they explore the way in which shifting to a more sustainable transport policy was facilitated only through recognition of the multiple agencies which were affected. Because the impact of a modal shift to cycling is felt across sectors, and across numerous SDGs, then the policy segmentation that exist within governance structures needs to be overcome. In this context brokerage of agreement between agencies responsible for health, poverty alleviation, transport, and community cohesion was necessary, and these needed to work in cooperation with local communities and civil society groups to make implementation viable and appropriate. At a microlevel, schools and parent groups are also engaged in rethinking traffic management arounds schools in order to promote cycling to school and young person’s independent travel (Wilson 2015). Different national and local governance structures can make such policy integration and connected working less of more of a possibility. Beyond local physical infrastructure, increasing cycling for transport use requires routing connecting settlement centers in a national network that may or may not be synonymous with existing road network. Again, multiple agencies and responsibilities need to be engaged once connections need to be made beyond the limits of individual local jurisdictions as previously noted. Extending this further into a national network, necessary for a properly integrated plan for cycle transport, can appear a daunting task. The scale of such work is illustrated by the experience in producing the National Cycling Network (NCN) in the UK. Its delivery, tasked to a single charitable body, Sustrans, brought together “over 400 active partners including local authorities, countryside and utility bodies, landowners, central government, amenity groups and community groups” (Cope et al. 2003, p. 6 cited in Aldred 2012, p. 99). In 23 years of development this has provided a long-distance network of 26,675 km designated routes, of which 68% is on existing public highway. Sustrans only owns or has access rights

to 3% of the total; 97% is run in negotiation with a wide variety of landholders. Upkeep and maintenance are therefore subject to a wide range of agreements and arrangements including extensive use of volunteer labor. Without this level of collective engagement, the national infrastructures simply could not have existed in the absence of a comprehensive state program. The weakness of this situation is recognizable in the intermittent quality of the network produced. Sustrans’ own evaluation (Sustrans 2018, p. 4) recognized that 42% of the network was of “very poor quality.” Running a national transport infrastructure network through a complex series of partnerships is clearly very difficult. Infrastructure delivery partnerships need careful management and clear lines of responsibility. If these problems can be encountered within national boundaries it can be easily overlooked that routing for cycling, as with any transport mode, pays little heed to national boundaries. Cycle routing if it is to provide for serious cycle transport should not just be thought of in terms of local connectivity. Longer-distance and international cross-border connections, as Van den Broek et al. (2020) demonstrate, require specific intergovernmental partnership institutions to coordinate practical design features as well as to work on policy and regulatory integration in order to produce common understandings of cycling’s place in sustainable transport planning.

Vehicular Initiatives (e-Bikes, Cargo Bikes, and Similar) In the motoring sector, transitions to electromobility are widely recognized to require incentivization. Whether at point of purchase (through direct or indirect subsidy) or in use (through exemption from road tolls and congestion charges, provision of public or business charging points and free parking, or access to bus lanes), such incentives are considered important to persuade both consumers and business fleet purchasers to adopt cleaner technologies (Christidis and Focas 2019). Interestingly, the dramatic expansion of e-bike sales has been achieved without any provision of special

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals

incentives. E-bike sales in the Netherlands overtook non-e-bike sales in 2018 and German sales totalled 980,000 (Reid 2019). However, in locations where cycle transport is less common, partnerships between local authorities and consumers may be necessary. New users may have to be familiarized with e-cycle technologies, their limits and capacities in order to see how travel mode substitution could be possible. Investigation into existing e-bike use in the USA has revealed that “e-bikes play a more important role in utilitarian travel, such as commuting and running errands, compared to a conventional bicycle” (Ling et al. 2017). Drawing on these approaches, Moser et al. (2018) report on a collaborative project initiated by a Swiss NGO and supported financially by the Federal Office of Energy and in collaboration with bike retailers and 32 cities, in which e-bikes were made available to car drivers to allow disruption of habitual driving patterns. This found that the trial had the capacity to break existing mobility habits. Similar issues apply to the introduction of other unfamiliar cycle technologies such as cargo bikes. Like e-cycling – and many cargo cycles are also e-cycles – these technologies have a significant role in providing practical opportunities for modal shift from private motoring. At present, private sector innovators such as the Bicycle Innovation Lab in Copenhagen (https://bicycleinnovationlab.dk/) fulfill the function of hire and sales of innovative cycling technologies so that potential users can experience the new technologies without commitment. This system functions successfully in an already high cycle sales volume market that provides the condition where such a scheme is readily comprehensible and allows choices to be made which are close to those already in existence. However, emerging markets may require public– private or industry–entrepreneurial partnerships. Academic studies into the potential uptake have themselves engaged in partnership working, where researchers have worked with providers to supply and users and analyze behavior (http:// www.smart-ebikes.co.uk/) in order to better understand the potential and impact of innovative cycle technologies.

275

Cycling as a Service Cycling as a service (CaaS) refers to a range of commercial services that provide users with temporary access to a bicycle (Petzer et al. 2019). These form part of a larger sector of innovative transport solutions (mobility as a service) that move away from conventional models of individualized ownership and use of private transport (Wong et al. 2020). Previously, CaaS schemes have been generically referred to as bike share and/or public bike systems. However, the expansion of services into new areas such as longerterm hire services, coupled with widely variable characteristics of different services require a new generic term. The term reflects the equality of cycling among other mobility as a service initiatives but also recognizes that cycle mobility has a number of distinct features given its specific engagement as active mobility. What is important (even in e-cycling) is human energy has at least part of the motive power (Behrendt 2018). CaaS initiatives, especially from the perspective of partnerships encompass multiple possibilities, and it is pertinent to examine specific operations for their distinctiveness: especially in terms of their levels of partnership between service provider, location, and context (including governance and physical infrastructures), and, centrally, consideration of different schemes initiation and implementation. Bike share and public bike are used below as per the original author’s usages. Public bike projects can be a contentious area. Where there is clear partnership working, integrated into a city’s public transport plan, they have the potential offer valuable additions to the urban modal shift (Burke et al. 2010; Fishman 2015). In an overview of the implementation of bike share schemes, Ricci (2015) identified the multilayer benefits (including improved health, increased transport choice and convenience, reduced travel times and costs, and improved travel experience) that might be expected as with any increased share of cycling journeys. However in the case of the bike share (hire scheme) studied, they found these benefits unevenly distributed through the population. It is unclear whether this maldistribution reflects specific characteristics of the accessibility of the scheme or the predominant

C

276

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals

user profiles of cycling in the area more generally. It is worth noting in terms of distribution and equality that the higher the overall cycling rate, the more even its distribution through the population (see van Der Kloof 2015 for a detailed analysis of Dutch cycling rates in different sectors of the population). The potential health benefits have prompted reviews of the literature to confirm the scale of benefits and the potential of bike share systems to contribute to it as a public health benefit (Bauman et al. 2017). Again this points to the need for multisectoral consideration of the value of investment by public bodies. Given the large contribution of motor traffic to urban air quality degradation and the impact on public health (see Cox 2010, Chap. 1 for a summary), the potential posed by a shift in transport practices has significant impacts upon public health. Frequently, however, there is insufficient coordination between areas of responsibility for governmental spending when the gains made might be in the budgetary jurisdiction of different ministries. Ricci’s review found “no evidence that bike sharing significantly reduces traffic congestion, carbon emissions and pollution” (Ricci 2015, p. 28), principally because the majority of systems studied were not integrated into wider strategies of modal shift and traffic reduction. Ma et al. (2020) examining bike share in the Netherlands noted that there was some modal shift from private motoring but the bulk was from public transport or private bike use. However, it is also important to note that Martin and Shaheen (2014) noted the pattern of modal shift is highly dependent on location and the previous modal distribution. Obviously, the greater the modal shift from private motoring to any form of active travel, the more significant the benefits. Realization of these benefits, however, needs more than simple provision of cycling as a service. Social factors are also important (Sopjani et al. 2020). Importantly, Ricci acknowledges that bike sharing schemes cannot exist in isolation. They require complementary pro-cycling (policy and practice) measures and wider (political and social) support if they are to thrive and to achieve goals

of increasing urban cycling levels. Only through careful nurture of partnership of multiple stakeholders can these synergies be achieved. To Illustrate how this can be done, an example from the USA –where cycle transport levels nationally are generally very low – provides an interesting lesson in multilayer changing partnership which has resulted in the highest bike share usage in the country. Denver’s bike share scheme shows the progressive development of different modes of partnership working (Marshall et al. 2016). Initial planning in 2007 brought together national advocacy group for the bicycle industry who were responsible for acquiring the bicycles and a private healthcare company to provide funding for project management and staff, who in turn worked alongside the Denver Mayor’s bicycle advisory committee. Citizen advocacy groups brought their practical knowledge and volunteer time to the coalition. Planning required both local knowledge and community engagement, alongside coordination with the Denver Police Department. Originally, Freewheel, as the project was known, was introduced as a temporary intervention for the democratic national convention: its success led to subsequent schemes including industry partnerships to develop new models for public hire use and integration into the city’s urban development strategy. Duvall’s (2012) extensive analysis of the scheme also demonstrates the multiple dimensions of the gains to be made – not just in the reduction of fuel use but in public health. A frequent limitation of both docked and dockless bike share schemes is their geographic restriction to urban centers. This problem is not insurmountable. Railway networks as partners in bike share schemes allow railway stations to operate as a more dispersed network (Villwock-Witte and van Grol 2015). It is feasible to operate these not only as hire points where the cycle has to be returned to its initial start point but to any other station in the rail network. It is worth noting that the most successful of these schemes in the Netherlands started in 2002 as a joint initiative of the national cyclists’ organization and the railways, supported by the government (Dijk et al. 2018).

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals

Speculative Schemes: A Problem for Sustainability

Analysis of the role and place of bike share or public bike systems in cities has been complicated and problematized by the interventions of speculative systems implemented by external companies with minimal (or nil) integration into local transport plans and which are not primarily designed to provide sustainable transport but as data mining exercises. These have produced immense amounts of redundant hire bikes as waste material and problems of dumping. Nikitas (2019) notes that in order to rescue bike sharing schemes from the negative impact of data predatory schemes that have effectively “bike dumped” in cities during the mid 2010s, schemes must be tailored to individual city needs and developed only through city operator and commercial partner synergies, coupled with both infrastructural and legislative support and engagement with local communities. Yet even when these type of predatory schemes have been introduced into cities that are already independently engaged in planning for growth in cycling, evaluation shows that they may make a useful (if temporary) contribution to changing transport patterns (Sherrif et al. 2018). However, success requires “close community and partners engagement from the outset,” according to Chris Boardman, the Cycling and Walking Commissioner for Greater Manchester (in Sherrif et al. 2018, p. 6). It is worth noting that this research was grounded in partnership working as a cooperation between the University of Salford and the governing body of British cycle sport, British Cycling. It has led to further partnership with Transport for Greater Manchester to (among other initiatives) highlight the need for evaluation tools for future infrastructure investment. The role of sports bodies can be controversial in cycle transport development and careful mediation is required to ensure that the image of transport cycling is not an activity only for the young, fit, and healthy.

Events, Public Engagement and Advocacy Partnerships The important role of citizen-led advocacy in the shift towards sustainable transport policy,

277

especially the promotion of cycling provision and the integration of cycling into transport planning, is undeniable (Cox 2021). Some citizen cycle advocacy has, and continues (necessarily) to sometimes be associated with protest events and occasional confrontation (Furness 2007; Carlsson et al. 2012). It is also the case that advocacy has a professional face grounded in partnership working as in the example of the ECF at the start. Local advocacy groups have extensive experience in working together with city officials and governance structures to promote change as examples from situations as diverse as the Netherlands (Feddes and de Lange 2019), the USA (Smiley et al. 2016), and China (Tan and Martínez López 2020) show. One reason for the necessity of cooperation between civil society and existing governance mechanisms is a reflection of knowledge gaps between traditional transport planners and engineers who may have little or no specific training in the skills and knowledge required for design and planning for cycling (Brezina et al. 2020). Partnership working may also be required for those tasked with practical implementation of infrastructural measures who, if not actual users, may not appreciate the importance of the finer scale detail essential in designing for cycle traffic as opposed to general road engineering (Parkin 2018). Zapata Campos and Zapata (2017) gives us an example of a different kind. In Goteborg, the Bicycle Kitchen salvages and refurbishes abandoned bicycles for everyday use and in partnership with the Chalmers students for sustainability (CSS) at the Chalmers University of Technology to supply students with bicycles and to train them in their use and maintenance. Two forms of voluntary organization combine in actions aligned with a wider urban plan for sustainable transport initiatives. Similar partnerships between social enterprises and government in the formation of cycle workshops are examined by Batterbury and Vandermeersch (2016). Other means to support shifts to everyday cycling rather than motoring are commuter challenges such as the Lake Tahoe Bike Challenge (Lee 2016) where advocacy groups and governmental agencies cooperate in event design and

C

278

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals

management for week-long team and business challenges to change commuting practices.

Conclusions The cross-sectoral challenges of changing everyday transport behaviors are complex and multilayered. Increasing cycle transport as a common practice requires intervention from numerous actors as shown. Wide ranging interventions are needed and the particular requirements are very situation dependent. However, there are, as we have seen, a number of promising mechanisms and processes that support the necessary partnerships. These are not just seen at local level but are transnational in scope (Jones and Novo de Azevedo 2013). Partnership working is essential for the realizations of increased levels of cycling in accordance with sustainable transport perspectives. Yet the implementation of cycling contributes to far more than the partnership goal of the SDGs. Cycle transport partnerships contribute to gains across a majority of the sustainable development goals.

Cross-References ▶ Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement

References Aldred R (2012) Governing transport from welfare state to hollow state: The case of cycling in the UK. Transport Policy 23:95–102 Banister D (2005) Unsustainable transport: city transport in the new century. Routledge, Abingdon Batterbury SPJ, Vandermeersch I (2016) Bicycle justice: community bicycle workshops and “invisible cyclists” in Brussels. In: Golub A, Hoffmann ML, Lugo AE, Sandoval GF (eds) Bicycle justice and urban transformation: biking for all? Routledge, New York

Bauman A, Crane M, Drayton BA, Titze S (2017) The unrealised potential of bike share schemes to influence population physical activity levels – a narrative review. Prev Med 103:s7–s14. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.YPMED.2017.02.015 Behrendt F (2018) Why cycling matters for electric mobility: towards diverse, active and sustainable e-mobilities. Mobilities 13(1):64–80. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17450101.2017.1335463 Béland D (2014) Developing sustainable urban transportation. Lesson drawing and the framing of Montreal’s bikesharing policy. Int J Sociol Soc Policy 34(7/8): 545–558 Brezina T, Leth U, Lemmerer H (2020) Mental barriers in planning for cycling. In: Cox P, Koglin T (eds) The politics of cycling infrastructure. Policy, Bristol, pp 73–94 Burke M, Sipe N, Hatfield E (2010) Evaluation of King George Square Cycle Centre. Urban Research Program research paper 30. Urban Research Program Research, Griffith University, Brisbane Carlsson C, Elliot L, Camarena A (eds) (2012) Shift happens! Critical mass at 20. Full Enjoyment Books, San Francisco Christidis P, Focas C (2019) Factors affecting the uptake of hybrid and electric vehicles in the European Union. Energies 12(18):3414. https://doi.org/10.3390/en1218 3414 Cope A, Cairns S, Fox K, Lawlor D, Lockie M, Lumsdon L, Riddoch C, Rosen P, (2003) The UK national cycle network: an assessment of the benefits of a sustainable transport infrastructure. World Transport Policy and Practice 9(1):6–17 Cox P (2010) Moving people: sustainable transport development. Zed, London Cox P (2015) Wider implications of bike design diversity. In: Zukal HJ, Brezina T (eds) Beiträge zu einer ökologisch und sozial verträglichen Verkehrsplanung. TU Wien, Vienna, pp 25–33 Cox P (2021) Understanding bike activism. Routledge, Abingdon Cox P, Koglin T (eds) (2020) The politics of cycling infrastructure. Policy, Bristol CROW (2016) Design manual for bicycle traffic. Fietsberad CROW, Ede De Boer M, Caprotti F (2017) Getting Londoners on two wheels: a comparative approach analysing London’s potential pathways to a cycling transition. Sustain Cities Soc 32:613–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs. 2017.04.019 (use for data) Dijk M, de Kraker J, Hommels A (2018) Anticipating constraints on upscaling from urban innovation experiments. Sustainability 10:2796. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su10082796 Donaghy K, Rudinger G, Poppelreuter S (2004) Societal trends, mobility behaviour and sustainable transport in Europe and North America. Transp Rev 24(6):679–690 Duvall A (2012) Public bicycle sharing as a populationscale health intervention for active transportation

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals in Denver, Colorado. PhD dissertation, Health and Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado, Denver ECF (2011) Cycle more Often 2 cool down the planet! Quantifying CO2 savings of cycling ECF: Brussels https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/files/ECF_CO2_WEB. pdf ECF (2016) Cycling Delivers on the Global Goals WCA/ ECF:Brussels https://ecf.com/groups/cycling-deliversglobal-goals ECF (2018) The benefits from cycling: unlocking their potential for Europe. https://ecf.com/resources/reports Feddes F, de Lange M (2019) Bike City Amsterdam: How Amsterdam Became the Cycling Capital of the World. Amsterdam: uitg. Bas Lubberhuizen Fishman E (2015) Bikeshare: a review of recent literature. Transp Rev 36(1):92–113 Furness Z (2007) Critical mass, urban space and vélomobility. Mobilities 2(2):299–319 Gartner C (2016) The science and politics of infrastructure research: asserting power, place, and agency in infrastructure knowledge. J Hum Dev Capab 17(3): 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2016.119 8309 Hoffmann M (2016) Bike lanes are white lanes: bicycle advocacy and urban planning. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln Hoffmann ML, Lugo A (2014) Who is ‘world class’? Transp Justice Bicycle Policy Urbanit 4(1):45–61 Horton D, Parkin J (2012) Conclusion: towards a revolution in cycling. In: Parkin J (ed) Cycling and sustainability. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-9941(201 2)0000001014 Jones T, Novo de Azevedo L (2013) Economic, social and cultural transformation and the role of the bicycle in Brazil. J Transp Geogr 30:208–219 Koglin T (2017) Urban mobilities and materialities – a critical reflection of “sustainable” urban development. Appl Mobilit 2(1):32–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23800127.2017.1285169 Lee DJ (2016) Embodied bicycle commuters in a car world. Soc Cult Geogr 17(3):401–422. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14649365.2015.1077265 Legacy C, Curtis C, Scheurer J (2017) Planning transport infrastructure: examining the politics of transport planning in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. Urban Policy Res 35(1):44–60 Ling Z, Cherry CR, MacArthur JH, Weinert JX (2017) Differences of cycling experiences and perceptions between e-bike and bicycle users in the United States. Sustainability 9:1662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091 662 Ma X, Yuan Y, Van Oort N, Hoogendoorn S (2020) Bike-sharing systems’ impact on modal shift: a case study in Delft, the Netherlands. J Clean Prod 259: 120846 Mailer M, Wolfhorst G, Bogenberger K, Kesselring, S, Keil M, Reiter M (2014) Mobility 2050. Region of Munich – Creating a common vision for sustainable

279

development in an unique Public Private Cooperation Transportation Research Procedia 4:557–565 Marshall WE, Duvall AL, Main DS (2016) Large-scale tactical urbanism: the Denver bike share system. J Urban 9(2):135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/175491 75.2015.1029510 Martin E, Shaheen S (2014) Evaluating public transit modal shift dynamics in response to bikesharing: a tale of two U.S. cities. J Transp Geogr 41:315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.026 Martínez López MA (2019) Framing urban movements, contesting global capitalism and liberal democracy. In: Yip NM, López MAM, Sun X (eds) Contested cities and urban activism. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, pp 25–45 Moser C, Blumer Y, Hille SL (2018) E-bike trials’ potential to promote sustained changes in car owners mobility habits. Environ Res Lett 13(4):044025 Nikitas (2019) How to Save Bike-Sharing: An EvidenceBased Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers Sustainability 11:3206. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su11113206 Parkin J (2018) Designing for cycle traffic: international principles and practice. ICE Publishing, London Peck J (2005) Struggling with the Creative Class. Int J Urban Reg Res 29(4):740–770 Petzer BJM, Wieczorek AJ, Verbong GPJ (2019) Cycling as a service assessed from a combined business-model and transitions perspective. Environ Innov Soc Trans. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.09.001 Pooley C with Jones T, Tight M, Horton D, Scheldeman G, Mullen C, Jopson A, Strano E (2013) Promoting walking and cycling: new perspectives on sustainable travel. Policy Press, Bristol Pucher J, Buehler R (2017) Cycling towards a more sustainable transport future. Transp Rev 37(6): 689–694 Reid C (2019) 100 million extra e-bike purchases by 2030, graphs NGO using 2018’s stellar EU sales figures. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/ 2019/04/11/100-million-extra-e-bike-purchases-by2030-graphs-ngo-using-2018s-stellar-eu-sales-figures/ #58ebb8b51a89 Ricci M (2015) Bike sharing: a review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation research in transportation. Bus Manag 15:28–38 Sager T (2006) Freedom as Mobility: Implications of the Distinction between Actual and Potential Travelling. Mobilities 1(3):465–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17450100600902420 Sherrif G, Adams M, Blazejewski L, Davies N, KameradeHanta D (2018) Bike share in Greater Manchester. Sustainable Housing and Urban Studies Unit, University of Salford, Salford Smiley KT, Rushing W, Scott M (2016) Behind a bicycling boom: governance, cultural change and place character in Memphis, Tennessee. Urban Stud 53(1):193–209 Sopjani L, Janhager Stier J, Hesselgren M, Ritzén S (2020) Shared mobility services versus private car:

C

280

Cycle Transport Partnerships for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals

implications of changes in everyday life. J Clean Prod 259:120845 Spinney J (2010) Mobilizing sustainability: partnership working between a pro-cycling NGO and local government in London. In: Peters M, Fudge S, Jackson T (eds) Low carbon communities: imaginative approaches to combating climate change locally. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham Spracklen K, Richter A, Spracklen B (2013) The eventization of leisure and the strange death of alternative Leeds. City 17(2):164–178. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13604813.2013.765120 Stehlin J (2014) Regulating inclusion: spatial form, social process, and the normalization of cycling practice in the USA. Mobilities 9(1):21–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17450101.2013.784527 Sustrans (2018) Paths for Everyone. Sustrans Review of the National Cycle Network 2018. https://www. sustrans.org.uk/media/2804/paths_for_everyone_ncn_ review_report_2018.pdf Tan H, Martínez López MA (2020) Dancing with shackles? The sociopolitical opportunities, achievements, and dilemmas of cycling activism in Guangzhou, China. J Urban Aff 42(2):241–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1592650 Van Den Broek J, Rutten R, Benneworth P (2020) Innovation and SMEs in Interreg policy: too early to move beyond bike lanes? Policy Stud 41(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1539225

van der Kloof A (2015) Lessons learned through training immigrant women in the Netherlands to cycle. In: Cox P (ed) Cycling cultures. University of Chester Press, Chester, pp 78–105 Van Neste SL, Sénécal G (2018) Claiming rights to mobility through the right to inhabitance: discursive articulations from civic actors in Montreal. Int J Urban Reg Res 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12215 Villwock-Witte N, van Grol L (2015) Case study of transit–bicycle integration openbaar vervoer-fiets (public transport–bike) (OV-fiets). Transp Res Rec 2534:10–15. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.3141/2534-02 Wilson A (2015) Making (up) the child cyclist: Bike Ed in South Australia. In: Bonham J, Johnosn M (eds) Cycling futures. University of Adelaide Press, Adelaide, pp 203–228 Wong YZ, Hensher DA, Mulley C (2020) Mobility as a service (MaaS): charting a future context. Transp Res A Policy Pract 13:5–19 Zapata Campos MJ, Zapata P (2017) Infiltrating citizen-driven initiatives for sustainability. Environ Polit 26(6):1055–1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644 016.2017.1352592 Zipori E, Cohen MJ (2015) Anticipating postautomobility: design policies for fostering urban mobility transitions. Int J Urban Sustain Dev 7(2): 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2014. 991737

D

Data, Monitoring, and Accountability ▶ Systemic Issues and Multi-stakeholders Partnerships for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

Decision-Making ▶ Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains Elisabeth Fröhlich1, Vaishali Baid1, Jennifer Lenz2 and Silke Peters3 1 CBS International Business School, Cologne, Germany 2 Sustainability Management Supply Chain, Automotive Industry, Saarbrücken, Germany 3 INA Initiative Nachhaltige Agrarlieferketten, Bonn, Germany

Definition A sustainable supply chain is largely determined by its suppliers. Consequently, the importance of long-term partnerships with suppliers for

achieving the sustainable development goals in global supply chains is steadily increasing. Three different practical examples are used to illustrate this increasing importance of buyer–supplier relationships. They represent three types of relationships – knowledge partnerships, standardization partnerships, and service partnerships – and serve as a basis for the development of an industry partnership model for global supply chains. The chosen industry examples (the chemical, automotive, and agricultural case) illustrate which subtargets of SDG 17 can be addressed to meet environmental and social challenges of a global supply chain.

Managing Supplier Sustainably Across Global Supply Chains Challenges to sustainability in the global supply chain are becoming more and more evident. In 2017, France was the first country to enact a “supply chain law” (https://germanwatch.org/de/stichwort/ lieferkette) to clarify the duty of care of companies with regard to human rights. In addition, the European CSR reporting guidelines have been significantly tightened. When one considers that the average depth of vertical integration lies between 60 and 70%, the statement that a company is only as sustainable as its suppliers seems convincingly true. This increases not only the importance of the procurement function in the company itself, but also its ability to manage supplier networks sustainably.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

282

Sustainable Procurement: A Possible Success Factor In strategic supply management, ecological and social elements are becoming increasingly important, in addition to economic goals such as achieving cost reduction targets. The implementation of a sustainable supply chain poses numerous challenges, especially for globally driven procurement activities. Sustainable procurement requires investment in buyer–supplier relationships, including the introduction of a supplier evaluation model that incorporates sustainable evaluation criteria into considerations, or the provision of training measures for buyers and suppliers that ultimately increase economic uncertainty in the supply chain. Both aspects are defined as the most important barriers in the context of implementing sustainable procurement management. Other inhibiting factors of medium importance, however, are the strong focus of procurement on the shortterm goal of cost reduction, a lack of guidelines and standards, minimal support from top management, and the additional demand on suppliers and their lack of necessary resources to position themselves more sustainably (Fröhlich 2015). In fact, the importance of sustainability in supply management can no longer be ignored. Resilient supply chains, in terms of securing the provision of procurement items to maintain the company’s ability to produce the final product, are in danger because of sustainability-based risks. The fact that supply markets are closed because the global suppliers do not support the company’s sustainability vision is still woefully underestimated. In most cases, the impact on the company’s image of a loss of supply cannot be clearly attributed to sustainability frameworks, and above all it cannot currently be quantified. According to a study published by EY (2016), risk management is still the most important driver for sustainable procurement. Unintentional violations of human rights, or ecological issues in a global supply chain, can cause immense damage to a company’s brand or image. Compliance and regulatory risks, as well as business continuity, are also mentioned, but they are not among the most important drivers, accounting for 33% and 22%, respectively. The loss of a licence to operate is

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains

feared by 87% of respondents. The Rana Plaza disaster led to irreparable damage to the company’s image, the compensation for which now requires a great deal of resources, and so companies are therefore not so much afraid of the legislator and legal changes as of the end consumer, who ultimately decides on the sustainable success of a company. The second most critical stakeholder is the investor, who attaches more and more importance to compliance via ecological and social criteria when financing business ideas. Even if ignoring sustainable challenges can lead to losing the licence to operate, companies increasingly see the potential hidden behind a sustainable corporate strategy. Efficiencies and opportunities for innovation have become one of the key drivers in sustainable supply management, especially as the innovative added value of suppliers is increasingly taken into account in strategic buyer–supplier relationships. To sum up the above, one main challenge remains: a functional area, whose contribution to the achievement of corporate objectives is still evaluated, according to possible cost reduction potentials to be exhausted is not up to such a complex task as the consistent implementation of social and ecological standards throughout the entire supply chain. Challenges such as ensuring environmental and social standards in the supply chain, the quality assurance of procurement objects, political and legal uncertainties in supplier countries as well as the lack of control possibilities and the complexity of the supply chain (Fröhlich 2015) call for new strategies and approaches in supply management, coupled with the willingness of top management to invest not only in the processes, but also the employees of the purchasing and supplying company. The Impact of SDG 17 on Global Supply Chains It became clear so far that it is not possible to guarantee a sustainable supply chain that takes into account ecological and social challenges equally while not establishing long-term co-operation between purchasers and suppliers. In this respect, the importance of SDG 17 is thus: the 17 objectives can only be achieved through a strong global partnership, and so governments,

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains

civil society, and business must work together to implement them accordingly. “Leave no one behind” is the overarching principle of Agenda 2030, and UN member states have committed themselves to reaching first those who are furthest behind (17ziele.de/ziele/17.html). In order to explain better what added value multistakeholder partnerships in procurement can provide in achieving a sustainability vision, it is necessary to characterize briefly the individual subareas of SDG 17. These further explanations are taken from the United Nation’s homepage (sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ sdg17) and cover the areas of finance, technology, capacity building, trade, and systemic issues, which in turn are subdivided into policy and institutional coherence, multistakeholder partnerships, and data, monitoring, and accountability. “Technology, science and capacity building are major pillars of the Means of Implementation of the Post-2015 Agenda and of the Rio+20 followup processes. The research, development, deployment, and widespread diffusion of environmentally sound technologies in the context of a Green Economy [are] also closely linked to other core elements and means of implementation, including innovation, business opportunities and development, trade of environmental goods and services, finance and investment, and institutional capabilities” (sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17). This paragraph offers a perfect definition of the importance of the first four subsections of SDG 17. Systemic issues are particularly noteworthy here, as they are the focus of this entry. The political framework must ensure that sustainable development can be initiated, in order to minimize corruption or the violation of human rights in a global supply chain. Without political support in the respective sourcing country, it becomes almost impossible for the procuring company to advocate the achievement of the SDGs; furthermore, it is particularly important that reliable data for sustainable development are made available. Digital technologies such as supply chain mapping or data mining (Fröhlich and Steinbiss 2018) increase transparency, which is a necessary prerequisite to ensure that SDGs are implemented in a global supply chain in the long run (Fröhlich et al. 2019). It must also be considered that supply

283

chain initiatives need to be set up and key performance indicators developed, to make improvements in the degree of sustainability in a global supply chain measurable. The visualization of joint successes is essential in achieving supplier engagement and the necessary commitment in a multistakeholder partnership. This leads us to last subsection dealing with systematic issues – multistakeholder partnerships, the defining characteristics of which, according to Treichel et al. (2017), are: – “The focus lies on overcoming social challenges and pursuing the common good through long-term cooperation. – Several representatives from at least three of the four stakeholder groups (state, private sector, organized civil society and academia) voluntarily join forces. At least one member is from organized civil society. – All the stakeholders are involved in the MSP’s work on an equal footprint. – The partnership involves some degree of institutionalisation and independence.” Although in this entry the focus is on supplier– buyer relationships, the following practical examples make it clear that it is not possible to implement a sustainable global supply chain without the support of NGOs or any of the other stakeholders mentioned above. For this reason, it is helpful to use the multistakeholder partnerships concept as the theoretical basis for this entry. Three types of partnership exist (Treichel et al. 2017): knowledge, standardization, and service. The first form of cooperation focuses on the transfer of knowledge between suppliers and purchasers, while standardization partnerships attempt to implement standards between suppliers and the purchasing company, e.g., for sustainable supplier evaluation and supplier management. The last form of partnership implements concrete projects and services, to enable suppliers to meet ecological and social standards. In a nutshell, SDG 17 refers to the need for cross-sector and cross-country collaboration in pursuit of all goals by 2030. It is a call for countries to align policies, and it is about strengthening

D

284

and streamlining cooperation between nation states, both developed and developing, using the SDGs as a shared framework and a shared vision for defining this collaborative way forward. The world has a global roadmap for building resilient and inclusive economies, and the adoption of the SDGs and the Paris Agreement on climate change leaves little room for ambiguity about what we need to do. The private sector has a tremendous role to play in fulfilling the objectives laid down in the SDGs and the Paris Agreement, but business as usual will not get the job done. The imperatives to eliminate poverty, avoid catastrophic climate change, and build inclusive societies call for new approaches. In particular, new ways of leveraging businesses’ collective assets and resources through collaboration have to be found, as no one organization can tackle systemic issues alone (Rockefeller Foundation BSR 2018). An Industry Partnership Model for Global Supply Chains In the EY Report (2016) it is stated: “Working with peers, industry associates, standard setters and NGOs is critical for companies to achieve sustainability in the supply chain,” which corresponds with the development of regenerative business models (Fullerton 2015). A holistic understanding of economics will replace the concept of the invisible hands’ mechanistic world view, which was previously based on Adam Smiths’ concept. In order to rethink capitalism, so-called “vitality criteria” are coming to the fore. “In right relation” and “Empowered Participation” are two important criteria that support the collaborative approach chosen in this entry. Purchasers and suppliers are part of the “interconnected web of life” (Fullerton 2015) and therefore cannot be seen isolated from society and the biosphere. Empowered participation highlights the importance of empowering suppliers to understand global sustainable supply chains holistically. It is the task of the procurement company to educate its suppliers and to point out where potential for sustainable improvement in a supply chain can be found. Concrete joint measures have to be developed, examples of which can be found in the second part of this entry.

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains

So many of the challenges and opportunities associated with corporate sustainability cannot be tackled by individual companies on their own – it must be done by collaboration throughout the global supply chain, with a multistakeholder partnership driving the agenda. To be leading edge, supply chain functions must be collaborative, move beyond the traditional role and deliver more strategic value. Moving to this new strategic role will require procurement’s increased collaboration with internal stakeholders and standard setters, and startups to work on new ideas and innovative solutions with suppliers, drive digital solutions with technology experts and partner with universities for research and development projects and other like-minded businesses to drive the sustainability agenda for a just world. Based on the results of the EY Report (2016), an industry partnership model has been developed. The challenges and drivers of a sustainable supply chain, as described above, can only be solved in a collaborative model. In addition to the stakeholders discussed above, there are other potential partners that need to be considered in the context of sustainable supply chain management. Furthermore, this understanding also requires a new mindset (Fröhlich and Steinbiss 2018a) as well as capabilities and incentives on the part of the institutions for sustainability. This industry partnership model is advantageous in a number of ways. For instance, it will give a platform to companies to create a common voice for a topic which is a concern across the sector, and it will enable sectors to become influential in setting new standards; in the long run, such partnerships could also result in the reduction of cost and effort. Lastly, it will attract more innovative solutions and new ideas, which will further improve the overall supply chain (Fig. 1).

Partnership Models in Practice: Three Different Industries: Three Different Challenges As discussed previously, three different practical cases are provided herein. The “Chemical Industry Case” represents standardization partnerships,

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains

285

Outside Industry

 State  Private Sector  Organized Civil Society  Academia

 Suppliers  Start-Ups

D Mandatory

Industry Partnership Model

Stay Ahead

Industry Initiatives

 Consortiums  Inter Company

 Technology Experts  Thought Leaders

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains, Fig. 1 An industry partnership model. (Source: own illustration)

the “Automotive Case” stands for knowledge partnership, and the “Agricultural Case” provides an example of service partnerships. A summary is then presented on how the three discussed cases help to achieve the SDG 17 subtargets. The “Chemical Industry Case” Together for Sustainability (TfS) is a joint initiative between chemical companies, founded in 2011. The project serves as a typical example of standardization partnerships, because it is based on good practices and builds on established principles, such as the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) and the Responsible Care Global Charter, as well as standards developed by the International Labor Organization (ILO), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and Social Accountability International (SAI) (tfs-initiative.com). It was developed and implemented as a global program to assess, audit, and improve sustainability practices within the chemical industry’s supply chain, with the aim of building industry standard for sustainable supply chains and establishing a

standard approach for evaluating and improving the sustainability performance of suppliers. The TfS approach creates a path of continuous improvement for both suppliers and their customers by initiating a dialogue on tangible sustainability improvements. Following the principle, “An audit for one is an audit for all,” sustainability assessments and audits are shared between all TfS members, subsequently resulting in fewer individual requests for multiple standards, and a more efficient allocation of resources. Ultimately, collaboration within the initiative should lead to a common standard for benchmarking the sustainability performance of companies within chemical industry supply chains (Baid et al. 2020; tfs-initiative.com). Since the start of the program, more than 10,000 supplier sustainability evaluations have been conducted. The sustainability performance of 10,566 suppliers has been rated via TfS, based on EcoVadis assessments, and 1,526 TfS audits have been conducted by means of the TfS audit program. In 2018, 1,491 new supplier assessments were initiated by TfS members via

286

EcoVadis, and 358 TfS audits were conducted through the TfS audit program, with all results shared among the whole TfS group. In addition, in 2018, over 2,000 suppliers, who had previously conducted a TfS assessment through EcoVadis or a TfS Audit, documented their progress on improvements and shared their reassessments (tfs-initiative.com). TfS membership has more than doubled since its founding 4 years ago. In addition to the six founding members, members have been added from Europe and the USA, with continuous growth forecast for the future. The latest member of the initiative is the Wanhua Chemical Group – the first company headquartered in the Asian Pacific region (tfs-initiative.com). Wanhua CPO has made continuous efforts and achieved significant results in sustainable purchasing, but they still face a number of challenges. The TfS initiative partnership, however, enables the group to engage more with its suppliers and promote sustainable development values. Its decision to join the TfS initiative is a strong signal of partnership across borders and creates further momentum for more activities with regard to sustainable supply chains in China. To create further awareness among suppliers, a TfS supplier training day took place on September 3, 2018, at the Evonik campus in Shanghai Xinzhuang. Around 200 suppliers and TfS member company representatives participated, and the purpose of the training was to raise awareness of sustainability standards across chemical industry supply chains and mitigate associated risks in corporations. Detailed training was given on how to use TfS tools for sustainability improvements (Baid et al. 2020). The Indian chemical industry, which is rated sixth in the world and third in Asia in value-added terms, is one of the important links in the global chemical supply chain. Business activities of all organizations are thus becoming more global, and supply chains more complex. Considering the important role played by the chemical industry across sectors, including automobile, pharmaceuticals, textiles, and even manufacturing, aligning with sustainability will help it drive innovation as well as the growth engine. In such scenarios, the

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains

TfS initiative leads by example in corporate responsibility by creating benchmarks for sustainable supply chains. Together for Sustainability has been formally launched in India to encourage Indian suppliers to adopt sustainability practices in their management and manufacturing systems. A TfS summit was held in Mumbai in 2016 to build awareness about the importance of creating a sustainable supply chain among Indian chemical suppliers and manufacturers. Over 500 representatives from suppliers and TfS member companies, as well as local and international associations, international audit companies and experts, attended the summit. In India, 300 suppliers have currently been assessed through EcoVadis, and audits at 28 sites have been concluded. The positive impact can only be realized through collaborations and partnerships on a global scale. TfS is leading this initiative for the chemical industry and creating a sustainable supply chain by creating awareness, shared assessments, and audits. Thus, the focus is now on business leaders taking tangible implementation steps at their organizations to work together with like-minded partners towards sustainable development goals. The “Automotive Case” In the following paragraph, an example is illustrated of the possible implementation and tracking of the SDG 17 in the automotive industry. Supply chains and networks within the automotive industry are highly complex, nontransparent, and even sometimes unknown, so special effort is required by pursuing the implementation of SDG partnerships throughout the supply chain. Strategic focus in this regard falls especially on subtarget 17.16, regarding global partnerships for sustainable development, and 17.17, regarding public partnerships with stakeholders that do not belong to the direct business. The following example of a possible implementation of goal 17 is described for the automotive upstream supply chain, namely the material supply chain, which is needed for in-house production. To establish partnerships for SDG 17, the company primarily determines what SDG

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains

Transparency

287

Understanding & Responsibility

Acting together

Multi-stakeholder approach

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains, Fig. 2 Scheme for three important requirements for SDG 17 implementation. (Source: own illustration)

contributions should be concentrated on by the company. After ascertaining the focus goals, a company assigns already existing activities in terms of sustainability to the respective SDGs. In a second step, further dedicated measures are defined to contribute positively to a specific goal or subtarget. One of the delicate topics within automotive supply chains is respect for human rights, but due to the lack of transparency of these supply chains, it is difficult – or even impossible – to know if there has been any violation. Therefore, partnerships with suppliers, right down to raw material suppliers, need to be established. A common commitment to this topic and a clear definition of what it stands for, with a respective action plan in case of violation, need to be harmonized. The distinguishing issue is that a customer not only pushes the issue to their direct supplier, but they also work together to find solutions for the subsupplier, which has a knock-on effect throughout the supply chain. The global multistakeholder approach is generally applied not only for direct business partners, but also for nondirect business partners such as local political and social organizations. In this approach, three main requirements play a decisive

role, as illustrated in the following scheme (Fig. 2). Transparency is about generating the best possible clarity in the upstream supply chain, albeit this is a goliath task. As a customer alone it is impossible, and therefore partnerships with suppliers are necessary to dig deeply into the common supply chain. The second and internally most crucial undertaking is to create a common understanding in one’s organization and subsequently to develop partners in the supply chain to reach the same understanding. As a further step, each stakeholder needs to accept process and individual responsibility for the business. When acceptance of responsibility for sustainability goals is reached, the third step is to act together, which means in this case defining common measures to achieve the common goals contributing to the 17 SDGs. One such example where this multistakeholder approach is important is when discovering a violation or some form of noncommitment within the supply chain. In this instance, a common approach to helping and developing the common partner is essential. Frequently, a supplier has several customers, and thus the decision to also include

D

288

OEMs in the partnership approach is important. One issue in the automotive supply chain can easily result in subsequent effects on several stakeholders, and so important in this regard is that an issue is not only pushed to the direct supplier, but also that a collective solution or an action plan is created. An example where partnership is indispensable within automotive industry is the contribution to climate neutrality. To reach a successive decrease of the own carbon footprint including emissions from the supply chain, a master plan in each individual supply chain part needs to be implemented in cooperation with the affected suppliers. Only if a tier 2 supplier, e.g., is willing to decrease the emissions in the own supply chain to climate-neutral condition, a customer company can include the indirect emissions coming from the supply chain into the climate neutrality consideration. Therefore, partnerships is necessary to decrease the common carbon footprint. In this framework, the nonbusiness partner network can accelerate action in countries where special boundary conditions are in place. For instance, local political and social requirements can be considered easier and implemented in a sustainability strategy with a local approach. Nonbusiness partner networks especially can provide an important input into the network in terms of how to deal with specific issues, without neglecting local political restrictions and social standards. To help partners in emerging and developing countries, organizations and networks in the specific country can assist. Furthermore, a partnership can be a basis for knowledge transfer regarding technological know-how and political and social requirement exchange – and thus help develop common measures to achieve these goals. Special attention must be given to compliance issues in this multistakeholder approach, so a legal representation should always be integrated. To complete this stakeholder and partnership approach, an impulse-giving element can be included, such as the fulfillment of defined measures extracted from sustainability goals and subtargets as awarding requirements for future business or as an obligation for strategic suppliers. This can be augmented by including sustainability

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains

criteria into the supplier award program of a company. In summary, SDG 17 represents an essential goal as the base for implementing other SDGs within the automotive industry, due to its huge and nontransparent supply chains. Multistakeholder projects with direct and nondirect business partners are key. Concerning the main contribution to dedicated SDGs, partnerships with not only suppliers but also with customers are crucial. Nonbusiness partner networks are major milestones for the implementation of SDGs, especially in emerging and development countries, to provide help and to acquire information on local requirements. The “Agricultural Case” The following case has a completely different focus. As an example of a service partnership, the INA initiative implements projects and services to help farmers in developing countries meet ecological and social standards and at the same time secure their livelihoods. The Sustainable Agricultural Supply Chains Initiative (INA) is a platform of approximately 70 stakeholders from the private sector, civil society, and politics. Together, they want to improve the living conditions of smallholders and establish greater sustainability in global agricultural supply chains through holistic approaches. Therefore, the INA concentrates on the protection of remaining natural resources, ensuring deforestation-free supply chains as well as living incomes and a living wage. The INA is embedded in the program Sustainable Agricultural Supply Chains and Standards, set up by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The global community has set itself the ambitious 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) that build the framework for the work of GIZ. As a multiactor partnership, the INA thus contributes to the SDGs (1) “No poverty,” (2) “Zero Hunger,” (8) “Decent work and Economic Growth,” (12) “Responsible Consumption and Production,” (15) “Life on Land,” and especially (17) namely “Partnerships for the goals.” The INA is a service provider and an implementation

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains

platform, and as a knowledge hub it informs stakeholders on various topics concerning sustainable supply chains, showing best practices and lessons learnt with the target of generating a common basis of knowledge. In its function as an implementation platform, local alliances are a crucial lever in achieving systemic impacts, which is why the INA promotes partnerships with local governments and ministries, the private sector, civil society, and smallholders (SDG 17.17). Through its projects, the organization aims to establish sustainable landscapes by means of a jurisdictional approach, which defines its activities not by sectoral but by political borders. Thus, it is not limited to one specific sector but rather revolves around various resources and actors in a defined region. Along these lines, the INA defines solutions for more sustainability in producing landscapes, and it follows a cross-commodity approach. A model of integrated land use that is the basis for such a landscape approach can help prevent or lessen displacement effects. For its implementation, different aspects have to be considered, and cooperation has to go beyond sectoral limits and stretch along global value chains. This means that one of the most important factors of success is to consult all relevant actors in the partnership. As digitalization is another important issue within the INA, the implemented projects are accompanied by digital tools which support smallholders and help increase transparency throughout the supply chain. Therefore, it tracks the development of new technology and innovation, which in turn enhances knowledge-sharing among relevant stakeholders (17.6). Two ongoing projects exemplify how the INA works together with actors in the countries of production to improve smallholders’ living standards while simultaneously preserving natural resources. The INA project in the Nono Sale district in Ethiopia, called “Innovations for Sustainable Agricultural Supply Chains in Ethiopia,” (ISASE) mainly deals with organic beeswax and coffee, because many smallholders within the district are coffee farmers who additionally grow

289

spices and keep bees to collect honey, which they then sell on the local market. The beeswax, which is a by-product of honey production, is not commercialized and is thus thrown away. However, the demand for beeswax as a sign of bioquality in natural cosmetics is high, and as a result, the INA works together with two competitors, KahlWax and Norevo, as well as with experts from the Bees for the World organization to baseline opportunities. Relating to capacity-building (SDG 17.9), the INA trains the farmers to improve the quality of their beeswax, to increase added value, and to guarantee market linkage. This is done not only for beeswax but also for coffee, with the primary aims being to diversify and increase the income of smallholders, in order to close the income gap. To build up a sustainable landscape within the Nono Sale district, the INA coordinates its activities with the district government and the responsible ministry in Ethiopia, to enhance policy coherence in this region (SDGs 17.13/14/15). Activities in Colombia focus on forest conservation through alternatives to livestock farming. The goal is to develop sustainable regions in Meta and Caquetá in trustful cooperation with local authorities. Partners are the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, municipality governments, NGOs, and European companies. In doing so, the INA takes into account the background of Colombia as a post-conflict country; for instance, the 2016 peace agreement, along with its obligations, is also considered within the project. Apart from the goals to provide alternative marketing opportunities and to establish agroforestry systems, social inclusion is a central topic within the project (SGD 17.15) – in line with the aforementioned peace agreement. The INA works on the following crops: cocoa, rubber, palm oil, and coffee. Both projects have in common that the INA works together with IT developers to ensure the traceability of products throughout the supply chain. To summarize, the INA promotes partnerships between governments, the private sector, and civil society, due to the belief that strong partnerships are required to reach the sustainable development goals.

D

290

Conclusion: How Partnerships across Global Supply Chains Address SDG 17 This entry has discussed three practical examples, to make clear how important suppliers are in achieving a purchaser’s sustainability vision. Strong relationships based on trust and commitment with suppliers are needed to tackle the challenges we currently have to face – and will have to face in the future. The shift to a more holistic world view, as well as the increasing importance of collaborations in global supply chains (EY 2016), highlights SDG 17 – partnerships for the goals. Finally, the question arises as to what specific subgoals of SDG 17 can be achieved through the practical cases described herein. The Chemical Industry Case, with the TfS initiative, places the focus on establishing standards in dealing with suppliers. Uniform supplier assessment standards protect the limited resources in companies and help set standards successfully in a global supply chain. Activities in China and India were highlighted, and concrete examples were used to explain how important it is to build up triangular cooperation. Thus, the example of TfS supports subtarget 17.9, i.e., capacity-building. TfS represents the international cooperation of companies in the chemical industry to strengthen targeted capacity-building in developing countries. A common understanding of quality standards in the supply chain helps implement national plans to achieve all goals for sustainable development. The cooperation between TfS and EcoVadis supports also subtarget 17.19 (Data, monitoring, and accountability), in that they “develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries” (sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17). The Automotive Case illustrates the importance of knowledge partnerships. The high complexity of the automotive supply chain requires the consistent exchange and dissemination of information at all levels of the supply chain. The multistakeholder partnership approach described in this example is “mobilise and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable

Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains

development goals” (subtarget 17.16). The importance of exchange with local authorities and organizations has been stressed several times and corresponds to subtarget 17.17. The Agricultural Case is a good example not only of a service partnership but also of the industry partnership model developed in this entry. It is clear that local authorities must be involved in the design of global supply chains, because only in this way can we succeed in jointly combating poverty and exploitation in the agricultural sector. Local characteristics must be taken into account just as much as the history of a country or region. These aspects are part of the systemic issues and include policy and institutional coherence (17.13–17.15). The importance of digitization and the use of modern technologies to achieve the necessary transparency in a global supply chain is particularly clear (17.6); for instance, by using drones or satellite technologies, large areas can be monitored and attempts to circumvent ecological regulations can be nipped in the bud. The aim of this entry is to illustrate that the sustainable setup of supplier–buyer relationships is the key to success in implementing environmentally friendly and social supply chains. Practical examples are used to illustrate how multistakeholder partnerships can contribute to the implementation of sustainable supply chains. It is important to understand that companies have to first of all develop a concrete set of measures to relocate their sustainability strategy, but they also have to accept that only selected SDGs and respective subtargets can be achieved. According to the authors, this understanding is still largely lacking in practice, since companies try to do justice to all SDGs and then subsequently fail or take only half-hearted steps to make their sustainability vision a reality.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture

Development Cannibalism and the Sustainable Development Goals

▶ Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment ▶ Role of Transnational Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

References Baid V, Fröhlich E, de la Cruz Garcia R (2020) Unlocking the power of sustainable procurement: case study Covestro. Green Paper, Cologne Business School and Covestro, Cologne EY (2016) The state of sustainable supply chains. EYGM Limited, US Fröhlich E (2015) Corporate social responsibility in der Beschaffung: Theoretische wie Praktische Implikationen. In: CSR und Beschaffung. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 3–36 Fröhlich E, Steinbiss K (2018) Die Integration der „Sustainable Development Goals“ in eine nachhaltige Supply Chain: Der „Nachhaltige Beschaffungs-Case“. In: Wellbrock W (ed) Nachhaltige Beschaffung. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg. pp 37–54 Fröhlich E, Steinbiss K (2018a) Procurement Goes digital: the supplier relationship management case. In: Proceedings international symposium on business and economics Montenegro. Global Science Institut Publication, Podgorica. ISBN 978-60581246-1-5. pp 32–40. https://docs.wixstatic. com/ugd/acf14b_c9aff20803d0482284b6d7f0fdcf0 e30.pdf Fröhlich E, Steinbiss K, Whelan M (2019) Lieferantenmanagement im Zeitalter der digitalen Transformation. In: Journal of engineering, management and operations. LIT Verlag, Münster, pp 153–164 Fullerton J (2015) Regenerative Capitalism, CapitalInstitute.org Rockefeller Foundation BSR (2018) Private-sector collaboration for sustainable development. https://www.bsr. org/en/our-insights/report-view/private-sector-collab oration-for-sustainable-development. Accessed 28 Dec 2019 Treichel K, Höh A, Biermann S, Conze P (2017) Multistakeholder partnerships in the context of agenda 2030. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Bonn 17ziele.de/ziele/17.html. Accessed 28 Dec 2019 sustainabledevelopment. un.org/sdg17. Accessed 28 Dec 2019 tfs-initiative.com. Accessed 28 Dec 2019

291

Development Aid ▶ Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

Development Assistance ▶ Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

Development Cannibalism and the Sustainable Development Goals Benedict Arko Department of Geography Education, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana

Definition In an allusion to cannibalism which refers to the eating of one by another of one’s own species, “development cannibalism” refers to the situation where one development organization with the aim of improving its capacity to achieve set goals deploys various strategies to draw in resources belonging to another development entity which are critical to the survival or success of that organization leading to that entity’s eventual collapse. To illustrate, development cannibalism is when actors responsible for implementing development program A use various strategies covert, overt, or both to entice or draw in resources of development program B they consider necessary for their program to succeed leading to the collapse of development program B. These resources may be staff, key partners, funds, etc. The sustainable development goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 goals adopted by the United Nations as “the blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all” (United Nations 2020). The United Nations (undated) describes the SDGs as

D

292

Development Cannibalism and the Sustainable Development Goals

“integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.” The SDGs were adopted in September 2015 as a follow-up to the millennium development goals (MDGs). The intention is to continue and finish the work started with the MDGs. Implementation of the SDGs started in 2016 with the end date being 2030. The 17 SDGs come with 169 targets and 232 indicators (SDG Tracker 2020). While the targets specify the goals, the indicators represent the measures by which the attainment of the targets can be tracked (SDG Tracker 2020).

Introduction This entry draws attention to development cannibalism, a phenomenon in the development arena, which is an antithesis to the 17th SDGs, namely, partnerships for the goals. Partnership for the SDGs has been defined as multi-stakeholder initiatives voluntarily undertaken by governments, inter-governmental organizations, major groups, and other stakeholders whose efforts are contributing to the implementation of inter-governmentally agreed development goals and commitments (Stibbe et al. 2019). The focus of the SDG 17 is to “strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development” (Zuklin 2019). There are 19 targets and 25 indicators to the SDG 17 (SDG Tracker 2020). However, central for the discussion in this entry are targets 6, 14, 16, and 17 which could be described as exclusively focused on directly enhancing partnerships for the achievement of the SDGs and target 15 which promotes the leadership of development efforts by development aid recipient countries themselves. Also, keys for the discussion are targets 18 and 19 which focus on sourcing reliable data for tracking the implementation of the SDGs. The SDG 17 is arguably the fulcrum on which the success of the other 16 goals depends. It is therefore unsurprising that in its framing, it is a direct carry-over from the previous MDGs. “Global partnerships” remain the last goal of the SDGs just like it was in the MDGs. This is to most

probably underline its importance rather than a coincidence. The importance of SDG 17 cannot be over-emphasized. For instance, while a failure to achieve one of the other goals may affect the attainment of a few of the other goals, the failure to achieve SDG 17 will have direct and immediate effect on the attainment of all the other 16 goals. This is because it is the only goal focused on mobilizing the human agency and the synchronization of effort required to achieve the SDGs. Thus, any hindrance to the achievement of SDG 17 is necessarily also a hindrance to the attainment of the remaining 16 goals. This highlights the need to draw attention to this tendency in the development arena at variance with SDG 17 and more broadly inimical to the attainment of the entire SDGs. As attention is drawn to the issue, the expectation is that the actors concerned would take the necessary remedial measures. The actual process of development cannibalism may take various forms. A few examples here may suffice. First, a well-resourced development organization in need of certain competencies in a new operational environment may offer higher remuneration and other benefits to attract staff from another development organization well versed in that operational environment. The loss of such highly qualified staff who are not easy to replace may kick-start the processes leading to the demise of the affected organization. Another example could be a development organization new to an area enticing local brokers associated with an already-existing development program into their fold with various incentives. The loss of such local brokers then hampers the capacity of the already-existing program to garner the needed local participation. This then leads to the collapse of that program. Arko (2019) recounts the case of the implementation of the local economic development component of the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Ghana Decent Work Program in selected districts in Ghana. After the program support period where incentives for local brokers were in short supply, managers of a new development program in those districts were able to use incentives to lure some of the local brokers unto their program contributing to the collapse of the former. A final example could be

Development Cannibalism and the Sustainable Development Goals

one development organization using various lobbying strategies to attract a donor already committed to another organization depriving it of needed funding. The loss of funding then leads to the abrupt end of that organization or its programs. The succeeding discussions throw light on the phenomenon of development cannibalism and how it poses an impediment to the attainment of SDG 17 and invariably the entire SDGs. The next section discusses the causes of development cannibalism. It emerges from this discussion that the phenomenon is one symptom of a general malaise in the development arena, namely, the lack of development cooperation and coordination emanating from the multiplicity and fragmentation of development effort. This is followed by a discussion in the succeeding section on the effects of the phenomenon on development actors and generally on development effort. Besides the collapse of the affected development organization or program, there are also negative effects on the actors involved. This could be staff job loses, unfulfilled contractual obligations to suppliers, and unfulfilled commitments to supposed program beneficiaries among others. The discussion then moves in the next section to the remedial measures that can be taken by actors in the development arena to avoid development cannibalism. This is mainly development cooperation and coordination which should be championed by the development aid recipient government at both the national and local levels. Other actors such as development organizations and multilateral development platforms are also called upon to ensure that development aid recipient countries take the lead role of development efforts within their jurisdiction. The concluding section wraps up the discussions in the entry by further reiterating the need to take seriously the issue of development cannibalism.

Causes of Development Cannibalism Development cannibalism is a concomitant effect of a general malaise in the development arena. The genesis of the problem could be traced to the multiplicity of development organizations. There

293

seems to be a consensus that there are too many development organizations (Easterly and Williamson 2011; Knack and Rahman 2004). A typical example of this situation would be James Ferguson’s (1994) count of 99 bilateral and international development agencies working in Lesotho in the 1980s, a country with a population of 1.3 million at the time and a land size of 30,000 km2. This tendency is widespread rather than limited by geography or time. For instance, Vietnam in 2002 was noted to have “25 official bilateral donors, 19 official multilateral donors and about 350 international NGOs which together accounted for over 8,000 projects, or about one project per 9,000 people” (Acharya et al. 2006, p. 2). A number of reasons account for this multiplicity of development organizations. First, development among others since the end of the Second World War has been instrumentalized to serve geopolitical interests especially during the Cold War era. This remains the case under the current global power configuration. As alluded to by Mosse (2005), development programs are designed first to satisfy the political interest of the initiators before that of the supposed beneficiaries. This has led to the situation where countries with the means engage in development as a strategic tool for advancing geopolitical interests. Specifically, development aid has been instrumentalized for the appropriation of soft power (Alexander 2020), thus, for instance, the concerns raised by critics of the diminishing soft power of the United States due to the Trump administration’s insistence on cutting foreign aid or realigning it toward supposedly friendly countries (Rogin 2019). Secondly, the reality of ideological and normative differences in terms of development approach cannot be ignored (Woods 2011; Brech and Potrafke 2014). Such differences offer the grounds to set up development organizations in order to propagate and prove the efficacy of a country’s or an organization’s ideological or normative position. Connected to this is the need for mechanisms for the production of development “success stories” used for development legitimacy purposes (Arko 2019; Knack and Rahman 2004). This is needed to guarantee the flow of funds amid

D

294

Development Cannibalism and the Sustainable Development Goals

scarcity and stiff competition. For instance, the publics of many donor countries especially in the Global North amid austerity are increasingly becoming skeptical of the impact of the work of their official development organizations. These organizations, hence, need to provide evidence to their constituents to prove that their tax money is well spent on a worthy cause. Another issue that cannot be ruled out as a cause of the multiplicity of development organizations is the lack of trust among governments and development organizations (Woods 2011). For instance, Linn (2009) notes that there have been very few attempts by the members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) to negotiate joint country strategies and that even for the few ones which exist, low levels of trust between different donors have been identified as one of the key hindrances to success. This is partly because nations and development organizations do not trust each other to advance interests aligned with theirs, they have to themselves be at the forefront pushing their development agenda to ensure their interests are secured. This buttresses the earlier point made about development as a goal in itself being subservient to other geopolitical interests which at most times are not conciliable. A direct effect of the multiplicity of development organizations is the fragmentation of development effort. Development fragmentation refers to “a larger number of donors each with a smaller share of the project market” (Knack and Rahman 2004, p. 12). According to Easterly and Williamson (2011), development aid is fragmented among too many development organizations. Interestingly, development organizations have been found to also fragment their own programs into smaller pieces for obvious strategic reasons (Easterly and Williamson (2011). The level of fragmentation however differs among countries and organizations. Development aid from emerging donors tends to be less fragmented than that of the OECD’s DAC donors who offer small amounts of funding to many projects across different sectors with each having different reporting formats (Woods 2011). Why this is the

case particularly among the OECD’s DAC donors is unclear except to allude to the reasons offered for the multiplicity of development organizations. The increasing fragmentation of development effort has been noted in the literature (Woods 2011; Chandy and Kharas 2011). For instance, the costly effect of development fragmentation was noted in the Accra Agenda for Action 2008 (Woods 2011). Even though some studies have shown that development aid fragmentation may not be necessarily negative (see, for instance, Gehring et al. 2017), it still raises calls for concern. The fragmentation of development effort leads to the lack of development coordination and cooperation. Woods (2011) defines the goal of development coordination as the efforts of one donor not thwarting the efforts of another. Woods (2011) argues that the challenge of development coordination is symptomatic of a deeper problem in the development arena, namely, the lack of development cooperation. Woods (2011, p. 6) defines development cooperation as “donors working together to plan and deliver aid, such as by creating an international institution to pool funding, information and expertise, and collectively make decisions, such as in the IBRD or the IDA of the World Bank.” The issue of the lack of development coordination has itself been topical in the development literature (Woods 2011; Chandy and Kharas 2011; Kharas 2007; Linn 2009). The effects of lack of development coordination are numerous. They include waste, duplication, and overlap in the work of development organizations as well as the over-concentration in one sector to the neglect of another (Kharas 2007). The challenge of the multiplicity and fragmentation of development organizations and the associated lack of development coordination is compounded by the scarcity of resources available for development efforts. For example, competent human resources are scarce as not enough are available to fill all the vacancies available. Knack and Rahman (2004) quote an example from van de Walle (2001) from Niger where majority of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are run by moonlighting civil servants.

Development Cannibalism and the Sustainable Development Goals

Funding is another area for concern. Despite increases in Official Development Assistance (ODA), members of the OECD’s DAC committed an average of 0.3% of Gross National Income (GNI) to development assistance instead of the targeted 0.7% of ODA/GNI (Inter-Agency Taskforce on Financing for Development 2016). Such scarcity of resources amid the multiplicity of development organizations engender competition among development organizations as exists in the business or private sector. Competition reduces the incentive for cooperation and coordination of development effort. Development organizations compete among themselves for the most competent staff, partners, funding, project areas, or countries and as mentioned earlier in the production of development “success stories.” For instance, the poaching of highly skilled and competent staff by better-resourced organizations from lesser-resourced ones and public sector agencies seems to be an accepted practice in the development arena. The situation becomes selfdefeatist when the public sector in the development aid recipient countries is drawn into the competition. Knack and Rahman (2004) recount other instances where capacity building programs for civil servants in some African countries became “passports” to leave the civil service for “greener pastures” with international development agencies. In the case of Mozambique, the temptation to “cross carpet” was very tempting as salaries of staff in development organizations could be 5–10 times bigger than in the public service (Knack and Rahman 2004). Even though competition may in itself be useful in distinguishing efficient and effective organizations from the rest, it could also degenerate into vicious rivalry that negatively affects development effort. In the examples given above, this meant ironically the crippling of the very public services in the development aid recipient countries whose capacities these development organizations were mandated to enhance. It is this unbridled competition that leads to development cannibalism where some development organizations target others overtly or covertly to extract needed resources leading to the failure of the targeted organizations or their programs. The

295

effects of development cannibalism are considered in the next section.

Effects of Development Cannibalism Development cannibalism has a number of effects on development effort generally and the attainment of the SDGs in particular. As alluded to above, the central concern of development cannibalism as a concept is the collapse of the affected development organization or program. There are however other negative effects. First, successful development organizations require adequate resources to sustain and expand their work (Fisher and Shragge 2017). Thus, it is the deprivation of key resources from the affected development organization or program which leads to its collapse. This period of deprivation leading to the collapse of the affected development organization or program could be an equally challenging or even an agonizing time for the actors involved such as staff, donors, service providers, and the supposed program beneficiaries. For instance, the deprivation of funding could lead to unpaid salaries and its concomitant effects on the welfare of staff and their dependents among others. As in the instance given by Knack and Rahman (2004) cited above, staff may result to moonlighting or outright abandonment of post to seek for livelihood elsewhere. This reduced commitment of staff would invariably affect the attainment of program deliverables. Staff morale and commitment could even further deteriorate in situations where the challenges confronting the organization or program are not properly communicated. Besides the staff, the effect on program partners such as donors, consultants, suppliers, and other service providers could be equally daunting. In the case of program donors, this would mean that resources committed are not able to achieve set goals. This has consequences for the reputation or even the legitimacy of donor organizations especially public-funded organizations (Gulrajani and Swiss 2019). This would invariably affect the relationship between the donor and the development organization in question. For instance,

D

296

Development Cannibalism and the Sustainable Development Goals

future funding commitments may be cancelled. In an era where information flow easily, being blacklisted by one donor could mean being cut off from other potential donors as well. On the side of consultants, suppliers, and other service providers, the inability to settle financial obligations could have legal ramifications which may put further strains on relations. All these have negative consequences for the corporate brand of the affected development organization or program. Another major effect of the inability of the affected development organization or program to fulfill its commitments is the consequences on the supposed program beneficiaries. These could be individuals as well as entities such as central and local governments and their agencies. For instance, individual beneficiaries may have become reliant on the affected development organization or program to build their capacities with respect to skills, access to credit, market, etc. Their inability to acquire these capacities may mean the perpetuation or worsening of their disadvantaged position for which they become an object of development effort (Arko 2019). Again, the consequences of the inability to fulfill pledges of budgetary support to central and local governments or their agencies may even be more dire. This could be the inability of these entities to provide crucial social services such as was the case with the roll back malaria program where donor contributions fell short of the funds required for the program (Narasimhan and Attaran 2003). Again, for programs where development aid recipient governments whether central or local are required to make counterpart contributions, such resources which could have been channeled elsewhere are wasted when development programs are curtailed midstream. This contributes to the reluctance or the delay exhibited by these entities to make such contributions leading to program delays even when there are no such challenges as associated with development cannibalism (Kotey 2015). As can be inferred from the above, these negative effects supposed program beneficiaries experience may weaken their commitment or

trust in development organizations and programs. This is one of the factors leading to “beneficiary fatigue” where supposed program beneficiaries lose interest in development programs. In such situations, supposed program beneficiaries may need to be induced or motivated to participate. This may result in the supposed beneficiaries adopting tactics akin to James Scott’s (2008) “weapons of the weak” to extract incentives. For instance, these supposed beneficiaries may want to extract tangible program benefits as a sort of compensation in case program pledges are not fulfilled. They may also demand for more evidence of the commitment of development actors before participating. Such demands may unnecessarily increase the operational costs of development organizations. An example of this may be the resources expended on enticing supposed beneficiaries to participate in development programs. Arko (2019) lists examples of such incentives as sitting allowances, per diems, refreshments, travel opportunities, career enhancing trainings, etc. Development cannibalism could also lead to mistrust, tensions, and ultimately rivalry among development organizations. This further reduces the incentive for development coordination or cooperation. Development organizations and programs in their quest to ward off such attempts at their cannibalization may adopt measures that may be counterproductive in the long run for the development endeavor. For instance, they may choose not to share crucial but sensitive information that could improve the success rate of another development organization. Measures aimed at warding of attempts at development cannibalism may also unduly increase the operational cost of development organizations. For instance, such organizations may have to increase the remuneration and other benefits of key staff to guarantee their retention (Bakuwa et al. 2013). A consequence of this may be that staff trained with the organization’s resources may be bonded for some years or some other arrangements which may not be in the interest of the staff. The effect of this on staff may be reduced commitment and passion for

Development Cannibalism and the Sustainable Development Goals

organizational goals. Again, development cannibalism could reinforce the self-interest seeking behavior of some local brokers (Neubert 1996). For instance, unscrupulous local brokers familiar with the politics and competition among development organizations may decide to play these organizations against each other in their attempt to extract more incentives. Local brokers are known in their discourses to compare incentives received from development organizations and seem to rank their preference for involvement with these organizations based on incentives received rather than the expected program impact. Ultimately development cannibalism is one drawback to the attainment of SDG 17 and invariably the entire SDGs. The unexpected demise of development organizations or programs and its associated effects could never serve the goals of development in the long term. It could only perpetuate or worsen under development. This is so despite the ongoing concern about there being too many development organizations and programs (Acharya et al. 2006). Though a reduction in the number of development organizations and programs may be desirable, this would have to be done in a well-thought-out manner borne out of development coordination and cooperation among the actors in the development arena. How this could be achieved is briefly outlined in the succeeding discussion.

How to Curb Development Cannibalism The challenge that development cannibalism poses to the attainment of the SDG 17 and invariably the entire SDGs makes its resolution an imperative. As may be clear by now, the key remedy for development cannibalism is development coordination and cooperation. This requires commitment from all actors in the development arena. Where possible the various development organizations working within a particular national or sub-national jurisdiction should work in a joint manner to achieve common goals (Woods 2011). Where this is not possible, there is the need for

297

development coordination. The national government, according to Woods (2011), is best placed to ensure development coordination. The legal and institutional framework required needs to be put in place for this to be achieved. Beside the national government, the local government also has the responsibility to coordinate the various development interventions being implemented within their area of jurisdiction (Arko 2019). A good example in this respect is the development partners’ platforms at the national and local levels that bring together all development organizations working within a particular jurisdiction. A complement to this is the sector-based platform that creates the avenue for development partners in the country within that sector to coordinate their activities (Arko 2019). An example of this is the Agriculture Sector Working Group (ASWG) in Ghana which brings together the various international development organizations and public sector agencies working in the agriculture sector. This platform enables the different organizations involved to share ideas and strategize to draw synergies and avoid duplication and unnecessary competition. Such platforms can also be used to discuss and agree on a common modus operandi to avoid some of the pitfalls that lead to development cannibalism. Complaints and conflict resolution are other roles that such platforms could play to ensure harmony in the development arena. At the international level, concerns have been expressed about the inability of the members of OECD’s DAC and donors who make up the South–South Development Cooperation (SSDC) (see Zimmermann and Smith 2011), such as China to collaborate or dialogue together due to obvious differences in ideology and approach (Woods 2011). Such differences need to be ironed out if progress is to be made in achieving the SDG 17. This calls for commitment from other actors in the development arena such as development organizations and multilateral development platforms such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and OECD’s DAC and donors who make up the SSDC. These entities also have a duty to assist the development aid recipient countries take the lead role for development efforts within their jurisdiction as outlined in the Accra Agenda for

D

298

Development Cannibalism and the Sustainable Development Goals

Action 2008 and the target 15 of SDG 17. Development aid recipient countries need to ride on the apparent good will and moral suasion derived from the global consensus achieved in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the Accra Agenda for Action, and the target 15 of SDG 17 to assert their authority and take charge of development effort within their jurisdictions. The subordination of varying interests of donor countries to that of the development aid recipient country creates the basis for specialization. Specialization among development organizations could be sectoral or geographical in scope. Development organizations specialize sectorally when they confine their operations to a particular sector such as agriculture, water, sanitation and hygiene, governance, etc. By geographical specialization, development organizations confine their operations to particular regions or countries or even certain parts of a particular country. For instance, Japan is known to specialize by focusing its development aid in East Asia and the Pacific, while European donors tend to focus more on Africa and on social sectors, governance, and human rights themes (Knack and Rahman 2004). This needs to be encouraged. Specialization could act as a double-edged sword with the potential to both increase and reduce the incentive for coordination and cooperation depending on other mediating factors such as the geopolitical interests at play. However, specialization emanating from development cooperation and coordination can be a catalyst for development as against it being a harbinger for development cannibalism. Specialization in terms of geography or sector would ensure efficient allocation of resources and avoid duplication of efforts with its associated wastage. This would in turn reinforce the need for greater cooperation and coordination of development activity as the contributions of other donors will be key in realizing the overall development goal. The edge to continue along this path of increased development cooperation and coordination will only endure if there are tangible superior results to show for it. There is therefore the need to clearly communicate the increased impact achieved through greater cooperation and coordination as against the status quo. This should serve as an incentive to draw in “those on the fence.”

This requires the adoption of measurement indicators based on consensus. The SDG 17 targets 18 and 19 focused on sourcing reliable and measurable data on the implementation of the SDGs (SDG Tracker 2020) provide a way forward in this regard. This also reiterates the need for increased accountability of actors in the development arena. This is especially important in a time where the publics of donor countries have become increasingly interested in knowing the impact of their public funds spent on international development programs. Not only is accounting to the public crucial, but there is also the need for the development of peer review mechanisms among actors in the development arena. This can be achieved through increased transparency. All these require high levels of political commitment especially at a time where there seems to be a reconfiguration of the global power architecture.

Conclusion The years have moved on quickly and 2030 is no longer as far as it seemed. Much can be achieved with respect to SDG 17 within the remaining period as there is much work to be done. This further highlights the importance and the urgency of SDG 17 as the fulcrum on which the other goals can be achieved. This calls for introspection to identify the challenges to effective partnership for the goals. Development cannibalism as discussed in this entry poses one such existential threat to the attainment of SDG 17 and by that the entirety of the SDGs. It has the potential to create mistrust and tensions among development partners be it donors, staff, service providers, and supposed beneficiaries be it governments or individuals among others. The consequences could be severe such as job loses, legal ramifications, wastage of resources, and development beneficiary fatigue. Ultimately, it has the potential to cause the termination of development organizations and programs before their envisaged time and invariably perpetuate or worsen underdevelopment. The centrality of 17th goal of the SDGs by virtue of its focus on marshalling the human agency and the synchronization of effort required to achieve the other SDGs makes it imperative

Development Cannibalism and the Sustainable Development Goals

that a solution be found to this challenge. Emerging out of a certain disconnect in the development arena, the solution lies with the various actors connected to the development endeavor. To deal with this situation of development cannibalism, commitment is needed from all actors in the development arena by way of development cooperation or coordination. It behoves on development aid recipient governments at both the national and sub-national levels to ensure that there is cooperation or coordination among its development partner organizations. This will only work if donors can subordinate their interests to that of the development aid recipient countries as requested of them by the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the Accra Agenda for Action, and the target 15 of SDG 17. Donors can serve as a check on each other in this regard. For instance, international agencies such as the UNDP, the member countries of OECD’s DAC, and the SSDC can also bring their influence to bear to curb development cannibalism. As mentioned above, the development partners’ platform at both national and sub-national levels is one potent means through which this challenge can be addressed. Nipping this problem in the bud should be one of the enduring legacies of the 17th goal of the SDGs.

Cross-References ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development

References Acharya A, de Lima F, Moore M (2006) Proliferation and fragmentation: transactions costs and the value of aid. J Dev Stud 42(1):1–21 Alexander C (2020) The soft power of development: aid and assistance as public diplomacy activities. In: Servaes J (ed) Handbook of communication for development and social change. Springer, Singapore. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2014-3_74 Arko B (2019) Translating discourses of local economic development: the case of the Ghana decent work

299

programme. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Bayreuth, Germany Bakuwa RC, Chasimpha F, Masamba J (2013) Staff retention in developing countries: a case study of an NGO in the health sector. Int J Human Res Stud 3(1):158 Brech V, Potrafke N (2014) Donor ideology and types of foreign aid. J Comp Econ 42(1):61–75 Chandy L, Kharas H (2011) Why can’t we all just get along? The practical limits to international development cooperation. J Int Dev 23:739–751. https://doi. org/10.1002/jid.1797 Easterly W, Williamson CR (2011) Rhetoric versus reality: the best and worst of aid agency practices. World Dev 39(11):1930–1949 Ferguson J (1994) The anti-politics machine: “development,” depoliticization and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Fisher R, Shragge E (2017) Resourcing community organizing: examples from England and Quebec. Community Dev J 52(3):454–469 Gehring K, Michaelowa K, Dreher A, Spörri F (2017) Aid fragmentation and effectiveness: what do we really know? World Dev 99:320–334 Gulrajani N, Swiss L (2019) Donor proliferation to what ends? New donor countries and the search for legitimacy. Can J Dev Stud/Revue canadienne d’études du développement 40(3):348–368 Inter-Agency Taskforce on Financing for Development (2016) Official development assistance. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Financing for Development Office, UN-DESA (FFDO/ UNDESA Kharas H (2007) Trends and issues in development aid. Wolfensohn Center for development working paper, (1) Knack S, Rahman A (2004) Donor fragmentation and bureaucratic quality in aid recipients. The World Bank, Washington, DC Kotey S (2015) Effect of local counterpart funding delay on procurement of Donor Funded Projects (Master’s dissertation), Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana Linn JF (2009) Aid coordination on the ground: are joint country assistance strategies the answer? Wolfensohn Center for Development Working Paper, (10) Mosse D (2005) Cultivating development: an ethnography of aid policy and practice. Pluto Press, London Narasimhan V, Attaran A (2003) Roll back malaria? The scarcity of international aid for malaria control. Malar J 2(1):8 Neubert D (1996) The role of local brokers in the development system. Experiences with “self-help projects” in East Africa. Bulletin de l’APAD 11 Rogin J (2019) The Trump administration prepares a new assault on U.S. soft power. The Washington Post. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/ the-trump-administration-prepares-a-new-assault-on-ussoft-power/2019/09/19/398c8a9e-db13-11e9-bfb1849887369476_story.html. Accessed 07.08.2020 Scott JC (2008) Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press, New Haven

D

300 SDG Tracker (2020). https://sdg-tracker.org/globalpartnerships#targets. Accessed 09.08.2020 Stibbe DT, Reid S, Gilbert J (2019) Maximising the Impact of Partnerships for the SDGs; the partnering initiative and UN DESA United Nations (2020). https://www.un.org/sustainablede velopment/sustainable-development-goals/. Accessed 09.08.2020 United Nations (undated) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/70/1 Woods N (2011) Rethinking aid coordination. GEG Working Paper, (66) Zimmermann F, Smith K (2011) More actors, more money, more ideas for international development co-operation. J Int Dev 23(5):722–738

Disaster Governance ▶ Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries

Disaster Management ▶ Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries ▶ Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration Hock Lye Koh1 and Su Yean Teh2 1 Jeffrey Sachs Center on Sustainable Development, Sunway University, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia 2 School of Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Definition Disaster risk arises when hazards interact with vulnerabilities. Hazard is defined as a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon, or human

Disaster Governance

activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption, or environmental degradation. Hazards can include latent conditions that may represent future threats and can have different origins: natural (geological, hydrometeorological, and biological) or induced by human processes (environmental degradation and technological hazards). Vulnerability is defined as the conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards (UNISDR 2005). Resilience is defined as the capacity of a system, community, or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of organizing itself to increase this capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures (UNISDR 2005). Reducing the damage caused by both natural and man-made hazards through an ethic of prevention and through building resilience to these hazards is essential for achieving sustainable development. Disaster risk reduction is the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyze and reduce the causal factors of disasters. Disaster risk reduction practices need to be multi-hazard and multisectoral, inclusive, and accessible in order to be efficient and effective. Hence, partnership and collaboration are instrumental in advancing knowledge and mutual learning and in enhancing capacities for disaster risk management. Partnership is a shared commitment, in which all partners have a right and an obligation to participate and contribute and where each will be affected equally by the benefits and disadvantages arising from the partnership (Carnwell and Carson 2005). Collaboration is a means of making “partnership” work. That is, “collaboration,” the verb, is what we do when we engage successfully in a “partnership,” partnership being the noun. The notion of sharing and agreeing is evident in both partnership and collaboration, with an emphasis

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration

on social and communication skills required to work together toward a common goal.

Introduction Over the last decade, disasters have affected over 1.5 billion people across the world, and damages are estimated to have exceeded US$1.5 trillion (Hemingway and Gunawan 2018). Disaster in this chapter refers primarily to large tsunami inundation that can inflict significant loss of life and damage to properties. A tsunami is a series of waves travelling at high speeds, generated by an abrupt displacement of large volumes of water in the ocean. It may be caused by a submarine earthquake or landslide or by a volcanic eruption or nuclear explosion in the deep ocean and by meteorite impact in the ocean. Characterized as a catastrophic disaster of epic proportion, the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami – hereafter referred to as the Andaman Cross-boundary Tsunami (ACT) – served a rude wake-up call. This disastrous ACT killed about 250,000 people worldwide, including 68 deaths in Malaysia. Since then a series of eight destructive tsunamis had occurred, including the catastrophic Fukushima triple disaster on 11 March 2011 that killed more than 20,000 people and that caused major radiation leaks. The next mega tsunami is long overdue, according to recent research (Sieh et al. 2015). To mitigate the risk of tsunamis, it is critical to develop disaster risk reduction and resilience (DRRR) capability. For this purpose, the United Nations has formulated the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 (HFA): Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (UNISDR 2005). This is subsequently updated by the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: 2015–2030 (SFDRR) (UNISDR 2015). The HFA and SFDRR call for an integrated approach to DRRR, incorporating a multi-sectoral and transdisciplinary international collaboration and partnerships (ICP) across borders. DRRR entails the capability to understand hazard, identify vulnerability, anticipate risk, mitigate the impact, and bounce back rapidly through survival and

301

adaptation. Catastrophic disasters such as massive tsunami inundations would invariably result in poverty, create disruptions in food supply, and cause unemployment. Hence, DRRR should formulate policy and programs that contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN-SDGs), such as poverty elimination (SDG1), hunger reduction (SDG2), and meaningful employment (SDG8). This chapter focuses on local challenges, solutions, and inspirational stories of DRRR programs in Malaysia, the effects of which can serve as feedback to and enhance advocacy for regional and global DRRR programs. The ACT has demonstrated the vulnerability of Malaysia to tsunami risk (Koh et al. 2009). Malaysia, in coordination with countries in the region, has developed DRRR programs. A good understanding of tsunami and its occurrence is essential. A tsunami is formed when the seafloor is abruptly raised or lowered. It may also be caused by a violent horizontal displacement of water, as in the case of a large submarine landslide beneath the ocean (Tan et al. 2017). Destructive tsunamis are usually caused by the occurrence of large submarine earthquakes, with epicenters located near the ocean floor. These usually occur in regions characterized by high seismic activities due to the collision of two tectonic plates. All oceanic regions are potentially vulnerable to tsunami hazard. However, tsunamis are more concentrated in the Pacific Ocean and its marginal seas, an area known as the Pacific Ring of Fire. As tsunami waves travel toward the shallow shore and beach, their wave heights and current velocities are increased, potentially to dangerous levels. DRRR research must identify beaches that harbor dangerous tsunami hazard, vulnerability, and risk. The community living in tsunami hazard zones must be warned against such hazards and risks. This chapter is organized as follows. Section “Introduction” describes the nature, origin, occurrence, and risks of tsunamis. It articulates the urgent need for DRRR programs, laying the foundation for the remaining sections. Section “Hyogo and Sendai Framework on DRRR” provides a brief introduction to HFA and SFDRR. The HFA has inspired nations to organize a series of 11

D

302

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration

South China Sea Tsunami Workshops (SCSTWs) to promote ICP for DRRR. Section “South China Sea Tsunami Workshops” highlights the SCSTWs objectives, activities, and outcomes. Section “USM International Collaboration and Partnership” outlines contributions of Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) toward the DRRR programs. Success of DRRR is highly dependent on hazard awareness and education (HAE) to reduce vulnerability and mitigate risk (Johnston and Benton 1998). Investment in ICP for DRRR requires political will and partnerships among government, the private sector, and civil society at the national, regional, and global levels. It will also require coherence between policies and initiatives both domestically and internationally (Maltais et al. 2018). Section “Hazard Advice and Services for DRRR” is dedicated to HAE to enable DRRR management at the national and local community levels. Section “Sustainable Development Solution Network (SDSN)” briefly describes ICP programs in the Sunway University to promote the UN-SDGs and DRRR. Section “Concluding Remarks” provides the summary and concluding remarks for the chapter.

Hyogo and Sendai Framework on DRRR The World Conference on Disaster Reduction was held from 18 to 22 January 2005 in Hyogo, Japan, and adopted the Framework for Action 2005– 2015 (HFA): Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. The conference provided a unique opportunity to promote a strategic and systematic approach to reducing vulnerabilities and risks to hazards. It underscored the need for, and identified ways of, building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. HFA demands for a global call to governments to use knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels. However, evidence suggests that there are only very few effective initiatives that have been successfully implemented under the HFA. Integrating DRRR into education is a key factor for reducing the adverse impact of future disasters (Zhou et al. 2014). Disaster risk arises when hazards interact

with vulnerabilities due to physical, social, economic, and environmental conditions. Efforts to reduce disaster vulnerability and risks must be systematically integrated into policies, plans, and programs, and they must be supported through bilateral, regional, and international cooperation and partnerships. The HFA has identified HAE as an important strategic measure in DRRR (UNISDR 2005). As the successor framework to the HFA, the SFDRR further highlights the critical role of HAE in the post-disaster recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction phase (UNISDR 2015). The Sendai Framework SFDRR provides a mechanism to identify social, economic, cultural, and political factors and processes that require urgent transformation. This transformation is needed to provide practical solutions for DRRR and to foster equitable, resilient, and sustainable development through research (Munene et al. 2018). SFDRR enhances ICP for more coherent approaches on DRRR, including climate change risk and adaptation. ICP helps to enhance risk management capabilities by bridging the gap between science, policy, and practice, by developing efficient management of trans-boundary crises and by assisting developing countries in securing resources to improve their research and innovation capacities in DRRR. Male staff and experienced staff have a higher level of engagement in ICP compared to female staff and early career academics due in part to a lack of institutional support and job security (Amaratunga et al. 2018). This gender and social inequality need to be addressed. The important role of HAE will be discussed in section “Hazard Advice and Services for DRRR”.

South China Sea Tsunami Workshops Inspired by the HFA, a series of SCSTWs was first organized by the Academia Sinica and the National Central University at Taipei, Taiwan, on 5–7 December 2007. A special issue based upon selected articles presented at the SCSTW1 was published in the Journal of Asian Earth Sciences in 2009. The first objective of SCSTWs is to cultivate HAE programs in the region. The second

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration

objective is to promote scientific research, collaboration, and partnerships at the national, regional, and global levels. These highly successful series of SCSTWs have helped to develop DRRR capability for reducing tsunami vulnerability and mitigating its risk. The authors were given the honor to organize the Third SCSTW3 in USM on 3–5 November 2009, attended by 100 plus participants from 20 nations. Two proceedings were published to explore a variety of important issues related to tsunamis and other natural disasters. The first book focuses on the first objective of cultivating HAE capability (Koh et al. 2011a). The second book covers the second objective of promoting ICP (Koh et al. 2011b). The ICP network established through the 11 SCSTWs has helped to enhance ICP DRRR programs. The series of 11 SCSTWs organized between 2007 and 2019 is listed as follows. • 2007 Academia Sinica and National Central University, Taipei, Taiwan, China • 2008 Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China • 2009 Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia, USM • 2011 Syiah Kuala University, Aceh, Indonesia • 2012 Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, China • 2013 Nanyang Technological University, Singapore • 2014 National Central University, Taichung, Taiwan, China • 2015 Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha, China • 2016 National Marine Environmental Forecasting Center, Beijing, China • 2018 National University Singapore, Singapore • 2019 Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

USM International Collaboration and Partnership Disaster Research Nexus (DRN) Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) started to embrace Education for Sustainable Development

303

(ESD) and “University as a Living Lab” approach since the year 2000 through the concept of Kampus Sejahtera (Healthy Campus) and University in a Garden (Koh et al. 2006). USM was appointed the Regional Centre of Expertise (RCE Penang) on ESD by the United Nations since 2005. RCE Penang works in partnership with key stakeholders to bring about change for sustainability at the community level. RCE Penang consists of a partnership network of individuals, organizations, and groups who are committed to building a more sustainable future through education and learning. The network includes partners from the public, education, and business sectors, who work together to develop and implement innovative ESD projects and programs in Penang and beyond. Recognizing the importance of DRRR in supporting ESD and UN-SDGs, USM seeks to develop programs and resources to mitigate the adverse effects of disasters such as extreme floods, earthquakes, landslides, and tsunamis. To meet this objective, the Disaster Research Nexus (DRN) was established to coordinate the development of technology, human capability, and expertise to understand, monitor, model, and manage the risks associated with these disasters (Koh et al. 2012). The mission of the DRN is to advance knowledge by conducting cutting-edge research on disaster and its mitigation and to cultivate school and public HAE. Using an interdisciplinary framework, the DRN fosters information sharing and promotes integration of activities among communities, researchers, practitioners, nongovernment agencies, and policy-makers. It supports and conducts research and provides educational opportunities for the next generation of hazard scholars and professionals. The prime objectives consist of conducting fundamentally sound research of deep scientific interest, to produce results that are reliable, accurate, and of practical use to both society and industry. The DRN works to enhance partnership and networking with other centers and institutes within and outside the nation to address a broad spectrum of issues related to DRRR. It conducts rigorous and cutting-edge research on modelling of natural disasters such as tsunamis (Koh et al. 2009;

D

304

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration

Teh et al. 2018a, 2009; Tan et al. 2017), as well as on climate-induced risk to coastal water resources and vegetation (Teh et al. 2018b, 2019). Other research includes on-site damage monitoring, indepth risk assessment, and disaster management. Its research and community outreach activities seek to maintain a balance among the social, economic, and ecological dimensions of development. Centre for Global Sustainability Studies (CGSS) USM is committed to promoting sustainability among the community within and outside the campus through education and research activities. For this, USM has established the Centre for Global Sustainability Studies (CGSS) in 2009 to mainstream sustainability across USM community. Working in partnerships with all relevant sectors within the university and with sustainability organizations, governments, and NGOs, CGSS promotes sustainable agenda, paying attention to the marginalized bottom billion. In 2018, CGSS in collaboration with the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Research and Transfer Centre known as “Sustainable Development and Climate Change Management” (FTZ-NK) has successfully organized the fourth World Symposium on Sustainable Development at Universities (WSSD-U-2018) on 28–30 August 2018 in USM campus. The theme was “Universities as Living Labs for Sustainable Development: Supporting the Implementation of the UN-SDGs.” WSSDU-2018 gathered academicians and students from different parts of the world to share their experience and knowledge in promoting sustainability at their universities. WSSD-U promotes innovative approaches, methods, and projects for promoting sustainability at the university by enhancing teaching, research, and outreach activities and campus greening. Several papers presented at WSSD-U-2018 were selected for publication in the award-winning Springer World Sustainability Series (Teh and Koh 2020; Woo et al. 2020). CGSS is also the organizer of the International Conference on Sustainable Development (ICSDG) in 2016 and 2019, with the objective of

promoting research, outreach activities, and ICP in UN-SDGs. CGSS offers the 2-year Master in Sustainable Development Practice (MSDP), which is a global multi- and interdisciplinary graduate degree program that prepares students to identify and address the challenges of sustainable development. The degree program is also offered by 31 universities in 6 continents worldwide, helping in promoting ICP for the UNSDGs. MSDP fosters cross-disciplinary collaboration and partnership that facilitate students from around the world to participate in collective assignments and learning experiences through live video conferences. The program is monitored by the Global Association Board of MDP and supported by the Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, USA. The six core clusters are designed to facilitate seamless integration of program contents and outcomes: health (policy and management), science and engineering (energy and ecology), social science (law and economics), management (finance and ICT), and global classroom. MSDP caters to a diverse group of professionals in the fields such as policy, education, and practitioners. MSDP graduates are ready to contribute to DRRR and UN-SDGs.

Hazard Advice and Services for DRRR Achieving DRRR goals requires close ICP among disaster management organizations, in which trust and control are viewed as core elements for building confidence among collaboration partners. In all disaster response and recovery cycles, trust and control are essential and are deemed complementary and mutually reinforcing (Kalkman and de Waard 2017). It is mandatory to establish authoritative agency to develop best practice for delivery of trusted hazard advice and services, supported by cutting-edge science and hazard impact research (Hemingway and Gunawan 2018). In the UK, the Natural Hazards Partnership (NHP) is formed among 17 UK public bodies to provide authoritative and consistent risk assessment information to communities and governments. In Malaysia, a consortium consisting of several government agencies and higher education institutes

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration

(HEI) such as USM, Sunway University, CGSS, and DRN provides tsunami hazard advice and services. The following three subsections outline tsunami hazard advice and services provided: (i) school HAE, (ii) public HAE, and (iii) tsunami risk management. School Hazard Awareness and Education Hazard awareness and education (HAE) has two primary functions: (a) to enrich awareness and education on hazard, vulnerability, and risk and (b) to enable translating HAE to informed decision and actions for community protection during a disaster (Frankenberg et al. 2013). HAE provides the community with the necessary tools such as information, skills, and knowledge to cope with disaster (Johnson et al. 2014). The schools have the primary responsibility of delivering HAE development toward building community resilience against disaster risk (Shaw et al. 2011). As an educational institution having close link with the community, schools have a principle role in building community resilience against disasters through their mandate for education, information sharing, and their broad stakeholder networks (Oktari et al. 2015, 2017). A brief narrative involving two case studies on HAE in schools is warranted to show how HAE in schools had played an important role in saving lives in two tsunami events in Japan (2011 Tohoku tsunami) and Thailand (2004 Indian Ocean tsunami). Since then in Japan, the concept of “tendenko” has gained increasing acceptance that calls for everyone to immediately initiate evacuation by himself or herself, mandating the trust that others in the family and the community to do likewise (Arce et al. 2017). The famous Kamaishi Miracle witnessed during the Fukushima triple disaster of 11 March 2011 demonstrated how effective HAE at schools saved the lives of 2900 students in Kamaishi (Shaw et al. 2013). Having learned from HAE in schools, the students of Kamaishi East Junior High School quickly ran out of the school to higher ground immediately after the earthquake. Their quick action prompted the children and teachers of the neighboring Unosumai Elementary School to follow and drew in local residents.

305

As they continued to run, older students, with knowledge learned from HAE, supported the younger children, and together they reached a safe location, while the mega-tsunami destroyed their schools and the whole town. Their prompt response was the fruit of a tsunami HAE program that Kamaishi schools had been working on over the past several years. The importance of HAE in schools was similarly demonstrated during the 2004 ACT in Thailand. A 10-year-old British girl saved hundreds of lives in the Phuket beaches by initiating the beach evacuation upon recognizing the impending tsunami. She had previously learned from HAE in school that the abrupt recession of coastal water is a clear physical sign of an impending tsunami (King and Gurtner 2005). Public Hazard Awareness and Education The physical occurrence of a tsunami cannot be prevented; however, tsunami disaster can be mitigated by appropriate tsunami DRRR programs, including public HAE program. Disaster risk management comprises a combination of components that are undertaken before, during, and after a tsunami disaster event. Central to the disaster risk management cycle is HAE and effective communication with the public about tsunami hazard, vulnerability, risk, and mitigation (Kurita et al. 2006). However, HAE does not necessarily translate into effective preparatory attitude and behavior for disaster mitigation. Concerted efforts are required to persuade and motivate people at risk to convert HAE knowledge into effective preparation and action for disaster mitigation (Abunyewah et al. 2018). Awareness is locationspecific and depends on a variety of factors such as education, culture, and the policies of local administration and national governments (Anh et al. 2017). Awareness alone, however, does not ensure disaster risk preparedness. While local inhabitants may have a high level of awareness about coastal hazards in general, many tend to underestimate their risk severity, a failure that could lead to increase risk during a disaster, particularly in vulnerable and impoverished neighborhood. A recent research reported that residents in an impoverished neighborhood of Jakarta (Pluit)

D

306

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration

have invested little in evacuation strategies and in training against coastal disasters, despite having a high level of awareness (Esteban et al. 2017). Hazard and risk communication must be undertaken to persuade people to adopt self-protective behaviors and practices. Residents exposed to tsunami hazard need to be well-informed about the various types of risk management and mitigation procedures available to them. HAE through the school curriculum can be effectively integrated with home-based disaster preparedness as they are closely linked (Johnston et al. 2005). Public HAE is essential in preparing the public against disasters (Esteban et al. 2017). A risk perception and preparedness survey conducted by Ronan et al. (2001) on school children revealed that those who had been involved in HAE programs displayed more stable risk perceptions, showed reduced hazard-related fears, and demonstrated an increased awareness of critical hazardrelated protective behaviors compared to children not exposed to HAE. More importantly, following HAE in schools, children are more likely to interact with and educate their parents and community on HAE issues, which in turn would increase home-based preparedness for disaster mitigation (Johnston et al. 2005). Outside of the school system, increasing HAE may be achieved through media activities, such as television, radio, and Internet campaigns, and via the distribution of information leaflets, brochures, posters and videos, and public information meetings. Providing HAE risk information to the public has a positive result in an increase in public trust on risk mitigation and planning competence. However, HAE and risk information and community engagement should be provided to a community at least once every 3 years, to ensure risk knowledge does not decrease with time. This is important because public ignorance and complacency can increase over time due to long intervals between successive hazard events. This observation was clearly demonstrated in a study conducted by Johnston et al. (2005) on tsunami preparedness among communities living in coastal Washington in the USA. Because of time lag, levels of preparedness within the resident community were recorded at “low to moderate,”

despite distributing tsunami information through several media, despite erecting tsunami warning and evacuation signs, and despite providing maps and public displays illustrating tsunami inundation zones. Tsunami Risk Management in Malaysia The fundamental basis for tsunami risk management consists of the following steps: (A) identify hazard zones, (B) develop inundation maps, (C) disseminate evacuation maps, (D) turn vague concerns and abstract issues into clarified and concrete action plans, and (E) implement the plan during a tsunami event. To achieve these goals, the following infrastructure components are needed: (a) adequate seismic network, (b) robust numerical models, (c) sufficient deep-sea bed pressure sensors, (d) dense coastal tide gauges, and (e) effective school and public HAE Programme (Koh et al. 2007). For Malaysia, tsunami inundation maps for affected coastal areas are developed from numerical simulation of TUNARP model (Koh et al. 2017). These inundation maps are useful tools in tsunami HAE programs for schools and the public and for risk managers. An intergovernment consortium of Malaysian government agencies and universities led by the Malaysian Meteorological Department and the National Disaster Management Agency have conducted several tsunami HAE and survey programs in three coastal communities identified as tsunami hazard zones: Penang, Langkawi, and Kudat. A mixed methodology approach was utilized, using key informant interviews, site surveys, and questionnaire surveys to understand the HAE level in the population (Arce et al. 2017). The programs followed closely the HFA and SFDRR Framework for DRRR and had incorporated the wisdom gained from past tsunami events such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the 2011 Tohoku tsunami. Interviews with teachers, school principals, and community leaders were conducted, followed by focus group discussions involving schools, NGOs, local government agencies, and universities. Workshops, ground thrusting, and tabletop exercises were conducted to train and obtain feedback from participants, leading to informed decisions and actions. Expected

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration

307

D

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration, Fig. 1 Map showing tsunami safe evacuation zones and routes for Zone 1 in Kudat, Sabah

strategic outcomes include development of substantial strategic, operational, and tactical capability on community DRRR for tsunami risk mitigation. Technical outputs include early warning systems at schools and beaches, and training modules include tsunami inundation maps, tsunami evacuation routes, and safe assembly points. These technical outputs are useful for conducting regular tsunami evacuation drills and for identifying safe evacuation routes and assembly points. Figure 1 shows an example of safe evacuation routes and assembly points for Zone 1 in Kudat town, while Fig. 2 demonstrates the simulated tsunami inundation map for Kudat for a potential submarine mass failure off the coast of Brunei (Gee et al. 2007; Tan et al. 2017) with slide slopes of (a) 2° and (b) 4°.

Sustainable Development Solution Network (SDSN) Working in close partnership with the Sustainable Development Solution Network (SDSN), the Jeffrey Sachs Center on Sustainable Development

(JSC) was established in 2016 to promote United Nations SDGs. To enhance SDG 17: Partnerships for the goals, JSC actively promotes UN-SDGs partnership, advocacy, community outreach, research and training across the ASEAN region via master’s degree program, workshops, seminars and training courses on UN-SDGs. The ASEAN Ministers Workshop on UN-SDGs was conducted on 25–26 April 2017 in Kuala Lumpur to promote regional partnership among ASEAN member states to reorder their implementation priorities for UN-SDGs. The high-level executive training course was conducted on 30–31 October 2017 in Sunway City, Malaysia, to empower leaders to elevate the region to the forefront of global UN-SDG achievement. Guided by worldclass faculty, this course will equip leaders in the ASEAN region with insights and approaches for SDG programming, policy, and multi-stakeholder collaborations. In partnership with world-class faculty, JSC offers the Master in Sustainable Development Management (MSDM) degree program to train the next generation of professionals to spearhead UN-SDGs and DRRR worldwide.

308

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration, Fig. 2 Simulated inundated depth at Zone 1 in Kudat for a potential submarine mass failure with slide slopes of (a) 2° and (b) 4°. The star symbol refers to the tsunami safe zone indicated in Fig. 1

Concluding Remarks Hazardous events such as tsunamis, earthquakes, storm surges, and landslides are natural geo-meteorological occurrences that are not possible to prevent by any conceivable human interventions. However, such hazardous events can turn into disasters only if the communities are vulnerable due to physical, social, economic, and environmental conditions. Disaster risk can be

reduced by reducing the vulnerability via DRRR programs including HAE and effective risk management. Effective DRRR and risk management programs must subscribe to best practice as mandated by the HFA and the SFDRR. These DRRR program and research can be enhanced by international collaboration and partnership ICP such as the series of 11 SCSTWs. Higher education institutes such as DRN, CGSS, USM, and JSC can play a vital role in promoting and enhancing

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration

DRRR via research, outreach, and HAE and ICP programs. HAE in schools are particularly effective in achieving DRRR as schools are an integral component of the community. A large tsunami inundation as seen in 2004 ACT has inflicted enormous loss of lives to a densely populated coastal community such as Banda Aceh. It remains a big challenge to devise effective DRRR strategy for Banda Aceh simply because of the size of the population that needs to be relocated to limited higher ground further inland. This challenge is compounded by the proximity of Banda Aceh to the tsunami source. However, many lives can be saved if the community is well-prepared in advance, equipped with knowledge learned from HAE programs and other DRRR measures, and with adequate infrastructures put in place for safe and orderly evacuation. Lives can be saved if the community has received adequate and regular training and preparation from HAE programs that are well-planned and implemented. Further, pre-existing social-cultural vulnerability should be identified, and mitigation measures put in place. Pre-existing social-cultural vulnerability can be intensified in times of disaster, creating a condition of multiple vulnerabilities, as reported in a research conducted on a small marginalized group of Thai women in Ishinomaki city after the 2011 Fukushima triple disaster (Pongponrat and Ishii 2017). Several concluding remarks are in order. First, the top priority of HAE is to save lives. Second, a review on eight major natural disasters in Indonesia that were followed by outbreaks of waterborne and airborne infectious disease highlighted the critical importance of integrating health education into school and community DRRR programs to create communities that are resilient to diseases after a disaster (Pascapurnama et al. 2018). Third, DRRR must incorporate strategy for the protection of marginalized minority (Pongponrat and Ishii 2017). Gender inequality, language barriers, immigration statues, and limited social network for support are vulnerabilities that threaten these marginalized people more than they do to others. A disaster resilience strategy for these marginalized minorities in times of disaster is urgently needed to promote gender equality (SDG5) and

309

to reduce social inequality (SDG10). Fourth, DRRR strategy must incorporate social-economic measures to reduce poverty (SDG1), improve food security (SDG2), and empower meaningful employment (SDG8). Disasters create local poverty, disrupt food supply, and cause a loss of employment for some for extended period. Finally, DRRR should build city that is sustainable and safe (SDG11) and that is resilient to shocks (SDG9).

Cross-References ▶ Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World

References Abunyewah M, Gajendran T, Maund K (2018) Conceptual framework for motivating actions towards disaster preparedness through risk communication. Procedia Eng 212:246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng. 2018.01.032 Amaratunga D, Liyanage C, Haigh R (2018) A study into the role of international collaborations in higher education to enhance research capacity for disaster resilience. Procedia Eng 212:1233–1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.proeng.2018.01.159 Anh LT, Takagi H, Thao ND, Esteban M (2017) Investigation of awareness of typhoon and storm surge in the Mekong Delta – recollection of 1997 typhoon Linda. J Jpn Soc Civ Eng Ser B3 (Ocean Eng) 7 (2):168–173 Arce RSC, Onuki M, Esteban M, Shibayama T (2017) Risk awareness and intended tsunami evacuation behaviour of international tourists in Kamakura City, Japan. Int J

D

310

Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration

Disaster Risk Reduction 23:178–192. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.04.005 Carnwell R, Carson A (2005) Understanding partnerships and collaboration. In: Carnwell R, Buchanan J (eds) Effective practice in health and social care: a partnership approach. Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp 3–20 Esteban M, Takagi H, Mikami T, Aprilia A, Fujii D, Kurobe S, Utamae NA (2017) Awareness of coastal floods in impoverished subsiding coastal communities in Jakarta: tsunamis, typhoon storm surges and dykeinduced tsunamis. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 23:70– 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.04.007 Frankenberg E, Sikoki B, Sumantri C, Suriastini W, Thomas D (2013) Education, vulnerability, and resilience after a natural disaster. Ecol Soc 18(2):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05377-180216 Gee MJR, Uy HS, Warren J, Morley CK, Lambiase JJ (2007) The Brunei slide: a giant submarine landslide on the NorthWest Borneo margin revealed by 3D seismic data. Mar Geol 246:9–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.margeo.2007.07.009 Hemingway R, Gunawan O (2018) The natural hazards partnership: a public-sector collaboration across the UK for natural hazard disaster risk reduction. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 27:499–511. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.11.014 Johnson VA, Ronan KR, Johnston DM, Peace R (2014) Evaluations of disaster education programs for children: a methodological review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 9:107–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr. 2014.04.001 Johnston D, Benton K (1998) Volcanic hazard perception in Inglewood, New Zealand. Australas J Disaster Trauma Stud 2:1–8 Johnston D, Paton D, Crawford GL, Ronan K, Houghton B, Bürgelt P (2005) Measuring tsunami preparedness in coastal Washington, United States. Nat Hazards 35:173–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-0042419-8 Kalkman JP, de Waard EJ (2017) Inter-organizational disaster management projects: finding the middle way between trust and control. Int J Proj Manag 35(5):889– 899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.013 King D, Gurtner Y (2005) After the wave: a wake up warning for Australian coastal locations. Australas J Emerg Manag 20:4–9 Koh HL, Izani AMI, Mohd Izham MI (eds) (2006) Monitoring and modeling of a university in a garden. Healthy Campus Program, vol 13. USM Press, Penang, 106p Koh HL, Teh SY, Izani AMI (2007) Tsunami mitigation management. Special feature: natural disaster management technologies. The United Nations Asian and Pacific Centre for Transfer of Technology (UNAPCTT) Nov–Dec 2007. Asia Pac Tech Monit 24 (6):47–54 Koh HL, Teh SY, Liu PL-F, Md IAI, Lee HL (2009) Simulation of Andaman 2004 tsunami for assessing impact on Malaysia. J Asian Earth Sci 36:74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2008.09.008

Koh HL, Liu PL-F, Teh SY (eds) (2011a) Tsunami education, protection and preparedness. USM Press, Penang, p 247 Koh HL, Liu PL-F, Teh SY (eds) (2011b) Tsunami simulation for impact assessment. USM Press, Penang, p 249 Koh HL, Teh SY, Majid TA, Lau TL, Ahmad F (2012) Earthquake and tsunami research in USM: the role of disaster research Nexus. Pertanika J Sci Technol 20 (1):151–163 Koh HL, Teh SY, Tan WK, Kh’ng XY (2017) Validation of tsunami inundation model TUNA-RP using OAR– PMEL–135 benchmark problem set. IOP Conf Ser 67:012030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/67/1/ 012030 Kurita T, Nakamura A, Kodama M, Colombage S (2006) Tsunami public awareness and the disaster management system of Sri Lanka. Disaster Prev Manag 15:92–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/096535606 10654266 Maltais A, Weitz N, Persson Å (2018) SDG 17: partnerships for the goals. A review of research needs. Technical annex to the Formas report Forskning för Agenda 2030: Översikt av forskningsbehov och vägar framåt. Stockholm Environment Insitute, Stockholm, pp 1–46 Munene MB, Swartling ÅG, Thomalla F (2018) Adaptive governance as a catalyst for transforming the relationship between development and disaster risk through the Sendai framework? Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 28:653–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr. 2018.01.021 Oktari RS, Shiwaku K, Syamsidik MK, Shaw RA (2015) A conceptual model of a school–community collaborative network in enhancing coastal community resilience in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 12:300–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijd rr.2015.02.006 Oktari RS, Shiwaku K, Munadi K, Syamsidik SR (2017) Enhancing community resilience towards disaster: the contributing factors of school-community collaborative network in the tsunami affected area in Aceh. 2017. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 29:3–12. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijdrr.2017.07.009 Pascapurnama DN, Aya Murakami A, Chagan-Yasutan H, Hattori T, Sasaki H, Egawa S (2018) Integrated health education in disaster risk reduction: lesson learned from disease outbreak following natural disasters in Indonesia. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 29:94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.07.013 Pongponrat K, Ishii K (2017) Social vulnerability of marginalized people in times of disaster: case of Thai women in Japan tsunami 2011. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 27:133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.201 7.09.047 Ronan KR, Johnston DM, Daly M, Fairley R (2001) School children’s risk perception and preparedness: a hazards education survey. Australas J Disaster Trauma Stud 1:32 Shaw R, Takeuchi Y, Gwee QR, Shiwaku K (2011) Disaster education: an introduction. In: Shaw R, Shiwaku K, Takeuchi Y (eds) Disaster education. Community,

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries environment and disaster risk management, vol 7. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 1–22 Shaw R, Takeuchi Y, Arnold M, Arakida (2013) Knowledge note 2–3. Cluster 2: non-structural measures. The education sector. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), the World Bank. Available via EERI. https://www.eeri.org/projects/world-bankand-global-facility-for-disaster-reduction-and-recover y-grant-agreement-2/. Accessed 15 Dec 2018 Sieh K, Daly P, Mckinnon EE, Pilarczyk JE, Chiang H-W, Horton B, Rubin CM, Shen C-C, Ismail N, Vane CH, Feener RM (2015) Penultimate predecessors of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Aceh, Sumatra: stratigraphic, archaeological, and historical evidence. J Geophys Res 120:308–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 2014JB011538 Tan WK, Teh SY, Koh HL (2017) Tsunami runup and inundation along the coast of Sabah and Sarawak, Malaysia due to a potential Brunei submarine mass failure. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:15976–15994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8698-x Teh SY, Koh HL (2020) Education for sustainable development: the STEM approach in Universiti Sains Malaysia. In: Leal Filho W et al. (eds) Universities as living labs for sustainable development. World sustainability series. Springer, Cham, pp 567–587. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-15604-6_35 Teh SY, Koh HL, Liu PL-F, Md IAI, Lee HL (2009) Analytical and numerical simulation of tsunami mitigation by mangroves in Penang, Malaysia. J Asian Earth Sci 36:38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jseaes.2008.09.007 Teh SY, Koh HL, Lim YH (2018a) Tsunami run-up amplification factors for real-time prediction of run-up heights and inundation distances for Penang Island. J Phys Conf Ser 1123(1):012049. https://doi.org/10. 1088/1742-6596/1123/1/012049 Teh SY, DeAngelis DL, Voss CI, Sternberg L, Koh HL (2018b) MANTRA-O18: an extended version of SUTRA modified to simulate salt and δ18O transport amid water uptake by plants. E3S Conf 54:00039. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20185400039 Teh SY, Koh HL, DeAngelis DL, Voss CI, Sternberg L (2019) Modeling δ18O as an early indicator of regime shift arising from salinity stress in coastal vegetation. Hydrogeol J. 27(4):1257–1276. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10040-019-01930-3 UNISDR (2005) Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva. Available via UNISDR. https://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/officialdoc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf. Accessed 2 January 2019 UNISDR (2015) Sendai framework on disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva. Available via UNISDR. https://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframework fordrren.pdf. Accessed 2 January 2019 Woo WT, Koh HL, Teh SY (2020) Achieving excellence in sustainable development goals in Sunway University

311

Malaysia. In: Leal Filho W et al. (eds) Universities as living labs for sustainable development. World sustainability series. Springer, Cham, pp 265–282. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-15604-6_17 Zhou L, Perera S, Jayawickrama J, Adeniyi O (2014) The implication of Hyogo framework for action for disaster resilience education. Procedia Econ Financ 18:576–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14) 00978-2

D Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries Mohammad Tarikul Islam Department of Government and Politics, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Synonyms Disaster governance; Disaster management

Definition Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is an approach that focuses on preventing or minimizing the effects of disasters. The DRR is a crosscutting issue that needs to be accelerated by all government agencies over providing leadership, determining broad disaster risk management policies, overseeing implementation, and advocating for the inclusion of DRR concerns in broader development. The DRR has been adopted by the United Nations, which has developed an international strategy on promoting DRR as it has been shown to be very cost-effective. On the top, multi-stakeholder approach has been core part of the DRR where emphasis has been given on community-based DRR. The DRR is considered with the possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities throughout a society, to prevent the adverse impacts of hazards for accelerating the paradigm shift from the relief culture to the DRR culture (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 2004a, b). It refers to a reinforced national capacity for managing risks associated with disasters

312

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries

through a comprehensive approach that focuses on all hazards and all phases of disaster management and is involving all relevant stakeholders. Knowledge building and policy support with and through the government, as well as communitylevel interventions to reach the most vulnerable section of the population, is one of the basic pillars of DRR culture.

Introduction Apparently, DRR and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should move simultaneously in efforts to promote the culture of DRR avoiding relief-centric disaster management approach in Bangladesh and developing countries. Clear leadership and a common vision of DRR as developmental and distinct from disaster management have essence to put DRR into the domain of development. DRR is perceived as everyone’s business, and all stakeholders both state and non-state must adopt DRR into their respective development plan to mainstream for reducing disaster risk and enabling vulnerable people to manage live and livelihood with security and less risk. Most of the developing countries are the most disaster-prone in the world with great negative consequences being associated with various natural and human-induced hazards (Arrow 1982). Many of the developing countries have demonstrated their remarkable resilient capacities as a global champion in disaster management. In an effort to professionalize Comprehensive Disaster Management Approach with particular focus on integration of DRR into development process, most of the developing countries have developed a National Plan for Disaster Management, Disaster Management Act, and the Standing Orders on Disaster (SOD) with the avowed objective of making the concerned persons understand and perform their duties and responsibilities regarding disaster management at all levels. Some of them deserve acclaim for making sufficient, appropriate legislative arrangements for disaster risk management, including the mainstreaming of DRR into development

planning (Collier and Hoeffler 2002). Nevertheless, in recent years, various efforts have attempted to “leapfrog” this obstacle by developing more forward-thinking plans of action and strategies, reflecting modern thinking around disaster risk management and, to some degree, embracing principles of mainstreaming (Ara 1998). If fully implemented, these plans and strategies could represent considerable progress in mainstreaming at both national and local levels. Individual line agencies and local governments are legally responsible for implementing disaster management, as it is still commonly referred to in department circulars and executive orders, within their own areas of responsibility (Carter 1991). As a signatory to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005–2015, most of the government in developing countries are striving hard to achieve goals stipulated in the HFA by shifting the paradigm from relief-centric approach culture to DRR approach (United Nations Development Programme 2004). Legislative changes have paved the way for moving toward a DRR culture, and therefore, political will and sufficient capacity have essence to making DRR an underlying principle in all relevant development sectors (United States Agency for International Development 2007). The political government in most of the developing countries are trying to mainstream the concept of DRR with the enactment of legislature and institutional rearrangements from national level to local level. Donors are found to be visible when disaster happens in most of the developing countries (Asian Development Bank 1992). The Local Consultative Group on Disaster and Emergency Response (LCG-DER) includes representation of all key stakeholders and is the central forum for government and donor agencies to take strategic decisions and share ideas and information on disaster management. Generally, donor community particularly UNDP, WFP, and UNICEF join hands with local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for execution of their respective program (Ahmed 2001). At a national level, DRR is a crosscutting issue that needs to be “owned” by all government agencies rather than by a single department. An overarching national agency could provide leadership,

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries

determine broad disaster risk management policies, oversee implementation, and advocate for the inclusion of DRR concerns in broader development. Apparently, a strategic, “joined-up” approach to DRR and mainstreaming is an essential component of sustainable development plans in hazard-prone countries (Asian Disaster Preparedness Center 2008). Concerted, collaborative, and strategic efforts by all stakeholders through a coordinated manner and in all sectors of society reduce disaster vulnerability and build disaster resilience at all levels for making development sustained (United Nations 2002). It is worth mentioning that DRR under the leadership of the national government is the first line of defense against climate change and an effective strategy for promoting climate change adaptation at the international, national, and local levels, in particular by mainstreaming DRR in all sustainable development efforts. This entry shed light on the nexus between DRR and SDGs with particular focus on the unyielding efforts of Bangladesh for mainstreaming DRR into sustainable development.

Paradigm Shift: From Disaster Response to Risk Reduction Culture Historical evidence suggests that most of the developing countries are exposed to the disaster vulnerabilities with great negative consequences being associated with various natural and humaninduced hazards. The geophysical location, land characteristics, river system, and the monsoon climate render them highly vulnerable to natural hazards (Anderson 1990). The coastal morphology of developing nations influences the impact of hazards on the area. Especially, in the southeastern area, natural hazards increase the vulnerability of the coastal dwellers and slow down the process of social and economic development (Cardona 2004). For example, Bangladesh is one of the disaster-prone nations in the world. Since independence in 1971, Bangladesh has endured almost 200 disaster events – cyclones, storm, water surges, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, droughts, and other calamities which cause more

313

than 500,000 deaths leaving damage to quality of life, livelihoods, and the economy. Bangladesh becomes a pioneer among least developed countries in prioritizing DRR in national fiscal planning. Bangladesh Government has been appreciated in the aforesaid report for adopting a comprehensive disaster management program where DRR has been perceived as integral part of national fiscal planning. Measures for risk reduction are based on a risk analysis and a risk evaluation. The risk analysis determines the nature and extent of risk by analyzing potential hazards, existing conditions of vulnerability (physical, social, economic, and environmental), and available coping capacities. It results in a risk profile for the location, area, or country considered (Wisner 2004). The risk evaluation includes the perception of risks and the weighting of disaster risks vis-à-vis other risks like health or economic risks. On the top, multi-stakeholder approach has been core part of the model where emphasis should be given on community-based DRR in the developing countries. Bangladesh should also take pride of its people who has demonstrated their remarkable resilient capacities in case of natural disasters. They have learned to live with hazards and developed their own coping strategies to withstand disaster shocks. In Bangladesh, coping strategies are familiar means the community has adopted with their conviction and experiment over the eras (Khan and Shah 2008). For instance, in the context of flood, it is observed that elderly people in the village by using their traditional knowledge system can predict weather situation beforehand and can determine the nature of flood and can prepare themselves to reduce the risks of floods. Most cases, their predictions are almost similar to the modern forecasting that they gain from radio. There are little variations in the traditional knowledge system across different social categories. Interestingly, in most of the developing countries, there is also a large number of indigenous knowledge to reduce the impact of hazards. In Bangladesh, local people are aware of the changing climate and frequency of disaster events, and they develop their own adaptation measures based on their cultural practice and past experiences

D

314

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries

(Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disaster 2010). People in Bangladesh always find ways to live with the environment using the knowledge they have gained through their ancestors. This knowledge is usually in the form of social practices and behaviors. In many countries this knowledge is manifested in the form of songs, folklores, and also proverbs which usually becomes part of cultural beliefs and practices. The origin of indigenous knowledge lies within the communities though it is often influenced by outside sources over time. The United Nations Environment Programme has defined indigenous knowledge as the knowledge that an indigenous community accumulated over generations of living on a particular environment. It means all the form of knowledge which enables the community to achieve stable livelihood in the environment. This can be in the form of technologies, skills, practices, beliefs, as well as cultures (Dekens 2007). It is observed that local and indigenous knowledge connects directly to the natural world and the specific environmental context in Bangladesh. According to the report presented by the UNISDR, there are mainly four arguments related to the value of indigenous practices (World Bank and United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 1992). 1. Knowledge regarding strategies to cope against natural disaster can be transferred from one community to another community in the similar situations. 2. Affected community gets encouraged if there is an incorporation of indigenous knowledge in existing practices and policies. This empowers the members of the community to take the leading role in all DRR activities. 3. Information contained in indigenous knowledge can help improve project implementation by providing necessary information about the local context. 4. Nonformal means by which indigenous knowledge is disseminated provides a successful model for the other education on DRR. In the developing countries, communities have developed their indigenous economic strategies to

deal with the disasters. Usually vulnerable households try to store up grains, foods, and cash which they can draw on in difficult times (World Bank 2006). In the case of food shortage, natural or wild foods from the forests are used such as roots, berries, etc.; cultural issues include religious beliefs and norms which help the community in perceiving warning systems about the disaster and provide the medium to pass on the knowledge and experiences from one generation to another generation. This is passed on in the forms of stories, tales, as well as other practices. As it is concerned to the developing countries, Bangladesh maintains a culture of disaster resilience that continues to strengthen through the determined efforts of the government, local communities, development partners, and other stakeholders at all levels. Bangladesh Government is making every effort to reduce the vulnerability of the poor to the effects of natural, environmental, and human-induced hazards to a manageable and acceptable humanitarian level by (a) bringing a paradigm shift in disaster management from conventional response and relief practice to a more comprehensive risk reduction culture and (b) strengthening the capacity of the disaster management system in improving the response and recovery management at all levels. The overall vision of the government of the developing nations in disaster management is to strengthen national capacity to manage risks related to disasters, as well as the immediate response and the recovery efforts (Islamic Development Bank 2006). It is done through a comprehensive approach that focuses on all hazards and all phases of disaster management and is involving all relevant stakeholders. Best part of the ongoing paradigm shift of the government of developing countries is community-driven risk reduction program where community joins hands with government authority to carry on risk reduction efforts. It is found that communities are now integrating DRR and climate change adaptation measures and are more resilient. Understanding about the risk reduction concept and its benefit among the disaster-vulnerable communities is progressive. When natural disasters occur, communities at the local and government level are

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries

equipped with training, tools, and protocols on how to cope with these disasters. They have been motivated over the years with coping strategies applying their indigenous knowledge and techniques. Volunteers in the disaster-prone areas of developing countries are all more aware on how to endure disasters with minimum damages and rebuild quickly, minimizing negative impacts (Medina 1992). Risk reduction culture is spreading over the country, but importance of reliefcentric disaster emergency response management should be the integral part of comprehensive disaster management approach adopted by the government of developing countries.

DRR and Sustainable Development: An Interplay DRR is a systematic approach to identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks of disaster. It aims to reduce socioeconomic vulnerabilities to disaster as well as to deal with the environmental and other hazards that trigger them: Here it has been strongly influenced by the mass of research on vulnerability that has appeared in print since the mid-1970s. It is the responsibility of development and relief agencies alike. It should be an integral part of the way such organizations do their work, not an add-on or one-off action. DRR is very wide-ranging: Its scope is much broader and deeper than conventional emergency management (United Nations Development Programme 1997). The complete disaster management cycle includes the shaping of public policies and plans that either modify the causes of disasters or mitigate their effects on people, property, and infrastructure. The mitigation and preparedness phases occur as disaster management improvements are made in anticipation of a disaster event. Developmental considerations play a key role in contributing to the mitigation and preparation of a community to effectively confront a disaster. The United Nations (UN)-sponsored HFA 2005–2015, which seeks to build the resilience of nations and communities to disasters, includes the integration of disaster risk considerations into

315

sustainable development processes as a key strategy. One of its five priorities is the reduction of underlying risk factors, involving environmental, social, and economic actions, but it is here that least progress has been achieved according to reporting by governments (Holloway and Pelling 2006). Explicit recognition of DRR in the SDGs will provide critical weight to help drive the substantive work on underlying disaster risk in the parallel post-2015 framework planned to succeed the HFA (United Nations 2015). Disasters can be considered an outcome of an ongoing “risk process,” in which the prevailing circumstances of hazards, exposure, and vulnerabilities combine to generate disaster risk (Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator 1984). The risk may grow and accumulate over time, becoming evident as greater losses only when a hazard event strikes. This is a radical shift from earlier ideas of disasters as acts of God or as natural events. A geophysical hazard event may be natural, but its impacts depend on the circumstances of people, households, and societies, which in turn arise from diverse microto macro-level political, social, economic, and environmental processes (Schipper and Mark 2006). Knowledge of the driving factors in disaster risk is the essential basis for preemptive policy and action to reduce the risks. No single group or organization can address every aspect of DRR. DRR thinking sees disasters as complex problems demanding a collective response. Coordination even in conventional emergency management is difficult, for many organizations may converge on a disaster area to assist. Across the broader spectrum of DRR, the relationships between types of organization and between sectors (public, private, and nonprofit, as well as communities) become much more extensive and complex (World Bank 2002). DRR requires strong vertical and horizontal linkages (central-local relations become important). The principle of accountability lies at the heart of genuine partnership and participation in DRR. It applies to state institutions that are expected to be accountable through the democratic process and to private sector and nonprofit organizations that are not subject to democratic control.

D

316

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries

Accountability is an emerging issue in disaster reduction work. Accountability should be primarily toward those who are vulnerable to hazards and affected by them. Many organizations working in international aid and development are now committing themselves to a “rights-based” approach. The most general and standard definition for sustainable development is: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The goals of disaster management are therefore necessary for sustainable development and vice versa. From the beginning of the twenty-first century, the UN has shown how disaster management is necessary for sustainable development. Rising poverty levels, in turn, increase the susceptibility to disasters: as the poor need to exploit environmental resources for survival, destroying forests, soils, wetlands, and water sources, the risk of disasters such as landslides inevitably grows (Haque and Blair 1992). Repeated exposure to disasters can lead to chronic poverty, as recurring economic stresses induced by natural calamities induce fluctuation in income, compelling households to sacrifice potential investment. In turn, economic pressures may increase vulnerability as they can, e.g., force people to live in dangerous locations such as floodplains or on unstable hill slopes. Only formulation of public policies for mainstreaming the DRR in the development process is not adequate. The concept of the paradigm shift is well understood among the disaster management community in the developing countries, and its essence has been included in the policy discourse of the country. Coordination of disaster response was extremely challenging, because the humanitarian agencies prepared their response plan individually and the objectives of these plans were too diverse to be aligned to a common goal.

Importance of Coordinated DRR Approach Effective coordination is an essential ingredient for disaster management. The coordination of

disaster response is demanding as it involves requirements typical of an emergency or peaceful situation that include high uncertainty and necessity for rapid decision-making and response under temporal and resource constraints (Benouiar 2003). The coordination of emergency response is challenging as it involves factoring in exigencies typical of an emergency situation such as great uncertainty; sudden and unexpected events; the risk of possible mass casualty; high time pressure and urgency; severe resource shortage; largescale impact and damage; and the disruption of infrastructure support necessary for coordination like electricity, telecommunication, and transportation (The Caribbean Development Bank and the Caribbean Community and Common Market Secretariat 2004). This is complicated by factors such as infrastructure interdependencies, multi-authority and massive personal involvement, conflict of interest, and the high demand for timely information (Kendra and Wachtendorf 2003). Coordination is perceived as core of comprehensive DRR program for the country like Bangladesh. Apparently, repeated disasters destroy the economic resource base of the poor people and drain out the economic potentials in the developing countries. The impacts and vulnerabilities of disasters could be minimized through proper disaster management coordination by integrating disaster management activities with local and national development plan. In the context of Bangladesh, local government members do not have adequate knowledge on DRR. Most of them work in a traditional manner rather than following the standings order. The members of local government bodies are found less active in enhancing public awareness on disaster risk management (Hewitt 1999). Local government can play the key role for local-level risk reduction planning. There is even no evidence or analysis available on whether women are able to participate and influence the local government representatives. On the other hand, human-induced and technological disasters are getting more dominance in the landscape of disaster management (Shah 2002). The role and engagement of the private sector in the Disaster Management Committee at different level is unquestionable. In the context of

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries

developing countries, the matter to be considered is beyond the “charity” mindset of the private sector (Kratt 2005). Harmful consumption, production, and distribution and deviant activities, attitudes, and habits must be reduced. Disaster risk management is still a secondary priority and not well integrated into different programs being implemented by the Union Parishad, the lowest tier of the local government in Bangladesh. Persons who manage and lead Disaster Management Committees are not expert in disaster management, but the SOD gave them authority to coordinate and manage disaster management efforts. Political leadership at local level is not involved to lead the disaster management, and therefore, people’s interest and sense of accountability are not reflected. People exposed to disaster vulnerability are deprived, and they never get access to knowing what sort of disaster management program with the amount is planned and executed by the Upazila and District administration in Bangladesh. On the other hand, Union Disaster Management Committee headed by the Union Chairman has been in paper as chairman, and other members are not well trained about the procedure of committee to run. In the area of disaster management, developing countries are not well ahead of developed countries. This is why they must consider a role model in managing natural disasters (Black 2008). The strength and attributes Bangladesh has among others include community resilience, volunteerism, the Early Warning System, community-based decision-making process, government commitment, vibrant NGOs working in Bangladesh, and an appreciable legal and institutional framework (Lewis 1999). Apparently, implementation of various provisions of legal and policy directives needs to be evaluated, and further commitment is needed in this regard. Hence, effectiveness of Disaster Management Committees is a must to accelerate DRR business.

In Quest of Dynamic Leadership Clear leadership and a common vision of DRR as developmental and distinct from disaster

317

management have essence to put DRR into the domain of development. DRR is perceived as everyone’s business, and all stakeholders both state and non-state must adopt DRR into their respective development plan to mainstream for reducing disaster risk and enabling vulnerable people to manage live and livelihood with security and less risk. Besides non-state actors, government must act upon Disaster Management Act to translate provision of mainstreaming DRR into development planning through incorporating DRR into each and every development plan of relevant ministries and departments. Different planning and strategies like Annual Development Plan: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper must be entrusted with DRR as a critical development challenge. In the context of many developing countries where the adversity of disaster is high, coordination of disaster response is found extremely challenging, because the humanitarian agencies prepare their response plan individually and the objectives of these plans are too diverse to be aligned to a common goal (Campitelli and Gobet 2004). Also, Department of Disaster Management faces difficulties to mobilize sufficient numbers of skilled personnel at the time of disaster. Moreover, the local-level Disaster Management Committees lack understanding and skill about need assessment, and the system for data storage, compilation, and analysis is weak. Political leadership is not attained to the Disaster Management Committees at regional and local level. Permanent Representatives (member of civil service of Bangladesh) of central government are entrusted the responsibility to deal with local Disaster Management Committees. Persons who manage and lead Disaster Management Committees are not expert in Disaster Management, but the Standing Orders on Disasters gave them authority to coordinate and manage DRR efforts. Political leadership at local level is not involved to lead the DRR, and therefore, people’s interest and sense of accountability are not reflected. People exposed to disaster vulnerability are deprived, and they never get access to knowing what sort of DRR program with the amount is planned and executed by the local administration in developing countries (Pelling 2003).

D

318

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries

Policy framework has been developed in response to increased calls by both people of the disaster-prone developing nations and the international community to recognize the DRR as an institutional basis to administer the efforts of the government of developing nations in reducing the disaster risk for a safer community. If this is the case, then the policy framework can only reiterate previous successful strategies or else present a new, far more beneficial approach previously not considered by the government concerned (Karim and Mimura 2008). It is necessary throughout the policy framework and especially in this final stage to involve relevant governmental and nongovernmental organizations to provide the supportive backup and motivation for such communities to implement, monitor, and evaluate such a strategy. Without motivation in the form of follow-up activities and the presence of support, such a policy strategy would potentially be difficult to implement, not because the communities are incapable but rather due to an ingrained “handout” culture where support is expected (International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction 2000). However, this process could contribute to moving away from such a culture as it involves the practical application of a strategy that is ultimately the responsibility of the multi-stakeholders concerned. The government of developing countries should be heading toward reviewing the priority intrinsic components identified and establish all the global and regional drivers of DRR as well as negotiate with the relevant stakeholders including the community about how to analyze the effectiveness of each strategy both past and present for future. In order to create a more precise overall view of the whole public policy framework in DRR, the research should be continued and take the interplay of both policy makers and implementers (Blakie 1994). This would give an even better understanding of the whole process of policy formulation as well as implementation of DRR efforts of the developing countries to attain SDGs. Considerable energy is currently being expended on mainstreaming DRR into sustainable development, with a number of initiatives underway to get mainstreaming off the ground.

Appropriate legislative arrangements for disaster risk management, including the mainstreaming of DRR into development adopted by the government in developing nations, are to be enforced in a professional manner in order to sustain the moment already many of the developing countries gained. The political commitment of national government to advance DRR, as manifested in outcomes, is high, and sustained momentum for action should be strengthened. Acquire adequate equipments, logistical resources, and trained human resources to face sudden-onset disasters. Development of national policy and guidelines for incorporation of DRR in emergency preparedness, response, and recovery programs in the reconstruction of affected communities. Establishing appropriate institutional mechanism to promote DRR into disaster response, preparedness, and recovery is a must. Comprehensive training program for the government officials to build the capacity to implement the DRR guidelines should be continued. Government must make sure that they have a duty to people in the developing nations to exercise our oversight function in national policy development and implementation and to ensure the transparent and effective use of public funds in support of implementation of DRR program. DRR is clearly more cost-effective than disaster relief, and recovery has to be widely disseminated to attract more funding for execution of DRR program. Government needs to re-evaluate existing development models and in so doing consider the socioeconomic standards and quality of living for our people toward a sustainable and equitable world and a disaster-resilient human society for future generations. Deepening our understanding of the linkages of DRR with development issues such as climate change, poverty, gender, education, public health, maternal and child care, environment, and infrastructure, among other issues, and translating it to practical actions is crucial. Donor accountability must be ensured with the strong and able leadership of the political government. To prevent participants losing sight of the goal, DRR should have a clear identity that

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries

differentiates it from pre-existing relief-oriented disaster management. The identity of DRR should fit national contexts and be arrived at through dialogue with disaster management and development stakeholders from all policy sectors with a stake in development or risk reduction. This includes those engaged with disaster reconstruction, which should be empowered through legislation to integrate DRR into their planning and practices for attaining SDGs. Civil society-policy maker’s coalitions can be larger and include grassroots actors like community-based organizations in the coalitions in order to mobilize local resources and popular opinion to advocate for change as well as line ministries. Civil society actors remain important for advocacy: they can provide a vehicle for bringing insights from the grassroots, a mechanism for the representation of popular views, and the potential for popular legitimacy and oversight.

Conclusion Mainstreaming of DRR is a governance process enabling the systematic integration of DRR concerns into all relevant development spheres. In other words, responsive, accountable, transparent, and efficient governance structures underwrite the environment where DRR can be institutionalized as an underlying principle of sustainable development. Therefore, building resilient communities in disaster-prone countries requires that (a) underlying risk factors are continuously considered in all relevant sectors and (b) risk reduction standards and measures are an integral part of the planning and delivery of core development services and processes, including education, environment, and health. Appropriate forecasting and preparedness program should be developed so that concerned agencies earmarked for the disaster management can be deployed quickly. In Bangladesh’s experience, when political direction and support fell away, momentum for reform slowed, stakeholder buy-in diminished, and those involved became dispirited. Reform is greatly facilitated by a well-placed and respected policy champion with technical knowledge, skill,

319

commitment, and creative initiative. Ideally policy champions should have high political or administrative office and have an understanding of, and be able to work through, both formal and informal kinds of institution. The body driving the legislation should be located at the highest level of executive authority in order to drive cross-sectoral integration. Multilevel governance provides a starting point for understanding how central governments and other public and private actors interface to design and implement policies from international to national and local levels of action (DFID 2006). Regardless of the constitutional form of government, multilevel governance calls for a narrowing or closing of the policy “gaps” among levels of government via the adoption of tools for vertical and horizontal cooperation. Effective capacity development, advocacy, and programming require thorough analysis pertaining to the disaster risk management financing, covering public sector spending for DRR, relief, and response, and assessment for identifying key gaps in DRR capacity, which provides the basis for incorporating relevant DRR activities into budgeted projects of sustainable development plans at the appropriate level. Finally, it is widely acknowledged that well-placed, high-level political commitment with relevant expertise and knowledge can play a major role in building commitment to DRR and its mainstreaming into sustainable development in the context of developing nations.

Cross-References ▶ Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management ▶ Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration ▶ Inter-governmental partnerships and global governance ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Water Safety Plans and Climate Change Mitigation ▶ Water Security

D

320

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries

References ADB (1992) Disaster mitigation in Asia and the Pacific. ADB, Manila ADPC (2008) Community-based disaster risk management field practitioners’ handbook. ADPC, Bangkok Ahmed K (2001) Participatory action research on buildingfor-safety options for low-income rural housing in flood-prone areas. University of Exeter, London Anderson J (1990) The adaptive character of thought. Erlbaum, Hillsdale Ara S (1998) Participatory monitoring and evaluation of flood-proofing pilot project of CARE-Bangladesh. IIED, London Arrow K (1982) Risk perception in psychology and economics. Economic Inquiry, London Benouiar D (2003) Contribution to the UN-ISDR’s online discussion on the draft framework to guide and monitor disaster risk reduction. UNISDR, Geneva Black R (2008) Demographics and climate change: future trends and their policy implications for migration. Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, University of Sussex UK, Brighton Blakie P (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London Campitelli G, Gobet F (2004) Adaptive expert decision making: skilled chess players search more and deeper. International Computer Games Association, Netherlands Cardona D (2004) The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: a necessary review and criticism for effective risk management. Earthscan Publishers, London Carter W (1991) Disaster management: a disaster manager’s handbook. ADB, Manila CDB, CARICOM Secretariat (2004) Sourcebook on the integration of natural hazards into environmental impact assessment. Caribbean Development Bank and Caribbean Community Secretariat, St. Michael Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disaster (2010) The international disaster database. Catholic University Press, Leuven Collier P, Hoeffler A (2002) Aid, policy, and growth in postconflict societies. World Bank HQ, Washington, DC Dekens J (2007) Local knowledge on disaster preparedness: a framework for data collection and analysis. Sustainable Mountain Development Programme, Nepal DFID (2006) Reducing the risk of disasters – helping to achieve sustainable poverty reduction in a vulnerable world. DFID, London Haque C, Blair D (1992) Vulnerability to tropical cyclones: evidence from the April 1991 cyclone in coastal Bangladesh. DMB, Dhaka Hewitt K (1999) Regions of risk: a geographical introduction to disasters. Longman, Harlow Holloway A, Pelling M (2006) Legislation for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction. Teddington, UK IDB (2006) Draft disaster risk management policy. IDB, Jeddah

IDNDR (2000) Natural disasters: strategies for mitigation and disaster response. IDNDR, München Karim F, Mimura N (2008) Impacts of climate change and sea level rise on cyclonic storm surge floods in Bangladesh. Glob Environ Chang, London Kendra M, Wachtendorf T (2003) Elements of resilience after the world trade center disaster. Emergency Operations Center, New York Khan M, Shah A (2008) Disaster preparedness for sustainable development in Bangladesh. Disaster Prev Manag, Dhaka Kratt P (2005) Reducing the risk of disasters: SIDA’s effort to reduce poor people’s vulnerability to hazards. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Stockholm Lewis L (1999) Development in disaster prone places: studies of vulnerability. Intermediate Technology Publications, London Medina C (1992) Community awareness and participation programme in disaster preparedness and rural development. UNCRD, Nagoya Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator (1984) Preparedness aspects: disaster prevention and mitigation. United Nations HQ, New York Pelling M (2003) The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscan, London Schipper L, Mark P (2006) Disaster risk, climate change and international development: scope for, and challenges to integration. Action Aid HQ, London Shah C (2002) Beyond earthquake loss estimation technologies: strategies for risk reduction. Bucharest Press, Rumania UN (2002) Living with risk – a global review of disaster reduction initiatives. UNISDR, Geneva UNDP (1997) The shrinking State–Governance & sustainable human development. UNDP HQ, New York UNDP (2004) Reducing disaster risk–a challenge for development. United Nations Development Programme. UNDP HQ, New York UNISDR (2004a) Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives. UNISDR, Geneva UNISDR (2004b) Terminology: basic terms of disaster risk reduction. UNISDR, Geneva United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. UN, Yew York USAID (2007) How resilient is your costal community? A guide for evaluating coastal community resilience to tsunamis and other hazards. USAID, Bangkok Wisner B (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London World Bank (2002) World development through building institutions for markets. Oxford University Press, Washington, DC World Bank (2006) Hazards of nature, risks to development – an IEG evaluation of World Bank: assistance for natural disasters. World Bank HQ, Washington DC World Bank and UNISDR (1992) Global facility for disaster reduction and recovery: a partnership for mainstreaming disaster mitigation in poverty reduction strategies. UNISDR, Geneva

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs Chad Jonathan Frischmann1, Mamta Mehra2, Ryan Allard3, Kevin Bayuk4, João Pedro Gouveia5 and Miranda R. Gorman6 1 Project Drawdown, Berkeley, CA, USA 2 Project Drawdown, Bethesda, MD, USA 3 Project Drawdown, Tobago, Trinidad and Tobago 4 Project Drawdown, San Francisco, CA, USA 5 Project Drawdown and CENSE – Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University, Lisbon, Portugal 6 Project Drawdown, San Jose, CA, USA

Definition This entry describes the linkages between “Drawdown solutions” and the targets and goals set out by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It is proposed that the implementation of these solutions can substantially help to achieve the SDGs by 2030, with even greater gains when implementing actions in parallel as a “system of solutions” enabled by broad-based, effective partnerships at local, regional, and international scales. “Drawdown” is the point in time when concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere begin to decline on a year-to-year basis. GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases – specifically chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochloroflurocarbons (HCFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). “Drawdown solutions” are defined as any technology or practice that directly affects the concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere by (a) reducing GHG emissions through lowering demand, (b) avoiding GHG emissions through stopping fossil fuel emissions and replacing with zero- or low-emitting alternatives, and (c) sequestering atmospheric carbon through viable natural and engineered sinks.

321

“System of solutions” refers to the implementation of multiple solutions in parallel across several sectors.

Introduction Drawdown is the prerequisite for stopping and beginning the process of reversing global warming. Achieving this turning point as quickly, safely, and equitably as possible can potentially solve the climate emergency, as well as provide a series of cascading benefits to human well-being and planetary health. This entry describes the linkages between solutions identified by Project Drawdown that contribute to the net reduction of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and the targets and goals set out by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It is proposed that the implementation of Drawdown solutions can substantially help to achieve the SDGs by 2030, with even greater gains when implementing actions in parallel as a “system of solutions” enabled by broad-based, effective partnerships at local, regional, and international scales. The SDG framework provides the blueprint for an achievable future when humanity places peace, people, prosperity, and the planet at the core of our collective development by outlining 17 SDGs, Fig. 1, and accompanying targets and indicators. The SDG Framework recognizes that to achieve this future by 2030, solutions addressing these targets must be implemented in tandem; not only in parallel but also with all goals integrally embedded in how solutions are adopted. To achieve all 17 SDGs in this time frame, solutions to ending poverty and providing clean energy, water, sanitation, sustained economic growth, and improved health and well-being must also incorporate gender equality, justice, and collaborative models of action, as well as tackling climate change and working to preserve oceans and forests. Signed by leaders from 193 countries in 2015, the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs have become a guiding framework and galvanizing call to action for actors across many sectors and levels of

D

322

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Fig. 1 The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

agency. Many governments, businesses, investors, and civil society organizations (CSOs) have agreed to the principles outlined; however, the SDG Framework does not clearly stipulate, with workable existing technologies or practices, how to actually achieve the Goals beyond setting levels of ambition (Dickens et al. 2019). Rather, the Agenda leaves it to signatory countries to identify and adopt actions to achieve the targets, in accordance with their own national objectives. Along with the political and economic realities preventing many countries from moving forward, this lack of specified solutions has stalled progress toward achieving the SDGs. As acknowledged in the United Nations Report of the Secretary-General (UN 2019), “progress is being made and some favorable trends with regard to the implementation of the [SDGs] are evident. . .[However,] the shift in development pathways to generate the transformation required to meet the [SDGs] by

2030 is not yet advancing at the speed or scale required.” The climate crisis is the most pressing challenge of this time. António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, described the crisis as an “existential threat” to civilization (UN 2018). Climate change is a direct response of Earth systems to global warming caused by human systems emitting GHGs into the atmosphere. Human systems are, in turn, directly and, on the whole, adversely impacted by this environmental response, which threatens food security, sustainable economic growth, stability of infrastructure, protection of borders and national integrity, conservation of natural biodiversity and human health, and well-being (Lade et al. 2020). While the effects of climate change will be felt by all, they disproportionately impact populations most vulnerable to poverty, women and children, and indigenous peoples (Roy et al. 2018). The deep

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

transformations across nearly all areas of human activity needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change will require partnerships and collaboration between national and local governments, CSOs, businesses, and the financial sector (IIASA 2018). Due to the interrelated human and natural dimensions of the SDG Framework, not only is climate action one of the SDGs in its own right but also it is imperative to achieving all the SDGs. Project Drawdown evaluates existing technologies and practices as a “system of solutions” that are financially viable, scaling, and scientifically validated to have an impact on atmospheric GHGs. Each solution is identified, functionally described, and assessed for a path to adoption, its barriers, challenges, and limitations. Data collected are entered into integrated systems models using a meta-analysis approach. Solutions are evaluated across most areas of human activity – and consequently sources of emissions and sinks – including electricity generation, transportation, buildings, industrial systems, food systems, land and oceans, and health and education (Project Drawdown 2017, 2020). Results generated from the integrated models show the GHG impacts and the relative implementation costs and lifetime operational savings of this “system of solutions” from 2020 to 2050, compared to a reference scenario showing limited adoption. In its latest assessment, Project Drawdown has shown that achieving Drawdown could be possible, and financially rewarding, but would require the ambitious and sustained adoption of all identified solutions in parallel over decades (Project Drawdown 2020). While the opportunities to advance climate solutions and improve the planet are readily available, actualizing these benefits requires the active engagement of all levels of society. Solutions exist for nations, municipalities, landowners and farmers, businesses, investors, homeowners, and consumers to shift toward a system that benefits all. Yet, the rate of adoption of these solutions needs to accelerate to solve the climate crisis and achieve the SDGs by 2030. This analysis provides insight into how accelerated adoption of the Drawdown “system of solutions” can aid in meeting the SDGs.

323

The entry is organized into three sections: in the next section, the method used to link climate solutions with SDGs with reference to the literature is described, followed by the global and sectoral results, based on existing literature and Drawdown analyses. Finally, the entry wraps up with conclusions.

D Approach for Mapping Drawdown Solutions and SDGs Project Drawdown (2017, 2020) provides a methodological framework and modeling tool to assess the impact of technologies and practices as a “system of solutions” at global scale. Eighty-two existing Drawdown solutions were identified across seven areas of human activity (see Table 1). These solutions are evaluated by their increased adoption and use, compared to current practices and technologies. Solutions were modeled both individually and within an integrated system through the collection of peerreviewed and widely cited data and estimations of potential adoption constrained by estimated global markets of functional demand, biophysical characteristics of terrestrial and ocean systems, and per capita food consumption, depending on the technology or practice. In addition to their climate and financial impacts, their benefits were also directly or indirectly linked to many SDGs. Climate–SDG relationships have been analyzed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Roy et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2019), The UN Development Programme (UNDP n.d.), the World Resources Institute (Northrop et al. 2016), and others. Drawdown solutions are mapped to the SDGs and related targets based on: • Existing literature that connects the solutions and/or sectors directly to the SDGs, targets or indicators • Literature that relates them to relevant issue areas, independent of explicit references to the SDGs • The authors’ expert assessment of impact of solutions

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

324

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Table 1 List of all Drawdown solutions included in this analysis, organized by sectora

Energy- and materials-based solutions Electricity generation Biomass Power Concentrated Solar Power Distributed Energy Storage Distributed Solar Photovoltaics Geothermal Power Grid Flexibility Landfill Methane Capture Methane Digesters Micro Wind Turbines Microgrids Nuclear Power Ocean Power Offshore Wind Turbines Onshore Wind Turbines Small Hydropower Utility-scale Energy Storage UtilityscaleSolar Photovoltaics Waste to Energy

Buildings Biogas for Cooking Building Automation Systems Building Retrofitting District Heating Dynamic Glass Green and cool Roofs Highefficiency Heat Pumps High Performance Glass Improved Clean Cookstoves Insulation LED Lighting Low-flow Fixtures Net-zero Buildings Smart Thermostats Solar Hot Water

Transportation Bicycle Infrastructure Carpooling Efficient Aviation Efficient Ocean Shipping Efficient Trucks Electric Bicycles Electric Cars Electric Trains High-speed Rail Hybrid Cars Public Transit Telepresence Walkable Cities

Nature-based solutions

Industry Alternative Cement Alternative Refrigerants Biochar Bioplastics Composting Recycled Paper Recycling Refrigerant Management Water Distribution Efficiency

Food, land, and agriculture Abandoned Farmland Restoration Conservation Agriculture Farm Irrigation Efficiency Improved Rice Production Managed Grazing Multistrata Agroforestry Nutrient Management Perennial Staple Crops Plant-rich Diets Reduced Food Waste Regenerative Annual Cropping Silvopasture Sustainable Intensification for Smallholders System of Rice Intensification Tree Intercropping

Land and oceans Bamboo Production Coastal Wetland Protection Coastal Wetland Restoration Forest Protection Grassland Protection Indigenous People’s Forest Tenure Peatland Protection and Rewetting Perennial Biomass Production Temperate Forest Restoration Tree Plantations (on degraded land) Tropical Forest Restoration

Rightsbased solutions Health and education Health and Education

a

Note: Definitions of solutions may vary from other assessments; see http://www.drawdown.org for detailed definitions used in the identifying and evaluating Drawdown solutions

The literature documents all types of links between sectors (e.g., what is the likely relationship over time, what policies are positively and negatively related, and what kinds of positive and

perverse behavioral responses to solution adoption can occur to affect the SDG) (e.g., Roy et al. 2018). Some research examines the links with declared nationally determined contributions

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

(NDCs) for the Paris Agreement (e.g., Dzebo et al. 2019, TERI 2017), or with specifically defined development projects (e.g., UNDP, n.d.). However, the analysis in this entry is primarily based on the synergies and tradeoffs of adoption of specified Drawdown solutions (also called “climate actions” in the literature), an approach also followed by Gonzales-Zuñiga et al. (2018), Smith et al. (2019), and UNDP (n.d.). The literature strongly indicates the numerous interrelations between climate solutions and the SDGs (Epstein and Theuer 2017). These interrelations are the basis for the Drawdown “system of solutions” helping achievement of the SDGs. The links considered here are one-way relationships between the solution implementation (as defined by Project Drawdown) and achievement of 126 SDG Outcome Targets. The directionality of these one-way links differs between SDG17 and the other SDGs in order to illustrate how partnerships support achieving Drawdown and hence the other SDGs. Therefore, results show separately (1) the impact of the adoption of Drawdown solutions on SDG1-16 and (2) SDG17’s impacts on adoption of Drawdown solutions. This diverges from some literature which exclude SDG16 and 17 (e.g., Gonzales-Zuñiga et al. 2018). Drawdown solutions are mapped to the targets of SDG1-16 according to the following dimensions commonly used in the literature: • Direction of impact: benefit or tradeoff • Magnitude of impact: major, moderate, minor • Whether the impact is direct or indirect. A solution is considered to be a benefit (+) to an SDG when its adoption results in progress toward achieving one or more target(s) identified by the SDG Framework. Tradeoffs (
), on the other hand, are identified when the adoption of a solution either adversely affects the achievement of an SDG, or results in unintended negative consequences. In some cases, solutions may offer both a benefit and a tradeoff to an SDG. The magnitude of the link is based on a qualitative assessment of the per-unit impact of implemented solutions, as well as the scale of each solution’s adoption (Project Drawdown

325

2020). The magnitude of the impacts is described as follows: • Major: The achievement of the target is strongly affected by this solution’s growing adoption • Moderate: The achievement of the target is neither strongly nor mildly affected by this solution’s growing adoption • Minor: The achievement of the target is only mildly affected by this solution’s growing adoption. Benefits and/or tradeoffs were also identified as directly or indirectly impacting the outcome of an SDG target. Indirect links were defined as those requiring an assumption of intermediate actions to link solution adoption with SDG target impact, or where impact was dependent on wider ramifications of solution adoption. Direct links are those that needed no such assumption or action for impact. For instance, Improved Clean Cookstoves help reduce fuel costs for families to make meals, this has an impact on achieving many of the zero hunger (SDG2) related targets such as 2.1: “By 2030, end hunger and ensure access . . . to safe, nutritious and sufficient food. . ..” However, reducing fuel costs can only help achieve this target if the money saved is used by hungry families to expand food consumption, as opposed to say traveling to find work, this link therefore, is indirect. By contrast, conservation agriculture increases agricultural yield and therefore food availability for families and thus is a direct link to achieve Target 2.1. Assessment of links between SDG17 and Drawdown solutions were performed differently than links for SDGs1-16. SDG 17 reflects a holistic approach to the means of implementation for the 2030 Agenda, including 19 targets that span finance, technology, capacity-building, trade, and systemic issues. Therefore, instead of quantitative assessment of impact (direct or indirect, benefit or tradeoff, and magnitude), only the existence of links to Drawdown solutions were identified. Furthermore, because SDG17 is highly dependent on human behaviors in the way of policy implementation, partnership development, etc., assigning

D

326

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

quantitative values to the links would require significant assumption and uncertainty. It is acknowledged though that the classification of impacts as benefits or tradeoffs and direct or indirect linkages, does require interpretation, and the literature was used where necessary. The links in each sector were cross-referenced with those of other sectors to ensure consistency, particularly related to magnitude. Results shown summarize the data in various ways with a focus on the nonclimate benefits.

Results of Mapping Drawdown Solutions to SDGs Below are detailed sector-specific results, followed by results for the complete system of solutions across all sectors and SDGs. Sector Level Electricity Generation

Electricity generation solutions are categorized across three areas of action that foster large-scale integration of renewable energy systems (RES): (1) utility-scale power plants, e.g., Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), or Onshore Wind Turbines; (2) decentralized systems, e.g., Distributed Solar Photovoltaics (PV) or Micro Wind Turbines; and (3) enabling technologies, e.g., Energy Storage, Microgrids, and Grid Flexibility. As depicted in Fig. 2, the solutions included have significant cobenefits with most SDGs. The majority of links associated with these solutions have direct impacts on multiple SDGs. All RES solutions contribute directly to SDG7 by reducing fossil fuel-based energy supply and the provision of clean, modern, and sustainable energy (Iacobuta and Hohne 2017; Fortes et al. 2019). Distributed systems using RES help remote communities by increasing access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services (IRENA 2016). The growth of RES also stimulate the creation of decent and safer jobs (SDG8) in both the global north and south (Garrett-Peltier 2017; The Economist 2019; Wilson et al. 2020), while also promoting sustainable, reliable, and

resilient infrastructure and related industries (SDG9) (Mattauch et al. 2015), the promotion of sustainable consumption/production and resource efficiency (SDG12), as well as reduced environmental damage (SDG14, 15) (Sumner and Layde 2009). RES solutions have also many positive impacts on health and well-being (SDG3) through reduced air pollution (IEA 2016), and water and soil quality benefits (Iacobuta and Hohne 2017). Beneficial impacts to educational attainment (SDG4) arise from increased access to electricity that can contribute to improved childhood development, and longer, more productive hours for study, particularly in rural settings and low-income communities (Fuso Nerini et al. 2018). Increasing Drawdown RES solutions also have direct benefits to reducing poverty in all its dimensions (SDG1) (e.g., Bhattacharya et al. 2016; Roy et al. 2018). When displacing fossil fuel power plants, RES can reduce water consumption and pollution (SDG14) (Raptis et al. 2016). For example, solar PV and wind are less water-intensive and can result in a reduction of water demand (Mouratiadou et al. 2016; Fricko et al. 2016) though, others including Nuclear Power, Geothermal, and CSP could increase water use, depending on the cooling system. Some direct tradeoffs are also depicted in the literature. Sovacool et al. (2020), among several others, describe how technologies, such as solar PV or wind turbines, will create new resource and supply chain dilemmas (and opportunities) impacting SDG15. However, these tradeoffs are lower than those associated with fossil fuel extraction. Energy prices might increase due to the use of more expensive and immature technologies (Rogelj et al. 2015; Gonzales-Zuñiga et al. 2018) with unfavorable impacts on poverty reduction (SDG1) and energy access (SDG7). Increased adoption of Ocean Power and Offshore Wind Turbines may lead to ocean pollution, disturbing sediments, and adversely impact marine life (SDG14) (e.g., Uihlein 2016). Nuclear Power generation has several direct tradeoffs due to potential risks of failure and leakage, nuclear waste transport and storage posing a threat to human health, water consumption for

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

327

D

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Fig. 2 Influence of electricity generation solutions on the SDGs: direct and indirect links

cooling that can lead to localized water stress, and related thermal and nonthermal pollution (e.g., Mouratiadou et al. 2016, Roy et al. 2018). Biomass Power using perennial crops as depicted in Drawdown (2017, 2020) generates no impact since they are usually not irrigated, occupy degraded land promoting less evapotranspiration, reduce soil erosion, and fertilizer input improving water quality (SDG6). Most of the indirect links are identified as benefits from sustained economic growth, job creation, avoided resource dependence, and the creation of new industrial activity, supply chain

developments, and innovation (Gonzales-Zuñiga et al. 2018). Indirect tradeoffs to SDG2 were identified resulting from utility-scale solutions because of the potential competition for land and resources that might be used for improved agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers (e.g., Santika et al. 2019). Buildings

Project Drawdown buildings solutions include technologies for increasing efficiency of space heating and cooling, cooking, lighting, and water use. Their SDG links are shown in Fig. 3.

328

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Fig. 3 Influence of buildings solutions on the SDGs: direct and indirect links

Around 3 billion people mainly in Africa, Asia, and to a lesser extent, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, use solid fuels such as firewood, charcoal, dung, kerosene to cook, heat, and light their homes, which generate health, social, and environmental costs to them, their families, and their communities (WHO 2014). These costs, in the form of high-mortality rates from household air pollution (4 million worldwide/year), largetime commitments for fuel collection (several hours per week), and deforestation, are significantly reduced from the adoption of clean cooking solutions (WHO 2014). Two relevant Drawdown solutions, Biogas for Cooking and Improved Clean Cookstoves, have moderate and

major positive links to achieving SDG7, 8, and 11 as a result (Roy et al. 2018). They also contribute to SDG3, although many of the SDG3 targets (reducing maternal mortality, infant mortality, communicable disease, and road fatalities) are only minorly affected by clean cooking. The strong economic benefits of clean cooking come in two ways. Firstly, clean cooking reduces the time commitment of women and girls for collecting firewood enabling them to pursue economic and educational initiatives (SDG4, 5, 8, and 10). Secondly, constructing, installing, and repairing cookstoves requires local semiskilled labor (Roy et al. 2018; WHO 2014).

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

Several other building solutions (such as Insulation, High-Efficiency Heat Pumps, District Heating, and Solar Hot Water) provide positive contributions to achieving SDG7, 8, 9, 11, and 12. These represent links to the targets aimed at energy efficiency, resource efficiency, and air pollution from building energy. All of these solutions reduce fuel or electricity consumption (air pollution from fossil fuel power plants) and promote economic growth through adoption of new technologies. One additional benefit from this is that the high-water use for fuels is reduced, helping to support SDG6 (Goubran 2019; Goubran and Cucuzzella 2019; Roy et al. 2018; Czerwinska 2017). The drawbacks of these technologies generally refer to their need for behavior change and higher cost (Roy et al. 2018). This reduces affordability and threatens achievement of SDG7, 9, and 11 where affordability is a key part of some targets. Solutions like Dynamic Glass, High-Performance Glass, and High-Efficiency Heat Pumps increase the capital costs for buildings. The benefits of these solutions, however, outweigh the drawbacks in many cases. Heat Pumps, for instance, are more expensive to purchase and install, but in one scenario, an estimated US$76 billion additional upfront cost for a 400% increase in “Heat Pump” heat supply is outweighed by a potential US$1 trillion operational savings for a 30-year period compared to conventional options (Project Drawdown 2020). Other solutions such as High-Performance Glass show negative net present value despite the high potential to save energy and reduce emissions. High cost is a major barrier to adoption; however, there is evidence that integrative design that is based on holistically capturing energy efficiencies in new builds or in retrofits can actually reduce first costs (Lovins 2018). Additionally, excluded from that math are any health and social benefits of reducing building energy use. Transportation

The Drawdown transportation solutions fall into three broad categories that follow the avoid–shift– improve classification (Bongardt et al. 2019): avoiding motorized transport, shifting demand to sustainable modes, and improving vehicles. These

329

solutions all have benefits to sustainable development beyond their climate benefits (Fig. 4). The analysis indicated that all the SDGs can be positively affected by the complete set of Drawdown transportation solutions, but by widely varying amounts. The most strongly promoted goals are SDG3, 8, 9, and 11. These SDGs are the most heavily affected at moderate and major levels by transportation solutions, and this is chiefly due to the large accessibility, air quality, energy efficiency, and congestion improvements that these solutions promote (Goubran 2019; UNHabitat et al. 2015). Sustainable transport options allow vast expanses of inexpensive and low emissions accessibility options that enable urban residents around the world to access food, health, education, banking, and many other services that improve their lives (Roy et al. 2018). This also generates access to work opportunities and markets to directly increase income for families worldwide, and reduces inequality (SDG10) (UN-Habitat et al. 2015). In addition, these SDGs benefit greatly from more sustainable transport (due to significant improvements in air quality, health benefits from active transport (walking, biking) (Roy et al. 2018), and increases in road safety (Goubran 2019). Other SDGs have several moderate positive links with Drawdown transportation solutions, like SDG1, 6, 7, 12, and 13. These SDGs benefit not only from the same aspects of sustainable transport as those mentioned earlier but also from the reduced water extraction and deforestation indirectly caused by a reduction in oil consumption. Fossil fuels consume water for extraction and for refining to transport fuels, and are also associated with clearing forests. When this is avoided using cleaner transport, management of natural resources such as rivers where these water abstractions often take place is easier (Roy et al. 2018). A few drawbacks were identified. A key pillar of sustainable transport is the use of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries that enable Electric Cars, Electric Bicycles, and some electric Public Transport systems. Li-ion batteries need metals whose mining operations have been linked to child labor, human toxicity, and environmental pollution

D

330

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Fig. 4 Influence of transportation solutions on the SDGs: direct and indirect links

(Sovacool et al. 2020; Le Petit 2017). Additionally, poor disposal of millions of electric car batteries can become a source of pollution, constraining SDG6, 14, and 15 (Xu et al. 2017). In areas with clean grids, increased electricity use for mobility can increase electricity costs for everything else, reducing affordability (Roy et al. 2018). EV’s have also been shown to be so quiet that they are harder for pedestrians to detect (NHTSA 2016), and this, as well as increased walking/biking, leads to a slight increase in pedestrian risk (Roy et al. 2018). Finally, some oilproducing nations may experience negative economic consequences from a drop in fossil demand. This affects SDG8 directly and several other SDGs indirectly (Roy et al. 2018). Despite these drawbacks of sustainable transport,

Drawdown transportation solutions are critical to achieving the SDGs (UN-Habitat et al. 2015). Industry

Solutions in the Industry sector meet one or more of the following criteria: improve materials, use waste, address refrigerants, and enhance efficiency. The results from the solutions that use waste to produce energy (Landfill Methane Capture, Methane Digesters, and Waste-to-Energy) are included in the electricity generation section, leaving nine solutions related to waste management and material production. The impacts of these solutions go beyond their primary goals of improving materials, using waste, addressing refrigerants, and enhancing efficiency, because they all impact entire material life cycles, and

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

331

D

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Fig. 5 Influence of industry solutions on the SDGs: direct and indirect links

therefore the effect of adopting these solutions can be seen throughout supply chains as well as downstream from manufacturing. The solutions in this sector have the potential to significantly help in achieving the SDGs, as depicted in Fig. 5, showing the number of links to each SDG and their magnitudes. The SDGs most impacted by these industry solutions are SDG9 and SDG12. This outcome for SDG12, which had the most major direct links, is influenced by several factors. Responsible production and consumption is improved by reducing waste, more efficient use of materials, improving materials, and reusing waste as industrial feedstocks. These effects can in turn reduce land disruption (SDG14) from virgin material extraction or open dumping and thereby allow for further protection of natural resources (Gorman and Dzombak 2018; Reuter 2013). The

relationship between Drawdown Industry solutions and SDG9 can largely be attributed to responsible waste management being more resilient than informal waste management (Kaza et al. 2018) and alternative materials improving the sustainability of infrastructure and industry (ICF 2008; IEA and UNEP 2018). SDG8 and SDG11 are also strongly impacted by this sector. SDG11 has primarily major links, due to the vast impacts of responsible waste management in improving the conditions of people in poverty (Kaza et al. 2018), and SDG8 has a majority of moderate links derived from job and training opportunities in waste management or the manufacturing of alternative materials (Kaza et al. 2018; Reuter 2013). The other key impacts from this sector are on environmental and human health, which are seen in the positive alignment between the Industry solutions and SDG3, 6, and 15. Responsible

332

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

waste management solutions improve sanitation issues associated with informal open dumps as well as associated leaching or water pollution issues during extreme weather events (Kaza et al. 2018). Furthermore, using waste and alternative materials protects lands from virgin material extraction by promoting circularity, and solutions like composting and biochar can enhance the health of soil and lands (Cooke-Yarborough et al. 2017). When looking at individual solutions, Composting and Recycling have the most total links, indicating the widespread benefits of responsible treatment of waste and the benefits of creating products from waste. However, they also have the most negative links, due to potential impacts on those experiencing extreme poverty, who may rely on informal or small-scale waste for their livelihood (Kaza et al. 2018). Food, Land, and Agriculture (FALU)

Drawdown FALU solutions are broadly classified into two subcategories: (1) food supply solutions that adopt regenerative practices on cropland and grassland for sustainable food production and (2) food demand reduction solutions that include dietary changes and reducing food loss and waste. In addition to contributing to reduced atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration through emissions reductions and carbon sequestration potential, drawdown food supply solutions are characterized by efficient resource use management, improved yield, reduced operational cost, increased net income, enhanced capacity and knowledge building, and safe agricultural practices. The benefits and tradeoffs are shown in Fig. 6. These solutions play a pivotal role in poverty eradication (SDG1), ensuring food availability (SDG2), improving health and wellbeing (SDG3), and the availability of balanced and nutritious food through diversified cropping systems (SDG2, 3) (Dar and Gowda 2013; Lal 2020; Pretty et al. 2003). They also provide indirect opportunities for quality education and equality for all by improving socioeconomic conditions linked to achieving SDG4, 5, and 10 (Abraham and Pingali 2017). Emphasizing resource and

operational efficiency, FALU solutions ensure the availability of clean water and sanitation (SDG6) (Stagnari et al. 2009), as well as support sustainable production and economic growth (SDG8, 12) (Lal 2006; Waldron et al. 2017). Moreover, Drawdown FALU solutions have both mitigation and adaptation impacts helping to both create a more resilient food system while directly addressing climate change issues (SDG13) (Roe et al. 2019). Solutions also directly improve life on water (SDG14) as well as on land (SDG15) by efficient resource use, limited use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, reduced degradation/erosion/leaching, etc., and, indirectly, through sustainable yield intensification that can prevent future deforestation and land clearing for crop and livestock production (Jat et al. 2020; Stagnari et al. 2009; Toensmeier 2016). Abandoned Farmland Restoration, for example, directly impacts SDG1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 by helping to reduce prime land conversion, sustainably meet global food demand, and provide livelihood and income generation opportunities from degraded land that is otherwise being unused (IRP 2019). Improved irrigation and nutrient use efficiency reduce the demand for electricity which positively impacts SDG7 (Kraemer et al. 2016). Reducing food demand through dietary change and preventing food loss and waste has multiple synergies with various SDGs. While adopting Plant-Rich Diet and Reduced Food Waste may have some tradeoffs as they impact the livelihood of pastoralists as a result of lower demand for animal-based protein (Garnett 2011; Roy et al. 2018), they nonetheless are essential for ensuring enough food for all people to have a healthy and nutritious diet (SDG2, 3) (Fanzo 2019). Additionally, they lead to more responsible production and consumption (SDG12) by reducing wasted resources, and avoiding GHG emissions (SDG13) across all stages of production, distribution, retail and consumption (Aleksandrowicz et al. 2016; FAO 2011). This includes avoiding water wastage (SDG6), as well as wasted nutrients, energy, labor, and financial and mechanical resources (SDG7, 8). Further, the efficient use of resources impacts life both on land and on water (SDGs 14, 15). Together these two food demand

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

333

D

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Fig. 6 Influence of food, land, and agriculture solutions on the SDGs: direct and indirect links

reduction solutions enable a healthy lifestyle for every human being, and that directly and indirectly impacts the alleviation of poverty, quality education, and equality for all (SDG1, 4, 5, and 10) (Smith et al. 2019). In addition, when considering the combined impact of adopting Drawdown food supply and demand solutions together, Project Drawdown (2017, 2020) shows that more than enough food can be produced on current farmland to meet the estimated global demand from 2020 to 2050. This could result in the prevention of deforestation (SDG6, 14, and 15) (Smith et al. 2019; Wieben 2016).

Land and Oceans

Land and Oceans solutions are classified into three subcategories: (1) solutions that protect the primary intact ecosystems, e.g., Peatland Protection, Coastal Wetland Protection, Indigenous Peoples’ Forest Tenure, Forest Protection and Grassland Protection; (2) solutions that restore degraded ecosystems back to an intact state, e.g., Tropical and Temperate Forest Restoration, Peatland Restoration, and Coastal Wetland Restoration; and, (3) solutions that restore degraded land area for biomass production, e.g., Tree Plantations, Bamboo Production, Perennial Bioenergy Production. Project Drawdown’s analysis focused

334

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Fig. 7 Influence of land and ocean solutions on the SDGs: direct and indirect links

on terrestrial and coastal systems; however, other ocean solutions, such as Macroalgae Farming, Kelp Forest Protection and Restoration, and Marine Protected Areas, are currently being assessed. The combined influence (benefits and tradeoffs) of land and ocean solutions on various SDGs is shown in Fig. 7. Protecting intact ecosystems and restoring degraded land offer valuable ecosystem services impacting all life on this planet. They play an essential role in both mitigation and adaptation strategies to climate change through avoiding emissions from degradation and deforestation, as well as acting as an essential sink drawing down carbon annually. They also strengthen the adaptive capacity of natural systems to combat

climate-related hazards and natural disasters, and build the capacity of individuals, institutions, and society to address climate change issues by improved education and awareness (SDG4, 13). Beyond their climate benefits, Drawdown land and ocean solutions improve the quality and abundance of both surface and subsurface water (SDG6), combat desertification, halt degradation and deforestation, restore degraded land by afforestation/reforestation efforts, and conserve biodiversity – all preventing the extinction of threatened species and ensuring life on land and below water can thrive (SDG14, 15) (De Jong et al. 2018; Roe et al. 2019; Wood et al. 2018). In addition, the implementation of these solutions directly and indirectly impact individuals,

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

institutions, and society in a variety of ways by impacting health and well-being outcomes (SDG3) through improved microclimates, reducing heat stress, purifying water, reducing air and soil pollution, preventing soil erosion, and improving the cultural and recreational value of ecosystems (Kauppi et al. 2018; Locatelli et al. 2015). They also increase the resilience against extreme climate events/natural disasters that can lead to substantial human, economic and cultural losses, as well as improve access to basic ecosystem services being provided by these ecosystems (SDG1, 8, 11) (UNEP 2016). Integrating land solutions into built environments (SDG11) by increasing green spaces in and around cities and communities (Smith et al. 2019). Despite having many positive links, land and ocean solutions also have some tradeoffs, especially with SDG1, 2, and 9. The implementation of these solutions limits future land availability for farming and development and the trade associated with forest products. However, the ecosystem services (water purification, water retention, soil erosion control, reduced crop loss due to wild animal pressure, increased aquaculture production, biomass production from restored degraded land, etc.) provided by these solutions directly and indirectly benefits the livelihoods of people around the world besides enhancing the resilience of existing infrastructure, and these benefits outweigh the tradeoffs (Smith et al. 2019; Roe et al. 2019; UNEP 2016). Protection of prime ecosystems also raises questions on biomass availability to meet the growing demand of paper, pulp, fuel, energy, and other biomass-based products. Protecting prime ecosystems could result in limited supply of biomass; however, there is a substantial amount of degraded land that can be restored for biomass production to provide sufficient dedicated biomass for estimated global demand without clearing prime forest and grasslands (Project Drawdown 2020). The protection and restoration of ecosystems does not impede human development; rather these solutions are integral to the sustainable development and management of natural resources that are vital to humanity.

335

Health and Education

The Drawdown solution Health and Education refers to two rights-based measures to lower world population growth by 2050: (1) universal right and voluntary access to reproductive healthcare and (2) universal access to quality primary and secondary education (12–13 years of schooling). The systemic impact on reduced demand and related GHG emissions in other sectors, e.g., reduced electricity generation, passenger mobility, space heating and cooling, food, etc., was evaluated based on the difference between two population scenarios derived from the 2015 UN population projections (UNDESA 2015; Project Drawdown 2017, 2020). It was assumed that these interventions are inherently synergistic, and that the provision of universal education results in the increased uptake of voluntary family planning measures (Viner et al. 2017; Samir and Lutz 2017). Health and Education has the highest number of links to the SDGs compared to all other solutions evaluated. These synergies and tradeoffs, as shown in Fig. 8, can be evaluated across three types of linkages. First, impacts of smaller population size are considered. For example, smaller regional populations reduce the total projected demand for electricity generation, indirectly impacting SDG7 (IEA 2016; O’Neill et al. 2012); and, reduced family size improves economic outcomes for women, impacting SDG1, 5, 8, and 10 (Canning and Schultz 2012; Starrs et al. 2018). These linkages exist across the entire SDG Framework by making specific targets easier to achieve, e.g., reducing stress on agricultural production promoting food security (SDG2) or ensuring equitable access to housing and basic services (SDG11) become more viable and less costly for a smaller population. They also help by avoiding environmental degradation (SDGs14, 15) and exploitation of limited resources (SDG12). Population will therefore not only impact the achievement of the SDGs but could also improve the capacity to sustain the outcomes of the SDGs beyond 2030 by reducing resource needs. Second, there are direct and indirect linkages with the improved access and use of reproductive

D

336

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Fig. 8 Influence of health and education solutions on the SGDs: direct and indirect links

healthcare independent of its implications on population (Starbird et al. 2016, Starrs et al. 2018). These include major, direct impacts on SDG3, including reducing maternal mortality, preventing deaths of newborns and young children, and helping to end sexually transmitted communicable diseases (Abel et al. 2016). Addressing access to voluntary reproductive healthcare as a legallyenforced right supports women’s reproductive autonomy, as well as helping to ensure equal opportunities for women and girls (SDG5). Finally, ensuring that all people have universal access to and quality of education for 12–13 years of schooling, independent of its effect on increased use of family planning, has both direct and indirect linkages with nearly all of the SDGs (Abel et al. 2016; Vladimirovaa and Le Blanc 2015). Primary and secondary educational attainment not only directly impacts SDG4 but is also linked in multiple ways to all other SDGs. For example, education is linked to improved economic opportunities for those experiencing poverty (SDG1), the full and effective participation of women (SDG5), access to legal and financial

resources (SDG8), enhanced research and innovation (SDG9), improved land and ocean resource management (SDG14, 15), and more inclusive political representation at all scales (SDG16) (e.g., Friedman et al. 2020), to name only a few of the connections identified. Further, when coupled with science-based curricula incorporating climate change, sustainability, and resource management into primary and secondary school settings, the impact can be even more pronounced across the SDG Framework, as well as directly linking to SDG12 and 13. System Level Links articulated between Drawdown solutions and SDGs across sectors are only representative examples, and far more are identified than were possible to detail in this entry. Figure 9 depicts all direct and indirect links, categorized by magnitude of impact, of every solution in the Drawdown “system of solutions.” Of the 2647 beneficial links identified, most are moderate and minor, though many solutions have a major impact on achieving one or more SDG. While 249 tradeoffs are

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

337

D

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Fig. 9 Aggregated influence of “system of solutions” on the SDGs: direct and indirect links

identified, most are minor, with only a few moderate tradeoffs. SDG8 shows the highest number of benefits from solutions due to the substantial economic opportunities derived from the implementation of nearly all technologies and practices at local, regional, and international scales. A consequence of linking solutions to targets, however, is that SDGs with more targets, such as SDG8, may have more links identified. Therefore, in addition to considering the total number of links identified for each SDG, it is valuable to normalize this quantity by the number of targets within each SDG, which results in values that are more easily comparable across SDGs. For example, an SDG with three targets, like SDG7, has 246 possible links, where an SDG with 10 targets, like SDG8, has 820 potential links to each of the 82 Drawdown solutions. However, when these are normalized, they both have a maximum of 82 normalized links. Figure 10 differentiates between normalized direct and indirect links by opacity, and has tradeoffs shaded with stripes. These normalized results show that the implementation of Drawdown solutions clearly contributes in an overwhelmingly beneficial

way to the achievement of SDGs 1–16. As Drawdown solutions are defined as climate solutions, it is not surprising that SDG13 shows the highest number of beneficial links. Resilient industrialization and infrastructure development (SDG9), poverty alleviation (SDG1), sustainable cities and communities (SDG11), economic growth (SDG8), and clean energy (SDG7), all show many beneficial links from Drawdown solutions, followed by health and well-being (SDG3), clean water and sanitation (SDG6), responsible production and consumption (SDG12), life on land (SDG15), universal education (SDG4), food security (SDG2), and life under water (SDG14). Gender equality (SDG5), reduced inequalities (SDG10), and peace, justice, and strong institutions (SDG16) have comparatively few linkages (benefits and tradeoffs), despite being strongly related to Health and Education – the single solution with the highest number of beneficial links overall. This difference relates, in part, to the definition of Drawdown solutions as technologies and practices contributing directly to reduced concentrations of GHGs; as opposed to accelerators, such as policies, financial mechanisms, media, and educational campaigns, etc. that pertain to measures supporting the

338

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Fig. 10 Normalized impact of Project Drawdown solutions to SDGs

adoption Drawdown solutions in inclusive, equitable, and just ways (Project Drawdown 2020). The overall impact of all Drawdown solutions on the SDGs can be seen in Fig. 11, which represents all links between the 82 solutions (listed in their entirety in Table 1) and each SDG (listed in Fig. 1). Connections are shown if any link exists regardless of whether it is direct, indirect, a tradeoff, or a benefit. Links from SDG17 targets to each solution were identified where the creation of collaborative partnerships supporting the SDG17 target categories, e.g., finance, technology, capacity building, trade, and systemic issues, could impact the implementation of Drawdown solutions. The analysis shows that all SDG17 targets have some link to all solutions, except for targets 17.11, 17.12, and 17.13 for which no links could be determined. These links, seen in Fig. 11, showcase the relative importance of each SDG to the

Drawdown “system of solutions” presented herein. While links from the implementation of solutions to SDG17 are not quantified in this study, it is evident that the achievement of SDG17 is an essential accelerator to the adoption of all solutions in a myriad of ways, both independently as individual solutions and even more so in parallel. Limitations and Future Work Identifying and quantifying links between Drawdown solutions and the SDG Targets was the primary goal of this review, which limits a deeper evaluation of the potential benefits and tradeoffs not explicitly related to the targets. Further, only specific interventions already identified and modeled as Drawdown solutions were included, which limited the scope of the review by excluding other related technologies or practices that may have substantive impact on the SDGs and

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

339

D

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs, Fig. 11 Overview of all links, categorized by sector

climate. This combined with the varying definitions of solutions and sectors used across the literature, hampered the comparison with other SDG mapping efforts. While matches were made as best as possible from the literature, these were not always precise. Additionally, though the study is largely based on a review of peer-reviewed or widely cited literature, the authors’ expert opinion was also considered, which introduced some degree of subjectivity. There are some potential areas for future research. The current research excluded the UN’s

43 “means of implementation” or process targets, some of which may be linked to Drawdown solutions. Finally, a more region-specific analysis that is quantitative in the strength of links between climate solutions and SDGs could be a fruitful area of research.

Discussion Project Drawdown has shown that achieving drawdown and limiting global warming to either 2 °C or

340

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

1.5 °C is possible and financially rewarding but doing so would require the immediate and sustained adoption of all identified solutions in parallel over three decades (Project Drawdown 2017, 2020). Beyond the overwhelmingly beneficial climate and financial implications, there is a host of cascading benefits that could help alleviate poverty, secure food systems, eliminate hunger, provide clean energy, water, and sanitation, improve health and well-being, reduce inequalities, promote gender equity, support healthy economic growth, revolutionize industry and the built environment, and protect, restore, and enhance terrestrial and ocean ecosystems. In addition to low-income countries, these benefits accrue to high-income countries which are often the source of unsustainable lifestyles. Each year that passes without substantial progress implementing solutions across all sectors, the more unlikely and more challenging it will be to achieve the SDGs by 2030 or avert worst-case climate scenarios. The burden is likely to be exacerbated by the feedback from coupled human and natural systems, as interconnected planetary boundaries that allow for a sustainable existence on this planet are increasingly threatened. Boundary domains are already under high risk of destabilization, such as biodiversity loss, nitrogen and phosphorus flows, ocean acidification, and climate change, and are edging toward tipping points that could inextricably impact natural, social, and economic systems for generations to come (HoeghGuldberg et al. 2019; Steffen et al. 2015). Exceeding any one of these planetary boundaries, and climate change, in particular, will make achieving the SDGs harder, if not impossible. However, this study showed that solutions exist today to prevent this from happening. The results of this review and mapping of the Drawdown solutions to the SDG Framework show: (1) that the fulfillment of SDG17 through the creation of long-lasting, collaborative partnerships across scales and levels of agency are imperative to implementing all Drawdown solutions and sectors; and (2) that all existing solutions, when implemented as a “system of solutions,” can contribute in direct and indirect ways to achieving all the SDGs. Tradeoffs do exist, and they should not be discounted; however, the benefits of the Drawdown

“system of solutions” to achieving the SDGs overwhelmingly support their implementation as urgently as possible. Importantly, how these solutions are implemented should be considered. The policies, financial mechanisms, business opportunities, and implementation strategies, i.e., the essential accelerators, in different contexts can either help reduce or potentially exacerbate systemic inequalities. Inclusivity, participatory engagement, and actively ensuring equity and social justice principles are embedded in the implementation of all Drawdown solutions will not only ensure that all the SDGs are achieved, particularly SDG5, 10, and 16 which are otherwise less explicitly linked to the Drawdown “system of solutions,” but also address deep systemic inequalities that exist today. Partnerships at all scales – local, regional, and international – and across levels of agency, or decision-making capacity, i.e., governments, businesses, investors, and CSOs, can support the implementation of every Drawdown solution and, thus, all other SDGs. The nature of how partnerships form to effectively implement the “system of solutions” is highly contextual, wherein different biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics will influence what solutions are viable at different locations and the partnerships required to implement them. Rather than presenting an obstacle, however, this contextualization can be an opportunity to create a new solutions-orientated knowledge system built through the principles of collaboration, learning, and open sharing to achieve Drawdown and all the SDGs as urgently, safely, and equitably as possible.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development ▶ Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals ▶ National Sustainable Development Strategies ▶ Nature-Based Solutions

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

▶ Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World ▶ Women-Led Partnerships and the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

References Abel GJ, Barakat B, KC S, Lutz W (2016) Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals leads to lower world population growth. PNAS December 13, 2016 113 (50):14294–14299. First published November 29, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611386113 Abraham M, Pingali P (2017) Transforming smallholder agriculture to achieve the SDGs. The role of small farms in food and nutrition security. Springer. https:// tci.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017Abraham-Pingali-Transforming-Smallholder-Agricul ture-to-Achieve-the-SDGs.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2020 Aleksandrowicz L, Green R, Joy EJ et al (2016) The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review. PLoS One 11(11). https://journals.plos.org/ plosone/article/file?type¼printable&id¼10.1371/jour nal.pone.0165797. Accessed 11 May 2020 Bhattacharya A, Meltzer J, Oppenheim J et al (2016) Delivering on sustainable infrastructure for better development and Bette climate. In: Global economy and development. Brookings, Grantham/LSE, McKinsey, WRI, CPI, and ODI. https://www. brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/global_ 122316_delivering-on-sustainable-infrastructure.pdf Bongardt D, Stiller L, Swart A et al (2019) Sustainable urban transport: avoid-shift-improve (A-S-I), flyer of the transformative urban mobility initiative. https:// www.transformative-mobility.org/assets/publications/ ASI_TUMI_SUTP_iNUA_No-9_April-2019.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2020 Canning D, Schultz TP (2012) The economic consequences of reproductive health and family planning. Lancet 380(9837):165–171. ISSN 0140-6736. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60827-7 Cooke-Yarborough A, Jackson A, Yamin F (2017) A compendium of solutions for achieving the sustainable development goals and staying below 2C or 1.5C: focusing on agriculture, forestry and other land use, built environment, carbon dioxide removal. Track 0. http://www.climatenetwork.org/sites/default/files/ pdf_-_for_use_standard_file_-_a_compendium_of _solutions_for_achieving_the_sustainable_develop

341

ment_goals_and_staying_at_1.5degc.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2020 Czerwinska D (2017) Green building: improving the lives of billions by helping to achieve the UN sustainable development goals. In: World GBC Blogs. https:// www.worldgbc.org/news-media/green-buildingimproving-lives-billions-helping-achieve-un-sustain able-development-goals. Accessed 13 May 2020 Dar WD, Gowda CLL (2013) Declining agricultural productivity and global food security. J Crop Improv 27 (2):242–254. http://www.bashanfoundation.org/contri butions/Gowda-L/gowdadeclining.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2020 De Jong W, Pokorny B, Katila P et al (2018) Community forestry and the sustainable development goals: a two way street. Forests 9(6):331. https://www.mdpi.com/ 1999-4907/9/6/331/pdf. Accessed 11 May 2020 Dickens C, Smakhtin V, McCartney M et al (2019) Defining and quantifying national-level targets, indicators and benchmarks for management of natural resources to achieve the sustainable development goals. Sustainability 11(2):462 Dzebo A, Janetschek H, Brandi C et al (2019) Connections between the Paris agreement and the 2030 agenda – the case for policy coherence. Working paper, Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-con tent/uploads/2019/08/connections-between-the-parisagreement-and-the-2030-agenda.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2020 Epstein AH, Theuer SLH (2017) Sustainable development and climate action: thoughts on an integrated approach to SDG and climate policy implementation. In: Papers from Interconnections 2017. Interconnections 2017 Fanzo J (2019) Healthy and sustainable diets and food systems: the key to achieving sustainable development goal 2? Food Ethics 4(2):159–174. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41055-01900052-6. Accessed 9 May 2020 FAO (2011) Global food losses and food waste–extent, causes and prevention. SAVE FOOD: an Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. http://www.fao.org/3/ a-i2697e.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2020 Fortes P, Simoes S, Gouveia JP et al (2019) Electricity, the silver bullet for the deep decarbonisation of the energy system? Cost-effectiveness analysis for Portugal. Appl Energy 237:292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2018.12.067 Fricko O, Parkinson S, Johnson N et al (2016) Energy sector water use implications of a 2°C climate policy. Environ Res Lett 11:034011. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1748-9326/11/3/034011 Friedman J, York H, Graetz N et al (2020) Measuring and forecasting progress towards the education-related SDG targets. Nature 580:636–639. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41586-020-2198-8. Accessed 10 May 2020 Fuso Nerini F, Tomei J, To L et al (2018) Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the sustainable development goals. Nat Energy 3:10–15. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41560-017-0036-5 Garnett T (2011) Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system

D

342

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs

(including the food chain)? Food Policy 36:S23–S32. https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/Food%20_Policy. pdf. Accessed 9 May 2020 Garrett-Peltier H (2017) Green versus brown: comparing the employment impacts of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fossil fuels using an input-output model. Econ Model 61:439–447 Gonzales-Zuñiga S, Roeser F, Rawlins J et al (2018) SCAN (SDG and Climate Action Nexus) tool: linking climate action and the sustainable development goals. https:// ambitiontoaction.net/scan_tool/. Accessed 19 May 2020 Gorman MR, Dzombak DA (2018) A review of sustainable mining and resource management: transitioning from the life cycle of the mine to the life cycle of the mineral. Resour Conserv Recycl 137:281–291. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.001. Accessed 19 May 2020 Goubran S (2019) On the role of construction in achieving the SDGs. J Sustain Res 1(2):1–52 Goubran S, Cucuzzella C (2019) Integrating the sustainable development goals in building projects. J Sustain Res 1(2):1–43 Hoegh-Guldberg O, Jacob D, Taylor M et al (2019) The human imperative of stabilizing global climate change at 1.5 C. Science 365(6459):eaaw6974 Iacobuta G, Hohne N (2017) Low-carbon transition under Agenda2030: Climate-development trade-offs and synergies. Contribution to 2017 Interconnections Conference, Bonn, 12–13 May 2017 ICF International (2008) Study on the collection and treatment of unwanted ozone- depleting substances in Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries. http://ozone. unep.org/Meeting_Documents/oewg/28oewg/ICF_ Study_on-Unwanted_ODS-E.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2020 IEA (2016) Energy and Air Pollution. World Energy Outlook special report. International Energy Agency, Paris. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-air-pollution IEA, UN Environment Programme (2018) 2018 Global status report: towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. https:// www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/global-sta tus-report-2018. Accessed 13 May 2020 IIASA (2018) TWI2050 – The World in 2050. Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Report prepared by The World in 2050 initiative. Laxenburg, Austria. https://doi.org/10.22022/ TNT/07-2018.15347 IRENA (2016) Renewable Energy Benefits: Measuring the Economics. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. ISBN : 978-92-95111-80-6. https://www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jan/Renew able-Energy-Benefits-Measuring-the-Economics IRP (2019) Land restoration for achieving the sustainable development goals: an international resource panel think piece. In: Herrick JE, Abrahamse T, Abhilash PC et al (eds) A think piece of the International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. http://researchspace.csir.co.za/ dspace/bitstream/handle/10204/11240/RS_%20Land

%20Restoration%20for%20Achieving.pdf? sequence¼1&isAllowed¼y. Accessed 7 May 2020 Jat ML, Chakraborty D, Ladha JK et al (2020) Conservation agriculture for sustainable intensification in South Asia. Nat Sustain 3(4):336–343. https://www.nature. com/articles/s41893-020-0500-2. Accessed 5 May 2020 Kauppi PE, Sandström V, Lipponen A (2018) Forest resources of nations in relation to human well-being. PLoS One 13(5). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC5951536/. Accessed 11 May 2020 Kaza S, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P et al (2018) What a waste 2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. World Bank Group, Washington, DC Kraemer K, Cordaro JB, Fanzo J et al (2016) Putting the sustainable development goals into practice. In: Good nutrition: perspectives for the 21st century. Karger Publishers, pp 326–340. https://www.karger.com/Arti cle/PDF/452396. Accessed 7 May 2020 Lade SJ, Steffen W, de Vries W et al (2020) (2020) human impacts on planetary boundaries amplified by earth system interactions. Nat Sustain 3:119–128. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0454-4. Accessed 10 May 2020 Lal R (2006) Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degrad Dev 17 (2):197–209. http://tinread.usarb.md:8888/jspui/ bitstream/123456789/1047/1/enhancing_crop.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2020 Lal R (2020) Managing soils for negative feedback to climate change and positive impact on food and nutritional security. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 66(1):1–9. https:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00380768. 2020.1718548. Accessed 29 May 2020 Le Petit Y (2017) Electric vehicle life cycle analysis and raw material availability. European Federation for Transport and Environment. Available via: https:// www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publica tions/2017_10_EV_LCA_briefing_final.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2020 Locatelli B, Pavageau C, Pramova E et al (2015) Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: opportunities and trade-offs. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 6(6):585–598. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wcc. 357. Accessed 11 May 2020 Lovins AB (2018) How big is the energy efficiency resource? Environ Res Lett 13(9):090401 Mattauch L, Creutzig F, Edenhofer O (2015) Avoiding carbon lock-in: policy options for advancing structural change. Econ Model 50:49–63 Mouratiadou I, Biewald A, Pehl M et al (2016) The impact of climate change mitigation on water demand for energy and food: an integrated analysis based on the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environ Sci Policy 64:48–58 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (2016) Minimum sound requirements for hybrid and electric vehicles: final environmental assessment (Document submitted to Docket Number NHTSA-2011-

Drawdown’s “System of Solutions” Helps to Achieve the SDGs 0100. Report No. DOT HS 812 347). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Washington, DC Northrop E, Biru H, Lima S et al (2016) Examining the alignment between the intended nationally determined contributions and sustainable development goals. Working paper. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC O’Neill BC, Liddle B, Jiang L et al (2012) Demographic change and carbon dioxide emissions. Lancet 380 (9837):157–164 Pretty JN, Morison JI, Hine RE (2003) Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agric Ecosyst Environ 95 (1):217–234. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ Jules_Pretty/publication/228918934_Reducing_food_ poverty_by_increasing_agriculture_sustainability_in_ d e v e l o p i n g _ c o u n t r i e s / l i n k s / 5a7ed24a0f7e9be137c5d7c1/Reducing-food-povertyby-increasing-agriculture-sustainability-in-develop ing-countries.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2020 Project Drawdown (2017) Drawdown, the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming. Penguin, New York Project Drawdown (2020) The Drawdown review – climate solutions for a new decade. http://www.draw down.org. Accessed 1 Apr 2020 Raptis C, van Vliet M, Pfister S (2016) Global thermal pollution of rivers from thermoelectric power plants. Environ Res Lett 11:104011 Reuter M (2013) Metal recycling: opportunities, limits, infrastructure. UN Environment Programme, Nairobi Roe S, Streck C, Obersteiner M et al (2019) Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5° C world. Nat Clim Change 1– 12. https://www.vbne.nl/Uploaded_files/Zelf/roe-et-alncc-contribution-land-sector-to-1-5-c-world.d5de0c. pdf. Accessed 5 May 2020 Rogelj J, Luderer G, Pietzcker R et al (2015) Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat Clim Change 5:519– 527. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2572. Accessed 20 May 2020 Roy J, Tschakert P, Waisman H et al (2018) Sustainable development, poverty eradication and reducing inequalities. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO et al (eds) Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, pp 445–538 Samir KC, Lutz W (2017) The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob Environ Change 42:181–192. ISSN 0959-3780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.004. Accessed 20 May 2020 Santika W, Anisuzzaman M, Bahri P et al (2019) From goals to joules: a quantitative approach of interlinkages

343

between energy and the sustainable development goals. Energy Res Soc Sci 50:201–214 Smith P, Nkem J, Calvin K et al (2019) Interlinkages between desertification, land degradation, food security and greenhouse gas fluxes: synergies, trade-offs and integrated response options. IPCC, 2019: climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/ site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2h.-Chapter-6_FINAL. pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020 Sovacool BK, Ali SH, Bazilian M et al (2020) Sustainable minerals and metals for a low-carbon future. Science 367(6473):30–33. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aaz6003. Accessed 20 May 2020 Stagnari F, Ramazzotti S, Pisante M (2009) Conservation agriculture: a different approach for crop production through sustainable soil and water management: a review. In: Organic farming, pest control and remediation of soil pollutants. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 55–83. h t t p s : / / p d f s . s e m a n t i c s c h o l a r. o r g / 0 7 6 a / abe771623b1656faf664c6bc847a055f736e.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2020 Starbird E, Norton M, Marcus R (2016) Investing in family planning: key to achieving the sustainable development goals. Glob Health Sci Pract 4(2):191–210. https://doi. org/10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00374. Accessed 20 May 2020 Starrs A, Exeh A, Barker G et al (2018) Accelerate progress – sexual and reproductive health and rights for all: report of the Guttmacher–Lancet Commission on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Lancet https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30293-9. Accessed 20 May 2020 Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):1259855 Sumner S, Layde P (2009) Expansion of renewable energy industries and implications for occupational health. JAMA 302(7):787–789. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama. 2009.1214 TERI (2017) SDG footprint of Asian NDCs. The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi. http:// ndcfootprints.org/pdf/asiareport_july.pdf. Accessed 29 Apr 2020 The Economist (2019) The critical role of infrastructure for the sustainable development goals. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). https://content.unops.org/pub lications/The-critical-role-of-infrastructure-for-theSDGs_EN.pdf?mtime¼20190314130614 Toensmeier E (2016) The carbon farming solution: a global toolkit of perennial crops and regenerative agriculture practices for climate change mitigation and food security. Chelsea Green Publishing. http://carbonfarming solution.com/. Accessed 20 May 2020 Uihlein A (2016) Life cycle assessment of ocean energy technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1425–1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1120-y. Accessed 20 May 2020

D

344

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF): Integrating LDCs with the Global Trading System

UN (2018) Climate change: an ‘existential threat’ to humanity, UN chief warns global summit. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/05/1009782. Accessed 25 May 2020 UN (2019) Report of the Secretary-General on SDG progress 2019 special edition. United Nations. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ 24978Report_of_the_SG_on_SDG_Progress_2019. pdf. Accessed 29 Apr 2020 UN DESA, Population Division (2015). World population prospects: the 2015 revision, key findings and advance tables. Working paper no ESA/P/WP.241 UN Human Settlements Programme (UN HABITAT), UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT) (2015) Analysis of the transport relevance of the 17 SDGs. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/docu ments/8656Analysis%20of%20transport%20rele vance%20of%20SDGs.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2020 UNDP (n.d.) Climate action impact tool. UN Development Programme. https://climateimpact.undp.org/#!/. Accessed 19 May 2020 UNEP (2016) Loss and damage: the role of ecosystem services. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. https://uneplive.unep.org/media/docs/assess ments/loss_and_damage.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2020 Viner RM, Hargreaves DS, Ward J et al (2017) The health benefits of secondary education in adolescents and young adults: an international analysis in 186 low-, middle- and high-income countries from 1990 to 2013. SSM Popul Health 3:162–171. ISSN 23528273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.12.004. Accessed 20 May 2020 Vladimirovaa K, Le Blanc D (2015) How well are the links between education and other sustainable development goals covered in UN flagship reports?: a contribution to the study of the science-policy Interface on education in the UN system (October 2015). UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) working papers, no 146. UN, New York. https://doi.org/10.18356/ 5e8a5518-en Waldron A, Garrity D, Malhi Y et al (2017) Agroforestry can enhance food security while meeting other sustainable development goals. Trop Conserv Sci 10:1–6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/ 1940082917720667. Accessed 5 May 2020 Wieben E (2016) The post-2015 development agenda: how food loss and waste (FLW) reduction can contribute towards environmental sustainability and the achievement of the sustainable development goals. United Nations University Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources (UNU-FLORES). https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:5802/ DNC_WorkingPaper_No1.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2020 Wilson C, Grubler A, Bento N (2020) Granular technologies to accurate decarbonization. Science 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8060 Wood SL, Jones SK, Johnson JA et al (2018) Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the sustainable

development goals. Ecosyst Serv 29:70–82. https://ris. utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/116423555/1_s2.0_ S2212041617300207_main.pdf Accessed 11 May 2020 World Health Organisation (2014) WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: household fuel combustion. https:// apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/141496/ 9789241548885_eng.pdf?sequence¼1, Accessed 13 May 2020 Xu C, Zhang W, He W et al (2017) Generation and management of waste electric vehicle batteries in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(26):20825–20830

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF): Integrating LDCs with the Global Trading System Grzegorz Mazur Institute of International Business and Economics, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland

Synonyms Duty-free market access; Preferential market access; Tariff preferences; Trade preferences

Definition Duty-free and quota-free market access (DFQF) means an unrestrained by any tariffs and quantity restrictions access to markets of other countries for most (sometimes for all) goods originating from the least developed countries (LDCs). The general aim of DFQF is to facilitate exports of products from the LDCs and to integrate those countries with the global trading system. The concept was formally adopted during the WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 2005. According to the accepted WTO commitments, all developed countries should provide DFQF market access for 97–100% of products exported from the LDCs. DFQF market access to goods imported from the LDCs may be also provided by developing countries that are ready and willing to do so. This

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF)

preferential treatment should be accompanied with transparent methods of calculating the rules of origin (RoO). Those rules define the country of origin, and they determine if the country may utilize its preferential market access (only products made in the LDCs may benefit from preferential treatment under DFQF).

Introduction The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), referring to multidimensional aspects of development, have set a new comprehensive framework for global development actions over the coming years. A special position and priority among developing world have been given in the SDGs to the least developed countries (LDCs). The eradication of poverty is one of the key elements and targets of the SDGs. In this context the LDCs, where almost half of the populations still lives in extreme poverty, are at the frontline of the battle for better life and poverty eradication. Due to structural development impediments and high exposure to risks (environmental, economic, political), those countries need special attention and support over the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. As was pointed in the UNCTAD report on achieving the SDGs in the least developed countries, “at least 18 of the 169 Sustainable Development Goals targets refer explicitly to the LDCs, and dozens more are of central importance to their development success” (UNCTAD 2018a). The centerpiece of all efforts and actions addressed to those countries should be stimulating their economic growth, promoting employment creation, tackling against development impediments, and accelerating structural reforms of their economies that are crucial for sustained economic development. In this context the SDGs highlighted and reiterated some economic and trade policy targets already established in 2010 within the Istanbul Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2011– 2020 (UNCTAD 2018a). Achieving a sustained and sustainable economic development not only is possible through

345

domestic policies but also requires an accurate external assistance, creating favorable environment for the LDCs. The process of their stronger integration with the global economy and international trading system is a challenge of paramount importance. The LDCs play a marginal role in international trade. Those countries, hosting more than one billion people (ca. 13% of the world’s population), account for only 1.2% of global GDP and ca. 1% of global world merchandise exports (UNCTAD 2018a). In 2008–2018 the LDCs’ share in world’s merchandise exports increased marginally from 0.96% to only 1.02%. At the same time the trade balance of the group has been heading in a negative direction – the total trade deficit of all LDCs increased from 5 bn USD in 2010 to 80 bn USD in 2018. The even more gloomy picture is drawn when referring to trade in services. The share of the LDCs in global exports of commercial services amounted to only 0.69% in 2018 (WTO 2019a). As stated in the Agenda 2030, “International trade is an engine for inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction, and contributes to the promotion of sustainable development” (UN 2015). Improving the LDCs’ position in international trade, stronger integration with the global economy, and improved export performance of those countries will be decisive for achieving a sustained economic growth and the successful realization of the Agenda 2030. The necessity of improved export opportunities and capacities of the LDCs has been embodied in many SDGs targets. Target 8.a highlights the need of enhanced Aid for Trade support for developing countries, in particular the LDCs. This is of great importance in the context of necessary trade-related capacity building in those countries. Moreover, the Agenda 2030 exhorts promoting “a universal, rules-based, open, transparent, predictable, inclusive, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organisation, as well as meaningful trade liberalisation” (UN 2015) and special trade supportive solutions for developing countries. This has been explicitly reiterated in target SDG 10.a, invoking to the implementation of “the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed

D

346

countries, in accordance with WTO agreements” (UN 2015), as well as trade-related targets of SDG 17. Targets 17.11 and 17.12 refer explicitly to the LDCs and their difficult position in the international trading system. The targets call all signatories of the Agenda 2030 to intensify the effort, so it would be possible to “significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020” (UN 2015: SDG 17.11) and “realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with WTO decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access” (UN 2015: SDG 17.12).

Trade Preferences and DFQF Market Access in Multilateral Trading System The trade status of developing countries accompanied the negotiations on the global trading system since the early post-WWII time. However, the General Agreements on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), concluded in 1947, did not allow for any trade preferences in favor of developing countries. During the early phase of its functioning, in the 1950s the GATT’s efforts and activities concentrated only on reducing tariffs on industrial goods, and as such the Agreement was not attractive for developing countries to join (Toye 2003). A turning point was the GATT’s Haberler Report (“Trends in International Trade,” 1958) which pointed that the GATT system did not create conditions for promoting stronger presence of less developed countries in international trade (Murphy 1983). According to the Report’s conclusions, developing countries, dependent on exports of primary products, were facing import barriers in developed countries’ markets. Moreover, their earnings from export of primary products were insufficient to stimulate their economic growth and development (Sharmin 2013).

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF)

First Steps at GATT In the aftermath of the Report, 15 developing countries submitted 1 year later a Note on the Expansion of International Trade, in which they had called developed countries to renegotiate GATT principles of reciprocity and equal treatment and negotiate new rules on nontariff measures (NTMs) hindering their exports of primary products. Moreover, they proposed unilateral concessions by developed countries to exports from developing world (Sharmin 2013). In 1961 GATT adopted a Declaration on “Promotion of the Trade of Less-Developed Countries,” which a.o. recognized the necessity of improved market access for exports coming from less-developed countries. Two years later the GATT Ministerial meeting, recognizing the need for an adequate legal and institutional framework that would allow for expanding the trade of the less developed countries, initiated negotiations on an amendment of the GATT to introduce a Part IV (Trade and Development) (AI-GATT 2019). Parallel the group of 21 developing countries once again called for the extension of the GATT rules that would facilitate exports and expand export earnings for less developed countries. The group’s proposal included commitments by developed countries not to introduce new tariffs and NTMs, the elimination of illegal quantitative restrictions, duty-free entry for tropical products, a calendar for the reduction and elimination of tariffs on semi-processed and processed goods, and the elimination of internal taxes in developed countries levied on products entirely or mostly produced in the LDCs (Tussie 1988). As the aftermath of steps undertaken in the first half of the 1960s, in 1965 the GATT adopted a new Part IV of the Agreement on “Trade and Developing,” giving formal legal acknowledgment to the principles of “special and differential treatment” and “non-reciprocity.” In this context the developed world declared that they did not expect reciprocal commitments (Sharmin 2013). GATT “Waiver” In the years following the conclusion of Part IV GATT, further steps were undertaken for institutional developments of the developing countries’

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF)

interests. In 1966 Australia, as a first of developed countries, introduced tariff preferences on imports of certain products from developing countries (Fukasaku 2000). A milestone progress in developing countries’ requests for preferential market access was made in 1968 when the second UNCTAD session in New Delhi adopted the resolution 21 (II) recognizing “the unanimous agreement in favour of the early establishment of a mutually acceptable system of generalized, nonreciprocal and non-discriminatory preferences which would be beneficial to the developing countries” (UNCTAD 1968). However, such preferences were inconsistent with general GATT rules and would require a deviation from the most-favored-nation (MFN) provision. In consequence, in 1971 GATT contracting parties adopted the waiver decision according to which the provisions of Article I GATT on MFN treatment rule “shall be waived for a period of ten years to the extent necessary to permit developed contracting parties (. . .) to accord preferential tariff treatment to products originating in developing countries and territories (. . .) without according such treatment to like products of other contracting parties” (GATT 1971). This decision allowed developed countries to launch at the beginning of the 1970s generalized systems of trade preferences (GSP). However, the waiver of 1971 was of a temporary nature and did not constitute a binding commitment for developed GATT contracting parties to introduce such trade preferences. GATT Tokyo Round and “Enabling Clause” The legal status and the nature of GSPs were widely discussed during the GATT Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1973–1979). Already the Declaration launching the Round provided that talks shall aim to “secure additional benefits for the international trade of developing countries” (GATT 1973). The strenuous negotiations concentrated on implementing into the GATT a permanent legal mechanism that would allow granting preferences without time constraints. Moreover, some proposals – that have not been ultimately incorporated into GATT legislation – included new favorable rules for developing

347

countries such as making preferential treatment irrevocable or subjected to compensation if withdrawn (Sharmin 2013). Ultimately the Tokyo Round was finalized with the adoption of the Decision on Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries, widely known as the “Enabling Clause.” This landmarked decision sanctioned derogation to the MFN and authorized “differential and more favourable treatment to developing countries” (GATT 1979). Thereby the GSPs provided by developed countries since the beginning of the 1970s were secured within GATT system on a permanent legal basis. The provisions for differential and more favorable treatment were envisaged also to nontariff measures regulated in several agreements negotiated during the Tokyo Round (WTO 1999). The Declaration referred also directly to the group of LDCs, defined for the first time by the UN in 1971, which should be granted with a “special treatment on the least developed among the developing countries in the context of any general or specific measures in favour of developing countries” (GATT 1979, p. 2d). The declaration strengthened also a nonreciprocal character of preferences granted to the LDCs which “shall not be expected to make concessions or contributions that are inconsistent with the recognition of their particular situation and problems” (GATT 1979, p. 6). Least Developed Countries and WTO The development of international trading system in the 1980s and 1990s was dominated by the Uruguay Round (1986–1994) and the establishment of the WTO (1995). Already before the multilateral round of negotiations launched in 1986, GATT ministers in the Declaration of 1982 called to further improvement of “GSP or MFN treatment for products of particular export interest to least-developed countries, with the objective of providing fullest possible duty-free access to such products” and to “eliminate or reduce non-tariff measures affecting products of particular export interest to least-developed countries” (GATT 1982). The Declaration was a harbinger of decisions undertaken in mid-1990s and 2005, including DFQF scheme, and the calls were

D

348

echoed in the Declaration launching the Uruguay Round and invoking to special attention to the particular situation and problems of the LDCs (GATT 1986). The conclusion of the Uruguay Round in 1994 and the establishment of the WTO (1995) strengthened and deepened the multilateral trading system. Those processes designed new trade architecture for all WTO members and initiated many processes of crucial importance to developing countries such as more market-oriented agricultural trading systems or progressive integration of trade in textiles and clothing into GATT and phasing out discriminatory restrictions in this sector. Looking at the new system from general perspective, developing countries became fully integrated into the multilateral trading system. The WTO Agreement was applicable to all, developed and developing WTO members (WTO 1999). At the same time, the new WTO Agreement confirmed the continuity of development dimension, mostly through provisions for special and differential treatment. According to the article XXXVII GATT developed countries should “accord high priority to the reduction and elimination of barriers to products currently or potentially of particular export interest to lessdeveloped contracting parties, including customs duties and other restrictions” (GATT 1994, art. XXXVII). The Agreement also maintained the application of enabling clause. The SDT has also been enforced in many other dimensions such as special provisions requiring WTO members to safeguard the interests of developing countries, providing them with flexibility and longer time periods for the implementation of commitments and certain rules or additional provisions of traderelated technical assistance. Moreover, differential and more favorable treatment found its realization in many additional provisions referred directly to the LDCs. The group was granted with all standard SDT rules plus additional flexibility on commitments (WTO 1999). The conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the implementation of the WTO Agreement have led to the eruption of many LDCs provisions incorporated into the multilateral trading system (Sharmin 2013).

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF)

WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore (1996) Regarding the DFQF, more specific initiatives have been taken following the establishment of the WTO. During the first WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore (1996), delegates agreed to adopt the Comprehensive and Integrated WTO Plan of Action for Least-Developed Countries. The Plan called for actions grouped into three sections: (1) Implementation of the Decision on Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries, (2) Human and Institutional Capacity Building, and (3) Market Access. Regarding the latter, delegates agreed on options to be examined by WTO members to improve the market access for exports of the LDCs. According to one of the listed options “Developed country Members, and developing country Members on an autonomous basis, would explore the possibilities of granting preferential duty-free access for the exports of least-developed countries” (WTO 1996, p. III). The Plan coincided – or to some extent even triggered – with progressive activity of the LDCs in WTO negotiations. In the second half of the 1990s, the group, supported by the UN, the UNCTAD, and the WTO Secretariat, started to represent more coherent position and speak with one voice on their unique difficulties, needs, and expected support by developed WTO members, including foremostly the improved market access. This was strongly accentuated during the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries in Brussels (2001) and echoed once again – just few months before the launch of the Doha Development Agenda in November 2001 – during the LDC ministerial meeting in Zanzibar (Sharmin 2013). In the Zanzibar Declaration (WTO 2001a), the LDCs called to agree, during the upcoming 4th WTO Ministerial Conference, on “binding commitment on dutyfree and quota-free market access for all products from LDCs on a secure, long term and predictable basis with realistic and flexible Rules of Origin to match the industrial capacity of the LDCs”. The LDCs enhanced strongly the need of adopting commitments that would provide “a contractual status to duty-free and quota-free preferences through the negotiation of a new legal instrument

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF)

to make market access secure, stable and predictable. Any temporary withdrawal of duty-free treatment should be disciplined in a contractual manner.” As agreed, “duty free treatment should be provided to all products. Any temporary exceptions could provide for duty-free tariff quotas, which would be subject to an agreed phase-out programme (. . .) existing S&D treatment provisions under the various WTO Agreements should be improved in an effective manner with a view to ensuring the duty-free access is not nullified by non-tariff measures.” Regarding the product coverage, the countries emphasized strongly that the enhanced market access should also cover “all agricultural products in their primary, semiprocessed and processed forms” (WTO 2001a). Doha Development Agenda and the WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Conference (2005) In 2001 the 4th WTO Ministerial Conference was held in Qatar, giving a start to the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). The WTO members once again recognized that “the integration of the LDCs into the multilateral trading system requires meaningful market access” and committed themselves to “the objective of duty-free, quota-free market access for products originating from LDCs” (WTO 2001b). WTO members needed 4 years to achieve consensus and adopt tangible commitments during the decisive 6th WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 2005. This was possible thanks to the coherent and tenacious negotiating position of the LDCs. Although some resistance from other WTO members toward an ambitious arrangement – due to some provisions on trade in the sensitive textile and clothing sector, where some of LDCs are competitive – the LDCs were granted with dutyfree and quota-free access (Diego-Fernández 2008). WTO members agreed that “developedcountry Members shall, and developing-country Members declaring themselves in a position to do so should provide duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis, for all products originating from all LDCs by 2008 or no later than the start of the implementation period in a manner that ensures stability, security and predictability. Members facing difficulties (. . .) shall provide

349

duty-free and quota-free market access for at least 97 per cent of products originating from LDCs, defined at the tariff line level (. . .) these Members shall take steps to progressively achieve compliance with the obligations set out above, taking into account the impact on other developing countries at similar levels of development, and, as appropriate, by incrementally building on the initial list of covered products. Developing-country members shall be permitted to phase in their commitments and shall enjoy appropriate flexibility in coverage” (WTO 2005, Annex F, p. 36). Although the negotiations within the DDA faced serious turbulences in years following the Hong Kong meeting, and have not been concluded so far, the decision on DFQF has been implemented by many WTO members in different form and coverage. Already at the time of Hong Kong decision of 2005, some of developed WTO members provided DFQF (with the coverage of products reaching 90–100% of tariff lines) under their GSP schemes. This decision has been implemented also by some developing countries that proposed DFQF market access to LDCs products in years following the WTO Hong Kong Conference. Latest Developments in DFQF at the Multilateral Forum DFQF market access came again on multilateral agenda in 2013 during the 9th WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali. WTO members, confirming decisions agreed in Hong Kong, emphasized the need of further improvements and the full implementation of commitments. Since 2005 WTO members have made significant progress toward the goal adopted in Hong Kong. Nearly all developed countries provide either full or nearly full DFQF market access to LDCs products. Some developing WTO members also grant partially DFQF market access to LDCs’ exports. However, WTO members decided in Bali that “Developedcountry Members that do not yet provide dutyfree and quota-free market access for at least 97% of products originating from LDCs, defined at the tariff line level, shall seek to improve their existing duty-free and quota-free coverage for

D

350

such products (. . .) Developing-country Members, declaring themselves in a position to do so, shall seek to provide duty-free and quota-free market access for products originating from LDCs, or shall seek to improve their existing duty-free and quota-free coverage for such products” (WTO 2013). In fact, the decision echoed and enhanced declarations adopted in 2005. The Bali Conference was important in another aspect of DFQF. The meeting had some success in reference to the rules of origin applied within DFQF schemes, as it provided – for the first time – WTO members with a set of multilaterally agreed guidelines for enhancing LDCs’ exports qualification for preferential market access (UNCTAD 2017a). WTO ministers, recognizing limited production capacities of the LDCs, agreed that it was desirable to keep the value addition threshold at the lowest possible level. The level defines the place of origin of the product and therefore determines if the country may utilize its preferential market access or not. Although the Bali Conference did not decide on technicalities and did not adopt any specific commitments, it triggered discussion on that issue within the WTO. More specific decisions on RoO in the context of DFQF and LDCs’ exports were made during the next 10th WTO Ministerial Conference, held in Nairobi in 2015. WTO members agreed i.a. on adopting the method of RoO calculation based on the value of non-originating materials. However, members applying another method may continue to do so. The decision also says that WTO members would consider “allowing the use of nonoriginating materials up to 75% of the final value of the product, or an equivalent threshold in case another calculation method is used” (WTO 2015a). The LDCs has vindicated for many years that such high threshold was desired, considering their limited production capacities, to allow them to utilize fully DFQF schemes. The Nairobi Ministerial Conference adopted also a decision calling on DFQF market access for cotton and relevant cotton-related products from the LDCs. Those products should be granted (from 1 January 2016) DFQF within respective preferential trade arrangements of developed

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF)

countries as well as WTO developing members declaring themselves as able to do so (WTO 2015b). The Nairobi Conference’s provisions also called to consider additional facilitations regarding DFQF utilization, such as simplified documentary or procedural requirements related to origin and preferential treatment (WTO 2015a).

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access in Practice DFQF access is currently provided by most of developed WTO members and a number of developing countries on a voluntary basis. Those preferences are granted under GSP schemes and – although declared to be as full as possible – they still differ in terms of the product coverage, exemptions from general rules, validity, some additional requirements, and even the list of beneficiaries. The preference-granting countries apply also different rules of origin which determine the utilization of granted DFQF market access by the LDCs. Developed Countries Many of WTO developed members offered DFQF arrangements already before the Hong Kong Declaration (2005). One of them was the European Union which founded its earliest version of the GSP already in 1971. Over the next decades, the LDCs were granted preferences under unilateral or bilateral arrangements (e.g., Lomé Conventions 1975–2000). In 2001 the EU launched a special arrangement for the LDCs under the renewed GSP – the initiative “Everything but Arms” (EBA). The new arrangement offered DFQF access for almost all products except arms and ammunition (in the transitional period, also rice, sugar, and bananas were excluded from the EBA) (Mazur 2017). The same then the EU EBA’s product coverage includes nowadays all sensitive agricultural products which often are of primary importance to LDCs’ exports. The EBA offers more favorable product coverage and deeper tariff cuts than any of the previous pre-2001 EU trade regimes (UNCTAD 2017a). Since the EU GSP reform in 2012, aimed i.a. at enhancing the

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF)

stability and predictability of the system, the EBA mechanism has been applied for an unlimited period of time (EU 2012). As the oldest and one of the most inclusive – in terms of product coverage – schemes of this type, the EBA has become to some extent a benchmark and political reference point for DFQF schemes developed by other WTO members (Faber and Orbie 2009). The US preference system is more complex and consists of a number of different schemes granting DFQF access for eligible beneficiaries. The standard US GSP scheme was introduced in 1976, granting trade preferences to eligible developing countries, including the LDCs. The scheme provides duty-free access to US market for 5062 8-digit US tariff lines, of which 1490 are addressed only to the LDCs (USTR 2019). Those concessions include mostly dutiable manufactured and semimanufactured products as well as certain agricultural, fishery, and primary industrial products that are not otherwise dutyfree under MFN. As of 2017 GSP arrangement for 44 LDCs (from the system are excluded Bangladesh, Laos, and Sudan due to failing to meet statutory eligibility) provides that 82.4% of US tariff lines (85.6% for agricultural products) are free of duty for products originating from those countries (WTO 2019b). Moreover, eligible LDCs benefit from significant duty-free access to US market under additional arrangements, namely, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI). The AGOA was adopted in 2000 as a trade act enhancing market access for qualifying sub-Saharan African countries. The aim of this arrangement is to promote the rule of law, human rights, and labor standards through additional tariff preferences for countries that agree to implement those rules and meet the requirements of the scheme. Countries that qualify for the AGOA benefit from free market access for all GSP tariff lines plus ca. 1500 additional preferential tariff lines – including apparel and textile, footwear, wine, certain car component, or a variety of agricultural products – available only to beneficiaries of this program. The combined GSP and AGOA schemes offer DFQF access to the US market for approximately 6500

351

tariff lines. According to the current provisions, the application of AGOA legislation has been extended until 2025 (AGOA 2019). The CBI consists of two programs: the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA, since 1984) and its substantial expansion as the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTA, since 2000). The CBERA has no set expiration date, while the CBTA is scheduled to expire in September 2020. The aim of those programs is to provide beneficiaries with duty-free access for most of goods and thus promote the development of 17 countries of the Caribbean Basin. While the CBERA grants tariff preferences to all 17 countries of the region, the latter initiative gives additional preferences – mainly to products of textile and petroleum sectors – to eight of them (Barbados, Belize, Curacao, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago). Haiti, the only one country in the region classified as the LDC, benefits also from additional arrangements (HOPE I & II, HELP) that provide dutyfree treatment for textile and apparel products and establish higher flexibility of rules of origin. These preferences are scheduled to expire in 2025 (USTR 2019; UNCTAD 2017a). In addition to the above, the USA proposed also in 2015 and 2016 special – supplementary to the GSP – preferential treatment to Nepal. Those arrangements, as a response to the 2015 earthquake in this country, granted duty-free access to the American market for certain list of products, including textile and apparel articles. Granted preferences are valid until the end of 2025 (UNCTAD 2017a). Canada was among the first GATT contracting parties that launched the General Preferential Tariff (GPT) in 1974. The system of tariff preferences in favor of developing countries has been reviewed several times, and in 2000 it was expanded by special arrangement addressed to the LDCs, named as the Least Developed Country Tariff (LDCT), by adding extra 570 tariff lines to the list of duty-free tariff items. The list included a wide range of agricultural and fish products and a number of industrial goods, including iron and steel, chemicals, and toys, but did not cover textile and clothing (UNCTAD 2013). In 2013 the

D

352

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF)

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF): Integrating LDCs with the Global Trading System, Table 1 Duty-free market access under LDCs schemes and imports from the LDCs to selected WTO members

Market Armenia Australia Canada Chile China Chinese Taipei European Union Iceland India Japan Kazakhstan Korea Rep. Kyrgyzstan Montenegro Morocco New Zealand Norway Russian Fed. Switzerland Tajikistan Thailand Turkey United States

LDC scheme % of duty-free tariff lines (2017, by sectors) NonTotal Ag ag 43.9 71.1 36.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.6 92.7 100.0 99.5 97.1 100.0 96.9 93.5 97.1 30.8 23.2 32.3

Imports from the LDCs (2018, millions USD) Agricultural Total products 31 13 1078 74 3037 190 188 11 54,562 4563 915 120

Fuels and mining prod. 0 76 156 0 45,717 591

Manufactures 18 927 2679 177 2831 202

99.8

100.0

99.8

55,925

6130

8770

40,828

91.8 94.1 97.8 36.8 89.9 99.9 92.9 1.3 100.0 100.0 37.1 100.0 3.7 71.0 80.5 82.4

63.2 77.0 96.4 61.9 59.3 – 89.9 5.9 100.0 100.0 61.5 100.0 0.4 75.7 19.8 85.8

100.0 96.7 98.2 29.6 95.0 – 93.7 0.6 100.0 100.0 29.7 100.0 4.7 70.3 92.9 81.7

13 14,105 6182 77 3089 5 13 257 159 525 1508 7100 12 8012 1304 18,275

1 2838 1019 6 373 1 1 124 34 68 238 142 9 1019 369 1322

0 7542 1004 12 1542 0 3 56 1 44 82 2066 0 5766 78 3462

12 2271 4329 59 1171 4 9 77 125 412 1188 4893 3 1207 857 13,217

Source: WTO 2019b; UNCTAD 2019b

program was extended until the end of 2024. The Canadian LDCT scheme covers duty-free for ca. 98.6% tariff lines (see Table 1; WTO 2019b). Japan launched its GSP in 1971 and nowadays grants preferential treatment to 138 developing countries and five territories (UNCTAD 2018b). In 2007 the system was improved to provide the LDCs with better access to the Japanese market by expanding the list of products eligible for preferential treatment (the list for manufactured products under the DFQF scheme increased from 4185 to 4244, and for agricultural and fishery products, the list was expanded substantially from 497 to 1523 tariff lines) (UNCTAD 2017a). In 2011 the effective period of the GSP scheme was extended until

2021. The current DFQF scheme covers 97.8% of all tariff lines, including 96.4% for products of agricultural sector (WTO 2019b). Goods excluded from the DFQF treatment are certain fish and crustaceans, footwear, milling and cereal products, as well as sugar (UNCTAD 2017a). The Republic of Korea launched its preferential treatment to the LDCs in 2000 (firstly only to 80 tariff lines at HS6). The preferential system was improved in 2008 and 2011 and now it covers 89.9% of all tariff lines. For agricultural products, the coverage is substantially lower (only 59.3%) as the exemptions from the system include meat, fish, vegetables, and some food products (UNCTAD 2017b; WTO 2019b).

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF)

Australia and New Zealand are among those preference-granting countries that have offered the most preferential treatment for products originating from the LDCs. Australia has been implementing DFQF market access for the LDCs since July 2003 and New Zealand – as one of the first countries in the world – since July 2001. The schemes of both countries provide full duty-free access to their beneficiaries as they cover 100.0% of tariff lines, including all agricultural products (UNCTAD 2017b, 2019a). The same conditions of full duty-free access for exports from the LDCs have been also offered by Norway and Switzerland. Norway granted DFQF access for all goods imported from the LDCs in 2002, as a part of its GSP. Subsequently the DFQF scheme has been also expanded to 14 non-LDCs which are classified as low-income countries and have a population below 75 million. Switzerland had begun to gradually introduce DFQF market access in 2001 and 2004. In 2007 the list was expanded by adding countries in the process of debt relief. After terminating the transition period for some exemptions from DFQF in September 2009, the LDCs benefit from full dutyfree access to the Swiss market (UNCTAD 2017b). From the group of developed countries, also Iceland, under its GSP scheme, offers DFQF market access for the LDCs since 2002. The scheme covers 100% of tariff lines for nonagricultural goods. The system offers more restricted access for agricultural and marine products (63.2% of tariff lines for agricultural products), including some exemptions for meat, food preparations, vegetables, dairy and other animal products, plants and trees, some egg products, and fatty acids for animal feeding (UN 2019a; WTO 2019b). Developing Countries Providing DFQF market access for the LDCs and supporting them in integrating with the global trading system is a task not only for developed countries but also for WTO developing members. Many of them are already important export markets for goods produced in the LDCs. In 2018 China was ranked as the second biggest market

353

for the LDCs with total exports at the level of 54.6 bn USD (Table 1). India and Thailand were also highly ranked on the list – respectively at the fourth and fifth positions. It proves that preferential treatment for the LDCs from other developing countries is of great importance. In accordance with WTO obligations, those of developing countries that are able to do so should also take efforts to provide DFQF market access for products originating from the LDCs. In this case the expected obligations – in contrast to developed WTO countries – are not numerically defined and may be lower in reference to the product coverage and/or implementation timeframe. China offered special preferences to the LDCs in 2010 in the form of DFQF market access for 33 countries of the LDC group having diplomatic relations with this country. Subsequently the list has been expanded, and currently China grants those preferences for products originating from 38 LDCs (as of the latest notification to the WTO in 2017; WTO 2019c). The Chinese DFQF program covers 96.9% of all tariff lines. The exemptions from the list include some of chemical products, transport vehicles, machinery and mechanical appliances, electrical machinery, and papers as well as 76 tariff lines for agricultural products (i.a. fish and crustaceans, cereal products, and sugar) (UN 2019b; WTO 2019b). Chinese Taipei has provided the LDCs with DFQF scheme for selected products since 2013. The arrangement provides duty-free access for ca. one-third of all tariff lines. However, the share of DFQF imports for agricultural products is lower, and this results in a higher trade-weighted average within this product category at the level of 6.5% (compared to an overall trade-weighted duty of 1.0%; WTO 2019b). India, another important export market for the LDCs, also offers preferences within its DFQF scheme. The Indian Duty-Free Tariff Preference (DFTP) Scheme, launched in 2008 and subsequently expanded in 2014, offers DFQF market access for 34 LDCs (as of 2017; the system is open to all LDCs, but to become a beneficiary, the country is required to provide a letter of intent) and currently covers 94.1% of all tariff lines, with 77.0% for agricultural products. The exclusions

D

354

from the DFTP include vegetables, coffee and tea, tobacco, dairy products, beverages and spirits, as well as copper products and plastics (GI 2017; UNCTAD 2017c; WTO 2019b). From other Asian developing countries, Thailand has also provided the LDCs with DFQF market access since 2015. The scheme provides duty-free access for 3135 tariff lines in imports from all LDCs. The arrangement still includes exemptions such as transport vehicles, electrical machinery, machinery and mechanical appliances, iron and steel products, and apparel and clothing (UNCTAD 2017b; WTO 2019b). The most comprehensive DFQF scheme among developing WTO member has been offered by Chile. The system, addressed to all LDCs, was launched in 2014 and covers 99.5% of total tariff lines, including free-access for all nonagricultural products and excluding imports of wheat, wheat flour, and sugar originating from the LDCs (WTO 2019b). Also, Turkey offers special treatment for products originating in the LDCs, although the level of liberalization in this case is lower. The Turkish scheme, launched in 2002 and renewed in 2012, to some extent has been inspired by a customs union with the EU (since 1995) and arising from this obligations and adjustments. The DFQF market access to Turkey’s market covers 80.5% tariff lines, including some preferences for agricultural products covered by the customs union with the EU (UNCTAD 2017b; WTO 2019b). Among other developing countries granting DFQF market access for goods originating from the LDCs are also Montenegro (since 2017) and Morocco (2001). The latter one provides DFQF access only to sub-Saharan African LDCs, and the coverage of tariff lines is at the low level of 1.3%. Armenia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and the Russian Federation, implementing and adapting their DFQF schemes since October 2016 in the context of the Eurasian Customs Union, also grant duty-free access to selected goods originating from the LDCs. The depth of tariff cuts is generally lower (excepting Kyrgyzstan) than in other countries mentioned above, and, in many cases – contrary to the vast majority of other GSPs – the

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF)

schemes maintain higher barriers for nonagricultural products (Table 1).

Concluding Summary The SDGs adopted in 2015 reiterated the necessity of improved export opportunities for the LDCs, embodied 10 years earlier in the landmark decision of WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. Although many developed and developing countries have already granted DFQF schemes to products originating from the LDCs, there is still space for deeper and more comprehensive tariff cuts within the systems. The SDG 17 of revitalizing the global partnership for sustainable development requires further efforts in building a universal, open, and equitable trading system and implementing DFQF market access in the most comprehensive form. This involves further progress in broader product coverage of existing DFQF schemes, including systems granted by strong emerging economies and developing countries such as China or India. Even though developing economies – in accordance with WTO decisions – have higher flexibility in granting preferential access to imports from the LDCs, many of them are already today important export markets and are competitive enough to provide ambitious and comprehensive DFQF schemes. In 2018 more than one-third of total LDCs’ exports were sent to China and India (WTO 2019b). In this context the truly universal multilateral trading system requires engagement from both developed and developing WTO members. Another challenge relating to DFQF is – as explicitly emphasized in the target SDG 17.12 – ensuring that rules of origin applied within DFQF schemes are “transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access.” This issue is currently of paramount importance to providing truly free market access for LDCs’ exports. Even the full coverage of all tariff lines within DFQF schemes will not trigger an expected increase of exports from developing countries, if RoO would be calculated on unfavorable methodologies. Enhancing existing DFQF systems through transparent and inclusive methods of calculating RoO

Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF)

is a necessary trigger to increase the utilization rate of existing DFQF schemes and stimulate a significant increase of LDCs’ exports. Acknowledgment The research was performed within the 2019–2020 Visiting Professor Scholarship at the Department of Political Sciences, Communication and International Relations of the University of Macerata (Macerata, Italy).

References AGOA (2019). https://agoa.info/about-agoa.html. Accessed 23 Oct 2019 AI GATT (2019) Analytical index of the GATT – Part IV trade and development. https://www.wto.org/english/ res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/part4_e.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2019 Diego-Fernández M (2008) Trade negotiations make strange bedfellows. World Trade Rev 7(2):423–453. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745608003832 EU (2012) Regulation No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008. Official Journal of the European Union 31.10.2012 L 303/1 Faber G, Orbie J (2009) Everything but arms: much more than appears at first sight. J Common Mark Stud 47(4):767–787. https://doi.org/10.4324/97802039340 43.ch2 Fukasaku K (2000) Special and differential treatment for developing countries. Does it help those who help themselves? UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research, Working papers no. 197. https:// www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/wp197.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2019 GATT (1971) Generalized system of preferences – decision of 25 June 1971. L/3545 GATT (1973) Declaration ministerial meeting Tokyo 12– 14 September 1973. GATT/1134 GATT (1979) Decision of 28 November 1979. L/4903 GATT (1982) Ministerial declaration adopted on 29 November 1982. L/54242 GATT (1986) Ministerial declaration on the Uruguay Round – 20.09.1986. MIN.DEC GATT (1994) General agreement on tariffs and trade. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ ai17_e/gatt1994_e.htm. Accessed 18 Oct 2019 GI (2017) India’s duty-free tariff preference (DFTP) scheme for least developed countries (LDCs). https:// commerce.gov.in/writereaddata/UploadedFile/MOC_ 636434269763910839_international_tpp_DFTP.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2019 Mazur G (2017) Wspólna polityka handlowa Unii Europejskiej. Difin, Warszawa

355 Murphy CN (1983) What the third world wants: an interpretation of the development and meaning of the new international economic order ideology. Int Stud Q 27 (1):55–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600619 Sharmin JT (2013) Duty-free quota-free market access for LDCS: falling within or outside the GSP downsides. Conn J Int Law 29(115):117–148 Toye R (2003) Developing multilateralism: the Havana Charter and the fight for the International Trade Organization, 1947–1948. Int Hist Rev 25(2):282–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2003.9640997 Tussie D (1988) Los países menos desarrollados y el sistema de comercio mundial. Un desafío al GATT. Fondo de Cultura Económica, México UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030% 20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development% 20web.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2019 UN (2019a) Support measures programme for least developed countries. Preferential market access: Iceland GSP. https://www.un.org/ldcportal/preferential-marke t-access-iceland-gsp/. Accessed 30 Oct 2019 UN (2019b) Support measures programme for least developed countries. Overview of China’s duty-free, quotafree market access programme for LDCs. https://www. un.org/ldcportal/preferential-market-access-icelandgsp/. Accessed 30 Oct 2019 UNCTAD (1968) Proceedings of the United Nations conference on trade and development – volume I report and annexes. Second session, New Delhi, 1 February–29 March 1968 UNCTAD (2013) GSP handbook on the scheme of Canada. UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.66/Rev.1. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ itcdtsbmisc66rev1_en.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2019 UNCTAD (2017a) Handbook on duty-free and quota-free market access and rules of origin for least developed countries. Part I: QUAD countries. https://unctad.org/en/Publication sLibrary/aldc2017d3_en.pdf. Accessed 21.10.2019 UNCTAD (2017b) Handbook on duty-free and quota-free market access and rules of origin for least developed countries. Part II: other developed countries and developing countries. https://unctad.org/en/Publication sLibrary/aldc2017d4_en.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2019 UNCTAD (2017c) Handbook on India’s duty-free tariff preference scheme for least developed countries. UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.77. https://unctad.org/en/ PublicationsLibrary/itcdtsbmisc77_en.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2019 UNCTAD (2018a) Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in the least developed countries. A compendium of policy options. UNCTAD/ALDC/2018/4. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ aldc2018d4_en.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2019 UNCTAD (2018b) GSP Handbook on the Scheme of Japan. UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.42/Rev.5. https:// unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/itcdtsbmisc42rev5_ en.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2019

D

356 UNCTAD (2019a) GSP Handbook on the Scheme of Australia. UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.56/Rev.1. https:// unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/itcdtsbmisc56rev1_ en.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2019 UNCTAD (2019b). https://unctadstat.unctad.org. Accessed 30 Oct 2019 USTR (2019) Office of the United States trade representative. https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-development/ preference-programs/generalized-system-preferencegsp. Accessed 22 Oct 2019 WTO (1996) Comprehensive and integrated WTO plan of action for the Least-Developed countries adopted on 13 December 1996. WT/MIN(96)/14 WTO (1999) Developing countries and the multilateral trading system: past and present. High level symposium on trade and development, Geneva, March 1999 WTO (2001a) Zanzibar Declaration – meeting of the Ministers responsible for trade of the least developed countries. WT/L/409 WTO (2001b) Ministerial declaration adopted on 14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 WTO (2005) Doha work programme. Ministerial declaration adopted on 18 December 2005. WT/MIN(05)/ DEC

Duty-Free Market Access WTO (2013) Duty-Free and Quota-Free (DFQF) market access for least-developed countries. Ministerial decision of 7 December 2013. WT/MIN(13)/44 WTO (2015a) Preferential rules of origin for least developed countries. Ministerial decision of 19 December 2015. WT/MIN(15)/47 WTO (2015b) Cotton ministerial decision of 19 December 2015. WT/MIN(15)/46 WTO (2019a) World Trade statistical review 2019. Geneva WTO (2019b) Market access for products and services of export interest to least developed countries. Note by the Secretariat. WT/COMTD/LDC/W/67 WTO (2019c) Database on preferential trade arrangements. http://ptadb.wto.org/default.aspx. Accessed 28 Oct 2019

Duty-Free Market Access ▶ Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF): Integrating LDCs with the Global Trading System

E

Ecological Distribution Conflict ▶ Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

Synonyms Finance climate action; Sustainable finance

Definition

Economic Democracy ▶ Social and Solidarity Economy or How Notfor-Profit Organizations Participate to SDGs’ Implementation?

Economic strategies for adapting/mitigating climate change, such as strategies that address specific sustainability issues, such as climate change, food, water, renewable energy/clean technology, and agriculture. Could be considered as an investment approach where environmental, social, or governance factors, in combination with financial considerations, guide investment selection and management.

Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Introduction

Samara da Silva Neiva1 and Rafael Gustavo Lima2 1 Center of Sustainable Development/Research Centre on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability (Greens), University of Southern Santa Catarina (UNISUL), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil 2 Centre for Sustainable Development/Research Group on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability (Greens), Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil

Climate change affects the environment, human health, access to decent work and education, and the decrease in the quantity and quality of water, in addition to being a risk for the issue of food security, where measures that seek to mitigate/ adaptation should be considered as an emergency. Based on this, it is extremely important that the world understands how to react to this situation, since it is a global problem; actions need to be taken in such a way that there is international

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

358

Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

collaboration (Gewehr et al. 2020). In this sense, it is relevant to consider the increase in the coherence of policies for sustainable development, presupposes the realization of such actions for the realization of what the Sustainable Development Goal 17 (Partnerships) seeks to foster (UN 2020). Another situation to face is how human activities influence climate change and how it could have caused an increase in the average temperature of the planet by 1.0 °C, when compared with the levels of the preindustrial era, with estimates that there is a likely range of 0.8–1.2 °C. Based on this, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that global warming could increase by 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052 if the rate of increase continues at levels proportional to the current ones (IPCC 2019a). In this sense, and according to what was announced by the SDG 17, it is necessary to encourage and promote effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships. Based on the experience of the strategies for mobilizing partnership resources, the climate issue can be systematically addressed by coordinating efforts across the entire human community, especially with regard to economics strategies for climate change adaptation/mitigation. Directing financing toward infrastructure investment for mitigation and adaptation could provide additional resources. This could involve the mobilization of private funds by institutional investors, asset managers, and development or investment banks, as well as the provision of public funds. Government policies that reduce the risk of low emission and adaptation investments can facilitate the mobilization of private funds and increase the effectiveness of other public policies. Studies indicate a number of challenges, including access to finance and mobilization of funds (IPCC 2019a). This entry aims to present the concepts of climate change offered by the IPCC, as well as the main characteristics of mitigation and adaptation to climate change. In sequence, the International Legal Regime on Climate Change, the premises of Sustainable Finance and their respective subthemes will be presented,

as well as a review of the literature on economic strategies for mitigation / adaptation to climate change, and the objectives of sustainable development.

Climate Change One of the causes of climate change is the emission of greenhouse gases, and studies show that most greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for a long period. Therefore, even if emissions from human activities decrease, the greenhouse gases that have already emitted will remain in the atmosphere for a long period. The Earth’s climate is affected by the interaction of radiation from the sun and the Earth’s atmosphere. The atmosphere consists of nitrogen, oxygen, and many natural greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons (“CFCs”)). The Earth’s atmosphere and surface absorb some of the solar radiation, and the rest is reflected in space. Greenhouse gases have the important function of retaining this radiation in the lower layers of the Earth’s atmosphere. This process is called the “greenhouse effect” without which the Earth would be as cold as the moon. It is now understood that the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases. This greenhouse effect will lead to changes in the Earth’s climate (United Nations Environmental Program 2020; Gewehr et al. 2020). In this sense, finding alternatives that alter the form of economic production of human consumer goods is an essential part of the strategy of maintaining the ideal environment for the maintenance of life on Earth, and partnerships (SDG17) for economics strategies for climate change adaptation/mitigation are the main task to face “global warming.” This global concern is caused by anthropogenic emissions from the preindustrial period to the present, and it will persist for centuries to millennia, and in consequence, long-term changes in the climate system will continue to

Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

take place. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that not only changes caused by anthropogenic emissions will lead to an increase in the global temperature of 1.5 °C (IPCC 2019a), but also changes such as rising sea levels, with associated impacts, hot extremes in most inhabited regions, heavy rainfall in several regions, and the likelihood of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions. On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5 °C from global warming compared to 2 °C. According to what is found in the reports you can consider that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C compared to 2 °C reduces impacts on terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems and retains more of its services to humans (IPCC 2019a). The limitation of global warming to 1.5 °C compared to 2 °C is designed to reduce increases in ocean temperature, as well as associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels. Consequently, limiting global warming to 1.5 °C is designed to reduce risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries and ecosystems, and their functions and services to humans, as illustrated by recent changes in Arctic ecosystems on the ice from the sea and the hot water coral reefs. Climate risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are expected to increase with global warming of 1.5 °C with a further increase of 2 °C (IPCC 2019a; de Amorim et al. 2019). Several authors carry out research on the importance of economic strategies for the mitigation and adaptation of climate change. Such as, for example, Sarkodie and Strezov (2019), who address in their studies that the creation and implementation of adaptation strategies have become fundamental for the promotion of mitigation of climate change and consequently reducing its impacts. The authors present in their studies that while some of the developed countries integrate adaptation plans and policies in their development agenda, countries that are still in a

359

development situation are facilitating or even starting. Thus, it is possible to analyze that the African continent remains the most vulnerable to such changes, due to its low capacity for adaptation, while some developed countries, such as Norway, Switzerland, Finland, France, and Germany, due to their great financial support, are not less vulnerable to climate change. Another example of scientific studies on the economic impacts of strategies aimed at mitigating/adapting to climate change can be found in the studies by Jawid (2020), which present empirical evidence on the economic impact of climate change on agriculture in the central mountains of Afghanistan, in order to explore how the climate sensitivity of net harvest revenue per unit of land takes place. The study carried out from a set of data available on 1502 farmers, located in 3 central provinces; in addition, 34 years of meteorological information was also used, in order to analyze the impact of variations in seasonal precipitation and temperature yearly. The results obtained with the research may suggest that there is a significant and nonlinear effect of climatic factors on the net revenue of the harvest, pointing out that the impact of seasonal precipitation varies according to space and time. Chen et al. (2019) state that the concept of “environmental determinism” indicates how climatic conditions play a substantial role in the formation of modern society. One of the ways to reduce the social costs is in changing and promoting economic development by identifying mitigation and economic policy strategies, and quantitative statistics to better optimize the changes caused by changes in human society. The authors demonstrate how to obtain results that result in greater staggered changes in the scenario involving regional rivalries and high human changes. Followed by the scenario that considers the level considered to be minimum and the costs of damages caused by the changes that occurred, with more agility than the global GDP (reaching ~47% of global GDP in 2100). In addition, the authors show that adapting regional

E

360

Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

inequalities can lead to greater damage to climate change in the lower and warmer regions, both in Africa and the Middle East. Thus, the search for partnerships (SDG 17) that consider economics strategies for climate change adaptation/mitigation is about more than just reconsidering the way the planet is degraded by pollution, but essentially, such partnerships must realize the relevance of the theme for the maintenance strategies of life on Earth, especially human life itself. Climate Change Mitigation Depending on future socioeconomic conditions, limiting global warming to 1.5 °C compared to 2 °C can reduce the proportion of the world population exposed to an increase induced by climate change in water stress by up to 50%, although there is considerable variability between regions (average confidence). Many small island developing states may experience less water stress as a result of projected changes in aridity when global warming is limited to 1.5 °C, compared to 2 °C (IPCC 2019a). Ma et al. (2019) present in their studies examples of mitigation of climate change that consider sectoral economic partnerships in civil construction. By presenting that the mitigation of carbon dioxide in the residential construction sector (CMRBS) has become an extremely important action so that China can achieve the levels of mitigation of climate change arising from the Paris agreement. In carrying out the research, the authors were able to reach three main conclusions: (1) Three types of economic indicators for housing and the final emission factor contributed significantly to the reduction of CO2 intensity in the residential construction sector. (2) Ridge reconversion indicated that the robustness of the decomposition approach was sufficient to obtain reliable results for decomposition analysis and CMRBS assessment. (3) The energy conservation and emission mitigation strategy has led the CMRBS to increase effectively and is the key to promoting more significant emissions mitigation in the future. Another example was found in the studies of Zhang et al. (2020), when conducting a study that

seeks to compare the predictive power of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the theory of value-belief-norm (VBN) in the context of climate change mitigation behaviors related to agricultural rice production. To carry out the study, the authors conducted a data collection with 1,538 rice farmers in the province of Hubei, China, empirically examining whether producers intended to mitigate climate change by modeling structural partial least squares equations (PLSSEM). The research presented results that, for the TPB, the behavioral attempts and the perceived behavioral control are responsible for 42.1% of the farmers’ adaptation behaviors, but only 25.6% for the mitigation behaviors. On the other hand, for the VBN theory, personal proenvironmental rules explain 54.2% of the producers’ mitigation behaviors, but only 28.4% of the adaptation behaviors. Several internationally recognized authors consider that understanding the role of innovation, crucial to minimize the environmental impacts that lead to climate change, is a very important initiative for the implementation of sustainability. According to studies by Ferreira et al. (2020), some of the main points of this process are the various programs that governments have established to facilitate the development and diffusion of technologies to mitigate climate change. Thus, it is important that there is a link between environmental issues and economic growth and productivity, as well as prediction of the impacts of climate change in different scenarios, taking into account the sustainability tripod. The authors also point out that, to date, the literature has focused mainly on analyzing the relationship between green technologies and pollutant emissions from the perspective of how the former affects the latter in terms of climate change. In addition, there are several studies that aim to determine the main political factors and incentives that promote environmental innovations, which emphasize, e.g., the crucial role of technologies in combating climate change; so it is important that there is a dissemination of knowledge, showing that climate change cannot reverse with a single formula, and a variety of options must apply by different sectors.

Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

In this sense, changes in human behaviors, values, beliefs, and norms that support economics strategies for climate change mitigation are based not only on partnerships between economic sectors or public-private business alliances. However, in proposing a cultural change to the Sustainable Development Goals proposed by the United Nations from all the individuals that make up society, it becomes even more important, demanding more and more a deep global partnership effort, as announced by the SDG 17. Climate Change Adaptation The need for adaptation or mitigation measures will be less if global warming remains at a maximum of 1.5 °C compared to 2 °C. There are wide ranges of adaptation options that can reduce the risks of climate change. There are limits to the adaptation and adaptability of some human and natural systems to global warming of 1.5 °C, with associated losses. The number and availability of adaptation options varies by industry (IPCC 2019a). A wide range of adaptation options are available to reduce risks to natural and managed ecosystems (e.g., ecosystem-based adaptation, ecosystem restoration and avoided degradation and deforestation, biodiversity management, sustainable aquaculture, and local knowledge and indigenous knowledge), the risks of rising sea level (e.g., coastal defense and strengthening), and the risks to health, livelihoods, food, water, and economic growth, especially in rural landscapes (e.g., efficient irrigation, social safety nets, management disaster risk, risk dissemination, and sharing and community-based adaptation) and urban areas (e.g., green infrastructure, sustainable land use, and planning and sustainable water management) (IPCC 2019a; da Silva Neiva et al. 2020). The feasibility of staying within 1.5 °C depends on a variety of enabling conditions with geophysical, environmental, ecological, technological, economic, socio-cultural, and institutional dimensions. Limiting heating to 1.5 °C also involves identifying policy and technology levers to accelerate the pace of transformation. Some paths are more consistent than others with the requirements for sustainable development.

361

Overall, the triple emphasis on sustainable development, resilience, and transformation provides with an opportunity to assess the conditions for simultaneously reducing society’s vulnerabilities (IPCC 2019b). Currently, several authors are conducting practical research on how to provide the mitigation of climate change; authors such as Ojo and Baiyegunhi (2019) conducted a research on a multivariate probit model (MVP) to analyze the determinants of the strategies adopted to adapt to climate change in a sample of small rice farmers in southwest Nigeria, where an efficient endogenous switching regression model (ESRM) was used to estimate the impact of the climate change adaptation on the net profit of rice producers. The results of the survey showed the MVP that the socioeconomic, institutional, and local variables of some households have statistically influenced the choice of adaptation strategies to the climate changes employed. The result was – the effect of the ESRM treatment indicated that the average net income per rice farm of those who adopted the strategies was significantly higher than that of those who did not, so the government, stakeholders, and donor agencies must provide innovations training courses related to agricultural extension systems and climate change education through information and communication technologies. Such partnership practices between different stakeholders are consistent with SDG 17, and it is necessary to strengthen the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multisectoral partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources, to support the achievement of the objectives of the sustainable development in all countries, particularly in developing countries (UN 2020). Other authors who present discussions on the topic are Ciarli and Savona (2019), who in their study discuss how different models of climate change assessment can integrate aspects of structural change that are crucial to improve the understanding of the relationship between changes in environment and economy. From this, it was possible to identify six aspects related to structural changes, which have a significant impact on

E

362

Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

climate change: sector composition, industrial organization, technology, employment, final demand, and institutions. Economic models vary substantially with respect to the aspects of structural changes that they include and how they model them. The authors reviewed different modeling families and compared these differences: integrated assessment models (AMI), computable general equilibrium models (CGE), structural change models (SCM), ecological macroeconomic models in the Keynesian tradition (EMK), and models based on evolutionary agents (EABM). Based on the above, it was concluded that the IAM and the CGE address some of the structural change aspects identified, SCMs focus on sectoral composition, and EKM studies the final demand and employment structure. EABM explored a greater number of aspects of structural change, modeling its emergence from the interaction of microeconomic actors, but it has not yet explored its potential to study the interactions between the interrelated aspects of structural and climate change. In this sense, it is important to consider that SDG Partnerships 17 suggests an increase in global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and coherence between national policies and, institutionally, between multisectoral international organizations. Thus, it is possible to assess that economic strategies for adapting to climate change depend on the political response capacity of the authorities that use public policies and practical actions of private actions in each sector of the economy (UN 2020).

Climate Change International Legal Regime The first international conference dealing with the phenomenon of global warming took place in 1988, when the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) recognized for the first time that climate change must be a concern of the entire international community and the active participation of all states. In order to contribute to this process as of resolution 45/212, of December 21, 1990, the UNGA decided to establish an

intergovernmental negotiation process for the preparation by an Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee of “an effective framework convention on climate change”. Concomitantly, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) have established and still cosponsor the creation of an independent scientific body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which comprises more than 2000 scientific and technical experts from around the world who collect scientific information on the causes of climate change, its possible effects, and possible ways to mitigate these effects (United Nations Environmental Program 2020). Through this clear effort of international partnership between scientists from all over the planet, the United Nations started to conduct, in the last three decades, a process supported by SDG 17, which aims to promote the development, transfer, dissemination, and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies for developing countries, under favorable conditions and considering economic strategies for climate change adaptation/ mitigation, including concessional and preferential conditions, as mutually agreed between partner countries (UN 2020). The negotiation process for creating a climate change regime was most challenging in the history of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). This was because most developing countries were unwilling to make costly commitments, the key to the successful negotiation and adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention (UNFCCC). This principle allowed the commitments to be set according to the socioeconomic status of each country; with the result that, currently, only developed countries and countries with economies in transition have specific obligations to obtain quantified emissions reductions under the UNFCCC (United Nations Environmental Program 2020; Lima et al. 2016). The United Nations Framework Convention (UNFCCC) adopted in New York on May 9, 1992 came into force on March 21, 1994. The UNFCCC is the central focus of global action on climate change. In addition, it aims to stabilize

Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that allows ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, so that food production is not threatened, while allowing economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. Article 4(5) of the Convention states that developed countries must “take all possible measures to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer or access to environmentally sound technologies and knowledge to other Parties, in particular developing countries Parties, to allow them to implement the provisions of the Convention” (InforMEA 2020a). Considering the assumptions of SDG 17, it observed that there is a clear concern with the partnership between developed countries and those indicated as developing countries, since the objective is to strengthen the mobilization of domestic resources, including through international support to the development of developing countries, to improve national capacity to collect taxes and other revenues. Thus, SDG 17 suggests that economic strategies for climate change adaptation/mitigation involve the need for international partnerships to provide access to markets free of quotas and fees, on a lasting basis, for all less developed countries. The WTO decisions included by ensuring that the preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from less developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access (UN 2020; Lima et al. 2020). At the UNFCCC, the financial mechanism of the convention was discussed, as well as the standing finance committee, acting as a mechanism for the provision of financial resources on a concession or consensual basis, including for the transfer of technology. It works under guidance and is accountable to the COP, which will decide on its climate change policies, program priorities, and eligibility criteria for funding. Through this mechanism, Parties in developed countries (Annex II Parties) provide financial resources to assist Parties in developing countries to implement the Convention. The Parties to the Convention have assigned the operation of the financial mechanism to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) on an ongoing basis, subject to review

363

every 4 years. The Kyoto Protocol also recognizes, under Article 11, the need for the financial mechanism to finance activities in developing countries (InforMEA 2020b). The mechanism is responsible to the COP and contributes to the decision-making process on what the program’s priorities will be as well as being responsible for defining the eligibility criteria. In addition, the convention states that for the financial mechanism to function in an equitable and balanced manner, it must be entrusted to one or more international entities. Another measure adopted in relation to the improvement of global partnerships (ODS 17) to build an international climate change regime and economic strategies for climate change adaptation/mitigation was the creation of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), an independent financial institution that grants donations to developing countries for environmental projects, and the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which acts as one of the main operational entities of the financial mechanisms for climate change. Both were created by COP (InforMEA 2020c; GEF 2020a). As a way to contribute to the financing of sustainability, in July 2001, COP contributed to the formation of three new funds to assist developing countries. The first and second are the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) that were established under the Convention to help developing countries adapt to the impacts of climate change, obtain technologies clean, and limit the growth of its emissions. The GEF funds, intended to help developing countries and countries with economies in transition, have the capacity to meet the objectives of international environmental conventions and agreements. In addition, GEF support is provided to government agencies, civil society organizations, private sector companies, research institutions, and among the wide range of potential partners, to implement projects and programs in beneficiary countries in a clear effort contained in the SDG 17 to strengthen global partnerships for sustainable development (GEF 2020b). Based on the above, we can appoint that for the success of mitigation/adaptation to climate change, it is important that there is an

E

364

Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

international commitment from developed countries to developing countries. Equity and social justice are at the top of international agendas that deal with the impacts of global climate change. Thus, it is important to highlight some important points: (a) There is a vast international literature that suggests that the poorest and most vulnerable groups will be those who will disproportionately experience the negative effects of twenty-first-century climate change; (b) it can be pointed out that such changes have a significant impact on countries in the world that are still in the development stage, and that are more dependent on natural resources; and (c) international conventions increasingly recognize the need to centrally engage stakeholders with resources on the agendas, in order to achieve the desired objectives, as part of more holistic approaches to sustainable development. These issues, however, have implications for distributive and procedural justice, especially when considered in the UNFCCC’s efforts (Thomas and Twyman 2005).

Sustainable Finance Sustainable finance plays a vital role in facilitating investments that enable a transition to a sustainable and resilient economy. In one of the IPCC reports – Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 °C – the institution states that to allow a transition to a 2 °C path, the volume of climate investments would need to be transformed along with changes in the pattern of general investment behavior toward low emissions. The report further argued that if the results were compared to 2012, an annual investment of one trillion dollars would be necessary in low-energy consumption and energy efficiency measures that may be required by 2050. Thus, it is necessary that several financial institutions both public and private contribute to the large resource mobilization needed at 1.5 °C; however, in the normal course of business, these transitions may not be expected. Private financial institutions may face risks of scaling up, for example, the risks associated with the commercialization and expansion of

renewable technologies to accelerate mitigation (IPCC 2019b). Climate change continues to act as the most significant overall environmental factor in terms of assets, affecting $ 1.42 trillion in assets for financial managers and $ 2.15 trillion in assets for institutional investors – more than three times the amounts affected in 2014. In addition, shareholders concerned with climate risk submitted 93 resolutions specifically on the subject in 2016 and negotiated a series of commitments by the target companies to report on strategic planning around climate change or to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions greenhouse. The number of institutions and managers that have submitted shareholder resolutions has remained stable over the past 4 years. From 2014 to 2016, 176 institutional investors and 49 investment management companies with total assets of US $ 2.56 trillion filed resolutions. In addition to presenting shareholder resolutions, managers and institutional investors also seek strategies for engaging in ESG issues. Fifty-seven institutional investors reported doing so, as well as sixty-one asset managers (GSIA 2016). Another global concern for establishing partnerships for financial sustainability is the ability to assist developing countries in achieving longterm debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at promoting financing, reducing and debt restructuring, in addition to the special treatment that should give to the foreign debt of highly indebted poor countries, in order to reduce national overindebtedness (UN 2020). As a response to the possible commitments and obligations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), several countries are working on building national action plans for climate change that identify management strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adapt to possible long-term climate impacts. Thus, it can be said that the successful implementation of these plans and their management strategies in individual countries depends largely on the extent of their integration in the implementation of other national and sectoral management plans, including coastal management plans (Ehler et al. 1998).

Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Conclusion So that global temperatures do not reach 1.5 °C, substantial changes, both technological and social, are applicable, and therefore the implementation of sustainable development is extremely important (IPCC 2019b). For this to happen, there are a variety of different paths, one of which was the construction of the Sustainable Development Goals, with clear efforts to build partnerships (SDG 17) for economic strategies for climate change adaptation/mitigation. From these partnerships, combined factors arise and build economic strategies for adapting/mitigating climate change, such as strategies that address specific sustainability issues – climate change, food, water, renewable energy/clean technology, and agriculture, considered as an investment approach where environmental, social, or governance factors, in combination with financial considerations, guide investment selection and management to a new reality of strategic global partnerships that are gradually becoming more efficient. Adaptation and mitigation actions in the context of sustainable development aim to evaluate current and emerging mitigation and adaptation options that create economics strategies for climate change adaptation/mitigation opportunities for technological and social transformation, strengthening resilience, investment planning and infrastructure for long-term climate-resilient development, and also on the regional level (including urban and rural areas). Sectoral and specific perspectives of the actors, institutions, policies, and governance enable innovation and transitions at various scales, linking innovation and technology transfer and diffusion to emission reduction and adaptation results. In this sense, funding and means of support consistently contribute to a path toward low greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilient development, including development, diffusion, and technology transfer (IPCC 2020). Finally, SDG 17 inspires the United Nations’ set of Sustainable Development Goals with the capacity of global partnerships to increase global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and coherence. With the objective of

365

increasing the coherence between the existing policies for sustainable development and, essentially, that these partnerships respect the political space and the leadership of each country, with the purpose of establishing and implementing policies for the consolidation of a sustainable reality of economic strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change.

Cross-References ▶ Business as a Partner for the Global Goals ▶ Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept ▶ Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change

References Chen Y, Liu A, Cheng X (2019) Quantifying economic impacts of climate change under nine future emission scenarios within CMIP6. Sci Total Environ 134950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134950 Ciarli T, Savona M (2019) Modelling the evolution of economic structure and climate change: a review. Ecol Econ 158:51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2018.12.008 da Silva Neiva S, de Souza Mauro J, de Amorim WS, Barbosa SB, Ribeiro JMP, Araújo GGM, de Andrade JBSO (2020) Strategies for the promotion of sustainable urban development: a multicriteria analysis. In: Universities and sustainable communities: meeting the goals of the agenda 2030. Springer, Cham, pp 171–185 de Amorim WS, Deggau AB, do Livramento Gonçalves G, da Silva Neiva S, Prasath AR, de Andrade JBSO (2019) Urban challenges and opportunities to promote sustainable food security through smart cities and the 4th industrial revolution. Land Use Policy 87:104065 Ehler CN, Cicin-Sain B, Knecht R, South R, Weiher R (1998) Guidelines to assist policy makers and managers of coastal areas in the integration of coastal management programs and national climate-change action plans. Ocean Coast Manag 1:7–27 Ferreira JJM, Fernandes CI, Ferreira FAF (2020) Technology transfer, climate change mitigation, and environmental patent impact on sustainability and economic growth: a comparison of European countries. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 150:119770. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119770 GEF, Global Environment Facility (2020a) About us. Retrieved from: https://www.thegef.org/about-us. Last accessed 04 May 2020

E

366 GEF, Global Environment Facility (2020b) Funding. Retrieved from: https://www.thegef.org/about/funding. Last accessed 04 May 2020 Gewehr LLP, Deggau AB, Neiva SS (2020) Resilience in the context of climate change. In: Sustainable cities and communities, vol 1, pp 528–539. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-95717-3_26 GSIA – Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (2016) Global sustainable investment review. Retrieved from: https://www.ussif.org/files/Publications/GSIA_ Review2016.pdf. Last accessed 04 May 2020 InforMEA (2020a) United Nations framework convention on climate change. Retrieved from: https://www. informea.org/en/treaties/unfccc/text?article¼620& paragraph¼3070#paragraph-3070. Last accessed 04 May 2020 InforMEA (2020b) Conference of the parties. Retrieved from: https://www.informea.org/en/treaties/unfccc/ text?article¼620¶graph¼3070#paragraph-3070. Last accessed 04 May 2020 InforMEA (2020c) Financial mechanism. Retrieved from: https://www.informea.org/en/treaties/united-nationsframework-convention-climate-change/decisions. Last accessed 04 May 2020 IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (2019a) Framing and context. In: Special report: global warming of 1.5 °C. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc. ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chap ter1_Low_Res.pdf. Last accessed 02 May 2020 IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (2019b) Strengthening and implementing the global response. In: Special report: global warming of 1.5 °C. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/ assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter1_Low_ Res.pdf. Last accessed 02 May 2020 IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (2020) AR6 Synthesis report: climate change 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixthassessment-report-cycle/. Last accessed 04 May 2020 Jawid A (2020) A Ricardian analysis of the economic impact of climate change on agriculture: evidence from the farms in the central highlands of Afghanistan. J Asian Econ 101177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco. 2020.101177 Lima RG, Lins HN, Pfitscher ED, Garcia J, Suni A, de Andrade JBSO, Delle FCR (2016) A sustainability evaluation framework for Science and Technology Institutes: an international comparative analysis. J Clean Prod 125:145–158 Lima RG, de Oliveira Veras M, da Silva Neiva S, de Andrade Guerra JBSO (2020) Sustainability assessment using governance indicators. In: Leal FW, Marisa AA, Brandli L, Gökçin ÖP, Wall T (eds) Sustainable cities and communities. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham Ma M, Ma X, Cai W, Cai W (2019) Carbon-dioxide mitigation in the residential building sector: a household scale-based assessment. Energy Convers Manag 198:111915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019. 111915

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Ojo TO, Baiyegunhi LJS (2019) Determinants of climate change adaptation strategies and its impact on the net farm income of rice farmers in south-west Nigeria. Land Use Policy 103946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2019.04.007 Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2019) Economic, social and governance adaptation readiness for mitigation of climate change vulnerability: evidence from 192 countries. Sci Total Environ 656:150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2018.11.349 Thomas DSG, Twyman C (2005) Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Glob Environ Chang 15(2):115–124. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.10.001 United Nations (2020) Sustainable development goals – SDG 17. Retrieved from: https://nacoesunidas.org/ pos2015/ods17/. Last accessed 02 May 2020 United Nations Environmental Program (2020) Who we are. Retrieved from: https://www.unenvironment.org/. Last accessed 24 Sep 2020 Zhang L, Ruiz-Menjivar J, Luo B, Liang Z, Swisher ME (2020) Predicting climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors in agricultural production: a comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the ValueBelief-Norm Theory. J Environ Psychol 68:101408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101408

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) ▶ Education for Sustainable Development: A Framework for Global Partnership and Sustainability in India

Education for Sustainable Development: A Framework for Global Partnership and Sustainability in India Atasi Mohanty Centre for Educational Technology, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India

Synonyms Education for Sustainable Development (ESD); Global partnership; Sustainability

Education for Sustainable Development

Definition This chapter primarily deals with the “United Nations’ Educational, Social, Cultural Organization” (UNESCO) (2015a) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially the SDG 4 “quality education and lifelong opportunities for all,” SDG 4.7 “Education for Sustainable Development” (ESD), and SDG 17 and 17.16 “global partnership for achieving ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ and their empirical and theoretical background/s as well.” The author has tried to review the literature on “Education for Sustainable Development” (ESD) and “global partnership for achieving Sustainable development Goals” and developed a conceptual model for enhancing global partnership and sustainability in India. The model entitled “4Ps (Policy, People, Planet, and Prosperity) Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Partnership (in India)” has been developed with an intention to achieve all other UNESCO Sustainable Development Goals for India. In the domain of all the four drivers (Ps), multiple stakeholders would be directly or indirectly involved, and all the drivers would be interconnected in terms of their transactions and outcomes. Any two drivers (Ps’ combinations) would be having their “inter-driver goals” which are to be feasible, viable, actionable, and qualitative in terms of their mutual goals and objectives. Besides, this sustainability would be the overall approach across all the four drivers (4Ps). ESD would be the core domain to function across all the 4Ps through global partnership (SDG 17.16) and global citizenship (SDG 4.7). ESD would act as the nodal center of all activities such as creating awareness; disseminating information; evaluating the progress; monitoring SDGs’ achievements, goals, and strategies; integrating all SDGs; collaborating all drivers (4Ps); resolving the emerging conflicts/dilemmas (if any) between the drivers; and trying to achieve/enhance sustainability across all domains (4Ps and its sub-domains). The validity of this model could be tested through critical review and a pilot study in the later stage.

Introduction In this century, the United Nations’ (UN) decade of “Education for Sustainable Development”

367

(UNDESD) (2005–2014) significantly highlighted the vital role of education that should play in the universal joinery toward sustainable development across the globe in saving our planet. Later on in September 2015, the UN formally adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as an outcome of major global consultations and discussion held across the world. Following this decision, UNDESD advocates for providing the opportunity to progress toward implementing “universal quality education” that fosters the knowledge, skills, perspectives, values, and actions that lead toward more sustainable future. The 17 SDGs are as follows: goal 1, no poverty; goal 2, zero hunger; goal 3, good health and well-being; goal 4, quality education; goal 5, gender equality; goal 6, clean water and sanitation; goal 7, affordable and clean energy; goal 8, decent work and economic growth; goal 9, industry, innovation, and infrastructure; goal 10, reduced inequality; goal 11, sustainable cities and communities; goal 12, responsible consumption and production, goal 13, climate action; goal 14, life below water; goal 15, life on land; goal 16, peace, justice, and strong institutions; and goal 17, partnerships for achieving these SDGs. Subsequently, “education” has been considered as the key driver for all “Sustainable Development Goals” (ESDG), and many international forums were organized to bring together the global experience and expertise to strengthen and highlight the role of “education as a key enabler in realizing these 17 SDGs.” The “Sustainable Development Goal 4” (SDG4) recommends for quality education for all which has strong background in many international declarations, such as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” “Convention on Rights of the Child,” “World Declaration on Education for All,” “Dakar Framework for Action,” and “Millennium Development Goals”; thus, education is considered as very crucial for the well-being of individuals, nations, and the world (UNESCO 2005). The SDG4 proposes equal and inclusive education for all that is closely linked to the effective implementation of SDG 16 which focuses on the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies and, most relevantly, on building effective and accountable institutions at all levels. SDG 4 advocates to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong

E

368

learning opportunities for all,” thus keeping the target that by 2030 all boys and girls complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes; also ensuring that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development through education for sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, and global citizenship; and promoting a culture of peace and brotherhood. However, within the educational community, the focus has been shifted from access to equitable quality education to lifelong learning, strengthened training and twenty-first-century skills for work and life, and improved learning outcomes at all levels of education (Anderson and Ratiu 2014; UNESCO and UNICEF 2013). Additionally, new challenges to learning are emerging, and the twentyfirst-century education ought to address these and contribute to greater humanity in a rapidly changing world (UNESCO 2015b). In recent past, Redecker et al. (2011) have identified six key challenges such as (1) multicultural integration, immigration, and refugee problems; (2) early school dropout and unemployment; (3) fostering smart economy and innovation; (4) removing the barrier between world of work and education; (5) preparing the skilled manpower for the labor market; and (6) permanent re-skilling and updating the competencies of all citizens. Therefore, nations have to update the policy, curricula, pedagogy, ecosystem, and educational resources to address these twenty-firstcentury challenges. Sustainable development is a process that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland Commission report on Environment and Development 1987); therefore, sustainability is a “paradigm of thinking” about our future in which environmental, social, and economic considerations are balanced to improve the quality of life and development. Thus, while realizing the SDGs all across the globe, the focus has been shifted from a solely economic perspective to a larger view of development that includes three pillars like people, planet, and prosperity. Gradually, this is also recognized that besides policy decisions and technological solutions, behavioral change and public awareness are very curial for

Education for Sustainable Development

sustainable development. Hence, the role of education and its outreach programs such as training and capacity building, communication, creating public awareness, scientific and applied research, sharing and access to information, networking, and partnership have become the key strategies for achieving the SDGs. In this context “SDG Target 4.7” is an acknowledgement of the critical importance of education for sustainable development, global citizenship education, and other transformational education movement for a sustainable and peaceful future for all: “By 2030 ensure all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including among others through ‘education for sustainable development’ (ESD) and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and nonviolence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development” (United Nations 2015). Moreover, “quality education” for sustainable development supports higher order learning, thus strengthening competencies to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate complex information in decisionmaking, planning, and problem-solving (OfeiManu and Didham 2014). Recently, (UNESCO 2018) ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) is placed at the center of the 2030 “Sustainable Development Agenda” and has been widely acknowledged as a key enabler to all 17 SDGs (besides SDG 4 Quality Education for All and SDG 4.7 Global Citizenship Education). Literature on ESD also emphasizes on “triple bottom-line” dimensions (social, economic, and environment) to focus on interrelationship and interactions among these domains over time and space (Summers 2007; Gough 2002). Additionally, ESD focuses on “pluralism” pedagogy to develop the skills and action competences to deal with various critical issues of sustainable development or sustainability (Rudsberg and Ohman 2010). The UNESCO report (2018) advocates for ESD to play an active role (in every country) to empower all stakeholders/learners to take informed decisions and responsible actions for environmental integrity, economic viability, and a just society for present and future generations while respecting cultural diversity (Leicht et al. 2018).

Education for Sustainable Development

As per UNESCO SD goals, the ESD contents cover diverse disciplines like climate change, energy, poverty reduction, consumption, and many interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary issues, thus requiring a holistic approach to understand the complexity of “sustainable development” (SD) (Venkatraman 2009; Vare and Scott 2007). With reference to the existing literature on SD, the key drivers of sustainable education or education for sustainable development should be able to answer three fundamental questions: (Q1) How much learning the students are actually experiencing in schools? (Q2) What information and skills shall they need to succeed in the future? (Q3) How can those gains be expanded for progressive and sustainable planet (Scott and Deirdre 2015)? Dellor’s (1996) four principles of learning and framework are relevant even today in the twenty-first century for achieving quality education and effective learning outcomes. These four pillars of education are (a) learning to know, (b) learning to do, (c) learning to be, and (d) learning to live together. For achieving Sustainable Development Goals, there is a critical need for universal access to quality education and visionary leadership (Cisco System 2009, p. 3). The “Sustainable Development Goal on education” for 2030 targets to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all,” based on four focused areas: (1) expanded access to quality learning for all across the various levels of education; (2) attention to the quality of education including content, relevance, and learning outcomes across the disciplines; (3) greater focus on equity for access and resources of education; and (4) gender equality across all levels of education with safe and supportive learning environments (Scott and Deirdre 2015). So far as the effectiveness of ESD is concerned, researchers comment that it should be rooted in approaches toward learning that are participatory in nature and give people the required economic and social skills to improve life (Bourn 2005). In this context, Bourn pointed out that ESD and “global partnership” go hand in hand in linking society, economy, and environment with people’s lives, including the needs

369

and rights of present and future generations. Thus, ESD and “global partnership” can be seen as local and global implications of all the actions taken by individuals and organizations in their life spans. Furthermore, if we see sustainable development as a conglomeration and interaction of environment, economy, and society, it would mean incorporating citizenship, social inclusion, and creating awareness of general public concerns and quality of life. Therefore, during the last decade, global partnerships for sustainable development have become increasingly popular. Many stakeholders across the sectors have convened to pool resources and coordinate joint efforts to solve their shared problems. United Nations also registered many partnerships online through its “Partnerships for Sustainable Development Goal online platform” (United Nations 2018) with a hope that global partnerships would have the potentials to steer development toward directions that are more sustainable and futuristic. United Nation’s “SDG Target 17.16” advocates to “Enhance the Global partnership for Sustainable development, complemented by multistakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries.”

India’s Effort in Revitalizing the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development (SDG 17) According to the “Voluntary National Review Report” of India on the implementation of SDGs (United Nations 2017), it has been unsuccessful in gathering sufficient revenues for achieving the SDGs despite its significant effort to mobilize the domestic resources. Therefore, India urges the developed countries to provide financial assistance to the developing countries especially for global public goods like climate change mitigation and control of pandemics; also, it highlights the need for international cooperation for curbing illicit financial flows, defining aid unambiguously, and establishing robust systems for monitoring

E

370

commitments of donor countries. Besides these, India is making all necessary efforts to raise its own revenue sources; some of these steps are narrated below. Improving Taxation Capacity and Compliance (Voluntary National Review Report, Government of India 2017) The Indian government has successfully implemented ambitious tax reform agenda including the goods and service tax (GST) and direct tax reforms to increase domestic resource mobilization. India has also introduced an innovative tax like the “Swachh Bharat” cess (Clean India cess) that has been levied for mobilizing resources for the “Clean India Mission.” It also seeks global cooperation for capping money laundering/black money through mutual administrative tax assistance. India has positioned itself as an active member in G-77 working group and raised strong voice for developing countries. Strengthening Subnational Governments (Voluntary National Review Report, Government of India 2017) In India, the fiscal relationship between the national government and the subnational governments has undergone a paradigm shift. The states and local bodies (Panchayats) are in the frontline of operationalizing the SDG strategies in India. The Finance Commission has substantially increased the fund allocation to the states in the budget. A special purpose grant has been added to secure universal primary education, health, employment, affordable housing, and urbanization to align with SDG targets. As a development strategy in the annual budget, some specific funds are allocated to promote inclusion and gender empowerment and address the special needs of vulnerable groups. Enhancing Efficiency of Expenditures (Voluntary National Review Report, Government of India 2017) The Indian government has comprehensively restructured the framework of the expenditure budget to monitor the results of different public spending in terms of their impact on SDGs and to

Education for Sustainable Development

undertake corrective measures. Additionally, a comprehensive public financial management system is now operational that allows the government to track expenditure flows to ultimate objectives in real time, thus enhancing the effectiveness of public expenditure management system. These significant improvements in efficiency and predictability of public expenditure would play an important role in seeking international funding and partnerships for the SDGs. Establishing Strong Partnerships with the Private Sector (Voluntary National Review Report, Government of India 2017) India has been very active in running one of the largest “public-private partnership” (PPP) program/s globally. In order to meet the vast financing needs, the private sector has to have access to global finance. To address these needs, the Indian government has already introduced a comprehensive set of reforms to attract FDI (foreign direct investment) including opening up the key sectors like defense and railways to such investments. Thus, increased private investment would be the key to achieve high economic growth, employment, and improved production efficiency. However, India also faces some challenges that require international collaboration and action such as “subjective assessments of the Indian policy and regulatory environment by global financial institutions and rating agencies raise the costs of private financial flows to India by positing a highly subjective ‘regulatory risk premium’. This particularly affects long term finance for infrastructure and other investments that are crucial for achieving the SDGs” (UN Political Forum 2017). Promoting South-South Cooperation (Voluntary National Review Report, Government of India 2017) For achieving the objectives of SDGs in a framework of shared prosperity and destiny, India has been following the principles of “South-South cooperation” in its bilateral and multilateral engagements. In fact, “South-South cooperation” is particularly beneficial on sharing of best practices, sustainable use of resources available

Education for Sustainable Development

371

regionally, and joint development projects on common challenges.

alignment with the overall standards determined by MOSPI.

Reforming the Aid System and Honoring Existing ODA (Official Development Assistance) Commitments (Voluntary National Review Report, Government of India 2017) ODA specifically is important in the context of global public goods like climate change mitigation, disaster management, ecosystems, biodiversity, and pandemics (like Covid-19). Therefore, high-income nations that are a part of the DAC (Development Assistance Committee) need to honor their commitment of providing a large percentage of their GNI (gross national income) as ODA. Of course, there is a need for setting clear eligibility standards and ensuring greater transparency with respect to ODA.

Legal Framework for Data Collection (MOSPI, Government of India 2017)

Technology Facilitation Mechanism (TFM) (Voluntary National Review Report, Government of India 2017) India always highlights that urgent delivery of technology development, deployment, dissemination, and transfer to developing countries requires suitable response that includes a continuous emphasis by all the countries on the enhancement of enabling environments, facilitating access to technology and financing that leverages private sector resources. India has been a part of TFM for SDGs established by “Addis Ababa Action Agenda” available to developing nations. Data, Monitoring, and Accountability (Voluntary National Review Report, Government of India 2017) The Indian statistical system functions are well integrated in the overall administrative framework of the country. MOSPI (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation) has the overall responsibility for statistical coordination in the country, defining the standards and ensuring the quality and timeliness of statistics. Both the central and state ministries are responsible for collecting statistics as per their prerogative and requirements. The “Directorate of Economics and Statistics” functions at the state level in

There are various legal provisions, i.e., “Acts and Rules,” to collect primary statistical information (such as Right to Information Act – RTI). MOSPI has already notified the survey guidelines in 2011 to conduct all Indian surveys that are mandatory to follow for government agencies for quality and consistency. MOSPI regularly organized meetings with data producers and users to provide updates, identify gaps in data and statistical method, and take necessary course of corrections to monitor SDG achievement levels. Monitoring Framework for SDGs (MOSPI, Government of India 2017)

Efforts are going on at the national level for finalizing the indicators for monitoring the progress made on SDGs in India. The “Planning Commission of India” has already incorporated environment, inclusive growth, and sustainable development in its “five-year development plan.” The “NITI Aayog” (Planning Commission) and MOSPI are regularly conducting workshops to draft indicators for monitoring the SDGs’ progress; the government plans to strengthen this mechanism through a dashboard developed with the technical support from UNDP. Moreover, steps are being taken to strengthen the statistical system in the country through adequate financial and human resource investments. However, there is an urgent need of more stakeholders’ involvement, consultations, and active engagements (from the grassroots level) in the SDGs’ policy framework at the government level. India would definitely like to pursue the implementation of the SDG agenda through close collaboration with national and subnational governments and active participation of all relevant stakeholders. India’s “Education Policy” includes “Education for All” (EFA) and believes in “Fast Track Initiative” (FTI) proposed by UNESCO (2015c) to collaborate with donor countries for necessary resources and expertise to develop its own education plans to achieve national education targets. In 2002, the “Global Partnership for Education” (GPE) is made up of

E

372

61 developing countries, international organizations, more than 20 donor countries/agencies, and other educational stakeholders that prioritize quality education at the basic level specifically for poor, vulnerable, fragile, and conflict-affected countries. Similarly, the “Global Business Coalition for Education” has been formed in 2012 by 15 international business houses. Their effort is to mobilize the business community to accelerate progress in delivering education for all children and youth around the world. This society has the membership of over 100 brands and taken up the responsibility for a number of current global education initiatives such as “Tech 4 Ed” platform and “Safe School Initiative.” Indian educational institutions are also being benefited by these initiatives. Therefore, there must be the will, capacity, and commitment of government/s to follow through on global commitments to education and SDGs. But India needs to have its own conceptual framework for achieving the SDGs, global partnerships, and sustainability. Traditionally, the “people, planet, and prosperity” triangular model is used in the framework of sustainable development. Few researchers have also added two more dimensions like “peace” and “partnership” in addition to these 3Ps to achieve the 17 SDGs and its 169 targets (United Nations 2015) in the UN agenda. Therefore, sustainability is a “frame of mind” (Bonnett 2002) and a basic attitude and awareness of “interconnectedness” for achieving the sustainable development for the future. In the mainstream policy discourse, it has become a paradigm for thinking about development in which environmental, social, and economic considerations are balance in the pursuit of improved quality of life, sustainable and just societies, universal values like human rights and respect for cultural diversity, etc. In this context, ESD plays a vital role in emphasizing the democratic participation of individuals and local, national, and global citizens to make the necessary changes needed for a sustainable and just society. In this endeavor, ESD and its educational approaches would foster competencies among citizens that would enable them to find sustainable solutions to demanding issues and prevent conflict among different stakeholders. Therefore, ESD has been

Education for Sustainable Development

considered as an essential component to achieve the SDGs, enabling individuals (all citizens) to contribute to sustainable development by promoting societal, economics, and political change as well as transforming their own behavior (UNESCO 2017). We can hope that probably global partnerships will have the potentials to steer development toward more sustainable future. But the challenge is how to design a framework that can accommodate multiple stakeholders, address multiple issues at a time, and resolve multiple dilemmas/ conflicts at the same time with a goal to achieve sustainable development. This question has prompted the author to think of an integrated or hybrid model for India in order to address its diversity, multicultural issues, political and governance structures, and economic challenges. This framework has been discussed below in a comprehensive manner. In the above diagram, Fig. 1 shows the model called “4Ps (Policy, Planet, People, Prosperity) Framework for Multi-stakeholder Partnership” for enhancing the sustainability in India. There would be four “drivers,” where P1 (policy) would be the “political driver” taking care of global policies on SDGs, political will of the government to implement these, different platforms for capacity building of Indian citizens toward SDGs, and government’s commitments toward generating and mobilizing various resources (through public-private and multistakeholder partnerships) for the achievement of 17 SDGs. Next, P2 (planet) would be the “environmental driver” working for ecological compatibility and sustainability of our mother “Earth” across the sectors like air, land, and water. The driver P3 (people) would be the society that should ensure peace and social justice for all besides making our motherland a sustainable society to live in. The economy driver P4 (prosperity) would be responsible for enhanced GDP (gross domestic product), proportionate distribution of financial resources across the sectors, and equitable economic development. In the domain of all the four drivers, multiple stakeholders would be directly or indirectly involved; thus, the framework has been named as “multi-stakeholder partnership” model.

Education for Sustainable Development

373

Global Policies, Political will Capacity building, commitment

Driver 1-Policy (Political Driver) SDG-1 SDG-2 SDG-4 SDG-8 SDG-9

S D G 1 7

Sustainability

1-4 Inter-driver goals to be Feasible

SDG-13 SDG-14 SDG-7 SDG-15

1-2 Inter-driver goals to be Actionable Sustainability

Prosperity Equitable economic development across different sectors

ESD core domain (SDG-

Driver 4Prosperity

Driver2-Planet (Environment)

Ecological Compatibility

2-3 Inter-driver goals to be Viable

3-4 Inter-driver goals to be good Quality of

(Economy)

SDG-3 SDG-5 SDG-10 SDG-16

SDG-17

17.16 & SDG 4.7)

Sustainability

Sustainability

SDG-12 SDG-6 SDG-11

Driver 3-People (Social Driver)

Core Domain -ESD-Education for Sustainable Development SDG 17.16-Global Partnership SDG 4.7- Global Citizenship for Sustainable Development

Includes People, Peace, Social Justice for all

4 Ps Framework for MulStakeholder Partnership (in India) Source: Author

11

Education for Sustainable Development: A Framework for Global Partnership and Sustainability in India, Fig. 1 4 Ps framework for Multi-stakeholder Partnership (in India). (Source: Author)

All the four drivers would be interconnected in terms of their transactions and outcomes. Any two drivers (combinations) would be having their “inter-driver goals” which are to be feasible, viable, actionable, and qualitative in terms of their mutual goals and objectives. Besides this, sustainability would be the overall approach across all the four drivers (4Ps). ESD would be the core domain to function across all the 4Ps through global partnership (SDG-17.16) and global citizenship (SDG-4.7). As the diagram shows, all the inter-driver (total 6) goals are linked to related SDGs, for example, 1 and 4 (policy and prosperity) inter-driver goals are related to SDG 1, SDG 2, SDG 4, SDG 8, and SDG 9. Similarly, 1 and 2 (policy and planet) inter-driver goals are linked to SDG 13, SDG 14, SDG 7, and SDG 15; driver 2 and 3 (planet and people) interactive goals are linked to SDG 12, SDG 6, and SDG 11; driver 3 and 4 (people and prosperity) interactive goals

are related to SDG 3, SDG 5, SDG 10, and SDG 16; driver 1 and 3 (policy and people) and 2 and 4 (planet and prosperity) interaction objectives are primarily related to various targets of SDG 17 (partnership for achieving all 17 SDGs). ESD would act as the nodal center of all activity such as creating awareness, disseminating information, evaluating the progress, monitoring SDGs’ achievement goals and strategies, integrating all SDGs, collaborating all drivers (4Ps), resolving the emerging conflicts/dilemmas (if any) between the drivers, and trying to achieve/enhance sustainability across all domains (4Ps and its subdomains). At the outset, it appears to be very ambitious, expensive, and critical plan of action. Keeping in mind the present situation in India (peak stage of Covid-19), its internal problems, and the global scenario, it is just impossible to think about its policy implementation. But if India keeps the target for 2030, at least the

E

374

governments’ policies toward all 17 SDGs can be updated. Currently, India is working on some of the SDGs but not all 17 goals, which need more expertise, political consensus, resource generation, brainstorming, and discussion with multiple stakeholder and global partners. Definitely this is a massive task that requires good governance, “public-private” partnership within the country, profound policy structure, and executive order/ power as its prerequisite conditions for any implementation/practice. Some of the innovative strategies may be tried out (as given in the SD literature) for enhancing the feasibility of this model (given below): 1. Global systematic reforms through economic policy reforms like: (a) Reviewing multilateral rules and agreements, (b) financial regulation, (c) international “intellectual property” regime, (d) bilateral FTAs (foreign trade agreements), trade and investment agreements, (e) mechanism for legally enforceable multilateral code of conduct, (f) domestic resource mobilization, (g) reform in international economic and financial governance, (h) search for new and innovative source of financing, etc. (Muchhala 2013). 2. Adapting national development cooperation policy for: (a) Orienting development cooperation toward SDGs and mobilizing greater financial and nonfinancial support for SDGs (b) Leveraging partnerships with non-state actors for domestic resource mobilization and capacity building 3. Pursuing policy coherence for development at all levels through: (a) Embracing a whole of government (system) approach (b) Improving policy and operational cooperation among global institutions (ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum 2016) With regard to the implementation of the abovementioned policies, “National Councils for Sustainable Development” (NCSDs) can be considered as critical to achieve the proper

Education for Sustainable Development

integration of decision-making and stakeholders’ participation (two key dimensions) in sustainable development process. Today, the number of NCSDs and similar bodies has increased over 100 globally, with a wide variety of forms and functions (Osborn et al. 2014). In fact, NSDCs typically answer the request for “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels” (Target 16.7) and “policy coherence” (Target 17.14) articulated in the UNESCO 2030 Agenda. Therefore, NCSDs, whether newly created or revived in any country, may have the potential to play an effective role in implementing the 2030 Agenda, helping countries to “develop ambitious national responses,” building on “existing planning instruments, such as national development and sustainable development strategies, as appropriate” (A/RES/70/1.Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015). The SDG research review report suggests that, if provided with adequate resources, NCSDs may be effective in stakeholder participation and engagement across the country’s whole policy cycle, such as to (1) inform and educate the public at large on sustainable development-related topics, (2) stimulate informed public debates, (3) engage key stakeholders in formulating policy recommendations, and (4) involve stakeholders in various parts of implementation and progress reviews. In practice, governments’ attitude toward stakeholder involvement influences the functioning of NCSDs and the resources provided to them. The composition of NCSDs normally reflects the political system and culture of the countries in which they exist. In general, the more the NCSD is dominated by the government, the more it tends to have communication of government policy to various stakeholders as its main role. The more independent the NCSD would be, the more crucial role it would play in the respective country’s SDG policy decision-making process (United Nations 2016, Global Sustainable Development Report July 2016, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York); thus, it would be relevant for India as well.

Education for Sustainable Development

Conclusion As per 2030 Agenda of UN, SDG 17, and its targets (17.16 and 17.17), India has to call for an enhanced “global partnership” and more effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships. The “global partnership” is about solidarity, cooperative action, and the governance of sustainable development. The SDGs are then to be achieved through a “partnership of partnerships” or global system of partnerships (Horan 2019). This implies for a multistakeholder partnerships to complement global partnership to facilitate an intensive global engagement to mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources to support the implementation of the SDGs. This would be of a kind of bringing transformational change across the globe. Therefore, the basic purpose of adopting an ESD approach is to build up a global culture across the countries (including India) that would improve the learning and understanding of all citizens to become responsible individuals by fostering sustainability in their thinking, lifestyle, and social behavior to make this world a place of “sustainable habitat.” India would surely make effort to pursue the implementation of the SDG agenda through close collaboration between national and subnational governments and international agencies as well as active participation of all other relevant stakeholders. Thus, “sustainable development is not an option that will go away but it is the only way forward” (Morgan 2004). Thus, we can conclude that “Education is a human right and a force for sustainable development and peace.” Every goal in UNESCO’s “2030 Agenda” (17 Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs) requires education to empower people with the knowledge, skills, and values to live in dignity, build their lives, and contribute to their societies. While governments hold the main responsibility for ensuring the right to quality education, the “2030 Agenda” is a universal and collective commitment. It requires political will, global and regional collaboration, and active engagement of educational and financial institutions, civil society, youth, corporate/private sector,

375

and other multilateral agencies to tackle socioeducational challenges and build systems that are inclusive, equitable, and relevant to all stakeholders.

References Anderson BB, Ratiu C (2014) The identity crisis of sustainable development. World J Sci Technol Sustain Dev 11(1):4–15 Bonnett M (2002) Education for sustainability as a frame of mind: reprinted from Environmental Education Research. Environ Educ Res 8(1):9–20 Bourn D (2005) Education for sustainable development and global citizenship: the challenge of the UN-decade. ZEP 28(3):15–19 Brundtland G (1987) Brundtland Commission report. In: our common future: the world commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Cisco System (2009) Cisco reports fourth quarter and fiscal year 2009 earnings. http://newsroom.cisco.com/pressrelease-content¼webcontent¼5064443 Dellor J (1996) Learning: the treasure within; report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000109590 ECOSOC (Economic & Social) Development Cooperation Forum (2016) A revitalized global partnership for sustainable development and adjusting development cooperation for implementing the SDGs, 2016 Development Cooperation Forum Policy Briefs October 2015, No. 12. https://www.un.org/ecosoc/dcf Gough S (2002) Right answers or wrong problems? Towards a theory of change for environmental learning. Trumpeter 18(1):1–15 Horan D (2019) A new approach to partnerships for SDG transformations. Sustainability. MDPI, Sustainability 11:4947. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184947 Leicht A, Heiss J, Byun WJ (2018) Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261445 Morgan R (2004) ESD and global partnership, information document No: 065/2008, Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills, by Yr Adran Plant, Addysg, Dysgu Gydol Oes a Sgiliau (July 2008). http:// new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/policy_strat egy_and_planning/sustainabledevelop/?lang¼eng Muchhala B (2013) Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Goals, Women’s Major Group Contribution for the Sixth Session of the Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals, Third World Network, United Nations, New York Ofei-Manu P, Didham RJ (2014) Policy brief quality education for sustainable development: a priority in achieving sustainability and well-being for all. https:// en.unesco.org/esd-repo/38

E

376

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

Osborn D, Cornforth J, Ullah F (2014) National Councils for Sustainable Development: lessons from the past and present, Stakeholder Forum. http://www.sdplannet.org Redecker C et al (2011) The future of learning: preparing for change. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/ pub.cfm?id¼4719 Rudsberg K, Ohman J (2010) Pluralism in practice: experiences from Swedish evaluation, school development and research. Environ Educ Res 16(1):95–111 Scott C, Deirdre P (2015) Sustainability through happiness: a framework for sustainable development. Sustain Dev 23:317–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.159, Published online 22 June 2015 in Wiley Online Library https://wileyonlinelibrary.com Summers M (2007) Student science teachers’ conception of sustainable development-: an empirical study of three postgraduate training cohorts. Res Sci Technol Educ 25(3):307–327 UN Political Forum (2017) “Voluntary National Report on the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals”, India, ‘The High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development’, New York, July 2017 UNDESD (2005–2014) Education for sustainable development tool kit: education for sustainable development in action, learning & training tools. http://archive. erisee.org/sites/default/files/UNESCOEducation% 20for%20sustainable%20development%20toolkit% 282006%29.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2018 UNESCO (2015a) Global citizenship education, topics and learning objectives. UNESCO, París UNESCO (2015b) Rethinking education: towards a global common good? https://en.unesco.org/events/launchrethinking-education-towards-global-common-goodpublication. Accessed 28 July 2018 UNESCO (2015c) Global citizenship and global universities: the age of global interdependence and cosmopolitanism. Eur J Educ 50(3):262 UNESCO (2017) Education for Sustainable Development goals: learning objectives. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0024/0024741/247444.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2018 UNESCO (2018) Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000261445. Accessed 9 Sept 2018 UNESCO, UNICEF (2013) Making education a priority in the post-2015 development agenda: report of the global thematic consultation on education in the post-2015 development agenda. http://en.unesco.org/post2015/ sites/post2015/files/making_Education_a_Priority_in_ the_Post_2015_Development_Agenda.pdf United Nations (2015) The Millennium Development Goals report 2015. United Nations. http://www.un. org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG% 202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf. On 4 May 2018 United Nations (2016) Global Sustainable Development report 2016 Edition. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York United Nations (2017) United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals, Report

United Nations (2018) Partnership for the SDGs: global registry of voluntary commitment & multi-stakeholder partnerships, United Nations. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/partnerships/. On 6 May 2018 Vare P, Scott W (2007) Learning for a change: exploring the relationship between Education and Sustainable Development. J Educ Sustain Dev 1(2):191–198 Venkatraman B (2009) Education for sustainable development. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 51(2):8–12 Voluntary National Review Report, Government of India (2017) Voluntary national review report on implementation of sustainable development goals: United Nations High Level Political Forum. https://www.niti. gov.in/content/voluntary-national-review-report

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development Anna Sung1, Kelvin Leong1 and Stuart Cunningham2 1 Chester Business School, University of Chester, Chester, UK 2 Department of Computing and Mathematics, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

Definition Education plays a key role in sustainable development in terms of changing behavior of people to achieve the sustainability development goals. On this, technology can be used to enhance education for sustainable development (ESD) through influencing learners’ behavior and to evaluate such behavior change. In order to effectively apply technology to support ESD, a strong partnership between educators and technologists is needed in order to unlock the potential of both sides and to create synergies through specialization. Partnership with technologists benefits educators in several ways, such as speeding up innovation process in education, stimulating fresh teaching ideas, improving learners’ experience, widening access to skills and resources, etc. Moreover, partnership opens the opportunity for both sides to share their knowledge, expertise,

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

and experience of success with one another in a way that benefits all parties involved.

Introduction According to Brundtland (1987) and Gladwin et al. (1995), the core of sustainable development is “to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” We can also consider that today’s behavior will affect whether the needs in future can be met or not. For example, when a resource is used up by humans because of overconsumption (i.e., behavior), the need of the resource will not able be met in the future. On the other hand, human’s behavior can also be considered as the result of learning. Therefore, education plays a key role in sustainable development in terms of changing human’s behavior. This entry aims to review how technologies can be used to support education for sustainable development purposes. More specifically, we will focus on how and what technologies can be used to change human behavior to achieve sustainable development goals and how the changes can be evaluated. This entry is organized as follows. Firstly, the background of education for sustainable development will be reviewed. Secondly, the concepts of persuasive design and gamification will be discussed, and the discussion will provide a direction on what are the related technologies in education for sustainable development. Thirdly, sense-related technologies and wearable technology are reviewed, and their contributions to sustainable development education will be discussed. Finally, we review what and how technologies can help to evaluate human behavior change.

Education for Sustainable Development Sustainable development is every people’s issue and is a complex topic that involves the interplay of three aspects: economy, environment, and society (Giddings et al. 2002) The key of education for sustainable development is not simply about

377

receiving a certificate or getting a qualification; an ideal education for sustainable development should be able to make an unforgettable impact that changes a person’s knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, attitudes, and behavior all in line with sustainable development goals. In education, learning is a key component and is a process of a series of behavior. The process starts with the connection between the learner and the related content. A content could be delivered through various forms, such as a video, a lecture, a self-study program, a book, or any other. Moreover, the connection is also a stage for the learner to acquire new information, and the whole subsequent learning process builds upon on this stage. In the age of the Internet and the Internet of Things (IoT), there are many ways to educate people, or in other words, there are many ways for people to learn. For example, on the online platform (www.edx.org), there were 2778 online course available as at 3 Sept 2019. In addition, there are many ways for people to learn new knowledge or skills from nontraditional informal platforms other than classrooms, such as watching videos on YouTube or Khan Academy. However, a situation of today’s education is that huge volume of data and information have been and are being generated, processed, transmitted, and recorded due to the fast development of various IoT devices. As per the figure from the Institute of Physics (http://www.physics.org/ thankphysics/internet/), the volume of data is huge to a point that “It would take around three million years to download all the information currently on the internet, assuming a download speed of 44 megabits per second.” Moreover, the growing popularity of social media also has changed human’s daily life and encouraged more data to be generated. For example, previous reports found that there were in average 95 million photos being uploaded per day on Instagram in 2016 (Woollaston 2016), more than 50 million businesses had Facebook pages, and more than 2.5 billion comments were made on these pages per month in 2015 (Chaykowski 2015). There are many potential issues for information overload, such as it can decrease the human attention span. An example can be

E

378

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

found in the music industry; according to Gauvin (2017), the average time that passed before the audience would hear the vocals on any radio song was 23 s; and today the average intro is just 5 s. Another effect is that the huge volume of data and information would encourage people to selectively obtain new information from daily life. On this, Hogarth (1987) suggested that selective perception may be the most influential action during the information acquisition stage. Therefore, a key challenge of learning is how to improve the connection between learner and corresponding teaching contents in order to help them to achieve the learning objectives. In this entry, we discuss how technology can help to improve the connection between learner and the corresponding teaching contents. The contributions of technology can be summarized into two types. The first is technology influencing human behavior, and the second is evaluating behavior change by using technology.

Technology Influencing Human Behavior We will review what and how technologies support learning in terms of affecting human behavior toward sustainable development goals. The review is based on the concepts of persuasive design. Persuasive Design Persuasive design focuses on influencing human behavior through a product’s or service’s characteristics, and it has been applied in promoting sustainable development goals in a number of ways. For example, managing food waste is a mean to improve our environmental and economic sustainability; on this, Aydin et al. (2017) combined elements of behavior change and persuasive design theories and used personified icons to notify its users about the expiry conditions of the associated food items. Haller et al. (2017) applied persuasive approach to encourage sustainable change of users’ behavior in energy consumption. Liu (2019) presented a project that

aims to promote sustainable tourism through persuasive design. Reeves and Nass (1996) present compelling results from experimental work, which suggest that human interactions with computers, and by extending other forms of technology, often mirror the dynamics of human-to-human interactions. Thus, they argue that human users view technologies in the same way as they would another person. As such, theories of social psychology, including social cognition and persuasion, are likely to be applicable in mediating successful technological interactions. Nkwo et al. (2018) designed and implemented a mobile persuasive system that motivated users to change their attitudes and behavior toward waste disposal and to care more for the environment. Hedemalm et al. (2017) investigated the use of a persuasive multiplayer game that provided bonuses and penalties to users based on their daily choices regarding transportation. Preliminary results from testers of the game indicated that using games may be successful in causing positive changes in user behavior. More specifically explanation of persuasive design was provided in Fogg’s Behavior Model (Fogg 2009). It described behavior as a product of three factors: – Motivation (people have to be sufficiently motivated to change their behavior) – Ability (the people must have ability to behave) – Triggers (the people have to be triggered, or promoted, to behave) Persuasive designs can incorporate both positive and negative approaches, typically by either offering some form of reward or punishment in provoking or responding to a user interaction. This principally aligns with the motivation aspect of Fogg’s Model, although clearly triggers can be made more, or less, attractive, by making explicit the reward or punishment outcomes. Many examples of Fogg’s Model in action can be found in computer games, especially those contemporary mobile games that offer in-game rewards and/or monetization mechanics, such as those employing

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

loot boxes (Drummond and Sauer 2018) or “gacha” (Shibuya et al. 2015; Koeder and Tanaka 2017) style games. In design of education for sustainable development, the above factors should be taken into considerations in order to help learners to achieve behavior change toward sustainable development goals. In practice, gamification is an effective way to implement persuasive design in education. Gamification Playing a game is a good way to learn (Golinkoff and Hirsh-Pasek 2006). Gamification in learning is an approach where gameplay elements are inserted in learning settings. The three key elements of Fogg Behavior Model (i.e., motivation, ability, and trigger) often play key roles in gamification design in order to enhance learner’s engagement and happiness. Previous studies have suggested that gamification is promising in terms of improving learning results and other factors related to the broader learning experience and process. This can be exemplified in the systematic review undertaken by Connolly et al. in 2012, which focused upon detailing empirical work evaluating the impact of serious games. Su and Cheng (2015) developed a context-aware mobile learning environment to influence science learning, achievement, and motivation. The feedback from students showed that they valued the learning activities made possible by the use of gamified learning approach. Vaibhav and Gupta (2014) found that if the learning platform is gamified, it does not only drastically increase the user enrolment but also increases user engagement throughout the course. Increased engagement was also found by Pourabdollahian et al. (2012); in their study, a serious game in manufacturing education was used. Moreover, gamification also makes learning become a unique and amusing experience. Tan et al. (2019) introduced gamification approach based on the online interactive quiz platform Kahoot in order to support foreign language learning. The findings indicated that the approach can benefit students in terms of inducing motivation and fostering and reinforcing learning.

379

Given sustainable development is a complex topic and involves people from different backgrounds; on this, gamification should be considered as a good approach to support education for sustainable development purposes. This is because previous studies have proved that gamification can be applied in many different applications for different types of user. For example, Ibanez et al. (2014) applied a gamification approach to teach computer science students to learn the C programming language. Moncada and Moncada (2014) reported the use of gamification to overcome the challenges of studying accounting. Ke and Grabowski (2017) indicated gameplaying was more effective in promoting maths performance, and cooperative game-playing was most effective for promoting positive maths attitudes regardless of students’ individual differences. Robson (2019) introduced a gamified pedagogical exercise that students receive and lose points for various behavior and reflect on whether those behavior support or conflict with their desired brand image. Berger and Schrader (2016) suggested a gamification approach to encourage participants to change their actual nutritional behavior and convert good intentions into action. In practice, gamification has been introduced to encourage behavior change in the sustainability development context. For example, Huber and Hilty (2015) discussed how gamification-based approaches may give users more autonomy in selecting goals and relating individual actions to social interactions, in addition, enabling the transition toward sustainable consumption patterns. Fraternali et al. (2015) presented the SmartH2O platform, which is a system for water demand management. Engagement was reinforced through a unique mix of in-app gamification techniques, digital educational games, and real board games, which provided a rich set of behavior change stimuli to all household members. Gatti et al. (2019) presented and evaluated a gamified teaching approach for sustainable development education based on an action learning approach. The results revealed that the surveyed students had a very high level of satisfaction with the game. Negruşa et al. (2015) discussed the

E

380

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

relationship between gamification and sustainability and reported the successful stories of gamification applied in hospitality and tourism. Industry 4.0, as a new industrial paradigm, points toward the creation of more sustainable processes. On this, Paravizo et al. (2018) concluded gamification mechanics can contribute to support manufacturing education on Industry 4.0, enabling innovation and sustainability. The rapid development of technologies is becoming a driving force to promote gamification in education. In fact, technology-enabled gamification can be implemented in different ways. Previous examples include Cavus and Ibrahim (2009), who developed a game based on short message service (SMS) text messaging to teach English language words, and it achieved a transformation of the traditional classroom-based learning and teaching into anytime and anywhere education. De Freitas et al. (2010) combined the uses of virtual worlds, with text-based, voicebased, and a feeling of “presence” naturally to design gamified learning activities for college and lifelong learners in order to encourage learner empowerment through increased interactivity. Edwards et al. (2002) reported how to design game-playing lectures based on the use of interactive whiteboards that allowed teachers to monitor pupils’ progress and “to identify weaknesses or misconceptions very early in the activity so that these can be rectified.” Cózar-Gutiérrez and SáezLópez (2016) presented the use of video games in initial teacher training in social sciences; the findings indicated that game-based learning through immersive environments allowed learning that involves a higher level of activity and engagement of the students. Cerrato et al. (2017) reported the development of DILIGO as a tool for smart assessment of preschool children attitudes in terms of evaluating the children preference for a certain activity, giving information for orienting in school and work context. Grom et al. (2017) introduced a gamifying Peer Learning Assessment System (PeLe) that students could use to gain a new understanding of what assessment in higher education could look like. Based on a research study with 130 participants, the findings from the Bicen and Kocakoyun (2017) suggested

that the Kahoot platform was the mostly preferred application by students and Android was the mostly preferred operating system in the mobile devices of the students. It is worth mentioning that the human is still the key factor in any form of gamification. As per Di Bitonto et al. (2014), when gamification was used in the simulation of clinical cases, the trainer interaction that is useful in order to keep the system up to date over time and to allow the definition of clinical cases tailored based on users’ needs. Moreover, among different types of technology, sense-related technologies are important in the design of education. This is because sensation plays a key role in influencing human behavior. Previous studies had found close relationships between human sense and behavior. For example, Courtis (2004) identified there were some colors that had positive effects on perception formation and investment allocations. Leong et al. (2019) found that users prefer to choose the financial data presented in cool colors in business management context. Salamé and Baddeley (1989) examined and proved the effects of different types of background music and sounds, such as unattended vocal, instrumental music, and instrumental music with unattended speech and with noise modulated in amplitude on phonological shortterm memory. Taylor et al. (2009) found that mindfulness training has an impact on cognition and affect specifically associated with voices and thereby beneficially alters relationship with voices. Hallam et al. (2002) studied the effects of music, perceived to be calming and relaxing, on performance in arithmetic and a memory task in children aged 10–12. The findings suggested the calming music led to better performance in both tasks when compared with a no-music control condition. Music perceived as arousing, aggressive, and unpleasant disrupted performance on the memory task and led to a lower level of reported altruistic behavior by the children. Ward et al. (2004) used ambient scent within retail environments to shape the emotional and behavioral responses. Guéguen and Petr (2006) found that a relaxing effect produced by a lavender scent increased the length of stay of customers and the amount of purchasing in restaurant. In a case

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

study of the homeware store IKEA, Hultén (2012) suggested that visual and olfactory sensory cues had a positive impact on shoppers’ touching behavior, purchase intentions, and total sale. Eriksson and Larsson (2011) found that a combination of sensory cues led to a change in customers’ behavior and created approach behavior through awareness of products that otherwise could be missed. In general, there are five senses in humans, including smell, sight, touch, taste, and hearing. These five senses are also the five ways that humans connect with their real-world surroundings and may be stimulated into cognitive and emotional responses (Cunningham and Weinel 2016). Sense-related technologies can stimulate these senses through creating digital user experience, and the created experience can encourage learners to change their behavior toward sustainable development goals. For example, instead of providing a text message, using multimedia platforms with 3D visual elements with sound and smell together can give learner a deep impression on why plastic is a problem for sea turtles and the ocean. This deep impression may also be more powerful in changing the learner’s behavior in terms of consuming plastic. Further discussions on how sense-related technologies affect learning are provided as follows. Sense-Related Technologies and Learning In recent years, many sense-related technologies have been proposed and developed. Virtual reality (VR) is one of the most emerging sense-related technology topics. As per Rogers (2019), VR market volume is expected to reach USD 98.4 million sales by 2023, generating an installed base of 168 million units with a worldwide population penetration of 2%. In simplicity, VR refers to using technology to create environments designed expressly for human interaction and doing so by visually, and sometimes auditorily as well, separating the user from their real-world environment. VR can be used to enhance student learning and engagement in classroom. One of the key features is that VR allows us to create any environment, real, or imagined, for simulated interactions.

381

According to previous studies, VR can stimulate human experience and then change their behavior. For example, McComas et al. (2002) designed a course for children to learn safe street crossing within the virtual environment. The results suggested that suburban school children’s street crossing behavior was improved, and the good practice was transferrable to their realworld behavior. Bordnick et al. (2012) reported a VR-based treatment approach for smoking cessation; the result suggested that smoking rates and craving for nicotine were significantly lower at the end of treatment. Also, self-confidence and coping skills were significantly higher, and number of cigarettes smoked was significantly lower for the participants after the treatment. Given VR can help learners to change their behavior, it can be used as a key element in education program in order to help learners to achieve behavior change toward sustainable development goals. The key advantages of VR include creating learning experience that is impossible to do it easily in real world, helping learners to learn conceptual ideas, improving collaborating learning, and supporting different educational ideas. The following are related discussion points about why these advantages are important to sustainable development education. On Creating a Learning Experience That Is Impossible to Do It Easily in Real World

Some previous examples include, as per Ausburn and Ausburn (2004), VR is basically a way of simulating or replicating an environment and giving the user a sense of being there, taking control, and personally interacting with that environment with his/her own body. Mintz et al. (2001) created a dynamic 3D model of the solar system that the learner could enter a virtual model of the physical world, journey through it, zoom in or out as he or she wished, change his or her view point and perspective. Asai et al. (2010) developed a lunar surface navigation system on virtual environment, which facilitated collaboration between children and parents with active learning behavior. Boudreaux et al. (2009) presented a virtual reality volcano activity learning environment that immersed students in a scientifically accurate

E

382

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

simulation of volcanic systems. In some situations, resource is a factor that limits students’ learning opportunities. For example, as reported by Tüysüz (2010), due to lack of laboratories at schools or insufficient instruments in laboratories, hands-on experiments were rarely performed in state schools in Turkey. Therefore, a VR laboratory was developed for students to conduct experiments virtually. Given many sustainable development topics are related to the situations that are difficult to experience in person, such as the impacts of global warming and pollution on biodiversity, the use of VR can help learners to experience the impacts effectively and impressively without the needs of doing field trips or being put in situations where there are unreasonable risks to their health and safety. On Helping Learners to Better Absorb Conceptual Ideas

Some previous applications include Mantovani et al. (2003) applied immersive 3D environments for training psychiatrists and psychologists in the treatment of mental disorders. In the case of Pasqualotti and Freitas (2002), VR was applied to support teaching and learning mathematics, the students benefitted from the VR environment because VR enabled the students to navigate and interact with virtual objects, moving around and visualizing the virtual objects from different angles. Pivik et al. (2002) reported a desktop VR program for teaching children about the accessibility and attitudinal barriers encountered by their peers with mobility impairments. The results indicated the program was effective for increasing children’s knowledge of accessibility barriers. Bogusevschi et al. (2019) developed a 3D immersive computer-based physics educational application that taught learners about the water cycle in nature and precipitation formation concepts through VR and experimental virtual laboratory simulations. Given many sustainable development topics are related to conceptual ideas, such as the benefits of fair trade, learning materials could be designed with VR to enable learners to interact with different scenarios; thus, learners can “see” different

outcomes and can better understand and absorb conceptual ideas. On Improving Collaborative Learning

Previous experiences include Monahan et al. (2008) presented a collaborative learning environment “CLEV-R.” The web-based system CLEV-R used VR and multimedia assets and provided communication tools to support collaboration among online students. Collaborative VR learning experiences can be successfully integrated into existing curricula to support collaborative learning. Beer et al. (2005) reported an online Internet school for occupational therapists that encouraged students from four European countries to work collaboratively through problembased learning by interacting with each other in a virtual semi-immersive environment. Given sustainable development is a complex topic and involves stakeholders from a multitude of different backgrounds, using VR can facilitate learners from different circumstances to share their insights and create new knowledge. On Supporting Different Education Ideas

For example, Zarzuela et al. (2013) reported a VR serious game that allowed the students to increase the knowledge about the city of Valladolid in Spain. The game created a virtual environment set within the main square and some of the historic buildings in the downtown region. It further took an advantage of the characteristic tiled floor of the town hall square to represent a game board and designed hidden questions behind the different tiled floors for better engagement. On the other hand, role-play is a useful tool on teaching how best to communicate and react in difficult scenarios. On this, Drewett et al. (2019) reported the use of immersive VR consultation, which involved different ethical scenarios, such as abuse, to train medical general practitioners and trainees on how to recognize and manage child protection issues. Moreover, Arrowsmith et al. (2005) developed a virtual field trip to encompass field observation for several geographic scales. Therefore, students were able to obtain a general overview of the area into which they would be working and obtain background information in an interactive three-

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

dimensional model that enabled students to maximize their experience before undertaking fieldwork in situ. Furthermore, as per the feedback from the students in the study of Davies and Dalgarno (2009), the advantages of VR learning included opportunities for students to revisit the virtual scene as many times as they wanted, at a time convenient to them, which gave it advantages over a real investigation task if they were to be provided with only one or the other option. Given VR can be used to support different educational ideas, leaners can earn different experiences from different ideas, and these ideas can help learners to gain deeper understanding on the topics and be able to apply their learnt knowledge and skills. Most importantly, according to the previous experiences, VR can lead to better learning results. For example, Buchanan (2004) reported upon the use of virtual reality-based technology (VRBT) for the instruction of dental students in preclinical restorative procedures. The evaluation results suggested that students learned faster, arrived at the same level of performance, accomplished more practice procedures per hour, and requested more evaluations per procedure or per hour than in other traditional laboratories. The findings from Bailenson et al. (2008) suggested that participants learned better in VR than in a video learning condition in terms of both selfreport measures and objective performance measures. In the study of Parong and Mayer (2018), the findings suggested that students’ motivation, interest, and engagement ratings were higher when they learned in immersive VR rather than well-structured PowerPoint slideshow. Other than VR, there are other sense-related technologies that can influence human sensation and affect human experience. For example, augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) similar technologies, which form part of the wider definition of extended reality (XR) environments. AR is an interactive experience of a real-world environment where the objects that reside in the real-world are enhanced by computer-generated perceptual information. MR is the merging of real and virtual worlds to produce new environments and visualizations where physical and digital

383

objects coexist and interact in real time. In brief, the development of VR, AR, or MR is very much benefited from the enabling wearable technology. Wearable Technology Wearable technology refers to any electronic devices that can be worn as accessories, incorporated in clothing and accessories, implanted in the user’s body, or even tattooed on a human’s skin. Basically, wearable technology is the physical platform to deliver digital experiences to learners and is the base of sense-related technology. Use of wearable technology in education has been proved effective according to previous cases. For example, Beard et al. (2016) reported the use of wearable video technology to support surgical education and led to the training being faster and better by overcoming the challenge of traditional “see one, do one, teach one” practice. Kerner and Goodyear (2017) explored the impact of a wearable health and fitness device, such as Fitbit, on adolescents’ motivation for physical activity, and their related perceptions of these devices for health promotion. Moshtaghi et al. (2015) reviewed the use of Google Glass to solve communication and surgical education challenges in the operating room. Luthra et al. (2019) studied the use of wearable technology, such as “connected” glasses with a camera to support a series of simulated learning events in medical general practice (GP). The approach enabled trainees and patient actors to be observed by the trainers from a distant site in real time. Iqbal et al. (2016) compared the use of body sensors and head-mounted displays in medicine. The conclusion suggested that body sensors were found to have excellent functionality in aiding patient posture and rehabilitation, while head-mounted displays could provide information to surgeons while maintaining sterility during operative procedures (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) teaching and learning. The results showed that the approach increased students’ knowledge of circuitry and engineering design, as well as their self-efficacy with wearable technologies and producing e-textile products.

E

384

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

Previous cases, including the abovementioned examples, provide cues on ways in which sustainable development education could be improved by using wearable technology, such as the use of Google Glass or similar visual overlay devices to visualize global economy relationships, the use of wearable devices to remind the consumption behavior, etc. In fact, previous studies indicated that applications of wearable technology can lead to changes in behavior. According to the study from Jakicic et al. (2016), the addition of a wearable technology device to a standard behavioral intervention resulted in weight loss over 24 months. Very often, habitual behavior is hard to change because of lack of self-monitoring skills, while a potential contribution of wearable technology is the capacity to provide live feedback. Live feedback can be used to disrupt bad habits in interventions. Stephenson et al. (2017) used computer, mobile, and wearable technologies as interventions to facilitate a reduction in sedentary behavior. The results suggested effectiveness appeared most prominent in the short-term. It is also worth mentioning that the development of related technologies is not complex and can be affordable. Markvicka et al. (2018) reported a systematic guide to a low-cost (less than USD 10 per student) outreach workshop on wearable electronics for middle school students. Therefore, the promotion of sustainable education in developing countries is possible through using low-cost equipments.

Evaluating Behavior Change by Using Technology Evaluation is an important part in education, and it reports upon the outcomes from the education process. On this, data analytics had been used in various applications in education. Thomas and Galambos (2004) used regression and decision tree analysis with the CHAID algorithm to analyze student-opinion data in order to investigate how students’ characteristics and experience affected satisfaction. Quadri and Kalyankar

(2010) presented the work of using data mining in predicting the drop out features of students. Delen (2011) developed analytical models to predict freshmen student attrition with an 81% overall prediction accuracy on the holdout sample. Siraj and Abdoulha (2009) applied data mining to investigate enrolment data in order to identify which part of the processes could be enhanced. Chen et al. (2014) conducted a text analytics with focus on students’ informal conversations on Twitter posts in order to understand issues and problems in their educational experiences. These findings shed light onto their educational experiences-opinions, feelings, and concerns about the learning process. Wolff et al. (2013) developed predictive models to analyze historic virtual learning environment (VLE) activity data combined with other data sources. The results indicated that this approach could predict student failure by looking for changes in user’s activity in the VLE, when compared against their own previous behavior. Moreover, previous studies found that introducing data analytics could lead to better education results. For example, Cortez and Silva (2008) reviewed the use of four data mining techniques (i.e., decision trees, random forest, neural networks, and support vector machines) to predict secondary school student performance, and the results showed that a good predictive accuracy could be achieved, although it is worth noting that prediction outcomes from approaches such as neural networks are often not explainable, which may be of value in educational contexts. Minaei-Bidgoli et al. (2003) presented an approach to predict students’ final grade based on features extracted from logged data in an education web-based system. The findings suggested that the method could be of considerable usefulness in identifying students at risk early, especially in very large classes, and allowed the instructor to provide appropriate advice in a timely manner. He (2013) suggested a combination of data mining and text mining techniques for a large amount of online learning data, and the approach could yield considerable insights and reveal valuable patterns in students’ learning behavior.

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

Moreover, given the key purpose of education for sustainable development is to help learners to achieve behavior change toward sustainable development goals, therefore, evaluating human behavior change after the education is essential or otherwise the impacts of the education will be unknown. On this, the development of data analytics can help to better understand human behavior change. For example, Bahari and Elayidom (2015) proposed a data mining model to predict the behavior of customers to enhance the decision-making processes for retaining valued customers. Leong et al. (2008) introduced a Space-Time-Event Model for investigating criminal behavior over time and space. Rong et al. (2012) proposed a data mining technique to study tourism data, and the empirical results were considered as useful in helping tourism managers to define new target customers and to plan more effective marketing strategies. Lotfi et al. (2012) provided a data mining solution for supporting independent living of the elderly by means of equipping their homes with a simple sensor network to monitor their behavior. Foell et al. (2013) developed an approach that used travel histories collected from automated fare collection system (AFC) to extract features of personal transport usage and study their predictive power to forecast whether people access public transport services on a future day or not. Khedr and Yaseen (2017) suggested a data mining model based on sentiment analysis of financial news and historical stock market prices to predict stock market trends and achieved prediction accuracy results ranging from 72.73% to 86.21%. Ghani and Fano (2002) used text learning techniques to the descriptions obtained from websites of retailers and found the approach could successfully create useful profiles of individual customers, groups of customers, or entire retail stores. Given previous examples have proved the promise of big data and data analytics as a way to understand human behavior change, data analytics can also be used to evaluate the impacts of sustainable development education, for example, by using spatial clustering techniques to determine if plastic consumption

385

over an area disappeared or simply displaced to another location.

The Importance of Partnership Relationship Between Educators and Technologists As mentioned in previous examples, the fastgrowing development of technologies creates many new opportunities in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). However, a strong partnership between educators and technologists is needed in order to unlock the potential for both sides and to create synergies through specialization. Partnership with technologists benefits educators in several ways, such as speeding up innovation process in education, stimulating fresh teaching ideas, improving learners’ experience, widening access to skills and resources, etc. In fact, such partnership challenges people to think, articulate, and receive clarity about their competencies. It serves as a mirror that gives each side (i.e., educators and technologists) a glimpse of their strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, partnership opens the opportunity for both sides to share their knowledge, expertise, and experience of success with one another in a way that benefits all parties involved. Furthermore, given both sustainable development and application of technology are quite complex by nature, working together can help both sides to focus on their own strengths without distraction.

References Arrowsmith C, Counihan A, McGreevy D (2005) Development of a multi-scaled virtual field trip for the teaching and learning of geospatial science. Int J Educ Dev ICT 1(3):42–56 Asai K, Sugimoto Y, Billinghurst M (2010) Exhibition of lunar surface navigation system facilitating collaboration between children and parents in science museum. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGGRAPH conference on virtual-reality continuum and its applications in industry. ACM, pp 119–124

E

386

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

Ausburn LJ, Ausburn FB (2004) Desktop virtual reality: a powerful new technology for teaching and research in industrial teacher education. J Ind Teach Educ 41(4):1–16 Aydin A, Micallef A, Lovelace S, Li X, Cheung V, Girouard A (2017) Save the kiwi: encouraging better food management through behaviour change and persuasive design theories in a mobile app. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 2366–2372 Bahari TF, Elayidom MS (2015) An efficient CRM-data mining framework for the prediction of customer behaviour. Proc Comput Sci 46:725–731 Bailenson J, Patel K, Nielsen A, Bajscy R, Jung SH, Kurillo G (2008) The effect of interactivity on learning physical actions in virtual reality. Media Psychol 11(3):354–376 Beard HR, Marquez-Lara AJ, Hamid KS (2016) Using wearable video technology to build a point-of-view surgical education library. JAMA Surg 151(8):771–772 Beer M, Slack F, Armitt G (2005) Collaboration and teamwork: immersion and presence in an online learning environment. Inf Syst Front 7(1):27–37 Berger V, Schrader U (2016) Fostering sustainable nutrition behavior through gamification. Sustainability 8(1):67 Bicen H, Kocakoyun S (2017) Determination of university students’ most preferred mobile application for gamification. World J Educ Technol 9(1):18–23 Bogusevschi D, Muntean C, Muntean GM (2019) Teaching and learning physics using 3D virtual learning environment: a case study of combined virtual reality and virtual Laboratory in Secondary School. In: Society for Information Technology & teacher education international conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp 467–474 Bordnick PS, Traylor AC, Carter BL, Graap KM (2012) A feasibility study of virtual reality-based coping skills training for nicotine dependence. Res Soc Work Pract 22(3):293–300 Boudreaux H, Bible P, Cruz-Neira C, Parham T, Cervato C, Gallus W, Stelling P (2009) V-volcano: addressing students’ misconceptions in earth sciences learning through virtual reality simulations. In: International symposium on visual computing. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1009–1018 Brundtland GH (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. United Nations. https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf. Accessed 10 Sep 2019 Buchanan JA (2004) Experience with virtual reality-based technology in teaching restorative dental procedures. J Dent Educ 68(12):1258–1265 Cavus N, Ibrahim D (2009) M-learning: an experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. Br J Educ Technol 40(1):78–91 Cerrato A, Ferrara F, Ponticorvo M, Sica LS, Di Ferdinando A, Miglino O (2017) DILIGO assessment tool: a smart and gamified approach for preschool children assessment. In: International conference on smart education and smart E-learning. Springer, Cham, pp 235–244

Chaykowski K (2015) Number of Facebook business pages climbs to 50 million with new messaging tools. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenchayko wski/2015/12/08/facebook-business-pages-climb-to-5 0-million-with-new-messaging-tools/#10dd26bc1c2c. Accessed 13 Aug 2019 Chen X, Vorvoreanu M, Madhavan K (2014) Mining social media data for understanding students’ learning experiences. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 7(3):246–259 Connolly TM, Boyle EA, MacArthur E, Hainey T, Boyle JM (2012) A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Comput Educ 59(2):661–686 Cortez P, Silva AMG (2008) Using data mining to predict secondary school student performance. Available via Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ Paulo_Cortez3/publication/228780408_Using_data_ mining_to_predict_secondary_school_student_perfor mance/links/0fcfd510a4efaa10b0000000/Using-datamining-to-predict-secondary-school-student-perform ance.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2019 Courtis J (2004) Colour as visual rhetoric in financial reporting. Account Forum 28(3):265–281 Cózar-Gutiérrez R, Sáez-López JM (2016) Game-based learning and gamification in initial teacher training in the social sciences: an experiment with MinecraftEdu. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 13(1):2 Cunningham S, Weinel J (2016) The sound of the smell (and taste) of my shoes too: mapping the senses using emotion as a medium. In: Proceedings of the audio mostly. ACM, pp 28–33 Davies A, Dalgarno B (2009) Learning fire investigation the clean way: the virtual experience. Australas J Educ Technol 25(1):1–13 De Freitas S, Rebolledo-Mendez G, Liarokapis F, Magoulas G, Poulovassilis A (2010) Learning as immersive experiences: using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a virtual world. Br J Educ Technol 41(1):69–85 Delen D (2011) Predicting student attrition with data mining methods. J Coll Stud Retent Res Theory Pract 13(1):17–35 Di Bitonto P, Corriero N, Pesare E, Rossano V, Roselli T (2014) Training and learning in e-health using the gamification approach: the trainer interaction. In: International conference on universal access in humancomputer interaction. Springer, Cham, pp 228–237 Drewett O, Hann G, Gillies MFP, Sher C, Delacroix S, Pan X, Fertleman CR (2019) A discussion of the use of virtual reality for training healthcare practitioners to recognise child protection issues. Front Public Health 7:255 Drummond A, Sauer JD (2018) Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling. Nat Hum Behav 2(8):530 Edwards JA, Hartnell M, Martin R (2002) Interactive whiteboards: some lessons from the classroom. Micromath 18:30–33 Eriksson E, Larsson N (2011) A multi-sensory brandexperience: sensorial interplay and its impact on consumers’ touch behaviour. Thesis, Linnaeus University

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development Foell S, Kortuem G, Rawassizadeh R, Phithakkitnukoon S, Veloso M, Bento C (2013) Mining temporal patterns of transport behaviour for predicting future transport usage. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing adjunct publication. ACM, pp 1239–1248 Fogg BJ (2009) A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology. ACM, p 40 Fraternali P, Baroffio G, Pasini C, Galli L, Micheel I, Novak J, Rizzoli A (2015) Integrating real and digital games with data analytics for water consumption behavioral change: a demo. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on utility and cloud computing. IEEE Press, pp 408–409 Gatti L, Ulrich M, Seele P (2019) Education for sustainable development through business simulation games: an exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on students' learning outcomes. J Clean Prod 207:667–678 Gauvin HL (2017) Drawing listener attention in popular music: testing five musical features arising from the theory of attention economy. Music Sci 22(2):291–304 Ghani R, Fano AE (2002) Using text mining to infer semantic attributes for retail data mining. In: 2002 IEEE international conference on data mining, 2002. Proceedings. IEEE, pp 195–202 Giddings B, Hopwood B, O’brien G (2002) Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustain Dev 10(4):187–196 Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause TS (1995) Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):874–907 Golinkoff DGSRM, Hirsh-Pasek K (2006) Play¼ learning: how play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. Oxford University Press, New York Grom A, Hansen G, Stoica G (2017) Gamifying experiences using a peer learning assessment system: combining two separate research traditions to promote student learning (poster and interactive session). In: 16th international conference on entertainment computing (ICEC), Tsukuba City, Sep 2017, pp 507–509 Guéguen N, Petr C (2006) Odors and consumer behavior in a restaurant. Int J Hosp Manag 25(2):335–339 Hallam S, Price J, Katsarou G (2002) The effects of background music on primary school pupils’ task performance. Educ Stud 28(2):111–122 Haller H, Nguyen VB, Debizet G, Laurillau Y, Coutaz J, Calvary G (2017) Energy consumption in smarthome: persuasive interaction respecting user’s values. In: 2017 9th IEEE international conference on intelligent data acquisition and advanced computing systems: technology and applications (IDAACS), vol 2. IEEE, pp 804–809 He W (2013) Examining students’ online interaction in a live video streaming environment using data mining and text mining. Comput Hum Behav 29(1):90–102 Hedemalm E, Hallberg J, Kor AL, Andersson K, Pattinson C (2017) Promoting green transportation via persuasive games. In: International conference on sustainable,

387

ecological engineering design for Society (SEEDS), Leeds, 13–14 Sep 2017 Hogarth RM (1987) Judgement and choice: the psychology of decision, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York Huber MZ, Hilty LM (2015) Gamification and sustainable consumption: overcoming the limitations of persuasive technologies. In: ICT innovations for sustainability. Springer, Cham, pp 367–385 Hultén B (2012) Sensory cues and shoppers’ touching behaviour: the case of IKEA. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 40(4):273–289 Ibanez MB, Di-Serio A, Delgado-Kloos C (2014) Gamification for engaging computer science students in learning activities: a case study. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 7(3):291–301 Iqbal MH, Aydin A, Brunckhorst O, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K (2016) A review of wearable technology in medicine. J R Soc Med 109(10):372–380 Jakicic JM, Davis KK, Rogers RJ, King WC, Marcus MD, Helsel D, Rickman AD, Wahed AS, Belle SH (2016) Effect of wearable technology combined with a lifestyle intervention on long-term weight loss: the IDEA randomized clinical trial. JAMA 316(11): 1161–1171 Ke F, Grabowski B (2017) Gameplaying for maths learning: cooperative or not? Br J Educ Technol 38(2):249–259 Kerner C, Goodyear VA (2017) Does wearable technology affect adolescents’ motivation to be physically active? In: Niven K, Lewis S, Kagan C (eds) Making a difference with psychology. Richard Benjamin Trust, London, pp 107–115 Khedr AE, Yaseen N (2017) Predicting stock market behavior using data mining technique and news sentiment analysis. Int J Intell Syst Appl 9(7):22 Koeder MJ, Tanaka E (2017) Game of chance elements in free-to-play mobile games. A freemium business model monetization tool in need of self-regulation? In: 28th European regional conference of the international telecommunications society (ITS): competition and regulation in the information age, Passau, 30 July–2 Aug 2017 Leong K, Chan S, Ng V, Shiu S (2008) Introduction of STEM: space-time-event model for crime pattern analysis. Asian J Inf Technol 7(12):516–523 Leong K, Sung A, Williams T, Andoniou C, Sun F (2019) The importance of colour on the communication of financial data in management. J Work Appl Manag 11(1):92–100 Liu Z (2019) Sustainability by design: how to promote sustainable tourism behavior through persuasive design? Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati Lotfi A, Langensiepen C, Mahmoud SM, Akhlaghinia MJ (2012) Smart homes for the elderly dementia sufferers: identification and prediction of abnormal behaviour. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 3(3):205–218 Luthra P, Brown J, Henshaw K (2019) OP11 wearable technology and simulation to support learning. Is it the way forward? A pilot study in primary care with healthcare professionals across the north west. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn 5:A7–A8

E

388

Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development

Mantovani F, Castelnuovo G, Gaggioli A, Riva G (2003) Virtual reality training for health-care professionals. CyberPsychol Behav 6(4):389–395 Markvicka E, Rich S, Liao J, Zaini H, Majidi C (2018) Low-cost wearable human-computer interface with conductive fabric for STEAM education. In: 2018 IEEE integrated STEM education conference (ISEC). IEEE, pp 161–166 McComas J, MacKay M, Pivik J (2002) Effectiveness of virtual reality for teaching pedestrian safety. CyberPsychol Behav 5(3):185–190 Minaei-Bidgoli B, Kashy DA, Kortemeyer G, Punch WF (2003) Predicting student performance: an application of data mining methods with an educational web-based system. In: 33rd annual frontiers in education, 2003, FIE 2003, vol 1. IEEE, pp T2A–T13A Mintz R, Litvak S, Yair Y (2001) 3D-virtual reality in science education: an implication for astronomy teaching. J Comput Math Sci Teach 20(3):293–305 Monahan T, McArdle G, Bertolotto M (2008) Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Comput Educ 50(4):1339–1353 Moncada SM, Moncada TP (2014) Gamification of learning in accounting education. J High Educ Theory Pract 14(3):9 Moshtaghi O, Kelley KS, Armstrong WB, Ghavami Y, Gu J, Djalilian HR (2015) Using Google glass to solve communication and surgical education challenges in the operating room. Laryngoscope 125(10): 2295–2297 Negruşa A, Toader V, Sofică A, Tutunea M, Rus R (2015) Exploring gamification techniques and applications for sustainable tourism. Sustainability 7(8):11160–11189 Nkwo M, Orji R, Ugah J (2018) Mobile persuasion: promoting clean and sustainable environment. In: Proceedings of the second African conference for human computer interaction: thriving communities. ACM, p 45 Paravizo E, Chaim OC, Braatz D, Muschard B, Rozenfeld H (2018) Exploring gamification to support manufacturing education on industry 4.0 as an enabler for innovation and sustainability. Proc Manuf 21: 438–445 Parong J, Mayer RE (2018) Learning science in immersive virtual reality. J Educ Psychol 110(6):785 Pasqualotti A, Freitas CMDS (2002) MAT3D: a virtual reality modeling language environment for the teaching and learning of mathematics. CyberPsychol Behav 5(5):409–422 Pivik J, McComas J, MaCfarlane I, Laflamme M (2002) Using virtual reality to teach disability awareness. J Educ Comput Res 26(2):203–218 Pourabdollahian B, Taisch M, Kerga E (2012) Serious games in manufacturing education: evaluation of learners’ engagement. Proc Comput Sci 15:256–265 Quadri MM, Kalyankar NV (2010) Drop out feature of student data for academic performance using decision tree techniques. Global J Comput Sci Technol 19(2): 2–5 Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real

people and places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Robson K (2019) Motivating professional student behavior through a gamified personal branding assignment. J Mark Educ 41:154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475 318823847 Rogers S (2019) 2019: the year virtual reality gets real. Forbes. Available via https://www.forbes.com/sites/ solrogers/2019/06/21/2019-the-year-virtual-reality-getsreal/#32b1a7bd6ba9. Accessed 21 Aug 2019 Rong J, Vu HQ, Law R, Li G (2012) A behavioral analysis of web sharers and browsers in Hong Kong using targeted association rule mining. Tour Manag 33(4):731–740 Salamé P, Baddeley A (1989) Effects of background music on phonological short-term memory. Q J Exp Psychol 41(1):107–122 Shibuya A, Teramoto M, Shoun A (2015) Systematic analysis of in-game purchases and social features of Mobile social games in Japan. In: DiGRA conference, 2015 Siraj F, Abdoulha MA (2009) Uncovering hidden information within university’s student enrollment data using data mining. In: 2009 third Asia international conference on modelling & simulation. IEEE, pp 413–418 Stephenson A, McDonough SM, Murphy MH, Nugent CD, Mair JL (2017) Using computer, mobile and wearable technology enhanced interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 14(1):105 Su CH, Cheng CH (2015) A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning motivation and achievements. J Comput Assist Learn 31(3): 268–286 Tan DAL, Lee BC, Ganapathy M, Kasuma SAA (2019) Language learning in the 21st century: Malaysian ESL students’ perceptions of Kahoot! Int J Virtual Pers Learn Environ 9(2):55–71 Taylor KN, Harper S, Chadwick P (2009) Impact of mindfulness on cognition and affect in voice hearing: evidence from two case studies. Behav Cogn Psychother 37(4):397–402 Thomas EH, Galambos N (2004) What satisfies students? Mining student-opinion data with regression and decision tree analysis. Res High Educ 45(3):251–269 Tüysüz C (2010) The effect of the virtual laboratory on students’ achievement and attitude in chemistry. Int Online J Educ Sci 2(1):37–53 Vaibhav A, Gupta P (2014) Gamification of MOOCs for increasing user engagement. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on MOOC, innovation and technology in education (MITE). IEEE, pp 290–295 Ward P, Davies B, Kooijman D (2004) Ambient smell and the retail environment: relating olfaction research to consumer behavior. J Bus Manag 9(3):289–302 Wolff A, Zdrahal Z, Nikolov A, Pantucek M (2013) Improving retention: predicting at-risk students by analysing clicking behaviour in a virtual learning environment. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge. ACM, pp 145–149

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject Woollaston V (2016) Instagram now has half a billion users. Wired. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/instag ram-doubles-to-half-billion-users. Accessed 10 Aug 2019 Zarzuela MM, Pernas FJD, Calzón SM, Ortega DG, Rodríguez MA (2013) Educational tourism through a virtual reality platform. Proc Comput Sci 25: 382–388

Environment and Technology Transfer for Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change

389

Technical/Vocational (Tech/Voc) Education Tech/voc education is a multidisciplinary training that provides knowledge and skills for employment, thus advancing inclusivity, social equity, and sustainable development (UNESCO 2005). Technical Education (TE) TE refers to teaching the theory and science behind the occupation through applied science and technology in preparing students for work placement (UNESCO 2005). Vocational Education (VE) VE refers to practical skills and knowledge that prepare students for working in a specific trade, e.g., technician or in specialized vocations, e.g., engineering and accountancy (Lewin 1993).

Environmental Conflict

Introduction

▶ Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

By 2030, the world population of 7 billion will demand twice as many resources as the planet can supply (UN 2015). The list of low human development index (life expectancy index, education index, income index, and water and sanitation index) consists of 35 out of the 53 countries in Africa (UNDP 2016). Africa is the only continent where poverty is expected to rise during the new century (UNDP 2019). Zimbabwe’s current predicament is evident through the interlinkages of biophysical, economic, and social problems with pressing environmental concerns such as water stress. The complex relationships require a creative problem-solving approach to meet the needs of the present and future global citizenry ecologically, economically, culturally, and spiritually. As population increases exponentially, meeting the needs of the global citizenry requires understanding and creative problem-solving. This chapter discusses the EE implementation in Zimbabwe with a view of proposing strategies that can be used to harness EE as a technical/ vocational tool to revitalize resource stewardship and security. Attempts to rectify the absence of an EE policy could be the use of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) on a national scale to increase its uptake across the workforce. STEM education could be increased

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject in Zimbabwe’s Secondary Schools Vincent Itai Tanyanyiwa1 and Tarisai Kanyepi2 1 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, Zimbabwe Open University, Harare, Zimbabwe 2 Pan African University Institute of Water and Energy Sciences (including Climate Change), Faculty of Water Sciences, PAUWES c/o Tlemcen University, Tlemcen, Algeria

Definition Environmental Education (EE) EE is a process that helps in the development of attitudes, knowledge, and skills that are important to appreciate the relationships between people, their beliefs, and the diversity and variability of life on earth (IUCN 1971).

E

390

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

through the establishment of partnerships between schools, colleges, universities, research institutions, industry, and employers by using partnerships to identify required EE STEM capabilities. The engagement of environmental agencies and private environmental organizations and schools to have links at local, regional, district, and national could go a long way in promoting environmental stewardship. The current situation where Environmental Management Agency (EMA) officials are based at district, provincial, and national level is not sustainable. Combined effort will go a long way in making SDG4 (quality education), SDG6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG11 (sustainable cities and communities), and SDG17 (strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing global partnerships) attainment more real than imaginary through fostering attitudes, motivations, and commitments to make informed decisions and take responsible action.

Historical Development of Environmental Education EE can be traced back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau who stressed the value of an environment-focused education and Louis who encouraged students to “Study nature, not books” (Kohlstedt 2005). In the 1920s and 1930s, conservation education was geared toward the eradication of economic, social, and environmental challenges that emerged from the Great Depression. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, modern EE movement gained prominence and was in the form of Nature Study and Conservation Education. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring showed the public’s concern for their health and that of the environment. Globally, EE gained recognition when the UN Conference on the Human Environment (1972), held in Stockholm, Sweden, declared EE as a tool to address global environmental challenges. In the early 1970s, IUCN came up with the definition of EE: Environmental education is the process of recognizing values and clarifying concepts in order to develop skills and altitudes necessary to understand and appreciate the inter-relatedness among man, his

culture and his biophysical surroundings. Environmental education also entails practice in decision making and self-formulation of a code of behaviour about issues concerning environmental quality. (IUCN 1971: 17)

EEs’ focus is premised on understanding political processes and structures that help in full participation in decision-making about environmental issues through a concentric approach. EE involves the acquisition of knowledge and understanding of ecological principles that help in making environmentally informed decisions. Similarly, the UNESCO and UNEP created three major declarations that guided the course of EE: (1) Stockholm Declaration (1972), The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, was made up of 7 proclamations and 26 principles “to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment”; (2) Belgrade (Serbia/Yugoslavia) Charter (1975) which added goals, objectives, and guiding principles of EE program to include the general public; and (3) Tbilisi (Georgia) Declaration (1977) which noted the important role of EE in the preservation and improvement of the environment. The Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, in Tbilisi in 1977, laid out the role, objectives, and characteristics of EE and provided several goals and principles for EE. The Tbilisi Conference guiding principles of EE are: • The environment as a social construct is based on aesthetic, cultural, economic, historical, moral, political, social, and technological constructs. • EE assesses major environmental issues following a concentric approach. • Concentration on the present and potential environmental situations, while taking into account the historic perspective. • Deliberation on environmental aspects in plans for development and growth. • Allow learners to have a role in planning their learning experiences. • Communicate environmental sensitivity, knowledge, and problem-solving skills

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

especially those which are based in the community the learner resides. • Assist learners to realize the indicators and real causes of environmental challenges. • Highlight the complexity of environmental challenges, i.e., learning about and from the environment with due stress on practical activities and problem-based learning. Following the Tbilisi principles, the objectives of EE are to promote awareness that helps social groups and individuals to acquire knowledge of pollution and environmental degradation; creation of knowledge through helping social groups and individuals to have an awareness of the environment beyond the immediate environment including the distant environment; and the right attitude, i.e., to help social groups and individuals to acquire a set of values for environmental protection as well as the skills and capacity building to help social groups and individuals to develop skills required for making discriminations in form, shape, sound, touch, habits, and habitats (Fien 1993). EE aims to develop the ability to draw unbiased inferences and conclusions and finally participation to provide social groups and individuals with an opportunity to be actively involved at all levels in environmental decisionmaking (UNESCO 2005; Fien 1993). National planning should integrate EE in different subjects through cautious planning so that implementation becomes easy and meaningful in line with the Tbilisi principles which classify environmental challenges from different viewpoints, i.e., nature of consequences (physical, economic, and social); geographical scale (global, regional, national, and local levels); time scale (short-term consequences and long-term consequences); and stage of development (social, economic, and technological systems) (White 2004).

EE and SDGs EE has sought to develop knowledge about the environment with aim of establishing an ethic of caring toward the natural world. Despite advances in economic instruments and educational efforts

391

that prompted environmental laws and regulation at global level, there are cultural habits that need to shift toward a cleaner environment. The adoption of the SDGs by the UN renewed the attention on the role of education in promoting SD (Cooper and French 2018). The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for SD provided fresh impetus for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and a very favorable environment in which to scale up the implementation of ESD through addressing complex environmental challenges of the twenty-first century (Taylor et al. 2009). The 2030 Agenda sets an ambitious universal education program with the adoption of SDG 17 which stipulates that there is dire need for collaborative efforts through partnerships between governments, the private sector, and civil society for a successful sustainable development agenda (UN 2015). Inclusive partnerships are built upon principles and values, a shared vision, and shared goals that place people and the planet at the center. SDG17 is recognized as an ambitious and challenging target with a focus on domestic resource mobilization of knowledge, expertise, and technology that aims to encourage and promote effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships. SDG17 is in tandem with SDG4 Target 4.7 which states that by 2030, all learners must acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development through ESD and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and nonviolence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to SDGs (UN 2015). SDG17 focuses on the practical feat of meeting the goals and the notion of ESD. ESD empowers people to assume responsibility toward the creation of a sustainable future. ESD implies a shift from viewing education as a delivery mechanism, to the recognition that every person is a learner and so are teachers (UN 2015). SDG17 examines systemic issues that stipulate the need to respect national leadership, each country’s policy space, and the implementation of policies geared toward poverty eradication through EE pedagogy. Though several publications are available on EE assessing its conceptual linkage with school

E

392

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

curriculum, a plethora of scholarship has focused mainly on the implementation of environmental education on a contextual basis, as a tool for change and how humanity interacts with the environment in ensuring sustainability (Blum 2008; Kanyimba et al. 2014; Leal Filho 2012; Jickling and Wals 2012). However, there is still limited scholarship documenting the success stories in EE adoption in comparison to the magnitude of the potential EE offer as a tech/voc subject at various levels of spatial resolution, and these are yet to be documented systematically. Investing resources in EE in line with SDG17 should be ideally based on clear evidence and preceded by a proper appreciation of underlying pedagogy and sociocultural contexts.

From Environmental Education to Environmental Sustainable Development (ESD) EE, as a means to achieve sustainable development, is not a new idea (UNESCO 2018). EE has evolved to recognize the need for collaborative engagement efforts with many different interests in society in addressing EE. EE is a learning process that increases people’s knowledge and awareness about the environment and associated challenges, develops the necessary skills and expertise to address the challenges, and fosters attitudes, motivations, and commitments to make informed decisions and take responsible action (Chikunda 2007). ESD should happen in cities, colleges, corporate offices, schools, universities, and villages. All must struggle with how to live and work in a way that protects the environment, advances social justice, and promotes economic fairness for present and future generations. Environmental conflicts should be prevented, managed in a society that promotes peace and development (Taylor et al. 2009). ESD is holistic and transformational education and concerns learning content and outcomes, pedagogy, and the learning environment (UNESCO 2014). ESD should start with examining lifestyles and the willingness to model and advance sustainability in communities. People ought to pledge to share

diverse experiences and collective knowledge to refine the vision of sustainability while continually expanding its practice. With regard to learning content such as curricula, the complex sustainability challenges facing societies cut across boundaries and multiple thematic areas. Education must therefore address key issues such as climate change, poverty, and sustainable production. ESD promotes the integration of critical sustainability issues in local and global contexts into the curriculum so learners understand and respond to the ever-changing world. ESD produces learning outcomes such as critical and systemic thinking, collaborative decision-making, and taking responsibility for ones’ action. In order to deliver such diverse and evolving issues, ESD uses innovative pedagogy, encouraging teaching and learning in an interactive, learner-centered approach that enables exploratory, action-oriented, and transformative learning (Ketlhoilwe 2007). Learners are challenged to think critically and systematically to develop values and attitudes that promote sustainability. In the1980s and 1990s, the use of the terms sustainable development and sustainability increased. The two terms were popularized by the World Conservation Strategy in 1980, and the World Commission on Environment and Development also known as the Brundtland Commission in 1987. SD as a concept was revisited in 1992 by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Since 1992, a much stronger sustainable school of thought emerged through a promulgation by the UN Decade of Education for SD through the integration of ecological, social, and economic systems. The UN Decade of Education for SD has its origins in the succession of international environmental events which culminated in the World Summit on SD (Rio +10), held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in September 2002. At the summit, the previous notions of EE were “broadened to encompass social justice and the fight against poverty as key principles of sustainable development”. The human and social aspects of sustainable development meant that cooperation, equity, partnership, and solidarity were as crucial as

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

scientific approaches to environmental protection (UNESCO 2005). The expanded definition of EE is ESD or Education for Sustainability (EfS) (Fien 2001; UN 2015). EE has three linked components O’Donoghue and Janse van Rensburg (1995). EE components are “education is about, for and through the environment” (WCED 1987). Education about the environment explains the value of knowledge, and education for the environment explains value of attitudes and actions. Education through the environment focuses on the environment as a resource. EE and education for sustainable development are concerned with achieving the same ends: enabling learners to question unsustainable practices and participate in changing these practices (Risiro 2014). EE has traditionally been problem-focused: its goals and objectives have usually referred to the environment and its associated problems and resolving the challenges. ESD encompasses EE, setting it in the broader context of sociocultural factors and the sociopolitical issues of equity, poverty, democracy, and quality of life as well as the development perspective on social change. ESD has much in common with earlier conceptions of EE, including objectives that encourage critical thinking, value analysis, and active citizenship. EE and ESD differ in that ESD is envisaged as “ultimately about education and capacity building and only secondly about environmental problem solving” (Fien 2001). Implementing ESD in schools involves approaches to teaching and learning that integrate goals for conservation, social justice, appropriate development, and democracy into a vision and a mission of personal and social change. ESD also involves developing the kinds of civic virtues and skills that empower citizens and, through them, social institutions, to play leading roles in the transition to a sustainable future. As such, ESD encompasses a vision for global society that is not only ecologically sustainable but also socially and economically sustainable. ESD is interlinked through the dimension of culture, society, environment, and economy. EE aims at developing environmentally literate citizens who can compete in a global economy

393

with a set of skills, knowledge, and inclinations to make well-informed choices concerning the environment, and exercise the rights and responsibilities of members of a community (Fuggle and Rabie 2009). Environmental knowledge contributes to an understanding and appreciation of society, technology and productivity, and conservation of natural and cultural resources (Risiro 2014). EE has the ability to solve societal needs, the needs of a community’s problems and their solutions, and the development of a workforce capable of tackling such challenges (EECI 2000). Students ought to share and develop the motivation on various environmental challenges. EE is a vehicle for engaging young minds in the excitement of firsthand observation of nature through an in-depth understanding of spatial phenomenon.

Is EE a Tech/Voc Subject? Vocational training refers to the education and training that focus more on practical skills and being able to perform tasks related to working in a particular industry (Lewin 1993). “Practical” subjects such as woodwork and metalwork are likely to generate some basic knowledge, skills, and dispositions that might prepare pupils to think of becoming skilled workers or to enter other manual occupations. Technical training is similar in nature, but the focus is on technology, i.e., the academic and vocational preparation of students for jobs involving applied science and modern technology through understanding and the practical application of basic principles of science, technology engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In general, technical and vocational terms are used interchangeably. Thus, TVET is defined by UNESCO as “those aspects of the educational process involving, in addition to general education, the study of technologies and related sciences and the acquisition of practical skills, attitudes, understanding and knowledge relating to occupation in various sectors of economic life” (UNESCO 2005; UNESCO and ILO 2002). TVET equips pupils with vocational skills and a broad range of attitudes, knowledge, and skills

E

394

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

acknowledged as essential for meaningful participation in work and life, e.g., self-awareness, selfesteem, strengthened interpersonal relationships, citizenship, communication, and entrepreneurial skills. In line with growing difficulties of environmental challenges, EE as a technical vocational skill offers the opportunity to nurture innovation and entrepreneurship for students, as the combination of indigenous knowledge systems can be utilized to form business startups or environmental organizations that have community impact. Poverty eradication calls for nurturing ideas into national solutions for humanitarian and development challenges. Thus with private sector leveraging financial support and civil society with technical society, the ingenuity of students can be tapped and nurtured into creating environmentally responsible citizens and bridging the systemic gaps in society such as access to water, inequality, and land degradation. EE embraces the concept of STEM, and it offers an engaging platform for gaining and applying knowledge and skills in Table 1.

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject in Zimbabwe’s Secondary Schools, Table 1 Aspects of STEM Aspect S-Science

T-Technology

E-Engineering

Historical Framework of EE in Zimbabwe The Zimbabwean primary and secondary education curriculum underwent a comprehensive review in 2014 to include tech/voc. Tech/voc has been for academically weak students stemming from the preindependence education systemic design which deemed F2 education system (tech-voc education) to be for the inferior blacks compared to the prestigious F1 (academic curriculum) composed of academic subjects. On the contrary, tech-voc was taught in polytechnics to Whites, Asians, and Coloreds. At independence, in 1980, the F2 system was phased out. The prestige and focus in academic curriculum focuses on the proverbial five ordinary levels which continue to haunt the Zimbabwean education sector churning out graduates ill-equipped to participate in a globalized, competitive, and dynamic global village (Pedzisai et al. 2014). In 2017, the Zimbabwe school curricula were revamped to shift focus content to competency to capacitate the sector for emerging economic and

M-Mathematics

Explanation The systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms (Science, n.d. in White 2014: 31) Provides goods and services to satisfy real-world needs; operating at the cross-section of science and society. Information and communications technology is playing an ever-increasing role in our society and provides enabling capacity to the other STEM disciplines. The output of the technology provided must eventually stand the test of users and the marketplace (ZNQF 2018) Draws on the knowledge and methods of science to address and solve immediate problems; often without the luxury of abundant or complete knowledge and, in addition, taking account of aesthetics, user needs, and economic constraints (ZNQF 2018) Mathematics is important as it seeks to understand the world by performing symbolic reasoning and computation on synopsis structures and patterns in nature. Mathematics unearths relationships among structures and captures certain features of the world through the processes of modeling, formal reasoning, and computation (Barakos et al. 2012)

cultural needs. The curriculum aims to prepare learners for a largely agro-based economy, encourage patriotism, participatory citizenship, and sustainable development. Gaps exist due to limited collborative efforts with parents, guardians, policy-makers, and educators. A mindset switch from ingrained beliefs which are biased toward appreciation of academic subjects than technical/vocational subjects, i.e., fashion and fabrics, technical graphics, woodwork,

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

agriculture, or metal work. Policy makers apportion meager resources for tech/voc subjects, which perpetuate an inferiority approach toward their value (Ketlhoilwe 2007). Pupils are thus sidelined and miss out on further capital to start viable enterprises and associated skills such as self-awareness, communication, and innovative entrepreneurship start-ups that could address the environmental woes plaguing Zimbabwe, e.g., water stress. Cheating scandals in national examinations increase due to the entrenched dogma of “superiority of academic studies” hence the dire need to change the human moral fabric of integrity, responsibility, discipline, patience, and problemsolving mainly associated with tech/voc education. There is need to realign the value attached to career choices for students, with relevant global world value of artisanship skills and medical doctor skills, as both equally serve a purpose in ensuring resource stewardship and humanity survival. In the absence of a robust policy to guide the pedagogy and framework for EE, it is generally regarded an essential element of all geographical education sorely in Zimbabwe. A study of the several curricula being taught in schools as well as various other projects and schemes shows the concern various stakeholders have for the environment. Tech/voc has the potential to increase human capital development, sustainable development, economic growth, wealth creation, and enduring values that are prerequisites for stable and sustainable communities (ZIMFEP 1991). Secondary schools make considerable difference in motivating and mobilizing local communities through teacher-student interaction based on the need to improve environmental quality. There is a pertinent need for the creation of understanding, knowledge, responsibility, and commitment to resource stewardship among middleschool students for behavioral and attitudinal change that could lead to action toward solving their local environmental challenges (Chikunda 2007). EE can be used to harness tech/voc tools to revitalize resource stewardship and security necessary for sustainable development. EE should therefore become a vehicle for engaging young minds in the excitement of firsthand observation

395

of nature through an in-depth understanding of spatial phenomenon. This feat would help in meeting SDG 4 and SDG 17.

Current Status of EE in Zimbabwe’s Schools As early as 1980, Zimbabwe’s education system incorporated aspects of EE in school curricula. The Nziramasanga Commission (1999) [the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Education and Training led by Dr. Cephas Nziramasanga of the University of Zimbabwe] suggested that basic education had to offer EE and relate it to the life needs and aspirations of the students and the nation. The report recommended that “the aims of teaching science in the primary schools should be to develop proper understanding of the main facts, concepts, principles and processes in physical and biological environment.” However, EE at primary, secondary, and higher secondary levels was treated in a different way. In the early years of Zimbabwe’s independence, several workshops were conducted to orient school teachers and educational functionaries of the state boards on various aspects of EE (Chenje et al. 1998). The Zimbabwe Foundation for Education with Production (ZIMFEP) was formed as a nongovernmental organization (NGO) in 1981 with a mandate to infuse the concept of education with production (EWP) into the school curriculum. Production was integrated into lessons with students constructing their own classrooms, making their desks and benches, growing their own vegetables, excavating pit latrines, and being largely accountable for their camp-site well-being (ZIMFEP 1991). The Zimbabwe Secondary School Science Project (ZIM-SCI) was started in 1981, and the intention was to develop a low-cost science course which could be taught during the first 2 years of secondary school without the aid of qualified teachers and conventional laboratories (Chikunda 2007; Chivore 1992). The report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Education Training (1999), in Zimbabwe, observed the need to train people about environmental issues and to integrate EE into a

E

396

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

subject which can be examined academically (Manjengwa 1997). Most educational programs were evaluated such as Better Environmental Science Teaching (BEST). BEST came into being in 1994 with funding from Germany to improve the teaching and learning processes of environmental science quantitatively and qualitatively, so that educators and pupils scientifically investigate relevant environmental issues, augment sustainable management of the environment by involving the community, and improve teaching/learning in all subjects in primary schools by incorporating environmental science with other subjects in the school curriculum. In terms of tech/voc education, the Nziramasanga Commission suggested an outcome-based curriculum based on employmentrelated skills. At senior school, there are four interwoven programs: academic, commercial or business, technical, and vocational. Technical training and trade testing were to be done in senior school, i.e., Form 4 and Form 6. EE has always been incorporated in subjects such as Science and Geography (O’Donoghue and Janse van Rensburg 1995). As early as 2003, there was a move to incorporate EE into subjects such as the humanities, languages, and educational foundations. This realization led to the birth of a program called Secondary Teacher Training Environmental Education Programme (STTEEP). The program was introduced at three secondary teacher training colleges, i.e., Belvedere Technical Teachers College (BTTC), Harare; Hillside Teachers College (HTC); and Bulawayo and Mutare Teachers College (MTC), Mutare. The aim of the program was to introduce EE across all subjects in the three colleges. With regard to STTEEP implementation, there was no evaluation since the program inception in 2003 at Mutare Teachers’ College, hence it was unclear whether the intended outcomes and objectives were implemented within the colleges’ curriculum (Risiro 2014). End of year reports were produced, although these were not exhaustive since they did not cover classroom activities and the views of the lecturers from the three pilot colleges (ibid). All state universities, e.g., the University of Zimbabwe, National University of Science and Technology, Bindura University of Science

Education, and the Zimbabwe Open University and Teacher Training Colleges, offer EE in some of their courses such as BSc Honours in Geography and Environmental Studies. Zimbabwe school curricula were revamped for preschool, primary, and secondary schools to focus on capacitation of learners for the agro-based economy, encourage patriotism, participatory citizenship, and SD. The new curriculum has not been fully embraced as some new facets of STEM are incorporated in the new curricula, and the efforts are stifled in infancy owing to financial challenges, implementation in dispersed governance, and challenges of political cycles obstructing the retraining/reorientation of teachers.

Tech/Voc EE Pedagogy: Proposed Strategies Young people are more enthusiastic to learn wellpackaged and relevant issues. Pupils enjoy learning new things if they are well packaged and relevant to their daily lives. Young people act as a conduit to spread information to a broader spectrum of citizens through disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary age-level appropriate ways and means to actively engage in and outside the classroom. Initiatives that have been adopted at national level in EE training were integrated in tech/voc. The ultimate aim is to foster an atmosphere of purposeful conversation and reflection about complex issues through activities in Table 2. The annual environmental events embrace the concept of EE that is the creation of knowledge, the acquisition of values, attitudes, and positive actions, and the conservation of resources such as forests, soils, and wetlands. The events in Table 3 call for action that requires tech/voc skills.

EE and Research, Develop, Disseminate, and Adopt (RDDA) Approach to Resource and Curriculum Development EE is tilted toward the research, develop, disseminate and adopt (RDDA) philosophy. In RDDA,

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

397

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject in Zimbabwe’s Secondary Schools, Table 2 Activities to enhance EE Activity Adoption of online open educational resources Awareness, training, and in-service and refresher courses Community engagement programs Coordinated and collaborative environmental visits

Coordinating “Green Speakers” Eco-clubs Inter-schools’ debates, eco-club visits, seminars, and writing competitions Leadership and mentorship program Lectures and talks about the environment and sustainable living Newsletters

Explanation Adoption and sharing to allow pupils to learn tech/voc in outdoor settings with real-life examples Prepared by teachers so that they become attuned to the current EE curriculum Taking the school to the community and vice versa, i.e., knowledge is created about, for, and through the community Coordination of relationships with the Forestry Commission Environmental Management Agency Parks and Wildlife Management Authority of Zimbabwe Meteorological Services Department, Zimbabwe, and the Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate Invited speakers include local community members, members from established organizations such EMA, Zimparks, and ZERO The improvement of environmental conditions, e.g., the setting up of an eco-village at a school manned by the pupils and the community Intra- and inter-schools debated both within Zimbabwe, SADC, Africa, and beyond to enhance environmental awareness Training of trainers who will in turn train others Field work exercises that make pupils understand the environment Authored and coauthored by both pupils and the community through shared experiences and the celebration of annual environmental events

the pupil becomes an expert and the user as well as an implementer under resource and curriculum development (Ketlhoilwe 2007). RDDA provides protection against possible incompetence on the part of the educator using the materials through expert-driven top down approaches that are suited to technicist change strategies which give confidence to insecure teachers, i.e., educators are the users of such information. However, RDDA is prescriptive about how materials should be used as in most textbooks; this is generally due to lack of consultation of key stakeholders. There is lack of incorporation of indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) in the school curriculum and especially tech/voc programs.

Project Learning Tree (PLT) The project learning tree uses trees and forests as windows on the world to increase students’ understanding of the environment and actions they can take to conserve; its three components are high-quality instructional materials, carefully

designed professional development, and an extensive distribution and support network. Pupils are connected to the environment and engaged in learning, to think critically. Activities done by pupils are integrated into lesson plans whose topics include woodlands, flora and fauna, water, and community planning. Students’ attention is captured by practical, hands-on, and fun activities. Research, surveys, and writing workshops are conducted together with the pupils (Manjengwa 1997). Thus, PLT helps students develop awareness, knowledge, and appreciation of the environment, through skill enhancement and the ability to make key decisions in environmental issues. In PLT, pupils may be given a question to develop an environmental education program that could be used to reduce littering in a local authority of their choice. A guide may be given which includes some components that may be used to answer the question: aim(s), objective (s), principles, methods, problems, and solutions. The teaching/learning process becomes real and interesting and therefore has buy in from learners.

E

398

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject in Zimbabwe’s Secondary Schools, Table 3 Annual environmental events Environmental date World Wetlands Day

Day 2 February

Africa Environment Day

3 March

World Wildlife Day

3 March

International Forest Day World Water Day

21 March 22 March

World Meteorological Day

23 March

Earth Hour

Held on the last Saturday evening in March 22 April

Earth Day

National Fire Week Zimbabwe International Day for Biological Diversity World Environment Day

Every second week of May 22 May

World Desertification Day

17 June

World Population Day International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer National Tree Planting Day

11: July 16 September

National Clean-Up Day

5 June

Every first Saturday of December First Friday of each calendar month

The Role of EMA in EE in Zimbabwe EMA is a statutory body established under the Environmental Management Act (CAP 20:27) on the 17th of March 2003 through Statutory Instrument (SI)103 of 2003. The Agency’s mandate is to ensure sustainable utilization of natural resources and the protection of the environment. EMA is parastatal in the Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate with two environment

Meaning Zimbabwe has seven designated Ramsar sites, and Monavale Vlei is one of them Set aside by African Union to heighten public awareness on topical environmental issues affecting African countries Set by UN to raise awareness and trade in wild fauna and flora by CITES Celebration and awareness on the importance of forests Conservation of freshwater and the sustainable management of water resources Celebration of the birth of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on 23 March 1950 and the contribution of National Meteorological and Hydrological Services toward the promotion of human welfare Lights, and most electrical appliances, are turned off to celebrate sustainability Highlights international cooperation to address the greenhouse effect, the hole in the ozone layer, toxic waste, groundwater contamination, destruction of rainforests, expanding deserts, and ocean pollution. Raising awareness on the protection of ecosystems from veld fires Set aside to increase awareness of biodiversity concerns Encouraging people to become active supporters of sustainable and equitable living Raising awareness on sustainable land management, water harvesting, and crop rotation as well as afforestation programs Raising awareness on global population issues Global cooperation in phasing out chemicals that deplete the ozone layer National and patriotic duty for every individual to take part in tree planting and care activities The creation of a clean, safe, and healthy environment state

departments which are the Environmental Protection (EP) and the Environmental Management Services (EMS). The EP department provides environmental protection services and laboratory analytical services while EMS provides environmental research, planning, and monitoring as well as environmental education and information dissemination. The EMS has the mandate to collate and disseminate environmental information through stakeholder participation. The EMS

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

department is the national hub of environmental information whose purpose is to raise awareness on environmental issues, consultancy and specialist services, training and capacity building of stakeholders, provision of up-to-date environmental information, land degradation, erosion and hazard monitoring, state of environmental reporting, land use and environmental planning, project planning, and local environmental action Planning (LEAP).

Benefits of EE in Zimbabwe’s Context Zimbabwe environmental challenges include lack of access to clean portable water, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, poor waste management, and climate change. There is need for Zimbabwe to embrace on a large scale the concept of EE. This subject is very important because it leads to high achievers through total engagement of students during lessons. The lessons are about the physical world that transcend classroom walls. Pupils become problem solvers and advocates. EE can be an antidote to the plugged-in lives of today’s generation; pupils who are accustomed to varied natural settings are likely to be more physically active, more aware of good nutrition, more creative, and more civil to one another. Zimbabwe’s policy-making institutions have limited analytical capacity to respond adequately to challenges and time pressures with regard to the sheer volume of evidence available, and this is exacerbated by budgetary constraints. Evidence-based policy interventions are expensive, a challenge which can be reduced if researchers and policy makers work together in mutually beneficial ways. Tech/voc schools have a critical role to play in training qualified personnel that is required in various specialized fields. Pupils contribute to the environment in developing environmentally conscious skills to support the development of a healthier and safer environment. The environmental awareness of tech-voc pupils can be aided by EE, and thus, after their school completion, there is the possibility that they can be more environmentally friendly in their profession. Environmental challenges can

399

be permanently solved by such measures (Taylor et al. 2009). EE is an essential part of every pupil’s learning, and it helps to encourage awareness of the environment, leading to informed concern for active participation in resolving environmental challenges. The enthusiasm of the young is captured; therefore, no opportunity is lost to develop knowledge, understanding, and concern for the environment through school education (White 2004). EE is a joy for the learner; health issues are taken into consideration as play reduces health issues common in children such as obesity, attention deficit disorder, and depression. EE addresses twentyfirst century challenges through provision of important skills: questioning, investigating, defining problems, interpreting, analyzing, interpreting, reasoning, developing conclusions, and solving problems. Through skill acquisition, pupils learn to work and think critically. Open discussion is an important avenue for nurturing leadership qualities. EE as a tech/voc helps to produce enthusiastic students by unveiling opportunities for hands on, real-world, and authentic learning through the curriculum by invoking students’ thoughts and engagement. EE promotes eco-friendly schools by empowering students to lead the way in creating greener and healthier learning environments. In the same vein, EE is an enabler of informed decisions through promoting sound science (Taylor et al. 2009). Pupils make critical decisions concerning natural resources on which Zimbabwe depends. SD is enriched by EE because it reduces multifaceted environmental challenges. EE skills are a prerequisite to create a healthy natural world, dynamic economies, and robust societies. Natural resources are preserved and conserved since higher levels of environmental knowledge correlate significantly with a higher degree of proenvironment and conservation behavior that can be enhanced through recycling and energy efficiency activities. EE is as an integral part of general education, a means of preparing for occupational fields for effective participation in the world of work, an aspect of lifelong learning and a preparation for responsible citizenship, an instrument for promoting environmentally sound

E

400

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

SD, and a method of facilitating poverty alleviation.

Equal Importance of Subjects within the School Curricula Although EE is important, there should be a balance between STEM, humanities, and social sciences; as they are equally important, STEM should be included in humanities, e.g., the fusion of engineering with climate change, economics, and communication in order to enable knowledge transfer so that a myriad of developmental challenges is addressed through innovation. Innovation could be enhanced by the establishment of public private sector partnerships at local, institutional, national, regional, and global levels. Focus should be more on triangulation of knowledge rather that to rely solely on peer-reviewed research which often comes from competing sources with varying procedures, perceptions, and philosophies. The uptake of research is limited because terminology excludes nonacademic partners and thus weakens researchers and policymakers’ relationships and retards the creation of knowledge. There is a mismatch between research evidence on EE and policy making because of time constraints and the perceived absence of research that is pertinent and relevant to policymakers.

Conclusion The absence of an official EE policy is limiting the potential it offers for behavioral, cultural, and motivational change in resource stewardship and SD. Efforts to introduce EE in secondary education have been ad hoc in manner. With proper planning, EE could be incorporated in the country’s educational policy, to produce citizens able to steward after resources that the country is endowed with and nurture ingenuity and innovation to address environmental challenges such as water supply. EE knowledge, attitudes, and skills enable citizens to participate effectively in SD initiatives as learners and teachers with repository of IKS. Generally, urban pupils do better than

rural pupils in terms of coming up with EE programs that benefit Zimbabwe, because of the neglect and underappreciation of IKS strategies that help in climate forecasting and water conservation. Tech-voc learning is relatively expensive and needs a robust collaboration with publicprivate sector partnerships that can also gain in business initiatives formulated by young entrepreneurs.

Policy Implications/Recommendations Zimbabwe should create initiatives that increase public interest in EE. Involvement in STEM on a national scale can increase the uptake of STEM across the entire workforce. Similarly, EMA can promote EE at grassroots level, a herculean task that can be achieved if it increases its manpower base to cater for the entire country. The current situation where EMA officials are mainly based at district, provincial, and national level is unsustainable. EMA can partner with organizations such as Environment Africa to realize their EE objectives through the establishment of partnerships between schools, colleges, universities, research institutions, industry, and employers by using partnerships to identify the required EE STEM capabilities. Tech/voc should be a vital aspect of education because it contributes to the achievement of the societal goals and the greater contribution toward the democratization of education as well as the social, cultural, and economic development of the country. EE should be strengthened through tech/voc through local initiatives with a global focus. The promotion of environmental competencies should be included in UNESCO’s ongoing tech/voc activities. EE issues need to be connected with the school work environment to be transformative through emphasis on the development of a clear understanding of environmental challenges and problem-solving skills incorporated in the school and university curriculum. For effectiveness of EE, there is need for working together of various stakeholders, but the initiative should start at school, where the school fully becomes part of the community and vice versa.

Environmental Education as a Technical or Vocational Subject

Cross-References ▶ Education for Sustainable Development: A Framework for Global Partnership and Sustainability in India ▶ Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change ▶ Role of Science, Technology, and Innovation Towards SDGS

References Barakos L, Lujan V, Strang C (2012) Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM): Catalyzing change amid the confusion. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction Blum N (2008) Environmental education in Costa Rica: building a framework for sustainable development? Int J Educ Dev 28(3):348–358 Chenje M, Sola L, Paleezny D (1998) The state of Zimbabwe’s environment. Ministry of Mines, Environment and Tourism, Harare Chikunda C (2007) Zimbabwe’s better environmental science teaching program: a step towards education for sustainable development. Southern African Journal of Environmental Education 24:158 Chivore BS (1992) Curriculum evaluation in Zimbabwe: an appraisal of case studies. Books for Africa Publishing House, Harare Cooper N, French D (2018) SDG 17: partnerships for the goals–cooperation within the context of a voluntarist framework. In: Sustainable development goals. Edward Elgar Publishing Environmental Education Curriculum Initiative [EECI] (2000). Enabling environmental education processes in teacher education. A Discussion UNESCO Document Environmental Management Act (Chapter 20:27), GOZ, Harare Fien J (1993) Education for critical curriculum, theorising and environmental education. Deakin University Press, Geelong Fien J (2001) Education and Sustainability: Reorienting Australian Schools for a Sustainable Future, Tela Papers, No. 8. Melbourne: Australian Conservation Foundation [A guide to policy reform in school education] Fuggle RF, Rabie MA (2009) Environmental management in South Africa. Juta, Cape Town IUCN (1971) Education and the environment. In: Papers of the Nevada Conference of 1970 and the Zurich Conference of December 1971. IUCN Publication New Series, Morges Jickling B, Wals AE (2012) Debating education for sustainable development 20 years after Rio: a conversation

401

between bob Jickling and Arjen Wals. J Educ Sustain Dev 6(1):49–57 Kanyimba AT, Richter BW, Raath SP (2014) The effectiveness of an environmental management system in selected south African primary schools. J Clean Prod 66:479–488 Ketlhoilwe MJ (2007) Environmental education policy implementation challenges in Botswana schools. In Lotz-Sisitka H (ed) Southern African Journal of environmental education, vol 24, pp 171–184 Kohlstedt S (2005) Nature, Not Books: Scientists and the Origins of the Nature-Study Movement in the 1890s. Isis 96(3):324–352. https://doi.org/10.1086/447745 Leal Filho W (2012) Sustainable development at universities: new horizons. Umweltbildung, Umweltkommunikation und Nachhaltigkeit/environmental education, communication and sustainability. volume 34. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankurt am Main Lewin K (1993) Investing in technical and vocational education: a review of the evidence. Vocat Asp Educ 45(3):217–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/030578793 0450303 Manjengwa JM (1997) A preliminary survey of environmental awareness in some secondary school pupils in Zimbabwe. IES working paper no. 6. UZ, Mt. Pleasant. IES, Harare O’Donoghue R, Janse van Rensburg E (1995) Environments and methods. Share-Net, Umgeni Pedzisai C, Tsvere M, Nkhonde M (2014) The Zimbabwe two-pathway education curriculum: insights into policy implementation challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences 3(5):162–173 Risiro J (2014) An evaluation on the implementation of environmental education program at Mutare teachers’ College in Zimbabwe. Int J Innov Res Dev 3(1): 264–271 Taylor J, Mandikonza C, Pesanayi T (2009) Secondary teacher training environmental education program (STTEEP): an evaluation report, April, 2009, SADCREEP UN (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/ 70/1) New York, USA UNDP (2016) UNDP Support to the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 6. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions, 16 UNDP (2016) Human Development Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone. New York. http://hdr.undp. org/en/content/human-development-report-2016 UNDP (2019) Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: Inequalities in human development in the 21st century. New York. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/ human-development-report-2019 UNESCO (2018) Global education monitoring report. Global education monitoring report gender review:

E

402 meeting our commitments to gender equality in education UNESCO and ILO (2002) Technical and Vocational Education and Training in the 21st Century: UNESCO and ILO Recommendations. Paris. UNESCO; Geneva, Switzerland: ILO UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2005) United Nations decade of education for sustainable development. International implementation scheme. www.unesco.org/education/ desd United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2014) UNESCO roadmap for implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development, UNESCO, Paris, viewed 23 March 2020. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/ 002305/230514e.pdf White RM (2004) A paradox for environmental education: how can we deliver training to targets, using ‘participatory reflective approaches’? S Afr J Environ Educ 21:81–93 White R (2014) Environmental Harm: An eco-justice perspective, Bristol: Policy Press World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED] (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford Zimbabwe National Qualifications Framework (ZNQF) (2018) Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology, Harare ZIMFEP (1991) Schools in the struggle. Zimfep Production, Harare

Environmental Ethics ▶ Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

Environmental Management Proactivity ▶ Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

Environmental Ethics

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique Esperança Edna Alexandre Chibite1, Luis R. Vieira2 and Fernando Morgado3 1 Faculty of Natural Sciences, Lúrio University, Pemba, Mozambique 2 Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research (CIIMAR) and Institute of Biomedical Sciences of Abel Salazar (ICBAS), Laboratory of Ecotoxicology, Porto, Portugal 3 The Centre for Environmental and Marine, Studies (CESAM) and Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

Definition The ecosystem services are the indirect and/or direct contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing, also essential for the survival of other organisms. They have an important role in human survival and quality of life (Brouwer et al. 2013). The research on ecosystem services has grown exponentially during the last decade especially in the coastal areas and oceans. These ecosystems contribute more than 60% of the total economic value of the biosphere (Liquete et al. 2013). Mangrove forests are among the most important and peculiar coastal habitats due to their ecological functions and their socioeconomic value to local communities. These ecosystems are recognized to be very productive, providing goods and services to ecosystems important to human society as well as coastal and marine systems.

Introduction

Environmental Responsiveness ▶ Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

Worldwide mangroves occur in 112 countries, including Mozambique (FAO 1994), with an estimated global area of 13,776,000 ha. Asia is the continent with the largest area, with 62,232 km2, followed by Africa with 27,957 km2, South America with 23,883 km2 and Central America with

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique

22,402 km2. Mozambique with 3,961 km2 is the second largest area in Africa and Guinea Bissau with 3,649 km2, is third largest area in Africa (Nigeria with 11,134 km2 is first in Africa) (Giri et al. 2011; Macamo and Sitoe 2017). Estimates of global mangrove extension show a range of 14–24 million hectares, the most recent suggesting lower levels of this rate, which may reflect both the development of estimation techniques and or losses associated with deforestation and conversion of mangroves (Giri et al. 2011). Mangrove forests cover over 3.2 million ha in African continent about 21% of global coverage (Murdiyarso and Kauffman 2011), equivalent to the total covering Indonesia (Giri et al. 2011). Mangroves in the West Indian Ocean region cover about one million hectares, representing only about 5% of global mangrove coverage. Almost 90% of these mangroves are found in four countries, namely Mozambique, Madagascar, Tanzania, and Kenya. On the African continent, the largest forests are in Kenya (Kulima 1999), and Mozambique has the second largest mangrove area on the continent, and the largest in eastern Africa, with an estimated coverage of just over 300,000 ha, ranging from 290,000 to 368,000 ha, according to different studies (Macamo and Sitoe 2017).

Ecosystem Services, Ecological and Economic Value of Mangroves Mangroves are highly stable systems, yet they are resilient as well as functionally complex acting as exporters of biomass to adjacent systems (Schaeffer-Novelli 1999). These ecosystems are among the most important and peculiar coastal habitats due to their ecological functions and their socioeconomic value to local communities. Mangrove forests are also among the most productive and biologically important ecosystems in the world as they provide goods and services to ecosystems important to human society as well as coastal and marine systems. Ecologically they are places of accumulation of organic matter with impact on flora and fauna contributing to the conservation of biological diversity by providing habitats, spawning grounds, nurseries, and nutrients for a number of marine and pelagic species (FAO 2007;

403

Mitader 2016). They provide many ecosystem services such as coastal protection against high tidal peaks, tsunamis and cyclones, containment of coastal and river erosion, sediment stabilization and pollutant absorption, and carbon sequestration, among others (Macamo and Sitoe 2017). The wide diversity of mangrove fauna includes mammals, birds (including several protected species), fish (many of high commercial value), crustaceans (including economically important shrimp and crab), and molluscs. Mangrove crabs (Scyla serrata) are considered as key species because they play a very important role in disturbance that facilitates soil aeration as well as decomposition of mangrove foliage, thus contributing to the formation and maintenance of properties. Which is the basis for mangrove survival (Macia 2004; Paula et al. 2014; Macamo and Sitoe 2017). Over time mangrove habitats have assumed increasing direct value to local communities translated into ecological–economic value chain, income generation, and food security. These values have been reflected in primary fishery products such as fish, shrimp, and molluscs, but also building materials for coastal communities. Extraction of mangrove products has been under local regulations and principles. These practices have been ensuring a certain degree of protection for mangrove habitats in various parts of the country because of an insignificant rate of extraction of forest products and fisheries. Most urban development has taken place in coastal districts, as 60% of people live in the coastal zone. These activities have involved clearing and deforestation of mangrove areas to pave the way for port building and town development, which, together with the cutting of wood in per-urban areas (more intense in the 1990s), has constituted one of the main threats to mangrove areas in the country. The importance of mangroves can be summarized in abstract values (cultural, spiritual, and religious and artistic inspiration), direct values that include subsistence or commercial use (firewood, shellfish harvesting, medicinal products, housing stakes, wood and craft products, and tourism), and indirect values, which include ecological services: carbon sequestration, erosion prevention, productivity, filter and absorber, and reproduction of

E

404

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique

marine species. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and Synthesis Report (2005) and UNEP (2006) there are four categories of ecosystem services, and almost all of them are mangroves: 1. Regulate services; 2. Procurement services, 3. Cultural services and 4. Support services.

Environmental and Socioeconomic Framework of Mangroves in Mozambique Mangrove forests are among the most productive ecosystems in the world (Macamo and Sitoe 2017) and are of great economic and ecological importance for coastal populations and also as breeding grounds for various marine species of important commercial value (UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre 2003; UNEP 2007; United Nations 2005; WWF 2018). In addition, they play a role as a barrier to coastal erosion and are of great significance for the reduction of toxic gases in the atmosphere, thereby contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gases and thereby reducing the effects of climate change plaguing the world and the country in particular (Duke 2001; Williams et al. 2007; Ryan 2009; Breton et al. 2011; Mavie 2012; Tomo 2012; Mandlate 2013; Matusse 2014). Mangroves are recognized as major systems in Mozambique, providing various socioeconomic and ecological services to communities. These include nursery function, primary production, coastal protection, and carbon sequestration (Macamo and Sitoe 2017). Mangroves are also important providers of woody resources and invertebrate fishing grounds as various economic activities are carried out within these forests (e.g., honey production, ecotourism, salt production, and aquaculture). However, due to coastal wealth, mangrove forests are subject to multiple stressors and pressures and are particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic action as the majority of the Mozambican rural population live in riparian areas and along the coastal areas (Sitoe et al. 1994; Bosire et al. 2012, 2016). Mangrove loss has been closely associated with anthropogenic factors, including population growth in coastal areas, development, economic

pressure, small- and large-scale industry development, conversion of areas for agriculture and aquaculture, overexploitation of forest products, erosion, and sedimentation, in addition to natural factors such as forest succession, hydrological dynamics, extreme environmental events, and climate change–related sea level rise (Fatoyinbo et al. 2008). This action has translated into deforestation for timber resources, urban sprawl and coastal development, and salt pans (particularly in the north of the country and in the Maputo Bay area). People use these ecosystems as a source of wood fuel, wood for house building and furniture, for medicine as well as for saline opening. This implies multiple impacts on these ecosystems. This has resulted in increasing degradation, transformation, and conversion of mangrove to other uses due to lack of information, poor management, and enforcement, a situation of major concern worldwide and in Mozambique in particular. Mangroves are now estimated to have shrunk to about onethird of their original land area worldwide 20 years ago and the devastation of this ecosystem is still ongoing. In the Mozambican context, over the past 50 years, mangrove has been on the rise, with an estimated 30–50% since 1961, 25–35% from 1980 to 2000, and 36% since 1990, with an estimated annual loss of around 1–2% (Ong 2002; Jones et al. 2014). In Mozambique, the mangrove area reduced from 408,000 ha in 1972 to 357,000 ha in 2004, with a total loss of 51,000 ha over a 32-year period (MICOA 2007). On the other hand, approximately 50% of the primary productivity of these ecosystems is exported to the oceans as organic matter (Jennerjahn and Ittekkot 2002) which is about twice as high than the global average of terrestrial ecosystems (Spitzy and Leenheer 1991). Natural phenomena (cyclones and floods) and climate change are responsible for the loss of several hectares of mangrove swamps affecting natural systems and are also one of the causes of continual loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems, and diminishing their ability to provide services essential to the planet (IPCC 2007). Climate change reflects the impact of socioeconomic and cultural processes such as population growth, urbanization, industrialization, and increased consumption of natural resources and

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique

demand on biogeochemical cycles (McMichael 1999; INGC 2009; Ministério da Coordenação da Acção Ambiental 2012). The increasing frequency and intensity of cyclones and other storms threaten the livelihoods and health of many communities along the Mozambican coast, as well as infrastructure, fisheries, aquaculture, and biodiversity (Gerston et al. 2015). Mozambique, and in particular the municipality of Quelimane, is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels, cyclones, floods, and erosion (World Bank 2011). The municipality contains a seaport and has floodprone areas, particularly in the rainy season. The Mozambique Civil War from 1977 to 1992 brought a stream of people from rural areas to Quelimane to avoid conflict and gain access to better income-generating opportunities, schools, and health care. The population has continued to increase since then, partly due to declining agricultural productivity in rural areas (including the effects of lethal yellowing coconut disease). Population influx has also resulted in more informal settlements in flood-prone parts of the municipality, exposing more people to potential climate change impacts (CCAP 2016). Global warming is expected to bring more intense and frequent cyclones; however, the frequency of flooding in Mozambique may decrease slightly if water from highland areas also decreases (INGC 2009). The INGC also predicted that average weekly rainfall during the December to March rainy season would increase by 3 mm under a moderate global warming scenario and 8.4 mm under a high global warming scenario (INGC 2012). On the other hand, economic pressures have increased deforestation and degradation of mangroves in and around Quelimane, exacerbating the impacts of storms as mangroves provide natural protection from coastal flooding due to sea level rise and storm (Cote and King 2017). The Government of Mozambique has imposed a ban on exporting all unprocessed timber and commercial harvesting of mangrove species. The law allows local communities to harvest firewood and mangrove swamp for domestic consumption, assuming that local management of mangroves would be sustainable with the proper enforcement of the

405

commercial harvest ban. Communities are responsible for enforcing the ban on commercial harvesting and sustainable local harvesting, but lack the resources and capacity to do so. Mangroves continued to be converted or degraded in Mozambique due to competition from other land uses and inadequate controls over access and land use. Since the late 1990s, the annual rate of mangrove loss in Mozambique has averaged nearly 4% per year (Gerston et al. 2015). The country is currently involved in a number of mangrove recovery initiatives, which include protection in marine protected areas (MPAs), mangrove replanting, and hydrological restoration and inclusive management models (Moreira 2005; Rocliffe et al. 2014). The National Strategy and Action Plan for Mangrove Management in Mozambique is also in the final stages of preparation. In this context it is important to preserve nature and restore mangrove forest ecosystems, reduce vulnerability, and increase their resilience. Current global warming requires efforts by all countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide and projections on climate change and its impacts on ecosystems in general and on climate change; forests in particular give a bleak picture given the dependence of most of the rural population (85%) (IPCC 2007). In this case, mangrove reforestation in the country could contribute to minimizing the effects of global warming through the process of forest carbon dioxide fixation of the atmosphere. Climate change adaptation plans are currently high on the public agenda, with recent studies highlighting the role of mangroves in mitigating the effect of climate change, and many of them report that mangroves are equivalent to tropical forests as they store organic carbon on the ground (Chevallier 2013). They sequester up to 25.5 million tons of carbon per year, and provide 10% of essential organic carbon to the oceans (MITADER 2015). Like rainforests, mangroves store carbon within their “biomass,” which is released when their habitat is destroyed. Given that they sequester about five times more carbon than rainforests, they have attracted the interest of localized carbon conservation strategists. Studies conducted in Mozambique (Sofala Bay) indicate that the

E

406

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique

carbon contained in mangroves (even untouched) is about twice the carbon contained in miombo and mopane (the two predominant plant communities in the country), thus stressing the great significance of mangroves in reducing the effects of climate change (Stringer et al. 2015).

Mangrove Areas of Distribution in Mozambique Species Diversity, Zonal Distribution, and Known Areas of Occurrence In the Mozambican coastal zone, the most important species include mangroves, seagrass beds, and coral reefs, which together account for most of the marine and coastal productivity. Mozambique, at southern Africa level, has the largest mangrove forest cover in an area of about 396,080 ha and the provincial of Zambezia in the center of the country is one of the largest extensions of this biomass according to Saket and Matusse (1994). However, due to the fact that mangal is an ecosystem of submerged regions and with special adaptations, such as the presence of pneumatophore roots, several species of high commercial value find in the mangrove a place to reproduce (Macamo and Sitoe 2017). In Mozambique, Mangal occurs on almost the entire coastal coast but the central coast has the most extensive area, followed by the northern coast and finally the southern region (Macamo and Sitoe 2017). The Zambezi Delta alone extends 180 km along the coast and 50 km inland and is home to about 50% of the mangroves in Mozambique, being one of the largest mangrove habitats in Africa (Chevallier 2013; Mitader 2015), and can reach a height of 30 meters. In Zambezia province, in particular, mangroves are located in various locations especially associated with river edges, with the highest incidence (in terms of areas) in the Chinde, Inhassunge, Nicoadala, and Maganja districts (Ribeiro et al. 2002; Camara 2013). Mozambique’s mangroves provide ecological, economic, and environmental resources. These ecosystems cover an area over 3,000 km2, representing about 2% of the global area, being placed the 13th in the world mangrove ranking.

These forests are largely distributed along the coast, located at all river mouths and in many sheltered bays and lagoons, deltas, and estuaries, especially in the north of Mozambique, becoming more random towards the south. In the northern Mozambique, mangroves occur mainly in coves and islands, constituting extensive formations in the Lumbo, Pemba Bay, Rovuma estuary, and Ibo Island. In the far north, these ecosystems are characterized as a narrow and continuous band along the many sheltered bays. The Mozambique muddy central coast shelter the most important mangrove forests, which runs from the north bank of the Save River to the northernmost Angoche. Between Zambezi Delta and Mozambique, they can be found in many small deltas along this stretch. These forests can be found along the lower Zambezi delta and along the deltaic coast extending to Beira. In fact, the mangroves between Beira and the Save River are considered the most developed in the country. The southern coast is predominantly sandy and is characterized by scattered forests, with special focus on Maputo Bay, the InhambaneMorrumbene complex, and the extended Save delta. Considering the Mozambique far south, mangroves are well developed along the shores of Maputo Bay (Saket and Matusse 1994; Mitader 2015; Macamo and Sitoe 2017). In relation to species diversity, a little over 70 mangrove species are globally recognized, among true mangrove (about 42 species) and associated species (about 32 species) (Spalding et al. 1997; Macamo and Sitoe 2017). Of this set, eight mangrove species occur in Mozambique, but six are the most abundant Avicennia marina, Rhizophora mucronata, Ceriopstagal, Bruguieragy mnorrhiza, Sonneratia alba, Lumniceraracemosa, and Xilocarpusgranatum (MICOA 2007). One ninth species (Xylocapus moluccensis) (mangrove cedar), although it may occur within the forest, has no adaptive characteristics, and is therefore considered an associated species (Beentje and Bandeira 2007; Macamo and Sitoe 2017). Macamo and Sitoe (2017) state that this number may vary from region to region. Nicolau (2017) found six species in the Quirimbas National Park; in Sofala Bay, Sitoe et al. (2014) identified six mangrove

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique

species, while Stringer et al. (2015) reported seven mangrove species and four associated species. In turn, Zide and Rajkaran (2015) found seven species in the region between Vilancúlos and Inhambane and CEAGRE (2015) reports eight species found in Nacala, Mossuril found five species in Metuge, Cabo Delgado, and Saket and Matusse 1994 identified eight species in Zambezia province. According to Balidy et al. (2005), about eight species occur in the country, namely: Avicennia marina, Bruguieragymnorrhiza, Ceriopstagal, Heritieralittoralis, Lumnitzeraracemosa, Rhizophora mucronata, region to region. Zambezia is the Mozambican province with the largest mangrove forest cover. Saket and Matusse (1994) estimated in 155,757 hectares of mangrove represented by eight species namely Rhizophora mucronata, Ceriopstagal, Avicennia marina, Brugueirasymnorhiza, Sonneratia alba, Heritieralitoralis, Lumnitzeraracenosa, and Xyloarpusgranatum, of which the most abundant are Rhizophora mucronata, CeriopsTagal, and Avicennia marina. Zambezia Province was once known to have huge expanses of forests made up of various kinds of species. However, it currently has an area of 155,757 ha of mangrove forests, an area which in recent years has been losing much due to the high rate of deforestation, which accelerates its destruction, caused by the growing population and the numerous economic hardships within the population. In the particular case of Zambezia, mangroves are located in various parts of the province, especially associated with river borders, with the highest incidence (in terms of areas) in Chinde, Inhassunge, Nicoadala, and Maganja districts (Ribeiro et al. 2002). At present, the scenario seen in this province specifically in the district of Quelimane is bleak as several areas of the Mangal forest have been and are being cleared for various purposes. Mangrove Occurrence in Conservation Areas in Mozambique In Mozambique, the Mangrove can also be found in some protected areas such as Quirimbas National Park, National Reserve of the First and Second Islands, Reservation of Marromeu, Bazaruto National Park, Pomene National Reserve, and

407

Ponta do Ouro National Reserve. However, of the little more than 300,000 ha of total mangrove area in the country, only 26 123 ha are in conservation areas. Quirimbas National Park brings together almost 47% of the mangroves in protected area, and another 17% are in the Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve (Macamo and Sitoe 2017). The Pomene and Bazaruto Reserves contribute less than 2% to the total protected mangrove area in the country. It should be noted that mangrove forests represent less than 5% of the total area of protected areas in the country. From another perspective, mapping of critical habitats according to International Finance Corporation (IFC) criteria has identified nine critical marine and coastal habitat areas covering about 63,286 km2, which merit conservation measures in Mozambique (CEAGRE 2015). Of these, less than 50% are within the Conservation Area network (CEAGRE 2015; Macamo and Sitoe 2017). It is also important to highlight a data, because it is known that at country level, the Delta of Zambezia owns about 50% of the Mangrove of the whole country (Chevallier 2013; Mitader 2015), but nevertheless it is not in protected areas. The percentage of mangrove forest actually protected in Conservation areas indicate that there is a strong need to increase conservation efforts on mangroves in the country.

Historical Evolution of Estimates and Trend of Mangrove Forest Extension in Mozambique In the framework of the mangrove areas of distribution in Mozambique is important to made an analysis of the historical evolution of estimates and trend of mangrove forest extension. Differences in methodologies, classifications, mapping scales, and others may have led to discrepancies in estimates. Only the most accurate and reliable numbers were considered. The mangrove area of distribution in 1980 was estimated of 402,500 ha, in 1990 of 396,200 ha, in 1997 of 329,749 ha, in 2000 of 391,800 ha, in 2003 of 390,200 ha, and in 2005 of 390,200 ha (MICOA 2007; Macamo and Sitoe 2016). Most recent and reliable mangrove area estimate a coverage ranging between 290,000 and

E

408

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique

368,000 or at just over 300,000 ha (Macamo and Sitoe 2017). Mangroves are now estimated to have shrunk to about one-third of their original land area worldwide 20 years ago and the devastation of this ecosystem is still ongoing. In the Mozambican context, over the past 50 years, mangrove has been on the rise, with an estimated 30–50% since 1961, 25–35% from 1980 to 2000, and 36% since 1990, with an estimated annual loss of around 1–2% (Jones et al. 2014; Ong 2002).

Legal Framework and Legal Regimes for Environmental Management and Strategies in Mozambique In order to regulate and manage the strategies for a sustainable management of mangrove forests, Mozambique experimented in the 1990s with the first environmental management policies and laws drafted under the then National Environment Commission, later transformed into the Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Action (MICOA), recently (in 2015) reorganized in the Ministry of Land, Environment, and Rural Development (MITADER). This first legislative approach guided the establishment and designation of marine protected areas such as national parks and reserves, as well as legal support for declared forest reserves since the 1990s. A legal framework and legal regimes for environmental management and strategies were thus defined. Thus, the management of mangrove forests within national parks and national reserves was under the responsibility of MITADER. The general legal framework for the environment sector in Mozambique was defined in the National Environment Policy (Resolution No. 5/95 of 3 August), which outlines the objectives to be achieved for the protection and maintenance of ecosystems. On the other hand, the environmental law (Law No. 20/97 of October 1) defines the legal basis for the management of the environment and its natural resources, including mangroves. The Regulation for the Prevention of Pollution and Protection of the Marine and Coastal Environment (Decree No. 45/2006 of 30 November), through article 62 (native coastal flora), prohibits logging in areas that are the subject of this regulation.

However, local communities have the right to exploit existing native flora species in areas that are the subject of this regulation, as long as it was carried out as permitted by Decree No. 12/2002 of 6 June (Regulation of the Forest and Wildlife Law Bravia) so as not to degrade them. Article 65 (on wetlands) covers mangroves as important wetlands, mainly in flood management and maintenance of water quality. The tourism law (Law No. 4/2004) under Article 9 provides that tourism in conservation areas must consider the conservation of ecosystems, habitats, and species within the designated conservation area. The land law, enacted in 1997, defines the full and partial protection areas in Mozambique, which include mangroves. The management of mangrove forests in the country has thus come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Environment, and Rural Development (MITADER). The Bravia Forest and Fauna Act, enacted in 2006, sets out the basic principles and rules for the protection, conservation, and sustainable use of forest and wildlife resources that encompass mangrove ecosystems. Mozambique has thus been provided with important legal instruments with direct impact on mangrove management: 1. National Strategy and Action Plan for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (2015–2020) 2. National Strategy and Action Plan for Mangrove Management (2017–2022), to be approved this year (MIMAIP) 3. National Strategy and Action Plan for Wetland Management However, given the complexity of mangrove ecosystems, they require the involvement of various stakeholders such as the government, municipality, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the local community, as well as educational and research institutions. In Mozambique, forest management is under the supervision of the Ministry of Land, Environment, and Rural Development (MITADER) (Presidential Decree 13/2015, 16 March; Resolution 5/2015, 26 June). This institution’s functions are to direct, plan, coordinate, ensure, and control

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique

the execution of administration and management policies, among other areas, of forests and wildlife, environment, conservation areas, and rural development (Macamo and Sitoe 2017). For the management of forest resources specifically for mangroves, MITADER has provincial directorates (DPTADER), at the district level are the district services of economic activities (SDAE), and where there are municipalities, this activity is under the responsibility of the municipality. Outside urban or municipal areas, participatory management with the involvement of local communities is promoted (Forest and Wildlife Development Policy and Strategy; Resolution 8/97, 1 April) according to Macamo and Sitoe (2017). It should be noted that the management and conservation of mangrove resources is under the supervision of the National Administration of Conservation Areas (ANAC), an institution currently under MITADER (IBID). According to Presidential Decree (17/2015 of 25 March), the Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters, and Fisheries has attributions on sea-related ecosystems (including mangrove) and inland waters. In particular, this ministry is responsible for fisheries administration and management, among others, to ensure the management, conservation, and sustainable exploitation of biological resources and to establish monitoring and supervision mechanisms for fishing activities, to promote community involvement in fisheries management and participation (Resolution 12/2015, of 1 July 2015). Considering that local communities have a very in-depth empirical ecological knowledge about their resources, they also play a very important role in mangrove management. They are encouraged, with the support of the government and nongovernmental organizations, to form local natural resource co-management committees (CCGRN), which are made up of community representatives, natural or legal persons with resource-related activities and associations, or nongovernmental organizations related to resources or local community development (Forest and Wildlife Law, Law 10/99 of 7 July, Article 31 No. 1; Ministerial Diploma 93/2005 of 4 May). The current legal framework for the environment sector in Mozambique is the National Environment Policy (Resolution No. 5/95 of 3 August), which describes

409

the objective to be achieved for ecosystem protection and maintenance. The environment law (Law No. 20/97 of 1 October) defines the legal basis for the management of the environment and its natural resources, including mangroves. Mozambique has also signed several important international conventions for the protection and conservation of the environment. Among them is the Wetlands Convention (Ramsar Convention) which is an international treaty that establishes a platform for action at national and international level for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands and their resources (including mangrove). Mozambique also became a signatory in December 2004 and has two areas identified as wetlands areas of international importance, namely: the Zambezi Delta and Lake Niassa and its coastline (Macamo and Sitoe 2017). In Mozambique, existing legislation with direct and indirect impact on mangrove protection has some gaps that need some revision in order to effectively respond to mangrove protection issues. None of the mangrove tree species, between true mangrove and associated species, is particularly “threatened” or “critical” in both the national red list and globally (IUCN Red List 2017 (IUCN 2019); Macamo and Sitoe 2017). And looking at the International Union for Conservation (IUCN) red list of threatened species, most mangrove species in Mozambique are referred to as “of little concern” (Zide and Rajkaran 2015) and do not exist. Despite the pressure exerted on mangroves, in several regions of Mozambique (Zide and Rajkaran 2015; Luis 2011; Macamo and Sitoe 2017), the perception of threat still exists. It is localized and the concern is still with the ecosystem and its set of functions, so there is no concern at the plant species level.

International Agreements and Mangrove Ecosystems for Global Environmental Awareness Considering the increasing of ecosystems resources exploitation, during the recent decades the global community is endorsing a growing international agreement for global environmental awareness, including protection mangrove systems programs. Some examples of international

E

410

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique

agreements that are reported in several publications are the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species, the 1983 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), the 1992 Rio de Janeiro United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and the publication of Agenda XI, the UN Economic Commission for Africa, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CITES 1975; Bonn Convention 1979; EU UNEP-CMS 1979; EU Official Journal 1982; UN 1992; UNECA 1993; UNFCCC 1994; UNCBD 2006). The UNFCCC activities have had enormous repercussions on mangrove protection supported by important international agreements, namely the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the Doha Amendment, and the Paris Agreements in 2014 (Conservation Training 2017; UNFCCC 2017). The regulatory mechanisms suggested by UNFCCC recognize mangrove’s potential as “carbon sink” and the objectives were directed towards the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Currently, and arising by the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is under execution through the national biodiversity strategy and action plan (NBSAP) for the biodiversity of flora and fauna in mangroves protection, (2011–2020; UNEP 2005). The ecosystem services were highlighted during the Eighth Conference of the Parties (CBD 2006; UNCBD 2006). The 2013 supplement to the 2006 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Inventories: Wetlands (the “Wetlands Supplement”) specifically reports the mangrove forests as multifunctional ecosystems, with an unique “natural capital” (de Groot 2005), and considering them “blue carbon” sinks in national GHG inventories (Conservation Training 2017). Mozambique ecosystems are under the scope of the Nairobi Convention (Nairobi Convention 1985). Its implementation highlighted the country vulnerability to an increasing exploring potential gas reserves interests, which will “exacerbate the destruction of critical habitats such as coral reefs,

mangroves, beaches and sea grass meadows” (UNEP-RSP 2010). The recent agreements were developed to expire the general and strict differentiation between developed and least developed countries. This represents a crucial effort and requires that all parties report on their emissions and implementation efforts for review.

Future Directions Studies that provide greater knowledge about the conservation status and services of mangrove ecosystems are very relevant for (i) assessing the conservation status of mangrove ecosystems (ii) temporal assessment of deforestation evolution (iii) evaluation of ecosystem services for policy implementation and management (iv) creation of spaces for common use (v) effective management of these spaces to prevent degradation of mangrove ecosystems (vi) aids political decision-making as information is scarce Future directions must follow the lines of research described above and that contribute to the increase of knowledge about the environmental, social, and economic fields, in order to develop global strategies that allows the definition of actions and concrete solutions that can help in the mitigation of these problems, such as deforestation of mangrove forests, loss of biodiversity, protection of endangered or endangered species, restoring ecosystem balance, reducing vulnerability, increasing resilience and contributing to adaptation, and mitigation of extreme events and climate change. Regarding actions to combat mangrove destruction, sectoral policies and strategies can be highlighted that include the principles for the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment. One of the strategies designed by the government is part of PARPA II – 2005–2015 (Program for the reduction of absolute poverty), which proposes the following actions:

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique

• Ensure the management of natural resources and the environment in general, so that they maintain their functional and productive capacity for present and future generations • Develop an environmental awareness of the population to enable public participation in environmental management • Ensure the integration of environmental considerations into socioeconomic planning, promote local community participation in natural resource planning and decision-making, protect ecosystems and key ecological processes, and integrate regional and global efforts in the search for solutions to environmental problems • Ensure that natural resources as a whole are used rationally and harmoniously for the country’s development • Ensure that decisions to implement activities with the potential to cause environmental degradation are preceded by their environmental impact assessment • Ensure the approval and implementation of the environmental strategy for sustainable development in Mozambique, so as to have a common vision on the treatment of environmental matters in the country • Strengthen interinstitutional cooperation at national and international level on the environment, planning, and spatial planning • Streamline inspection and enforcement activities with a view to halting environmental damage, especially in areas of greater ecological sensitivity, particularly coastal and urban areas • Educate and disseminate the pertinence and education of the preservation of the environment among the populations in order to foster the culture of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources • Strengthen partnership with the private sector in environmental management (MICOA 2001)

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development ▶ Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions

411

▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries ▶ Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development ▶ Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda ▶ National Sustainable Development Strategies ▶ Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Role of Transnational Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development ▶ Sustainable Public Systems: Global Norms and Partnerships for National Implementation ▶ Transdisciplinary Collaborations for Achieving the SDGs

References Balidy HJ, Sitoe A, Menomussanga M, Pires PL (2005) Avaliação dos níveis de corte, composição específica e regeneração natural de mangal no Sul de Moçambique., CDS-ZC. 20 pp Beentje H, Bandeira S (2007) A field guide to the mangrove trees of Africa and Madagascar. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 91 pp Bosire JO, Bandeira SO, Rafael J (2012) Coastal clima change mitigation and adaptation through REDD+ carbon programs in Mozambique: pilot in the Zambzi Delta. Determination of carbon stocks through localized allometric equations component. WWF MCO, Maputo, 27 pp Bosire JO, Mangora MM, Bandeira SO, Rajkaran A, Ratsimbazafy R, Apadoo C, Kairo JG (eds)

E

412

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique

(2016) Mangroves of Western Indian Ocean: status and management. WIOMSA, Zanzibar Town, 161 p Breton C, Breton CRM, Marron MR, Quiroz CAV, Cahuich AE (2011) Determination of carbon sequestration rate in soil of mangrove forest in Campeche, Mexico. Int J Energy Environ 3(5):54–74 Brouwer R, Brander L, Kuik O, Papyrakis E, Bateman I (2013) A synthesis of approaches to assess and value ecosystem services in the EU in the context of TEEB. TEEB Follow-up Study for Europe, 144 p Camara IP (2013) Estratégias para uso e conservação do Mangal do Icídua Província da Zambézia, distrito de Quelimane CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2006) Decision VIII/9 implications of the findings of the millennium ecosystem assessment. Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity at its eighth meeting, 20–31 March 2006, Curitiba Ceagre (2015) Mapeamento de habitats de Moçambique: criando as bases para contrabalanços de biodiversidade em Moçambique. Relatório Final, BioFund, Maputo Chevallier R (2013) Balancing development and coastal conservation: mangroves in Mozambique. Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) (1975). https://www.cites.org/. Conservation Training. Summary of Regional and International Agreements Convention. “Nairobi Convention” (1985) Convention for the protection, management and development of the marine and coastal environment of the eastern African region. web.unep.org Conservation Training (2017) “Summary of regional and international agreements.” Datta, Debajit, and Shovik Deb. Forest structure and soil properties of mangrove ecosystems under different management scenarios: Experiences from the intensely humanized landscape of the Indian sunderbans. Ocean Coast Manag 140:22–33. Cote M, King R (2017) Urban resilience planning for secondary African cities: a case study of Mozambique. Support of the Urban Policy (SOUP) Project, Ecodit, and World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Prepared for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) Duke N (2001) Gap creation and regenerative processes driving diversity and structure of mangrove ecosystems. Wetl Ecol Manag 9:257–226 Food and Agricultural Originations (FAO) (1994) Manual for meat inspection for developing countries, FAO, Rome Italy. 486 pp. EU Official Journal (1982) Series L 210/10 convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals (CMS), German Federal Law Gazette 1984 II pp 569, 571 Federal Foreign Office Treaty Collection, volume 62 A 813

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation) (2007) Mangrove forest management guidelines. Forestry paper. FAO, Rome, 117 pp Fatoyinbo TE, Simard M, Washington-Allen RA, Shugar THH (2008) Landscape-scale extent, height, biomass, and carbon estimation of Mozambique’s mangrove forests with landsat ETM+ and shuttle radar topography mission elevation data. J Geophys Res 113:1–13 Gerston L, Quintela C, Quinn C (2015) Mozambique cities adapt to climate change one tree and one text message at a time. USAID Frontlines Giri C, Ochieng E, Tieszen LL, Zhu Z, Singh A, Loveland T, Duke N (2011) Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observation satellite data. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20(1):154–159 de Groot R (2005) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan 75:175–186 INGC (2009) Estudo sobre o impacto das alterações climáticas no risco de calamidades em Moçambique. Calamidades, Maputo, pp 4–10 INGC (2012) Responding to climate change in Mozambique, Theme 6, Agriculture, Instituto Nacional de Gestão das Calamidades, Maputo IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment IUCN (2019) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2. http://www.iucnredlist.org Jennerjahn TC, Ittekkot V (2002) Relevance of mangroves for the production and deposition of organic matter along tropical continental margins. Naturwissenschaften 89:23–30 Jones TG, Ratsimba H, Ravaoarinorotsihoarana L, Cripps G, Bey A (2014) Ecological segregation of the late jurassic stegosaurian and iguanodontian dinosaurs of the morrison formation in north america: pronounced or subtle? Forests 5(1):177–205 Kulima (1999) Mangal ilusão ou realidade. Reconstituição do mangal ilusão ou realidade, 61 pp Liquete C, Piroddi C, Drakou EG, Gurney L, Katsanevakis S et al (2013) Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: a systematic review. PLoS One 8(7):e67737. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067737 Luis AA (2011) Aplicação dos sistemas de informação geográfica e detecção remota no monitoramento do mangal. Tese de Mestrado em Sistemas de Informação Geográfica. Universidade Católica de Moçambique Macamo C, ASitoe (2017) Relatório de Governação Ambiental 2016 – Governação e gestão de mangais em Moçambique. Centro Terra Viva, Maputo, 63 pp Macia A, Abrantes KGS, Paula J (2003) Thorn fish Teraponjarbua (Forskal) predation on juvenile white shrimp Penaeus indicus H. Milne Edward sand brown shrimp Metapenaeusmonoceros (Fabricius): the effect of turbidity, prey density, substrate type and pneumatophore density. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 291:29–56

Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Mozambique Macia A (2004) Primary carbon sources for juvenile penaeid shrimps in a mangrove-fringed bay of Inhaca island, Mozambique. Western Indian Ocean J Mar Sci 3 (2):151–161 Mandlate LJC (2013) Mangal da Baia de Sofala: Caracterização Ecológica e Estimativa do Carbono sequestrado. Dissertação de Mestrado em Educação e Ciências Agrarias-ramo sivilcultura. FAEF. Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, 99 p Matusse EM (2014) Quantificação de carbono em terrenos florestais: estudo de caso de Lugela, província da Zambézia. Dissertação de Mestrado em Educação e Ciências Agrarias-ramo silvicultura. FAEF. Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, 84 p Mavie EB (2012) Estimativa de Perdas de Carbono Associados com Mudancas da Cobertura Florestal. Tese de Licenciatura em Engenharia Florestal. FAEF. Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, 70 p McMichael AJ (1999) Prisoners of the proximate: loosening the constraints on epidemiology in an age of change. Am J Epidemiol 149:887–897 MICOA (Ministério para a Coordenação da Acção Ambiental) (2001) Directiva geral para estudos do impacto ambiental (Draft). MICOA, Maputo MICOA (2007) Plano de acção para prevenção e controlo da erosão de solos (2008–2018). BASE DE INFORMAÇÃO PARA A ELABORAÇÃO DE POLÍTICAS MIGRAÇÃO, AMBIENTE E MUDANÇAS CLIMÁTICAS: Aprovado na 32ª Sessão do Conselho de Ministros de 04 de Dezembro de 2007 MICOA (2015) Estratégia e plano de acção nacional para restauração de Mangal 2015–2020. CDSZC. Ministério da Terra, Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Rural Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Extended Writing Team) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, 137 pp Ministério da Coordenação da Acção Ambiental (2012) National Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy MITADER (2015) Estudo para Definição da Linha de Base das Actividades a Serem Desenvolvidas no âmbito do GESTERRA. Relatório Final Moreira M (2005) A Dinâmica Dos Sistemas Litorais Do Sul De Moçambique Durante Os Últimos 30 Anos. Finisterra–Revista Portuguesa de Geografia 79:121–135 Murdiyarso D, Kauffman JB (2011) Addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation in tropical wetland ecosystems of Indonedsia. CIFOR InfoBrief no. 21. 4 p Nicolau DK, Macamo CD, Bandeira SO, Tajú A, Mabilana HA (2017) Mangrove change detection, structure and condition in a protected area of eastern Africa: the case of Quirimbas National Park, Mozambique. WIO J Mar Sci 16(1):47–60 Ong E (2002) The hidden costs of mangrove services: use of mangroves for shrimp aquaculture. The International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), Stockholm

413

Paula J, Macamo C, Bandeira S (2014) The mangroves of Maputo Bay. In: Bandeira S, Paula J (eds) The Maputo Bay Ecosystem. WIOMSA, Zanzibar Town, pp 109–126 Ribeiro et al (2002) Manual de Silvicultura Tropical. UEM, Departamento de Engenharia Floreatal, Maputo Rocliffe S, Peabody S, Samoilys M, Hawkins JP (2014) Towards a network of locally managed marine areas (LMMAs) in the western Indian ocean. Public Libr Sci (PLOS) ONE 9:e103000. https://doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0103000 Ryan CM (2009) Carbon cycling, fire and phenology in a tropical savanna woodland in Nhambita, Mozambique. PhD thesis. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Saket M, Matusse R (1994) Study for the determination of the rate of deforestation of the mangrove vegetation in Mozambique, FAO/PNUD/MOZ/92/013: 9, DNFFB Schaeffer-Novelli Y (1999) Grupo de ecossistemas: manguezal, marisma e apicum. PRONABIO/PROBIO, São Paulo, SP, Brasil, 119 p Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montréal, 94 p Sitoe A, Hatton J, Valoi M, Boaventura T (1994) The environmental status of Benguelene Island, N’komati estuary-a proposal for the creation of a conservation area. Technical report, p 19 Sitoe AA, Mandlate LJC, Guedes BS (2014) Biomass and carbon stocks of Sofala Bay mangrove forests. Forests 5:1967–1981 Spalding MD, Blasco F, Field CD (eds) (1997) World mangrove atlas. The International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, Okinawa, 178 pp Spitzy A, Leenheer J (1991) Dissolved organic carbon in rivers. In: ET Degens, S Kempe, & JE Richey (eds) Biogeochemistry of major world rivers. Scope 42. Wiley, UK, pp 214–232 Stringer CE, Trettin CC, Zarnoch SJ, Tang W (2015) Carbon stocks of mangroves within the Zambezi River Delta, Mozambique. For Ecol Manag 354:139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.027 Tomo FA (2012) Estimativas de stock de carbono nas florestas de miombo em Gondola. Tese de Licenciatura, DEF, FAEF, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, 63 p UNCCD (1994) United Nations convention to combat desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, Paris UNEP (2005) One planet many people: Atlas of our changing environment. Division of Early Warning and Assessment, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya UNEP (2006) In: UNEP (ed) Marine and coastal ecosystems and human wellbeing: a synthesis report based on the findings of the millennium ecosystem assessment, 76 pp UNEP (2007) Addressing land-based activities in the Western Indian Ocean. Annual report for the year 2007. UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/Annual Report/2008 UNEP-CMS (1979) Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals. http://www.cms.int/

E

414

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change

UNEP-RSP (2010) Research handbook on international marine environmental law. Nairobi Convention Secretariat. UN Environment Programme. https://www. unenvironment.org/explore-topics/oceans-seas/whatwe-do/working-regional-seas/regional-seas-pro grammes/eastern-africa UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEPWCMC) (2003) Checklist of birds listed in the CITES Appendices and in EC Regulation 338/97. 7th edition, 7th edn. JNCC report 343, 420 pages. ISSN 0963 8091 UNFCCC (1994) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/INFORMAL/84 GE.05–62220 (E) 200705, 24 pp United Nations (2005) Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters, 22 January 2005, A/CONF.206/6, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/ 42b98a704.html United Nations (UN) (1992) “Rio declaration on environment and development”, report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June, annex 1, A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I), 12 August, United Nations General Assembly Ministério da Coordenação da Acção Ambiental (2012). National climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy. Council of Ministers. Maputo, 49 pp United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) (2006) Summary of the second global biodiversity outlook United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) (1993) African strategies for the implementation of the UNCED agenda 21: a proposal executive summary. Edited by United Nations. Economic and Social Council United Nations Environment Programme (2006) Marine and coastal ecosystems and human well-being: a synthesis report based on the findings of the millennium ecosystem assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, 76 pp UN-NCCD (2017) United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification – global land outlook. UNCCD secretariat, United Nations Editions, Bonn, 340 p USAID (2018) Mozambique coastal city adaptation project. Final report. Chemonics International Inc. Maputo. 36 pp Williams MJ, Coles R, Primavera JH (2007) A lesson from cyclone Larry: an untold story of the success of good coastal planning. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 71:364–367 World Bank (2011) Building resilience and opportunity. The World Bank’s social protection and labor strategy, 2012–2022 concept note. Prepared for meeting of committee on development effectiveness, January 12, Washington, DC WWF (2018) Living planet report – 2018: aiming higher. Groote M, Almond REA (eds). WWF, Gland Zide A, Rajkaran A (2015) Nhangonzo coastal stream critical habitat biodiversity assessment – mangroves. Golder Associados, Maputo, 33 pp

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change Rakesh Kumar 1, Azad Hind Gulshan Nanda2 and Prabhakar Sharma 1 1 School of Ecology and Environment Studies, Nalanda University, Rajgir, Bihar, India 2 School of Historical Studies, Nalanda University, Rajgir, Bihar, India

Synonyms Environment and technology transfer for sustainable development goals

Definition Environmentally sound technologies (ESTs) are the potential methodology capable of reducing environmental pollution by the adoption of efficient technology. These efficient technologies are producing less damage to the environment and recycle waste by-products (OECD 1997). ESTs are capable of reducing pollution and operational costs, maximizing profitability, as well as meeting the goals of sustainable development.

Introduction Climate change in recent years has emerged as a significant environmental crisis affecting the human ecosystem at a much larger extent than ever before. It has triggered out of changing variations in the abiotic components that regulate the climate. The most significant contributions to those variations are a result of human-induced factors such as the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), radioactive wastes, industrial wastes, etc. The exponential increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), methane, and nitrous oxide and sulfate aerosols in the post-industrialization and scientific

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change

revolution period have ensued the multi-fold rising of global warming above the prescribed limit worldwide. The emission of these gases has resulted in the global rise of the average surface temperature (Klein et al. 2006; Seager et al. 2019). Therein, sustainability is defined as a process or a state to realize the ability to be maintained at a certain level or rate. In the domain of environment and ecology, it is achieved by avoiding further depletion of natural resources. It has gradually become the word of the century due to the blind exploitation of the available natural resource in past decades. Although several are involved in the process of using resources which would be delivered on to the future generation, the extensive overuse of resources post-industrialization has created an environmental crisis for the sustainable growth of humanity. The traditional and conventional technologies are unable to solve the current environmental issues and are not a concern for achieving sustainability (Hjorth and Bagheri 2006; Weaver et al. 2017). Therefore, the concept of sustainable development was defined when the planet started showing that it has now begun to move toward the boundaries which are harmful to humans and other living species (Mebratu 1998). The UN World Commission on Environment and Development has defined sustainable development as development “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987). To cope with the growing environmental issues, and to understand and solve the anthropogenic problems, sustainable development seems to have fixed goals to achieve sustainability in society (Hjorth and Bagheri 2006). The application of sustainable development and environmentally sound technology acquired complex while using sustainability; however, they are similar and applied interchangeably (Brooks 1992). To address the issues of sustainability of natural resources, a new term has been coined by Johnston SF, called “Technological Fix” (Johnston 2018), which aims to highlight and solve the anthropogenic problems, such as environmental pollution, population growth, shortages of natural resources, etc. (Paerl et al. 2011; Song et al. 2019).

415

The confluence of sustainability and technology can give rise to a powerful tool which can be used to contain the effects of overutilization and give birth to an issue called sustainable technology (Goklany 1995). Therefore, the inclination toward environmentally sound technologies (ESTs) has become an essential aspect of development and for the sustainability of the environment in the twenty-first century (O’Neill et al. 2017). The concept of environmentally sound technologies (ESTs) was reported in Agenda 21, arising from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in the year 1992. Agenda 21 is a comprehensive global action plan for the twenty-first century to promote sustainable development in all fields that impact human society and the environment. The action plan aims to be executed at all levels, viz., globally, nationally, and locally by various organizations of the United Nations, national governments, local communities, etc. Agenda 21 was a significant landmark, which effectively defined the dominant outlook of the world affairs for the twenty-first century. Although it was the product of the 1992s Earth Summit held at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the movement to globally work on such an action plan was devised from a long history of two decades of various treaties, conferences, summits, and draft reports. The seed of it was well sowed in the Earth Summit of 1972 during the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm. The manifesto prepared in the summit called the “Stockholm Declaration” formed the basis for the Rio summit. Later in 1973, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was framed “to provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations.” Agenda 21 of UNCED 1992 explained ESTs as the technologies which (UNCED 1992): . . ..protect the environment, are less polluting, use all resources in a more sustainable manner, recycle more of their wastes and products, and handle residual wastes in a more acceptable manner than the technologies for which they were substitutes.

E

416

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change

Agenda 21 has been proposed for promotion, facilitation, and financing for accessibility and transfer of ESTs, particularly in developing countries, aiming to protect intellectual property rights and essential requirements. Besides, Agenda 21 concerns give priority to neglected and indigenous technologies and sustenance endogenous capacity building. Sections of Agenda 21 depicted the role of cooperation and capacity building, along with an important statement which emphasized the transfer of technology and the accessibility of environmentally sound technology in developing countries. For example, Sect. 34.5 in Chap. 34 of Agenda 21 states that (UNCED 1992): New and efficient technologies will be essential to increase the capabilities, in particular of developing countries, to achieve sustainable development, sustain the world’s economy, protect the environment, and alleviate poverty and human suffering.

Agenda 21 aims for achieving sustainable development; therefore, accessibility of technical and scientific evidence and access to and transfer of ESTs are crucial. Therein, ease of access and transfer of ESTs in developing countries support the promotion of capacity building and cooperation which enable us to understand economic, technical, and social capacities for efficient application and upgrade of transferred technologies (Delina 2017; UNCED 1992). Therefore, it can be stated that ESTs aims for the transfer of technologies from the conventional one to the adoption of environment-friendly technologies which produce less pollution and engrossed for the concept of recycling of wastes materials and by-

products. Agenda 21 defines basics for ESTs and promotes the transfer of technology at the global scale which accounts for poverty alleviation within developing countries for technological development and achieving inter- as well as intra-generational equity (Halls 2003). For achieving sustainable development, it is necessary to have transitioned from unsustainable technologies to ESTs and sustainable technologies (as shown in Fig. 1). ESTs involve the adoption of ecological values and efficient techniques for cleaner production and consumption. Moreover, the adoption and application of ESTs include technologies for environmental pollution control, remediation, prevention, and restoration. ESTs establish, monitor, and assess technologies to check ecological conditions either arose by natural or anthropogenic activities and avoid the release of hazardous pollutants, like phytoremediation and wastewater treatment (Halls 2003; Rastogi and Nandal 2020). The technological development cycle requires environmental management for sustainable use of natural resources to meet the basic needs of ESTs. The development cycle first identifies problems and looks for an alternate solution and then moves for technological selection, design, approval, and operation with proper maintenance. Over time, optimization and upgrading followed by monitoring and evaluation of technologies are required. And at last, the cycle involves replacement and, finally, disposal which frames development for environmentally sound techniques without damaging the environment (Halls 2003). Besides this, Correa (2013) reviewed that intellectual

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change, Fig. 1 Technological transition between ESTs and non-ESTs for sustainability. (Adopted from Halls 2003)

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change

property rights (IPR) promoted innovation as well as the distribution of ESTs on a global scale. Correa argued that innovation is directly dependent on the availability of IPR and acts as a mechanism for technology transfer, along with innovation in the context of global climate change and negotiations (Correa 2013). UNEP has established the International Environmental Technology Centre (ITEC) which includes contributions from various partner organizations. This will focus on the lack of comprehensive and credible information on the performance of technologies (Chandak 2009; UNEP 2012). Other key actions that will increase technology transfer include: • To protect intellectual property rights (IPRs) as well as legal treaties • To ensure that technology transfer initiatives are compatible with nationally sustainable development agendas • Capacity enhancement for the major stakeholders

Adaptation of ESTs for Climate Change According to the technical report of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), developing countries are more vulnerable to climate. As vulnerability plays a significant role in considering impacts of climate change, the developing countries are hit by extreme poverty, hunger, water problems, natural and anthropogenic disaster, etc. (Naudé et al. 2008). Hence, vulnerable communities must to adapt climate change for reducing vulnerability by utilizing technology transfer which layout basic principles for technological adaptation (Klein et al. 2006; Kuhl 2019). Article 10 of the Kyoto Protocol discussed transfer or access of ESTs in developing countries for effective EST transfer in public domain as well as enable private sector for promotion and enhancement of technology transfer and access of ESTs (UNFCCC 1998). ESTs have been reported to be a clean technology that facilitates minimum pollution and reduction in environmental risk, which is necessary to fight against climate change. It has been reported that

417

global trade has been increased from 0.9 trillion economies in 2006 to 1.4 trillion in 2016, in which, technologies for renewable energy, solar photovoltaic cells account for one-third of the sum, followed by technologies for wastewater treatment and solid and hazardous waste management (UNEP 2018). The driving factors of ESTs were reported in 2008 for “Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainable Development in China and India” are environmental policy, market access and compliance with multilateral environmental agreements provisions requires the adoption of ESTs (Sankar 2008) as pollution arose mainly because of either market or institutional failure. Therein, the necessity of environmental policy requires determining environmental standards based on technological and financial capabilities. After that, adoption of environment-friendly technologies requires access to products, along with pollution-free products requiring specifications and the permissible limit for packaging conditions, eco-labeling, and waste disposal. Jung (2014) analyzed CO2 emissions in Korea and Japan by adoption of ESTs between two countries and stated that CO2 emission has been reduced from 0.02% to 0.05%, and production increased by 0.52–0.69%, estimated on the basis of input-output corresponding to each sector for energy consumption per unit of gross domestic products and consumption per production in Japan and Korea (Jung 2014). Phytoremediation has been adopted in Nigeria and Niger delta region for prevention from pollutants coming from crude oil extraction sites and coastal areas. Therefore, results revealed that ESTs performed in Nigeria and regional delta for conservation and establishment of mangroves created an ecological zone for remediation of environmental pollution and maintenance of water quality (Erakhrumen 2007). Not only to the adaptation of ESTs, but an environmental research and training center of Murdoch University, Australia, has stressed on the application of renewable technologies, such as biogas and solar and wind power systems to reduce reliance on non-renewable sources of energy, enhance energy efficiency and conservation, and develop

E

418

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change

integration with ESTs. At Murdoch University, designed strategies successfully achieved change in lifestyle and practices, energy efficiency enhancement, and adoption and development of renewable energies (Ho et al. 2001).

Implementation of ESTs in Developing Countries The transfer of ESTs was reported to be possible in developing countries through foreign direct investment (FDI), which depends on market-based mechanisms as well as regulatory instruments, such as incentives, market access, environmental policy, etc. It results in profitability solution for ecological pollution (Luken et al. 2008). Therefore, Chaudhuri and Mukhopadhyay (2013) examined the connection between FDI, informal sectors, and the transfer of ESTs in developing countries. It was observed that both the formal and informal sectors are damaging the environment. However, the formal sector produces less pollution than the informal, along with pay penalty for excessive pollution made by the informal sector. It has been stated that capital flow through FDI leads to a reduction in pollution by the involvement of transfer of ESTs (Chaudhuri and Mukhopadhyay 2013). Manyuchi (2017) examined the mechanism for the transfer of FDI in the energy sector of Uganda from South Africa. The analytical framework of ESTs for the study was based on the end of pipe system, i.e., the methodology for the removal of contaminants from the air, water soil, etc., and clean technology (UNCED 1992). Halls (2003) reported that ESTs of Agenda 21 aim for generation of either no waste or low pollution using the end of pipe technologies. As consequences of hardware (component and equipment) and software (training, skills development, environmental standards and certification, and clean technologies) ESTs transfer to Uganda, the government drafted statute and guidelines on energy and environmental sectors. Therefore, the intervention of ESTs to Uganda legislation leads to reduce Nile River pollution and water and energy capture (Manyuchi 2017).

Implementation of ESTs in developing countries through the transfer of technology mechanism can stop the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. The ESTs technologies adapted and analyzed for study were photovoltaic cells for electricity generation and replacement of twostroke to four-stroke engines for improvement in energy efficiencies, resulting into reduction in GHG emissions and adaptation of energy-efficient CFL (compact fluorescent lamp). For successful implementation of the transfer of ESTs, relevant technology must meet the needs of developing countries and should be easily accessible in the local market. Besides this, stakeholders are government bodies, entrepreneurs, users, NGOs, and experts which play a significant role in the implementation of ESTs and can affect technology transfer (Lema and Lema 2016; Ramanathan 2002). The intervention of biomass gasifier was a necessity for the Indian economy because electricity generation (approximately 70%) in India since the 1990s was dependent on coal thermal power plants which emit 62.6% of CO2 (Ahuja 1991). Biomass gasification technology has been applied as ESTs since the 1990s for decentralizing power generation in India. Biomass-based gasifier is a readily available technology adopted for electricity generation in remotely located villages having low consumption capacity, resulting in less investment in energy transmission and distribution. It was specified that Indian villages required 16 Mha power for lighting and stationary, instead of the plantation over 100 Mha degraded land. Hence, the replacement in biomass-based gasifier from convention fuel consumption to electricity by the intervention of transfer of technology benefited villages in becoming self-reliance, generation of employment and skill development, along with zero net CO2 emissions (Ravindranath 1993). For future action, nanotechnology has been stated as a promising future technology which has the potential to achieve sustainability and could be assessed and perceived. It will help to decide the societal framework by the intervention of enabling technology for crucial technologies and complex tech systems.

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change

Challenges for Transfer of Technology and Barriers and Priorities for ESTs The North-South divide in the world grows like a deep cleavage separating the countries based on economy and technology (Eckl and Weber 2007). With the onset of the second millennium CE, the rapid change in the mode of production to meet the demand of imperial colonies triggered the industrial revolution. This ushered a new era of development of technology. The technological development and advancement kept its boundary limitations for environmental damage to the developed nation of the world (Reuveny and Thompson 2008). After the emergence of globalization, the transfer of technology also happened because of the intervention of international convention and with conferences and World Summit taking place which aim to achieve sustainable development goals and took action against different issues, such as ozone hole problems, greenhouse gases emissions, wetlands restoration, etc. This made the world realize that technology needs to be shifted to achieve more economic benefits, “the benefit of sustainability” (Kemp 1994). The developed countries must support for the transfer of technology to developing countries as the developed countries owes historical responsibility for the current climate crisis and must address the issue of climate change by transferring technology and assist the developing countries to build capacity in this specific area (Saggi et al. 2004). There are numerous problems that the developing countries undergo regarding technology transfer in ESTs. Globalization has not been of much help in the case of technology transfer processes (Archibugi and Pietrobelli 2003). Research and development wings of developing countries are on a stage of progress, but there are some barriers which stop the transfer of technology, and the best remains with the industrialized nations (Zhou 2019). Some problems concerning the transfer of technologies are: (a) The big saga of Intellectual Property Rights, which gives the onus of Patent to the developer making it difficult for the country to

419

develop the existing technology or change it for better usage. The monopoly of such rests with them which makes them the decider of the price, which generally is kept at a high rate, making it near to impossible for countries to acquire it (Correa 2013). (b) The owners of rights to technologies do not want to pass the knowledge or even share it so that the technology is only exploited by them and not by the other effectively. For successful implementation of ESTs, barriers and priorities include the application and assessment of technologies. The adoption of new technologies is quite challenging at the place where people were not aware of such intervention. The government, markets, and community are drivers for adoption of ESTs which look first into finance, incentives, and current and future regulations; second into production, cost, investment, and demand and supply; and last into public and peer pressure (Luken and Rompaey 2008). There are significant barriers which mostly affect the transfer of ESTs, such as inadequate information, poorly managed decision support tools, financial demits, and environmental legislation and standards (Halls 2003; Luken and Rompaey 2008). Additionally, the absence of cooperation from government bodies, no FDI investments, and insufficient environmental policies have also made ESTs challenging to implement. Public and private sectors must know what ESTs are and how they can be selected and identified for solving environmental pollution, along with generating employment, social and economic benefits, and ultimately reduction in greenhouse gas emission for climate change mitigation. Public and private sectors must have interest in the implementation of ESTs so that significant evolvement can be performed. Individuals and formal and informal institutions must be aware of developmental criteria as well as practical guidelines for the selection and identification of specific technologies. There must be networking mechanisms for accessibility of ESTs information and also knowledge sharing at the regional and national scale (Halls 2003; UNEP 2012).

E

420

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change

Additionally, it is necessary to have environmental standards for identification of ecological issues and establishment of goals, objectives, and priorities at the regional, national and local scale for continuous review and sustainability assessment of technologies. This creates investment, followed by transparent ecosystem and decisionmaking system in ESTs. Therein, the suitable financial environment needs to be established for enhancement in the adoption and implementation of ESTs, which make it easily accessible and aware to the public (UNEP 2012). The assessment of technology is a set of activities leading to the identification of technology needs, evaluation of specific technology options, and development of integrated technology strategies along with the uptake of sustainable technologies. Keeping all barriers and priorities, the government should encourage the public for volunteer adoption and application of ESTs, along with national wise uniform regulatory framework which promotes institutions/organization to innovate and be responsible for environmental improvement. It is necessary to put environmental legislation based on environmentally transferred technologies at the public platform in a way each one can perceive and adopt. Although there will be a suitable framework which reduces significant gaps between information users and providers, the promotion for the adoption of energy-efficient ESTs in small as well as micro-industries is challenging in developing countries because rapid demand for energy consumption at the cost of environmental damages leads to negative impacts. Thus, negative consequences could be minimized at by adoption of energy-efficient ESTs (Thiruchelvam et al. 2003). The barriers for implementation of ESTs in small and micro-industries of developing countries include lack of awareness, education, as well as training, financial conditions, and lack of information, efficient technologies and infrastructure (Chege et al. 2019). Therein, intervention of ESTs can be made by policy instruments and regulatories, such as incentives, market- and fiscal-based interventions, capacity building, fuel pricing, industrial estates, etc. (Thiruchelvam et al. 2003). In addition, the developed nations transfer their technologies through different

mechanisms produced by conventions and protocols, clean development mechanism (CDM), and certified emission reductions (CERs) such as to reduce GHG emission and gain carbon credit (Benecke et al. 2008; Mondal and Sachdev 2013).

Application and Analysis of Technology for Sustainability of ESTs The global conferences have changed the sustainability paradigm, since Agenda 21 of UNCED Rio Earth Summit, 1992 to World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg in 2002, and have focused towards economic, environmental and social integration. For successful implementation of ESTs, the International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), United Nations Environment Programme, developed a methodology for technology assessment which proposed a systematic procedure to identify specific technological impacts on environment and life cycle of technology. Further, technical evaluation has been designed to a new methodology called Sustainability Assessment of Technologies (SAT) (Chandak 2009). Therein, the SAT has been customized for target sectors, such as wastewater treatment, drinking water and sanitation, phyto-technologies, and solid waste management. SAT methodology explained broader criteria as well as indicators for addressing sustainability, such as environmental standards, economic responsibilities, sociocultural concerns, and technical suitability, in which stakeholders from diverse fields execute tactical decision-making, including policymakers as well as practitioners (UNEP 2012). Energy consumption by 2050 is predicted to increase by 1.5–3 times, driven by global population growth and economic development (Shahsavari and Akbari 2018). Solar PV cells are ESTs which were implemented to reduce GHG emissions and performed to contribute as the sustainable development approach. Shahsavari and Akbari (2018) reported that PV cells reduced CO2 emission by 0.53 kg for single kilowatt-hour electrical energy. Besides this, it was also determined that GHG emissions from nitrogen oxides emission would be reduced by

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change

approximately 68–99 K tons and from the conventional energy production system. Sustainability index was introduced to evaluate technology through emergy flows. Theory of emergy has been reported as an indicator for sustainability. The term “emergy” was introduced as a decision-making tool for assessing resources’ quality as well as environmental policy in complex systems (Odum 1996). Hence, emergy sustainability index came into existence which is the transformed form of available non-conventional energy into renewable energy (usually in the similar form or types) for assessment of sustainability (Brown and Ulgiati 1997). Indicators for sustainability assessment of renewable energy are the cost of electricity production, GHG emissions, availability and technological constraints, electricity generation efficiency, land use, water consumption, and, lastly, social impacts (Evans et al. 2009). Additionally, energy production through solar cells controls fly ash from indoor pollution, coal, and biomass burning. Therefore, assessment for the sustainability of ESTs in developing countries leads to replacement of conventional source, i.e., coal and biomass burning to solar PV cells, a renewable energy, resulting into combined effect on other sustainable development goals directly, such as health, (SDG 3), education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), climate action (SDG 13) and biodiversity preservation (SDG 15). On the other side, the application of ESTs technologies in developing countries reported positive social impacts, such as the reduction in poverty, which enhanced support and cooperation in health, education, and gender equality. Solar cells limit the application of biomass and coal burning for fuel, cooking, and lighting purposes and control deforestation and ecosystem disruption (SDG 15). It has been reported that ESTs, such as solar PV cells, water purifier (water filters), water incinerators, gases purification and natural fibres support social improvement. For example, solar PV cells strengthen clean water and sanitation (SDG 6) accessibility, agricultural production (SDG 2) using solar water pumps, increase in fool production and waste as well as availability in food increase due to less refrigeration (Shahsavari and Akbari 2018; UNEP 2018).

421

Conclusion The adverse impacts of climate change can be profoundly observed in areas such as public health, infrastructure, agriculture, land use, coastal sinking, and shift in seasons, etc. In order to effectively combat the impacts of climate change, the UNFCCC refers preference which advocates climate change mitigation through stabilizing the emission of GHGs and by reducing the overall emissions by at least 5% compared to 1990 by the period 2008–2012. However, the mitigation effort was not achieved in the stipulated period and an apparent effect of climate change and global warming experienced in the natural ecosystem. It is therefore essential to work on climate adaptability while continuing to take steps for addressing climate mitigation challenges. The role of technology in achieving the planned adaptability and reducing the risks associated with climate change has received considerable importance in today’s world. Thus, the debate around delivering a technological solution for environmental threat is under serious discussion among scientific society. The technological adaptation can be of different types based on the nature of technology in use. While traditional technology such as use of herbal medicines can be of significant use, modern technologies such as engines with improved efficiency may equally help in stabilizing greenhouse gas emission. High technologies such as geographical information system (GIS) and satellites may aid in improved designing for controlling climatic hazards. Future technologies which are not yet invented may further help in achieving better climatic adaptability. However, the above-discussed techniques will help in determining the degree of planned adaptability; the process of planned climatic adaptation will further involve four necessary steps: information development and awareness-raising, planning and design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. Since adaptability somehow bridges the gap between climate change and human development, it has progressively received significant recognition in the context of sustainable development. Environmentally sustainable technologies, therefore, have

E

422

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change

increased influence and embodiment in human ecosystem to considerably address the environmental crisis of twenty-first century. Therein, this entry aims to highlight and shift the focus on how sustainability achieved through the transfer of technology will help in the development of the human race and also how it ensures social, economic, and environmental benefits. There is a need to improve the performance of existing technologies and encourage for the adoption of environmentally sound technologies so that there are less pollution, less wastage, and less energy consumption. Environmental pollution has affected the economy and society as a whole. There must be an opportunity for the availability of choice to the users. The played monopoly of private companies has snatched the very freedom of choice from the consumers. This has made them dependent on the technology provided by the producers at the price they determine. The role of policy implementation thus comes into role play where the market for environment technology transfer must be created. If policies are used well, it reduces the regulatory, investment, and other chanciness which occurs in the market and results in the risk factor. One of the significant challenges is a monopoly and inadequate information and transfer chain and setback of transfer of technology from the first-world countries to the third-world countries. They often give obsolete technology which depreciates their finances and also their environment. A choice must be provided to the technology users thereby for reducing risks, enhance communication between technology transfer stakeholders and build the appropriate environment for technology transfer. Risk management and valuation capabilities for financial institutions are of great importance. Assessment and framework modeling has to identify various barriers like lack of promotional activities and corruption as a basic set of barriers in the implementation of EST in any geographical area. The primary emphasis is on technology transfer as well as ESTs between developing and developed countries whose economies are in transition, covering technology initiatives in support of national, regional, and international policies. ESTs protect the environment and encourage the use of limited

natural resources sustainably. It recycles waste and products and handles the residual wastes in an environmentally acceptable way. Sustainable technology is a technology that is socially and economically viable.

Cross-References ▶ Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Emerging Technologies in Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Nature-Based Solutions ▶ Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Transdisciplinary Collaborations for Achieving the SDGs ▶ Water Safety Plans and Climate Change Mitigation ▶ Water Security

References Ahuja DR (1991) Estimating regional anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. In: Khoshoo TN, Shanna M (eds) Indian geosphere biosphere. Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi Archibugi D, Pietrobelli C (2003) The globalisation of technology and its implications for developing countries: windows of opportunity or further burden? Technol Forecast Soc Chang 70(9):861–883 Benecke G, Friberg L, Lederer M et al (2008) From publicprivate partnership to market: the clean development mechanism (CDM) as a new form of governance in climate protection. SFB-Governance working paper series, no. 10. Research Center (SFB) 700, Berlin Brooks H (1992) Sustainability and technology. Science and sustainability: selected papers on IIASA’s 25th anniversary. IIASA, Vienna, pp 29–60

Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change Brown M, Ulgiati S (1997) Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate sustainability: monitoring economies and technology toward environmentally sound innovation. Ecol Eng 9(1–2):51–69 Chandak SP (2009) Sustainability assessment of technologies: making the right choices. IETC-UNEP. 1st Stakeholder Consultative Workshop/Training Program of the Project on Converting waste agricultural biomass to fuel/resources. Moneragala District. http://www. unep.or.jp/ietc/WS/news-apr10/S2_3_DrSuryaP Chandak.pdf. Accessed 28 Sept 2019 Chaudhuri S, Mukhopadhyay U (2013) Foreign direct investment, environmentally sound technology and informal sector. Econ Model 31:206–213 Chege SM, Wang D, Suntu SL et al (2019) Influence of technology transfer on performance and sustainability of standard gauge railway in developing countries. Technol Soc 56:79–92 Correa CM (2013) Innovation and technology transfer of environmentally sound technologies: the need to engage in a substantive debate. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 22(1):54–61 Delina LL (2017) Accelerating sustainable energy transition (s) in developing countries: the challenges of climate change and sustainable development. Routledge, UK Eckl J, Weber R (2007) North–South? Pitfalls of dividing the world by words. Third World Q 28(1):3–23 Erakhrumen AA (2007) Phytoremediation: an environmentally sound technology for pollution prevention, control and remediation in developing countries. Educ Res Rev 2(7):151–156 Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ (2009) Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13(5):1082–1088 Goklany IM (1995) Strategies to enhance adaptability: technological change, sustainable growth and free trade. Clim Chang 30(4):427–449 Halls S (2003) Environmentally sound technologies for sustainable development. International Environmental Technology Centre, United Nations Environment Programme, Osaka, Japan Hjorth P, Bagheri A (2006) Navigating towards sustainable development: a system dynamics approach. Futures 38 (1):74–92 Ho G, Dallas S, Anda M et al (2001) Renewable energy in the context of environmentally sound technologies – training and research programmes at the Environmental Technology Centre, Murdoch University. Renew Energy 22(1):105–112 Johnston SF (2018) Alvin Weinberg and the promotion of the technological fix. Technol Cult 59 (3):620–651 Jung W (2014) Analysis of the transfer effects of environmentally sound technologies in Japan and Korea. J Asia Pac Bus 15(2):136–163 Kemp R (1994) Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability: the problem of technological regime shifts. Futures 26(10):1023–1046

423

Klein RJT, Alam M, Burton I et al (2006) Application of environmentally sound technologies for adaptation to climate change. Technical Paper UNFCCC. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Kuhl L (2019) Technology transfer and adoption for smallholder climate change adaptation: opportunities and challenges. Clim Dev 12(4):1–16 Lema A, Lema R (2016) Low-carbon innovation and technology transfer in latecomer countries: insights from solar PV in the clean development mechanism. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 104:223–236 Luken R, Rompaey FV (2008) Drivers for and barriers to environmentally sound technology adoption by manufacturing plants in nine developing countries. J Clean Prod 16(1):S67–S77 Luken R, Van Rompaey F, Zigova K (2008) The determinants of EST adoption by manufacturing plants in developing countries. Ecol Econ 66(1):141–152 Manyuchi AE (2017) Outward foreign direct investment from South Africa’s energy sector and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to Uganda’s energy sector. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev 9(3):303– 314 Mebratu D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 18(6):493–520 Mondal AP, Sachdev S (2013) Carbon credit: a burning business issue. Int J Bus Econ Develop (IJBED) 1 (1):74–81 Naudé W, Santos-Paulino AU, McGillivray M (2008) Vulnerability in developing countries. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL et al (2017) The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob Environ Chang 42:169–180 Odum HT (1996) Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making. Wiley, New York OECD (1997) Glossary of environment statistics, studies in methods United Nations. Series F, no. 67. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, New York Paerl HW, Hall NS, Calandrino ES (2011) Controlling harmful cyanobacterial blooms in a world experiencing anthropogenic and climatic-induced change. Sci Total Environ 409(10):1739–1745 Ramanathan R (2002) Successful transfer of environmentally sound technologies for greenhouse gas mitigation: a framework for matching the needs of developing countries. Ecol Econ 42(1–2):117–129 Rastogi M, Nandal M (2020) Toxic metals in industrial wastewaters and phytoremediation using aquatic macrophytes for environmental pollution control: an ecoremedial approach. In: Bioremediation of industrial waste for environmental safety. Springer, Singapore, pp 257–282 Ravindranath N (1993) Biomass gasification: environmentally sound technology for decentralized power

E

424 generation, a case study from India. Biomass Bioenergy 4(1):49–60 Reuveny R, Thompson WR (2008) Observations on the North-South divide. North and South in the World Political Economy. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp 1–16 Saggi K, Maskus KE, Hoekman B (2004) Transfer of technology to developing countries: unilateral and multilateral policy options. The World Bank, Washington, DC Sankar U (2008) Environmentally sound technologies for sustainable development of China and India. Madras School of Economics, Chennai Seager R, Cane M, Henderson N et al (2019) Strengthening tropical Pacific zonal sea surface temperature gradient consistent with rising greenhouse gases. Nat Clim Chang 9(7):517–522 Shahsavari A, Akbari M (2018) Potential of solar energy in developing countries for reducing energy-related emissions. Renew Sust Energ Rev 90:275–291 Song M, Fisher R, Kwoh Y (2019) Technological challenges of green innovation and sustainable resource management with large scale data. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 144:361–368 Thiruchelvam M, Kumar S, Visvanathan C (2003) Policy options to promote energy efficient and environmentally sound technologies in small-and medium-scale industries. Energy Policy 31(10):977–987 UNCED (1992) Chapter 34. Agenda 21-Transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation and capacity-building. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, pp 34.1–34.29 UNEP (2012) Application of the sustainability assessment of technologies methodology: guidance manual. International Environmental Technology Centre, United Nations Environment Programme, Osaka, Japan UNEP (2018) Trade in environmentally sound technologies: implications for developing countries. United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC (1998) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. United Nations, Kyoto WCED (1987) UN World Commission on environment and development. In: Our common future 17. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1–91 Weaver P, Jansen L, Van Grootveld G et al (2017) Sustainable technology development. Routledge, UK Zhou C (2019) Can intellectual property rights within climate technology transfer work for the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement? Int Environ Agree Polit Law Econ 19(1):107–122

Ethical Business

Ethical Heritage ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development

Ethical Investment ▶ Long-Term Investments

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multistakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs Shalini S. Gopalkrishnan Middlebury Institute of International Affairs, Monterey, CA, USA Menlo College, Atherton, CA, USA

Never again should it be possible to say, “we didn’t know”. No one should be invisible. This is the world we want – a world that counts. (2014 A World That Counts)

Definition Big Data is a set of hardware, software, and algorithmic tools using large sets of data from a myriad of sources, from social media to satellite imagery, in real time to make insightful decisions. Big Data for Sustainable Development Goals applies these tools to the 17 SDGs to enable nations to make better assessments of their progress.

Background

Ethical Business ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

The “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (SDG) was approved in September 2015 and launched in January 2016. It encompasses 17

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening

goals to include economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection. These cover Poverty removal (Goal 1) to gender equality, climate change, etc. Big Data has the potential to accelerate the assessment as well as get quicker feedback to enable policy makers to achieve these goals. This chapter covers the role of Big Data in achieving these goals.

Introduction How will the world decide if it has succeeded in achieving the goals for the SDG? Data. Data can give a snapshot of what is happening right now, rather than waiting for months and years to analyze impact. It can be a good early warning signal and provide a swift feedback mechanism to correct policy deviation. Data is an integral part of the SDGs. The UN initiated the idea of a “data revolution” which requires an integrated plan and the ability to leverage all the latest technologies to accurately assess the progress made. In September 2015, along with the SDG summit, the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data, henceforth called “the Partnership,” was launched to connect, catalyze, and celebrate efforts by the 160 countries’ stakeholders. On 15 January 2017, the UN World Data Forum was inaugurated at Cape Town, and it decided to focus on six areas (see box) that governments and leaders in policy need to work on. These are: Focus area Dissemination and use of data Coordination and strategic leadership Innovation and modernization of national statistical systems Strengthening of basic statistical activities and programs Multi-stakeholder partnerships Mobilizing resources and coordinating efforts for capacity building

Big Data: Definition and Characteristics Big Data is a term used to define extremely large datasets that require distinct hardware and

425

software capacity to capture, process, and analyze them (Krishnan 2018; Kaisler et al. 2013; Manyika et al. 2011). Today, data is being generated and stored at the fastest pace in human history. Citizens are generating data every minute on how they feel, what they are doing, and what they want, through social media, mobile, and several other ways. This unprecedented quantity of data can be harvested and used for human good. Some authors such as De Mauro et al. (2016) also incorporate methods and technology as a component of Big Data, but Liedtke (2016) definition is complete: Big Data is a relatively large amount of data consisting of multiple types from multiple sources possibly arriving in real-time of varying degrees of accuracy requiring exploratory data analysis and integrative analytical methods. is the most comprehensive.

Big Data’s main characteristics are “Volume, Variety, and Velocity.” Volume pertains to large amounts of data, variety is the breadth of data, and velocity is the speed of data which is being generated. This could be via sensors or IoT (Internet of Things) in which everyday objects from cars, watches, phones, posts on social media, etc. emit data continuously. Other aspects recently added are Value, Visualization, Volatility and Veracity (Baron and Russell-Bennett 2016). These are also vital to describe Big Data. Of interest is veracity of data which is crucial to enable researchers to make sound policy decisions and extract value from it. Accurate, reliable, and contextual data are needed to further the aims of the SDGs’ and create transformational changes in society. In relation to development, the 3Cs of Big Data ecosystem are also relevant (Letouzé 2015). These are Big Data Crumbs, Capacities, and Communities. Crumbs refer to data not collected for any purpose, but could be combined to make powerful conclusions. These Crumbs are passively left on the digital devices. This could constitute comments on social media, mobile records, etc. Capacities pertain to the computing power, including parallel computing systems, and algorithms and statistical inference techniques. Community refers to the providers of data – the people, the data gatherers, and the generators, scientists,

E

426

and privacy advocates analysts and the community at large who will take these insights and device action plans from them. Various scholars and thinkers refer to the fourth industrial revolution (Schwab 2017) or Industrie 4.0 (Kagermann and Wahlster 2013), in which the primary source is large sets of data to which tools such as AI (artificial intelligence), machine learning, etc. are applied. Big Data is a primary component of the new revolution. Usually Big Data is generated because of digital actions, it is not based off a research question, and thus interpretation after the fact is essential. It is not representative and thus special effort should be made to ensure that we have adequate representation of all subjects. It has the advantage of being available in the moment, and with modern technologies, it can be instantaneously analyzed. The four main components are data generation, data acquisition, data storage, and data analysis (Gantz and Remsel 2012). For SDGs a parallel has been created by Data 2X in their report as “collection, publication, uptake, and impact.” The power of Big Data is also derived from combination of multiple sources and datasets which can improve validity and give better insights (Hilbert 2016). Development agencies have been using data and analysis for decades to further policy, but the era of Big Data changes impact in ways as is described in this chapter. Big Data has changed analytics by enabling data collection on large swathes of population, testing main effects rather than significance, getting continuous data, and unifying data sources to gain useful insights (Verheof et al. 2016). An example in Krishnan (2018) depicts the value of Big Data. “In the field of environmental studies, Barboza et al. (2014) show how heterogeneous information derived from coral reefs, tree rings, volcanic activity, etc. can be combined to model the long-term impact of climate change. In education, a large dataset of almost 3 million course evaluations over a period of 12 years were analyzed by Reese et al. (2014). By combining diverse data in the forms of ordinal scales, free text and sentiment analysis, the authors were able to demonstrate long-term effects of grade inflation in educational institutions.”

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening

Big Data and Sustainable Development Goals Big Data has made a significant impact in the business world. In development too, as seen in the projects listed later in the document, there have been useful insights using Big Data. Vassakis et al. (2018) suggests that the data-driven era has enormous benefits for all sectors from agriculture to food and energy, and the firms need to be able to make data-driven decisions to better serve their constituents. Big Data can give real-time awareness and feedback of a policy intervention or just snapshots of reality. It can also be a tool for early warnings in a community. It cannot fully substitute a carefully controlled RCT (randomized control trial) to conclude causation. So Big Data should be used in conjunction with other methods and each used appropriately for the goals of the study. Big Data can be wider, deeper, generated rapidly, and (in some cases), more cost-effective than traditional data. However, Big Data analytics also has its limitations and risks, such as lack of representativeness, selfselection bias, spatial autocorrelation bias, inadequacy for causal attribution, and spurious correlations (Metcalf et al. 2016). Yayboke et al.’s (2017) article points out that the UN’s data revolution is not a onetime sweeping out of the old and in with the new mentality, but a gradual improvement over time. An attempt is also being made to leapfrog steps in the evolution by using the latest technologies in countries such as Laos and Myanmar which haven’t kept pace with the rest of the world in relation to data collection and analysis. The main opportunities of Big Data are threefold (Tatevossian 2013), viz., “early warning of anomalies to enable faster responses in times of crisis, real-time awareness, as well as real time feedback”. Laney (2001) points out that improved planning and implementation are possible with Big Data they further state that: Big data analytics can facilitate: • •

“Real time situational awareness; the ability to “shine a light on the invisible,” by improving information on the lives of women and girls; new information on mobility, social

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening

• • • • • • • •

interactions; sentiment and cultural beliefs, and economic activity; early warning of emerging issues and crises; improved understanding of community wellbeing understanding of both local impacts and larger geographic patterns; identification of trends and correlations within and across large datasets that would otherwise be unknown; data visualization for more nuanced and accessible insights; opportunities for participatory monitoring, real time feedback, and learning loops; the ability to recalibrate and iterate within the implementation of a programme; and improvements in accountability and transparency.” Laney 2001

United Nations Initiatives The UN has several partners and subgroups created to address this issue. The UN’s partnership is interested in improving the quality and access of data across all countries, and its aims are as follows: Partnership aims INCREASE the demand and supply of credible, accurate, dynamic, and disaggregated data. ADDRESS data gaps in terms of quantity, timeliness, credibility, and quality. INCREASE the capacity, accessibility, and effective use of data for decision-making, empowerment, and accountability. PROMOTE broad dissemination and scaling of new data innovations and technologies. CONNECT stakeholders across sectors as well as across data communities to harness the data revolution for sustainable development and leave no one behind.

The Partnership has created a toolbox (DATA4SDG) which all countries can utilize to improve their data systems and infrastructure. They have supported Roadmaps in Colombia, Senegal, Kenya, Ghana, etc. Other work includes a highway infrastructure and launching a funding initiative for easier data access and use. In a report on funding, the partnership exhorts nations to come with better funding models which will address the gaps rather than just pouring in more money (www.data4sdgs.org). Thinyane et al. in their 2018 paper have a unique partnership idea wherein the civil society and specifically CBO (community-based organization) becomes a

427

partner in the collection, dissemination, and analysis of the data. Some prominent partnerships are: • Big Data UN working group which is a partnership with the World Bank and was convened by the Statistical Commission at its 45th session in March 2014. They have an inventory of over 100 projects using Big Data and the SDGs. Check this link for more detailed information. https://unstats.un.org/ bigdata/inventory/ • UN Global Pulse: This innovative approach was initiated by the secretary-general of the UN. Their main task is to utilize Big Data as a public good, where it can be used responsibly and for humanitarian action. They are creating awareness of the opportunities for Big Data in this space as well as creating public-private partnerships and creation of Pulse Labs across countries. They have two tracks one for Innovation Driver and another as an ecosystem catalyst to leverage Big Data. Here is a link to some examples. https://youtu.be/v-zGHqMyd 7o?t¼58 • Data Revolution Group is a group of 20 experts across countries and UN offices that create a way for leveraging Big Data for humanitarian purposes. They released a report, https://www. undatarevolution.org/report/, which gives specifics recommendations for addressing the challenges. • Data Privacy Advisory Group is comprised of individuals from private, public, civil society, and academia to ensure that privacy issues are addressed in the arena of sustainable development. These individuals do not represent their firms but are providing this service in their personal capacity. https://www.unglobalpulse. org/data-privacy-advisory-group • GSMA Data for Social Good Initiative In Feb. 2017, the “Big Data for Social Good” partnership was launched. The idea is to enable the world’s 20 mobile operators, covering 2 billion connections in 100 countries, to use their data for humanitarian crises such as crises and natural disasters and epidemics. These are Bharti Airtel, Deutsche Telekom, Hutchison, KDDI,

E

428

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening

KT Corporation, Millicom, MTS, NTT DOCOMO, INC., Orange, SK Telecom, Telefónica, Telenor, Telia, Turkcell, Vodafone, and Zain. • Data Collaboratives from NYU GovLab and UNICEF This partnership with New York University, Omidyar Network, and UN agency has been set up to create value by exchanging data to improve lives. • Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data is a group of over 300 associates, such as civil society, governments, foundations, the private sector, international organizations, statistics agencies, and academic institutions. It aims to raise the profile of data worldwide, foster stakeholder collaboration, and improve data access. • The World Bank has also created a group to evaluate the Impact of Big Data for development, and having spent over $90 million on statistical capacity building across nations is now looking at the role of Big Data in development. (http://www.data4sdgs.org/sites/defau lt/files/services_files/datafordevelopment_wor ldbankIEG.pdf)

The sources of data are manifold. UN women 2017 has mapped them as follows:

Sources of Data for SDG

Projects in Big Data and SDGs

In traditional analysis, researchers or policy wonks would decide on an objective, scope it out, create a project, create surveys or collect information through interviews, clean it up, analyze it, and report it. Each cycle took a few months to complete, and results would be limited to the sample and time. Traditional research projects are still relevant for several issues, and they should not be dismissed. The role of Big Data is to complement and enhance data collection and analyses with traditional methods. Sources of data include social media, mobile records, satellite data, and data exhaust. These combined with traditional census or surveys can be a powerful tool to understand issues and progress made in SDGs. As Vaitla et al. (2017) state, getting more realtime, granular information, in locations where it is hard to do so, improves understanding of the issues.

A lot of work has been done in utilizing Big Data for achieving the SDGs. A distinction is also being made between traditional data for the SDGs and Big Data for the same to enable the reader to understand, in practice what this implies. In this segment, an attempt has been made to go down the funnel. The initial sections delineate projects at a broad level, i.e., how Big Data can be used for each of the 17 goals. This is followed by specific projects conducted, and then a more detailed look at the methods employed. This section ends with a specific Goal SDG 5 and more detailed analyses of the same using Big Data. The following Table 1, from UN Global Pulse, gives some ideas on how Big Data can be used for each of the 17 goals such as using satellite imagery for climate action or analysis of financial transactions for assessing gender equality. This

1. Human-sourced data: “social media, blogs, vlogs, internet forums, wikis, internet searches, email or SMS content” 2. Machine-generated data: “road sensor data, smart meter electricity data, scanners data, satellites imagery/aerial imagery data, traffic loops webcams data, vessel identification, internet of things (IoT)” 3. Crowdsourced data: “citizen-generated data, images collection, volunteered geographical information (VGI)” 4. Media-sourced data: “TV and radio broadcast data, podcast data, and digital newspapers” 5. Process-mediated data: “health records, mobile phone data, credit card data, public transport usage data, job application records, chips identification data and e-government data.” Others include web data, cloud-based data generated by firms, IoT, and traditional databases. For development purposes all these are great sources of data.

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening

429

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs, Table 1 Big Data applications for the Sustainable Development Goals End poverty: satellite imagery of electrification End hunger: combine market information, crop-yield data, pest infestation data, and precision agriculture; search for patterns to reduce postharvest food waste Healthy lives: monitor social media use to “hear” what people are saying about health; Google flu trends

Quality education: combining administrative and individual student learning data to understand how effective teaching is Gender equality: thoughts and emotions on social media

Peace, justice: analysis of podcasts, social media sentiment analysis Clean water: customers use water consumption data to prevent leaks

Life on land: during disasters monitoring social media Reduced inequality within countries: hiring data and racial bias patterns

Affordable energy: data on usage of electricity in buildings, homes from sensors on transformers and generators, about grid problems like outages and optimizing performance Decent work and economic growth: social media tracking to collect comments on quality of jobs

Sustainable cities: geospatial data, collaborative mapping systems like OpenStreetMap

Infrastructure: sensors on traffic signals to optimize flow. Sensors on dams to check for early warning breakdowns

Climate change and sustainable oceans: satellite imagery to compare changes

is a good starting point for devising Big Data projects. In addition, Letouzé (2015) has documented a list of Big Data projects completed and the advantages of using Big Data. Organizations can use these ideas in Table 2 below to brainstorm and find creative and innovative ways to do their own assessments. Yin and Kaynak (2015) give examples of Big Data being applied to smart grids and clean power systems addressing climate change and energy SDGs. Other examples such as measuring unemployment can be measured instantaneously and through a different medium, viz., social media in this context. It was seen that this was a good predictor of unemployment spike in Ireland giving them a 3-month signal ahead of time which could be used to make policy changes. The method used was collecting data on social media about work-related anxiety conversations, and then sentiments and moods were analyzed. These were then correlated to unemployment statistics. This was done by SAS International and Global Pulse. Deininger and Xia (2018) conducted a study in Malawi using satellite imagery and computerized agriculture data covering 1.35 mn hectare and found that losses were to the tune of $35 million

Sustainable consumption and production: blockchain on sustainable fishing

for government revenue (5% of total public spending). Such analysis would have been impossible before the advent of Big Data. Specific Goal: SDG 5: Gender Equality and Big Data For this SDG, 14 indicators were proposed by UN, and yet only 3 of these 14 had any internationally agreed measures and are collected by many countries. For the Tier 2 measures, five measures are collected irregularly by nations. The other six indicators do not have any internationally accepted measures, so no data is being collected currently. Big Data can contribute to all these Tiers by validating measures and checking for Bias in Tier 1 measures, using triangulation with other sources for Tier 2 measures and national trends can be tracked for Tier 3 measures. The details have been taken from UN Women report on Gender Inequality. Tier 1 “Indicator 5.3.1: Proportion of women aged 20–24 years who were married or in a union before age 15 and before age 18.” Data on this was collected by Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), etc. in

E

430

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs, Table 2 Projects done with Big Data SDG End poverty

Big Data examples Satellite images, night-lights

Year 2009

Country Global map

2013–2014 2013

Cote d’Ivoire Argentina

2014 2008

Indonesia China

Real time

Health

Cellphone records Online prices CPI and poverty rates Tweets for food price Remote sensing data for drought assessment Social media data on diseases

2009–2014

Data available in real time and before official data

Energy Economy

Satellite images Night-lights to estimate GDP

1997 2007, 2012

Inequality

Airtime credit and mobile phone datasets Transport cards Flooded areas using satellite image Flood with cell phone Methane observations from space www.ipinst.org/media.pdf Datasets on news stories to check for violent events

2013

US/Japan/ China/Kenya 21 countries China, India, Turkey, USA Cote d’Ivoire

2014

London Namibia

Frequent data Frequent data

2014 2014

Mexico USA

2013–2014

Syria

End hunger

Cities

Climate change Inclusive society

Benefits Real-time international comparisons Quicker cheaper data

Informal economy

Letouzé (2015)

the past, but Big Data sources such as mobile phone can give better accurate data. “Indicator 5.5.1: Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local governments.” Traditionally administrative data was used intermittently, but today media broadcast and social media is the Big Data tool used. “Indicator 5.5.2: Proportion of women in managerial positions.” Job applications data is the Big Data tool in this case, and earlier it was done by households surveys. “Indicator 5.3.2: Proportion of girls and women aged 15–49 years who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting, by age.”

Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey and DHS surveys were used in the past, and the Medical Records is the continuous Big Data tool used today to get a better picture. Tier 2 “Indicator 5.2.1: Proportion of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by form of violence and by age.” “Indicator 5.2.2: Proportion of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by age and place of occurrence.” Violence against Women and DHS Surveys are tools used in the old way to assess

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening

impact but social media data and mobile phone surveys. “Indicator 5.4.1: Percentage of time spent on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age and location.” Time use surveys vs. mobile phone surveys as a Big Data tool. “Indicator 5.b.1: Proportion of individuals who own a mobile telephone, by sex.” Call records Data is being used today as the Big Data vs. household surveys used in the old way. Tier 3 “Indicator 5.1.1: Whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce, and monitor equality and nondiscrimination on the basis of sex Indicator 5.6.1: Proportion of women aged 15–49 years who make their own informed decisions regarding sexual relations, contraceptive use, and reproductive health care Indicator 5.6.2: Number of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee women aged 15–49 access to sexual and reproductive health care, information, and education Indicator 5.a.1: (a) Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights bearers of agricultural land, type of tenure Indicator 5.a.2: Proportion of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control Indicator 5.c.1: Proportion of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment.” Mobile phones, satellite imagery, and social media data are Big Data tools for Tier 3 measures.

Implementing Big Data Initiatives for SDGs Big Data requires robust planning and execution. Biesdorf et al. (2013) state that in traditional

431

organizations data collection is done in silos and is unorganized. In order to ensure that Big Data is effective, departmental silos need to talk to each other, coming up with solutions that will solve the issue at hand instead of intradepartmental wrangling. Steps to Successful Big Data Projects Data4SDGs has created a roadmap to enable countries to be more effective. They urge countries to take a multi-stakeholder approach to data collection analysis and implementation. The various steps that they recommend are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Data for action Needs assessment Priority mapping Data inventory and gaps assessment Needs analysis Governance and commitment to action

Following these guidelines as detailed above would enable policy developers to create a robust and useful outcomes which can be actionable. Indepth details can be found at http://marketplace. data4sdgs.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/D ata%20Roadmaps%20for%20Sustainable%20De velopment%20Guidelines%20-%20Data4SDGs %20Toolbox.pdf. Wang et al. (2018) did a study in health care and “mapped the benefits driven by big data analytics in terms of information technology (IT) infrastructure, operational, organizational, managerial and strategic areas,” and they made recommendations for using Big Data in Healthcare. These consisted of “data governance, developing an information sharing culture, training personnel, utilizing could computing and generate new ideas.” SDG goals pertaining to health could learn well by using this framework. Understanding the reality of what is happening on the ground is critical. So if a country has a limited number of professionals who can fulfill any of these tasks, they have to get creative with training and using readymade solutions which may not be perfect but still collect valuable information. Using the toolbox by Data4SDGs would be critical for successful Big Data implementation

E

432

as they not only cover good practices to get data for “– government decision-making, citizen empowerment, innovation and entrepreneurship in the private sector – as well as statistics for planning and monitoring” but also include “institutional, policy, regulatory, and capacity-building aspects necessary for advancing robust whole-ofgovernment and multi-stakeholder data roadmaps.” These modules are adaptable and can be aligned with the priorities of the nation and SDG. In addition, they are constantly improving and incorporating new insights.

Challenges Big Data seems to be a holy grail, given all the breakthroughs it can make, but challenges abound. These comprise of faulty collection, instantaneous analyses could lead to problems of wrong interpretations, users who have no digital devices will not be represented, so the digital divide is a big concern going forward, and one must be cognizant of that while drawing conclusions. This could harm citizens when multiple datasets are used for reidentification or the mosaic effect as outlined by Huber (2014). The challenges across a majority of nations are capacity constraints, political issues, and how to bring on the latest technologies by bypassing the intermediate stages. The toolbox provided by Data4SDGs addresses some of these, and any nation should utilize the appropriate modules. One should also be aware of the risks to the rights of individuals and groups, identity, security, and privacy. Ensuring that citizens whose data is collected feel empowered to know that it is being used in the way that they choose and not get boxed in by political structure and will is another concern in Big Data. Harrison et al. (2018) mention that public sectors need to be organized “along new data oriented lines,” to enable public data used for our citizens, and they give us some ideas in their research. Big Data is fraught with challenges in relation to collection, analysis, and dissemination. The caveats that apply to “regular” data analysis hold true here too such as sampling bias, correlation is

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening

not causation, fabricated data, perceptions and facts, etc. In addition, the unique aspects of Big Data make it prone to jumping to results before one understands the full import of it. So careful thinking of what analysis is needed, and structure algorithms accordingly are crucial. Also, using social media to mine for sentiments and text, analysis should be carefully done, and a deep understanding of what the objectives are and the limitations of such mining should be considered. As yet, technology hasn’t figured out a way to handle emotions and moods in social media posts apart from the basic five emotions, and thus erroneous conclusions based on limited understanding should be avoided (United Nations Global Pulse 2013). Nations should plan how to collect and maintain good “sustainable data” rather than masses of data which could hinder progress for exactly the populations that need aid. Understanding the digital divide and ensuring that Big Data does not exacerbate it further but attempts to close the gaps through good measurement are imperative. Lee et al. (2014) exhort us to understand that data and no other computing power is the key to evaluating the SDGs The biggest issue is of course privacy. One should be careful of applying western mores of privacy on other nations. Having said that, several billion people are still not digital users, and one needs to help them understand what kind of information will be collected and uses. A 12-point plan has been proposed by Data-Pop Alliance covering privacy concerns. Here is a link: https://www.vod afone-institut.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Vo dafone-Big-Data-Pop-Alliance-Paper-03.pdf. The United Nations has outlined rules for data privacy, protection, and ethics to ensure that data collected in real time and used for the SDGs follow these guidelines (general guidance on data privacy, data protection, and data ethics). UN principles for data privacy security and ethics Lawful, legitimate, and fair use Purpose specification, use limitation, and purpose compatibility Risk mitigation and risks, harms, and benefits assessment Sensitive data and sensitive contexts (continued)

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening

UN principles for data privacy security and ethics Data security Data retention and data minimization Data quality Open data, transparency, and accountability Due diligence for third party collaborators

Newer Technologies Today, in the midst of this data revolution, other technologies are leapfrogging to enable bigger gains from Big Data. These include the advent of machine learning, artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, etc. All of these have Big Data as a cornerstone for faster, better, and perhaps more accurate assessment of data. Big Data powers machine learning which enables artificial intelligence to advance. The idea of machine learning was first propounded by Samuel (1959), and it uses statistical techniques to enable computers to learn (by improving performance from repetitively doing a task on its own) without being programed. Big Data is used as a soil from which computers can learn and come up with more accurate results and better analysis with minimum programming required. The UN has recently created an AI for good group which will enable such activities on assessing the goals. Other aspects to leverage this tool is the workflow of “workflow-based Big Data processes” Salado-Cid et al. (2018), so that all kinds of nations can use this tool effectively. Another aspect that NGOs and impact investors are considering is “lean data”, which attempts to reduce the cost and access issue by using lowcost technology. Other important facets include cloud computing enabling users not to have big hardware investments but carry smaller devices and connect to the data from anywhere. The advent of Data Philanthropy where the private sector shares data – such as from mobile phones or social media – to development agencies is a huge step forward to make the dream of Big Data come true for assessing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

433

Big Data has an important role to play in evaluating and achieving the SDGs, and this chapter covers the most important facets of it.

Conclusion Big Data has become the latest fad in business and development. Yet as can be seen, it does have a useful part to play in SDGs. It has the ability to evaluate measures that do not have universally agreed upon indicators and give us some way to move forward on these intractable measures for the goals. Even though it seems that a lot of investment will be needed, we have seen situations where Data Exhaust and Crumbs, which are readily generated by citizens of the world using mobile phones and social media, are a rich source of valuable information, data, and knowledge to gauge how the goals are being met. The UN has done a remarkable job in creating the framework which can be used by countries at all levels of development, in data analytics, to adapt and use this new tool.

References Barboza L, Li B, Tingley MP, Viens FG (2014) Reconstructing past temperatures from natural proxies and estimated climate forcings using short- and longmemory models. Ann Appl Stat 8(4):1966–2001 Baron S, Russell-Bennett R (2016) Editorial: the changing nature of data. J Serv Mark 30(7):673–675 Biesdorf S, Court D, Willmott P (2013) Big data: What’s your plan. McKinsey Quarterly 2:40–51 De Mauro A, Greco M, Grimaldi M (2016) A formal definition of Big Data based on its essential features. Libr Rev 65(3):122–135 Deininger K, Xia F (2018) Assessing the long-term performance of large-scale land transfers: challenges and opportunities in Malawi’s estate sector. World Dev 104:281–296 Gantz J, Remsel D (2012) The digital universe in 2020: big data, bigger digital shadows and biggest growth in the far east. In: Proc. IDC iView, IDC Anal. Future Harrison T, Pardo T, Gasco-Hernandez M, Canestraro D (2018) The salience and urgency of enterprise data management in the public sector. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii international conference on system sciences Hilbert M (2016) Big data for development: a review of promises and challenges. Dev Policy Rev 34:135–174

E

434 http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/big-data-susta inable-development/index.html https://undataforum.org/WorldDataForum/programme/ https://unstats.un.org/bigdata/taskteams/sdgs/ https://www.unglobalpulse.org/resource-library/reports https://www.unglobalpulse.org/sites/default/files/big-dataresilience-storybook.pdf https://www.unglobalpulse.org/sites/default/files/Genderequality-and-big-data-en-2018.pdf https://www.unglobalpulse.org/sites/default/files/UNGP_ Annual2017_final_web.pdf Huber BR (2014) ‘Mosaic Effect’ paints vivid pictures of tech users’ lives, Felten tells privacy board Kagermann H, Wahlster W (2013) Securing the future of German manufacturing industry: recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0. Working Group, AcatechVNational Academy of Science and Engineering, Germany, Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Kaisler S, Armour F, Espinosa JA, Money W (2013) Big Data: issues and challenges moving forward. System sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii international conference. IEEE, p 995–1004. [Online] Available at: http://www.academia.edu/download/43949080/BigDa taPaper-Final_09042012.doc Krishnan G (2018 under review) Marketers, big data and intuition – implications for strategy and decisionmaking Laney D (2001) 3-D data management: controlling data volume, velocity and variety. META Group Res Note 6. 6. Available at http://blogs.gartner.com/doug-laney/ files/2012/01/ad949-3D-Data-Management-Controllin g-DataVolume-Velocity-and-Variety.pdf Lee Y, Madnick SE, Wang RY, Wang F, Zhang H (2014) A cubic framework for the chief data officer: succeeding in a world of big data. MIT:ESD. ESD-WP-2014-34 Letouzé E (2015) Big data and development: an overview. Pop Alliance White Paper Series. Data-Pop Alliance, World Bank Group, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. Available at http://datapopalliance.org/wpcontent/uplo ads/2015/12/Big-Data-Dev-Overview.pdf Liedtke CA (2016) Quality, analytics, and big data. Research Report. [Online]. Available at: http://strategi cimprovementsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/ 01/LIEDTKE_SIS_QABD_SHARE_VERSION.pdf Making the case: More and Better Financing for Development Data: http://www.data4sdgs.org/sites/default/ files/2018-03/Financing%20for%20Development%20 Data%20Pamphlet%20FINAL_27Mar.pdf Manyika J, Chui M, Brown B, Bughin J, Dobbs R, Roxburgh C, Byers AH (2011) Big data: the next frontier

Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute Report Metcalf J, Keller EF, Boyd D (2016) Perspectives on big data, ethics, and society. Council for Big Data, Ethics, and Society. Accessed 7 Dec 2017. http://bdes.datasoc iety.net/council-output/perspectives-on-big-data-ethics -and-society/ Reese CS, Tolley HD, Keith J, Burlingame G (2014) Unraveling the mystery of grade inflation and student ratings: a BYU case study. Technical Report, TR–14– 021. Department of Statistics, Brigham Young University Salado-Cid R, Ramírez A, Romero JR (2018) On the need of opening the big data landscape to everyone: challenges and new trends. In: Linnhoff-Popien C, Schneider R, Zaddach M (eds) Digital marketplaces unleashed. Springer, Berlin Samuel A (1959) Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM J Res Develop 3(3):210–29 Schwab K (2017) The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Business Tatevossian RA (2013) Blog; new introductory guide on big data for development Thinyane M, Goldkind L, Lam HI (2018) Data collaboration and participation for sustainable development goals – a case for engaging community-based organizations. J Hum Rights Soc Work 3:44. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s41134-018-0047-6 United Nations Global Pulse (2013) Big Data for Development: A primer Vaitla B et al (2017) Big data and the well-being of women and girls: applications on the social scientific frontier Vassakis K, Petrakis E, Kopanakis I (2018) Big data analytics: applications, prospects and challenges. In: Skourletopoulos G, Mastorakis G, Mavromoustakis C, Dobre C, Pallis E (eds) Mobile big data. Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies, vol 10. Springer, Cham Verhoef PC, Kooge E, Walk N (2016) Creating value with big data analytics: making smarter marketing decisions. Routledge Wang Y, Kung L, Byrd TA (2018) Big data analytics: understanding its capabilities and potential benefits for healthcare organizations. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 126:3–13 Yayboke E et al (2017) Harnessing the data revolution to achieve the sustainable development goals: enabling frogs to leap Yin S, Kaynak O (2015) Big data for modern industry: challenges and trends [point of view]. Proc IEEE 103 (2):143–146

F

Feminist Movement(s) ▶ Women-Led Partnerships and the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

inability to meet the minimum living standards when compared to others in the same time and place.

Introduction

Feminist Organizations ▶ Women-Led Partnerships and the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship Ruth Wolf Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Definition Poverty is defined as the state of having little or no money, resources, sustainability, or support. There is a difference though between absolute poverty and relative poverty. Absolute poverty includes a complete lack of means to meet personal needs and is independent of location and area. According to the World Bank since 2015, it is also defined as those who earn only USD$1.90 per day. Relative poverty, however, refers to the

The chapter brings to light the challenges and opportunities for balance and further improvement of social and economic situations according to the 17 SDGs, with a specific focus on goal 17: utilizing partnerships to achieve the goals. The chapter shows the way to improve the welfare of the population and to facilitate the eradication of poverty through partnerships, bringing together “Governments, civil society, the private sector, the United Nations system and other actors.” (SDG 17). It proposes several methods for forming and utilizing such cooperative efforts, such as entrepreneurship, partnerships between governments to achieve the SDGs, encouraging CSR to give to the community, and the partnerships established by individuals such as Muhammad Yunus and Jose Abreu. Their actions help further partnerships between governments and nongovernment organizations like the Garman Bank. In addition, the chapter emphasizes the cooperative activities and enterprises of individuals as government organizations, all of which fall under the categorization of SDG 17. Additionally, this chapter emphasizes that economic growth can be achieved in an ethical manner economic strength and success in a way

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

436

Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship

that will be beneficial to all. It is necessary to broaden the universe that benefits from economic growth so that economic strength will have a positive effect on the entire population’s welfare. The ability of people to cooperate and to be helpful to one another in terms of providing knowledge, guidance, and assistance is essential in order to create a healthy and productive world to ensure the future of welfare. It is important to say that giving and cooperating can also help the community realm by creating a more harmonious and ethical environment to foster sustainable growth. The concepts of giving and cooperating are mainly expressed through entrepreneurship activities for the sake of the people, planet, and prosperity, promoting empathy not only as an emotional reaction towards another person, but as something to be transformed into action. We have examples of different states working for the good of developing nations, for example, the organization, CARE, which works to eradicate poverty worldwide. The organization works for the benefit of women, to improve their economic conditions, and works alongside countries for this goal (Cargill, November 20, 2018). It is known that contribution is a central foundation of many religions and faiths and is expressed in the modern world also through public organizations activities for the sake of the human community and for the sake of the lower level. Today, the UN’s 17 SDGs work to develop a better world through innovations in sustainability, gender equality, quality education, environmentally friendly industry, health and welfare, and so on. However, all economic and social activity today has global ramifications, and giving is no exception. By helping the community through partnerships, even an individual can help the world. The definition of poverty was once set at being USD$1 per person per day. Later on, it was updated to USD$1.08 per person per day (Gentilini and Webb 2008). In 2015, the definition of poverty according to the World Bank became USD$1.90 per person per day (Ferreira et al. 2015; The World Bank). According to the European Union, the at-risk-of-poverty rate is set

at 60% of the national median disposable income after social transfers. There is a great difficulty to compare different impoverished countries, as there is a difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty. Several countries established an absolute line of poverty, which includes a basic product basket. However, there is no agreement between the countries about what the basic product basket includes. Poverty is a shortage of options and opportunities, lack of sufficient income and security, which leads to a lack of dignity, and no chance to be an effective part of society. According to the Random House Dictionary, poverty is defined as “the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor” as well as the “deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc.” The word “poverty” comes from the Old French word “poverté” which is itself derived from the Latin word “paupertās” which is derived from “pauper,” meaning poor or one who is poor (Collins English Dictionary 2012). This chapter opens doors for innovative ways organizations can achieve greater social responsibility by examining a wide variety of economic and educational methods and partnerships to empower the weaker levels of the population (Wolf et al. 2015; Wolf and Thiel 2018; Wolf and Issa 2015).

Achieving Partnerships Between Countries for the Welfare of the People (SDG Number 17) Achieving the SDGs requires the partnership of governments, private sectors, civil societies, and citizens alike to make sure that the UN makes an effort to build a better planet for future generations. This work is already underway, as the UN supports many countries in accelerating progress already achieved under the Millennium Development Goals. Such partnerships between countries, the UN, and organizations have been cropping up in increased frequency in alignment with SDG number 17, which specifically refers to

Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship

partnership and cooperation. One such example of a partnership is the partnership between Afghanistan, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the European Union. This project, called the Border Management of Northern Afghanistan, based in neighboring Tajikistan, seeks to literally and figuratively build new bridges between the two neighboring countries to increase trade and economic development, promote peace, and decrease crime throughout the region (UNDP 2016c). Another example is the partnership between the governments of Angola, South Africa, and Namibia. This partnership, assisted and funded by the UN and the Global Environmental Facility, allows for joint management and protection of the Benguela Current, a resource shared by the three countries. It allows the three countries to examine ecologic, socioeconomic, and governance issues across the fishing, tourism, oil and gas sectors, motivating them to work together in a mutual strategy. As stated by Nico Willemse, Head of Energy and Environment from the UNDP in Namibia, “We discussed and agreed [on] management instruments. For example, between Namibia and Angola, they started negotiating a joint . . . plan to manage a shared stock, which is socio-economically important to both countries. In South Africa, we supported the development of an ocean’s policy, which integrates all sectors and . . .brings them all under one framework.” (UNDP 2016b). It is important to emphasize that in Israel, there is a special program in the Foreign Ministry called MASHAV, which works with developing countries to help them progress in the technology, medicine, agriculture, and water purification spheres. Examples of the areas MASHAV helps, in partnership with the countries, include nutrition, food safety, agriculture, economics, biotechnology, water management, dairy yield, aquaculture, and agri-green management. The idea is that the education and learning methods establish the content and knowledge learned that should be relevant to the changing reality. So Israel invests in teaching skills and knowledge for optimal performance, in partnership with the other countries (MASHAV, Aid from Israel).

437

UN Goals for the Eradication of Poverty The UN thought about sustainable development goals (SDGs). Those goals were aimed at building a better world, and function as the UN’s new agenda following the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG) put out in 2000 aimed to improve the planet by 2015. This new agenda for the year 2030 is to use the SDGs as goals to achieve “The Future We Want,” ensuring that all people enjoy peace and good welfare, eliminating poverty and protecting the planet. However, these goals cannot be achieved without partnerships from all nations working together. The SDGs include: No Poverty; Zero Hunger; Good Health and Well Being; Quality Education; Gender Equality; Clean Water and Sanitation; Affordable and Clean Energy; Decent Work and Economic Growth; Progress Industry; Innovation and Infrastructure; Reduced Inequalities; Sustainable Cities and Communities; Responsible Consumption and Production; Climate Action; Concerning Life Below Water; Concerning Life on Land; Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions and Partnerships for the Goals. The 17 SDGs expand on the success of the eight MDGs while tackling new fields such as innovation, justice, peace, sustainable consumption, climate change, and poverty among others. These goals are all linked, and generally succeeding in one goal will involve dealing with issues of the other goals. The new SDGs came into effect in January 2016, and they will continue guide UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) policy and funding for the next 15 years. As the lead UN development agency, UNDP is uniquely placed to help implement the Goals through our work in some 170 countries and territories (UN, Sustainable Development Goals). The SDGs are meant to work in the spirit of partnership and pragmatism to make the right choices now to improve life, in a sustainable way, for future generations. They provide clear guidelines and targets for all countries to adopt in accordance with their own priorities and the environmental challenges of the world at large. The SDGs are an inclusive agenda. They

F

438

Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship

tackle the root causes of poverty and are meant to unite all nations together to make a positive change for both people and planet. “Poverty eradication is at the heart of the 2030 Agenda, and so is the commitment to leave no-one behind,” UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner said. “The Agenda offers a unique opportunity to put the whole world on a more prosperous and sustainable development path. In many ways, it reflects what UNDP was created for.” (Sustainable Development Goals, United Nations Development Programme, UNDP 2016a). The first goal is to have fully eradicated poverty. As it is written, “End poverty in all its forms everywhere. Extreme poverty has been cut by more than half since 1990. Still, more than 1 in 5 people live on less than the target figure of $1.25 per day. That target may not be adequate for human subsistence, however. It may be necessary to raise the poverty line to as high as $5 per day. Poverty is more than the lack of income or resources. People live in poverty if they lack basic services such as healthcare and education. They also experience hunger, social discrimination, and exclusion form decision making processes.” (Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs, Goal 1: No Poverty). The UN’s 2030 Agenda is a call to action for the sake of people, planet, and prosperity. In addition, the Agenda aims to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. It is acknowledged by the UN that the total eradication of all forms of poverty, including extreme poverty, is simultaneously the single greatest global challenge of all and an essential necessity for sustainable development (UN, “Sustainable Development Goals,” United Nations). The process of implementing the SDGs began several years ago across the world. This process was dubbed “Localizing the SDGs” and, appropriately, had individuals, universities, governments, institutions, and organizations all over the world all working on implementing several SDGs at the same time. The goals must be made national legislations in governments worldwide, with plans being drafted and budgets being established. These governments should actively search for new partners in implementing these goals, as well as lend support to poorer countries and establish

some overall coordination with other nations, as partnerships – as evidenced in SDG number 17 – are essential to create permanent positive change.

Partnership Through CSR as a Means of Empowering Organizations and Nations to Develop the Economy and Reduce Poverty The phenomenon of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) is well known and has expanded across the world. Organizations and companies today increasingly understand that the act of giving to and cooperating with another entities has a personal and business value for those contributing to the workers in the organization as well as in the community (Pisani et al. 2017; Egri and Ralston 2008; Halme et al. 2009; Jamali et al. 2015; Wright and Nyberg 2017). Some of our world’s biggest problems are gender inequality and the gap between economic classes, and these are some of the problems the SDGs aim to eradicate. Though it is not a new idea, CSR is a very effective way to fulfill these goals and create a better world. CSR has many definitions and practices based upon peoples’ perceptions and understanding of how it could fit and empower an organization or industry through a variety of strategies, such as benefit sharing or win-win policies (Halme et al. 2009; Pisani et al. 2017). Wolf (2008) said that the basic idea regarding CSR is a symbiotic partnership between the community and the companies, and each side must contribute to the benefit of the other. Alternatively, CSR can be referred to as the social obligations of companies and organizations, the broad spectrum of which includes both business and social welfare practices. The basic idea behind CSR is that the business and community sectors are interconnected and share social, economic, and cultural reciprocity. It is important to note that the activity of CSR shows how entrepreneurs and governments can develop and sustain CSR in organizations and the workplace (Pisani et al. 2017; Egri and Ralston 2008; Halme et al. 2009; Wright and Nyberg 2017).

Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship

Today, giving and cooperating are also expressed through organizations and workplace activities for the community. These activities highlight the fact that an organization is not meant to deal solely with its own world, but rather it is preferable and beneficial for it to reach out to the community as well (Pisani et al. 2017; Egri and Ralston 2008; Halme et al. 2009; Wright and Nyberg 2017). The nature of this contribution is mainly utilized in teaching and guiding others in order to help them achieve physical and emotional well-being. However, countries that make economic negotiations with other countries demand that they include CSR in their entrepreneurial curriculum and will give a clear report of their philanthropic activities for the poor of their country. Wolf has already mentioned that both the community and the organization profit from this partnership, and that by making a contribution one also receives something himself (Wolf 2008, 2015a, b). CSR is one method for organizations and individuals to cooperate and contribute to growing the economy and eradicating poverty. It is unrealistic to expect that the state is able to solve all social and economic problems of the population by itself. Therefore, successful companies also contribute to such causes. In some cases, contributions by companies may also motivate governments to provide additional assistance through partnerships. Similar to Abreu’s project in Venezuela, this project continues today through the government (Wakin, 1 March 2012, The New York Times; Caselli, 4 Dec. 2013, BBC News). This reflects a growing trend of partnerships between citizens and their governments for the benefit of the people, planet, and prosperity – something necessary for permanent positive change, as evidenced by the focus of SDG number 17.

Partnerships and Giving of Organizations as Parameters of Fulfillment According to Positive Psychology The main idea behind giving through organizations is that business sectors and community

439

sectors share social, economic, and cultural reciprocity. Cooperation and partnership between these two sectors is expressed in different ways, so that each side contributes to the other. For example, the business sector may take care of poverty in a specific location, and the community will subsequently reward it with good publicity and a positive reputation (Wolf 2008). As an example of such a partnership between corporation and community, soft drink company Coca-Cola established the Coca-Cola Foundation with the goal of giving back 1% of the prior year’s earnings and donate them to various charities in over 70 countries in order to empower women, enhance communities, and protect the environment. (Corporate Giving, the Coca-Cola Foundation, January 1, 2012). Positive psychology focuses on giving as one of the central factors that lead to individual happiness. Positive psychology refers to a person’s power. A long line of researchers, including Seligman, believe that an individual that is knowledgeable on the value of his giving and partnership is more likely to be happier (Seligman 1998, 2000, 2002, 2008; Seligman et al. 2005; Kauffman 2006). Several companies around the world, such as Nike, The Body Shop, Ford, Levi’s, Shell, and others, have all adopted a transparent approach with respect to both their community and environmental activities. These organizations’ activities are openly published for the general public (Wolf 2008). This logic, therefore, can be applied to SDG number 17. It should be noted that there are other ways to help the community aside from financial contributions. That being said, however, financial contributions need not be ruled out. Assistance was provided through housing, education, training, and so on. For example, the tech company Microsoft set up a program to train and direct adolescents on the fringes of society about computer usage. Since 2009, the tech company Microsoft set up a series of internal commitments to reduce their carbon emissions, with the goal of reducing it by 75% by 2030, as well as partnering with water conservation and renewable energy start-ups to better global sustainability (Smith 2019). This is in line with SDG 17 section 17.7,

F

440

Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship

“Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favorable terms” (SDG 17). One of the factors crucial to a person’s happiness is his ability to act not only for himself and be constantly preoccupied with fulfilling his own desires, but rather to look out for others and demonstrate empathy towards and partnership with others. There are also companies that combine social values with their current business activities. They present themselves as value-led businesses. Wolf (2015a, b) explained that these companies not only donate money to charity, but they also apply ethical principles to every business field in which they are involved. The American ice cream company, Ben & Jerry’s, is such an example (Ben & Jerry’s Foundation). This company, in acquiring raw material, pays attention to giving work to the inhabitants. For example, it buys peanuts from rainforest tribes that are in danger of becoming extinct, it buys blueberries from poverty-stricken Indians, and it buys cakes from a project that houses the homeless. These business partnerships are tied to helping and aiding the needy (Schroeder 2002; Wolf 2008). According to the New York Times’s David Gelles, “Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield founded their gourmet ice creamery in 1978 and were pushing the boundaries of conventional business from the beginning. Shortly after setting up shop in Burlington, they offered stock to Vermont residents only, hoping to ‘spread the wealth’ in their community.” Gelles further wrote that “Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield then devised a three-part mission statement: to make the world’s best ice cream, to run a financially successful company, and to ‘make the world a better place’ ” (Gelles, David, The New York Times, 21 Aug. 2015). This action of workers and organizations bring fulfillment, satisfaction, and happiness to the workers. This also eradicates poverty and improves the welfare of others as well as to oneself (Buchman and Bardi 2010; Kauffman 2006; Linley and Joseph 2004; Luthanas and Yossef 2007; Wolf 2015a). In addition, it is in line with SDG 17 section 17.1, “Strengthen domestic resource

mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection,” as well as section 17.3, “Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources” (SDG 17).

An Example of Giving Through Partnerships of Individuals Inspiring Others Through Entrepreneurship SDG number 8 is to promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. Global unemployment sits at around 5.7%, and in many impoverished countries, approximately 1 out of 10 children are both unemployed and uneducated (United Nations 2017). SDG 17 aims to bring together “Governments, civil society, the private sector, the United Nations system and other actors and mobilizes all available resources” (SDG 17). An example of the SDGs in action is the work the Bangladeshi Economics Professor and 2006 Nobel Prize Laurate Muhammad Yunus. Yunus saw that small sums of money could aid the poor Bangladeshi villagers in building small business enterprises without borrowing money and going into debt from interest. Instead of allowing them to become financially independent, these interest fees keep them in a state of eternal poverty. For this reason, Yunus decided to lend them micro-sums of money to encourage them to be financially sufficient (Muhammad Yunus – Fact 2006). Muhammad Yunus’s method of lending “micromoney” to “microbusinesses” was economically groundbreaking, its accomplishments boundless. Yunus facilitated partnerships by getting people to work together and cooperate. He succeeded to relinquish thousands of people from the harshest strains of poverty through the small sums of money he lent them. In the first stages, he lent them money approximately 17 dollars from his own pocket and later on he lent them money via the Grameen Bank that he founded (Garmeen Foundation Financial Services). It is important to say that the majority of the people paid back their

Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship

debts to the bank with an additional donation in order that the bank would be able to help others as it helped them. This partnership of people giving donations through the bank to others progressed the economy and helped people escape the constraints of poverty. Many branches of the Grameen Bank function today in many countries – India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and more – continue the blessed work of Muhammad Yunus (Muhammand Yunus – Fact 2006). This practice is in line with SDG 17 sections 17.3, “Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources,” and 17.4, “Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress” (SDG 17).

The Partnership Between Jose Antonio Abreu’s Project and the Venezuelan Government to Eradicate Poverty and Improve Child Welfare in the Community The 17 SDGs tend to be very broad in scope. In particular, fighting poverty through improving the welfare and education of children in the community tend to fall under SDG number 3, referring to good health and wellbeing, and number 4, referring to quality education – all of which are more easily achieved through SDG number 17, partnerships. Children are our future, and an investment in their socioeconomic, educational, and health conditions will help lead to a healthier and more prosperous nation. Many philanthropic efforts have utilized the principles expressed in these SDGs as a way of fighting against poverty in their communities. An example of this is Venezuelan philanthropist, politician, and economist Jose Antonio Abreu. Education in particular is shown to be very lacking in impoverished nations. A UN estimate suggests that in a third of Latin American nations, only half of students that complete primary school have a minimum proficiency in basic mathematics. The quality of trained teachers is usually poor,

441

access to basic facilities are often very limited (United Nations 2017). All these factors represent insurmountable obstacles in the development of the next generation. Abreu’s actions sought to change the situation of the children of Caracas. He attempted to find the solution to violence, drugs, loitering, and the poverty in the neighborhoods of Caracas, the capital city of Venezuela, by partnering with the children he educated himself. This was done in an effort to keep children off of the streets and veer them away from crime. He initiated the foundation of the youth orchestra. The chain of orchestras that he founded partnered with the Venezuelan government and receives government funding until this day (Caselli, Irene, BBC News, 4, Dec. 2013; Wakin, Daniel J., The New York Times, 1 March, 2012, Venerated High Priest and Humble Servant of Music Education). Abreu’s project continues to operate to this day in partnership with the Venezuelan government. In addition to eradicating poverty, this project gives an income to many people, and several famous conductors got their start through this project, such as Gustavo Dudamel and Christian Vasquez. The main thing is the spiritual enrichment of this collaborative project between teacher and student, which began with an individual, but was passed down from teacher to student and continues to this day. Abreu focused on those children who lived in poverty stricken neighborhoods to train in music and musical rendition. This musical educational operation which Abreu initiated for the children caused them to be exposed to many advantages: the enjoyment of playing an instrument, the experience of success, the social cooperation, the corrective experience that proves to themselves their ability and more. This successful operation in Venezuela led to the founding of hundreds of other orchestras whose members Abreu trained. It is important to say that those who were trained by Abreu now play an active role in training the next generation of youth, adding to this continuous chain of giving. Abreu’s efforts, starting in 1964, to give leverage to musical education in his country exceeded all expectations. Over the period of 11 years, about two hundred orchestras and choirs had

F

442

Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship

been founded with an attendance of around a million students. These youth at risk became interested in music and reverted all of their energies to their musical talents and the understanding of the deeper significance of music, gives meaning to one’s life, and provides a good income to those in need of it. These children were able to find an escape with their interest in playing music and perhaps transformed a life of emptiness into a life of enjoyment. As Wakin (2012) wrote in The New York Times: “He called El Sistema an antidote to violence, ‘so when we perform abroad, we are messengers of peace but also for social justice’, he said. He was unperturbed when it was pointed out that Venezuela had become one of the most violent societies in the world. Violence is a global problem, he said: ‘Orchestras and choirs are incredibly effective instruments against violence’. Moments later Mr. Abreu imparted one of the aphorisms that are often repeated: the most holy of human rights is the right to art.” (Wakin, 1 March 2012, The New York Times). This revolution sparked by Abreu and continued today by the Venezuelan government saved hundreds of thousands of children from a fate of neglect, violence, poverty, and vagrancy. As a matter of fact, he bestowed upon them a fishing rod rather than the fish itself. The goal is to give the people skills to use and to manage their life on their own power and escape the constraints of poverty. In the words of Abreu, the project’s founder: “Poverty leads to anonymity and loneliness and the music redeems them. It awakens the feeling of triumph and hope for the future, provides happiness and meaning to life, teaches the children how to live in society and become better people” (Haaretz, 24 Jan. 2010, Translation from Hebrew). This project is an example of a partnership between individuals and governments, and shows that even individuals can greatly contribute to a better future for the next generation.

Partnerships Between Nations as a Way to Promote Economic Development and Subsequent Poverty Reduction It is clear that a change in approach is related to cultural messages. For instance, discrimination

against women can contribute to the cycle of poverty and to the prevention of a country’s economic strengthening. Furthermore, education is central to economic development. When the economic strength of a country is dependent on the high-tech industries, education becomes even more important. It is clear that a focus on educating women is very beneficial. In Africa, the World Bank makes a strong effort to educate women to help them find a place in the workforce. In addition, they are also taught agriculture, and this has proved to be a very fruitful endeavor (Women, Agriculture and Work in Africa 2017, World Bank). In addition, the UN also works to accelerate progress on meeting the needs of women worldwide. The empowerment of women fuels a thriving economy and promotes growth and productivity. The strengthening of women in economic is bringing about great change in the economy in Africa and India. Women are the first ones to make enterprise, and for bringing home an income for the family. For example, philanthropist Michelle Nunn and her organization, CARE, have worked extensively to fight poverty in around the world, especially in regards to women’s equality. “Girls and women bear the brunt of poverty, and they are also the key to overcoming it,” she explained. (Cargill, November 20, 2018) Another example is Muhamed Yunus and his Garmen bank, who help women in Bangladesh escape the cycle of poverty by giving them money to establish small businesses (Muhamad Yunus). In addition, the World Bank gives aid and support to women and Africa, educating them on how to develop agriculture (Women, Agriculture and Work in Africa 2017, World Bank). The education must be on a global level. Schools of business must look not only at the benefits of the organization and the individual, but must also look at the benefits of the people. The way to do it is to raise awareness of the SDG goals and to apply them, especially regarding SDG number 17’s focus on partnerships. Skills and knowledge promote a better world and sustainable development. The organization “Principles for Responsible Management

Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship

Education” (PRME) was established in 2007 by an international academic task force and has the goal of emphasizing awareness of the SDGs on an academic level. This can be done through education, and by partnerships between countries.

Summary This chapter is designed for the sake of eradicating poverty through entrepreneurship by corporations as well as individuals. The goal of this chapter is to show how partnerships can build a better world – where poverty has been eradicated, allowing the population to live happily in higher and sustainable standards of living on their power – by allowing organizations, governments, and individuals to collaborate and contribute to sustainable development through the promotion of political, social, and economic change as well as by transforming their individual behavior. This chapter suggests several ways to build a better world. For example, education for the advancement of the SDGs and the UN’s principles; encouraging entrepreneurship through the giving of individuals as an example of empowering nations to improve the lives of their citizens; partnership of countries for the advancement of economic development; and even CSR, the old idea, as a way for organizations and workplaces to give back to the community and improve welfare. In addition, the chapter also presented the collaborative efforts of individuals and their governments to foster partnerships between others for the betterment of the economy and the welfare of the people. The goal is to bestow upon the poor a fishing rod rather than the fish itself – to give people skills to use and to manage their life on their own power and escape the constraints of poverty. Partnerships are essential to achieving this goal, as no permanent positive change can be established without cooperative efforts between organizations, governments, and the community, as evidenced by SDG number 17. Ultimately, this can only be achieved by changing the perceptions of both society and economic companies into one of giving, cooperating, and mutual benefit. These

443

challenges that the UN is facing is the first step towards building a brighter future for the sake of people, planet, and prosperity. As such, it is unsurprising that one of the 17 SDGs is to strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development through every available option. However, the responsibility of improving the welfare of the global population does not lie solely with governments, but with organizations and individuals as well. We in this chapter suggested using CSR as a means to encourage partnerships to make these improvements for the sake of people, planet, and prosperity. We presented examples of individuals that empower their countries to work on projects for the benefit of their citizens and economy, and organizations that work towards the eradication of poverty. One of these options is CSR reducing poverty through entrepreneurship, and that is what this chapter seeks to accomplish. This chapter provides examples of cooperative contributions to the welfare of the population, and of individuals that work for the benefit of the entire world. It is only by doing something – by taking the initiative and responsibility can we work together to eradicate poverty and develop sustainable growth for the world. The first step to change things is to recognize the problem. This can be seen in the evidence and the 17 SDGs as being what is necessary to improve the welfare of the population.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Global Partnership

References About Us, Ben and Jerry’s Foundation. Retrieved on 13 November, 2017 from http://benandjerrys foundation.org/about-us.html Buchanan KE, Bardi A (2010) Acts of kindness and acts of novelty affect life satisfaction. J Soc Psychol 150:235–237

F

444

Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship

Cargill (2018, 20 November) Decade of impact: CARE’s Michelle Nunn on tackling poverty through partnerships. Cargill.com. Retrieved from: https://www. cargill.com/story/decade-of-impact-care-michellenunn-on-the-power-of-partnerships Caselli I (2013, 4 December) Jose Antonio Abreu, Venezuela’s musical visionary. BBC News Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © Harper Collins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012 Corporate Giving, the Coca-Cola Foundation (2012, 1 January) Retrieved on 13 November, 2017 from http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/ corporate-giving Egri CP, Ralston D (2008) Corporate responsibility: a review of international management research from 1998 to 2007. J Int Manag 14:319–339 Ferraro F, Etzion D, Gehman J (2015) Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited. Organ Stud 36(3):363–390 Garmeen Foundation Financial Services. https://www. grameenfoundation.org/what-we-do/financial-services Gelles D (2015, 21 August) How the Social Mission of Ben & Jerry’s Survived Being Gobbled Up. The New York Times Gentilini U, Webb P (2008) How are we doing on poverty and hunger reduction? A new measure of country performance. Food Policy 33:521–532 Halme, M, Roome, N, and Dobers, P (2009) Corporate Responsibility: Reflections on Context and Consequences. Scandinavian Journal of Management 25(1):1–9 Jamali D, Karam C, Blowfield M (2015) Development oriented CSR. Greenleaf Publishing, London Kauffman C (2006) Positive psychology: the science at the heart of coaching. In: Stober DR, Grant AM (eds) Evidence based coaching handbook: putting best practices to work for your clients. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 219–253 Linley PA, Joseph S (2004) Applied positive psychology: a new perspective for professional practice. In: Linley PA, Joseph S (eds) Positive psychology in practice. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 3–12 Luthans F, Youssef C (2007) Emerging positive organizational behavior. J Manag 33:321–349 Muhammad Yunus- Facts (2006) https://www.nobelprize. org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/yunus-facts. html O’Boyle EH Jr, Humphrey RH, Pollack JM, Hawver TH, Story PA (2011) The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav 32:788–818 Pisani N, Kourula A, Kolk A, Meijer R (2017) How global is international CSR research? Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. J World Bus 52(5):591–614 Poverty (n.d.) Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 4, 2018 from Dictionary.com website http://www.dictio nary.com/browse/poverty

Schroeder D (2002) Ethics from the top: Top management and ethical business. Business Ethics, A European Review 11(3):260–267 Seligman MEP (1998) Building human strength: Psychology’s forgotten mission Seligman MEP (Ed) (2000) Special issue on happiness, excellence, and optimal human functioning. American Psychological Association Seligman MEP (2002) Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In: Snyder CR, Lopez SJ (eds) Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–9 Seligman MEP (2008) Positive health. Appl Psychol Int Rev 57:3–18 Seligman MEP, Steen TA, Park N, Peterson C (2005) Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. Am Psychol 60:410–421 Smith B (2019, 15 April) We’re increasing our carbon fee as we double down on sustainability. Microsoft. Retrieved on February 9, 2020 from: https://blogs. microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2019/04/15/wereincreasing-our-carbon-fee-as-we-double-down-onsustainability/ UNDP (2003) Summary human development report 2003. United Nations Development Programme UNDP (2016a) Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved on February 4, 2018 from http://www.undp.org/ content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals. html UNDP (2016b, 8 September) Building bridges in Afghanistan: regional cooperation and border management for peace and development. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved on December 11, 2018 from https://stories.undp.org/bordermanagement-northern-afghanistan UNDP (2016c, 8 September) Together, protecting the Benguela marine ecosystem. United Nations Development Program. Retrieved on December 11, 2018 from https://stories.undp.org/togetherprotecting-the-benguela-marine-ecosystem United Nations (2017, 11 May) Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Report of the Secretary-General. United Nations Economic and Social Council, July 2017 Session Wakin DJ (2012, 1 March) Venerated high priest and humble servant of education. The New York Times Wolf R (2008) Ethics is good for business. Mass Publication (HEB), Jerusalem Wolf R (2015a) Corporate social responsibility – contribution to all. In: Wolf R, Issa T, Thiel M (eds) Empowering organizations through corporate social responsibility. IGI Global, Hershey Wolf R (2015b) Corporate social responsibility in the West (U.S. and West Europe) vs. East (China). In: Wolf R, Issa T (eds) International business ethics and growth opportunities. IGI Global, Hershey Wolf R, Issa T (2015) International Business Ethics and Growth Opportunities. IGI Global: Pennsylvania

Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability Wolf R, Issa T, Thiel M (2015) Empowering Organizations through Corporate Social Responsibility. IGI Global, Pennsylvania Wolf R, Thiel M (2018) Economic growth in Africa through an ethical lens. Africology 12(1):145–164 Women, Agriculture and Work in Africa (2017) The World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/africamyths-and-facts/publication/women-agriculture-andwork-in-africa World Economic Forum Annual Meeting (2016) Mastering the fourth industrial revolution, Switzerland, Author: Rosamond Hutt Wright C, Nyberg D (2017) An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Academy of Management Journal 60(5):1633–1661

445

measured as a percentage of net household disposable income (OECD 2019b). Financial distress is a condition in which an individual cannot generate income because he/ she is unable to pay his/her financial obligations. This is generally due to high financing costs, illiquid assets, or experiencing adversities due to economic downturns or personal matters. There are several numbers of variables that could indicate household-level financial distress, including bankruptcy, foreclosure, being denied credit, late payment of bills, and high payment-to-income ratio (PIR) (Bricker and Thompson 2016).

Finance Climate Action Introduction ▶ Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability Aqilah Nadiah Md Sahiq Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Cawangan Melaka, Melaka, Malaysia

Synonyms Credit; Financial instability; Personal bankruptcy

Definition Household debt is defined as all liabilities of households (including nonprofit institutions serving households) that require payments of interest or principal by households to the creditors at a fixed date in the future. Debt is calculated as the sum of the following liability categories: loans (primarily mortgage loans and consumer credit) and other accounts payable. The indicator is

The explosive global growth of personal bankruptcy cases has employed a variety of tricks to mask, mostly from the decline in real earning power. Our incomes are often insufficient to support the lifestyle that we desire, and we have become accustomed to overspending and excessive borrowings. Instead of doing some little savings monthly, we tend to live beyond our means, thus building up a portfolio of debt that make us feel distressed – wanting to get rid of it. Many individuals are experiencing financial distress causing them serious repercussions toward financial instability and financial insecurity. Almost anywhere in the world, it seems that consumer bankruptcy filings continue to increase. In recent decades, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries have seen trends toward lower financial security as economies have changed in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Based on Diagram 1, the household savings trend is declining from 14% in 1970 to 5% in 2016 (OECD 2019a). In contrast, the household debt continues to increase rapidly, reaching almost 140% in 2016. Countries such as Canada, Australia, and the Scandinavia are among the countries with highest household debt in the world (OECD 2017). A similar trend is also recognized among emerging and developing countries. A decade after the global financial crisis, the household debt ratio in

F

446

Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability Household savings (% of disposable income, left axis) and household debt (% of disposable income, right azis), OECD average, 1970-2016

16

140

14

120

12

100

10

80

8

60

6

2014 2016

2010 2012

2006 2008

2004

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

0 1988 1990 1992

0 1984 1986

20 1982

2 1978 1980

40

1976

4

Debt as % of disposable income

Debt (right axis) 160

1970 1972 1974

Savings as % of disposable income

Savings (left axis) 18

Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability, Diagram 1 Household savings and debt. (Source: OECD (2019a) in Trends Shaping Education 2019 (p. 64))

emerging markets has rose substantially by 69.6% (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 2019). While household borrowings are generally more modest in emerging market economies, it has reached a share of GDP comparable to that of advanced economies in several East Asian economies (OECD 2017). In addition, UNCTAD gauges that the proportion of global debt to gross domestic product (GDP) was a third higher in early 2018 than at the beginning of the financial crisis in 2007/2008 and approximately four times global GDP (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 2019). While rising indebtedness is a general and global phenomenon, it is the amount of household debt produced by both the advanced and developing countries that create such a concern on future debt sustainability vulnerabilities. Excessive debt can become a substantial financial burden and can lead to personal bankruptcy and contribute to national and international financial crises (International Monetary Fund 2017).

Where Did your Money Go? Wants vs Needs There are many types of household debt consumed by the households, namely, mortgage,

hire purchase, education loan, consumer durable loan, personal loan, and credit card. For the past decade, it could be seen that the household debt level is unsustainable across the world. In a recent study conducted by Apergis (2019), across 32 countries, i.e., Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, the UK, and the USA, between the period of 1997 and 2017, the household debt service ratio is shown to be a significant predictor of household consumption behavior. Debt service ratio basically indicates the amount of income used for debt payments (such as loan installation, interest payments, and amortizations) but excluding home mortgage (Kapoor et al. 2012). The debt service ratios could describe the link between debt-related payments and consumption expenses. In the case of developed countries, the debt service ratio has a positive impact toward consumption expenses, which reflects that households have a stronger ability to affect and smooth out consumption (Apergis 2019). Nevertheless, nowadays, many households tend to take extra credit facilities such as personal

Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability

loan to cater to their personal lifestyle in the pursuit of consumption set by other (wealthier) households, rather than looking at the affordability before making consumption. The effect of debt service ratio on consumer expenditure has impact toward the types of consumer spending (i.e., durable goods, non-durable goods, and services consumption) (Apergis 2019). The strongest impact is on durable goods but lesser effect on non-durable goods and services consumption. This implies that majority of the households are taking up credit to make purchases on high-value durable goods (such as land, property, cars, and household appliances). The question is then when an individual is taking too much debt, will he or she be able to service the mounting debt? An ideal debt service ratio for an individual should be less than 20% (Kapoor et al. 2012). The main argument against heavy borrowings among households, which may outweigh the benefits of borrowing, is that high debt levels may constrain the debt repayment capacity as the individual may struggle to repay if they unable to manage their financial commitments effectively. According to Apergis (2019), higher debt service ratio also may indicate increased vulnerability among the households and the financial systems, consequently affecting the whole economy. The reason is that, higher overall debt levels and a change for the worse in any of these economic conditions will lead to increase loan default and, ultimately, higher insolvency rates. Furthermore, high level of household debt not only results in social and family predicaments (Berger and Houle 2019) but also is associated with emotional and psychological stress (French and Vigne 2019; Ho et al. 2016). In addition, the global economic crisis has also contributed significant influence toward the household savings rate. In contrast with Apergis (2019) studies, the surge in household debt is more a consequence of economic necessities rather than profligate spending (Berger and Houle 2019; Weller 2007). The daily financial events have greatly affected households’ net worth. The rising cost of living, housing costs, education, healthcare, transportations, and childcare have led the household to take up more credits, thus reducing savings and making

447

household debt rate increasing even more. When a household receives a paycheck or is paying living consumptions, the total assets and liabilities will change. Thus, it is critical for households to prioritize and classify consumptions between needs and wants by having good financial planning to minimize financial distress. Basically, a “need” is the basic necessities or the elemental requirements that must be fulfilled for a household needs to survive, such as a house for shelter, clothes to wear, and enough food and water to stay healthy. Meanwhile, “wants” are something that individuals desire to have, which they may or may not be able to obtain, either immediately or at a later time. An individual’s needs are limited, but wants are unlimited. Many households are unaware that, if they are working, the take-home pay is going to be only between 60 and 75% of the take-home pay amount (Guthrie and Nicholls 2015). Hence, it is imperative for a household to wisely allocate the take-home pay to provide for basic needs so that household will also have some money to spend on “wants” as well. One of the important things to consider when making consumption is to spend wisely between non-discretionary and discretionary expenses, as income is limited. Non-discretionary expenses are the items that household must pay before making any choices regarding how household will spend the remainder of their money (Guthrie and Nicholls 2015). A household needs to make decisions to the initial amounts of these items (e.g., the apartment you choose to rent, the car you purchase), but once households commit to them, they are obligated to make financial commitments for a fixed period of time (e.g., apartment lease period, car loan duration). This category of expenses includes items such as student loan payments, rent, health insurance, car instalments, car insurance, utilities, and food. It is important to think carefully before committing to large non-discretionary expenses, because once you commit, it is usually difficult and costly (to your budget, your credit rating, or both) to change your mind. Meanwhile, discretionary expenses represent items or services that household may want (or need to a lesser degree) and can be purchased after you have covered your non-discretionary expenses (Guthrie and Nicholls

F

448

Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability

2015). Some expenses may be non-discretionary at one level but more discretionary in nature once you exceed that level. For example, an individual must consume food to survive, but you do not necessarily have to dine in frequently in restaurants. Likewise, a basic clothing budget is a necessity, but branded clothes are discretionary.

Socioeconomic Status and Household Debt In this era of high living cost, debt has become a pervasive component of households’ financial portfolios to strive for better socioeconomic attainment. Yet, we have scant understanding of how socioeconomic status may influence the willingness of household to take up more debt. The exposure in the structure of the socioeconomic systems and the timely estimation of the socioeconomic status are important for economic development. By understanding the socioeconomic processes, it could provide the basis for quantifying global economic development, mapping regional industrial structures, and inferring individual socioeconomic status (Gao et al. 2019). Socioeconomic level is an indicator typically defined as a combination of income-related variables to characterize an individual’s social and economic status (Gao et al. 2019). As such, individual socioeconomic level serves as an indication of the purchasing power, and thus it is important to the design and evaluation of social policies. Socioeconomic status could predict the likelihood of default among household borrowers as socioeconomic status is commonly used to depict an economic difference in society as a whole (Evans and Lown 2008; French and Vigne 2019; Gao et al. 2019; von Stumm et al. 2013). Households frequently take on debt for reasons that range from providing the basic necessities of life to achieving higher social status such as getting a degree qualification, securing first employment and earning, and moving into a new house (separating from families of origin) (Dwyer et al. 2011; Houle 2014). The likelihood of experiencing negative financial outcomes may be largely explained by socioeconomic differences (Houle

2014; von Stumm et al. 2013). Many highly indebted households tend to have relatively high income and wealth. However, low-income indebted households tend to be more leveraged, have a higher debt service cost relative to income, and have lower liquidity buffers than more affluent ones (André 2016; Houle 2014). At the same time, lower-income households tend to have higher propensity to consume, rendering private consumption expenditure particularly vulnerable to income and wealth shocks. This is because the socioeconomic disadvantage faced by the lowerincome groups has induced the lower-income groups not only to spend to fulfil their needs but also to copy the spending behavior of richer peer groups and thereby drove them into debt (Stockhammer and Wildauer 2017; O’Farrell et al. 2016; von Stumm et al. 2013). Stockhammer and Wildauer (2017) conducted an analysis on determinants of household debt among 11 OECD countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK, and the USA). A test on expenditure cascade hypothesis is conducted to explain how households compare themselves with peers who are richer than themselves; i.e., in times of growing top incomes, those households in the bracket just below the top group will be trying to keep up with the richer top group and take on debt in order to finance their status comparisoninduced expenditures. Households in the third income bracket will run into debt when they try to keep up with those in the second bracket, etc. This will result in a cascade of debt-financed status expenditures flowing downward from the top of the income distribution. However, Stockhammer and Wildauer (2017) found that expenditure cascades actually do not induce lower-income groups to spend and do not explain about the main driver of debt accumulation among OECD countries. Instead, the present findings demonstrate that the real estate transactions (homeownership) are the main driver of household debt, due to loosened monetary policy and financial regulations. In countries with rising household debt, house prices have also increased at a faster pace than incomes and rents, which have raised sustainability concerns (Lowe 2017;

Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability

OECD 2017; Atalay et al. 2015). This situation has also been escalating in the Southeast Asian region. Compounded by easy access to credit and stiff credit market competition, the house prices are skyrocketing and becoming highly unaffordable due to the middle-class and upperclass communities’ strategy to accumulate wealth. As house prices remained skyrocketing, mortgage debt should be a critical factor that warrants close monitoring in examining the household propensity to go into bankruptcy. The link between house price and debt is significant, as high indebtedness may affect the sensitivity of household spending in various economic activities (Atalay et al. 2015). In addition, aggregate debt levels tell little about the ability of households to repay loans, which depends on the distribution of debt, income, and wealth across the households (André 2016). Therefore, to the extent to which borrowing helps avoid poverty and moving upward social mobility, it may be advisable to encourage perceptions of money as a means for security and to avoid its associations with status enhancement (von Stumm et al. 2013).

Costs Associated with High Household Debt: Less Stigma or More Financial Distress? The economic downturn is often followed by a reduction in individual income, which can lead to a reduction in prospects, as well as rise in individual financial pressures, thereby increasing the risk of stressful life events. According to Berger and Houle (2019), there are three aspects of debt on why households tend to accrue debt: agency in borrowing, magnitude, and cost. The agency reflects the types of debt acquired by the household. Meanwhile, magnitude indicates the amount of debt taken, which has implications on whether the debt can be repaid within expected time frame. Finally, cost comprises the total charges and fees incurred during the full period over which debt is repaid. The agency, magnitude, and cost are key interrelated aspects of debt accumulation and tend to vary by socioeconomic status (Berger and Houle 2019). For example, in Malaysia, more

449

than a third (39%) of Malaysian working adults falls within the surviving category of the average financial well-being score (Agensi Kaunseling dan Pengurusan Kredit (AKPK 2018). There is only 5% of Malaysian working adults who have an exemplary financial behavior (in terms of spending, savings, retirement and investment, and debt management). This indicates that there is a potential of financial fragility going forward and this will lead to serious repercussions such as deteriorating debt sustainability and increasing financial vulnerability, which eventually may cause the individual to file for bankruptcy. Individuals who file for bankruptcy may have to deal with the stigmatization effect because they will be viewed harshly by the society due to the incapability of servicing their debt. Hence, another point of concern that this chapter would like to draw attention is about the bankruptcy stigma. The concept of stigma refers to the social devaluation of an individual who deviates from a social norm (Bishop 2017). The needs to study bankruptcy stigma remain relevant today because the extraordinary increase in bankruptcy filings is reflecting the consequence of declining stigma (Sullivan et al. 2006). In addition, bankruptcy also attracts considerable social stigma discussions (Bishop 2017; Sousa 2014; Keys 2010; Efrat 2006; Fay et al. 2002). Do bankrupts actually suffer social stigma? Generally, when an individual goes into personal bankruptcy, one of the negative consequences that he/she has to deal with is the social stigma (blame). According to Monroe and Malle (2018), morality issues are mainly bound in human social life, of which, the judgments of blame carry particular social significance. Indeed, in human history, blame has emerged as a socially costly tool for regulating the behavior of others. Due to its damaging effect for both blamers and violators, blame is typically constrained by “warrant,” i.e., the blamer must be able to offer grounds for why the agent deserves the attributed blame. This “warrant” requirement has become a proof that one’s moral judgment is justified (Monroe and Malle 2018). Obviously, one of the consequences of strongly blaming somebody is that the individual will lose public standing. If the

F

450

Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability

individual is seen as both lacking in ability or competence and lacking in moral character, then that is likely to worsen their public standing. By and large, studies on bankruptcy stigmatization adopt a sociocultural norm, in which an individual who goes into bankruptcy will be stigmatized, marginalized, and discriminated by the society (Thorne 2018; Agarwal et al. 2016; Atkinson 2010). Nevertheless, there is a growing moral slackness which has caused people who can repay their debts to seek the too-easy protection of bankruptcy. This is because individuals will tend to blame their surroundings, with the ultimate goal to mete out punishment, rather than admitting their own mistakes. In addition, many individuals today have a lavish lifestyle, despite knowing that their financial condition is not so strong. Yet, because they want to keep up with the Joneses, hence, they tend to incur more debt to make unnecessary purchases. By expressing their social worth and social relations through consumption, this has caused general dissatisfactions and disappointments by debtors in terms of their standard of living (Apergis 2019; Livingstone and Lunt 1992). Not only that, even though an individual possesses good academic qualifications, better financial knowledge, and prudent financial behavior and attitude, yet these do not necessarily translate into better financial management (Loke 2016). To date, the literature on stigma is diverse, with contributions from various perspectives, such as legal, financial, psychology, and sociology. From the legal perspective, generally bankruptcy stigma is treated as an “all or nothing” issue, that is, arguing over whether a stigma exists (or not) (Sullivan et al. 2006) or exploring whether the stigma has declined (or not) (Efrat 2006; Zywicki 2004) over the past several decades. Proponents of the “declining stigma hypothesis” attributed the change in attitudes to a great variety of factors, including rising levels of greater public awareness of consumerism and increasing access to credit, advertising, bankruptcy filings, media portrayals of bankrupt celebrities, urbanization, and even declining levels of religious belief (Ali et al. 2017; Efrat 2006; Zywicki 2004).

Next, from the financial perspective, debt has become a popular monetary instrument for investments that are not linked to any enterprising activities. For example, house purchase debt is often regarded as a “good debt” because purchasing a house is a basic necessity. Nowadays, it is easier for an individual to gain access to credit due to stiff credit market competition – deregulation, innovation, and technological advancement. This has resulted in a “new consumerism,” where households tend to make irrational borrowings and suddenly face unexpected income shocks. This has led to cumulative disadvantages where it exposes the individuals to escalating indebtedness, facing greater financial risk, and, eventually, tarnishes the credit ratings of the individuals. The feelings of anxiety and shame will greatly affect the individuals’ financial abilities when these individuals’ financial difficulties are primed. The results of study from Delis et al. (2019) shed light on the existence of a vicious behavioral cycle, whereby those most vulnerable to negative economic shocks are also the most likely to make mistakes in their financial decisions. Meanwhile, from the psychology perspective, the bankruptcy stigma is a multidimensional construct that includes morality-, warmth-, and competence-related elements (Chin et al. 2018). Chin et al. (2018) applied the theory of culpable control (Alicke 2000) toward understanding the bankruptcy stigma, i.e., assessing on the bankruptcy filers on how and when they are being evaluated negatively by the society. The finding of their study is consistent with psychological models of blame (Alicke 2000), where bankruptcy filers who are perceived to have more control over the circumstances (e.g., overspending) leading to their filing are more highly stigmatized. Conversely, bankruptcy filers who are perceived to have less control (e.g., adverse events such as job loss or health problems) over their circumstances are less stigmatized. Finally, from the sociology perspective, the bankruptcy filing had become a first stop for unscrupulous debtors, rather than a last resort for people in severe financial distress (Sousa 2014; Thorne and Anderson 2006). Debt was no longer a source of embarrassment but a “status symbol,”

Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability

while bankruptcy was no longer stigmatized but rather seen as a tool to avoid financial obligations (Thorne and Anderson 2006). Based on study conducted by Chin et al. (2018), there are two key factors underlying bankruptcy stigma, which are perceived control over the source of debt and the filer’s first-hand experience with bankruptcy. Firstly, the attitudes toward bankruptcy and bankruptcy filers are less negative for those who have first-hand personal experience with bankruptcy. In contrast, familiarity with someone else’s bankruptcy is only weakly related to stigma. Chin et al. (2018) suggest that more research is needed to understand the relationship between aggregate filing rates and the propensity to file.

Recommendations: Resolution to Minimize Financial Distress While credit is important and necessary to support economic activity and innovation, however, it can increase risks, reduce growth, and raise inequality. High household debt can be an important source of fueling up financial distress, as households are the ultimate recipients of income streams and the main drivers of consumption in the economy (OECD 2017). Therefore, the following approaches can be implemented as a resolution to minimize financial distress: (i) Enhancing financial literacy through effective financial education programs Initiatives to create effective financial education programs such as “My Money and Me,” “Smart Money Kids,” and “Credit Abuse Resistance Education (CARE)” are highly applauded to strengthen the financial literacy at all ages, from youngest to the oldest in order to secure financial wellbeing. The global financial literacy rate is of just 33%, which is pretty depressing (Klapper et al. 2015). Hence, effective financial education and awareness campaigns are critical to provide good understanding on the basic financial concepts. The financial education programs may empower household to make an informed decision which better suits to

451

their personal circumstances and prepare them with the rapid changing of financial landscape, thus minimizing the households’ exposure from financial risk. (ii) Developing comprehensive credit scoring model for assessing consumers’ credit risk Consumers of financial products have been growing due to trailblazing innovations and technological advancements, making the financial products becoming more sophisticated and complex. Thus, consumer protection frameworks that cater to specific financial products should be developed and become an integral part in the regulatory framework. The reason is that, the complexities to understand and information asymmetries that could result in consumers making uninformed decisions may expose the consumer toward excessive financial risks, eventually placing consumers at a disadvantage. Thus, one of the practical ways that may protect consumers from unfair and abusive practices by financial institutions is by developing credit scoring model to assess their creditworthiness and minimize the default risk. Credit scoring model could help to predict consumers’ likelihood of being into default, by giving consumers clear and complete information of the risks in the products that they purchased. Currently, most financial institutions assess the creditworthiness of consumers based on the 5 Cs attributes (capacity, capital, coverage (or collateral), character, and conditions). A good credit scoring model should be more comprehensive, interpretive, and well-understood by both consumers and financial institutions.

Conclusion In summary, living within means is achievable for everyone. It is hoped that this chapter will give reader a great insight on the imperative toward achieving a path to financial independence and, thus, lead a happy free life. One should not favor the idea that households should default on a regular basis. Nevertheless, to address the issues of

F

452

Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability

excessive household debt among various socioeconomic groups, and declining stigma toward personal bankruptcy, it is essential to have an effective personal bankruptcy regime to allow scrupulous debtors to have a “fresh start” and return to economic activities. Henceforth, to maintain household debt sustainability in the long term will therefore require significant strengthening of debt management capacity and implementation of prudent policies on borrowings. It is also imperative for household to establish reliable debt recording systems in order to ensure timely servicing of debt and having good planning to make debt settlement without jeopardizing current financial conditions.

Cross-References ▶ Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Long-Term Investments ▶ Universal Health Coverage: Healthcare System for Universal Health Coverage Under Partnerships

References Agarwal S, He J, Sing TF, Zhang J (2016) Gender gap in personal bankruptcy risks: empirical evidence from Singapore. Rev Financ 22:1–35. https://doi.org/10. 2139/ssrn.2340371 Agensi Kaunseling dan Pengurusan Kredit (AKPK) (2018) Financial behaviour and state of financial well-being of Malaysian working adults. AKPK Financial Behaviour Survey 2018: 1–70. Retrieved from https://www.akpk. org.my/content/1259-research-and-publications Ali P, Lucinda OB, Ian R (2017) Misfortune or misdeed: an empirical study of public attitudes towards personal bankruptcy. UNSW Law J 40(3):1098–1129 Alicke MD (2000) Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychol Bull 126(4):556–574. https://doi.org/ 10.1037//0033-2909.126.4.556 André C (2016) Household debt in OECD countries: stylised facts and policy issues. OECD Economics Department. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm3xgtkk1f2-en Apergis N (2019) The role of the debt-service ratio as a leading indicator of households consumption. Manch Sch 87:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/manc.12264 Atalay K, Barrett G, Edwards R (2015) House prices, mortgage debt and labour supply: evidence from

Australian households. AHURI positioning paper no. 167. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited, Melbourne, pp 2–59. https://doi.org/10. 18408/ahuri-7304101 Atkinson A (2010) Race, educational loans & bankruptcy. Mich J Race Law 16(1):1–43 Berger LM, Houle JN (2019) Rising household debt and children’s socioemotional well-being trajectories. Demography 56(4):1273–1301. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s13524-019-00800-7 Bishop P (2017) Spatial variations in personal insolvency choices: the role of stigma and social capital. Urban Stud 54(16):3738–3754. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0042098016679765 Bricker J, Thompson J (2016) Does education loan debt influence household financial distress? An assessment using the 2007–2009 survey of consumer finances panel. Contemp Econ Policy 34(4):660–677. https:// doi.org/10.1111/coep.12164 Chin A, Cohen TR, Lindblad MR (2018) Consumer bankruptcy stigma: understanding relationships with familiarity and perceived control. J Consum Aff 53:600– 629. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12206 Delis MD, Galariotis EC, Monne J (2019) Economic condition and financial cognition. SSRN Electron J:1–45. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3405948 Dwyer RE, McCloud L, Hodson R (2011) Youth debt, mastery, and self-esteem: class-stratified effects of indebtedness on self-concept. Soc Sci Res 40(3):727– 741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.02.001 Efrat R (2006) The evolution of bankruptcy stigma. Theor Inq Law 7(2). https://doi.org/10.2202/1565-3404.1130 Evans DA, Lown JM (2008) Predictors of chapter 13 completion rates: the role of socioeconomic variables and consumer debt type. J Fam Econ Iss 29(2):202– 218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-008-9098-7 Fay S, Hurst E, White MJ (2002) The household bankruptcy decision. Am Econ Rev 92(3):706–718 French D, Vigne S (2019) The causes and consequences of household financial strain: a systematic review. Int Rev Financ Anal 62:150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa. 2018.09.008 Gao J, Zhang YC, Zhou T (2019) Computational socioeconomics. Phys Rep 817:1–104. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.physrep.2019.05.002 Guthrie CP, Nicholls CM (2015) The personal budget project: a practical introduction to financial literacy. J Account Educ 33(2):138–163. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jaccedu.2015.04.002 Ho CSF, Mohd Yusof J, Mainal SA (2016) Household debt, macroeconomic fundamentals and household characteristics in Asian developed and developing countries. Soc Sci 11(18):4358–4362 Houle JN (2014) Disparities in debt: parents’ socioeconomic resources and young adult student loan debt. Sociol Educ 87(1):53–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0038040713512213 International Monetary Fund (2017) Global financial stability report 2017 – chapter two: household debt and financial

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development stability. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/Publica tions/GFSR/Issues/2017/09/27/global-financial-stabilityreport-october-2017 Kapoor J, Dlabay L, Hughes R (2012) Personal finance, 10th edn, International edition. McGraw Hill, New York Keys BJ (2010) The credit market consequences of job displacement. Finance and economics discussion series (FEDS), vol 24. Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC Klapper L, Lusardi A, van Oudheusden P (2015) Financial literacy around the world. Insights from the standard & poor’s ratings services global financial literacy survey. Retrieved from http://www.openfininc.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2015-Finlit_paper_17_ F3_SINGLES.pdf Livingstone MS, Lunt KP (1992) Predicting personal debt and debt repayment: psychological, social and economic determinants. J Econ Psychol 13:111–134 Loke YJ (2016) Living beyond one’s means: evidence from Malaysia. Int J Soc Econ 43(1):2–18. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJSE-11-2013-0248 Lowe P (2017) Household debt, housing prices and resilience. Econ Anal Policy 55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eap.2017.05.007 Monroe AE, Malle BF (2018) People systematically update moral judgments of blame. J Pers Soc Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000137CITATION O’Farrell R, Rawdanowicz L, Inaba K-I (2016) Monetary policy and inequality. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm2hz 2x9hxr-en OECD (2017) Chapter 2: resilience in a time of high debt. In: OECD economic outlook, vol 2017, no 2. pp 55–95. https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_outlook-v2017-2-en OECD (2019a) Chapter 3: security in a risky world – economic security. In: Trends shaping education 2019. pp 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu2019-graph29-en OECD (2019b) Household debt (indicator). Retrieved August 2, 2019, from OECD iLibrary website. https:// doi.org/10.1787/f03b6469-en Sousa, MD (2014) Bankruptcy Stigma: A Socio-Legal Study. Electronic Theses and Dissertations 619:1– 127. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.du.edu/ etd/619 Stockhammer E, Wildauer R (2017) Expenditure cascades, low interest rates or property booms? Determinants of household debt in OECD countries. Post Keynesian Economics Study Group. https://doi.org/10.1561/105. 00000083 Sullivan TA, Warren E, Westbrook JL (2006) Less stigma or more financial distress: an empirical analysis of the extraordinary increase in bankruptcy filings. Stanford Law Rev 59(2):213–256 Thorne D (2018) Financial stumbles, consumer bankruptcy, and the sociological imagination. In: Teaching economic inequality and capitalism in contemporary America. pp 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-71141-6_5

453 Thorne D, Anderson L (2006) Managing the stigma of personal bankruptcy. Sociol Focus 39(2):77–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2006.10571278 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2019) Current challenges to developing country debt sustainabiliy. Retrieved from https:// unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/gds2018d2_en.pdf von Stumm S, O’Creevy MF, Furnham A (2013) Financial capability, money attitudes and socioeconomic status: risks for experiencing adverse financial events. Personal Individ Differ 54(3):344–349. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2012.09.019 Weller CE (2007) Need or want: what explains the run-up in consumer debt? J Econ Issues 41(2):583–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2007.11507048 Zywicki T (2004) An economic analysis of the consumer bankruptcy crisis. Law and economics working paper series. 99(4):71. Retrieved from http://mail.bea conhill.org/~bpowell/iscybersecurityapublicgood.pdf %5Cn, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abs tract_id¼587901

Financial Instability ▶ Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development Kelvin Leong1, Anna Sung1 and Cedric Teissier2,3 1 Chester Business School, University of Chester, Chester, UK 2 World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland 3 Finexkap, Paris, France

Definition FinTech is a cross-disciplinary subject that combines finance, technology management, and innovation management. In addition, FinTech initiatives often lead to new business models or even new business (Leong and Sung 2018). Partnership plays an important role to promote FinTech initiatives for sustainable development, such as enhancing financial inclusion, improving lending decision-making, facilitating diverse

F

454

business ideas, providing alternative investment opportunities, widening risk coverage, mobilizing capital market, enhancing innovative projects diversity, reducing transaction costs, enabling new distribution channels, improving fund transfer efficiency, enhancing the security of payment process, improving regulatory monitoring system, etc.

Introduction Sustainable development involves the interplay of three aspects: economy, environment, and society (Giddings et al. 2002). These three aspects are linked by “needs.” As per Gladwin et al. (1995), the core of sustainable development is “to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” More specifically, the “needs” refer to the needs of human. We further argue that “financial system” plays a key role in sustainable development, and this argument is explained as follows. In order to satisfy human needs through exchange of resources, give-and-get transactions among individual-to-individual, individual-toorganization, or organization-to-organization are common activities. A barter system is an old method to exchange resources. Under the barter system, participants in a transaction directly exchange their resources (e.g., goods or services) for other resources without using any medium of exchange (e.g., money or loan, etc.). However, barter system only supports immediate reciprocal exchange that is limited by spatial and temporal constraints. Spatial and temporal constraints negatively affect sustainable development. For example, in terms of spatial constraint, a fish farmer can only exchange fresh fish for other types of resources within a certain geographic distance which is limited by his or her travelling method. This means the fish farmer might find it difficult to obtain resources (e.g., a specific medicine for fish) out of the distance. On the other hand, an example of temporal constraint is given a farmer can only grow certain amount of produce at a specific time period, let’s say 10 tonnes of wheat in half yearly and the farmer can only use

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development

this 10 tonnes of wheat to exchange equivalent cost of other resources that can support the living of the farmer and sustain the farming practice. In some situations, the amount of produces might not be enough to exchange for an expensive equipment used for harvesting produces. In both examples, the sustainability of the fish farmer and the farmer could be challenged, such as the fisher might lose all the fish without the access of medicine for fish, while the farmer might not be able to harvest all the produces before they went rotten without the machine to help on improving the efficiency. In simplicity, the needs cannot be satisfied. Financial system can help to overcome the above-mentioned constraints and can facilitate many transactions on resource exchange, but neither everyone can be included in the system nor everyone can be treated fairly in the system. For the parties who are in advantaged position in the financial system, they will eventually become stronger and stronger in such position. On the contrary, for the parties who are in disadvantaged position in the financial system, they will be very likely to face adversity in terms of resources and living standard. For example, gender discrimination in financial access is a widely studied topic where females are more likely to be excluded from existing financial system than males. A more comprehensive financial system for all has been considered as a driving force for sustainable development (UNEP Inquiry 2016). In fact, not everyone is treated fairly in the contemporary financial system which is a challenge of the modern world, particularly in developing countries. For example, previous studies (Quak 2018) indicated that developing countries face an annual investment gap of around US$ 2.5 trillion in infrastructure, such as water, agriculture, telecommunications, energy, transport, buildings, etc. Unfortunately, the investment gap was not because of lack of capital; it was because of unbalanced capital flows. FinTech (i.e., financial technology) has been considered as the solution for improving the financial system and is defined as “a cross-disciplinary subject that combines Finance, Technology Management and Innovation Management. In

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development

addition, FinTech initiatives often lead to new business models or even new business” (Leong and Sung 2018). FinTech is disrupting the financial system and is an emerging topic around the world. In total, Global FinTech funding rose to USD111.8 billion (£88.2 billion) in 2018, which is an increase of 120% when compared to USD50.8 billion (£40.08 billion) in 2017 (Pollari and Ruddenklau 2018). Previous study (Sung et al. 2019) found that there was a continuous increasing trend in the use of the keyword “fintech” under the category “Jobs and Education” in online searching engine from September 2012 to August 2018. The development of FinTech has also facilitated the emergence of start-ups through alternative sources of financial service (Fenwick et al. 2017). Zhang et al. (2018) found that the total value of the alternative finance market in the UK grew by 35% to £6.2 billion during 2017. FinTech helps the financial system in many ways, such as improving the efficiency of payment processes, mobilizing domestic saving, enhancing financial inclusion, and more. For example, many small to medium enterprises (SMEs) face challenges in obtaining money from banks; on this problem, Finexkap, a French FinTech company, developed an integrated platform that enables the SMEs to obtain financing through a quick, flexible, and entirely digitalized factoring process (Liu 2019). On FinTech development, collaboration and partnership is a key trend. In general, the advantages of collaboration and partnership include speeding up innovation process, stimulating fresh ideas, sharing of expertise, etc. A more detailed discussion of relevant advantages will be provided in later part of this chapter. The remaining of this chapter is organized as follows: seven major FinTech application topics (i.e., alternative credit scoring, crowdfunding, insurance, investment, peer-to-peer (P2P) lending, payment, and regulation) will be reviewed. These reviews cover (i) the introduction of the topics, (ii) the latest development trends of the topics, and (iii) how the applications under these topics contribute to sustainable development. Finally, the chapter discusses the importance of

455

collaboration and partnership in FinTech and sustainable development.

On Alternative Credit Scoring A credit score is a numerical expression based on an analysis of an entity’s credit history to represent the creditworthiness of the entity. Historically, lenders, banks, financial institutions, and credit unions have relied heavily on traditional factors, such as payment history, debt level, account diversity, etc. to determine credit scores. The credit score will affect the lender’s decision on who qualifies for a loan, at what interest rate, and the corresponding credit limits. Businesses have long been seeking new ways to improve credit scoring effectiveness: an exemplar was AT&T Capital Corporation; as a result of using new decision automation systems for crediting and collection processes, the improvements in decision quality had led to business volume gains of $86 million annually while reducing bad debt losses by $1.1 million annually in few years (Curnow et al. 1997). Alternative credit scoring refers to obtaining diverse types of data from diverse data sources and using more contemporary analysis methods to determine credit scores. In recent years, the emergence of big data technology and analytics has enabled many new alternative credit scoring initiatives. For example, Wilcox and Stephen (2012) studied the relationships between social network use, body mass index, and credit card debt for individuals. Zhang et al. (2016b) constructed a credit scoring model by fusing social media information based on decision tree for predicting the default. Fei et al. (2015) applied textual analysis on social media platforms and found that analyzing the opinions extracted from both posts and commentaries surpassed professional advice from financial analysts in terms of credit risk prediction. Biçer et al. (2010) demonstrated the application of Bayesian classification method to improve effectiveness of the process. SerranoCinca and Gutierrez-Nieto (2016) used profit scoring as an alternative to traditional credit scoring systems in peer-to-peer (P2P) lending, and

F

456

results showed that profit scoring system outperforms the results obtained by a credit scoring system. He et al. (2016) employed hesitant multiplicative preference relation (HMPR) to construct a credit risk evaluation indicator system for supply chain enterprises. A very large scale of credit scoring reform can be found in China; Botsman (2017) reported that State Council of China published an ominoussounding document called “Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System.” Social Credit System (SCS) to rate the trustworthiness of its 1.3 billion citizens. That system (SCS) constantly monitors and evaluates daily activities of individual. The system will then create a publicly available citizen score for individual about whether or not the individual is trustworthy. In summary, from credit scoring aspect, the key contributions of FinTech development on sustainable development are on enhancing financial inclusion, improving lending decision-making, and enabling entities to access financing when it’s needed. On this, many borrowers, such as SMEs, start-ups, or individuals, have insufficient centralized data available to generate traditional credit score, but this does not mean that they are not trustworthy. FinTech enables innovative alternative credit scorings that can help lenders to determine and justify the creditworthiness of a new borrower. Borrowers have alternative ways to obtain funds they need, and from the lenders’ side, alternate credit scoring can enable them to boost their penetration in previously unreachable borrowers. In overall, the capital market efficiency can be improved as well.

On Crowdfunding As per UK Crowdfunding Association (UKCFA) (www.ukcfa.org.uk), crowdfunding is a funding practice by financing a project or idea from the crowd (i.e., a large number of people). There were many successful crowdfunding stories over the last decade; one famous example is that Barack Obama rose over USD $137 million for his election campaign in 2008 from a crowdfunding platform (Micic 2015). Bruntje and Gajda (2015)

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development

suggested that the key reason why crowdfunding becomes so popular in recent years is because of the Internet. In fact, according to an estimation (Drake 2016), there were about 2,000 online crowdfunding platforms over the world in 2016. Given crowdfunding provides an alternative way for businesses or individuals to obtain funds in lower cost or that was not possible in traditional ways, therefore crowdfunding is also considered as a type of alternative finance (Assadi 2015), that is, a financing channel which is outside the traditional systems in the form of debts and equity. Moreover, crowdfunding is also an effective tool for start-ups and entrepreneurs to bridge the funding gap between earliest stages of funding and later growth of capital (Scholz 2015). Crowdfunding can generally be classified into four categories (Buysere et al. 2012): (i) donation-based, (ii) reward-based, (iii) equitybased, and (iv) lending- or debt-based. The market size of crowdfunding industry is huge. According to an industry report (CrowdfundingHub 2016), the volumes of donation-based, reward-based, and equity-based crowdfunding markets in 2015 were £12 million, £42 million, and £332 million, respectively. On the other hand, there were USD 430 million (i.e., GBP 341 million) raised via crowdfunding in the developing world excluding China (AlliedCrowds 2016). Not all crowdfunding projects are equally successful. Clifford (2016) indicated that only less than 33% of crowdfunding campaigns reached their goals. There are many influencing factors affecting the results of crowdfunding, and those factors could be categorized into two major types, namely, (i) creator-based factors and (ii) projectbased factors. On creator-based factors, previous studies often suggested that the background of the creator in crowdfunding project would influence the project funding result. For example, previous studies (Zvilichovsky et al. 2015) indicated that the existence of links to a personal Facebook page in the project descriptions and the number of Facebook friends both have effects on fundraising success rate. Vismara (2016) reported a finding that crowdfunding campaigns established from creators with larger number of social network

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development

connections would have greater probabilities of success. Colombo et al. (2014) suggested a model that internal social capital of creators might develop inside the crowdfunding community and provided crucial assistance in igniting a selfreinforcing mechanism for positive crowdfunding results. On the other hand, project-based factors refer to the factors related to a project itself. On this, information provided from a project through communication is always the key on the success of crowdfunding projects. For example, Galuszka and Bystrov (2014) found that engagement in communication with potential backers would help on project success. Gerber et al. (2012) suggested that better communication could strengthen the feelings of connectedness between project creators and supporters. On the contrary, lack of communication would affect trust from potential supporters, in which lack of trust is a deterrent to crowdfunding participation (Gerber and Hui 2013). Xu et al. (2014) found that uses of project updates had stronger associations with project success than the project’s descriptions alone. From crowdfunding aspect, the key contributions of FinTech development on sustainable development are on facilitating diverse business ideas and financial inclusion and providing alternative investment opportunities. On this, creators can obtain different types of funds through different crowdfunding platforms, including donation, etc. This supports different type of projects that promote sustainability, including nonprofitmaking ideas, such as environmentally friendly activities. On the other hand, crowdfunding also enables people to conduct small amount of investment on nontraditional projects.

On Insurance Insurance can be considered as a kind of risk management arrangement. Under the arrangement, insurer and insuree both enter a contract that the insuree can get compensation against the losses from the insurer under specified instances.

457

Vaughan and Vaughan (2007) suggested that the first methods of transferring or distributing risks in a monetary economy can be traced back to the third and second millennia BC, among Chinese and Babylonian traders, respectively. Insurance is important to economy – not only because insurees can get compensation from accident but also insurance market activity may contribute to economic growth. This is achieved by allowing different risks to be managed more efficiently and by mobilizing domestic savings (Arena 2008). For example, Pradhan et al. (2017) found the interlinkages between the banking sector and the insurance industry on the economic growth of the G-20 countries between 1980 and 2014. In the context of developing countries, Alhassan (2016) identified a long-run relationship between insurance market activities and economic growth for Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, and South Africa. The rapid FinTech development has facilitated many innovative insurance initiatives. The related technologies include mobile device, on-time communication, wearable computing, artificial intelligence, data analytics, Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, smart contracts, etc. For example, Yıldırım (2019) reported how new initiatives make it easier for the insurance companies and the insured to manage their contracts and minimize the risks involved in Turkey. Svetlana (2016) reported that automation of claims handling and operating a reliable and transparent payout mechanism for the customers can be achieved by applying blockchain-related technologies and can be used to enforce contract-specific rules. Chae et al. (2001) evaluated how data mining algorithms can be used to predict health outcomes and provide policy information for insurance company in Korea. Kirlidog and Asuk (2012) reported the use of data mining approach to support fraud detection in health insurance context. Mosley (Mosley 2012) discussed the application of various data mining methods on social media data and how these methods enable insurers to proactively address potential market and customer issues more effectively. Kumar et al. (2010) reported an analytics system that can better predict and prevent errors in health insurance claim

F

458

processing. Everett (2015) reported a company had introduced a pilot project in which any employee can sign up for a free wearable technology (an activity tracker), that wellbeing data of the employee collected from the tracker are linked into the firm’s health insurance scheme. Nepomuceno (2015) developed a system that uses Internet device and computer algorithms to determine vehicle driver hazard detection proficiency and calculate insurance discount. From insurance service’s aspect, the key contribution of FinTech development on sustainable development is on widening risk coverage. On this, innovative insurance products can be offered at lower costs and more personalized because of the advanced capabilities offered by blockchain, IoT, and data analytics. As a result, more individuals and businesses from wider backgrounds can be covered. The wider coverage would facilitate increased levels of international trading and more diverse lifestyles. For example, some products were not able to be traded in the international markets in the past because of the lack of relevant insurance packages to cover the transportation risk, but now through FinTech-related technologies, such as blockchain- and IoT-based tracking system, more advanced risk analytics, etc., the challenge can be solved.

On Investment Investment could be defined as an action of purchasing an item (e.g., asset, share, property, currency, painting, antique, or any others) that is not for consuming purposes but for wealth creation in the future. Investment could also be considered as an outcome of decision-making (e.g., decision about investing on which stock, buying which property, or simply not investing on anything). Historically, information asymmetry has dominated the investment industry, but the development of FinTech is changing this situation (Sironi 2016). Data mining, or data analytics, has been considered as an important subject under FinTech. With the evolution of IoT, data are being generated and accumulated at an unprecedented pace. Various data mining techniques have been

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development

developed in order to uncover hidden patterns and predict future trends in financial markets. Some examples include using data mining techniques to predict exchange rate of currency (Vasilakis et al. 2013) and detecting the text content of daily twitter feeds for predicting the stock market fluctuations (Bollen et al. 2011). Moreover, investors often seek for advisory service in order to maximize their return and minimize risks. In brief, advisory service aims to provide suggestions to users according to a set of rules and criteria. FinTech is disrupting advisory service sector. An industry report (PwC 2019) indicated that 74% of insurance companies and 51% of asset managers suggested their industry will be disrupted by FinTech. On this, roboadvisor is an emerging FinTech topic in investment sector and can be a kind of digital financial adviser that provides automated financial advice or investment management for clients. Maedche et al. (2016) defined robo-advisor as a “digital platform comprising interactive and intelligent user assistance components.” The key features of robo-advisor include automation and personalization. Robo-advisor can provide personalized suggestions to clients in more effective ways, while the suggestions can also be updated according to various real-time data, such as economic indices, weather data, political news, etc. As per Phoon and Koh (2017), the driving factors of roboadvisor include competitiveness on pricing, information transparency and service quality, better expected returns linked to the use of quantitative finance and technology with less subjective human interventions, etc. Moreover, the interface design of robo-advisor is a key research area in terms of user experience improvement. For example, the findings from Adam et al. (2019) suggested that using anthropomorphism (i.e., triggered by verbal and visual cues) and personalized anchors in recommendations led to higher social presence which in turn led to increased investment volumes. Salo and Haapio (2017) summarized that simplification, visualization, and plain language offer ways to make information more accessible in the robo-advisor application. In summary, from investment aspect, the key contributions of FinTech development on

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development

sustainable development are on mobilizing capital market and enhancing innovative projects diversity. On this, new investment platforms enable investors with very small amounts of capital to conduct investment all over the world. Moreover, beginner investors often have only limited financial literacy and the robo-advisors can help them to make appropriate investment decision in much easy way. In addition, new real-time data analytic tools developed for investment purposes can help to improve information transparency and accuracy for many different kinds of project, for example, to help on investment planning in electricity production under fuel price uncertainty.

On P2P Lending P2P lending (i.e., peer-to-peer lending) is a method for people to lend money to individuals or businesses. Bachmann et al. (2011) suggested that first commercial online P2P lending platforms started in 2005. A key feature of P2P lending is that the mediation of financial institutions is not required in the lending process (Herzenstein et al. 2008). As per Ashta and Assadi (2009), online P2P lending platforms can be categorized into two types: commercial and noncommercial. A lender who engages in commercial platforms is more risk-sensitive. On the other hand, noncommercial platforms lenders get no or little reward for the risks they are willing to take. Compared with traditional financial institutions, previous study (Milne and Paul 2016) suggested that the advantages of P2P lending can be grouped into four categories, including (i) offering better rates of return; (ii) provision of credit to some categories of borrowers who are unable to access traditional lending; (iii) a perception that P2P lending is more responsible and of greater social value than traditional financial institutions; and (iv) technical innovation improving the quality and speed of service to both borrowers and lenders. Many factors would affect P2P results. Ding et al. (2018) indicated that P2P lenders take borrowers’ reputation as a key signal in their lending decision process. Moreover, there is an effective

459

reputation mechanism that can discipline borrowers’ behavior in P2P lending. Freedman and Ginger (2008) found that loans with friend endorsements and friend bids have fewer missed payments and yield significantly higher rates of return than other loans. Liao et al. (2017) examined investors’ fast-thinking pattern on Renrendai, one of China’s top P2P lending platforms; the findings suggested that investors (i.e., lenders) tend to rush to invest in risky highinterest loans – the introduction of a mobile app that makes interest rates even more salient exacerbates this fast-thinking bias. Lee and Lee (2012) conducted an analysis on lenders’ behavior in the online P2P lending market and found strong evidence of herding behavior. Wen and Wu (2014) conducted an analysis building on the data from Paipai Lending, the largest P2P network lending website in China, and found borrower’s gender and residential status would influence successful borrowing rate. P2P lending can also be found in different forms. For example, social lending is a subdivision of P2P lending. It refers to a form of lending established between friends and relatives via Internet (Wolfe 2008). Zhang et al. (2017) suggested that social lending can effectively reduce the risk and enhance transaction efficiency. From P2P aspect, the key contributions of FinTech development on sustainable development are on financial inclusion and mobilizing capital market. On this, the new FinTech enabled P2P platforms to connect people, including borrowers and lenders, from different backgrounds. The platforms not only allow borrowers to finance their initiatives but also provide various new opportunities for investors to better use their idle capital. In turn, these contributions would help to develop more diverse global economy.

On Payment As per Mckinsey and Company (2016), FinTech companies are developing everywhere, especially in the payment market. In fact, payment market is huge. It is expected that the global mobile phone payment technology market will reach a value of

F

460

approximately £2660.87 billion by 2024 (Zion market research 2018). Many new payment solutions have been developed building on various innovative enabling technologies, including but not limited to using near field communication (NFC) technology to support online payment process (Fisher 2013), incorporating URL (web address) shortening (Schoenberg et al. 2013), etc. Moreover, how to improve the process in terms of convenience, efficiency, traceability, security, etc. (Barkhordari et al. 2016) is the key focus on the developments of new payment solutions in the age of FinTech. In sustainable development, payment solution is an important topic. There is a strong correlation between SME growth and mobile payments. Uwamariya and Loebbecke (2019) suggested that nationwide adoption of mobile payment has been a key driver for the socioeconomic development in emerging markets. An example is M-Pesa, a mobile phone-based money transfer, financing and microfinancing service, launched in 2007 by Vodafone for Safaricom and Vodacom. The success of M-Pesa has become a case study of the potential mobile infrastructures (Maurer 2012). Moreover, Islam et al. (2018) found a positive relationship between mobile money use and the probability of a firm’s purchase of fixed asset in three East African countries –Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. International trading helps SMEs, start-ups, and local businesses to extend their distribution channels and reach more customers globally. However, transferring and exchanging money internationally is often a painful and expensive process. On this, absence of an effective money transfer system would limit the growth of many businesses. In recent years, there are many FinTech solutions that have been launched to make money transfer process simpler, faster, and less expensive. The related technologies include mobile technologies, Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, data analytics, blockchain, smart contracts, and more. For example, Dorsey et al. (2017) developed a secure method for supporting money transfer using e-mail, while TransferWise, a UK-based money transfer service launched in January 2011,

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development

suggested their charges could be up to eight times cheaper than banks. Other than business purposes, international workers and immigrants are also often involved in money remittance. As per Buch and Kuckulenz (2010), worker remittances constitute an increasingly important channel for the transfer of resources to developing countries, while Chami et al. (2005) suggested immigrant remittance flows a source of capital for development. Therefore, the development of related FinTech solutions on money transfer and remittances contributes to global economy in terms of improvement on resource mobility. In summary, from payment aspect, the key contribution of FinTech development on sustainable development includes reducing transaction costs, enabling new distribution channels, improving fund transfer efficiency, and enhancing the security of payment process. For example, lack of funding and limited distribution channels to reach customers are frequent problems faced by farmers to meet the level of sustainability; Anshari et al. (2019) proposed a FinTech-enabled payment system that can help to support agriculture’s sustainability by connecting all actors (farmers, landowners, investors, and consumers) into a platform. It is also worth mentioning that, at individual level, such as for immigrants or international workers, the innovative money remittance initiatives play an important role in terms of mobilizing the resources across the global economy and improving financial inclusion. In addition, sharing economy and gig economy are the new trends in the world, and previous studies also suggested that FinTech-enabled payment solutions could facilitate more people to live in their preferred lifestyle (Nelms et al. 2018).

On Regulation Many governments over the world have policies on charging users on various kinds of duties in order to minimize pollution or to encourage waste reduction. However, how to identify the users and to fairly determine the charges are often costly in implementation.

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development

The developments of FinTech solutions together with new IoT innovations open new opportunities for improving relevant monitoring processes. The related technologies that can support the processes include blockchain, smart sensor system, IoT, mobile technologies, social media, artificial intelligence, data analytics, etc. For example, Hermann (2017) reported a method for classifying an emission into hazardous emissions or nonhazardous emissions by using acoustic profile. Kang and Kang (2016) suggested the use of deep neural network in an intrusion detection system. Zhou et al. (2016) discussed how to use big data to drive smart energy management. Stich et al. (2015) presented an energy monitoring approach based on complex eventprocessing technologies to capture real-time information for manufacturing environments. Ullo et al. (2018) reported a project idea that aims to increase sustainable mobility and reduce the environmental impacts of transports. The project is based on combining the use of real-time controlled low-emission small vehicles following flexible routes and wireless sensor networks to satisfy the customer requests, considering traffic congestion and availability of other transport services. Wang et al. (2015) suggested a traffic congestion estimation approach with lower cost and wider spatial coverage by exploring traffic-related information from Twitter. Kay et al. (2015) discussed that social media have been increasingly employed by the government in China as a tool for monitoring and controlling air pollution. The study conducted by Jiang et al. (2015) indicated that the filtered social media messages are strongly correlated to the air quality index (AQI), and the result suggested the filtered social media messages can be used to monitor air quality. Zhang et al. (2016a) proposed an approach using convolutional neural network to estimate air quality based on photos. Other than using passive approaches, such as charging tax to discourage environmental damaging activities, an alternative approach is to actively promote environmentally friendly concepts to the general public to change people’s behavior. On this, FinTech also plays an influencing role. As per Cen and He (2018), Fintech

461

promotes both green finance and sustainable development (such as paperless processes, cashless society, financial inclusion, etc.) and has redefined financial service and the ways of pricing. The promotion can be achieved in innovative ways. An exemplar is Ant Forest, a gamified green initiative launched by the biggest FinTech company of China, of which the aim was claimed to be combating climate change through cultivating green lifestyle of the users (Zeng 2018). From the aspect of regulation, the key contribution of FinTech development on sustainable development is on the improvement of monitoring system. On this, FinTech-enabled monitoring systems can identify and trace user activities more accurately and determine the charges more fairly because of advanced capabilities of related technologies. As a result, regulatory bodies can achieve their goals more effectively. For example, the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) scheme implemented in Singapore provides a fairer solution for traffic congestion (Goh 2002).

The Importance of Collaboration and Partnerships Collaboration and partnership play an important role to promote new innovation. For example, in a previous study, 85% of respondents felt that collaboration accelerated product development process within the context of South African textile (Parker 2000). Faems et al. (2005) further suggested that interorganizational collaboration supports the effectiveness of innovation strategies. In FinTech-related studies, Juengerkes (2016) found that collaborations between FinTech firms and banks create an ecosystem that allows both parties to better fulfill client needs. Nienaber (2016) also suggested that the collaboration between FinTech firms and banks can embark future growth potential within the industry. Saksonova and Kuzmina-Merlino (2017) explained that a reason of collaboration between traditional financial institutions and FinTech firms is growing as both parties see promising avenues for further development. On the other hand,

F

462

Mohan (2016) indicated that banks are expected to work closely with start-ups to innovate faster and to create offers that can improve customer experience. In brief, the advantages of collaboration and partnership include speeding up innovation process, stimulating fresh ideas, improving user experience, widening access to skills and resources, etc. All the above advantages contribute sustainable development in various ways. For example, it’s very likely for migrant workers to end up in the unbanked population, and there are many reasons behind, such as the benchmarks to open a bank account are too high for them. Consequently, the unbanked workers have to pay a higher cost with exposure to higher risk in order to send money to their family in their home countries for financial support. On the other hand, many new environmental friendly projects are unable to obtain funds through traditional ways from finance institutions because of non-profit-making purpose and the uncertainties behind. Moreover, there are local family businesses that cease operations because they cannot compete with bigger firms in the global market under the trend of globalization. All these challenges can be solved somehow by collaboration and partnership between parties from different backgrounds, such as there are new FinTech companies that work with banks to support overseas remittance in lower rates. New FinTech initiatives can also help communities and social enterprises to have innovative revenue model or to achieve exchange for desired resources, which means the ideas of communities and social enterprises could be financed and survived. One of the famous FinTech cases is Ant Financial Services working with asset management companies to sell their green and sustainable investment products (Solheim 2016). In fact, many successful cases of FinTech initiatives originated in low-end or new market, and the initial users of those FinTech initiatives are considered as from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Conclusions and Future Directions Human need is the key component in sustainable development. Financial system can help people or

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development

enterprises to meet the needs of funds to access the resources they required. However, not all of them can access to the financial system fairly. A more comprehensive financial system for all has been considered as a driving force for sustainable development. On this, FinTech (i.e., financial technology) has been considered as an important solution in building a more inclusive financial system. Overall, the advantages of collaboration and partnership on FinTech initiatives include speeding up innovation process, stimulating fresh ideas, improving user experience, widening access to resources, etc. These advantages promote FinTech initiatives for sustainable development in terms of enhancing financial inclusion, improving lending decision-making, facilitating diverse business ideas, providing alternative investment opportunities, widening risk coverage, mobilizing capital market, enhancing innovative projects diversity, reducing transaction costs, enabling new distribution channels, improving fund transfer efficiency, enhancing the security of payment process, improving regulatory monitoring system, etc. Future directions of the related topics should focus on how to use technology innovatively in order to improve financial systems and processes – the improvement should take into account how the interests of different parties could be developed in a fair way (particularly balance considerations from the social, economic, and environmental aspects); how to support projects, people, and businesses that are sitting in disadvantaged positions; how to facilitate collaboration and partnerships to maximize the positive impact of financial innovation; etc. (Paris Agreement 2015).

References Adam M, Toutaoui J, Pfeuffer N, Hinz O (2019) Investment decisions with robo-advisors: the role of anthropomorphism and personalized anchors in recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 27th European conference on information systems (ECIS), Stockholm/Uppsala, 8–14 June 2019 Alhassan A (2016) Insurance market development and economic growth. Int J Soc Econ 43(3):321–339 AlliedCrowds (2016) Developing world crowdfunding: prosperity through crowdfunding annual report.

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development AlliedCrowds. https://cdn.filestackcontent.com/kNfF Q9IgT2ObxzjhGqUU. Accessed 27 Aug 2019 Anshari M, Almunawar MN, Masri M Hamdan M (2019) Digital marketplace and finTech to support agriculture sustainability, Energy Procedia, 156:234–238 Arena M (2008) Does insurance market activity promote economic growth? A cross-country study for industrialized and developing countries. J Risk Insur 75(4):921–946 Ashta A, Assadi D (2009) An analysis of European online micro-lending websites. Centre Emile Bernheim – Solvay Brussels School, Brussels. https://www.findevgateway. org/library/analysis-european-online-microlending-web sites. Accessed 16 July 2019 Assadi D (2015) Strategic approaches to successful crowdfunding, 1st edn. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 1–33 Bachmann A, Becker A, Buerckner D, Hilker M, Kock F, Lehmann M, Tiburtius P (2011) Online peer-to-peer lending-a literature review. J Internet Bank Commer 16(2):1–18 Barkhordari M, Nourollah Z, Mashayekhi H, Mashayekhi Y, Ahangar M (2016) Factors influencing adoption of e-payment systems: an empirical study on Iranian customers. IseB 15(1):89–116 Biçer I, Sevis D, Bilgiç T (2010) Bayesian credit scoring model with integration of expert knowledge and customer data. In: Paper presented at the 24th Mini EURO conference on continuous optimization and information-based technologies in the financial sector, MEC EurOPT 2010, Izmir, 23–26 June Bollen J, Mao H, Zeng X (2011) Twitter mood predicts the stock market. J Comput Sci 2(1):1–8 Botsman R (2017) Big data meets big brother as China moves to rate its citizens. Wired UK. https://www.wired.co.uk/ article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-in vasion. Accessed 13 Sept 2019 Bruntje D, Gajda O (2015) Crowdfunding in Europe, 1st edn. Ilmenau, Germany: Springer International Publishing, pp 1–4 Buch CM, Kuckulenz A (2010) Worker remittances and capital flows to developing countries. Int Migr 48(5):89–117 Buysere K, Gajda O, Kleverlaan R, Marom D (2012) A framework for European crowdfunding. European commission communications. http://www.infoeuropa. ciejd.pt/files/database/000051001-000052000/00005110 2.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Cen T, He R (2018) Fintech, green finance and sustainable development. In: 2018 international conference on management, economics, education, arts and humanities (MEEAH 2018), Atlantis Press, Shenzhen, 10–11 Nov 2018 Chae YM, Ho SH, Cho KW, Lee DH, Ji SH (2001) Data mining approach to policy analysis in a health insurance domain. Int J Med Inform 62(2–3): 103–111 Chami R, Fullenkamp C, Jahjah S (2005) Are immigrant remittance flows a source of capital for development? IMF Staff Pap 52(1):55–81 Clifford C (2016) Less than a third of crowdfunding campaigns reach their goals. Entrepreneur. http://www.

463 entrepreneur.com/article/269663. Accessed 6 Sept 2019 Colombo M, Franzoni C, Rossi-Lamastra C (2014) Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrep Theory Pract 39(1):75–100 CrowdfundingHub (2016) Current state of crowdfunding in Europe: an overview of the crowdfunding industry in more than 25 countries: trends, volumes & regulations. CrowdfundingHub, Amsterdam Curnow G, Kochman G, Meester S, Sarkar D, Wilton K (1997) Automating credit and collections decisions at AT&T capital corporation. Interfaces 27(1):29–52 Ding J, Huang J, Li Y, Meng M (2018) Is there an effective reputation mechanism in peer-to-peer lending? Evidence from China. Financ Res Lett 30:208–215 Dorsey J, Andersen R, Lee B, Grassadonia B, Byttow DM, Broyles A (2017) Transferring money using email. U.S. Patent 9,536,232 Drake D (2016) 2,000 global crowdfunding sites to choose from by 2016: top 5 growth indicators. The Huffington post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/2000-globalcrowdfunding_b_8365266?guccounter¼1. Accessed 12 Sept 2019 Everett C (2015) Can wearable technology boost corporate wellbeing? Occup Health Wellbeing 67(8):12 Faems D, Van Looy B, Debackere K (2005) Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach. J Prod Innov Manag 22(3):238–250 Fei W, Gu J, Yang Y, Zhou Z (2015) Credit risk evaluation based on social media. Procedia Comput Sci 55:725–731 Fenwick M, McCahery JA, Vermeulen EPM (2017) Fintech and the financing of entrepreneurs: from crowdfunding to marketplace lending. ECGI working paper series in law. https://ecgi.global/sites/default/files/working_papers/doc uments/fenwick-mccahery-vermeulen.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2019 Fisher M (2013) Conducting an online payment transaction using an NFC enabled mobile communication device. U.S. Patent 8,352,323 Freedman S, Ginger J (2008) Do social networks solve information problems for peer-to-peer lending? Evidence from Prosper.com. Indiana University, Bloomington: School of Public & Environmental Affairs, Bloomington. http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/events/sem inar/seminar-papers/12Mar09.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2019 Galuszka P, Bystrov V (2014) Crowdfunding: a case study of a new model of financing music production. J Internet Commer 13(3–4):233–252 Gerber E, Hui J (2013) Crowdfunding: motivations and deterrents for participation. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 20(6):1–32 Gerber EM, Hui JS, Kuo PY (2012) Crowdfunding: why people are motivated to post and fund projects on crowdfunding platforms. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on design, influence, and social technologies: techniques, impacts and ethics, ACM, vol 2, pp 11

F

464 Giddings B, Hopwood B, O’brien G (2002) Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustain Dev 10(4):187–196 Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause TS (1995) Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):874–907 Goh M (2002) Congestion management and electronic road pricing in Singapore. J Transp Geogr 10(1):29–38 He Y, Xu Z, Gu J (2016) An approach to group decision making with hesitant information and its application in credit risk evaluation of enterprises. Appl Soft Comput 43:159–169 Hermann T (2017) Acoustic profile recognition for discriminating between hazardous emissions and nonhazardous emissions. U.S. Patent Application 15/285,718 Herzenstein M, Andrews RL, Dholakia UM, Lyandres E (2008) The democratization of personal consumer loans? Determinants of success in online peer-to-peer lending communities. Newark/Houston. https://www. prosper.com/downloads/research/democratization-consu mer-loans.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2019 Islam A, Muzi S, Meza JLR (2018) Does mobile money use increase firms’ investment? Evidence from enterprise surveys in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. Small Bus Econ 51(3):687–708 Jiang W, Wang Y, Tsou MH, Fu X (2015) Using social media to detect outdoor air pollution and monitor air quality index (AQI): a geo-targeted spatiotemporal analysis framework with Sina Weibo (Chinese twitter). PLoS One 10(10):e0141185 Juengerkes BE (2016) FinTechs and banks–collaboration is key. the FinTech book: the financial technology handbook for investors, entrepreneurs and visionaries. Willey, Chichester, pp 179–182 Kang MJ, Kang JW (2016) Intrusion detection system using deep neural network for in-vehicle network security. PLoS One 11(6):e0155781 Kay S, Zhao B, Sui D (2015) Can social media clear the air? A case study of the air pollution problem in Chinese cities. Prof Geogr 67(3):351–363 Kirlidog M, Asuk C (2012) A fraud detection approach with data mining in health insurance. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 62:989–994 Kumar M, Ghani R, Mei ZS (2010) Data mining to predict and prevent errors in health insurance claims processing. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, Washington DC, 25–28 July 2010 Lee E, Lee B (2012) Herding behavior in online P2P lending: an empirical investigation. Electron Commer Res Appl 11(5):495–503 Leong K, Sung A (2018) FinTech (financial technology): what is it and how to use technologies to create business value in Fintech way? Int J Innov Manag Technol 9(2):74–78 Liao L, Wang Z, Xiang J, Yang J (2017) Thinking fast, not slow: evidence from peer-to-peer lending. Kelley

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development School of Business, Bloomington. https://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼2830326. Accessed 16 Aug 2019 Liu C (2019) FinTech and its disruption to financial institutions. In: Organizational transformation and managing innovation in the fourth industrial revolution. IGI Global, Trinity Western Univesity, Canada pp 104–124 Maedche A, Morana S, Schacht S, Werth D, Krumeich J (2016) Advanced user assistance systems. Bus Inf Syst Eng 58(5):367–370 Maurer B (2012) Mobile money: communication, consumption and change in the payments space. J Dev Stud 48(5):589–604 Mckinsey & Company (2016) FinTechnicolor: the new picture in finance. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/ mckinsey/industries/financial%20services/our%20insigh ts/bracing%20for%20seven%20critical%20changes%20 as%20fintech%20matures/fintechnicolor-the-new-pictu re-in-finance.ashx. Mckinsey & Company, New York. Accessed 16 Aug 2019 Micic I (2015) Crowdfunding: overview of the industry, regulation and role of crowdfunding in the venture startup, 1st edn. Anchor Academic Publishing, Hamburg, p 13 Milne A, Paul P (2016) The business models and economics of peer-to-peer lending (May 5, 2016). European Credit Research Institute, Brussels. https://www.ceps.eu/system/ files/ECRI%20RR17%20P2P%20Lending.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2019 Mohan D (2016) How banks and FinTech startups are partnering for faster innovation. J Digit Bank 1(1):13–21 Mosley Jr RC (2012) Social media analytics: data mining applied to insurance twitter posts. Casualty Actuarial Society E-Forum 2, p 1 Nelms TC, Maurer B, Swartz L, Mainwaring S, Future of Money Research Collaborative (2018) Social payments: innovation, trust, bitcoin, and the sharing economy. Theory Cult Soc 35(3):13–33 Nepomuceno JA (2015) Online system for training novice drivers and rating insurance products. U.S. Patent 8,930,227 Nienaber R (2016) Banks need to think collaboration rather than competition. In: The FinTech book: the financial technology handbook for investors, entrepreneurs and visionaries. Willey, Chichester, pp 20–21 Parker H (2000) Interfirm collaboration and the new product development process. Ind Manag Data Syst 100(6):255–260 Phoon K, Koh F (2017) Robo-advisors and wealth management. J Altern Invest 20(3):79–94 Pollari I, Ruddenklau A (2018) The pulse of fintech 2018. KPMG UK. https://home.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/rs/ pdf/2018/07/h1-2018-pulse-of-fintech.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2019 Pradhan RP, Arvin MB, Nair M, Hall JH, Gupta A (2017) Is there a link between economic growth and insurance and banking sector activities in the G-20 countries? Rev Financ Econ 33:12–28

Financial Technology for Sustainable Development PwC (2019) Blurred lines: how FinTech is shaping financial services. https://www.pwc.de/de/newsletter/finanzdiens tleistung/assets/insurance-inside-ausgabe-4-maerz-2016. pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2019 Quak EJ (2018) The public investment gap: the need for external finance to increase public investment, K4D Helpdesk report no 382. Institute of Development Studies, London. https://www.gov.uk/dfid-research-outputs/ the-public-investment-gap-the-need-for-external-financeto-increase-public-investment. Accessed 9 Sept 2019 Saksonova S, Kuzmina-Merlino I (2017) Fintech as financial innovation–the possibilities and problems of implementation. Eur Res Stud 20(3A):961 Salo M, Haapio H (2017) Robo-advisors and investors: enhancing human-robot interaction through information design. In: Trends and communities of legal informatics. Proceedings of the 20th international legal informatics symposium IRIS, Oerterreichische Computer Gesellschaft, Wien, 23 Feb 2017 Schoenberg D, Biedermann J, Gardner J, Leatherman RD (2013) Method and system to process payment using URL shortening and/or QR codes. U.S. Patent 8,494,958 Scholz N (2015) The relevance of crowdfunding: the impact on the innovation process of small entrepreneurial firms, 1st edn. Springer Gabler, Manchester, pp 7–10 Serrano-Cinca C, Gutierrez-Nieto B (2016) The use of profit scoring as an alternative to credit scoring systems in peer-to-peer (P2P) lending. Decis Support Syst 89:113–122 Sironi P (2016) FinTech innovation: from Robo-advisors to goal based investing and gamification, 1st edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 3–17 Solheim E (2016) Opinion: Fintech should be eco-friendly. Financial times. https://www.ft.com/content/ c9b8b232-7527-11e6-b60a-de4532d5ea35. Accessed 27 Aug 2019 Stich V, Schmitz S, Nienke S, Hicking J (2015) An energy monitoring based approach to predict energy wastage in the manufacturing industry. In: eChallenges e-2015 conference, IEEE. Vilnius, 25–27 Nov 2015 Sung A, Leong K, Sironi P, O’Reilly T, McMillan A (2019) An exploratory study of the FinTech (financial technology) education and retraining in UK. J Work Appl Manag. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/ 10.1108/JWAM-06-2019-0020/full/html. Accessed 12 Sept 2019 Svetlana V (2016) InsurTech: challenges and development perspectives. Int J Innov Technol Econ 3(5):39–42 Ullo S, Gallo M, Palmieri G, Amenta P, Russo M, Romano G, Ferrucci M, Ferrara A, De Angelis M (2018) Application of wireless sensor networks to environmental monitoring for sustainable mobility. In: 2018 IEEE international conference on environmental engineering (EE), IEEE, Milan, 2–14 Mar 2018 UNEP Inquiry (2016) Green finance for developing countries. https://unepinquiry.org/publication/green-financefor-developing-countries/. Accessed 9 Sept 2019

465 Uwamariya M, Loebbecke C (2019) Learning from the mobile payment role model: lessons from Kenya for neighboring Rwanda. Inf Technol Dev:1–20 Vasilakis GA, Theofilatos KA, Georgopoulos EF, Karathanasopoulos A, Likothanassis SD (2013) A genetic programming approach for EUR/USD exchange rate forecasting and trading. Comput Econ 42(4):415–431 Vaughan EJ, Vaughan T (2007) Fundamentals of risk and insurance. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 12–29 Vismara S (2016) Equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding. Small Bus Econ 46(4):579–590 Wang S, He L, Stenneth L, Yu PS, Li Z (2015) Citywide traffic congestion estimation with social media. In: Proceedings of the 23rd SIGSPATIAL international conference on advances in geographic information systems, Seattle, 03–06 Nov 2015 Wen XN, Wu XJ (2014) An analysis of factors to influence successful borrowing rate in P2P network lending-a case study of the Paipai lending. Finance Forum 3:002 Wilcox K, Stephen AT (2012) Are close friends the enemy? Online social networks, self-esteem, and self-control. J Consum Res 40(1):90–103 Wolfe D (2008) P-to-P start-up touts acquaintance model. Am Banker 173:108 Xu A, Yang X, Rao H, Fu W, Huang S, Bailey B (2014) Show me the money! In: Paper presented at the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems – CHI’14, Toronto, 28 Apr – 1 May 2019 Yıldırım İ (2019) Emergence of insurance technologies (InsurTech): the Turkish case. In: FinTech as a disruptive technology for financial institutions. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 42–60 Zeng Z (2018) Saving the environment by being “Green” with Fintech: the contradictions between environmentalism and reality in the case of Ant Forest. Lund University. http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func¼downloadFile& recordOId¼8960186&fileOId¼8960188. Accessed 21 Aug 2019 Zhang C, Yan J, Li C, Rui X, Liu L, Bie R (2016a) On estimating air pollution from photos using convolutional neural network. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on multimedia. ACM, Amsterdam, 15–19 Oct 2016 Zhang Y, Jia H, Diao Y, Hai M, Li H (2016b) Research on credit scoring by fusing social media information in online peer-to-peer lending. Procedia Comput Sci 91:168–174 Zhang Y, Wang T, Kang M, Li Y, Chen Y (2017) Understanding investment intention towards social lending— based on social exchange theory. In: 21st Pacific-Asia conference on information systems, Langkawi, 16–20 July 2017 Zhang B, Ziegler T, Mammadova L, Johanson D, Gray M, Yerolemou N (2018) The 5th UK alternative finance industry report, Cambridge Centre for Alternative

F

466

Financing for SDGs: Toward a Responsible Public-Private Tax Approach

Finance, Cambridge. https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/ fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/alternative-finan ce/downloads/2018-5th-uk-alternative-finance-industryreport.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2019 Zhou K, Fu C, Yang S (2016) Big data driven smart energy management: from big data to big insights. Renew Sust Energ Rev 56:215–225 Zion Market Research (2018) Mobile payment technology market by payment mode by technology and by application: global industry perspective, comprehensive analysis, and forecast 2017–2024. Zion Market Research, New York Zvilichovsky D, Inbar Y, Barzilay O (2015) Playing both sides of the market: success and reciprocity on crowdfunding platforms. SSRN Electron J . https:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼2304101. Accessed 6 Sept 2019

Financing for SDGs: Toward a Responsible Public-Private Tax Approach M. A. Grau Ruiz Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Northwestern University, Chicago, USA

Synonyms Socially co-responsible action in taxation

Introduction In order to afford a truly global sustainable development, new responsible tax initiatives could be envisaged and jointly put into place by the public authorities and the private sector. While the ongoing search for innovative financial instruments may not meet the initial expectations set in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, a slight reorientation of the available tax tools and their use may lead to an improvement in the path toward sustainability.

Definition Definition of Social Responsibility as a Means to Overcome the Inefficient Present Situation

Caused by Limited Views on Taxation. In the following paragraphs, an overview of the present situation is briefly described in an attempt to expose the blockage caused hitherto through the usage of the most common limited tax views. Subsequently, a call for every organization, irrespective of their public or private nature, to be globally, socially responsible is made. Thenceforth, some implications of this insight suggesting a “responsible tax approach” to be adopted by the public and the private sectors, both separately and in their interactions, are pointed out. Finally, a critical assessment of the current institutional tax framework can be found, with the constructive purpose of determining if certain changes can be made in the long run to better address the urgent issue of global taxation (Bird 2015).

The Inefficient Present Situation Caused by Limited Views on Taxation. Social Responsibility as a Means to Overcome It It is known that the tax administrations alone will not be able, in their limited territorial area of competence, to raise enough revenues to finance all the SDGs, despite the numerous recent, worldwide initiatives implemented to increase the transparency on the value creation and the income generated (for instance, through the country-bycountry reports), to improve international cooperation (mainly by exchanging tax information), to fight base erosion and profits shifting, to eliminate harmful incentives, to insert anti-abuse clauses, or to help capacity building in developing countries, among others. The support from all the private actors in tax matters is also necessary to reach SDGs. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) should step up in the process of increasingly aligning taxation with sustainable development. Basically, CSR is the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society. This means that companies “should have in place a process to integrate social, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders, with the aim of

Financing for SDGs: Toward a Responsible Public-Private Tax Approach

maximising the creation of shared value for their owners/shareholders and civil society at large and identifying, preventing and mitigating possible adverse impacts” (European Commission 2019). CSR concerns can be made explicit through selfregulation, self-management, and self-control. They can be applied to any inputs, processes, and outputs (Grau Ruiz 2019a). A pure concept of CSR implies going beyond the binding regulation and its application in a certain place and time. There are different standards available to voluntarily adhere to, in order to prove good entrepreneurial behavior, depending on the level of commitment wanted that might vary along years. Often the standards evolve progressively, requiring the subsequent adoption of a higher one. Once a certain level is commonly accepted and generally spread in the public perception, it is easier to turn the minimum standards into mandatory legislation. Therefore, CSR is a dynamic concept, constantly moving forward. At a certain moment, one can find different standards being applied geographically or by sector. Obviously, this entails a risk of relocation of economic activities with negative impacts to jurisdictions with lower standards. However, this temptation can be somehow annulled if CSR is adopted at origin by the headquarters of a multinational enterprise and later expanded through its value chain, by using some clauses in its contractual relations with its stakeholders (e.g., suppliers or clients). Both regulation and CSR in tax matters are necessary to promote sustainable development. Taxation and CSR policies can be mutually reinforcing (i. e., CSR can be used to spread good tax practices, while taxation can promote other areas of CSR). However, nowadays many (domestic and extraterritorial) behaviors in line with the 2030 Agenda or undermining its achievement go often unnoticed and have no direct influence on the final tax treatment granted by the States (or seldom have indirectly a partial reflection). The tax treatment could even imply contradictions when different objectives are simultaneously affected, and eventually, some positive effects on one SDG might be counterbalanced by negative effects on other ones (Pirlot forthcoming).

467

How to Spread the Virtue of Being Socially Responsible in and Through Taxation to Achieve Global Sustainable Development? All the experts in the tax field, either working on the public or the private side, could now consider individual or corporate behaviors impacting the classical triple notion of sustainability: on environmental, social, and governance matters. This consideration is particularly dire in the design and application of any tax measure. This can better be achieved if this broader point of view (not only limited to domestic revenue mobilization) is properly included in the respective training programs of tax officials and accountants alike, replacing a selfish culture based on the mutual disregard of contributions to SDGs. On the one hand, revenue collection is decisive to finance public action toward these goals. On the other, direct private actions in the same direction, which can occasionally be more efficient, should be recognized in their tax treatment in accordance with the ESG benefits generated by a given economic activity. In addition, the process of educating individual consciousness, as taxpayers and consumers, in the transition to a sustainable economy, though slow, is the key to success. Accomplishing the maturity of a well-informed public opinion takes time, to promote understanding of a new tax approach. This task should be started as quickly as possible to pave the way for future reform.

Socially Responsible Public and Private Organizations Are Needed to Lead This Change of Paradigm States’ Tasks Calibrating the Regulatory Function of Taxation in the International Context

One underlying obstacle is that many States remain more often concerned with recovering a bigger amount of taxes than with spending better. The idea is to increase their general budgets to have available funding in order to solve eventual

F

468

Financing for SDGs: Toward a Responsible Public-Private Tax Approach

problems related to sustainability. Occasionally, earmarking of revenues for specific purposes is proposed as a solution. Their position has adverse consequences in the international context when disputing income allocation. However, these limited scope actions will not suffice, due to the global scale of the problems to address. Nowadays, there is an international need to find a balance between the traditional revenueraising (fiscal) function of the public finance and the regulatory function that promotes or discourages certain behaviors depending on their positive or negative effects. International taxation seems, as of now, extremely focused on the former function, keeping the latter underdeveloped. Notwithstanding, the ability to evolve toward the achievement of more than strictly fiscal objectives is a matter of time, as has happened with past experiences in most of the national tax systems. Nowadays, “the linear taxation, governed by the fiscal neutrality principle, indifferent to the dynamics of expenditure and sensitive to collection, slowly is making way for a new model of circular taxation that puts into action the dimension of promoting the environment by the tax authorities” (Uricchio 2017; Alfano et al. 2019). This could be generalized to cover other SDGs. Neither the fiscal nor the regulatory (often named extra-fiscal) functions should overlook the redistributive function, not even at the international level. All these three functions are inherent to a tax system (Avi-Yonah 2006). In a context of exacerbated inequalities, the fair redistribution of money and ESG benefits is a must. To avoid any discriminatory effects, States should always consider the ability to pay and ultimately combine tax measures to reconcile diverse protected interests through possible “integration methods” (in the same vein as a taxpayer’s wealth could affect his/her taxable income base, the “base method”; the applicable rate schedule, the “rate method”; or the availability of credits against tax, the “credit method” (Glogower forthcoming)). Exerting Tax Sovereignty Through Coordinated Responsible Taxation

Once constitutional goals are agreed at a national level, no one discusses that the tax systems may

serve also as a means to reach them. However, the picture is quite different at an international level, where State sovereignty is still interpreted in a narrow sense. At this point, the key resides in the extent to which national constitutional goals connect with the global SDGs. Beyond the debated normative value of global SDGs, their overlapping with constitutional goals and the States’ inability to single-handedly carry out certain constitutional mandates exceeding the territorial borders (e.g., environmental protection in the case of CO2 emissions damaging the atmosphere) may foster a concerted action within and outside the borders, based upon a deeper understanding of “responsible” tax sovereignty. This would mean focusing on a human-centered approach. It is no longer a matter of allocating taxing rights (and subsequent revenue) to a jurisdiction (unable to independently solve a global problem) but rather of highlighting the necessity of allowing contributions to funds that effectively finance common goals. At this stage of the international arena, the creation of a global common budget is, of course, unthinkable, but some international mechanisms are already available to allow specific joint funding by multiple States and private donors. In the future, some progress could be made through controllable joint tax incentives (as explained below). Promoting Responsible Business Conduct in and with Taxation

Public authorities should make an intelligent combination of voluntary measures and, where appropriate, complementary regulation. As part of the EU Commission’s work on supporting the implementation of the United Nations 2030 Agenda, stocktaking has been made of all the progress made in the European Union since 2011 on corporate social responsibility (European Commission 2019). Practical action is required, irrespective of whether it is labeled “corporate social responsibility,” “responsible business conduct,” “business and human rights,” “sustainable development goals,” or all four together. The OECD defines “responsible business conduct” with a twofold purpose: making a positive contribution to economic, environmental, and

Financing for SDGs: Toward a Responsible Public-Private Tax Approach

social progress with a view to achieving sustainable development and avoiding and addressing adverse impacts related to an enterprise’s direct and indirect operations, products, or services. With that purpose, the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises cover different areas of business responsibilities, including taxation. In many countries, codes of good tax practices have been established. They allow the one who collects and the one who pays to look good to the public opinion. For example, they may offer more certainty in the administrative interpretation in exchange for the implementation of voluntary compliance systems and transparency in tax matters. However, the contemporary tax discourse should change from “payment thinking” to efficient “cost-sharing” in the race for sustainability. ESG benefits cost money, and an intelligent position should be reached when deciding whether the private sector has to sacrifice any economic benefit and whether or not the public sector has to compensate it. At the end of the day, government spending (public) is raised from households (private), while private investors and finance providers can benefit from public financial participation and backing. Depending on the viewpoint one takes of the finance value chain, any given amount can be rightfully labeled as public and/or private (Haščič et al. 2015). A margin for controllable tax incentives could be allowed to stimulate voluntary good behavior. A deeper and longer-term vision should promote sustainable contributions by the private sector through incentives for research and innovation or for smart and green investment, for instance. Considerations of this type have already been incorporated into public procurement with positive results, e.g., EU law allows environmental concerns to be considered at different stages of the procurement procedure, and socially responsible public contracts expand at different territorial levels of government. This use of green public procurement or socially responsible public procurement in public purchasing creates additional market opportunities for sustainable products, promotes supply chain due diligence, and encourages the market to shift toward more

469

environmentally friendly and socially responsible solutions (European Commission 2019). From a financial perspective, it would be coherent to admit a similar experience to “responsible” spending also in the public revenue side. Entrepreneurial Challenges in a Changing Environment Nowadays some traditional roles are changing, and one can easily observe certain convergence: the social sector is becoming more business-like, and many businesses are keen to demonstrate their social impact. Some entrepreneurs and investors want to make a difference and tackle social and environmental challenges. Many ordinary businesses engage in social responsibility initiatives, and also new intentionally and strategically mission-led businesses are born. They usually integrate a long-term or binding commitment in their corporate purpose and in their daily operations to have a positive social impact through its business, though profit-driven. As long as the SDGs are intertwined, they indivisibly affect economic, social, and environmental aspects. They imply a transformation of methods to carry out different activities (no longer business as usual). Quality tax planning should assess the value created for sustainability. This would require greater transparency in the tax benefits companies receive and contributions to public goals they make. The tax treatment for corporations and their shareholders could be better adjusted in the future depending on their CSR for global ESG criteria. Responsible Interactions Between Public and Private Sectors to Promote Sustainable Development One cannot rely exclusively on a closed administrative circuit to achieve the successful implementation of a regulatory tax measure. To comply effectively, the tax administration should ensure the inclusion of other stakeholders in the process, as they may adjust their own administrative or management structure to better apply a tax or a fiscal incentive. For example, the implementation of environmental taxation often requires the

F

470

Financing for SDGs: Toward a Responsible Public-Private Tax Approach

support of consumers as well as business operators and NGOs. In practice, their participation is relevant to manage the system fluently. Here the risk of capture by strong groups cannot be ignored. In this sense, public authorities operating in the same sector are more easily captured than tax authorities, which keep somehow a distance with all the economic agents (Grau Ruiz 2015). The opportunity to work together to support sustainable development should be taken, by fostering the development of working relationships between ministries and agencies, forging new public-private relationships, and forming robust foundations of knowledge and information for the implementation of tax measures. In particular, the tax incentives may be seen as tax benefits from the taxpayers’ side or as tax expenditures from the administration’s perspective because of the non-collection of the revenues. The reductions in or exemptions from environmental taxes can “at least indirectly” contribute to a higher level of environmental protection, as admitted in the guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014–2020 (2014/C 200/01 at par. 167–168) (Grau Ruiz 2016). A tax incentive established in legislation may help promote good practices in the private sector if individuals or companies voluntarily decide to meet its performance requirements (Grau Ruiz 2019b). Obviously, there is a difference between benefits provided at the beginning or end of the taxation process, like tax exemption or tax refund (Grau Ruiz 2015). Anyway, it could be useful for tax policymakers to assess if a new generation of more controllable sustainable tax incentives could rely on existing external certifications or internal labels. For example, some environmental labeling and information schemes are well developed (Gruère 2013). The United Nations Environment Programme has already coordinated a working group to explore how governments can reinforce credible environmental labels in public procurement, as part of the sustainable public procurement initiative, and has carried out the project “Stimulating the demand and supply of sustainable products through Sustainable Public Procurement and Ecolabelling.” It could be useful to make a parallel

attempt to take into account credible environmental certifications, based on reliable ESG value created, in the design of certain globally harmonized tax expenditures, as part of a desirable sustainable taxation initiative, perhaps under the auspices of the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters. As there are many contextual factors to consider (e.g., geographical and sectoral), public involvement will be decisive in offering proper guidance and control and in caring for deeper institutional and financial interaction with private governance at a global level, taking advantage of voluntary labels or certificates adopted by socially responsible companies (Grau Ruiz 2019d). Although trade, investment, environmental protection, and tax are essentially intertwined, up-to-date legal reactions have been mostly compartmentalized. Partial instruments, strictly targeted, are only able to offer partial solutions in one field. A fully fledged approach could tackle potential mismatches among these areas. The Parties to the WTO Agreement, in its Preamble, already recognize that their relations in the field of trade and economic endeavors should be conducted in a sustainable manner, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), in article XX, provides for sound exceptions to protect our environment. In 2020, the 25th anniversary of the WTO might be an opportunity to explicitly include multinational environmental agreements in the list of annexed documents or even acknowledge the priority of some environmental agreements (Roberts 2017). In this line of thought, our proposal to use combined measures (such as requesting certification of environmental impact and promoting taxation accordingly) calls for a joint approach between legislatures in order to reach common objectives (without creating prohibited barriers). It is a question of striking the right balance between them. Environmental cross-border taxation could be adapted to “environmentally friendly” products that fulfill standards, i.e., a certificate could be provided upon importation to assess whether a cross-border environmental tax should be applied and under what conditions (Pirlot 2016, 2017).

Financing for SDGs: Toward a Responsible Public-Private Tax Approach

But first, it is necessary to assess whether governmental and nongovernmental bodies are prepared to work together toward recognition of internationally agreed environmental schemes and standards. At a later stage, better design and control of incentives may be achieved by linking existing schemes and standards across countries. Then a multi-government-backed label or certification might promote worldwide sustainability in specific sectors, for instance, by sharing the economic impact of related tax expenditures among countries in the whole production chain. This could be, at least, useful for sustainability transition.

Searching for Effective Control Mechanisms of Any Special Tax Treatment Derived from Positive or Negative Impacts on Sustainability The responsible tax approach will require efforts to improve transparency and accountability from both the public and the private sector, by expressing clearly what they do or fail to do for society. Reporting and Auditing In this sense, corporate reports may serve for better control of tax incentives. It is important not only to know how much the public sector stops collecting for promoting non-fiscal objectives through the tax expenditures budget but also to have this information confronted with the reports on taxes paid by companies and their nonfinancial data. Today it is clear the importance of linkages and inter-relations of information (the “connectivity”), whether they take place between different aspects of non-financial information or, more deeply, between financial and non-financial information. The problem is who can do this task. Frequently, the tax administration does not have enough resources, and many companies can no longer assume more indirect tax pressure with added administrative costs. The tax system can be an effective delivery mechanism for financial public support when it

471

is possible and appropriate to set clear, objective eligibility criteria that can reasonably be verified by tax auditors. This may be possible, for example, where there is a system of environmental standards for products set by some independent body, such as an energy efficiency certificate or rating that can be easily verified (Greene and Braathen 2014). In the fiscal area, the efficiency of a social responsibility label for companies has been contemplated as a possible solution to address tax evasion and aggressive tax planning; and quite recently “certified taxpayers” have appeared to show their commitment with voluntary tax compliance and self-control (e.g., UNE 19602). As the implementation of SDGs is not guaranteed by ad hoc compliance mechanisms, corporate social responsibility driven by taxation can play a decisive role to voluntarily promote them. In the framework of the voluntary and countryled follow-up and review process, which is part of the 2030 Agenda, reporting can be an indirect supervisory tool if it is used to pressure non-compliant States into action (in 2020, during the sixth session of the Statistical Commission, there will be an opportunity to better integrate taxation in the UN SDGs indicators). Some control mechanisms that exist in some international treaties, such as human rights treaties, could be relied upon to guarantee the implementation of the SDGs that overlap with the provisions of these international treaties. Additionally, the SDGs can be made legally binding at the national level (Pirlot 2020). In line with these efforts, consideration of SDGs can be also made mandatory when regionally or nationally audits are carried out in the private or the private side. In fact, the European Court of Auditors has reviewed how climate action is dealt with in the EU budget (Grau Ruiz 2018). In the national sphere, a Court of Auditors might promote public and private co-responsibility with “indirect” control of tax expenditures that could be, at least partially, environmentally oriented, e.g., the reports on the activity of the Spanish Tax Agency controlling tax incentives, approved in 2007, and in 2017 by the Spanish Court of Auditors (Grau Ruiz 2019c).

F

472

Financing for SDGs: Toward a Responsible Public-Private Tax Approach

Audit of public and private statements will surely contribute to fairer taxation, by clarifying the tax incidence, alerting of any regressive effect, and deterring rent-seekers. An adequate audit, with a diversity of parameters, will also serve to avoid the complexity of the system and consequently remove any unnecessary tax measures. Taking Advantage of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence in a Digitalized Economy As explained previously, certificates and labels might be an important traceable instrument for applying sound global tax incentives for the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. However, current CSR strategies of cooperative compliance for voluntary payment of the tax due could be extended in the near future to other edges, e.g., by providing data that affect the tax treatment in accordance with the environmental impact. Likewise, instead of suffering the socalled indirect tax pressure referred to registers, reporting obligations, use of labels, and certificates, the digital information duly connected may do the rest. The digitalization of the economy and new technologies provide opportunities to increase efficiency and save costs in public financial management. Access to more and better data, as well as to improved data management systems, can enable better policy design. While digital economic information supports tax administrations in improving the enforcement of existing rules and facilitates compliance, access in addition to ESG information can also drive better tax policies and offer opportunities to reduce inequalities through a fairer allocation of the tax burden among citizens. The digitalization is already producing changes both in private and public organizations. They are refining their strategies in accordance with the new possibilities to carry out their missions better. In the future, with intelligent systems, the amount and nature of the available data could even better ensure knowledge of real costs and benefits through the connectivity of financial and nonfinancial information. And the increase in data granularity will be the key to fight inequality, once greater traceability becomes feasible in many

sectors (e.g., regarding consumption or emissions). To achieve the sustainable development goals, legitimate and smart use of tax data will be helpful. The role of an integrated digital international tax administration could be also explored. However, the environmental impact of robotics and artificial intelligence should not be ignored. New industries, institutions, practices, and markets develop around them. Ensuring that digitalization is beneficial (or minimally harmful) to the environment ought to be a priority (e.g., by paying attention to the materials used to build smart robots, the generation of the power required, or the disposal of obsolete systems). Robots and artificial intelligence may play an increasingly prominent role in environmental protection and resource management: they may be equipped with sensors to gather environmental data, such as air quality, or may nudge people to behave in environmentally better ways or report environmentally harmful behaviors. Policymakers now have the opportunity to shape the development of robotics and artificial intelligence, framing them in terms of opportunities and risks to individuals, societies and the natural environment (O’Brolchain and Inbots WP2 Team 2019). This, again, can be done through tax measures, combining regulation and CSR.

Attuning the Institutional Tax Framework Throughout history, institutional aspects have often been neglected, but this is not the case in SDGs. The SDG 16 explicitly calls for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. In order to evaluate the sustainability of tax systems, a model structured around the three ESG pillars and an institutional pillar has been proposed (Nerudová et al. 2019; Pirlot 2020). The tax systems have been traditionally built upon the concept of national sovereignty. Therefore, at the current stage, the parliamentary involvement of every State is critical, despite some practices recently experienced in the international institutional architecture for the

Financing for SDGs: Toward a Responsible Public-Private Tax Approach

production of rules (with tax standards created by governmental bodies, after holding public consultations) (Brown 2003). An international fiscal environment – fair, efficient, effective, and transparent – could be considered a public good and should be the fruit of a world economic governance system that combines both representation and efficacy. It is essential for a jurisdiction to develop an efficient administrative capacity to meet national objectives as well as international commitments. This can be done, both internally and through international cooperation, as mutual administrative assistance could be expanded to cover regulatory SDGs-related tax measures, e.g., taxes on CO2. This mechanism could support the introduction of a global carbon tax in the long run. The notion of the common heritage of mankind “is increasingly recognized as a significant, if not fundamental, legal notion that facilitates useful and sustainable human activity in areas with respect to resources that transcend national boundaries.” Together with the common concern of mankind, it is “capable of acting as the legal foundation for a complex legal regime in which norms relating to economic development and environmental protection can be effectively and rationally balanced” (Henley 2011). The interlinked ecosystems of the earth do not obey the boundaries, which emerge from the concept of sovereignty. What one State does, in and to its own environment, affects not only the territory of other States and common areas but something far larger – the global environment shared by all (Taylor 1998). The Paris Agreement 2015 expressly acknowledges “that climate change is a common concern of humankind” and recognizes “that Parties may be affected not only by climate change but also by the impacts of the measures taken in response to it.” This is the case of carbon taxation. In the future, a formula for joint tax administration could be envisaged. Outside the jurisdiction, there is no sovereignty of a State, but rather of the group of States, and the only way to establish and administer taxes is through joint formulas between all countries (Masbernat and Ramos 2019).

473

It is useful to draw more attention to the design of a future institutional architecture that could manage common public goods, or where a common interest is clear, and clarify the tax regime, for common good. An embryo of this type of joint administration can be already found. Let us take deep-sea mining as an example. The area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind for the benefit of mankind. Therefore, an inspiring system could be found there, where the International Seabed Authority (ISA) was created. Its powers and functions are those expressly conferred upon it by the Convention. The Draft Exploitation Code proposes regulation regarding royalties and fees. Looking at the financial obligations, there is a levy for the administrative cost of processing an application for approval of a plan of work in the form of a contract, an annual fixed fee from the date of entry into force of the contract is established for the contractor. The levies (fees) must respond to the administration cost of ISA, and the benefits must belong to ISA for its financial equilibrium and its operation. Regarding the royalties, sufficient amounts must be collected to compensate for the States’ losses in their patrimony. The collection of royalties must be given to the owners of this common patrimony (all the States) (Masbernat and Ramos 2019). The Subcommittee on Environmental Taxation created by the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters could be trusted to impulse this attractive far-reaching vision in the coming years for other common concerns of humankind.

Conclusion The demand for a responsible public-private tax approach to finance SDGs is in line with the public-private partnership necessary for achieving them (in accordance with the SDG 17). In addition, transparency is an important attribute of national institutions (in line with SDG 16). SDGs require improvements in the tax ambit, and a reorientation in the way of addressing the problem is driven by necessity in front of the

F

474

Financing for SDGs: Toward a Responsible Public-Private Tax Approach

difficult issue of finding the necessary resources. Important horizontal enablers such as taxation, responsible business conduct, and new business models will create the right conditions for sustainability change “if they are geared towards an innovative green, inclusive and socially just economic transition,” and “we will have to reflect on different forms of additional incentives for businesses to integrate SDGs in their operations” – including exploring the potential of emerging technologies and the circular economy (European Commission 2019). The tax systems and their interactions should be redesigned to trigger behavioral change throughout the economy. Public administrations should be proactively re-characterized to better contribute to sustainability, and they could seek greater involvement of the private sector by means of sound coordinated tax incentives for private activities investing in global public needs. A fine-tuned tax treatment needs more than increasing the tax space and earmarking collected revenue for sustainable goals or codes on good tax practices. Certainty for tax administrations and taxpayers must be improved, when it comes to “produce” together ESG benefits. For an efficient “cost-sharing” of nonfinancial goals, one could take the financial sector expertise to fund projects, with best practices and exclusions, according to some regional NGOs references to certifications for different sectors, and learn from the insurance estimations. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda, sometimes overlooked, is the key document to put into practice the SDGs. It clearly points out some available financial means to achieve these objectives. However, a deep reflection could lead us to think that sustainability is not only a goal but also a manner to model the means (calling for more than financial-economic sustainability). Each tax and the fiscal system as a whole should be sustaining the ability not to harm the planet and human life. In this sense, to advance in line with the SDGs, both subjects and objects should be oriented to them. With this in mind, a capable and responsible tax administration is a basic requirement, followed by responsible taxpayers, improving voluntary compliance.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions ▶ Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change ▶ Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

References Alfano R et al (2019) Medidas fiscales y medioambiente: principios UE y su concreta aplicación en países europeos en tema de imposición sobre las emisiones de CO2 (Environmental fiscal measures: EU principles and their application in some European countries on CO2 emissions taxation). In: Cubero Truyo A, Masbernat P (dir) Protección del medio ambiente. Fiscalidad y otras medidas del derecho al desarrollo (Environmental protection. Taxation and other measures of development law). Thomson Reuters Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, pp 370–405 Avi-Yonah RS (2006) The three goals of taxation. Tax Law Rev 60(1):1–28 Bird RM (2015) Global taxes and international taxation: mirage and reality. ICTD working paper – institute of development studies, Brighton, 28, 6 Brown EW (2003) Conclusions: understanding compliance with soft law. In: Shelton D (ed) Commitment and compliance: the role of non-binding norms in the international legal system. OUP, Oxford, pp 538–539 European Commission (2019) Corporate social responsibility, responsible business conduct, and business & human rights: overview of progress. Commission staff working document, Brussels 20.3.2019 [SWD (2019) 143 final], pp 4 Glogower A (forthcoming) A constitutional wealth tax. Mich L Rev 118 Grau Ruiz MA (2015) Tax expenditures to promote environmentally responsible investment. In: Kreiser L et al (eds) Environmental pricing. Studies in policy choices and interactions, critical issues in environmental taxation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 100–114 Grau Ruiz MA (2016) State aid schemes for environmental protection in the form of tax exemptions or reliefs in energy taxes. In: Pistone P, Villar Ezcurra M (eds) Energy taxation, environmental protection and state

Future-Oriented Financial Decision-Making aids: tracing the path from divergence to convergence. IBFD, Amsterdam, p 271 Grau Ruiz MA (2018) Climate change-related action and non-productive investments in the European Union. In: Hymel M et al (eds) Innovation addressing climate change challenges, market-based perspectives, critical issues in environmental taxation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 154–168 Grau Ruiz MA (2019a, in press) Corporate social responsibility and taxation in regulation: the EU perspective. In: Elgaard K et al (ed) Fair taxation and corporate social responsibility. Ex Tuto, Copenhagen Grau Ruiz MA (2019b) Efficient tax incentives for better environmental performance: experiences with certificates for sustainable housing. In: Villar Ezcurra M (ed) Environmental tax studies for the ecological transition. Thomson Reuters – Civitas, Madrid, pp 165–184 Grau Ruiz MA (2019c) Sostenibilidad global y actividad financiera. Los incentivos a la participacion privada y su control (Global sustainability and financial activity. The incentives to promote private involvement and their control). Thomson-Reuters Aranzadi, Cizur Menor Grau Ruiz MA (2019d) Some lessons learnt from environmental labelling information schemes: could certification of inclusive robotics follow a similar path? Available via Eprint UCM https://eprintsucmes/ 50680/. Accessed 6 Oct 2019 Greene J, Braathen NA (2014) Tax preferences for environmental goals: use, limitations and preferred practices. OECD environment working papers 71, pp 32–33. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxwrr4hkd6l-enn Gruère G (2013) A characterisation of environmental labelling and information schemes. OECD environment working papers 62, pp 10. https://doi.org/10. 1787/5k3z11hpdgq2-en Haščič I et al (2015) Public interventions and private climate finance flows: empirical evidence from renewable energy financing. OECD environment working papers 80, pp 23. https://doi.org/10.1787/5js6b1r9lfd4-en Henley PH (2011) Case not, minerals and mechanisms: the legal significance of the notion of the ‘common heritage of mankind’ in the advisory opinion of the seabed disputes chamber. Melb J Int Law 12:377 Masbernat P, Ramos G (2019) Una introducción al problema sobre la tributación y la regulación de la minería en los fondos marinos profundos, el Área (An introduction to the problem about the taxation and the regulation of the mining in the deep seabed, the area). In: Cubero Truyo A, Masbernat P (dir) Protección del medio ambiente. Fiscalidad y otras medidas del derecho al desarrollo (Environmental protection. Taxation and other measures of development law), Thomson Reuters Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, pp 187 Nerudová D et al (2019) Tax system sustainability evaluation: a model for EU countries. Intereconomics:138– 141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-019-0811-6 O’Brolchain F, Inbots WP2 Team (2019) D2.1 preliminary report on interactive robotics´ legal, ethics &

475 socioeconomic aspects. In: Inbots white paper on interactive robotics (H2020 public deliverable). Available via INBOTS. http://inbots.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/07/Attachment_0-1.pdf. Accessed 6 Oct 2019 Pirlot A (2016) Environmental cross-border taxation from an international (trade) law perspective: bringing coherence to the legal Chaos, Ph.D. Thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain Pirlot A (2017) Environmental border tax adjustments and international trade law. Fostering environmental protection. Edward Elgar, Cheltelham Pirlot A (forthcoming) A legal analysis of the mutual interactions between the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) & taxation. In: Brokelind C and Van Thiel S (ed) Tax sustainability in the EU and international context. IBFD, Amsterdam Roberts T (2017) Choice of instrument, efficiency and the WTO. Paper presented at the 18th global conference on environmental taxation, University of Arizona, Tucson, 28 Sept 2017 Taylor P (1998) An ecological approach to international law, responding to challenges of climate change. Routledge, London/New York Uricchio A (2017) I tributi ambientali e la fiscalità circolare (The environmental taxes and circular taxation). Diritto e Pratica Tributaria 5:1849

Flood Disaster ▶ Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

Fourth Industrial Revolution ▶ Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

Francis ▶ Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

Future-Oriented Financial Decision-Making ▶ Long-Term Investments

F

G

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development Ryo Kohsaka and Yuta Uchiyama Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

Synonyms Intellectual property rights for agricultural products

Definition Geographical indications are “indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin” (WTO 1994). This definition is included in Article 22 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO 1994).

Introduction Traditional and local products, such as food and handicrafts, are closely linked with their production areas. These products, which are physically and socially tied to the local climate, soil, and culture, can be registered as products with geographical indications (GIs). These place-based characteristics, which are strongly influenced by human-nature interactions, are embodied by the French term terroir – one of the principal words used to describe the quality of French food and beverages, such as wine. The unique quality of these products, including textures, tastes, and flavors, reflects their ecological and cultural characteristics (Barham 2003). Stories related to the local culture are frequently evoked in branding and consumer relationships. Local products that are not mass-produced are strongly connected with other products from the same locality and the terroir of production areas, and these interlaced connections are cultivated over generations. Such relationships interactively form regional socio-ecological characteristics and local human capital, including knowledge, traditions, and cultures (Bérard and Marchenay 2006; Bowen and Zapata 2009; Gugerell et al. 2017). GIs can help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly the targets on partnerships for the SDGs, by enhancing the

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

478

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements

sustainability of the categories under trade; capacity-building, especially for indigenous and local communities; systemic issues on policy and institutional coherence; and technology. The following sections will discuss the trends in using GIs and the potentials and challenges of GIs in increasing collaboration among various sectors and regions. The potentials of GIs related to aspects of regional development, environmental management, and benefit-sharing, along with the conventional roles of such indications, will particularly be explored.

stakeholders discuss their relationships with local products. The open and closed characteristics of local products are critical in IP matters, especially in the institutional design and implementation of GIs. To conserve and retain the knowledge, traditions, and culture related to local products, international and global partnerships need to facilitate the institutional design and implementation of IP rights protection. IP issues are related to the trade and economic aspects of production areas, as well as the identity of local communities (Sunder 2012).

Geographical Indications and Intellectual Property

Trends in Using Geographical Indications

Local products associated with the terroir of production areas, and the production areas themselves, have historically been shared in their respective regions. In this regard, the products, as well as the use of regional or local names, can be considered “common resources” in the area. Hence, it is conventionally impossible to register such names as trademarks because they are openly available to the public as a shared resource. Alternatively, terroir develops the “authenticity” of a product, which is used to claim the “exclusive rights” to the product and establish the brand of the product for its sustainable production (Spielmann and Gélinas-Chebat 2012). As such, various stakeholders benefit from the historical characteristics and contexts of products associated with terroir. Production knowledge and practices are shared in diverse ways, and they are neither totally open nor closed (Kohsaka et al. 2015; Uchiyama et al. 2017a). This tension of having both open characteristics (i.e., shared knowledge, common practice, and use of regional names) and necessary exclusivity (i.e., preventing counterfeits, know-how, and limiting the boundary for use of names) poses a unique challenge for products associated with terroir, thus requiring specific legal and institutional instruments, including the protection of intellectual property (IP) through the use of GIs. The historical contexts of products associated with terroir provide the space where various

IP protection schemes under GI systems, such as the scheme of the European Union (EU), are well known. Other countries besides members of the EU, such as the USA, Mexico, China, Japan, and Thailand, have introduced GIs to protect the geographical names of food products that have unique qualities based on the historical and socio-ecological characteristics of their production areas (Passeri 2017; Kizos et al. 2017). The USA opposes the expansion of GIs, partially because of overlapping names with European regions resulting from a long history of immigration, but some industries in the country try to facilitate the protection of GIs (Yu 2017). GIs, a scheme under the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), are an IP protection scheme for products associated with terroir. The TRIPS Agreement, a multilateral agreement under the auspices of the WTO, was negotiated in 1994 and came into effect in 1995. Given the diverse backgrounds of countries introducing GIs, the WTO established a definition of GIs in Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement (WTO 1994). It is clear from the text that the aim of GIs is to protect producers’ valuable IP rights by protecting the name of their products. GI schemes are not for the protection of the product itself. However, they are applied to avoid misuse, counterfeit production, and any other practices

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements

that may mislead consumers. Any producer within the certified geographical area – that concerns the uniqueness and conducts certified production processes – of a particular product has the right to use GIs. In concrete terms, producers whose production is within certified environmental and cultural conditions, as well as with registered production processes for GI-registered products, can use the registered name to sell and promote the products. International legal frameworks for the protection of GIs began to emerge as a result of the Paris Convention of 1883 and the Madrid Agreement of 1891, through which regulations vis-à-vis indications of source were developed. In the Paris Convention, the regulatory framework of the Appellations of Origin was also developed, and the latest agreement on the Appellations of Origin is the Lisbon Agreement of 1958. The Appellations of Origin was originally developed in France to fight counterfeit products. The related law was enacted in 1905, and a law in 1935 related to the protection of the wine market adopted the L’Appellation d’origine protégée for the protection of the Appellations of Origin. The Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (AOC) is the French regulatory framework to protect products for which the principal steps for production are conducted with traditional techniques within certified areas. Geographical Indication Schemes The general concept of GIs is shared across the globe, but the specific schemes vary from country

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 GI marks in the EU (PDO and PGI) (EC 2018)

479

to country. For example, the differences between the schemes of the EU and Japan can be seen in the history and types of GIs. The GI schemes in the EU were established in 1992 to harmonize different national GI frameworks. The framework has two categories: protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indication (PGI) (Fig. 1). The European schemes are the most widespread among GI schemes – with the exception of wines, which are globally regulated under the TRIPS Agreement. PDO is a scheme to register and protect products that have “production steps of which all take place in the defined geographical area” (Reg [EU] No 1151/2012, Art. 5). PDO is basically equivalent to AOC in France. PGI is a scheme for the products that have “at least one of the production steps [including processing or preparation] of which take place in the defined geographical area” (Reg [EU] No 1151/2012, Art. 5). The definitions of PDO and PGI show that the degree of connection PDO products have with their production areas can be stronger than that of PGI products. The Japanese scheme, on the other hand, refers to GIs only, without distinguishing if some or all of the steps of production, processing, or preparation take place inside the certified area (Fig. 2). In this regard, Japanese GIs are similar to PGIs in the EU. Regarding the IP scheme for registration and protection of products that have certain socioecological connections with production areas, Japan uses regional collective trademarks and

G

480

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 GI mark in Japan (MAFF 2018)

GIs. The two schemes have several differences. For example, GI-registered products need to have more than 25 years of history, and the production processes, including quality controls, are registered with the product names. In contrast, the products of regional collective trademarks do not need to have such historical roots, and registration of the production processes is not required in the scheme of regional collective trademarks. France and Italy have been implementing their GI systems for a long time. Other countries, such as Austria and Japan, introduced the GI system as an agricultural policy strategy only recently (in 1995 for Austria and in 2015 for Japan) to encourage small-scale farms to produce value-added products and differentiate themselves in the globalized food system. Re-localizing food is the subject of strong scientific and public debate. Such food products are regarded as place-based products supported by local food systems and landscapes under globalization. GI-registered products can be consumed beyond the countries that have production areas of individual products, and social movements can facilitate product circulation toward local and global sustainable development (Sylvander et al. 2011).

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements

Geographical Indications for Regional Development and Environmental Management GIs, which can be applied through international partnerships such as mutual authentications, can improve regional socioeconomic and environmental conditions. GIs can help achieve the SDGs that focus on regional development or biodiversity and ecosystem services management. The socioeconomic impacts of GIs on regional development and local livelihoods vary from product to product. For example, BouamraMechemache and Chaaban (2010) analyzed factors that facilitate producers’ adoption of PDO in the French blue cheese industry. They identified that the price of blue cheese was approximately 40% higher for PDO products than for non-certified ones. To produce PDO products, it is necessary to use relatively expensive regional materials, which increases production costs. However, the market price can potentially offset this increase. In this context, producers of PDO products have greater advantage than producers of non-PDO products (Bouamra-Mechemache and Chaaban 2010). In contrast, PDOs may not have obvious positive effects on consumer choice of certain products. There is some evidence that the net positive effects of PDO are relatively few on certain products. For instance, Mesías et al. (2010) analyzed the influence of PDO certification on consumer choice when purchasing Spanish Iberian ham. According to their study, consumers revealed that they liked Iberian ham with a PDO because it guarantees various characteristics, such as types of feed that consumers are not familiar with. Meanwhile, when consumers selected products, it was also clear that they tended to pay attention to the price and type of ham rather than PDO certification. The results of the analysis suggest that there are relatively few consumers who are willing to pay a premium for PDO-certified Iberian ham. GIs also have the potential to enhance local livelihoods and biodiversity. The use of such indications can enhance the economic development of local communities, as well as improve environmental management through the

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements

conservation of indigenous species and socioecological systems connected with local food production. This concept, although not always popular among countries with GI schemes, are supported by public institutions in several countries. To illustrate, the Biodiversity-Based Economy Development Office (BEDO) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Thailand is an institution that tries to facilitate benefit-sharing with local communities that use GI-registered products from local livelihoods, while simultaneously achieving (agricultural) biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The BEDO has a three-pillared concept of GI use: “local content,” “eco-friendly product,” and “future of the origins.” It emphasizes the relationships between local socioeconomic activities and biodiversity. The socioeconomic effects of GIs are often discussed in terms of regional development and local branding (Van Caenegem et al. 2014). GIs are schemes to register products with strong connections with their local socio-ecological contexts, and ecological aspects can be fundamental for GI-registered products. GI-registered products with established brands tend to garner attention for their economic effects on their production areas. However, GI-registered products with a small number of producers and a high risk of extinction may potentially warrant more attention in terms of the GI scheme’s contribution to conservation of indigenous species and unique environmental characteristics of production areas. For example, certain GI-registered products registered in Japan are called “traditional vegetables.” There are only a few producers of these native or heirloom vegetables, which are not well-known outside their production areas, and these producers often have no successors. In this respect, GIs can help conserve and retain local products as indigenous species and representatives of unique socio-ecological systems. GI schemes can facilitate the circulation of registered products and the sharing of benefits arising from the use of such products. This, in turn, can enhance local livelihoods and biodiversity conservation.

481

Geographical Indications as a Benefit-Sharing Scheme GI-registered products are sold and consumed beyond their production areas within their countries of origin and also in other countries. The monetary and nonmonetary benefits obtained by supplying and selling GI-registered products are shared among the producers in the certified geographical areas. The origins of the GI-registered products are guaranteed by the national governments, and consumers can be assured of the reliability of the products. In this respect, GI systems are similar to the fair trade system (Sunder 2012). The nonmonetary benefits that can be derived from trading GI-registered products include capacity building, empowerment of disadvantaged groups, or simply recognizing the unique contributions of the local community, including farmers’ rights and agricultural biodiversity. Farmers’ rights (FAO 2009) include the protection of traditional knowledge relevant to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; the right to equitably participate in sharing benefits arising from the utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; the right to participate in making decisions at the national level on matters related to the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; and the right that farmers have to save, use, exchange, and sell farm-saved seed or propagating material, subject to national law and as appropriate. GI-related recognitions and acknowledgments are very important to producers, consumers, and products. These underpin trust from consumers, encourage producers to continue or initiate sustainable production practices, and guide producing communities to form or reevaluate their identity and strengthen the sense of pride among local producers. The concept of bridging providers and users with materials and acknowledgments is developed in the Creative Commons license system, which is utilized in both the private and public sectors, even in governments of more than 30 countries (Creative Commons 2014). Nonmonetary benefits have frequently been overlooked, since the benefits of using GIs are

G

482

often assessed from an economic perspective. However, nonmonetary benefits, including acknowledgments, cannot be ignored because such benefits can build trusting relationships between producers and consumers. Such relationships can support the use of GIs as a benefitsharing scheme. To support the provision of scientific evidence on the origin of local products, for the benefit of both producers and consumers, new technologies can be used. For example, the innovative genome-wide sequencing technology (Suyama and Matsuki 2015) can be applied to identify the genetic characteristics and origins of the products (Haas 2015; Kamau and Winter 2015; Kohsaka 2017). As one of the characteristics of GIs, the name of GI-registered products can be widely used among producers in the certified geographical areas under certain conditions. Specifically, the right to use GIs can apply to any producer within the certified area respecting uniqueness and conducting registered production processes. GI systems require registration of the production process, and that is not required in trademark systems. In this respect, GI systems can provide greater latitude to accept producers who are willing to contribute to the production of GI-registered products, compared with trademark systems.

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements

Considering these characteristics of GIs, examples of GI use in several regions can be regarded as benefit-sharing schemes. For example, white honey produced in Oku, Cameroon, is consumed domestically but also exported to other regions, such as the EU, where it is very popular. There has been a long history of collaboration between and among local communities, nongovernment organizations, and research institutions to improve both local livelihoods and biodiversity (Ingram 2014; Chabrol et al. 2017). The value chains of GI-registered products are different from those of mass-produced general products (Fig. 3). The values are added at the initial stage of the production process from local socio-ecological contexts, including regional cultural, traditional, and biodiversity. The differences need to be considered in the development of the GI scheme as a benefit-sharing scheme. To use GIs as a benefit-sharing scheme, the type of products should be considered and clearly described (Marie-Vivien and Chabrol 2014). For instance, there can be different providers and users of raw materials with GI and of processed materials with GI. Providers of the latter can be farmers who produce raw materials of processed products, and users can include producers who use raw materials to make processed products with GI.

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Value chains of general and GI-registered products. (Adapted from Larson 2010)

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements

483

Fundamental Challenges in Operationalizing Geographical Indication Schemes: Spatiotemporal Multilayers of Geographical Indication Products As discussed in the first section, GI schemes register local products that are strongly associated with the terroir of production areas and are related in terms of socio-ecological characteristics. From the term “geographical,” GI-registered products are intertwined with the histories of their geographical origins. In other words, these products have spatiotemporal connections with production areas. The institutional design of GIs, or case studies of individual products to evaluate the impacts of GIs, represents the bulk of research that is currently being conducted on the subject. Research on spatiotemporal aspects of local products is relatively limited. To fill this gap, Kohsaka et al. (2018) conducted case studies on the spatiotemporal characteristics of several products. The GI system in Japan defines traditional products as products

with more than 25 years of history. However, for traditional vegetables in the country, the definition of “traditional” varies. For example, the time horizon for traditional vegetables in Niigata, Nagasaki, and Higo is simply “long time ago.” For traditional vegetables in Kyoto and Edo Tokyo, it is “production was started before the Meiji period.” For traditional vegetables in Hida, Mino, Nara, Kumamoto, and Kagoshima, its “production was started before 1945.” The former definition is relatively ambiguous, while the latter definitions are strict. Thus, the vegetables have temporal multilayers and their characteristics depend on their individual histories. As for the spatial aspects, the case of Jasmine rice in Thailand presents an interesting feature. The production area overlaps with several prefectures and shows that GI-registered products can have diverse coverage and spatial patterns in terms of production areas (Fig. 4). The case of Jasmine rice demonstrates that GI-registered products can have spatial multilayers. In Japan,

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development, Fig. 4 Distribution of

production areas of two registered Jasmine rice. (Adapted from Napasintuwong 2017)

G

484

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements

the results of an empirical analysis reveal that production areas of GI-registered products have diverse historical lengths and sizes and GI-registered products have different spatiotemporal multilayers (Figs. 5 and 6). The cases above, in addition to existing research and other empirical analyses, suggest that GI-registered products are diverse and rich in both their time frame and spatial distributions, allowing multiple interpretations. This rich diversity is an advantage of, as well as of value to, GIregistered products, but they cause certain tensions because of institutional settings and instruments. 35 30

Number of products

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development, Fig. 5 Historical roots of Japanese GI-registered products

Institutional settings and legal instruments frequently require standard definitions and clear boundaries, such as 25 years instead of “long time ago.” It further requires spatial boundaries, preferably without overlaps. The diverse characteristics with spatiotemporal multilayers of GIregistered products pose a unique challenge to institutions and laws. These products are highly value-added due to their origins and associations with the terroir that is embedded in local socioecological contexts. However, for this very reason – the diversity of their definitions and the complexity of their origins – the operation and use of GI schemes can be difficult. The underlying

25 20 15 10 5 0 ~40

40~200

400~700

700~900

900~1100

1100~

(Year)

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development, Fig. 6 Extent of production areas of Japanese GI-registered products

13% In prefectures 33% In a municipality 33% In more than two municipalities

18% In two municipalities

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements

conflicts are similar to those between conventional laws and economic systems that rely on traditional knowledge held by indigenous and local communities, where different perspectives, values, and ethical issues need to be integrated.

Potentials and Challenges in Sectoral and Regional Collaborations Regional Trade Agreements for Intellectual Property Management Regional trade agreements, which are critical in IP management related to agricultural, forestry, and fishery products, and trade agreements in individual regions can advance partnerships for the SDGs. For example, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) negotiations, which were launched by the leaders of the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and ASEAN’s Free Trade Agreement partners in 2012, can help promote IP protection in agricultural, forestry, and fishery sectors using GIs. In the guiding principles and objectives for negotiating the RCEP, the following principle is included: The text on intellectual property in the RCEP will aim to reduce IP-related barriers to trade and investment by promoting economic integration and cooperation in the utilization, protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. (ASEAN and ASEAN’s free Trade Agreement Partners 2012)

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement was signed in 2016 after negotiations between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the USA, and Vietnam. However, after the USA withdrew its signature, the agreement could not enter into force. The RCEP, like the TPP, is a regional initiative in the Asia-Pacific region. The difference between the TPP and the RCEP can be seen in their parties. Almost all the parties of the RCEP are located in Asia, with two parties in the Pacific region (Yu 2017). The latter negotiations include Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the ten members of ASEAN, which are

485

Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The EU approach promotes GI systems to protect IP related to traditional and local products. The TPP approach is a more trademark-centric approach (Frankel 2017) that, although not necessarily against GI protection, uses trademarks or other legal means for GI protection. Some parties of the TPP and the RCEP have existing GI obligations with the EU. In this context, conflicts among the agreements may hinder the circulation of GI-registered products in international markets. To address this issue, countries need to be consistent in their efforts when it comes to following agreements under international partnerships (Frankel 2017; Calboli and Ng-Loy 2017). Despite the international definition of GI, the negotiations of the TPP agreements show the challenging situation in facilitating the sharing of GI systems in different countries. For example, the USA, Canada, and Australia oppose international strong protection of GIs. Their argument is that the quality of most products can be reproduced by using modern technologies, and it is difficult to identify the origin of the products under the current circumstances of technology development. Food quality discourses referring to place-based products are strongly affected by rapid technological development. Sustainable Management of Geographical Indications Under International Partnerships GIs are product-level certifications that can facilitate international collaboration through mutual authentications between countries. As mentioned above, GIs can be used to foster regional development and advance sustainable environmental management. As such, regional designations and product certifications can be synergistically used to facilitate products-based regional management (Kajima et al. 2017; Uchiyama et al. 2017b). Regional designations, here, include various designation systems, such as the cultural and natural heritage systems or the Man and the Biosphere Programme established by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

G

486

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements

Organization. For agriculture, there is the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. In these designation systems, local traditional products are frequently regarded as the main components of the designated areas, and they can be used as symbols of the areas. To use local products with GI and regional designations for regional management, the relationships between the designated areas and the products need to be demonstrated to visitors and residents. To facilitate the understanding of the relationships between them, various communication methods can be employed (Sato and Kohsaka 2017). Furthermore, educational activities designed to disseminate information on GIs and regional designations, especially to share the knowledge and meanings embedded in the designated areas and their related products, should be implemented. To optimize GI systems for regional development and environmental management, the public should be made aware of their use and function. Producers need to understand the advantages of GI systems, while consumers need to understand the differences between and among GI schemes.

(n=541)

0%

Geographical Indication Regional Collective Trademark

E mark (Local food certification)

20%

40%

60%

80%

1.8 0.9

4.1

Place-based product certidication (ᮏሙ䛾ᮏ≀)

0.6

Green lantern certification 㸦⥳ᥦⅉ)

1.3

Japanese Agricultural Standard (JAS)

28.5

HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point)

6.1

FSC (Forest Stewardship Council)

0.6

MSC (Marin Stewardship Council)

0.6

Do not know any certifications

A questionnaire survey conducted by Uchiyama et al. (2017b) revealed that ordinary citizens in Japan are not very familiar with product-level certifications, including GIs and regional collective trademarks. The survey respondents (n ¼ 541) were residents of Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Niigata prefectures. The results showed that 70% of the respondents had no knowledge of any of the certifications (Fig. 7). Less than 2% of the respondents had knowledge of GIs and regional collective trademarks. The percentage was highest for the Japan Agricultural Standard, with 28.5% of respondents having knowledge of the certification. Regarding the certifications of forest and marine products, the percentages of respondents who had knowledge of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certifications were the lowest, with percentages of less than 1%. These low percentages may be due to the relatively low availability of FSC- and MSC-certified products in supermarkets or related retail outlets that consumers frequently visit. GIs are an international-level certification, and national governments promote them using the media and Internet. In Japan, however, GI

70.1

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development, Fig. 7 Percentage of respondents aware of individual product certifications in Japan

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements

certification is relatively new, having started only in 2015. The number of GI-registered products in Japan (62 products) is limited compared to the number of GI-registered products in the EU (1,371 products in the EU as of 27 Apr 2018; PDO: 634, PGI: 737). These contexts are reflected in the relatively low level of recognition of GIs in Japan.

Conclusion GI systems are used to protect IP related to products embedded in local socio-ecological contexts. In this regard, they can help retain traditional knowledge that underpins the production, culture, and environment of local communities. GI systems can improve partnerships for the SDGs, particularly partnerships that actively engage indigenous and local communities, because effective IP management requires regular and transparent collaboration among actors from different sectors. Moreover, regional trade agreements can facilitate the trade of local products under appropriate schemes for IP management. Regional trade agreements, while already in place, should be accelerated so that GI systems that can improve local livelihoods, conserve biodiversity, and protect ecosystems can be applied. GIs and regional trade agreements have positive, synergistic interactions between them. They can enable international partnerships for sustainable development, as well as positively contribute to traditional knowledge retention, regional development, environmental management, and benefit-sharing. In this respect, it should be noted that their contribution to the SDGs covers not only SDG 17 but also other SDGs related to preventing and reducing poverty and improving industry and environment. The number of countries using GI systems is increasing. However, to ensure the longevity of these systems, the value of GIs in driving sustainable development, as well as the role of GIs in regional development and environmental management across the globe, should be emphasized in subsequent plans of action.

487

Cross-References ▶ Collaborative Governance ▶ Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship ▶ Global Partnership ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ International governance of global commons in the context of SDG 17 ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ▶ Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy ▶ National Sustainable Development Strategies ▶ Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket S trategy for Sustainable Development ▶ Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development ▶ Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development through Community Engagement ▶ South East Asia Sustainability Network (SEASN) ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals through Partnerships and Local Development ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World

References ASEAN and ASEAN’s Free Trade Agreement Partners (2012) Guiding principles and objectives for negotiating the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. http://asean.org/storage/2012/05/RCEP-GuidingPrinciples-public-copy.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2018

G

488 Barham E (2003) Translating terroir: the global challenge of French AOC labeling. J Rural Stud 19(1):127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00052-9 Bérard L, Marchenay P (2006) Local products and geographical indications: taking account of local knowledge and biodiversity. Int Soc Sci J 58(187):109–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2006.00592.x Bouamra-Mechemache Z, Chaaban J (2010) Determinants of adoption of protected designation of origin label: evidence from the French brie cheese industry. J Agr Econ 61(2):225–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14779552.2009.00234.x Bowen S, Zapata AV (2009) Geographical indications, terroir, and socioeconomic and ecological sustainability: the case of tequila. J Rural Stud 25(1):108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.07.003 Calboli I, Ng-Loy WL (2017) Geographical indications at the crossroads of trade, development, and culture: focus on Asia-Pacific. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316711002 Chabrol D, Mariani M, Sautier D (2017) Establishing geographical indications without state involvement? Learning from case studies in Central and West Africa. World Dev 98:68–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worldd ev.2015.11.023 Creative Commons (2014). https://wiki.creativecommons. org/wiki/Government_use_of_Creative_Commons. Accessed 10 Apr 2018 EC (2018) EU quality logos. https://ec.europa.eu/agricul ture/quality/schemes_en. Accessed 10 Apr 2018 FAO (2009) International treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0510e. pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2018 Frankel S (2017) Geographical indications and megaregional trade agreements and negotiations. In: Calboli I, Ng-Loy WL (eds) Geographical indications at the crossroads of trade, development, and culture: focus on AsiaPacific. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316711002.007 Gugerell K, Uchiyama Y, Kieninger PR et al (2017) Do historical production practices and culinary heritages really matter? Food with protected geographical indications in Japan and Austria. J Ethn Foods 4 (2):118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jef.2017.05.001 Haas F (2015) Biodiversity knowledge commons and sharing of research results with providers in East Africa. In: Kamau E, Winter G, Stoll PT (eds) Research and development on genetic resources: public domain approaches in implementing the Nagoya protocol. Routledge, London, pp 245–263 Ingram VJ (2014) Win-wins in forest product value chains?: how governance impacts the sustainability of livelihoods based on non-timber forest products from Cameroon. African Studies Centre, Leiden. http://hdl. handle.net/1887/24875 Kajima S, Tanaka Y, Uchiyama Y (2017) Japanese sake and tea as place-based products: a comparison of regional certifications of globally important agricultural heritage systems, geopark, biosphere reserves, and geographical indication at product level

Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements certification. J Ethn Foods 4(2):80–87. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jef.2017.05.006 Kamau EC, Winter G (2015) Unbound R&D and bound benefit sharing. In: Kamau E, Winter G, Stoll PT (eds) Research and development on genetic resources: public domain approaches in implementing the Nagoya protocol. Routledge, London, pp 1–23 Kizos T, Koshaka R, Penker M et al (2017) The governance of geographical indications: experiences of practical implementation of selected case studies in Austria, Italy, Greece and Japan. Br Food J 119(12):2863–2879. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2017-0037 Kohsaka R (2017) Transdisciplinary approaches to governance of intellectual properties: genetic resources and traditional knowledge in terrestrial, coastal and marine Areas. http://www.chikyu.ac.jp/rihn_e/project/ FS-2017-04.html. Accessed 10 Apr 2018 Kohsaka R, Tomiyoshi M, Saito O et al (2015) Interactions of knowledge systems in shiitake mushroom production: a case study on the Noto Peninsula, Japan. J For Res 20(5):453–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310015-0491-4 Kohsaka R, Kajima S, Tashiro A et al (2018) Geographical indications in agriculture and forestry sectors: spatiotemporal multilayers of products and institutions. J Intellect Prop Assoc Jpn 15(1):4–10 Larson J (2010) Geographical indications, in situ conservation and traditional knowledge. Policy brief number 3. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva MAFF (2018) Geographical Indication (GI) protection system. http://www.maff.go.jp/e/policies/intel/gi_act/ index.html. Accessed 10 Apr 2018 Marie-Vivien D, Chabrol D (2014) Geographical indications (GIs), biodiversity and poor communities: the opportunity of GIs to provide protection of traditional indigenous biodiversity products and benefits to poor agricultural communities. A desk study on six target countries: Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Mauritania. UNCTAD and CFF Mesías FJ, Gaspar P, Escribano M et al (2010) The role of protected designation of origin in consumer preference for Iberian dry-cured ham in Spain. Ital J Food Sci 22(4):367–376 Napasintuwong O (2017) The roles of agricultural cooperatives in certification and production of geographical indication (GI) rice In Thailand. Country paper presented at the 3rd FFTC-NTIFO international seminar on enhancing agricultural cooperatives’ roles in response to changes in food consumption trends. Taipei, 18–22 Sept Passeri S (2017) Geographical indication expert. J Intellect Prop Assoc Jpn 14(2):44–53 Sato J, Kohsaka R (2017) Japanese sake and evolution of technology: a comparative view with wine and its implications for regional branding and tourism. J Ethn Foods 4(2):88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jef.2017. 05.005 Spielmann N, Gélinas-Chebat C (2012) Terroir? That’s not how I would describe it. Int J Wine Bus Res 24

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples (4):254–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/1751106121128 0310 Sunder M (2012) From goods to a good life: intellectual property and global justice. Yale University Press, New Haven Suyama Y, Matsuki Y (2015) MIG-seq: an effective PCR-based method for genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism genotyping using the next-generation sequencing platform. Sci Rep-UK 5:16963. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16963 Sylvander B, Isla A, Wallet F (2011) Under what conditions geographical indications protection schemes can be considered as public goods for sustainable development? In: Territorial governance. Physica-Verlag HD, Heidelberg, pp 185–202 Uchiyama Y, Matsuoka H, Kohsaka R (2017a) Apiculture knowledge transmission in a changing world: can family-owned knowledge be opened? J Ethn Foods 4(4):262–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jef.2017. 09.002 Uchiyama Y, Tanaka Y, Matsuoka H et al (2017b) Expectations of residents and tourists of agriculture-related certification systems: analysis of public perceptions. J Ethn Foods 4(2):110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jef. 2017.05.003 Van Caenegem W, Cleary JA, Drahos P (2014) Pride and profit: geographical indications as regional development tools in Australia. J Econ Soc Policy 16(1):Article 5. http://epubs.scu.edu.au/jesp/vol16/iss1/5 WTO (1994) Annex 1C Agreement on Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) Yu PK (2017) A spatial critique of intellectual property law and policy. Wash Lee Law Rev 74(4):Article 6. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol74/iss4/6

Gift Economy ▶ Social and Solidarity Economy or How Notfor-Profit Organizations Participate to SDGs’ Implementation?

Global Common Goods ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

Global Goals ▶ Business as a Partner for the Global Goals

489

Global Partnership ▶ Education for Sustainable Development: A Framework for Global Partnership and Sustainability in India

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples Abigail Bray and Pat Dudgeon Poche Centre for Indigenous Health, School of Indigenous Studies, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

Definition Biodiversity refers to the whole complexity of the ecosystem: high levels of biodiversity indicate a healthy and flourishing ecosystem, while destructive development depletes and reduces biodiversity. Biocultural diversity signifies the symbiotic relationship between biodiversity and cultural diversity and was first deployed in the historic Declaration of Belem (1988). Culturally safe is a term which refers to practices which are socially, culturally, psychologically, and politically supportive of Indigenous Peoples right to self-determination, including research methodologies, data gathering, and disaggregation, along with any form of development. Ecocentric describes a holistic philosophy and a way of living which centers on a non-dominating, non-exploitative relationship with the earth and all non-human subjects. Ecocide describes the mass planetary destruction of the ecosystem brought about by the current system of colonial development. Kinship is central to cultural identity and cultural governance and encompasses complex relationships between individuals, families, communities, and the broader ecosystem.

G

490

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous knowledge systems describe the multitude of complex, holistic, and often marginalized and suppressed knowledge of Indigenous Peoples. Traditional knowledge refers to tangible and intangible cultural knowledges and practices belonging to Indigenous Peoples which are integral to their collective identity and survival as a peoples, for example, traditional forms of healing and medicine, governance, and land management.

Introduction We cannot achieve conservation and wellbeing for people and planet unless we respect and value the rights of Indigenous Peoples. For centuries, Indigenous Peoples across the world have preserved much of Earth’s biodiversity. At this precipice of history, where the next decade could determine the fate of the planet’s species and ecosystems, the global community must fully acknowledge, respect and support the rights of Indigenous Peoples. This includes respect for the cultural, spiritual, social and environmental values they place on biodiversity. (International Union for Conservation of Nature Director General’s Statement on International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples 2019)

The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development urges the voluntary meeting of 17 sustainable developments goals (SDGs) and their 169 targets by all Member States (UN 2015). A principal aim of the 2030 Agenda is the creation of a harmonious balance between humanity and the biosphere: prosperity and peace for all peoples should be achieved through the implementation of systems of sustainable development which protect the planet from further degradation. The focus of this entry is on the relationship of Indigenous Peoples to Agenda 2030, specifically SDG 17 and in particular target 17.14 “enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.” Indigenous knowledge systems, it is argued, offer a coherent holistic ecocentric model of sustainable development which has been refined over thousands of years prior to the development paradigm of colonization and represent a form of global policy coherence which has much to offer a biosphere in crisis. Many Indigenous knowledge systems provide frameworks for sustainable

development which are guided by a recognition that all forms of contemporary collective action needs to express responsibility toward the earth and future generations. For example, the Iroquois law of “Seven Generations” means that “every decision we make is with the consciousness of how that decision will impact our world and peoples seven generations from now” (Goldtooth 2017, p. 16). This long-term vision is, as Goldtooth notes, absent from colonial systems of development. The post-development “search for alternative ways of organizing societies and economies, of satisfying needs, of healing and living” (Escobar 1992, p. 48) can, it is argued here, find guidance from Indigenous knowledge systems. When the 193 United Nations Member States affirmed the new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, they did so with the intention of ensuring that the 2030 Agenda “will endeavour to reach the furthest behind first” (UN 2015). Indigenous Peoples have been identified by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which coordinates the implementation of the SDGs, as those who are among the “furthest behind.” There is, then, a specific requirement, embedded in the overarching intention of the 2030 Agenda and recognized by the UNDP, to prioritize Indigenous Peoples. Yet Indigenous Peoples are mentioned only twice in the 17 SDGs and the 169 targets, specifically in SDG 2 on eliminating hunger (target 2.3) and SDG 4 on education for all (target 4.5). Here Indigenous Peoples are included in lists, for example, in target 2.3 of doubling “the agricultural productivity and incomes of small scale food producers in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers. . .” and again in target 4.5 of “equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable including persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations” (emphasis added. UN 2015). It is noted that the multicultural, sovereign Indigenous Peoples of the world are listed alongside persons with disabilities and vulnerable children. Partnership for the achievement of the SDGs with and for Indigenous Peoples is not legible within the description of the SDGs and their 169

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples

targets. Moreover, in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2019 report on policy coherence for sustainable development (target 17.14), Indigenous Peoples are only referenced a couple of times in lists of vulnerable groups, for example, in the following statement: “Poor, marginalised and vulnerable populations, including women, youth, disabled people, indigenous and migrant groups, and small and medium-sized enterprises, are disproportionately affected, leading to further disadvantage and inequality” (emphasis added, OECD 2019). This entry seeks to make a case for why partnership for the 2030 SDGs is vital for the planet, for all people, for peace, and for sustainable ecocentric prosperity. Indigenous Peoples are “the de facto guardians of 80% of global biodiversity” (Campbell 2019). A custodial relationship to place is one of the distinguishing features of Indigenous world-views, informing governance practices and underpinning complex multifaceted knowledge systems. In their capacity as guardians, Indigenous Peoples are taking an increasingly important global role in promoting ecocentric systems of holistic sustainable development. Indigenous Peoples have formed dynamic partnerships among 90 nations in the South and North, achieving consensus and solidarity on a broad range of issues confronting sustainable development (World Bank 2016; Tauli-Corpuz et al. 2010). This dynamic global model of Indigenous partnership continues to strengthen and is founded on a shared commitment to guarding life and building harmonious systems of ecocentric flourishing. Over the last 30 years, a number of international mechanism and instruments have recognized the importance of supporting Indigenous sustainable development. The International Labour Organization Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), the Nagoya Protocol (2010) on biodiversity, General Recommendation XXIII of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2016), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007, the United Nations

491

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNSR) are some of the major advances. Strong Indigenous participation at the 1992 Earth Summit (UNCED) produced an innovative forward thinking chapter 26 in Agenda 21 “Recognizing and Strengthening the Role of Indigenous Peoples and their Communities,” which, rather than merely viewing Indigenous Peoples as an exotic minority, recognized them as future leaders in the field of sustainable development. As the UN Division for Sustainable Development puts it, Indigenous Peoples have “developed over many generations a holistic traditional scientific knowledge of their lands, natural resources and environment” (Agenda 21, 26.1). Technical, financial, national, and international support for strengthening the capacity of Indigenous Peoples to achieve sustainable development is urged in the activities and their implementation for Agenda 21. Key Indigenous-led declarations and outcome documents, such as the Declaration of Belém (1988), the Kari-Oca Declaration and the Indigenous Peoples Earth Charter (1992), the Kimberly Declaration (2002), the Kari-Oca 2 Declaration, Indigenous Peoples global conference on Rio + 20 and Mother Earth (2012), the Stillheart Declaration on the Rights of Nature (2013), the Alta Outcome Document (2013), and the outcome document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (2014), have also directly addressed Indigenous models of sustainable development. Moreover, the 2008 Indigenousled constitution of Ecuador recognized the rights of nature or Pachamama (Mother Nature), and Indigenous people also led the Bolivian 2012 Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well, both of which represent Indigenous models of sustainable development (Margil 2014). Despite the significant recent outcomes of Indigenous partnership in the area of sustainable development, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII 2019) has warned that Agenda 2030 poses threats to

G

492

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous Peoples. In order to mitigate risks to Indigenous Peoples posed by the 2030 Agenda (e. g., the exploitative and destructive development of their lands) through the implementation of the SDGs, UNPFII advises international policy alignment with the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). More specifically, the 18th session of the UNPFII has recommended that Member States in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples engage in culturally safe forms of data disaggregation to monitor the implementation of the SDGs so that Indigenous people are included in all voluntary national reviews. Further, UNPFII recommends wide promotion of the SDGs to Indigenous Peoples so they are correctly informed about the 2030 Agenda. To this end, UNPFII also recommends the broad dissemination of UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) report on “Free, prior and informed consent: A human rights-based approach” (A/HRC/39/62). Implementing the contribution of Indigenous knowledge systems and forms of governance to SDG 17 requires overcoming policy silos, bringing national governments, international forces, civil society, and the corporate sector into alignment about the value of holistic ecocentric Indigenous sustainable development models and practices. This is not to reify and romanticize Indigenous Peoples and their knowledges as the great remedy but rather to sensibly examine how centuries of expertise in practicing successful forms of sustainability can, at the very least, provide protection to 80% of global biodiversity (Agrawal 1995; Castellano 2000; UNSD 1992a, b). Indigenous knowledge systems are holistic and because of this are uniquely placed to provide a framework for partnership in addressing all of the SDG’s goals of, precisely, eliminating poverty and hunger, health and education for all, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production, climate action, environmental protection for life below water and on land, peace, justice, and strong institutions. The first section of this entry outlines some of the key international

frameworks, declarations, and documents which have emerged from the global Indigenous Peoples sustainability movement and their relevance to SDG17. The second section explores how Indigenous Peoples knowledge systems and worldviews, or what is now referred to in the international literature as el buen vivir, or living well, might guide the implementation and revitalization of the 2030 Agenda (Magni 2017; Tauli-Corpuz et al. 2010).

Decolonizing Sustainable Development The national, regional and international acceptance and recognition of Indigenous Peoples is central to the achievement of human and environmental sustainability. Our traditional knowledge systems must be respected, promoted and protected; our collective intellectual property rights must be guaranteed and ensured. Our traditional knowledge is not in the public domain; it is collective, cultural and intellectual property protected under our customary law. Unauthorized use and misappropriation of traditional knowledge is theft. (International Indigenous Peoples’ Summit on Sustainable Development, Kimberley Declaration 2002)

An understanding of the ongoing impact of colonization on Indigenous Peoples and their lands is vital to any human rights-based and social determinants approach to sustainable development. The broad socioeconomic, whole of society, and proximal impact of colonization means that all of the SDGs relate to Indigenous Peoples. Poverty, hunger, lack of access to clean water and sanitation, conflict, ill health, reduced access to education and employment, gender-based violence and discrimination, a significant health gap, and forms of intergenerational and historic trauma are some of the legacies of colonization (Marmot 2011; International Symposium on the Social Determinants of Indigenous Health 2007; Hartman et al. 2019). Moreover, as Indigenous Peoples have long pointed out, collective, holistic wellbeing – physical, psychological, social, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing – is a reflection of the state of the ecosystem (Kari-Oca Declaration 2, 2012). Or, simply, there can be no wellbeing for all of the people unless the planet is healthy.

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples

From an Indigenous standpoint, the dominant development paradigm, its practices and policies, has long been colonization (Biggs et al. 2017; Kari-Oca 2 Declaration, 2012). Mining; megadams; species extinction; poisoning of the earth, sea, and skies (salination, pollution); desertification; deglaciation; deforestation; factory farming; intensive mono-culture agriculture; genetically modified organisms; poverty; violence; and climate change – the development of Indigenous Peoples lands without their free, prior, or informed consent has resulted in unsustainable levels of global destruction or ecocide. The colonial development of Indigenous lands was often characterized by domination, exploitation, and subjugation, involving the violent seizure of resources, forms of cultural genocide, and systemic destruction of sustainable ecosystems and ways of living (Daes 2001; Alta Outcome Document 2013). Indigenous knowledge systems which were vital to systems of sustainable living were often criminalized and actively destroyed. Families and communities were disrupted through forced removal from their homes, the forced removal of their children, imprisonment, and slavery. Colonization is ongoing, and for many Indigenous Peoples, forms of cultural and institutional racism within neocolonial nations continue to have adverse impacts on their social determinants of health (Calma et al. 2017). As a global population, they are burdened with extreme poverty, social marginalization, and discrimination and have an average life expectancy which is 20 years below the non-Indigenous population (World Bank 2016). As the Alta Outcome Document states, colonization has resulted in “the imposition of ‘development’ models that are destroying the life-giving capacities and integrity of Mother Earth and producing a range of detrimental impacts of which climate change could prove to be the most destructive” (United Nations World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2013, p. 2). Indigenous-centered sustainable development frameworks and their local and global implementation can be understood to be caught up in a strategic dismantling of the colonial development

493

model. In the last couple of decades, Indigenous Peoples across the world have built partnerships which are having a substantial impact on numerous human rights frameworks and instruments. Threaded through many of these frameworks, and an increasing number of international instruments, is a recognition of Indigenous Peoples permanent sovereignty over natural resources as a foundational constituent of the right to selfdetermination. First strongly appearing in international human rights law in 1958 when the United Nations General Assembly established the Commission on Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources, the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resource was established within international law in 1962 through the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII). The idea of an Indigenous permanent sovereignty over natural resources is clearly tied to decolonization and the liberation of Indigenous lands, seas, and skies from systems of destructive development. Yet, as Section 2 of this entry will explore, the idea of sovereign rights over nature is inimical to an Indigenous world-view which recognizes that nature is a sovereign being and that people belong to the land. Terms such as steward, guardian, and custodian, and, more recently, defender, more accurately describe an Indigenous kinship relationship with the earth (Mulrennan and Bussiers 2020; Rose et al. 2003). During the last few decades, the international community has repeatedly affirmed the importance of multi-sectorial partnership with Indigenous Peoples for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in general. In 1987, for example, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development published Our Common Future, otherwise known as the Brundtland Report (1987) which acknowledged that “the larger society. . . could learn a great deal from their [Indigenous Peoples’s] traditional skills in sustainable managing very complex ecological stems” (United Nations 1987, p. 115). A pivotal document in the contemporary Indigenous sustainable development movement is the Declaration of Belém (1988). The result of a partnership between ethnobiologists and Indigenous Peoples, the Declaration of Belém expressed concern about

G

494

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples

the rapid destruction of bicultural diversity, stating that “the native peoples have been stewards of 99 per cent of the world’s genetic resources,” and recommended urgent action to protect biodiversity through, among other things, development aid for conservation and lastly for information about conservation to be shared among Indigenous Peoples for the “sustained utilisation of resources.” Thirty years later the Declaration of Belém + 30 affirmed the need for free, prior, and informed consultation with Indigenous Peoples on proposed developments of their land (including the right to say no) and, in particular, that all States should ratify and implement both UNDRIP and the ILO 169 Convention. Article 7 of the International Labour Organization Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (ILO 169 Convention), states that Indigenous Peoples: shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development.

Here, there is a clear recognition of the holistic cultural and wellbeing impact of development and the need to guard against forms of non-consensual development which disrupt and destroy the integrity of Indigenous Peoples cultures. Another key Indigenous Peoples statement about development is the historic Alta Outcome Document which is the result of the 10–12 June 2013 Global Indigenous Preparatory Conference for the United Nations High Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly at the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples involving 300 Indigenous leaders from the 7 geo-political regions. This formative statement is composed of four themes which address vital paths for the achievement of Indigenous self-determination. An urgent transition from fossil fuels to “decentralized, locally controlled, clean, renewable energy systems and structures” (1.7) is recommended. In this context it is also recommended that States implement an approach to climate change which leans on Indigenous knowledge systems and that such a human rights and ecosystem approach has “enforceable safeguards.”

Overall, the Alta Outcome Document makes a strong case for a decolonizing and Indigenouscentric approach to sustainable development, addressing a broad range of social and cultural determinants of health and wellbeing, as well as vital ecosystem issues. Participants called for the integration of Indigenous rights, cultures, and spiritual values into sustainable development; food security and safety; the continuation of traditional knowledges and cultural practices, including governance and lore; and just access to education, health care, and housing. Sustainable development is addressed in Theme 4: Indigenous Peoples’ priorities for Development with free, prior and informed consent. Here it is recommended that Indigenous “rights, culture and spiritual values be integrated into strategies that relate to development including sustainable development goals and the post 2015 UN Development Agenda” (9.1); that State support for development which poisons Indigenous land and promotes genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cease (9.2); and finally that States: reaffirm the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their economic, social and cultural development with due regard to their freedom and identity and the recognition that the right to sustainable development is both procedural and substantive. We further call upon States to ensure the full, equal and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in the development of mechanisms to ensure that ecosystem based sustainable development is equitable, non-discriminatory, participatory, accountable, and transparent, with equality, consent and decolonization as important overarching themes that protect, recognize and respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and that are in harmony with the sacredness of Mother Earth. (emphasis added, United Nations World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, 20139.9)

The importance of decolonization is stressed here. Divesting from colonial development models, such as the extractive industries, is now broadly recognized as essential to the survival of biodiversity. The Alta Outcomes Document informed the Outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples which affirms that the traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices of Indigenous Peoples are

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples

important to the “sustainable use of biodiversity” (22). This Outcome document also promises to prevent developments which harm Indigenous lands and encourages governments to recognize the role of Indigenous people in ecosystem management and sustainable development (United Nations General Assembly, 25 September, 2014). These global Indigenous-led declarations and policy innovations continually stress the importance of not only consulting Indigenous Peoples about sustainable development but implementing the holistic ecocentric Indigenous knowledge systems which have been successfully practiced by Indigenous Peoples for tens of thousands of years across the world. In relation to enhancing policy coherence for sustainable development, it would be a matter of combining the declarations and instruments into an international framework for sustainable development for an by Indigenous Peoples and possibly creating an international Indigenous body, such as a United Indigenous Nations which had the collective weight to ensure that proposed actions were implemented in each nation.

Indigenous Knowledge Systems as a Framework for Policy Coherence Indigenous knowledge systems contribute directly to sustaining biological and cultural diversity, poverty eradication, conflict resolution, food security and ecosystem health and serve as the foundation of indigenous peoples’ resilience to the impact of climate change. (UNPFII, Report on the eighteenth session, 2019, 5/28)

The above statement by the UNPFII offers a succinct description of the relevance of Indigenous knowledge systems to the overall 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Refined over tens of thousands of years prior to colonization and continuing as systems which have adapted to the challenges of colonization, these systems transmit the collective intellectual and creative knowledge of communities about the land they are guardians of. Indigenous knowledge systems include forms of astronomy, agriculture, law, medicine, education, philosophy, land management, and

495

environmental sciences, as well as a wide range of cultural and spiritual knowledges (Cajete 2000). Such knowledge systems can be understood as modes of living well in harmony with the earth which are both spiritual and practical, empirically and scientifically sound, and deeply cultural. Customary laws forbidding the exploitation of these knowledges are now being recognized by international human rights-based intellectual property instruments (Janke 2018; Okediji 2018). The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2019 theme was titled ‘Traditional knowledge: Generation, transmission and protection” (Marrie 2019). Issues of colonial biopiracy and general theft of Indigenous sciences and knowledges are recognized in international law. The Nagoya Protocol, for example, sought to protect the commercial exploitation of Indigenous traditional medicine from global pharmaceutical companies (Teran 2016). As the Kari-Oca 2 Declaration put it, “we must focus on sustainable communities based on Indigenous knowledge” (2012). Many forms of ecocentric Indigenous governance are founded on principles of reciprocity and responsibility toward their lands and more-than-human kin (Powell and Curley 2008; Wilson and Inkster 2018). Such forms of governance can be understood to be sustainable models of living in harmony with the ecosystem. The Nuu-chah-nulth People from Vancouver Island, for example, have a world-view called hishuk ish tsawalk which means “everything is one” or “everything is connected” (Mulrennan and Bussiers 2020, p. 299). The Maori peoples have a knowledge system called whakapapa, a land-based form of spiritual and cultural governance which recognizes the profound inter-connection of all forms of life and that the land has agency and rights (Graham 2005; Kothari and Bajpai 2017). Other Indigenous forms of governance recognize the healing agency of the earth: Yukon First Nation Elders understand water as a “relative, teacher, medicine, and healer” (Wilson and Inkster 2018 p. 2); the Raramuri peoples from Gawi Wachi (Place of Healing) in eastern Sierra Madres, Chihuahua, Mexico, have a complex philosophy about the web of life and a similar deep interconnectivity

G

496

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples

(Salmon 2000); and the Cree peoples spiritual and cultural knowledge of “awawanenitakik” is a resonant form of sustainable governance (Daigle 2016). And in Australia, for example, the Yawuru peoples have the Mabu Liyan (living well) knowledge system (Yap and Yu 2016). June Oscar AO, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, has affirmed the benefits of global Indigenous knowledge systems which provide methods of land management, intergenerational learning, forms of collective community-focused governance, “reciprocal sharing of resources,” and holistic understandings of health and wellbeing which recognize the influence of land, family, and community (Oscar 2018). Much of the literature on Indigenous sustainable development has used the term buen vivir to describe the global Indigenous world-view, shared values, and cultural lores/laws belonging to communities across nations which are recognized as an Indigenous paradigm of development which encompasses self-determination over land, identity, and culture (Magni 2017). In Latin America in particular, this idea has become increasingly influential guiding policies about development. Indigenous systems of “living well” have been integrated into the Constitution of Bolivia and Ecuador (Gudynas 2011). This reflects the fact that these systems have supported successful forms of sustainable development for centuries – forms of farming, fishing, hunting, and gathering along with integrated education and health practices enabled community resilience and wellbeing (International Indigenous Peoples’ Summit on Sustainable Development 2002). Moreover, such ways of living well are also supported by complex philosophical and spiritual knowledges about sustainable or harmonious living. They are also cost-effective while also maintaining biodiversity and the health of the community (The economics of the biosphere: The Stillheart Declaration on the Rights of Nature 2017). Such world-views describe innovative systems of economic solidarity within communities (sometimes understood as place-based self-sufficiency), the rights of nature as an agent and

spiritual force, the protection of biodiversity, food security and sovereignty, the right to traditional medicines and therapeutic systems grounded in culturally safe land-based practices, and forms of governance which enable women, children, and the elderly safety and security. In this context, western or colonial ideas about individual property rights are not applicable. Indigenous world-views are communitarian and are based on ideas about belonging to the land, rather than the land as something which can be sold and exploited for profit. The OECDs Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development: Empowering People and Ensuring Inclusiveness and Equality (2019) aims to: Provide a forum for exchange of knowledge and expertise among governments, international organisations, civil society, think-tanks, the private sector, and other stakeholders on the policy implications of SDG implementation. Help governments and stakeholders to strengthen their capacities for analysing policy coherence challenges, and adapting institutional mechanisms, policy-making processes, and policy coherence monitoring and reporting systems to the needs and vision of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs; and Support national efforts for reporting progress on SDG Target 17.14 to “enhance policy coherence for sustainable development”.

However, there is no analysis of the role of ongoing colonialism on biocultural diversity, nor is there a clear partnership with Indigenous Peoples organizations, think-tanks, stakeholders, and members of civil society (Indigenous experts and Indigenous leaders) in this endeavor.

Future Issues It is often observed that rapacious economic globalization has formed systems of international cooperation and interdependence which have diminished the sovereign authority of nations. For Indigenous Peoples the name of this form of globalization has long been colonization, a system of internationally networked domination of land and people which is destructive to biocultural diversity. Yet, the emergence of a global Indigenous Peoples movement which has built networks of solidarity with organizations representing

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous Peoples across the world has demonstrated how principles of cooperation can pull together a much needed holistic vision of sustainable ecocentric development (Colbourne and Anderson 2020). For SDG17 to be effective for Indigenous Peoples, and for the 80% of biodiversity they are guardians of, a paradigm shift in how sustainable development is imagined and implemented needs to occur. This paradigm shift can be aligned with the world-view of Indigenous Peoples, sometimes known as el buen vivir, a vision and practice of life in harmony with the earth, based on forms of governance which are guided by principles of reciprocity, care, and respect for humans and more-than-humans. As the UNPFII has advised, this is best done through the thorough promotion by and for Indigenous Peoples about the 2030 Agenda; the careful monitoring of the implementation of all of the SDG’s impacts on Indigenous Peoples, along with culturally safe data gathering and disaggregation; and the promotion and discussion of EMRIP report on the centrality of free, prior, and informed consent for Indigenous Peoples on any matter relating to development which directly or indirectly impacts their lives or lands, in accord with the so-called proportionality principle (see A/HRC/12/34, para. 43). The issue of Indigenous data sovereignty is becoming increasingly relevant for human rights-based social justice research. Indigenous indictors, designed by and for Indigenous Peoples through participatory processes, should be an essential part of the evaluation of the SDG implementation. Gathering data on how free, prior, and informed consent is obtained is also clearly vital, especially given that the majority of the worlds’ Indigenous Peoples are excluded and marginalized from substantial forms of democratic participation and refugees on their own lands. Further, there are substantial issues around the under-representation of Indigenous people in population data across the world: Despite the call to action from the United Nations for nation states to disaggregate census categories to better identify Indigenous people, this practice is far off being a global standard. Less than half of all

497

countries with an Indigenous population(s) actually recognised them in the census, in any capacity. (Mullane-Ronaki 2017, p. 86)

Culturally safe forms of data gathering should be determined by local Indigenous communities. In accord with UNDRIP, consultation with Indigenous Peoples about ecocentric sustainable development should be matched by Indigenous leadership in the implementation of sustainable development. Supporting the ability of Indigenous Peoples to increase their capacity to implement systems of sustainable development by harmonizing international and national policy is vital if sustainable levels of biocultural diversity are to be created. Rather than seeing Indigenous Peoples are among the many who are at risk of being left behind by the 2030 Agenda, as only a minority group among other minority groups at risk from intersectional disadvantage, national and international communities can be led by their knowledge and mobilized into decolonizing the development paradigm so that a more holistic and sustainable future for the planet is achieved for all.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability frameworks for partnership toward sustainability ▶ Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making ▶ Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Intercultural Responsibility: Critical Inter-epistemic Dialog and Equity for Sustainable Development ▶ Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance ▶ Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

G

498

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples

▶ Multispecies Livelihoods: Partnering for Sustainable Development and Biodiversity Conservation ▶ Nature-Based Solutions ▶ Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Role of Transnational Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World ▶ Water Security

References Agrawal A (1995) Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Dev Chang 26(3): 413–439 Biggs S, Lake OO, Goldtooth TBK (2017) Rights of Nature & Mother Earth: rights-based law for systemic change. https://www.ienearth.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/11/RONME-RightsBasedLaw-final-1.pdf Cajete G (2000) Native science: natural laws of interdependence. Clear Light Publications Santa Fe, Mexico Calma T, Dudgeon P, Bray A (2017) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social and emotional wellbeing and mental health. Aust Psychol 52(4):255–260 Campbell JY (2019) No sustainable development without indigenous peoples. Available from: https://sdg.iisd. org/commentary/guest-articles/no-sustainable-develop ment-without-indigenous-peoples/ Castellano MB (2000) Updating aboriginal traditions of knowledge. In: Dei GJS, Goldin-Rosenberg D, Hall BL (eds) Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: multiple readings of our worlds. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 38–54 Colbourne R, Anderson R (2020) Indigenous wellbeing and enterprise: self-determination and sustainable economic development. Routledge, London. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780429329029 Daes E-AI (2001) Prevention of discrimination and protection of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples and their relationship to land E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/21 United Nations Economic and Social Council. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigen ouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2017/12/ IPRelationshipToLand.pdf

Daigle M (2016) Awawanenitakik: the spatial politics of recognition and relational geographies of indigenous self-determination. Can Geogr 60:1–11 Declaration of Belem (2018). http://www.ethnobiology. net/wp-content/uploads/Belem30_Declaration_ English_Final-22_4_19.pdf Escobar A (1992) Imagining a post-development era? Critical though, development and social movements. Social Text. Third World and Post-Colonial Issues 31/ 32:20–56 Goldtooth TBK (2017) Indigenous peoples cosmovision, conflicts of conquest and need for humanity to come back to mother earth. In: Shannon Biggs S, Osprey OL, Goldtooth TBK (eds) Rights of nature and mother earth: rights-based law for systemic change, pp 15– 19. Available from: https://www.ienearth.org/wp-con tent/uploads/2017/11/RONME-RightsBasedLawfinal-1.pdf Graham JPH (2005) He apiti hono, he tatai hono: that which is joined remains an unbroken line—using whakapapa (genealogy) as the basis for an indigenous research framework. Aust J Indig Edu 34:86–95 Gudynas E (2011) Buen Vivir: today’s tomorrow. Development 54:441–447 Hartman WE, Wendt DC, Burrage RL, Pomerville A, Gone JP (2019) American Indian historical trauma: anticolonial prescriptions for healing, resilience, and survivance. Am Psychol 74(1):6–19 International Indigenous Peoples’ Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) Kimberley declaration. Kimberley, South Africa. Available from: https://www. globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162/ 27586.html International Labour Organisation (1986) 169 – Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). Available from: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f? p¼NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_ CODE:C169 International Symposium on the Social Determinants of Indigenous Health (2007) Social determinants and indigenous health: the international experience and its policy implications. Report for the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Adelaide International Union for Conservation of Nature Director General’s Statement on International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (2019) Available from: https://www.iucn.org/news/secretariat/201908/iucndirector-generals-statement-international-day-worldsindigenous-peoples-2019 Janke T (2018) Indigenous knowledge: issues for protection and management. Discussion paper. Commissioned by IP Australia & the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. Available from: https://www. ipaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/ipaust_ikdiscus sionpaper_28march2018.pdf Kothari A, Bajpai S (2017) Rivers and human rights: we are the river, the river is us? Engage: Economic and Political Weekly. Available online: http://www.epw.in/ engage/artile/we-are-the-river-river-us. Accessed on 25 Apr 2019

Global Partnership for Sustainable Development with and for Indigenous Peoples Magni G (2017) Indigenous knowledge and implications for the sustainable development agenda. Eur J Educ 52:437–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12238 Margil M (2014) Building an international movement for rights of nature. In: Maloney M, Burdon P (eds) Wild law: in practice. Routledge, London, pp 149–160 Marmot M (2011) Social determinants and the health of indigenous Australians. Med J Aust 194:512–513 Marrie H (2019) Emerging trends in the generation, transmission and protection of traditional knowledge. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/development/ desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/ 2019/04/TK-Emerging-trends-in-the-generation-trans mission-and-protection-of-TK-final-paper.pdf Mullane-Ronaki MTTKK (2017) Indigenising the national census? A Global Study of the Enumeration of Indigenous Peoples, 1985–2014 (Thesis, Master of Social Sciences (MSocSc)). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/ 10289/11175 Mulrennan ME, Bussiers V (2020) Indigenous environmental stewardship: do mechanism of biodiversity conservation align with or undermine it? In: Turner NJ (ed) Plants people, and places: the roles of ethnobotany and ethnoecology in indigenous peoples’ land rights in Canada and beyond. McGill-Queen’s Press, Montreal, pp 282–312 OECD (2019) Policy coherence for sustainable development 2019: empowering people and ensuring inclusiveness and equality. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/a90f851f-en Okediji RL (2018) Traditional knowledge and the public domain. CIGI Papers No. 176- June, Center for International Governance Innovation. Retrieved from: https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/docu ments/Paper%20no.176.pdf Oscar J (2018) ‘Because of Her, We Can’ National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Conference. Thursday 12th July 2018. Australian Human Rights Commission. Available online: https://www. humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/because-her-wecan-national-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islanderwomen-s-conference. Accessed on 25 Apr 2019 Powell DE, Curley A (2008) K’e, Hozhó, and non-governmental politics on the Navajo Nation: Ontologies of difference manifest in Environmental Activism. Anthropological Quarterly 81:17–58 Rose D, James D, Watson C (2003) Indigenous kinship with the natural world in New South Wales. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Huntsville Salmon E (2000) Kincentric ecology: indigenous perceptions of the human-nature relationship. Ecol Appl 10:1327–1332 Tauli-Corpuz V, Enkiwe-Abayao L, de Chavez R (2010) Towards an alternative development paradigm: indigenous peoples’ self-determined development. Tebtebba Foundation Baguio City, Teran MY (2016) The Nagoya protocol and indigenous peoples. The International Indigenous Policy Journal 7:2). Retrieved from: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol7/iss2/ 6. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2016.7.2.6

499

The economics of the biosphere: The Stillheart Declaration on the Rights of Nature (2017) In: Shannon Biggs S, Osprey OL, Goldtooth TBK (eds) Rights of Nature and Mother Earth: Rights-based law for systemic change, pp 5–8. Available from: https://www.ienearth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/RONME-RightsBasedLawfinal-1.pdf UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations, New York United Nations (1987) Our Common Future. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development United Nations (UN) (2007) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Retrieved from www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/docu ments/DRIPS_en.pdf United Nations Development Programme (2018) What does it means to leave no one behind? An UNDP discussion paper and framework for implementation, July 2018 Available from: http://www.undp.org/con tent/dam/undp/library/Sustainable%20Development/ 2030%20Agenda/Discussion_Paper_LNOB_EN_lres. pdf United Nations General Assembly (2014) Outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples: resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, 25 September 2014, A/RES/69/2, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/543f7a114.html. Accessed 13 May 2020 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission (2018) Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Study on free, prior and informed consent. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ Issues/IPeoples/EMRIP/Pages/StudyFPIC.aspx United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2019) Indigenous peoples and the 2030 agenda. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/ indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2016/ 08/Indigenous-Peoples-and-the-2030-Agenda.pdf United Nations Sustainable Development (1992a) United Nations conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992, AGENDA 21. Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf United Nations Sustainable Development (1992b) UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Division for Sustainable Development, Agenda 21. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ Agenda21.pdf United Nations World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (2013) A high-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly. Alta Outcome Document. Available from: http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/docs/data/Alta-outcomedocument-june-2013.pdf Wilson NJ, Inkster J (2018) Respecting water: indigenous water governance, ontologies, and the politics of kinship. Environ Plann E Nat Space 1:516–538 World Bank (2016) Understanding poverty. Indigenous People. Available online at: https://www.worldbank. org/en/topic/indigenousPeoples. Accessed 8 May 2019

G

500

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development

Yap M, Yu E (2016) Community wellbeing from the ground up: a Yawuru example. Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre Research Report 3/16 August, Perth

all involved members (Foden and Pearson 2010), by allowing them to do more for themselves and society (Hambleton and Howard 2012).

Introduction

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development Dunja Demirović and Marko D. Petrović Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić”, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation

Definition A partnership is marked as one of the essential tools for accomplishing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. General Assembly Resolution of the United Nations (A/RES/73/254) defined partnership as voluntary collaboration between state and private parties where they can achieve benefits, but they need to share risks and responsibilities (General Assembly of the UN 2018). Partnership is not a mere exchange between stakeholders but the creation of something new together. The concept of the global partnership was introduced as a way of revitalizing global governance to face present and future challenges together. Global partnership means that, through the lens of shared values, countries should focus on global sustainable development outcomes by converting economic opportunities into development achievements. Striving for the sustainability and structural transformation of the economic development has led to domination of the service sector in most of the national economies. Service sector is defined as a sector whose development brings benefits on the individual level, by rising standard of living for those who use them (e.g., education, health services) and can provide inputs for manufacturing and make economic transactions easier. Global partnership in the service industry has important role in rising efficiency of

According to the 2030 Agenda, finding solutions for the world’s current and future challenges like extreme poverty, hunger, climate change, or inequality requires active participation and close collaboration between public, private, and NGO/civil society stakeholders. During the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, member states highlighted the need for creating a favorable environment which will foster sustainable development at the national and global level. Although each country is responsible for its own economic and social development, at the global level, the international community should jointly create a path to economic growth, well-being, and prosperity. Reducing effects of climate change, sustainable production and consumption, debt relief, equality for today’s and future generations, fair international trade, aid and financial policy commitments, and access to medicines and new technologies should be among the most important goals of global partnerships. Service industries have an active and important role in the globalization process and integration of markets at all levels – regional, national, or international. The importance of services is highlighted in Riddle’s definition (1986, p. 26) since he found services to be “the glue that holds any economy together, the industries that facilitate all economic transactions, and the driving force that stimulates the production of goods.” According to Kutscher and Mark (1983, p. 21), the service industry encompasses “all industries except those in the goods-producing sectoragriculture, mining, construction, and manufacturing.” The service sector became an important component of most national economies and the world economy. This is due to its contribution to GDP, job creation, investment climate, export opportunities, and achieving social development in both developed and developing countries. Some services have changed the way in

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development

which people live, creating new needs and becoming indicator that is used to measure economic progress of countries. Increase of prosperity for individuals, cities, regions, and countries depends on the development of some service industries, such as health, education, or personal services. An important component of country’s economy is the service sector since it provides inputs to other businesses, contributes to GDP, creates new jobs, and encourages development by contributing to the investment climate (Maroto and Rubalcaba 2008). Sustainability of small places, especially rural areas, is determined by access to quality services and different infrastructures. The efficiency of the national but increasingly global economic system too is indicated by dynamic and well-established mechanisms of service industries, in particular financial, distribution, transport, and communication. The improvement of some services, for example, education or healthcare sector, enables the creation of new jobs for women and their active participation in the economy, while social inclusion can be achieved by developing of ICT services (ICTSD 2016). Pomering and Johnson (2018) concluded that service industries can provide long-term value and economic benefits for societies since their products can lead to social and environmental improvements. Making service industries more environmentally responsible (green) and competitive requires an innovative approach in production, interaction within service sectors and with other economic sectors, but also a partnership between sectors. Global partnership within service sectors and with other sectors can contribute to the welfare of nations. Besides to be more environmentally responsible, service industries are facing with the new trends in service demand from individuals and households caused by new technologies, which lead to the production of new services and the way of their delivery and usage (CuadradoRoura 2016). Partnership within service and between service and other sectors is gaining in importance since it provides positive outcomes for individuals and communities in the form of desired benefits, learnings, or changes. Partnership in service industries can foster

501

lifelong learning by developing different educational policies since human resources are one of the key factors for accomplishing better performances. Also, a partnership that involves several service companies and companies from other sectors is important for the innovation of the service sector since it can provide competitive funding mechanisms and other support for long-term research and development (OECD 2005). The service industry is composed of numerous sectors, such as public administration, health, education, financial activities, business and personal services, transport, retailing, hotels and restaurants, and many others. Organizations in the service industry vary in size – from big international corporations to locally owned, small businesses, managed by private or public entities, usually requiring less capital and less space compared to other sectors. In the next entry, global partnerships in three selected service industries will be described.

Frameworks on Global Partnership in Service Industries Global Partnership in Education Sector Education in the fragile and conflict settings has become one of the most important priorities for a global policy (Winthrop and Matsui 2013), recognized also by the United Nations General Assembly which passed a resolution in 2010 to ensure that all children have access to education, especially those who live in conflict areas (United Nations 2010). UNESCO Institute for Statistics estimated that about 262 million children and youth are out of school for the school year ending in 2017 (UIS 2018) and that these children will struggle to rise out of poverty and poor health together with their families. Therefore, investing in global education could bring many advantages, and some of them are the following: 1. Improve economic growth (UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report (UNESCO 2016, p. xvii) revealed the fact that if every child in low-income countries completes secondary school by 2030, income per capita will be increased by 75% by 2050).

G

502

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development

2. Reduce social tensions and insecurity (Collier’s research (Collier 2000) highlighted that every additional year of formal schooling for males reduces the risk of becoming involved in conflict by 20%). 3. Strengthen public health (de Neve and his associates (2015) did research in Botswana and found that each additional year of secondary schooling led to an absolute reduction in the cumulative risk of HIV infection of 8.1%). Individual’s full participation in community, economy, and government leads to the success of a nation and that is why national governments take the responsibility to educate children and youth. Today, governments are facing with pressure to meet the demands of education the population since there is an increase in the child population, budgets are limited, difficulties in providing adequate quality of educational programs are present, etc. Since governments usually cannot do that by themselves, they engage

the non-state sector and form partnership to maximize the advantages offered by each involved sector. Partnership in education is defined as “a form of unification, support and assistance for formal education influences to ensure quality education,. . . and actions in the child’s interest, but each one of those institutions shall retain their identity, bringing only the contribution in a specific and concrete way by cultural, social and economic doings” (Vrasmaş 2002, p. 176). Multi-stakeholder partnerships in education consist of governments and international organizations and organizations from private sectors, mostly private corporations and foundations, and they all have respective roles in almost every aspect of the provision of education (Fig. 1). These organizations are “pooling and managing resources, as well as mobilizing competencies and commitments to contribute to expansion and quality of education” (Draxler 2008, p. 31). Partnerships in education consisted of different organizations, and their activities are

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Potential stakeholders in partnership for education and their roles. (Source: adapted from Cassidy 2007)

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development

important since they motivate children so that they get success alone (Epstein 1994). Growing interest for cross-sectoral collaboration in education has been present since 1960 and 1961 (UNESCO regional conferences of ministers in Asia and Africa where universal primary schooling was declared as a priority) and especially since 1990 when UNESCO gave priority to Education for All. Since then, partnership in education is seen as a cost-effective tool for solving problems like access and quality of education systems, especially in developing countries (Patrinos et al. 2009). Several global initiatives have been established to support multistakeholder partnerships in education, and some of them will be presented in the following text. The Global Partnership for Education (GPE) was launched in 2002, as an idea conceived at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2002, during the Governors Meeting for Information Technology and Telecommunications. GPE is a multilateral partnership and fund, spearheaded by the World Bank, that help educational systems in the world’s poorest countries to become more relevant and sustainable. GPE brings together and mobilizes resources and skills of the private sector, developing country partners, philanthropic foundations, donor countries, teachers, civil society, and different multilateral agencies. In the 5-year strategic plan (2016–2020), building stronger education system is marked as one of the main goals, which will be achieved by expansion of inclusive and fair quality learning especially in low- and lower-middle-income countries. The progress is measured by 37 indicators, which track results also in countries affected by fragility and conflict. Jordan was a pilot country, where a new education-based initiative was created by encouraging partnership between business and government. Thanks to the Global Education Initiative, there were 77 million children more in primary school in 2016 in GPE partner countries than in 2002; US$ 5.3 billion were allocated in grants since 2003, including US$ 2.4 billion to partner countries affected by fragility and conflict, supporting so far 70 developing countries and territories (e.g., Jordan, Rajasthan, Egypt, the Palestinian territories, Rwanda); close to 25 million

503

textbooks were distributed, 347,000 teachers were trained, and 3600 classrooms were built or rehabilitated in 2018 (Global Partnership for Education 2019). In 2007, the UNESCO and the World Education Forum, under the Global Education Initiatives’ expanded mission, initiated a new program called “Partnership for Education” (PfE). The aim was to create a global coalition of multi-stakeholder partnership in education that will have the capacity to support, share good practice, evaluate, and mobilize practitioners, donors, governments, and experts to enroll more children in school for quality education. Developing new innovative solutions that will inspire creative change in education at the global level and through partnership processes is present since 2009 after the Qatar Foundation’s World Innovation Summit for Education (WISE). This summit is held annually and has the aim to bring together leaders and practitioners from multiple sectors and to raise political attention on education at a global scale. In 2011, the world’s first major prize for education (WISE Prize) was introduced, and laureates are those who are concerned with building the future of education and can serve as role models for all others. What is common to all these initiatives (partnerships) is that they have been working on creating an innovative delivery of education in different settings; they expanded learning opportunities for children, especially poor ones; and they have been trying to prepare young people for their better future. Global Partnership in Tourism Sector Tourism is one of the largest economic sectors (contributes to the income generation, encourages exports, creates jobs) and includes a wide range of companies (accommodation, food and beverages, transportation, retail, etc.) that provide services to domestic and international visitors. According to the latest World Travel & Tourism Council’s report (WTTC 2019), tourism sector accounted for 10.4% of global GDP, creating 319 million jobs, or 10% of total employment in 2018. Throughout the literature, it is recognized that partnership and dialogue of the tourism industry

G

504

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development

with other sectors are essential for achieving sustainable development outcomes (Bramwell and Lane 2005; Jones and Burgess 2005). The partnership of public (ministries, tourism organizations, municipal entities, airlines) and private companies (hotels, restaurants, travel agencies, and others) in tourism aims to achieve the planned development of tourism at the destination. The ultimate goal of all partners should be a highquality tourism product that will meet the demands of tourists. One way to achieve this is through the establishment of a public-private partnership. There is no unique form of partnership in tourism as it depends on many factors such as the organizational and structural capabilities of all partners and their willingness to take responsibility. There are numerous positive examples from practice where the partnership of public and private sectors has led to the promotion and development of tourism in certain destinations. On the other hand, due to misjudgment, poor intention of one of the partners, or simply the impact of negative and unpredictable market circumstances, there are also public-private partnerships that have not been fully realized and have brought significant costs to the country where the project was started and very often a negative credibility to one of the parties. Gathering together different organizations is a central role and key principle of successful and sustainable destination management. Partnership in tourism has a potential to create social capital and develop more sustainable forms of tourism and new tourism products (Kernel 2005) but also to improve quality of tourist services and tourism employees’ managerial skills, bring economic benefits to involved stakeholders (Derek et al. 2006), and economically improve less advantaged areas, such as rural and some peri-urban settings (Demirović et al. 2019). Partnerships in tourism can be formed for a short time or last for several years, with the aim to cover only one initiative or several different activities (Zapata and Hall 2012). Reasons for the foundation of a partnership are numerous and include the creation of themed routes, shared websites and social media, sponsoring events, forming strategic marketing consortia, and others (Gursoy et al. 2015).

In the latest OECD Tourism Trends and Policies report (OECD 2018), it is highlighted that in order for tourism industry to be prepared for the impact of megatrends (e.g., evolving visitor demand, sustainable tourism growth, enabling technologies and travel mobility), tourism needs to cultivate partnership with other industries, governments, and civil society. Tourism can have a negative impact on the local community if it is not managed responsibly. In order to achieve sustainable tourism development, local community leaders and other stakeholders in the tourism industry should work together to manage tourism development. The involvement of all relevant stakeholders in tourism development planning can contribute to increasing efficiency in achieving sustainable tourism development at a destination. Also, greater stakeholder involvement will allow each of the stakeholders to increase their confidence and gain a better overview and awareness of the issues that need to be addressed at the destination. In the following text, a few examples of the partnership in tourism on the global level will be described. The Global Partnership for Sustainable Tourism, managed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), was formed as a network of tourism stakeholders from the private and public sectors, nonprofits, UN agencies and programs, international organizations, and academic institutions. The aim was to, by building a partnership, transform today’s tourism practices into a sustainable one through effective policies and innovative projects, especially by sharing knowledge and experience. In 2015, 85 partners in 7 regions transitioned into the Sustainable Tourism Programme of the 10-Year Framework. Together, partners did regional analysis on sustainable tourism and research studies, made global consultant database, organized workshops and conferences, etc. On the other side, UN Environment formed a partnership with the global financial sector like banks, insurers, and investors (United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative) to promote sustainable finance. Along with this, the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) is an international

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development

organization consisting of close partnership with the private sector and cooperation with organization such as the International Association of Air Transportation (IATA), the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA), and World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) gathering 21 member economies. Partners worked on easier obtaining tourist visas for traveling to the Asia-Pacific region, establishing a more sustainable form of tourism by developing different policy tools (e.g., permit fees to control access to environmental and cultural conservation sites), and maximizing the competitiveness of destinations by assessing taxation strategies (World Tourism Organization 2015). In addition, Airports Council International (ACI) and International Air Transport Association (IATA) developed a Smart Security Strategy since travelers had complaints on the security checkpoints and queues, the technology at the border has become inefficient, while the growth in air travel to 2040 is anticipated. This strategy is concentrated on three fields – integration of risk-based security concepts, improvement of screening technologies, and innovations (passenger and cabin baggage screening, centralized image processing, etc.). The strategy has been applied to several international airports (in Amsterdam, London, and Melbourne), and the test was successful according to results of the passenger satisfaction surveys (ACI and IATA 2016). Although tourism cannot be used as a tool for solving majority of the sustainable development goals, it has a potential to provide the solution for poverty reduction and environmental sustainability, by forming a global partnership to influence on the development of neglected communities and their empowerment. Constant increasing tourism demand is seen as a social policy tool which can provide job and other economic benefits for a local community, especially in the developing countries (Petrović 2019; Rogerson and Visser 2004). While tourism brings a lot of benefits, introducing tourism growth in some community shouldn’t be forced since it can lead to unsustainable development, and local people should have a space to determine whether they

505

want tourism as a development tool for their region (Jewell et al. 2004). Global Partnership in Health-Care Sector The health-care sector comprises of many companies and organizations in which the main activity is production and service delivery connected with medical and health care. Countries with lowresources settings will be especially affected by this shortage. The health workforce shortage can cause that health workers cannot receive adequate training, while only few will have opportunity to start or continue education. Also, emigration to countries with better working and living conditions will happen, leaving millions without basic health care or life-saving treatments (Pinner and Kelly 2017). Today, almost every country strives to increase healthy life expectancy but also faces inequality in accessing health-care resources. The greatest health-care needs are present in developing countries and especially among people living in rural areas. Access to medicines, in particular those for treating diseases like AIDS, and finding solutions for sustainable relation between intellectual property rights and access to medicines are some of the most important concerns for global health. A critical problem for global health in the present, but also in the future, has been the availability of trained health-care workers. The World Health Organization pointed out to this problem, estimating that by 2035 the global health workforce shortage will reach 12.9 million (World Health Organization 2013). Countries with low-resource settings will be especially affected by this shortage causing that health workers cannot receive adequate training, while only few will have opportunity to start or continue education, accompanying emigration to countries with better working and living conditions will happen, leaving millions without basic health care or lifesaving treatments (Pinner and Kelly 2017). To address these and other problems in the health sector, governmental organizations have been developing partnerships with the nongovernment sector, foundations, and academic organization in order to work together in promoting health and strengthening capacity among health workers (Leffers and Audette 2018; Lasker

G

506

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development

et al. 2001). Developing population health management requires a lot of time and financial assets, and dealing with new competencies like clinical integration, operational efficiency, and customer engagement seeks out new and nontraditional partners to provide adequate health-care delivery (Allen et al. 2016). Hospitals and health systems are establishing partnerships with academic centers, technology corporations, insurers, retail pharmacies, biotech companies, grocery stores, banks, etc. Some authors concluded that partnership between these organizations will be effective if it is collaborative, culturally appropriate, and sustainable and if host partners have strong leadership (Institute of Medicine 2016; Prybil et al. 2014). There is an agreement that global health partnerships are essential for improving health outcomes and delivery of health services around the world, especially in low-income settings (Leffers and Mitchell 2011; Jones 2016), but to maintain sustainability, a lot of effort must be invested. Four components, according to Howell (2009), should be followed in order for global partnerships in the health sector to stay sustainable: engaged local champions, teaching and supporting appropriate concepts with cultural sensitivity, knowledgeable and adaptable team members, and continual follow-up with

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Components of the partnership learning model for the health-care sector. (Source: adapted from Bailie et al. 2013)

reinforcement and encouragement for local practitioners. Besides these components, Bailie et al. (2013) suggested another four components, as part of the Partnership Learning Model (Fig. 2), that can build or strengthen the capacity of a health system if stakeholders work together. Global partnerships in the health sector are formed to help in dealing with some of the world’s leading challenges like HIV, tuberculosis (TB), malaria, and child and maternal mortality. For example, many developing countries couldn’t treat TB patients properly because their health institutions didn’t have adequate equipment or trained staff, but the collaboration of different international organizations helped in overcoming these obstacles. Global partnerships that have the aim to improve maternal and infant health can be sustainable only if every involved party learns from each other, if the global best practices are customized to local conditions, if the resources and knowledge are shared, and if all collaboration is based on mutual respect and shared vision (Ramaswamy et al. 2016). Global Programme on Health Promotion Effectiveness (GPHPE), Every Woman Every Child, and the Health Volunteers Overseas (HVO) are some examples of effective and sustainable global partnerships. The GPHPE, which is coordinated by the International Union for

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development

507

Global Partnerships among the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals In September 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development containing 17 Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs) has been officially adopted at a United Nations Summit. One of the SDGs outlined partnerships between governments, the private sector, and civil society (see Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals on the UN’s website) (Fig. 3), which gives special significance and novelty to this subject. Most of these targets should be realized by 2030, which sounds very encouraging. The partnerships should be built upon principles and values from local to international level, and they should have a shared vision and goals that place the well-being of the planet and nations at the focus of global interest. Defined sustainable development goals include various environmental, social, and economic issues, and the service industry has great impact on sustainable development. The service industry and partnership within and across industries have an important role in achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) – increasing availability and quality of some services can

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 The “Partnerships for the goals” among the SDGs. (Source: From the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs) of the UN, 2016, by (author (s)/editor(s)/department name), © (2016) United Nations. Reprinted with the permission of the United Nations)

Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE) and the World Health Organization (WHO), is established to raise standards of health promotion and practices worldwide and is supported by different agencies and organizations from Kenya, Switzerland, the UK, the Netherlands, Canada, the USA, and others (McQueen 2012). Every Woman Every Child is a global movement, launched by UN, with the aim to improve the health of women, children, and adolescents around the world gathering governments, multilaterals, private sector, and civil society. HVO was founded in 1986 and has the aim to increase the number and capacity of the health-care systems across the world. In 2015, they sent 87 volunteers to more than 25 countries covering different health-care sectors (Mbalinda et al. 2017).

G

508

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development

• Enhancing global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherence for sustainable development • Encouraging and promoting effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships • By 2020, increasing capacity building support to developing countries to rise significantly the availability of high-quality, timely, and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location, and other characteristics relevant in national contexts • By 2030, building on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product and support statistical capacity building in developing countries (United Nations 2016)

diminish poverty (goal 1), while further sustainable development of the service sector can enhance economic growth and employment rate, especially in developing countries (goal 8). Also, enhancing quality of some service sectors has direct effects on performance of the specific goals (e.g., SDG 3 connected with good health and well-being and SDG 4 connected with quality education). Delivering sustainable development goals cannot be done by single sector or entities. It is only possible if a relevant stakeholder recognizes the significance of the SDGs for his/her business activities and realizes them in collaborative partnership with other stakeholders. Service providers need to think which products they need to deliver to customers and how to make them, since these entities have great influence on prosperity, innovation, and growth on local and global level. The special targets of Goal 17 involve partnerships in finances, technology, capacity building, trade, and several systematic issues. Some of the targets are:

Concluding Summary

• Assisting developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies • Adopting and implementing investment promotion regimes for least developed countries • Promoting the development, transfer, dissemination, and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favorable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed • Enhancing international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the SDGs • Promoting a universal, rules-based, open, nondiscriminatory, and equitable multilateral trading system (supported by the World Trade Organization) • Increasing the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020

The Sustainable Development Goals may be applicable to all countries, and their fulfillment depends on various actors like civil society; public, private, and NGO sectors; and others. Shaping sustainable development requires cross-sectoral and multi-sectoral partnerships at national but especially at the global level since it can bring benefits to people and the planet and provide prosperity. Many organizations realized that increased efficiency and creation of new market opportunities can be obtained through partnership and that connection brings not just what is good for business but contributes to the well-being of the wider community. Since the service industries are influenced today by several factors like changes in the way they are produced, changes on the market, in particular changes in demand and changes caused by the institutional system, organizations look for partners to adapt to these challenges. Urgent actions are needed to prepare, redirect, and unlock the transformative power of private resources to achieve SDGs in the service

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development

industries. Long-term investments, involving foreign direct investment, are needed in all sectors, particularly in information and communications technologies, transport, sustainable energy, infrastructure, and others. These partnerships should especially involve developing countries in order to enhance small national economies. International support for SDG operation is gaining in importance, but major challenges remain. It will be necessary to mobilize both existing and additional resources, such as technology development, financial resources, and capacity building. In addition, developed countries will need to fulfill their official development assistance commitments. Stakeholder partnerships will be crucial to leverage the interlinkages between the SDGs to enhance their effectiveness and impact and accelerate progress in achieving the goals. This will be primarily the responsibility of countries. Reviews of progress will need to be undertaken regularly in each country, involving civil society, business, and representatives of various interest groups. At the regional level, countries will share experiences and tackle common issues, while on an annual basis, at the United Nations, the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), they will take stock of progress at the global level, identifying gaps and emerging issues, and recommending corrective action. Global partnerships in services and other industries and sectors are needed so they can reflect global interests that will lead to the sustainable development of every region. To provide real-world transformation (reduce poverty, inequality, insecurity, etc.), global partnerships will depend on the capability of partners to work together, available funds, how clear the vision and mission are, and the presence of mutual confidence. In order to make global partnerships in service industries more concrete, we briefly explained examples in the selected and dynamic industries such as education, tourism, and health care. In the changing context of global services, partnerships in the observed industries become increasingly important and provide multiplicative

509

mutual benefits for stakeholders in many other (non-)service sectors. Moreover, partnerships also present opportunities for further development of many countries and national economies in shaping their image to the global market and increasing so-called “invisible” export through the services’ selling and exchange.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Global Partnership ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development through Community Engagement ▶ Strengthening International Partnership to Support Higher Education Institutions Acknowledgments The authors and the work for producing this entry were funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Serbia (Grant No. III 47007)

References ACI, IATA (2016) Smart security, blueprint (version 4). https://aci.aero/Media/22c4c5a8-0944-420e-b35c17f8289bb359/RvQfvg/About%20ACI/Priorities/Secu rity/Smart%20Security/Documents/2017/Smart_Secu rity_Blueprint_v1_2017.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2019 Allen PM, Finnerty MJ, Gish RS, Grube ME, Kamholz KA, Singh AR, Smith JP, York RW (2016) Guide to health care partnerships for population health management and value-based care. Health Research & Educational Trust and Kaufman, Chicago Bailie R, Matthews V, Brands J, Schierhout G (2013) A system-based partnership learning model for strengthening primary healthcare. Implement Sci 8:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-143

G

510

Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development

Bramwell B, Lane B (2005) Sustainable tourism research and the importance of societal and social science trends. J Sustain Tour 13(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17501220508668469 Cassidy T (2007) The global education initiative (GEI) model of effective partnership initiatives for education. World Economic Forum, Geneva Collier P (2000) Doing well out of war: an economic perspective. In: Berdal M, Malone DM (eds) Greed and grievance: economic agendas in civil wars. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, pp 91–111 Cuadrado-Roura JR (2016) Service industries and regional analysis. New directions and challenges. Investigaciones Regionales J Reg Res 36:107–127 De Neve JW, Fink G, Subramanian SV, Moyo S, Bor J (2015) Length of secondary schooling and risk of HIV infection in Botswana: evidence from a natural experiment. Lancet Glob Health 3(8):470–477. https://doi. org/10.1016/s2214-109x(15)00087-x Demirović D, Berjan S, Milentijević N, El Bilali H, Syromiatnikova Y (2019) Exploration of tourist motivation and preferred activities in rural areas. J Geogr Inst Cvijić 69(1):29–37. https://doi.org/10.2298/ IJGI1901029D Derek RH, Melanie KS, Marciszewska B (2006) Tourism in the new Europe: the challenges and opportunities in EU enlargement. CABI Publishing, Wallingford Draxler A (2008) New partnerships for EFA: building on experience. International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP)-UNESCO, Paris Epstein JL (1994) Theory to practice: school and family partnerships lead to school improvement and student success. In: Fagnano CL, Werber BZ (eds) School, family and community interaction: a view from the firing lines. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 39–52 Foden M, Pearson S (2010) Running a regeneration programme: the experiences of resident representatives on the boards of new deal for communities partnerships. Department for Communities and Local Government, London General Assembly of the UN (2018) General Assembly Resolution No. A/RES/73/254: towards global partnerships: a principle-based approach to enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/publi cations/A-RES-73-254.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2019 Global Partnership for Education (2019) Key results. https://www.globalpartnership.org/data-and-results/ key-results. Accessed 15 Aug 2019 Gursoy D, Saayman M, Sotiriadis M (eds) (2015) Collaboration in tourism businesses and destinations: a handbook. Emerald Publishing, Brinsley Hambleton R, Howard J (2012) Public sector innovation and local leadership in the UK and the Netherlands. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York Howell PR (2009) Supporting the evolution of obstetric anesthesia through outreach programs. Int J Obstet Anesth 18:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2008.09.003

ICTSD (2016) Services and sustainable development: a conceptual approach. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva Institute of Medicine (2016) Collaboration between health care and public health: workshop summary. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC Jewell B, Blackman A, Kuilboer A, Hyvonen T, Moscardo G, Foster F (2004) Factors contributing to successful tourism development in peripheral regions. J Tour Stud 15(1):59–70 Jones A (2016) Envisioning a Global Health Partnership movement. Glob Health 12:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12992-015-0138-4 Jones PJ, Burgess J (2005) Building partnership capacity for the collaborative management of marine protected areas in the UK: a preliminary analysis. J Environ Manag 77:227–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman .2005.04.004 Kernel P (2005) Creating and implementing a model for sustainable development in tourism enterprises. J Clean Prod 13:151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.20 03.12.023 Kutscher RE, Mark JA (1983) The service-producing sector: some common perceptions reviewed. Mon Labor Rev 106(4):21–24 Lasker R, Weiss ES, Miller R (2001) Partnership synergy: a practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. Milbank Q 79:179–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.00203 Leffers JM, Audette JG (2018) Editorial: international partnerships for strengthening health care workforce capacity: models of collaborative education. Front Public Health 6:2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.201 8.00002 Leffers J, Mitchell E (2011) Conceptual model for partnership and sustainability in global health. Public Health Nurs 28(1):91–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15251446.2010.00892.x Maroto A, Rubalcaba L (2008) Services productivity revisited. Serv Ind J 28(3):337–353. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02642060701856209 Mbalinda SN, Nabirye RC, Ombeva EA, Brown SD, Leffers JM (2017) Nursing partnership activities, components, and outcomes: health volunteers overseas in Uganda 2001–2016. Front Public Health 5:173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00173 McQueen DV (2012) The global programme on health promotion effectiveness (GPHPE): a bold concept with few resources. Perspect Public Health 132(3):115–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913912 442268 OECD (2005) Enhancing the performance of the services sector. OECD, Paris OECD (2018) Megatrends shaping the future of tourism, in OECD tourism trends and policies 2018. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/tour-20186-en Patrinos HA, Barrera-Osorio F, Guaqueta J (2009) The role and impact of public-private partnerships in education. The World Bank, Washington, DC

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19 Petrović MD (2019) Community planning priorities. In: Leal Filho W, Azeiteiro U, Azul A, Brandli L, Özuyar P, Wall T (eds) Climate action. Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71063-1_63-1 Pinner A, Kelly NA (2017) Health volunteers overseas: 30 years of leveraging international partnerships to strengthen health worker capacity. Front Educ 2:30. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00030 Pomering A, Johnson LW (2018) Building sustainability into services marketing: expanding decision-making from a mix to a matrix. Sustainability 10:2992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10092992 Prybil L, Scutchfield FD, Killian R, Kelly A, Mays GP, Carman A, Levey S, McGeorge A, Fardo DW (2014) Improving community health through hospital–public health collaboration. Commonwealth Center for Governance Studies Inc., Lexington Ramaswamy R, Kallam B, Kopic D, Pujic B, Owen MD (2016) Global health partnerships: building multinational collaborations to achieve lasting improvements in maternal and neonatal health. Glob Health 12:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-016-0159-7 Riddle DI (1986) Service-led growth, the role of the service sector in world development. Praeger, New York Rogerson CM, Visser G (eds) (2004) Tourism and development issues in contemporary South Africa. Africa Institute of South Africa, Pretoria UIS (2018) Number of out-of-school children and youth. http://data.uis.unesco.org/. Accessed 8 Aug 2019 UNESCO (2016) Global education monitoring report. UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0024/002457 /245752e.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 United Nations (2010) The right to education in emergency situations. United Nations General Assembly, New York United Nations (2016) Sustainable development goals (SDGs). The goal 17: revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. https://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/globalpartnerships/. Accessed 4 Sept 2019 Vrasmaş E (2002) Counselling and parent education. Aramis, Bucharest Winthrop R, Matsui E (2013) A new agenda for education in fragile states center for universal education working paper. Brookings, Washington, DC World Health Organization (2013) Global health workforce shortage to reach 12.9 million in coming decades. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/ health-workforce-shortage/en/. Accessed 10 Aug 2019 World Tourism Organization (2015) UNWTO tourism highlights. https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.1811 1/9789284416899. Accessed 7 Aug 2019 World Travel & Tourism Council (2019) Travel & tourism economic impact 2019 world. https://www.wttc.org/-/ media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/regions2019/world2019.pdf Zapata MJ, Hall CM (2012) Public-private collaboration in the tourism sector: balancing legitimacy and

511

effectiveness in Spanish tourism partnerships. J Policy Res Tour Leis Events 4(1):61–83. https://doi.org/10. 1080/19407963.2011.634069

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19 Nik Norma Nik Hasan1 and Aswati Hamzah2 1 School of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia 2 School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

Definition Sustainability Development Goal (SDG) 17 Partnership is a voluntary and collaborative effort between various parties, both public and nonpublic, in which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose or undertake a specific task, as mutually agreed, to share risks and responsibilities, resources and benefits (UN 2016a). Here, voluntary commitments to advance implementation of the SDGs have been an integral part of partnership effort. In specific, the 2017 UN Ocean Conference described Voluntary Commitments as initiatives voluntarily undertaken by Governments, the United Nations system, other intergovernmental organizations, international and regional financial institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations, academic and research institutions, the scientific community, the private sector, philanthropic organizations, and other actors – individually or in partnership – that aim to contribute to the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 17. This multi-stakeholder partnership is also recognized as important collaborative vehicles for mobilizing and sharing knowledge, expertise, technologies, and financial resources to support the achievement of the SDGs in all countries, particularly developing countries (UN 2015). Partnership effort is particularly crucial in the COVID-19 pandemic situation.

G

512

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 or known as COVID19 is an illness caused by a novel coronavirus which was first identified amid an outbreak of respiratory illness cases in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China. It was initially reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) on 31 December 2019. According to the World Health Organization, coronaviruses are a large family of viruses which may cause respiratory infections ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) (WHO 2020a, April 17). WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency on 30 January 2020 and as a global pandemic on 11 March 2020. As of 15 August 2020, the number of COVID-19 positive cases reached 21,026,758 with 755,786 death reported worldwide (WHO 2020d, August 15).

Introduction The United Nations’ (UN) policy brief “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (UN 2015) adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are intended to “stimulate action over the next 15 years in areas of critical importance for humanity and the planet” (p. 3). These SDGs are increasingly being referred to in policy circles simply as “The Global Goals.” While being intergovernmental commitments, the SDGs have rapidly gained traction and salience among a broad range of actors beyond the 193 UN member states who unanimously endorsed them, such as public policy bodies, NGOs, and many businesses and professional organizations. The UN SDGs are a set of consolidated targets that form a comprehensive framework for holistic global development by 2030. It brings together five pillars: People (Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), Planet (Goals 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15), Prosperity (Goals 8, 9, 10, 12), Peace (Goal 16), and Partnership (Goal 17). At a broader level, the SDGs themselves are an example of policies cascading from earlier policy initiatives, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs were originally developed

by the Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD) in 1996 as part of their strategy paper for the twenty-first century. They were then taken forward by the UN. After an “iterated distillation, extracted from a wide array of global processes, with many actions involved over several years” (McArthur 2014, p. 6), the MDGs were agreed by Heads of State at the Millennium Summit in 2000. They were the “world’s first explicit development partnership framework between developed and developing countries” (ibid., 2014, p. 20). The eight MDGs sought to: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/ AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and encourage global partnerships for development (UN 2013). On 8 May 2019, the UN special report on Progress Towards the Sustainable Development Goals stated that the disaggregated data across all countries and all targets and indicators remains a challenge after 4 years of implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2019, p. 3). Despite this, some positive progress and favorable trends are evident. This includes extreme poverty, child mortality, and new chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) rates that continue to fall. The report illustrates the hard work that many Governments and their partners have been undertaking since 2015. Particularly for SDG17 on partnership, progress on some means of implementation targets is moving rapidly yet significant challenges remain. Increased access to the internet among the Least Developed Countries has been successfully achieved as a step towards a more inclusive global information society. On the other hand, for capacity building, total Official Development Assistant (ODA) is declining; private investment flows are not well aligned with sustainable development, they continue to be a significant digital divide and there are ongoing trade tensions. Enhanced international cooperation is needed to ensure that sufficient means of implementation exist to provide countries the opportunity to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2019, p. 22).

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19

The shift in development pathways to generate the transformation required to meet the Sustainable Development goal by 2030 is not yet advancing at the speed or scale required (ibid., p. 21). Further, as the whole world is bracing COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting on the SDGs becomes all the more important. This is mainly because the 17 SDGs are integrated and they recognize that action in one area will affect outcomes in others, and that development must balance social, economic, and environmental sustainability. Hence, the pandemic will not only create a global economic crisis (SDG8) or affect good health and well-being (SDG3) but also will impact the timeline and progress of achieving these global goals wholly. This entry explores ways to strengthen the means of implementation of SDG17 during postCOVID-19 pandemic time. It is structured as follows. The section on Translating Global Goals into Local Realities gives an overview of the SDGs, outlines the goals, and explains the UN initiatives to achieve them. In the subsequent section, the focus shifts to Strengthening Partnership on Global Health. It explains partnership for global health and its significance to mitigate global health issues. The following section, Global Partnership for COVID-19 Response extends this discussion to analyze challenges and the UN response to COVID-19 in order to achieve global goals by 2030. Finally, some closing observations are made.

Translating Global Goals into Local Realities The SDGs are voluntary. Their success depends largely on the active participation and commitment of a multitude of actors. In order to translate the abstract political language at the UN into meaningful action on the ground and to make true sustainable development a reality, stakeholders and actors must have a level of comprehensive understanding of its aims and must be willing to take actions. Here, involvement of civil society is important as it provides a chance to empower citizens in the setting of national

513

priorities and simultaneously implementing and realizing the SDGs. Further, local governments’ actions are critical in turning Agenda 2030 from a global vision into a local reality. Hence, the five drivers of transformation change that must be taken in translating the goals are: (i) sensitization and engagement of local actors, (ii) accountability mechanisms, (iii) participatory planning and service delivery, (iv) local economic development, and (v) partnership. Although some successful stories were evident in translating SDGs into local realities, the global landscape for SDGs implementation has generally deteriorated since 2015 (UN 2019, p. 4). This is because conflicts and instability in many parts of the world have undermined the realization of the SDGs and even reversed the progress that it has already made. Direct economic losses from disasters borne by vulnerable developing countries were overlooked too. In this time of COVID-19 pandemic, actions for SDGs by stakeholders are even more relevant to examine because the crisis is likely to have a profound and negative effect on sustainable development efforts (Watts & Kettunen 2020). A prolonged global economic slowdown will adversely impact the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This entry argues that COVID-19 will impact the SDGs progression globally. Hence, it considers if the SDGs, particularly SDG17, translate into local realities in the time of COVID-19. Understanding a New Normal The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the way we live. This new virus and disease were unknown before the outbreak began in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. COVID-19 is now a pandemic threatening many countries globally (WHO 2020a, April 17). The World Health Organization (WHO) on 30 January 2020, declared Covid-19 as a public health emergency of international concern. Just in 6 weeks, the situation had become a pandemic due to the fast spread of the cases (UN 2020a, p. 3). As this disease is a new strain of coronavirus, WHO reported that currently there is no medication available and suggested to treat the symptoms based on the patient’s clinical condition. People need to learn

G

514

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19

and adapt to live with COVID-19 by their own lifestyle. But a new normal is not altogether bad. It sets to strengthen the preparedness of health emergencies and enhances the surveillance of the cases (Chavez et al. 2020). According to the UN report on socioeconomic impact of COVID-19, many countries do not have the resources to prepare themselves for the crisis. The pandemic has plunged the world economy into a recession with consequences of unemployment and deprivation (UN DSDG 2018a). It also risks reversing decades of progress in the fight against poverty and inequality within and between countries. In the education sector, 166 countries have implemented countrywide school and university closures. The response to the virus is also having a differentiated impact on segments of the population such as women, children, older people, persons with disabilities, persons in prisons, and the homeless (UN 2020a, p. 4). In short, this pandemic situation is likely to have a negative effect on sustainable development efforts. Hence, a global response to the pandemic must include commitments to enhance mechanisms that bind countries in achieving SDGs goals. Supporting the SDGs Through Partnership In this pandemic trying time, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can only be realized with a strong commitment to global partnership and cooperation. Sustainable Development Goal 17, which reads “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development,” recognizes multistakeholder partnerships as important vehicles for mobilizing and sharing knowledge, expertise, technologies, and financial resources to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, particularly developing countries (UN 2016, p. 2). Goal 17 aims to encourage and promote effective public, public– private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships. This requires inclusive partnership – at the global, regional, national, and local levels – built upon principles and values, and upon a shared vision and goal.

Successful realization of SDG 17 is vital for attaining the other SDGs, all of which depend on securing means of implementation and forging durable partnerships for sustainable development. It is one of the most comprehensive goals as the means of implementation encompass finance (Targets 17.1–17.5); information and communication technology (Targets 17.6–17.8); capacitybuilding (Target 17.9), trade (Targets 17.10– 17.12) including systematic issues such as policy and institutional coherence (Targets 17.13– 17.15); data, monitoring, and accountability (Targets 17.18–17.19); and multi-stakeholder partnerships (Targets 7.16–17.17). SDG 17 contains a broad range of 19 targets and 25 indicators. Due to COVID-19, strong international partnership is needed now more than ever. This is because the global economy is projected to drop by 3% in 2020 and most developing countries do not have sufficient domestic resources and fiscal space to fund adequate COVID-19 response and recovery measures. Hence, establishing partnership in the pandemic time must ensure that countries have the means to recover from COVID-19, economic loss, and achieve the SDGs (UN 2020). This is particularly important for Target 17.16 and Target 17.17 whereby multi-stakeholder partnerships are recognized as important vehicles for mobilizing and sharing knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources and to enhance the global partnership and support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, particularly the developing countries. It also calls for the encouragement and promotion of effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships that are needed in responding to COVID-19 pandemic. The effectiveness of multi-stakeholder partnerships, while dependent on many factors, will increasingly be tied to their ability to manage and share knowledge and expertise about the issues, processes, and solutions that they are promoting. It helps managing complexity; filling governance gaps where governments are unable or unwilling to act; addressing deficits in regulation, participation, and implementation; and

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19

regularizing interactions, including placing previously informal interactions on a more formal, perhaps legal, footing (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2012). However, partnerships can also be a discursive struggle that reflect power imbalances among actors grappling with different values and principles. Some partnerships may promote sustainable practices, others may not. Popularity of partnerships as a form of governance originates from the disengagement from sustainable development of public authorities who have “franchised” environmental governance to other actors. For example, stakeholders have different levels of power; hence governments must establish the rules governing partnership to ensure that the interests of weaker stakeholders are also taken into account (Saldinger 2014). In this sense, partnerships that include local communities are essential for achieving the SDGs especially during the pandemic time. In a bigger context, the SDGs online platform in 2016 reported that many partnership efforts to achieve the global goals are facing challenges in implementation. The most common being limited financial resources (32 partnerships), changing participants and beneficiaries’ mindsets (18 partnerships), and problems related to human resources, for example, finding the right employees and experiencing a high turnover of participants or partners (UN 2016, p. 4). Further, a review of the progress of SDG17 in 2019 caused a great concern as the partnership progress and implementation has generally deteriorated as stated below. • Bilateral development partners’ respect for country policies declined from 64% in 2016 to 57% in 2018. Some 76% of new development projects and programs aligned their objectives to those defined in the country strategies and/or plans in 2018. However, only around half of result indicators – 52% – for these interventions were drawn from countryowned result frameworks and only 44% of result indicators were monitored using data and statistics from government monitoring systems.

515

• In 2018, 51 of 114 countries reported overall progress toward strengthening multi-stakeholder partnerships and the means of implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Improvements were reported with regard to the quality and use of public financial management and reporting systems for development cooperation activities and flows channeled through the public sector. There was a need to increase the space for civil society’s contribution to sustainable development and for a more inclusive and relevant dialogue between the public and private sectors (UN 2019, p. 23). The above findings are important to be taken into account when establishing effective partnership in responding to COVID-19. In order to tackle these challenges, the UN proposes advocacy on human-centered, innovative and coordinated stimulus package; dismantling trade barriers; boosting the economies of developing countries; strengthening international public finance provision; and waiving of sanction to ensure access to food, essential supplies, and access to COVID-19 tests and medical support (UN 2020, pp. 13–15). Partnership efforts should also be monitored and supported accordingly. Partnership Platforms for Sustainable Development A number of efforts have been put in place by the UN in order to support the achievement of the SDGs. The partnerships for SDGs online platform (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partner ships), for example, was developed in 2015 to function as a tool to inform all stakeholders on initiatives carried out by multi-stakeholder partnerships in support of the SDGs and linking progress of those initiatives to various follow-up mechanisms of the 2030 Agenda, in particular to the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) (UN 2016). The online platform has found its users and interest steadily increasing since its relaunch and as of 2016 a total of 7,349 individual accounts have been created and 2,110 efforts have been published supporting the implementation of all 17 SDGs, many of which are cross cutting across

G

516

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19

several goals (UN 2016, p. 3). The SDGs online platform also facilitates access to 12 other registries and initiatives that promote sustainable development such as Action Networks. These networks include Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL), Higher Education Sustainability Initiative, Small Island Developing States Partnership Framework, Every Women Every Child, Sustainable Development Goal Fund (SDG-F), and United Nations Global Impact (UN DSGD 2018a). Second, partnership data for SDGs (PD4SDGs) launched in 2016 is an initiative that seeks to bring together a range of stakeholders in an open and transparent manner by streamlining information of the work being carried out by multi-stakeholder partnerships and voluntary initiatives in their support to the SDGs. PD4SDGs has been developed by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) and the UN Global Compact, with support from the UN Office for Partnership in response to United Nations Member States stressing the need to develop ways to improve transparency, accountability, and the sharing experiences of multistakeholder partnerships and on the review and monitoring of these partnerships. It aims to bring greater transparency, coherence, impact, and comparability of the work carried out. Meanwhile, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is the principal body for coordination, policy review, policy dialogue, and recommendations on economic, social, and environmental issues, as well as for implementation of the internationally agreed development goals (UN 2018b). These supports by the UN aim to monitor the progress of partnership efforts made by its members. The success of the partnership efforts however depend on how the partnership is formulated to achieving SDGs goals and responding to COVID-19 pandemic as a global health crisis.

Strengthening Partnership on Global Health The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the global health with turbulences that has left the

formulation of a solution uncertain. The new normal of life changes call for more aggressive action and proper understanding of partnership and networking in facing this global health crisis indicating that a new way of partnership and networking is needed in combating the pandemic (UN 2020). The initial ideas of global partnership stemmed from the notion that the world citizen should share global resources in various ways in dealing with the fast decreasing resources worldwide. The global partnership for development, specifically on global health, can be summarized as a partnership between what developing countries need to do to reduce poverty and achieve a range of social development goals, and how richer countries could help to make it happen (UN DESA 2016). For example, in recent development on partnership efforts in addressing COVID-19, 75 countries have submitted expressions of interest to protect their populations and those of other nations through joining the COVAX Facility, a mechanism designed to guarantee rapid, fair, and equitable access to the pandemic vaccines worldwide. The countries would finance the vaccines and partner with up to 90 lower-income countries that could be supported through voluntary donations to Gavi’s COVAX Advance Market Commitment (AMC). Together, this group of up to 165 countries represent more than 60% of the world’s population with more than half other the world’s G20 economies (WHO 2020c, July 15). Partnership: Perspectives from Global Health The SDGs of the 2030 Agenda and their 169 targets are interdependent and interlinked. The successful implementation of the SDGs will rely upon disentangling complex interactions between the goals and their targets (UN 2017). As such, partnership for global health is worth discussed within the interaction of Goal 3 and Goal 17 of the SDGs. Health has a central position in the agenda through SDG 3 and is closely linked to other targets in other goals related to urban health, equal access to treatments and non-communicable diseases including Covid-19. The SDGs represent a unique opportunity to promote public health through an integrated approach to public policies across different sectors (World Bank 2018). For

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19

example, better partnership among North–South countries (Target 17.18) would have a great impact on mitigation of Covid-19 (Target 3.1). Thus, the achievement of the health goals will need policy coherence to reinforce synergies between certain SDGs. Global health partnerships, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria and the GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance, were established to streamline efforts in the health sector and respond to the challenges posed by the new aid environment. Their goal is to achieve health improvement that no organization could achieve alone (UN DSDG 2018c). As pandemic of Covid-19 is set to become part of our new normal, a global response to the pandemic must include commitments to enhance mechanisms that bind countries in achieving SDGs goals. The success of SDGs is dependent on the ability of states to financially support the policy transformation, which means relevant financial support should also be taken into consideration in establishing partnership (Frandsen 2020). Further, a collective solution among the world leaders are important to fighting the pandemic. In the case of COVID-19, the world needs innovation and ingenuity to overcome the pandemic, in which the government will provide goods and services that are better, faster and cheaper to low-resources area that is the developing countries. For instance, in April 2020, the Chinese and Australian researchers managed to make the COVID-19 genome freely available, which will speed the vaccine hunting. This news should be recognized by world leaders for better partnership (Dryhurst et al. 2020).

Global Partnership for Covid-19 Response Covid-19 Global Partner: Toward Integrated Challenges This entry argues that the COVID-19 invasion will likely change the timeline and process involved in reaching SDGs’ targets. COVID-19 is described as a “wake-up call for collaboration” as countries should coordinate with their policies

517

for the fight against the pandemic. The virus is overwhelming public health system even in many developed countries (Brukner and Mollerus 2020), which recorded caseload of patients and deaths, for example, the United States of America. In order to make all the SDGs goals a reality will require the participation of everyone, including governments, the private sector, civil society organizations, and people around the world. The fight against COVID-19 is no exception. The major impact of the pandemic on the SDGs’ structure is because of its differential effects on communities, especially the vulnerable groups such as women, migrants, refugees, stateless people, and the indigenous tribes. It challenges the SDGs’ social-inclusivity sermon of “leaving no one behind” as preached in its Sustainable Development Goals Report of 2016 (UN DESA 2020). The pandemic will also affect the SDGs process of achieving the targets because the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda, and their 169 targets, are interdependent and interlinked. This perhaps suggests a need to redesign the timeline and methods for these targets to be achieved. While dealing with challenges of new normal lives it is time to revisit the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) blueprint that targets global development. Especially for SDG 17, global partnership and networking fundamental shift in thinking are urgently required and become a moral and social obligation of world citizen. More collective thought is needed rather than individualistic way of thinking as well as explicitly acknowledging the interconnectedness between foreign cultural practices, a thriving society, and healthy environment NGOs, foundations, and others for their achievement. The aftermath of Covid-19 will spark greater challenges in humanity and sustainable living (WHO 2020b). In March 2020, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) projected how the COVID-19 pandemic can affect the SDGs. It is also found that the COVID-19 impact will give bigger ramifications on the global mechanism of sustainable development as almost all SDGs will be affected cutting across issues of the economy, society, and the environment. Figure 1 below illustrates some of the expected

G

518

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19, Fig. 1 Covid-19 affecting all SDGs

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19

first- and second-order effects of the pandemic on SDGs implementation (UN DESA 2020).

Sustainable Solutions to Cope with the Impacts of Covid-19 On 31 March 2020, the UN released a report, “Shared responsibility, global solidarity: Responding to the socio-impacts of COVID-19” to call on everyone to act together to address the pandemic impact and lessen the blow to people. The report describes the speed and scale of the outbreak, the severity of cases, and the societal and economic disruption of COVID-19 (UN 2020). In the report, Fig. 1 was shown to explain how the pandemic has direct impacts on each SDG and interlinked effects among SDGs which may slow down the progression to achieve the goals. For instance, SDG10 Reduced Inequalities is possibly the most affected SDG due to its close reliance on other SDGs such as SDG4 (Quality Education), SDG5 (Gender Equality), SDG8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). Covid-19 lockdown causes closure of schools (SDG4), suspension of economic activities (SDG8), especially among women (SDG5), and increase risk health to lower income population (SDG11). All these give second-order effects to SDG10 (UN 2020, pp. 12 and 13). At this time of COVID-19, the UN stresses that only international coordination and cooperation can prevent a worst-case scenario. The UN call to pandemic action emphasizes partnership for progress because a successful response and recovery requires international cooperation and partnership at all levels. Here, global partnership based on solidarity will be the cornerstone for progress. In particular, global partnership actions for the SDGs are more relevant in terms of aiding accountability and knowledge dissemination. The UN lists four principles as a guide to combat the pandemic: (i) Keeping all people, households, and businesses afloat, (ii) Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, (iii) Specific measures are needed at different levels, and (iv) A whole-of-society approach

519

(UN DESA 2020 p. 13). This includes implementation of economic policies that meet peoples most immediate basic needs, health and food; protect social cohesion; and maintain political and economic stability. A coordinated regional approach and an integrated approach are needed to enable collective examination of impacts and social measures as well. Based on these principles the UN suggests the following three approaches in coping with the pandemic impacts: (i) Global measures to match the magnitude of the crisis This is a call for global economic stimulus package to inject massive resources into economies. To be effective, the package needs to focus on direct and targeted transfer of resources to the most vulnerable households. Also, taking measures to boost the economies of developing countries by strengthening international public finance provision and waive sanctions imposed on countries to ensure access to food, essential supplies, and COVID-19 medical support. This must be the goal of all coordinated fiscal and monetary actions (ii) Regional mobilization The free flow of goods and services within and across all regions is essential. It is also important to engage with private financial sectors to support business and address structural challenges and strengthen normative frameworks to deal with transboundary risks. (iii) National solidarity Fiscal stimulus at a large scale is required with targeted measures aimed at aiding individuals hit hardest by COVID-19. Simultaneously, it helps to protect human rights. Efforts to ensure inclusion are needed across the preparedness, response, and recovery process. Direct support to enterprises, particularly to SMEs, is urgent by helping maintain the flow of service. This goes hand in hand with social justice and decent work. Similarly, it is crucial to venture into learning solutions that use multimedia approaches to

G

520

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19

ensure learning continuity. Also, most importantly preserving and boosting social cohesion through free access to educational and cultural resources to overcome social isolation (UN 2020, p.15).

and livelihood opportunities and adapting responses to the community context (UN 2020, p. 20).

Concluding Summary Partnerships to Accelerate the Global Responses to COVID-19 In call for partnership action to COVID-19 response, the UN addresses three important components for acceleration. Local and national authorities must first be the frontline of the pandemic. Effective dialogue and coordination between local and national authorities are critical in implementing effective measures especially on preparedness and response during pre-outbreak and outbreak with exit strategies and recovery plans. Although the vast majority of national and local governments are currently focusing on preoutbreak and outbreak planning, the most successful preparedness and response plans will have exit strategies and recovery plans. COVID-19 is a public health crisis and the second component addressed by the UN is the need of evidence-based innovation to illuminate the part out of this crisis. Governments and leading research actors should collaborate with the WHO-sponsored solidarity trials, and share data and information in the public interest. The global research community in government, academia, and private sectors has an important role across the social and natural sciences in policy formulation. Major national and international research funders and philanthropic organizations are also encouraged to support the networking of these organizations to generate a reliable global research based at the international level. Finally, it is of utmost importance to have civil society and community-based organizations to be involved in assisting the vulnerable groups. In many countries, these organizations are the point of reference for individuals and families about COVID-19 as they serve as the main communication conduits about health mandates. They play a vital role at the local level by bringing economic

While readjusting to new normal orders after this pandemic, it is of utmost importance for nations to strive toward the SDGs with a renewed vigor, capitalizing on the fact that this huge challenge in the present times is an immense learning opportunity for the entire human race in the future. Although the pandemic may delay the timeline for the global goals, the SDGs must stand the test of time to see how global partnership in the future can make Agenda 2030 successful. The discussion assembled in this entry provides reason for cautious optimism on SDG17. With the world citizens now experiencing the most unpredictable life-threat of pandemic COVID-19, it is crucial to create purposive global partnership (SDG17) at all societal sectors and levels. These drastic life changes call for more aggressive action and proper understanding of partnership and networking to pursue sustainable living. It is worthwhile to take it as an opportunity to strengthen partnership in more meaningful ways so that no countries and citizen, regardless of locality, geopolitical status quo, could be left behind. New normal of living affect both intranation and internation activities and is shared globally. One great achievement of global partnership during this pandemic is the mutual understanding and agreement worldwide on closing international boarder in an attempt to cut the chain of COVID-19 (EurekAlert 2020). However, more challenges are alarming and called for more serious dialogue and political acts to allow global partnership being created at all levels. For this venue to be explicitly function, existing data concerning the effect of new normal lives from all societal sectors need to be shared globally to keep the world citizens informed. This will allow all parties locally and internationally to have open access on diverse resources that could help them

Global Partnership Under a New Normal: Challenges and Response to COVID-19

work together and achieve more solution on certain issues (García-Herrero and Ribakova 2020). For example, in the struggle to find and invent the vaccine for COVID-19, a global partnership integrated with proper understanding on world health system could create greater transformation in various ways. Thus, it will deliver more impact; greater sustainability could be achieved and thereby the value of life could be increased. In fact, all types and form of partnership and networking targeting to achieve sustainability agenda in facing the present situation and the aftermath of COVID-19 would no longer stand on targeting tangible outcomes alone, it should go beyond the intangible and trigger higher assertive levels of survival.

Cross-References ▶ Global Partnership ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance

References Brukner M, Mollerus R (2020) COVID-19 and the least developed countries. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/ dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief-66-covid-19and-the-least-developed-countries/. Accessed on 27 May 2020 Chavez S et al. (2020) “Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): a primer for emergency physicians.” The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ajem.2020.03.036 Dryhurst S et al (2020) Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world, Journal of Risk Research, https:// doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1758193 EurekAlert (2020) Global health innovators mobilize to help developing countries combat COVID-19. https:// www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-04/tcaimt042120.php Accessed on 20 May 2020 Frandsen MV (2020) What have we learned about preparing for pandemics to come? https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2020/06/pandemics-are-here-to-stay-hereshow-we-should-prepare-for-the-next-one/. Accessed on 9 June 2020

521

García-Herrero A, Ribakova E (2020) COVID-19’s reality shock for external-funding dependent emerging economies. https://www.bruegel.org/2020/05/covid-19sreality-shock-for-external-funding-dependent-emerg ing-economies/. Accessed on 2 June 2020 McArthur J (2014) The origins of the millennium development goals. SAIS Rev Int Aff 34:5–24. https://doi. org/10.1353/sais.2014.0033. Accessed on 20 May 2020 Saldinger A (2014) What makes a global health partnership succeed. https://www.devex.com/news/what-makes-aglobal-health-partnership-succeed-84858. Accessed on 27 May 2020 UN (2013) The millennium development goals reports. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/report-2013/ mdg-report-2013-english.pdf. Accessed on 1 June 2020 UN (2015) General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/224, Towards global partnerships: a principle-based approach to enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners. https://undocs.org/A/ RES/70/224. Accessed on 18 May 2020 UN (2016a) Partnership for Sustainable Development Goals. Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals through multi-stakeholder partnerships-ensuring that no one left behind. https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/content/documents/2329Partnership%20Report %202016%20web.pdf. Accessed on 19 May 2020 UN (2016b) The sustainable development agenda. https:// www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/developmentagenda/. Accessed 19 May 2020 UN (2016c) Sustainable Development Goals knowledge platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ sdinaction/2016report. Accessed on 18 May 2020 UN (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/ 2017/thesustainabledevelopmentgoalsreport2017. pdf. Accessed on 9 June 2020. UN (2018a) Partnership for the goals. https://unstats.un. org/sdgs/report/2018/goal-17/. Accessed on 20 May 2020 UN (2018b) World urbanization prospects 2018: the key facts. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Publications/ Files/WUP2018-KeyFacts.pdf. Accessed on 20 May 2020 UN (2018c) Partnership exchange. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/content/documents/2569Partner ship_Exchange_2018_Report.pdf. Accessed on 25 May 2020 UN (2019) Economic and social council. Special edition: progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. https://undocs.org/E/2019/68. Accessed on 30 May 2020 UN (2020a) Shared responsibility, global solidarity: responding to the socio-economic impacts of Covid19. https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/ SG-Report-Socio-Economic-Impact-of-Covid19.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2020

G

522

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

UN (2020b) UN: SDGs still offer best option to reduce worst impacts of Covid-19 and to recover better. https:// www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2020/06/ recovery/. Accessed on 9 July 2020 UN DESA (2016) Partnerships for sustainable development goals, 2016 Special Report. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/sdinaction/2016report. Accessed on 20 May 2020 UN DESA (2020) Socio Economic Impact of Covid-19. https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/ SG-Report-Socio-Economic-Impact-of-Covid19. pdf Accessed on 1 June 2020 UN DSDG (2018a) Partnerships for the SDGs, Project Last Mile, #SDGAction11971. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/partnership/?p¼11971. Accessed on 24 May 2020 UN DSDG (2018b) Partnerships for the SDGs, the partnerships for SDGs online platform. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/partnerships/about. Accessed on 24 May 2020 UN DSDG (2018c) Partnerships for the SDGs, Scaling up nutrition, #SDGAction7483. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/partnership/?p¼7483. Accessed on 24 May 2020 Visseren-Hamakers IJ et al (2012) Conservation partnerships and biodiversity governance: fulfilling governance functions through interaction. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/sd.482. Accessed on 17 May 2020 Watts D, Kettunen M (2020) Global sustainable development in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic https://ieep.eu/news/global-sustainable-developmentin-the-aftermath-of-the-covid-19-pandemic. Accessed on 30 May 2020 WHO (2020a) Q&A on Coronavirus (COVID-19). https:// www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavi rus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/q-acoronaviruses. Accessed on 6 Aug 2020 WHO (2020b) Commitment and call to action: global collaboration to accelerate new COVID-19 health technologies. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/2404-2020-commitment-and-call-to-action-global-collab oration-to-accelerate-new-covid-19-health-technolo gies. Accessed on 17 May 2020 WHO (2020c) More than 150 countries engaged in Covid19 vaccine global access facility. https://www.who.int/ news-room/detail/15-07-2020-more-than-150-coun tries-engaged-in-covid-19-vaccine-global-access-facil ity. Accessed on 18 July 2020 WHO (2020d) Coronavirus disease COVID-19. Situation report 208. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/ coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200815-covid-19sitrep-208.pdf?sfvrsn¼9dc4e959_2. Accessed on 15 Aug 2020 World Bank (2018) Procuring infrastructure public-private partnerships report 2018. https://ppp.worldbank.org/ public-private-partnership/sites/ppp.worldbank.org/ files/documents/Procuring%20Infrastructure%20Pub lic-Private%20Partnerships%20_2018_EN2_0.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2020

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development Marko D. Petrović Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić”, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation

Synonyms International relations between actors in rural areas

Definition Bearing in mind there is no comprehensive explanation of the specific term “global partnerships of rural stakeholders,” this chapter will offer interpretations of the phrases “global partnership” and “rural stakeholder” with the aim to provide readers with an explanation of the whole subject’s phrase. From a global perspective, the partnership can be described as a form of teamwork in which two or more individuals collaborate with the aim of achieving business interests and goals (United Nations 2018). Even more, the time-consuming partnerships on the international scale should be created with the universal mission, ethical codes, and global vision that place the welfare of nations and planet at the focus of interests (United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2016b). Involving sustainable principles, global partnerships should ensure business interrelations between all the interested entities in order to accomplish international cooperation, long-term sustainability, and mutual understanding. On the other hand, the definition of a stakeholder (individual and organization) includes “an employee, investor, customer, etc. who is involved in or buys from a business and has an interest in its success” (Cambridge Business English Dictionary 2020). In addition, the stakeholder in the rural area

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

generally refers to any person or organization that participates in rural businesses of any kind and has an active role in building a local community. The presented theories lead to a uniform explanation of the global partnerships of rural stakeholders indicating mutual cohesion between all the interested actors in a nonurban environment with the aim of sustainable development, economic progress, and social, cultural, political, and environmental prosperity in the local surroundings within a coordinated global network.

Introduction Rural environments face many contemporary challenges. Those ones located near densely populated and urban areas endure massive pressure of growing demand for land. Even more, competition for natural resources in the countryside plays a dominant role in modern development policies in many societies (Torre and Wallet 2016). Rural areas appear as a variety of economic, sociocultural, and spatial distribution configurations, marked by a range of development paths (Nadykto 2019), where local stakeholders devoted to community development go through significant modifications (McGrath and Whitty 2017). The diversification of the economic activities and income transform the rural surrounding and economy in such a way that it diverts it from the activities of the agricultural primary sector, mainly toward service-providing businesses. At the same time, a growing jobs’ offer and the possibility of employment in the activities outside agriculture, open the space for structural changes and the growth in agricultural productivity. The meaning of “rural” across the globe is widely different. As Rewhorn (2019) noticed, rural differentiation is not as simple as the other to urban areas, taking the UK as an example. The US practice defines rural areas as an open country and settlements with fewer than 2,500 residents (The United States Census Bureau 2020), while the Brazilian theories describe rural areas as any place outside a municipality’s urban development and it’s carried by informal usage. On the other hand, rural areas in Germany receive nearly

523

equivalent economic and academic attention as the urban areas do, through a special approach to rural development (Chigbu 2012), so there is no strong rural differentiation. In India, there is almost 70% of the country’s population lives in the countryside. Rural areas have a significant role in India’s GDP through agriculture, selfemployment, services, construction, etc. (Singh et al. 2018). The importance of the stakeholder as a term has been comprehensively pointed out in the fifth edition of the PMBOK Guide (Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge 2013) describing it as a new knowledge field of mutual teamwork and partnerships, combining numerous interdisciplinary scientific and economic areas. According to Faure et al. (2014), stakeholders of the “rural world” include producers’ organizations, nongovernmental organizations, local administrations, industries, associations, businesses, technicians, local communities, and other partners with joint concern or interest in rural development. The globally increasing transformation of rural land, associations between stakeholders, and the necessity of a multifunctional development of the rural area is recognized by many international organizations, such as the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). According to Ray (2000, p. 164), the European Union’s structural funds were able to aim precise rural regions as the most urgent for policy help. The development of these areas was pursued through a territorial approach, including stakeholder partnerships between different levels of sectors and government. All the interested actors from the target areas were invited to contribute to the strategy creation and its implementation (Shucksmith 2010). The EU’s Rural Development Policy (1988) underlined the fact that this integration of local knowledge would be very beneficial in a rural development network created with the aim of further networking. Apart from European practice and examples (such as LEADER program – the EU’s initiative to support rural development projects initiated at the local level in order to revitalize rural areas and create jobs), Shucksmith (2010) also listed other similar organizations in the USA (Vermont

G

524

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

Business Environmental Partnership), Australia (Landcare), and the French Intercommunalité global system. These related associations aim to support rural stakeholders in the economic growth and service distribution. Many authors stressed the importance that the local actors should have a fundamental role in a community’s prosperity (Brandt and Vejre 2004; Busck et al. 2009; Gallent et al. 2006). In this respect, partnerships among rural stakeholders may have an essential part in the harmonization of progressive activities in the countryside and manage social and cultural welfare of rural communities, local economy, and environmental protection. These partnerships should preserve the stability between scientific, academic, and local community development requirements. As Reed (2008) stated, the variety of information and principles of the local communities have to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, it is essential to make sure that there is stakeholders’ involvement in decision-making procedures (Stringer et al. 2007) and operation. In addition, the Aarhus Convention, under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1998), suggests the participation of the local stakeholders in decision-making as a basic democratic right, even though it is not unusual that it is an operational agenda mainly implemented by community development facilitators. Some authors (Forester 1999; Leeuwis and Pyburn 2002) claimed that mutual cooperation among stakeholders raises the significance of their role and impact in rural development activities and, moreover, they learn to appreciate the legitimacy of individual opinions and teamwork roles. These results in the partnerships and coordination of stakeholders required for sustainability and putting into practice decisions to be addressed successfully (Richards et al. 2004). The sense of constructive inclusion in the procedure and the achieved results are some of the reasons used to validate their participation and significance of their individual contributions in the rural community (Reed 2008; Usadolo and Caldwel 2016). A critical position to any partnership, particularly those with vulnerable local communities, is a strict obligation of the moral code and tasks included on the part of facilitators from

organizations that are usually much better resourced than the neighboring communities (Netshandama 2010). Actually, the procedure of defining a mutual idea for the partnership can create the base for continuing assurance and explain how development can be defined and acknowledged (Overton and Burkhardt 1999). To understand the role of global partnerships among rural stakeholders for sustainable development taking shape at a range of scales, the discussion in this chapter will describe an evaluation of key global partnerships in selected industries in rural environment in the context of Sustainable Development Goals – SDG 17 (Partnerships for the goals). The findings will emphasize the frameworks of such collaborative relations, sustainable principles, and the significance of their context and organizational interests. The chapter’s vision will be in accordance with Netshandama’s (2010) statement that “in a partnership it is expected that stakeholders will share their needs and expectations of each other and establish common ground from which to operate” (p. 73). This especially highlights the importance of stakeholder partnerships in less-developed, rural areas.

Frameworks on Global Partnership in Selected Rural Industries Examples of Partnerships in Agriculture and Rural Tourism Agricultural production is traditionally the most prevailing economic branch in nonurban settings. Nowadays, international cooperation and partnerships in the agricultural sector are mainly focused on global food security, contemporary sustainable approach in cultivating plants and livestock and its connection with other rural economies. The biggest challenge in modern times is to succeed in food safety and rural residents’ well-being on the global scale, especially for many developing parts, as well as for the areas suffering from additional problems of climate changes (e.g., long periods of drought, frequent floods, and diverse weather disasters) and unstable political situation. These efforts aim to support all stakeholders in rural areas, particularly small-scale food

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

producers, and associated local systems that supply poverty-stricken customers. To achieve the goal, it is necessary to make a network of global and local partnerships systems, conduct policylinked research to speedup the sharing of instructions on organizations, practices, and technologies for modernization and adaptation (Vermeulen et al. 2012). Some of the global partnerships organizations in agriculture are Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global Forum on Agricultural Research and Innovation (GFAR), and Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Contemporary trends in agriculture have created a successful concept of its multifunctionality. Multifunctional agriculture symbolizes a term used to indicate companies that combine their agricultural production and environment with services to society. One of the most significant nonagricultural parts of this concept is relying on rural tourism (Wilson 2007). Rural tourism and its development cannot be observed separately from the activities of the community, that is, rural tourism must be integrated with the initiatives of the community development and the principles of multifunctional agriculture. In the economic development of the rural regions round the world, the role of tourism is growing in its presence and importance. The cooperation and partnerships between stakeholders in tourism and agriculture are the preconditions for the establishment of network business connection, the partnerships between institutions. Rural tourism depends on a wide range of natural and anthropogenic resources of the local communities where it is developing, including the infrastructure facilities, capabilities, and offer of accommodation services, food, and beverages, as well as on the organized events in the nearby surroundings (Cawley, Gillmor 2008). The need for tourism development based on the business connections between stakeholders has been recognized in tourism motivated by social elements. In the practice of rural tourism, stakeholder partnerships are often groups formed in the economic and social context (Bramwell and Lane 2000), and they are rarely mechanisms which comprise the participation of wider public. The issues in the implementation of

525

“socially based” tourism strategies reflect wider problems of the destination, of the existing management, and tourism planning (Dashper 2015; Mason 2015), and they emphasize the nature of tourist activities within the economic and social structure, as well as the problems that occur in the coordination and management (Austin and Garrod 2018; Saxena 2014). The global partnerships in rural tourism are of great importance for getting a thorough overview of the contemporary trends in rural aspects of tourism, for the adoption of successful world models of development taking into consideration all the specific features and the affirmation of natural, cultural, and other resources. On the global and European travel market, a great number of international associations are active and their scope of actions is closely related to the development of rural aspects of tourism, such as European Federation of Rural Tourism (EuroGites), European Centre for Ecological and Agricultural Tourism (ECEAT International), and International Association of Experts in Rural Tourism (IAERT) (Petrović et al. 2017a). A Case Study of Developing Country: Partnerships in Tourism and Agriculture in Serbia

Partnerships in economic activities in rural regions of a developing country (here, the example of Serbia was used) widen the range of services available to rural population. Agricultural policy itself is insufficiently efficient in solving the growing social problems of rural regions, which is partly the result of the changed functions of agriculture in the general context of sustainable development and multifunctional agriculture in many developing countries (Jervell and Jolly 2003; Petrović 2019; Refsgaard and Johnson 2010). Complex social challenges of rural environments must be solved in combination with other public policies. The influence domain of a partnership in the field of agriculture also involve finding solutions for farms and reducing the consequences of structural changes on their survival through various aspects of local initiatives (Fig. 1). Modern agricultural policy encourages the possibility of farms to earn additional income

G

526

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Rural initiatives through partnerships between local stakeholders (illustrations from

Serbia). (Source: Made by the author from the private photos collection, between 2013 and 2019)

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

within other additional economic activities, such as through rural tourism. Starting from the above mentioned, the following operational plans have been defined (Petrović et al. 2017b): • More diverse offer of farm products and services • Development of rural tourism • Growth in the number of products and services based on the local identity of rural environments • Protection and preservation of cultural heritage • Empowerment of vertical and horizontal coordination of the actors in rural development • Improvement of public utility and land infrastructure The support of partnerships to the development of agriculture and other economic branches in rural areas will be growing in significance in the future, not only through a greater focus in the policy of rural development in the country but also through the determining the mechanisms for a better coordination with other public policies. The measures of the policy of rural stakeholders will foster the initiation of new, (non)agricultural activities of farm members, with new investments in the physical capital (e.g., equipment, facilities, infrastructure), and the improvement of the human potentials. It also means providing a series of ways to help the creation of addition values to local products, including the support for business networks, marketing of collective products and services, branding of local products, improvement of the quality of local products, and the development of handicraft adaptation facilities. These types of partnerships and their activity are financially stimulated by the national Government. In line with the above mentioned, there is an enhanced support to information campaigns for raising the awareness, dissemination of information, and for providing advisory support to farmers interested in extending their economic activities beyond agriculture (e.g., tourism and hospitality, direct sales of local products. . .). The partnerships between rural stakeholders in Serbia have a strong impact on the improvement of the quality of life of rural population and they foster

527

the arrangement and reconstruction of rural ambience, the preservation of cultural heritage, and natural resources of a local environment. It is carried out through the projects of protection, conservation, and promotion of local architecture, landscape, and other natural and anthropogenic values (Strategy of Agriculture and Rural Development of Serbia 2014–2024). Partnerships in Artisanal Handicraft Artisanal handicraft (Handmade) is a very unique form of contemporary rural business. It involves any of extensive diversity of types of work where articles for usage or decorations are made with hands, without machines, to meet the needs of the people in their locality. Even though it is a traditional segment of craft production in many societies, which includes a wide range of artistic activities that are related to hand-making objects, it has only recently been recognized as one of key industries for the economic and cultural welfare of local communities. Collective terms for handicrafts comprise handcrafting, crafting, artisanry, hand-craftsmanship, and handicrafts (Millard 1996). In the last couple of decades, global handicrafts business has passed through dramatic changes in every aspect, from manufacturing to marketing process and distribution. Moreover, handicrafts face a strong competitive environment where mass production, technological developments, and economic advancements are taking a leading role in the international business market. Nevertheless, handicrafts still have their economic prosperity in many developing countries worldwide through the increased domestic demand and export (Venkataramanaiah and Kumar 2011). Usually, these artisans’ works belong to national or local cultural values and traditional community manufacturing long-established products for generations (Sarkar and Banerjee 2007). One of the ways to improve the artisans’ business is to form partnerships through the systems of business network connection. These are unique models of coordinated economic activities, enabled by market alternatives and numerous companies. The partnerships include the following:

G

528

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

• Artisan companies of all sizes and in various combinations • They can be internationally and/or locally oriented • They can appear in all the phases of the value chain • Business relations range from very informal ones with the obligations regulated by contracts The development of the system of business network connection in artisan business is getting more and more attention in both academic and economic circles (Grimes and Milgram 2000). Network business in artisanry has long been a symbol of organizations which are open to innovations. The partnerships between small- and medium-sized artisan businesses seem to represent a vital component in the successful regional economy, and they can offer a significant potential for the reduction of the effects of economic restructuring, especially in rural and underdeveloped regions. The relations within the network are of great importance in the promotion and coordination of handicraft business. The coordination, in this case, does not imply a formal intervention, but the identification and direction toward the common goals of the local stakeholders, from both private and public sectors, who achieve interests in handicraft activity. Similarly, the observations have been performed for small- and/or medium-sized handicraft businesses, which enable the uniting of resources with the aim of enhancing competitiveness; design of plans for strategic management and marketing; reduction of operational costs; enhancement of know-how (Das 2017; Wherry 2008). One of the most imperative aspects of partnerships is that they not only enable the flow of cooperative information, research and promotion, but they also enable the improvement of the circulation of handicraft products in a certain region. Therefore, the communication relations affect the business, community, economic, social, and political relations, and they require the need for their better understanding in the development process (Grime and Milgram 2000; Wherry 2008).

The possibility of successful partnerships between artisanal handicrafts is in the idea of forming business clusters. The aim of a cluster is joining small- and medium-sized businesses on the grounds of common interests, and with the aim of easier business management, joint development, or joint appearance on the market. The successful examples of forming partnerships through clusters in handicraft can be found in many countries, such as Mexico (Gómez-Corona et al. 2016), Portugal (Marques et al. 2019), the USA (Rosenfeld 2004), Uganda (Könnecke 2015), etc. The national governments and local authorities in the observed countries are taking an active part in the work of partnerships formed between local craftsmen, respecting the principles of sustainability and local development, and forming programs, such as Cluster Development Programmes (CDPs). Such programs have the aim to encourage the connecting of local stakeholders into national and global networks, process design, business planning, marketing, and the implementation of methods which will maintain the fair competitiveness. A Case Study of a Developing Country: Partnerships Through Clusters in India

One of the most successful examples of the formation of craftsmen clusters can be found in India (Ranganathan 2018; Venkataramanaiah, Kumar 2011; Yadav and Mahara 2018). In this country, depending on the region (federal state), clusters for specific branches of crafts have developed, e.g., work with wood carvings and stone black pottery in Manipur State, folk painting in Goa, paper mache and basholi in Jammu and Kashmir, mural paintings in Tamil Nadu, Kathakali body paintings in Kerala, etc. (Fig. 2). Handicrafts divisions, department of industries, export promotion council for handicrafts, directorate of foreign trade, and other Indian Governmental agencies, are supported by bank loans at affordable rates to registered unitholders. They are providing good traffic networks, supporting power supply, making exclusive industrial areas for exportoriented units, and advantaged possibilities for young entrepreneurs. Moreover, Comprehensive Handicrafts Cluster Development Scheme has been launched by the department of handicrafts,

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

529

G

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Clusters in artisanal handicraft business in India – Example of partnerships

among the rural stakeholders. (Source: https://www. tisserindia.com/know-your-artisan/)

together with the enterprise of building facilities (e.g., resource centers, CAD centers, raw material and design bank, communication networks, marketing infrastructure, etc.) developed under a public– private partnership model (Sarkar, Banerjee 2007). According to Venkataramanaiah and Kumar (2011), some of the advantages of these initiatives for the unitholders are:

• Reported improvement in revenue due to increase in productivity • Better prices for the products due to better quality and on-time delivery • About 40% improvement in nonvalue added (NVA) activities and 50% enhancement in labor productivity • More than 80% upgrading in production volume was reported due to process redesign and 30% improvement in production yield due to process redesign • About 25% savings in power bill paid by the unit holders due to automation of some of the old and inefficient processes, etc.

• Enhancements in working conditions due to reorganization of manufacturing and supporting resources • Better access to financial, technical, market, health, and education-related services

530

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

All the above mentioned contributes to the fact that partnerships through clusters are very useful for individual members, especially when smallbusiness craftsmen are concerned. Besides the mentioned advantages, the local communities in India also have a significant benefit, which is especially reflected in the reduction of trend of young people’s leaving rural areas and in the possibility of their employment through entrepreneurship in the handicraft business, the engagement in production, learning new skills, showing creativity, etc.

people. In addition, the partnerships may impact on the reduction of inequalities (Goal 10), by involving socially vulnerable groups in the countryside, such as young unemployed people, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and senior citizens. Conveying sustainable development goals cannot be done by a lone sector or entity. It is only possible if a relevant stakeholder recognizes the significance of the SDGs for their business activities and realizes them in collaborative partnerships with other stakeholders (Demirović and Petrović 2020).

Global Partnerships Among the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals

Concluding Remarks

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 global targets that combine social and environmental actions to be met by 2030. They were established by the UN in 2015, with the aim to cover eliminating hunger and achieving clean water worldwide, as well as taking actions on climate changes and wildlife conservation (The United Nations 2016a). The SDGs have been adopted by all 193 countries that are members of the UN General Assembly. The 17th SDG defines partnerships for sustainable goals between governmental authorities, the private sector, and civil society (see Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals on the UN’s website), with the aim of local and global welfare from local communities to global networks. Partnerships for the goals are centered upon principles and values, a shared vision, and the aims that place people and the planet at the center of global attention. The rural stakeholders and partnership within and across countries have a significant role in achieving the other 16 SDGs. An increasing number of successful businesses among rural stakeholders and raising their standards of living can improve economic conditions of a (poor) rural community, which is in accordance with Goals 1 and 2 (No poverty and Zero hunger). Moreover, by the inclusion of women workforce in rural societies, partnerships of stakeholders may have a direct effect on gender equality (Goal 5), and decent work economic growth (Goal 8) of local

As stated in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Global Partnership for Sustainable Development should be “. . .based on a spirit of strengthened global solidarity, focused in particular on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable and with the participation of all countries, all stakeholders and all people” (United Nations Development Programme 2015). The process of planning and designing sustainable development calls for the coordination between sectors, as well as the partnerships of numerous sectors at national, but even more importantly at the international level since it can provide prosperity to both people and the planet. Numerous associations worldwide have realized that progressive competence and formation of new market chances can be achieved through partnerships and that the networking is beneficial not only for business but that it also contributes to the welfare of the broader community. The fact that rural stakeholders are affected by a number of factors, such as changes in the way of managing business, the variations on the market, especially the modifications in demand, and the changes which are the result of the institutional system, a lot of organizations look for associates to become accustomed to new challenges. Thus, they need immediate actions to organize and unlock the transformative influence of private funds to achieve SDGs in the partnerships between rural stakeholders. There is a need for

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

long-term investments which would involve direct foreign investment in all the sectors, especially in the undeveloped national economies. The importance of international support for SDGs operation is growing, but major challenges still remain. It will be necessary to comprise existing and additional resources, such as capacity building, technology development, financial resources, etc. Moreover, developed countries should fulfill their official commitments regarding the assistance in the development. The role of stakeholder partnerships will be vital for gaining benefits from the inter-connections between the SDGs in order to enhance their power and influence, and to spur the progress in achieving the Goals. It will primarily be the responsibility of countries. The reviews of progress will need to be undertaken in each country, and they should involve businesses, civil society, and representatives of different interest groups. At the international level, countries will share practices and deal with public issues, while on an annual basis, in the United Nations, at the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, they will identify gaps and developing issues, and recommend helpful strategies. The need for global partnerships of rural stakeholders is increasing, since they can affect interests that will lead to the global sustainable development of every country. To ensure the positive results on the global level (reduce poverty, inequality, insecurity, etc.), partnerships worldwide will depend on the ability of partners to work together, on the available funds, on the fact how clear strategy are defined, and on the manifestation of shared confidence. In order to make global partnerships of rural stakeholders more actual, this chapter provided a brief overview of the cases in the selected industries such as agriculture, tourism, and artisan handicraft. In the dynamic context of stakeholders’ management, partnerships in the exanimated industries are becoming progressively vital and provide copious shared advantages for stakeholders in many rural communities. The presented observations lead to the conclusion that partnerships are not only a mere interchange between stakeholders but the establishment of something jointly new. In this

531

respect, the chapter provides graduate students with a good venue to look up facts or to get a general overview of partnerships among rural stakeholders pertaining to the possible development directions.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs ▶ Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy ▶ Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Stakeholder Partnerships: Collaborative Modeling as a Mechanism for Sustainable Development ▶ Systemic Issues and Multi-stakeholders Partnerships for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

References Austin R, Garrod GD (2018) Making rural partnerships work. In: Mansfield L (ed) Managing upland resources: new approaches for rural environments. Whittles Publishing Ltd, Dunbeath, pp 457–469 Bramwell B, Lane B (eds) (2000) Tourism collaboration and partnerships: politics, practice and sustainability, vol 2. Channel View Publications, Bristol Brandt J, Vejre H (2004) Multifunctional landscapes – motives, concepts and perspectives. In: Brandt J, Vejre H (eds) Multifunctional landscapes: volume 1 theory, values and history. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 3–32 Busck AG, Hidding MC, Kristensen SBP, Persson C, Praestholm S (2009) Planning approaches for rurban areas: case studies from Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. Geografisk Tidsskrift–Danish J Geogr

G

532

Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

109(1):15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223. 2009.10649593 Cambridge Business English Dictionary (Updated on: 1 January 2020) Term stakeholder. https://dictionary. cambridge.org/dictionary/english/stakeholder. Accessed on 5 April 2020 Cawley M, Gillmor DA (2008) Integrated rural tourism:: concepts and practice. Ann Tour Res 35(2):316–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.07.011 Chigbu UE (2012) Village renewal as an instrument of rural development: evidence from Weyarn, Germany. Community Dev 43(2):209–224. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15575330.2011.575231 Das K (2017) Craft clusters and work in rural India: an exploration. In: Reddy D, Sarap K (eds) Rural labour mobility in times of structural transformation. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, pp 103–125 Dashper K (ed) (2015) Rural tourism: an international perspective. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge Demirović D, Petrović MD (2020) Global Partnership in the Service Industries for sustainable development. In: Leal Filho W, Azul A, Brandli L, Özuyar P, Wall T (eds) Partnerships for the goals. Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71067-9 Faure G, Gasselin P, Triomphe B, Temple L, Hocdé H (2014) Innovating with rural stakeholders in the developing world: action research in partnership. LM Publishers, Arnhem Forester J (1999) The deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press, Cambridge Gallent N, Andersson J, Bianconi M (2006) Planning on the edge. The context for planning at the rural–urban fringe. Routledge, London/New York Gómez-Corona C, Escalona-Buendía HB, García M, Chollet S, Valentin D (2016) Craft vs. industrial: habits, attitudes and motivations towards beer consumption in Mexico. Appetite 96:358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.appet.2015.10.002 Grimes KM, Milgram BL (eds) (2000) Artisans and cooperatives: developing alternate trade for the global economy. University of Arizona Press, Tucson Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (2013) PMBOK guide, 5th edn. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. https:// www.google.com/url?sa¼t&rct¼j&q¼&esrc¼s& s o u r c e ¼w e b & c d ¼& c a d ¼r j a & u a c t ¼8 & ved¼2ahUKEwj3xdez2tHpAhVoposKHdvQBocQFj AAegQIAhAB&url¼https%3A%2F%2Fdinus.ac.id% 2Frepository%2Fdocs%2Fajar%2FPMBOKGuide_ 5th_Ed.pdf&usg¼AOvVaw0hNjKbUt1_z2E8Qjfo1g_. Accessed 26 May 2020 Jervell AM, Jolly DA (2003) Beyond food: towards a multifunctional agriculture. Norsk institutt for landbruksøkonomisk forskning, Oslo Könnecke C (2015) Social capital in handicraft clusters for business startup and growth: the case of the luweero

handicraft cluster in Uganda. Published Master Thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/10417/5051. Accessed 11 May 2020 Leeuwis C, Pyburn R (2002) Wheelbarrows full of frogs: social learning in rural resource management. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, Assen Marques CS, Santos G, Ratten V, Barros AB (2019) Innovation as a booster of rural artisan entrepreneurship: a case study of black pottery. Int J Entrep Behav Res 25(4):753–772. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-022018-0104 Mason P (2015) Tourism impacts, planning and management, 3rd edn. Routledge, London/New York McGrath SK, Whitty SJ (2017) Stakeholder defined. Int J Manag Proj Bus 10(4):721–748. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJMPB-12-2016-0097 Millard E (1996) Export marketing for a small handicraft business. Oxfam GB, Nairobi Nadykto V (ed) (2019) Modern development paths of agricultural production: trends and innovations. Springer, Berlin Netshandama V (2010) Quality partnerships: the community stakeholders’ view. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement 3:70–87. https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v3i0.1541 Overton BJ, Burkhardt JC (1999) Drucker could be right, but...: new leadership models for institutional-community partnerships. Appl Dev Sci 3(4):217–227. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480x ads0304_6 Petrović MD (2019) Community planning priorities. In: Leal Filho W, Azul A, Brandli L, Özuyar P, Wall T (eds) Climate action. Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-71063-1_63-1 Petrović MD, Vujko A, Demirović D, Gagić S, Denda S (2017a) Model of tourism development in the region – the example from Serbian rural society. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Theory and Practice of Harmonization of Interaction of Natural, Social and Production Systems of the Region”, Saransk 2017:40–49 Petrović MD, Blešić I, Vujko A, Gajić T (2017b) The role of Agritourism’s impact on the local Community in a Transitional Society: a report from Serbia. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences 13(50):146–163. https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.2017. 0009 Ranganathan A (2018) The artisan and his audience: identification with work and price setting in a handicraft cluster in southern India. Adm Sci Q 63(3):637–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217725782 Ray C (2000) The EU LEADER programme: rural development laboratory. Sociol Rural 40(2):163–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00138 Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon. 2008.07.014

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future Refsgaard K, Johnson TG (2010) Modelling policies for multifunctional agriculture and rural development–a Norwegian case study. Environ Policy Gov 20(4):239–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.549 Rewhorn S (2019) Systems of equity: achieving health and wellbeing for rural communities. In: Filho L, Wall T, Azul A, Brandli L, Őzuyar P (eds) Good health and Well-being. Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31969627-0_86-1 Richards C, Carter C, Sherlock K (2004) Practical approaches to participation. Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen Rosenfeld S (2004) Art and design as competitive advantage: a creative enterprise cluster in the Western United States. Eur Plan Stud 12(6):891–904. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0965431042000251918 Sarkar T, Banerjee S (2007) Artisan clusters – some policy suggestions. The Innovation Journal 12(2):3–14 Saxena G (2014) Rural tourism partnerships and actor mobility. Int J Tour Res 16(5):488–495. https://doi. org/10.1002/jtr.1942 Shucksmith M (2010) Disintegrated rural development? Neo-endogenous rural development, planning and place-shaping in diffused power contexts. Sociol Rural 50(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679523.2009.00497.x Singh SK, Pandey PK, Goswami DK (eds) (2018) Rural development of India. Bharti Publications, New Delhi Stringer LC, Reed MS, Dougill AJ, Rokitzki M, Seely M (2007) Enhancing participation in the implementation of the United Nations convention to combat desertification. Nat Res Forum 31:198–211 The European Union’s Rural Development Policy (1988) https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/ themes/rural-development/. Accessed 21 May 2020 The United Nations (2016a) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). About the sustainable development goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ sustainable-development-goals/. Accessed 8 May 2020 The United Nations (2016b) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Goal 17: revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. https://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/globalpartnerships/. Accessed 9 May 2020 The United Nations (2018) The United Nations Terminology Database. https://unterm.un.org/unterm/display/record/ unog/na?OriginalId¼53510. Accessed 14 May 2020 The United Nations Development Programme (2015) 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. https://www. undp.org/content/undp/en/home/2030-agenda-forsustainable-development/partnerships.html. Accessed 22 May 2020 The United States Census Bureau (2020) Urban and Rural. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/ guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html. Accessed 19 June 2020 Torre A, Wallet F (2016) Regional development in rural areas: analytical tools and public policies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02372-4

533

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1998) The Aarhus convention. https://ec.europa.eu/ environment/aarhus/. Accessed 11 May 2020 Usadolo SE, Caldwel M (2016) A stakeholder approach to community participation in a rural development project. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2158244016638132 Venkataramanaiah S, Kumar NG (2011) Building competitiveness: a case of handicrafts manufacturing cluster units. Indore Management Journal 3(2):27–37 Vermeulen S, Zougmore R, Wollenberg E, Thornton P, Nelson G, Kristjanson P et al (2012) Climate change, agriculture and food security: a global partnership to link research and action for low-income agricultural producers and consumers. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(1):128–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2011. 12.004 Wherry FF (2008) Global markets and local crafts: Thailand and Costa Rica compared. JHU Press, Baltimore Wilson GA (2007) Multifunctional agriculture: a transition theory perspective. Cabi, Wallingford Yadav R, Mahara T (2018) An exploratory study to investigate value chain of Saharanpur wooden carving handicraft cluster. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 9:147–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-016-0492-5

Global Public Goods ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future Lata Shukla1 and Mothilal Lakavath2 1 Department of Biotechnology, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India 2 Department of Management Studies, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India

Definition Ecosystem and ecosystem services: An ecosystem is a unique signature of complex interconnected ecological processes which are defined by a relationship between living and non-living organisms

G

534

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

inhabiting a specific area at a specific given time. Properly functioning ecosystems are beneficial to humans, and these provide ecosystem services from the surrounding environment. The ecosystem services could be exemplified by events of pollination by bees constitute the Agri ecosystem services); the timber and berries (forest ecosystem services); fishes, tortoises, crabs, and algae (aquatic ecosystem services). The collective benefits for humans obtained from the environment are referred to as ecosystem services. These ecosystem services are classified into four broad categories, namely (1) food and water, (2) controlling/regulating the climate, (3) controlling the nutritional and crop pollination, and (4) spiritual and recreational benefits leading to cultural benefits. Governance is a broad term encompassing the constitutional, legal, institutional, and conventional arrangements by which the country administrative activities are carried out, including making, implementing, and regulating public policies using public systems through a set of institutions, structures, and hierarchies. Governance also includes funding, managing, monitoring organizations, and managing the relationship between government officials and citizens. Counterfeiting is a crime involving the manufacturing, distribution, and selling of goods by using an unauthorized registered trademark, copyright, or patent belonging to someone else. Lower-quality material is used in manufacturing counterfeit products that resemble branded goods buyers know and trust. Adulteration refers to the act wherein the products are human usage like food, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals have materials other than those listed in the constituents. These items reduce the quality of product and are used to reduce the cost of the products. They may or may not contain the elements that affect safety or effectiveness of product. The material used for adulteration is called adulterant, contaminant, or cutting agents. Forest cover refers to terrestrial land cover, which could be natural/human made. The global forest cover is only 30%, and with human intervention, reforestation gain is 10%. Forest cover is

categorized as very dense (70% canopy cover), moderately dense (40–70% canopy cover), open forest (10–20% canopy cover), shrub (less than 10% canopy cover). The canopy cover refers to the woodland or the land covered with trees.

Introduction Human beings are considered as the most intelligent among all living species known to date, able to overcome obstacles posed by nature and able to command nature for meeting their needs. Thus, we humans have reached unsustainable levels of exploitation of the Earth’s resources. Most scientists agree that human beings continue to cause alarming levels of disturbance to ecosystems and, consequently, that this leads to the extinction of species. The saddest part of human history on the Earth is that it has reached a point of self-destruction. Therefore, the protection of our healthy human life from extinction is of paramount importance to sustain a good life on Earth and possibly to expand human life to other planets in the future. Humans could synergistically work toward the development of humans in other parts of the planet. A platonic relationship with other animals and plants could aid in the alleviation of degrading resources, diminishing our power. It is the harnessed knowledge-sharing capacity of humans that has caused growth over the centuries. Now, with the ease of availability of knowledge and the changes in people’s preferences, it is becoming difficult for the Earth to sustain the human species, and animals and plants are gradually becoming preferentially selected by human interventions. The planet’s ecosystem, with people and other living beings, constitutes a self-sustaining system with every element consuming the resources of the system and leaving carbon footprints or other impacts on other species or the environment. Every element in the ecosystem is interdependent, leaving the system vulnerable to the activities of the most intelligent and the majority of the species – human beings.

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

Governance Good governance is critical to long-term socioeconomic, political, and environmental development. The entire gamut of activities that take place in every nation comes under governance: making of public policies, implementation of rules and regulations, citizens’ quality of life, societal culture, corruption, punishments, etc. (OECD 2017). With the emergence of information and communication technologies coupled with the falling costs of accessing the Internet and social media, democratic governance, and the proliferation of print and online social media as well, citizens continue to share every sort of news. News that once was secret is now publicly shared on social media. With this development, governance is visible to citizens, academicians, foreign investors, donor countries, and multilateral agencies. The present societal trend of increasing adaptation to changing technology, accessing and consuming information, has caused the transparency and quality of governance to assume greater significance. In the past three decades, several indicators have emerged to evaluate governance, because international funding agencies emphasize transparent governance so that project benefits can reach their fullest potential. International comparison being the norm of the day, from local government projects to those internationally funded, projects are subject to transparency and governance. Election manifestos have become vital for attracting voters. However, evaluating government activities and performance is very challenging because of limited transparency and availability of comparative data. Few of the best practices go unnoticed, as they are rare, prone to subjective assessments, and prove to be less effective than their potential because every unit of government may not wholeheartedly align its interests with that of a nation at large, thus making the governance vulnerable to systemic faults.

535

Amid several governance indicators available directly or indirectly through media, those that lead to increased pollution levels in the environment, adulteration of food, affecting the moral fabric of the culture and decreasing ethical standards as a consequence of poor governance of the nation, only a few can be considered in this chapter.

Good Governance Every government unit is transparent, futuristic, and visionary in planning to avert future problems (Taylor et al. 2014). Governance of the nation is good when it addresses the needs of the citizens and meets the parameters of measuring various indices of governance by varied institutions. Foundation of individual perceived justice is the prevailing situation in a particular society in which an individual citizen perceives and holds an image of the nation. Citizens trust and have confidence in the government. This individual perception of a governance system as fair has consequences for citizens as every citizen engages in good and ethical behavioral actions in as many ways as possible. Thus, good governance creates and nurtures ethics and values in the society, which in turn will promote a livable culture and peaceful society. In a cyclical form of actions, this further will promote good feelings among the administrators of the nation, and governance will improve over time based on the feedback citizens provide to the government (Block A, Fig. 1, Table 1).

Bad Governance Governance is either good or undesirable. Citizens lose faith and do not trust in their governance when it is not responsive to their needs. When society is highly corrupt and citizens live in fear, many people may take advantage of the situation. This system has a negative multiplier effect on ethics and values in society. The unethical cycle of activities, bad governance – low ethics and

G

536

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

Governance

Bad Governance

Good Governance

Good Culture & Peaceful Society

Good Ethics & Values in the Society A

Environmental Pollution D

Repulsive Culture & Values

Low Ethics & Morals

B

Food Adulteration

Counterfeiting

Unsustainable Lifestyle C Extinction of Healthy Life

E

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future, Fig. 1 Extinction of the healthy human race: value systems in society

morals, a repulsive culture with no values – keeps on affecting citizens with an increasing trend of unwanted activities in the society. This scenario of bad governance nurtures multiple negative developments in a state such as counterfeiting, food adulteration, unsustainable lifestyles, increased crime rates, and no justice for the common citizens (Block B, Fig. 1). The activities mentioned in Block B in Fig. 1 will create a chain of activities as in Block C: counterfeiting, food adulteration, unsustainable lifestyle, and undesirable social developments in the society. Counterfeiting Counterfeiting is the intentional and calculated reproduction of genuine articles by copying the designs, patents, etc. to make quick money. It is a transnational organized crime, valued at $1.2

trillion US in 2017, and is expected to reach $1.82 trillion USD by the year 2020 as per the Global Brand Counterfeiting Report 2018. Global counterfeited goods include all equipment/products from defense materials to watches, automobiles, drugs, consumer goods, sports gear, and electronics (Businesswire 2018), posing serious health, environmental, and economic costs (Heald 1996). The negative effects of counterfeiting include lower wages to employees working in the production of counterfeit products, lowerquality products for the consumer, and serious health hazards caused by counterfeit drugs and defective consumer goods. Weak regulation becomes a serious challenge in controlling counterfeiting, as government officials are prone to corruption.

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

537

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future, Table 1 Summary of governance indicators Definition of governance

Concepts measured

Measures processes or outcome? Perception or objective? Producer/ publisher

WGI Governance consists of the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes the process by which governments are selected, monitored, and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them (World Bank group 2018) 1. Voice and accountability 2. Political stability and absence of violence 3. Government effectiveness 4. Regulatory quality 5. Rule of law 6. Control of corruption Processes

CPIA

1. Economic management 2. Structural policies 3. Policies for social inclusion/ equity 4. Public sector management and institutions Processes

1. Participation 2. Fairness 3. Decency 4. Accountability 5. Transparency 6. Efficiency

Perception

Perception of the country team World Bank

Perception of wellinformed persons (WIP) Overseas Development Institute

World Bank Institute

WGA Governance refers to the formation and stewardship of the formal and informal rules that regulate the public realm, the arena in which state, as well as economic and societal actors, interact to make decisions

IIAG The delivery of key political goods

AGR “The core elements of good governance” as “political governance, institutional effectiveness, and accountability, and economic management and corporate governance”

G

Processes

1. Safety and security 2. Rule of law 3. Transparency and corruption 4. Participation and human rights 5. Sustainable economic opportunity 6. Human development Outcome

1. Political representation 2. Institutional effectiveness and accountability 3. Human rights and the rule of law 4. Executive 5. Economic management 6. Control of corruption

Objective

Perception of experts

Mo Ibrahim Foundation

UN Economic Commission for Africa

Outcome

Source: Adapted from “A Critical Review of Governance Indicators” by Iqbal and Shah (2008) WGI The Worldwide Governance Indicators, CPIA Country Policy and Institutional Assessment, WGA World Governance Assessment, IIAG Ibrahim Index of African Governance, AGR African Governance Report

538

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

Counterfeiting results in serious environmental threats as the industries producing such products are illegal and have unauthorized production facilities that are not adhering to environmental standards. Unsustainable Lifestyle When the citizens lack transparent and socially accountable public policies, their hope of life is shattered, and individuals resort to their own choice of lifestyle. Hence, people adopt numerous undesirable lifestyles, which may be unsustainable from socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental aspects (Block C, Fig. 1). Undesirable Social Developments The lackadaisical approach of the government toward societal development, especially the needs of the citizens, coupled with corruption from petty to grand levels and nepotism, leads to many social evils. The societal issues have a multiplier effect, feed on the next level of issues, and as a chain of evils keep on thriving in a state of poor governance. Food Adulteration One of the most hazardous risks to which people are exposed is food adulteration, in developing countries especially, where the governance is weak because of corruption whereas there is a lucrative market of increased demand for consumer products as a population continues to increase. In India, almost all food products are adulterated. A few selected food products are discussed next. Milk

In the growing industrial and services economy of India, people engaged in the farming sector in general and the dairy industry especially have largely decreased. Thus, milk output is very high, with 68% of the milk produced in India being adulterated. The most common adulterants found in milk are detergents, caustic soda, glucose, white paint, and refined oil, a practice considered very hazardous and which can cause serious ailments, including death (foodsafetyhelpline.com 2014; Times of India

2016). Moreover, infant milk is also contaminated with aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) at levels much higher than the American and European standards (Rastogi et al. 2004). The feed concentrate that farmers buy in the market is modified, and usage of antibiotics has increased rapidly even in developed countries. Animal feeding practices result in the presence of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, arsenicals, and dioxins in feed and animal-based food products (Sapkota et al. 2007). Poultry

Heavy metals were found in poultry, livestock feeds, and manure under intensive farming in Jiangsu Province of China. Most of the feed samples tested positive for having excessive levels of contamination above the permissible levels (Cang 2004). Poultry feeds are also one of the sources of contamination, which are subsequently consumed by humans when eating poultry (Aulakh et al. 2006). Ready-to-Eat Foods (RTE Foods)

In a study on RTE foods, 66% (358) of the 545 foods with permitted colors exceeded 100 ppm, the prescribed maximum limit by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of India. The maximum concentration of colors was found in nonalcoholic beverages (9450 ppm), hard-boiled sugar confectioneries (3811 ppm), and miscellaneous foods (6106 ppm) (Jonnalagadda et al. 2004). Synthetic Colors

Food crops vary in their yield and color because of weather and other environmental factors of production, leading to variation in the batches of food processed by various companies (Florian et al. 2002). This variation may not be appealing to consumers, and therefore companies add synthetic colors. In a study conducted at Lucknow, one of the largest Indian cities, 31% of colors were those not permitted. In addition, the number of colors was greater in urban than in rural areas. The use of dyes is more common in rural markets than in urban markets, and such usage was between 8 and 23 times greater than permissible levels

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

(Tripathi et al. 2007). Because of poor regulation, colors are added to non-permissible food items (Babu and Shenolikar 1995; Biswas et al. 1994; Chakravarti 1988; Dixit et al. 1995; Khanna et al. 1973, 1985, 1986). Agricultural Produce

The contamination of agricultural produce is a worldwide concern. Most industrial effluents, municipal waste, and the heavy usage of pesticides result in high levels of toxins and pesticide residues (Sharma et al. 2006). Aflatoxin B1 contamination in wheat grain was found to exceed that of the PFA Act of India (Toteja et al. 2006) and was found positive as a cause of liver cancer (Asim et al. 2011). Increased pollution in the soil, air, and water contaminates agricultural produce. Most farmers do not understand the consequences of using a large number of pesticides and other chemicals in food production. Even if they do know the reality, they have almost no options for moving to other occupations. Many people grow grass with wastewater that contains heavy metal pollution from municipal waste in urban areas, and this grass is being fed as fodder to milk cows and buffalo (Chary et al. 2008). This practice receives very little attention from government authorities, corrupt politicians having become a conducive environment for exploiting the situation by unethical people in the dairy business to extract milk by providing contaminated fodder to the animals. Overall, food products are not safe to consume in many countries, including India. Here are some of the statistics of food adulteration as stated by various media. About 40% of food items tested by government labs in the state in 2013–2014 either were adulterated or “misbranded” by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) statistics (Jagannath 2014): this is twice the average of food adulteration for the whole country. Most of the adulterated products include commonly used items such as edible oil, masala powder, dals, salt, sugar, and grains to ready-to-eat packaged foods available in small grocery shops as well as in large department stores.

539

Deterioration in Healthy Life Today’s citizens in many countries continue to live in a pitiable situation of consuming adulterated food, living in a polluted environment, consuming unsafe water for household purposes and drinking, and consequently are prone to many known and unknown health risks. In addition, safe and livable environments for citizens have become scarce because the ruling regimes in many countries have their roots in the nexus of bureaucrats, police, and criminals. Public funds are diverted to the people in power, often by wrong means. These conditions in a society lead to increased environmental pollution, which consequently leads to the extinction of a healthy life. The life of every living being in the ecosystem is influenced by bad governance.

How to Reengineer Sustainable Life? This is one of the most challenging, yet maneuverable, aspects. In the name of progress, human beings continue to go further away from nature. In the past, people lived in close harmony with nature, and people had more values as well as cultural ethos with respect to other human beings. Children used to play with naturally available things such as stones and sticks, climbing trees, swimming, playing games. After school hours, physical engagement in games benefited children’s health. Employees after office hours used to visit relatives and friends in person, leading to increased bondage between relationships. In view of the modern developments that are replacing certain good cultural trends of the past, the suggestion is made to rethink and revive unhealthy lifestyles, which are irreparably costing the environment, and consequently affecting the quality of life of all living beings in the planet Earth ecosystem.

Way Forward: Sustainable Ways of Living Although it appears to be an insurmountable task, to reverse some of the present lifestyles and

G

540

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

practices that have serious implications for the ecosystem, the following steps may be taken to ease our clogged path toward a healthy life in the planet ecosystem. The entire world has to treat it as the need for humanity in common and take the steps mentioned here to preserve ecosystem services for a better future. Minimize the World Population to Sustainable Levels Humanity faces the challenge of having a high quality of life for more than 7.6 billion people, with the addition of about 200,000 every day. It is estimated that by 2025 the world population will exceed 8 billion; in 2040 it could reach 9 billion and by 2100 a massive 11 billion people. In economics, more population is a boom to the economy, which is expected to grow massively, 26 fold in this century, putting enormous pressure on Earth’s resources with overuse standing at 160%. No country is meeting the basic needs of its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use. To provide a quality lifestyle to the present global population of the world would require a level of resource use two to six times the sustainable level, based on current resource consumption patterns (O’Neill et al. 2018). Hence there is an imperative need to decrease the world population to the sustainable level of about 2 billion (World Population Balance 2018).

Good Governance Governance needs improvement all over the world. From election manifestoes to forming transparent governments, improving ethical standards, maintaining the cultural ethos, and conscious consumption of resources must be the primary goal of achievement through every public policy because this acts as a primary and major factor of societal well-being. Good relationships need to be nurtured, values need to be instilled, citizens should be provided comfort when in need by the state so that people can remember good things and not always watch horrible incidents.

Leadership The present system of elevating positions of people in organizations and hierarchical society is based on knowledge and varied powers. Merit does not test for integrity and values with respect to the environment, humanity, and every good thing. This is the beginning of the end of all good things. The visionary should take up these positions with supportive assisting staff, which could only be possible if and only if those with a very high order of integrity, very well self-organized and culturally well-balanced individuals, possess values and understand the damage to the ecosystem. To show such visionary statements to the less literate and to deliver a message to the public, a different and creative forum should be used. This type of leadership can take care of most problems at every unit level so that no issues are prolonged.

Development Planning Stringent environmental policies need enactment with wholehearted implementation with respect to the planning of public infrastructure, as this requires an enormous amount of resources. In addition, only building construction with better ventilation should be permitted so that cooling needs are minimized. Green technologies for housing are available that would make construction materials not only less expensive but also environmentally friendly (Kibert 2016). Moreover, planning has to be futuristic so that demands for widening roads and other vital public infrastructures are minimized.

Emphasis on Public Infrastructure of Transportation Individual ownership of vehicles for most people in populous countries is the result of the lack of clean, timely, pickpocket-free, and congestionfree public transport infrastructure. If the government can provide accessible public transportation facilities to all economic categories of people, this

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

is likely to minimize vehicle ownership (Kwan and Hashim 2016). In addition, present metro train facilities operate within the central region of urban areas, leaving peripheral areas. This situation provides no option for people traveling from outside to inside cities and thus many people use their own vehicles. Hence, it is preferential to extend metro train or local train facilities to suburban areas with safe facilities with safe parking, enabling the public to reconsider vehicle ownership.

541

Instead, if a product is serviced properly, without spare part replacement, consequently resource use for the production of a replacement spare part can be saved. Further, because spare parts or components of many items are not available, people resort to purchasing a new item. For example, the frame of the battery is good. However, its battery is not available for extended life. This situation is similar with respect to many electrical and electronic items. There must be more effort to extend product life so that resource use is delayed and minimized.

Categorization of People with a Criminal Record Some people are always prone to commit crimes for no reason at all, and some others engage in economic crimes such as cutting down trees, stealing natural resources, hunting rare species of animals and birds, and manufacturing and selling banned drugs that are unwholesome for human consumption. In addition, yet another category of people engages in social crimes such as threatening and extorting money through illegal means, often camouflaged under the name of political party fund collections, social welfare funds, etc. These people may be referred to a medical examination and if found to have defects in biological composition, they must be imprisoned permanently. If such people are free in society, their activities seriously jeopardize societal cultural values, ultimately leading to poor quality of human thinking.

Unnecessary Replacement of Spare Parts in the Servicing Industry In today’s society of decreasing ethical values among people in general and the corporate sector in particular, the servicing industry is causing a substantial amount of environmental pollution, as is done when good parts are replaced unnecessarily with a new spare one when a customer does not have knowledge about the product. This deception is widely practiced in automobile, electric, and electronic servicing sectors of the economy.

Pollution Through the Delayed Settlement of Cases Involving Seizing of Vehicles In India, every year millions of vehicles seized and held by police stations become rusted and obsolete as years are needed for the settlement of cases. Instead, better use of such vehicles should be thought of immediately upon seizing vehicles for whatever the reason, to avoid the demand for new vehicles by persons whose vehicles are detained, consequently avoiding resource use for the production of a new vehicle.

Pollution from the Poor Maintenance of Public Properties Most public properties, especially electric and electronic devices, are not maintained well, reducing the life of the equipment drastically and leading to purchase of a new unit, which requires additional resource use for production. This happening is a serious issue in Indian public organizations.

Quality of Education Poor quality of educational programs in many countries often makes use of various academic requirements such as doing projects and submitting reports that are of no use. Hence, all such

G

542

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

items and works of poor quality are totally scrapped. In addition, the emergence of modern schools often necessitates the purchase of a large amount of stationery: colors, pens, pencils, and numerous craft items, including plastics. All these purchases have a serious impact on the planet Earth, and this increasing trend needs better approaches to minimize resource use.

Quality Production Compromising on quality in the production of goods and services also affects environmental pollution. For instance, a plastic bucket of poor quality costs 2 USD and lasts about 6 months, whereas an original bucket of quality should cost about 5 USD and will last about 3 years. In that period of 3 years, discarded poor-quality buckets would cost 12 USD, in addition to using five times more resources than the original one.

Universalization of Vital Public Policies Sovereignty coupled with democracy still continues, and political freedom is the champion of nations. However, these are not without limitations. Each country prioritizes its goals, sidelining the sustainable development goals to preserve ecosystem services. Corrupt regimes repeatedly return to power. Many democratic countries where a voting system prevails to elect the representatives to govern the nation have multiple political parties. Every party has its own agenda; with all parties engaging in crimes and siphoning of public funds, leaving common citizens with no chance of electing honest representatives. When a nation has systemic issues, it is almost an insurmountable task to have a transparent and clean government. For example, in India, numerous political parties exist and continue to multiply every year. Hardly any party is able to bring out the desirable changes in society because every political party includes persons with a background of corruption and numerous other crimes. Such political regimes are not likely to engage in active

sustainable development goals. Hence, there is a need for a viable international coalition of countries to emerge to make universal policies having worldwide application without dilution. The ecosystem is common for all people, and the actions of people in all countries cause impacts on the ecosystem. Root Out Corruption Corruption is an epidemic of this century and, in any form, it is unwanted. The moral fabric of the nation is seriously affected and, in the long run, this causes shifting in cultural and ethical values. Corruption causes the citizens of a nation to lose trust in their government, in addition to the compromises on socioeconomic and political development. Curbing corruption requires an ambitious goal countrywide. Modern information and communication technologies can aid in minimizing the menace of corruption. For example, in the registration of property, information and communications technology (ICT) may be employed to register property completely online, similar to online banking. When personal contact with officials is necessary, corrupt practices then emerge.

A Sustainable Way of Living Water Bottles Plastic has become a major pollutant in the past several decades. Ingestion of microplastics in different forms and the rather slow degradation of the material have made popularized technological retraction rather difficult. We could visualize the universal usage of plastic potable water bottles in functions such as weddings, public gatherings, executive meetings, and parties. The usage of traditional methods such as a banana leaf and metallic utensils (India), ceramic utensils (China and Japan), and earthen wares in Mexico, Africa, and all parts of the world need to be brought into usage. In addition, gifts have become a menace in environmental pollution. In the name of modernization, highly literate to common people celebrate various functions such as birthdays and

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

weddings. Gifted items may be more numerous than necessary as several people may give the same type of item. Thus, two environmental effects of gifting arise: one is the superfluous gift items that require additional resources to produce and the other is using plastic packing materials. Practices of this nature require a universal cultural change of completely doing away with gifting, instead offering money that the receiving party can better utilize. Environmentally Friendly Packing Material Packaging of edible and nonedible items with material that is not environmentally friendly, in the name of the safety of an item, costs the environment dearly, and a change to sustainable use of packing material is necessary. Although the change is inevitable, this change can overtake and overwhelm us; we should be the instruments of change. Recently Bakeys Foods, Telangana, have come up with the idea of spoons that could be produced from millet with a 24-month shelf life that in turn could replace the plastic spoon, which is produced to such a great extent that it is an environmental hazard. The company has disproved the conventionally known fact that environmental safeguarding and social responsibility rarely integrate with sound business practices. “For Bakeys Foods, environmental and social amelioration is the business” (Bakeys Foods 2019). Waste Management Bioprospecting of generated waste is the need of the hour. Technological inputs and the political will for the same should be put into place. In addition, with an increase in population, the technologically competent developed countries should provide help and guidance for developing countries. In countries such as India, this work is the least paid, and stringent rules and policies are not implemented as in developed countries, because of corrupt regimes and the public unawareness of the fact that planetary damage is irreversible for both developed and developing countries. Thus, understanding governments with the help of educational institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and other

543

stakeholders could accomplish the marathon task of educating policymakers and decision makers. Merely dumping waste into the ground leads to land pollution in addition to other health hazards: microbial infestations, water contamination, and air pollution. Sustainable Cities Our present metropolitan cities and other fastgrowing urban spaces have become unlivable as they continue to expand beyond sustainable levels (Riffat et al. 2016). People in such urban areas lack hygienic sanitation, access to clean water and clean air, and free space to walk and play. Cities that are more crowded pollute more and become unsustainable for life. Hence, an effort to decongest present urban spaces by developing nearby areas may be worthwhile. Sustainable Industrial Policy Present economically focused industrial policies need to change and must synchronize with sustainable development where economic wealth goes hand-in-hand with environmental and social sustainability. Every product and service produced must be accountable for its quality, environmental carbon footprints, and benefits. For example, washing machines, refrigerators, and such sold in India have a small stand at the bottom, which necessitates increasing the height from the ground so that it is easier to clean the ground at the bottom. For this reason, manufacturing companies deliberately maintain the small size of this stand so that a dealer of goods engages in manufacturing a stand or outsources that costs more for raw material than an original extension of stand size. In addition, unnecessary inventions in the name of comfort and modern lifestyle cause many companies to manufacture items that may not be necessary at all. For example, a UHD TVof a leading multinational brand sold in India provides a kit, a box containing many screws and accessories of wall mounting. It is imported and sold at a cost of 40–50 USD. In fact, a TV should be manufactured with in-built wall mount provision so that the additional resources to manufacture such kits are not needed.

G

544

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

Conscious Consumption of Resources Human consumption has gone far beyond primary requirements. It is essential that human beings realize soon that the damage from an unconscious mode of competition has affected resources that previously were pristine and available in plenty. Now the question arises: what is the prime requirement for existence? For food, the sustenance concept of smart food is in place. Over the centuries, overexploitation and preferential consumption by unconscious choice has initiated a movement to conscious choice that has begun with sustainable agricultural practices. In addition, the use of synthetic colors for adding aesthetic and psychological appeal, known for centuries, has to stop (Walford 1980). In addition, extensive surveillance and monitoring food quality programs are needed to safeguard our health. Ecosystem Services and Tree Replantation Healthy and productive ecosystems are not only home to an enormous number of species, but also the basis for a thriving resource industry and healthy communities. Interestingly, the developing countries contain rich biodiversity in mountain terrain, forest cover, watersheds, river origins, and the tourism economy provides ecosystem goods and services and is a hub of this rich biodiversity. Sustainable harvesting practices are associated with herbal medicine, which is now available online. However, forest officers control access to the woods. Now, to control the forest officers and the utilization of resources requires resilient measures. It requires payment for the ecosystem services that take care of primary needs, thus providing the vulnerable populations of the region with a deeper understanding of environmental threats from overexploitation, pollution from activities both within the state and outside the state, and the alteration and destruction of habitats and ecosystems. Those regions rich in biodiversity should be placed out of reach, with plantation of local trees and produce for the betterment of society. In addition, the facilitated multiplication of endangered species by developed technologies is an urgent need. Computer-aided unmanned

surveillance of the forest resources, containment of forest fires, and entomological and ecological ecosystem surveillance of goods and services must be in place. Thus, to manage the opening and closing of limited regions for human habitation and sustainable utilization of resources, stringent laws for the prosecution of poachers is also an urgent need. In addition, there must be improvement in aquatic life, agriculture, and agroforestry practices, controlling disease outbreaks and remediating overexploited and industrially polluted land and aquatic sites in developing countries with a concomitant improvement in food products and quality of life in developed countries and developing countries alike. Forest Cover Global forest cover is crucial for soil health, the water cycle, climate, air quality, and sustaining the ecosystem. Human overpopulation is severely affecting forest cover everywhere, as a direct consequence of agriculture, logging, and mining. Reforestation and afforestation efforts can improve forest coverage. Such work is influenced by a broader international policy context, as in the case of tropical forests and climate change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report identifies agriculture and forestry practices, including land use change, as contributing more than 30% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Among the forestry and agricultural sectors, there has been even less attention to the GHG implications of agricultural practices than to those of forestry. Agriculture contributes 14% to global GHG emission: when combined with deforestation (for which agriculture is a major driver), their fraction of global GHG emissions rise to more than one third. Agricultural emissions in developing countries rose by 32% between 1990 and 2005 and can be expected to continue to rise, as food production increases to meet the needs of an expanding population. Of the total global technical potential, international climate policy has embraced the concept of investment in Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), as part of a broader portfolio of climate change mitigation instruments (Thompson et al. 2009).

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

The principle is that ecosystem protection at the local scale, by maintaining intact forests, produces a valuable global ecosystem service: climate regulation. Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries can contribute their own greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments by investing in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries. Offset credits can be generated through projects that absorb or sequester atmospheric carbon through forestry, agriculture, or other land use activities. This class of activities is generally referred to as land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF), or “carbon sinks.” LULUCF or “sink” projects are generally deliberate attempts to increase biomass production on a clearly defined parcel of land. Critics of forest carbon offset credits say these measures allow polluters to buy their way out of making real emission reductions (Deal et al. 2012). Essential Services for Sustenance of the Planet The older civilizations, such as India and Japan, along with China, have evolved methods for sustenance of the planet long before the developed countries were able to prove supremacy and impress this concept on the changes in lifestyle, food culture, and even clothing. The ancient wisdom may have to be tracked and used for mutual benefits throughout the globe. Global Policy on the Environment Today the human population faces a trade-off between the increasing aspirations of its lifestyle and the finite ecosystem services (Cazalis et al. 2018). Economic policies throughout the world have an influence on economic value and may vary from one country to another (Stoloff et al. 1991; van Egmond 1989). However, a worldwide standard of food quality is an urgent requirement as it affects the quality of life of humans and other living beings through environmental pollution. By all possible means governments must be active and proactive, as the challenges to cope with suggested changes require continuous monitoring, assessments of the impacts, and actions that keep the future in mind. Many governments are reactive, but now it is too late for any government to be reactive because the present trends of

545

economic priorities are taking away the bright and peaceful ecosystem in which life exists. The procedures and shortcuts for the development of a product using natural resources require stringent measures. The guidelines and implementation are not appropriate because of corruption, which in turn is undesirable, hence requiring prioritizing the environment globally. For this to occur, an international coalition may be needed that can impose trade and economic embargos on a country that does not prioritize the environment.

Conclusions Corruption and its consequences are major issues that continue to affect the environment. Corruption in any form and at any place has very serious consequences as it has a multiplier effect on society: unethical practices, committing crimes, and politicization of issues, all affecting the happiness of people. Reponses of the environment, the people, and flora and fauna are being observed wherein it is evident unless a complete ban on plastic, conservation of resources, utilization of smart food, and implementation of SDG are accomplished, the Earth and its resources will show a drift over time that is beyond human comprehension. Efforts are being made to understand the different destructive parameters associated with our society and to provide possible solutions to avoid the extinction of all life.

Cross-References ▶ Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ International Environmental Protection Initiatives: Direct and Indirect Drivers of Change ▶ Nature-Based Solutions

References Asim M, Sarma MP, Thayumanavan L, Kar P (2011) Role of aflatoxin B1 as a risk for primary liver cancer in north Indian population. Clin Biochem 44(14-15):1235–1240

G

546

Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future

Aulakh RS, Gill JPS, Bedi JS, Sharma JK, Joia BS, Ockerman HW (2006) Organochlorine pesticide residues in poultry feed, chicken muscle and eggs at a poultry farm in Punjab, India. J Sci Food Agric 86(5):741–744 Babu S, Shenolikar IS (1995) Health & nutritional implications of food colours. Indian J Med Res 102:245–249 Bakeys Foods (2019) https://unreasonablegroup.com/ companies/bakeys-foods/. Accessed 22 July 2018 Biswas G, Sarkar S, Chatterjee TK (1994) Surveillance on artificial colors in food-products marketed in Calcutta and adjoining areas. J Food Sci Technol-Mysore 31(1):66–67 Businesswire (2018). https://www.businesswire.com/news/ home/20171222005383/en/Global-Brand-Counterfeitin g-Report-2018-Counterfeited-Goods. Accessed 21 July 2018 Cang L (2004) Heavy metals pollution in poultry and livestock feeds and manures under intensive farming in Jiangsu Province, China. J Environ Sci 16(3):371–374 Cazalis V, Loreau M, Henderson K (2018) Do we have to choose between feeding the human population and conserving nature? Modelling the global dependence of people on ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 634:1463–1474 Chakravarti RN (1988) A simple test for butter yellow, a carcinogenic oil soluble dye in edible and cosmetic materials. J Inst Chem 60:206 Chary NS, Kamala CT, Raj (2008) Assessing risk of heavy metals from consuming food grown on sewage irrigated soils and food chain transfer. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 69(3):513–524 Deal RL, Cochran B, LaRocco G (2012) Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management. For Policy Econ 17:69–76 Dixit SUMITA, Pandey RC, Das M (1995) Food quality surveillance on colours in eatables. J Food Sci Technol 32:373–376 Florian M, Yamanaka H, Carneiro PA, Zanoni MVB (2002) Determination of brilliant blue FCF in the presence and absence of erythrosine and quinoline yellow food colours by cathodic stripping voltammetry. Food Addit Contam 19(9):803–809 Foodsafety helpline (2014). https://foodsafetyhelpline. com/2016/03/68-percent-milk-not-meet-standardsindia/. Accessed 21 July 2018 Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 180. http:// www.fao.org/docrep/017/ap862e/ap862e00.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2018 Heald PJ (1996) Trademarks and geographical indications: exploring the contours of the TRIPS agreement. Vand J Transnatl L 29:635 Iqbal K, Shah A (2008) A critical review of governance indicators. A preliminary draft Jagannath G (2014) About 40% of food items adulterated. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/140927/

nation-current-affairs/article/about-40-food-itemsadulterated. Accessed 21 July 2018 Jonnalagadda PR, Rao P, Bhat RV, Nadamuni Naidu A (2004) Type, extent and use of colours in ready to eat (RTE) foods prepared in the non industrial sector–a case study from Hyderabad, India. Int J Food Sci Technol 39(2):125–131 Khanna SK, Singh GB, Singh SB (1973) Non-permitted colours in food and their toxicity. J Food Sci Technol Mysore 10:33–36 Khanna SK, Singh GB, Dixit AK (1985) Use of synthetic dyes in eatables of rural area. J Food Sci Technol 22(4):269–273 Khanna SK, Srivastava LP, Singh GB (1986) Comparative usage pattern of synthetic dyes in yellow orange colored eatables among urban and rural markets. Indian Food Packer 40:33–37 Kibert CJ (2016) Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. Wiley, Hoboken Kwan SC, Hashim JH (2016) A review on co-benefits of mass public transportation in climate change mitigation. Sustain Cities Soc 22:11–18 O’Neill DW, Fanning AL, Lamb WF, Steinberger JK (2018) A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat Sustain 1(2):88 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2017) Government at a glance 2017. OECD, Paris Rastogi S, Dwivedi PD, Khanna SK, Das M (2004) Detection of aflatoxin M1 contamination in milk and infant milk products from Indian markets by ELISA. Food Control 15(4):287–290 Riffat S, Powell R, Aydin D (2016) Future cities and environmental sustainability. Future Cities Environ 2(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40984-016-0014-2 Sapkota AR, Lefferts LY, McKenzie S, Walker P (2007) What do we feed to food-production animals? A review of animal feed ingredients and their potential impacts on human health. Environ Health Perspect 115(5):663–670 Sharma RK, Agrawal M, Marshall F (2006) Heavy metal contamination in vegetables grown in wastewater irrigated areas of Varanasi, India. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 77(2):312–318 Stoloff L, Van Egmond HP, Park DL (1991) Rationales for the establishment of limits and regulations for mycotoxins. Food Addit Contam 8(2):213–221 Stringer L, Dougill A, Fraser E, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed M (2006) Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol Soc 11(2):39 Taylor CM, Cornelius CJ, Colvin K (2014 Visionary leadership and its relationship to organizational effectiveness. Leadersh Org Dev J 35(6):566–583 Thompson I, Mackey B, McNulty S, Mosseler A (2009) Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change. In: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical series no. 43, vol 43, pp 1–67 Times of India (2016) 68% of milk adulterated, new kit to test in 40 seconds. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/

Governance for Sustainable Development 68-of-milk-adulterated-new-kit-to-test-in-40-seconds/arti cleshow/51435005.cms. Accessed 21 July 2018 Toteja GS, Mukherjee A, Diwakar S, Singh P, Saxena BN, Sinha KK, Sinha AK, Kumar N, Nagaraja KV, Bai G, Krishna Prasad CA (2006) Aflatoxin B1 contamination in wheat grain samples collected from different geographical regions of India: a multicenter study. J Food Prot 69(6):1463–1467 Tripathi M, Khanna SK, Das M (2007) Surveillance on use of synthetic colours in eatables vis a vis prevention of food adulteration act of India. Food Control 18(3):211–219 Van Egmond HP (1989) Current situation on regulations for mycotoxins. Overview of tolerances and status of standard methods of sampling and analysis. Food Addit Contam 6(2):139–188 Walford J (1980) Historical development of food coloration. Dev Food Colours 1:1–25 Wikipedia (2018) Sustainable development goals. https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Go als. Accessed 24 July 2018 World Population Balance (2018). http://www.worldpopu lationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable. Accessed 24 July 2018 Worldbankgroup (2018) The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project. http://info.worldbank.org/gover nance/WGI/#home. Accessed 17 July 2018

Governance ▶ Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy

Governance for Sustainable Development Marcello Magoni, Roberto Adami and Rachele Radaelli Climate Change, Risk and Resilience Laboratory – DAStU, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

Definition Governance means the set of principles, ways, techniques, practices, and procedures that are used for the management and government of companies, organizations, institutions, or complex phenomena that have significant social repercussions. The notion of governance in the extra-

547

economic context is affirmed in the new millennium, with the awareness of the crisis of the hierarchical model of relationship regulation and its inadequacy with respect to the growing complexity of social, political, and economic phenomena that affect the territory and environment. Governance for sustainable development concerns the government of a complex phenomenon whose characteristics are very close to the governance of territorial and environmental systems. In this field, the governance considers how the political action of a given territory or environment is organized and directed, and its focus shifts from the theme of the exercise of power, through concrete government actions, to the issue of quality of these actions, especially in terms of effectiveness and consistency. Partnership means a relationship of collaboration between two or more economic, social, and institutional subjects for the realization of common or complementary projects or activities that are generally aimed at the realization of interventions of economic and territorial development, environmental protection, and social integration. The partnerships are activated to allow for a greater quantity and diversification of economic, human, professional, instrumental, and institutional resources. Partnership is a widespread tool all over the world, and it is stimulated and supported by the numerous international treaties that assign a central role to organized civil society. Consistent with this approach, and by formalizing a practice and common sense already widely disseminated, partnership constitutes an essential basis for good governances.

Sustainable Development and Partnerships The achievement of a sustainable development on a global scale requires the elaboration and implementation of multiple governance scenarios, which should build plural societies able to guarantee in a lasting way to all human beings decent living conditions in healthy, pleasant, and stimulating environments. These governance scenarios must consider at the same time the main

G

548

Governance for Sustainable Development

Governance for Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 The main objects of the governance scenarios

dimensions that characterize human societies from the environmental to the socioeconomic ones; the different territorial scales, ranging from global to supranational and national down to the innumerable local situations; and the different functional sectors, from building to energy and from mobility to production (Fig. 1). The achievement of a global sustainable development requires both profoundly changing on technologies, development models, lifestyles, and relations between states and the achievement of partial but important objectives made by many good local governances. For example, the sustainable energy management of the water cycle leads to more efficient use of water for different uses, as well as reduction in energy consumption in the operations of collecting, distributing, and using this resource. Again, the containment of the consumption of meat in human nutrition due to the high emissions of greenhouse gases from livestock farms brings to a strong reduction in water and soil consumption and water pollution (Colucci et al. 2016, IPCC 2019). The good governances of the sustainable development processes need to measure and monitor at all levels in an easy way the trend of those processes. For example, the strategic objective to mitigate the climate change to guarantee lasting and acceptable conditions for human society is identified by a single indicator that is the average increase in global temperatures compared to preindustrial levels, and it aims to limit the increase to

1.5 °C. That objective has generated many other objectives by international, national, regional, and local organizations and institutions. For example, the European Union in 2009 defined its targets for 2020 (European Commission 2008) and later has defined the targets for 2030 (European Commission 2014) and 2050 (European Commission 2018). Those targets constitute the references for the mandatory objectives that Member States, and, in cascade, the relative regions, must achieve. In particular, by 2020 the European Union has planned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% compared to 1990 to produce 20% of final energy consumption from renewable sources and to reduce the primary energy consumed by 20% compared to the scenario estimated in 2007. By 2030 a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 32% production from renewable energy sources, and a 32.5% reduction in primary energy consumed are expected. The set of these objectives are part of a roadmap that will lead the European Union to achieve climate neutrality in 2050 (Table 1), considered as its capacity not to influence climate change since it will not produce net emissions of greenhouse gases (Lehmann et al. 2019). The achievement of these very challenging targets has seen the emergence and development in the time and in the world of countless subjects, networks, and partnerships (SNP), institutional and informal, which have improved the quality of the governance at every level. In fact, SNP have

Governance for Sustainable Development

549

Governance for Sustainable Development, Table 1 European Union targets on climate and neutrality (European Commission 2008, 2014, 2018) Targets Cut in greenhouse gas emission Energy from renewables Improvement in energy efficiency

2020 (%) 20

2030 (%) 40

2050 (%) 80–95

20 20

32 32,5

– –

gained more and more importance and often authority, legitimacy, and power in giving a strong contribution to this enterprise. Thus, at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the importance of what has been called “partnerships for sustainable development” was recognized, and it was decided to promote its development to become a new form of global governance. This increasingly broad role, attributed above all to transnational partnerships, has however raised questions in some scholars about their legitimacy and effectiveness (Bäckstrand 2006). To better understand who these SNP are, which objectives they set themselves, what activities they carry out, and what contribution they make to achieving the environmental sustainability objectives, a summary of them has been done below in order to give orientation in this broad, dynamic, complex, and fascinating world. To facilitate its description, a classification of SNP was carried out based on one main taxonomic factor and on two secondary ones. The main factor considers the prevalent function that these SNP perform, while the two secondary factors consider, respectively, the scale of action, which can go from global to local, and the juridical character, which can be institutional, public, nongovernmental, or private. In this way, three major types of SNP have been identified by the authors, which are active in fostering and supporting the long process of sustainable development, mitigation, and adaptation to climate change: 1. The SNP functional for building and managing agreements

2. The SNP functional for supporting economically, organizationally, legally, and socially strategies, actions, and interventions 3. The SNP functional for developing and spreading the scientific bases, the knowledge, and the solutions of intervention

The Partnership Types for the Sustainable Development SNP Functional for Building and Managing Agreements Among the SNP belonging to the first type (1), the role of the United Nations (UN) has to be primarily considered that is the quintessential international body operating at a global scale which is both the leading promoter of worldwide agreements and the main reference point for all the institutional and noninstitutional stakeholders. To specifically tackle climate change issues, the UN created in 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and promoted the Sustainable Development Goals agenda, with 2030 as a target. The agreements signed on a voluntary basis under the aegis of the UN, based upon the outcomes of several international summits (among which the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Paris Agreement in 2015), are usually binding, and they direct significant political choices of the member countries, whether industrialized or developing countries, considering their economic and productive potential. For instance, as of 2007 some of the developing countries adopted a roadmap to take Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) toward sustainable development (following the Bali Action Plan launched at the 13th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties) (Sharma et al. 2013), meanwhile least developed countries are supported by the UN since 2001 (7th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Marrakesh, which established a Work Programme, a dedicated fund and an expert group) in developing National Adaptation Programmes of Actions (NAPAs) which are tailored to address their specific vulnerabilities (Table 2). In addition to the UN, also the supranational regional institutions are important SNP

G

550

Governance for Sustainable Development

Governance for Sustainable Development, Table 2 Main United Nation summit for type of country Type of Country Developed Countries

Least Developed Countries

Developing Countries

Main UN Summit Reference 3rd COP held in 1997 in Kyoto 7th COP held in 2001 in Marrakesh

13th COP held in 2007 in Bali

Type of initiatives Implementation of commitments set by Kyoto Protocol, its amendments and further agreements National Adaptation Programmes of Actions (NAPAs) Type of actions: priority actions regarding agriculture and food security, water resources, coastal zones, early warning and disaster management aimed at vulnerability to climate change reduction Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) Type of actions: technology, financing, and capacity-building actions for transformational change of economic sectors aimed at emissions reduction

committed to activate and manage agreements, together with the national and regional governments. Among them, it is considered as an example of the European Union (EU), which is working toward the implementation of the sustainable scenarios and related goals illustrated in the introductory paragraph. An example of noteworthy relevance, developed to put into action the UN’s agreements signed with the Kyoto Protocol, is the one of the emission trading schemes (ETS) which are networks aimed at regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of power consumers and producers via a “Cap and Trade System”-based market (Table 3). To manage these kinds of agreements, specific monitoring and validating/supervising bodies have been established, other than the carbon

Governance for Sustainable Development, Table 3 ETS in force worldwide in 2018 (ICAP 2019) Continent Europe

Asia

Americas

Oceania Africa

State/region/province/municipality European Union (28 Member States + Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway); Switzerland Kazakhstan; Tokyo and Saitama (Japan); the Republic of Korea; Chinese Pilot ETS in Beijing, Chongqing, Fujian, Guangdong, Hubei, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tianjin Quebec, Nova Scotia (Canada); Massachusetts, California and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont (USA) New Zealand No ETS in force as of 2018

trading agencies which support all stakeholders and act as facilitators on the market. Another way the supranational institutions have to promote agreements is to deal directly with local governments. One of the main examples of this typology is the Covenant of Mayors, an initiative set up in 2008 by the European Commission and then expanded also outside the continental limits. This agreement evolved over time and in 2016 merged with another initiative, which is the Compact of Mayors, generating the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCMCE) which represents the biggest network worldwide of local governments (mostly municipalities) aiming at meeting and possibly improving the climate protection commitments or Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement undersigned by their belonging countries, developing projects at the local level. The GCMCE also denotes the growing will of local institutions to be active key players in the transition toward more sustainable scenarios. In parallel to national and international agreements, also private SNP are promoting localbased initiatives, showing how a bottom-up approach is more and more often trying to tackle the climate change challenges. These types of SNP are usually working either in collaboration

Governance for Sustainable Development

or under the umbrella of the abovementioned supranational institutions, and, in the wake of general international objectives and focusing from time to time on one or more specific sustainability targets, they involve public or private bodies to undersign practical and measurable commitments. Organizations like the Climate Group, Climate Alliance, and Cities Alliance follow this type of approach. In particular, the first is the main reference for the Under2 Coalition which is a network grouping local institutions aiming to achieve medium- to long-term decarbonization targets, extensive use, and sharing of good practices of sustainability, increasing importance given to disclosure and transparency toward the public and the market. Under the UN patronage and in partnership with other private bodies (Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP); Regions of Climate Action (R20); Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (Regions4)), the Climate Group has also built up in 2014 the Compact of States and Regions initiative. This compact is promoting the commitment for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and disclosure of related performances, undersigned by local institutions. SNP Functional for Supporting Strategies, Actions and Interventions The second type of SNP (2) started to spread by the early 2000s. At that time, after a phase in which the municipal voluntarism of the 1990s represented the dominant response to the sustainability and climate change problem, a more political approach became necessary with which both the engagement of locally elected politicians pressing on national governments and a growing interest on different forms of public-private partnerships were considered crucial to take, support, and implement more robust and effective actions (Bulkeley & Betsill 2013). A significant part of these SNP are networks promoted by and for global cities, aiming to replicate, improve, and accelerate sustainable and climate actions connecting city officials, stakeholders, and private actors and inspiring innovation by showcasing ideas and solutions, advising city peers, and influencing national and

551

international policy agendas. Among these networks, C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (founded in 2005) includes about 77 cities all over the world and an even broader range of private sector companies. There are SNP of the second type involved in other fields of the sustainable development, as an example the Rockefeller Foundation and its 77 Resilient Cities initiative, created in 2013, which helps cities to become more resilient to the physical, social, and economic challenges, also providing financial and logistical resources and guidance. Other SNP work at a global level to influence and shape public policies and the setting of global standards. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international body supporting sharing and coordination of local and international economic policies of member countries, activates working groups focusing on climate change, green growth, and sustainable development issues in order to collect data, provide analysis and indicators, formulate recommendations, and help governments to innovate and review their investment policies’ implementation and impact. Similarly, but with different focus, other networks operate at the global level, such as the Climate Action Network (founded in 1989), the Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (founded in 2008), and the Global Adaptation Network (founded in 2010). Working on a financially related support, some SNP set as one of their main goal to provide financing to institutions and organizations to realize their projects in the field of sustainable development. These are banks or funds, mostly public, quasi-public, or nonprofit entities, aimed at facilitating private investments, such the World Bank (founded in 1944) and the Global Climate Partnership Fund (established in 2011). The former is a partnership of five international institutions linked to donors, private sectors, civil society, professional, and academic associations to improve knowledge and guarantee sources of funding for reducing poverty, increasing shared prosperity, and promoting sustainable development in developing countries. The latter provides local financial institutions with credit lines to be

G

552

used as loans for investments in renewable energies, energy efficiency, and greenhouse gases reduction projects. There are also philanthropic foundations, among these, for example, the banking foundations, whose sole purpose is the social utility through the promotion and financing of sustainability actions. For example, the Italian Fondazione Cariplo promotes and co-finances, in partnership with a network of universities, the Resilience Projects Observatory (Fig. 2) which as of 2015 monitors the resilience initiatives of institutions and communities and supports them in the transition process toward resilient society. These kinds of foundations finance also the Transition Network, a global movement (formally established in England in 2007) that supports local communities to face the double challenge of global warming and peak oil with a resilient approach. With a different methodology, some SNP are supporting the sustainable development providing nonfinancial assistance, such as food and primary goods. As an example, the Food Banks link charities, companies, communities, and end beneficiaries to fight hunger and food waste, collecting

Governance for Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Resilience Projects Observatory activities aimed at supporting stakeholders in the implementation of adaptation measures

Governance for Sustainable Development

unsold or close to expiration food and distributing it to people. The network consists of several macro-organizations at the global scale (such as Global FoodBanking Network, Feeding America, and European Food Banks Federation) with related national/local branches (such as Banco Alimentare in Italy and FareShare in the UK). In parallel to these SNP, there are networks dealing with connecting agricultural producers to consumers by promoting proximity and seasonal cultures, avoiding food waste (e.g., Cortilia in Italy). Businesses and their associations and organizations are also playing an important role in the field of sustainability toward a green economy, being supported by various SNP which are connecting them to experts, universities, research centers, and nongovernmental organizations in research, training, and engagement initiatives (such as Fondazione per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile in Italy, founded in 2008, and the Erb Institute at the University of Michigan, established in 1996). Other SNP support businesses to develop publicprivate partnerships, such as the Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030 (founded in 2018), that bring together businesses, governments, and civil society organizations to

Governance for Sustainable Development

advance innovative and commercially viable projects together with market-based solutions in the food, agriculture, water, energy, cities, and circular economy key areas. Companies, trade associations, and investors join in private partnership and business coalition in order to have a more effective influence in the negotiations of incisive protocols, legislations, and regulations. In this regard, the International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP) is an example of a group of companies and trade associations working to direct international climate change strategies. Similar activities are carried out by the Ceres Investor Network on Climate Risk and Sustainability, which promotes since 1989 corporate engagement strategies to accelerate global investments in clean energy and sustainable food and water systems, while involving in the process the stock exchange and the capital market regulators and in this way increasing the possibility to advocate more effective policies at all levels of governments and authorities. SNP Functional for Developing and Spreading the Scientific Bases, the Knowledge, and the Solutions of Intervention Within the third type of SNP (3), there are the international networks working on building and validating scientific knowledge. For example, in the field of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, founded in 1988) gathers volunteer scientists all over the world to assess the level of consensus among the several scientific theories on a specific topic. Inside the European context, the Italian EuroMediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC, founded in 2005) provides, through its Supercomputing Center, high-resolution climate simulations and scenarios at global and regional scale to be provided to governmental and academic institutions. There are multi-stakeholder networks composed of companies and organizations working with local and regional governments for sharing know-how built up by groups of experts. For instance, the Building Efficiency Accelerator (BEA) is a public-private partnership focusing on the implementation of energy efficiency

553

policies and programs related to buildings, to be developed by local governments. The BEA and its initiatives are supporting the wider Global Energy Efficiency Accelerator, a platform launched in 2011 by the UN. There are similar multi-stakeholder networks which work with national governments, such as the International Carbon Action Partnership (established in 2007) in the field of the emission trading schemes, InsuResilience (launched in 2017) in the field of disaster risk insurance, and Climate and Development Knowledge Network (founded in 2018) to support, even with co-financing resources, the climate resilience initiatives of countries and cities in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Other SNP connect world-class researchers, scholars, and experts (individually or in associations), interested in analyzing contexts and designing policies to help cities and countries to face the climate change issues. On this path, the Urban Climate Change Research Network, established in 2007, focuses on mitigation and adaptation measures, meanwhile the Initiative on Climate Change Policy and Governance, launched in 2009, focuses on economic and governance issues. The latter is a joint initiative of Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, a nonprofit, policy-oriented, international research center and think tank, established in 1989, producing highquality research and contributing to improve the effectiveness of decision-making through analytical studies, policy advice, scientific dissemination, and high-level education on sustainable development. Another nonprofit organization that conducts independent research into environmental, energy, and natural resource issues is the American Resources for the Future (RFF, established in 1952), widely considered a pioneer think tank in the field of economic researches. RFF and CMCC founded in 2018 the transatlantic European Institute on Economics & the Environment which brings together competencies on quantitative methods with qualitative and behavioral sciences to improve policy solutions. A very special case of SNP, similar to the second type networks but with a strong priority in building scientific knowledge, training, and applied research, is ICLEI-Local Governments

G

554

Governance for Sustainable Development

Governance for Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Politecnico di Milano with European and Latin American universities network promoting knowledge on climate resilience (https://www.erasmus-care.eu)

for Sustainability. Established in 1990, ICLEI is a global network of cities, towns, and regions committed to influence sustainability policies and drive local actions for low emission, naturebased, equitable, resilient, and circular development. In fact, ICLEI works toward making informed decisions based on data, scientific evidences, local conditions, and site-specific issues. Some SNP support businesses and manufacturing companies through expert advice, such as the World Green Building Council (operational since 2002), that brings together independent national associations operating in the sustainable building sector to provide scientist work groups helping to solve specific issues and to elaborate related certification protocols. Several research centers and universities promote themselves as networks linked to local governmental institutions, companies, nonprofit associations, and communities in order to spread knowledge and provide training/teaching possibilities to support stakeholder’s activities in the field of sustainable development. Among these SNP, we mention the Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy, Ireland, of the University College Cork (established in 2013), which elaborates tailor-made solutions for the companies in that sector, and the Grantham Institute - Climate Change and Environment of Imperial College London (founded in 2007), which works to

innovate the way businesses, industry, and policymakers shape their decisions on climate change. Politecnico di Milano (Fig. 3), in Italy, acts in the same field with its social responsibility program Polisocial, which since 2011 is aiming at fostering a responsible attitude and at developing skills, expertise, and new values in future generations of professionals and citizens, to make them increasingly more prepared to handle ethical challenges, responding to social issues and needs that arise from the territory.

Some Emblematic Partnerships To better clarify the characteristics of the several types of SNP illustrated, five of the most representative will be described in more detail. The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCMCE) The GCMCE, established in 2016, represents the union of the Covenant of Mayors and the Compact of Mayors initiatives. The two souls of this union maintain their autonomy, developing at the same time coordinated actions in pursuing common objectives linked to three main themes: climate change mitigation, adaptation to the adverse effects of global warming, and universal access to secure, clean, and affordable energy. The

Governance for Sustainable Development

GCMCE tackles the urban dimension because the cities host more than half of the global population, produce 70% of global emissions, and consume 66% of the total energy, thus having a preponderant weight in making the measures for sustainable development effective. The mission of the GCMCE is to engage local institutions in introducing climate and energy actions in their communities, also involving national governments and regional networks, favoring in a significant way the transition toward a resilient and lowemission economy, and demonstrating the importance of local actions on a global level. To do so, the participants to the Covenant of Mayors must translate the network agreements in the preparation, approval, and implementation of a Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan (SECAP). The GCMCE has a transversal character, as its founding members are representative of both supranational institutions, networks, and partnerships of regions and cities, energy agencies, and philanthropic associations. To increase the effectiveness of its actions, it involves, alongside the member local institutions, also several private subjects, research institutes, and energy market actors. The relevance of local institutions in the decisions made by its Executive Council, which is chaired by representatives of the European Commission and the UN, is guaranteed by the presence of ten mayors representing the core partner networks and the various regions. Currently, there are more than 9,000 local institutions in 131 countries adhering to the GCMCE, representing about 800 million people. Their overall objective declared for 2030 is to reduce 1.3 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year from a business as usual scenario projection. The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) The EU-ETS is the largest regulated market of credits exchange for the emission of greenhouse gases, a concept codified starting from the Kyoto Protocol and gradually implemented in the following international agreements promoted by the UN. The basic concept of this type of market is to place a maximum limit, decreasing over time, on the greenhouse gas emissions of each nation or

555

geographical area, beyond which sanctions are envisaged. Within the total amount allowed, the companies responsible for the largest emissions, as the so-called large emitters, can receive or buy emission allowances and exchange them. They can also receive limited quantities of international credits based on emission reduction projects implemented in other parts of the world (this, either via Clean Development Mechanism or Joint Implementation, is both flexible mechanisms set up by the Kyoto Protocol). The activation of the ETS, which is meant to be codified, practical, and verifiable, represents the attempt to manage the implementation of international agreements in an effective manner. The EU-ETS is the longest living scheme, active since 2005, and the largest worldwide, including 31 countries and 11,000 companies and considering the sectors of power plants, industry, and domestic aviation, responsible for the emission of 45% of European greenhouse gases. Crucial for the ETS functioning are the control and verification bodies such as the International Transaction Log which, administered directly by the UN, guarantees the compliance of the market transactions with the criteria established by international agreements. In parallel, systems for recording and tracking transactions have been developed both nationally by the participating countries (e.g., the National Registry Systems) and directly by the UN (e.g., the Clean Development Mechanism registry). To support companies and governments in compliance with the agreements, there are several subjects who act as market facilitators, promoting networks which connect all the actors involved. An example is the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) that includes greenhouse gas emitters, certifiers, auditors, investors, insurers, traders, brokers, and financial and commodity exchangers. Another type of facilitator for spreading emission reduction policies and mechanisms are the networks that support data and knowledge sharing with the final goal of implementing a global carbon market, such as the abovementioned ICAP. Cities Alliance Cities Alliance is an organization that supports the creation of partnerships for the development of

G

556

long-term agreements including policies, sustainable development projects, and investment initiatives by national or local governments. This organization, founded in 1999, has been coordinated since 2013 by a secretariat based in Brussels under the supervision of an operational branch of the UN (UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS)). Through UNOPS, Cities Alliance manages a donation fund used to finance projects around the world in three ways: the country/city funding window, the global funding window, and the innovation program. According to Cities Alliance 2018 Annual Report, the first “provides technical assistance at the city and national level across multiple countries” (see the Country Programmes currently in place), the second “promotes new analytical and collaborative approaches to tackle key policy issues” (see the Joint Work Programmes and the Regional Programmes), and the third “is a flexible and effective grant-making instrument able to disburse, monitor, and analyse grants in support of a particular theme or agenda” (initiatives at the national, regional, or global level) (Cities Alliance 2018). The main areas of intervention for Cities Alliance are the reduction of poverty in urban areas, the improvement of living conditions in the suburbs, the strategic planning at the urban level, and the so-called secondary cities (developing urban areas counting between 150,000 and 5 million inhabitants). Currently, the members of this network are national governments, international associations of local authorities, international nongovernmental organizations, multilateral organizations, private sector foundations, universities, and research centers, which can build up ad hoc partnership to better support the peculiarity of each initiative. The Resilience Projects Observatory (RPO) The RPO is an Italian scientific network project, headed by the Department of Architecture and Urban Studies of the Politecnico di Milano in partnership with other universities, such as the Politecnico di Torino and the University of Molise, and scientific bodies, such as the Fondazione Lombardia per l’Ambiente and the REsilienceLAB. The project is co-financed by

Governance for Sustainable Development

the philanthropic foundation Fondazione Cariplo. The RPO represents the first national SNP dedicated to the analysis of the relevance and complexity of the resilient approach to climate change and sustainable development, both from a scientific and a cultural standpoint, considering the implementation of the transition processes led by institutions and communities toward more resilient societies. The scientific network of RPO develops its activity on four parallel but interconnected work axes. The first axis is the census of the most significant Italian and foreign initiatives and practices promoting the resilience of the territories. The mapping includes projects supported by Fondazione Cariplo, especially concerning nonprofit organizations working on improving community and territory resilience; initiatives promoted by cities, such as the Climate Adaptation Plans, 77 Resilient Cities, and Transition Towns Italian experiences; and some relevant international case studies. The second axis is aimed at deepening and advancing the scientific knowledge on resilience concepts and practices and also identifying criteria and parameters for the assessment of strategies and initiatives. The third axis concerns the development of resilient-oriented planning tools and the assistance to economic and institutional stakeholders for improving their policies and strategies, through training and capacity building activities. The last axis refers to the exchange of knowledge and experiences between subjects involved in resilience practices in order to share problems, find solutions, and germinate innovative ideas. The European Institute of Economics and the Environment (EIEE) The EIEE is a transatlantic organization founded in 2018 by two institutes of excellence in environmental economics and climate science: the American think tank Resources for the Future (founded in 1952) and the Italian Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (founded in 2005). The EIEE is based in Italy (with two offices, in Milan and Venice) and connects a total of 40 researchers with skills in many disciplines ranging from economics to applied mathematics and from operational research to environmental sciences. EIEE’s

Governance for Sustainable Development

mission is to improve the quality of decisions in the use of environmental, energy, and natural resources through rigorous economic studies and political indications, aiming to become a reference point in Europe and beyond. EIEE’s research aims to facilitate the transition to a sustainable and inclusive society, focusing on issues related to climate change but addressing at the same time also a wide range of environmental, energy, and social set of problems. Topics include the evaluation of strategies and policies to stabilize climate change, eliminate energy poverty, improve air and water quality, and study human migration and green innovation. The EIEE has high skills on quantitative methods but also uses insights from qualitative and behavioral sciences. Computational models – like the integrated assessment models (IAMs), agent-based models (ABM), and energy models – are used to study the economics of climate mitigation and adaptation and the transition to a low carbon world. Through empirical approach, strategic themes such as green innovation, technical changes, and human migration are analyzed and interpreted. Furthermore, experimental methods based on randomization are used to perform field tests to understand the effectiveness of economic interventions in order to promote pro-environmental behaviors. The EIEE also engages in dissemination activities by promoting collaborations between founders and research communities through initiatives such as joint projects, events, summer schools, communication, engagement with decision-makers, and experts exchange.

The Role of the Partnership for the Sustainable Development SNP play an indispensable role on supporting the governance for identifying and achieving global, lasting, and widespread scenarios of sustainable development. This, because the achievement of these scenarios requires the realization – at all levels of territorial scales, places, problem dimensions, and functional sectors – of a broad, articulated, and integrated system of activities. Thus, not only innumerable bottom-up initiatives and

557

organizations were born, organized, and developed to try to solve local problems and to address those of a higher level, but these initiatives and organizations are also stimulated and supported by most international and national institutions that consider them essential for achieving global and widespread sustainable development conditions. Therefore, the emergence of SNP, which prove to be valuable for global governance and environmental sustainability and often have a mixed “public-private” character, leads to the achievement of innovative and influential policies. This relevant influence has led some authors to critically analyze the role of SNP both in mitigating problems and in understanding their responsibilities in global governance (Glasbergen et al. 2007). The activities needed for achieving the sustainable development objectives that are partly carried out or could be carried out by SNP that act within effective governance are described in Table 4. Governance is being built in which the institutional subjects define the objectives to be achieved and approve and finance the strategies to achieve them, meanwhile, with a high contribution of the noninstitutional and mixed subjects, they stimulate, promote, implement – in the different places and at different scales – the necessary actions to change technologies, development models, and lifestyles toward scenarios of sustainable development and mitigation and adaptation to climate change. SNP belong to this second type of actors, which move in a logic of extensive and profound subsidiarity, and they play an indispensable role for their remarkable and pervasive skills of realization and stimulation. They carry out numerous and important activities, from the dissemination of information and knowledge to the stimulation and implementation of political decisions and the promotion and organization of citizens and stakeholders participation in the implementation of sustainable development measures. SNP are often able to combine multilateral measures and regulations with local actions, involving civil society, governments, and businesses, since they have built rather extensive and globally distributed networks, even if there are resistances or difficulties for their diffusion in some geographical areas of the planet.

G

558

Governance for Sustainable Development

Governance for Sustainable Development, Table 4 Activities for achieving the sustainable development objectives Learn, share, and disseminate knowledge at territorial scale, places, and stakeholders

Evolve the knowledge in effective and shared measures

Training and activation of institutional and not subjects Implementation of strategies, actions, and interventions

Monitoring the activities and the indicators of global and local scenarios

This is a job of gathering information, testing solutions, experimenting interventions, and developing, comparing, and sharing knowledge. It is necessary that the greatest number of individuals know which behaviors, both in their personal and professional lives, are favorable or unfavorable. The ability to involve subjects with high scientific and technical skills (research institutes, universities, freelance researchers, etc.) and subjects capable of communicating complex concepts in a clear and incisive way (scientific journalists, facilitators, communication experts, etc.) is key The measures to share are objectives, agreements, directives, laws and regulations, identification and recovery of economic and financial resources, elaboration of plans and programs, design of solutions, and shared interventions and their dissemination This type of activity requires good organizational and training skills as well as technical and scientific expertise that must be up to the problems to be addressed and the solutions identified Most relevant type of activity from the point of view of economic, human, and temporal resources is required. The recovery of resources is due to the policies set by international, national, and local institutions and to the actions made by citizens, communities, and public and private companies These activities serve both to verify that what is being done is producing the expected results and to improve the quality of solutions and actions. The results of monitoring should quickly become the parameters on which decision-makers can confront, in order to rethink and better adapt to reality and goals the strategies and actions that are being carried on. High technical and scientific skills accompanied by automatic and remote detection of the measures are crucial

Since cities are the places on Earth that, while occupying limited soil surfaces, concentrate the majority of the world population and of the consumption of energy and material resources, they also constitute the places where sustainable development and mitigation strategies and adaptation to climate change have their greatest needs. Thus, the rapid evolution of climate change is increasingly affecting urban agendas in the attempt to provide responses to urgent problems that require multilevel governance (Bulkeley & Betsill 2013). Indeed, the urban governance for sustainable development implies the local scale’s issues and especially extends their interrelationships between global, national, and local actors. The extension of global partnerships implies a relocation and diffusion of authority from governments to public and private implementation networks,

for which it is necessary to know the processes and circumstances in which SNP can improve legitimacy and effectiveness of sustainable development governance (Pattberg et al. 2012).

Cross-References ▶ Attaining SDGs in Africa Through Bilateral and Multilateral Partnerships ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development ▶ Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development ▶ Collaborative Governance ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Governance for Sustainable Development

▶ Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration ▶ Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs ▶ Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development ▶ Global Partnership ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ▶ Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy ▶ National Sustainable Development Strategies ▶ Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development ▶ Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance ▶ Partnership for Flood Disaster Management ▶ Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator ▶ Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Social Impact Investment for Sustainable Development ▶ South East Asia Sustainability Network (SEASN) ▶ Strengthening International Partnership to Support Higher Education Institutions ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development

References 77 Resilient Cities. http://www.100resilientcities.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Bäckstrand K (2006) Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy,

559 accountability and effectiveness. Eur Environ 16 (5):290–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.425 Banco Alimentare. https://fareshare.org.uk/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Building Efficiency Accelerator. http://buildingefficien cyaccelerator.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Bulkeley H, Betsill M (2013) Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 22(1):136– 154. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755797 C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. https://www.c40. org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Carbon Disclosure Project. https://www.cdp.net/en. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy Ireland. https:// www.marei.ie/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Ceres Investor Network on Climate Risk and Sustainability. https://www.ceres.org/networks/ceres-investor-net work. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Cities Alliance (2018) Report status 2018. https://www. citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/Cities% 20Alliance_Annual%20Report_2018.pdf. Accessed 20 Sep 2019 Cities Alliance. https://www.citiesalliance.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Clean Development Mechanism. https://unfccc.int/pro cess-and-meetings/the-kyoto-protocol/mechanismsunder-the-kyoto-protocol/the-clean-developmentmechanism. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Climate Action Network. http://www.climatenetwork.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Climate Alliance. https://www.climatealliance.org/home. html. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Climate and Development Knowledge Network. https:// cdkn.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Climate Group. https://www.theclimategroup.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Colucci A, Magoni M, Menoni S (eds) (2016) Peri-urban areas and food-energy-water nexus. Sustainability and resilience strategies in the age of climate change. Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering, Springer, Cham Compact of States and Regions. https://www. theclimategroup.org/Annual-Disclosure. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Cortilia. https://www.cortilia.it/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Covenant of Mayors. https://www.globalcovenan tofmayors.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Emission Trading Schemes. https://icapcarbonaction.com/ en/ets-map. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Erb Institute - University of Michigan. https://erb.umich. edu/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change. https:// www.cmcc.it/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 European Commission (2008) COM/2008/30–20 20 by 2020 - Europe’s climate change opportunity. https:// eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/? uri¼CELEX:52008DC0030. Accessed 10 Nov 2019 European Commission (2014) COM/2014/015 - A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from

G

560 2020 to 2030. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/?uri¼CELEX:52014DC0015. Accessed 10 Nov 2019 European Commission (2018) COM/2018/773 - a clean planet for all - a European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/?uri¼CELEX:52018DC0773. Accessed 10 Nov 2019 European Food Banks Federation. https://www. eurofoodbank.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 European Institute on Economics and the Environment. www.eiee.org. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 European Union. https://europa.eu/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 European Union Emission Trading Scheme. https://ec. europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 FareShare. https://fareshare.org.uk/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Feeding America. https://www.feedingamerica.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Fondazione Cariplo. http://www.fondazionecariplo.it/en/ index.html. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. https://www.feem.it/en/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Fondazione per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile. https://www. fondazionesvilupposostenibile.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Glasbergen P, Biermann F, Mol A (eds) (2007) Partnerships, governance and sustainable development. Reflections on theory and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham Global Adaptation Network. http://web.unep.org/ ganadapt/global-adaptation-network. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Global Climate Partnership Fund. https://www.gcpf.lu/ investing-in-renewable-energy-and-energy-efficiency. html. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. www. globalcovenantofmayors.org. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Global Food Banking Network. https://www.foodbanking. org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Grantham Institute-Climate Change and the Environment. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 ICAP International Carbon Action Partnership (2019) Emission trading worldwide status report 2019. https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/?option¼com_ attach&task¼download&id¼625. Accessed 20 Sep 2019 ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability. https://www. iclei.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Initiative on Climate Change policy and Governance. https://www.facebook.com/ICCGOVclimate/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 InsuResilience. https://www.insuresilience.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019

Governance for Sustainable Development Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. www.ipcc. ch. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 International Carbon Action Partnership. https:// icapcarbonaction.com/en/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 International Climate Change Partnership. http://www. iccp.net. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 International Emission Trading Association. https://www. ieta.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 International Transaction Log. https://unfccc.int/process/ the-kyoto-protocol/registry-systems/international-trans action-log. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019) Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. https://www. ipcc.ch/srccl-report-download-page/. Accessed 10 Nov 2019 Kyoto Protocol. https://unfccc.int/process-andmeetings#:2cf7f3b8-5c04-4d8a-95e2-f91ee4e4e85d. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Lehmann P, Gawel E, Strunz S (2019) EU climate and energy policy beyond 2020: are additional targets and instruments for renewables economically reasonable? In: Gawel E, Strunz S, Lehmann P, Purkus A (eds) The European dimension of Germany’s energy transition. Springer, Cham National Adaptation Programmes of Actions. https://www. adaptation-undp.org/national-adaptation-programmesaction-napas, https://unfccc.int/topics/resilience/ workstreams/national-adaptation-programmes-ofaction/introduction. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions. https://unfccc. int/topics/mitigation/workstreams/nationally-appropri ate-mitigation-actions. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development. https://www.regions4.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings#: a0659cbd-3b30-4c05-a4f9-268f16e5dd6b. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030. https://p4gpartnerships.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Partnership for the Ecosystems for Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction. http://pedrr.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Pattberg PH, Biermann FHB, Chan M, Mert A (eds) (2012) Public-private partnerships for sustainable development. Emergence, influence, and legitimacy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham Polisocial – Politecnico di Milano. http://www.polisocial. polimi.it/en/home-en/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. https://www.un-redd.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019

Growth Paradox Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. https://www.rggi.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Regions of Climate Action. https://regions20.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Resilience Projects Observatory. http://www.osservatorior esilienza.it. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Resources for the Future. https://www.rff.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Rockefeller Foundation. https://www.rockefeller foundation.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Sharma S, Desgain D (2013) Understanding the concept of nationally appropriate mitigation action, UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark (DTU) Sustainable Development Goals. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 The World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Transition Network. https://transitionnetwork.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Under 2 Coalition. https://www.under2coalition.org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 Urban Climate Change Research Network. http://uccrn. org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 World Green Building Council. https://www.worldgbc. org/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019

561

Green Business ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

Green Business Practices ▶ Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

G Greening of Religion ▶ Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

Growth Paradox ▶ Sustainable Tourism: A Conflict of Interest

H

Historical Narratives ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

I

Identity ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development

Impact Investment ▶ Social Impact Investment for Sustainable Development

around the common goals and/or collective goods of various stakeholders (Bitzer et al. 2013; Glasbergen 2007; Schäferhoff et al. 2009). Specifically, inclusive partnerships, however, utilize a membership model that ensures adequate representation while simultaneously exploring member differences and searching for solutions that transcend individual capacities (Carlson 1999; Margerum 2014; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987).

Inclusive Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development Jessica L. Mann Center for Community-Engaged Teaching and Research, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Synonyms Collaborative; Comprehensive; Multi-sector

Definition Partnerships are often defined as collaborative and institutionalized arrangements that are organized

Introduction With the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United Nations has ambitiously charged members and organizations of the global society with ending poverty, addressing widespread inequalities, and combating climate change. The agenda specifically names 17 sustainable development goals to be adopted by world leaders to collaboratively mobilize for the betterment of our world at large (United Nations n.d.) To address the aforementioned wicked problems and to achieve the 17 global sustainable development goals, innovative and comprehensive responses are needed. These responses, which require multifaceted, holistic solutions, will see a combined effort of governments, civil societies, researchers, and private sector stakeholders, if they are to occur. In other words, in order to appropriately respond to

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

566

Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

the charge of sustainable global development while successfully navigating the complex contexts of sustainable development, an inclusive, multi-stakeholder, and people-centered approach to partnerships must be utilized (Kourula et al. 2017; Nelson 2017; Sustainable Development Goals Fund n.d.; Worley and Mirvis 2013). This entry, which highlights potential benefits and challenges for stakeholders, will provide an overview of inclusive partnerships as they relate to sustainable development, a framework for partnership typologies, value propositions, spheres of influence, and best practices for success. Sustainable Development In order to understand how and why stakeholders should partner inclusively, a discussion of sustainable development must occur (Shaw and Kidd 2001). The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) defines sustainable development as growth that meets current societal needs without compromising the ability of future citizens and communities to meet their own needs. Recently, the concept of sustainability has broadened beyond a strictly environmental focus to include the concept of “just sustainability,” which is inclusive of topics such as social responsibility and social issues as well as equity and justice for all (Kalkanci et al. 2018; Lee and Tang 2018; Tang 2018). As the concept of sustainability evolves with global trends, concerns, and priorities, there has been a charge to involve and reconfigure the “interconnected technological, environmental, social, economic, and political systems and processes” that come together to enable the grand sustainability challenges of our time (McCormick et al. 2013; O’Brien et al. 2012; Trencher et al. 2014, p. 153). From a systems perspective, sustainability initiatives must take into consideration the following three systems: environmental, economic, and social (Barbier and Burgess 2017; Kalkanci et al. 2018). Environmental systems refer to the natural capital or biological productivity of the world that determines how supple and diverse an ecosystem is (Barbier and Burgess 2017). Economic systems focus on a society’s fiscal efficiency, as well as how/if equity is addressed, achieved, and/or

maintained in order to reduce poverty (Barbier and Burgess 2017). Lastly, when considering social systems, sustainability initiatives should assess the presence of social justice in light of governance structures to determine potential opportunities for growth and development (Barbier and Burgess 2017). Sustainable development initiatives should consider and balance these three systems and their respective contexts in order to determine appropriate tradeoffs which maximize the goals across systems to ensure mutual holistic benefit for all members of society (Barbier 1987). As the global economy continues to grapple with the concept of sustainable development, it is evident that attention needs to be paid to areas of inequality. This will ensure that growth and sustainability initiatives are inclusive, holistic, and subsequently more effective and sustainable across communities worldwide. Therefore, researchers are arguing for sustainable innovation that sees the “big picture” and focuses on aligning stakeholder goals through complex networks that emphasize integrity, as well as effectiveness, in innovative design, and sharing ownership of design via an inclusive partner model that envisions a better future (Ehrenfeld 2009; Elkington 2013; Leffers and Mitchell 2010; Mirvis and Worley 2013; Shaw and Kidd 2001). Partnerships In 2015, the United Nations developed an updated sustainable development agenda with 17 individual goals related to the three systems (environmental, economic, and social) previously described. These goals range from improving education to the resolution of poverty and hunger to climate action and realizing gender equality (United Nations n.d.). However, for these goals to be reached, stakeholders worldwide must partner to collaboratively develop plans and resolutions. This is why the 17th goal of the United Nation’s (n.d.) sustainable development agenda is the creation of partnerships for the goals. Partnerships can be defined as a range of participants agreeing to work together to achieve a common purpose or goal while subsequently sharing risks, resources, and benefits, with mutual

Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

accountability for outcomes (Moore-Cherry et al. 2016; Nelson 2017). From a sustainable development perspective, partnerships “point to a paradigm shift. . .which recognizes the need for multi-actor collaboration in the face of singleactor failures” (Bitzer et al. 2013, p. 17; Reed and Reed 2009; Van Tulder and Fortainier 2009). As per the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda, stakeholder-oriented partnerships among governments, the private sector, and civil society that are focused on shared goals and governance will be required in order to obtain progress toward sustainable development (Biermann et al. 2017; United Nations n.d.). This multi-stakeholder model is not a new concept. Bitzer and Glasbergen (2015) argue that since the 1990s, collaborations between businesses and nongovernmental organizations have become the “go-to” method for addressing complex sustainability challenges. The growing popularity of partnerships is due to the constraints of leadership that are often experienced at the individual and organizational level. Simply put, transformational and systemic change, specifically toward sustainable development, must be achieved through collective action, as no single agency or entity has the power or resources to address such large-scale issues on their own (Kalkanci et al. 2018; Margerum 2014; Nelson 2017). Inclusive Partnerships

In recent history, multi-stakeholder cross-sectoral inclusive partnerships have been gaining speed across industries as a means to address global challenges, particularly surrounding sustainable development (Bitzer et al. 2013; Glasbergen 2007; Lubell 2015). Inclusive partnerships are built upon shared principles, values, visions, and goals that place people and the planet at the center, recognizing that holistic approaches to problemsolving are needed at the global, local, regional, and national levels (Kourula et al. 2017; Margerum 2014; United Nations n.d.). Because inclusive partnerships concern themselves with who is involved, on what grounds, and how the issues at hand can be examined through the perspective of everyone involved, these relationships are grounded in a foundational framework of voluntary collaboration rather than hierarchical

567

control (Alexander et al. 2003). Furthermore, inclusive partnerships are constructed as arrangements that include “marginalized people, sectors and countries in social, political and economic processes for increased human well-being, social, and environmental sustainability, and empowerment” (Gupta et al. 2015, p. 546). By bringing together varied stakeholders with specific skills and experiences, inclusive partnerships are better capable of bringing about sustainable change because they have greater potential to address global issues across the broad spectrum of their members’ experiences. In this sense, an inclusive approach to partnerships serves as a strategy to achieve equity and stress empowerment in development initiatives. The diversity of inclusive partnerships can vary in organizational, cultural, and/or demographic variables; however, regardless of the combinational differences, partnerships with diverse perspectives have reportedly fostered deeper understandings of the topics at hand while simultaneously encouraging systemic and innovating thinking (Alexander et al. 2003). By bringing the knowledge and aspirations of community members and smaller grassroots organizations to the table, inclusive partnerships are better able to sustain long-lasting influence, as the perspectives of affected individuals enhance the decision-making and implementation process by bringing often overlooked or unheard opinions and perspectives to the discussion (Borel-Saladin and Turok 2013; Fritz et al. 2009; Gupta et al. 2015; Narayan et al. 2009). These inclusive partnerships can then be mobilized to develop social movements and culturally relevant communities of practice, as well as transformative governance with the knowledge gained from all members (Gupta et al. 2015). It is, however, important to note that some communities are better able to create and sustain inclusive partnerships than others. It has been argued that communities with high levels of pre-existing social capital are oftentimes the hubs for emerging collaborative partnerships (Margerum 2014; Ostrom 1986, 2007; Sabatier et al. 2005). This is reportedly due to the fact that these types of communities have the benefit of robust networks already in place that partnership groups can utilize to generate

I

568

Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

initiatives, collect resources, and gain buy-in for consensus and community building, rather than facing the challenge of starting from scratch. Therefore, communities with established networks and pre-existing channels for communication are often more successful in collecting buy-in and determining proper stakeholders for the creation of a partnership. Therefore, the United Nations (n.d.) is requiring partnerships between the private sector, government, and civil society from countries of all sizes, as the transformative power of inclusive partners is key to achieving delivery of the sustainable development goals. Typologies of Inclusive Partnerships While every partnership and collaborative initiative is unique due to its location, membership, and area of concern, Margerum (2014) provides a typology of partnership archetypes for collaborative groups based on their focus and design framework: 1. Policy. Based on a constitutional design framework, these partnerships are focused on policy and higher-level administrative rules and functions. Typically, these groups are created and charged by government agencies or officials in order to support policymakers and/or special interest groups. Therefore, these groups are often supported with governmental or quasigovernmental resources, affording them greater opportunities for engagement and options for visibility and impact in comparison to more grassroots-style partnerships. 2. Organizational. Utilizing a collective choice model, organizationally focused partnerships are concerned with the priorities and programs of members and are subsequently resourced by member organizations. These collaborative groups are focused on building member agency and organizational capacity to solve problems and make changes. The effectiveness of these groups lies in the capacity and resources connected to their larger partner members that are used to support and encourage their smaller member organizations. 3. Action. Focusing on an operational framework, action-based partnerships are committed to

direct actions and building community consensus and orientation. These partnerships are often comprised of independent organizations and nonprofit entities and are led by community leaders and citizens. Oftentimes, due to the capacity of members, resources are scarce as this model is essentially a grassroots approach to partnership. Mirvis and Worley (2013) provide an alternative typology of networks. Their model refers to the members’ hierarchical affiliation and considers the leadership strategy within the operation: 1. Horizontal. This network refers to a specific type of collaboration that links organizations side-by-side, referring to coalitions, such as mergers, strategic alliances, and joint ventures, as organizations with the same focus or within the same industry that also share similar power relations and/or compositions. These partnerships consist of equal members bringing similar expertise and resources to the table to align for change. 2. Vertical. Vertical partnerships are comprised of multiple organizations within and across sectors that work to move resources among agencies and communities. There is a spectrum of power and access present within these partnership types, but the overarching goal is to enact change and share resources and/or knowledge. In these arrangements, larger or more stable partner members may be required to provide additional resources and support for the good of the partnership as a whole. 3. Issue or opportunity. Issue-focused partnerships occur and exist temporarily to accomplish a specific focus or goal. While these networks are formed across organizations and sectors, they disband once the designated goal is achieved rather than focusing on the sustainability of the arrangement. Therefore, these arrangements require less resources, commitment, and overall risk than the horizontal and vertical models. As described above, every partnership is unique. Some partnerships will fit these particular

Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

descriptors or typologies more closely, while others will transcend categories, forming a hybrid approach or structure (Imperial 2005; Margerum 2014). Regardless of design or typology, all partnership groups are working to deliver significant results and face challenges through a collaborative process. Value Proposition Partnerships provide benefits not only to members but also to the communities that they are operating within. However, when breaking down the articulated value that inclusive partnerships provide, value is created across consequential and constitutive dimensions: 1. Consequential. Consequential value is related to the “asserted efficiency, security, productiveness, legitimacy, and adaptability of particular collaborative efforts” (Alexander et al. 2003; Cropper 1996). The greater the consequential value associated with a partnership, the more likely the partnership is to attain success. 2. Constitutive. This realm of value assesses a partnership in light of previous associations with reference groups, as well as in the environmental contexts in which the collaboration exists (Alexander et al. 2003). In this sense, the historical, political, physical, and economic environments surrounding a partnership will influence its overall value. Consequential Value Variables

Alexander et al. (2003) propose that there are five variables that determine a partnership’s consequential value: outcomes-based advocacy, vision-focus balance, systems orientation, infrastructure development, and community linkages. 1. Outcomes-based advocacy. This variable refers to the group’s ability to identify and articulate the partnership’s unique capability to meet community needs for stakeholders. Honing this ability affords opportunities to attract resources and support. 2. Vision-focus balance. Vision-focus balance is achieved when the members of the partnership

569

are able to agree on their long-term mission and vision for the collaboration and subsequently design tactics and initiatives to achieve that vision. 3. Systems orientation. Partnership groups must be able to fully comprehend the social problems they are addressing as a result of multiple factors and forces. In doing so, they also need to assess the key networks of stakeholders to come to a collaborative solution and a holistic approach to success. In other words, they need to create proper channels and sustain workflow to systematically achieve their goals. 4. Infrastructure development. Infrastructure development refers to a partnership’s ability to develop systems of communication and problem-solving that afford members the opportunity to develop professionally inside and outside of the partnership to hone their leadership skills and build independent capacity for change. 5. Community linkages. Partnerships are only as strong as their relationships with institutions, organizations, and individuals within the community. Therefore, partnerships that are deemed valuable by the community create space for direct and regular community input and participation in the partnership’s initiatives, which subsequently increases their potential to impact change. Constitutive Value Variables

The aforementioned consequential variables operate in an often unpredictable manner that is based on the context, or the constitutive variables, in which the partnership exists: 1. Historical/Cultural. This realm considers the community’s prior collaborative arrangements with organizations, as well as the level of diversity (ethnic, socioeconomic, etc.) within the community. 2. Political. The political realm concerns itself with the amount of leverage the state and/or local government has in regard to control of policy and planning efforts, as well as whether the social issue at hand has been deemed controversial by the community.

I

570

Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

3. Physical. The physical environment effects the value proposition of partnerships in that it takes into consideration the geographic elements partnerships must navigate, such as distance to resources and spread of the population. 4. Economic. As a variable, the economic environment factors in the local and regional economy and tax revenue base, as well as the variety of employers within the affected region. While constitutive value variables do not directly affect or determine the value of consequential variables, they do influence the conditions that ultimately affect the value ascribed to consequential variables. For instance, if a partnership is focused on environmental justice initiatives in a community that has historically been at odds over conversations surrounding fracking, it will be hard to establish community linkages, as the “fit” between the partnership and the community’s culture will appear at odds as there is not a general consensus on an appropriate position to take. In this sense, constitutive value variables “provide an important set of interpretive and social constructions for determining the salience and direction in which value-generating activities by the partnerships are formulated and operationalized” (Alexander et al. 2003, p. 136S). Networks of Influence While the membership component of inclusive partnerships is important, there is an additional constituency that is just as crucial to the lasting impact of partnerships: the partnership’s affiliated networks. In order for partnerships to be successful, they must have the ability to influence communities and decision-makers alike. Margerum (2014) defines networks as groups of individuals connected by communication, relationships, positions, and/or interest areas. However, when specifically discussing the networks that contribute to the success of inclusive partnerships, Margerum (2014) has identified three specific types: social, interorganizational, and political. 1. Social. Social networks are comprised of the interpersonal relationships affiliated with

partnership members (Putnam 2000). A social network may include colleagues, family members, and personal friends who could be influenced or persuaded to participate in community action (Margerum 2014). While these networks exist separately from the formal partnership, they are beneficial to plug into via partnership members in order to facilitate community discourse. 2. Interorganizational. These networks are created through the structures and processes that organizations and businesses use to communicate among themselves (Alexander 1993). Interorganizational partnerships can find spheres of influence and visibility surrounding the programs, budgets, and affiliated priorities and initiatives of governments and interest groups (Margerum 2014). 3. Political. Political networks are comprised of the governance system within a community, specifically paying attention to positions of power within the system (Knoke 1990). These networks are beneficial to tap into as they can assist partnership collaboratives in navigating the rules and policies of a community and subsequently assist in the implementation of initiatives (Margerum 2014). All partnerships are embedded within larger networks of community, be they political, social, or economic. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge and utilize the spheres of influence that partnerships have via their related networks in order to spread information and influence to increase the possibility of achievement of the partnership’s goals (Margerum 2014). By creating channels to communicate with existing networks or by working across networks to create new affiliations, collaboratives can improve their potential for success by gaining support and consensus with individuals external to the formal partnership itself.

Benefits of Inclusive Partnerships for Sustainability While every partnership is different, based on scope, content, and stakeholders, the foundational

Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

goals and benefits of inclusive partnerships are essentially the same: 1. Capacity building. By utilizing complementary resources and capabilities across stakeholder sectors, partnerships are able to grapple with problems that single actors would not be able to address individually (Austin and Seitanidi 2012; Bitzer et al. 2013; Laasonen et al. 2012; Margerum and Robinson 2015; McAllister and Taylor 2015; Mirvis and Worley 2013; Nelson 2017; Vellema and van Wijk 2015; Worley and Mirvis 2013). The United Nations (n.d.) notes this as a key target of their 17th sustainable development goal, acknowledging that inclusive global partnerships have the distinct ability to revitalize the independent national plans for sustainability of participating countries. 2. Constructive approach. Inclusive partnerships afford businesses and organizations opportunities to play a new and active role in addressing global challenges (Bitzer and Glasbergen 2015; Blowfield and Dolan 2014; London and Anupindi 2011; Mirvis and Worley 2013). By sharing expertise and experience, organizations are able to creatively address problems in new and innovative ways with the help of other stakeholders. 3. Varied input. The ability to integrate multiple perspectives and discourses based on membership, specifically giving voice to smaller stakeholders with minimal resources who would otherwise not be involved in the conversation or action, is a key benefit afforded to inclusive partnerships (Alexander et al. 2003; Bitzer and Glasbergen 2015; Perez-Aleman and Sandilands 2008; Wang 2013). These arrangements acknowledge that in partnerships, resources extend beyond facilities and products to knowledge and information, thus providing smaller organizations the opportunity to play crucial roles alongside larger, more resourceful organizations (Margerum and Robinson 2015; McAllister and Taylor 2015; Mirvis and Worley 2013; Moore-Cherry et al. 2016; Worley and Mirvis 2013).

571

4. Strengthening of assets. Inclusive partnerships contribute to the strengthening of assets, including human, financial, natural, social, and physical capital. Members are able to enjoy cost savings due to resource sharing while also improving the quality of their individual services and engagement with the community as they team with similarly minded and focused agencies and organizations (Bitzer et al. 2013; Worley and Mirvis 2013). The United Nations (n.d.) specifically notes benefits in regard to the enhancement of domestic resource mobilization, trade opportunities, and technology for partnership members in their 17th sustainable development goal. 5. Associational value. Partnership members have the benefit of increasing their credibility and reputation via their networking with other stakeholders within the partnership (Austin 2010; Austin and Seitanidi 2012; Worley and Mirvis 2013). As members have their own individual networks and associated value propositions, by coming together in an organized collaboration, these associations reflect on the other partnership members as well. Inclusive partnerships serve as a method for convening the diverse actions of varied actors to create linkages between sectors and goals while also accelerating and scaling development (Nelson 2017). It follows that member organizations are able to increase their visibility and public profiles while simultaneously expanding their impact through shared resources and accountability. Challenges of Inclusive Partnerships for Sustainability The literature surrounding the study of inclusive partnerships also provides arguments as to why these arrangements often struggle to accomplish their goals. While none of the argued challenges below are inherently present within all-inclusive partnerships, there is value to understanding the uncertainties and possible limitations of operating within an inclusive partnership model for change. 1. Power relations. With the inclusion of stakeholders from different sectors and of different

I

572

2.

3.

4.

5.

Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

sizes and capacities, there is potential for unequal power relations to develop, especially in regard to access and influence (Bitzer and Glasbergen 2015; Kark et al. 2015; McAllister and Taylor 2015; Moore-Cherry et al. 2016). In addition, managing leadership breadth and depth while being mindful of partner capacity and privilege is also a challenge in these arrangements (Alexander et al. 2003). It is easy for these partnerships to mirror the standard power structures of society, so members must be cognizant of stakeholder representation throughout the duration of the arrangement to ensure that each member has the ability to contribute and voice concerns (Margerum 2014; Wang 2013). Measuring success. The ambiguous and complex nature of the social problems addressed by inclusive partnerships often leaves stakeholders and external individuals unclear of the true impact of the partnership on sustainable change, as variables are complicated and social progress is often slow-moving (Biermann et al. 2017; Bitzer and Glasbergen 2015). Integration. With multiple partners comes multiple opinions and priorities. A challenge in multi-stakeholder partnerships is effectively guiding behavior and progress in order to integrate a shared vision and principle for the longterm sustainable development goals that plays to all members’ strengths while acknowledging independent goals and resources (Biermann et al. 2017). Cultural differences. As inclusive partnerships engage a broad spectrum of organizations and individuals, cultural disputes arise pertaining to differences in time horizons, risk orientations, decision-making styles, preferences, and operational rules. Without trust, as well as collaborative processes and procedures, these differences can create substantial barriers to success (Alexander et al. 1998, 2003; Kalkanci et al. 2018; Margerum 2014; Margerum and Robinson 2015; Sink 1996; Weiner et al. 2000). Cost. Collaboration, specifically for complex problems that require communication and exchange across international boundaries, requires substantial resources in comparison to singular operations. These arrangements

also require increased logistics as international programs demand significant transaction costs in order to implement large-scale planning, communication, and execution across global lines (Kark et al. 2015; Margerum and Robinson 2015; Trencher et al. 2014). With these limitations in mind, it is evident that collaboration is a complex and often risky endeavor (Kark et al. 2015; Wang 2013). While challenges and limitations to partnerships exist, these examples should be viewed as tradeoffs rather than as hindrances, because regardless of the high transaction costs, collaboration has greater potential to manage multiple objectives for sustainable success (Margerum and Robinson 2015; McAllister and Taylor 2015; Mirvis and Worley 2013; Prager 2015; Trencher et al. 2014; Wang 2013). Framework for Successful Inclusive Partnerships Successful partnerships are not only hard to develop but are also challenging to sustain as the complexities of navigating the goals, challenges, and capacities of multiple stakeholders is difficult. However, based on academic and practitioner studies surrounding inclusive partnership development and maintenance, there are standard factors attributed to inclusive partnership success: 1. Shared purpose and understanding of context. Successful partnerships have an agenda for change led by organizational leaders who are able to motivate and mobilize others in the cause. These agendas must be mutually created by stakeholders based on consultation with the public and partner members, as well as by reviewing relevant data and evidence. Moreover, in successful arrangements, partners understand their roles and responsibilities in the strategic plan (Leffers and Mitchell 2010; Mirvis and Worley 2013; Nelson 2017; Worley and Mirvis 2013). Therefore, the United Nations (n.d.) urges partnership members to develop their collaborations on shared principles, values, vision, and goals in order to ensure the success and sustainability of the overall partnership.

Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

2. Thorough process and operational orientation. In successful partnerships, members have developed well-resourced implementation plans based on the capacity, competency, and resources of members (Nelson 2017). This structure allows everyone to contribute while maintaining realistic expectations of individual members’ ability and accountability. 3. Trust-building loop. The process of trust development must be established incrementally over time. By doing so, successful partnerships create an environment where stakeholders have sustained confidence and commitment in the partnership and their fellow stakeholders (Wang 2013). 4. Mutual accountability for progress and governance. Mutually agreed upon performance tracking methods must be identified. In creating a framework for assessment, successful partnerships facilitate independent and group evaluation efforts with the flexibility and space to adapt and correct areas of concern as needed (Nelson 2017). The United Nations (n.d.) instructs partners to set clear directions, review, and monitor policies and procedures as well as incentive structures to verify that partnership members have a clear understanding of expectations and markers of success. 5. Cultural competency. Awareness of the intercultural differences present in inclusive partnerships with regard to experiences, concerns, priorities, and history is important in navigating projects and initiatives with diverse stakeholders (Kalkanci et al. 2018). To this end, successful partnerships have the ability to understand the cultural context in which their partnerships develop and exist, which allows participants to create tailored messaging and strategies to effectively communicate for change among themselves and society at large (Buell and Kalkanci 2017; Mirvis and Worley 2013). 6. Spectrum of participation. Successful partnerships allow stakeholders to participate fully in the stages described by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2 n.d.): (a) Empower. Identifying issues, solutions, and actions (b) Collaborate. Sharing in the decision-making process

573

(c) Involve. Engaging in the planning process (d) Consult. Providing feedback on plans and issues (e) Inform. Receiving updates and announcements pertaining to progress and setbacks By doing so, partnerships ensure that all members are represented and heard in every stage of the process, subsequently supporting the development of a holistic plan for action as well as a truly inclusive partnership. 7. Conflict resolution. Both formal and informal processes must exist to resolve differences in opinion and/or practice between members (Margerum 2014). The given challenges of partnerships, opinions, and capacities will vary. However, in order to be successful, partnerships must establish practices to navigate and address these challenges to achieve effective resolutions agreed upon by all stakeholders.

Conclusion As our economy and the world at large continue to become more globally minded, the charge to increase collaboration will continue. In order for businesses and organizations to cope with the ever-changing markets and varying accessibility to resources while thriving in their given sectors and initiatives, participation in inclusive partnerships is necessary By engaging in inclusive partnerships, organization have the potential to not only increase their individual capacity but to also participate in the process of solving social and environmental problems (Wang 2013). Moreover, the charge of the United Nations (n. d.) to respond to the world’s issues of poverty, inequality, and climate change requires that actors from all countries – poor, rich, and middle-income – work together to promote global growth and development that is safe and effective for all members of society. While collaborating across sectors, countries, political spheres, and ideologies is challenging and often frustrating for participants, such partnerships afford opportunities to recognize a broader potential via the sharing of expertise and support while increasing the odds of sustainable and lasting global change.

I

574

Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Global Partnership ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Women-Led Partnerships and the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

References Alexander ER (1993) Interorganizational coordination: theory and practice. J Plan Lit 7(4):328–343 Alexander JA, Comfort ME, Weiner BJ (1998) Governance in public-private community health partnerships: a survey of the community care network demonstration sites. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 8(4):311–332 Alexander JA, Weiner BJ, Metzger ME, Shortell SM, Bazzoli GJ, Hasnain-Wynia R, Sofaer S, Conrad DA (2003) Sustainability of collaborative capacity in community health partnerships. Med Care Res Rev 60 (4):130S–160S Austin JE (2010) From organization to organization: on creating value. J Bus Ethics 94(1):13–15 Austin JE, Seitanidi MM (2012) Collaborative value creation: a review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 41(5):726– 758 Barbier EB (1987) The concept of sustainable economic development. Environ Conserv 14:101–110 Barbier EB, Burgess JC (2017) The sustainable development goals and the systems approach to sustainability. Econ Open-Access Open-Assess E-J 11(2017–28):1–23 Biermann F, Kanie N, Kim RE (2017) Global governance by goal setting: the novel approach of the UN sustainable development goals. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:26–31 Bitzer V, Glasbergen P (2015) Business-NGO partnerships in global value chains: part of the solution or part of the problem of sustainable change? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:35–40 Bitzer V, Glasbergen P, Arts B (2013) Exploring the potential of intersectoral partnerships to improve the position of farmers in global agrifood chains: findings from the coffee sector in Peru. Agric Hum Values 30 (1):5–20

Blowfield M, Dolan CS (2014) Business as a development agent: evidence of possibility and improbability. Third World Q 35:22–42 Borel-Saladin JM, Turok IN (2013) The green economy: incremental change or transformation? Environ Policy Gov 23(4):209–220 Buell R, Kalkanci B (2017) Sustainable operations versus corporate social responsibility: a cross-country analysis of value chain transparency. Working paper. Harvard Business School: Harvard University Carlson C (1999) Convening. In: Susskind L, McKearnon S, Thomas-Larmer J (eds) Consensus building handbook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 169–197 Cropper S (1996) Collaborative working and the issue of sustainability. In: Huxham C (ed) Creating collaborative advantage. SAGE, London, pp 80–100 Ehrenfeld JR (2009) Sustainability by design: a subversive strategy for transforming our consumer culture. Yale University Press, New Haven Elkington J (2013) Breakthrough: business leaders, market revolutions. Volans, London. Retrieved from https://breakthroughcapitalism.com/files/Volansbreakthrough-market-report.pdf Fritz D, Miller U, Gude A, Pruisken A, Rischewski D (2009) Making poverty reduction inclusive: experiences from Cambodia, Tanzania, and Vietnam. J Int Dev 21(5):673–684 Glasbergen P (2007) Setting the scene: the partnership paradigm in the making. In: Glasbergen P, Biermann F, Mol APJ (eds) Partnerships, governance, and sustainable development: reflections on theory and practice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 1–28 Gupta J, Pouw NRM, Ros-Tonen MAF (2015) Towards an elaborated theory of inclusive development. Eur J Dev Res 27(4):541–559 Imperial MT (2005) Using collaboration as a governance strategy: lessons from six watershed management programs. Adm Soc 37(3):281–320 International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) (n. d.) Spectrum of participation. Retrieved from https:// iap2usa.org/resources/Documents/Core%20Values% 20Awards/IAP2%20-%20Spectrum%20-%20stand% 20alone%20document.pdf Kalkanci B, Rahmani M, Toktay LB (2018) Social sustainability in emerging economies: the role of ‘inclusive innovation’. . Research paper no. 18–24. Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business, Atlanta Kark S, Tulloch A, Gordon A, Mazor T, Bunnefeld N, Levin N (2015) Cross-boundary collaboration: key to the conservation puzzle. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:12–24 Knoke D (1990) Political networks: the structural perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York Kourula A, Pisani N, Kolk A (2017) Corporate sustainability and inclusive development: highlights from international business and management research. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 24:14–18

Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development Laasonen S, Fougère M, Kourula A (2012) Dominant articulations in academic business and society discourse on NGO-business relations: a critical assessment. J Bus Ethics 109(4):521–545 Lee H, Tang CS (2018) Socially and environmentally responsible value chain innovations: new operations management research opportunities. Manag Sci 64 (3):983–996 Leffers J, Mitchell E (2010) Conceptual model for partnership and sustainability in global health. Public Health Nurs 28(1):91–102 London T, Anupindi R (2011) Using the base-of-the-pyramid perspective to catalyze interdependence-based collaborations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(31):12338–12343 Lubell M (2015) Collaborative partnerships in complex institutional systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:41–47 Margerum RD (2014) Beyond consensus: improving collaborative planning and management. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Margerum RD, Robinson CJ (2015) Collaborative partnerships and the challenges for sustainable water management. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:53–58 McAllister RRJ, Taylor BM (2015) Partnerships for sustainability governance: a synthesis of key themes. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:86–90 McCormick K, Anderberg S, Conen L, Neij L (2013) Advancing sustainable urban transformation. J Clean Prod 50:1–11 Mirvis PH, Worley CG (2013) Organizing for sustainability: why networks and partnerships? In: Worley CG, Mirvis PH (eds) Building networks and partnerships [Organizing for sustainable effectiveness, volume 3]. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp 1–34 Moore-Cherry N, Healey R, Nicholson DT, Andrews W (2016) Inclusive partnership: enhancing student engagement in geography. J Geogr High Educ 40 (1):84–103 Narayan D, Pritchett L, Kapoor S (2009) Moving out of poverty: success from the bottom up. The World Bank/ Palgrave Macmillan, Washington, DC Nelson J (2017) Partnerships for sustainable development: collective action by business, governments and civil society to achieve scale and transform markets. Business and Sustainable Development Commission, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA O’Brien A, Patwardhan A, Pelling K, Hallegatte S, Maskrey A, Oki T, Oswald-Spring U, Wilbanks T, Yanda PZ, Berkhout F, Biggs R, Brauch HG, Brown K, Folke C, Harrington L, Kunreuther H, Lacambra C, Leicheriko R, Mechler R, Pahl-Wostl C, Przyluski V, Satterthwaite D, Sperling F, Sygna L, Tanner T, Tschakert P, Ulsrud K, Viguie V (2012) Toward a sustainable and resilient future. In: Field C, Barros T, Stocker D (eds) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I & II of the

575

intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 437–486 Ostrom E (1986) A method of institutional analysis. In: Kaufmann FX, Majone G, Ostrom V (eds) Guidance, control, and evaluation in the public sector: the Bielefeld interdisciplinary project. Walter de Gruyter, New York, pp 459–475 Ostrom E (2007) Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process: theoretical lenses on public policy. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 21–64 Perez-Aleman P, Sandilands M (2008) Building value at the top and the bottom of the global supply chain: MNCNGO partnerships. Calif Manag Rev 51(1):24–49 Prager K (2015) Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:59–66 Putnam RD (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, New York Reed AM, Reed D (2009) Partnerships for development: four models of business involvement. J Bus Ethics 90:3–37 Sabatier PA, Leach WD, Lubell M, Pelkey NW (2005) Theoretical frameworks explaining partnership success. In: Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (eds) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 173–200 Schäferhoff M, Campe S, Kaan C (2009) Transnational public-private partnerships in international relations: making sense of concepts, research frameworks, and results. Int Stud Rev 11(3):451–474 Shaw D, Kidd S (2001) Sustainable development and environmental partnership at the regional scale: the case of sustainability north west. Eur Environ 11:112–123 Sink D (1996) Five obstacles to community-based collaboration and some thoughts on overcoming them. In: Huxham C (ed) Creating collaborative advantage. Sage, London, pp 101–109 Susskind L, Cruikshank J (1987) Breaking the impasse: consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books, New York Sustainable Development Goals Fund (n.d.) Goal 17: partnerships for the goals. Retrieved from http://sdgfund. org/goal-17-partnerships-goals Tang CS (2018) Socially responsible supply chains in emerging markets: some research opportunities. J Oper Manag 57:1–10 Trencher G, Bai X, Evans J, McCormick K, Yarime M (2014) University partnerships for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability. Glob Environ Chang 28:153–165 United Nations (n.d.) Sustainable development goals. Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sustainable development/sustainable-development-goals/

I

576 Van Tulder R, Fortainier F (2009) Business and sustainable development: from passive involvement to active partnerships. In: Kremer M, Van Lieshout P, Went R (eds) Doing good or doing better: development policies in globalizing world. Amsterdam University Press, Den Haag, pp 211–235 Vellema S, van Wijk J (2015) Partnerships intervening in global food chains: the emergence of co-creation in standard-setting certification. J Clean Prod 107: 105–113 Wang ZC (2013) The role of marginal stakeholders in sustainability networks: the Beijing water network case. In: Worley CG, Mirvis PH (eds) Building networks and partnerships [organizing for sustainable effectiveness, volume 3]. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp 165–192 Weiner BJ, Alexander A, Zuckerman H (2000) Strategies for effective management participation in community health partnerships. Health Care Manag Rev 25(3):48– 66 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future (NGO committee on education, conference of NGOs-United Nations). Oxford University Press, Oxford Worley CG, Mirvis PH (2013) Studying networks and partnerships for sustainability: lessons learned. In: Worley CG, Mirvis PH (eds) Building networks and partnerships [organizing for sustainable effectiveness, volume 3]. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp 261–291

Inclusivity ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development

Index and Indicator in SDGs ▶ Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator

Indigenous and Local Knowledge ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World

Inclusivity

Industrial Growth in Africa ▶ Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs Teresa Swist and Philippa Collin Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

Synonyms Adolescents; Children; Youth: young people

Definition Partnerships for the Goals is the 17th Goal of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda which aims to “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development” (Global Goals 2020). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes young people as valuable members of communities with the right to express their views and have those views considered by others including governments and other authorities (UN CRC 1989). Young people can exercise this right in many ways. Furthermore, when adults and adult-led organizations meaningfully engage with them, innovation in partnerships becomes possible. Engagement with young people should aim to maximize young people’s agency within social and political structures; transform adult and institutional perceptions of young people in dialogue with young people; and generate new policy processes and organizational forms (Collin et al. 2018). Innovation as a process of collaborative learning can be leveraged to achieve partnerships that are inclusive of young people and

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

significantly advance the Sustainable Development Goals.

Introduction Goal 17, Partnerships for the Goals, highlights how partnerships between governments, private sector, and civil society that are built upon shared principals, values, and vision are critical to advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To be effective, partnerships are needed from the local to the global level, and to be increasingly cross-sector, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational. The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC 1989) recognizes young people as valued members of civil society with capabilities and rights including the right to association (Article 13), to freedom of expression (Article 15), to nondiscrimination (Article 2), and to learning about and expressing their culture (Articles 31 and 32). Importantly, these articles are supported by the right for young people to express their views on matters of concern and have them considered by governments and other actors in society (Article 12). Ensuring young people’s engagement and participation in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a core objective of the United Nations Youth Strategy (UN 2018), which “recognizes young people’s agency, resilience and their positive contributions as agents of change” (p. 5). Despite this focus upon young people, they are not mentioned within Goal 17 as instigators or participants in partnerships to advance the SDGs (Bastien and Holmarsdottir 2018, p. 6). This is in stark contrast to the fact that young people around the world are extensively involved in a vast range of partnerships addressing issues that can help advance the SDGs and that range from youth-led to adult-led, from community-driven to institutionally driven, and from the local to the global. This entry, therefore, focuses specifically on the subtarget which seeks to Encourage effective partnerships, that is: “Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and

577

resourcing strategies of partnerships” (Global Goals 2020). This chapter argues that young people are and should be considered as key constituents of civil society and that prioritizing engagement with young people is essential to identifying the combination of organizational, social, and technological practices that can help drive Partnerships for the Goals. We also consider the role that innovation can play in reimagining youth engagement and partnerships to achieve the SDGs. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD 2017) has identified that the urgency and scale of the Goals presents a vital opportunity to encourage, support, and “experiment with new forms of innovation for sustainable development” (p. 3). Innovation is distinguished from other approaches to problem-solving because it emphasizes collaboration and interactive learning that requires networking of diverse actors, including small, large, and social enterprises, community groups and organizations, and different levels of governments as well as individuals (Smith 2006). Furthermore, local and global innovation networks are being transformed with mobile and media technologies, opening up new possibilities for youth engagement and SDG partnerships at multiple scales. Digital platforms are ways for organizations and young people to “focus on user-generated data and diverse interventions based on specific issues, such as social change, sustainability and rights” (Swist and Collin 2017). Agencies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO 2018), recognize that young people’s calls for action on health and rights, the environment, and sustainability have been significantly amplified by the internet, mobile communications, and social media, and that those with limited access to technology are also making a difference in their own communities. Young people’s roles and concerns regarding sustainable development are therefore entangled with local and global concerns, emerging technologies, plus the ways in which innovation is envisioned and valued. This entry considers multiple ways in which young people are, and could be, participants in partnerships for the SDGs. We first examine the increasing recognition and value of young

I

578

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

people’s participation for progressing the SDGs and how these could be advanced by applying principles of innovation. We then consider examples of youth engagement approaches and identify key directions for supporting innovative youthengaged partnerships. To do so, the entry is structured in four sections, followed by a conclusion: prioritizing young people’s participation, learning through innovation, modes of youth engagement, and directions for youth-engaged partnerships.

Prioritizing Young People’s Participation The scope and ambition of the SDGs recognizes the rights and roles of young people. As identified by Bastien and Holmarsdottir, “[a]lthough youth have been to a large extent marginalized from development and decision making processes historically, the importance of their participation and placing them at the center of sustainable and inclusive development is now often highlighted in many national development strategies” (2018, p. 7). However, specific aims for youth participation often become subsumed within broader statements of intent. For instance, “Youth are integral stakeholders in the foreseen multi-stakeholder partnerships that will engage the public and private sectors, workers’ and employers’ organizations, academia and civil society entities to realize the people, planet, prosperity and peace goals through financial, technological capacity, trade and monitoring means” (Regional Coordination Mechanism – United Nations Development Group RCM – UNDG 2015, p. 83). There are calls, however, to emphasize the strengths and capacities young people already possess by placing them at the center of the SDGs through acknowledgment that they may be beneficiaries and also leaders of development and sustainability initiatives (Alfvén et al. 2018, p. 2). Young people already contribute to progress on the SDGs, and there is considerable potential to expand their role in catalyzing action for progress. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Plan International (2018) have identified the ways in which young people are already contributing to

the SDGs including: helping to deliver programs; building partnerships, networks, and alliances within and between generations; influencing parents, communities, and government; applying capabilities and imagination toward future policy and change; and as codesigners and “provocateurs” who could inform all of the SDGs. Importantly, this has institutional support. For example, global Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), which aims to advance SDG solutions, initiated by the United Nations Secretary General, identified the need for a youth-focused initiative and in 2015 launched a specific youth network. The Sustainable Development Solutions Network – Youth (SDSN 2019) aims to support young people in the creation and scale-up of innovative solutions. The network seeks to increase the visibility of young innovators (for example, at conferences and events), and to offer funding and mentoring opportunities (such as the SDSN community-building platform, Youth Solutions Hub). Prioritizing the linking of youth participation initiatives and outcomes to partnerships for the SDGs would contribute significantly toward innovation efforts that are aligned with intergenerational values and diverse contexts. However, young people around the world continue to face a range of structural and conceptual barriers to participation, with “quick-fix” or institutionally palatable youth engagement solutions often limiting possibilities (Kwon 2018; Zeinali et al. 2020). Moreover, participation in initiatives to address the SDGs can favor those who are not constrained by structural and cultural barriers (Bastien and Holmarsdottir 2018). Initiatives to promote youth participation should address immediate and long-term structural inequalities to participation. One strategy is to shift the focus from how young people should participate, to how adults in positions of power should engage with young people. To be effective, initiatives for youth engagement should seek to maximize young people’s agency within social and political structures; transform adult and institutional perceptions of young people in dialogue with young people; and, generate new policy processes and organizational forms (Collin et al. 2018). As the youngest citizens of the world, those under the age

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

of 25 years will be disproportionately affected by failure to implement the SDGs (Lam and Blakeley 2018) and, as such, have much at stake in the realization of the goals. As Alfvén and colleagues argue, “Placing children and adolescents firmly at the centre of the SDGs will ensure that they realise the right to survive and thrive throughout the lifecourse, as the true beneficiaries of the 2030 Agenda” (2019, p. 3). Innovation as a process of collaborative learning can be leveraged to achieve partnerships that are inclusive of young people and significantly advance partnerships to progress the SDGs.

Learning through Innovation Innovation is recognized as vital for exploring and enabling SDG progress across all of the Goals. For instance, to achieve the Goals by 2030, The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD 2017) states that: “Innovation, understood as new forms of social practice and organization, as well as new or improved technological products and processes, is not only an explicit focus of Goal 9 (build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation) but also a key enabler of most – if not all – of the Goals” (p. 1). The type of learning that occurs through innovation depends upon the motivations and resources of the various stakeholders involved. For example, innovation practices can differ markedly in focus, such as: mission-oriented innovation, propoor and inclusive innovation, grassroots innovation, social innovation, and digitally enabled and open innovation (UNCTAD 2017, p. 4). While these approaches are not mutually exclusive – and even overlap at times – they highlight the complexity of stakeholders, participants, purposes, outputs, and impacts associated with various innovation processes. Youth engagement in SDG-specific innovation is underexplored, particularly in terms of the potential for collaborative learning. Young people are usually positioned as “beneficiaries of,” rather than “participants in” innovation (Bastien and Holmarsdottir 2018). This limits their

579

involvement to one of subjects within society, rather than “architects of change” (p. 6). Furthermore, the focus and context of innovation can vary markedly such as: catalyzing social change (social innovation), adapting to resourceconstrained settings (inclusive innovation), or developing reliable, low-cost devices adopted first by low- and middle-income countries (frugal innovation) (ibid). A key concern that arises when young people are marginalized from innovation is that assumptions about what is needed within a community are defined by adult members (or decision-makers from afar) – thereby missing valuable opportunities to learn from young people about what is valued and could inform long-term commitment and change. There is, however, considerable scope for innovation to be a catalyst for new SDG partnerships with young people. Established in 2012, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Innovation Facility identifies the influence of innovation on partnerships, specifically “the private sector, foundations and international financial institutions” (2017, p. 4). However, as successful innovation models such as Living Labs (Eskelinen et al. 2015) have shown, user-centered approaches are among the most successful for generating new, effective, and scalable responses to a range of social, technical, urban, and environmental problems. User-centered approaches involve the beneficiaries or “end users” of innovation outputs in processes of problem definition, investigation, codesign, experimentation, trial, and evaluation (Dezuanni et al. 2017). The inclusion of users/citizens in the process of innovation is closely tied to uptake, scaling and impact of the knowledge, new technologies, models, products, services, and skills that emerge from this form of innovation – all secured through collaborative partnerships. If young people are understood as potential users and beneficiaries of innovations to advance the SDGs, they should be participants in innovation processes. To realize the potential of innovation to transform partnerships and progress the SDG goals requires closer attention to the role of young people – especially their contexts, needs, and aspirations. This is because the knowledge produced in

I

580

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

any partnership inevitably depends upon the constituents involved, the approach taken, as well as the investment and integration of any innovation within a particular community. In their Youth Strategy, the United Nations (UN 2018) highlights the role which youth innovation labs and youth-led innovation can play in strengthening knowledge production with young people. Importantly, innovation – learning through collaboration – can be understood beyond outputs and, instead, as generative ways of organizing partnerships and producing knowledge to progress SDG Goals with young people. Identifying innovative modes of youth engagement can contribute to changing mindsets and attitudes – not only about what youth engaged partnerships are, but also how and why they can be a powerful strategy for partnerships to progress the SDGs.

Innovative Modes of Youth Engagement Similar to innovation, youth engagement is dynamic – and the people, processes, and outcomes of engagement vary depending on the motivations of the organizations and stakeholders involved and the surrounding circumstances which may change over time. Policy and delivery approaches to youth engagement for the SDGs differ widely, and there is no single, linear formula. For instance, perspectives depend upon the particular “lens” of donors, agencies, and civil society involved – which can range from assetbased, equity, customer, instrumentalist, and/or deficit approaches (ADB & Plan International 2018). Moreover, modes of youth engagement are complex and multifaceted processes for which there is no particular recipe, or formula. For instance, “revitalizing” the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development requires new partnerships with young people be formed, as well as reinforcing where youth partnerships or youth led initiatives already exist. All of these strategies are most effective when focused on strengthening capacities via “the exchange of knowledge and skills, the creation of safe places to experiment and the promotion of mutual learning” (RCMUNDG 2015, p. 17). Four types of promising,

SDG-specific youth engagement initiatives and opportunities are discussed here: partnershipdriven platforms, youth-led solutions, crowdsourcing and mapping, and gameplay. Partnership-Driven Platforms Partnership-driven platforms refer to diverse infrastructures that can support young people and adults in organizations, institutions, and networks to work together. For example, the World Health Organization (2018) recommends the establishment of a “partnership-driven platform” to enhance monitoring and reporting for healthrelated SDGs with young people. The aim of this participatory initiative is to “share insights, stories, experiences and ideas from young people, particularly from marginalized young people” for the purposes of “bridging both the data gap and the digital divide and bringing life to the data on progress towards health and SDGs” (ibid, p. 20). An online social media campaign #YoungVoicesCount is provided as an example of “a community and global conversation led by young people about health and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” (WHO 2020). Similarly, a partnership between the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and Western Sydney University has enabled consultations with young people around the globe (Third et al. 2017). These consultations have informed the last two biannual State of the World’s Children reports, addressing different topics related to different SDGs and informing organizations and governments around the world. The concept of such partnership-driven platforms highlights a way to spark youth-engaged conversations and connections that inform SDG progress. An Australian-based university-led initiative, the Wellbeing Health & Youth Commission (WH&Y Commission 2020) is a partnershipdriven platform currently in development to address Goal 3: good health and well-being. Initiated in 2019, the Commission is a group of young people collaborating with researchers, policymakers, and health professionals to inform and guide health research in the digital age. To date, the group has contributed to several consultations and workshops spanning a range of health

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

581

and well-being topics – such as ethics, emerging technologies, and COVID-19. Members of the group are actively involved in youth advisory groups, research proposal developments, capacity-building workshops, blog-writing, and social media. Partnership-driven platforms such as the WH&Y Commission offer valuable opportunities for innovating how knowledge about the SDG goals is generated and advanced with young people.

followed by the influence of peers (p. 14). Civic youth engagement is increasingly connected to “digital venues” (UNICEF 2020) – such as Snapchat, YouTube, and WhatsApp, among others. Better understanding the role of the digital technologies, how they relate to youth-led initiatives, activism, and civic engagement – and the extent to which these can advance partnerships for specific SDGs – will require ongoing experimentation and investigation.

Youth-Led Solutions “Youth-led solutions” are initiatives founded by young people aged 15–40 in diverse areas such as entrepreneurship, education, research, and charity in response to local, national, or international issues and concerns (SDSN Youth, 2017). While youth-led solutions can be powerful, they also need to be critically examined in relation to the structures by which young people can influence the nature and form of their participation, as well as hold decision-makers and policy-makers accountable. To address the potential for managed or tokenistic forms of participation – or the responsibilization of young people as states retreat from their roles and responsibilities (Kwon, 2018) – youth-led solutions do more than facilitate youth voice. For instance, recommendations for youthled accountability for the SDGs include youth participation in review and accountability mechanisms, young people as SDG infomediaries (generating, curating, and disseminating data/ information), transparency and access to information, as well as embedding review in “everyday life” and popular culture (Restless Development 2016). The Fridays For Future (FFF) protest campaign is a powerful example of a youth-led initiative. A study of the involvement of young people “as initiators, organizers and participants in climate activism on a large scale” in the strikes of March and September 2019 examined the role of participants, their ways of recruiting support, plus motivations and feelings associated with the campaigning (de Moor et al. 2020, p. 4). Survey insights from this study also show that social media is the most important information channel for young people to obtain protest information,

Crowdsourcing and Mapping Crowdsourcing – gathering data from “crowds” of people – is an example of how reporting progress toward the SDGs could be transformed. A proposed framework for monitoring SDGs with young people across the globe indicates the potential “to harness the power of youth in sustainable community development and to develop a reflexive learning tool for youth who are involved in the data collection and monitoring, their communities, policy makers and others engaged in sustainable development” (Mohanty et al. 2019, p. 11). The key features of the framework prioritize nontraditional learning (e.g., letting young people define the issues), a mobile application data collection tool, a shared taxonomy (for indicators and issues), personal development of youth, shared learnings for achieving the SDGs, plus crossing boundaries and connecting with other projects. The researchers also note a number of assumptions and challenges that need to be addressed in order to implement this framework at scale, such as access to internet-enabled phones, digital literacy – alongside engaging community members, which requires a user-friendly design, as well as inbuilt incentives (e.g., for meeting reporting milestones) (ibid). Mapping conducted by young people via online platforms provides another opportunity to innovate youth engagement and partnerships to progress the SDGs. For example, a multiuniversity project explored how participatory approaches in geographic technologies – such as volunteer mapping projects – could support SDG 3 (Solís et al. 2018). The researchers engaged with a global student network, YouthMappers, which is built upon shared learning, peer exchange, and

I

582

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

data creation that responds to development and humanitarian need. The students participated in extensive mapping exercises to add residential structures and other features in parts of East Africa affected by malaria to OpenStreetMap (Solís et al. 2018. p. 146). The value of such mapping was to inform the planning of campaigns and interventions to aid malaria prevention. The research team notes that the potential of participatory spatial data creation is underexplored in relation to the SDGs. However, such opportunity needs to be explored in relation to accompanying challenges – such as data quality and utility, ethics, and expectations associated with volunteer networks. Moreover, the researchers note the need to better understand how such data can inform SDG decision-making, as well as the ways in which other goals (relating to infrastructure and education) are implicated in the response to complex issues (which a focus on health alone cannot solve). Gameplay The potential of gameplay – the act of playing both nondigital and digital games – as pedagogical tools to learn about the SDGs is another novel way to engage young people in partnerships. Whereas, some modes of youth engagement are more direct in their approach (such as the examples outlined above) – gaming offers an indirect way of building awareness about the goals, which can potentially inspire interest in more direct modes of engagement. For example, a Namibian project consortia – involving a range of government, nongovernment, and youth organization partners – developed a series of card and scenario-based games which offered interactive ways for young people to learn about each individual SDG, as well as how they are all interrelated (Mangundu and Braby 2019). Developing and utilizing such resources via project-based partnerships is a way of building a bank of resources which can then be utilized beyond project-specific events, such as youth conferences – alongside other forums where young people can learn more about the goals, and amplify other opportunities for becoming involved in SDGrelated initiatives (ibid). Lessons learnt from the project highlighted the importance of partnerships

and flexibility; for instance, proactive partners were a key way to share resources and expertise, as well as minimize costs (Project Namibia 2020). Digital games (also known as video or online games) are additional tools for enhancing young people’s awareness about the SDGs and engaging young people in future scenario planning. This is a particularly powerful mode for youth-engaged partnerships given the popularity of digital games among young people globally. Video games have the potential to communicate new information about complex SDG topics in engaging and interactive ways – such as different gaming genres, or via puzzles, problem-solving, and simulations (Patterson and Barratt 2019, p. 8) that are cocreated with young people. For example, “Antarctic Futures” is an online game codesigned with young people and enables players to experience and inform global policy responses to complex scenarios about the future of Antarctica (Magee et al. 2019). This initiative is a university-led, collaborative, and youth-engaged project purposefully aligned with SDG Goal 11, Target 4: to “protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage” (UN SDGs 2020). Partnering with young people in the design and development of games could be an effective approach to building partnerships between people of diverse ages, disciplines, organizations, cities, and countries about specific global challenges and SDG goals.

Directions for Youth-Engaged Partnerships The scale and scope of partnerships required to achieve the SDG goals is increasingly recognized by a range of organizational, national, and international bodies. Advances in both youth engagement and innovation increasingly recognize the need for new models, new relations, and organizational forms that are inclusive and responsive to the lived experiences, ideas, and aspirations of all citizens. For organizations wishing to progress innovation for sustainable development, the UNDP (2017) has identified two key processes: first, experimenting and testing new models; second, supporting change management so

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

organizations become more agile and responsive to the uncertainty of complex issues. Five ways to experiment and adapt with youth-engaged partnerships are outlined below: enable digital cooperation; address youth engagement barriers; diversify SDG monitoring; support youth leadership, creativity, and capacities; and prioritize research and knowledge-sharing. Enable Digital Cooperation across Sectors, Ages, Disciplines, and Regions New levels of digital cooperation are necessary to advance youth-engaged partnerships. As defined by the United Nations Secretary-General’s HighLevel Panel on Digital Cooperation, this will require “ways of working together to address the societal, ethical, legal and economic impacts of digital technologies in order to maximise benefits to society and minimise harms” (Digital Cooperation 2019, p. 6). The Panel recommends the need for both multilateralism and multistakeholderism involving a diversity of sectors, disciplines, and countries in digital cooperation – including civil society and marginalized groups “such as women, youth, indigenous people, rural populations and older people” (ibid, p. 4). Balancing diverse expertise and responsibilities is also critical to enable digital cooperation for youth-engaged partnerships. In a series of principles for placing children and adolescents at the center of the SDGs, Alfvén et al. (2018) propose “Capitalising on interlinkages within the SDGs to galvanise multisectoral action” (p. 3). For example, in relation to SDG3 – health and well-being – there needs to be a “balanced approach” between the health sector and interdisciplinary collaboration, so that shared responsibilities do not become diluted with broader stakeholder involvement (ibid). Identifying obligations and practical steps that demonstrate digital cooperation is one way to translate commitments into action. This can be supported by frameworks that directly address ethical and moral obligations of different stakeholders. For example, the Wellbeing Health & Youth Centre of Research Excellence (WH&Y CRE 2020) is a research initiative funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The group has developed a framework

583

for ethically engaging young people in health research and translation in the digital age (Swist et al. 2019) – coproduced via a series of roundtables and workshops with young people, researchers, and professionals. While digital technologies have become integrated across all aspects of society and culture, enabling new forms of connection and advocacy between young people and decision-makers, to achieve equity through digital collaboration, adequate resourcing of quality access to the internet is required (Third et al. 2017). A study of the impact of digital infrastructure on the SDGS, with a specific focus on selected Latin American and Caribbean Countries, highlights how infrastructure can contribute to SDG 17 alliances “by facilitating coordination and communication between these actors and fostering their partnerships” (Zaballos et al. 2018, p. 35). Digital technologies are therefore no longer an add-on option; they have become integral to how partnerships for SDG progress need to cooperate so as to maximize young people’s engagement. Ensuring young people can be included requires ensuring their access to infrastructure, capacity-building, and digital inclusion. Address Multidimensional Barriers to Young People’s (Digital) Participation Young people face a range of technological, social, and economic barriers that may limit their opportunities and freedom to participate in progressing the SDG goals. To successfully promote innovation in youth-engaged partnerships for the Goals, research and programmatic efforts must identify and address the structural and cultural barriers to participation that young people face (Bastien and Holmarsdottir 2018, p. 8). While technologies such as mobile phone peer-to-peer research apps, SMS-based consultation platforms, and multimodal data collection (mobile phones, online, and face-to-face) can bridge some forms of inequality, particularly by opening up new channels and forums for youth voice, attention to ongoing and diverse inequalities that shape young people’s unequal status in society, as well as access and use of technology, is still necessary (WHO 2018).

I

584

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

Reducing the basic digital divide is particularly important where stark differences in access to information and communications technology (ICT) exist within countries and regions. For example, the Asia and the Pacific have some of the most advanced ICT societies in the world, but some parts of the region lack even basic internet coverage. Overcoming this through public-private partnerships that promote affordable and accessible forms of ICT can advance SDGs – such as SDG1-No Poverty, by helping generate jobs for young people and drive broader enterprise creation (RCMUNDG 2015, p. 94). Such aims would be significantly advanced if young people were involved in partnerships to identify and design ways to address disadvantage and the problems that they face. In a series of principles for placing children and adolescents at the center of the SDGs, Alfvén et al. (2018) propose “Striving for equity: ensuring no child is left behind.” For this principle, reducing inequity means consideration of specific groups, prioritizing investment in strategies, as well as ensuring access and ongoing evaluations which are mindful of specific characteristics and contexts. Diversify Data Collection and SDG Monitoring Involving young people in data collection and monitoring is another way to innovate SDG partnerships. Data collection by local youth organizations and social businesses can contribute to monitoring initiatives (Lam and Blakeley 2018) by connecting to local initiatives and commitments. Young people are well-placed to be a “generation of SDG infomediaries” – meaning that they could be empowered “to generate, curate and disseminate data/information for accountability to government bodies, citizens and other stakeholders” (Restless Development 2016, p. 13). Furthermore, “Since youth are often at the cutting edge of technological developments, this may represent a unique opportunity for engaging youth in the development of innovative data collection techniques which leapfrog existing tools” (Bastien and Holmarsdottir 2018, p. 19). Young people can help to not only diversify data

collection and SDG monitoring – but also could transform it in ways which have not yet been invented. World Vision International (WVI 2019) has identified that data generated by citizens can contribute to advancing SDGs progress by building “partnerships between communities, civil servants and elected leaders that help troubleshoot key policies, advance accountability, and unmask the lived experiences of marginalised groups, including children, women and girls” (p. 21). Data generated by young people with their communities has the potential to transform SDG data collection, monitoring, and progress. In addition, “big data” that is accumulated via a range of data sources – such as social media usage, mobile phone records, and satellite datasets – could be utilized to address data and inequality gaps (such as the gender data platform data 2x partnership initiative) (RCM-UNDG 2015, p. 87). Involving young people and their communities in designing how SDG data is collected, analyzed, and utilized can ensure that innovative approaches do not overstep ethical processes and cultural contexts. Support Youth Leadership, Creativity, and Capacities Supporting youth leadership as collective practice is central to youth-engaged partnerships. Embedding youth leadership in “official roles” and comanagement structures and enacting broader cultural and policy processes are identified as some of the ways to support youth representation, partnerships, research, and accountability for the SDGs – all of which require “increased political, financial and technical support” (Restless Development 2016, p. 24; Collin et al. 2018). Furthermore, identifying young people who may require extra support or resourcing to engage with youth leadership roles is essential to ensure diverse partnerships – such as girls, young women, and groups living in rural areas, of ethnic minority, or living with a disability (Bastien & Holmarsdottir 2018). Significantly, relying on youth leadership and energy should not be separate from research and evidence which could valuably inform and sustain SDG innovation. For

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

instance, the “passion and energy of young leaders” together with tools and “solid frameworks and methodologies that emphasise local needs and long-term, sustainable change” can catalyze transformative change (SDSN 2019, p. 209). Engaging with young people’s creativity and curiosity similarly has the potential to inspire novel ways to advance SDG partnerships. Unleashing creativity not only informs innovation, but also builds young people’s capacity “to serve as effective leaders and educators for subsequent generations” and positions them “to develop sustainable strategies to address the plethora of intractable global issues” (Bastien and Holmarsdottir 2018, p. 10). The interrelationship between creativity and innovation is well understood, as well as its links to risk-taking – all of which are essential for individual, group, and institutional development, which depend on critically challenging norms and testing possibilities (ADB and Plan International 2018, p. 35). Supporting youth leadership and creativity encourages young people from diverse backgrounds to become key decision-makers and helps communities and institutions reimagine how future SDG partnerships and progress are implemented. The development of capacities is a process by which transformation and change is “generated, guided and sustained by those whom it is meant to benefit” (UNDP 2009, p. 6). Capacity-building is recognized as one the three key pillars for driving intergenerational leadership (Zeinali et al. 2020) – which can include training and resources, capacity-building platforms, and mentorship opportunities. An Australian report about the challenges, impacts, and benefits of youth participation in sustainable development (Lam and Blakeley 2018) highlights the following key areas which make “considerable impact” on SDGs’ progress: young people’s values, skills, and motivation to be part of inclusion and social justice initiatives, the role of youth-led organizations (e.g., Oaktree Foundation, Australian Youth Climate Coalition), a diversity of issuebased projects (such as Indigenous heritage, gender equality), as well as being empowered as an

585

economic actor which interrelates with the exercise of social and cultural rights. Prioritize Research and Knowledge-Sharing Expanding research and the evidence base for youth engagement and innovation in SDG partnerships is required. For example, study designs and approaches which draw upon mixedmethods, longitudinal, and ethnographic approaches can help to examine different settings, contexts, and outcomes of young people’s involvement. Impact evaluations and case studies undertaken across policy and grassroots levels can build understanding of the contributions of youth partnerships in advancing the SDG agenda (Bastien and Holmarsdottir, 2018). Young people should be part of these research processes to better understand outcomes over time, and to advance learning and accountability. If young people are actively involved in the design and development of the research that is undertaken – then the questions, insights, and concerns are more likely to be aligned, integrated, or contested. Who better to be involved in exploring and examining youth engagement and ways of innovating SDG partnerships than young people themselves? Knowledge-sharing is crucial for supporting youth-engaged partnerships in terms of understanding what is working well, and what needs to be improved, so as to progress the SDGs in inclusive ways. This process requires not only listening and learning from young people, but also connecting this knowledge to support the building of social movements which can inform widespread action and change (ADB and Plan International, 2018). What knowledge-sharing further offers is the potential of empowering communities to influence key decision-makers, so that they “can better understand the complexity of delivering on a global agenda, adapt accordingly, and fulfil the promise of putting people at the centre of the SDGs” (WVI 2019, p. 22). Documenting the “untold stories” of youth-driven innovation in a range of ways can also inspire and inform future youth engagement efforts by communicating examples and insights (Bastien and Holmarsdottir 2018, p. 20). Learning about young people’s visions and values for youth

I

586

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

engagement, therefore, has the potential to richly inform how SDG partnerships develop.

Conclusion The role of young people in Goal 17 Partnerships for Sustainable Development is implied rather than explicit. To maximize the potential of partnerships for advancing the SDGs, young people’s participation is critical. However, this requires increasing the recognition and value of how young people who are currently progressing the SDGs, as well as prioritizing ways in which future innovations can meaningfully involve young people and their communities – even building on initiatives and advances they are currently contributing to, or have led. Strategies that hold particular promise include: enabling digital cooperation; addressing youth participation barriers; diversifying SDG monitoring; supporting youth leadership, creativity, and capacities; and prioritizing research and knowledge-sharing.

Cross-References ▶ Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations as Enablers of Children’s WellBeing ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development Acknowledgments Swist and Collin are researchers in the Wellbeing Health & Youth (WH&Y) NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Adolescent Health (APP 1134984).

References ADB and Plan International UK (2018) What’s the evidence? Youth engagement and the sustainable development goals. Asian Development Bank and Plan International. Available via https://plan-international.org/publications/ youth-engagement-and-sdgs. Accessed 20 May 2020 Alfvén T, Dahlstrand J, Humphreys D, Helldén D, Hammarstrand S, Hollander A-C, Målqvist M, Nejat

S, Søgaard Jørgensen P, Friberg P, Tomson G (2019) Placing children and adolescents at the Centre of the sustainable development goals will deliver for current and future generations. Glob Health Action 12:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1670015 Bastien S, Holmarsdottir HB (2018) The sustainable development goals and the role of youth-driven innovation for social change. In: Bastien S, Holmarsdottir HB (eds) Youth as architects of social change. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-66275-6_1 Collin P, Lala G, Fieldgrass L (2018) Participation, empowerment and democracy: engaging with young people’s views. In: Alldred P, Cullen F, Edwards K, Fusco D (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Youth Work Practice. Sage, Los Angeles de Moor J, Uba K, Wahlström M, Wennerhag M, De Vydt M (eds) (2020) Protest for a future II: Composition, mobilization and motives of the participants in Fridays For Future climate protests on 20-27 September, 2019, in 19 cities around the world Dezuanni M, Foth M, Mallan K, Hughes H (2017) Digital participation through social living labs. Chandos Publishing, Oxford Digital Cooperation (2019) Available via https:// digitalcooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ DigitalCooperation-report-for-web.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2020 gl Eskelinen J, Robles García A, Lindy I, Marsh J, MuenteKunigami A (2015) Citizen driven innovation. A guidebook for city mayors and public administrators. The World Bank, Washington Global Goals (2020) Partnerships for the Goals. Available via https://www.globalgoals.org/17-partnerships-forthe-goals Kwon SA (2018) The politics of global youth participation. J Youth Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018. 1559282 Lam K, Blakeley D (2018) Challenges, Impacts and Benefits of Increased Youth Participation in Sustainable Development in Australia. Supplementary report for SDSN Youth Australia/Pacific Senate Inquiry Submission April 2018. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Submission 141. Magee L, Pollio A, Khan M, Salazar JF (2019). Antarctic Futures. Available via https://antarctic-cities.org/game/ . Accessed 10 August 2020 Mangundu and Braby (2019) Games for SDGs Namibia: towards youth engagement in achieving sustainability. Available via https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/arti cle/games-sustainable-development-goals-namibiatowards-youth-engagement-achieving-sustainability/. Accessed 9 June 2020 Mohanty SP, Ramaswamy R, Duraiappah AK (2019) On the Design of a Youth-led, issue-based, Crowdsourced global monitoring framework for the SDGs. Sustainability 11:6839. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236839. Accessed 9 June 2020 Patterson T, Barratt S (2019) Playing for the Planet – How video games can deliver for people and the

Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs environment. UN Environment/GRID-Arendal. Arendal, Norway. Available via https://www.grida.no/ publications/432. Accessed 14 Aug 2020 Project Namibia (2020) Games for the SDGs. https://cms.my. na/assets/documents/p1c1cv42qm1va1v5pnpte09b9t4. pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2020 RCM-UNDG (2015) Switched on: Youth at the heart of sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific. Regional Coordination Mechanism – United Nations Development Group (Asia-Pacific Thematic Working Group on Youth). Available via https://www.unescap. org/sites/default/files/SDD%20Switched%20On% 20report%20v12-4-E_0.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2020 Restless Development (2016) Youth-led accountability for the SDGs. Available via https://thecommonwealth.org/ sites/default/files/inline/Commonweath%20report.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2020 SDSN (2019) Youth solutions report. Sustainable development solutions network - youth. Available via http:// www.youthsolutions.report/2019report. Accessed 18 June 2020 Smith D (2006) Exploring innovation. McGraw Hill Education, Berkshire Solís P, McCusker B, Menkiti N, Cowan N, Blevins C (2018) Engaging global youth in participatory spatial data creation for the UN sustainable development goals: the case of open mapping for malaria prevention. Appl Geogr 98:143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apgeog.2018.07.013 Swist T, Collin P (2017) Platforms, data and children’s rights: introducing a ‘networked capability approach’. New media and society 19(5):671–685. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1461444816686319 Swist T, Collin P, Nguyen B, Steinbeck K, Dawson A (2019) Wellbeing Health & Youth Engagement Framework. WH&Y Centre of Research Excellence, Australia. Available via https://www.why.org.au/whyresearch/ethics-of-engagement/WHY-engagementframework. Accessed 11 August Third A, Bellerose D, Diniz De Oliveira J, Lala G, Theakstone G (2017) Young and online: children’s perspectives on life in the digital age (The State of the World’s Children 2017 Companion Report). Western Sydney University, Sydney. https://doi.org/10.4225/35/5a1b885f6d4db UN CRC (1989) Convention on the rights of the child. United Nations. Available via https://www.ohchr.org/ en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx. Accessed 14 August 2020 UN SDGs (2020) Goal 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities. Available via https://www.un.org/sustainablede velopment/cities/. Accessed 11 Sept 2020 UNCTAD (2017) New innovation approaches to support the implementation of the sustainable development goals. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. New York/Geneva. Available via https:// unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/dtlstict2017d4_en. pdf. Accessed 16 July 2020 UNDP (2009) Capacity development: a UNDP primer. United Nations Development Programme, New York.

587

Available via https://www.undp.org/content/ undp/en/home/librarypage/capacity-building/capacitydevelopment-a-undp-primer.html. Accessed 10 August 2020 UNDP (2017) Spark, scale, sustain. United Nations Development Programme Innovation Facility: 2016 Year in Review. New York. Available via https://www.undp. org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/developmentimpact/spark-_-scale-_-sustain%2D%2D-2016-yearin-review.html. Accessed 20 June 2020 UNICEF (2020). Digital civic engagement by young people. United Nations Children’s fund. Available via https://www.unicef.org/globalinsight/sites/unicef.org. globalinsight/files/2020-03/UNICEF-Global-Insightdigital-civic-engagement-2020_4.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2020 United Nations (2018) United Nations youth strategy: working with and for young people. Available via https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/wp-content/ uploads/2018/09/18-00080_UN-Youth-Strategy_Web. pdf. Accessed 20 June 2020 WH&Y Commission (2020). Wellbeing Health & Youth Commission. Available via https://www.why.org.au/ why-research/ethics-and-engagement/WHY-Commis sion. Accessed 10 Aug 2020 WH&Y CRE (2020) Wellbeing Health & Youth Centre of Research Excellence. Available via https://www.why. org.au/ Accessed 10 August 2020 WHO (2018) Engaging young people for health and sustainable development. Strategic opportunities for the World Health Organization. World Health Organisation. Available via https://www.who.int/life-course/ publications/engaging-young-people-for-health-andsustainable-development/en/ WHO (2020) Young voices count. World Health Organisation. Available via https://www.who.int/life-course/part ners/global-strategy/youngvoicescount/en/. Accessed 16 July 2020 WVI (2019) Putting people at the centre of the data revolution. The case for citizen-generated data for SDG accountability. World Vision International. Available via https://www.wvi.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/ The%20Case%20for%20Citizen%20Generated% 20Data%20for%20SDG%20Accountability%20final. pdf. Accessed 16 July 2020 Zaballos AG, Iglesias E, Adamowicz A (2018) The impact of digital infrastructure on the sustainable development goals. A study for selected Latin American and Caribbean Countries. Available via https://publications.iadb. org/publications/english/document/The_Impact_of_ Digital_Infrastructure_on_the_Sustainable_Develop ment_Goals_A_Study_for_Selected_Latin_Ameri can_and_Caribbean_Countries_en_en.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2020 Zeinali Z, Bluc B, Lal A, van Daalen KR, CampbellLendru D, Ezzine T et al (2020) A roadmap for intergenerational leadership in planetary health. Lancet Planet Health 4(8):E306–E308. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S2542-5196(20)30171-6

I

588

Innovation Systems for Sustainability ▶ Role of Science, Technology, and Innovation Towards SDGS

Institutional Coherence ▶ Systemic Issues and Multi-stakeholders Partnerships for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability Samara da Silva Neiva1 and Rafael Gustavo Lima2 1 Center of Sustainable Development/Research Centre on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability (Greens), University of Southern Santa Catarina (UNISUL), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil 2 Centre for Sustainable Development/Research Group on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability (Greens), Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil

Synonyms Sustainable governance; Urban governance

Definition Institutional theory and city council as a driver for urban sustainability explains the theoretical condition of an arrangement of sustainable governance, at the city level, with policies and indicators that allow a better quality of life for the population in the economic, environmental, and social dimensions, in addition to promoting a set of institutionalized theoretical approaches, in that knowledge about urban sustainability and

Innovation Systems for Sustainability

technologies related to city planning can be applied in municipal practices to all citizens.

Introduction The 17th United Nations sustainable development objective foresees, among its goals, the search for multisectoral partnerships between economic and political agents that integrate society. From it that comes the need for such an objective to reinforce the global partnership for sustainable development, in order to mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources, and to reinforce, through multisectoral partnerships, support for the achievement of sustainable development objectives in all countries, particularly in developing countries (United Nations 2020). So, and in the sense of defining this theoretical contribution, institutional theory and city council as a driver for urban sustainability explains the theoretical condition of an arrangement of sustainable governance, at the city level, with policies and indicators that allow a better quality of life for the population in the economic, environmental, and social dimensions, in addition to promoting a set of institutionalized theoretical approaches, in that knowledge about urban sustainability and technologies related to city planning can be applied in municipal practices to all citizens. In order to advance, it is necessary that municipal strategies such as city councils can encourage and promote public, public–private partnerships, and with civil society, based on the experience of strategies to mobilize resources of these partnerships. Thus, to understand institutional theory and the city council as drivers of urban sustainability, this chapter seeks to present and identify the concepts of institutional theory, with an example of this for the international system that is recognized as a field in which there is no clear hierarchy, and to present a literature review on governance and urban sustainability.

The Bases of Institutional Theory The institutional theory effort comprises the idea that public or private organizations need to

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability

convince their target audience that they are legitimate entities and that they deserve support. In this sense, these organizations survive and feedback socially. According to Carvalho et al. (2017), to gain the necessary legitimacy, organizations create perpetual symbols, ceremonial activities, and stories. By legitimacy, it is understood the recognition of all the actors involved (companies, civil society organizations, governments, etc.) for a determined joint action that supports one or more of these actors in the leadership of the actions proposed for a specific topic addressed by those involved, that is, in the leadership of socio-organizational management (Biesenthal et al. 2018). Hence, institutional theory becomes an important tool in understanding the adoption and diffusion of sustainability initiatives, shaping institutional structures and interaction with stakeholders, in order to encourage the adoption of socially responsible behaviors at the local and regional level, reconfiguring behaviors at the individual and organizational level (Yawar and Kauppi 2018). The institutional theory can be understood as a continuation and extension of the intellectual revolution that began in the 1960s, which started to recognize the significant organizational effects as products of the interaction of cultural and social forces, in a conjunction that conformed the concept of institutional environment (Carvalho et al. 2017). Thus, the institutional theory confirms a social construction deeply embedded in history, in which institutions become the “rules of the game” that govern the social exchanges carried out by individuals and organizations. In this sense, the question of legitimacy, that is, the management of socio-organizational credibility becomes a central element of institutional theory (Biesenthal et al. 2018). Altayar (2018) identifies three pillars in institutional theory, namely, the regulatory pillar, the normative pillar, and the cultural-cognitive pillar. The regulatory pillar emphasizes the importance of regulatory processes, which include the definition of rules, monitoring, and sanction activities in relation to the way institutions work and work. This pillar defines the basic operating conditions of the institutional environment and provides parameters to support the normative pillar, since

589

it emphasizes social obligation, values, and normative rules regarding the adoption of new structures. The third, cultural-cognitive pillar focuses on the role of shared values that represent the nature of social reality, how meanings are constructed and created and their way of reproducing in the proposed institutional environment (Altayar 2018). In addition to the above, Zimmerman et al. (2017) establishes that the essence of institutional theory involves organizations that generally operate in environments of great concern to their constituents, so that there is considerable effort by the participants to demonstrate consistency or loyalty to the fundamental values of the proposed organizational environment. In addition, such concern often constitutes a facade for what the author considers to be an almost invisible and inconsistent reality with these manifestations, allowing to denounce a distance between the discourse and the effective practice of the participants.

The Institutional Theory Applied to the International System A practical conception of institutional theory comprises the international notion that is related to the institutional capacity of relationship when the actors involved are the national states (Pourchot and Stivachtis 2014; Schrobback and Meath 2020). Such a conception is useful insofar as it can be observed how the theory fits into practice in an institutional environment hostile to the hierarchy, where the actors (national states) are not, by their nature, submitted to each other, so that it is exactly the quality of the institutional rules coordinated among the participants, which gives the tone of cordiality (or not) of the proposed and experienced institutional environment. Such application of institutionalism in the international environment is useful here as the institutional environment of cities is loaded with its theoretical premises, although it admits a higher level of hierarchy and coordination of governance, as will be discussed in later sessions. Institutional theory argues that interested parties are able to put pressure on organizations through their ability to guarantee legitimacy,

I

590

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability

which is understood as a process by which an organization or a state justifies its right to peers or an organized system (Schrobback and Meath 2020). When exposing the main elements of institutionalism, at the systemic level of understanding international relations, Milner (2009) assesses four key points in his analysis: (1) the emphasis on nonstate actors, international institutions, and other actors in international society and the possible hues found there; (2) forms of power beyond military force and threats; (3) the role of interdependence beyond anarchy in the international system; and (4) the importance of cooperation and conflict in international politics. For Pourchot and Stivachtis (2014), an international society exists when a group of states, aware of certain common interests and values, are bound by a common set of rules in their relations with each other and share the work of common institutions. In this same sense, the capacity for action that is proposed by the SDG17 is understood when it suggests as a goal to increase the coherence of policies for sustainable development between countries, in the item systemic relations (United Nations 2020). Milner (2009) cites the large number of international institutions created in the last thirty years as a way of assessing their importance in governance arrangements that, since then, interact with states. Here also comes the question of interdependence between the different actors, in order to corroborate the idea that asymmetric relations between states can have the help of efficient nongovernmental actors – to the point of reducing transaction costs in the search for public goods shared internationally (Geels 2020; Milner 2009). Hence the importance that Milner (2009) gives to interdependence in the anarchic international system and to the role of cooperation condensed in international institutions, in the coordination of conflict resolution. For Geels (2020), it is clear that institutional theory emphasizes that organizations operate not only in economic environments but also in institutional environments, but it is important to say that in the latter organizations compete for social aptitude and not for economic efficiency. Thus, the selection criterion for social adequacy is

adequacy or legitimacy, which is defined as a generalized perception or assumption that an entity’s actions are desirable, appropriate or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. Legitimacy influences reputations, operating license, and access to capital and government support structured in broad coordination movements, as can be seen in order to establish partnerships, through the SDG 17 (Geels 2020; United Nations 2020). Such movements of coordination, cooperation, and interdependence touch on the theme of sustainability and sustainable development insofar as the most diverse international actors add up efforts (or not) in obtaining effective responses, but also practices to face situations related to the scarcity of material resources and the unsustainability of processes that degrade the environment in which economic systems and societies operate. For Vogler (2011), the current use and degradation of the planet’s resources are unsustainable and are closely linked to the processes of globalization. Such processes of globalization operate within an institutional environment, as an institution, or formal structure, does not just conform as a standard property but also as a mutual process. An important council of institutional theory and institutionalization, defined as a central process in the creation and perpetuation of long-lasting social groups, as in the case of two states in an international environment, especially exposed to the need for partnership between their actors, as suggested by SDG17 (Zhang 2020; Nite et al. 2019).

Building Institutions in the International Interdependence Environment Milner (2009) indicates how regimes and institutions can help the development of international practices that bring mutual benefits to the actors, and especially to the states. It is always valid to reinforce, institutions are not only entities/entities, but also “agreements, mutual combinations,” hence why an entity like the UN is an institution, as well as a currency (euro, dollar, etc.) is also an

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability

institution, that is, something instituted, an institute between two or more parties involved. As a theoretical paradigm, institutional theory encounters limitations, as time has caused behavioral changes in the actors to change the dynamics of power among them: the case of the phenomenon of recent terrorism that raises the individual’s potential in the face of state power, an example of how the behavior of a certain actor (individual) changes the posture of another (state). Similarly, but with less immediacy, it is the case of the theme of sustainability in world economies that are gradually being pressured by international agencies, organized civil society at the international level, and/or by social actors with only internal coverage, as in the case of two objectives of sustainable development, proposals by the United Nations. Example is the goal do SDG17 that seeks to promote or develop, transfer, disseminate and disseminate environmentally sound technologies for developing countries (United Nations 2020). In the light of institutionalist theory, Keohane and Nye (1988), with a great capacity to capture the demands for an international regime linked to the integrated dimensions of sustainability, talk about realistic theoretical trends about their vision/perception regarding the panorama of the relations scenario and draw a parallel that shapes the perception of an institutional theory of complex interdependence. Among the characteristics indicated in this institutional theory applied to the national states, Keohane and Nye (1988) point out that it is no longer possible to divide international issues as was done until then: high and low politics. According to the authors, the first encompasses all military issues directly and indirectly and the low policy was reserved for the subjects they treated with “lesser importance,” issues of a social, ecological, economic nature, etc. Thus, as characteristics of complex interdependence, Keohane and Nye (1988) point out the “multiple channels” – permanent contact channels of an interstate, transgovernmental, and/or transnational nature; the “multiple agenda” – a kind of “agenda” of international affairs to which states and international organizations pay attention; and minimizing the importance of “military strength”

591

in the face of complex interdependence. Example of the conformation of multiple agenda materializes when the United Nations launches the 2030 Agenda, with the 17 sustainable development goals (United Nations 2020). In the matter of multiple channels, it is interesting to note that Keohane and Nye’s (1988) theory does not rule out realistic theory, but encompasses it when it infers that there are other relationships besides those that occur exclusively between states. In this theory, the relations of organisms hitherto ignored on the international scene by which the realists are highlighted, such as transnational relations – and it goes further: by still exposing transgovernmental relations, the theory indicates that states do not always act in favor of a single face (that of a single, constant, predictable state in their choices), but take positions and decisions according to the design of their temporary governments, whether they are democratic, theocratic, or any other. In this sense, entities are influenced by the networks, fields, and societies in which they operate, in a process called “institutional contexts.” Some are more susceptible to various pressures from these institutional contexts than others, especially those who do not have a high status in a given conjunctural scenario or related to a particular institutional arrangement (Nite et al. 2019). The multiple agenda, in turn, defines the nonhierarchy of issues in vogue in international relations, and more than that, it is, based on this assumption, the crucial element for the understanding that international security no longer occupies a prominent place in this agenda and not only fails to shine at the top of international issues, but is equalized or even minimized in the face of different issues, as occurs with the recent phenomenon of the theme of sustainable development guided by the United Nations in a discussion that takes countries to a new global agenda post2015 (United Nations 2020). Finally, the question of minimizing military force in relation to other international agendas is part of the analysis of the theory of interdependence, which reinforces what has already been exposed, that is, there is an increase in the relative importance of other issues on the agendas of states and others international

I

592

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability

actors – the latter in a special way, since they do not show concern for the survival of national states. This is not part of a theory that distances itself from practice, on the contrary, the evidence of this in the international context becomes empirical when internal and external policies are increasingly mixed and issues such as regulation of policies involve the environment and control of technologies that take the attention of all, or at least, the majority of the international cast (Virutamasen et al. 2015). As an analytical concept, interdependence is characterized by mutual, reciprocal effects between certain actors. It is true that, if there is any degree of interdependence, there is an implicit cost to be assumed. Be it social, economic, environmental, military, or of any other kind, Keohane and Nye (1988) affirm that the costs (and consequently, the interdependence itself) are not necessarily of equal intensity among the interrelated actors. Therefore, in the asymmetry of costs, in the imbalance of an interdependent relationship, that the power of influence of certain actors stands out before others and tensions are generated in the international arena; it is this asymmetry that causes one country to “discipline” itself against the will of another and that sometimes encourages states to adopt positions based on pressure from international nongovernmental organizations. Such discipline, in terms of power, is achieved by one actor in relation to another when the former controls directly or (more often) indirectly the results to be achieved or desired by the latter (Virutamasen et al. 2015; Geels 2020; Nite et al. 2019). Hamilton (2003) in this same sense, but when citing the influence of civil society at a global level, indicates that the alternative to be fostered amid the complex interdependence of the actors as proposed by Keohane and Nye (1988) links material need and ethical objectives for freedom and the strengthening of citizens’ participation and power. Hamilton (2003) indicates that global transactions, institutions, and regional practices affect local resources, conditions, and possibilities, and in this way affect the assessment and satisfaction of local needs, but care must be

taken with the transposition of certain solutions to the world level so that conflicts are avoided (Hamilton 2003; Nite et al. 2019).

Institutional Arrangements to Consolidate Governance It is important to evaluate that flexible channels of dialogue and information exchange are established in the promotion of sustainability at a global level, especially focused on the potential partnerships raised by the SDG 17, which consequently indicates the care not to transform regional demands into impractical “global solutions” in formation of a practical institutional framework (United Nations 2020). The power of interdependence is further evaluated by Keohane and Nye (1988) from two dimensions that bring the theory closer to practice: sensitivity works with the idea of time/speed that a specific practical action entails for a specific actor, and also intensity/size, the quantified notion of the extent to which such an action has the potential to spread – in the latter case, it is interesting to imagine actions that have contagion effects. The second dimension is vulnerability, which boils down to the degree of resistance to an external action and also to the cost that such action will cause in case the internal resistances are insufficient to prevent its “damage.” Keohane and Nye (1988) cite that vulnerability is an interesting factor when analyzing the political structure of a state and its behavior in the face of the relations it wages in terms of interdependence with other actors – in this light, this factor is more important that sensitivity, which in the end is characterized by being a prevention thermometer, critical presituation. For Keohane and Nye (1988), the institutional theory of complex interdependence is rich when it explores the fact of promoting a number of relevant international discussions, and simultaneously uninterrupted and gradually accelerated by information/communication technology. Another important dimension of the theory is that it becomes accessible to everyone, rich or poor, big or small, weak or strong, and not just

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability

to statesmen or diplomats, as long as they do it in an organized way, as seen with the effort to organize civil society around specific demands (Comyns 2018; Lewis et al. 2018). The theory of complex interdependence takes into account that in a multicultural and expressive diverse world, a single model is unable to attend to understand it; it is necessary, therefore, that there be a combination of characteristics that come from specific approaches for the analysis of a given real situation in order to fully understand it (Virutamasen et al. 2015; Zhang 2020). One of the challenges of interdependence as a theory is the fine line that separates the analysis, with all the measurable dimension of the theory, from the reductionist, simplistic, and sometimes fallacious and manipulative rhetoric that the study inevitably brings. For Moravcsik (1997), the institutional theory, referred to by him as liberal theory, is useful to analyze international regimes, organized and identifiable systems of interstate governance, to know which groups influence more than others and to evaluate preferences according to the internal point of view of states. In this sense, although the focus of Keohane and Nye (1988) is multidimensional, that is, even if it mixes aspects of structural realism in their conception, it is interesting to realize that there are similarities and differences between the focus of both authors and that they lead the understanding of how an international regime related to sustainability can be built not only by states, but also by international actors who can direct their behavior (Pourchot and Stivachtis 2014; Zhang 2020; Schrobback and Meath 2020). For similarities between Moravcsik (1997) and Keohane and Nye (1988) the case of preferences can be mentioned; it is true that the structure and the actors participate in a context that helps in the creation of these preferences, but the authors give preferences the main credit when evaluating the behavior of states, that is, it is the preferences of states that determine their behavior (the internal point of view is quite relevant in relation to the external). Still in relation to the interface with institutional theory, the multiplicity of international actors’ agendas ends up meeting the fact that

593

governance regimes are normally conducted to solve certain problems (Breitmeier et al. 2006; Pourchot and Stivachtis 2014). The incentive to create specific regimes arises in connection with efforts to resolve relatively defined problems, as is the case with issues related to international monetary relations or maritime relations, among others (Nite et al. 2019). In addition, there are cases in which key actors disagree about the nature or importance of the problem (as it does to some extent on issues related to the environment) or have diverging views on how the problem evolves or changes over time (Breitmeier et al. 2006; Pourchot and Stivachtis 2014). As criteria for the identification of institutional theory, Moravcsik (1997) highlights that among the main authors there is a high degree of parsimony, coherence, empirical investigation, and multicausal consistency. When commenting specifically on the main ideas of the theory, the author basically cites three themes: (1) the primacy of social actors, in which individuals and private groups/companies are mentioned as fundamental actors in international politics, who in turn are impelled to act because of their material and intellectual well-being; (2) the representation of state preferences, which makes the state not an actor, but an institution representing several unitary preferences – this institution always has a position, on the one hand, unitary, unifying, conjugating and on the other hand, a position of breakdown with different institutions (courts, executives, unions, central banks, regulatory bureaucracies, etc.); and (3) interdependence in the international system, with the idea that the sum of political externalities (effects/consequences) caused by states ends up guiding the relations between them and constrains or encourages certain actions in the midst of international politics. Here it is worth remembering the importance of social institutions that do not perform normative functions in the state system, but that also interact with the system and with state actors in order to redirect their policies (United Nations 2020). Discussions with Stockholm 72, Eco 92, and Rio + 20, which had a wide participation of this type of international actors, played relevant

I

594

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability

roles to consolidate the debates about the need to integrate economic, social, and environmental demands as they are currently treated (Pourchot and Stivachtis 2014; Schrobback and Meath 2020). Thus, the contribution of the institutionalist theory of international relations goes through the need that this area of knowledge, traditionally composed of states, essentially requires the ability of the actors to establish a minimally acceptable environment for the use of their influences, since the hierarchy does not present, notably requiring governance systems to be implemented in international arrangements, as is the case of those who can be fostered by the multisectoral partnerships proposed by the SDG targets 17 (United Nations 2020). Starting from the international conception that helps the observation of theoretical premises of institutionalism and starting to observe these premises more objectively in the urban environment, it will be possible to consider that such an environment already considers, in plan, a condition of cultural homogeneity and a similar modus operandi among the actors, which is not necessarily seen in the international environment. Hence, institutionalism, when applied by city councils, can more objectively guide the goals it intends to promote in practice and, thus, foster the SDG17, institutionally and internationally consensual partnerships as useful and profitable for social agents in countries and cities around the world, the globe.

Urban Governance and Sustainability Then, having considered the set of premises of the institutional theory, and also, having observed the context of practical application of this theory in international relations, the idea of the city council is considered and the theoretical framework of governance is applied to the regional or local corporate context, at the city level. For that, governance must be considered as the set of government practices that reach the economic, social, and environmental levels of development, since they implement policies that bring benefits to citizens in a broad concept of sustainability.

Thus, governance emerges as a practical effect of the theoretical institutional effort to effectively improve the quality of life of the population, with regard to reducing urban problems (Delina and Sovacool 2018). In this way, governance is constituted as the propitious organizational environment to require adequate legal structures and efficient politicaladministrative processes to enable local government responses to citizens, being considered as inclusive, long term, multilevel, territorial, proficient, and conscious (UN HABITAT 2019). Thus, the terms “urban governance” and “legislation” are responsible for promoting the success of cities, as they create laws, combinations, regulations, institutions, and processes, in addition to serving as a kind of lever to optimize the social function of prosperity and promoting the balance between rights and private/business assets. In this same sense, institutions and regulations can revitalize rights and expand the public domain, in addition to empowering a city with regard to the quality of shared spaces and available facilities, providing a greater degree of prosperity for the community, that is, promoting the intended urban sustainability at the institutional level (Thornbush et al. 2013). Based on the recognition of the critical role that governance plays, including informally, proponents of the institutional environment can help to focus and coordinate different efforts to build a sustainable city that guarantees the quality of urban life, transforming basic quantitative measures, such as number of beds in hospitals, in real qualitative changes, and the effective expansion of the perception of health and human care, influencing the understanding of sustainable development (Klopp and Petretta 2017). Governance, then, goes beyond decision-making in its linear form of political interventions designed to achieve predetermined political objectives, since it operates within a regulatory or institutional framework continuously adapted to available knowledge or emerging urban circumstances. That is why the monitoring of sustainable development, in its social, economic, and environmental dimensions, is an important element in maintaining the institutional environment

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability

managed by the governance of the actors involved, in addition to supporting the evaluation of the intervention of common or experimental policies in the individual’s urban life and of organizations (Pupphachai and Zuidema 2017). For this sense of practical intervention, political and institutional actions in the municipality have great catalytic potential, both for national and global changes. Municipal governments have a great advantage in relation to national governments, since the former have a direct relationship with their constituents (citizens), in addition to being inserted in the same geographical conditions and in the same urban context since all decisions taken can influence directly in the ecosystem (Bai et al. 2016). In other words, governance is also responsible for the organization and articulation of the entire political-administrative system, although some levels of governance, such as national governance, are more abstract than the municipal institutional level, since this impacts directly and immediately the citizen’s life (Programa Cidades Sustentáveis 2019). In addition, through its synthesis contribution, governance summarizes a participatory approach that facilitates participants in an organizational environment the available and recognizable options, guiding multiple decision contexts, needs, and preferences of governance actors in relation to the coordinated adoption and implementation of actions that consolidate a shared structure of values among all those involved (Koopmans et al. 2018). Having understood how institutional theory evolves into the practice of urban governance, it is necessary to address sustainability in the urban environment. In this sense, it is important to consider cities as a community that is under a certain administrative boundary, normally referred to as a city, municipality, or local government (ABNT 2017). Different in size, number of inhabitants, ideologies, cultures, or structure, it is useful to evaluate them by their characteristics that define them equally (Sofeska 2016). The concept of sustainable cities or communities began to be developed on the international stage around 1996, at the second UN conference on human settlement in Istanbul (Satterthwaite

595

1997). For Ribeiro et al. (2018), the expression “sustainable cities” requires a commitment to seek effective improvement in the quality of urban life, ensuring that the basic needs of the entire population are met, in the social, economic, and environmental dimensions. Cheshmehzangi (2016) indicates that sustainable cities have a very broad nature and treat ecological and environmental protection, urban economic development, and the improvement of the population’s quality of life with the same intensity. In addition, it stresses the importance of combining terms such as “eco,”, “green,” “resilient,” “low carbon,” and “smart” as a possibility to better achieve the sustainable goals of a city. Ibrahim et al. (2018) show in their studies that in order to be considered sustainable, urban centers need to meet the basic needs of the city and its inhabitants in terms of infrastructure, civic amenities, housing, education, transportation, health and medical care, good governance, and employment, so that the entire population, regardless of social class, benefits from a continuous service network. Finally, Aina (2017) also indicates that the creation of sustainable cities requires intervention, both in development and in human capital, in the protection of the environment and in economic advances, suggesting by intervention, an essential condition of the triple bottom line of sustainability. Some authors as Martos et al. (2016) show in their studies that urban centers should not only seek methods to mitigate their effects on the environment but also become spaces that promote a better quality of life for their citizens through active participation in the development of means to satisfy their needs in a sustainable way. Thus, one of the main challenges of a city that seeks an organizational environment directed towards sustainability is the maximization of energy efficiency and material resources, in which a zero waste system can be foreseen. To this end, supporting renewable energy consumption and production practices, encouraging zero-carbon and pollution reduction initiatives, in addition to promoting the use of sustainable transport – especially for nonmotorized vehicles, such

I

596

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability, Fig. 1 Sustainable urban governance transition

as cycling – are part of a broad policy of urban governance that consider the promotion of environmental preservation, emphasize practices of spatial proximity and design scalability, and effectively promote the composition of sustainable communities (Bibri and Krogstie 2017). In this way, it is possible to return to the definition of urban governance and sustainability considering that the institutions (entities/organizations and also the mutually agreed formal or informal agreements) can be described according to the Fig. 1 (Lima 2014; Neiva 2019). In this, it is possible to consider that three cumulative institutional moments in time: (1) a moment in which the actors understand each other individually and operate with only a few other actors, not being possible to interact with everyone on the same common basis of consensus; (2) a moment when the actors are already able to build and interact on a common basis of consensus, with a considerable degree of universality, but without such clear objectives and directions; and (3) when the actors interact with all the others, under a consensual institutional framework and with objectives that can direct each of the actors systemically; all of this in the midst of a broader institutional environment, fostered by larger principles, universally shared. Thus, it is possible to consider that, at the urban level, for moment 1 there are only private agents, acting separately within the range that is possible for them; moment 2 gives rise to joint structures such as city councils and all sorts of public organizations capable of

facilitating an institutional system common to all; and moment 3, when all agents (public and private) consider the institutional premises internationally constructed, as is the case with the 17 sustainable development goals proposed by the United Nations at the international level, but carried out by a sustainable urban governance, based on in the concerns of the triple bottom line (economic, environmental, and social dimensions): Thus, sustainable cities need to achieve a dynamic balance between the goals of economic, social, and environmental development, culturally deepened in a local governance system, which is characterized by the involvement of all citizens in a common institutional environment (Pittman et al. 2019). For de Andrade et al. (2017), the development of sustainable cities is not only related to environmental issues but mainly related to a governance arrangement, with policies and indicators that allow a better quality of life for the population. This illustrates why Bibri (2018) states that sustainable cities can be understood as a set of institutionalized theoretical approaches, in which knowledge about urban sustainability and technologies related to city planning can be applied in practice.

Conclusion In order to understand the institutional theory and the city council as a driver for urban sustainability, this research sought to identify how the

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability

institutional theory, with its applications for the international system, fits the idea of the city council (governance) for the consolidation of urban sustainability. Thus, it was observed that institutional theory effort comprises the idea that public or private organizations need to convince their target audience that they are legitimate entities and that they deserve support, that is, they are effectively recognized in the social areas in which they operate. In addition, it was noted that sustainable cities need to achieve a dynamic balance between the goals of economic, social, and environmental development, which is in line with the 17th United Nations sustainable development goal when it provides, among its goals, the search for multisectoral partnerships between economic and political agents that integrate society. Thus, in order to produce the partnerships fostered by the SDG 17, it is necessary to deepen culturally the local governance systems, characterized by the involvement of all citizens in a common institutional environment and recognized by all. Finally, mobilizing and sharing knowledge, experience, technology, and financial resources in favor of multisectoral partnerships amid a common institutional environment (governance) in a city is the foundation of SDG 17 for the achievement of sustainable development, having the institutional theory and city council as a driver for urban sustainability.

Cross-References ▶ Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

References ABNT (2017) NBR ISO 37120. http://www.abntcatalogo. com.br/norma.aspx?ID¼366389. Accessed 16 Apr 2020

597

Aina YA (2017) Achieving smart sustainable cities with Geo ICT support: the Saudi evolving smart cities. Cities 71:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.07.007 Altayar MS (2018) Motivations for open data adoption: an institutional theory perspective. Gov Inf Q 35:633–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq. 2018.09.006 Andrade JBSOG, Pereira Ribeiro JM, Fernandez F, Bailey C, Barbosa SB, da Silva Neiva S (2017) Reprint of: the adoption of strategies for sustainable cities: a comparative study between Newcastle and Florianópolis focused on urban mobility. J Clean Prod 163:S209–S222. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.142 Bai X, Surveyer A, Elmqvist T, Gatzweiler FW, Güneralp B, Parnell S, . . . & Toussaint JP (2016) Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainable cities. Curr Opin Env Sustain 23:69–78 Bibri S (2018) A foundational framework for smart sustainable city development: theoretical, disciplinary, and discursive dimensions and their synergies. Sustain Cities Soc 38:758–794. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.032. Elsevier BV, [s.l.] Bibri SE, Krogstie J (2017) Smart sustainable cities of the future: an extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustain Cities Soc 31:183–212. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.016. Elsevier BV, [s.l.] Biesenthal C, Clegg S, Mahalingam A, Sankaran S (2018) Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects. Int J Proj Manag 36(1):43–54. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.006 Breitmeier H, Young OR, Zurn M (2006) Analyzing international environmental regimes: from case study to database. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Carvalho ADP, da Cunha SK, de Lima LF, Carstens DD (2017) The role and contributions of sociological institutional theory to the socio-technical approach to innovation theory. RAI Rev Admin Inov 14(3):250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2017.02.001 Cheshmehzangi A (2016) City enhancement beyond the notion of “Sustainable City”: introduction to integrated assessment for city enhancement (iACE) toolkit. Energy Procedia 104:153–158. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.egypro.2016.12.027 Comyns B (2018) Climate change reporting and multinational companies: insights from institutional theory and international business. Account Forum 42(1):65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2017.07.003 de Lima RG (2014) A contribuição dos institutos de ciência e tecnologia para a formação de um regime internacional de sustentabilidade. Dissertação (Mestrado) – Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro Sócio Econômico, Programa de Pós-graduação em Relações Internacionais, Florianópolis. 248p Delina LL, Sovacool BK (2018) Of temporality and plurality: an epistemic and governance agenda for accelerating just transitions for energy access and sustainable development. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 34:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.05.016

I

598

Institutional Theory and City Council as a Driver for Urban Sustainability

Geels FW (2020) Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 152:119894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2019.119894 Hamilton L (2003) Civil society: critique and alternative. In: Laxer G, Halperin S (eds) Global civil society and its limits. Palgrave Macmillan, London Ibrahim M, El-Zaart A, Adams C (2018) Smart sustainable cities roadmap: readiness for transformation towards urban sustainability. Sustain Cities Soc 37:530–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.10. 008. Elsevier BV, [s.l.] Keohane RO, Nye J (1988) Poder e Interdependência. La política mundial en transición. Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires Klopp JM, Petretta DL (2017) The urban sustainable development goal: indicators, complexity and the politics of measuring cities. Cities 63:92–97. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cities.2016.12.019. Elsevier BV, [s.l.] Koopmans ME et al (2018) The role of multi-actor governance in aligning farm modernization and sustainable rural development. J Rural Stud 59:252–262. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.03.012 Lewis AC, Cardy RL, Huang LSR (2018) Institutional theory and HRM: a new look. Hum Resour Manag Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.07.006 Martos A, Pacheco-Torres R, Ordóñez J, Jadraque-Gago E (2016) Towards successful environmental performance of sustainable cities: intervening sectors. A review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 57:479–495. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.095 Milner HV (2009) Power, interdependence, and nonstate actors in world politics. Research frontiers. In: Milner HV, Moravcsik A (eds) Power, interdependence, and nonstate actors in world politics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 3–27 Moravcsik A (1997) Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics. Int Organ 51 (4):513–553 Neiva SS (2019) A percepção do legislativo municipal sobre a implantação de cidades sustentáveis. Dissertação (Mestrado) – Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina, Programa de Pós-graduação em Administração, Florianópolis. 262p Nite C, Hutchinson M, Bouchet A (2019) Toward an institutional theory of escalation of commitment within sport management: a review and future directions. Sport Manag Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr. 2019.01.006 Pittman SJ, Rodwell LD, Shellock RJ, Williams M, Attrill MJ, Bedford J, . . . Rees SE (2019) Marine parks for coastal cities: a concept for enhanced community well-being, prosperity and sustainable city living. Mar Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol. 2019.02.012 Pourchot G, Stivachtis YA (2014) International society and regional integration in Central Asia. J

Eurasian Stud 5(1):68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. euras.2013.09.001 Programa Cidades Sustentáveis (2019) Governança. 2018f. Retrieved from: http://www.cidadessus tentaveis.org.br/eixos/governan%C3%A7a. Accessed 16 Apr 2020 Pupphachai U, Zuidema C (2017) Sustainability indicators: a tool to generate learning and adaptation in sustainable urban development. Ecol Indic 72:784– 793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.09.016. Elsevier BV, [s.l.] Ribeiro JMP et al (2018) The adoption of strategies for sustainable cities: a comparative study between Seattle and Florianopolis legislation for energy and water efficiency in buildings. J Clean Prod 197:366–378. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.176 Satterthwaite D (1997) Sustainable cities or cities that contribute to sustainable development? Urban Stud 34(10):1667–1691. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0042098975394. Out. 1997. SAGE, [s.l.] Schrobback P, Meath C (2020) Corporate sustainability governance: insight from the Australian and New Zealand port industry. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120280 Sofeska E (2016) Relevant factors in sustainable urban development of urban planning methodology and implementation of concepts for sustainable planning (Planning Documentation for the Master Plan Skopje 2001–2020). Procedia Environ Sci 34:140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016. 0 4.014. Elsevier BV, [s.l.] Thornbush M, Golubchikov O, Bouzarovski S (2013) Sustainable cities targeted by combined mitigation– adaptation efforts for future-proofing. Sustain Cities Soc 9:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2013.01.003. Elsevier BV, [s.l.] UN HABITAT (2019) Global city report. Retrieved from https://unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02-old/ CPI_2015%20Global%20City%20Report.com pressed.pdf. Accessed 16 Apr 2020 United Nations (2020) Brazil. ODS-17. Retrieved from https://nacoesunidas.org/pos2015/ods17/. Accessed 30 Apr 2020 Virutamasen P, Wongpreedee K, Kumnungwut W (2015) Strengthen brand association through SE: institutional theory revisited. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 195:192–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.348 Vogler J (2011) Environmental issues. In: Baylis J, Smith S, Owens P (eds) The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York. 636p. ISBN 9780199569090 Yawar SA, Kauppi K (2018) Understanding the adoption of socially responsible supplier development practices using institutional theory: dairy supply chains in India. J Purch Supply Manag 24(2):164–176. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pursup.2018.02.001 Zhang M (2020) Rational actions or institutional actions: a study on the rationality in academic librarians’ decision-making processes when purchasing e-book

Intercultural Responsibility products. Libr Inf Sci Res 101018. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.lisr.2020.101018 Zimmerman AB, Fogarty TJ, Jonas GA (2017) Is accounting an applied discipline? An institutional theory assessment of the value of faculty accounting-related work experience in the academic labor market. J Account Educ 41:33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jaccedu.2017.09.005

599

Intercultural Responsibility: Critical Inter-epistemic Dialog and Equity for Sustainable Development Manuela Guilherme Centro de Estudos Sociais, Universidade de Coimbra, Lisbon, Portugal

Integrative Governance Synonyms ▶ Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

Intellectual Property Rights for Agricultural Products ▶ Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Intercontinental Collaboration ▶ Strengthening International Partnership to Support Higher Education Institutions

Intercultural (Communicative) Competence ▶ Intercultural Responsibility: Critical Inter-epistemic Dialog and Equity for Sustainable Development

Intercultural Ethics ▶ Intercultural Responsibility: Critical Inter-epistemic Dialog and Equity for Sustainable Development

Critical intercultural citizenship; Intercultural (Communicative) Competence; Intercultural ethics; Social and political commitment

I Definition Intercultural responsibility (IR) calls for a shared commitment to solidarity, critical cooperation, and respectful dialog across different languages, cultures, epistemologies, and ethical principles. It rejects cultural relativism or absolutism as well as socially neglectful individualism, instead it enhances common, active, and responsible agency that respects individual freedom, community rights, animal care, and Mother Nature. It encompasses an urgent call for everybody’s action toward the planet’s healthy well-being and peaceful prosperity for its inhabitants through integrated solutions which make development more sustainable through knowledgesharing and reciprocal responsible cooperation. IR demands democratic and mutually responsive capacity building through critical intercultural citizenship education and challenging pedagogical discourses which stimulate value building and cognitive equity. It entails, yet asymmetric, multilateral negotiations based on decolonial, social, and cognitive recognition and justice, supporting creative alternative thinking for different possibilities of individual fulfillment, community, and planetary life where plurilingual, intercultural, and interepistemic ecological solutions can be found and questioned.

600

Intercultural Responsibility

The Intercultural Responsibility Background

education and in citizenship education. This is a conceptual asset fundamental to IR.

Intercultural Competence The concept of IR draws from intercultural competence (IC), although it aims to move beyond some merely functional features with which the latter has been granted in some corresponding literature. However, IR takes into account other scholarly work that has awarded IC a more reflexive and critical component. There has been a long list of recent scholarly writings on IC that has broadened the scope of its possible approaches (e.g., Deardorff 2009; Jackson 2012; Bennett 2015) and the term IC came to be an essential term in policy documents concerned with education curriculum management, vocational training, citizenship, and language education but has often tended to adopt a limiting functional approach. On the one hand, some scholars have employed a range of paradigms from social pragmatist to neoliberal and neocolonial, on the grounds of improving commercial relations, hence youth employability and mobility. On the other hand, Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, among others, led research on anxiety/uncertainty management theory, identity negotiation theory, mindfulness theory, face-negotiation theory, intercultural conflict management theory (e.g., Ting-Toomey and Oetzel 2001; Gudykunst 2005) while dealing with intercultural communication. Their work demonstrates a concern for personal and social dignity, within different cultural frameworks of relational patterns while, to some extent, also accounting for power relations in horizontal and vertical social structures. Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998) had previously examined “facework competence in intercultural conflict” which they defined as the capacity to manage “a set of communicative behaviors that people use to regulate their social dignity and to support or challenge the other’s social dignity” (p. 188). Byram took a step further and introduced an important element to his intercultural communicative competence framework, which he called “critical cultural awareness” (1997, 2008), with followers (e.g., Guilherme 2002) giving way to critical pedagogy in language and culture

ICOPROMO – Intercultural Competence for Professional Mobility The notion of intercultural responsibility was introduced, for the first time, in the conceptual matrix that resulted from the theoretical–practical development of the EC (European Commission)ICOPROMO project (Intercultural Competence for Professional Mobility), which comprehended 8 axes, one of them being IR. This project responded to the goals of the Leonardo da Vinci program which was mainly dedicated to education and vocational training, and more particularly to Action 2 (2000–2006) objectives which targeted youth employability and mobility. Therefore, it aimed at the creation and the testing of materials for the development of IC which can be consulted at the website (https://www.ces.uc.pt/ces/ icopromo/). IR was then defined as aiming not only to “be able to communicate appropriately and effectively across cultures, but also to dig deeper into the relationships established between people in professional contexts, despite the fact that the relationships themselves are often not profound” (Guilherme et al. 2010: 79). In the meantime, IR earned some international recognition, namely, among the UNESCO’s “intercultural competences,” in a document that singled out IR as one of the terms that “highlight aspects of intercultural competences that otherwise might be ignored” but can “provide important vocabulary permitting examination of specific aspects of intercultural competences worthy of more attention than received to date” (2013: 17). GLOCADEMICS – Glocal Languages and Intercultural Responsibility in a Postcolonial Global Academic World More recently, the concept of IR was incorporated into the Glocademics project (2014–2017) (https:// www.ces.uc.pt/ces/projectos/glocademics/) within a threefold conceptual matrix: (a) glocademics; (b) glocal languages; and (c) intercultural responsibility, developed, both in theory and in practice, according to the praxis of plurilingual, intercultural,

Intercultural Responsibility

and interepistemic transnational research groups. The three elements of the matrix were developed under the shelter of three umbrella themes, with both theoretical and practical inputs, namely: (a) transnational research, (b) intercultural communication and education, and (c) interdisciplinarity. This conceptual framework aimed to stimulate the critical intercultural awareness of transnational research groups. “Glocademics” refers to researchers who respond transnationally to global and local demands of multilevel citizenship engagement, embrace their communities of practice as peer researchers, both transnational research colleagues and research participants, and are committed to the recognition of a wealth of knowledge ecologies, according to the established criteria of eligibility, credibility, and comparability. The glocademics description of IR does not deny the previous Icopromo elaborations on the conceptualization of this term, rather it expands it. However, it is evident that, in both projects, the concept of IR emerged from praxis and it is through action research that it has been theoretically expanded (Guilherme 2020). Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) The European Commission (EC) politicians and policy makers called for scholars’ theoretical support to design a “new” approach of science to societal needs to be implemented under the Horizon 2020 Framework program which came to be entitled “Responsible Research and Innovation.” In 2007, in the Lisbon meeting, the report of the “Science in Society” session (European Commission 2008) points to a “Public Engagement in Science” which proposes to broaden the narrow conceptions of innovation by rooting them in societal contexts. In the following year, the EC publishes a report by an expert group (MASIS) entitled “Challenging Futures of Science in Society: Emerging Trends and Cutting-Edge Issues” (European Commission 2009), where responsible development is geared toward innovation, research governance, and technoscience, regarding the nanotechnologies more specifically. It was in 2013 that the EC issued a report on the “Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) which attempts to define its ruling criteria, considered as the “processes for

601

[its] successful application” as well as the “instruments to encourage RRI” (p. 4). On the whole, the document examines how the concept of RRI can fit the normative framework of the European research and innovation programs having in mind the backcloth of EU 2020 strategy and the Horizon 2020 program. Just afterwards, the Rome Declaration on Responsible Research and Innovation was released (Presidency of the Council of the European Union 2014) where RRI is described as “the on-going process of aligning research and innovation to the values, needs, and expectations of society.” Its first priority is that the ways technology may be accepted, and perhaps endorsed, by the society; secondly, it highlights gender inclusion and finally the stakeholders’ engagement with regard to science in society is also given most importance. All of these primary concerns above include elements considered fundamental for research and innovation excellence, namely, “openness, responsibility, and the coproduction of knowledge.” From then onward, a corpus of knowledge on RRI has been developed. This theoretical background has moved between two conceptual fields – RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) and RI (Responsible Innovation) – which are used interchangeably but which should be considered far from completely identical as the notion of research (RRI) places the emphasis on the process whereas its removal in the phrase (RI) puts the product in the center of the innovation process, which is after all what innovation is eventually all about. It is therefore meaningful that one of the three pillars proposed by the upcoming EC Horizon Europa framework (2021–2027) is precisely “Pillar 3 – Innovative Europe” which entails the creation of the European Innovation Council, European Innovation Ecosystems, and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (https://ec.europa.eu/ info/horizon-europe-next-research-and-innovationframework-programme_en). It is within this framework program, having the whole concept of responsible innovation at the center, that the European Commission intends to respond to the UN Sustainable Goals for Development. According to Stilgoe et al. (2013), although most analyses of RRI, Von Schomberg’s (2013)

I

602

in particular, are “anchored to European policy processes and values,” their view of RI “emerges from a different context” which prompts a “broader definition based on the prospective notion of responsibility described above: Responsible innovation means taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present” (p. 1570). In addition, they single out four “dimensions” in their RI framework, namely: (a) “anticipation,” which implies that researchers are ready to anticipate opportunities for innovation as well as to evaluate the risks involved; (b) “reflexivity,” both from actors and institutions, which supports “openness” and prompts “leadership,” equally relevant for innovation; (c) “inclusion,” pointing to “multistakeholders partnerships”; and, last but not the least, (d) “responsiveness,” which “involves responding to new knowledge . . . [and to] societal challenges”, among others. On the whole, it is expectable that to be responsible entails being responsive; however, not necessarily the other way round, that is, to be responsive does not equal being responsible. Therefore, it is urgent to describe the many possible implications of the RRI approach, that is, responsibility in the context of research and innovation, however, firmly grounded in the intercultural complementarities and contradictions of today (Guilherme 2020).

Different Notions of Responsibility in the Twentieth Century in Europe From the twentieth century European post-war period, mainly in the Franco–German axis, some philosophical scholarships about responsibility have become classic references. It is worth mentioning Arendt, Levinas, and Jonas, in particular. Not only did their work reflect their Jewish condition, in their situation of direct victims of the evil deeds committed during the Holocaust, but it also offered to posterity a new ethics of responsibility, although each one of them highlighted different aspects: our primordial responsibility to and for the other (l’autrui); our responsibility to act in a manner that will insure the existence of future generations of

Intercultural Responsibility responsible beings; our personal responsibility that demands the imaginative ability ‘to think from the standpoint of somebody else,’ to have the courage to exercise our personal reflective judgement when there are no rules to guide us in resisting evil. (Bernstein 2002: 224)

Without being restricted to a particular philosophical school of thought, this approach to the notion of IR aims to engage in a philosophical debate about what the concept can bring in to our contemporary lives. It aims to find out to what extent it can build upon some of the previous debates on the meaning of responsibility as well as on the meaning of the intercultural in contemporaneity, in order to respond to the present challenges (Guilherme 2020a). Hanna Arendt The upsetting “banality of evil” and presumed “superfluousness of human beings,” which impressed Arendt and her readers, although contested by some, are still ever-present in our societies, either through direct hideous crimes or the lack of responsive actions by individuals, groups, governments, and political leaders. Arendt (1951) denounces the sufferings that displaced people, among whom we can nowadays still recognize refugees and illegal immigrants, “to whom the rules of the world around them had ceased to apply” (p. 267) and who are inflicted by the “new arbitrariness of society” from which not even the inalienable Rights of Man, established in the eighteenth century can prevent them (pp. 291–293). The author describes the “homeless,” “stateless” and “rightless” peoples in a condition where they are not even entitled to an opinion, they are “superfluous,” that is, nonexistent, as “the loss of home and of political status become identical with expulsion from humanity altogether” (pp. 295–297). According to Bernstein, “‘plurality’ is the predominant theme in Arendt’s political thinking . . . [which] means much more than ‘otherness’ and ‘difference’” (2002: 212). Arendt views each person developing in plurality and among a plurality of things “which incidentally is the reason why the fashionable search for identity is futile” (ibid.). It is in this plurality that she views responsibility as the “faculty of thinking” that urges us to resistance

Intercultural Responsibility

and action according to our principles. Arendt rejects moral conventions as well as collective responsibility, in the sense of guilt, since you cannot be made responsible for something you have not done. However, she understands collective responsibility in the form of resistance, that is, the refusal to act against conscience, which brings about change and, therefore, turns into political action (Arendt 2003; Williams 1998). Emmanuel Levinas Levinas is perceived as having taken a different approach to an ethics of responsibility through his theory about Responsibility for the Other. However, he explicitly says that his aim “does not consist in constructing ethics” despite the fact that “one can without doubt construct an ethics in the function of . . .” (1985, p. 90). Responsibility for the Other, according to Levinas, is independent from the Other, since “the ethical exigency is not an ontological necessity” (p. 87), it is a priori to the encounter between self and his neighbor, it is neither symmetrical nor reciprocal, but it is disinterested, it is not transferable, irrevocable, or limited (Bernstein 2002; Van der Merwe and De Voss 2008). Responsibility for the Other is “the locus in which is situated the null-site of subjectivity” (1991: 10), where “contact is not an openness upon being, but an exposure of being” (p. 80). Levinas (1985) offers a responsibility for the other that is utterly compassionate and altruistic, which completely erases prejudice, for even subjectivity is to be conceived in ethical terms; nevertheless, it is unaccountable for the Other’s autonomy or assertiveness. The Other is assumed to be weak and vulnerable and, therefore, the “I” is “responsible even for the Other’s responsibility” (1985: 99). Levinas manages to purify every interaction from evil, even without resorting to moral absolutes, totality or any holistic concept of being. He unveils the possibility of a preexisting responsibility for the Other which is assumed to always be there for us, I and Other, each in a predetermined and mutually dependent position. In fact, Levinas could offer a safe haven for the idea of IR, by already shying away from the self-centeredness and totality of being of western philosophy – by putting the “I” at the service of the

603

Other; however, he still remains caught by the dichotomy, a feature of western philosophy (Bernstein 2002: 202). Ultimately, the IR concept intends to move beyond Levinas’ idea of “my” responsibility for the Other since, although it entails indeed an openness of the “I” toward “his neighbor,” on the one hand, it still evidences a closure of “his neighbor” toward the “I,” on the other hand, because the latter, “his neighbor,” is considered irremediably powerless. Hans Jonas Bernstein rightly argues that Jonas moves beyond Levinas’ concept of responsibility in that he claims that responsibility does not only concern our fellow human beings but it also regards the context that makes our life possible, that is, our Mother Nature and other animals (Bernstein 2002). Later in life, Jonas (1984) worked on a new Imperative of Responsibility. He argued for a new foundation for the ethics of responsibility that questions the assumptions of the technological age, mainly ethical neutrality and its anthropocentrism (Bernstein 1994). For Jonas, responsibility is divided into formal and substantive, where the latter entails not only accountability but also empowerment. As a matter of fact, IR is considered as “substantive,” not “formal,” neither legal nor moral, according to Jonas’ categories, since it does not obey to preestablished and fixed norms, but whose patterns of behavior do not offend legal or moral principles of associated partners nor of national or international laws. However, Jonas notes that substantive responsibility has been nonreciprocal and vertical once it responds to a patriarchal model of care (Jonas 1984: 90–98). On the contrary, IR should be perceived as responsibility that is intercultural, which can also be interreligious, as well as reciprocal and horizontal, presupposing intercultural negotiation between empowered and autonomous partners, although still asymmetric which gives Jonas an argument for its nonreciprocity (1984: 94). Noteworthy is Jonas’ main focus on the future which demands a “new ethics of responsibility” considering that human action has strongly changed and is going to change, even more so due to the technological age, on the one hand, and to the increasing “vulnerability of nature,” on the other hand.

I

604

By this, Jonas means “not the ex-post facto account for what has been done, but the forward determination of what is to be done” which implies “feeling responsibility” and, therefore, incorporates “substantive responsibility” instead of a formal, normative one. Yet, he didn’t go as far as he could with regard to countering the patriarchal pattern, according to Bernstein: “Why not recognize – contra Jonas – that there is not a single paradigm or archetype of responsibility?” (Bernstein 1994: 845). While Levinas (1985, 1991) highlights individual responsibility for an Other, Jonas and Arendt (1951, 2003) deal with collective responsibility, although the latter is critical of “collective guilt” (Arendt 2003: 21; Bernstein 2002: 223). Arendt perceives the human being as ontologically plural and, together with Jonas, she feels disquiet about the uncertainty of peoples’ responses to unexpected situations to which previous patterns, norms and values do not fit, which can reach extreme generosity as well as go beyond careless irresponsibility to inconceivable evil.

Intercultural Responsibility Intercultural responsibility viewed from a critical, intercultural, and decolonial perspective is supported by a recent but prolific theoretical corpus developed around a philosophy of liberation, the epistemologies of the South and the Decolonial Turn, which are complementary. Dussel (1998, 2004, 2008) explains that the philosophy of liberation deviates from Levinas’ Responsibility for the Other because it negates the exteriority of the Other. It departs from the local realities, in Latin America and beyond, but it equally aims to universalize them, moreover, it feels the need to strengthen the links between the global South in order to initiate the South–North relations on different terms. Likewise, the epistemologies of South, a geographical metaphor for situated epistemologies, claim for “cognitive justice,” for “intercultural translation” and for an “ecology of knowledges” (Santos 2014, 2018) while the Decolonial Turn demands a “thinking otherwise” that generates social, political, and

Intercultural Responsibility

epistemological critique and radical systemic change both in the geographical South and North (Castro-Gómez 2005; Castro-Gómez and Grosfoguel 2007; Walsh 2007; Mignolo and Walsh 2018). Philosophy of Liberation The discussion about the conceptualization of IR might have been enriched here by analyses of, for example, theories put forward by Said’s orientalism (1994) or Appiah’s cosmopolitanism (2005, 2006); however, it is critical to contextualize it within Enrique Dussel’s and Fals-Borda’s Ethics of Liberation, which was introduced in the Latin American philosophical and sociological studies in the 1970s and is still relevant today. The philosophy of liberation in Latin America was also inspired by subaltern studies in India, Afro-Caribbean, and Afro-American postcolonial theories which have promoted South–South relationships setting up the way for the South–North dialog. However, “it was never simply a mode of ‘Latin American thought’ nor its historiography. It was a critical philosophy self-critically localized in the periphery, within subaltern groups,” that is, “an ethical situated consciousness” with the aim “to ‘localise’ its discourse” (Dussel 2008: 340– 343). Philosophers of liberation soon deviated from dualisms based in European philosophy, such as Levinas’ “I” and “Other,” in order to adopt a critical standpoint toward the victims’ vulnerabilities that requires a new social and political order. Therefore, “the philosopher of liberation neither represents anybody nor speaks on behalf of the Other” (ibid.) and constitutes as their subject “nos-otros” (we–others). We become a community where each one of us is an Other, whose philosophy is part of a popular culture of wisdom, which is asserted and analyzed through a hermeneutic interpretation (la filosofia latinoamericana del “nosotros estamos” parte de una cultura sapiencial popular afirmada y analizada desde una interpretación hermenéutica) (Dussel 2004: 281). According to Dussel (1998), the ethics of liberation implies not only a priori but also a posteriori responsibility, a transontological and radical responsibility, a solidary responsibility

Intercultural Responsibility

with intersubjective validity. In sum, a responsibility for change, that requires conceptual, epistemological, and social structural transformation (Mignolo and Walsh 2018). Epistemologies of the South The conceptualization of IR within the conceptual framework of the epistemologies of the South (Santos 2014, 2018) requires not only an expansion of the Eurocentric Self-Other vision of the “intercultural” “ethics” of “responsibility,” in whatever terminological combinations, but also a radical epistemological decolonization of glocal intercultural relations, hence responsibilities. From this point of view, responsibilities are meant to become horizontal and reciprocal, although still asymmetric, nevertheless multipolar. The notion of “intercultural translation,” put forward by Santos (2014), is also fundamental for the praxis of IR. It is grounded on the concept of “diatopical hermeneutics” as well as that of a “multicultural conception of human rights” (Santos 1999). Intercultural translation enables a critical conversation between different epistemologies, based on a diversity of nonessentialist linguistic and cultural backgrounds and plural conceptions of critique, which IR has to tackle in order to become tangible. Intercultural translation is “specifically aimed at enhancing reciprocal intelligibility without dissolving identity, thus helping to identify complementarities and contradictions, common grounds, and alternative visions” (Santos 2018: 32), that is, it enables us to explore different possibilities of IR realizations. It challenges the limits of our ethical principles or, to put it differently, it encourages us to test the limits of our principles while critically examining new possibilities of agreement and disagreement. The idea of “diatopical hermeneutics,” originally put forward by Raimon Panikkar (1982) and developed by Santos (1999), enables both the notion of intercultural translation and that of a “multicultural perception of human rights.” “Diatopical hermeneutics” promotes multiple textual interpretations based on more than one linguistic, cultural, and epistemic topos, hence, a framework of reference which makes the concept of IR intensely dialectical.

605

The “Epistemologies of the South” (Santos 2014) do not only dwell in the geographical South only, although they metaphorically represent those peoples – their cosmovisions, languages, and epistemologies – who have been made invisible and unheard, “the sociology of absences,” but are beginning to talk back, “the sociology of emergences,” and becoming “cosmopolitan insurgents,” demanding for “cognitive justice” and “plurinational states” (Santos 2018). Such a challenge requires radical change and an attitudinal move toward “interculturality/ interculturalidad(e),” only to mention the word in three languages, English, Portuguese, and Spanish, that were almost sufficient to “(dis) cover” the world but are, and have been, simply insufficient to describe it (Guilherme 2018, 2019b). The Postcolonial and Decolonial Turn A critical approach to intercultural responsibility needs to undo vicious relationships between different parties in this world and make them step together and ahead. The end of colonialism, in political terms, did not mean the end of coloniality, in epistemological and cultural terms (Quijano 2000; Grosfoguel 2007). A group of scholars, in one way or another involved in Latin American studies, created a body of publications which may be summed up into a “decolonial turn” (“El giro decolonial”) (Castro-Gómez and Grosfoguel 2007). This means not only leaving political colonialism behind, by moving into postcolonial governance, but also undoing the supremacy of the colonial epistemic heritage, by endorsing the creativeness of mestizage as equally legitimate, as well as by revitalizing the remains of the colonial “epistemicide,” the term used by Santos to name “the murder of knowledge” (2014: 92). According to Mignolo, a “decolonial politics of knowledge” that entails a “knowledge-making for well-being rather than for controlling and managing populations for imperial interest shall come from local experiences and needs, rather from local imperial experiences and needs projected to the globe” (2009: 19). Elsewhere, Mignolo also states that the genealogy of decolonial thought is pluriversal, not universal (“la genealogia del

I

606

pensamiento decolonial es pluriversal [not universal]) (2007: 45). It implies what Walsh calls “thinking Otherwise” (Mignolo and Walsh 2018) or what Santos proclaims as an “alternative thinking” (2018), that is, a profound transformation at the conceptual, social, and political levels that point into a decolonial, interepistemic, intercultural “ecology of knowledges” (Santos 1999). From another part of the globe comes Spivak (1999) who, in her Critique of Postcolonial Reason, claims that postcolonial studies had not eventually made room for the colonized to reappropriate the legitimacy of their identity, heritage, and voice, in direct speech; instead, the colonized are still being reported and analyzed in foreign scientific terms. The dialectical relation between coloniality and decoloniality, the ontological and epistemological nature of the colonial and decolonial beings, expresses itself well in the transformative purpose of IR. Therefore, she argues that “the question of responsibility is also a begged question” which requires historical balance to be reestablished (2004: 537). Otherwise, “subordinate cultures of responsibility, then, base the agency of responsibility in that outside of the self that is also in the self, half-archived and therefore not directly accessible” (p. 545). Once linguistic, cultural, and epistemic balance is reestablished, a new concept of responsibility, that is intercultural, can be restored as “we– others” shall finally be able “to engage profoundly with one person, [and] the responses – the answers – [will] come from both sides. Let us call this responsibility, as well as ‘answer’ ability or accountability” (Spivak 1999: 384). Hence, Spivak very directly challenges the horizons of what responsibility means and what intercultural responsibility might mean. Responsibility that Is Intercultural Responsibility is not a popular concept interculturae in the twenty-first century since it has earned a colonial and patriarchal code of care whose knots decolonial theories have understandably tended to undo. However, the notion of responsibility is culturally ingrained since each ethnic community, be it the nation-state or intra-

Intercultural Responsibility

national communities, and religions too, establishes its specific codes of conduct as far as rights and duties are concerned, which are also determined by particular cultural perceptions of what being responsible may imply. The intensification of social and territorial mobility of people of different cultural backgrounds and religions, which has also blurred social stratification, as well as exhaustive but shallow communication have also masked, neutralized, and weakened the notion of responsibility, in that everybody is responsible for everybody and everything, at distance, which means being responsible for no one or anything in particular, mainly those close by. Society, which once forced an over-rigid moral code of conduct on its members, has now dismissed its responsibility and delegated on the police or court interventions for the reinforcement of the law. The modernist ideas of secularism and neutrality have also whitewashed the notion of responsibility and let go any form of violence that does not clearly infringe the law. On the whole, the idea of responsibility has become abstract and been emptied from civic conscience, membership, loyalty, solidarity, or commitment among humans, which has made the concept and practice of responsibility back off to its cultural cocoons. On the other hand, responsibility as answerability and accountability has moved to material tasks and to functional responsiveness. In consequence, different cultural, or even moral or ethical, perceptions of responsibility end up denying, or even being hostile to, each other. The world today requires intercultural dialogue that constructs bridges between different conceptual frameworks of what responsible relations entail. We cannot undervalue the importance of responsibility in contemporary societal life, instead, we must reshuffle it so that it does not fall short of the challenges of our times. On the one hand, social and family fragmentation and derooting have erased notions of responsibility, e. g., loyalty between relatives, friends, or even toward any sense of the collective which, on the other hand, lead some communities to radicalize and close upon themselves for fear of losing their bonds. Consequently, it is fundamental that the idea of intercultural responsibility naturally questions

Intercultural Responsibility

power relations, social asymmetries, and urges transformative actions which counter linguistic, cultural, and epistemological unfairness. The analysis of meaning complexity inherent to the “intercultural” component, and its correlates, helps us understand the implications of the expression “intercultural responsibility.” Intercultural, multicultural, and transcultural cannot be used interchangeably, although they are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, none can be allocated a universal meaning in the same way as difference is not the same, but different, anywhere (Guilherme 2019b). Therefore, the expression “intercultural” responsibility also encompasses the multicultural and the transcultural dimensions of diversity (Guilherme and Dietz 2015), because there is no intercultural without the existence of multiple cultural groups and the communication and interaction between them creates spaces in-between some of which can transcend the original cultures. To be even more specific, it is not only the prefixes that introduce distinctions in addressing cultural diversities, we must also take into account the suffixes which indicate difference within each category. For example, most authors use “interculturalism” and “interculturality” at random, which Cots and Llurdan also confirm (2010: 48, note 2). Cantle (2012), who pledges for the use on interculturalism instead of multiculturalism (Modood 2016), refers to the term “interculturality,” by accounting it to a terminology used in Europe and Canada but not in the UK, where “there has been little agreement over the term; neither has it been adopted in policy and practice to any great degree” (141). I dare say that the word “intercultural” does not have a tradition in British English, let alone “interculturality,” and I must confess that my use of the word in English stems from an act of “intercultural translation” (Santos 2014), both at the conceptual and at the linguistic level, of the Portuguese word “interculturalidade”: The conception of ‘interculturality’ admits the existence of multiple cultures as autonomous entities, although heterogeneous in essence, but focuses on the spaces in-between, that is, on their dialogical interaction, on the elastic nature of cultural

607 identities and on the dynamics of the inter-cultural encounters (Guilherme 2004: 112).

Appropriately, Byram claimed that there is a “being intercultural” and an “acting interculturally” which he explains: “Being intercultural and the state of ‘interculturality’ may follow from acting interculturally, and is different from being bilingual/bicultural” (2012: 86). It is also worth reminding that the word “intercultural” started replacing “multicultural” and became common in education, and consequently in politics and media, through the recommendations and reports issued by transnational organizations, such as the UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the European Commission. UNESCO definition of “interculturality” which “refers to the existence and equitable interaction of diverse cultures and the possibility of generating shared cultural expressions through dialog and mutual respect” (2005, art. 4.8 of the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, https://en.unesco.org/ creativity/interculturality) was a basic definition which was thereafter adapted to different political and demographic conditions as well as to social and cultural traditions. However, the UNESCO definition above mentions “equitable interaction” which can be considered unrealistic, if perceived as a rule. Hence, the notion of intercultural, as in the case of intercultural responsibility, requires criticality, as it is claimed below. To start with, Collins, on the one hand, critically unveils “the paradoxical relationship between neoliberal discourses and the institutionalization of the intercultural” which he calls “interculturality from above” and classifies as “illusionary” since “it only scratches at the surface of a more complex environment” (2018: 174– 175). On the other hand, “interculturality from below,” represented in Collin’s study by university teachers and students, implies “the recognition that competing discourses are not equal in terms of power and status” (p. 180). We can also call it “thin interculturality,” from above and “thick interculturality,” from below. Undoubtedly, intercultural responsibility can only be sustained and sustainable through thick, deep, critical

I

608

interculturality. While arguing about intercultural ethics, Phipps (2013) timely calls for intercultural responsibility which, in her own words, “offers a framework of voice, global ethics and solidarity which work within conceptualization and critiques of globalization, democracy and human rights” (p. 14). IR also challenges us to “reframing our identities as ‘interculturalities’” (Nair-Venugopalal 2009: 77), however, beyond the individual level into the collective one. These “interculturalities” do not necessarily fade away into hybridization, transculturality, or functional cosmopolitism, they indicate predispositions for critical interepistemic and decolonial dialogue, recognition of on-going struggles for social and cognitive justice, cosmopolitan insurgency (Santos 2014, 2018), etc. Such “interculturalities” are dynamic organisms that pollinate each other within asymmetric relations which makes intercultural responsibility a prerequisite. Dietz (2019) summarizes the tensions between two perceptions of interculturality which also give an account of the corresponding alternative hermeneutics, and heuristics, of intercultural responsibility, either one that aims no more than smoothen the existing status quo, so that it endures, or the transformative drive that aims at social, epistemological, and political change. He describes both as: “on the one hand, an understanding of interculturality as programmatic, political–educational strategy for smoothing over, softening, or mitigating relations and, on the other hand, a view of interculturality as transformative strategy to unveil, question, and change historically rooted inequalities within society” (p. 3). Critical responsibility, which has been the goal of my argumentation here, requires interepistemic and decolonial criticalities. It does therefore need to be itself intercultural . . .and metacritical, at its heart. How can “critical thinking” be opened up to different kinds of rationalities, without meaning to be essentialist or relativist, instead intercultural, and ceasing to present Eurocentric critical theory as universal? Catherine Walsh poses the question: What might it mean to think critical theory from other places – not simply from the West and from modernity, but from what has occurred in its

Intercultural Responsibility margins or borders, and with a need to shed light on its underside, that is on coloniality? (2007: 225)

It is impossible to debate intercultural responsibility without questioning about the geopolitics of knowledge or promoting epistemological decoloniality. As Walsh (2007) reminds us, this does not mean to simply neglect European heritage related to critical theory, since the founders of the Frankfurt School also justified the foundation of their critical theory with the struggle for social justice. Instead, intercultural responsibility aims to responsibly and interculturally relate, in depth, with the unknown, or not well known, offering room and potential for recognition, in equity and difference, for peer and reciprocal dialogue between cultures and languages and, finally, for the critical construction of plural and radically democratic societies.

Contribution of Intercultural Responsibility to Goal 17 – Strengthen the Means of Implementation and Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Intercultural responsibility helps stronger commitments to partnership and cooperation needed to achieve the SDGs. Its is intercultural, liberating, and decolonial vision reinvigorates global partnerships for sustainable development. It strengthens institutional coherence, it stimulates fair multistakeholder partnerships, and it supports accountability which consolidates target implementation. It enhances North–South, South–South, and triangular regional and international cooperation by giving way to solid and reliable scientific cooperation and by promotesing knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, through participated and dialogical coordination among different stakeholders. Hence, it encourages a wide scope of partnerships among distinct stakeholders. Intercultural responsibility paves the way for respectful cooperation between different types of knowledge and is vital to make sustainable growth and development achieved. It aims to enhance North–South and South–South cooperation by supporting national plans, as well as intranational communities’ needs and interests,

Intercultural Responsibility

to jointly achieve all the targets previously codesigned and creatively redesigned.

Cross-References ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World

References Arendt H (1951) The origins of totalitarianism. Meridian Books, The World Publishing Company, New York Arendt H (2003) Responsibility and judgement. Schocken Books, New York Appiah KA (2005) The Ethics of Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press Appiah KA (2006) Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. London: Penguin Books Bennett JM (ed) (2015) Encyclopaedia of intercultural competence. Sage, Thousand Oaks Bernstein RJ (1994) Rethinking responsibility. Soc Res 61 (4):833–852 Bernstein RJ (2002) Radical evil: a philosophical interrogation. Polity, Cambridge, UK Byram M (1997) Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon Byram M (2008) From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: essays and reflections. Multilingual Matters, Buffalo Byram M (2012) Conceptualizing intercultural (communicative) competence and intercultural citizenship. In: Jackson J (ed) The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication. Routledge, London, pp 85–97 Cantle T (2012) Interculturalism: the new era of cohesion and diversity. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Castro-Gómez S (ed) (2005) La Hybris del Punto Cero: Ciencia, raza e ilustración en la nueva Granada. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá Castro-Gómez S, Grosfoguel R (2007) El Giro Decolonial: Reflexiones para una diversidade epistémica más allá del capitalismo global. Siglo del Hombre Editores, Bogotá

609 Collins H (2018) Interculturality from above and below: navigating uneven discourses in a neoliberal university system. Lang Intercult Commun 18(2):167–183 Cots JM, Llurda E (2010) Constructing and deconstructing interculturality. In: Tsai Y, Houghton S (eds) Becoming intercultural: inside and outside the classroom. Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, pp 48–65 Deardorff DK (ed) (2009) The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Sage, Thousand Oaks Dietz G (2019) Multiculturalism, indigenism and new universities in Mexico: a case of intercultural multilateralities. J Multicult Discourses 14:29–45. In Guilherme M (ed) Special issue: Intercultural multilateralities, pluri-dialogical imaginations, globo-ethical positions and epistemological ecologies Dussel E (1998) Ética de la Liberación en la Edad de la Globalización y de la Exclusión. Editorial Trotta, Madrid Dussel E (2004) Ética de la Liberación: Hacia el ‘punto de partida’ como ejercicio de la ‘razón ética originaria. In: Apel K-O, Dussel E (eds) Ética del Discurso y Ética de la Liberación. Editorial Trotta, Madrid, pp 269–289 Dussel E (2008) Philosophy of liberation, the postmodern debate, and Latin American Studies. In: Moraña M, Dussel E, Jáuregui CA (eds) Coloniality at large: Latin America and the postcolonial debate. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 335–349 European Commission (2008) Public engagement in science. Directorate-General for Research, Brussels. https://ec. europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_other/public-engage ment-081002_en.pdf European Commission (2009) Challenging futures of science in society: emerging trends and cutting-edge issues. Directorate-General for Research, Brussels. http://www. securepart.eu/download/com-2009_masis_report_expertgroup_en150625092421.pdf European Commission (2013) Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation: report of the expert group on the state of the art in Europe on responsible research and innovation. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Brussels. https://ec.europa. eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/ options-for-strengthening_en.pdf Grosfoguel R (2007) The epistemic decolonial turn. Cult Stud 21(2–3):211–223 Gudykunst WB (2005) Theorizing about intercultural communication. Sage, Thousand Oaks Guilherme M (2002) Critical citizens for an intercultural world: foreign language education as cultural politics. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon Guilherme M (2004) The role of intercultural communication and interaction in modern languages departments. Anglo-Saxonica 2(21):109–116 Guilherme M (2018) ‘Glocal languages’: the ‘globalness’ and the ‘localness’ of world languages. In: Coffey S, Wingate U (eds) New directions for research in foreign language education. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 79–96 Guilherme M (2019a) Glocal languages beyond postcolonialism: the metaphorical north and the south in

I

610

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

the geographical north and south. In: Guilherme M, Souza LMTM (eds) Glocal languages and critical intercultural awareness: the south answers back. Routledge, London/New York, pp 42–64 Guilherme M (2019b) Introduction: The critical and decolonial quest for intercultural epistemologies and discourses. J Multicult Discourse 14(1):1–13. In: Intercultural multilateralities: pluri-dialogic imaginations, globo-ethical positions and epistemological ecologies (Special Issue) Guilherme M (2020) Chapter 21: Intercultural responsibility: transnational research and glocal critical citizenship. In: Jackson J (ed) The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication, 2nd edn. Routledge, Abingdon Guilherme M, Dietz G (2015) Difference in diversity: multiple perspectives on multi-, inter-, and trans-cultural conceptual complexities. J Multicult Discourse 10 (1):1–21 Guilherme M, Keating C, Hoppe D (2010) Intercultural responsibility: power and ethics in intercultural dialog and interaction. In: Guilherme M, Glaser E, Mendez-Garcia MC (eds) Intercultural dynamics of multicultural working. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, pp 77–94 Jackson J (ed) (2012) The Routledge handbook of intercultural communication. Routledge, London Jonas H (1984) The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago University Press, Chicago Levinas E (1985) Ethics and infinity: conversations with Philippe Nemo. Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh Levinas E (1991) Otherwise than being or beyond essence. Kluwer, Dordrecht Mignolo WD (2007) El pensamiento decolonial: Desprendimento y apertura (Un manifesto). In S. Castro-Gómez & R. Grosfoguel (eds.) El Giro Decolonial: Reflexiones para una diversidade epistémica más allá del capitalismo global (pp. 25–46). Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores Mignolo W, Walsh C (2018) On decoloniality: concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke University Press, Durham Modood T (2016) What is multiculturalism and what can it learn from interculturalism? Ethnicities 16(3):480–489 Nair-Venugopalal S (2009) Interculturalities: reframing identities in intercultural communication. Lang Intercult Commun 9(2):76–90 Panikkar R (1982) Is the notion of human rights a western concept? Diogenes 30(120):75–102 Phipps A (2013) Intercultural ethics: questions of methods in language and intercultural communication. Lang Intercult Commun 13(1):10–26 Presidency of the Council of the European Union (2014) Rome declaration on responsible research and innovation in Europe. Council of the European Union, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_ declaration_RRI_final_21_November.pdf Quijano A (2000) Coloniality of power and eurocentrism in Latin America. Int Sociol 15(2):215–232

Said E (1994) Culture and imperialism. Vintage Books, New York Santos BS (1999) Towards a multicultural conception of human rights. In: Lash S, Featherstone M (eds) Spaces of culture: city, nation, world. Sage, London Santos BS (2014) Epistemologies of the south. Paradigm, Boulder Santos BS (2018) The end of the cognitive empire: the coming of age of epistemologies of the south. Duke University Press, Durham/London Spivak GC (1999) A critique of postcolonial reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Spivak GC (2004) Righting wrongs. South Atl Q 103(2/ 3):523–581 Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:1568–1580 Ting-Toomey S, Kurogi A (1998) Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated face-negotiation theory. Int J Intercult Relat 22(2):187–225 Ting-Toomey S, Oetzel JG (2001) Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Sage, Thousand Oaks UNESCO (2005) The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Geneve: UNESCO UNESCO (2013) Intercultural competences: conceptual and operational framework. UNESCO, Paris Van der Merwe W, De Voss V (2008) The ethics of responsibility: the ethical philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. Acta Acad 40(1):1–30 Von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant JR, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, London, pp 51–74 Walsh C (2007) Shifting the geopolitics of critical knowledge. Cult Stud 21(2–3):224–239 Williams G (1998) Love and responsibility: a political ethic for Hannah Arendt. Polit Stud 46(5):937–950

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World Bruno do Canto Salles and Diego de Souza Universidade Franciscana, Santa Maria, Brazil

Definition The term microalgae has no taxonomic value and encompasses algal microorganisms with chlorophyll a and other photosynthetic pigments, which

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

are capable of performing oxygenic photosynthesis, and their (systematic) characterization implies the consideration of a series of criteria (van den Hoek et al. 1995; Raven et al. 2001). Microalgae are a great group of eukaryotic algae and prokaryotic cyanobacteria of variable size between 1 and 900 micrometers (106 m) that can grow in both salt and fresh water in large dimensions. Enabling its growth in the most diverse places and scales (Burlew 1953; Spolaore et al. 2006). According to Tomaselli (2004), these microorganisms traditionally have been classified according to the types of pigments, the chemical nature of the reserve products, and by the constituents of the cell wall. Cytological and morphological aspects have also been considered, such as the occurrence of flagellated cells, the structure of flagella, the processes of nucleus formation and cell division, the presence and characterization of the 12 chloroplast, and the possible connection between the endoplasmic reticulum and the nuclear membrane. In addition to these, molecular biology techniques have also been used (Hu 2004). These organisms are distributed in several phyla/divisions of protists, the main ones being Chlorophyta (green algae), Rhodophyta (red algae), Glaucocystophyta, Euglenophyta, Chlorarachniophyta, Heterokonta, Haptophyta, Cryptophyta, and Alveolata (Bhattacharya and Medlin 1998). Besides, cyanobacteria share several characteristics with microalgae, since, evolutionarily, they gave rise to the chloroplasts of algae and terrestrial plants (Bhattacharya and Medlin 1998; Larkum et al. 2012). Because they are prokaryotic beings and are not considered algae, they are grouped in a monophyletic clade within the Eubacteria domain.

Introduction The bio-based industry expected to play a prominent role in the twenty-first century. The challenges related to global climate change and the excessive dependence on traditional fossil energy sources increasingly encourage investments in innovative technologies with greater environmental sustainability. Besides, projections for world

611

population growth indicate that there will be a sharp increase in demand for energy and food over the next few decades. Faced with this scenario, the use of renewable raw materials and the integration of industrial processes in a biorefinery concept are seen as potentially sustainable solutions to supply part of the demand for energy, food, chemicals, and materials. In a biorefinery, processes convert biomass into various marketable products and energy, optimizing the use of resources and minimizing the generation of waste. Thus, there is a need to expand the range of biobased products, to replace petroleum derivatives, such as chemical and material commodities (Vargas et al. 2013). The awareness of these challenges has directed investments toward research and commercial production of alternative raw materials, such as microalgae. Algae have surrounded our planet for centuries and appear as food alternatives for various civilizations around the earth. With traces from ancient times in the Far East, through the Aztec and Roman civilizations, to the present day (Bicudo and Menezes 2010). From the 1950s and 1960s, more intense research started from controlled cultivation in photobioreactors and characterization of algae species by elucidating its complexities of chemical, genetic, and morphological composition and thus enabling the expansion of applications to different sectors according to its potential structure (Richmond 2000). Commercial cultivation of microalgae for the production of animal feed and human food supplements has been practiced since the 1960s, with most of the production carried out in China, India, the United States, and Japan. The main cultivated species are Chlorella vulgaris and Arthrospira (Spirulina) platensis, used as nutraceuticals for human consumption, in addition to Dunaliella salina and Haematococcus pluvialis, used to produce high-value carotenoids, β-carotene, and astaxanthin, respectively (Spolaore et al. 2006; Benemann 2011). The species Crypthecodinium cohnii and the genera Shizochytrium and Ulchennia are used, to a lesser extent, for the production of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), for example, of the omega-3 type (o-3) (Spolaore et al. 2006).

I

612

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

Through their photosynthetic activities, they can store and convert solar energy and carbon dioxide into biomass and consequently into energy. This biomass is a rich source of chemical compounds that can generate high-value products for the most diverse fields of activity from medicines, food supplements, and even biofuels (Leu and Boussiba 2014; Garrido-Cardenas et al. 2018). The main strains spread initially were Chlamydomonas, Chlorella, and Spirulina, being grown in large proportions due to their robustness and efficient production of biomass in such a way as to be incorporated as a food supplement for humans and aquacultures. From that, along with the evolution of biotechnology and engineering, more strains with accessible and efficient growth potential and with a high benefit value composition were sought, developing improvements not only in the production systems and in subsequent extraction of new products but also investments in the knowledge of biology and cell performance. (Leu and Boussiba 2014; Ali et al. 2001). Part of this cooperative diffusion of microalgae involves the propagation and organization of multiple partnerships. Defined by the United Nations (UN) as “voluntary and collaborative relationships between various parties in which participants have mutual benefits and risks as to what is developing” (UN 2015). Involving integrated and interdisciplinary actions by the parties, whether voluntary, entrepreneurial, nongovernmental, or governmental initiatives for the implementation of local and regional development (Wahyuni 2019). The objective of Sustainable Development Goal 17 (SDG 17) encompasses the search for strategic and diversified development of these partnerships around the planet so that from production to postconsumption it can happen consciously and sustainably, looking for alternatives via the cooperation of agent networks in collaborative means of implementation. In the case of microalgae, an interdisciplinary approach, enabling interaction between companies and professionals from different areas, can consolidate multidimensional integration partnerships both in circular production lines and in collaborative research and development. With the creation of such collaboration networks from their smallest scale, it is already

possible to develop more sustainable systems in each region, gathering resources and training that enable the development of sustainable forms of life and well-being and operating to fulfill the dissemination of microalgae, interdisciplinary, and chain partnerships with those of the other sustainable development objectives on the 2030 agenda. This entry aims to clarify the diverse and interdisciplinary approaches that implementing partnerships based on the production of microalgae around the world can help in sustainable development in the short and long term, showing options for existing partnerships and paving the way for the development of new ones based on knowledge of the applicability and potential for integrating sectors.

Interdisciplinarity and the Sustainable Development Goal 17 According to Bronstein (2003) interdisciplinarity in a collaborative role “is an effective interpersonal process that facilitates the achievement of goals that cannot be achieved when professionals or individual institutions act on their own. Making use of cooperation, communication, coordination, and partnership for the achievement of goals and objectives.” Because of this, it can integrate professionals from different scientific fields to connect common knowledge, making them close for the elaboration of flexible collaborative actions in the collective search for goals (Frickel et al. 2016). The objective of strengthening means of implementation and partnerships capable of promoting sustainable development seeks precisely ways to integrate people, projects, and businesses that can act in symbiosis for the benefit of processes and the consequent well-being of all. To involve several professionals to form connections with each other and the ability to cross their activities mutually with multiple areas. For an increasingly efficient resolution of the implementation/maintenance of means in which the greatest possible number of institutions and professionals can be integrated, joint thinking is needed for projects that may also contain results in

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

multiple areas. Projects related to the use of algae that have in their places of execution not only a single effect but also that can trigger the constant development of several pillars of social development without the need for centralization of focus and investments. Thus, microalgae are a versatile starting point for the development of partnerships capable of aligning integrated interdisciplinary productivity and sustainability, involving different fields, from their ways of growth to their countless final product/application and being able to be treated/processed and used as a development tool by biologists, biomedicines, farmers, engineers, chemists, pharmacists, architects, etc., including collaborative research and extension actions.

Forms of Cultivation and Growth of Microalgae In the natural environment, as well as in crops, the growth of a microalgae population is the result of the interaction between biological, physical, and chemical factors. The biological factors are related to the metabolic rates of the cultivated species, as well as to the possible influence of other organisms on algal development. Regarding physical-chemical factors, studies on lighting, temperature, salinity, and availability of nutrients are mainly reported. According to Borowitzka (1999), these organisms are grown in different production systems, with volumes ranging from a few liters to billions of liters. Microalgae have great metabolic diversity, and some species can be grown under heterotrophic, autotrophic, and/or mixotrophic conditions. Under conditions of heterotrophic cultivation, the microalgae use, in the absence of light, an organic carbon source to generate energy and biomass. In autotrophic or photoautotrophic cultivation, microalgae, using photosynthetic pathways, use light as an energy source to fix atmospheric CO2. In mixotrophic cultivation systems, on the other hand, microalgae simultaneously use a light source and an organic substrate as an energy source, as well as CO2 (Scott et al. 2010; Larkum et al. 2012).

613

Heterotrophic or mixotrophic crops are economically viable only for high-value products. Autotrophic microalgae cultivation can be performed in photobioreactors. In these, it is possible to control the cultivation conditions (quantity of nutrients, temperature, lighting, pH, etc.). This implies high productivity, enabling the commercial production of a series of compounds of high value (Tredici 2004). The best-known photobioreactors are: (1) open, shallow, and mechanically agitated lakes and raceways, or (2) closed photobioreactors, which can be horizontal, vertical, tubular, or in plastic bags and plates (Scott et al. 2010; Georgianna and Mayfield 2012). Open systems, such as lakes and circuits, have lower productivity and are directly exposed to contamination by microorganisms and invasion by other species of algae and predators. However, they have lower production and operating costs, in addition to being scalable to individual units of several hectares. The fotobiorretores are more productive and less susceptible to contamination but have higher installation costs as well as major operational challenges because they require cooling systems, gas exchange, prevention and cleaning inlays, among others. Besides, photobioreactors cannot be efficiently scaled for individual units over 100 m3, due to the rapid accumulation of O2 in the system (Benemann 2011; Scott et al. 2010; Georgianna and Mayfield 2012). Although new and improved photobioreactor models are being built, the strong scalability limitations of these systems mean that the vast majority of current commercial microalgae plants use open cultivation systems (Benemann 2011; Singh and Patidar 2018).

The Market for Microalgae Products Currently, products produced from seaweed mainly supply the cosmetics, personal hygiene, and human and animal nutrition markets. These are valueadded products that are produced on a small and medium scale, mainly in China, Japan, and the United States. The most traditional branch of algae cultivation uses species of red macroalgae (Rhodophyta) and brown (Phaeophyta) for the

I

614

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

production of thickeners (Phococolloids), such as alginate, carrageenans, and agar, or nori, used in oriental cuisine. These markets move more than $10 billion a year. Microalgae production is the most recent and growing aspect of algae cultivation. The annual global production of microalgae biomass tripled in the period from 2004 to 2013, when it reached the mark of 15,000 tons/year (dry weight). The main cultivated species belong to the genera Arthrospira (Spirulina) and Chlorella, being used as sources of pigments for the cosmetics industry or as protein supplements for human food and aquaculture. The species Dunaliella salina and Haematococcus pluvialis are used as a source of pigments and antioxidants, such as the carotenoids astaxanthin, canthaxanthin, and beta-carotene, whose market value can reach US$8000 per kilo. Omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), are also produced from microalgae and comprise infant nutritional formulations, drinks, and dietary supplements. The current market for these products is valued at about $6.25 billion. However, the economic viability of large-scale cultivation of microalgae for the production of low added-value products (such as chemical commodities, biomaterials, and energy) has not yet been reached (Gajar et al. 2019). The expectation is that the production of microalgae in the world will continue to grow in the coming years, leading to an increase in the scale of this industry and overcoming the current bottlenecks. The gain in scale, in turn, would make it possible to supply larger markets with by-products or surplus production. An example would be the extraction of microalgae oil for products with high added value (e.g., polyunsaturated fatty acids) and the use of residual biomass to generate products with lower added value, but which supply larger markets, such as animal nutrition. Something similar already occurs in the current production chains of soy, sugarcane, and corn, in which these plants serve as raw material for the concomitant production of food, biofuels, and other bioproducts. In a medium/long-term horizon, a similar model could be established for the large-scale production of microalgae, such as Chlorella, aiming at obtaining simultaneous

products such as beta-carotene, animal feed, and biofuel, for example.

The Biotechnological and Interdisciplinary Potential of Microalgae Microalgae are naturally present in different aquatic/humid environments, including rivers, lakes, oceans, and soils. They can be used as a source for the synthesis of various bioproducts, such as fuels, chemicals, materials, cosmetics, animal feed, and food supplements. Seaweed biomass has considerable advantages over traditional raw materials, such as: (i) High productivity – generally 10 to 100 times higher than traditional crops. (ii) Highly efficient carbon capture. (iii) A high content of lipids or starch, which can be used to produce biodiesel or ethanol, respectively. (iv) Cultivation in seawater, brackish water, or even wastewater. (v) Production on non-agricultural land. Microalgae can also be harvested continuously throughout the year in tropical regions, with no off-season. Besides, the cultivation and processing of microalgae can be carried out in the same place, a feature that favors the integrated and sequential production of various products and reduces logistics costs in biorefinery facilities. Thus, there are opportunities for the development of a sustainable industry based on microalgae whose productivity is independent of soil fertility and less dependent on water purity. Several ongoing initiatives in the world seek to integrate the production/processing of microalgae in the fuel industry, in addition to the treatment of municipal, industrial, and rural wastewater (Rizwan et al. 2018; Leu and Boussiba 2014).

Applications and Products With the possibility of production in different media and conditions, the applicability of

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

615

I Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World, Fig. 1 Ramifications of microalgae applications

microalgae in production chains can add to the development of complex sectors such as energy production, food supplementation, various industries, and the urban environment (Fig. 1), offering itself as a sustainable resource with versatile performance in the generation of value-added products with a direct impact on the environment and well-being (Kamyab et al. 2019; Camacho et al. 2019). The potential of the production activity linked in partnerships directly matches the capacity for favor between the sides and the mutual capacities to serve their means more sustainably. Integrating products and by-products that can be complementary and make the means of supplying production less and less exploratory. This happens with the diversification of solution tools and the practical integration of professionals with the capacity to develop the use of these tools. The ability to be introduced as the main or adjacent raw material and in various processing stages gives microalgae a highly malleable profile, being able to replace supplies in the most diverse production chains possible and being a tool for adapting projects according to the transformation of linear supplementation chains into

sustainable chains and collaboration between several small and distinct parts. More in the section “Nature-Based Solutions.”

Publication Data The search for more knowledge about microalgae moves significant numbers in data platforms on publications and citations in the academic world. Usually associated with topics such as biotechnology, molecular biology, nanotechnology, and energy generation, publications involving microalgae grow each year and consolidate themselves as a major area of technology and interdisciplinarity. According to the usual database platform using [TITLE-ABS-KEY (microalgae)] as a research title, 33,707 publications were found in the period between 1970 and 2020, presenting a considerable increase (Fig. 2) in the last 5 years. These current figures concerning research and publications involving microalgae follow a trend directly linked to the advancement of the market and opportunities in the area of biotechnology, aligning research with the real needs of increasing

616

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World, Fig. 2 Trend in the number of publications from 2015 to 2020. Number of publications is 4619 in the period

sustainable technological resources for industries and cities. With the dissemination of partnerships aimed at all sectors to which microalgae are related, it is possible to attract more investment for the growth of reliable sources of information that will increasingly benefit their applications and the expansion of the worldwide technology and networking information. Since the expansion of microalgae crops to different regions has the potential to drag specialized education poles with it to meet the qualifying demand for developing countries. Sector “Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals” addresses the tools more deeply.

Microalgae as Tools for Partnerships The interdisciplinarity associated with microalgae implementation projects should be explored in two main ways: Multidisciplinary training among professionals through which production processes and bi/multilateral alliances will take place between companies and bodies from different sectors so that you can have reliable and plural technical support for significant development of macroeconomics such as taking the most appropriate form of economic and social benefit to

different regions of the world through different approaches that are more consistent with the local situation, providing changes not only in the means of production but also in external relations and in their connection with education, and training better process managers and the intellectual material for development. This ability to serve productions at different scales and for different purposes gives microalgae great mobility and adaptability between different environments around the planet. Such mobility can be exploited in such a way that together with you and your green it is also possible to spread the growth of micro- and macro-regions, attracting investments in infrastructure, qualified work, and education to train new employees and cultivation sites (Stachová et al. 2019). The diffusion of collaborative activities for the production and destination of microalgae directly affects small and large producers to produce more efficient and sustainable means of supply than the traditional means of meeting demand in important current world markets and consequently conserving biodiversities and relieving pressure and impacts on them. A similar situation also occurs today concerning research and publications referring to the theme (Fig. 3). Following steps for clarification, development, and subsequent dissemination, about

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

617

I

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World, Fig. 3 Representation of collaborations between countries in research projects on microalgae (adapted from Garrido-Cardenas)

34 countries are already working in partnership blocks to develop research and exchange data for genetic and engineering improvement aiming to treat varied microalgae cultures (Garrido-Cardenas et al. 2018) and achieving more efficient ways to generate quality content and exchange information. Taking advantage of this diversity of projects and products that can be sent based on microalgae technology for different applications, whether in urban, rural, or offshore regions, the elaboration and expansion of centers and networks of collaborations open the opportunity to extend routes for dissemination partnerships, proposing and enabling a direct and indirect promotion of diverse sectors of economies and education in a global and interdisciplinary way and creating bonds that allow the performance of professionals in areas such as biology, biomedicine,

engineering, pharmacy, chemistry, and others, and including the participation of agricultural professionals, entrepreneurs and investors, technology implementation companies, opinion leaders, and governments (Ditchburn and Carballeira 2018). In charge of presenting how the productive chains that can be supplied with the use of microalgae can be explored is Fig. 4, which illustrates how resources can be exchanged between aggregated industries in partnerships around the use of microalgae as the main raw material and the subsequent treatment of aqueous effluents and waste not used by partners. It is noted the number of professionals from different academic backgrounds involved in each of the processes that put down the communication capacity and technical development for the development of resources enables

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World, Fig. 4 Example of a resource collaboration network between companies using microalgae

618 Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

the mutual growth of this example interdisciplinary network, together with the possibility of investments in universities and research centers focused on the investigation and development of new resources for the creation of new networks and maintenance of the existing ones with qualified labor, the discovery of new methods of application, and new products. Section “Stakeholders Partnerships: Collaborative Modeling as a Mechanism for Sustainable Development” identifies the pathways and explore it. The number of variations and collaborative designs in which partnerships can be shaped is countless. It can start from a common investment among those involved in the collective cultivation of microalgae, where the cultivation aims to meet the needs of the direct supply of registered partners, as well as an already established source of the general production of species that serve other production niches, opening doors to adaptable projects worldwide capable of bringing harmonious sustainable growth among entrepreneurs (Khondokar 2020). An example of this happens in Brazil, which already has cases that seek to integrate the use of microalgae along with already established processes of energy production for adjacent production of different compounds to supply different industry chains and their functioning, enabling, even more, the integration of renewable natural resources to processes capable of producing a larger spectrum of products and consequently attracting greater investments from partners who can take advantage of them (Brasil et al. 2016).

Impacts on SDG 17 Targets and Their Indicators Considering the great targets (Finance, Technology, Capacity-building, Trade, and Systemic Issues) and their respective indicators for controlling and maintaining the development and implementation of global partnerships to fulfill the UN 2030 agenda, it can be considered high effectiveness the proposal for interdisciplinary approaches for the dissemination of microalgae as a tool for the coherence of

619

partnerships and achievement of goals, indicating the potential to be introduced strongly in developing countries through a low need for investments concerning the impacts generated in them. Finance – Mobilization and creation of sustainable domestic resources to supply the energy, food, industrial, and urban sectors. Developing the creation of cooperatives capable of promoting working investments even in developing countries (with or without external assistance) and strengthening the internal capacity to collect taxes and other revenues. All of this without losing the focus on sustainable responsibility. Technology – Strengthening local and global science and industry. Through a more circular and shared production of resources among professionals of different scientific nature capable of promoting greater transparency in the use and dissemination of technology. Improving the use of enabling technology for the development of regional and international cooperation. Capacity Building – Improvement of existing global partnerships with the use of multifaceted approaches to problem solving. Making use of a sustainable resource capable of being introduced as a means of implementing many of the goals via direct or triangular cooperation. Trade – Through collaboration from research and production, a trade involving microalgae products/services is capable of universally moving large sectors of trade. Ensuring even the least developed countries a growth based on the increment of new products of higher market value for internal turnover and exports in addition to enabling an increase in the carbon credit potential of companies and emerging nations to improve their buying and selling power in international markets. Systemic issues – Improvements in global macroeconomic stability with the dissemination of the resource and sustainable production of algae. Enabling less pressure on commodity resources and unilateral exploration concentrated in small regions. Improvement of strategic management based on better communication between professionals from different areas, through interdisciplinary knowledge, capable of spreading even more partnership projects.

I

620

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

Impacts on Other Sustainable Development Goals The development and extension of partnerships in the cultivation and use of microalgae also result in the branching of direct and indirect impacts due to the other sustainable development objectives planned for 2030 with the United Nations, creating a network of human and ecological well-being for the present and the future of the planet (UN 2016). In a brief assessment approach between what can be explored with the dissemination of partnerships and cooperatives involving the use of microalgae, it is possible to point out the relative performance tools for developing up to 15 objectives (Table 1). With such a wide range of dissemination and impacts on multiple SDGs, the way to implement microalgae crops and products around the planet capable of promoting the best use of each of its potentialities in each of the proposed objectives is through collaborative interdisciplinary partnerships, enabling the sum of technical knowledge in different widely integrated fields for the development and resolution of sustainable social goals that involve multidisciplinary complexities and facilitating access to information and dissemination of products and services directed to partners organized at any scale of the regions.

Challenges, Limitations, and Directions Adapting to successful development through interdisciplinary and intersectoral partnerships requires innovative solutions that integrate the maximum potential of all involved in the best possible way. The main challenges for structuring partnerships, involving several employees from different backgrounds, revolve around design problems and operational conflicts between the entrepreneurs involved. The different aspects of interest, as well as the time and uniformity of production, directly affect the socioeconomic balance and the relationship between partners. Thus, these conflicts can generate certain limitations and

incompatibilities regarding the growth of partnerships. Structurally, the full functioning of production chains in partnerships will have its limitations transformed by the adequacy of production projects, interpersonal dynamics, and the creation of flexible funds that allow agile responses to diverse emerging collaborations and legislation that protects all involved; establish collective and organizational governance mechanisms that can govern intersectoral partners through the objectives of each one, to mitigate conflicts of focus, scale, and production time; and fairly and beneficially contemplate the members of production and sustainability partnerships organized around the use and applications of microalgae, whether public, private, entrepreneurial, or nongovernmental.

Conclusion The cultivation of microalgae to obtain biomass and its synthesis products is an industrial activity established on a commercial scale in some countries and the production is in charge of large companies. In addition to the known substances, the amount of compounds of commercial interest that can be obtained from microalgae appears to be unpredictable. Worldwide, the growing interest in clean, sustainable, and organic technologies, in obtaining products for human consumption, demands a continuous search for species and/or varieties capable of synthesizing large quantities of specific compounds and how it is possible to enhance the biosynthesis of these (cultivation conditions, genetic improvement, etc.). Equally, there is a need for research aimed at the development and, mainly, the improvement of production systems on a commercial scale, to make some of the known systems commercially viable. Finally, these researches are also necessary to identify the products that can be extracted from microalgae, the possible biological activity (metabolic and toxicological studies), and the development of specific markets for them. Current efforts and investments by companies are directing attention and marketing efforts on promises to produce

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

621

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World, Table 1 Direct and indirect impacts of using projects involving microalgae in other sustainable development objectives SDG 1 No Poverty

2 Zero hunger

3 Good health and well being

4 Quality education

6 Clean water and sanitation 7 Affordable and clean energy 8 Decent work and economic growth

9 Industry, innovation and infrastructure

10 Reduce inequalities

11 Sustainable cities and communities

12 Responsible consumption and production

13 Climate action

14 Life below water

Direct and indirect impacts Mobile production – ability to transport crops to areas of extreme poverty due to their compatibility with different environments and forms of production Activation of the local economy with the generation of new products and mobilization of the region Attracting new investments and partnerships to operate in cultivation areas Use of biomass produced for food supplementation (via protein, lipid, and carbohydrate extraction) High yield and low price of cultivation per m3 Non-competition with current means of food production Partnerships to bring crops closer to famine-stricken regions With the extraction of its oils and other organic compounds, it is possible to propose a better investigation and production of chemotherapy drugs A trap of gases and pollutants from urban centers improving the quality of life in small and large communities Efficient O2 production Development of partnerships with universities for research collaboration on the topic Interdisciplinary approach in education and training Creation of local schools and universities to train qualified professionals to work in regional Direct use for efficient water and waste treatment Ability to trap pollutants in seas, rivers, and lakes Biodiesel production via the esterification/transesterification process Fermentation and bioethanol production Generation of new jobs for growing regions Controlled and technological work Attracting investments to new production hubs Collaboration between partnership networks to increase mutual productivity Potential to generate and produce new products on an industrial scale Development of new production and harvesting methods High efficient treatment of industrial waste New means of obtaining energy for production and transport Reducing inequality through poverty reduction (SDG1) In coastal regions, the maritime production space can generate considerable revenues for the government to revert in aid to the local population Projects to revitalize cities with the symbiosis between microalgae and common urban structures (parks, buildings, etc.) The use of its derivatives, mainly energetic, to be used in a conscious and sustainable way Sewage and other urban waste treatment Use for remediation and revitalization of streams and tributaries Developments of new natural and renewable products Industrial waste remediation Substitution of high-cost raw materials with great ecological impact by renewable and biodegradable material Great efficiency in the conversion of gas exchanges due to its units on a micrometric scale Generation of fuels with lower pollutant combustion rates Transformations and enrichment of ecosystems surrounding marine crops Pollutant trap (including on micrometer scale) in the oceans Reduction of marine catches for exploratory purposes due to better production and feeding capacity for aquacultures for food (continued)

I

622

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World

Interdisciplinary Approach to Microalgae Production in Partnerships Around the World, Table 1 (continued) SDG 15 Life on land

17 Partnerships for the goals

Direct and indirect impacts Mitigation of the exploitation of ecological resources and consequently protecting species from the invasion of exclusively terrestrial monocultures and other human actions in search of food and energy resources Multidisciplinary involvement of professionals and companies Promotion of research and development Collaborative productions between small and large producers Approaching governments with investors and researchers in the search for sustainable cities and regions Promote the decentralization of the burden of large investments in smaller and oneoff investments. Making the flow of investment in projects easier and more independent to develop

biodiesel from algae and production systems. Forgiveness for problems. Having this broad line of tools to meet basic and complex human development needs, the positioning of orientation for the activation of new interdisciplinary partnerships involving the use of microalgae – together with the maintenance and improvements in the existing ones – has a lot to promote and approach development sustainable around the planet, enabling in a short period, with decentralized cost and investment, great development of regions in several aspects in addition to promoting quality of life and decent conditions for human beings and life in general.

Cross-References ▶ Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Nature-Based Solutions ▶ Stakeholder Partnerships: Collaborative Modeling as a Mechanism for Sustainable Development

References Ali AB, De Baere R, Van Der Auwera G, Wachter R, Van Der Peer Y (2001) Phytogenetic relationships among algae based on complete large-subunit rRNA sequences. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 51:737–749 Benemann JR (2011) Microalgae biomass and biofuels economics. In: International microalgae and biofuels workshop, 2010, Fortaleza. Brazilian network on green

chemistry: proceedings. Edições UFC, Fortaleza, pp 49–80 Bhattacharya D, Medlin L (1998) Algal phylogeny and the origin of land plants. Plant Physiol 116(1):9–15. Rockville Bicudo CEM, Menezes M (2010) Introdução: As algas do Brasil, Instituto de Pesquisar do Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro: Catálogo de plantas e fungos do Brasil, 1, pp 49–60 Borowitzka MA (1999) Commercial production of microalgae: ponds, tanks, tubes and fermenters. J Biotechnol 70:313–321 Brasil BSAF, Silva FCP, Siqueira FG (2016) Microalgae biorefineries: the Brazilian scenario in perspective. New Biotechnol 39:90–98 Bronstein LR (2003) A model for interdisciplinary collaboration. Soc Work 48(3):297–306 Burlew JS (1953) Algal culture from laboratory to pilot plant. Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC, pp 235–281 Camacho F, Macedo A, Malcata F (2019) Potential industrial applications and commercialization of microalgae in the Funcional food and feed industries: a short review. Mar Drugs 17:312 Ditchburn J, Carballeira CB (2018) Versatility of the humble seaweed in biomanufacturing. Procedia Manuf 32:87–94 Frickel S, Mathieu A, Prainsack B (2016) Investigating interdisciplinary collaboration: theory and Pratice across disciplines. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick Gajar A, Cui H, Ji C, Kubar S, Li R (2019) Development, production and market value of microalgae products. Applied Microbiology Open Acess 5:162 https://doi. org/10.35248/2471-9315.19.5.162 Garrido-Cardenas JA, Manzano-Agugliaro F, AcienFernandez FG, Molina-Grima E (2018) Microalgae research worldwide. Algal Res 35:50–60 Georgianna DR, Mayfield SP (2012) Exploiting diversity and synthetic biology for the production of algal biofuels. Nature 448(7411):329–335. London

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals Hu Q (2004) Industrial production of microalgal cell-mass and secondary products – major industrial species: Arthrospira (Spirulina) platensis. In: Richmond A (ed) Handbook of microalgal culture: biotechnology and applied phycology. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 264–272 Kamyab H, Chelliapan S, Kumar A, Rezania S, Talaiekhozani A, Khademi T, Rupani PF, Sharma S (2019) Microalgal Biotechnology application towards environmental sustainability, application of microalgae in wastewater treatment. Springer, Cham, pp 445–465 Khondokar R (2020) Food and high value products from microalgae: market opportunities and challenges. In: Microalgae biotechnology for food, health and high value products, Springer Nature Singapore, 3–37 Larkum AW, Ross IL, Kruse O, Hankamer B (2012) Selection, breeding and engineering of microalgae for bioenergy and biofuel production. Trends Biotechnol 30(4):198–205. London Leu S, Boussiba S (2014) Advances in the production of high-value products by microalgae. Ind Biotechnol 10:169–183 Raven PH et al (2001) Biologia vegetal, 6th edn. Guanabara Koogan, Rio de Janeiro, p 906 Richmond A (2000) Microalgal biotechnology at the turn of the millennium: a personal view. J Appl Phycol 12:441–451 Rizwan M, Mujtaba G, Memon SA, Lee K, Rashid N (2018) Exploring the potential of microalgae for new biotechnology applications and beyond: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 92:394–404 Scott SA, Davey MP, Dennis JS, Horst I, Howe CJ, LeaSmith DJ, Smith AG (2010) Biodiesel from algae: challenges and prospects. Curr Opin Biotechnol 21(3):277–286. London. Singh G, Patidar SK (2018) Microalgae harvesting techniques: a review. J Environ Manag 217:499–508 Spolaore P, Joaniss-Cassan C, Duran E, Isambert A (2006) Commercial applications of microalgae. J Biosci Bioeng 101:87–96 Stachová K, Papula J, Stacho Z, Kohnová L (2019) External partnerships in employee education and development as the key to facing industry 4.0 challenges. Sustainability 11:345 Tomaselli L (2004) The microalgal cell. In: Richmond A (ed) Handbook of microalgal culture: biotechnology and applied phycology. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 3–19 Tredici MR (2004) Mass production of microalgae: photobioreactors. In: Richmond A (ed) Handbook of microalgal culture: biotechnology and applied phycology. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 178–214 UN (2015) General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/224, Towards global partnerships: a principle-based approach to enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners. http://undocs.org/A/ RES/70/224. Accessed 18 Apr 2020

623

UN (2016) The sustainable development agenda. https:// www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/developmentagenda/. Accessed 18 Apr 2020 van den Hoek C et al (1995) Algae: an introduction to phycology, vol 623. Cambridge University, London Vargas M, Gadelha C, Maldonado J, Costa L, Quental C (2013) Indústrias de base química e biotecnológica voltadas para a saúde no Brasil: panorama atual e perspectivas para 2030, 10 Wahyuni D (2019) Supporting the sustainable development goals through partnerships and local development. The United Nations division for sustainable development goals voluntary national report

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals Meghna Ramaswamy1 and Darcy D. Marciniuk2 1 International Research, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada 2 College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Introduction The United Nations (UN) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development came into effect on 01 January 2016 and is one of the most ambitious global development frameworks made in recent history. Building upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and their 169 targets, the 15-year agreement aims to set the world on a path to address the pressing social, economic, and environmental problems facing humanity and the planet. These include eradicating poverty and bringing economic growth and prosperity, social inclusion, environmental sustainability, peace, and good governance to all countries (Kestin et al. 2017; Sachs 2012). The MDGs were originally developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1996 and agreed by the Heads of State at the Millennium Summit in 2000 and represent the “world’s first explicit development partnership framework between developed and developing countries”

I

624

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals

(McArthur 2014; Bebbington and Unerman 2018). The 8 MDGs and their 21 targets sought to reduce extreme poverty in its multiple dimensions. The Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), an international network of local and regional governments dedicated to sustainable urban development, identified the SDGs to be a sharp contrast to the MDGs. The ICLEI 2015 report highlighted the SDGs to be “uniformly applicable to all countries of the world, removing the developing versus developed dichotomy and reflect a comprehensive perspective on international development and sustaining human life on this planet” (Woodbridge 2015; Stibbe et al. 2018) (Table 1). Sustainable development touches several disciplines, and given the breadth and interdependencies of the 2030 Agenda and its 17 goals, implementation requires interdisciplinary research teams at a local and a global level working together to assist society in developing affordable and scalable solutions to address global challenges (DeFries et al. 2012; Annan-Diab and Molinari 2017). Integrated approaches and effective interdisciplinary collaborations between multiple actors and sectors are necessary to find global solutions to such complex and interdependent problems. The 2030 Agenda is composed of five critical themes: people, prosperity, planet, partnership, and peace, also known as the five P’s that require a spirit of strengthened global solidarity through

unprecedented participation of all countries, stakeholders, and people. It necessitates collaboration with civil society, business, government, NGOs, foundations, and others for its achievement. Several universities and networks have identified education, research, innovation, and leadership to be vital in helping society address these challenges (Kestin et al. 2017; Planell et al. 2018; Van Damme 2016; Kickbusch and Hanefeld 2017), which are integrated, interdisciplinary, and indivisible in nature (Nunes et al. 2016; Schmalzbauer and Visbeck 2016). Higher education institutions (HEIs) are major drivers of creativity, innovation, and productivity and, by their unique position within society, can help solve sustainable development challenges. Both basic and applied research can address “real-world” problems and societal challenges and lead to groundbreaking discoveries, which would inform and transform sustainable development research (Körfgen et al. 2018). Moreover, they can lead to “curiosity-driven” and hitherto unanswered questions and thus support the co-production of knowledge (Jasanoff 2004; Körfgen et al. 2018). The contribution of interdisciplinary research collaborations to the SDGs is necessary and broad, as it provides an invitation for all of society to engage and share mutual responsibility for reaching the goals. This chapter offers perspectives of what interdisciplinary research means and how it supports the

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals, Table 1 Differences between MDGs and SDGs MDGs

Key attributes/features Consultation Number of goals Number of targets Number of indicators Geographic coverage Implementation timeframe Delivery focus Approach

UN secretariat 8 21 63 Developing countries 2000–2015 Poverty reduction Siloed approach to goals

SDGs

30 members represented by 70 countries 17 169 231 Universal 2016–2030 Broad and inclusive in scope Integrated and transformative agenda

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals

implementation of the 2030 Agenda. This entry will provide a glimpse into the key role of HEIs in driving the SDGs, highlight challenges, and provide key recommendations for implementation.

The Need for Collective Action The 2030 Agenda calls for “shared responsibilities, universality, engagement, discussion, analysis, testing and above all, collective action by governments, private sector and civil society and SDG 17 has an essential role to play in this process” (Planell et al. 2018). Partnership is imperative for the success of the 2030 Agenda. The UN defines partnerships as “voluntary and collaborative relationships between various parties, both State and non-State, in which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose or undertake a specific task and to share risks and responsibilities, resources and benefits” (UN General Assembly Resolution 2015). Interdisciplinary research collaboration may take shape in a variety of ways, and teams may include senior professors, lecturers, students, and other collaborators from HEIs, as well as from the private sector and from civil society. The intertwined structure of the SDGs means progress in one affects progress in all others, thus necessitating connections among different sectors and crosscutting disciplines. Synergies Between the Sustainable Development Goals The holistic and interrelated nature of the SDGs across the 169 targets requires a broad approach to policy coherence (Costanza et al. 2016; Rickels et al. 2016; Dohlman et al. 2015). Understanding the causal loop effect of the SDGs will be key to unlocking their full potential and ensuring that “progress made in achieving one goal does not hinder the achievement of others, leading to unintended trade-offs or inefficiencies in implementation” (Alcamo et al. 2018). Although theorists have proposed a framework to characterize SDG interactions (Nilsson et al. 2016), systematic studies on interactions between SDG indicators are currently lacking. A systematic review on synergies and trade-offs for

625

227 countries showed “positive correlations among the SDGs largely outweigh the negative, for most countries. SDG 3 (Good health and well-being) had the highest number of synergies with SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation) in most of the countries and the world population” (Fig. 1, courtesy of Pradhan et al. 2017). Another recent study by Fader et al. (2018), investigating links between SDG 2 (Food), SDG 6 (Water), and SDG 7 (Energy), demonstrated SDG 6 (Water) to have the highest number of potential synergies (n ¼ 124), thus making it easier to achieve the other targets through SDG 6. Although interlinks between water, energy, and food through Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus have been increasingly explored (Pittock et al. 2015; Endo et al. 2017), limited data exists on synergies and risks between SDG targets. A recent policy brief by the University of Sussex (Alcamo et al. 2018) highlighted recognizing interconnectivity between goals and identifying the most important synergies and trade-offs using an interdisciplinary research approach to be a key step for efficient implementation of the SDGs. For example, increase in fertilizer, pesticide, and water use for agriculture may boost crop yield and food production but may negatively impact on water quality and the environment, thus leading to trade-offs among the food, water, and land goals (Alcamo et al. 2018). At the same time, many SDGs are mutually supportive, in that actions by one goal can help achieve other goals at the same time (Alcamo et al. 2018). For example, the joint introduction of public health programs and sustainable forestry practices provided to poor rural communities in deforested areas in the tropics can set up synergies between health and land biodiversity goals (Middleton et al. 2017; Alcamo et al. 2018). The process of maximizing the advantage offered by these synergies will require the upscaling and concerting of existing efforts, as well as the harmonization and coordination of interdisciplinary research teams and actors from multiple sectors to tackle the different SDGs under a single unified agenda. This approach promotes efficient implementation of the SDGs as it advances multiple goals simultaneously and helps reduce the overall human, financial, and material resources required to achieve these goals.

I

626

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals, Fig. 1 ©A systematic study on SDG interactions (with permission of Pradhan et al. 2017) showed global patterns of (a) synergy and (b) trade-off pairs with corresponding populations in 2015 (bar plot). The synergy between SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)

was widely observed among countries with a total population of 2.7 billion. The trade-off between SDGs 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) was largely encountered among countries with a total population of 3.4 billion. The gray color depicts regions with no data or with less than ten data pairs

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals

Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: From Research to Practice According to the Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC) “collaborative interdisciplinary research partnerships create pathways between practice and research that advance learning towards effective sustainable development solutions. Producing timely and relevant knowledge that informs and furthers evidence-based programming and policy is key to meeting the SDG indicators in Canada” (Razavi and Beale 2019). Building upon emerging interdisciplinary research collaborations between academia and civil society can help identify capacity challenges to build and develop effective partnerships to accelerate knowledge mobilization and essentially put the knowledge to work. The CCIC has reported that Canada has begun to bridge the gap in SDG-related research partnerships by using an online platform known as the “Alliance 2030” to facilitate organizations and individuals who connect and collaborate in this venture (Razavi and Beale 2019). The University of Waterloo has developed a Blueprint SDG framework to highlight collective actions and local partnerships in Canada (Razavi and Beale 2019; Ho and Runnalls 2018). Similarly, the British Columbia Council for International Cooperation (BCCIC) has developed a movement map of organizations addressing the SDGs. The Canadian Council of International Cooperation (CCIC) and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) Canada have entered a partnership to develop tools to identify researchers and their collaborators implementing the SDGs and identify underrepresented and underutilized areas in SDG research (Razavi and Beale 2019). The team has also identified challenges for building deeper and fair interdisciplinary and multi-sector partnerships for capacity building and determined the needs for enhanced knowledge mobilization and outreach. The government can play a vital role in addressing the SDGs by facilitating dialogues between departments and sectors, supporting partnerships, and engaging marginalized communities in Canada (Razavi and Beale 2019). Policy briefs provided

627

by the BCCIC, which is partly funded by the Government of Canada’s Sustainable Development Goals Program, state that “Universities provide fertile ground for SDG research, monitoring and evaluation; enabling multi-stakeholder partnerships, and importantly, engaging students to help achieve the SDG goals” (Razavi and Beale 2019). A recent data overview performed by the Statistical Office of the European Commission (EC) for each SDG indicator over a 5-year period (Hametner et al. 2019) indicated improvements in SDG 3 (Health and Well-Being), reductions in SDG 1 (No Poverty), and an increase for SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). These favorable observations occurred in the current, improving economic, and labor market for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). However, these trends do not accompany favorable developments in the use of natural resources and its impact on the environment for SDG7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land). These recent studies provide an opportunity for reflection and encourage the European Union to include biodiversity and climate protection into relevant EU policies to meet the 2030 Agenda goals. Existing funding opportunities should be leveraged and new ones created to better support and align international interdisciplinary research projects to the 2030 Agenda. Strengthening the 17 research pillars by explicitly developing interdisciplinary links could buttress collaboration (Razavi and Beale 2019). According to the CCIC, “funding mechanisms support new interdisciplinary research concepts, which in turn may lead to new synergies and scaling of successes to progress the implementation of the SDGs” (Razavi and Beale 2019). A 2018 report published by the Global University Network for Innovation (GUNi) identifies Goal 17 to be an important driver for the success of the 2030 Agenda. The targets of Goal 17 fall under five main areas as highlighted by the report: finance, technology, capacity building, trade, and systematic issues (Ogbuigwe 2018). An annual review of the SDG performance indicators for 193 UN member states prepared by Bertelsmann Stiftung and SDSN (Sachs et al. 2019) indicated

I

628

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals

that no country is able to meet the goals based on the current metrics and that high-income countries have the lowest ratings on SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land). Interestingly, the report also reveals that although sub-Saharan Africa is making significant progress towards ending poverty, other countries remain quite behind when it comes to addressing extreme poverty (Sachs et al. 2019). Results from a SDSN survey on government efforts to address the 2030 Agenda revealed that reference to the SDGs in national budgets was made in only 18/ 43 surveyed countries. These alarming statistics demonstrate a need for increased awareness and for closer working relationships to be developed between governments and civil society, businesses, HEIs, and other stakeholders. Participation in international diplomacy, dialogue, and collaboration will be required to achieve the SDGs to minimize any international spillover effects (Sachs et al. 2019). In an increasingly interdependent world, interdisciplinary international research teams need to collaborate with governments, civil society, and business sectors to inform, educate, and monitor how one country’s action may positively or adversely affect another, in achieving the SDGs. Interdisciplinarity in Research The benefits of adopting an interdisciplinary and holistic approach for sustainable development research are well recognized (Annan-Diab and Molinari 2017; Dale and Newman 2005; Eagan et al. 2002; Luppi 2011; Summers et al. 2005). Problems in sustainable development cross disciplines, and requires involvement from multiple stakeholders on various levels for implementation. For example, a common narrative between societies and ecosystems exists when addressing climate change, poverty, and inequalities (AnnanDiab and Molinari 2017). There is a need for the research community and funding organizations to prioritize research concerning the SDGs. Gaps in knowledge require cross border research interactions and financing to better understand and support a coherent approach to the SDGs. Such interactions would parallel the scope of the problems. The input of interdisciplinary research

teams allows for the development of multipurpose SDG indicators to efficiently monitor and evaluate the 2030 Agenda. A number of the SDG targets directly require interdisciplinary research efforts and activities to drive research, knowledge creation, and innovation. An interdisciplinary research roadmap (Table 2) can serve as a strategic foresight tool focused on vision, pathway, and action to implement the SDGs through mutual learning, facilitation, and cooperation. One of the major obstacles in developing an interdisciplinary research team is reconciling different views of research conduct across various disciplines and countries. “Social sciences often require conceptualizing problems without exploring and offering solutions; and conversely, life science researchers are often focused on solutions, overlooking wider societal implications of their proposed solutions” (Brown et al. 2015). Building Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals, Table 2 Interdisciplinary research roadmap for the 2030 Agenda Categories Addresses knowledge gaps

Translation of research

Accelerate technology and innovation

Integration and operationalization of the SDG framework

Key elements Causes and dynamics of challenges Complex interactions between the goals Synergies and trade-offs Translate and apply global research to a national and local context Identify local priorities and develop key performance indicators to monitor progress Develop innovative processes and methodologies Perform technology assessments Adequate funding for implementation and investment Governance and coordination for multistakeholder engagement Capacity building and policy making Linkage to national strategies and priorities Learning loops and feedback

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals

trust and cooperation among individuals from multiple disciplines takes time and effort. Funding opportunities and publications can demonstrate bias towards discipline-based research and academic performance, and reward structures do not incentivize collaborative interdisciplinary engagement, as they are often reliant on publications and grants (Brown et al. 2015). To overcome these barriers, a paradigm shift is required on how knowledge is appreciated and valued. Fundamental changes in funding structures can support and strengthen interdisciplinary global health research (Herzig Van Wees et al. 2018). Similarly, creating an environment for more interdisciplinary research at an undergraduate- and postgraduatelevel teaching encourages exposure to multiple disciplines and mixed methods dissertations and leads to longer-term reform (Herzig Van Wees et al. 2018). HEIs can therefore encourage and support interdisciplinary research approaches with workload allocations and recognition of academic contributions (Kestin et al. 2017) (Table 3). Implications of Higher Education Partnerships “HEIs are centres of innovation, invention and discovery, and can help drive the development of social and technological innovations and solutions across SDG challenges” (Balsiger et al. 2017; Tilbury 2012). Societal transformation calls for systemic approaches across multiple disciplines in research and education to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. Thus, HEIs can substantially contribute to the strengthening of the 2030 Agenda by integrating sustainability issues into research and curriculum, fostering reflective and critical thinking, and encouraging students to take bold, transformative steps to think creatively and address complex development challenges of today (Vaughter 2018; Morin 2014). Students have shown to be effective change agents and drive sustainability at universities and play a vital role in transforming HEIs (Tappeser and Meyer 2012; Ferrer-Balas et al. 2008). Government support and strong partnerships across sectors can implement sustainability practices on campuses and their surroundings. Strengthening of links between political and scientific players can inform public policy

629

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals, Table 3 Mechanisms to support interdisciplinary research on sustainability in HEIs. (Adapted from Kestin et al. 2017) Integrating interdisciplinary research approaches on the SDGs in HEIs Map and align new and existing research in HEIs with the SDGs Raise awareness of SDGs on campus Identify opportunities for interdisciplinary linkages Help researchers understand how their research relates to the SDGs Collaborate with businesses to develop new technologies and solutions to address the SDGs Incorporate SDGs and interdisciplinary approaches in institutional strategies Prioritize interdisciplinary research relating to the SDGs Build capacity and raise profile of research champions addressing the SDGs Develop internal funding structures and exchange programs to support interdisciplinary research and partnerships Encourage and support researchers to engage in global initiatives and networks which support the SDGs Showcase research relating to the SDGs Highlight interdisciplinary research contributions to the SDGs in major reports Provide a communication platform for sustainability research discussions and interactions Reflect value and validity of interdisciplinary research approaches Provide incentive structures for academic promotion and tenure

regarding knowledge base and best practices necessary to drive research development. HEIs can also support the implementation of the SDGs by developing cross sectoral partnerships around specific SDG challenges; leading policy development for the SDGs; providing expert advice on the 2030 Agenda, as well as localized SDG targets and indicators; and educating future decision-makers by reflective and critical thinking approaches (Körfgen et al. 2018). Complementarity of expertise and mobilization of resources are essential to achieve maximum impact and require the three arms of higher education, teaching, research, and service, to be highly engaged (Tandon 2017). Changes in the external environment can significantly influence university research on the SDGs. Thus, it is vital that researchers at

I

630

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals

HEIs advocate for interdisciplinary research funding addressing the SDGs and guide the setting of national agendas and research priorities for maximum benefit. HEIs can contribute to the SDGs by evaluating their internal governance structure and operational policies. Examples of overlap between the SDG agenda, university operations, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Kestin et al. 2017) include employment, finance, campus services, support services, facilities, procurement, human resources, and student administration. HEIs can map how their university strategies, policies, and indicators align with the SDGs, incorporate the SDGs into university organizational reporting, and draw on the extensive resources and networks that exist around CSR for support in further implementation (Kestin et al. 2017). Role of Multi-stakeholder Partnerships Multi-stakeholder, interdisciplinary partnerships can facilitate the 2030 Agenda in many ways. Multistakeholder partnerships can mobilize knowledge, expertise, resources, and technologies to address the SDGs (Rhodes 2016) and lead to more responsible, inclusive, and sustainable growth (Okitisari et al. 2018). Multi-stakeholder partnerships are collaborations between stakeholders who have varied interests, outlook, resources, and approaches to understanding problems (Tandon and Chakrabarti 2018). Such partnerships are usually interdisciplinary, share a common purpose, involve joint problem-solving, and seek a common language to build trust and value (Schäferhoff et al. 2009). Partnerships importantly allow organizations to “pool their resources and promote name-recognition and legitimacy” (Atkisson 2015). The interconnectedness of SDG 17 calls for a new way of collaborating, to address these complex challenges (Beisheim and Ellersiek 2017). Following the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, an increase in the number of registered partnerships in the global partnership platform was observed (Hazlewood 2015; Peterson et al. 2014). This reflects an increased realization and level of acceptance of the need for novel approaches to address the SDGs. Regional cooperation is required to help leverage capacity and facilitate engagement to

support multi-stakeholder partnerships. For example, issues related to soil conservation, desertification, and water management all require interdisciplinary, transboundary partnerships to address regional concerns. In this regard, the development of multi-stakeholder partnerships is complex and time-consuming and requires strong governance mechanisms. Sustainable financing and commitment from all heterogeneous stakeholders to align their vision with the 2030 Agenda are required. Challenges associated with multi-stakeholder partnerships in the public, nonprofit, and commercial sectors are well documented (Anderson and Jap 2005; Hodge and Greve 2005; Suen 2005) and have shown to be attributed to environmental conditions, differences in organizational objectives, communication barriers, management of joint operations, power imbalance struggles, trust, and logistics of working with remote partners (Babiak and Thibault 2009). A study analyzing 340 partnerships, 5 years since inception, found 38% of partnerships to have low or no measurable output and the remaining 42% to be engaged in activities disconnected from their original goals and ambitions (Pattberg and Widerberg 2016). Excessive numbers of stakeholders in a multi-stakeholder partnership can create complicated accountabilities and create ambiguities in areas of responsibilities (Coulson 2005). A collaboration between direct competitors can be a challenge (García-Canal et al. 2003) and at the same time be considered healthy as it reinforces organizations to focus their efforts on making sound strategic decisions which would be mutually beneficial (Huxham and MacDonald 1992). The nine building blocks (Table 4) for a successful multi-stakeholder partnership require each party having a clear understanding of how each partner views their relationship (Pattberg and Widerberg 2016).

Benefits and Challenges The importance of interdisciplinary research to address complex global problems is well recognized (Roelofs et al. 2018). A vanguard of universities have invested institutional efforts on

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals, Table 4 Building blocks and indicators for partnership success for implementing interdisciplinary research (Adapted from Pattberg and Widerberg 2016) Building block Leadership

Optimal partners

Goal setting Sustained funding

Process management

Monitoring, reporting, evaluation, and learning

Meta governance

Political and social context Fit to problem structure

Key questions Is there an effective governance structure, inclusion, or transparency? Is there a common vision or demonstration of commitment? Are the goals specific, measurable, and realistic? Is there sufficient financing to initiate and develop the partnership? Is there a process in place to manage the day-to-day operations? Is there a transparent framework to assess practices for effectiveness and improvement? Do the goals and procedures align with other agreed goals? Are there contingency plans to address new challenges? Is there a common understanding of the drivers and solutions to reach the goals?

addressing the SDGs (Gibson et al. 2019). The complicated and collaborative nature of interdisciplinary research is bound to be fraught with challenges. Building trust across multiple sectors requires time, emotional effort, investment, and the speaking of a common language between and across fields to deepen engagement (Gibson et al. 2019; Jackson and Crabtree 2014; Crabtree 2017). Interdisciplinary research is a complex environment and requires teams to identify collaborators across a variety of disciplines, work collaboratively to develop a research plan, analyze rich data, and publish results in appropriate journals (Bromham et al. 2016). There is conflicting data to suggest that papers referencing disparate fields are more or less cited (Yegros-Yegros et al. 2015;

631

Larivière et al. 2015) and that scientists are less likely to cite papers, which mix disparate bodies of knowledge (Yegros-Yegros et al. 2015). Effective interpersonal skills can help find common ground and lead to more effective academic outcomes (Cheruvelil et al. 2014). Despite these challenges, research evaluations have shown 90% of researchers feel that the benefits of interdisciplinary research outweigh its challenges (Gibson et al. 2019). Interdisciplinary research teams need to understand the importance of managing different funding streams to build expertise, capacity, and careers in research (Gibson et al. 2019). “Distal interdisciplinarity enables research projects to respond to the SDGs in a more complex funding environment, and with the right combination of program design and leadership dialogue, and can nurture and nourish greater early-career engagement and leadership building among the next generation of researchers” (Gibson et al. 2019). Studies have demonstrated formal or informal dialogues with leaders can lead to improved clarity and boost confidence and lead to research advancement (Gibson et al. 2019). Funding programs need to encourage interdisciplinary interactions as part of the initiation and development process and engage in dialogues in the early stages of idea generation to enrich the 2030 Agenda. Given that interdisciplinary research brings together bodies of knowledge from multiple disciplines (Strang 2016), its benefits are profound. Amalgamating various processes would stimulate novel therapeutic approaches to problems, approaches unprecedented in discipline, scholar, field, or country. The success of the interdisciplinary partnership depends on the vital premise of each party appreciating the other’s strengths and weaknesses. The interdisciplinary nature of the SDGs opens doors to diverse career paths for researchers and thus offers perfect introduction to team-based approaches for both students and researchers. Interdisciplinary research not only provides knowledge and vocabulary to understand multiple disciplines; it also fosters necessary communication skills to work across teams and platforms.

I

632

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals

Key Recommendations For the implementation of the SDGs to have maximum impact, interweaving of global goals into national policies, plans, and strategies is necessary (Kestin et al. 2017). As noted earlier, topics and issues in social sciences, economics, and the environment underpin the SDGs. Its framing provides for opportunities for further organizational-level engagement and operationalization, as well as for broader interdisciplinary research. Key recommendations on how to energize and advance interdisciplinary team collaboration for implementing the SDGs are provided below, and although the list is not exhaustive, it serves to offer suggestions to prompt collective imagination. The recommendations provide a basis for collaboration between different platforms to support the advancement of the 2030 Agenda (Fig. 2) and reflect upon the complex interplay between the 17 goals and 169 targets: • Funders should develop interdisciplinary funding programs, which raise awareness and support the SDGs, and reinforce impact. Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals, Fig. 2 Key set of recommendations for promoting interdisciplinary research collaboration for implementing the SDGs

Expert panels for these programs should include a balance of expertise, practitioners, and policy makers from social, economic, and environment sciences with a broad understanding of other subjects (Brown et al. 2015). The international dimension unlocked by such funding programs will promote growth of interdisciplinary teams in global networks, HEIs, and their partners and bring more diverse and cultural perspectives to research questions which extend beyond disciplinary boundaries. • Organizations should introduce key performance indicators (KPIs) to help focus efforts and assess the impact of SDG interactions. These indicators should include qualitative and quantitative measures of impact and policy and practice. HEIs should also include academic indices and identify and incentivize interdisciplinary research collaboration (McLeish and Strang 2016) through internal funding and academic recognition and promotion. • Sound governance structures and leadership to foster integrative approaches to achieving the SDGs are required. Governments will need

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals

to take advantage of the SDG synergies by working with other ministries, institutions, and businesses to address crosscutting goals and policies. • Research capacity and focus to address the SDGs must be enhanced. Increasing awareness and commitment to the SDGs can facilitate productive interdisciplinary research partnerships between researchers, policy makers, and commercial sectors (Brown et al. 2015). • Effective and active communication to build knowledge and inspire peer learning on the SDGs should be amplified. Effective communication can identify and highlight good practices, innovation, lessons, and challenges as they emerge. Raising awareness and access to resources and learning platforms can stimulate constructive dialogue between researchers and communities and foster empathy and respect from different perspectives. Institutions need to set goals for public awareness, incorporate the SDGs into communication strategies and research programs, and track progress in strengthening public awareness and engagement (Kestin et al. 2017).

Conclusions The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development proposes to tackle complex global challenges through 17 goals and 169 targets, and together they represent an integrated, ambitious, and indivisible agenda for global transformation. The SDGs require engagement across a wide array of actors and disciplines to achieve delivery. With this in mind, the purpose of this chapter has been to highlight the role and potential of interdisciplinarity in implementing the SDGs. In pursuing this aim, the chapter emphasized the need for collaboration across sectors to operationalize the 2030 Agenda, as the SDGs are linked, connected, and interdependent. Further research on their interconnectedness will improve our understanding on their synergies and trade-offs. The range of interdisciplinary research networks to support these synergies is a promising scope of future research and

633

practice. While the chapter does not provide an exhaustive list, it reflects on the various relationships that exist to enhance implementation of the SDGs. Moreover, HEIs are uniquely poised to broker links between sectors and assist with crosscutting approaches to achieving the SDGs. Literature suggests that interdisciplinary research is fundamental to the future of research as it brings scholars together in novel combinations to develop ambitious projects on the SDGs. Our proposition in this chapter is interdisciplinary research partnerships can make a substantive contribution to achieving the SDGs and warrants further study on the societal impact of interdisciplinary research as it works to meet those goals.

References Alcamo J, Grundy C, Scharlemann J (2018) Interactions among the sustainable development goals, and why they are important. Sussex sustainability research programme (SSRP), University of Sussex and Institute of Development Studies, Brighton. Available via www. sussex.ac.uk/ssrp/sdginteractions. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Anderson E, Jap S (2005) The dark side of close relationships. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 46:75–82 Annan-Diab F, Molinari C (2017) Interdisciplinarity: practical approach to advancing education for sustainability and for the sustainable development goals. Int J Manag Educ 15(2b):73–83 Atkisson A (2015) Multi-stakeholder partnerships in the Post-2015 development era: sharing knowledge and expertise to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals. In: Expert group meeting being convened by the division for sustainable development, United Nations department of economic and social affairs (UN-DESA/DSD), New York, 16 June 2015 Babiak K, Thibault L (2009) Challenges in multiple crosssector partnerships. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 38 (1):117–143 Balsiger J, Förster R, Mader C et al (2017) Transformative learning and education for sustainable development. GAIA – Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 26:357–359 Bebbington J, Unerman J (2018) Achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals: an enabling role for accounting research. Account Audit Account J 31(1):2–24 Beisheim M, Ellersiek A (2017) Partnerships for the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: transformative, inclusive and accountable? Berlin, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs. Available at https://sustainable development.un.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019

I

634

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals

Bromham L, Dinnage R, Hua X (2016) Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature 534(7609):684–687 Brown RR, Deletic A, Wong TH (2015) Interdisciplinarity: how to catalyse collaboration. Nature 525:315–317 Cheruvelil KS, Soranno PA, Weathers KC et al (2014) Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Front Ecol Environ 12(1):31–38 Costanza R, Fioramonti L, Kubiszewski I (2016) The UN sustainable development goals and the dynamics of well-being. Front Ecol Environ 14(2):59 Coulson A (2005) A plague on all your partnerships: theory and practice in regeneration. Int J Public Sect Manag 18(2):151–156 Crabtree L (2017) Unsettling impact: responding to cultural complexity. Aust Geogr 48:427–435 Dale A, Newman L (2005) Sustainable development, education and literacy. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4):351–362 DeFries S, Ellis EC, Stuart Chapin F et al (2012) Planetary opportunities: a social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. Bioscience 62 (6):603–606 Dohlman E, Soria Morales E, Lindberg C et al (2015) OECD better policies for development 2015: policy coherence and green growth, OECD Publishing, Paris. Available via http://www.oecd.org/development. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Eagan P, Cook T, Joeres E (2002) Teaching the importance of culture and interdisciplinary education for sustainable development. Int J Sustain High Educ 3(1):48–66 Endo A, Tsurita I, Burnett K et al (2017) A review of the current state of research on the water, energy, and food nexus. J Hydrol Reg Stud 11:20–30 Fader M, Cranmer C, Lawford R et al (2018) Toward an understanding of synergies and trade-offs between water, energy, and food SDG targets. Front Environ Sci 6:112 Ferrer-Balas D, Adachi J, Banas S et al (2008) An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. Int J Sustain High Educ 9:295–316 García-Canal E, Valdés-Llaneza A, Ariño A (2003) Effectiveness of dyadic and multi-party joint ventures. Organ Stud 24(5):743–770 Gibson C, Stutchbury T, Ikutegbe Vet al (2019) Challengeled interdisciplinary research in practice: program design, early career research, and a dialogic approach to building unlikely collaborations. Res Eval 28(1):51– 62 Hametner M, Kostetckaia M, Setz I et al (2019) Sustainable development in the European Union: overview of progress towards the SDGs in an EU context. Available via https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Hazlewood P (2015) Global multi-stakeholder partnerships: scaling up public-private collective impact for the SDGs. Independent research forum background

paper No 4. Available via https://sustainablede velopment.un.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Ho E, Runnalls J (2018) Generation SDG: empowering Canadians through sustainable development. Waterloo global science initiative. Available via http://wgsi.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Hodge GA, Greve C (eds) (2005) The challenge of publicprivate partnerships: learning from international experience. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham Huxham C, MacDonald D (1992) Introducing collaborative advantage: achieving inter-organizational effectiveness through meta-strategy. Manag Decis 30:50–55 Jackson S, Crabtree L (2014) Politically engaged geographical research with the community sector: is it encouraged by Australia’s higher education and research institutions? Geogr Res 52(2):146–156 Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. Routledge, London Kestin T, Van den Belt M, Denby L et al (2017) SDSN Australia/Pacific (2017): getting started with the SDGs in universities: a guide for universities, higher education institutions, and the academic sector. Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Edition. Sustainable development solutions network – Australia/Pacific, Melbourne. Available via http://ap-unsdsn.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Kickbusch I, Hanefeld J (2017) Role for academic institutions and think tanks in speeding progress on sustainable development goals. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 358:j3519 Körfgen A, Förster K, Glatz I et al (2018) It’s a hit! Mapping Austrian research contributions to the sustainable development goals. Sustainability 10:3295 Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P (2015) The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS One 10 (6):1–15 Luppi E (2011) Training to education for sustainable development through e-learning. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 15:3244–3251 McArthur J (2014) The origins of the millennium development goals. SAIS Rev XXXIV(2):5–24 McLeish T, Strang V (2016) Evaluating interdisciplinary research: the elephant in the peer-reviewers’ room. Nat Palgrave Commun 2(16055):1–8 Middleton J, Cassell JA, Novotny V et al (2017) Surfaces: an interdisciplinary project to understand and health in the vulnerable rainforests of Papua New Guinea. Paper presented at the inaugural planetary health/geohealth annual meeting, Harvard Medical School, Boston, 28– 30 Apr 2017 Morin E (2014) Complex thinking for a complex world: about reductionism, disjunction and systemism. Syst Connect Matter Life Cult Technol 2:14–22 Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016) Policy: map the interactions between sustainable development goals. Nature 534:320–322 Nunes AR, Lee K, O’Riordan T (2016) The importance of an integrating framework for achieving the sustainable

Interdisciplinary Research Teams for the Sustainable Development Goals development goals: the example of health and wellbeing. BMJ Glob Health 1:e000068 Ogbuigwe A (2018) SDG 17 partnerships for the goals: a view from inside Africa’s higher education institutions. In: Approaches to SDG 17 partnerships for the sustainable development goals (SDGs). A publication by the GUNi group of experts in SDGs in higher education. Available via http://www.guninetwork.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Okitisari M, Dahiya B, Takemoto K (2018) Building successful multi-stakeholder partnerships to implement the 2030 Agenda in the Asia-Pacific Region. In: Approaches to SDG 17 partnerships for the sustainable development goals (SDGs). A publication by the GUNi group of experts in SDGs in higher education. Available via http://www.guninetwork.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Pattberg P, Widerberg O (2016) Transnational multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: conditions for success. Ambio 45:42 Peterson K, Mahmud A, Bhavaraju N et al (2014) The promise of partnerships: a dialogue between international NGOs and donors. Available via https://www. fsg.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Pittock J, Orr S, Stevens L et al (2015) Tackling trade-offs in the Nexus of water, energy and food. Aquatic Procedia 5:58–68 Planell JA, Chakrabarti K, Dahiya B et al (2018) Approaches to SDG 17 partnerships for sustainable development goals. Available via www.guninetwork. org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Pradhan P, Costa L, Rybski D et al (2017) A systematic study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future 5:1169–1179 Razavi N, Beale J (2019) Research partnerships to realize the 2030 agenda in Canada. BCCIC and CCIC’s good practice in 2030 agenda implementation series. Available via https://ccic.ca. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Rhodes A (2016) Revitalizing global partnerships to further the sustainable development goals. Available via https://npengage.com/foundations. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Rickels W, Dovern J, Hoffmann J et al (2016) Indicators for monitoring sustainable development goals: an application to oceanic development in the European Union. Earth’s Future 4(5):252–267 Roelofs S, Edwards N, Viehbeck S (2018) Formative, embedded evaluation to strengthen interdisciplinary team science: results of a 4-year, mixed methods, multi-country case study. Res Eval 28(1):37–50 Sachs J (2012) From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet 379:2206–2211 Sachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C et al (2019) Sustainable development report. New York Bertelsmann Stiftung and sustainable development solutions network (SDSN). Available via http://unsdsn.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Schäferhoff M, Campe S, Kaan C (2009) Transnational public-private partnerships in international relations:

635

making sense of concepts, research frameworks and results. Int Stud Rev 11:451–474 Schmalzbauer B, Visbeck M (2016) The contribution of science in implementing the sustainable development goals. German Committee Future Earth, Stuttgart/Kiel. Available via http://www.dkn-future-earth.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Stibbe DT, Reid S, Gilbert J (2018) Maximising the impact of partnerships for the SDGs. The partnering initiative and UN DESA. Available via https://sustainablede velopment.un.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Strang V (ed) (2016) Transforming the way we think. Durham University, Institute of Advanced Study Suen WW (2005) The dark side of strategic alliances. In: Non-cooperation – the dark side of strategic alliances. Palgrave Macmillan, London Summers M, Childs A, Corney G (2005) Education for sustainable development in initial teacher training: issues for interdisciplinary collaboration. Environ Educ Res 11(5):623–647 Tandon R (2017) Societal engagement in higher education: pathways to SDGs. In: Sustainable development goals: actors and implementation a report from the international conference, Polytechnic University of CataloniaBarcelonaTech, Barcelona, 18–19 Sept 2017 Tandon R, Chakrabarti K (2018) Partnering with higher education institutions for SDG 17: the role of higher education in multi-stakeholder partnerships. In: Approaches to SDG 17 partnerships for the sustainable development goals (SDGs). A publication by the GUNi group of experts in SDGs in higher education. Available via http://www.guninetwork.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Tappeser V, Meyer A (2012) Change-agents in sustainability governance institutional transformation at three institutions of higher education. In: Leal WF (ed) Sustainable development at universities: new horizons. Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, Frankfurt Tilbury D (2012) Higher education for sustainability: a global overview of commitment and progress. In: Higher education in the world 4: higher education’s commitment to sustainability: from understanding to action. A publication by the global university network for innovation (GUNi) UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/70/224 (2015) Towards global partnerships: a principle-based approach to enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners. Available via https:// undocs.org. Accessed on 14 Aug 2019 Van Damme F (2016) Innovating education and educating for innovation: the power of digital technologies and skills, OECD publishing. Available via http://www. oecd.org/education. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Van Wees SLH, Målqvist M, Irwin R (2018) Achieving the SDGs through interdisciplinary research in global health. Scand J Public Health:1–3. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1403494818812637 Vaughter P (2018) Beacons, not towers: how higher education can help achieve the sustainable development

I

636 goals UNU-IAS policy brief No. 13. Available via http://collections.unu.edu. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Woodbridge M (2015) From MDGs to SDGs: what are the sustainable development goals? ICLEI briefing sheet urban issues, No. 01. Available via http://old.iclei.org. Accessed 14 Aug 2019 Yegros-Yegros A, Rafols I, D’Este P (2015) Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS One 10(8):1–21

Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance Eric Yankson Faculty of Natural Resources and Spatial Sciences, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek, Namibia

Definition Inter-governmental partnerships entail voluntary collaborative endeavors between or among governmental units primarily at the local or national levels. Inter-local partnerships thus occur when various local governments pool synergies to address common challenges (Conner and Witt 2016). Moreover, international partnerships comprise joint endeavors by national governments in order to resolve problems with regional or global scope. Broadly speaking, international partnerships may be categorized into bilateral and mutlilateral approaches. Bilateral partnerships entail collaboration between two parties, usually nation-states or international organizations, in order to address pressing challenges (Renard 2016). Unlike bilateralism, multilateral partnerships comprise three or more parties due to the increased complexity of cross-border dynamics which portend the need for more actors and resources to be brought on board (Renard 2016). Regional partnerships entail subnational or supranational collaborative endeavors. They may therefore occur within the ambit of metropolitan governments or continental organizations such as the European Union (EU). Regional partnerships

Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance

may be broadly categorized into old and new regionalism. Old regionalism, which was preponderant from the 1950s to 1970s, was characterized by a dominant role for the nation-state and a topdown approach. This was associated with the era of the cold war and a Fordist system of production (Luo and Shen 2012; Savitch and Vogel 2000). From the 1980s, new regionalism emerged as an alternative paradigm. This approach comprises largely bottom-up initiatives by both state and nonstate actors to promote cross-jurisdictional collaboration. It is associated with the global era and its concomitant emphasis on neoliberalism. Thus, public-private partnerships and informal mechanisms are a preeminent feature of new regionalism (Luo and Shen 2012; Savitch and Vogel 2000). Besides regional partnerships, strategic partnerships refer to purpose-driven collaborative endeavors, for instance, between or among national governments. These may occur in the form of North-North, North-South, or SouthSouth cooperations. North-North cooperation refers to collaboration between or among developed nations (Laine 2011). North-South cooperation entails engagements between or among developed countries on the one hand and developing nations on the other hand (Masters 2017). Moreover, South-South cooperation refers to collaboration between or among developing countries (De Renzio and Seifert 2014).

Introduction: Contextualizing Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance The emergence of inter-governmental partnerships and global governance may primarily be explained by three related currents: globalization, neoliberalism, and political economy. Globalization became a dominant force particularly from the 1970s to date. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, economic decline occurred due to factors such as deindustrialization and the global oil crises (Savitch and Kantor 2002). These developments resulted in national and local governments resorting to alternative approaches in mobilizing

Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance

resources for economic development. Thus, foreign direct investment started assuming a more prominent role. Globalization also created increased exchanges among different governments as a result of the inter-connected nature of the challenges they faced (Savitch 2002; Savitch and Kantor 2002). The aforementioned developments went hand in hand with the growing power of multinational firms. These corporations were the lynchpins of private investment due to the tremendous capital and other resources available to them (Abrahamson 2004). Neoliberalism has thus resulted in an increased role for private actors, capital, and values in the governance process. This accounts for the emergence of public-private partnerships. Moreover, the governance process has evolved to embrace private sector principles such as administrative efficiency and cost-minimization (Savitch and Kantor 2002). The emergence of globalization and neoliberalism also coincided with the advent of political economy as a dominant school of thought in public affairs. This ideology emphasized the role of human elements such as power and resources as steering agents for planning and policy making (Abrahamson 2004). It thus encompasses the interaction of political and economic forces and how these shape the development discourse. Political economy is associated with various actors and interests, resulting in bargaining or other forms of dialogue to streamline decisionmaking (Savitch and Kantor 2002). This creates the need for partnership building and a more fluid approach to the governance process (Yankson 2015).

Inter-governmental Partnerships Inter-governmental partnerships occur in various forms. These include inter-local, international, regional, and strategic engagements. Inter-local Partnerships Inter-governmental partnerships may entail collaboration among different local governmental units in order to effectively deal with cross-

637

jurisdictional development matters such as the provision of public services. Transaction cost theory articulates that the proclivity for embarking on such partnerships is higher when the benefits entailed exceed the expected costs (Conner and Witt 2016). Moreover, the theory of resource dependence asserts that these partnerships may be necessitated by resource paucity on the part of poorer localities. This implies that pooling efforts with wealthier locales become a more effective way of addressing common challenges (Conner and Witt 2016). Inter-local partnerships also help to minimize duplication in the provision of services by establishing a common infrastructure base for supplying services such as water, electricity, and security. This serves to ameliorate capacity challenges for poor localities and also ensure prudent resource allocation through cost minimization (Conner and Witt 2016). Inter-local partnerships may be formal or informal in nature. Formal partnerships are usually enshrined within clearly-defined institutional and legal channels. Thus, they may be associated with an elaborate government machinery for delivering outcomes. Moreover, actors in these arrangements could be legally bound to adhere to approved standards (Yankson 2015; Savitch and Vogel 2000). In European municipalities, for instance, the preponderance of formal and hierarchical approaches to metropolitan governance implies that institutional collective action is more common (Tavares and Feiock 2017). Factors such as local political, institutional, legal, and historical dynamics shape their respective approaches to this form of collaboration (Tavares and Feiock 2017; Yankson 2015). Informal inter-local partnerships are however epitomized by voluntary collaboration among actors. These mechanisms are usually not legally binding and rely on the goodwill of the parties involved. They primarily occur through pacts and other fluid governance approaches (Yankson 2015; Savitch and Vogel 2000). This form of collaboration tends to be more common in places such as the United States which are characterized by political fragmentation. As a result, the formation of formal regional governmental structures is

I

638

often greeted askance by individual localities concerned about the implications of such actions for local autonomy (Yankson 2015; Savitch and Vogel 2000). International Partnerships As regards international partnerships, bilateralism continues to evolve in terms of the balance of power, as well as the nature of the parties involved (Renard 2016). For instance, China has in the recent past engaged in several bilateral agreements with individual nations in developing regions such as Africa as a way of increasing its international foothold. This serves as a counterbalance to the dominance of traditional actors such as the United States and the EU. Moreover, bilateral partnerships are no longer the preserve of nation-states. The EU, for instance, has signed such collaborative agreements with various national and nonnational actors. Bilateral partnerships often serve as the lynchpin for eventual multilateral engagements, and this accounts in part for their preponderance in international relations. For instance, the UN Treaty Series estimates the existence of about 50,000 dyadic partnerships, as opposed to 3,500 multilateral agreements (World Trade Organization 2011; Renard 2016). In terms of international trade, bilateralism is evident in terms of Preferential Trade Agreements. As of 2011, there were 300 of such agreements with most of them being dyadic in nature (World Trade Organization 2011; Renard 2016). Moreover, bilateralism is evident through investment treaties. As of 2011, over 2,800 bilateral investment treaties comprising more than 175 countries were in existence (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 2012; Renard 2016). According to Renard (2016), multilateral partnerships, unlike bilateralism, may be broadly conceptualized as comprising three or few nations (minilateralism) or all the nations of the world (universal multilateralism). Moreover, they may be comprehended in terms of hard and soft multilateralism. Hard multilateralism is conducted based on treaties and other legal instruments. However, soft multilateralism is relatively fluid, not legally binding and reliant on the goodwill of

Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance

parties for implementation (Caouette and Côté 2011). Multilateral partnerships may take place within or across continents. For instance, the EU constitutes a preeminent forum for multilateralism in Europe due to the recognition of the salience of globalization which implies that many challenges straddle national borders. In the African Union (AU), multilateralism occurs in the form of interregional diplomatic activity and subregional economic cooperation. Also, multilateralism is evident in terms of strategic partnerships between the EU and AU (Olivier 2012). Regional Partnerships Inter-local and international partnerships are closely associated with regionalism. As already noted, two broad forms of regionalism (i.e., old and new) exist. The distinction between old and new regionalism may be conceptualized in terms of the dichotomy between government and governance. Government is a hierarchical endeavor comprising formal institutional channels while governance is a fluid mechanism epitomized by voluntary actors (Savitch and Vogel 2000). Old regionalism is largely concomitant with government while new regionalism encapsulates the notion of governance. Thus, old regionalism is relatively more institutionalized and associated with stable regional identities (Zimmerbauer and Paasi 2013; Paasi 2009; Jones and MacLeod 2004). New regionalism is, however, a deinstitutionalized approach which seeks to address preeminent issues posed by global economic competitiveness (Zimmerbauer and Paasi 2013; Paasi 2009; Jones and MacLeod 2004). Hettne (2003) identified five levels of regionness. In the first phase known as regional space, isolated communities exist which have minimal interactions with each other. This eventually gradates to a more advanced form characterized by inter-local relations. Eventually, nation building and the rise of nation-states result in the blurring of these individual communal identities. This level may be referred to as regional complex (Luo and Shen 2012). The next phase known as regional societies is epitomized by an increased role on the part of state and nonstate actors to

Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance

promote collaboration in order to address interjurisdictional matters. These efforts ultimately result in the emergence of regional communities associated with a stronger sense of regional identity and the relative de-emphasis of local or national territorial domains (Hettne 2003; Luo and Shen 2012). In the fifth level referred to regional institutionalized polity or region state, there is the formation of permanent institutions for the promotion of inter-jurisdictional cooperation, especially among different state actors. The EU is one of the most enduring examples of this level of regional engagement (Hettne 2003; Luo and Shen 2012). At the metropolitan scale, a variety of approaches can be adopted in the pursuit of new regionalism. In the consolidationist mechanism, individual localities are merged to generate unified administrative mechanisms for solving regional problems. Moreover, the multitiered approach comprises different layers of government for addressing problems at unique spatial scales (Savitch and Vogel 2000). Also, linked functions entail the association of regional governmental units with service provision as emblazoned by agreements between city and country agreements. Moreover, complex networks encapsulate a plethora of autonomous local governmental units engaging in overlapping collaborative agreements (Savitch and Vogel 2000). Finally, public choice is associated with unbridled fragmentation, resulting in citizens voting with their feet in response to the quality of service delivery in individual jurisdictions (Savitch and Vogel 2000). Strategic Partnerships Regionalism, especially at the supranational scale, is closely associated with strategic partnerships. As noted earlier, the main forms of strategic partnerships in international relations are NorthNorth, North-South, and South-South cooperations. The G7/8 bloc constitutes one of the most preeminent forums for North-North cooperation in both the political and economic realms. NorthNorth cooperation may also be defined more narrowly to describe collaboration among countries in the circumpolar North. For instance, the Arctic

639

Council, created in 1996, has emerged as an intergovernmental platform for promoting cooperation among countries in the region (Laine 2011). Moreover, cooperation between Russia and the EU is increasingly assuming an important role in strategic geopolitics. Also, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) promotes political and military cooperation. This body has expanded to include more countries beyond the five original Arctic states namely the United States, Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, and Iceland (Laine 2011). Besides the aforementioned examples, NorthSouth cooperation can be adopted as an approach for elevating bilateral partnerships. For instance, the EU-South Africa Strategic Partnership which was created in 2007 via the Joint Action Plan (JAP) serves as a pivot for the EU to advance international cooperation on the African continent. Synchronously, it accords South Africa preferential access to EU markets and intergovernmental platforms. The JAP affirms the commitment of both parties to multilateralism, the UN system and Sustainable Development (Masters 2017). North-South cooperation can be an important strategy for pooling resources toward dealing with the problem of international refugees. For instance, South Asia’s hosting of many refugees from countries such as Afghanistan and Myanmar has contributed significantly to minimizing the migration of these people to Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada. However, due to the tremendous burden this poses to the economies of several developing nations in the region, collaboration between the EU and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation is pivotal (Ahmed 2018). Another important form of collaboration is South-South cooperation, which mostly emerged after World War II and gained ground during the era of the Cold War. It became institutionalized following the Bandung Conference of April 1955 which promoted collaboration among 25 developing countries in Africa and Asia (De Renzio and Seifert 2014). Subsequently, the Belgrade Conference of 1961 led to the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement which engendered cooperation among developing

I

640

Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance

countries neither aligned to the West nor East. This was followed by a conference in Cairo in 1962, as well as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1964. UNCTAD eventually led to the emergence of the Group of 77 developing countries or G77 (De Renzio and Seifert 2014). In 1974, the New International Economic Order was created under the auspices of UNCTAD and G77. Moreover, the Buenos Aires Plan of Action emerged in 1978 to promote technical and development cooperation among developing nations within the UN system (De Renzio and Seifert 2014). Due to global economic and financial downturns, the 1980s and 1990s were characterized by minimal South-South cooperation. The situation, however, changed in the 2000s and 2010s with emergence of the powerful BRICS bloc comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (De Renzio and Seifert 2014; Abdenur and Da Fonseca 2013).

engenders deliberative politics (Nanz and Steffek 2004). Global governance may be variously conceptualized. To begin with, it entails formal intergovernmental collaborative endeavors under the ambit of organizations such as the UN, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Moreover, global governance could occur through informal inter-governmental platforms such as the Group of 7/8 most industrialized nations (G7/8). Others include inter-local agencies such as the World Organization of United Cities and Local Governments (Carin et al. 2006). There is also the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization which advances the interests of aboriginal groups. Besides these organizational contexts, global governance is also immanent through a set of rules associated with various networks of actors such as professionals. Moreover, it encapsulates the structures of markets as delineated by the forces of neoliberalism in the global economy (Carin et al. 2006).

Global Governance

Political Governance Transnational governance platforms appear synonymous with relatively less democratic forms of decision-making. This is due to the hierarchical nature which defines their institutional structures. Moreover, the strong influence of governments appears to promote political centralization (Steffek and Nanz 2008). Toward redressing this democratic deficit in global political governance, three main schools of thought have emerged. The first view advocates the replication of parliamentary democracy on a transnational scale. A quintessential example of this is the European Parliament which promotes democratic engagement among transnational actors in Europe (Steffek and Nanz 2008). Scholars such as Falk and Strauss (2000, 2001) have even recommended the establishment of a “Global People’s Assembly” to serve as the parliamentary arm of the UN. The second perspective, however, argues that a parliamentary system on a transnational scale is premature (Grant and Keohane 2005; Steffek and Nanz 2008). Thus, emphasis should rather be placed on political accountability at the supranational level (Fisher 2004; Grant and Keohane 2005; Steffek and Nanz 2008).

Inter-governmental partnerships are immanently linked with the concept of global governance. Global governance comprises collective transnational arrangements which serve to forestall political and economic anarchy, especially at the international level. Governance entails fluid mechanisms which pool synergies among actors across jurisdictions to address common challenges (Savitch and Vogel 2000). In sub-national contexts, the term normally connotes less state regulation, with more emphasis on a neoliberal paradigm as evident, for instance, through public-private partnerships. In international relations, however, this is not necessarily the case as the term may actually connote more state regulation and adherence to clearly defined rules (Zürn 2010). The organizational context of global governance is normally premised on a plethora of rules which govern engagement among actors in this system. While these rules create legal certainty, they portend negatively for the ethos of participatory politics. The transnational sphere of global governance must therefore be reconceptualized in terms of a framework which

Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance

The third school of thought emphasizes deliberative politics in order to enrich the public discourse (Steffek and Nanz 2008). Such an approach creates platforms for inclusive decision-making within the existing organizations which then trickle down to the national and subnational contexts. Three actors are particularly important in actualizing this model of governance. First, citizens must be actively engaged (Nanz and Steffek 2004). Second, civil society groups are pivotal in whipping up citizen interests in the political process and also advancing the needs of specific interest groups in this transnational governance framework. Third, the media is an invaluable actor through the provision of information and creation of digital platforms for informed discourse (Nanz and Steffek 2004). Political governance in the global system is primarily carried out under the ambit of the UN and its various organs or agencies. For instance, the UN Security Council serves as a platform where major powers pass resolutions on various aspects of global peace and security. These powers include the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. Besides the developed nations, developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil have increasingly been playing important roles in global governance. This occurs, for instance, through their contributions to peacekeeping operations and adherence to international conventions such as nuclear nonproliferation treaties (Kahler 2013). Economic Governance Global economic governance comprises both formal and informal precepts which constitute a coordinating framework for the world economy. It entails the networking and institutional relationships associated with the implementation of these regulations. This conception embodies the provision of global public goods. Thus, it comprises the notion of open markets and salience thereof for international economic trends (Drezner 2014). During the Great Recession of 2008, there were debates about whether or not global economic governance had failed. Admittedly, the imperfections of the governance system accounted in part for less desirable impacts such as the subprime mortgage crisis. This notwithstanding, the

641

resilience of global governance was evident through free markets and rules of international engagement which ultimately resulted in the economy bouncing back (Drezner 2014). Global economic governance is also evident through the presence of inter-governmental platforms such as the G-7/8, as well as the Group of 20 countries (G-20). The G-7/8 bloc promotes international economic and political cooperation among world powers such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia. The G-20 emerged in light of the financial crisis of 1997 which particularly affected nations in East Asia (Beeson and Bell 2009). The situation exposed the volatility of emergent economies upon exposure to international markets. The bloc comprises the G-7/ 8 nations, as well as the EU, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, China, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. These countries comprise two-thirds of the world population, 80% of international trade, and 85% of the global Gross Domestic Product (Beeson and Bell 2009). Often, the United States has been at the forefront of global economic governance. This occurs through the advancement of a neoliberal agenda under the auspices of bodies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund, and World Bank. In the recent past, however, developing countries have increasingly been playing more active roles toward upending the traditional dominance of the United States at these platforms (Hopewell 2013). For instance, Brazil, under the auspices of the G-20 bloc, was able to mobilize a powerful coalition of developing nations. The grouping successfully resisted agricultural subsidies by the United States and EU at the WTO in two prominent instances. These developments marked a major turning point in international trade diplomacy as they ended the hegemony of the traditional powers in agenda-setting during these negotiations (Hopewell 2013). Environmental Governance Unlike the economic realm, global environmental governance entails increased participation in the decision-making process, especially by nonstate

I

642

actors. Thus, nongovernmental organizations and civil society groups are becoming more pivotal players. Various environmentalists have proven instrumental in mobilizing changes to global rules, for instance, in terms of the campaign on banning antipersonnel land mines (Biermann 2004). Moreover, scientists provide insightful technical information needed by governments in the formulation of global environmental policy. Powerful multinational firms also play an important role in international policy making on the environment. Thus, global environmental governance entails an increased role for the private sector, resulting in the emergence of public-private partnerships as alternatives to traditional paradigms (Biermann 2004). Environmental governance may be understood within the lens of global carbon governance which entails a system of transnational rules and engagement that configure national approaches to dealing with climate change. This governance approach thus creates a platform for actors which straddles the traditional boundaries of the nation-state. The players include environmentalists, civil society groups, and multinational firms (Biermann 2010). Global carbon governance also embodies the notion of agency as actors possess the power to influence decision-making processes and outcomes. The concept encapsulates new notions of governance such as public-private partnerships and neoliberalism. Moreover, it is associated with both vertical and horizontal political fragmentation (Biermann 2010). With reference to the energy sector, the global collective action problem related to climate change is evident through greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuels and other less eco-friendly forms of energy. These environmental challenges create the need for a coordinated transnational response comprising various actors such as national governments, philantropists, and powerful corporations (Dubash and Florini 2011). Moreover, global energy governance occurs due to the need to pool international efforts toward regulation of markets in terms of pricing, supply, and infrastructure. A public goods framework serves as a coordinating mechanism for mitigating market and governance failures associated with

Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance

extant approaches to the energy sector (Dubash and Florini 2011). This accounts in part for the emergence of transnational platforms such as the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries. Networked Governance Global governance is evident through a networkbased approach. Networked governance comprises an inter-linked system of several nodes. The nodes may be individuals, organizations, government, or other actors. This governance approach emanates from the decentralization ethos embraced by several national governments in the recent past (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni 2016; Yankson 2015). Networked governance is especially evident in five main respects. First, there is an increased role for both public and private actors in the decision-making process. Second, unlike the ad hoc nature of most informal collaborative partnerships, this governance mechanism is associated with some level of institutionalization (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni 2016). Third, the institutionalization notwithstanding, the network comprises autonomous centers with independent decision-making powers. Fourth, the governance approach encapsulates voluntary negotiation and coordination as a strategy for driving public policy initiatives. Fifth, it is associated with the attainment of some form of a public good (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni 2016). Global networked governance entails collective action by transnational actors with the goal of attaining certain objectives which usually have universal or cross-national reverberations. This occurs under the ambit of organizations such as the UN, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund (Biermann et al. 2017). In the recent past, global governance under the auspices of the UN through its SDGs has assumed a new approach. To begin with, the goal-setting process is characterized by bottom-up mechanisms which enable inputs from individual national governments and civil society organizations (Biermann et al. 2017). Moreover, the fluid nature of the process is epitomized by the de-emphasis of formal institutional and legal frameworks for implementing these goals. Global governance through the SDGs also entails the adaptation of these goals to national

Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance

contexts and their localization by setting targets which take cognizance of specific contextual realities (Biermann et al. 2017). Within the UN system, global governance can occur through the strengthening of existing public policy networks with the goal of mobilizing resources and expertise from a diverse range of actors. These players include governments, civil society groups, and private businesses, among others. Moreover, global governance may entail the establishment of implementation networks for existing or even old conventions which still speak to the core mandate of the UN system (Reinicke et al. 2000). Also, the creation of entirely new networks may suffice in instances such as the development of novel technologies for dealing with complex challenges. In advancing global governance through a network approach, the UN plays the role of facilitator by creating platforms where diverse interests come together to find common ground which advances the public good (Reinicke et al. 2000). Moreover, it promotes capacity building and establishes multilevel government platforms for the coordination of the plethora of engagements involved. It also serves as a social and norms entrepreneur advancing universal values such as sustainable development and human rights (Reinicke et al. 2000).

Linkages: Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance The relationships between inter-governmental partnerships and global governance may be distilled in terms of the following elements: processes and outcomes; actors and interests; and territory, place, scale, and networks. Processes and Outcomes In terms of processes and outcomes, three kinds of linkages may be identified between the two concepts: 1. Inter-governmental partnerships result in global governance. 2. Global governance creates inter-governmental partnerships.

643

3. Inter-governmental partnerships are the same as global governance. To begin with, inter-governmental partnerships may be regarded as processes while global governance constitutes outcomes. This point of view can be explained by the fact that the partnerships emerge to resolve matters which transcend local or national jurisdictional boundaries (Tavares and Feiock 2017). In doing so, these governments mostly adopt fluid and network-based approaches as determined by the problem at hand. This results in the emergence of global governance since the conception entails the transcendence of traditional territorial domains (Yankson 2015). Alternatively, global governance could be regarded as the underlying cause of inter-governmental partnerships. This perspective may be justified by the fact that globalization has introduced a new paradigm of policy and decision-making characterized by partnership building (Savitch and Kantor 2002). Unlike the previous approach premised on government, this new school of thought is underscored by governance. Governance is a bottom-up or fluid approach epitomized by voluntary participation, resulting in the emergence of inter-governmental partnerships (Savitch and Vogel 2000; Yankson 2015). Inter-governmental partnerships and global governance may also be regarded as mutually reinforcing processes and outcomes. The interlinkages are evident in two main respects. First, both concepts embody the notion of dealing with matters which straddle individual governmental jurisdictions. They therefore encompass the notion of extralocality or supranationality (Yankson 2015). Second, the two conceptions are associated with collaboration between or among actors. The goal is to pool synergies in order to effectively address common challenges (Plangger 2019). Actors and Interests Actors and interests also demonstrate the relationships between inter-governmental partnerships and global governance. Specifically, the main actors are local and national governments, international and regional organizations, multinational

I

644

firms, civil society groups, and local communities. The interests are primarily political, economic, and environmental in nature. Local and national governments need to pool synergies in the global political economy as a way of addressing mutual challenges. These collaborative efforts simultaneously promote partnership building and a fluid approach to governance. Moreover, they result in a de-emphasis of the traditional conception of government which is premised on a top-down approach (Savitch and Vogel 2000; Yankson 2015). International or regional organizations such as the UN and EU are also pivotal as they provide the institutional or legal frameworks for mobilizing collective action. Moreover, they serve as transnational platforms for addressing enduring challenges such as climate change and immigration from developing countries (Steffek and Nanz 2008; Biermann et al. 2017). Multinational firms also provide the resources and expertise required for the successful actualization of public-private partnerships in the global political economy. This serves to challenge the traditional notion of public actors as the sole agents of decision-making in the governance process (Biermann 2004). Moreover, civil society groups and local communities are pivotal for partnership building in the existing global system. Through advocacy and dialogue, they shape the agenda of governments during collaborative endeavors. Moreover, the advent of social media and the Internet have resulted in the emergence of global platforms for democratic discourse (Nanz and Steffek 2004). Inter-governmental partnerships embody divergent political interests which must be reconciled to create a viable global governance system. These interests emanate from the prevailing international order characterized by power imbalances between various nations, as evident, for instance, in North-South and East-West divides (Masters 2017). Moreover, the economic interests associated with partnership-building in the global sphere create the need for bargaining in order to generate win-win outcomes for local, national, or international actors. These interests emerge from the

Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance

control of resources as well as the potential implications these have for the advancement of development goals (Beeson and Bell 2009). In the recent past, environmental interests have become pivotal in inter-goverrnmental partnerships within the global system. The result has been a plethora of mutual engagements focused on climate change, global warming, pollution, and other matters (Biermann 2010; Dubash and Florini 2011). The United Nations Environment Programme, Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, and other institutions have emerged to streamline these interests toward advancing the SDGs. Territory, Place, Scale, and Networks The territory, place, scale, and networks (TPSN) schema associated with Jessop (2016 and 2018) can also be adopted to explain the relationships between inter-governmental partnerships and global governance. Territory refers to the segmentation of space (Jessop et al. 2008; Plangger 2019). However, the two aforementioned concepts (i.e., inter-governmental partnerships and global governance) entail the transversal of traditional territorial domains which are constrained by local or national geography (Sassen 2013). Unlike territory, place refers to local embededness (Jessop et al. 2008; Plangger 2019). Inter-governmental partnerships and global governance result in the emergence of translocal, regional, and global identities (Jessop 2016, 2018). Simultaneously, they reinforce traditional place identities in a complex global system as actors articulate unique interests (Plangger 2019). Moreover, scale refers to the multiple layers of policy and decision-making associated with the political economic system (Jessop et al. 2008; Plangger 2019; Wissen 2009). Specifically, these comprise the local, regional, national, and global domains. Inter-governmental partnerships and global governance result in the de-emphasis of the local and national scales. Thus, they instantiate new paradigms primarily comprised of the regional and global layers (Jessop 2016, 2018). Also, networks entail fluid partnerships between or among actors (Jessop et al. 2008;

Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance

Plangger 2019). Inter-governmental partnerships and global governance encapsulate this concept due to the pooling of synergies among various players. They entail bottom-up engagements, sometimes facilitated by nonstate actors such as local communities and civil society groups (Biermann et al. 2017).

Conclusions Inter-governmental partnerships and global governance serve as avenues for pooling synergies and mobilizing resources toward the realization of the SDGs. They constitute a new approach to governance premised on voluntary engagement. Through bargaining, divergent interests can be harmonized to attain mutually beneficial outcomes. Thus, they create viable mechanisms for ensuring a coordinated approach to development in the global political economy. Moreover, partnership building helps to minimize the power imbalances which characterize the international system. This serves to shift the focus toward network-based approaches to global governance.

Cross-References ▶ Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy ▶ Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government

References Abdenur AE, Da Fonseca JMEM (2013) The North’s growing role in South–South cooperation: keeping the foothold. Third World Q 34(8):1475–1491 Abrahamson M (2004) Global cities. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford Ahmed ZS (2018) The role of SAARC and EU in managing refugees in South Asia and beyond: potential for North-South cooperation. Global Pol 9(1):76–84

645 Beeson M, Bell S (2009) The G-20 and international economic governance: hegemony, collectivism, or both? Glob Gov 15(1):67–86 Biermann F (2004) Global environmental governance: conceptualization and examples. Global governance working paper. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Environmental Policy Research Centre of the Freie Universität Berlin; Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; Oldenburg University Biermann F (2010) Beyond the intergovernmental regime: recent trends in global carbon governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:284–288 Biermann F, Kanie N, Kim RE (2017) Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN sustainable development goals. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:26–31 Caouette D, Côté D (2011) Ripe for a new Asian multilateralism? ASEAN and contemporary regional dynamics. Eur J East Asian Stud 10(1):5–36 Carin B, Higgott R, Scholte JA, Smith G, Stone D (2006) Global governance: looking ahead, 2006–2010. Glob Gov 12(1):1–6 Conner TW, Witt SL (2016) The role of capacity and problem severity in adopting voluntary intergovernmental partnerships: the case of tribes, states and local governments. State Local Gov Rev 48(2):87–99 De Renzio P, Seifert J (2014) South–South cooperation and the future of development assistance: mapping actors and options. Third World Q 35(10):1860–1875 Drezner DW (2014) The system worked: global economic governance during the great recession. World Polit 66 (1):123–164 Dubash NK, Florini A (2011) Mapping global energy governance. Global Pol 2 Eilstrup-Sangiovanni M (2016) Global governance networks. In Victor JN, Montgomery AH, Lubell M (eds) The Oxford handbook of political networks Falk R, Strauss A (2000) On the creation of a global peoples assembly: legitimacy and the power of popular sovereignty. Stanford J Int Law 36:191–220 Falk R, Strauss A (2001) Toward global parliament. Foreign Aff 80(1):212–220 Fisher E (2004) The European Union in the age of accountability. Oxf J Leg Stud 24(3):495–515 Grant R, Keohane RO (2005) Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 99(1):29–43 Hettne B (2003) The new regionalism revisited. In: Söderbaum F, Shaw TM (eds) Theories of new regionalism. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 22–42 Hopewell K (2013) New protagonists in global economic governance: Brazilian agribusiness at the WTO. New Polit Econ 18(4):603–623 Jessop B (2016) Territory, politics, governance and multispatial metagovernance. Territory Polit Gov 4 (1):8–32 Jessop B (2018) The TPSN schema: moving beyond territories and regions. In: Paasi A, Harrison J, Jones M (eds) Handbook on the geographies of regions and territories. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton

I

646

International Environmental Protection Initiatives: Direct and Indirect Drivers of Change

Jessop B, Brenner N, Jones M (2008) Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environ Plann D 26:389–401 Jones M, MacLeod G (2004) Regional spaces, spaces of regionalism: territory, insurgent politics and the English question. Trans Inst Br Geogr 29:433–452 Kahler M (2013) Rising powers and global governance: negotiating change in a resilient status quo. Int Aff 89 (3):711–729 Laine J (2011) In search of balance: Russia and the EU in the North. Polar Geogr 34(3):163–192 Luo X, Shen J (2012) The making of new regionalism in the cross-boundary metropolis of Hong KongShenzhen, China. Habitat Int 36:126–135 Masters L (2017) The EU–South Africa strategic partnership: from bilateral to multilateral forums and the strategic value for South Africa. S Afr J Int Affairs 24 (2):215–228 Nanz P, Steffek J (2004) Global governance, participation and the public sphere. Gov Oppos 39:314–335 Olivier G (2012) Multilateral cooperation between the EU and Africa: resetting the agenda. Africa Insight 42(3) Paasi A (2009) The resurgence of the ‘region’ and ‘regional identity’: theoretical perspectives and empirical observations on regional dynamics in Europe. Rev Int Stud 35:121–146 Plangger M (2019) Exploring the role of territorial actors in crossborder regions. Territory, Politics, Governance Reinicke WH, Deng F, Witte JM, Benner T, Whitaker B, Gershman J (2000) Critical choices: the United Nations, networks and the future of global governance. International Development Research Centre Renard T (2016) Partnerships for effective multilateralism? Assessing the compatibility between EU bilateralism, (inter-)regionalism and multilateralism. Camb Rev Int Aff 29(1):18–35 Sassen S (2013) When territory deborders territoriality. Territory Polit Gov 1(1):21–45 Savitch HV (2002) What is new about globalization and what does it portend for cities? Int Soc Sci J 54:179– 189 Savitch HV, Kantor P (2002) Cities in the international marketplace: the political economy of urban development in North America and Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford Savitch HV, Vogel RK (2000) Introduction: paths to new regionalism. State Local Gov Rev 32(3):158–168 Steffek J, Nanz P (2008) Emergent patterns of civil society participation in global and European governance. In: Steffek J, Kissling J, Nanz P (eds) Civil society participation in global and European governance: a cure for the democratic deficit? Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Tavares AF, Feiock RC (2017) Applying an institutional collective action framework to investigate inter-municipal cooperaton in Europe. Perspect Public Manag Gov 2017:1–18 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2012) Towards a new generation of

investment policies. World investment report 2012, Geneva Wissen M (2009) Contested terrains: politics of scale, the national state and struggles for the control over nature. Rev Int Polit Econ 16(5):883–906 World Trade Organization (WTO) (2011) The WTO and preferential trade agreements: from co-existence to coherence. World trade report 2011, Geneva Yankson E (2015) Globalization and inter-local cooperation: the mediating roles of local contexts in the global north and south. Doctoral dissertation. University of Louisville Institutional Repository Zimmerbauer K, Paasi A (2013) When old and new regionalism collide: deinstitutionalization of regions and resistance identity in municipality amalgamations. J Rural Stud 30:31–40 Zürn M (2010) Global governance as multi-level governance. In: Wälti S, Enderlein H, Zürn M (eds) Handbook on multi-level governance. Elgar Publishing, Edward

International Environmental Protection Initiatives: Direct and Indirect Drivers of Change Renata Welinski da Silva Seabra Department of International and Comparative Law, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Definition International environmental protection has been provided through international regulation – both mandatory and voluntary – and this entry aims to discuss their role in providing the appropriate environmental protection, considering the role of the corporate social responsibility and the connection with the sustainable development goals. With regard to it, the international environmental law comprises those substantive, procedural, and institutional rules of international law that have as their primary objective the protection of the environment (Sands and Peel 2012). The Anthropocene is defined as the period of time during which human activities have had an environmental impact on the Earth regarded as constituting a distinct geological age (Merriam Webster 2018).

International Environmental Protection Initiatives

One of the definitions of corporate social responsibility is concerning with treating the stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a responsible manner, and the wider aim of social responsibility is to create higher standards of living while preserving the profitability of the corporation, for peoples both within and outside the corporation (Hopkins 2009). The term ecocide is understood as the gradual destruction of a large area of land, including all of the plants, animals, etc., living there, because of the effects of human activities such as cutting down trees, using pesticides, etc. (Ldoce Online 2018). For the purpose of this entry, ecosystem is considered as a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment (Oxford 2018), but the modern ecological science also encompasses not only the human interactions with animals and plants but also the interventions in natural systems (Sands and Peel 2012). Environment is conventionally defined as the objects and the region surrounding considering both characteristics and products of the nature as well as those related to the human activities (Oxford University Press 1991).

Introduction The advancement of certain economic activities in a global scale, such as the ones from the chemical, mining, and electronic sectors, contains a clear confrontation between the socioeconomic gains provided by the industrial advancement and its resulting environmental impacts. It is undeniable the advancement of the society provided by the advancement of industrialization, specifically the development of the pharmaceutical, automotive, agricultural, and textile sectors, among others, that demand the use of products composed by dangerous substances in its manufacturing chain. The increasing dependence of products from the manufacture of potentially dangerous substances and their correlates makes it even more urgent to establish sectorial business regulatory regime (such as for mining, energy, chemical sectors)

647

and its harmonization at the international level and its expected internalization in the national legal order. In the industrial system, the society of risk raised by Beck (2010), in which it finds expression in the sum of financial, military, terrorist, biochemical, informational, and ecological risks, entails a multiplicity of futures, generating uncertainties in industrial society. The accumulation of these risks presents an opportunity both for the emergence of creative solutions and for the development of environmental protection regulation by international law and/or even by corporate voluntary initiatives, such as the UN Global Compact, launched in 2000, with the objective to engage business in corporate responsibility and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, a global CEO-led organization created in 1992 to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world. Among these risks, such as the risk of climate change, referred to as the global risk by Beck (2010), since it does not have predefined border delimitations in relation to their causes and impacts, it becomes more difficult to hold a state and/or other actors accountable for them. To summarize the complexity of the regulatory approaches involved, the diagram below shows the connections between mandatory and voluntary regulations with some instruments (Fig. 1): To understand the contribution of both approaches for environmental protection, the following discussion presents the existing connection between them in the context of the 2030 Agenda (United Nations 2015a), a nonbinding regulation that considers not only the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities among states but also the important role of new important actors arisen in the context of a new global order such as businesses and nongovernmental organizations. Voluntary Environmental Regulation as an Indirect Driver of Change The environmental regulation is widely reckoned as essential by states to establish standards for environmental protection as well as to guarantee the proper management of the impacts caused by hazardous substances and activities. Nevertheless,

I

648

International Environmental Protection Initiatives

International Environmental Protection Initiatives: Direct and Indirect Drivers of Change, Fig. 1 Mandatory and voluntary regulations

the absence of internationally harmonized environmental standards presents limitations and opportunities for the emergence of new multilateral environmental agreements in the auspicious of the United Nations specialized agencies or by initiatives supported by business associations. The tendency of the international environmental law that usually regulates specific resources and substances, such as the chemical substances that cause the ozone layer depletion regulated by the Montreal Protocol (1987), rather than regulates business activities such as mining and chemical sector, affects the establishment of specific global operational standards, which could prevent serious accidents with harmful impacts to the environment, avoiding the use of double standards, which consists in the application of different standards of environmental quality in developing countries than those applied in developed countries, commonly adopted by transnational companies. The Principle 14 of the Rio Declaration (United Nations 1992) establishes that “States should effectively co-operate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are bound to be harmful to human health,” and paragraph 229 of the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

(2012) recognizes “the importance of strong and effective legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and practices for the mining sector that deliver economic and social benefits and include effective safeguards that reduce social and environmental impacts, as well as conserve biodiversity and ecosystems, including during postmining closure,” both demonstrating the international community concern about the impacts of harmful activities and the need of a better regulatory framework. The effectiveness of these policy guidelines (United Nations resolutions and the principles) is achieved when incorporated in regional regulations and in legal arguments and when considered as an argument for the foundation of a new treaty under international law. Considering the exposed above, a very brand-new example can be found in the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, also known as Escazu Agreement (Economic Commission for Latin America 2018) – which follows the United Nations Economic Convention for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Information in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, adopted in 1998, also known as the Aarhus Convention – since it considers the Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on

International Environmental Protection Initiatives

Environment and Development (United Nations 1992) that aims to guarantee that all persons, particularly those in vulnerable situations, have access to timely and reliable information, can participate significantly in the decisions that affect their lives, and have access to justice in environmental matters, thereby contributing to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. In the mentioned case, principles of a declaration and a United Nations resolution provided the room in which a regional agreement could be adopted, being an indirect driver for the change needed in the failure of the states to protect environmental defenders in Latin America, which detains the major records in the number of deaths globally (Jonathan Watts 2018). Similar statements can be seen in the Goal 16 that promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. Mandatory Regulation as a Direct Driver of Change

Since the 1972 Conference of Stockholm, a wide variety of rules were created from a range of international acts of different legal status, with competence transferred to different international organizations that has led to fragmented and reactive rules in the international level which may be difficult to identify, interpret, and, even worst, implement them (Sands and Peel 2012). As examples, it is remarkable to mention some international environmental agreements that regulate specific environmental substances as the Montreal Protocol (1987) and the Minamata Convention on Mercury (2013), not addressing particular economic activities, considered hazardous by the global community as the ones from the extractive and chemical sectors. Developed countries have created a broad and complex binding obligation rules to manage hazardous substances and activities such as the 1996 EU Seveso Directive, adopted following a major industrial accident at Seveso, Italy. It is important to mention the voluntary OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises (OECD 2011), which is the only internationally agreed guideline adopted by states to promote corporate social responsibility. Despite its positive aspects, it is remarkable to

649

mention the lack of monitoring and due diligence activities by states, which prejudice the knowledge about its reach and effectiveness in promoting better business practices. The lack of a global harmonized set of rules to regulate the transnational operations by adopting standards of operation equivalent to or not less stringent than those existing in the country of the origin, avoiding the so-called double standards, generates different regulations by countries, mainly in the development countries, where economic aspects have been considered in a major relevance rather than the environmental impacts related to high-risk environmental projects and operations involving hazardous substances and operations. The challenge to harmonize the environmental impacts related to the global supply chain involving hazardous substances as the ones from the industrial sector (chemical, pharmaceutical, textile), where different parts of a product are produced under diverse environmental legislations, whose raw materials are produced in several countries, requires a global understanding that finds opposition when it is considering the sovereignty of the states, as defined in the Charter of the United Nations. A conciliation process among the states must be taken in place in order to promote better regulations and as it can be seen in the Escazu Agreement and the Aarhus Convention mentioned above. In these particular cases, the adoption of regional framework could contribute to the creation of international environmental legally binding treaties to be adopted in a global scale, respecting the regional diversity aspects. Mandatory international environmental law does not provide fast and effective solutions to the environmental challenges, but it can provide a structure in which environmental accountability can be provided. Corporate Environmental Responsibility as an Indirect Driver of Change

As stated by Vogel (2005), corporate environmental responsibility encompasses corporate practices raging from natural management and use to waste generation and disposal, recycling, the marketing of environmentally friendly products, and

I

650

pollution prevention and control. This definition, otherwise extensive, does not stress the wide role and the duties of corporations. Corporations must invest part of their profits in research and development of new products, considering their entire life cycle and, considering the transnational corporations, their global supply chain and how it interferes in the quality of the environment at a global level. Another pivotal aspect related to the corporate environmental responsibility is the efforts to harmonize control pollution standards in place in several countries. Currently, corporations are required by host states to comply with the local environmental requirements, but it is not clear in which extent they are updated with the recent scientific studies, such as the impact of chemicals discharged in the Earth surface described by Rockstrom and Klum (2015) that are responsible for imbalances in the biosphere. Chemicals as nitrogen, phosphorus, ozone depletion substances, and others related to the climate change have been connected to the human activities in which level of interference that (Lewis and Maslin 2018) have stated that the planet Earth is already in a new geological era: the Anthropocene. Considering the arguments above, corporations must carefully analyze not only how much their products are environmentally friendly and how much is invested in the communities around their influence area but also with their internal and all the value chain environmental impacts. In fact, it is not comprehensible how far businesses are willing to go to guarantee that all environmental aspects related to their value chain, which entails the analysis of all activities involved in the creation of a product or service, comply with the scientific data currently available, considering nowadays mainly its raw materials suppliers. Corporate social responsibility policies and procedures should prioritize strategies to not cause damage to the environment. In addition, it regards to what extent corporations should accept duties for responsibilities that are legal obligations of states. In a first view, corporations could be doing the good but also weakening the state capability to comply with their duties established

International Environmental Protection Initiatives

under their law constitution, for example, investing in population basic needs. In this context arises the role of public policy advocacy that may be carried out by corporations under the states in which they operate, allowing the creation of a more proper regulatory environment for business, allowing them to promote employment and economic growth under the auspices of the sustainable development. The UN Global Compact developed a code of conduct, as the Ten Principles (UN Global Compact 2018) which can be used as reference to good practices to be perceived by corporations in areas as human rights, climate change, labor, anti-corruption, and environment. Since its creation by the former United Nations SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan in 2000, this initiative has been spread for more the 90 countries through independent managerial and financial structures named local networks, in which business engagement in sustainable development activities is encouraged at a local level. Another example is the International Council of Chemical Association, which is the trade association of the global chemical industry, which launched in 1985 the Responsible Care program that is a global, voluntary initiative developed autonomously by the chemical industry for the chemical industry, standing for the chemical industry’s desire to improve health, safety, and environmental performance. It runs in 67 countries whose combined chemical industries account for nearly 90% of global chemical production. Of the 100 largest chemical producers in the world, 96 have adopted Responsible Care. There are business initiatives which aim to tackle the impact of the plastics (The Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2018) in the ocean to the biodiversity that is considered as positive, but it is argued that it is not enough to put an end and a treaty would be necessary and more than welcome. The necessity to negotiate a legally binding international convention to regulate the world’s dealing with plastics can be seen in a global convention about plastics launched by Adelphi, a leading independent think tank and public policy consultancy on climate, environment, and development (Adelphi 2018; AGEFI 2018).

International Environmental Protection Initiatives

The reason consists in the fact that business initiatives, even the UN Global Compact, generate voluntary commitments and not obligations for states or corporations. Controversially, such initiatives have an important role in promoting discussions and attracting new corporations in the adoption of better patterns of productions and behavior, alongside the opportunity to bring forward good practices that can contribute to new environmental regulations. It is argued that a negative aspect of these voluntary regulations could be the delaying for the upcoming of legally binding regulations as a treaty to regulate the transnational corporations and their activities, considering the existence of only a few, e.g., The Indian Company Act 2013, which obliges the companies’ revenue investment in corporate social responsibility initiatives determined by the government. It is remarkable to mention the failure of the implementation of a corporate social responsibility in Australia under the Report on the Corporate Code of Conduct Bill 2000, which, if approved, will establish environmental and safety standards to be adopted by Australian companies operating abroad.

The Environmental Protection and the Sustainable Development Goals The United Nations resolution entitled Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015) entails several goals directly related to the planet as responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water, life on land, and others that are considered as interconnected goals such as zero hunger, good health and well-being, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry innovation and infrastructure, and sustainable cities and communities. The sustainable development goals are considered indivisible and interconnected. It means that all of them must be implemented by the 193 member states of the United Nations that agreed with the resolution in September 2015, following the principle to leaving no one behind, which

651

emphasizes the human rights approach adopted by the 2030 Agenda. Regardless of the existence of several environmental issues included in the resolution, it is important to mention that no specific attention is given to the mandatory regulatory aspects needed to ensure its full implementation by states, considering also that this resolution has a voluntary status. The Agenda 2030 and the International Environmental Initiatives It is stated that our shared principles and commitments (Sustainable Development UN 2018) are guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including full respect for international law. It is grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Human Rights Treaties, the Millennium Declaration, and the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. It is informed by other instruments such as the Declaration on the Right to Development. All major UN conferences and summits have laid a solid foundation for sustainable development and have helped to shape the new Agenda. These include the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (United Nations 1992), the World Summit on Sustainable Development (United Nations 2012), the World Summit for Social Development, the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, the Beijing Platform for Action, and the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (“Rio+20”). Also reaffirm the follow-up to these conferences, including the outcomes of the Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, the Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States, the Second United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries, and the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction. Besides the UN conferences mentioned above, the 2030 Agenda considered the upcoming COP21 conference in Paris held in December 2015 and the COP13 of the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Mexico in 2016 are important documents to be implemented by member states.

I

652

The 2030 Agenda acknowledges that its goals can be met within the framework of a revitalized global partnership for sustainable development, supported by the concrete policies and actions as outlined in the outcome document of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development, held in Addis Ababa, which is an integral part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is recognized that the full implementation of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (United Nations 2015) is critical for the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals and targets. The requirements of the Addis Ababa Agenda (United Nations 2015b) rely mainly on the role of the states in promoting and financing the sustainable development, but it does not state specifically the actions that should be implemented by member states or by the financing institutions as the World Bank Group and its sister organization, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), that works with the private sector in developing countries to create markets that open up opportunities for all. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify programs related to sustainability on which was not found a specific strategy created by IFC to implement the 2030 Agenda. The Montevideo Programme for the Development and Periodic Review of Environmental Law (Montevideo Programme) created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) from 1982 to date has been organized and coordinated through a series of 10-year programs, adopted by UN Environment’s Governing Council, for the development and periodic review of environmental law, which could contribute to the efforts in the 2030 Agenda implementation since the Montevideo Programme V entails to support the development of adequate and effective environmental legislation and legal frameworks at all levels to address environmental issues. Environmental law is considered an integral part of the rule of law across the world, both at the national and international levels, governing norms and setting standards relevant to various aspects of the interface between human society and the environment and has also been a powerful driver for exemplifying increasing linkages between environmental law and other areas,

International Environmental Protection Initiatives

most notably the three pillars of the United Nations, namely, peace and security, human rights, and development. It has assisted the international community to highlight areas of concern, gaps, and challenges and has provided a comprehensive framework for the progressive development of legal principles and obligations in the field of the environment. These areas of concern include illegal trade in wildlife, environmental crime, marine litter and microplastics, and lead in paint and batteries, among others. The UN Environment, under the auspices of the Montevideo Programme IV (UN Environment 2018), aims to promote synergies in the multilateral system by strengthening the capacities of countries to coherently implement internationally agreed environmental goals, including the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. With regard to it, the program launched in 1982 with over 95 member states has established actions to enable institutions to better address the environmental dimension of the sustainable development goals, support the development of national policies that promote poverty eradication and environmental sustainability, and provide technical support to promote public and private investments that support poverty eradication and environmental sustainability. The international environmental law, both mandatory and voluntary, alongside other international agreements may influence the development of local environmental regulations under the treaties ratified and internalized in their national legal system by member states. Likewise, regional agreements as the Escazu Agreement mentioned above and the use of principles contained in declarations and resolutions as legal arguments by local courts can support the recognition of them as part of consuetudinary law under international law, contributing significantly for the international environmental law development and, therefore, for the sustainable development. The Agenda 2030 and the Corporate Environmental Responsibility The role of the private sector, corporations, and small and medium enterprises (SME) in the 2030 Agenda covers several parts of the document as

International Environmental Protection Initiatives

can be seen in paragraph 39 – Means of Implementation – which states that a global partnership must bring together governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations system, and other actors and mobilize all available resources. In paragraph 41, the 2030 Agenda “acknowledges the role of the diverse private sector, ranging from micro-enterprises to cooperatives to multinationals, and that of civil society organizations and philanthropic organizations in the implementation of the new Agenda.” The resolution states in paragraph 60 that business and the private sector are invited to engage in the efforts to implement it, affirming that “the revitalized Global Partnership will facilitate an intensive global engagement in support of implementation of all the Goals and targets, bringing together Governments, civil society the private sector, the United Nations system and other actors and mobilizing all available resources.” Paragraph 67 “acknowledges that the private business activity, investment and innovation are major drivers of productivity, inclusive economic growth and job creation. It acknowledges the diversity of the private sector, ranging from micro-enterprises to cooperatives to multinationals. Call on all businesses to apply their creativity and innovation to solving sustainable development challenges. It declares that all member states will foster a dynamic and wellfunctioning business sector, while protecting labour rights and environmental and health standards in accordance with relevant international standards and agreements and other on-going initiatives in this regard, such as the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) and the ILO labour standards, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and key multilateral environmental agreements.” With regard to the collaboration at national level, in paragraph 79, the 2030 Agenda also encourages member states to conduct regular and inclusive reviews of progress at the national and subnational levels which are country-led and country-driven. Such reviews should draw on contributions from indigenous peoples, civil society, the private sector, and other stakeholders, in line with national circumstances, policies, and

653

priorities. National parliaments as well as other institutions can also support these processes. At global level, paragraph 84 establishes that reviews will be voluntary, while encouraging reporting, and include developed and developing countries as well as relevant UN entities and other stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector. They shall be state-led, involving ministerial and other relevant high-level participants. They shall provide a platform for partnerships, including through the participation of major groups and other relevant stakeholders. Considering the statements of the paragraphs mentioned above, the United Nations acknowledges and invites the private sector and corporations to engage in the efforts to have the 2030 Agenda implemented. Therefore, legitimizes the private sector participation both at national and global levels as important players to provide the means of implementation through global partnerships. Paraphrasing one of the principles of the 2030 Agenda, the private sector was not left behind. On the opposite, it was invited to contribute and be aware of the challenges and opportunities generated during the implementation process. Regardless the open access allowed by member states, the goal 12.6 encourages corporations, especially large and transnational corporations, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle. It is remarkable to mention that international instruments, as the Escazu Agreement, contain a similar statement requiring that each party shall encourage public and private corporations, particularly large corporations, to prepare sustainability reports that reflect their social and environmental performance. A direct connection can be seen between a nonbinding resolution, the 2030 Agenda, and the future legally binding resolution, the Escazu Agreement, adopted in March 2018. Considering the fact that international environmental agreements, being multilateral or regional, create obligations for states, at some extent, these obligations will reach transnational corporations that need to be prepared to comply with them, at national, regional, and/or global levels, showing a positive influence of the voluntary regulations in promoting an international mandatory regulation.

I

654

Future Directions for the International Environmental Regulation International environmental regulation, mandatory or voluntary, proved to be a relevant instrument to promote environmental protection at a global level, mainly with regard to its response to the problem of “double standards” (Zerk 2006) in relation to environmental affairs. The emergence of the Environmental International Agency, with a legal personality, differently of the UNEP, under the auspicious of the United Nations, could enforce corporate environment responsibilities and commitments. The creation of direct obligations for transnational corporations under the international environmental law is another issue of analysis considering that state-centered regulations are limited by jurisdiction rules and the failed attempt of 2003 with the United Nations Draft Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights. One argument against the creation of a regulation directly applied to transnational corporations consists in the view that market rules, including investor and consumer pressures, will be able to force transnational corporations to adopt human rights and environmental protection policies through its global supply chain. Despite considering the market rules and the other aspects mentioned above, as well as the flexibility and corporations’ management capabilities, it can be argued that the adoption of only voluntary initiatives, without any law enforcement, may find strong resistance in achieving corporate responsibility due to the economic and social outcomes as unemployment and production and consumption decrease. The main factors that stress the environment are demographic growth and the consumption patterns, facing the difference of concepts about the needs and wants (Dobson 2007), which means a society effort in defining criteria to establish what is considered necessary for living with an acceptable standard of living from what is desired

International Environmental Protection Initiatives

to be consumed. The transformation of these concepts into practical public policies and individual awareness over the risk society will be the starting point to allow a broad range of environmental issue regulation under the international environmental law, although a discussion about individual human rights arises. One possible outcome relies on the possible inclusion of the crime of the ecocide as the fifth crime against peace under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) entered into force on July 1, 2002 (Higgins 2015). It is important to mention that states as China, Russia, and the USA have not adopted the Rome Statute, which represents as great lacunae, considering their relevance in the international scenario. Regarding international law, Higgins defines ecocide as “the extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by another causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.” The crime of ecocide stands on the argument that a crime against international law is committed by men, not by abstract entities, as corporations and individuals should be punished under the crime of ecocide. The United Nations Harmony, under the auspices of the General Assembly, established the Jurisdiction of Earth as the philosophy of law and human governance that is based on the idea that humans are only one part of a wider community of beings and that the welfare of each member of that community is dependent on the welfare of the Earth as a whole (UN Harmony with Nature 2018). The nine resolutions adopted since 2009 contain different perspectives regarding a nonanthropocentric paradigm in which the fundamental basis for right and wrong action concerning the environment is grounded not solely in human concerns. A step in this direction was further reaffirmed in the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (2012), entitled “The Future We Want” (United Nations 2012): We recognize that planet Earth and its ecosystems are our home and that "Mother

International Environmental Protection Initiatives

Earth" is a common expression in a number of countries and regions, and we note that some countries recognize the rights of nature in the context of the promotion of sustainable development. This definition, in the perspective of the international environmental law, may represent a new era, in which the environment will have standing (Stone 2010). In conclusion, both drivers of change mentioned in this entry – international environmental law, mandatory and voluntary, and the corporate environmental responsibility guidelines and principles – contribute to the advance of the environmental protection globally. International courts also play an important role to the extent that their decisions create jurisprudence that can be applied by the national courts. Despite the obstacles concerning the full achievement of the sustainable development goals in a global level, its 169 targets provide a detailed and unique opportunity for international cooperation and development. Several international instruments, as the Charter of the United Nations, adopted in 1945 demand the establishment of conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained and to promote social progress and better standards of life and larger freedom. International law plays a pivotal role as a driver of change for the arising of regulations, enabling the needed environmental conditions for development, even contributing indirectly with the nonbinding instruments as the UN resolution 2030 Agenda: Transforming Our World.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Business as a Partner for the Global Goals ▶ Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inter-governmental partnerships and global governance

655

References Adelphi (2018) Adelphi. https://www.adelphi.de/en/publi cation/stopping-global-plastic-pollution-caseinternational-convention. Accessed 31 Aug 2018 AGEFI (2018) AGEFI. http://www.agefi.com/home/news/ detail-ageficom/edition/online/article/le-conseilnational-est-entre-en-matiere-par-133-voix-contre-64pour-se-pencher-sur-la-revision-du-droit-desmultinationales-477795.html. Accessed 14 June 2018 Beck U (2010) Sociedde de risco: rumo a uma outra modernidade, 1st edn. Editora, Sao Paulo, p 34 Dobson A (2007) Green political thought, 4th edn. Routledge, Oxon Economic Commission for Latin America (2018) CEPAL. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/ 43583/1/S1800428_en.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2018 Higgins P (2015) Ecocide: the 5th crime against peace. In: Eradicating ecocide. Shepeard-Walwyn Ltd, London, pp 61–71 Hopkins M (2009) What is CSR all about and where is it going? In: Corporate social responsibility & international development: is business the solution. Earthscan, London, pp 15–43 International Criminal Court (1998) International Criminal Court. https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff75752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_ english.pdf. Accessed 2 Sept 2018 Jonathan Watts (2018) The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/02/almostfour-environmental-defenders-a-week-killed-in-2017 . Accessed 30 Aug 2018 Ldoce Online (2018) Ldoce Online. https://www. ldoceonline.com/ko/dictionary/ecocide. Accessed 2 Sept 2018 Lewis S, Maslin MA (2018) The human planet: how we created the Anthropocene, 1st edn. Penguin Books, London Merriam Webster (2018) Merriam Webster. https://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Anthropocene. Accessed 30 Aug 2018 OECD (2011) OECD. http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/ 48004323.pdf. Accessed 2 Sept 2018 Oxford University Press (1991) Compact Oxford dictionary of English, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford Oxford University Press (2018) English Oxford living dictionaries. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defini tion/ecosystem. Accessed 28 Aug 2018 Rockstrom J, Klum M (2015) Big world, small planet: abundance within planetary boundaries, 1st edn. Yale University Press, New Haven Sands P, Peel J (2012) Principles of international environmental law, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Stone CD (2010) Should trees have standing? 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

I

656

International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

Sustainable Development UN (2018) Sustainable Development UN. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ post2015/transformingourworld. Accessed 30 Aug 2018 The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2018) New plastics economy. https://newplasticseconomy.org/about. Accessed 31 Aug 2018 UN Environment (2018) UN Environment. https://www. unenvironment.org/explore-topics/environmentalgovernance/what-we-do/strengthening-institutions-0. Accessed 31 Aug 2018 UN Global Compact (2018) UN Global Compact. https:// www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/princi ples. Accessed 30 Aug 2018 UN Harmony with Nature (2018) UN Harmony with nature. http://www.harmonywithnatureun.org/ ejInputs/. Accessed 31 Aug 2018 United Nations (1992) Unesco. http://www.unesco.org/ education/pdf/RIO_E.PDF. Accessed 2 Sept 2018 United Nations (2012) United Nations. http://www.un.org/ ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol¼A/RES/66/288& Lang¼E. Accessed 2 Sept 2018 United Nations (2015a) UN. http://www.un.org/ga/search/ view_doc.asp?symbol¼A/RES/70/1&Lang¼E. Accessed 31 Aug 2018 United Nations (2015b) United Nations. http://www.un. org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AAAA_Out come.pdf. Accessed 2 Sept 2018 Vogel D (2005) The market of virtue: the potential and limits of corporate social responsibility, 2nd edn. Washington, Brookings Zerk J (2006) Multinationals and corporate social responsibility: limitations and opportunities in international law, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 Tomas Zuklin Ecosystem Governance Thematic Group, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland International Cooperation Department, Vietnam National University of Forestry, Hanoi, Vietnam

Synonyms Common-pool resources; Common property resources; Global common goods; Global public goods

Definition Global commons, or common-pool resources, consist of shared property or resources that do not belong to anyone in particular and are free to be exploited. Global commons can also be defined as the common heritage of mankind, a term used by UNESCO or International Seabed Authority. Global commons are inherently transboundary – no clear borderline between them is visible; effect from a place A will demonstrate in a place B. Governance of global commons is shattered among numerous international (global or regional) agreements and is not globally centralized, even though the United Nations remains to function as one of the leading facilitators of the environmental protection initiatives.

Introduction In accordance with the aim of the SDG 17 “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development,” this entry focuses on the governance sphere of the global commons, not on their physical and functional description. Mutual interdependency of different commons makes it impossible to govern them separately; governance must be inclusive and take into account relations between different types of commons. However, international law-making initiatives are predominantly targeted on one-element-per-time. Since the advent of the United Nations system after the World War II, numerous multilateral environmental agreements came into life but seldomly addressed environmental issues in a comprehensive way, keeping to the sectoral style of governance. International landscape has significantly changed over the past 100 years; dissolution of the European empires and subsequent decolonization process caused emergence of new countries which marked a new era of international relations. The League of Nations had 58 members at its prime (UNOG undated), whereas the modern United Nations includes 193 sovereign countries (UN 2018a). The world’s population growth also plays an important role in the

International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

governance of the global commons, the fact which was popularized by Garrett Hardin in his famous essay “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Hardin explores the free use of common-pool resources under the stress of ever-growing population and concludes that “freedom in a commons brings ruin to all” (Hardin 1968). And truly, the world’s population more than doubled over the past 50 years, from 3.5 billion in 1968 to 7.4 billion in 2016 (WB 2018). The status quo of resources exploitation that historically existed is not in place anymore; free and unrestricted use of global commons is unsustainable. International governance of global commons is not a completely new agenda; the emergence of international environmental legislation most prominently in the second half of the twentieth century marked the beginning of the commons protection process. The emergence of comprehensive governance tools that took into account scientific knowledge and its relations to socio-environmental sphere can be traced back to the 1972 Stockholm conference, the first major international event where negative influence of human activities on the global environment was addressed. The Stockholm conference kindled the emergence of new eco-centric paradigm; the environment and the “human world” stopped being considered separately. This trend continued further, and in 1987 Our Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Report) was published, stressing out interdependencies among nations and also linkages between development and environmental quality. International efforts to establish a new environmental era culminated at the Earth Summit in 1992, when three significant environmentrelated comprehensive treaties were opened for signature – the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCD). The trend of global development continued further, and in the year 2000, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were conceived at the UN Millennium Summit. MDGs were the first global attempt to address world’s issues in a holistic way, considering socioeconomic and environmental issues as interlinked

657

matters which need to be addressed together. Poverty and health were the focal topics of MDGs, but the environment received equal attention. Sustainable development goals are peoplecentered targets which replaced MDGs for the UN’s post-2015 agenda based on the “Future We Want” proclamation made at the Rio Summit in 2012. The focus of the SDGs is to alleviate poverty, eliminate hunger, promote environmental and social justice, and ensure sustainable and ecologically friendly growth. The agenda of the SDG 17 is a direct continuation of the MDG 8 in terms of its aim, but the former aims much higher than its predecessor. SDG 17 is one of the most crucial SDGs because it sets targets for already established partnerships – shared and inclusive global governance based on partnerships, and especially governance of global common-pool resources, is crucial for achieving all of the SDGs. Although the global commons are quite often associated with economical field, international law and policy are heavily involved as well. Economics of exploitation of global resources is an increasingly explored topic, and economic indicators were chosen as one of the measurements for the SDG 17. An Annex to the United Nations General Assembly’s (UN GA) resolution A/RES/71/313 “Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” puts forward a set of global indicators for the SDGs in seven categories: finance, technology, capacity building, trade, policy and institutional coherence, multistakeholder partnerships, and data and monitoring, the latter three being systemic issues. These indicators are supposed to measure the effectiveness of the implementation of the SDG 17 and overall progress of global efforts undertaken to fulfill SDGs. In most cases, economic indicators would suffice to the UN in order to monitor SDG 17’s fulfillment (e.g., amount of money spent on capacity-building initiatives, volume of foreign direct investment, or number of people using the Internet). However, the most pressing issues for the “strengthening and revitalization of global partnership” is to properly utilize already existing frameworks of governance, as the SDGs do not

I

658

International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

offer any new governance regime and rely on already existing solutions. At present, comprehensive environmental governance is nonexistent, but a number of international instruments are in place addressing and regulating states’ behavior regarding global commons sector-by-sector, commons-by-commons. Usually, partnerships are based on shared obligations regarding the use and exploitation of natural resources. Traditional state-state partnerships tackling transboundary environmental issues are the core of the global governance, but increasing emphasis is being put on the new types of partnerships too. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002 signified an emergence and promotion of the new partnerships concept – Type II partnerships. This concept was developed as an alternative to the traditional government-to-government (Type I) partnerships. Both are meant to complement each other in order to achieve environmental goals more effectively (Whitfield 2005). Type II partnerships were in use even before the WSSD in various forms and under various names such as the stakeholder democracy, multi-stakeholding processes, and public-private partnerships (Backstrand 2006; Seitanidi 2010), but the WSSD opened new opportunities for their application and promotion. The increased role of NGOs as facilitators and promoters of environmental partnerships on both global and regional level is of growing importance and needs to be taken into account.

Atmosphere For hundreds of thousands of years of human existence, the atmospheric composition was relatively stable, influenced only by the natural occurrences such as volcanic eruptions. Industrial revolution beginning in the eighteenth century and subsequent increased use of fossil fuels (leading to increased levels of CO2) changed this status quo, and nowadays, despite its utmost importance for sustaining life, the atmosphere very often continuously serves as a “dumping ground” for emissions generated by numerous industries.

Beginnings of Atmospheric Governance Current global regime for atmospheric protection was preceded by regional pollution control programs. The first regional transboundary initiatives combating air pollution date back to 1970s’ Europe. The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) conceived in 1979 grew from 32 to 51 party states and now includes all European Economic Area countries, the USA, Canada, and all post-Soviet republics. CLRTAP also includes numerous protocols addressing sulfur, nitrogen oxide, heavy metals, and persistent organic pollutants emissions (UN 2018b). Other important regional agreement is the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution signed in 2002 and coming into force in 2014. However ambitious this agreement might be in reducing transboundary pollution, Indonesia as the main culprit still has problems with enforcing its own rules and continues to be the major polluter in the region. On the national basis, the first domestic laws pioneering air pollution control date back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, e.g., the US Clean Air Act amendments on air quality standards in 1970 (US EPA 2017). Global Atmospheric Regime The first successful global treaty on atmospheric protection was the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer from 1985 and its subsequent 1987 Montreal Protocol, which set binding rules for ozone-depleting chemical release. The ozone problem came under wider scrutiny in the mid-1970s when findings about the human-induced ozone depletion were published and especially in the mid-1980s when the gigantic ozone hole over Antarctica was discovered (Roan 1989). International efforts in curbing the ozone depletion have been successful, the Antarctic ozone hole has not exceeded its peak area of 29.6 million km2 since 2006, the minimum level of ozone has not been under 100 Dobson units (DU) since 2011 (the lowest figure was 73 DU in 1994) (NASA 2017), and recent reports also indicate that ozone depletion does not intensify anymore (WMO 2014). Aside from the ozone problem, another atmospheric pollution in the form of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is on the

International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

agenda. GHGs are believed to be directly responsible for the global climate change. One of the most notable GHGs is carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by burning of the fossil fuels as well as by the construction using cement (Rubenstein 2012). Pivotal international instrument designed to reduce emissions of GHGs is the aforementioned UNFCCC from 1992. The main goal of this treaty is “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (Article 2 of UNFCCC). Despite the intense international negotiations, battling CO2 emissions has not been as successful as curbing the ozone-depleting emissions. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol aiming to reduce worldwide concentrations of CO2 came into force in 2005, but without the ratification of the USA as the world’s biggest CO2 emitter. A follow-up agreement connected to the Kyoto Protocol is the Doha Amendment. As of 18 March 2018, 111 parties accepted the amendment, and 33 signatures remain in order for the Amendment to come into force (UNFCCC 2018). Following rounds of negotiations culminated in 2015 when the Paris Agreement was conceived as a separate document, not as a part of the semi-dysfunctional Kyoto system. The Paris Agreement currently has 175 parties (UN 2018b) and contains binding promises of all party states to limit their CO2 emissions in order to slow down ongoing global climate change caused by the anthropogenic influences. The USA’s intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement has been widely criticized worldwide, and there are fears that without its support, the Paris Agreement’s targets will not be met. CO2 emissions influence not only the atmosphere but also the world’s oceans, causing sea level rise and ocean acidification (NOAA undated). Future Atmospheric Challenges As discussed before, there is no overall worldwide pollution-related convention. Although, e.g., the Paris Agreement gained worldwide support, the case of planned US withdrawal serves as a reminder that every action is a voluntary commitment based on the respective nation-states’ political will. Due to nonexistence of an all-

659

encompassing atmospheric convention, finding international political consensus on atmospheric protection goals is a never-ending process. Regional agreements appear to be more effective; therefore, further cross-border bilateral (and multilateral) agreements should be developed. Additionally, enforcement of already agreed principles by nation-states is crucial. For example, the ozone layer damaging gas CFC-11 has been long banned, but recent reports indicate that it has started to be manufactured again (Economia 2018), meaning the lack of enforcement and control measures in certain countries.

Oceans History of Ocean Governance Oceans are the most complicated of all of the commons because they serve multiple functional purposes, all equally vital for the human race. Oceans not only produce most of the atmospheric oxygen but also provide livelihoods to hundreds of millions of people, with circa 20% of the world’s total population live in the coastal sand low-lying areas (Small and Nicholls 2003). Oceans and adjacent coastal areas play a crucial role in people’s livelihoods, as coastal areas are heavily used not only as residential areas but also for transportation, fisheries, and recreation. Father of the modern international law Hugo Grotius in his work Mare Liberum (Grotius 1608) concluded that seas and oceans are free to use for all, not susceptible of occupation, and whereas that might have been true in the past, modern international law is working on slightly different principles, dividing the world into zones falling under jurisdiction of national states, effectively creating territorial waters and exclusive economic zones (EEZ). Therefore a notion of free-to-use oceans which belong to no particular entity is long gone. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the main document governing the use of marine areas, territorial claims of respective national states. The UNCLOS is one of the most widely accepted instruments governing oceans and their use. Conceived in 1982 and coming into force in 1994, UNCLOS

I

660

International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

can be regarded as the central treaty of the whole ocean-related international governance framework. Nevertheless, most of the world’s oceans are still part of no national territory and remain the areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). But international community was focused on the preservation of oceans and their resources long before the UNCLOS. Two major governance directions were centered around pollution and living resources. Oil (and Other) Pollution In the twentieth century, ocean-related international law-making concerning pollution was almost always motivated by major catastrophes and industrial accidents. Taking oil pollution as an example, the number of oil pollution-related international treaties was conceived as a response to major tanker accidents. Majority of the oilspilling accidents occurred after the year 1960. This increased occurrence only underlines increased level of international dependence on oil (necessity to transport large quantities over long distances) and also increased level of international trade (due to containerization of international shipping in the 1950s). The first marine oil pollution disaster during which more than 100,000 t of oil was spilled for the first time in history occurred in 1967, when oil tanker Torrey Canyon sunk near British coast, marking it as the biggest marine accident up to that date. The extent of the damage was so significant and unprecedented that three subsequent conventions were negotiated: 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, and 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage. With the increased volume of ocean freight, the beginning of the 1970s saw unprecedented bloom of conventions related to marine pollution – 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter and 1972 Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft – and

probably the most important for marine environment is the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Some of these conventions are administrated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) which is very active in the field of shipping-induced pollution control (IMO 2018). IMO’s members include virtually all seafaring nations, and its rules are dominant legislation for safety at seas, thus aiming on reducing incidents that might cause pollution of the world’s oceans. However, not all types of pollution are as easily identifiable as oil pollution. Use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and its impacts on the wildlife were described by Rachel Carson in 1962 in her famous book Silent Spring. DDT is a member of the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) family and was widely used as a pesticide. The discovery of the harmful effects of the DDT led to the abolishment of this chemical in most of the world, but other POPs are still widely used. International efforts to tackle use of POPs culminated in the year 2001 when the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP Convention) was conceived, coming into force 3 years later (SSC 2018a, b). Although the USA has signed the POP Convention, it has never ratified, thus becoming one of the few remaining countries in the world to do so. Alongside the POPs, plastics and microplastics are other growing environmental issues in the world’s oceans. The Great Pacific garbage patch is one of the most famous examples of plastic waste in the ocean. First reports of the patch come from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1988 (NOAA 1990) and since then gathered widespread attention for its waste buildup (Lebreton et al. 2018). Main problem of plastics and POPs is their bioaccumulation and also their ability to be carried over long distances by ocean currents, thus polluting the food chains all around the world and even impacting never directly exposed areas such as the polar regions. Carbon Dioxide and World’s Oceans Another kind of human-produced emissions that can be considered as a pollutant influencing oceans is already discussed carbon dioxide

International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

(CO2). CO2 is an integral and irreplaceable part of natural cycle, but excessive amounts of anthropogenic CO2 lead to greater uptake by the oceans and which subsequently leads to a change in the pH of the saltwater – a process called ocean acidification. Ocean acidification has serious potential impact on shell-forming species (corals, clams, oysters, clams, sea urchins, etc.), impeding the growth of their shells and in some cases is also possibly linked to the decrease of their reproductive functions (NOAA undated). Calcifying species are part not only important source of food and livelihoods for coastal communities but are also an integral part of the global food chain. The impact of their potential or even demise would have catastrophic impact on the overall food chain, influencing abundance of species all around the globe. International efforts of curbing CO2 emissions such as the Paris Agreement are therefore vital not only for addressing the global climate change but also for maintaining precious biological diversity of ocean living resources. Protection of Ocean Living Resources Protection of ocean living resources predates the pollution-oriented treaties by several decades. Biodiversity-focused international conventions were, similarly to their pollution counterparts, generally aimed at protection of single species from overexploitation, such as the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling or 1957 Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, but gradually became more comprehensive and started to govern environmental protection on transboundary basis – examples of this approach are 1983 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals as well as conventions covering regional seas which include the 1974 Convention on the Protection of Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, the 1985 ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources or the 1986 Convention for the Protection of Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific. These regional conventions, however, do not cover the true ocean commons (in this case ABNJ) as they only regulate activities within

661

jurisdictions of national states. Although efforts to establish globally accepted governance framework for the ABNJ is underway, no binding agreement has been produced. Although intergovernmental bodies such as the International Seabed Authority (governing exploitation of nonliving ocean resources in the ABNJ) exist, there is no common authority over the exploitation of living resources in the ABNJ. The idea that fishing on seas and oceans is free and open to all postulated by Hugo Grotius is still valid to certain extent, but continuous population growth and subsequent living resources exploitation lead to overfishing. Whereas international instruments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) deal with the protection or biological resources in general, one of the pioneers of the counter-overexploitation initiatives is the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The FAO has produced numerous instruments addressing environmental protection with focus on the protection of living resources, most notably the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries which is a voluntary instrument aimed to make world’s fisheries sustainable (FAO 1995). A problem related to overfishing is also bycatch and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Estimates of the annual worldwide value of IUU fishing ranges between 10 and 23 billion USD (FAO 2015), making the IUU fishing not only ecological problem but also economical. In 2009, Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing was conceived in order to put limitations on the IUU, but up until today the agreement entered into force for only 48 countries worldwide (ECOLEX 2018). The UN General Assembly also voted on the agenda related to the IUU fishing and passed several resolutions on the topic, including ones that call for further enhancement of international governance regime within the ABNJ based on UNCLOS (e.g., 1994 UN GA resolution A/RES/48/263 and 2017 UN GA resolution A/RES/72/72). However, although these resolutions are widely supported during voting within the General Assembly, the actual implementation and acceptance of binding instruments

I

662

International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

these resolutions call for are hindered by the reluctance of national states to ratify them. Even already existing instruments such as the 1993 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (entered into force in 2003, now ratified by 40 states) (ECOLEX 2018) are not widely recognized and therefore remain relatively ineffective in achieving their aims. Opportunities and Challenges for the World’s Oceans One of the most effective ways how to protect anything is to conserve it or limit overall usage. This is the idea behind the UNESCO’s Convention Concerning the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage which calls for the conservation of sites holding cultural and natural importance. Although world heritage sites based on this treaty are within the territories of individual states, thoughts about scaling-up of the World Heritage initiative into the ABNJ are in progress. When applied in the ocean marine environment, marine-protected areas (MPA) are considered to be one of the most effective tools for biodiversity and habitat protection, thus fulfilling the ideas of the global heritage protection. Despite the success regional initiatives such as the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI-CFF) in Southeast Asia, the Caribbean Marine Protected Area Management, or the EU Common Fisheries Policy have on regional scale (within territorial waters and EEZs), establishing MPAs in the ABNJ continues to be a problematic issue. ABNJ do not have single governing regime, and although UNCLOS and related treaties establish very basic governance framework, they do not provide one-fitsall solution for the ABNJ protection and governance, as the idea of free to use and exploit ocean commons is still prevalent among majority of international state actors. However, after long negotiations, international community acted and established the world’s largest marine protected area (1.5 million km2) in the Ross Sea off the coast of Antarctica in 2016 (NG 2016), marking not only a new era for biodiversity protection for the

polar continent itself, but also new era of environmental protection in the ABNJ.

Antarctica The aforementioned MPA in the Ross Sea is not the only international instrument in place over Antarctica. Roman jurisprudence used term terra nullius to describe a land that belongs to no-one and in today’s world, only Antarctica is the true no-man’s land in that sense. Nevertheless, Antarctic continent has its own international governance regime established in 1959 by the Antarctic treaty. The Antarctic treaty limits use of Antarctica to nonmilitary use, mainly for scientific research. The Antarctic treaty is not the only international instrument in place, number of other international agreements was developed, including the 1964 Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, the 1972 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, the 1982 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, and the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, all of which together of form the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) (US DS 2018). The aforementioned MPA in the Ross Sea builds upon the paradigm created by the ATS as well as by the global environmental protection regime consisting of the UNCLOS, CBD, and other instruments and further strengthens environmental regime over the south pole continent and adjacent sea areas. The future of Antarctica is unclear. Scientific research on the continent is likely to continue, and aforementioned efforts to sustainably manage adjacent sea areas are a good sign that the international community is going to further implement protection measures, of course depending on the future state of international politics.

Outer Space Another form of terra nullius, at least in legal sense, is the outer space. Governance regime of the outer space is the least developed ones of the all commons, as human activities in outer space are still mostly limited to the Earth’s orbit.

International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

History and Current Status of the Outer Space Governance Currently, there is no comprehensive international governance regime addressing protection of the outer space environment. However, several international treaties were developed to address utilization and use rights to outer space, thus creating the international space law. The 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies not only prohibits placing weapons of mass destruction on Earth’s orbit or anywhere else in space, reflecting the Cold War era when it was conceived, but also stipulates that no government may claim territory over any celestial body and reiterates that space should remain for nonmilitary use only. However, even such a distant place as Earth’s orbit is not immune to pollution – one of the emerging issues is orbit’s pollution by debris. Although all space-faring nations try to minimize amount of debris produced by both satellites and manned missions, European Space Agency (ESA) estimates that there are more than 170 million pieces of space debris in Earth orbit (ESA 2013). Even though there is no specialized regime addressing space debris pollution, the 1972 Convention on the international liability for damage caused by space objects provides basic guidelines for strict liability of launch states. The closest resemblance to a structured governance regime of outer space use is ongoing active cooperation among countries through the International Communication Union (ITU), which acts as a coordination hub and helps to facilitate use of Earth’s orbit, mainly for satellites (ITU 2018), which provide vital services such as GPS, communications, or meteorological data, as well as advancing human knowledge about outer space. Future Challenges for Outer Space As suggested in the previous paragraph, contemporary cooperation is useful to certain extent but nonetheless fails to fully eradicate the adverse effects of outer space use. Further coordination will be necessary as more nations (most notably China and India) and several private companies are beginning to advance their space programs

663

and have bigger plans for the Earth orbit. Proposals for asteroid mining might give rise to a system not unlike the one in place for the ocean seabed mining governed by the International Seabed Authority. As for the use of outer space for the purposes of achieving SDGs, more attention needs to be paid to the use of satellites as tools for monitoring and planning, as well as their crucial role in providing the internet connection in many parts of the world.

Cyberspace and Intellectual Property One of the SDG 17’s aims is to promote use and especially access to the Internet. Access to information and knowledge is one important aspect of the whole sustainable development process, because access to knowledge is a prerequisite for active participation and what is more important, informed participation. Invention of the Internet sparked a new era in the modern history, an era marked with easiness of communication and information access and sharing. However, a term digital divide is receiving well-justified attention in today’s world. Digital divide refers to different levels of access to information and communication technologies and to the Internet between various communities, as well as the quality of such access (Unwind and de Bastion 2009). Worldwide gender gap between the Internet users ranges from 6% to 11% (ECOSOC 2016; ITU 2017), meaning that less women have access to the Internet than men. UN Economic and Social Council’s report indicates that as of 2015, developing and the least developed nations still lack proper high-speed Internet capacity, with 7.1% of covered population in developing countries in comparison to the 29% in the developed world (ECOSOC 2016). However, estimates show the overall number of Internet users reached 41.3% in the developing nations and 81% in the developed countries (ITU 2017). Notions to classify the Internet as a global public good and thus development of protective measures have been made in the past (Clark 2011). But access to information through technical means is only one aspect of information sharing, with legal aspect being the other. Use of

I

664

International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

some knowledge and actual knowledge itself is limited through developed framework of patents and copyrights globally coordinated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Patent system has been around for centuries and is inherent part of technological development system which protects inventors’ ideas and allows them to fully exploit their invention to which they invested time and money. Basic regime of the intellectual property rights transfer and trading is embedded within the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), making intellectual property subject of the certain international governance regime, but there is also an opinion that patent system together with the current legal regime is slowing down technological progress (Takalo and Kanniainen 2000) and also hinders technology transfer from developed world to developing countries. This notion gave birth to several initiatives such as the Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing free and public platform for knowledge sharing. Similar ideological paradigm is growing worldwide, with initiatives such as the Open Access for scientific research, rise of the Open Source Software and also the general idea of Open Data getting significant international attention from researchers and scientists as well as from private businesses.

Conclusion Commons tragedy described by Hardin occurs because of the lack of common-pool resources governance that would limit their use and guard them from overexploitation (Herring 1990). The situation has changed significantly since the publication of Hardin’s article; the system of the international environmental governance has developed into a complex system of numerous semi-related international agreements. As described before, the transboundary nature of the environment is addressed by numerous international instruments (such as international treaties) which are part of global environmental regime. Such inclusive approach is apparent especially in well-established sectoral governance (biodiversity, pollution, exploitation rights), but on

global level, there is no coordinating body which would oversee the overall integration of individual instruments and their goals. SDGs are useful international policy instrument but can function merely as a non-binding agenda. Ideas about establishing a new global environmental organization have been discussed (Conca 2015; Biermann 2014), but there is not enough international support or willingness on national states’ level to relinquish national sovereignty in favor of new international body. Although regional agreements appear to have higher impact on environmental and economic activities than globally promoted programs, they do not have immediate impact on the governance of global commons, as they remain sectoral in nature and usually do not reflect ecosystem interdependencies. These regional agreements can to certain extent influence the environment in ABNJ by practicing environmentally friendly management practices, but the traditional state-state system coupled together with the UN institutions is not effective in tackling the complexity of environmental problems.

Cross-References ▶ Collaborative Governance ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Global Partnership ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World

International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17

References Backstrand K (2006) Democratizing global environmental governance? Stakeholder democracy after the world summit on sustainable development. Eur J Int Rel 12 (4):467–498 Biermann F (2014) Earth system governance: world politics in the Anthropocene. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 15–120 Clark DD (2011) Protecting the internet as a public commons. Bull Am Acad Arts Sci 64(2):62–63 Conca K (2015) An unfinished foundation: the United Nations and global environmental governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 189–217 ECOLEX (2018) ECOLEX – official website. Online: IUCN, UNEP, FAO. Source: https://www.ecolex.org. Accessed 21 Feb 2018 Economia (2018) Zakazáný plyn ničí ozonovou vrstvu. Vědci nevědí, kdo a odkud ho vypouští. Online: Aktualne.cz. Source: https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/ zahranici/ozonova-vrstva-vedci-plyn-zakazana-latkauv-zareni/r~6c0702a059b511e8a79a0cc47ab5f122/. Accessed 18 May 2018 ECOSOC (2016) Report of the Secretary-General E/2016/ 75 – Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. UN: Economic and Social Council. Source: https://undocs.org/E/2016/75. Accessed 21 Feb 2018 ESA (2013) How many space debris objects are currently in orbit. Online: European Space Agency. Source: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_ Technology/Clean_Space/How_many_space_debris_ objects_are_currently_in_orbit. Accessed 21 Mar 2018 FAO (1995) Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Online: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9878e/ v9878e00.htm. Accessed 17 Mar 2018 FAO (2015) FAO fisheries and aquaculture report No. 1106. Online: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Source: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5028e.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2018 Grotius H (1608) Mare Liberum (trans: Ralph van DM). Oxford University Press, New York, 1916 Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162 (3859):1243–1248 Herring R (1990) Rethinking the commons. Agric Hum Values 7(2):88–104 IMO (2018) Pollution prevention. Online: International Maritime Organization. Source: http://www.imo.org/ en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Pages/ Default.aspx. Accessed 15 Apr 2018 ITU (2017) ICT Facts and Figures 2017. Online: International Telecommunication Union. Source: https://www. itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx. Accessed 15 Apr 2018 ITU (2018) The ITU Radiocommunication Sector. Online: International Telecommunication Union. Source: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/information/Pages/default. aspx. Accessed 15 Apr 2018 Lebreton L, Slat B, Ferrari F, Sainte-Rose B, Aitken J et al (2018) Evidence that the great pacific garbage patch is

665

rapidly accumulating plastic. Online: Scientific Reportsvolume 8, Article number: 4666. Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w. Accessed 5 May 2018 NASA (2017) Annual records. Online: NASA Ozone Watch. Source: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statis tics/annual_data.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2018 NG (2016) World’s largest marine reserve created off Antarctica. Online: National Geographic (NG) Source: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/ross-seamarine-protected-area-antarctica/. Accessed 7 Apr 2018 NOAA (1990) The quantitative distribution and characteristics of neuston plastic in the North Pacific Ocean, 1985–88. Online: National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. Source: http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publica tions/TM/SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154_ P247.PDF. Accessed 13 Apr 2018 NOAA (undated) What is ocean acidification. Online: National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. Source: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What +is+Ocean+Acidification%3F. Accessed 13 Apr 2018 Roan SL (1989) Ozone crisis: the 15 year evolution of a sudden global emergency. Wiley, New York, pp 1–103 Rubenstein M (2012) Emissions from the cement industry. online: Earth Institute, Columbia University. Source: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissionsfrom-the-cement-industry/. Accessed 15 May 2018 SSC (2018a) History of the negotiations of the Stockholm Convention. Online: Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention (SSC). Source: http://www.pops.int/The Convention/Overview/History/Overview/tabid/3549/ Default.aspx. Accessed 3 Apr 2018 SSC (2018b) Stockholm convention. Online: Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention (SSC). Source: http://www. pops.int/. Accessed 29 Mar 2018 Seitanidi MM (2010) The politics of partnerships. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–24 Small C, Nicholls RJ (2003) A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. J Coast Res 19(3):584–599 Takalo T, Kanniainen V (2000) Do patents slow down technological progress? Real options in research, patenting, and market introduction. Int J Ind Organ 18 (7):1105–1127 UN (2018a) Member states. Online: United Nations. Source: http://www.un.org/en/member-states/. Accessed 21 Jan 2018 UN (2018b) United Nations treaty collection – status of treaties – Paris Agreement. Online: United Nations (UN) Source: https://treaties.un.org. Accessed 15 Apr 2018 UNFCCC (1992) United Nations framework convention on climate change. Online: UNFCCC. Source: http:// unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_ publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar 2018 UNFCCC (2018) The Doha amendment. Online: UNFCCC. Source: https://unfccc.int/process/thekyoto-protocol/the-doha-amendment. Accessed 20 Apr 2018 UNOG (undated) Chronology. Online: The United Nations Office in Geneva. Source: https://www.unog.

I

666

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development

ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/3DA94AAFEB 9E8E76C1256F340047BB52/$file/sdn_chronology.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2018 Unwin T, de Bastion G (2009) Digital divide. In: Kitchin R, Thrift N (eds) International encyclopedia of human geography. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 191–197 US DS (2018) The Antarctic treaty system: introduction. Online: United States Department of State (US DS). Source: https://www.state.gov/documents/organiza tion/15272.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2018 US EPA (2017) History of air pollution. Online: US Environmental Protection Agency. Source: https://www. epa.gov/air-research/history-air-pollution. Accessed 25 Mar 2018 WB (2018) Population. Online: World Bank. Source: https:// data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL. Accessed 11 Mar 2018 Whitfield R (2005) Partnerships. In: Hens L, Nath B (eds) The world summit on sustainable development. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 347–372 WMO (2014) Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2014. Online: World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Source: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_ Panels/SAP/Scientific_Assessment_2014/Scientific_ Assessment_Report_2014.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2018

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development Fernanda Torres Volpon1 and Ely Caetano Xavier Junior2 1 Law School, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 2 Department of Legal Sciences, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, Brazil

Definition The concept of investment for the sustainable development involves integrating environmental and social criteria into the economic dimension of capital attraction and allocation. It requires “incorporating environmental, social and governance factors when making investment decisions rather than relying purely on financial considerations” (International Institute for Sustainable Development 2020). In other words, an investment promotes sustainable development if the

economic activities to be performed by investors or host states comply with the several sustainability concerns. The basis for understanding sustainable development has been established in the Brundtland Report as the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations 1987). In fact, as pointed out by Gjuzi (2018), “sustainable development calls for integrating and reconciling various economic, environmental and social interests in such a way that leads to the prosperity and posterity of humankind.” Developing countries need long-term investments, especially foreign direct investment, to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by all United Nations member States in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and international investment agreements are an important tool to mobilize and channel the required capital for those States. International investment agreements are the cornerstone of foreign investment regime and contain the definitions of investor and investment, the standards of protection of foreign investment and the mechanisms to settle disputes related to investments (Subedi 2008). Integrating sustainable development and its related aspects into international investment agreements is one of the main current challenges of international economic policymaking.

Introduction Successful achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals established at the United Nations Agenda 2030 requires “partnerships between governments, the private sector and civil society” (United Nations 2020). Sustainable Development Goal 17 addresses this need of global partnership for sustainable development, emphasizing the need of private resources to foster sustainable energy, infrastructure, communications, and transport. Not only is private investment needed to finance Sustainable Development Goals but also the public sector is required to revise regulatory framework and incentive structures to attract capital for those objectives. Civil society plays an

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development

important role in the contribution to defining of financing priorities and in the effective oversight surveillance of investments Therefore, SDG 17 requires the adoption and implementation of investment promotion regimes for least developed countries as per the UN list as of December 2018 (United Nations 2018). The mobilization of investments for sustainable development plays a key and transversal role in the fulfillment of SDGs. Increasing the share of renewable energy in the global energy matrix (goal 7, target 7.2), developing reliable and sustainable infrastructure to support economic development (goal 9, target 9.1), increasing the levels of productivity through diversification and innovation (goal 8, target 8.2), and adopting sustainable practices in large and transnational companies (goal 12, target 12.6) are some of the specific targets that demand financing to be met. Furthermore, poverty eradication, food security, and action against climate change can also benefit from foreign direct investment (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 2018).

667

Foreign direct investment “can be a crucial agent of positive and transformative change that drives progress on the SDGs” (Johnson 2019). According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2014) estimates, financing sustainable development goals requires 5–7 trillion dollars/year until 2030. Investment needs in developing countries are estimated at 3.3–4.5 trillion dollars/year over this period. The difference between the total investment required to achieve Sustainable Development Goals in each key sector and the current investment in each of them represents the “investment gaps,” which exist in all key areas of Sustainable Development Goals (Table 1) and amount to 2.5 trillion dollars until 2030. Data shows that only 900 billion dollars of this gap would be covered by the private sector, leaving 1.6 trillion dollars to be mobilized by the public sector. Therefore, “in order to avoid what could be unrealistic demands on the public sector in many developing countries, the SDGs must be accompanied by strategic initiatives to increase private sector participation”

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development, Table 1 Estimated current investment, total investment required and investment gaps in key SDG sectors in developing countries

Sector Power Transports Telecommunications Water and sanitation Food security and agriculture Climate change mitigation Climate change adaptation Health Education

Description Investment in generation transmission and distribution of electricity Investment in roads, airports, ports, and rail Investment in fixed lines, mobile, and internet infrastructure Provision of water and sanitation to industry and households Investment in agriculture, research, and rural development Investment in renewable energy generation and development of climate-friendly technologies Investment to cope with impact of climate change in agriculture, infrastructure, water management, and coastal zones Investment in hospitals and health infrastructure Investment in new schools and educational infrastructure

Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2014)

2015–2030 Estimated Total current investment investment required A B in billion dollars ~260 630–950

Investment gap C¼BA

~300 ~160

350–770 230–400

50–470 70–240

~150

~410

~260

~220

~480

~260

170

550–850

380–680

~20

80–120

60–100

~70 ~80

~210 ~330

~140 ~250

370–690

I

668

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development

(United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 2014). According to the Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, sustainable development is construed by three “interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars,” the “economic development, social development and environmental protection – at the local, national, regional and global levels” (United Nations 2002b). The purpose of promoting investment is especially connected with one of these pillars: the economic development. Foreign investment flows are an essential mechanism for developing countries to foster the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (Newcombe 2007). The Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development emphasized the need to attract investments through various mechanisms such as “incentives and support schemes and policies directed at establishing appropriate regulatory, financial and legal framework” (United Nations 2002a). For this reason, public policies must be not only integrated with the three pillars mentioned in the World Summit on Sustainable Development, but also aligned with the promotion of sustainable development and ultimately with the achievement of the SDGs agreed on United Nations Agenda 2030. The relevance of foreign investments is materialized in the SDG 17, which includes as its targets: (a) the characterization of foreign direct investment as financial resource for developing countries (target 17.3 and indicator 17.3.1) and (b) the adoption and implementation of investment promotion regimes for the least developed countries (target 17.5).

Promotion of Sustainable Development in the Foreign Investment Regime Foreign investment regime plays a central role in attracting private capital to projects in developing countries that ultimately promote sustainable development. In the absence of a multilateral framework for investment, this regime is structured by over 3000 international investment

agreements (Herdegen 2013). Mostly in the form of bilateral investment treaties or investment chapters in broader economic agreements, international investment agreements are tools to offer an additional layer of protection to companies from capital-exporting countries investing abroad and to attract additional foreign investment to the economy of capital-importing countries (Bonnitcha et al. 2017). The international investment agreements have three main components: (a) definitions of investment and investor; (b) standards of investment protection that determine the scope of protection offered by the agreement (e.g., nondiscrimination of foreign investors, fair and equitable treatment, and right to compensation in case of expropriation), and (c) a dispute settlement mechanism allowing foreign investors to bring claims against the host State before an international arbitral tribunal for violation of the standards of protection (Xavier Junior 2017). The majority of international investment agreements in force have been signed in the 1990s and sustainable provisions are almost inexistent. In fact, it seems that these agreements have focused more on the protection of foreign capital than on the promotion of financing for sustainable development. Furthermore, investment agreements “may restrict the ability of States to implement enabling policies for inclusive green economy pathways” (United Nations Environment Programme 2018), as they can impose obligations that restrict the capacity of the State to regulate certain areas such as mining, tourism, and exploration of natural resources for the promotion of sustainable development. More than a 1000 investment disputes have been brought under international investment agreements to challenge sustainable development-related measures adopted by host States. Many of these disputes are related to areas such as water treatment, waste management, mining, and energy production. According to Viñuales (2019), “the most visible confirmation of the difficult relationship between the laws governing foreign investment and environmental protection is the surge in foreign investment disputes with environmental components.”

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development

The alleged unbalance between the rights of foreign investors and the duties of host States as well as the divergence of interests between capital-exporting and capital-importing countries have originated a growing body of criticism toward international investment agreements. Some of the central debated issues are the restrictions of the policy space of host States imposed by the obligations contained in investment agreements and the lack of sustainability features to balance the regime (Alvarez 2011). There is a growing consensus that “investment treaty obligations may unduly limit host governments’ ability to enact public policies needed to promote sustainable development and responsible business conduct” (Gordon et al. 2014). In the most recent years, foreign investment regime undergoes a reform “to ensure that countries retain their right to regulate for pursuing public policy interests, including sustainable development objectives” (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 2015). Aligning foreign investment regime to the Sustainable Development Goals is one of the major challenges of current international policymaking. For this reason, discussing strategic approaches to include sustainable development provisions in investment treaty law offers an opportunity to promote muchneeded investments in developing countries in order to alleviate poverty, create jobs, accelerate the clean energy transition, and expand infrastructure.

Integrating Sustainable Development to the Investment Agreement Provisions There are several ways to align investment agreement provisions with sustainable development objectives. For instance, investment agreements could include provisions that aim at increasing the leverage of proper work conditions, mitigation of climate change effects, environmental protection as well as other sustainability-linked provisions. Such measures can emerge by means of clauses that either (a) require cooperation between contracting parties to foster sustainable development or (b) impose investor’s commitments with

669

sustainable national policies parametrizing their course of action in the territory of the host State. Gjuzi (2018) notes an ongoing process of inclusion of provisions related to the sustainable development in the international investment agreements since the 1980s. Nonetheless, “at least until 2008 such an integration was in its early days and has been regarded as rather ‘embryonic’ or even ‘episodic’” (Gjuzi 2018). Regarding this integration, Newcombe (2007) concluded the “recent treaty practice and investment treaty jurisprudence integrate elements of the sustainable development framework into the [foreign investment] regime, even if this integration remains in many respects embryonic.” Until the recent past, governments would not introduce sustainable development provisions in the international investment agreements (Gordon et al. 2014). However, a new generation of international agreements containing sustainable development features has recently emerged as part of the ongoing reform of international investment agreements. Identifying direct mentions to sustainable development in the text of international agreements offers an opportunity to understand one of the possibilities to attract investment for the promotion of sustainable development. The screening of the full text of 3206 international investment agreements available at the database of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2020) shows that only 54 agreements contain a reference to “sustainable development.” The analysis made for the purpose of the hereby analysis is strictly related to the text of international investment agreements that contain the wording “sustainable development.” It does not include mere references to “sustainable” or “sustainability,” neither considers language connected to “responsible business conduct” (RBC) as considered by the statistical study made by Gordon et al. (2014). For the sake of clarity, RBC are set out in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and provide requirements related to environment, human and labor rights, and other aspects to be complied by private actors. In the study conducted by Gordon et al. (2014) three purposes of sustainable development

I

670

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development

language included in the international investment agreements are summarized. Gordon et al. (2014) describes clauses in the agreements “(i) establishing the context and purpose of the treaty and setting forth basic SD/RBC principles through preamble language; (ii) preserving policy space to enact public policies dealing with SC/RBC concerns; and (iii) not lowering standards, in particular not relaxing environmental and labour standards for the purpose of attracting investment.” In most international investment agreements (37 out of 54) mentioning “sustainable development,” the reference was located in their preamble and determined the desire of the parties to promote the sustainable development. Consequently, those international investment agreements that contain a reference to the “sustainable development” in their preamble express a mere desire or intention that does not necessarily amount to enforceable measures. The remaining agreements, however, such as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), free trade agreements (FTAs), economic partnership agreements (EPAs), and association agreements present another category of provisions. These agreements contain references to sustainable development across several clauses or even sustainable development chapters. Gordon et al. (2014) call the attention that “the higher frequency of inclusion of such language in FTAs and EPAs partly explains the sizeable increase of the frequency of references in [international investment agreements] concluded recently.” For example, the Economic Partnership Agreement signed on February 16, 2011, between Japan and India provides basic principles and objectives for the cooperation in order to liberalize and facilitate trade and investment between the Parties. One of these objectives includes the long-term sustainable development of the Parties. The free trade agreement signed on June 24, 2013, between the Member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the Central American States is a broad agreement that includes development of international trade in such a way to contribute to the objective of

sustainable development and to ensure that this objective is integrated and reflected in the Parties’ trade relationship. In the chapter on trade and sustainable development, the Parties “reaffirm their commitment to promote the development of international trade in such a way as to contribute to the objective of sustainable development and to ensure that this objective is integrated and reflected in the Parties’ trade relationship.” In the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement signed on May 11, 2012, between the European Union and Iraq, there are several clauses throughout the agreement under which the Parties agree to cooperate in different fields such as agriculture, forestry, tourism, and environment in pursuit of sustainable development in addition to the common preamble language also found in other investment agreements. In the Association Agreement signed on June 27, 2014, between the European Union and Ukraine, the parties recognize the sustainable development as central to enhancing the relationship between them. In the chapter on trade and sustainable development, “the Parties reaffirm their commitment to promoting the development of international trade, in such a way as to contribute to the objective of sustainable development and to ensuring that this objective is integrated and reflected at every level of their trade relationship.” This Agreement also contains provisions related to the cooperation in different areas such as mining and metals, tourism, fisheries and maritime, and public health focused on the sustainable development. Other association agreements concluded by the European Union contain similar provisions on the sustainable exploration of certain economic activities, for instance: (i) the Association Agreement signed on June 27, 2014, between the European Union and Georgia mentions the “maintenance of partnership between public, private, and community interests in order to ensure the sustainable development of tourism” in article 330 and (ii) the Association Agreement signed on June 27, 2014, between the European Union and Ukraine determines, in article 382, that “the Parties shall cooperate in order to: [. . .] exchange information and best practices in

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development

relation to the sustainable development of the mining and metals industries in Ukraine and in the EU.” Despite the unquestionable importance of investments, mainly foreign direct investment, to foster the sustainable development, the result evidenced by our findings and by the study conducted by Gordon et al. (2014) shows a lack of clauses oriented to the concreteness of this objective in most international investment agreements. For those agreements that include sustainable development provisions, one specific issue is related to the absence of a sanction model and also a responsibility clause to investors’ commitment with sustainable development. In that sense, Gordon et al. (2014) concluded that “no treatyspecific language on investor responsibility (aside from legality requirements for covered investments)” was found in their study. In this case, it is possible to conclude the investor’s commitments and responsibilities would be provided case-by-case in the national public policy of each country. Another relevant aspect is the location of the measures related to sustainable development in those agreements. Those references that were inserted in the preamble reveals more an intention or desire of the Parties with wording such as “recognizing” or “desiring” than effective provisions that can be demanded by the counterparties. One example is the bilateral investment treaty concluded on January 9, 2013, between Canada and Benin, which includes a provision “[r] ecognizing that the promotion and the protection of investments of investors of one Contracting Party in the territory of the other Contracting Party are conducive to the stimulation of mutually beneficial economic activity, the development of economic cooperation between both countries and the promotion of sustainable development.” According to Gjuzi (2018), the function of such wording will hardly reach a directly enforceable treaty obligation. In addition to that, the agreements that include the sustainable development as a treaty objective also raise the question of effectiveness. “As a treaty objective, sustainable development does

671

not purport to bind states in the form of a specific obligation entailing an executable substantive order” (Ruse-Khan 2010). No specific outcome is required in this case, but it is more oriented in terms of a guiding principle related to the interpretation and implementation of the respective treaties’ provisions (Ruse-Khan 2010). Thus, it is possible to observe the sustainability features are still of minor relevance in investment agreements. Similar conclusion is achieved by Chi (2019) who affirms “IIAs are insufficient and ineffective in addressing sustainable development concerns associated with trinational investment activities.” Three main reasons are pointed by the author to base his opinion such as (i) the IIAs design focused on investment protection, (ii) “symptom of the democratic deficit of IIA-making,” and (iii) result of the “fragmentation of international law.” Another aspect related to the provisions seeking the promotion of sustainable development in the international investment agreements is related to its practical consequences. According to Chi (2019), “many IIA provisions are connected with sustainable development to varying extents” and the “implied function logic of these provisions lies in the fact that they can exempt the contracting States of their liability for taking regulatory measures for public purposes that are otherwise inconsistent with their IIA obligations.” Therefore, the modernization of investment wording to promote sustainable development can be considered an appropriate measure to harmonize future investment agreements helping developing countries to pursue further Sustainable Development Goals agreed on UN Agenda 2030.

Alternatives to Attract Investment for the Promotion of Sustainable Development Considering that the design of traditional investment agreements cannot be reckoned as oriented for the effective promotion of sustainable development and that the inclusion of sustainability features is still limited in more recent agreements, it is important to explore other alternatives to

I

672

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development

promote investment to developing countries for sustainable development purposes. According to Gjuzi (2018) “the current international investment policy and law appear to shift towards a sustainable development friendly approach.” Some alternatives to attract investment for sustainable development are: (a) the inclusion of chapters on sustainable development in investment or broader economic agreements and establishment of enforcement measures in case of noncompliance by the States and (b) the establishment of exceptions and screening processes in investment chapters or agreements. The characteristics and challenges of these alternatives will be described in more detail in the following subsections. Adoption and Enforcement of Sustainable Development Chapters Apart from the inclusion of clauses containing references to sustainable development, some agreements have adopted entire chapters on sustainable development. The European Union, for instance, has the leadership in this practice. The European Commission (2010) acknowledges the importance of an investment framework consistent with “specific aspects of sustainable development.” This approach is consistent with article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union signed on October 26, 2012, according to which “environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union’s policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development” (European Union 2012). Considering that the European Union has signed free trade agreements that include sustainable development chapters with at least 12 counterparties, the European Commission (2018) has published a non-paper with 15 points focused on “improving the implementation and enforcement of trade and sustainable development chapters in EU free trade agreements” to assess the implementation of those provisions. According to this document, the broad scope of sustainable development chapters should be maintained in order to “support the effective implementation of the global framework of social,

labour and environmental standards” (European Commission 2018) in combination with more effective means to achieve such framework. In order to better assess the enforcement of sustainable development-related measures, an option would be to require compliance reports. Newcombe (2007), for instance, has suggested that international investment agreements should “include requirements for environmental or sustainability impact assessments, reporting requirements on economic, environmental and social performance, and express obligations with respect to investor conduct.” Not only might compliance reports be required from investors themselves, but also from governmental authorities. In addition, expert panels with representatives of the civil society may also be entrusted with the task of evaluating the compliance to Sustainable Development Goals as determined in the UN Agenda 2030. The European Commission (2018) nonpaper suggests that noncompliant countries would be required to reconfirm their commitment to proceed with sustainable development provisions under the relevant agreements. The European Commission conceives that the current approach to trade and investment provisions for the promotion of sustainable development might undergo further improvement to overcome some challenges related to its effectiveness. These challenges include (a) the absence of sanctions-based model to breaches of sustainability obligations, (b) the need to establish methods to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of sustainable development clauses, and (c) the improvement and incorporation of new provisions related to the promotion of sustainable development in the existing or new agreements. In particular, the European Commission (2018) highlights the challenge to “determine how a breach of social or environmental standards can be translated into economic compensation.” In other words, in case of a breach of a sustainable development provision by a State Party to the agreement or its investor, it remains unclear how the other State Party could be economically “compensated” for such breach. The main question is if it possible or even adequate that violations of social or environmental standards are quantified and converted into

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development

estimated values to determine the amount of damages to be paid by the noncompliant State or foreign investor to the host State? If the conversion of environmental harm into amounts of money is considered to be adequate, it would be important to set out the mechanisms according to which the monetary compensation could be used to effectively promote the sustainable development. It is equally important for investment agreements to address the relationship between the different chapters of an economic agreement. The free trade agreement concluded between Colombia and Israel in 2013, for instance, establishes, according to article 10.15, that in case of a conflict between the investment chapter and any other chapter of the agreement – a concept that encompasses the environment chapter – the other chapter shall prevail. On the other hand, article 14-D of the free trade agreement signed between Colombia and Panama in the same year excludes measures related to health, safety, environment, and labor rights from the dispute settlement mechanisms existing under either the investment chapter or the overarching trade agreement (Xavier Junior 2018). While the inclusion of an entire chapter on sustainable development might contribute to the interpretative process of an economic agreement, the exhortatory language commonly used hinders the effectiveness of the provisions contained therein. More than just referencing sustainable development, the successful promotion of investment for that purpose depends on creating mechanisms to enforce obligations and policies set out in the agreements. Furthermore, the wording of sustainable development-related provisions has to balance the requirement of stability and predictability for foreign investors and the preservation of the policy space of States and their right to regulate. These aspects must be considered in the formulation of new standard clauses as the power of States to regulate is narrowly connected to the implementation sustainable development and investment provisions. Another alternative to promote investment for the sustainable development under investment agreements can be reached through the

673

establishment of an exception clause in the text of the agreement that permits the host State to adopt domestic public policies in the interest of the local communities and aiming at the sustainable development without concern to a possible violation of the clauses inserted in the investment agreement. In addition to the exception clauses, it would also be possible to insert screening mechanisms in the text of the agreement. Establishment of Exceptions and Screening Mechanisms Another strategy to promote investment in developing countries for sustainable development through international investment agreements is to use exceptions allowing for the host State to control the fulfillment of Sustainable Development Goals agreed on the UN Agenda 2030. The purpose of exceptions is to exempt the Parties “from obligations in the treaty in situations where compliance with the obligations would be inconsistent with the achievement of some public goal defined in the exception” (VanDuzer et al. 2013). One possible general exception would be the one that allows the host State to take measures necessary to protect human and animal life, to preserve health and environment, to conserve living and nonliving exhaustible natural resources, and to ensure compliance with principles and rules such directed to promote sustainable development and related measures. For example, most bilateral investment agreements concluded by Germany include an exemption related to the level of treatment applied to the investors of the host State or to investor of any third States. The bilateral investment agreement signed on April 20, 2005, between Germany and Afghanistan, for instance, considers that “measures that have to be taken for reasons of public security and order, public health or morality shall not be deemed ‘treatment less favourable’.” Therefore, public health is considered an area where the State’s right to regulate shall not be restricted by the provisions related to the protection assured to the foreign investor under such international investment agreement.

I

674

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development

Another possible exception would be the listing of certain industries or services as excluded from the scope of the treaty, thus retaining maximum flexibility under domestic laws to regulate these areas. In addition to exceptions, international investment agreements may adopt screening mechanisms to assess investment projects and decide on their admission or on their submission to a certain regulatory regime. The European Union (2019) has recently adopted a regulation on screening of foreign investments, which is to be understood as “a procedure allowing to assess, investigate, authorise, condition, prohibit or unwind foreign direct investments.” Even though the regulation restricts the maintenance, amendment, or adoption by member States of screening mechanisms to those “on the grounds of security and public order,” a similar mechanism of assessment and authorization on sustainable development grounds would be foreseeable as a tool to attract investment with that focus. In addition to that, the model of investment agreement drafted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (2005) includes a standard provision of environmental screening. According to the model agreement, “investors or the investment shall comply with environmental assessment screening criteria and assessment processes applicable to their proposed investments prior to their establishment, as required by the laws of the host state for such an investment or the laws of the home state for such an investment, whichever is more rigorous in relation to the investment in question.” Such an approach would allow for States to preserve their right to select quality investments for the promotion of sustainable development.

Conclusions International investment agreements play a crucial role in construing a concrete investments’ framework for the promotion of sustainable development, especially helping developing countries in the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals agreed on UN Agenda 2030. In addition to

the governments, the private investors are also important actors to help in the achievement of those goals. In the foreign investment regime, the concept of sustainable development appears to have a double-sided function of (i) investments’ attraction in areas that promote the sustainable development and (ii) assuring that governments will be able to pursue domestic policies focused on the promotion of sustainable development without violating international investment agreements (Schacherer 2019). In either case, “the central idea of sustainable development in the context of foreign investment is that international investment law should enhance political stability needed for foreign investors so that they engage in economic activities, but without undermining a State in regulating social and environmental concerns” (Schacherer 2019). Despite the great attention that sustainable development received over the last years, its legal status under international law remains subject to debate (Schacherer 2019). There are few international investment agreements containing sustainable development language, and those mentioning it lack enforceability through a sanctioning mechanism or a responsibility clause that assures investors’ commitment to sustainability features. Furthermore, there is still ambiguity in the arbitral decisions related to the interpretation of the international treaties. The new generation of international investment agreements may offer the opportunity to review the current treaty-language and increase the success on the effective compliance with Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development Goals. Combining the promotion of investment flows to the least developed countries and the stimulation of investors’ practices in accordance with sustainable development is a suitable alternative to foster the effectiveness of sustainable development provisions in international investment agreements and to allow for achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. It is equally important to address the relationship between sustainable development chapter or clauses with other economic provisions in these agreement in order to have a harmonized

International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development

framework. Other alternatives include (i) tools for the better assessment of the enforcement of sustainable development-related measures such as compliance reports and (ii) the establishment of exceptions and screening mechanisms in order to help States to prioritize public policies and investments that would enhance the sustainable development. Therefore, the current scenario related to the investment regime for sustainable development requires a joint action of different actors in both international and national levels. There are several alternative measures to be taken regarding the foreign investment regime, all of them must prioritize not only the inclusion of new provisions aligned to sustainability features, but especially their effectiveness and enforceability in the pursuit of concrete results that help developing countries to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

Cross-References ▶ Financial Technology for Sustainable Development ▶ Long-Term Investments ▶ Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment ▶ Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy ▶ Social Impact Investment for Sustainable Development ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development ▶ Sustainable Public Systems: Global Norms and Partnerships for National Implementation

References Alvarez JE (2011) The public international law regime governing international investment. Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague Bonnitcha J, Poulsen LNS, Waibel M (2017) The political economy of the investment treaty regime. Oxford University Press, Oxford Chi M (2019) Integrating sustainable development in international investment law: normative incompatibility,

675

system integration and governance implications. Routledge, London European Commission (2010) Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy. https://eurl e x . e u r o p a . e u / l e x u r i s e r v / l e x u r i s e r v. d o ? uri¼com:2010:0343:fin:en:pdf. Accessed 19 May 2020 European Commission (2018) Feedback and way forward on improving the implementation and enforcement of Trade and Sustainable Development chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/ doclib/docs/2018/february/tradoc_156618.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020 European Union (2012) Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. http://data.europa.eu/ eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/oj. Accessed 20 May 2020 European Union (2019) Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union. http://data. europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/452/oj. Accessed 19 May 2020 Gjuzi J (2018) Stabilization clauses in international investment law: a sustainable development approach. Springer, Cham Gordon K, Pohl J, Bouchard M (2014) Investment treaty law, sustainable development and responsible business conduct: a fact-finding survey. OECD Work Pap Int Invest. https://doi.org/10.1787/18151957 Herdegen M (2013) Principles of international economic law. Oxford University Press, Oxford International Institute for Sustainable Development (2005) IISD model international agreement on investment for sustainable development. https://www.iisd. org/pdf/2005/investment_model_int_agreement.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2020 International Institute for Sustainable Development (2020) Sustainable investing: shaping the future of finance. IISD, Winnipeg. https://www.iisd.org/sites/ default/files/publications/sustainable-investing.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020 Johnson L (2019) FDI, international investment agreements and the sustainable development goals. In: Krajewski M, Hoffmann R (eds) Research handbook on foreign direct investment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 126–148 Newcombe A (2007) Sustainable development and investment treaty law. J World Invest Trade 8:357–207 Ruse-Khan HG (2010) A real partnership for development? Sustainable development as treaty objective in European economic partnership agreements and beyond. J Int Econ Law 13(1):139–180 Schacherer S (2019) The CETA investment chapter and sustainable development: interpretative issues. In: Mbengue M, Schacherer S (eds) Foreign investment under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Springer, Cham, pp 207–238 Subedi SP (2008) International investment law: reconciling policy and principle. Hart Publishing, Portland

I

676 United Nations (1987) Report of the World Commission on environment and development: our common future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2020 United Nations (2002a) Plan of implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. https:// www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/ English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020 United Nations (2002b) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. https://undocs.org/A/ CONF.199/20. Accessed 20 May 2020 United Nations (2018) List of least developed countries. https://www.un.org/development/desa/ dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/ldc_list. pdf. Accessed 30 May 2020 United Nations (2020) Sustainable development goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopmen t/ globalpartnerships/. Accessed 20 May 2020 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2014) World investment report 2014: investing in the SDGs: an action plan. United Nations, Geneva. https:// unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2015) Word investment report 2015: reforming international investment governance. United Nations, Geneva. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ wir2015_en.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2018) Promoting investment in the sustainable investment goals. United Nations, Geneva. https://unctad. org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2018d4_en.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020 United Nations Conference on trade and Development (2020) International investment agreements navigator. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/internationalinvestment-agreements/. Accessed 30 May 2020 United Nations Environment Programme (2018) International investment agreements and sustainable development: safeguarding policy space and mobilizing investment for a green economy. https://www.un-page. org/files/public/international_investment_agreements_ sustainable_development_1.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2020 VanDuzer JA, Simons P, Mayeda G (2013) Integrating sustainable development into international investment agreements: a guide for developing country negotiators. Commonwealth Secretariat, London Viñuales JE (2019) Foreign investment and the environment in international law: current trends. In: Miles K (ed) Research handbook on environment and investment law. Edward Elgar, London, pp 12–37 Xavier Junior EC (2017) A crise do direito internacional dos investimentos: análise empírica e soluções possíveis. Thesis, University of São Paulo, São Paulo Xavier Junior EC (2018) Os acordos de livre comercio entre tutela do meio ambiente e proteção dos investimentos estrangeiros: uma harmonização ainda limitada. In: Ribeiro MRS (ed) Meio ambiente: perspectivas jurídicas no nacional ao global. Arraes, Belo Horizonte, pp 140–157

International Relations Between Actors in Rural Areas

International Relations Between Actors in Rural Areas ▶ Global Partnerships of Rural Stakeholders for Sustainable Development

International Volunteering ▶ Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development Through International Volunteering

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance João Mourato, Alexandra Bussler and Fronika de Wit Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Synonyms Knowledge Systems; Knowledge Brokerage; Sustainability Governance; K4DP; KM4Dev; SDGs; UN; UN Agenda 2030; UNDP

Definition In the UN (United Nations) and its agencies, a knowledge broker is defined as a “builder of capacities and facilitator of exchanges in the global development debate” in order to realize development outcomes (UNDP 2014). The UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) emphasizes its own role as knowledge broker connecting solutions seekers with providers and transmitting existing practical knowledge and expertise from practitioners, as laid down in its knowledge management strategy framework 2014–2017 (UNDP 2014). The main

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

contributions of knowledge brokerage are seen as: (i). identifying, capturing, disseminating, and applying lessons learned from past projects and initiatives; ii. strengthening knowledge exchange and networking, through corporate social networking and thematic communities of practice; iii. fostering openness and public engagement through blogging, public online dialogs, consultations, and events; and iv. embedding knowledge management into talent management, HR processes, including training (UNDP 2014). This definition coincides with the literature on knowledge governance, where knowledge brokerage is generally framed as facilitating the creation, transfer, and use of knowledge across different knowledge systems. It includes the action of intermediating knowledge, facilitating collaboration and interaction, working both in the public as well as in the private domain. In the UN Agenda 2030 (United Nations (UN) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development), in its sustainable development goal (SDG) 17, partnerships towards sustainability are understood as multistakeholder initiatives on a voluntary basis where different actors, governmental, nongovernmental, private sector, or civil society join in order to leverage and implement global and local pathways towards sustainability. In the specific context of SDG 17, knowledge governance in general and knowledge brokerage in particular play a crucial role as links and bridges between the different knowledge systems necessary for managing the complexity of a transition towards sustainability.

Introduction The year 2020 will go down in history as the global breakout year of the Covid-19 virus. With its devastating impacts yet to be fully determined, the pandemic’s anthropogenic origins, reach, public, and political response are a stark reminder of the challenges the implementation of the UN Agenda 2030 and its 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) will face. At first, the urgency and immediacy of the Covid-19 crisis may fog this comparison. However, a striking resemblance

677

becomes apparent when taking into account the pandemic’s global nature, associated geopolitical strife, scrambled initial institutional action, dynamic of (mis)information flows, and uneven geographical and socioeconomic implications. Concerning knowledge, a clear dichotomy emerged during Covid-19. On the one hand, a collaborative race for solutions began in terms of treatment, containment, and prevention. From epidemiologists, physicians to social psychologists, from local nurses to the World Health Organization, from national heads of state to mayors and civil society, Covid-19 mobilized joint working at different levels, sectors, and between a widely diverse array of actors. On the other hand, it also illustrated the speed in which fake facts spread in the age of post-truth. This highlighted the dangers of knowledge politicization, with its use primarily tuned for political combat rather than socially beneficial purposes. Multiple lessons can be taken from the outset of the pandemic to inform the implementation of the UN Agenda 2030 and the SDGs: the need to reorganize political priorities in face of a perceived emergency and to work collaboratively at multiple levels, as well as the relevance of an adequate knowledge governance framework. The political perception of the urgency of the UN Agenda 2030’s objectives is an ongoing advocacy battle amidst conflicting interests with no end in sight. The latter two sit at the heart of SDG 17 – the last but not least of the SDGs. Transversal in its nature, SDG17 strives for global partnerships for sustainable development. It guarantees the pursuit of all other SDGs, as decades of international governance efforts have shown that governments alone cannot ensure a transition to sustainability even if they are genuinely committed to it (Ostrom 2010). SDG17 aims at multistakeholder partnerships that “mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals” (SDG Knowledge Platform 2020). Sharing knowledge among a diverse range of stakeholders is easier said than done since it involves dealing with multiple knowledge systems. However, in most cases their governance

I

678

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

relies solely on one type of knowledge: that of the managers or decision-makers (Tengö et al. 2014). Thus, there is a growing advocacy for a more inclusive knowledge base when designing policy solutions to address the complexity and uncertainty of a transition to sustainability. Complementarities across knowledge systems, such as local knowledge and scientific knowledge, make for improved sustainability governance at multiple scales (Tengö et al. 2017; Clarke et al. 2013). The recognition of the existence of multiple knowledge systems by itself does not necessarily lead to a knowledge governance towards sustainability. Often, the communicational distance between different knowledge systems and, in some cases, within a specific knowledge system itself, ask for a further task: knowledge brokerage. Focused on informing policy development and enhancing decision-making, knowledge brokers aim to identify who needs to be engaged and how, sources of information to be used, and steward long-term professional and institutional relationships (Michaels 2009; Rathwell et al. 2015). In sum, knowledge brokerage fruitfully connects diverse knowledge systems towards a transition for sustainability. This chapter expands on the fundamental importance of knowledge brokerage for SDG 17 illustrating its potential role and critically debating its impacts and limits to action. Part I introduces the concept of knowledge governance as the contextual framework where the debate about knowledge systems and their role in a transition to sustainability takes place. Part II zooms in on knowledge brokerage as an essential element of knowledge governance. It breaks down its conceptual outline and critically reviews its key facilitating and limiting factors. The chapter concludes with a set of key points to further the knowledge brokerage debate within the context of the UN Agenda 2030 and all of its 17 SDGs.

Knowledge Governance Towards Sustainability Our common future, the pivotal Brundtland Commission Report (WCED 1987), outlined the

unavoidable multidimensional and multilevel nature of a transition towards sustainability. This transition’s underlying complexity and uncertainty have increasingly been acknowledged. Contrastingly, traditional policy planning and implementation have not been able to properly leverage this transition. This stresses the need for better policy solutions to anticipate and adjust to the changes, surprises, and disruptions emerging alongside this sustainability transition (Quay 2010). Conventional systems of government have struggled to resolve sustainability problems (Clarke et al. 2013). This reflects how different societal actors have very different views on sustainability and how to achieve it (Shiroyama et al. 2012). Their political ideologies, values, education, professional training, and work- and nonwork-related experience shape how they define and understand public problems (Kraft 2017). The societal dilemmas associated with sustainability are complex because their impacts are primarily visible in the future and not in the present (Van Lange et al. 2018). As these authors explain, uncertainty leads to heuristic thinking. Individuals then naturally lean towards personal or local problems, rather than abstract global issues – and political leaders follow suit. This perspective is a fertile ground for what Doherty (2015) calls “knowledge wars,” a post-truth-era reality when “alternative facts” replace actual facts, and feelings have more weight than evidence (McIntyre 2018). The defining challenges of the sustainability transition can be subsumed by: (i) its uncertain and abstract nature, (ii) a wide range of actors involved, and (iii) the difficulty to ensure their accountability, manage their conflicting interests, and outline effective courses of action (Kemp et al. 2005). Against this backdrop, governance for sustainability becomes an unavoidable need. Shiroyama et al. (2012, p. 46) define governance for sustainability as “formal and informal networks/interactions among actors, and systems composed by them, that influence sustainability by integrating its various dimensions.” These authors go on to state that “governance for sustainability asks for knowledge integration as a

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

means to deal with multiple dimensions of sustainability and uncertainty” (Shiroyama et al. 2012, p. 46). The latter requires “fresh thinking about the mechanisms that might generate and inspire constructive co-knowing to advance decision making” (Michaels 2009, p. 995). Accordingly, the sustainability debate has increasingly focused on the issue of knowledge. What knowledge underpins the very concept of sustainability and its pursuit? Who creates it? Who regulates it? What are the checks and balances in place to manage the pluralistic understanding of a world where multiple knowledge systems often clash? In other words, what are the knowledge politics steering a wider transition towards sustainability? Critics tend to highlight an inadequate integration of the variety of existing knowledge systems in current governance for sustainability (Clarke et al. 2013). Knowledge resides within various academic disciplines and diverse actors across society. However, the way it is currently available and used only makes “a limited contribution to sustainability policy and governance” (EEA 2019, p. 402). In other words, defining and pursuing transition goals and pathways require information about the interests and preferences of the different groups involved and their visions for the future (EEA 2019). However, there has been a “broader failure to capture the complexity of voices, interests and values” (Clarke et al. 2013, p. 88) underpinning such a transition. These limitations have fueled a growing call for enhanced knowledge governance for sustainability. This refers to the deployment of governance mechanisms to influence knowledge processes, such as sharing, retaining, and creating knowledge (Foss 2007). In face of the aforementioned criticisms, a key challenge in informing a transition towards sustainability is the design of the processes that optimize the knowledge transfer between where it sits and where it is needed (cf. Tábara and Chabay 2013). To do so, the dynamics of knowledgebased interactions need to be broken down. It is necessary to take into account the characteristics of the type of knowledge in question, the actors involved, the relationship between these actors,

679

and the outcomes of the knowledge-sharing process (Foss and Michailova 2009). A good starting point to explore the challenges of knowledge governance for sustainability is the relationship between science and policy. Science is recognized as such an authoritative mechanism of legitimation that policy debates more often than not are focused on technical questions and the issue of values gets somewhat sidetracked (Michaels 2009). The established almost linear model of transmission of science into policy has been growingly criticized over the last 20 years (e.g., Clarke et al. 2013; Foss and Michailova 2009). Critics claim that successful policy development rather requires the involvement of diverse stakeholders and the integration of their respective knowledge and experiences. Knowledge is referred to as the way people interpret, understand, and apply meaning to the world and to their experiences (Clarke et al. 2013; Hulme 2009). In this context, conventional scientific knowledge is usually contrasted with other types of knowledge, such as local or traditional knowledge. The challenge related to the latter is however how to develop useful, relevant, and credible information for policymakers (Brown 2009). Hulme (2009) systematizes this debate with three science policy models: (i) the decisionist model (goals set by politicians); (ii) the technocratic model (goals set by science); and (iii) the coproduction model (joint scientific and nonscientific considerations). The latter promotes improved knowledge governance for sustainability, as different forms of knowledge are seen to bring valuable perspectives into a colearning process (Brown 2009). A similar reasoning extends to the technocratic model: the science necessary to address a transition towards sustainability differs to a considerable degree in structure, methods, and content from traditional disciplinary science. Progress in increasing the impact of science will require a more problem-driven and interdisciplinary research approach. Despite sound reasons calling for the integration of nonscientific knowledge into policy design and decision-making processes, its practical implications have to be considered carefully. For

I

680

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

one, it has to be decided what constitutes legitimate knowledge, who is entitled to speak, and how open should science be to take in other knowledge systems (Jasanoff 1996). On the other hand, specific institutions and processes that enable different knowledge systems to influence governance processes have to be developed (Clarke et al. 2013). These knowledge systems comprise the agents, practices, and institutions that organize the internal production, transfer and use of knowledge. Building on the assumption that legitimacy, credibility, and availability are fundamental for knowledge’s effective use in efforts toward sustainability, the key question remains how to ensure that all relevant knowledge becomes usable. The diversity and complexity of the sustainability transition require to take into account dynamic and multifaceted forms of knowledge, ranging from scientific, technical to local and tacit knowledge (Feagan et al. 2019). Therefore, the attention falls on the processes of linking and bridging between different knowledge systems (Fig. 1). According to Tengö et al. (2014), a “cross-fertilization among a diversity of knowledge systems” has the power to generate new evidence, to enhance the interpretation capacity, and subsequently to find answers, promote changes and innovate. But how does this specific knowledge reach the destination where it is needed? For instance, how can specific local knowledge reach and impact decision-making processes in the required form and timeliness so that informed policies can be developed? Here enters the fundamental role of knowledge brokerage as a bridging platform, crucial to paving the way towards sustainability (Tábara and Chabay 2013).

Knowledge Brokerage: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle? “Brokered knowledge is knowledge made more robust, more accountable, more usable; knowledge that ‘serves locally’ at a given time; knowledge that has been de- and reassembled” (Meyer 2010, p. 123).

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance, Fig. 1 Linking across diverse knowledge systems. (Adapted from Tengö et al. 2014, p. 582)

Knowledge brokerage, the concept of facilitating the sharing and transfer of knowledge across knowledge systems, has become an important factor in the current sustainability debate (Michaels 2009). Different bodies of literature have come to study knowledge brokerage in relation to diverse subareas of sustainability, from cooperation for sustainable development to policy development and decision-making towards sustainability (e.g., Tengö et al. 2014, 2017; Cummings et al. 2019). First and foremost, knowledge brokerage serves to diminish an information deficit between producer and user of knowledge, resulting from particular unfulfilled information needs or when useful information exists but the potential user does not know about it (McNie 2007). As Cummings et al. (2019, p. 785) put it, knowledge brokerage can be characterized by its functions: “adapting, translating, connecting, acting as an intermediary, match-making, convening of

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

networks and professional learning, connecting supply and demand for knowledge, catalysing and facilitating.” Independent from its form, knowledge brokerage is a means to an end: improved decision-making (Michaels 2009). Accordingly, and broadly speaking, a knowledge broker can be defined as an individual, institution, or organization that has access and moves across different knowledge systems that are embedded in persons, positions, or groups (Ward et al. 2009). In other words, knowledge brokers intermediate and facilitate the collaboration and interaction across different, often unrelated, knowledge systems, in both the public and private domain. They help the creation, dissemination,

681

and use of knowledge across those systems (cf. Sheate and Partidário 2010; Stovel et al. 2011; Meyer 2010; Tengö et al. 2017). According to Reinecke (2015), knowledge brokers’ main actions are: identifying and localizing knowledge; coordinating and networking; compiling and translating; building capacity; analyzing, evaluating, and developing policy; and finally consulting. In addition, Michaels (2009) identifies six different strategies that can be applied in different knowledge brokerage situations. These are: informing; consulting; matchmaking; engaging; collaborating; and building adaptive capacity. The order reflects the increasing level of intensity of relationship building (Table 1). The left column

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance, Table 1 Knowledge brokerage strategies, techniques and practical examples (adapted from Michaels 2009, p. 1000) Strategy Informing

Description Disseminate content

Consulting

Consulting a knowledge seeker on a specific problem or engage a third party to do so Find out the type of needed expertise, where it is located, and the best way to bridge across seeker and holder of knowledge

Matchmaking

Engaging

Collaborating

Building capacity

Brokers take on the role of facilitator and liaise across different parties: the one with the problem and starting a process to solve it, and the other parties holding and delivering knowledge when needed Leveraging a joint decision process where actors frame their interaction and negotiate how a specific problem is addressed Taking the collaborative approach further: 1. leveraging a joint decision process where actors frame their interaction and negotiate how to address the multiple dimensions of a problem; 2. identifying what can be learned from this process and applied to future related situations

Examples of brokerage techniques Fact sheet; booklet; website Policy briefing; meetings; solicited consultations Introduce parties who otherwise would not know of each other

Technical committees; workshops; focus groups

Jointagreements

Coproduction of knowledge; comanagement of a research-policy project; training actions

Examples of real-world application Publicly available online/physical reports on specific subjects Municipalities receive policy consulting for climate action policy development An overarching organization builds on a broad knowledge network. It facilitates knowledgeseeking policymakers the connection to individuals of the organization with the required expertise A national government asks a technical committee to prepare a report for a specific topic (e.g., carbon neutrality pathways)

A multi-stakeholder workshop on a specific topic including holders of different knowledge systems develops a final document that informs decision-making Various stakeholders 1. negotiate the rules of a collaborative process; 2. develop a joint agreement to address a current issue and frame future learning and monitoring; the latter can be updated as new knowledge becomes available

I

682

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

summarizes the six different strategies, the middle column explains their main focus of action, and the right column gives specific examples for each brokerage strategy. For instance, in the consulting strategy a broker is usually approached by a knowledge seeker who is accountable for a specific problem. The broker’s main task is to identify where needed knowledge sits and bridge across knowledge holder and seeker. This can be done formally or informally, via on-site or distant formats. An example would be that a municipality, as the decision-making authority, commissions a knowledge broker for consulting on a specific topic, such as climate action policy development. But it may also be the case that the same municipality wishes to develop a participatory approach to support their climate action policy development and build on knowledge brokerage to engage local key stakeholders and leverage the cocreation of such policy that finally capacitates the municipality’s technical staff. In other words, all these strategies (Table 1) are not mutually exclusive, as it is often the case that a knowledge brokerage process may overlap two or more strategies. Notwithstanding, each strategy can work on its own with a very specific mission and target audience. The practice of sustainability-related knowledge brokerage is expanding rapidly. From local adaptation and mitigation to climate change (e.g., Mourato et al. 2018; Porter et al. 2015), biodiversity policies in ecological systems (e.g., Reinecke 2015) to wider environmental governance (e.g., Bäckstrand 2003), knowledge brokerage emerges in a growing number of policy areas. In this sense, the implementation of the SDGs is no exception. As Cummings et al. (2019) explain, KM4Dev, founded by the International Development Research Council (IDRC) in Canada in 2001, is a community of practice of international development experts. As a global network, KM4Dev (Knowledge Management for Development) takes on the role of a cognitive bridge across development agents, international development institutions, and governments. Similarly, the Austrian K4DP (Knowledge for Development Partnership) developed in 2017 the Agenda

Knowledge for Development, consisting of 13 knowledge development goals aiming to complement the SDGs from a knowledge perspective (cf. Brandner and Cummings 2017). How Does Knowledge Brokerage Work? Following a structural approach (cf. Wasserman and Faust 1994), there are different forms of knowledge brokerage with respect to their complexity (i.e., Figs. 2 and 3). Below, knowledge systems or knowledge holders are represented as blue dots, the knowledge broker as a black dot, and the connections between the different actors in the network are shown as blue lines. The most straightforward and simple form of brokerage is the one where the knowledge broker links two otherwise unconnected knowledge systems, acting as a bridge or intermediator (Fig. 2). Figure 3 shows two more complex stylized depictions of the knowledge brokerage configurations. They vary depending on the degree of complexity of relations between knowledge holders or systems, and the knowledge broker itself. In the network on the left, the different knowledge holders do not interact with each other, yet become interlinked via the broker. On the right, some actors are interlinked priorly, representing cohesive knowledge communities, while others only become interlinked via the knowledge broker. These structural variations represent how differently types of knowledge can flow among different actors of the network, and how close or distant they are from each other and/or from the knowledge broker. Furthermore, one can distinguish between middle-man brokers and catalyst brokers; while the former rather facilitates exchange across established relationships and the latter focuses on generating new relationships and bridges across knowledge holders (cf. Stovel et al. 2011).

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance, Fig. 2 Simple knowledge brokerage relationships. (Adapted from Stovel et al. 2011, p. 21327)

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

683

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance, Fig. 3 More complex knowledge brokerage relationships. (Adapted from Stovel et al. 2011, p. 21327)

Where Does Knowledge Brokerage Take Place? Nowadays, knowledge brokerage takes place at multiple interfaces that bridge existing knowledge systems. However, at the time of its conceptual outline this was not the case. Sheate and Partidário (2010) pin the conceptual origins of knowledge brokerage in an attempt to methodologically bridge the gap between expert and experiential knowledge in order to foster “evidence-based” community development. For effect, the science–policy interface has dominated the knowledge brokerage debate so far. It initially focused on the translation of scientific knowledge into policy-relevant knowledge and, to a lesser extent, of policy knowledge into science-relevant knowledge (Van den Hove 2007). As sustainability policies are developed facing controversial scientific findings and complex relationships, combined with uneven or scarce information, the importance of science knowledge for policymaking has been increasing since it has repeatedly been argued that it improves policies or regulatory decisions (Sheate and Partidário 2010; Holmes and Clark 2008; Bielak et al. 2008). Knowledge brokerage in this context aims at enabling decision-makers to acquire and value expert knowledge that otherwise would not have been incorporated into decision-making (Michaels 2009). At its most effective, the information flow is bidirectional (Cash and Moser 2000). However, there is an increasing perception that assessing sustainability as a policy field ultimately needs to draw on multiple knowledge systems (Sarewitz 2004; Bocking 2004). Therefore,

knowledge brokerage is moving beyond the strict science–policy link to include a diversity of knowledge and intelligences. This results in a more dialogical approach to knowledge dissemination through various potential user groups and the overall institutionalization of science–policy interfaces in a democratic context (Van den Hove 2007). In sum, it is neither in science lay knowledge or policy alone that answers to the increasingly complex challenges of a transition towards sustainability can be found. A crosscutting knowledge bridging involving “[. . .]different ways of knowing with different degrees of rationality ranging from scientific and philosophical to more intuitive and innate[. . .]” (Blackmore 2007, pp. 512–513) is more appropriate. Figure 4 shows how various knowledge systems are made up of different actors with their specific ways of knowing and doing and how they are interconnected via the knowledge broker. For one, science does not necessarily stand in the middle of this bridging process – rather, it can be seen as a pillar of the whole knowledge-sharing framework. To this effect, an increasing interdisciplinary scholarship focuses on how different knowledge systems can be brought together in order to enhance governance towards sustainability (e.g., Fazey et al. 2014; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013; Rathwell et al. 2015), or how to bridge the scientific and civil society knowledge systems via public participation or knowledge cocreation (cf. Weiss et al. 2013; Riedlinger and Berkes 2001; Armitage et al. 2011). All in all, there is currently a general shift away from a normative view on the integration of knowledge from different knowledge systems towards more egalitarian

I

684

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance, Fig. 4 Knowledge brokerage as knowledge systems’ interface (authors’ elaboration)

approaches (Rathwell et al. 2015) of knowledge valuing and sharing amidst different knowledge systems. The latter informs what Tengö et al. (2014) call an interweavable “multiple evidence base” from different knowledge systems to solve sustainability problems. Challenges, Barriers, and Facilitators of Knowledge Brokerage The embedding of different knowledge systems into an overarching knowledge system allows for the fixing, learning, and application of knowledge over long periods of time. In other words, the formal and informal “institutionalization” of knowledge enables long-lasting relationships of trust and respect that can ultimately turn into multistakeholder partnerships for sustainability action (cf. Tengö et al. 2017; Michaels 2005). Ideally, this knowledge infrastructure represents an actor-network spanning across sectors, scales, and communities of practice. However, and despite the importance attributed to knowledge brokerage in facilitating a transition towards sustainability, there are several challenges that hinder its practice.

Firstly, Reinecke (2015) proposes to analyze knowledge brokerage according to three principles: credibility, saliency, and legitimacy. The challenge of credibility concerns the trustworthiness and technical/scientific accuracy of the information conveyed by the broker, since these are central qualities to knowledge (Reinecke 2015). This regards the knowledge broker’s impact on the knowledge transfer process (cf. Michaels 2009). Does the broker’s interference lead to a partial knowledge loss or transformation of it, and if so, to which extent? Saliency refers to how relevant the knowledge is to the final user. The challenge is for the broker to identify which knowledge is exactly needed so that it becomes actionable in practice (cf. Cash et al. 2003; Reinecke 2015). Legitimacy concerns the degree to which diverse values and views are integrated in a knowledge production process to guarantee unbiasedness and fairness. This concerns how different knowledge systems that do not follow similar rules and practices are mobilized and integrated. For instance, how to bridge indigenous and scientific knowledge to inform policymaking if the starting point mirrors often diametrically

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

opposed worldviews? Similarly, how to make sure that the initial holder of knowledge is able to follow through the knowledge bridging process? The challenge lies for multistakeholder approaches to mobilize, translate, negotiate, and integrate knowledge across these invisible boundaries towards final application (cf. Tengö et al. 2017; Riedlinger and Berkes 2001; Cash et al. 2003; Weiss et al. 2013). Secondly, a knowledge broker’s action is challenged by the ties inevitably developed with all actors throughout the process. This becomes particularly complex when bridging across conflicting knowledge systems. A knowledge broker risks being drafted to one side, even perhaps to the most powerful knowledge holder (Stovel et al. 2011), which could undermine the value and skew the outcome of the knowledge brokerage process. Finally, there is the question of the outcome of knowledge brokerage. Does the bridging or conveying of relevant knowledge ultimately lead to its inclusion into the decision-making process (Michaels 2009)? This refers to the risk of brokered knowledge not meeting the final needs for its application, finding political opposition to its use, or that the established ties across knowledge systems vanish once the broker disappears. The challenge lies in facilitating long-lasting knowledge relationships that outlive the brokerage process and create a true learning legacy that informs desired pathways towards sustainability. All these challenges revolve around the type of communication that has to be established and how actors have to be engaged (e.g., Juhász and Lengyel 2018). The literature hints at some solutions to overcome these dilemmas. For one, the risk of the broker’s personal impact on the information and its inadequacy for final use may be mitigated by both involving the final knowledge users early in the process (e.g., Jull et al. 2017; Menny et al. 2018) as well as thriving for external validation by renowned experts (Reinecke 2015). Furthermore, when brokerage functions are embedded into existing organizations, the level of trust inbetween different knowledge systems

685

increases, creating a sort of neutrality zone (Stovel et al. 2011). This institutionalization of knowledge brokerage is fundamental to allow for a collaborative exchange where the integrity of each knowledge system is respected (Tengö et al. 2017).

Concluding Remarks The implementation of the UN Agenda 2030 and its 17 SDGs will depend on a structural reorganization of political priorities worldwide. Recent decades of governance efforts have shown that governments alone cannot ensure a transition towards sustainability. In face of the rise of posttruth politics and the challenges of pursuing global climate action efforts, the UN Agenda 2030 plays a pivotal role. It must strive to push the wider transition towards sustainability back on track politically, and secure its implementation on the ground. SDG 17, with its aim to create global partnerships for sustainable development, plays a central role in this process. It is transversal to the pursuit of all other SDGs. However, SDG 17 faces an uphill battle, since it is a crucial knowledge governance endeavor. Here is where the decisive challenges lie: First, the mere existence of a knowledge governance framework does not automatically imply that knowledge flows from where it is produced to where it is needed. Second, conflicting knowledge systems are a source of innovation and policy learning, but at the same time they can inflict structural damage, or even bring to a halt, policy development. Third, knowledge governance is highly exposed to political pressures, thus it is a challenge in itself to secure desired levels of legitimacy, transparency, and accountability in knowledge production, transfer, and use. This is the arena for knowledge brokerage, increasingly perceived as a fundamental process in informing decision-making for sustainability. At first sight, it focuses on bridging between where knowledge sits and where it is needed, identifying sources and building long-lasting relationships. However, there is another crucial role for knowledge brokerage. It concerns the

I

686

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

management of conflicts of interest among different sustainability stakeholders, of conflicts between objectives and implementation strategies that hail from different development goals, and conflicts between different knowledge systems and their agendas. The potential contradictions that will surface from the UN Agenda 2030 implementation cannot be overlooked. Knowledge brokerage plays a potentially crucial role in ensuring that the SDGs forward a just transition towards sustainability. The challenge lies in not solely promoting such transition, but also to assure its saliency, credibility, legitimacy, and justice. To pursue the latter, acknowledging the role of diverse values and views from different kinds of expertise (e.g., science vs. practice) in the knowledge production process is paramount. A pluralistic approach, embracing multiple voices, such as indigenous or local knowledge, needs to be further valued and strengthened in order to promote knowledge unbiasedness and an overall more democratic process. An inclusive and democratic knowledge base when it comes to designing policy solutions for a transition to sustainability is the make or break factor for long-lasting partnerships and a key determinant of the impact of the UN Agenda 2030.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Global Partnership in the Service Industries for Sustainable Development ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 Acknowledgments João MoraisMourato acknowledges the financial support of the Portuguese Fundacão para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through the FCT science employment contract at ICS ULisboa – ref. N.° 7/2019/ NT-GH-01 Alexandra Bussler acknowledges the financial support of the Portuguese Fundacão para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through the doctoral scholarship with ICS ULisboa – ref. SFRH/BD/143942/2019 Fronika de Wit acknowledges the financial support of the Portuguese Fundacão para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT)

through the doctoral scholarship with ICS ULisboa – ref. SFRH/BD/129274/2017

References Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A et al (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Chang. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006 Bäckstrand K (2003) Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Glob Environ Polit. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638003322757916 Bielak AT, Campbell A, Pope S, et al (2008) From science communication to knowledge brokering: the shift from “science push” to “policy pull.” In: Communicating science in social contexts: new models, new practices. New York, Springer Science + Business Media B.V. Blackmore C (2007) What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas?: a theoretical overview. Environ Sci Pol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.02.007 Bocking, S. (2004). Nature’s Experts: Science, Politics, and the Environment. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey; London Brandner A, Cummings S (2017) Agenda Knowledge for Development: strengthening Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals. Austria Brown K (2009) Human development and environmental governance: A reality check. In: Adger WN, Jordan A (eds) Governing Sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 32–51 Cash DW, Moser SC (2000) Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Glob Environ Chang. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00017-0 Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100 Clarke B, Stocker L, Coffey B, Leith P, Harvey N, Baldwin C, . . . & Haward, M. (2013). Enhancing the knowledge–governance interface: Coasts, climate and collaboration. Ocean Coast Manag 86:88–99 Cummings S, Kiwanuka S, Gillman H, Regeer B (2019) The future of knowledge brokering: perspectives from a generational framework of knowledge management for international development. Inf Dev. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0266666918800174 Doherty P (2015) The knowledge wars. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne EEA (2019) The European environment – state and outlook 2020: knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe. Luxemburg Publication Office of the European Union, Luxemburg Fazey I, Bunse L, Msika J et al (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance stakeholder research. Glob Environ Chang. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.012 Feagan M, Matsler M, Meerow S, et al (2019) Redesigning knowledge systems for urban resilience. Environ Sci Policy 101:358–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci. 2019.07.014 Foss NJ (2007) The emerging knowledge governance approach: challenges and characteristics. Organization 14:29–52 Foss NJ, Michailova S (2009) Knowledge governance. Oxford University Press, New York Gómez-Baggethun E, Corbera E, Reyes-García V (2013) Traditional ecological knowledge and global environmental change: research findings and policy implications. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06288180472 Holmes J, Clark R (2008) Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environ Sci Pol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.08.004 Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Jasanoff S (1996) Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Soc Stud Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631296026002008 Juhász S, Lengyel B (2018) Creation and persistence of ties in cluster knowledge networks. J Econ Geogr. https:// doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbx039 Jull J, Giles A, Graham ID (2017) Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Implement Sci. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0696-3 Kemp R, Parto S, Gibson RB (2005) Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice. Int J Sustain Dev. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd. 2005.007372 Kraft ME (2017) Environmental policy and politics, 7th edn. Routledge, New York, USA McIntyre L (2018) Post-truth. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Pol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004 Menny M, Voytenko Palgan Y, McCormick K (2018) Urban living labs and the role of users in co-creation. GAIA 27:68–77. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1. 14 Meyer M (2010) The rise of the knowledge broker. Sci Commun. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009359797 Michaels S (2005) Implementing and sustaining systematic approaches to improving the science-policy interface in selected science-based organizations. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Michaels S (2009) Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environ Sci Pol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci. 2009.05.002 Mourato J, Schmidt L, Ferrão J, Bussler A (2018) Reframing adaptation to climate change in Portugal:

687

the case of ClimAdaPT. Local. In: Changing societies: legacies and challenges. Vol. iii. The diverse worlds of sustainability. Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, Lisbon, pp 153–177 Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2010.07.004 Porter JJ, Demeritt D, Dessai S (2015) The right stuff? Informing adaptation to climate change in British Local Government. Glob Environ Chang. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.10.004 Quay R (2010) Anticipatory governance. J Am Plan Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2010.508428 Rathwell KJ, Armitage D, Berkes F (2015) Bridging knowledge systems to enhance governance of the environmental commons: a typology of settings. Int J Commons. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.584 Reinecke S (2015) Knowledge brokerage designs and practices in four european climate services: a role model for biodiversity policies? Environ Sci Pol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.007 Riedlinger D, Berkes F (2001) Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Rec (Gr Brit). https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0032247400017058 Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Pol. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001 SDG Knowledge Platform SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL 17. https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/sdg17. Accessed 10 May 2020 Sheate WR, Partidário MR (2010) Strategic approaches and assessment techniques-potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.10.003 Shiroyama H, Yarime M, Matsuo M et al (2012) Governance for sustainability: knowledge integration and multi-actor dimensions in risk management. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0155-z Stovel K, Golub B, Meyersson Milgrom EM (2011) Stabilizing brokerage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:21326– 21332 Tàbara JD, Chabay I (2013) Coupling Human Information and Knowledge Systems with social-ecological systems change: reframing research, education, and policy for sustainability. Environ Sci Pol. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envsci.2012.11.005 Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T et al (2014) Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43:579–591 Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P et al (2017) Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond – lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:17–25 UNDP (2014) UNDP knowledge management strategy framework 2014–2017. United Nations General Assembly, New York

I

688

Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

van den Hove S (2007) A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures. 2006.12.004 Van Lange PAM, Joireman J, Milinski M (2018) Climate change: what psychology can offer in terms of insights and solutions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0963721417753945 Ward V, House A, Hamer S (2009) Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evid Policy 5:267–279. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426409X463811

Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge WCED (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford Weiss K, Hamann M, Marsh H (2013) Bridging knowledges: understanding and applying indigenous and western scientific knowledge for marine wildlife management. Soc Nat Resour 26:1–18. https://doi.org/10. 1080/08941920.2012.690065

J

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management Denner Nunes1 and José Heitor Soares2 1 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal 2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Definition A Junior Enterprise (JE) is a nonprofit organization run by university students that provide services in their fields of study. The JE provides to the junior entrepreneurs a learn by doing experience, complementing and enhancing higher education. When the student’s efforts are aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), there is an enormous potential to reinforce education for sustainability (Junior Enterprises Global 2020). Localizing SDG is an action related to its targets and framework, which refers to its incorporation, implementation, and monitoring strategies in the local development towards SDG. By showing the relevance of partnerships to gather all resources to foster sustainable development, this work will reinforce the Education for Sustainable Development (EDS) role in the healthy development of partnerships for SDG (Wahyuni 2019).

Chapter Organization and Purpose This entry aims to show benefits related to partnerships with JEs, in general, and strategic collaborations towards sustainability, focusing on the electric and electronic waste management. In order to provide all resources to relate partnerships potential with JEs, this entry begins discussing partnerships and the Junior Enterprise Movement (JEM) context in general. Given the relevance of JEM, the opportunity window to promote SDG in innovative ways in Higher Education Institutes (HEI) will be presented as an efficient solution to move towards SDG (International Sustainable Campus Network et al. 2018). In this study, two practical examples will be evaluated and analyzed: the creation of Solve – Soluções em Engenharia that is a Junior Enterprise with its core business based on SDG at the University of Coimbra, Portugal, and its first project, the E-Waste at the University of Coimbra (EWUC). It is based on a bibliographic review of e-waste management and sustainability to understand Solve’s strategic position and EWUC’s alignments and partnership networks. The partnership’s analysis and interconnections are presented optimizing sustainable e-waste management at the same university. After that, the SDG localization and other Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) analysis will point JEM as a potential tool for SDG in each case separately.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

690

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

It will focus on one sustainable entrepreneurial initiative to optimize e-waste management in HEI. It intends to show the transforming partnerships that will stimulate not only the HEI but also the entire society to apply SDG. In addition, it will discuss collaborative advantage concerning the relationship between the JEs and Higher Education Institutes (HEI) and how these partnerships can promote sustainable development.

Introduction to Partnerships Partnership is a crucial factor, responsible for democratizing the access to opportunities of learning objectives of SDG for mutual and multilevel growth. As the United Nations (UN) defined in 2016, “partnerships for sustainable development are multi-stakeholder initiatives voluntarily undertaken by Governments, intergovernmental organisations, major groups, and other stakeholders, which efforts are contributing to the implementation of inter-governmentally agreed development goals and commitments.” In addition, the advance in technology of information and globalization have increased different types of collaboration with multidisciplinary teams, and stakeholders are shaping initiatives to build a sustainable development scenario in several places around the world (Division for Sustainable Development 2016). The implementation of the Agenda 2030, after the Paris Agreement in 2015, resulted from the willingness of the 193 signed members to empower the government alignment with sustainable development across the world. The 17 SDG show the collective path towards sustainable development, pursuing global development and win-win cooperation. Several problems are associated with SDG; one of the most important is that some projects fail in the main objective of sustainable partnerships: maximize value creation. The justification for low efficiency and discontinuity of some partnerships can rely on difficulties to connect different partners through a complex, integrated, and global network. In addition, the problems with local and regional restrictions are observed.

On the other hand, the UN acknowledges that the partnership system is far away from the full potential, and this is due to challenges across societal sectors and economic cycles that prevent the exchange of sufficient resources (United Nations General Assembly 2016; Stibbe et al. 2019). Hence, there is a need to enhance international cooperation to create sufficient tools for developing countries to achieve SDG, for example, the creation of an information transfer platform to foster new worldwide partnerships, as currently more than half of the people around the world have Internet access (Spröte 2019). A global indicator framework (GIF) evaluates the dynamics of SDG and quantifies the impact evolution of each one. In the specific case of SDG 17, there are 19 targets and 25 indicators to provide data for 5main sections: finance, technology, capacity-building, trade, and systemic issues (Ritchie and Mispy 2018). There is a spectrum of different collaborative arrangements that fit within the partnership definition, and its classification depends on the qualities, objectives, incomes, and outcomes. The coordination and supervision of sustainable partnerships are always challenging by the fact that the donors and sponsors require a collaborative advantage. Furthermore, the nature of partnerships is relevant to foster resources exchange (Stibbe et al. 2019). Evaluating partnerships has been a limiting factor to realize their principal contributions. The concept of value-added has been changing, and it was possible to see transformations going through the perception of value besides economic resources, opening new horizons to different types of resources and their exchanges. The Partnership Delta (ΔP) is the collaborative difference of the project impact when compared with single actor outcomes. Evaluation and implications of a partnership also are structured by measuring qualitatively and quantitatively its value created that could be responsible for attracting new gains in capacity, funding, positioning, innovation, logistics, and other sectors. Additionally, there are some different costs, which are responsible for the value of resources consumed in building up a

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

partnership, and the implementation costs, which are divided on staff time, financial values from “hard work,” and non-tangible ones (Stibbe et al. 2019).

Opportunity Window for Sustainable Entrepreneurship The Junior Enterprise Movement The Junior Enterprise Movement (JEM) started in France in 1967 and is present in 44 different countries with more than 1200 JEs, moving millions of US dollars per year. Nowadays, Junior Enterprises Global Organization (JEGlobal) is composed of 19 confederations in 17 different countries. Since the confederations help, regulate, and reward the JEs on a national and continental level, the JEGlobal is focused on the global network. Even though France is the birthplace of the movement, Brazil is the country with the most significant number of JEs, with more than 800 (Junior Enterprises Global 2020). The students involved in the JEM are called junior entrepreneurs. The projects executed by the JEs allow them to apply the knowledge acquired during their academic journey into real problems of the market. In this sense, JEs set their basis in offering consulting services on their fields of study. Each JE has a core business thought-out by its members and idealized according to their area of study. The students oversee the whole business, selling, managing, and executing the services. They have the opportunity to develop soft and hard skills, in addition to business and professional experience, while acquiring an entrepreneurial and teamwork spirit before starting professional life (Junior Enterprises Global 2020; Caldeira et al. 2017; Mathisen et al. 2011). The partnership between JE and HEI was considered the best practice to entrepreneurship education at the “Entrepreneurship Education in Europe” conference hosted by the European Commission. Moreover, this link can provide much more than just entrepreneurship education, when counted the importance of this initiative in the academic context. In this sense, JE partnerships can provide society with a more significant role

691

through their projects, financing and supporting students’ ideas and actions. Consequently, students improve their early career development (Govender 2008). The research work, “Effects and impact of entrepreneurship programs in higher education,” presents an evaluation of the impact of entrepreneurship education, based on a survey with alumni of higher education institutions in Europe. The study considers the JEM as an entrepreneurship education program and says that “Entrepreneurship education has a positive impact on the entrepreneurial mindset of young people, their intentions towards entrepreneurship, their employability and finally on their role in society and the economy” (European Commission; Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry; Entrepreneurship Unit 2012; Swaim et al. 2016). According to the above research, entrepreneurship education is expected to improve competencies that will affect not only the individuals’ working life but also society as a whole. One of the positive effects is the involvement of alumni from entrepreneurship programs in non-commercial projects outside work. Indeed, JE alumni tend to show more interest in volunteering than most students. Moreover, Junior Enterprises alumni have a better score in many aspects, probably as a result of its learn by doing characteristics (European Commission. Directorate-General of Enterprise and Industry 2012; Lima and Cantarotti 2010). Building Sustainable Connections and Partnerships One of the challenges for ESD is the engagement of the academic community. It can be related to lack of staff capacity, lack of funding, or limited understanding of the SDG within the institution. Sustainable entrepreneurship could be seen as a new perspective to solve human problems that need innovation and new firm creation for sustainable economic growth and for finding solutions to fundamental challenges such as climate change, green energy, energetic efficiency, collective environmental behavior, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity (Oliveira et al. 2016; Fichter and Tiemann 2018). In fact, sustainable entrepreneurship aims

J

692

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management, Fig. 1 Junior Enterprise definition and knowledge cycle. (Adapted from Govender 2008)

to promote positive social and ecological change and establish a platform presenting new opportunities for businesses, decision-making, and new products or services from the very beginning to the end, rather than pursuing economic profits as the primary objective (Nave and Franco 2019). Increasing sustainability challenges have resulted in difficulties in global action in HEI, most of which call for a complete overhaul of the HEI systems. It is mainly because higher education is generally organized into highly specialized areas of knowledge and disciplines, resulting in professionals who are ill-prepared for cooperative efforts and often discouraged from extending

their work into other fields (Tilbury 2012; Franco et al. 2019). (Fig. 1). HEI have the responsibility to serve correctly as a qualified academic bridge for students, involving them with a broad array of partners belonging to academic, entrepreneurial, government, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Amey et al. 2007). Also, experiential and active learning strategies (e.g., service-learning, internships, participatory action research) aim at providing students with opportunities for hands-on learning experiences (Farias et al. 2019; Ferreira and Gonzalez 2015). In this case, a JE is an opportunity for innovative pedagogical

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

tools to foster students’ sustainability acknowledgment and to create a sustainable perspective, increasing the consciousness network of the students and, consequently, the alumni. Besides, living-campus approaches renewed emphasis on campus-community partnerships, as: (a) Encompasses the most central part of the mission of higher education, teaching and learning. (b) Leads to additional forms of civic involvement that can improve other scholarly activities. (c) Involves faculty and students in educationally meaningful service activities that address community issues. (d) Values community agency professionals as co-educators. (e) Requires ongoing dialogue among all partners to ensure successful implementation (Benson et al. 2000. The learning process at a JE occurs through practical projects experiences by dealing with real-world problems. In a multidisciplinary and community learning environment, students seek solutions through research and putting theoretical knowledge into practice. By these means, student adopts a “problem-based learning” approach (Govender 2008).

Junior Enterprise Movement and EWaste Management “Solve – Soluc¸o˜es em Engenharia” The University of Coimbra (UC) grew and evolved within the city, with a “University City” environment. In its 67 buildings, the UC has about 24,000 students and 2600 collaborators (including professors, researchers, and technical staff). Searching for a sustainable development path, this institution has recently elaborated Strategic Plans (PE). These plans outline goals and objectives that need to be achieved by HEI such as the university relationship with its surroundings, teaching and entrepreneurship, and, finally, its resulting economic impacts (General Council of University of Coimbra 2019).

693

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management, Fig. 2 JE’s logo (Solve – Soluções em Engenharia 2020)

It was in this academic environment at the University of Coimbra that took place the creation of the Junior Enterprise Solve – Soluções em Engenharia (SOLVE). Despite the existence of many other JEs at the Faculty of Science and Technology of the University of Coimbra (FCTUC), SOLVE was born as a response to a specific demand that had been identified. In this context, this junior enterprise initiative established its core business and values around the UN Sustainability Development Goals. It provides green engineering consulting services aiming at a sustainable future by evaluating its own processes and those of its partners. Following Stibbe et al. (2019), as SOLVE’s partnerships gather multiple actors and partners to work together in complex actions aiming a system transformation, they are classified as a Transform Partnership, where organizational and mission values and resources are exchanged to maximize the collaborative advantage (Anastas and Zimmerman 2003) (Fig. 2). The E-Waste Management Project Considering the partnership between SOLVE and UC and their mutual interest in the SDG, it is possible to observe the alignment between the objectives outlined by them. From this partnership, the first project emerged: the EWUC, a project that intends to aid the University to achieve SDG related to the e-waste scope. Waste Management Improvement: Why E-Waste?

It is clear the necessity to understand the entire environmental ecosystem and to deal with the impacts and problems that humans are causing in this Anthropocene era. The definition of the Anthropocene is a new human-dominated

J

694

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

geological epoch, in which our impacts are changing our living environment, and human exploration and consumer behavior are contributing to climate changes, leading to new phenomena such as the rise of the sea level or the global temperature (Lewis and Maslin 2015). Nowadays, production and consumption patterns are contributing to increase the depletion of the natural resources in irreversible ways. The population is growing, and electronic and electrical equipment (EEE) is playing a crucial role in human development, motivated by the global information society and the digital economy. The increasing of EEE use is inspired by its power to develop a fast network and new application services, which have been essential to assure the globalized development through different parts of the world (United Nations et al. 2019; Balde et al. 2017). Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) is a valorous waste stream, which needs to be rightly disposed of, once it reaches the end of its life cycle, to avoid several problems. WEEE or just e-waste was responsible, in 2017, for about 50 million metric tonnes globally, which represents an average production of 6 kg of e-waste per person. These high values are rising, motivated by global access to the Internet, the necessity of using specific electronic devices, and capitalist consumption behavior. Additionally, there is considerable sustainable potential in e-waste operations, whether financial, academic, environmental, or governmental (Balde et al. 2017). Lately, the commitment of the academic, business, and social community on the subject of ewaste is increasing. However, it is still far from adequate rates of e-waste recycling, which is only almost 20% of the general production. It is necessary to rethink, reduce, reuse, and recycle all ewaste to provide added value in other production cycles and reduce the problems of inadequate treatment of this product and its release into the environment (Balde et al. 2017). E-waste composition varies significantly when compared with other waste streams, because of the presence of metals, plastic, printed circuit boards, cables, and other mixtures that have associated harmful environmental impacts (Ongondo et al. 2011; Oguchi

et al. 2011). WEEE have higher levels of global growth when compared to other waste streams, presenting almost 4% of increment per year. Additionally, global e-waste production is not adequately documented; about 76% ends up in landfills, goes to incineration, or is recycled under inferior and unhealthy conditions (Balde et al. 2015). In 2016, 55 billion euros was the estimated amount of raw materials that went to trash, although it could have been used in another production chain. From this wastage of e-waste potential, it is possible to realize that circular economy mechanisms should be incentivized by improving urban-mining systems to decrease human-environmental exploitation. Multidimensional analysis in the treatment of e-waste is necessary because the factors that contribute to its collection, reuse, and recycling are correlated in several ways, requiring different approaches to better understand the life cycle of the material (Forti et al. 2018). Six main factors should be considered in the analysis, correlation, and decision on the management of this type of waste, as indicated in Fig. 3. According to the six categories presented in Fig. 3, it is evident that each of the elements contains intrinsic factors that can lead to an adequate WEEE management, bringing more targeted and efficient actions for treating this type of waste daily. Notably, the advances in e-waste legislation started to invigorate in the past decades, based on the experiences of national and international directives. Under those conditions, e-waste laws and guidelines began to ban certain dangerous substances and their global transboundary movements. Indeed, the past advances on e-waste legislation have shown that it is necessary to put the responsibility on all actors of EEE’s life cycle to strengthen the e-waste network and assure circular economy practices (Faria 2015; Marques and da Silva 2017). Several studies in the literature describe the adverse effects on human health caused by direct or indirect contact with heavy metals, organic compounds (like persistent organic pollutants), and microplastics. Many problems associated with environmental deterioration and

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

695

J

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management, Fig. 3 Elements of approach to WEEE management systems (Forti et al. 2018)

bioaccumulation have been reported, such as genetic mutation, cancer, and disturbances in brain-behavior. These e-waste-related health problems happen mainly in developing countries, where the collection, recycle, and disposal systems are not adequate to overcome the technological gap. As a result of the contemporary e-waste recycling system, the environmental impact remains very high, with sensible contributions in all parts of the EEE’s life cycle. It is necessary to optimize e-waste management at all levels and to collaborate closely with all potential entities that, in return, can guide through this process using green engineering and sustainable development knowledge (Faria 2015; Mihai 2016).

Case Study

The E-Waste Project at the University of Coimbra is one example of students’ initiatives through sustainable development, focusing on creating know-how and fostering knowledge transfer aiming at a community growth committed with SDG. It was observed that the e-waste produced at the UC is compared as 14% of this stream collected by the Coimbra City Hall in 2018 (Camara Municipal de Coimbra 2018). Additionally, previously to this project, there were no information guides or sufficient bins to separate the e-waste inside the campus. This fact motivated students to apply a sustainable optimization of the e-waste management.

696

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

Organizational arrangements and strategical frameworks were needed to keep project’s focus and partners’ interests in all steps of the sustainable plan. One of the used tools was the pentagonal plan, which analyzes a complex problem, with multiple sides, perspectives, and nuances. This system innovation guarantees the strategic action plan by assessing the situation widely. The EWUC Pentagonal Diagram exemplifies the approach (Vicente 2016; Chibunna et al. 2012; Parajuly et al. 2019; Wiedmann et al. 2009). Figure 4 was crucial to understand the resources gap and to establish networks with potential partners. Equally important was to gather all data provided by the partners and specific waste management knowledge background to start working on the theme. Besides, this project would answer related questions about e-waste management in all stakeholders’ levels. By connecting the wishes of junior entrepreneurs

with the skills learned at the university, the intention was to bring students’ formation closer to sustainable development, emphasizing the importance of the circular economy and green engineering to achieve a healthy and community practice in our lives. Some aspects of this project in a middle-term plan were (Natune et al. 2011; European Commission; and Re-WEEE 2014): 1. Optimization of e-waste management and all related life cycle steps. 2. Consolidation of the WEEE theme. 3. Knowledge creation and sharing of sustainable engineering and low-impact waste management. 4. Increasing university awareness and consciousness. 5. Survey and sensibilization. (a) Consciousness and personality. (b) Attitude. (c) Opinion. (d) Solutions.

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management, Fig. 4 EWUC pentagonal diagram (Solve – Soluções em Engenharia 2020)

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

How to Solve this Problem?

All stages of EWUC Project needed to be studied, seeking the involvement of all interested parties. To transform the entire HEI waste management system, the JE pointed essential resources required, based on the partners’ willingness to support student sustainable actions. Funding raising was needed to execute the marketing and learning plans and finally to implement a correct e-waste management system. An EWUC Actor Three came up with new cross-sector opportunities (Stibbe et al. 2019). (Fig. 5). The opportunity consolidated by the actual strategic context of UC depends on a proper organization system based on stakeholder mapping. Strategic criteria as expertise, interest, expectations, influence, and adaptability were used to optimize the project management of partnerships. EWUC Project guarantees a sectorized approach to facilitate the project interconnections and knowledge transfer. With this intention, four main partner groups were selected to stimulate the procedures and to strengthen the project, finding essential partners to collaborate on this project. These groups are the university, EEE’s life cycle management entities, the government, and society (Marques and da Silva 2017; Kuehr et al. 2015). (Fig. 6).

697

Classification of Junior Enterprise Partnerships for SDG This project widens opportunities for all students of FCTUC to interact with different fields of study. SOLVE was designed to meet the needs of students for practical learning and development of an entrepreneurial vision, offering the chance to learn by doing and improving their professional capacities. With its foundations in the development of sectors and partnerships that are important for academia, a greater connection between the academic community and civil society has been stimulated so that these issues are widely assessed, studied, and debated. All this complex system of partnerships was built to overcome this problem and to find actual and practical responses to change human behavior with SDG. Additionally, this project and its system transformation features provide a shared learning space where students acted as one of the most important parts in the whole process. The EWUC ΔP was assessed in 6 out of 10, according to a classification scheme defined by Stibbe et al. (2019) (Fig. 7).

Localization of SDG Progress and Organization

All market studies and sustainable development marketing plans were designated to the EWUC Project Board. SOLVE’s Strategic Plan was created in order to approach partners to gather essential resources. The first phase of the EWUC Project consisted mainly of sensitizing the UC community about e-waste concerns and evaluating the whole e-waste management to find its bottlenecks. It also considered national and international benchmarking to find out alternative solutions to deal with e-waste. In addition, it was essential to reiterate the roles of university-partners in the production of knowledge. Moreover, some e-waste collecting points were placed at the FCTUC, and a survey was launched. After online marketing campaigns adapted to overcome unforeseen events caused by COVID-19 pandemic, a test of e-waste collection was made in three FCTUC buildings (Table 1).

Localizing Junior Enterprise Movement Advances in Education for Sustainable Development As a JE is a student association, part of the resource that they receive is based on formation in specific hard and soft skills, which creates know-how on different situations of entrepreneurial learning and better resources management. In this case, EDS act as a catalyst for the processes of building a new sustainability world, bringing more equity, justice, and environmental responsibility for everyone. Some competencies for sustainability are also guiding the practical skills, and they are transversal, multifunctional, and contextindependent factors. Eight direct competencies were linked with the potential abilities that junior entrepreneurs could reach (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 2002; United Nations Educational Scientific and

J

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management, Fig. 5 EWUC’s Actor Three representation (Solve – Soluções em Engenharia 2020)

698 Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management, Fig. 6 Principal targeted groups of EWUC (Solve – Soluções em Engenharia 2020)

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management 699

J

700

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management, Table 1 E-waste management test made by SOLVE E-Waste Management Real weight (kg) Compounds

Chemical Engineering Department 176

Next operation

Waste exchange for valorization

Informatic equipment

Civil Engineering Department 175

Mechanical Engineering Department 195

Informatic equipment (150) and toner cartridges (25) Waste exchange for valorization

Category 2: Monitors Storage for sequential distribution to valorization centers

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management, Fig. 7 Example of a simplified multi-stakeholder resource balance in general Junior Enterprise Projects (Stibbe et al. 2019)

Cultural Organization 2017; Gruber-Muecke and Kailer 2011) (Table 2): JE’s approach is based on gathering different levels of partnerships and resources to differentiate its value proposition and put the SDG in the frontline. It was possible to identify two mainly related SDG in which the ESD-Learning Objectives were directly being part of all knowledge transfer to students. Focusing on SDG 4 and SDG 17, all three main domains of learning objectives were raked: cognitive (comprises the knowledge and thinking skills); socio-emotional (social and partnering skills to promote SDG as a selfreflection); and the behavior domain (that describes actions competences). After that, the principal EDS-Learning Objectives that the junior entrepreneurs learn on JEM are (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 2017) (Table 3): Localizing SDG in the EWUC Project An HEI is commonly referred to as a complex case study of the real and participative sustainable

campus, and its infrastructure should be modelled to provide some parameters and indicators that will be relevant for its modernization. Aspects of waste management performance in the campus need to be explored, through systematic methods to measure its impacts and to provide data for continuous improvement. Mass and energy balances should be done on campus with adjusted boundaries to facilitate its comprehension and interactions (Amaral et al. 2020). Taking campus as living labs should be one of the first strategic choices of HEI, creating the most robust centers of teaching and learning processes. Living labs contribute to change people’s perspectives about daily processes and their inputs and outputs to provide resources to humanity and to follow the sustainable discourse (Ozdemir et al. 2020). For this reason, EWUC established a marketing plan to introduce students the e-waste management theme and foster the correct waste management as a whole. The importance of using the campus as a living lab is because it is possible to renew education systems, using the

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

701

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management, Table 2 Competencies and abilities of EDS related to JE work (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 2017) Systems thinking

Anticipatory

Normative

Strategic Collaboration

Critical thinking

Self-awareness

Integrated Problem-solving

The abilities to recognize and understand relationships To analyze complex systems To think of how systems are embedded within different domains and different scales To deal with uncertainty The abilities to understand and evaluate multiple futures – Possible, probable, and desirable To create one’s visions for the future To apply the precautionary principle To assess the consequences of actions and to deal with risks and changes The abilities to understand and reflect on the norms and values that underlie one’s actions To negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals, and targets, in a context of conflicts of Interests and trade-offs, uncertain knowledge, and contradictions The ability to collectively develop and implement innovative actions that further Sustainability at the local level and further afield The abilities to learn from others To understand and respect the needs, perspectives, and actions of others (empathy) To understand, relate to, and be sensitive to others (empathic leadership) To deal with conflicts in a group and to facilitate collaborative And participatory problem-solving The ability to question norms, practices, and opinions To reflect on own one’s values, perceptions, and actions To take a position in the sustainability discourse The ability to reflect on one’s role in the local community and (global) society To continually evaluate and further motivate one’s actions To deal with one’s feelings and desires The overarching ability to apply different problem-solving frameworks to complex sustainability Problems and develop viable, inclusive, and equitable solution options that promote Sustainable development, integrating the abovementioned competences

students more actively. In summary, several SDG were stimulated on EWUC Project, passing through the 5 p’s of sustainability, dealing with multiperspective and multidisciplinary approaches to achieve the local sustainable improvement, and the targets are (Fig. 8): Further Developments It is essential to realize all E-Waste management challenges through environmental awareness and consciousness that urgently need to be improved on current ESD systems. Based on this fact, the academic community is the most important actor to contribute to SDG at all levels because the engagement of every single actor is relevant now and in the future. Here, EWUC will bring approaches to provide information and spread knowledge about the SDG around the campus practices, media, and studies to renew the ESD system at all levels. Other types of contribution that remains for these partnerships is the

possibility to enlarge waste management range on several aspects, like student’s engagement, awareness approaches, and innovative idealization to build sustainable solutions to any contemporary challenges. As a future action, SOLVE expects to promote the expansion of EWUC to the whole UC, the evaluation of University e-waste ecologic footprint, and the study of the value acquired with the e-waste locally. Besides that, the optimization of other waste management is of great interest to the whole community.

Discussion and Final Remarks A JE is a nonprofit organization that offers consulting services, bridging the gap between theory and practice. This gap is fulfilled by a link between the university and the world of work allowing students to add practical experience to

J

702

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management, Table 3 Learning objectives of SDG 4 and 17 related to the JE work Quality education

Cognitive

Socioeconomical

Behavioral

Partnership For the goals

Cognitive

SocioEconomical

Behavioral

Understands education as a public good, a global common good, a fundamental human right, and a basis for guaranteeing the realization of other rights Understands the critical role of education and lifelong learning opportunities for all (formal, non-formal, and informal learning) as primary drivers of sustainable development, for improving people’s lives and achieving the SDG Understands that education can help create a more sustainable, equitable, and peaceful world Raises awareness of the importance of quality education for all, a humanistic and holistic approach to education, ESD, and related approaches Through participatory methods to motivate and empower others to demand and use educational opportunities Recognizes the intrinsic value of education and analyzes and identifies their own learning needs in their personal development Recognizes the importance of their skills for improving their life, in particular for employment and entrepreneurship Engages personally with ESD Promotes the empowerment of young people Uses all opportunities for their education throughout their life and to apply the acquired knowledge in everyday situations to promote Sustainable Cites and Communities Understands the importance of global multi-stakeholder partnerships and the shared accountability for sustainable development and knows examples of networks, institutions, campaigns of global partnerships Recognizes the importance of cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation, and knowledge sharing Knows concepts for measuring progress on sustainable development Raises awareness about the importance of global partnerships for sustainable development Takes ownership of the SDG Experiences a sense of belonging to common humanity, sharing values and responsibilities, based on human rights Becomes a change agent to realize the SDG and to take on their role as an active, critical, and global and sustainability citizen Contributes to facilitating and implementing local, national, and global partnerships for sustainable development Publicly demand and support the development of policies promoting global partnerships for sustainable development Support development cooperation activities Influence companies to become part of global partnerships for sustainable development

their theoretical skills. All of this with social responsibility development inside the HEI (Govender 2008). In this case, HEI work as sources of knowledge that can promote JE synergies with the business world to share resources and expertise, particularly in sustainability. Hence important information should be strictly analyzed to follow the strategic plan from the HEI,

collecting the best from the institutional framework. The focus needs to be on qualified human resources to promote sustainable projects and responsible partners to provide a complete cycle of operations. Moreover, students are proving their concerns about the environmental situation and its future, which also is encouraged by the UN supporting different programs around the world to

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

703

J

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management, Fig. 8 SDG targets related to EWUC

bring young students to take action on climate change. The role of the HEI is one of the biggest because of its capability to provide the necessary knowledge and resources to move forwards the SDG. Partnerships between JEs and HEI are strengthening the entire system in favor of students, improving education as a whole. ESD promotion is crucial because education reverberates in all bioecological human development systems. This example has proved the importance of sustainable entrepreneurship to achieve opportunities to improve the students’ environmental consciousness and their collective vision. By using green engineering, EWUC Project also aims to transform the campus locally by using its partnerships and community to keep new innovative learning approaches

happening. The advantage of adopting an entrepreneurial service-learning process is not only to ensure students’ sustainable commitment but also to turn research and development more practical by changing models of traditional education and coming up with the creation of innovative ideas. The linkages were essential to connect everyone involved in the management of the various stages of project and ensure the quality of the work to provide the maximum of collaborative advantage for each partner. Equally important is the fact that dealing with e-waste management is a complex problem with multilevel approaches. It was crucial to build a transformed system of partnerships to maximize the value added to the project. Moreover, it is essential to sum up all the information which comprehends its potential to

704

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

transform e-waste culture at HEI by the hands of its students. By bringing the topic to discussion, this JE opens space for a healthy and active debate on the current way of life and consumption in society, allowing innovation and entrepreneurship to be crucial keys in human development. Also, it is clear the effectiveness of a JE to provide a better professional and academic formation that has a great potential to be used for sustainable purposes. The prospect of JE of building partnership networks to engage academy, society, and companies must be an excellent opportunity to improve together and achieve the SDG. SOLVE’s examples show how the Learning Objectives for SDG 4 and 17 are directly linked with competences widely seen in JE. SDG targets and indicators act as an itinerary in advance of sustainable development, using low-impact engineering processes. The first waste collection process obtained half a ton of e-waste even with the university closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and with e-waste collection points only in 5% of its buildings. In addition, it raised awareness among the faculty and its employees, which keep helping students’ sustainable efforts even in these challenging times. As EWUC team are already gathering technical know-how and expertise with FCTUC staff, the project intends to spread in all university places, interacting with the academic community to achieve a circular economy. Also, logistical management and impact assessment will contribute to this project fostering the sustainable entanglement of the project. In other words, with academical thrust and HEI support, JEs could create a considerable system on e-waste management to start building a sustainable value proposal in order to attract more partners and projects. Concluding, the EWUC Project will allow UC to evaluate waste management in sustainable ways, consolidating HEI work as a complementary ESD tool for students. This project expects engage future collaborators and green supporters to achieve SDG and develop other important entrepreneurial and practical skills for the contemporary market. Besides, this project is building a solid foundation on intern project management of

the JE, and this is important for the know-how formation needed to diversify projects’ scopes. Acknowledgments We are eternally grateful for the opportunity to be learning and teaching what the JEM is and improving not only our skills but also the world, acting as real changemakers towards SDG. First of all, we would like to thank Professor Helena Gervásio, who is always willing to help students towards SDG. We also thank Professor Renata Soares for all the help and encouragement. We have to thank our partners that always supported us with commitment and respect, waiting for significant and innovative results of our dedicated team: UC Business, FCTUC, PRODEQ, Mixtronica, and WEEECycle. Then, we would like to dedicate this work to SOLVE junior entrepreneurs, especially the EWUC team.

References Amaral AR, Rodrigues E, Gaspar AR, Gomes Á (2020) A review of empirical data of sustainability initiatives in university campus operations. J Clean Prod 250:119558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. 119558 Amey MJ, Eddy PL, Ozaki CC (2007) Demands for partnership and collaboration in higher education. A Model New Dir Community Coll:139, 5–114. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/cc.288 Anastas PT, Zimmerman JB (2003) Design through the 12 principles of green engineering. Environ Sci Technol Am Chem Soc 37:94–101. https://doi.org/10.1109/ EMR.2007.4296421 Balde K, Kuehr R, Blumenthal K et al (2015) E-waste statistics: guidelines on classification, reporting and indicators. United Nations University, IAS SCYCLE, Bonn Balde C, Forti V, Gray V et al (2017) The global E-waste monitor-2017. United Nations University (UNU) International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (ISWA), International Solid Waste Association, Bonn/Geneva/ Vienna Benson L, Harkavy I, Puckett J (2000) An implementation revolution as a strategy for fulfilling the democratic promise of university-community partnerships: PennWest Philadelphia as an experiment in progress. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 29:24–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0899764000291003 Caldeira C, Basílio L, Neves H (2017) Um Retorno Para a Sociedade: Projetos Designeria Empresa Júnior. In: Congresso de Extensão e Cultura da Universidade Federal de Pelotas Camara Municipal de Coimbra (2018) Relatório de Gestão - Câmara Municipal de Coimbra: Plano Oficial de Contabilidade das Autarquias Locais. Divisão do Ambiente Chibunna JB, Siwar C, Begum RA, Mohamed AF (2012) The challenges of E-waste management among institutions: a

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management case study of UKM. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 59:644–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.325 Division for Sustainable Development (2016) Partnerships for sustainable development goals: supporting the sustainable development goals through multi-stakeholder partnerships – ensuring that no one is left behind. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York European Commission; Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry; Entrepreneurship Unit (2012) Effects and impact of entrepreneurship programmes in higher education. Entrepreneurship Unit, Brussels European Commission; Re-WEEE (2014) LIFE REWEEE – Development and Demonstration of Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Prevention and Reuse Paradigms. Prevention and reuse paradigm European Commission. Directorate-General of Enterprise and Industry (2012) Effects and impact of entrepreneurship programmes in higher education. Entrepreneurship Unit, Brussels Faria RF (2015) Os Impactos Provocados pelos Resíduos de Equipamentos Elétricos e Eletrónicos e uma Reflexão Acerca do Consumo Responsável. Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra Farias LC, Coelho AL, Coelho C (2019) Objetivos do Desenvolvimento Sustentável e educação para a sustentabilidade: análise das concepções de sustentabilidade de estudantes de Administração em uma instituição superior pública. Adm Ensino e Pesqui 20:249–285. https://doi.org/10.13058/raep.2019. v20n3.1494 Ferreira CP, Gonzalez MH (2015) Empresa Júnior Quantis - Tecnologia e Sustentabilidade : Da Formação Acadêmica À Experiência Empresarial Abstract : Objetivos. In: Oitavo Congresso de Extensão Universitária da Universidade Estadual Paulista. São Pauo Fichter K, Tiemann I (2018) Factors influencing university support for sustainable entrepreneurship: insights from explorative case studies. J Clean Prod 175:512–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.031 Forti V, Baldé C, Kuehr R (2018) E-waste statistics: guidelines on classification reporting and indicators. UNUVIE SCYCLE, Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, Bonn Franco I, Saito O, Vaughter P et al (2019) Higher education for sustainable development: actioning the global goals in policy, curriculum and practice. Sustain Sci 14:1621–1642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-0180628-4 General Council of University of Coimbra (2019) University of Coimbras’ strategic plan 2019–2023. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Govender K (2008) Addressing employability and fostering entrepreneurship among university students in South Africa: an analysis of the ‘junior enterprise concept’. University of KwaZulu-Natal Gruber-Muecke T, Kailer N (2011) Developmental networks and professional identity: a survey of active

705

and former junior enterprise members. In: 8th ESU conference on entrepreneurship. Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, pp 1–18 International Sustainable Campus Network, World Economic Forum, Global University Leaders Forum (2018) Sustainable campus development best practices: from ISCN and GULF universities. International Sustainable Campus Network, Boston Junior Enterprises Global (2020) Junior Enterprise – students delivering growth, projects, change, future. https://juniorenterprises.org/. Accessed in 27/04/2020. Kuehr R, Magalini F, Khetriwal D et al (2015) Study on WEEE recovery targets, preparation for re-use targets and on the method for calculation of the recovery targets. United Nations University, BiPRO, BIO by Deloitte, Luxembourg Lewis SL, Maslin MA (2015) Defining the anthropocene. Nature 519:171–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature14258 Lima T, Cantarotti A (2010) A Formação e a Construção de Competências para a Atauação do Profissional de Secretariado Executivo - Um Estudo de Caso em Uma Empresa Júnior. Rev Gestão e Secr 1:94–122 Marques C, da Silva V (2017) E-waste management in Portugal: legislation, practices and recommendations. J Inf Syst Eng Manag 2:1–9. https://doi.org/10.20897/ jisem.201722 Mathisen T, Johansen V, Mathisen S (2011) Evaluation of entrepreneurship in education – a project between junior achievement Uganda and junior achievementyoung enterprise Norway. Eastern Norway Research Institute, Lillehammer Mihai F (2016) E-waste in transition – from pollution to resource, 1st edn. INTECH, Rijeka Natune R, Oréfice E, Trentini A, Oliveira T (2011) Geranciamento de Resíduos de Informática nas Universidades Federais do Brasil. In: XI Colóqui Internacional Sobre Gestão Universitária na América do Sul Nave A, Franco M (2019) University-firm cooperation as a way to promote sustainability practices: a sustainable entrepreneurship perspective. J Clean Prod 230:1188–1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2019.05.195 Oguchi M, Murakami S, Sakanakura H et al (2011) A preliminary categorization of end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment as secondary metal resources. Waste Manag 31:2150–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.wasman.2011.05.009 Oliveira GC, Martin MM, Martins CL et al (2016) Sustec jr nas escolas: conscientização sobre a reciclagem do óleo comestível usado. Rev ELO – Diálogos em Extensão 5. https://doi.org/10.21284/elo.v5i1.128 Ongondo FO, Williams ID, Cherrett TJ (2011) How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes. Waste Manag 31:714– 730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.10.023 Ozdemir Y, Kaya SK, Turhan E (2020) A scale to measure sustainable campus services in higher education:

J

706

Junior Enterprise Movement and Sustainable Development: Focus on E-Waste Management

“sustainable service quality”. J Clean Prod 245:118839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. 118839 Parajuly K, Kuehr R, Awasthi AK et al (2019) Future ewaste scenarios. Solving the e-waste problem initiative (Bonn). United Nations University ViE-SCYCLE (Bonn) & UNEP IETC, Osaka Ritchie, Roser, Mispy, Ortiz-Ospina (2018) Measuring progress towards the sustainable development goals. In: Revital. Glob. Partnersh. Sustain. Dev. https://sdgtracker.org/ Solve – Soluções em Engenharia (2020) EWUC Report 2020. Coimbra Spröte W (2019) Special edition: progress towards the sustainable development goals – report of the secretary-general. Economic and Social Council – United Nations Stibbe DT, Reid S, Gilbert J (2019) Maximizing the impact of partnerships for the SDGs - a practical guide to partnership value creation. The Partnering Initiative and UN Department of Economical and Social Affairs, New York Swaim J, Hiatt M, Cheramie R (2016) Developing an entrepreneurship major and minor: one university’s history. Am J Entrep 9 Tilbury D (2012) Higher Education’s commitment to sustainability: from understanding to action. J Educ Sustain Dev 6:361–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0973408213475380g

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019) Total population (both sexes combined) by region, subregion and country, annually for 1950–2100 (thousands). In: World Population Prospect. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (2002) Educating for a sustainable future: commitments and partnerships; In: Proc. High-Level Int. Conf. Educ. Sustain. Dev. World Summit Sustain. Dev United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (2017) Education for sustainable development goals learning objectives, Paris United Nations General Assembly (2016) Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1 12–14. https://doi.org/10.1201/ b20466-7 Vicente J (2016) Stakeholder management – innovating with people instead of for the people. Climate KIC – Transition HUB – Professional Educat Wahyuni D (2019) Supporting the sustainable development goals through partnerships and local development. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-710679_10-1 Wiedmann T, Lenzen M, Barrett J (2009) Companies on the scale comparing and benchmarking the sustainability performance of businesses. J Ind Ecol 13:361–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00125.x

K

K4DP

Knowledge Systems

▶ Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

▶ Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

KM4Dev

Knowledge-Based Bioeconomy

▶ Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

▶ Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

Knowledge Brokerage ▶ Interweaving Knowledge Systems Through Sustainability Governance

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

L

Laudato si

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions ▶ Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting Toward Sustainable the Sustainable Development Goals Development Goals Serenella Sala European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Directorate D: Sustainable Resource, Bioeconomy Unit, Ispra, VA, Italy

Leadership ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

Synonyms Life cycle assessment; Life cycle thinking

Definition

Life Cycle Assessment ▶ Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a method for the systematic and integrated assessment of impacts addressing all steps along supply chains. LCA focuses primarily on assessing impacts due to emissions into the environment and resources use,

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

710

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

life cycle costing (LCC) aims at assessing direct and indirect costs along the supply chain, and the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) complements this in relation to social issues. The appraisal method could be used to compare options and solutions toward achieving sustainable development goals, helping unveiling hotspot of impacts and possible trade-offs.

Introduction Over the past years, the concept of sustainable development has been continuously evolving. Indeed, the greatest challenge that humanity faces today is to ensure that human activities are compatible with the Earth’s resources and carrying capacity. Despite the fact that the concept of sustainable development has been defined and studied for several decades, its practical implementation still needs improvement at both global and local scales. Socioeconomic development heavily relies on resources provided by nature, which are harvested, transformed, and used to satisfy human needs. A sustainable path for development requires answering the needs of an increasing population while reducing environmental impacts associated with production and consumption patterns. A significant decoupling of environmental impacts from socioeconomic wellbeing could be reached by means of specific policies and interventions aiming at reducing burdens associated with production and consumption of goods and services. Environmental policies over time have evolved recognizing the leading role of sustainable production and consumption to ensure an absolute decoupling of environmental impacts from socioeconomic activities. This is internationally recognized, e.g., in the context of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN 2015). In this context, Europe has committed to play a pivotal role on SDGs’ achievements (EC 2016). Among the goals set by UN, there is a specific goal (SDG 12) on responsible production and consumption, intimately interlinked with all the other sustainability goals. In fact, all SDGs are interlinked, and to properly ensure a transition toward more sustainable systems, integrated approaches to modeling and assessments of supply

chains are required. The UN has recognized that a transition toward sustainable production and consumption is essential, and that the protection and management of natural resources is an overarching objective for sustainable development. Acting on both, may lead to improving the overall SDG’s (UN 2012). Moreover, several transformations are needed to achieve the SDGs, including technological, organizational, behavioral aspects (TWI2050 2018). Notwithstanding this complexity leads to consider sustainable development a wicked problem (Zijp et al. 2016), integrated approaches are needed to assess possible solutions and transformative actions. These approaches should be able to model complex system, to capitalize the best knowledge on impact assessment, to allow comparison between different options, to be reproducible and transparent, and to highlight possible trade-offs. An evaluation of the different approaches to sustainability assessment widely used is provided in Sala et al. (2015a), where the authors define the basic requirements for a robust appraisal and contrast different approaches to sustainability assessment. The comparison of approaches is based on a number of criteria, such as comprehensiveness (from several aspects within one sustainability pillar up to cover two or more pillars), scalability (from local and specific and with limited timeframe approaches up to methods capable to deal with multi-temporal and multi- scale aspects), strategicness (from mere accounting methods up to methods that already integrated sustainability principles – e.g., precautionary principle – and true solution-orien ted/change-oriented methods), and transparency. Among the available approaches to sustainability assessment, life cycle thinking (LCT) and the life cycle-based approaches applying LCT (life cycle assessment, LCA; social life cycle assessment, SLCA; life cycle costing, LCC; life cycle sustainability assessment, LCSA) can play a pivotal role and act as leading principle and method for producing evidences (Sala et al. 2013a, b). LCA may not only support the monitoring of SDGs (Sala and Castellani 2019) but also the comparison of options and solutions in terms of their sustainability, and the identification of synergies and trade-offs among SDGs. Life

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

cycle assessment (LCA) is a standardized method (ISO 2006a, b) for assessing potential environmental impacts associated with a product, a process, or a system, along its life cycle, namely, from the extraction of raw material to the end of life. By accounting for inputs and outputs (materials, energy, and emissions, respectively) at each step of the product life cycle, it supports the identification of hotspot of impacts and the comparison of options. The LCA is a multi-criteria assessment method as it covers a wide variety of pressures and impacts on human health, ecosystem health, and resources availability. The LCA is one of the method the makes the life cycle thinking (LCT) operational; in particular, LCA is widely recognized as the state of the art relating to the environmental dimension of sustainability (Sala et al. 2013a, b; Finnveden and Moberg 2005). While LCA focuses primarily on impacts linked to emissions into the environment and resources use, life cycle costing (LCC) aims at assessing cost along the supply chain, and the emerging social life cycle assessment (SLCA) complements this in relation to working hours/ conditions to complete the environment and socioeconomic analysis. Aiming to cover the different pillars of sustainability, life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodologies and applications are under development with the objective of integrating environmental and socio-economic dimensions, as well as at assessing the mutual interactions among them. Comprehensive reviews have anaysed the role of LCA in the context of sustainability assessment methodologies (Sala et al. 2013a, b). From the literature and the LCA practice, it is clear that LCA is a method, which may complement other approaches and insights, for assessing the performance of goods/services/ systems/technologies/innovations/infrastructures/ waste management options/regions. LCA is also considered the best framework for assessing the potential environmental impacts of products, process, and systems, e.g., in the context of the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) (EC 2013a,b). While the application of LCA in the context of business and academic research has a longer tradition (starting in the 1970s), the array of

711

options for the use of LCA in public decision context, such as in policymaking, is not yet completely deployed and fully understood.

Life Cycle Assessment: Key Methodological Aspects In order to understand how LCA may support the assessment of the SDGs as well as the evaluation of possible solutions and interventions toward SDGs achievement, a brief overview of the main methodological aspects is needed. Life cycle thinking is a basic concept referring to the need of assessing burden and benefits associated with products/sectors/projects adopting a holistic perspective, from raw material extraction to end of life. LCT can be applied to both economic, social, and environmental pillars. The environmental pillar of LCT is primarily supported by LCA (Fig. 1), an internationally standardized method (ISO 14040, ISO 2006a) for the integrated environmental assessment of products (goods and services). Upstream and downstream consequences of decisions should be taken into account to help avoid the shifting of burdens from one impact category to another, from one country to another, or from one stage to another in a product’s life cycle from the cradle to grave. According to commonly adopted definitions (Guinée et al. 2002), life cycle assessment (LCA) is a method for integrated impact assessment in which the (environmental) burdens associated with the whole life cycle of products are quantified. Such impacts refer to a wide range of categories, the so-called impact categories, such as climate change, euthrophication, resource depletion, ecotoxicity, etc. The environmental impacts are the consequences of a human intervention on the environment, either physical, chemical, or biological, such as emissions (incl. noise and heat), resource extraction, and land use (Guinée et al. 2002). For example, emissions in water, air, and soil are assessed in terms of their potential to create impacts such as climate change, acidification, photochemical ozone formation, etc. Resource use, either mineral, fossil, or biotic, water, etc., are assessed in terms of the potential

L

712

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals, Fig. 1 Life cycle assessment basic principles of accounting resource and

emissions along each step of production and consumption supply chains

impacts associated with their scarcity. Land use impacts are usually assessed for both land occupation and land transformation. The impacts are expressed in terms of the potential reduction in soil quality due to human intervention (e.g., agricultural practices, deforestation) and ultimately in terms of biodiversity impacts. The LCA represents the technological relationships associated with a product system, through the description of all activities (unit process) occurring in its life cycle, and linked each other by physical exchanges (flows, materials, energy, components) within the technosphere. The model of the technological relationships also includes physical exchanges between the technosphere and the environment, called elementary flows (materials, emissions), which are responsible for the environmental impacts. Physical exchanges occurring within the technosphere are often evaluated on market relationships, whereas the environmental impacts’ evaluation is made through the cause-and-effect models. LCA models are usually linear and static. Moreover, all technological systems not directly affected by the studied system are not included in the model. The LCA is defined by the ISO 14040 as the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle (ISO 2006a).

The abovementioned standard defines LCA principle and framework, whereas operational aspects are covered by ISO 14044:2006, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment Requirements and Guidelines (ISO 2006b). Along the lines of these standards and with the main aim to support LCA practitioners in operationalizing LCA, other codes of practice have been developed, including practical guidance for the development of studies, such as the recent book LCA theory and practice (Hauschild et al. 2018). At global level, since more than 10 years, efforts on harmonizing and providing guidance for LCA are undertaken under the auspices of the Life Cycle Initiative hosted and promoted by the UN environment (UN 2018), touching upon several aspects of LCA such as the harmonization of life cycle impact assessment models and indicators (Frischknecht et al. 2016). The Life Cycle Initiative is a public-private, multi-stakeholder partnership enabling the global use of credible life cycle knowledge by private and public decisionmakers. However, several initiatives are active at other scales. For example, in the EU context, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has released the International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook (ILCD Handbook) (ECJRC 2010, 2011). Moreover, in 2013, to enhance

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

713

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals, Fig. 2 Life cycle assessment steps: goal and scope definition, life cycle

inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and interpretation. (Modified from Sala et al. 2016)

the comparability of LCA applied to products and organizations, the European Commission has launched the Environmental Footprint guide (EC 2013a,b). LCA is based on four main steps (Fig. 2): (1) goal and scope, (2) inventory analysis, (3) impact assessment, and (4) interpretation. In the goal and scope step, the aims of the study are defined, namely, the intended application, the reasons for carrying out the study, and the intended audience. The main methodological choices are made in this step, in particular, the exact definition of the functional unit, the identification of the system boundaries, the identification of the allocation procedures, the studied impact categories, and the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) models used, the identification of data quality requirements. In this step, also all assumptions made in the study are specified and justified. The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) step involves the data collection and the calculation procedure for the quantification of inputs and outputs of the studied system. Inputs and outputs concern a number of elements modelled in the study, such as: energy, raw materials, and other physical inputs, products, co-products and waste, emissions to air/ water/soil, and other environmental aspects. Data

collected concern foreground processes (e.g., for a consumer good producer, the manufacturing and packaging of a product) and background processes (e.g., for a consumer good producer, the production of purchased electricity and of materials). Data are validated and put in relationship to the process units and functional unit. The LCI is an iterative process. Collecting data help in learning more about the system. Hence, new data requirements or limitations may be identified that require e.g. new data collection so that the goals of the study will still be met. If needed, the goal and scope could be revised as well. In the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) step, LCI results are associated with environmental impact categories and indicators. This is done through LCIA models which firstly classify emissions into impact categories and secondly characterize them to common units so as to allow comparison (e.g., CO2 and CH4 emissions could be both expressed in CO2 equivalent emissions by using their global warming potential). Examples of impact categories are climate change, acidification, or resource depletion and usually cover three areas of protection: human health, ecosystem health, and natural resources. Several methods and models are available to assess the different potential impacts on the three areas of

L

714

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

protections (Sala et al. 2012). Although the available methods and models are similar, there are significant differences in their results, which may lead to different conclusions and decisions. As such, clear guidance is needed on the models and the indicators used in LCA methods. Hence, initiative has been undertaken over time to guide the model selection. For example, the European Commission Joint Research Centre has released the ILCD handbook, in which several methods and models are assessed and a list of models is recommended. The ILCD handbook for LCIA (EC-JRC 2011) supports the consistent calculation of indicators for different impacts, recommending the adoption of specific model for each impact category, such as climate change, ozone depletion, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, land use, resource depletion, and so on. An updated list of recommended models for the European Environmental Footprint (EC 2013a, b) has been released, including e.g. the AWARE model (Boulay et al. 2018) for assessing impacts due to water use, a soil quality index for assessing impacts associated with land use (De Laurentiis et al. 2019), an updated version of the USEtox model (Fantke et al. 2017) which is making use of a wider set of physicochemicals, and effect factors to assess ecotoxicity and human toxicity impacts (Saouter et al. 2018). The potential environmental impacts assessed in the LCIA are usually integrated in time and space. The results encompass the impacts occurring along all supply chains, in all location where a production or consumption occurs, and in the entire timespan of the product life cycle. Regionalized LCA (an LCA where spatial details are integrated at the inventory and impact assessment) and dynamic LCA (an LCA in which temporal aspects are integrated at inventory and/or impact assessment) are increasingly used, to differentiate impacts occurring in different locations and/or to account for temporal aspects, possibly both at the inventory and impact assessment steps. Finally, in the Interpretation step, results from LCI and LCIA are interpreted in accordance to the stated goal and scope. This step includes completeness, sensitivity, and consistency checks (Sala et al. 2016). Uncertainty and accuracy of

obtained results are also addressed in this step and reported in terms of range of values and their confidence interval. Another important methodological aspect is related to the modeling approach adopted for the LCA study. The commonly used approach is the attributional LCA (ALCA) one also known as “accounting” approach. ALCA modeling approach simply accounts for immediate physical flows (i.e., resources, material, energy, and emissions) involved across the life cycle of a product. Conversely, the consequential approach – consequential LCA (CLCA) – intends to describe how physical flows can change as a consequence of an increase or decrease in demand for the product system under study (Earsel and Halog 2011). Basically, the two approaches aim at answering different questions. ALCA answers to “what are the environmental impacts related to the allocated shares of the activities that have contributed to the production, consumption, and disposal of the product?” Conversely, CLCA answer to “What are the environmental impacts related to the full share of those activities that are expected to change when producing, consuming, and disposing of the product?” (Weidema 2003) The LCA, as above described, applies a linear static model based on technological and environmental relationships in inventory and impact assessment phases. This simplification makes the LCA applicable with limited efforts but, at the same time, represents a limit in the context of sustainability assessment as other mechanisms should be considered such as cultural, social, and political relationships, economic relationships, and other physical relationships. Economic relationships are partially integrated in CLCA (Zamagni et al. 2012) which is ideally dynamic, context specific, and marginal (Plevin et al. 2014). Anyway, although LCA is usually a linear static model, it presents evident strengths, namely, the life cycle perspective embracing all life cycle stages and the systemic approach. Key features fundamental for supporting SDGs’ monitoring and the assessment of potential sustainable solutions for their achievement are related to the fact that LCA is avoiding burden shifting (between different life cycle stages and/or impact

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

715

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals, Fig. 3 Decision contexts in which LCA could be applied as envisaged by the ILCD handbook. (Modified from EC-JRC 2010)

categories) as well as it is unveiling possible tradeoffs. For this reason, it is widely considered as the state of the art relating to the environmental dimension of sustainability (Sala et al. 2013a, b; Finnveden and Moberg 2005). Moreover, LCA has evolved over time from being a method for assessing eco-efficiency – basically performing comparisons between options in a relative sustainability manner – toward an absolute sustainability assessment, namely, assessing the level of sustainability compared to a threshold or a target. Recent literature (Bjorn et al. 2015; Ryberg et al. 2018) proposes methodological adaptations to perform this kind of assessment, potentially increasing even more the LCA relevance in the context of the support to the Sustainable Development Goals. The adaptation entails either the assessment of the impacts, with impact assessment modeling which include, e.g., planetary boundaries, or the normalization step, where the planetary boundaries are used instead of past references.

The Role of LCA in Supporting DecisionMaking LCA may be used to compare options and to perform assessment in different decision contexts. The ILCD handbook (EC-JRC 2010) tried to

classify LCA application. According to this reference, LCA can be applied to three different decision contexts: Situation A, “Microlevel decision support”; Situation B, “Meso-/macro-level decision support”; and Situation C, “Accounting” (Fig. 3). They differ in two aspects: regarding the question whether the LCA study is to be used to support a decision on the analyzed system (e.g., product or strategy) and in the interaction of the depicted system with other systems. The intention of these recommendations is to promote consistency across LCAs conducted within homogeneous application contexts. Typically, Situation A refers to LCA studies of single products (or services) whose share on the total production is limited, and, hence, it can be reasonably expected to cause none or only small changes in the background system or other systems of the economy that would not directly or indirectly structurally change it. A typical example can be the LCA of an electric device. The product system is usually modeled using an attributional approach (with some exceptions). Building on, inter alia, the ILCD Situation A guidelines, the JRC has recently developed the Environmental Footprint guides (EC 2013a, b). Based on the attributional approach and the need to quantify the business-as-usual situation, the Environmental Footprint (EF) guide represents the updated view

L

716

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

of the European Commission recommended methods for LCA “Situation A” studies. The EF Guide may also be used to assess baseline scenarios for products when considering, e.g., futureoriented options. Situation B refers to LCA studies, which look at changes with structural market implications beyond the foreground system. This situation covers scenarios addressing questions like “Which technology system, raw material base, etc. is environmentally preferable over its life cycle?” Such studies are typically strategic political studies or LCA-supported strategic research studies and are modeled generally based on consequential considerations. The situation B is also the one that could be considered the best suited to assess rebound effects associated with certain interventions (Vivanco et al. 2018). Situation C refers to LCA studies that are purely descriptive accounting/documentation of the analyzed system (e.g., a product, need fulfillment, sector, country, etc.) of the past, present, or forecasted future, without implying a decision context that would account for potential additional consequences on other systems. Examples of uses of the life cycle-based information classified according to whether they focus on the micro- or the macro level have been reported in Reimann et al. (2010). At microscale, applications include hotspot and weak point analysis of a specific product, comparison of environmental profile of specific goods or services, benchmarking of specific products against the product group’s average, support to eco-design, identification of key environmental performance indicators (KEPI) of a product group, and development of life cyclebased Type I ecolabel criteria. At microscale, applications include forecasting and analysis of the environmental impact of pervasive technologies, raw material strategies, etc. and related policy development, identifying product groups with the largest environmental impact/improvement potential, monitoring environmental impacts of a nation, industry sector product group, or product. Indeed, LCA was historically focused on products, but its application has expanded lately, leading to four different types of LCAs, namely, (i) original product-based scope, (ii) organizational company

LCA, (iii) consumer LCA (analyzing consumption patterns and lifestyles), (iv) national-level assessments (Hellweg and Mila I Canals 2014); and territorial-level assessment (Loiseau et al. 2018) including the urban scale (Mirabella et al. 2018). While the typical use of LCA has been to assess product performances, its current application is now much broader, as companies are using this approach to identify key drivers of impact in their production systems, and, in the area of sustainable consumption and production, “top-down” studies at national and sectorial scales help to highlight the most impacting components of consumption and production patterns. Each of these LCA typologies has a different system boundary, as well as focus, accordingly to the objective of the analysis. However, all the phases of LCA (e.g., extraction of raw materials, production, use, and end of life) are generally covered, although the focus can vary significantly. To answer the questions posed by the different decision contexts, being public or private (e.g., business), several methodological streams were born, leading to many different specific types of LCA. For an overview, they are systematically reported in Guinée et al. (2018). Moreover, life cycle assessment has been listed among the tools that aim at supporting the assessment of impact and benefits associated with different policy options in the so-called “Better Regulation toolbox”, and JRC has already started exploring how to improve the use of LCA in policy impact assessment (Sala et al. 2016; Reale et al. 2017). In a policy context, by applying a life cycle methodology, priorities can be identified more transparently and inclusively, and trade-offs can be assessed. Hence, policies can be targeted more effectively so that the maximum benefit is achieved relative to the effort expended. The underpinning logic of LCA could be linked with frameworks such as the “Driver-PressureState-Impact-Response” (DPSIR) (Smeets and Weterings 1999) which links pressures and impacts to policy responses and on the so-called IPAT equation (Impact ¼ Population  Affluence  Technology (I ¼ P  A  T)) (Ehrlich and Holdren 1971) which addresses impacts as a combination of magnitude of consumption and technological level.

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

LCA and the Support to SDGs LCT and LCA have a strong link with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In fact, based on the abovementioned aspects, LCA allows modeling all the elements of the production and consumption system, answering questions at different levels. The link with the support to SGDs is mainly related to the possibility of assessing different options/solutions aiming at reaching a goal, unveiling hotspots, trade-offs, and interlinkages among several goals. The transition to sustainability requires a systemic approach, in which the complex transitions toward sustainable production and consumption need to be assessed carefully. LCA allows a system

717

analysis of production and consumption aspects and their link with SDGs allowing, e.g., (i) scenario analysis of eco-innovation (either technological innovations or behavioral changes); (ii) modeling different characteristics of product, production, transport, use, infrastructures, and citizen choices and behaviors; and (iii) the quantification of the potential benefit arising from each (or combination) of the innovations or options selected. Furthermore, results of the modelling and LCA could be presented in form of contribution to SDGs impact and in relation to ecological thresholds, like those defined as planetary boundaries. Moving from the traditional IPAT equation (Impact resulting from Production, Affluence, and Technology) toward an improved and system

L

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals, Fig. 4 Life cycle assessment allows modeling current and future

production and consumption patterns while assessing in an integrated manner a multiplicity of environmental impacts, related to a number of specific SDGs

718

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

thinking-oriented framework based on LCA offers several advantages, in particular the following aspects may be taken into account and modelled with LCA: Production: (i) understanding the structure of the economy and its evolution over time (share of primary, secondary, and tertiary economic sectors, incidence of SMEs, etc.) and the way this influence, e.g., production systems or logistic; (ii) assessing the implications of the industrial policies affecting the level of efficiency of production; and (iii) addressing product policies which influence the environmental performance of products, from raw material extraction to end of life. Consumption: (i) assessing the product’s choices in a global market and the consumers behavior in the use and disposal phase (for several sectors, the

consumption phase influences greatly the overall environmental performance of a product, e.g., a car, a dietary shift etc.). The central role of consumer is recognized both in scientific literature and within the policy context (see Polizzi di Sorrentino et al. 2016). Infrastructure: (i) assessing the presence and the quality of the infrastructure may influence the overall contribution of a product to the achievement of goals at the macroscale (e.g., a bio-based packaging not properly managed in the end of life may imply several environmental burdens). Finally, the local context, despite not usually taken into account in LCA, could be integrated in the evaluation, given its prominence in determining impacts in specific conditions. Indeed, the

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals, Fig. 5 Social life cycle assessment allows modeling current

and future production and consumption patterns while assessing in an integrated manner a multiplicity of socioeconomic impacts, related to a number of specific SDGs

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

current environmental status at local scale (e.g., a background level of pollution) may imply local impact as well as impact at the macroscale. Sometimes, the local context exacerbates some impacts and requires adjustment of the policies. Being possible to model all these aspects, LCT and LCA can play an essential role in assessing impacts and benefits associated with several goals, both environmental and socioeconomics ones. For example, through LCA it is possible to account for climate change-related drivers of impact and the associated potential damage to ecosystems due to production and consumption patterns. Similarly, the assessment framework may cover impact on water, land, resources, etc. due to interventions related to SDG 9 (e.g., a new infrastructure) or SDG 11 (e.g., a new mobility system in a city) (Fig. 4). When life cycle thinking is applied to social issues (social LCA), the supply chains related to impact could be assessed, e.g., those related to poverty or inequalities (Fig. 5). The indicators implemented in social LCA embrace at least six SDGs (1, 3, 8, 10, 5, 16) and are aligned with the most important socioeconomic indicator frameworks adopted at international level, e.g., those used by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), in different frameworks of impact assessments, etc. (Mancini and Sala 2018).

Conclusion LCA may be used to compare options and to perform assessment in different decision contexts. It support SDGs as it allows comparing several options, performing a multidimensional assessment, covering a wide variety of impact categories, and unveiling trade-offs and interlinkages among SDGs. LCA is essential for operationalize system thinking and to systematically handle the complexity of sustainability questions.

Cross-References ▶ International Environmental Protection Initiatives: Direct and Indirect Drivers of Change

719

References Bjørn A, Diamond M, Owsianiak M, Verzat B, Hauschild MZ (2015) Strengthening the link between life cycle assessment and indicators for absolute sustainability to support development within planetary boundaries. Environ Sci Technol 49(11):6370–6371 Boulay AM, Bare J, Benini L, Berger M, Lathuillière MJ, Manzardo A, Margni M, Motoshita M, Núñez M, Pastor AV, Ridoutt B (2018) The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(2):368–378 De Laurentiis V, Secchi M, Bos U, Horn R, Laurent A, Sala S (2019) Soil quality index: exploring options for a comprehensive assessment of land use impacts in LCA. J Clean Prod 215:63–74 Earsel JM, Halog A (2011) Consequential life cycle assessment: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(5):445–453 Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP (1971) Impact of Population Growth. Science 171(3977):1212–1217 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC) (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook. http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/?page_id¼86 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC) (2011) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook – Recommendations for life cycle assessment in the European context – based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors. EC-JRC. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2788/33030. ISBN 978-92-79-17451-3 European Commission (EC) (2013a) Building the Single Market for Green Products- Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations. Communication from the Commission COM (2013) 196 European Commission (EC) (2013b) Commission recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations 2013/179/EU. Brussels European Commission (EC) (2016) Communication “Next steps for a sustainable European future European action for sustainability” COM(2016) 739 final Fantke, P, Bijster, M, Guignard, C, Hauschild, MZ, Huijbregts, M, Jolliet, O, Kounina, A, Magaud, V, Margni, M, McKone, TE, Rosenbaum, RK, 2017. USEtox ® 2.0 documentation (Version 1.00). https:// www.usetox.org/model Finnveden G, Moberg A (2005) Environmental systems analysis tools – an overview. J Clean Prod 13 (12):1165–1173 Frischknecht R, Fantke P, Tschümperlin L, Niero M, Antón A, Bare J, . . . Levasseur A (2016) Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: progress and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21 (3):429–442

L

720

Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

Guinée JB (Ed) Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, Van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, De Bruijn JA, Van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht Guinée JB, Cucurachi S, Henriksson PJ, Heijungs R (2018) Digesting the alphabet soup of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(7):1507–1511 Hauschild M, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen S (2018) Life cycle assessment. Theory and practice. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland Hellweg S, Mila I Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344(6188):1109–1113 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006a) ISO 14040. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. ISO, Geneva International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006b) ISO 14044. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. ISO, Geneva Loiseau E, Aissani L, Le Féon S, Cerceau J, Sala S, Roux P (2018) Territory-oriented life cycle assessment (LCA): what exactly is it about? A proposal towards a common terminology and a research agenda. J Clean Prod 176:474–485 Mancini L, Sala S (2018) Social impact assessment in the mining sector: review and comparison of indicators frameworks. Resour Policy 57:98–111 Mirabella N, Allacker K, Sala S (2018) Current trends and limitations of life cycle assessment applied to the urban scale: critical analysis and review of selected literature. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:1174–1193 Plevin R, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18(1):73–83 Polizzi Di Sorrentino E, Woelbert E, Sala S (2016) Consumers and their behavior: state of the art in behavioral science supporting use phase modeling in LCA and ecodesign. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(2): 237–251 Reale F, Cinelli M, Sala S (2017) Towards a research agenda for the use of LCA in the impact assessment of policies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1477–1481 Reimann K, Finkbeiner M, Horvath A, Matsuno Y, Preto U, Pennington D, Pant R (2010) Evaluation of environmental life cycle approaches for policy and decision making support in micro and macro level applications. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Luxembourg Ryberg MW, Owsianiak M, Richardson K, Hauschild MZ (2018) Development of a life-cycle impact assessment methodology linked to the Planetary Boundaries framework. Ecol Indic 88:250–262 Sala S, Castellani V (2019) The consumer footprint: Monitoring sustainable development goal 12 with process-

based life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 240:118050 Sala S, Pant R, Hauschild M, Pennington D (2012) Research needs and challenges from science to decision support. Lesson learnt from the development of the international reference life cycle data system (ILCD) recommendations for life cycle impact assessment. Sustainability 4(7):1412–1425 Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013a) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1653–1672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367012-0508-6 Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013b) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18 (9):1686–1697 Sala S, Ciuffo B, Nijkamp P (2015a) A Systemic Framework for Sustainability Assessment. Ecol Econ 119:314–325 Sala S, Vasta A, Mancini L, Dewulf J, Rosenbaum E (2015b) Social Life Cycle Assessment. State of the art and challenges for product policy support. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. ISBN 978-92-79-54054-7 Sala S, Reale F, Cristobal Garcia J, Marelli L, Pant R (2016) Life cycle assessment for the impact assessment of policies. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; JRC105145 Saouter E, Biganzoli F, Ceriani L, Versteeg D, Crenna E, Zampori L, Sala S, Pant R (2018) Environmental footprint: update of life cycle impact assessment methods – ecotoxicity freshwater, human toxicity cancer, and non-cancer. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. ISBN 978-92-79-98182-1 Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical report 25. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen TWI2050 (The World in 2050) (2018) Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Report prepared by the World in 2050 initiative. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg. www.twi2050.org United Nations (UN) (2012) The future we want. UNGA Resolution 66/288, paragraph 4 United Nations (UN) (2015) Sustainable development goals. 17 goals to transform our world. www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals United Nations Environment (UN) (2018) Life cycle initiative. www.lifecycleinitiative.org Vivanco D, Sala S, McDowall W (2018) Roadmap to rebound: how to address rebound effects from resource efficiency policy. Sustainability 10:2009. https://doi. org/10.3390/su10062009 Weidema BP (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment, vol 863. Miljøstyrelsen, p 365, Copenaghen Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A (2012) Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(7):904–918

Long-Term Investments Zijp M, Posthuma L, Wintersen A, Devilee J, Swartjes FA (2016) Definition and use of solution-focused sustainability assessment: a novel approach to generate, explore and decide on sustainable solutions for wicked problems. Environ Int 91:319–331

Life Cycle Thinking ▶ Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Solutions Toward Sustainable Development Goals

Long-Term Investments Julia M. Puaschunder The New School, Department of Economics, Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, New York, NY, USA Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA CIBER Center for International Business Education and Research, Duquès Hall, George Washington School of Business, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Synonyms Ethical investment; Future-oriented financial decision-making

721

utility derived from transparency and information disclosure but also self-enhancement through identification and self-consistency, the expression of social values but also long-term considerations are sociopsychological drives of SRI (Puaschunder forthcoming-b). These nonfinancial criteria seem to play a major role in the decision to invest with a long-term focus. Long-term investment holds sociopsychological and leadership advantages, such as altruism benefits and firstmover gains. In the age of global warming, attention for intergenerational aspects of future investments has gained unprecedented momentum. Political divestiture with a long-term investment view is one of the most recent trends in investment policies, as, for instance, practiced in carbon divestiture. Future research may integrate social, environmental, and intergenerational aspects in long-term financial discounting calculus.

Introduction Time determines life. In the anticipation of future outcomes, people constantly decide whether to incur gains or losses now or later. Investment decisions are based on reflections about future prospects. Investments and financial foresight attribute long-term perspectives. Investment strategies can build on intentions to maximize sustainable financial returns as well as considerations of long-term societal implications of investments. Attentive corporate executives and financial professionals are mindful of future risks and future impacts of their decision-making.

Definition Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Investments account for future prospects. Longterm investment is based on discounting future anticipations. Socially responsible investments (SRIs) were historically focused on long-term considerations. In general, sociopsychological motives may drive the demand for SRIs besides the intention to maximize profits. Altruism as a concern for the societal well-being, the need for innovation and entrepreneurship, strategic leadership advantages through social status elevation,

Long-term viability of corporate conduct is ingrained in corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. CSR grants long-term stability of corporate conduct as for creating a supportive business environment and decreasing the likelihood of stakeholder pressure and litigations risks (Little 2008; Posnikoff 1997; Sparkes 2002). When taking rising CSR trends into consideration, socially responsible investment (SRI) offers

L

722

long-term financial prospects (Little 2008; McWilliams and Siegel 2000). Advocating for integrating long-term investments in CSR models in academia and practice holds various advantages. There is an enormous untapped potential of transnational corporations and multinational enterprises (TC&MEs) to implement social conscientiousness over time. As corporate entities with economic influence beyond the borders of nation-states as for holding subsidiaries in various nations of the world (Binder et al. 2014), TC&MEs are acknowledged as international legal entities and must therefore abide by international law standards and fulfill international court laws (e.g., ICSID and UNCITRAL). As a consequence TC&MEs should, like nation-states, consider adopting social concerns. There are several advantages of TC&MEs implementing social responsibility. TC&MEs hold enormous economic potential, with the largest multinational corporations having revenues larger than many nation-states. In their corporate governance, TC&ME leadership decision-making quickly adapts to market demands without having to reach international consensus – contrary to stakeholder engagement and international consensus negotiation demands of classic global governance entities such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. TC&MEs are not dependent on voters – such as governmental officials – and can thus address intergenerational concerns faster and more flexibly than governmental technocrats. In addition, TC&ME leadership may be more stable than governmental officials enacted through voting cycles, that is, global corporate leaders are likely to stay longer in “office” than their governmental counterparts. If the corporate world adopts a long-term view in current CSR endeavors, it could help governmental officials in very many different ways ranging from tax ethics to first aid global governance support. For society, acknowledging long-term views in the CSR practices promises to alleviate current pressing societal predicaments of overindebtedness, social welfare reform needs, and environmental threats in the wake of climate

Long-Term Investments

change. Investigating the possibilities to integrate a temporal dimension in contemporary CSR work innovatively guides the implementation of financial social responsibility, environmental protection education, and social welfare. For academia, applying the notion of long-term considerations in corporate governance models fills an up-to-date undiscovered research gap that spearheads interdisciplinary behavioral law and economic models to aid in the global corporate arena and the finance world.

Socially Responsible Investment SRI allows investors to support corporations that have a lasting impact on society. Investors interested in “social change” put their investments to work in ways that sustainably improve the overall quality of life. Socially conscientious investors thereby use SRI as a long-term strategy to contribute to society (Knoll 2008; Schueth 2003). From a multi-stakeholder perspective, SRI implies long-term positive societal outcomes (Sparkes 2002). SRI ensures that corporations are held accountable for any social and environmental impacts and investments are in line with societal values (Sparkes 2002). By shifting capital from socially disapproved to socially conscientious corporations, SRI fosters corporate social performances. As for being incentivized by firstmover leadership advantages, more and more corporations currently pay attention to social responsibility in the future. Accompanied by followers, the rising supply of SRI in combination with a heightened demand for the integration of personal values and societal concerns into financial decision-making may prospectively leverage social conscientiousness to become a standard feature of investment markets. On the long run, the integration of SRI into the overall competitive model will further sophisticate social responsibility in corporate conduct (Schueth 2003; Starr 2008; Stiglitz 1998). Emergence In recent decades, SRI experienced a qualitative and quantitative growth in the Western world that

Long-Term Investments

can be traced back to a combination of historical incidents, legislative compulsion, and stakeholder pressure. Due to a qualitative and quantitative growth in the Western world within recent decades, SRI emerged into an investment philosophy adopted by a growing proportion of financial practitioners. Key indicators for the ascent of SRI are the increasing number and diversity of SRI options. Over the past decades, SRI has grown 4% faster than all professionally managed investment assets. In the aftermath of the world financial crisis and the subsequent age of austerity, social responsibility has evolved into an en vogue topic for the corporate world and the finance sector. Contrary to classic finance theory that sees investments as primarily based on expected utility and volatility, the consideration of social responsibility in financial investment decisions has gained unprecedented momentum. The rise in SRI is accompanied by the upcoming of stock exchange rating agencies, social responsibility impact measurement tools, social reporting, and certifications. 2008/2009 World Financial Recession Aftermath After the steady rise of SRI in recent decades, stakeholder concerns for financial social responsibility climaxed in the eye of the 2008 financial meltdown. Since the outbreak of the crisis, the societal call for social responsibility in corporate and financial markets has reached unprecedented momentum. The revelation of corporate social misconduct and financial fraud steered consumers and investors to increasingly pay attention to social responsibility within market systems. Media coverage of corporate scandals, fiduciary breaches, and astronomic CEO remuneration fostered the need for financial social conscientiousness. Financial managers’ exuberance fueled the demand for transparent and accountable corporate conduct. Stakeholder pressure addressed information disclosure of corporate activities. Market actors were confronted with growing societal expectations of disciplined corporate conduct under conditions of heightened levels of public scrutiny. Corporate scandals also drove the wish for restoring public trust in financial markets. The

723

announcement of the recapitalization of the finance sector in October 2008 perpetuated skepticism in the performance of unregulated markets and halted liberalization trends. Stakeholders demanded governmental control of corporate social conduct and pushed for financial market regulations. A redefined interplay of public and private sector forces was meant to ensure social responsibility and strengthen confidence in financial markets. Governmental bailouts renewed public claims in financial market control to lower agency default risks. In his historic inauguration speech, US President Barack Obama drew attention to the importance of social responsibility for economic prosperity voicing the collective demand for a well-balanced interplay of public and private forces. Regained regulatory power should ensure social responsibility in the corporate and finance world as a prerequisite for sustainable markets. Legislative reforms and governmental regulations set out to institutionalize social responsibility in financial markets. Technocrats’ “watchful eye over the market place” should oversee socially responsible financial conduct and ingrain long-term societal considerations in short-sighted market actors. Newly installed financial market disclosure regulations set out to prevent financial fraud steering economic turmoil. Transparency of private sector activities and accountability of financial market operations should naturally lower principal-agent default risks. The 2008/2009 World Financial Recession has drawn attention to an additional essential feature for the long-term success of entrepreneurial innovations in free market hubs – social responsibility. The 2008 world financial meltdown underlined that creative entrepreneurs featuring dynamic energy, an extraordinary striving for innovative progress, and high levels of risk acceptance can impose emergent and systemic risks on unregulated markets. While unregulated markets are essential for fostering an innovative climate, the past 2008/2009 regulatory watchful eye over the marketplace has created an “Age of Angst,” featuring shied liquidity and corporate capital hoarding that may only be overcome by renewed attention to the importance of risky entrepreneurs

L

724

driving innovation, yet who are also socially conscientious, allowing free market innovations to prosper sustainably. Social responsibility as an essential safety protection beyond legal regulation ensures the correct performance of contracts coupled with additional conscientiousness for social needs. In these functions, financial social responsibility serves societal goals beyond the regulatory control (Chakrabarty and Wang 2012). Within the financial market in particular, SRI is an innovative and entrepreneurial investment option that allows sustainable free market economic growth protected by a personal social responsibility which tames the personal excesses that can impose potential risks onto the economy. As a means of stakeholder activism, SRI allows investors to reward societal progress and innovatively tackle social and environmental concerns. Public and private leaders as well as academics followed these trends by searching for financial social conscientiousness-enhancing market structures, while investors aimed at restoring general public trust in financial markets – e.g., the theme of the 2011 Bretton Woods Institute for New Economic Thinking conference. The renewed acknowledgment of financial social conscientiousness and also the regulatory renaissance in the finance world are believed to prosper SRI. Contemporary Long-Term Investments Today the range of shareholder engagement possibilities is more sophisticated than ever, and trends forecast a further maturation of SRI from a niche segment solution into a mainstream market feature. SRI appears as idea, whose time has come. Ever since its existence, financial social responsibility has been perpetuated by socially and environmentally problematic situations and flourished in the eye of sociopolitical deficiencies. As for being less volatile during cyclical changes and more robust for whimsical market movements during economic turmoil, socially responsible funds are proven as crisis-stable market options (Puaschunder 2016b). Especially negative screenings are extremely robust in times of heightened uncertainty – as socially conscientious investors remain loyal to core values even during

Long-Term Investments

uncertainty. Given this track record of growth and stability in times of societal and economic downturns, nowadays SRI appears as a favorable market strategy. Research-based transparency campaigns could aid this trend by promoting SRI as a crisis-stable market option. Concurrent executive education may also nurture social conscientiousness in financial leaders as role models who motivate others to follow their paths. In the aftermath of the 2008/2009 financial meltdown, SRI appears as a powerful means to implement financial social conduct and thereby opens a window of opportunity for reestablishing stakeholders’ trust in financial markets. Ingraining social conscientiousness in financial markets promises to positively echo in the industry and thereby bring positive socioeconomic change. If the majority of investors are social responsibility and social conscientiousness becomes a standard feature of financial decision-making, this will also reflect positive on the corporate social performance. If more and more investors become willing to pay for socially responsible assets, firms in general will be incentivized to adopt more socially responsible practices. In this scenario, all investors will have to accept some degree of socially responsible contributions in response to rising socially conscientious market options. SRI thus holds the potential to lift entire market industries onto a more socially favorable level in the future. Financial market demand and supply geared toward SRI will stretch the option range in a more socially responsible direction. In addition if the majority of investors are socially conscientious, socially responsible corporations will continuously benefit from increasing investment streams. Directed capital flows to socially responsible market options will sustainably contribute to CSR and SRI trends. Overall, financial markets attuned to social responsibility will lift entire industries onto a more socially conscientious level (Trevino and Nelson 2004). As such SRI is attributed the potential to positively impact on the financial markets and create socially attentive market systems that improve the overall standard of living and quality of life for this generation and the following.

Long-Term Investments

SRI in the Age of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) The UN plays a pivotal role in institutionally promoting long-term investment opportunities in guidelining principles and public-private partnership (PPP) initiatives. In 2004 the UN invited a group of leading financial institutions to form a financial responsibility initiative under the wing of the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) (https://www.unglobalcompact.org/). In 2006, a UNGC division launched “The Principles for Responsible Investment” in collaboration with the New York Stock Exchange. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) were introduced as part of the UNGC to encourage institutional investors to embrace SRI. This initiative develops guidelines and recommendations on how to integrate environmental, social, and corporate governance in financial markets and how financial investment banks and fiduciaries can implement social responsibility goals as a risk management tool. In February 2008, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) launched the “Responsible Investment in Emerging Markets” initiative, which enhances transparency of emerging financial markets. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, SRI is attributed the potential to reestablish trust in financial markets. Stakeholder pressure and changing financial market regulations enhancing accountability and transparency are believed to perpetuate SRI in the future. In addition, the corporate world plays a pivotal role in ingraining a long-term perspective into the finance world. In the given literature on global responsible leadership in the corporate sector and contemporary corporate social responsibility (CSR) models, intergenerational equity appears to have widely been neglected. While the notion of sustainability has been integrated in CSR models (Steurer et al. 2012), intergenerational equity has hardly been touched on as intergenerational fairness differs from sustainability as for being a more legal case for codifying the triple bottom line (Boubaker et al. 2018). Since 2008 the International Law Commission of the United Nations has been promoting intergenerational equity primarily

725

on global governance issues – such as climate change awareness, overindebtedness, and pension reform (Puaschunder 2012). In the age of sustainable development (http:// www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/summit/), global governance entities create public-private partnerships (PPP) that enhance institutional, political, and judicial infrastructures. Legislative frameworks aim at corporate social value creation. International public policy makers ratify social responsibility declarations that are in sync with societal goals and advocate for the adoption of social responsibility policies. Regarding the UN SDGs (http://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/summit/), which were introduced in September 2015, sustainable finance has become an essential tool for the alleviation of societal deficiencies. As for the eradication of hunger, the social investment revolution has perpetuated the crises and poverty alleviation strategies. But how to raise the necessary funds for the enabling of the ambitious SDG goals? Proposed funding schemes range from IT solutions and crowdfunding (Puaschunder 2016c, b; Lehner 2016), human capital development through female education and empowerment, social venture capital, urban social inclusive growth through microfinancing, and the implementation of sustainable self-financing through creating a constant revenue stream to settle long-term expenses. Innovative PPP financing solutions include state-provided ground and infrastructure and corporations generating constant revenue stream through running facilities while embracing the stakeholder community through providing multifaceted employment and engagement options. A publicprivate plan to achieve all SDGs in all the lowincome countries could also be reached by development, global disarmament fund, and private patient capital in addition to national budgets as proposed by Jeffrey Sachs (Alpbach Laxenburg Group 2016) (http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/ research/alg/Alpbach-Laxenburg-Group.html). The fund should be deployed locally through a range of specialized SDG-oriented public and private institutions with an emphasis on new technologies. National action plans should be

L

726

developed through public deliberation, with governments, impact hubs, scientists, the media, and other stakeholders. As an innovative avenue for fighting poverty, information and communications technologies (ICTs) provide access to capital online and by mobile phones. Information flow is key to medical assistance of underserved communities and an essential prerequisite for effective epidemiology. As an essential feature of preventive medical assistance, ICT helps educating on maternal health and combating child mortality, HIV, malaria, and other diseases. ICT has led to groundbreaking insights on the decay of natural resources and climate change. Information and communication foster environmental protection and sustainability (Puaschunder 2017b). Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Investments Environmental, social and governance (ESG)focused investments are one of the newest developments of long-term investments (Lehner 2016). In the realm of ESG investments, environmental concerns center around sustainability and climate stabilization. The maintenance of a favorable climate accounts for the most challenging contemporary global governance predicament that seems to pit today’s generation against future world inhabitants in a trade-off of economic growth versus sustainability. Innovative intertemporal fiscal policy approaches (e.g., of Jeffrey Sachs) propose an economically efficient and intergenerationally fair allocation of efforts toward mitigation and adaptation by climate stabilization bonds as well as a transition into renewable energy. Carbon divestiture accounts for one of the most novel trends in the wake of climate stabilization efforts shaping the finance world. Exclusionary social responsibility excludes market options that are not in sync with moral, ethical, and environmental considerations. Thereby, fossil fuel divestment aims to reduce carbon emissions by accelerating the adoption of renewable energy through the stigmatization of fossil fuel companies (Puaschunder 2015b). This includes putting public pressure on companies that are currently involved in fossil fuel extraction to invest in renewable energy. Competition from

Long-Term Investments

renewable energy sources may lead to the loss of value of fossil fuel companies due to their inability to compete commercially with the renewable energy sources. In some cases, this has already happened. Unstable fossil fuel prices have made investment in fossil fuel extraction a more risky investment. The stigmatization of fossil fuel companies caused by divestment can materially increase the uncertainty surrounding the future cash flows of fossil fuel companies. For instance, West Texas Intermediate crude oil fell in value from $107 per barrel in June 2014 to $50 per barrel in January 2015. Goldman Sachs stated in January 2015 that, if oil were to stabilize at $70 per barrel, $1 trillion of planned oilfield investments would not be profitable. Exclusionary long-term investment strategies have a history of being fueled at academic institutions. Around 2011 universities started to divest endowments from coal and other fossil fuels to invest in clean energy. These so-called transition strategies were targeted at empowering environmentalism. Soon the campaign spread to an estimated 50 campuses in spring 2012. By September 2014, 181 institutions and 656 individuals had committed to divest over $50 billion based on concerns regarding carbon-intensive industries’ harmful impact on the environment. By September 2015, the numbers had grown to 436 institutions and 2,040 individuals across 43 countries, representing $2.6 trillion in assets, of which 56% were based on the commitment of pension funds and 37% of private companies. By April 2016, already 515 institutions had joined the pledge, of which 27% faith-based groups, 24% foundations, 13% governmental organizations, 13% pension funds, and 12% colleges, universities, and schools, representing, together with the individual investors, a total of $3.4 trillion in assets. As another novel, yet proactive screening alternative, climate stabilization funds aim at financing climate mitigation and adaptation around the world through an intertemporal fiscal policy mix backed by climate bonds and carbon tax. Bonds are debt investment in which investor’s loan money to an entity, which borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a variable or fixed interest rate. Bonds are primarily used by

Long-Term Investments

companies, municipalities, states, and sovereign governments to raise money and finance a variety of future-oriented long-term projects and activities (Puaschunder 2016b). This solution appears as real-world relevant means to tap into the worldwide USD 80 trillion bond market in order to fund the incentives to transition to a sustainable path. Carbon tax is another alternative to raise the funds for incentivizing emission reduction and provide adaptation means (Puaschunder 2016a). A combined carbon tax-and-bond transfer strategy could turn climate change burden sharing into a Paretoimproving option over time (Puaschunder 2017c). In order to avoid governmental expenditure on climate change hindering economic growth (Barro 1990), Sachs (2014) introduces financing climate change mitigation through debt to be paid back by future generations through taxation as a novel means to amend individual saving preferences in favor of future generations (Marron and Morris 2016). Carbon taxes can raise substantial revenue until the economy is largely decarbonized (Marron and Morris 2016). Jeffrey Sachs (2014) proposes to mitigate climate change by debt to be repaid by tax revenues on labor income in the future. Leaving the current generation with unchanged disposable income allocates the burdens of climate change mitigation across generations without the need to trade off one generation’s well-being for another’s. While today’s young generation is left unharmed, the second period young generation is made better off ecologically. Taxes on later generations are justified as for the assumed willingness of future generations to avoid higher costs of climate change prevention and environmental irreversible lock-ins. Overall this tax-and-transfer mitigation policy is thus Pareto improving across generations. While future generations enjoy a favorable climate and averted environmental lock-ins, the current populace does not face drawbacks on economic growth (Puaschunder 2017a, c).

Future Outlook According to neoclassical economic theory, individuals maximize future utility by discounting

727

options with preference for immediate rewards over delayed ones. The hyperbolic discounting paradigm captures real-world choice patterns deviating from neoclassical economic theory in the finance domain with attention to discounting variance based on economic, social, and environment contexts. While standard microeconomic theory outlines exponential temporal discounting to explain rational decision-making, behavioral economics finds human time perception biased by heuristics, analogical thinking, and minimized effort. People’s cognitive capacities to consider future outcomes in today’s decisions are limited. Laibson’s (1997) hyperbolically decreasing discounting functions describe more accurately choice behavior of individuals, who tend to be impatient for smaller rewards now rather than waiting for larger ones later. Dynamically inconsistent preferences reverse as people are patient when deciding for the future and impatient when choosing for now. Field and laboratory experiments provide widespread empirical evidence for hyperbolic discounting and self-control failures on money management, financial benefits, credit card debt, medical adherence, public health, addiction, social security, fiscal policies, commitment, health exercise, employment, procrastination, diet, subscription discipline, animal care, and consumption. Failures to disciplinedly stick to plans for giving in to immediate desires are explained by people caring less about future outcomes in the eye of future uncertainty, perceived risk, and transaction costs. Presenting temporal snapshots for now and later concurrently helps overcome myopia (Puaschunder forthcoming a; Puaschunder and Schwarz 2012). Contemporary intergenerational equity constraints emerge from universal concerns (Puaschunder 2015a; Puaschunder and Schwarz 2012). For instance, climate change demands global solutions in international negotiations, which are supported by different national officials’ future orientation and social responsibility. Evaluating temporally distant policies concurrently could help global leaders to make intergenerationally equitable choices. The joint decision-making advantage could thereby prove as a cost-effective and powerful tool to elicit

L

728

intertemporally harmonious choices in global predicaments (Puaschunder and Schwarz 2012). In the search for establishing joint decision-making as a global governance policy evaluation tool, providing evidence for the joint decision-making advantage in differing cultures could stress the joint decision nudge to help in globally shared intertemporal resource allocation dilemmas. The international testing of the effect of concurrent policy representations also allows outlining the joint decision-making advantage being independent from individual reference points or external influences (Puaschunder and Schwarz 2012). The joint decision advantage could also be outlined to touch on an innate human behavioral law rather than a peculiar policy artifact and thereby contribute to the emerging behavioral economics field of law and mind sciences (Puaschunder 2011). In discounting, rates and time horizons differ. As the human mind adapts to environments, contexts shape mental time frames. The subjective perception of time, money, and the environment reflects in discounting differences between time and money and ecological and economic discounting. While Laibson (1997) models financial discounting, which subsequent behavioral economic experiments primarily investigate, differences between discounting private and social but also financial aspects and life suggest limitations to generalizations of standard hyperbolic discounting findings. Further hyperbolic social discounting covers human life spans and not environmental discounting organisms and biological phenomena beyond a generation. Only considering this myopic discounting has detrimental effects on sustainability. As finitely limited natural resources and unlimited man-made capital differ, environmental irreversibility leads to natural resources being discounted below standard social and monetary discounting rates (Puaschunder 2017d). Further understanding individuals’ discounting of future environmental benefits could help valuing public goods over time when future generations cannot express preferences and participate in contractual transactions to conserve resources. Future research may explore practical implications of context-dependent discounting such as extrapolating moral commitments found

Long-Term Investments

in social discounting onto the domains of finance and the natural environment. While Laibson’s (1997) hyperbolic discounting provides an excellent model for income and market-dependent consumption that innovatively opened the floor for hyperbolic discounting empirical validations in very many different domains, individual age depending discounting differences are, so far, not captured. The length of time having lived and past critical life events experienced, however, may shape discounting. While neoclassical and hyperbolic discounting are always forward looking and never consider how past experiences, call it social learning, may stretch the focus of societal care, the longer having lived and the more critical life events having experienced, the more socially caring beyond our own existence we may get. The influence of age on discounting appears reasonable in light of age-dependent risk preferences. Younger people with a narrower past time horizon are more prone to myopic behavior – e.g., take drugs and save less – whereas more mature people, whose discounting may depend on a longer history of past critical life events, tend to care beyond their prospective natural existence, e.g., for climate stability and charity. Solving how to overcome the negative externalities of shorttermism will help averting negative outcomes in the future. Being enabled to generate predictions on how to better foresee the societal implications of future consequences of current corporate decisionmaking will bring the public and private sector temporal foci closer together in order to harmoniously tackle the most pressing contemporary challenges of humankind.

Conclusion Overall, long-term investment is based on sociopsychological nonfinancial criteria. The aftermath of the 2008/2009 World Financial Recession enhanced the interest in socially conscientious financial market options. The age of global warming calls for financial attention of prospects beyond the individual life span. Carbon divestiture as exclusionary investment option but also green bonds as proactive market transition tool are

Long-Term Investments

the newest developments in ethical, social, and environmental governance-driven finance. Future research may integrate social, environmental, and intergenerational aspects in long-term financial discounting calculus. Heterodox economics may open a detected black box of forward-looking discounting paradigms. Outlining fundamental differences of temporal discounting throughout different ages would thereby allow retrieving multifaceted decision-making influences as well as generating wide-ranging nudges to improve choices over the entire life cycle. Shedding light on the importance of integrating backward looking aspects in discounting sets the stage for improving future social care beyond one’s own existence in a real-world relevant way granting innovative opportunities to imbue eternal equity in humankind.

Cross-References ▶ Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions ▶ Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation ▶ Ethical Investment ▶ Governance

References Alpbach Laxenburg Group (2016) Report find at http:// www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/events/ALG_2016_ Narrative_2.pdf Barro R (1990) Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth. J Polit Econ 98:103–125 Binder Ch, Kriebaum U, Marboe I, Nowak M, Reinisch A, Wittich St (2014) Völkerrecht. Vienna, University of Vienna Faculty of Law Juridicum Boubaker S, Cumming D, Nguyen DK (2018) Research handbook of investing in the triple bottom line: finance, society and the environment. Edward Elgar, London Chakrabarty S, Wang L (2012) The long-term sustenance of sustainability practices in MNCs: a dynamic capabilities perspective of the role of R&D and internationalization. J Bus Ethics 110(2):205–217 Knoll MS (2008) Socially responsible investment and modern financial markets. Unpublished working paper, University of Pennsylvania Law School Laibson D (1997) Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Q J Econ 11:443–477

729 Lehner O (2016) Routledge handbook of social and sustainable finance. Taylor & Francis, London Little K (2008) Socially responsible investing: put your money where your values are. Penguin, New York Marron DB, Morris AC (2016) How to use carbon tax revenues. Tax Policy Center Urban Institute & Brookings Institution, Washington, DC McWilliams A, Siegel D (2000) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strateg Manag J 21:603–609 Posnikoff JF (1997) Disinvestment from South Africa: they did well by doing good. Contemp Econ Policy 15(1):76–86 Puaschunder JM (2011) Intergenerational equity as a natural behavioral law. Library of Congress United States of America Copyright Office, Copyright Catalogue TXu001743422/2011-03-08 Puaschunder JM (2012) On eternal equity in the fin-demillénaire: Rethinking capitalism for intergenerational justice. Unpublished thesis, Harvard University Puaschunder JM (2015a) On the social representations of intergenerational equity. Oxford J Finance Risk Perspect 4(4):78–99 Puaschunder JM (2015b) When investors care about politics: a meta-synthesis of political divestiture studies on the capital flight from South Africa during Apartheid. Bus Peace Sustain Dev 5(24):29–52 Puaschunder JM (2016a) Intergenerational climate change burden sharing: an economics of climate stability research agenda proposal. Glob J Manag Bus Res 16(3):31–38 Puaschunder JM (2016b) On eternal equity in the fin-demillénaire: Rethinking capitalism for intergenerational justice. J Leadersh Account Ethics 13(2):11–24 Puaschunder JM (2016c) Socially responsible investment as emergent risk prevention and means to imbue trust in the post-2008/2009 world financial crisis economy. In: Lehner O (ed) Routledge handbook of social and sustainable finance. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 222–238 Puaschunder JM (2017a) Climate in the 21st century: a macroeconomic model of fair global warming benefits distribution to grant climate justice around the world and over time. In: Proceedings of the 8th International RAIS conference on social sciences and humanities organized by Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies (RAIS) at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, March 26–27, pp 205–243 Puaschunder JM (2017b) Cross-sectoral solution-finding and policy dialogue on information and communication technologies for sustainable development. In: Gudic M, Tan TK, Flynn PM (eds) Beyond the bottom line: integrating the UN global compact into management practices. Greenleaf Publishing, New York, pp 32–46 Puaschunder JM (2017c) Mapping climate in the 21st century. Development 59(3):211–216 Puaschunder JM (2017d) The climatorial imperative. Agric Res Technol 7(4):1–2 Puaschunder JM (forthcoming-a) Governance and climate justice: global South and developing nations. Springer/ Palgrave Macmillian, New York

L

730 Puaschunder JM (forthcoming-b) Socio-psychological motives of socially responsible investors. In: Boubaker S, Cumming D, Nguyen DK (eds) Research handbook of investing in the triple bottom line: finance, society and the environment. Edward Elgar, London, pp 447–472 Puaschunder JM, Schwarz G (2012) The future is now: How joint decision making curbs hyperbolic discounting but blurs social responsibility in the intergenerational equity public policy domain. Harvard University Situationist Law and Mind Sciences Working Paper Sachs JD (2014) Climate change and intergenerational wellbeing. In: Bernard L, Semmler W (eds) The Oxford handbook of the macroeconomics of global warming. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 248–259

Long-Term Investments Schueth S (2003) Socially responsible investing in the United States. J Bus Ethics 43:189–194 Sparkes R (2002) Socially responsible investment: a global revolution. Wiley, Cronwall Starr M (2008) Socially responsible investment and prosocial change. J Econ Issues 42(1):51–73 Steurer R, Martinuzzi RA, Margula S (2012) Public policies on CSR in Europe: Themes, instruments and regional differences. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19:206–227 Stiglitz J (1998) The private uses of public interests: incentives and institutions. J Econ Perspect 12:3–22 Trevino LK, Nelson KA (2004) Managing business ethics: straight talk about how to do right. Wiley, Hoboken

M

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability Jelena Tomićević-Dubljević1, S. C. Boris Erg2 and Duška Dimović3 1 Department of Landscape Architecture and Horticulture, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Forestry, Belgrade, Serbia 2 IUCN Regional Office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Belgrade, Serbia 3 WWF Adria-Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia

Definition Protected areas present an area managed to protect species, ecosystems, and ecological processes as well as cultural values and have a role in environmental stability and provision of natural resources. Management of protected areas refers to the cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and reviewing aimed at achieving conservation outcomes and multiple socioeconomic benefits for communities. Protected area management objectives could be different from the maintenance of endangered species or habitat types, protection or restoration of important ecosystems, or maintenance of an ecological function. Sustainability ensures the needs of the present while saving enough resources to maintain the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

Introduction Almost 150 years since a pioneering first effort to set aside Yosemite Valley for conservation purposes and the designation of Yellowstone in 1872 as a National Park, the first protected area of the modern era as they are known today, protected areas remain a cornerstone in the conservation of biological diversity and associated ecological and cultural values. Today, protected areas play an increasingly important role in climate adaptation strategies. The extent of the global network of protected areas has grown steadily ever since and most notably since the 1970s. To date, the world’s network of protected areas covers 14.7% of global terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, 4.12% (14.9 million km2) of the global oceans, and 10.2% of coastal and marine areas under national jurisdiction. As reported by Protected Planet 2016, an authoritative source of information on the state of protected areas globally, “this remains an underestimate, as not all of the world’s terrestrial and inland water protected areas are as yet captured in the WDPA.” Although most of the protected areas were originally set up to protect biodiversity and landscape values, there is growing recognition of the values and benefits protected areas provide to human society. Today, there are different concepts and types of protected area planning, and the key issue is to draw up and develop the best strategy for managing available resources, which will meet both ecological and economic criteria of development. The need for

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

732

active management of protected areas has become clear after it was empirically shown that the preservation of an area cannot be achieved by the mere proclamation of its protection. It is necessary to bring about effects on the activities taking place in the area. Management plans identify key functions or values of protected areas, clearly define management objectives to be fulfilled and suggest activities to be carried out. They include development guidelines and take into account the needs of the local people who live in the area or use its resources. However, protected areas can only deliver their environmental, social, and economic benefits if they are effectively managed. The capacity to manage has many components and cannot be summarized in a single measure. The principal dimensions are the system of governance, level of resources, and community support. In order to adequately protect ecologically valuable areas, it is necessary to recognize the role of people in sustaining these systems and to engage people in protecting them. Frameworks on Protected Areas Around the world, protected areas are seen “as a key to conserving natural resources on land and at sea” (Hockings and Phillips 1999). According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), the definition of a protected area is “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley 2008). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognized that “‘protected area’ means a geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives” (United Nations 1992). Protected areas have a long history and they are a cultural artifact (Eagles et al. 2002). In Europe, some areas were protected as hunting grounds for the rich and powerful nearly 1,000 years ago (Eagles et al. 2002). Land was first set aside by kings and other rulers in Europe early in the Renaissance, typically as royal hunting reserves. Slowly, these sites became open for public use,

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

providing the basis for recreation and community involvement. The first true national park came in 1872 with the dedication of Yellowstone by US law “as a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people” (Eagles et al. 2002). After the establishment of Yellowstone, the first national park in the USA, the concept of protected areas spread all over the world. The number and extent of the global network of protected areas has grown steadily throughout the twentieth century, most notably since 1970 (Green and Paine 1997). According to the latest edition of Protected Planet, published in 2016, there are 202,467 terrestrial and inland water protected areas recorded in the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), covering 14.7% (19.8 million km2) of the world’s extent of these ecosystems. Protected Planet also reports that there are 14,688 marine protected areas (MPA) recorded in the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), covering 4.12% (14.9 million km2) of the global ocean and 10.2% of coastal and marine areas under national jurisdiction (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2016). To help improve the understanding of the functions of protected areas, raise awareness, and systemize a growing number of national protected area systems and regional approaches, IUCN has introduced a protected area management category system. The system includes six management categories (Table 1) based on the protected area’s primary management objective: The category should be based around the primary management objective(s), which should apply to at least three-quarters of the protected area – the 75% rule (Dudley 2008). In general, Category II – National Parks (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) has been the most used protected area category worldwide. National parks tend to be the best known and most important protected areas economically, and many of the best examples worldwide are also recognized internationally as World Heritage Sites (Fig. 3) (Heinen 2012). While each of the protected area categories has a different range of management objectives, all the categories should have one feature in common: a properly thought through management plan process to ensure that the optimum outcomes are achieved.

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

733

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability, Table 1 IUCN protected areas management categories (Dudley 2008) Protected area category Ia – Strict nature reserve

Description Protected areas that are strictly set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use, and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values. Such protected areas can serve as indispensable reference areas for scientific research and monitoring. Protected areas that are usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.

Primary objective To conserve regionally, nationally, or globally outstanding ecosystems, species (occurrences or aggregations), and/or geodiversity features these attributes will have been formed mostly or entirely by nonhuman forces and will be degraded or destroyed when subjected to all but very light human impact. Ib – Wilderness area To protect the long-term ecological integrity of natural areas that are undisturbed by significant human activity, free of modern infrastructure, and where natural forces and processes predominate, so that current and future generations have the opportunity to experience such areas. II – National Park Large natural or near-natural areas set aside to To protect natural biodiversity along with its protect large-scale ecological processes, along underlying ecological structure and with the complement of species and ecosystems supporting environmental processes, and to characteristic of the area, which also provide a promote education and recreation. foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and visitor opportunities. III - Natural Protected areas set aside to protect a specific To protect specific outstanding natural monument or feature natural monument, which can be a landform, sea features and their associated biodiversity and mount, submarine cavern, geological feature habitats. such as a cave, or even a living feature such as an ancient grove. They are generally quite small protected areas and often have high visitor value. IV – Habitat/Species Protected areas aiming to protect particular To maintain, conserve, and restore species management area species or habitats and management reflect this and habitats. priority. Many category IV protected areas will need regular, active interventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category. V – Protected A protected area where the interaction of people To protect and sustain important landscapes/ landscape or seascape and nature over time has produced an area of seascapes and the associated nature distinct character with significant ecological, conservation and other values created by biological, cultural, and scenic value, and where interactions with humans through traditional safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is management practices. vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values. Protected areas that conserve ecosystems and To protect natural ecosystems and use VI – Protected area with sustainable use habitats, together with associated cultural values natural resources sustainably, when of natural resources and traditional natural resource management conservation and sustainable use can be systems. They are generally large, with most of mutually beneficial. the area in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level nonindustrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims of the area.

M

734

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability, Fig. 1 Tara National Park, Serbia

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability, Fig. 2 Prokletije National Park, Montenegro

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

735

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability, Fig. 3 Plitvice Lakes National Park – World Heritage Site, Croatia

Preparation and Implementation of Management Plans According to internationally accepted standards, a management plan for a protected area is a fundamental developmental organizational and economic concept which is adopted in the form of documents for the management of a protected area, through a mandatory and transparent process of a wide circle of participants and interested parties (Martinić 2010). Management plans identify the key functions or values of a protected area, clearly define management goals and objectives to be met, and indicate the activities to be carried out. They should also be flexible enough to take into account any unforeseen events that may arise during the implementation of the plan (Thomas and Middleton 2003). There is a multitude of documents that give a detailed insight into and confirm the need to develop management plans for protected areas, but there is no universal formula that can be

applied in their development and implementation. However, principles and guidelines for the development of good-quality management plans, as examples of good practice, can be useful to the manager (Lockwood et al. 2006). According to authors Clarke and Mount (1998), a management plan should be: 1. Clear and accessible: easy to read, jargon free, and well presented 2. Concise and comprehensive: no longer than is absolutely necessary, but with enough information to fulfill its functions 3. Accurate and objective: without major errors or statements likely to date and with the criteria for all judgements clearly explained 4. Systematic and logical: with management policies derived from an assessment of the site and with a clear rationale given for all proposals 5. Acceptable and motivating to all those with interests in and emotional attachment to the site

M

736

6. Precise and practical: with clear objectives, realistic methods for achieving them, resulting in desired outcomes which can be monitored 7. Focused and effective: fulfilling its purpose as a tool for site management, meeting the needs of its users and satisfying any legal or other obligations It should be kept in mind that management planning is a process that does not end with the development of the management plan itself. Good practice requires that the testing of the plan’s effectiveness is carried out while monitoring its implementation and the lessons learned during the process of monitoring should be used to review the adequacy of the taken measures and the management policy (Thomas and Middleton 2003). Elements of the Management Plan and Examples of Good Practice in the World 1. Brief description of a protected area: this part of the plan briefly describes the importance and purpose of the area itself, including the existing possibilities of recreation, types of natural values and facilities, and natural and cultural resources that are protected within the area’s boundaries. A brief introductory overview should include key facts, such as the legal framework, visitor trends, and relationships with land owners in the absence of an official authority. A brief description of the current situation covers existing facilities, current activities and maintenance, number of employees, activities in which other users of the area are engaged, and services provided by the concessionaries. 2. Desired future state: the central part of the management plan anticipates the potential needs and state of the area for a period of at least 5 years. It manifests itself in the form of individual objectives for accomplishing the mission. Each description of the proposed new facilities or activities should be briefly indicated in the introductory section of the plan and further elaborated in separate thematic chapters.

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

3. Attendance: visitors, as an element of the plan, are an important factor when decisions are made about the realization of ideas and activities, i.e., the level of attendance that is to be achieved. When necessary, attendance strategies address topics such as reception capacity, accessibility and routes, information, recreational activities, visitor services, required facilities, and management zones for special purposes or resource protection. The existing visitor activities are described in case they need to be expanded, suspended, or transferred to concessionaries along with those activities that need to be started. Proper use of facilities and their capacities are determined in this part of the plan, based on the impression the area is intended to make by limiting the use of resources, addressing safety issues and environmental impact. 4. Professional guidance and education: visitors’ impressions of the area are enhanced by professional guidance programs and exhibitions which explain the functions, elements, and values of the area. Each area has a certain historical context in its surroundings while some contain cultural resources suitable for restoration and display. Also, natural resources, such as animal life, flora, geological formations, fossils, and others are suitable as subjects of professional guidance in protected areas. Exhibitions and education programs can be enriched by professional guidance and by defining regionally important natural and cultural resources. The professional guidance and education of visitors relies on different media, but is most successful when provided by knowledgeable staff at the protected area. 5. Resource management: the objectives of resource management are plans and projects that are needed in order to preserve and maintain natural and cultural resources. The purpose of a protected area determines what is considered more important and what the order of resource presentation will be. Resource-related issues arise from a resource presentation catalog, which should contain, as a

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

minimum, general topographical and geological descriptions, a list of natural resources, including wetlands and coastal elements, flood-prone areas, sources of drinking water, a list of flora and fauna, important cultural wealth, land, and the assessment of air and water quality. These catalogues also help with the professional management of the park and should be integral elements of the plan. 6. Analysis of facilities and general development: this part of the plan discusses the existing facilities in a protected area with a brief description of their current state, their suitability, and future needs. It also indicates the facilities to be provided in the future in order to achieve the recommendations from the five-year management plan. It is necessary to emphasize the importance of using and restoring the existing facilities and any other improvements that are to be made. This part also describes the location, capacities, and functions of the facilities that are intended to be built, adapted, or removed. It also discusses decisions related to the project or construction works at a given location and the impact of the protected area on resources, trends in its use, convenience of the location, energy saving, maintenance requirements, and the impact that all the planned activities will have on visitor opinions and attendance of the area. 7. Work within a protected area: this part describes the intensity of existing and proposed future activities, including the necessary maintenance and equipment, which ensure good services available to the visitors and protects the resources of a protected area. The required number of employees is indicated and each position is shown in the organizational scheme. It also includes professional equipment or training that is required for each and every position. Furthermore, this part of the plan gives a brief description and explanation of the restrictions on the use of the area, special management zones, contracts for professional services, and agreements with other agencies on joint action.

737

8. Proposed activities: specific activities that are necessary to implement the proposed changes mentioned in previous chapters of the plan are listed here according to their priority in achieving the objectives of the protected area. This overview does not have to include all project details, but it should be sufficiently detailed in order to show the feasibility and justification of the proposed activities (Martinić 2010). According to the US national park management concept, the goal of management plans is to define the conditions for their regulation and management, thereby increasing the opportunities for recreation and protection of park resources while ensuring public involvement and protection of the environment. Also, in the European concept of nature protection, a management plan represents a basic document for the management of protected areas according to which their administrations define the activities and conditions for achieving the established management goals and objectives (Martinić 2010). In some countries, managers of protected areas are obliged to prepare management plans as a requirement of legislation. This is the case, for example, for national parks in Australia (Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) and England and Wales (Environment Act 1995). Such legislation provides the managing organizations with a statutory instruction to prepare plans (often, the legislation or statutory advice dictates the form and contents of the plan and the process to be followed in its preparation) (Thomas and Middleton 2003). The Republic of Croatia could be an example of good practice in this area. This country has a law on nature protection introduced in 2003 which initiates the management plan as a key document for the long-term regulation of functions and activities in protected areas (Martinić 2010). Much time and effort is often invested into planning the management of protected areas, only for the plans not to be put into practice or they are useless. Even in such circumstances, there is a generally accepted view that the plans are still

M

738

desirable (IUCN 1994). The reason for this is that management plans bring numerous benefits to protected areas, organizations, or individuals who manage them, whereas the absence of such plans can cause serious problems (Lockwood et al. 2006). One of the benefits of developing management plans, and because of which government should support these activities, is the fact that they can help in the implementation of national or regional policy and corporate strategies in the field of nature protection (Lockwood et al. 2006). Management plans should be designed in such a way to ensure that international, regional, and national obligations in the field of nature protection are met. For example, in Great Britain, national protection directives and action plans for nationally significant species and habitats are implemented through protected area management plans (Thomas and Middleton 2003). Also, many donors that support protected area projects require that a management plan be produced as part of the funding agreement. They see this as central to the effective management of the area, encouraging the wise use of the funds and introducing a framework of accountability for the project (Thomas and Middleton 2003). Management plans for protected areas in Croatia were also made through projects with the help of international funds (Martinić 2010). Management planning should involve team work, but within the team one person must be designated as being responsible for the development of the plan. Also, the planning process is more efficient and staffs are more committed when there is clear support from the management team. If planning is not seen as a priority for an organization, resources and time will simply not be spent on it and the planning process is called into question (Thomas and Middleton 2003). It is increasingly the practice to involve local communities and other stakeholders in protected area planning and management. Participation should take place as early in the process as possible and continue throughout. Two audiences are involved: an external one (local people, visitors, and other stakeholders), and an internal one (the staff who will be charged with the plan’s implementation). In both cases, the plan is much more

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

likely to be implemented if the affected audiences are involved in its development and have a sense of “shared ownership.” In many countries, management boards, comanagement structures, and other participatory mechanisms are being created to facilitate this. The members of these bodies need access to information about the protected area, including copies of draft and final management plans – as indeed will many different groups among the concerned public. There will be a need, even a demand, for consultation over draft plans (Thomas and Middleton 2003). In the US park management concept, public inclusion is prescribed by a rulebook that requires public discussion of the management plan 30 days before its implementation. In a daily newspaper that is sold in the greater area of the park, news of the public hearing must be announced and all those who have submitted a written request must be informed by mail. Also, each park must keep a database of people requiring that they be informed of all park planning procedures and they are all notified of subsequent revisions to the plan (Martinić 2010). For the good and efficient management of protected areas, the attitude of state institutions towards managers is also of great importance since they should not only control their work, but also provide support and advice in solving all contentious issues. For instance, the Croatian National Institute of Nature Protection devotes a great deal of attention to working with managers and recognizes the need to develop management plans as an extremely important and significant segment of management. This is supported by the fact that they have prepared a manual entitled “Development of Protected Area Management Plans in Croatia,” available on the website of the Institute, which provides enormous assistance to managers in the planning, development, and implementation of management plans (Jelić and Tomićević-Dubljević 2015). Another example of good practice in this area could be the website of the Australian Government – Department of the Environment (http:// www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/case-studies), from where a great deal of information on nature protection can be downloaded, and also data on their protected areas, management plans, etc.(Jelić and Tomićević-Dubljević 2015).

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

Proper management implies clear and precise management objectives, implemented through management plans. That means clear procedures for planning measures and activities to protect a certain area, as well as development guidelines, while observing the needs of the local population living in the area or using its resources. Effective management of protected areas is essential for justifying the purpose of their establishment and meeting their objectives (Jelić and Tomićević-Dubljević 2015).

New Approach to Protected Area Management: The Role of Local People The Convention on Biological Diversity marked a significant shift in the perception of protected areas by governments. It linked protected areas to larger issues of public concern, such as sustainable development, traditional knowledge, access to genetic

739

resources, national sovereignty, and equitable sharing of benefits and intellectual property rights. Furthermore, since the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity (hereafter CBD), and because of Article 8a in particular, much greater emphasis has been placed upon the idea of developing national systems of protected areas as a means of conserving biodiversity in situ and for other purposes (Davey 1998). Indeed, many protected areas now form part of international networks, both global systems, notably World Heritage Sites (Fig. 4), Ramsar sites (Fig. 5) and Biosphere Reserves, and regional systems, such as the Natura 2000 network of nature conservation sites in Europe. There are calls to recognize fully the role of indigenous peoples with respect to protected areas (Beltrán 2000). Protected areas contribute to a country’s social and economic objectives through supporting ecosystem services, promoting the sustainable use of renewable resources, as well as providing places

M

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability, Fig. 4 Golden Mountains of Altai, World Heritage Site, Russian Federation

740

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability, Fig. 5 Lake Natron Basin, Ramsar site, Tanzania

for tourism and recreation (IUCN 1993; Worboys 2015). The constituency for protected areas is, therefore, broad and diverse. However, protected areas can only deliver their environmental, social, and economic benefits if they are effectively managed (Hockings and Phillips 1999). Effective management can play an important role in protected area conservation (Rodríguez Rodríguez 2012). It can also contribute to the adaptation and mitigation of some regional or global pressures and threats, such as climate change, through protected areas (Dudley et al. 2010). However, by 2015, only 17.5% of countries had completed and reported at least one management effectiveness assessment for 60% of the reserves within their protected area estate (UNEPWCMC and IUCN 2016). This is much too small a percentage to allow any definitive conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of the world’s network of protected areas. In fact, protected area managers can very rarely achieve effective conservation of managed sites on their own. Neither decision-makers nor protected area managers can

cope with the current challenges faced by protected areas alone. An increasingly complex world requires increasingly innovative solutions, and this is equally true regarding protected area management. Thus, allies should be sought in other stakeholders if effective management and affordable enforcement is to be achieved (Rodríguez Rodríguez 2012). Bottom-up participatory approaches to protected area management may be more resource and time consuming than technical top-down approaches, but they are generally more readily accepted by all stakeholders and, as a result, are often more effective and enduring. Consensus results in decisions being more legitimate, and fewer conflicts (Fraser et al. 2006). Historically, the creation of most protected areas involved the exclusion of local people from almost any kind of access or use of the area (Ghimire and Pimbert 1997). In the United Kingdom, for example, the tradition of exclusory Royal forests meant that the leading conservationists were foresters from the Imperial Institute of

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

Forestry at Oxford as well as biologists, zoologists, and other natural science disciplines and their management philosophy emphasized that “the public good was best served through the protection of forests and water resources, even if this meant the displacement of local communities” (Mccracken 1987). People were not allowed to live inside the protected area or to use the area for extractive purposes (Kemf 1993). This exclusionary approach continues today, for example, in a very large area earmarked for conservation in Costa Rica that is under a strictly protected regime that excludes local communities (Brüggermann 1997). At least until around the mid-1960s, the climate in which protected areas were set up around the world favored a top-down and rather exclusive view of protected areas. Setting up large game parks without too much concern for the impact on local people fitted well with the autocratic style of colonial administration (especially in Africa) (Phillips 2003). Certainly, the opinions and rights of indigenous peoples were of little concern to any government before about 1970; they were not organized

741

as a political force as they are now in many countries. Even in more developed countries, the prevailing view until the 1960s or so was that governments knew best, and public opinion was something for officials to help shape, not to be influenced by (Phillips 2003). It is this context that accounts for the main features of the classic model, or paradigm of protected areas as it was before 1970. Contrast with the classic model is a new paradigm for protected areas. A more inclusive approach to protected area management has emerged at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The trend has been captured in the following new “paradigm” for protected areas (Table 2). In many European countries, including Germany (Brüggermann 1997) and France (Finger and Ghimire 1997), the long established order of land tenure and rights of access to resources has generally been respected in recent decades. In Britain, conservationists accepted the vision of nature as part of a process of “continuity and gradual change, with man at the centre and integral to the rural landscape” (Harmon 1991:34). British National parks thus recognized existing

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability, Table 2 A new paradigm for protected areas (Adapted from Phillips 2003) As it was: protected areas were. . . Set aside for conservation Established mainly for spectacular wildlife and scenic protection Managed mainly for visitors and tourists Valued as wilderness About protection Run by central government Planned and managed against people Managed without regard for local opinions Developed separately Managed as “islands” Viewed primarily as a national asset Viewed only as a national concern Managed reactively within a short timescale Managed in a technocratic way Paid for by the taxpayer Managed by scientists and natural resource experts Expert led

As it is becoming: protected areas are... Run also with social and economic objectives Often set up for scientific, economic, and cultural reasons Managed with local people more in mind Valued for the cultural importance of so-called “wilderness” Also about restoration and rehabilitation Run by many partners and involve an array of stakeholders Run with, for, and, in some cases, by local people Managed to meet the needs of local people Planned as part of national, regional, and international systems Developed as “networks” (strictly protected areas, buffered and linked by green corridors) Viewed also as a community asset Viewed also as an international concern Managed adaptively in a long-term perspective Managed with political considerations Paid for from many sources Managed by multiskilled individuals Drawing on local knowledge

M

742

rights and sought to maintain the established pattern of farming and land use by rural communities (Ghimire and Pimbert 1997). Across the world, protected areas have, for the most part, been traditionally inhabited or used by humans (Wells and Brandon 1993; Orlove and Brush 1996; Kothari et al. 2015). Available figures from a few regions or countries suggest that the number of people who currently use resources within protected areas is at least several tens of millions (Kothari et al. 2015). In Latin America, 86% of the existing protected areas have been established in areas currently inhabited by people; worldwide the figure is approximately 70% (Ghimire and Pimbert 1997). In this situation, the question of local people’s position versus protected areas has become a highly relevant and widely discussed issue (Ghimire and Pimbert 1997). In 1976, UNESCO, through its program on Man and Biosphere (MAB), proposed the creation of a biogeographically representative network of biosphere reserves at sites of worldwide significance. In this case, the inhabitants of protected areas were, for the first time, taken into account, as the MAB program emphasized human beings as “an integral part of the ecosystem and recognized the necessity of involving local inhabitants in conservation activities” (Kothari et al. 1997:276). This perception was strongly emphasized some 15 years later, when the fourth IUCN World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas pointed out that the view of protected areas as islands apart from the surrounding areas and neighboring human communities should finally be left aside (Mcneely 1993). Consequently, the Congress took the phrase “Parks for Life” as its slogan, and urged governments to recognize “the needs and aspirations of the people living in and around the protected areas, as well as to take appropriate measures in order to ensure that the local communities were not disadvantaged by protected areas” (IUCN 1993:35–36.).This human dimension of biosphere reserves makes them special, since the management of a biosphere reserve essentially becomes a “pact between the local community and society as a whole” (UNESCO 2000:6). The importance of

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

the human–nature interface in addressing environmental and societal challenges was reaffirmed at the IUCN World Parks Congress in Sydney, Australia, in 2014. In recent years, several researchers have stressed the role of local people in the successful management of protected areas. According to Wells and Brandon (1993), there is growing recognition of the fact that the sustainable management of protected areas ultimately depends on the cooperation and support of local people. Similarly, Kothari et al. 1997 argue that a protection strategy that alienates local communities from conservation is not only unjust in the context of human rights but also harmful to conservation. Therefore, in order to achieve sustainable conservation, state legislators and environmental planners should involve local people in the management of protected areas and “need to identify and promote social processes that enable local communities to conserve and enhance biodiversity as a part of their livelihood system” (Pimbert and Pretty 1997:307). The attitudes and perceptions of the stakeholders towards a protected area are an important element of sustainable conservation, and local communities must be actively involved, and their needs and aspirations must be considered if biodiversity conservation is to be successful. These trends have encouraged the development of a new conservation paradigm, “community-based conservation,” emphasizing the management of biodiversity by, for, and with local communities (Gibbs and Bromely 1990; Rao and Geisler 1990; Western et al. 1994; Gibson and Marks 1995). All policies and programs implemented under the community-based conservation paradigm share the key assumption that biodiversity conservation will only succeed if local communities receive sufficient benefits, participate in management, and, therefore, have a stake in conserving the resource (Gibson and Marks 1995). In protected areas, received benefit from tourism is a key factor for a local population to view conservation positively (see, for example, Walpole and Goodwin 2001). A correlation between benefits and positive attitudes has been confirmed in many cases (De Boer and Baquete 1998; Gillingham and Lee 1999; Hamilton et al. 2000; Abbot et al. 2001;

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability

Mehta and Heinen 2001; Tomićević 2005; Tomićević et al. 2010). Furthermore, literature based on empirical evidence indicates that three important refinements must be added to the statement claiming that benefit sharing contributes to cooperative attitudes towards conservation. These can be summarized as: 1. the importance of economic viability from a local perspective (Shyamsundar and Kramer 1996), 2. an explicit link with long-term conservation interests, and 3. the need for proper institutional arrangements (Archabald and Naughton-Treves 2001). Building a positive attitude towards a protected area by local populations involves not only informing individuals or associations (NGO, neighbours, etc.) on management issues, but also consulting them, making joint decision and seeking their input to actually carry out management activities (Rodríguez Rodríguez 2012). Environmental volunteering can be a very useful way of encouraging the participation of local populations in management, and also an effective means of reinforcing the identity of residents with values, resources, and governance of the PA (Rodríguez Rodríguez 2012). Finally, sustainable protected area management requires an understanding of the complex ecological and social relationships in rural areas, and valuing of local people’s ideas and knowledge systems. Both the conservation authorities and the people living in and around protected areas have their particular strengths and limitations. For this reason, the advantages and skills of professionals need to be combined with the strengths of local people, and this kind of participation process, at its best, can lead to a real empowerment of the local population (Kemf 1993). Protected areas are profession where, in recent years, we have seen increasing requirements to collaborate with a diversity of stakeholders. Environmental and natural resource management has evolved away from a top-down regulatory style to one that features close and diverse partnerships and collaborations between management agencies and local communities, resource users, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector (Dovers et al. 2015). Engagement and collaboration have become and will increasingly

743

feature as core competencies of protected area managers, requiring time, resources, and skills. Also, protected area management is most likely to succeed if the knowledge and skills of communities can be harnessed as well as communities being supportive of management initiatives (Dovers et al. 2015).

Conclusion Protected areas are complex institutions that are home to much of the world’s remaining natural capital comprising landscapes, ecosystems, and biodiversity, valued in trillions of dollars and a vital component of natural solutions to climate and global change (Müller et al. 2015). Protected areas are now a significant presence in almost all parts of the globe, and more reservations are needed, if the Earth’s natural and cultural heritage is to be conserved. In addition to their extent, the effectiveness of protected areas in achieving their objectives is a key consideration. It is clear that designation is not sufficient on its own to guarantee that they are effective in conserving natural and cultural heritage values (Feary et al. 2015).There is a need to ensure that protected areas are governed according to principles of legitimacy, equity, participation, transparency, and respect for local rights. Each protected area also needs mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation that test whether outcomes are in accordance with management objectives, and provide a foundation for learning and improvement (Feary et al. 2015). Protected areas provide a host of services to humanity, but these still remain underestimated and undervalued. There is an increasing awareness of the need to gain a better understanding of the value of our natural resources so as to internalize their role in decision-making, and drive forward the agenda for change called for in the CBDs strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the associated Aichi biodiversity targets. The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the Paris climate change agreement only reaffirm the need for a more thorough evaluation of the role of protected areas in addressing global

M

744

societal challenges. The sustainable development goals, which form the core of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development adopted by the UN General Assembly in September 2015, present a universally applicable and interconnected framework integrating the three dimensions of sustainable development in a manner that represents a radical shift from the silo approach that have been the hallmark of most development-related policy frameworks to date. The SDGs and their associated targets, therefore, present a real opportunity to address the fragmentation of governance by taking a more integrated approach to sustainable development, law, and policymaking and implementation, and placing the governance of nature and biodiversity with the clear role of protected areas firmly within a development and good governance context.

Cross-References ▶ Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development ▶ Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique

References Abbot JIO, Thomas DHL, Gardner AA, Neba SE, Khen MW (2001) Understanding the links between conservation and development in the Bamenda highlands, Cameroon. World Dev 29(7):1115–1136 Archabald K, Naughton-Treves L (2001) Tourism revenuesharing around national parks in Western Uganda: early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environ Conserv 28:135–149 Beltrán J (2000) Indigenous and traditional peoples and protected areas: principles, guidelines and case studies. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge, MA Brüggermann J (1997) National parks and protected area management in Costa Rica and Germany: a comparative analysis. In: Ghimire KB, Pimbert MP (eds) Social change and conservation: environmental politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas. UNRISD and Earthscan, London, pp 71–96 Clarke R, Mount D (1998) Management plans and planning: a guide. Countryside Commission, Cheltenham Davey A (1998) National system planning for protected areas. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge, MA

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability De Boer WF, Baquete DS (1998) Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environ Conserv 25:208–218 Dovers S, Feary S, Martin A, McMillan L, Morgan D, Tollefson M (2015) Engagement and participation in protected area management: who, why, how and when? In: Worboys GL, Lockwood M, Kothari A, Feary S, Pulsford I (eds) Protected area governance and management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp 413–440 Dudley N (ed) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland Dudley N, Stolton S, Belokurov A, Krueger L, Lopoukhine N, MacKinnon K, Sandwith T, Sekhran N (eds) (2010) Natural solutions: protected areas helping people cope with climate change. IUCN, WCPA, TNC, UNDP, WCS, The World Bank and WWF, Gland, Washington, DC and New York Eagles PFJ, McCool SF, Haynes CD (2002) Sustainable tourism in protected areas, guidelines for planning and management. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge, MA Feary S, Kothari A, Lockwood M, Pulsford I, Worboys GL (2015) Conclusion. In: Worboys GL, Lockwood M, Kothari A, Feary S, Pulsford I (eds) Protected area governance and management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp 929–932 Finger –SA, Ghimire K (1997) Local development and parks in France. In: Ghimire KB, Pimbert MP (eds) Social change and conservation: environmental politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas. UNRISD and Earthscan, London, pp 158–186 Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ, Mabee WE, Reed M, McAlpine P (2006) Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. J Environ Manag 78:114–127 Ghimire KB, Pimbert MP (1997) Social change and conservation: an overview of issues and concepts. In: Ghimire KB, Pimbert MP (eds) Social change and conservation: environmental politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas. UNRISD and Earthscan, London, pp 1–45 Gibbs CJ, Bromely DW (1990) Institutional arrangements for management of rural resources: communityproperty regimes. In: Berkes F (ed) Common property resources: ecology and community-based sustainable development. Belhaven Press, London, pp 22–33 Gibson CC, Marks SA (1995) Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: an assessment of communitybased wildlife management programs in Africa. World Dev 23(6):941–957 Gillingham S, Lee PC (1999) The impact of wildliferelated benefits on the conservation attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environ Conserv 26(3):218–228 Green MJB, Paine J (1997) State of the world’s protected areas at the end of the twentieth century. Paper presented at IUCN WCPA symposium on “Protected areas

Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability in the 21st century: from islands to networks”, Albany, Australia, 24–29 November 1997 Hamilton A, Cunningham A, Byarugaba D, Kayanja F (2000) Conservation in a region of political instability: Bwindi Impenetrable forest, Uganda. Conserv Biol 14(6):1722–1725 Harmon D (1991) National park residency in developed countries: the example of Great Britain. In: West PC, Brechin SR (eds) Resident peoples and national parks: social dilemmas and strategies in international conservation. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 33–39 Heinen J (2012) International trends in protected areas policy and management. In: Sladonja B (ed) Protected area management. InTech, Rijeka, pp 1–18 Hockings M, Phillips A (1999) How well are we doing: some thoughts on the effectiveness of protected areas. Parks 9(2):5–14 IUCN (1993) Parks for life: report of the fourth world congress on national parks and protected areas. IUCN, Gland IUCN (1994) Guidelines for protected areas management categories. IUCN, Gland Jelić I, Tomićević-Dubljević J (2015) Značaj planova upravljanja u upravljanju zaštićenim područjima Srbije. Šumarstvo 3, p 143-156 The importance of management plans in managing of protected areas in Serbia. Foresty 3:143–156. (in Serbian) Kemf E (1993) The law of the mother: protecting indigenous groups in protected areas. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco Kothari A, Suri S, Singh N (1997) Building bridges for conservation–towards joint management of protected areas in India. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi Kothari A, Cooney R, Hunter D, MacKinnon K, Muller E, Nelson F, Oli KP, Pandey S, Rasheed T, Vavrova L (2015) Managing resource use and development. In: Worboys GL, Lockwood M, Kothari A, Feary S, Pulsford I (eds) Protected area governance and management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp 789–822 Lockwood M, Worboys G, Kothari A (eds) (2006) Managing protected areas: a global guide. Earthscan, London Martinić I (2010) Upravljanje zaštićenim područjima prirode - planiranje, razvoj i održivost. Šumarski fakultet, Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Zagreb, The management of protected areas - planning, development and sustainability, Faculty of Forestry, University of Zagreb, Zagreb (in Croatian) McCracken J (1987) Conservation priorities and local communities. In: Anderson D, Grove R (eds) Conservation in Africa: people, policies and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 63–78 McNeely JA (1993) Parks for life: report of the fourth world congress on national parks and protected areas. IUCN, Gland Mehta JN, Heinen JT (2001) Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An

745 empirical study from Nepal. Environ Manag 28:165–177 Müller E, Appleton MR, Ricci G, Valverde A, Reynolds D (2015) Capacity development. In: Worboys GL, Lockwood M, Kothari A, Feary S, Pulsford I (eds) Protected area governance and management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp 251–290 Orlove BS, Brush SB (1996) Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity. Annu Rev Anthropol 25:329–352 Phillips A (2003) Turning ideas on their head: the new paradigm for protected areas. Conservation Study Institute paper, CSI, Woodstock Pimbert MP, Pretty JN (1997) Diversity and sustainability in community-based conservation, Paper presented at the UNESCO-IIPA regional workshop on communitybased conservation, India, 9–12 February 1997 Rao K, Geisler C (1990) The social consequences of protected areas development for resident populations. Soc Nat Resour 3:19–32 Rodríguez Rodríguez D (2012) New issues on protected area management. In: Sladonja B (ed) Protected area management. InTech, Rijeka, pp 19–42 Shyamsundar P, Kramer RA (1996) Tropical forest protection: an empirical analysis of the costs borne by local people. J Environ Econ Manag 31(2):129–144 Thomas L, Middleton J (2003) Guidelines for management planning of protected areas. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge, MA Tomićević J (2005) Towards participatory management: linking people, resources and management. A socioeconomic study of Tara National Park. Culterra Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Landespflege der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg 43 Tomićević J, Shannon MA, Milovanović M (2010) Socioeconomic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: case study from Serbia. Forest Policy Econ 12(3):157–162 UNEP-WCMC, IUCN (2016) Protected planet report 2016. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, Cambridge, MA and Gland UNESCO (2000) Solving the puzzle: the ecosystem approach and biosphere reserves. UNESCO, Paris United Nations (1992) Convention on biological diversity. https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/. Accessed 30 July 2018 Walpole MJ, Goodwin HJ (2001) Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environ Conserv 28(2):160–166 Wells MP, Brandon KB (1993) The principle and practice of buffer zones and local participation in biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2):157–162 Western D, Wright RM, Strum SC (1994) Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC Worboys GL (2015) Introduction. In: Worboys GL, Lockwood M, Kothari A, Feary S, Pulsford I (eds) Protected area governance and management. ANU Press, Canberra, pp 1–8

M

746

Migration-Development Nexus ▶ Social Remittances: A Pathway to Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda Kazi Arif Uz Zaman Financial Stability Department, Bangladesh Bank (the Central Bank of Bangladesh), Dhaka, Bangladesh

Definition Sustainable Development: Sustainable development is the organizing principle that meets the development goals of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs in the future. It refers to the simultaneous and balanced progress in three dimensions: viable economic growth, social equity, and environmental sustainability. Global Public Goods: Global public goods are non-rivalrous (i.e., consumption of the goods by anyone does not lessen the quantity available to others) and non-excludable (i.e., no one can be restrained from consuming the goods) goods whose benefits and/or costs are potentially extended to all countries, people, and generations, e.g., flowing water, clean air, climate change mitigation, financial stability, security, knowledge production, and global public health. High-Level Political Forum (HLPF): The HLPF is the forum established as part of the Rio+20 agreement at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. According to its mandate, it aims to strengthen sustainable development governance at the United Nations. The forum meets every 4 years at the level of Heads of State and Government under the

Migration-Development Nexus

umbrellas of the General Assembly. It also meets once every year under the Economic and Social Council for the ministerial segment. Trust Fund: Trust fund is a special arrangement of a legal entity that is authorized to hold certain assets (or fund) for the benefit of another person, group, or organization. The trust fund for SDG, known as the Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MPTF), is a multi-partner facility opened to the public and private donors who are interested in advancing the sustainable development efforts through UN agencies’ coordination. South-South Cooperation: South-South cooperation is the exchange of resources, technology, and knowledge between the actors (government, institutions, and individuals) in developing countries, also known as countries of the Global South. North-South Cooperation: North-South cooperation is the development cooperation in terms of the resources, technology, and knowledge offered by the North (the developed countries) to the South (the developing countries). Triangular Cooperation: Triangular Cooperation refers to a framework where conventional donor countries and multilateral organizations facilitate collaboration toward South-South initiatives in forms of financing, capacity-building, and technological and other forms of supports (UNDP 2018). Whole-of-Government Approach: The whole-of-government approach signifies the public service agencies extended their working across portfolio boundaries to accomplish a common goal through an integrated government response to certain issues.

Introduction Following the accumulated concerns over the interlocked economic, environmental, and social challenges, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development on 26 September 2015. At the core of the agenda, it emphasizes on the collectivity, indivisibility, and universality of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and pledges to “leave no one behind.” The agenda has meticulously

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

acknowledged the significant interlinkages and mutual interdependencies of the countries in developing these challenges. More importantly, it has recognized the importance of shared responsibilities and multilateral cooperation to attain the SDGs. In fact, the importance of global partnership and multilateral cooperation is duly addressed and given the top-most priority at the UN Resolution for adopting the 2030 Agenda. In the very first line of the resolution’s “means of implementation,” it states that “the scale and ambition of the new Agenda requires a revitalized Global Partnership to ensure its implementation.” (UN 2015a). To attaining these aspirational goals by 2030, a significant range of reforms will be required in the countries’ existing development policies. These may comprise the adjustment in fiscal and regulatory policies, adoption of the environmental and green growth policies in the national development plan, implementation of high-tech financial market regulations, and implementation of the new investment strategies to support the SDGs. Obviously, the entire process would require a huge amount of financial and non-financial resources, technological supports, and broader-ranged cooperation from both internal and external sources. Especially, the least developed and developing countries will need specific multi-sectoral support to achieve their targets by 2030 (Rudolph 2017). Moreover, as the global development challenges and the development prospects of the countries are highly interconnected, the lone advancement in the developed countries cannot be sustained if the less developed countries fail to attain their goals and vice versa (Helgason 2016). Therefore, the role of multilateral cooperation in SDG is undeniable. However, a critical question arises that how best the multilateral cooperation strategies can be adopted or reframed that would best serve the 2030 Agenda. This paper is an attempt to explain the current status, challenges, and prospects of the multilateral cooperation in attaining the SDG for the countries.

Multilateral Cooperation and SDG Nexus Multilateral cooperation is broader-scaled cooperation channelized through international, regional,

747

or sub-regional organizations and settings which involve several countries (more than two) having common political, regional, or other sectoral interests. Cooperation may be administered by closed and issue-based institutions (e.g., G8, G20, Security Council, OPEC, OECD, and BRICS), or by the region-based institutions (e.g., ASEAN, SAARC, EU, NAFTA, and CARICOM), or by large-scale development or governance-based institutions (e.g., UN, WTO, ADB, and ECB). The fundamental spirit of the 2030 Agenda is based on the linkages between human welfare and planetary boundaries. The broader scope of the agenda encompasses “five Ps” – people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership (UN 2015a). It highlights the eradication of poverty, economic empowerment, reduction of inequality, and protecting the environment to ensure prosperous and peaceful lives for all human beings within the boundaries of this planet. The agenda, therefore, seeks the inclusiveness of the societies and global solidarities through multidimensional cooperation and partnerships to attain three-dimensional sustainable development goals (i.e., economic, social, and environmental). Based on the 17 ambitious SDGs, 169 targets, and over 200 indicators, the 2030 Agenda calls for a systematical transformation of the world through the robust, sustainable development in each country. The agenda, therefore, aims to mobilize all resources and actors at local, national, and international levels to support the transformation strategies in the countries. Along with the domestic efforts (i.e., integrative implementation of the SDGs through policy coherence across the national policy sectors of the country) and international policy coherence (i.e., alignments in the national and international policy standards in all policy sectors), international cooperation is also pivotal for the operationalization of SDG plans (Rudolph 2017). Such bi- and multilateral cooperation should play a catalytic role in aligning the allocation decisions, strengthening global partnerships, and promoting the sustainable management of global public goods (GPGs). Table 1 indicates how multilateral development cooperation can be used as a means of implementation for various SDGs.

M

748

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda, Table 1 Means of implementation featuring multilateral development cooperation Goals Goal 1.a: End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Goal 2.a: Hunger and food

Goal 4.c: Education

Goal 6.a: Water and sanitation

Goal 7.a: Energy

Goal 8.a: Growth, employment, and decent work Goal 10.b: Inequality

Goal 16.a: Governance

Goal 17: Partnerships

Means of implementation Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular, LDCs, to implement programs and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development, and plant and livestock gene banks to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular, LDCs By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially LDCs and small island developing States By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programs, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling, and reuse technologies By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology Increasing aid for trade support for developing countries, in particular, LDCs, including through the enhanced integrated framework for trade-related technical assistance to LDCs Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular, LDCs, African countries, small island developing States, and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programs Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime Please refer to Table 2 for detailsa

Source: UN (2015a) a Since SDG 17 represents the most-elaborated goal relating to the partnerships and multilateral cooperation, it is separately provided in Table 2

Though most of the SDGs can be linked with partnerships and multilateral cooperation for their implementations, goal 17 specifically refers to “strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.” The goal 17 acknowledges that collectivity, indivisibility, and universality of the development processes can be best achieved by using the networks and partnerships which embrace all stakeholders (UN 2015a). ECOSOC (2016) states that the implication of goal 17 is to increase the ownership and commitments of the multilateral bodies (or regional cooperation blocs) in addressing global challenges through synergic collaborations and shared responsibilities.

Benefits of Multilateral Cooperation in Attaining SDG Like any other cooperation or integration arrangement, multilateral cooperation for SDG would help to extend the markets for input resources, technologies, goods, and services for the countries. It should also ensure a better allocation of resources across the region that would lead toward higher efficiency of resource usages. Members could expect mutual benefits by using their comparative advantages in dealing with the resources and goods (Schiff and Winters 2002). Multilateral regional cooperation may also boost regional energy and food security which should have an

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

749

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda, Table 2 Means of implementation (SDG 17) Area Finance

Goals 17.1

17.2

17.3 17.4

Technology

17.5 17.6

17.7

17.8

Capacity-building

17.9

Trade

17.10

17.11 17.12

Policy and institutional coherence

17.13 17.14 17.15

Multi-stakeholder partnerships

17.16

17.17

Means of implementation Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7% of gross national income for official development assistance (ODA/GNI) to developing countries and 0.15–0.20% of ODA/GNI to LDCs; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20% of ODA/GNI to LDCs Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief, and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for LDCs Enhance North-South, South-South, and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology, and innovation, and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism Promote the development, transfer, dissemination, and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favorable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology, and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017, and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacitybuilding in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the Sustainable Development Goals, including through North-South, South-South, and triangular cooperation Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory, and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development Agenda Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020 Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherence Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources, to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in all countries, in particular developing countries Encourage and promote effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships (continued)

M

750

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda, Table 2 (continued) Area Data, monitoring, and accountability

Goals 17.18

17.19

Means of implementation By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely, and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location, and other characteristics relevant in national contexts By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries

Source: UN (2015a)

immense impact on the socioeconomic welfare of the common people. Anbumozhi (2015) also states that by using the comparative advantages phenomenon in sharing the technologies and investments across boundaries, it would also be possible to achieve the most cost-effective development, which is so crucial to incentivize the adoption of SDG strategies in the countries. Risk-sharing is the other mutual benefit of such multilateral cooperation. Krugman (1995), Baldwin and Venables (1995), Fernandez and Portes (1998), Acharya and Johnston (2007), and Sapir (2011) argue that broad-scale cooperation and integration would attain a wider economies of scale and enhance competitiveness and specialization through technological changes and improved productivity within the dynamic market frameworks. As discussed earlier, the composition of SDGs places significant emphasis on the development challenges which are global in nature. Therefore, the interlinkages and mutual dependencies between the countries, regional blocs, and multilateral organizations are more relevant to SDGs and their means of implementation. Helgason (2016) states that such a multifaceted cooperation framework would enhance the impact and cost-effectiveness of development actions of the countries more than the other small-scale cooperation frameworks.

Challenges in Multilateral Cooperation for SDG a) Diversification in countries’ priorities and interests

The development needs of countries are becoming more diverse. Developed countries are looking for sustaining rich living standards and equitable welfare, while the least developed and emerging economies are more aggressive toward gaining a quicker economic growth, faster exploration and exploitation of resources, and other endowments as the prerequisite for their growth. b) More players in a complex scenario Following the diverse interests and needs of the countries and regions, the number of development actors with diverse specialization has been increasing. New geopolitical and economic orientations have also influenced the emergence of these multilateral development actors. Thus, along with the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which is regarded as the “venue and voice” of the world’s major donor countries, non-DAC countries like China and India have also emerged as the new development actors (OECD/DAC 2016). To strengthen the regional investment and diversify the development finance, few regional development banks have been established in this decade. BRICS Bank and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank are two recent instants in this regard. Along with the new multilateral institutions, the development of instruments and services has also been modified (e.g., development cooperation financing through trust fund). The conventional concept of pooling of resources and ODA distribution (usually from the developed countries to the developing) by a single multilateral development organization has been changing, and some mixed

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

751

form of cooperation structures is being promoted (Janus et al. 2015). For instance, South-South and triangular cooperation frameworks are operating along with the conventional North-South cooperation framework. However, the prime challenge of such a high number and complex nature of multilateral cooperation is the synchronization of the development needs and operational strategies for implementing the action plans of the SDGs.

and internationally recognized institutions (Toussaint 2004). Hence, the existing global institutions which support multilateral cooperation must adopt the reforms with this ever-changing development agenda. Compatible governance, democratization, and result-oriented follow-ups are a few key issues that need to be addressed in this changing environment.

c) Preferences toward other cooperation channels

As the SDG demands an inclusive and indivisible development approach, the operationalization of SDG-sensitive cooperation may become a bit susceptible when the multilateral institutions bypass the recipient government and channel their fund to the non-state actors (e.g., NGOs) who, in many instances, exhibit poor governance, transparency, and accountability (Dietrich 2013). Operational susceptibility may also arise due to the aid fungibility which often influences the multilateral institutions’ concerns about losing their control over the funds (Leiderer 2012).

Preferences toward different cooperation channels largely influence the cooperation framework. Depending on the empirical analysis of aid effectiveness and vested interests, the donor countries choose the cooperation channels (bilateral or multilateral) and instruments. Evidence, however, shows that in recent times the proposition of bilateral cooperation has been increasing as compared to the multilateral (Rudolph 2017). It is because donors enjoy more discretionary power in bilateral cooperation than the multilateral cooperation. In the case of the multilateral cooperation, the contribution of trust funds has been increasing, while the conventional core funding of the multilateral institutions has mostly remained unchanging (OECD 2014). d) Adopting the reforms in existing institutional settings Following the waves of changes in various dimensions of multilateral cooperation and goals, the effectivity and efficiency of the existing global (large-scale) institutions and respective regulations are under serious debate over the last few decades. The current role and scope of multilateral organizations such as the UN, WTO, IMF, and World Bank, therefore, demand a series of reforms and adaptabilities, especially since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda. The question also arises whether or not we really need any global institutional setting to regulate trade, money, and credit for all countries. Despite the considerable debate among experts and practitioners, it is acknowledged that some of the international problems cannot be resolved without any legitimate

e) Operational susceptibility

f) New dimension in SDGs SDGs incorporate the targets of equitable and sustainable economic growth while tackling climate change and controlling emissions. The inclusion of the environmental dimension in SDGs posed a substantial challenge toward the smooth development of a multilateral cooperation framework. Historically, one of the main reasons behind the countries’ lesser intent to cooperate with each other under any multilateral cooperation framework is the mounting challenges perceived in the prolonged stretching negotiation process. Though the geopolitical context influences the negotiation issues among various coalitions and actors, there are also some common challenges such as the basis for resource allocation, the optimal share of responsibilities and rights, and the risk-sharing mechanism between the actors (Gupta 2012). Standard economic analysis and suitable approaches to figuring out these issues are often overlooked, not only in literature but also in policy design. However, these are of utmost crucial for designing any multilateral cooperation framework for implementing SDGs.

M

752

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

Areas and Dimensions of Multilateral Cooperation for SDGs SDGs constitute a wide range of sectors and strategic elements to attain the eventual goals of the 2030 Agenda. Goal 17, which specifically refers to the implications of partnerships and multilateral cooperation, has mentioned five key areas of cooperation: finance, technology, capacitybuilding, trade, and systemic issues (such as policy and institutional coherence, multi-stakeholder partnerships, and data, monitoring, and accountability). Based on the goals and relevant targets, multilateral development organizations and cooperation blocs have further identified several sectors and areas for aligning their works with the 2030 sustainable development agenda. For instance, G20, a high-power international forum, has framed its collective actions for SDGs around 15 Sustainable Development Sectors (SDS) during its 2016 Summit in Hangzhou. The sectors comprise agriculture, food security and nutrition, energy, trade and investment, infrastructure, human resources development and employment, industrialization, inclusive business, financial inclusion and remittance, domestic resource mobilization, international financial architecture, climate finance and green finance, anti-corruption, innovation, growth and development strategies, and global health (G20 Summit 2016 China 2016). Besides, many other policy groups and cooperation blocs have addressed few other specific areas for cooperation to support 2030 Agenda of sustainable development, such as transport, tourism, urban development, biodiversity protection, and natural resource management.

MLC Framework Basic MLC Framework Undoubtedly, structural reforms of all development actors are pivotal for an MLC framework for implementing SDGs. However, the true synergistic outcome would be expected when all the resources, endowments, expertise, skills, and incentives are better embedded and aligned through the effective policy-mix and partnership strategies. The

effectiveness of an MLC framework thus primarily depends on the successful interconnectedness of all these elements. In a basic MLC framework, there should be a donor bloc, a recipient bloc, and flows of resources. Figure 1 illustrates a basic MLC framework for SDGs. Several geographical cooperation models are evident, such as North-South, South-South, and triangular cooperation. Besides, the 2030 Agenda also highlights the concept of “360-degree partnership” which connects the external cooperation block with the recipient country’s government, the private sector, civil society, academia, and other development agents including the common people. Regional and local governments within the country should play a principal role in linking the domestic stakeholders. Institutional Framework The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (ECOSOC) urges for the paradigm shift and re-engineering of the multilateral cooperation institutional framework that would better deliver the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. To meet up the challenges of multidimensional and interconnected global goals for a diverse range of actors at all levels, ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum argues that development cooperation should not only involve financial support but also should signify “the ‘managing’ development relationships for results” (ECOSOC 2016). Hence, the high-level DCF emphasized three key interlinked areas to re-design the MLC institutional framework, as illustrated in Fig. 2. As mentioned earlier, the transition toward the 2030 Agenda requires substantial reforms in existing MLC institutions. Effective institutional reforms, in this regard, should address the relevant context (e.g., donors, recipients, and policy agenda) and follow the demand-driven approaches. Besides, the global and regional policy groups working on the institutional reforms may also extend their expertise through sharing knowledge and experience in this process. Policy Framework Prudent policy measures under an MLC framework (for SDGs) must be inclusive, yet,

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

Internal cooperation (Recipient block)

External cooperation (Donor Block)

Regional or SubRegional Blocs

Multilateral cooperation

753

Flow of resources Government

SDGs Action plans & Programs

Private Sector

- Development institutions - Pool of donors

NGOs, Civil society, Researchers Policy Coherence Monitoring

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda, Fig. 1 Basic MLC framework model. Source: Author

M Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda, Fig. 2 Institutional Multilateral Cooperation Framework for the 2030 Agenda. Source: Author

Resource MobilizationBetter incentives

Institutional

Framework Resource AllocationBetter alignment

prioritizing the national ownership and interests. Collective policy actions should focus on concrete outcomes that are mutually beneficial on a win-

Resource ManagementBetter integrationa and coherence

win basis. Some of the key features of a prudent policy framework for MLC in SDGs are stated below:

754

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

• The policy agenda should be balanced toward the three dimensions of sustainable development (i.e., economic, social, and environmental). Synchronization among the policies adopted for different sectors would remain the key to a successful policy framework. • Policies should be specific (for individual sectors or areas), flexible, and transparent. It should also have a high-standard accountability process and follow-up mechanisms. • The policy framework should outline the specific timetable for action plans from both the domestic and external stakeholders. For example, the G20 agreed that all members should initiate the national action plans by 2017 and commit to placing the update of the outlines at the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) in 2018. Such an obligatory aspect of the policy framework would intensify the commitments toward the 2030 Agenda, which is very crucial in this context. • National action plans under an MLC framework should also have a comprehensive monitoring plan. It would ensure that all the stakeholders remain engaged in constant reporting and learning process that would further strengthen the action plans. • SDG-related policies and key programs must have evaluability. Through evaluating the performance of the programs and measuring the impact of the policies on attaining the SDGs, an MLC framework may share the lessons learned across the countries and the sectors. The United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) promotes and facilitates the global guidelines on prudent evaluation guidelines with a set of criteria and indicators. MLC may reinforce the recipient countries to adopt those guidelines or work together with the UN to further improve the evaluation system. • The policy framework should also consist of an elaborative comparable review approach. It would enhance the coordination impact among the various working groups under an MLC framework through frequent measurement or reports. Such a review system would also help in recognizing the effective policies

and programs that are innovative, sustainable, and replicable. • The policy framework must acknowledge the reforms as a continual process. It should be open to incorporate any update based on the empirical evidence, evolving needs, and new challenges. Operational Framework The operational framework for MLC for sustainable development must ensure the inclusive participation and mutual sharing of all related stakeholders. Figure 3 demonstrates the chronological phases of actions required to frame the operational structure for attaining SDGs. • At the earliest stage, the building up of the public awareness and cognizance of the respective stakeholders of the 2030 Agenda is essential.

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda, Fig. 3 Chronological phases of actions for an operational framework for SDGs. Source: Kalirajan et al. (2015). Note: Though Kalirajan et al. (2015) used this figure to describe the chronological action plans for implementing Natural Resources Management (NRM) under an MLC framework, it is also applicable for other SDGs

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

• It will thus provide the fundamental basis for further development of action plans through formal and informal education along with subsequent technological specialization in new emerging issues. • Alongside, the 2030 Agenda should be integrated into national decision-making, and respective policies should be harmonized at the local, national, regional, and global levels. Both horizontal (breaking down the silos) as well as vertical (localizing the 2030 Agenda) policy coherence should be ensured. Multiple stakeholders should be engaged in this process of planning. As the harmonization of policies (among the sectors, countries, or regions) may face difficulties due to different stages of development of the sectors or countries, the concerted effort through regional or MLC is significant at this stage. • MLC can provide support in the form of capacity-building during the process of adaptation of operational framework with the course of actions. • Enforcement of the adopted action plan is the following stage in this framework which demands direct financial and technical support under an MLC framework, especially for lowincome and developing countries. G20 Summit in 2016, in addition to the above, has emphasized on the reviewing and follow-up operations in an MLC framework. This high-level organization has stressed on the role of MLC in fostering the adaptability to risks and subsequent sharing of mutual learnings throughout the implementation process of the 2030 Agenda. One of the key aspects of the SDGs’ operational framework is the connectedness of various interlinked working streams and development working groups. The process needs to identify each stream and working group along with their division of labor. Accordingly, all of these working units should be facilitated with valued information, finance, and other logistics. They also need to be empowered with proper legislation and capacity. The framework should also establish a tracking mechanism to follow the progress of each unit and program.

755

Future Pathways From Cohesion and Coordination to Integration MLC forum should foster the whole-ofgovernment approach that aims to attain shared goals and integrated government response to a particular sustainable development sector or area. Besides, for strengthening the effective role of MLC in sustainable development, continuous consolidation of cohesion in policies and action plans across all three dimensions of sustainable development is important. For a better coordination among various work streams and groups, the blueprint of strategies may specify the priority areas, subsidiary institutions (i.e., supporting organizations other than the MLC), and a leading country (in case of regional cooperation bloc) or unit (for other form of MLC settings) for each set of agenda. This arrangement would provide better leadership and strategic guidance while ensuring the most coordinated efforts in attaining the goals. This model is adopted by ASEAN in 2009 as the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) Blueprint. However, the MLC framework in the future should be strengthened further, and the approach should be upgraded from the cohesion and coordination to the integration. As the Secretary-General reports state, “Coordination aims at maximizing efficiencies and minimizing costs. Coherence takes coordination a step further, aiming at the merit of activities to maximize impact. Integrated action, on the other hand, aims at a shared vision built on a collective recognition of the normative frameworks that underpin it, which in turn drives a common strategy reflected in activities that overcome and build on the specificities of each entity for a greater good” (Please see paragraph 310 at UN 2015b). Strengthening of Equitable Representation and Responsible Sovereignty An effective MLC framework requires a prudent governance system based on equitable representation among the Member States and governing groups at the intergovernmental level. Equitable representation of governing bodies is crucial to ensure legitimacy in policy decisions adopted

M

756

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

under an MLC framework. Besides, the concept of “responsible sovereignty” needs to be promoted. This principle implies that states should not only protect their own people but also should cooperate across the borders for addressing transnational challenges and protecting global resources. Strengthening of Transparency and Accountability A coherent, streamlined, and reliable transparency and accountability approach is crucial to intensify the monitoring, reviewing, and reporting system of an MLC framework. For instance, DWG plans to prepare an Annual Progress Report and a Comprehensive Accountability Report under the Accountability Framework for tracking the advancement in accountability processes and mechanisms of G20’s collective actions toward sustainable development. Innovation in Cooperation Patterns In dealing with the varying challenges toward the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, MLC should foster innovative cooperation patterns. OECD (2016) states that the development of cooperation for SDGs should further boost the mutual learnings among all stakeholders through enhanced response to everyone’s interests and demands. In this regard, OECD exemplifies the SDG-sensitive MLC through a triangular aid project, whereby two donors (i.e., traditional and non-traditional) collaborate to provide development cooperation to a third country based on the assessment of comparative advantages, expertise, technology, and cultural vicinity. Streamlining the Evidence-Based Approach The 2030 Agenda of sustainable development emphasizes on the evidence-based approach, i.e., successive measurement of outcomes. Policymakers are using a range of tools and mechanisms to measure the effectiveness of the cooperation programs in this regard, such as cost-benefit analyses, monitoring, and evaluations. The evidence-based approach should be streamlined efficiently by combining the indication of performance and results

with disbursement. Consequently, innovative delivery mechanisms should be developed. Compatible Reforms in the United Nations and Global Development Institutions The United Nations and other global development institutions are playing a pioneering role in promoting and implementing the 2030 Agenda of sustainable development. Several reforms are also taking place in these global-scale organizations to support the SDGs all over the world. The UN has established specialized and decentralized sub-organizations to support different programs and sectors in different regions. UN Development System (UNDS) is such an effort encompassing the activities of 30 agencies and coordinated by the UN Development Group and intergovernmental bodies. UNSD plays a pivotal role as facilitator, catalyst, and bridge-builder to provide comprehensive support to the countries in formulating national action plans for SDGs, supporting the institutional capacity development programs, helping objective assessment of performance and impact of actions, and promoting dialogue among the countries (Adams and Dayringer 2018). There are many other institutions of programs deploying their resources and support for adopting SDGs in the countries. However, the main criticism hovers around the governance system of these organizations which is still highly influenced by the geopolitical and economic power of the countries. Executive boards of the operational funds and programs (such as UNDP/UNFPA, UNICEF, WFP) for the governing bodies are assumed to be strongly influenced by this geopolitical balance. Several innovations and reforms are attempted to develop balanced governance (between program country government and the UN development entities) that would accommodate the interest and priorities of the recipient country in a more efficient manner (Baumann 2016). These efforts of compatible reforms in the governance system of the UN organization and global bodies should be accelerated in the future. Further involvement and empowerment at multiple levels (i.e., national, sub-national, and multilateral levels) in the aggregated decision-making process should be encouraged. Alongside this, a

Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

prudent monitoring and reviewing system should be ensured.

Conclusion The 2030 Agenda has opened up the array of challenges in front of the world. At the same time, it offers a unique opportunity for all the countries to glorify the united effort to make the world more prosperous and sustainable. It is the commitment to “leaving no one behind,” and hence, it is of utmost importance to hold all the hands under strong and broad-based partnerships. A thorough analysis of the context, identification of the challenges, and adoption of innovative multidimensional cooperation framework are what we needed to attain the success toward a sustainable world by 2030. It is evident that the process of conquering the complex challenges may not be easy; however, adopting a well-designed integrated approach through a series of MLCs would boost up our efficacy to win this battle.

Cross-References ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

References Acharya A, Johnston AI (2007) Comparing regional institutions: an introduction. In: Crafting cooperation: Regional international institutions in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–31 Adams B, Dayringer S (2018) Where next for the United Nations Development System?. Global Policy Forum. New York, USA Anbumozhi V (2015) Low carbon green growth in Asia: What is the Scope for Regional Cooperation?. ERIA discussion paper series, no. 2015-29. Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), Jakarta

757

Baldwin RE, Venables AJ (1995) Regional economic integration. In: Handbook of international economics, 3. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1597–1644 Baumann MO (2016) Reforming the UN development system: Can North and South overcome their political differences in making the UN fit for purpose? Discussion paper 14/2016. German Development Institute, Bonn Dietrich S (2013) Bypass or engage? Explaining donor delivery tactics in foreign aid allocation. Int Stud Q 57(4):698–712 ECOSOC (2016) Re-engineering development cooperation institutions to deliver on the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Development cooperation forum policy briefs (March 2016, no. 16). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York Fernandez R, Portes J (1998) Returns to regionalism: an analysis of nontraditional gains from regional trade agreements. World Bank Econ Rev 12(2):197–220 G20 Summit 2016 China (2016) G20 Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, China during 4– 5 September 2016. Published at 2016.g20.org. Hangzhou, China Gupta J (2012) Negotiating challenges and climate change. Clim Pol 12(5):630–644 Helgason KS (2016) The 2030 agenda for sustainable development: recharging multilateral cooperation for the Post-2015 era. Global Pol 7(3):431–440 Janus H, Klingebiel S, Paulo S (2015) Beyond aid: a conceptual perspective on the transformation of development cooperation. J Int Dev 27(2):155–169 Kalirajan K, Zaman KAU, Wijesekere G (2015) Strengthening natural resources management in ASEAN: national and regional imperatives, targets, and opportunities. ERIA discussion paper (no. DP-2015-59). Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia, Jakarta Krugman P (1995) Growing world trade: causes and consequences. Brook Pap Econ Act 1:327–362 Leiderer S (2012) Fungibility and the choice of aid modalities: The red herring revisited. (UNU-Wider Working Paper No. 2012/68). United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research. Helsinki, Finland OECD (2014). Development co-operation report 2014: mobilising resources for sustainable development. The organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) Paris: OECD Publishing OECD (2016) Dispelling the myths of triangular co-operation – evidence from the 2015 OECD survey. Author, Paris OECD/DAC (2016) DAC high-level meeting Communiqué. Retrieved 25 Jan 2018 from http:// www.oecd.org/dac/DACHLM-Communique-2016.pdf Rudolph A (2017) The concept of SDG-sensitive development cooperation. The concept of SDG-Sensitive Development Cooperation implications for OECD-

M

758 DAC members. Discussion paper 1/2017. German Development Institute, Bonn Sapir A (2011) European integration at the crossroads: a review essay on the 50th anniversary of Bela Balassa’s theory of economic integration. J Econ Lit 49(4):1200–1229 Schiff M, Winters LA (2002) Regional cooperation, and the role of international organizations and regional integration. World Bank policy research working paper 2872. World Bank, Trade, Development Research Group, Washington, DC Toussaint E (2004) What future for the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO? Reform the UN?. Seminar conducted for the UN in Padua, Italy during 19–20th November 2004 UN (2015a) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/70/1. United Nations. Author, New York. Retrieved 12 Jan 2018 from https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ 21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Devel opment%20web.pdf UN (2015b) Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 67/226 on the quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system (QCPR): 2016. Report of Secretary General, 28 December 2015. Development Cooperation Policy Branch Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations UNDP (2018) Frequently Asked Questions. South-South and Triangular Cooperation. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://www.undp. org/content/dam/undp/library/Poverty%20Reduction/ Development%20Cooperation%20and%20Finance/ SSC_FAQ%20v1.pdf

Multi-partner Governance

Multispecies Livelihoods: Partnering for Sustainable Development and Biodiversity Conservation Bastian Thomsen1,2,3 and Jennifer Thomsen2 1 University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 2 Boise State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 3 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Definition Two key definitions are relevant to the context of this chapter. The first, “multispecies livelihoods,” refers to human and nonhuman animals possessing equal rights to (co)exist and to secure life’s provisions in a way that does not violate another’s, with the exception of self-security or sustenance hunting. The second key definition is “sustainable development” which indicates meeting socioeconomic, sociopolitical, sociocultural, or socioenvironmental development needs in a sustainable manner.

Introduction

Multi-partner Governance ▶ Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making

Multi-sector ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development

Multisectoral Partnership ▶ Tripartite Partnerships: Promoting Sustainable Consumption in the Context of Brazil

Earth has entered its sixth major species extinction phase in what geologists call the Anthropocene (Crutzen 2002, 2016), unique for being the first time a single species’ activities, humans (Homo sapiens), have direly altered the planet’s geological structure (Adelman 2018). This climate emergency demands immediate action if biodiversity is to be conserved, as more than 60% of the world’s wildlife has died off in the last 50 years (Grooten and Almond 2018). Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are vulnerable, and species’ extinction rates are accelerating. The United Nations has deemed 2021–2030 the decade of ecological restoration, and if the climate emergency is not addressed immediately, the effects of surpassing a 2.0° celsius global temperature increase may result in irreversible damage to ecosystems, and halt or even reverse the

Multispecies Livelihoods

achievements of the UN millennium and subsequent sustainable development goals. Effective policy must be implemented and carried out at all levels of government, in the private sector, in nongovernmental organizations, and at the grassroots level. However, human agency – for better or worse – will ultimately determine if the climate emergency can be curbed to save and repair ecosystems, and the various species that inhabit them. This chapter argues that individuals and small- to medium-sized for-profit and nonprofit social enterprises have the agency to embrace a multispecies livelihoods approach to foster biodiversity conservation and sustainable development simultaneously. By partnering together with likeminded individuals and organizations, it may not be too late to stave off or even reverse the worst effects brought on by the Anthropocene. Examples of such partnerships are emphasized throughout the chapter to provide a small sample of the conservation work being performed globally, and organizations’ names are italicized. This chapter is structured in four thematic sections, followed by a conclusion. Section one “Biodiversity Conservation” presents an overview of three key elements necessary to foster species existence: habitat restoration and preservation, connectivity corridors, and rewilding native species into their former habitats to promote ecological restoration. Section two “Wildlife–Human Conflict and Coexistence” discusses the sociocultural and socioeconomic factors that often generate conflict between humans and other species, as well as steps that can be taken to reduce conflict. It also presents the potential that traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) from various indigenous cultures may have in restoring ecosystems. Section three “Sustainable Development” presents existing alternative and sustainable livelihoods approaches, as well as nature-based economic livelihoods that have shown promise for developing ecologically mindful pathways for human economic activity. Section four “Multispecies Livelihoods” discusses global issues such as the illegal wildlife trade, the potential of wildlife ecotourism to educate humans on the importance of protecting wildlife and ecosystems and culminates with various models of wildlife

759

ecotourism. The chapter concludes with suggestions for how a multispecies livelihoods approach, and in particular wildlife ecotourism, may provide humans the opportunity to partner to promote wildlife–human coexistence in hopes of addressing the climate emergency at the grassroots level.

Biodiversity Conservation The primary driver to conserve biodiversity is to not only save species from extinction, but to maintain variability within and between species (Gaston and Spicer 2013). This approach provides secondary benefits as species also affect the ecosystems that they inhabit and can trigger positive and negative effects through a process called trophic cascades (Newsome and Ripple 2015). However, while it is important to protect natural habitats from human land or sea development activities as much as possible, humans are animals and are an influential component in ecosystems. The Euro-American separation model reinforced anthropocentric assumptions, particularly in the social sciences and in practice, that sought to remove humans from “nature” (Descola and Pálsson 1996). By “distancing” humans from other species, power can be asserted over nonhuman plants and animals resulting in habitat degradation in a myriad of ways. Some examples include unsustainable natural resource extraction (e.g., timber harvesting, clearing rainforest for cattle ranching, etc.), and wildlife management practices that favor industry over nonhuman species (e.g., hunting, farming, fracking, etc.). Although negative sociocultural and socioeconomic-based attitudes towards wildlife persist, anthropocentric attitudes of human exceptionalism are beginning to change for the better (Wilkie 2015; Bull et al. 2017). The post-humanist “animal turn” over the past 30 years presents new opportunities for research and to consider how animals, including humans, interact and depend on one another (Ritvo 2007). The following subsections provide thematic examples of biodiversity conservation research that has begun to shed light on the

M

760

assemblages that make up earth’s ecosystems, and the necessary conditions to preserve them. Land Connectivity Continental land connectivity that creates wildlife corridors is critical for long-term ecological sustainability for migratory species and the various ecosystems they inhabit. For example, large carnivores can travel up to tens of kilometers per day in search for food, breeding partners, viable habitats, etc. (Bowers and McKnight 2012; Keeley et al. 2018). Biodiversity fragmentation attributed to human encroachment (e.g., urban sprawl, natural resource extraction, etc.) may have dire consequences for human and nonhuman animals species alike. Ramifications from habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation include declines in species richness, infectious disease emergence, and zoonotic transmission (Bennett 1999; Wilkinson et al. 2018). Efforts to enact sustainable conservation management are affected by sociocultural, socioeconomic, sociopolitical, geographical, and financial factors that present unique challenges around the globe. It is vital to protect remaining habitats, restore degraded ecosystems, and proactively plan for increased urbanization and population growth that will further put pressure on biological ecoregions if nothing changes (McDonald et al. 2008). Habitat Restoration and Preservation The optimal model for reducing biodiversity fragmentation risk is to prevent habitat degradation from occurring. Organizations such as Nature and Culture International, with the help of their donors, have purchased land and worked with local indigenous communities to enforce their legal rights. They have collaborated to protect more than 20 million acres in reserves, ten million acres in biospheres, and 28 indigenous communities in Mexico and various countries in South America. Land is typically purchased strategically in areas of “divide” in an effort to connect habitats such as reserves. Though it is easier to set aside land tracts for protection from human degradation activities like extractive mining or fracking, it can be an expensive endeavor (Nature and Culture International 2019).

Multispecies Livelihoods

Environmental policies and laws, coupled with cooperative efforts between human stakeholders to manage biodiversity conservation, are often cheaper and at times more effective. Scotland established its second national park, Cairngorms National Park, in 2003 and human stakeholder groups cooperate through shared governance. Private property, large estates, governmental lands, and charitable organizations all own and operate lands within the park. Policies and laws delineate powers, but inhabitants and visitors alike navigate quotidian life to balance cultural heritage practices of hunting, with biodiversity conservation and wildlife ecotourism (Cairngorms National Park Authority 2020). Other key habitat preservation and restoration efforts are occurring internationally. Key partners of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030 include the Convention on Biological Diversity, Global Landscapes Forum, International Union for Conservation of Nature, UN Convention to Combat Desertification, and UNECE. Rewilding Attempts to redress biodiversity fragmentation risk and ecological degradation persist through the reintroduction of once native species, often keystone species and apex predators, through a process called rewilding (Soulè and Noss 1998; Foreman 2004). These species’ restoration efforts have been championed for their believed ability to create trophic cascades that affect the recruitment of flora (plants) and fauna (animals), regulate ungulate populations, and for changing ungulate behavior (Ripple and Beschta 2012; Navarro and Pereira 2015). The reintroduction of the grey wolf (Canis lupus) in the 1995–1996 in Yellowstone National Park, USA, is a prominent example of how rewilding may promote biodiversity conservation and simultaneously provide increased economic activity that considers the welfare of nonhuman animals. Wildlife ecotourism visitors spent approximately four times the amount that hunters did per day in local economics (Duffield and Neher 1996; Thomsen et al. 2018). Rewilding efforts by individuals, organizations, and governments have continued to expand worldwide. Rewilding Europe is a charitable organization

Multispecies Livelihoods

that promotes reintroduction efforts and nature-based economic activities such as wildlife ecotourism. They partner with smaller grassrootslevel organizations across the continent to provide support, funding, mentorship, and networking opportunities to foster wildlife–human coexistence (Rewilding Europe 2020).

Wildlife–Human Conflict and Coexistence Interaction between humans and wildlife is rapidly increasing as humans develop infrastructure, extract natural resources, and continue to build homes and businesses on land inhabited by nonhuman animals. Potential conflict between humans and wildlife are seemingly inevitable as humans compete with other species for land use (e.g., large carnivores and humans competing for prey or land use for cattle ranching) and at times perceive wildlife as “pests” to be controlled (e.g., bears eating garbage out of neighborhood trash bins). In the worst scenarios, asymmetrical power relations, often driven by special interest groups and not a majority, occur as humans dictate the fate of nonhuman animals through wildlife management (Nie 2001) and policy (Fox and Bekoff 2011). However, these power dynamics may be influenced by preconceived notions of fear (Lappalainen 2019) and security (Lynn 2010). Such issues of fear and security shape human perceptions of wildlife, which can also lead or exacerbate conflict. By considering how sociocultural and socioeconomic factors affect wildlife– human conflict, coupled with traditional ecological knowledge from indigenous communities, wildlife–human coexistence may become a reality if humans learn how to share spaces and resources with other nonhuman animals (Carter and Linnell 2016). Sociocultural Factors Human attitudes towards wildlife develop pluralistically as a person grows from infancy into childhood, and eventually into adulthood. Informal and nonformal modes of cultural transmission occur between generations through a process

761

called enculturation. Through this lifelong learning progression, socialization transpires where a person acquires knowledge about the fluid environmental, social, and cultural processes (e.g., language, technological, socioeconomic, emotional patterns, etc.) that shape the world around them (Wilbert 1976). Enculturation describes a general model for learning about one’s own culture and the sociocultural factors that influence a person’s development. However, human agency suggests that individual’s beliefs, experiences, and unique spacial and temporal dynamics also influence attitudes and perceptions (Scupin 2019). Childhood stories, contemporary art, and media shape quotidian discourse and attitudes about other species that have “real-world” consequences for the species in question. An example includes the popular children’s stories of Beatrix Potter that helped to shape positive attitudes toward the red squirrel’s (Sciurus vulgaris) rewilding in Scotland by the charitable organization Trees for Life (Trees for Life 2020). Negative depictions also persist, where in Euro-American culture stories of “the big bad wolf” (e.g., Little Red Riding Hood, The Boy Who Cried Wolf) castigate the grey wolf into the villain role (Lappalainen 2019). The large carnivore has been seen as a threat to livestock rearing in the western US rangelands, where sociocultural fables helped shape a negative narrative of fear and animosity toward the wolf that contributed to the species’ extirpation in nearly the entire lower 48 states in the USA from the 1880s–1940s (Schultz 1945). Ecological degradation followed as the wolf’s role as an apex predator and keystone species declined. Ungulate population numbers increased, and with intensive livestock grazing, terrestrial ecosystems could not maintain resilience and were ultimately altered as flora welfare deteriorated (Beschta and Ripple 2009). Other examples of negative attitudes exist toward other species deemed as “pests,” where humans perceive a species such as the crow (Corvus) to be a nuisance for stealing corn (Zea mays) from a farmer’s field. Examples can be found in every corner of the globe, particularly when wildlife– human conflict has socioeconomic impacts.

M

762

Socioeconomic Factors Cultural heritage affects socioeconomic activities in many human economic livelihoods from cattle ranching to fishing to coal mining. However, while sociocultural factors influence human attitudes and perceptions, socioeconomic issues forefront human sustenance needs that must be accounted for. Poverty, population growth, corruption, and a lack of resources threaten the efforts for biodiversity conservation (Sodhi et al. 2004). These factors are not only present in rural areas with higher wildlife–human interactions and lesser “developed” terrains, but also in urban areas where “urban wildlife” regularly interact with humans (e.g., foxes, birds, rodents, etc.). Species richness and functional diversity can be affected by levels of poverty within cities, the collective value that humans afford wildlife, and whether or not urban planning considers green spaces that foster connectivity and biodiversity beyond biological gradient scales (Kinzig et al. 2005). Perhaps surprisingly, economic inequality as measured by the Gini ratio has shown that human economic inequality may be the best predictor for biodiversity loss. This suggests that biodiversity conservation and human economic livelihoods should be equally considered when attempting to ameliorate the effects of the Anthropocene (Mikkelson et al. 2007).

Multispecies Livelihoods

management, landscape patchiness, succession management, and ecological resilience (Berkes et al. 2000). However, it is erroneous and even dangerous to assume that all indigenous groups or people share a collective worldview about nature and humans’ place within it. Nonetheless, TEK often provides insights into how to coexist with other species and manage lands equitably to promote sustainable biodiversity conservation and management. An example of how TEK can be employed is that of T.E.C.K.nology Indigenous Corporation, based in Bundaberg, Queensland, Australia. The indigenous Australian company implements TEK along with cultural knowledge to assist local municipal governments with animal control issues, native animal capture and relocation services, conduct native bee research and commercialization as well as on native plants, and utilizes modern technology such as flying drones to survey landscapes (T.E.C.K.nology Indigenous Corporation 2020). Indigenous TEK deserves greater consideration in biodiversity conservation efforts and may hold promising solutions for sustainable development that considers sociocultural, socioeconomic, and socioecological factors equally.

Sustainable Development Traditional Ecological Knowledge Indigenous groups proffer alternative sources for knowledge, attitudes, and perspectives about how humans manage and interact with ecosystems and the species that inhabit them, known as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). This knowledge embodies the relationship between humans and the environment acquired by humans over thousands of years but has only become popular in ecological studies since the 1980s (Berkes 1993). It is essential to recognize and integrate perspectives outside of predominant Euro-American worldviews in the contemporary geopolitical world order, particularly related to human-environment studies. Indigenous practices could be especially helpful at the local level, as the literature overwhelmingly proposes co-adaptive approaches to multispecies

The 2015–2030 United Nations sustainable development goals (UNSDGs) (Keesstra et al. 2016), build upon the mostly successful 2000–2015 UN millennium development goals (UNMDGs) (Szekeres 2012). The UNSDGs expanded from 8 to 17 goals in an attempt to improve issues affecting the poorest persons in the world, or commonly known as the base of the pyramid (McWilliams et al. 2017). The goals range from environmental concerns to poverty reduction, to universal education, and improved health. This practical attempt at redressing the cycle of poverty that includes poor income, health, and education (Brundtland Commission 1987; Barrientos and Hulme 2016; Noguera 2011) should foster socioeconomic development and biodiversity conservation simultaneously.

Multispecies Livelihoods

Alternative/Sustainable Livelihoods Development frameworks in the twentieth century predominantly focused on economic activities as a pathway out of poverty. Underlying issues of education, health, and environmental concerns demonstrated that sustainable development is a complex issue that demands a holistic approach. The sustainable livelihoods approach became progressively important, as it attempts to amalgamate access to livelihood resources and strategies. This approach typically focuses not just on economic issues but on human capital, social capital, and natural factors (Scoones 1998). It has been championed for focusing on people and their livelihoods, rather than just profits in organizational and institutional contexts. It has the potential to influence policy decisions at various scales (Carney 2003), although at times the approach is criticized for being too anthropocentric (Adelman 2018). Nonetheless, sustainable livelihoods frameworks remain popular in practice (Laeis and Lemke 2016), and where equitable naturebased economic livelihoods are considered biodiversity conservation may proliferate. Nature-Based Economic Livelihoods Nature-based solutions to rehabilitate or restore landscapes while also providing human economic livelihoods are gaining traction in practice. However, they need wider acceptance and scalable frameworks to become transformative. These practices include rewilding and wildlife ecotourism, organic farming, wetland construction, sediment trapping, and land restoration, among others (Keesstra et al. 2018). This form of sustainable livelihoods is perhaps most effective when concentrated at the local level where nature-based ecotourism and community-based natural resource management are implemented as complementary strategies (Gronau et al. 2017). Gaining “buy-in” from local citizens for naturebased solutions and sustainable economic livelihoods at the community level is vital. Anyone can speak about the importance of coexisting with wildlife but is the people in these contact areas that have to live with and co-adapt with wildlife. A multispecies livelihoods approach that considers the welfare for all species may help in the

763

quest to conserve biodiversity and promote partnerships for sustainable development.

Multispecies Livelihoods All species have the right to exist, yet humans wield a disproportionate amount of power over planetary flora and fauna (Thomsen et al. 2020). For example, seemingly harmless human consumer choices amalgamate to create significant waste, such as choosing plastic grocery bags over bringing reusable ones. However, more nefarious actions exist that include high demand for the illegal wildlife trade, which is an estimated six billion US dollar black market (Warchol 2004). If habitat loss or degradation and a changing climate were not severe enough, thousands of animals are hunted, poached, and trafficked for reasons ranging from consumption, to forced enclosure, and for their parts as a component of nonscientific-based “traditional” medicines (Yi-Ming et al. 2000). One of the key drivers of this horrific trade is that international laws and penalties are paltry, where the economic reward is much greater than the risk resulting in potentially lucrative windfalls (Ayling 2013). Nonetheless, there are human actors who attempt to rescue animals in distress, and when successful, victims are either released into the wild or provided shelter in various sanctuaries, zoos, or reserves. These individuals and organizations may also ethically benefit financially for their efforts through animal welfare–centered wildlife ecotourism. Though the illegal wildlife trade is only one of several ways organizations acquire distressed animals, ethical wildlife ecotourism may provide an optimal pathway for multispecies livelihoods, sustainable development, and biodiversity conservation. These organizations educate other humans about species and the importance of biodiversity, all while generating profits, jobs, and economic activity for local communities around the world. There are various wildlife ecotourism models, and while no particular one is inherently more economically or environmentally successful than another, organizations that invoke one of the following models with a pro-animal centered ethical

M

764

framework may be perceived to provide some of the best possible quality of life for the individual animals in their care. Wildlife Ecotourism Models So, what happens to the animal survivors of human encroachment and inhumane practices? Organizations and researchers have been struggling to address this question for years yet hope remains. The most common wildlife ecotourism models in practice today include sanctuaries, ambassador animals/species, and reserves. Each one with its inherent battle to define “ethical treatment” of its nonhuman inhabitants. Excursion Model

Wildlife sightseeing excursions are an optimal model for wildlife ecotourism that emphasize animal welfare. For profit and nonprofit social enterprises, including charitable organizations, provide tourists an opportunity to potentially view wildlife in their natural habitat. This not only respects nonhuman animal’s agency and autonomy, but also provides a chance for humans to become educated about a given species, and ideally promotes wildlife–human coexistence. Costs and experiences range dramatically around the globe at different financial price points, but even seemingly privileged excursions for the financially wealthiest of earth’s human inhabitants can provide economic benefits for local communities. It is also unique as a business model where paying consumers are not typically guaranteed to see the species that they are paying to view. Other popular models, outlined below, tend to focus on animals who have been negatively impacted by human contact and require human assistance to survive. Sanctuary Model

Wildlife sanctuaries are organizations that attempt to preserve as much of the animal’s natural environment as possible, but also provide protection for those that cannot be released back into the wild due to a myriad of reasons. These include significant injury, being born in captivity, or if chances of survival in the wild are too low. Each sanctuary falls on a spectrum of how much it will allow visitors to interact with these animals based on

Multispecies Livelihoods

beliefs regarding what defines their ethical treatment. For example, Wolf Haven International in Washington, USA, limits human–animal interactions to distance-based observation, even though the wolves and coyotes (Canis latrans) in their care will not be re-released into the wild. Visitor groups are limited during each tour around the sanctuary, instructions are given to stay within the group, and tourists are asked to speak quietly throughout the experience to not stress the animals. A visitor is allowed to approach an enclosure, but the animal has a structure approximately two meters from the fence, further distancing the observer and nonhuman animal to maintain respect, welfare, and safety (Wolf Haven International 2020). Animal Ambassador Model

Ambassadors are animals that have been deemed unfit to survive in the wild and are, to a certain degree, domesticated to interact with and educate humans in a relatively safe manner about a given species. One example of this is the Shadowland Foundation in Los Angeles County, California. Shadowland designed an educational program and hold frequent sessions aimed at educating humans about wolves, their behaviors, and explain why they are important to ecosystems. Visitors are allowed to interact with the wolves in an attempt to mitigate some of the strong cultural stigmas affecting the lives of wolves (Shadowland Foundation 2020). Other models of ambassador animals involve an animal traveling to primary and secondary schools or other human gathering places with the similar goal of increasing scientific education and challenging cultural or historical norms and beliefs. For instance, Rojo the Llama, Oregon, USA’s famous therapy llama, spent 12 years traveling to schools and nursing homes to spread education regarding llamas, while aiming to bring happiness and joy to those he interacted with (MTN Peaks Therapy Llamas & Alpacas 2020). Reserves/Parks Model

Much like sanctuaries, reserves are larger land areas dedicated to the protection and promotion of education regarding local species. Popular

Multispecies Livelihoods

examples of this model may include national park systems in the USA or Costa Rica, among other locations. Reserves are more commonly less structured than sanctuaries in that the visitor must explore the natural environment, rather than visit designated enclosures to see the animals. Activities may include hikes to see birds and land animals, or boat wildlife tours in the hopes of viewing marine life such as dolphins, whales, etc. in spatially protected areas. Online/Social Media Hybrid Model

A fairly new hybrid model is emerging between ambassador animals and sanctuaries that are promoted through social media accounts. This is where a person, organization, or a small group of people dedicate their homes or another land to rescue and then further protect a select few animals. These “influencers” utilize their social media platform (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube) to educate others about that species. The Dean Schneider Foundation, for example, is comprised of a small team of individuals based in South Africa who purchased land to raise four lions (Panthera leo) and two hyenas (Hyaenidae), rescued from the illegal, yet prominent, exotic animal trade. Dean himself posts daily videos of the animals eating, playing, and engaging in other typical behaviors under the desire to educate people to “love these animals for what they are rather than what we want them to be.” Although he and his team work with several species of animals, their main purpose is to shed light on illegal activities and advocate for misunderstood animals (Dean Schneider Foundation 2020). In another example, “@Juniperfoxx” has amassed nearly three million followers. Jessika Coker rescued Juniper, along with two other red foxes (Vulpes vulpes fulvus), an opossum (Didelphimorphia), a few snakes (Serpentes), and other reptiles (Reptilia). She is an advocate against the fur trade, which is still rampant in many parts of the world including the USA and Canada. All three foxes were saved from this fate and live in her home. “Followers” get to experience daily interactions within the “pack” as well as glean information regarding fox behavior. Followers also receive information

765

regarding the conditions that these animals are subjected to prior to their deaths. She consistently clarifies that foxes are not pets; however, due to generational captivity, these “fur foxes” may have lost many of their instinctual drives that would protect and allow them to survive in the wild (Trut et al. 2009). Jessika is candid regarding the challenges behind living in a home with a “hybrid” domesticated animal. She provides these examples to strengthen her advisement against interfering with a wild animal’s livelihood and taking “wild” animals on as pets, but rather encourages humans who find a distressed animal to reach out to a local, specialized, rescue organization for appropriate care (JuniperFoxx 2020). Another example includes career wildlife rehabilitators Susan Kowalczik, Jim Kowalczik, and Kerry Clair who formed the Orphaned Wildlife Center in New York, USA, a dedicated rescue for local bears that cannot be re-released into the wild. They have a strict “no visitor interaction” policy for the safety of both humans and the animals, but routinely post videos of them playing or going about their daily activities. They adopted an educational program aimed at extending knowledge about bears (Ursidae) as well as the center’s current inhabitants that includes several species. The Center also accepts local wildlife to rehabilitate and release as appropriate, such as orphaned squirrels (Sciuridae), ducks (Anas platyrhynchos), deer (Cervidae), and rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Although interaction with these animals is kept at a minimum, videos allow the viewer to safely follow each individual animal’s rehabilitation progress and the staffs’ efforts to save them (Orphaned Wildlife Center 2020). In each of these models, there is an underlying force of protecting and providing a quality life for the animal survivors of human encroachment, inhumane practices, and injury. Although each model has critics regarding best practices in the minutia of daily operations, the primary focus of ethical operators concerns animal welfare and the promotion of human education to facilitate a greater drive to protect wildlife and coexist.

M

766

Multispecies Livelihoods

Conclusion

Cross-References

This chapter presented a variety of complex issues that may inhibit sustainable development and biodiversity. In section one, “Biodiversity Conservation,” land connectivity, and wildlife corridors, habitat restoration and preservation, and rewilding discussed the socioenvironmental factors relevant to ameliorating the effects of the Anthropocene. Section two presented the sociocultural and socioeconomic factors that affect human perceptions and attitudes towards wildlife and natural habitat, along with TEK to discuss the present state and of wildlife–human conflict and the potential to redress it. In Section three, “Sustainable Development,” alternative and sustainable livelihoods, and nature-based economic livelihoods described efforts to alleviate poverty and its effects. Though progress has occurred, previous approaches to sustainable development and biodiversity conservation arguably remain anthropocentric and foster a pluralistic approach to addressing species extinction. The final section, “Multispecies Livelihoods,” argued for an integrated approach contending that all species have a right to exist. Only by partnering together – between human stakeholders and between humans and wildlife – can scalable nature-based solutions to the climate emergency be enacted. The organizations presented in this chapter highlight various attempts and models for wildlife–human coexistence. It is imperative that conservation work is amplified, that wildlife education is promoted, and that key partners collaborate effectively to create sustainable change to conserve biodiversity and promote sustainable development. The multispecies livelihoods framework advocates for a sustainable livelihoods approach that emphasizes nonhuman animal welfare. By itself, wildlife ecotourism will not generate the immediate and sustained change to halt the climate emergency, the Anthropocene. However, when combined with education, policy, and sustainable livelihoods, the multispecies livelihoods approach may serve as an optimal model for considering how to promote wildlife–human coexistence – before it is too late.

▶ Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence

References Adelman S (2018) The sustainable development goals, anthropocentrism and neoliberalism. In: Sustainable development goals. Edward Elgar Publishing Ayling J (2013) What sustains wildlife crime? Rhino horn trading and the resilience of criminal networks. J Int Wildlife Law Policy 16(1):57–80 Barrientos A, Hulme D (eds) (2016) Social protection for the poor and poorest: concepts, policies and politics. Springer Bennett AF (1999) Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. No. 1. IUCN Berkes F (1993). Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases, 1. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10(5):1251–1262 Beschta RL, Ripple WJ (2009) Large predators and trophic cascades in terrestrial ecosystems of the western United States. Biol Conserv 142(11):2401–2414 Bowers K, McKnight M (2012) Reestablishing a healthy and resilient North America – linking ecological restoration with continental habitat connectivity. Ecol Restor 30(4):267–270 Brundtland Commission (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford Bull J, Holmberg T, Åsberg C (eds) (2017) Animal places: lively cartographies of human-animal relations. Routledge Cairngorms National Park Authority (2020) About the authority. Retrieved August 14, 2020, from https:// cairngorms.co.uk/working-together/authority/about/ Carney D (2003) Sustainable livelihoods approaches: progress and possibilities for change. Department for International Development, London Carter NH, Linnell JDC (2016) Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol Evol 31(8):575–578 Crutzen PJ (2002) The “Anthropocene”. J Physique IV (Proceedings) 12(10):1–5. EDP sciences Crutzen PJ (2016) Geology of mankind. In: Paul J. Crutzen: A Pioneer on atmospheric chemistry and climate change in the Anthropocene. Springer, Cham, pp 211–215 Dean Schneider Foundation (2020) Foundation. Retrieved 14 Aug 2020, from https://www.deanschneider.com/ foundation/ Descola P, Pálsson G (eds) (1996) Nature and society: anthropological perspectives. Taylor & Francis

Multispecies Livelihoods Duffield JW, Neher CJ (1996) Economics of wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park. In: Transactions of the north American wildlife and natural resources conference, vol 61. Wildlife Management Institute, pp 285–292 Foreman D (2004) Rewilding North America: a vision for conservation in the 21st century. Island Press Fox CH, Bekoff M (2011) Integrating values and ethics into wildlife policy and management – lessons from North America. Animals 1(1):126–143 Gaston KJ, Spicer JI (2013) Biodiversity: an introduction. Wiley Gronau S, Winter E, Grote U (2017) Modelling naturebased tourism impacts on rural development and conservation in Sikunga conservancy, Namibia. Dev South Afr 34(3):276–294 Grooten M, Almond REA (2018) Living planet report–2018: aiming higher. WWF, Gland, pp 22–100 JuniperFoxx (2020) JuniperFoxx. Retrieved 14 August 2020, from https://www.juniperfoxx.com/ Keeley ATH, Basson G, Cameron DR, Heller NE, Huber PR, Schloss CA, Thorne JH, Merenlender AM (2018) Making habitat connectivity a reality. Conserv Biol 32(6):1221–1232 Keesstra SD, Quinton JN, van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Fresco LO (2016) The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations sustainable development goals. Soil 2(2):111 Keesstra S, Nunes J, Novara A, Finger D, Avelar D, Kalantari Z, Cerdà A (2018) The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 610:997–1009 Kinzig AP, Warren P, Martin C, Hope D, Katti M (2005) The effects of human socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecol Soc 10(1) Laeis GCM, Lemke S (2016) Social entrepreneurship in tourism: applying sustainable livelihoods approaches. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 28:1076 Lappalainen K (2019) Recall of the fairy-tale wolf: “little red riding Hood” in the dialogic tension of contemporary wolf politics in the US west. Interdiscip Stud Lit Environ 26:744 Lynn WS (2010) Discourse and wolves: science, society, and ethics. Soc Anim 18(1):75–92 McDonald RI, Kareiva P, Forman RTT (2008) The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 141(6):1695–1703 McWilliams A, Shrader RC, Van Fleet DD (2017) Rethinking the base of the pyramid: social responsibility, sustainability and the role of entrepreneurs. In: volume 3: Sustainability, Ethics, and Entrepreneurship, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. Mikkelson GM, Gonzalez A, Peterson GD (2007) Economic inequality predicts biodiversity loss. PLoS One 2(5) MTN Peaks Therapy Llamas & Alpacas (2020) Rojo the Llama – Mtn Peaks Therapy Llamas & Alpacas. Retrieved 14 Aug 2020, from http://rojothellama.com/ rojo-the-llama/

767 Nature and Culture International (2019) Our Process. Retrieved 14 Aug 2020, from https://natureandculture. org/our-process/ Navarro LM, Pereira HM (2015) Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. In: Rewilding European landscapes. Springer, Cham, pp 3–23 Newsome TM, Ripple WJ (2015) A continental scale trophic cascade from wolves through coyotes to foxes. J Anim Ecol 84(1):49–59 Nie MA (2001) The sociopolitical dimensions of wolf management and restoration in the United States. Hum Ecol Rev 8(1):1–12 Noguera PA (2011) A broader and bolder approach uses education to break the cycle of poverty. Phi Delta Kappan 93(3):8–14 Orphaned Wildlife Center (2020) About. Retrieved 14 Aug 2020, from http://orphanedwildlife.org/About Rewilding Europe (2020) Our story. Retrieved 14 Aug 2020, from https://rewildingeurope.com/our-story/ Ripple WJ, Beschta RL (2012) Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: the first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biol Conserv 145(1):205–213 Ritvo H (2007) On the animal turn. Daedalus 136(4):118–122 Schultz AH (1945) Q Rev Biol 20(1):93. http://ezproxyprd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk:2084/stable/2809032 Scoones I (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS working paper, 72. IDS, Brighton Scupin R (2019) Cultural anthropology: a global perspective, SAGE, Incorporated Shadowland Foundation (2020) Wolf sanctuary. Retrieved 14 Aug 2020, from http://www.shadowlandfoundation. org/about-1.html Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Brook BW, Ng PKL (2004) Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends Ecol Evol 19(12):654–660 Soulè M, Noss R (1998) Rewilding and biodiversity as complementary goals for continental conservation. Wild Earth, Fall 8:22 Szekeres D (2012) United Nations millennium development goals. Jura: a Pecsi Tudomanyegyetem Allam-es Jogtudomanyi Karanak tudomanyos lapja, p 198 T.E.C.K.nology Indigenous Corporation (2020) Home. Retrieved 14 Aug 2020, from https://www. tecknology.org.au/ Thomsen B, Muurlink O, Best T (2018) The political ecology of university-based social entrepreneurship ecosystems. J Enterp Communities 12:199 Thomsen B, Thomsen J, Copeland K, Coose S, Arnold E, Bryan H, Prokop K, Cullen K, Vaughn C, Rodriguez B, Muha R, Arnold N, Winger H, Chalich G (2020) Multispecies livelihoods: wildlife ecotourism as a mechanism for sustainable development and biodiversity conservation? Working paper, Oxford, UK Trees for Life (2020) Red squirrel reintroduction project. Retrieved 14 Aug 2020, from https://treesforlife.org. uk/about-us/red-squirrel-reintroduction-project/ Trut L, Oskina I, Kharlamova A (2009) Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model. BioEssays 31(3):349–360

M

768 Warchol GL (2004) The transnational illegal wildlife trade. Crim Justice Stud 17(1):57–73 Wilbert J (1976) Enculturation in Latin America: an anthology, vol 37. UCLA Latin American Center Publications, University of California, Los Angeles Wilkie R (2015) Multispecies scholarship and encounters: changing assumptions at the human-animal nexus. Sociology 49(2):323–339 Wilkinson DA, Marshall JC, French NP, Hayman DTS (2018) Habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss and the risk of novel infectious disease emergence. J R Soc Interface 15(149):20180403 Wolf Haven International (2020) About Us. Retrieved 14 Aug 2020, from https://wolfhaven.org/about-us/ Yi-Ming L, Gao Z, Xinhai L, Wang S, Niemelä J (2000) Illegal wildlife trade in the Himalayan region of China. Biodivers Conserv 9(7):901–918

Multistakeholder Initiatives ▶ Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals

Multi-stakeholder Partnerships ▶ Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy ▶ Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development Through International Volunteering ▶ Systemic Issues and Multi-stakeholders Partnerships for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy Md Nurul Momen Department of Public Administration, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

Synonyms Decision-making; Governance; Multi-stakeholder partnerships; Public policy; Stakeholder

Multistakeholder Initiatives

Definition Multi-stakeholder partnership is a new form of partnership governance structure that brings different actors such as civil society, governments, international bodies, media, and academic or research institutions for sharing experience, information, technologies, and financial resources working toward a common solution. Public policy is a set of ideas or plan adopted and pursued by a government.

Introduction Multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) are generally defined as a collaborative form of governance (Rasche 2012) and considered as a new policy trend in the process of governance (Menashy 2017). In the last two decades, MSP has become an important element that affects policy decision-making and action on global development issues (Biekart and Fowler 2018). MSP is basically about participatory decision-making where all involved actors take ownership of all stages of decision-making; given the context, there is the likelihood that public policy could be inclusive, consensus-oriented, and more successful in their implementation stage. However, it is plain to see that no one actor across the sectors in the society has the monopoly on information, resources, and expertise to guide the public policy process. However, the entry is to discuss the concept of MSP and how it takes to shape and change public policy. There has been a common understanding within the academics, policy makers, and practitioners by pointing out that MSP is a special form of organizational structure that includes both public and private across the sectors (Selsky and Parker 2010). In the same tune, it is operationalized as partnership governance structure incorporating mainly business sectors and civil society organizations (CSOs) that meet together in order to bring a common solution for complex societal problems that affect them all in society (Rasche 2012). It is highlighted the widespread perspective that partnership

Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy

governance structure can address complex societal problems by contributing to systemic change in society (Waddell et al. 2015). Clarke and MacDonald (2019) illustrates that large MSPs that build capacity by developing the diverse ideas and perspectives and resources of different actors across the sectors are becoming an increasingly popular approach, as partnership governance structure addresses complex social issues and challenges. MSP brings a number of stakeholders to address wicked public policy problems that are complicated in nature and highly complex to explain and to solve its problems (Rittel and Webber 1973). When it comes to operationalize the MSP, it remains hard to precisely define due to high contesting nature of the topic. Having reviewed the existing literature, it reveals that there is no universal understanding in defining MSP, but many social scientists explained the notion about the relationships between government actors and nongovernment actors and relate the term as a “victory” for civil society organizations (CSOs) that satisfies the principle of societal ownership rather than government ownership (Biekart and Fowler 2018). Evidently, MSP has developed as an institution of cooperation because of the importance of mobilizing public and private actors (Engberg-Pedersen 2014) in public policy process, as it promotes participatory approach in governance which encourages a dialogue between public and private actors. These approaches of MSP improve the quality of decision-making in public policy process and explore the possible courses of action needed for its successful implementation. MSP provides a better understanding of a complex public policy through interacting with other stakeholders for the purpose of gaining knowledge and resources. It is stressed that partnership focuses on the joint problem-solving approach, which addresses complex policy problems by contributing to systemic changes in public policy (Waddock et al. 2015). It is further argued that the existing hierarchical relationship between public and private actors has been changed; in the past, public actor, i.e., government, always acted as the “subject of control,”

769

while private actors were considered as the “object of control,” but this process of governance and the relationship about the control have been shifted and reduced across the world (Nicole & Olga 2011). The question may come up: Why does the notion of MSP emerge in public policy? Replying to it, the author argues that the idea of MSP is required against the challenges in a complex public policy environment; however, the important concern is to pursue a shared vision and maintain different perspectives by all the participating stakeholders for solving critical policy challenges. MSP is developed in a situation of policy crisis, when centralized and hierarchical nature of public policy process is no longer supportive for a sound public policy and its implementation. Given the scenario, it is argued that MSP can be effective in properly identifying the agenda for public policy and supporting the lasting solutions in complex large-scale public policy problems (World Bank 2014). MSP aims to solve complex public policy problems through collective action, for instance, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative, the Open Government Partnership, and the Open Contracting Partnership adopt MSP governance framework for any complex policy decisions (World Bank 2014). In the field of environmental governance at the global level, starting from the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) continuing to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) plan of implementation, it is highlighted the relationship among many actors across the sectors, including the state, international organizations, business sector, social and environmental NGOs, civil society, and other relevant stakeholders that present a common goal for sustainable development (Nancy and Pierre 2004). Hence, MSP is explained in the form of cross-sector sustainable development partnership that promotes innovation, enhances the capacity, and provides resources to support the SDGs (Hazlewood 2015, p. 2).

M

770

For understanding a complex policy problem, full ownership of the state is less likely to succeed, unless there is an opportunity for inclusive and broader societal ownership among the actors (Biekart and Fowler 2018). Hence, MSP model of governance can be considered a key on building the basis of partnership for sustainable development. For a viable and resilient partnership, keeping the challenges in mind, Burger and Mayer (2003, p. 25) stress “respect for the expertise and culture of the other partner(s), transparent and reliable definition of roles, and an ability to engage in dialogue, and openness between the partners.”

Reasons for the Growth in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships Berman (2017) identified three possible issues that triggered to the growth in MSPs and their benefits, such as the continuous failure of the intergovernmental organizations (IOs), the effectiveness of the private actors, and democratic legitimacy. Failure of Traditional IOs. The continuous failure of IOs to deal with the complex societal problems leads to find for a new approach of governance models. For maintaining the requirement of consensus in policy or action, intergovernmental organizations are perceived as failure to produce effective results, thus leading to a loss of confidence to all actors across the sectors (Berman 2017). Apart from that, the growth of neoliberal ideas promoted to bring more effective institutions in governance process. For instance, WHO lost confidence of its program in improving childhood vaccination; therefore the institution adopts the GAVI’s establishment that highlights the openness to civil society (Berman 2017). Effectiveness of the Private Actors. It is highlighted that inputs and suggestions received from private actors enhance capacity that encounter policy problems. Private actors – be it multinational organizations, civic forums, or NGOs – provide resources, expertise, and knowledge that governments depend on formulating

Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy

public policy and its successful implementation. As opposed to the imposition of top-down approach in public policy, the suggestions from the private actors, often in the form of knowledge and skills, are required for agenda-setting in the policy process, and their inclusion also builds up consensus among the actors for the execution of policies. It is highlighted that some civil society organizations operate at the local level and they are in a better position to provide local reflections, thus leading to sound policies and their implementation. Hence, it is argued by saying that as opposed to IOs, partnership governance structure refers to improving capacity, ownership, and consensus among the diverse actors; therefore, it may strengthen management capacity and effective solution to many societal policy problems (Berman 2017). Democratic Legitimacy. Inclusion of diverse stakeholders facilitates democratic legitimacy in the policy process. Traditionally, other actors apart from the government have been considered subsumed within the states due to the adoption or imposition of top-down policy; now it is the responsibility of the state to listen to its citizen’s voices through the representation of diverse actors. However, due to the traditional nature of functions, governments, usually, do not properly represent the voices of citizens and their interests; as a consequence, in most cases, citizens’ affairs are not properly aligned with the adoption of policy. Given the context, it is highlighted that partnership governance structure favors to the voices and interests of the affected community, thus improving the democratic responsiveness of the responsible authority toward those governed. For instance, the World Commission on Dams, a partnership governance structure that assesses environmental and social impact for dam construction project, included affected communities directly in the process, thus improving the capacity and consensus to greater democratic legitimacy (Berman 2017). Who are the Stakeholders? No definition and consensus has yet been established with respect to what constitutes a MSP, but it is clear that it involves both state and non-state actors for pursuing a common goal (German

Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy

Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development 2017). MSP must deal with a key question: Who exactly are the stakeholders? Paine and McCann (2009, p. 4) argue that “A stakeholder is an individual or group with an interest in the success of an organization in fulfilling its mission-delivering intended results and maintaining the viability of its products, services and outcomes over time.” Hazlewood (2015) categorizes MSPs based on the type of policy problems they address. To him, partnership involves a small number of individuals and organizations who come together to address a defined problem within a set of guiding framework. Stakeholders participate in the public policy process in order to achieve desired policy outcomes; however the identification of the appropriate individual or group is an important step in the process. At the national level, MSP is explained in a way that it is the consequences of the integration between public and private actors jointly working in order to achieve common goals in the policy process. On the other hand, in recent years, the demand on transnational cooperation has been increased, as it may easily address contemporary global challenges, such as resultant climate change, political conflicts, refugee problems, absence of financial integrity, contagious diseases, and socioeconomic inequities (Engberg-Pedersen 2014). At the global governance level, for the first time, the importance of MSP was mentioned by the United Nations (UN) Secretary General Kofi Annan in the World Economic Forum in 1999, who pointed out that the UN once dealt with the governments of the member states, but now global peace is not easily attainable without the collaborative efforts of different stakeholders, including national government, global governance institutions, and some other sectors, such as business sector and CSOs (Multipart 2010). However, MSP got a special momentum in world peacekeeping mission, which emerged as an increasingly important “modus operandi” throughout the UN system. MSP for sustainable development was highlighted at the WSSD in Johannesburg in

771

2002, with a view to bridging the gap between multilateral norms and local action through incorporating multiple actors – civil society, government, and business (Bäckstrand 2006). Partnership network has become a method of public policy and its effective management, especially in Western Europe and North America (IUCN 2012). Beyond formal procedure, partnership works in a wide range of the UNaffiliated bodies, multilateral organizations, donor agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (Susskind et al. 2003). It is also recognized as “the most legitimate and effective form available” in the UN as global governance institution (Nicole and Olga 2011). It is noteworthy that UNDP, UNICEF, and WHO affiliated with the UN work in partnership for many years with the national government and private actors, and these UN bodies strongly consider and include partnership approach in their operational strategy in order to achieve their stated goals. However, the question is about the partners who should be included in the public policy process at the national level. Responding to the question, the author argues that government must be the main actor and collaborate with private stakeholder, which can be grouped as civil society organizations, citizens, media, community associations, and NGOs that may have a role in all stages of public policy process which starts from agenda-setting and then proceeds to formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation of policies and related action plans. Now the question is why inclusion of multiple actors in the public policy process should be considered. For critical understanding of agendasetting and policy formulation, the author argues for a deeper insight and understanding of different stakeholders into a complex policy problem. If multiple stakeholders, such as CSOs and media, are unable to demand accountability and transparency of the government for policy decisions and actions made, in that case, public policy must not be on the right track to achieve policy goals. It is of worth to note that stakeholders may come up either as individuals or as a group or organization who influence in a particular policy process. MSP minimize the current “window-

M

772

dressing” approach in public policy which is simply for a mere consultative form of participation (Arnstein 1969). It has been argued that MSP increases participation of different stakeholders in decision-making process, shares perspectives and responsibilities among the partners; transfers decision-making capacities to private actors; and provides responsibilities to the local settings, such as community groups at all stages of public policy process (Arnstein 1969). At the outset, key factors for the success of MSP dialogue are the participation and engagement of CSOs. However, to say that CSOs tend to be effective, when they create public awareness and build public opinion about the proper understanding of public policy and institutions. It also presents dissatisfaction about all forms of misuse of public power and maladministration by facilitating advocacy programs. Scholte (2001) rightly observed that CSOs monitor the implementation and unintended effects of public policies and may put pressure for corrective measures when the consequences are adverse. It is noteworthy that CSOs have strong bases in some countries where there is a deep respect for cultural diversity and pluralism alongside with a sound political culture. On the other hand, with the recent experience in parliamentary democracy in many southern countries, CSOs are found not to have interests in the participatory process of governance (Sobhan 2009). It is argued in many scholarly writings that a sound public policy depends on informed citizens; to this point, Scholte (2001) highlights the role of CSOs that prepare and circulate newsletters, handbooks, audiovisual presentation, and information materials in order to draw attention of the mass media to bring changes in public policy and its actions. CIVICUS (2000) highlights the role of civil society in democratic governance that a strong civil society is considered as an important part of the MSP process of governance in making sound public policy and its successful implementation. CIVICUS (2000) reiterated the cooperation of diverse stakeholders on different spheres of public policy problems, for instance, maintaining relations with other stakeholders; civil society promotes priority agenda for public

Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy

policy and also becomes people’s reliable sources of information with respect to a particular policy. Media also contribute in bringing about qualitative changes in the policy process. When it comes to the role of media as a stakeholder, especially in the transitional democratic countries, state-controlled media (be it print or electronic) cannot play its due role to keep the government accountable for their activities. In other words, state-controlled media always provides a partial political analysis and commentary and offers favorable coverage to incumbent party through sharing one side of policy analysis. However, the recent technological advancement has revolutionized the world of media communication, which was unknown to us (Anderson 2003). Given the context, there are challenges regarding the readership of digital media, as access to online media is still less due to low rate of literacy and low purchasing power of the citizens in developing countries. However, it is stressed that providing critical information to the different stakeholders, media contribute and develop an informed society capable of contributing choices in the policy process (Dev 2012). On the other hand, working with other stakeholders, nongovernment organizations (NGOs) can also support other partners in the public policy process by sharing their first hands-on experience. However, challenges are still observed in transitional democratic countries with respect to NGOs activities, for instance, some NGOs have explicitly political goals to support their authoritarian regime, where democracy has not been established to a full extent (Bouldin 2010). Stakeholder Analysis: Stakeholder analysis is very crucial to develop and manage partnerships in the public policy process. The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Foundation for Development Cooperation (FDC) (2003) explores that there are three different perspectives (e.g., business perspective, public sector perspective and civil society perspective) in society to view the role of MSP. From business perspective, it highlights that no single entity can fulfill the huge expectations about public policy and its courses of action. However, business sector has its potential and competencies to understand

Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy

opportunities for growth and development that support to some groups who are excluded in society. On the other hand, public sector perspective reveals the dual forces between less government control and the demand for democratic decision-making; however, both central government and local government find it difficult to achieve the right balance between their civic duties for sustainable development. However, in order to fulfill the people’s expectations for high-quality and affordable services, public sector perspective highlights public-private partnership, based on the principles of subsidiarity and decentralization approach of the government. It is noteworthy that recently there have been an increased number of government bodies across the world making partnership with business and civil society organizations for developing joint efforts to boost sustainable development. Finally, from civil society perspective, it is pointed out that the size and influence of this “third sector” have been expanded in the last two decades, as it is particularly evident in developed countries, where a substantial amount of social services and advocacy programs are delivered through CSOs. Even in developing countries, many of the development projects funded by development partners are being delivered through CSOs. The question may arise when to need a MSP in the public policy process. It needs specific contexts in order to develop a MSP, and these contexts largely depend on the number of factors, including the nature of a particular policy, scope of opportunity for public-private dialogue, and the regulatory framework (Brown 2008). Brown (2008) also identified some critical issues involved in MSP in the policy process that needs to be dealt with carefully. Among these critical issues involved in MSP cover the categories of stakeholders to be included; strategies to be adopted to avoid exclusion of certain individual, groups, and organization; the approaches how to deal with power dynamics; measures for protecting freedom to each actor; mechanisms of transparency in the process; and accountability for their work. It is also important to explore about what ways and to what extent are they stakeholders? About the inclusion of different stakeholders

773

in the policy process, there are some factors to determine appropriate stakeholders; first of all, it is important to consider whose support is necessary in the process. It is also highlighted that it needs to have some individuals or groups or organizations on board who can bring expertise and resources to the policy process and to consider those actors who have the “right” to be included in the process, because of the fact that they may be affected by the future decisions to be taken (Brown 2008). It is of worth to note that in each partnership is required to develop a boundary role in the MSP process. The boundary shows the relationship among the partners and the ability to influence policy outcomes. To this end, stakeholders are sorted out into different categories based on the nature of public policy problem, differentiating them along the lines of partners whose engagement is critical to achieve positive outcomes in public policy (Nancy and Pierre 2004). Therefore, it needs a detailed plan to ensure participation of each stakeholder in the process. Balanced representation is an important consideration of partnership among the stakeholders. For a better performance of MSP, it must be clearly defined the nature of cooperation, and appropriate mechanisms must be put in place to formulate decision-making and its execution (IUCN 2012). There are challenges that inclusion of stakeholder is neither representative nor balanced in the process. Note that there are a number of analytical and experiential learning strategies that can be used to overcome these challenges. Depending on the objectives of public policy, it could bring diverse actors to accommodate competing interests in the policy process. Malena (2004) provided a framework for the better representation and balanced participation. In order to make a balanced representation in the process, it refers to only to those representatives who have organizational mandate; policy-specific expertise, and compliance with specific values and norms (Malena 2004). After identification of appropriate stakeholders, it is important to engage them in the process in order to use their diversity of knowledge, expertise, and resources. However, it

M

774

is to be noted that MSP process of governance in the public policy can be under threat, if it does not ensure the transparency in practice and contribution of the stakeholders in the process (Nancy and Pierre 2004). So, issues of inclusion, consensus, and participation of stakeholders and transparency in the process will be a significant issue in building trust for legitimacy of MSP. Last but not least, it could be argued that in case of MSP model of governance in public policy, it is important to make sure how the process of inclusion of all stakeholders is managed and their meaningful participation and their level of acceptance in the public policy making process. These issues have also been echoed earlier by the UN Habitat and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (1999) that MSP is generally built upon several phases, including diagnosis, assessment, and stakeholder inventory of a particular policy. The success of MSP needs support from political regime for more participation of multiple actors, joint problem-solving approach for policy development, and integrated monitoring and evaluation system in the process. Hence, with a certain type of complex public policy problems, it is required to integrate the capacities and resources of the government with other nongovernment actors for joint solution for public policy making and determine the plan of action.

Obstacles to Multi-stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs) Partnership governance structure includes the resources of weaker stakeholders, for instance, civil society and NGOs, alongside the traditional actor-government; however, the government is always regarded as a legitimatized and relatively ideal form of governance structure. Despite the advantages, there are some evident challenges with respect to partnership governance structure, for instance, it is very often not found regulatory framework regarding partnership governance at the national level. Therefore, weaker parties, apart from the government, may not equally contribute their knowledge and expertise in the process; as a result, the role of participation

Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy

among the actors is often imbalanced. It is also of worth to note that managing the possible risks of the inclusion of private actors is largely absent. If these issues are not addressed properly, these may reduce the opportunities of partnership governance structure that loses the confidence of democratic legitimacy and undermine its promise. Last but not least, policy initiatives are being taken in the form of partnerships, but it needs to be careful in dealing with these issues and problems, which so far have not received enough consideration in partnership governance structure (Berman 2017).

Conclusion MSP process of governance brings different stakeholders to jointly address complex public policy problem. The more complex a public policy problem is, the greater the need to bring diversity of knowledge and expertise in order to improve the quality of public policy. However, apart from the government, private actors must also be given an equal opportunity to contribute their first hands-on experience and resources to the stages of formulation, implementation, and evaluation of public policy and its courses of action. Toward a sound public policy in the coming days, it is all of the relevant actors that are supposed to be working in partnership in order to get better outcome; sometimes it is claimed that partnership often becomes difficult and time-consuming than working alone. Despite the difficulties, MSP helps in generating new innovation and ideas in public policy and explores development challenges of any public policy and its actions. Due to diversity of knowledge among different stakeholders, it helps to identify what works well and what doesn’t in the policy process.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy

▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development

References Anderson MR (2003) Access to justice and legal process: making legal institutions responsive to poor people in LDCs. IDS working paper no 178. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35(4):216–224. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01944366908977225 Bäckstrand K (2006) Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Eur Environ 16 (5):290–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.425 Berman A (2017) The rise of multistakeholder partnerships. Proc ASIL Annu Meet 111:205–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/amp.2017.19 Biekart K, Fowler A (2018) Ownership dynamics in local multi-stakeholder initiatives. Third World Q 39 (9):1692–1710. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2 018.1450139 Bouldin CE (2010) NGOs and political participation in weak democracies: sub-national evidence on poorest and voter turnout from Bolivia. J Polit 72(2). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990922. Cambridge University Press Brown D (2008, April) Multi-stakeholder processes: lessons for the process of timber verification. Briefing paper. Overseas Development Institute, pp 1– 5. Retrieved from https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/ files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/4480.pdf Burger D, Mayer C (2003) Making Sustainable Development a Reality: The Role of Social and Ecological standards. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zuzammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn CIVICUS (2000) Project proposal: the CIVICUS index on civil society. World Alliance for Citizen Participation. Retrieved from www.civicus.org Clarke A, MacDonald A (2019) Outcomes to partners in multi-stakeholder cross-sector partnerships: a resource-based view. Bus Soc 58(2):298–332. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0007650316660534 Dev RD (2012, May 2) Democratic functions of media. FES Nepal Office. Retrieved from http://www. telegraphnepal.com/views/2012-05-02/nepal:-demo cratic-functions-of-media.html Engberg-Pedersen P (2014) Multi-stakeholder partnerships in Danish development policy: poverty reduction, sustainable development and global public goods. DIIS report, no 2014:27. Danish Institute for

775 International Studies (DIIS), Copenhagen. ISBN 97887-7605-723-7 German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) (2017) Multi-stakeholder partnerships in the context of Agenda 2030. Partnerships 2030, Bonn, p 44 Habitat UN, UNEP (1999) Institutionalising environmental planning and management process, sustainable cities programme. UN Habitat and UNEP, Nairobi Hazlewood P (2015) Global multi-stakeholder partnerships: scaling up public-private collective impact for the SDGs. Background paper 4. World Resources Institute/Independent Research Forum. Retrieved from https://www.irforum.org/sites/default/ files/publications/Retreat%20%236_BP%204_Final% 20for%20website.pdf IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2012) Collaboration and multi-stakeholder dialogue, a review of the literature. Forest Conservation Programme, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Version 1.1, p 18. Retrieved from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/col laboration_and_multi_stakeholder_dialogue.pdf Malena C (2004) Challenges and best practices in the management and governance of multi-stakeholder partnerships involving UN and Civil Society Actors. Background paper prepared by Carmen Malena for the Multi-Stakeholder Workshop on Partnerships and UNCivil Society Relations Pocantico, New York, February 2004 Menashy F (2017) The limits of multistakeholder governance: the case of the global partnership for education and private schooling. Comp Educ Rev 61 (2):240–268. https://doi.org/10.1086/690839 Multipart (2010) Theoretical & methodological framework and guidance for the project, multi-stakeholder partnerships in post-conflict reconstruction: the role of EU. Final report of work packages 2 and 3, the research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme Nancy V, Pierre H (2004, May) Governance and multistakeholder processes. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Manitoba, This paper is a product of the Sustainable Commodity Initiative, a joint venture of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and IISD © 2004 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs Nicole H, Olga M (2011, Jan 16) The multi-stakeholder approach in the United Nations: unprecedented perhaps, but not unexpected. Paper to be presented at “Transnational private regulation in the areas of health, environment, social and labor rights” DRAFT. Retrieved from https://www.wup.wi.tum.de/fileadmin/ w00beh/www/Files/Boehling_TransReg_2011.pdf Paine P, McCann R (2009, September) Engaging stakeholders including parents and the community to sustain improved reading outcomes. Sustainability series no 6, p 4

M

776 Rasche A (2012) Global policies and local practice: loose and tight couplings in multi-stakeholder initiatives. Bus Ethics Q 22(4):679–708. https://doi.org/10.5840/ beq201222444 Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 Scholte JA (2001) Civil society and democracy in global governance. Centre for the Study of Globalization and Regionalization (CSGR), University of Warwick, Coventry Selsky J, Parker B (2010) Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: prospective sensemaking devices for social benefit. J Bus Ethics 94:21–37. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-011-0776-2 Sobhan F (2009) The European Union as a partner in promoting democracy in Bangladesh. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, International IDEA, Stockholm Susskind LE, Fuller BW, Ferenz M, Fairman D (2003) Multistakeholder dialogue at the global scale. Int Negot 8(2):235–266. https://doi.org/10.1163/1571 80603322576121 The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Foundation for Development Cooperation (FDC) (2003) Multistakeholder partnerships, issue paper. Global Knowledge Partnership Secretariat, Kuala Lumpur, pp 1–58

Mutual Understanding Waddell S, Waddock S, Cornell S, Dentoni D, McLachlan M, Meszoely G (2015) Large systems change: an emerging field of transformation and transitions. J Corp Citizsh 58:5–30 Waddock S, Meszoely GM, Waddell S, Dentoni D (2015) The complexity of wicked problems in large scale change. J Organ Chang Manag 28(6):993–1012. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-08-2014-0146 World Bank (2014, September) Increasing the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder initiatives through active collaboration. The World Bank Conference (WP 1314) was held on 2014, April 28–30 in Washington, organized by Wilton Park in partnership with the World Bank and Reos Partners, and with the support of the Transparency and Accountability Initiative and the Hewlett Foundation Retrieved from https://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/WP1314-Report1.pdf

Mutual Understanding ▶ Collective Impact Partnership and Backbone Organizations as Enablers of Children’s WellBeing

N

National Sustainable Development Strategies Saleem Mustafa, Sitti Raehanah M. Shaleh and Abentin Estim Borneo Marine Research Institute, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

Definition Environmental resilience: Minimizing environmental risks associated with disasters and quickly returning critical environmental and ecological services to functionality after a disaster while applying this learning process to reduce vulnerabilities and risks to future incidents (USEPA 2015). Knowledge management: Process of creating, sharing, and effectively using knowledge (Davenport 1994). It is a multidisciplinary approach to achieving the objectives and is particularly more relevant to the complex matter of sustainable development. Social ecology: Study of relationships between people and their environment. It takes a broad, interdisciplinary perspective that gives greater attention to the social, psychological, institutional, and cultural contexts of peopleenvironment relations (Stokols 1992). Synergy: Interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their individual effects. In

the context of the environmental conventions, synergy promotes effective coordination of activities among the implementing institutions at national and local levels (Mouat et al. 2006).

Introduction The term “development” has evolved with time, depending on the needs and priorities of the human societies. Economic growth regarded as key to development since the age of industrialization is giving way to a multidimensional concept encompassing factors that influence the quality of human life (Dennefer and Perimutter 1990). The criteria of sustainability in development were introduced in a meaningful way in 1986, with the Brundtland Report on Our Common Future (WCED 1987). This has seen emergence of sustainable development as the guiding principle for long-term global development. Consisting of three pillars, the sustainable development seeks to achieve economic development, social development, and environmental protection in a balanced way. The real momentum for embracing this concept was generated in 2015 when member countries of the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development containing 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). All the countries are obliged to mobilize efforts and resources to achieve these goals over a period of 15 years (2016–2030). The goals call for decisive action

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

778

by the countries to work towards ending all forms of poverty and promoting prosperity while protecting the planet. The global community needs to find strategies for economic growth, societal needs such as health, security, and employment while protecting the environment and tackling climate change. There should be no illusions about the vastly different conditions across the world under which countries seek to meet the targets of SDGs. There are, of course, challenges in designing, funding, and transforming the development approaches. This is clearly evident from the social-ecological lens in matters like food security which is given great importance in SDGs and where the complexity of food systems requires a synergistic combination of measures for bringing the sustainability paradigm to development (Springmann et al. 2018). Success in implementation of SDGs will depend on individual countries aligning their policies, plans, and programs with their international commitments. Each country will have to mobilize resources and allocate funds in national budgets to make progress. A national policy is needed to implement these international agreements in a coherent way. Some mechanisms and frameworks developed at international platforms can provide an interface for implementation. An outstanding example is that of Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The guidelines are contained under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that came into force on 21 March 1994. Countries can make progress in emission of greenhouse gases according to their nationally appropriate mitigation actions to combat the effects of climate change. Commitment of the global community to climate change mitigation and sustainability is contained in NDC and provides a basis for measuring the progress towards the relevant SDGs and tracking the benefits of synergistic actions (Shine 2017). All stakeholders (government, nongovernmental organizations, private sector, and communities) need to contribute to SDGs at national level to make a strong case for revitalizing the global partnership.

National Sustainable Development Strategies

This entry discusses the importance of aligning the national development strategies with the international agreements reached under the auspices of the United Nations.

Disparities Among Nations in the Sustainability Progress Causes of Disparities and Imperatives for Action The world suffers from widening economic and social disparities. There is no denying the fact that oceans support human well-being and livelihoods and are critical to achieving Sustainable Development Goals. However, all the countries do not equally benefit from the services provided by the ocean ecosystem. Industrialized countries that have invested heavily in ocean exploration have the capacity to claim a bigger share in the ocean economy. Considering the economic and environmental stakes involved, UNESCO (2017) has outlined health of the oceans as a global priority that requires greater international cooperation in the Global Ocean Science Report. This report lays emphasis on increasing investment in research in ocean science to generate new knowledge and strengthen the capacity of countries around the world to make sustainable use of marine resources. Efforts in this direction are consistent with the need for sustainable ocean management within the framework of the United Nations Agenda 2030. In-depth analysis of the total world scenario reveals the constraints in making a significant progress towards improving the planetary health. A global review of this problem conducted by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows that many dimensions of inequalities in income, health, education, gender, and general well-being are obvious and cannot be ignored (OECD 2017a). This report contains factual information that serves to show that income inequality has been highest over the past half century and is up to seven times of what it was 25 years ago. Ironically, the SDG 10 (Reduce inequality within and among countries) is motivated by the need to reduce

National Sustainable Development Strategies

inequalities. Statistics to support this goal makes the obvious justification for action: richest 10% earning up to 40% of total global income while the poorest 10% earning 2–7% of the global income in developing countries (UN-DPI 2015). This is an indication that in most countries, the benefits of growth and development have not been evenly distributed. These widening disparities require new strategies and policies to promote economic inclusion of all sections of the society. Certainly, additional efforts are needed to support the bottom 40% of the population (B40) by reducing inequalities in income as well as other welfare measures which form the main objectives of SDG 10. This 40% of the population receives less than 25% of the overall income or consumption. The Government of Malaysia has formulated comprehensive action plans to address the impact of increasing cost of living on the well-being of B40 households through a bottom-up consultative process. This involves engagements with the relevant stakeholders, ministries, academia, and civil society (EPU 2015). Undoubtedly, natural resources are key assets for supporting development and economic growth. Due to constraints on the availability of land resources and adverse consequences of overexploitation (Foley et al. 2005), there are growing calls for enhancing the contribution of oceans to sustainable development of ecosystem services (Duarte et al. 2009). Oceans have received far less attention compared to land despite the fact that they cover nearly 71% of the planet (Safina and Chasis 2004; Safina 2016). Data compiled by the World Bank (2018) makes the case for oceans as central to sustainable development. The facts and figures presented include: • Contribution of the oceans to the tune of US$ 1.5 trillion annually in the value-added to the overall economy (OECD 2017b). • Employment provided by fisheries and aquaculture sectors to about 60 million people (FAO 2014). • Fisheries produced seafood amounting to 171 million tons, with “first sale” value estimated at US$ 143 billion (FAO 2018).

779

• Fish provided 3.2 billion people with 20% of their average intake of animal protein (FAO 2018). The world can draw more benefits with sustainability considerations and controlling illegal fishing that recklessly exploits wild stocks accounting for up to 26 million tons of fish that equals to about 15% of the total catches (World Bank 2018). Moreover, poor fisheries management is reported to squander roughly US$ 80 billion annually in lost economic potential (World Bank 2018). It is evident that healthy oceans are crucial for food supply and economic growth, but they also provide many other ecosystem services. It is an undeniable fact that oceans are fundamental to global efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change but they face many threats that require global solutions. With the growing realization of the significance of oceans in the world economy and human welfare, and evidences of their dominant role in carbon cycling and storage, this vast body of water should be protected from abuse. Health of the oceans is absolutely necessary for them to deliver the vital ecosystem services (Mustafa and Estim 2019). Progress will be possible by bringing science, policy, business, and all stakeholders on one platform. Global Commitment for Global Commons Oceans of the world are interconnected and a global commons that regulate the stability and resilience of Earth and provide the foundation of global economy. Integrated actions from nations and individuals can make a difference that can augur well for a sustainable future for the natural world and human beings. The strategic framework (Fig. 1) proposed by GCA (2019) contains core elements for dealing with the global commons. Individual countries will have to pool their efforts for the solutions to emerge. Resource depletion and pollution and impacts linked to climate change have mounted unprecedented level of pressures on marine ecosystem. In order to deal with these issues and to support sustainability of oceans and the planetary life support systems, innovative solutions are urgently needed. The world can make a significant

N

780

National Sustainable Development Strategies

Strategies for global commons

Synthesis of scientific knowledge for defining limits of resilience and tipping points Turning scientific information into practical applications Global dissemination of information on state of the environment and progress towards solutions Bringing about a systems change for transforming the global economy

National Sustainable Development Strategies, Fig. 1 Framework for sustainable development of global commons

progress in this endeavor by strengthening national and local capabilities through countrylevel efforts and international partnerships that can catalyze national programs of action. Out of the 17 SDGs, only 1 (Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development) singularly deals with the oceans. However, it is relevant to all the goals. It is inconceivable that the other goals will be able to achieve their expected outcomes without the world investing in sustainability of the marine ecosystem services. World’s oceans represent the very fiber and essence of the Earth (Pinet 2009). This can be imagined from the fact that oceans cover 363 million square kilometers (about 71% of the Earth’s surface), 10% of the human population lives in coastal areas that are less than 10 m above the sea level, and nearly 2.4 billion people that make 40% of the population reside within 100 km of the coast (OC 2017). The ocean economy supports employment, and ecosystem and cultural services estimated to be US$3–6 trillion/ year (OC 2017). Out of this the fisheries and aquaculture contribute $US100 billion per year and about 260 million jobs to the global economy (OC 2017). Ocean governance is included as one of the focus areas of what has come to be known as the

“Mainstreaming, Acceleration, and Policy Support” strategy for effective implementation of the sustainable development agenda (UNDP 2016). In this strategy, “Mainstreaming” is about generating awareness that eventually leads to the sustainable development perspectives becoming mainstream agenda of the national plans and budgetary allocations. “Acceleration” component is intended to help the governments speed up progress on SDG targets by providing tools that are most appropriate in a country context. “Policy Support” component offers advisory services for aligning SDGs with national programs and priorities. The global environment is changing fast, giving rise to many uncertainties around the future (Emori and Takahashi 2018). This requires gaining insights into the problems in order to solve them, bringing about adaptive changes and institutionalizing a collaborative ecosystem, transcending geographical boundaries. In this connection, the international agreements and exchange of knowledge are important. The growing relevance of the international and multilateral agreements on the environmental goals has been recently emphasized by UNEP (2019) in the global environmental outlook in relation to human health and welfare. Due to their access to the sea and overwhelming benefits accruing from oceans, the maritime countries should be at the forefront of institutionalizing effective systems of governance for the global ocean commons. They stand to gain immensely by implementing the SDGs (Gjølberg et al. 2017), and their actions will help the whole world. This calls for key reforms in the currently fragmented approach that continues to drive ocean decline. Concerted efforts of the government towards formulating national policies, mobilizing resources and bringing the civil society and the private sector on board for collective action, will contribute a great deal to advancing the goals of sustainable development. Gjølberg et al. (2017) have identified several opportunity areas for countries that can gain from the marine environment: reducing greenhouse gas emissions by means of low-carbon solutions, building sustainable communities and infrastructure, protecting marine life and promoting

National Sustainable Development Strategies

sustainable future for ocean economy, and nurturing responsible practices for transition to a lowcarbon economy. These actions are a prerequisite for breaking away from the business-as-usual trend and giving oceans and the world a better future. There should be national frameworks for their implementation, and considering the nature of issues involved, the global cooperation within and between sectors can pay rich dividends. Some of the international agreements involving participation of maritime countries include United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that entered into force on 16 November 1994, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex (2 November 1973)), International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) (22 June 1985), United Nations Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (commonly called the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) (11 December 2001)), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (1 July 1975), and Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (31 October 1995). In the context of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and its overall objective of sustainable fisheries management and the issue of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, a voluntary instrument called International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IPOA-IUU) fishing has been developed (FAO 2001). It is up to the countries to enforce it according to their priority and capacity. The purpose and scope of these agreements are different, and, therefore, different regulatory authorities with the proper mandate are required to implement the various clauses of these agreements. Enforcement will be more effective by way of cooperation at regional and international levels. Governance of enforcement measures can to a great extent shape the national regulatory frameworks.

National Strategies for Implementation Countries signatory to SDGs have, in principle, pledged to strengthen the means of implementing

781

the targets. This commitment is based on the premise that conservation of environmental resources will spur socioeconomic development. SDGs and their targets provide ideas and guidance to all the countries on setting relevant national action plans and milestones. They are in the form of a blueprint for action that is not limited to public sector but to all segments of the society, particularly the non-state actors, including those in the business sector. In fact, the guidelines contained in the SGDs present an opportunity for businesses to go green by aligning their strategies and operational models with the SDGs. Steady transition to embrace SGDs, if started early, will help the companies continue to grow with low-carbon economy rather than when pressure mounts on them for abrupt transformation in case of late start. Indeed, the enforcement and implementation of SDGs are challenging because these are comprehensive and diverse and beyond the purview of any single agency in any country to timely implement all the 17 goals. For example, in maritime countries the sectors such as fisheries, aquaculture, environmental protection, marine protected area management, navigation, and coastal security among others are handled by many government departments according to their capabilities and mandate. The entire range of implementation mechanisms must be explored and used to the full. Some specific actions would require structured measures to be incorporated in national development plans or even national legislations. How do States bring the international agreements into effect will be reflected in reporting formats for a periodic review and possible milestone adjustments. These include management systems, administrative activities, financial allocations, decision-making committees, and monitoring of performance to promote compliance. Hoffman and Rottingen (2012) are of the view that States should examine their preferred options across categories of implementation mechanisms and select the most effective combinations of measures for supporting the international agreements that can achieve results in a way and at a cost that are sustainable. Where necessary, States can seek international partnership and learn from

N

782

experiences and in the process develop and empower their own institutions for selfgovernance. In fact, significance of global partnerships is the main reason for SDG17 that requires States to strengthen synergy with international institutions for implementing the goals and achieving the targets of the 2030 Agenda. It is not just the government-to-government linkages on paper but the practical mechanisms that bring together the government agencies, civil society, the private sector, and other stakeholders in order to interact with the governance bodies and communities in the partner countries that can make a difference. Rose (2011) has further elaborated this matter and laid emphasis on improving integration and networking within and among the government bodies, between governments, economic sectors, and communities outside the government, and dedicated nongovernmental organizations for environmental causes. Closer partnerships and sustained interactions among the active players can lead to reflections on successes and failures and help in deciding the most appropriate systems or undertaking adaptive management of the existing approach to implementation. Ostensibly, concerned about the failure of many environmental treaties to achieve the results in the past, Mouat et al. (2006) highlighted the disparities among nations as evident from the ability of some to realize their potential while others still struggling to make any headway. They suggested the possible causes such as the national governments lacking both institutional and technological capabilities to enable their adoption and implementation, and local communities not well prepared to adopt or adapt the requirements of the treaties. Seemingly, it is the practicality and feasibility of the environmental conventions and standards under different socioeconomic conditions and the political landscape that greatly matter in delivery of sustainable development objectives. It makes sense to use existing governance mechanisms, albeit with additional mandate, to seek integration of national development planning with the global agenda (the Agenda 2030). Government departments exist in countries for governance of the use of natural resources, food and water supplies, maritime security and

National Sustainable Development Strategies

enforcement, and education among others. These can be pillars of synergistic and coherent implementation mechanisms. Countries around the world have departments or authorities in some form for enforcing national policies for forests, fisheries, wildlife, protected areas, natural resources, and environment in general. They can handle policies related to SDGs due to their experience of mainstreaming environment and biodiversity in national plans and increasing efforts for making regulations effective. The challenge lies in infusing new energy and momentum into these efforts by including new international frameworks for SDGs that have all the inherent elements of universality while opening innovative ways of working for the society and the planet (Shine 2017). Progress can be made by supporting national policies. While highlighting the constraints in mainstreaming the multilateral environmental agreements into national development plans, Bizikova et al. (2018) have suggested pathways for policy development related to national strategic goals that can be explored by countries. This envisages identification of specific instruments and indicators in an approach that is grounded in the established Driving forces-Pressure-StateImpact-Response (DPSIR) framework and is feasible to apply in any country. Comprehension and universality in implementation are important to prevent any lopsided view and enforcement. This is due to the fact that there are 17 SDGs of very integrated nature and each of them has many targets and indicators. Unless implemented in coherent and mutually reinforcing ways, there is a risk of failure to attain the objectives of the Agenda 2030. Given this complexity, Shine (2017) has pointed out the need for linking national policies relating to all these goals to international agreements and effective coordination. This concern emanates from the tendency of countries implementing the goals in isolation with focus on selected goals according to their expertise and priorities. International cooperation can help in shaping national priorities in the context of each country so that no SDG is ignored while making progress towards zero poverty and carbon-neutral future. It is important to pint out

National Sustainable Development Strategies National Sustainable Development Strategies, Table 1 Guidelines for incorporating SDGs into plans of action. (Adapted from UNSDG 2016) S.no. 1.

Suggested step Review of national plans

2.

Lobbying with policymakers

3.

Setting national targets

4.

Systems thinking

Objective Examining the existing strategies and plans at the national and local levels for comparing them against the SDGs and targets with the aim of identifying gaps and suggesting changes Presenting informed recommendations prepared by professionals on practically feasible ways and means of aligning national policies with SDGs Identifying nationally adapted achievable targets that are inclusive of the aims and objectives of SDGs Institutionalizing systems thinking in formulating strategies and plans that can facilitate implementation of the above steps to produce expected outcomes

the importance of national efforts with similar aspirations despite differences in how the measures are tailored according to realities and capabilities of different countries. The guidelines provided by the United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG) (Table 1) can be helpful in this endeavor.

Incorporating Integrated Knowledge Perspectives in National Development Planning In light of the above discussion, it is evident that countries need to include SDGs in national development planning. That there could be different approaches to achieving the results based on uniqueness of socioeconomic and cultural scenarios is understandable. Countries differ in their natural resources and pressures of exploitation and will have widely different means of attaining

783

SDG targets. Maritime countries have marine resources that the landlocked countries are devoid of. Small Island Developing States have limited areas where sustainable development challenges include population pressure, shortage of land resources, fragile ecosystems, declining fisheries landings, heavy dependence on international trade, susceptibility to natural disasters, and vulnerability to external shocks. Modern science is very important but not the only form of knowledge available to guide the development processes (ICS 2002). When scientists develop interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary partnerships, then the problems are likely to be viewed holistically, from many different angles. This might help in finding innovative and actionable solutions that can fast track our march towards building a more sustainable planet. Scientific evidences have clearly established that human activities are destabilizing the planet which by any reckoning is in “Anthropocene” as reflected by changing climate, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, and many other global environmental problems (Sterner et al. 2019). Scientists are continuing to voice their views with the force of arguments. They outline what is at stake, benefits of action, and consequences of inaction, and they project possible future scenarios. Social scientists and economists have a better understanding of how society and the economy work and are able to propose solutions that are socially acceptable and politically feasible (Sterner et al. 2019). Integrated efforts in this matter are crucial for motivating actions that will determine the future of humans and all other species on Earth. In Malaysia, and probably many other countries, the nature-based solutions are receiving more attention in dealing with the sustainable development, including adaptations to climate change. Mustafa et al. (2019) have elaborated this approach for Malaysia in discussing the urgent need for specific measures for maximizing the promise of blue growth while ensuring sustainability in all its dimensions. The authors leave no doubt that nature-based solutions provide the best options but suggest the need for also exploring the relevance of new ideas and innovations in

N

784

fast-tracking progress towards implementing sustainable development. Nature-based solutions can happen in areas such as integrated coastal zone management, protected area management, green infrastructure, and ecosystem-based climate change mitigation and adaptations (Galland and Dorothee 2009). Generally, these are in the form of biomimicry models based on time-tested patterns and strategies that nature uses for sustainable solutions.

Traditional Knowledge The relevance of traditional knowledge cannot be underestimated in matters concerning sustainability. Traditional knowledge generated through wisdom, practices, and traditions of indigenous peoples over the ages provides critical insights into understanding and interpretation that have guided human societies in their interaction with the natural environment. This is more apparent in primary sectors of economy such as forestry, agriculture, fishing, farming, and use of products derived from natural resources (Nakashima et al. 2000). Because of certain ecological merits of such practices and dependence of a vast number of people on these sectors for their survival, livelihoods, and shelter, the contribution of traditional knowledge towards sustaining a significant part of the global population is worthy of appreciation (Kothari 2007). Based on the specific case studies and long-term observations, the significance of strengthening the links between science and traditional knowledge is evident from the recent resolution of the Intergovernmental Meeting on the Global Environment Outlook (UNEP 2019). If traditional knowledge is presented in the form of observations dealing with facts and systematically articulating them to provide a convincing interpretation in matters concerning sustainable development, it merits consideration as a time-tested and credible source of information for sustainability science. Such a consolidated knowledge system can be critically important for informed management and political decisions for securing the integrity of ecosystem services (Athayde et al. 2017).

National Sustainable Development Strategies

Sustainability Science SDGs are intended to be universal, containing a shared vision for the welfare of humanity and the planet so that no one and no country should be left behind. The different goals and targets will present different levels of challenges for different countries depending on their state of development and national circumstances (Osborn et al. 2015). While SDGs represent a global call for action for the sake of the planet and decent lives for all people through economic growth, peace, equality, and prosperity, their implementation will vary from country to country according to their capabilities and resources. This will be apparent in the balance that different countries will seek to achieve between the social, economic, and political conditions in their unique ways. Obviously, economic and political efforts needed to deliver the different objectives are also expected to be different in different countries (Osborn et al. 2015). Support and cooperation provided by national agencies and different sections of the society as well as foreign institutions and individual groups can be very important in this endeavor. Shine (2017) has outlined the significance of development cooperation in supporting the coherence of SDGs and national development planning. This sort of interaction can provide opportunities for using knowledge from diverse sources for meeting the aims and objectives of the goals. Collective efforts of researchers from different backgrounds who have made scholarly advances and taking into account practical experience in diverse contexts are helpful in producing usable knowledge to support action for sustainable development under a wide variety of conditions (Clark et al. 2016). Afgan and Carvalho (2010) have interpreted the linkage of knowledge management with the sustainability paradigm and identified the four interdependent elements, namely, production of knowledge (through research), its transmission (by way of education and training), its dissemination (through communication of information), and its use in innovations. The scope of knowledge management is widening with the emergence of disruptive

National Sustainable Development Strategies

technology and innovations in the Fourth Industrial Revolution that is now underway and new tools of dealing with knowledge that are going main stream in areas such as seafood security as outlined by Mustafa et al. (2015).

Role of Universities in Sustainability Science While discussing the problems in blending various sources of knowledge into a new discipline called “sustainability science,” MIGHT (2016) has discussed the need for transcending disciplinary boundaries for a topic as complex as sustainable development. In this context, the role of universities, by virtue of their comprehensive expertise for teaching, research, and communitybased projects, assumes importance (SDSN 2017). An outstanding example in the developing world is that of Universiti Malaysia Sabah which became the first university in Malaysia to have become the “EcoCampus” in 2013 with the sustainability theme guiding its policies and priorities (Surge 2018). This major policy initiative of the university was motivated by the recognition of the public responsibility of tertiary education to educate students, facilitate research, and promote outreach that can contribute to a more sustainable future. Universiti Malaysia Sabah has launched programs to back this initiative and to model a behavior that can contribute to a more civil society committed to respecting environmental ethics, strengthening communities, and fueling a sustainable economy. Sustainability themes are being increasingly incorporated in the university’s practices, planning, teaching curricula, research priorities, outreach activities, and community partnerships through Citizen Science and other events, particularly the month-long World Oceans Day celebrations starting 8 June every year. Recent years have seen increasing interest in integrating university campuses in the global sustainability agenda. This is considered an important step that will enable universities to reconnect to the biosphere and help the society to accept the role of stewardship of the Earth systems (Colding and Barthel 2017). These authors have presented

785

reasons for the university campuses to have unique sociocultural attributes and credentials to promote sustainable development practices, focusing, among others, the biodiversity and ecosystem services themes that are facing the climate change challenge. Institutionalization of the role of universities in sustainability is also evident from the work of International Sustainable Campus Network that provides a global forum to support universities by way of ideas, best practices and exchange of information for integrating sustainability in research and teaching, and achieving sustainable campus operations as models for the larger society to emulate (ISCN 2018). Universiti Malaysia Sabah has opened its doors to the general public and foreign visitors to come and learn the sustainability paradigm and participate in the thematic programs. This sort of public awareness and participation and developing a mechanism for feedback analysis can transform their mindset towards environment and lifestyle and strengthen their voice for sustainable development policies. In this way, increasing public participation in environmental decision-making can deepen civil society’s commitment to contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change and influencing policies towards sustainable development (WRI 2019). Students are also encouraged to look for blueprints of time-tested strategies of nature for creating designs that are resilient, regenerative, and circular. Some of the success stories emerging out of these efforts have been presented in a recent publication (Mustafa and Estim 2018). Globally, there is an increasing number of evidences of problem-solving approaches evolving from efforts aimed at applying nature-inspired designs to create climate change solutions (Rattner 2019). More investment in research by universities that can nurture innovation ecosystem will yield knowledge that will help in sustainable development.

Future Directions The increasingly diverse and intensifying intertwined human activities can only be overlooked at the cost of sustainability of planetary resources and life support systems. The physical,

N

786

chemical, and biological attributes of the environment have degraded to the extent that urgent actions are needed globally. Maritime countries are at the risk of losing the long-term benefits from the services provided by the ocean ecosystem if the business-as-usual attitude towards the environment continues to prevail. Oceans represent the largest ecosystem on the planet. Their well-being is vital for all the species, including the human beings. The general perception that the resources and capacity of oceans are limitless should have been rejected a long time ago, but now it is time for real action to undo problems linked to that ignorance. Countries need to have national policies, funding mechanisms, and programs of implementation to mitigate and reverse the disturbing ecological conditions. Partnerships among the various national agencies within the countries and exchange of knowledge among the countries can help in developing successful models for transforming sustainable lifestyles, forwardlooking practical policies, and appropriate solutions to deal with the pertinent issues. Concerted measures for integrating natural and anthropogenic systems will help in co-managing the social, economic, and environmental processes in sustainable ways. There is still a glaring disconnect between policy, sustainability science, and action. The decision-making process should incorporate science and other forms of knowledge into policies and institutionalize the mechanisms for translating the national policies into measurable actions to make a real difference. While the world should increase investment in time-tested nature-based solutions, we should remain open to green disruptive innovations that might show new horizons for sustainable development. SDGs have set an ambitious vision for the world we want, and we must explore all the possible options to get there in time. Global cooperation can guide us in this journey.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals

National Sustainable Development Strategies

▶ Nature-based Solutions ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development

References Afgan NH, Carvalho MG (2010) The knowledge society: a sustainability paradigm. Cadmus 1(1):28–41 Athayde S, Silva-Lugo J, Schmink M et al (2017) Reconnecting art and science for sustainability: learning from indigenous knowledge through participatory action-research in the Amazon. Ecol Soc 22(2):36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09323-220236 Bizikova L, Metternicht G, Yarde T (2018) Environmental mainstreaming and policy coherence: essential policy tools to link international agreements with national development – a case study of the Caribbean region. Environ Dev Sustain 20(3):975–995 Clark WC, Kerkhoff LV, Lebel L et al (2016) Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:4570–4578 Colding J, Barthel S (2017) The role of university campuses in reconnecting humans to the biosphere. Sustainability 9(12):2349. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122349 Davenport TH (1994) Saving IT’s soul: human centered information management. Harv Bus Rev 72(2): 119–131 Dennefer D, Perimutter M (1990) Development as a multidimensional process: individual and social constituents. Hum Dev 33:108–137 Duarte CM, Holmer M, Olsen Y et al (2009) Will the oceans help feed humanity. Bioscience 59(11):967–976 Emori S, Takahashi K (2018) Integrated climate assessment: risks, uncertainties, and society. Sustain Sci 13(2):275–277 EPU (2015) Anchoring growth on people: eleventh Malaysia plan 2016–2020. Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Federal Government Administrative Centre, Putrajaya FAO (2001) International plan of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy FAO (2014) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome FAO (2018) The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574 Galland GR, Dorothee H (2009) The ocean and climate change: coastal and marine nature-based solutions to support mitigation and adaptation activities. International Union for Conservation of Nature report. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland GCA (2019) A big plan for a small planet. Global Commons Alliance, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg Gjølberg M, Longva T, Aalbu K et al (2017) Sustainable Development Goals-exploring maritime opportunities. DNV Glass, Havik

National Sustainable Development Strategies Hoffman SJ, Rottingen JA (2012) Assessing implementation mechanisms for an international agreement on research and development for health products. Bull World Health Organ 90:854–863 ICS (International Council for Science) (2002) Science, traditional knowledge and sustainable development. ICSU series on science for sustainable development no 4. UNESCO, Paris. 24 pp ISCN (2018) Sustainable campus best practices. International Sustainable Campus Network, Boston Kothari A (2007) Traditional knowledge and sustainable development, international institute for sustainable development, Winnipeg. Manitoba, Canada MIGHT (2016) Patron’s Vision. Malaysian-Industry Group for High Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Mouat D, Lancaster J, El-Bagouri I et al (2006) Opportunities for synergy among the environmental conventions: results of national and local level workshops. UNCCD, Bonn. 52 p Mustafa S, Estim A (2018) Adopt and adapt nature’s design principles to create sustainable aquaculture systems. Curr Sci 115(6):1195–1197. https://doi.org/10. 18520/cs/v115/i6/1191-1195. Mustafa S, Estim A (2019) Blue growth and blue economy in the context of development policies and priorities in Malaysia. Penerbit UMS, Kota Kinabalu Mustafa FH, Senoo S, Bagul AHBP et al (2015) Knowledge management in modern aquaculture. In: Mustafa S, Shapawi R (eds) Aquaculture ecosystems: adaptability and sustainability. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, pp 281–318 Mustafa S, Estim A, Tuzan AD, Chen-Ann C, LeongSeng L, Shaleh SRM (2019) Nature-based and technology-based solutions for sustainable blue growth and climate change mitigation in marine biodiversity hotspots. Environ Biotechnol 15(1):1–7. https://doi. org/10.14799/ebms302 Nakashima D, Prott L, Bridgewater P (2000) Tapping into the world’s wisdom. UNESCO, Paris OC (2017) Factsheet: people and oceans. Proceedings of the ocean conference. United Nations, New York, pp 5–9 OECD (2017a) How’s life? 2017: measuring well-being. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Publishing, Paris OECD (2017b) Greening the ocean economy. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris Osborn D, Cutter A, Ullah F (2015) Universal Sustainable Development Goals: understanding the transformational challenge for developed countries. Report of a study by stakeholder forum. Earth System Governance International Project Office, Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, Lund Pinet PR (2009) Invitation to oceanography. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury Rattner B (2019) Nurturing a new species of entrepreneurs. Annual report 2017/2018. Biomimicry Institute, Missoula Rose GL (2011) Gaps in the implementation of environmental law at the national, regional and global level. United Nationals Environment Program, Kuala Lumpur

787 Safina C (2016) Annual report of the Safina Center: making a case for life on Earth. The Safina Center, New York Safina C, Chasis S (2004) Saving the oceans. Issues Sci Technol 21(1):37 SDSN (2017) Sustainable Development Solutions Network of Australia, New Zealand and Pacific: getting started with the SDGs in universities: a guide for universities, higher education institutions, and the academic sector. Monash University, Clayton Shine T (2017) Integrating climate action into national development planning – coherent implementation of the Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Stockholm Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Cruz D et al (2018) Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562:519–525 Sterner T, Barbier EB, Bateman I et al (2019) Policy design for the Anthropocene. Nat Sustain 2:14–21 Stokols D (1992) Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: toward a social ecology of health promotion. Am Psychol 47(1):6–22 Surge (2018) Newsletter of Borneo Marine Research Institute. Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu UNDP (2016) Support to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Development Program, New York UN-DPI (2015) Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Department of Public Information, New York UNEP (2019) Report of the intergovernmental meeting on the sixth global environment outlook summary for policy makers. United Nations Environment Program Global Environment Outlook Bulletin 182(9): 1–12 UNESCO (2017) Global ocean science report: the current status of ocean science around the world. United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization, Paris UNFCCC (1994) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/process-and-mee tings/the-convention/what-is-the-united-nations-frame work-convention-on-climate-change. Last accessed 09 Jan 2019 UNSDG (2016) Tailoring sustainable development goals to national, sub-national and local contexts. United Nations Sustainable Development Group, One UN Plaza, New York USEPA (2015) Environmental resilience: exploring scientific concepts for strengthening community resilience to disasters. EPA/600/R-15/163. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC WCED (1987) The Brundtland report on our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK World Bank (2018) Oceans, fisheries and coastal economies. World Bank, Washington, DC WRI (2019) Driving equitable climate transitions: governance frameworks for the climate change, sustainable development goals, and green growth agendas. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

N

788

Nation-Building

Definition

Nation-Building ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development

A social or political conflict where natural resources contribute to the onset, aggravation, or sustaining of the conflict, due to disagreements or competition over the access to and management of natural resources, and the unequal burdens and benefits, profits, or power generated thereof.

Natural Disaster

Introduction

▶ Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

Peace is considered an integral part of sustainability since the global political Agenda 2030 includes “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” as their 16th Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) (UN General Assembly 2015). The integral and interlinked character of the SDGs signifies that human well-being and peace is indivisible from environmental goals (including sustainable natural resource management in SDG 6 on water, 7 on energy, 12 on consumption and production, 13 on climate change, 14 on oceans, and 15 on terrestrial ecosystems). From 2014 to 2018, there were on average 235 violent crises and conflicts ongoing per year worldwide (HIIK 2019). Of these, 26% included natural resources as a conflict item between the opposing actors (HIIK 2019). Figure 1 maps out the major interand intrastate armed conflicts (over 999 battlerelated deaths in a year) that involved natural resources between 1990 and 2015 (Bruch et al. 2019). The role of natural resources in conflicts has been analyzed and theorized in different ways, changing with the rhythm of the main historical events (Scholvin 2016; Beevers 2019; Bruch et al. 2019).

Natural Hazards ▶ Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis Marie K. Schellens1,2 and Arnaud Diemer3,4 1 Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 2 ERASME Jean Monnet Centre on Sustainability, Clermont-Ferrand, France 3 ERASME Jean Monnet Excellence Centre on Sustainability, University of Clermont-Ferrand, Aubiere, France 4 Centre d’Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International (CERDI), Université Clermont Auvergne, ClermontFerrand, France

Synonyms Climate-conflict (subtype); Ecological distribution conflict; Environmental conflict; Socioenvironmental conflict

A Brief Recent History of Natural Resource Conflicts In the past centuries, relations between the European states and other world regions, spreading all continents, have been generally based on the colonial asymmetry between the dominant and the dominated. At the turning point of independence, asymmetry spread to the OECD countries on the one hand and the “Third World”/“developing countries”/ “Global South” on the other,

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

789

N

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis, Fig. 1 Major inter- and intrastate armed conflicts between 1990 and 2015 that involved natural resources: contributing to the cause of conflict (upper map) or assisting in the financing of the

conflict (lower map). The type of natural resource involved is classified into land, nonrenewable, renewable, and water resources. Major armed conflicts are defined as having over 999 battle-related deaths within 1 year. (Data source: Bruch et al. 2019)

790

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

popularizing the allegory of center-periphery according to a vision of imperialism renewed by the theories of dependence illustrated in particular by the work of Samir Amin (1977). It was up to the dominated peripheries to supply raw materials to the central powers that held the capacities of industrial transformation. Marxist critics consistently denounced the “plundering” of the Third World in the context of neocolonialism that perpetuated the domination of the former colonial forces (ibid.). At the end of the Cold War, the existing geopolitical configuration was disrupted by the emergence of new economic powers, e.g., the BRICs. This reorganization led to the obsolescence of simple figures, such as East/West, North/South, First/Third, center/periphery. The role of natural resources in conflicts no longer fitted into the pattern of imperialist exploitation or Cold War rivalries. With globalization, conflict situations became much more complex, the actors more numerous, and less visible (Pourtier and Rosière 2012). The post-Cold War period saw a change toward intrastate conflicts in failed or failing states, including civil wars, internationalized intrastate conflicts with support from external states, and intractable conflicts involving nonstate actors (Bruch et al. 2019; Beevers 2019). The conflicts became less frequent and less deadly, and new sources of financing were found to replace the Cold War’s proxy-war funding (Bruch et al. 2019). Revenues from many natural resources, such as fossil fuels, minerals, timber, and agricultural products, were used by both nonstate militia and governmental forces to fund military activities (Bruch et al. 2019). The BRICs, globalization, and changed nature of conflicts, however, did not equalize the role of most developing countries in the global economy, that is, the provisioning of primary commodities to developed economies (now OECD joined by the BRICs). Around the same time (early 1990s), the interpretation of the relation between natural resource use and conflicts took off into a new, sustainability-oriented direction, both in research and policymaking (Bruch et al. 2019; Beevers 2019). Ecological sensitivity and sustainable development

thoughts had slowly been maturing. International awareness and cooperation around global environmental issues gained momentum right after the end of the Cold War, among others indicated by the Brundtland Report (1987) and the Rio Earth Summit (1992) (Beevers 2019). Increased environmental awareness and human security was directly connected to some events such as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster or targeted destruction of the environment and natural resource industries as a means of war. Over time, also indirect impacts of unsustainable natural resource use on longterm instability and conflict became clearer, including how resource management could lead to degradation, unequal distribution of benefits and burdens, population displacement, human health impacts (Beevers 2019; Bruch et al. 2019). Environmental security was introduced to the study of international relations as one of five security sectors, widening the understanding of security (Buzan et al. 1998). The securitization of the environment meant that environmental and natural resource issues were conceptualized as a security threat, legitimizing more extreme interventions than standard political processes (Buzan et al. 1998). Current Theories of Natural Resource Conflicts Currently, the main theories explaining natural resources as drivers of conflict refer to “too little” versus “too much” resources, that is, their relative scarcity or abundance. Scarcity theories originated from concerns on environmental degradation, population rise, and migration (Mildner et al. 2011). Based on case-studies, pioneer researcher HomerDixon (1994) proposed three explaining pathways from natural resource scarcity to violent conflict: 1. Where decreasing supplies of natural resources, due to overexploitation or pollution, could not meet demand “simple-scarcity conflicts” could occur. 2. Economic deprivation following environmental scarcity could also disrupt important social institutions. 3. Severe environmental stresses cause migration flows and pressure on host-communities, which could induce group-identity conflicts.

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

Many studies have followed since showing the relation between different types of natural resource scarcities and social instability. These research findings received a great deal of criticism, both relating to the theoretical framework and its empirical methodology (Gleditsch and Urdal 2002). Currently, the study of natural resource scarcities and social instability can mainly be found in the environmental justice literature (e.g. Temper et al. 2018). This largely case-study based research has been criticized for the difficulty to generalize the findings and lack of empirical statistical evidence (e.g. Mildner et al. 2011; Koubi et al. 2014; Bayramov 2018). However, more and more statistical evidence of climate change’s impact on natural resources, livelihoods, and violent conflict are countering this criticism and supporting resource scarcity theories (e.g. von Uexkull 2014; Ide 2018; Abel et al. 2019). Therefore, climate change is now generally accepted as a threat multiplier for violent conflicts (Mach et al. 2019). Abundance theories of natural resource conflict have identified four mechanisms explaining how natural resources trigger and fuel conflicts. Each of these mechanisms falls under the umbrella of “the resource curse,” also referred to as the paradox of plenty (Auty 1993). The resource curse thesis was built on statistical evidence that natural resource-rich countries experienced lower economic growth rates than countries without such natural wealth (Sachs and Warner 1995), as well as higher risks for violent conflict (Lujala 2010). • First, the potential for exploitation and trade of natural resources increases the risk of violent conflict through greed for personal enrichment from those resources and the feasibility of funding military activities (Collier et al. 2009; Lujala 2010; Mildner et al. 2011; Billon 2012). Areas with high-value resources become strategically interesting as targets to capture, access, and control, especially in disputed transboundary areas. • Second, there is robust evidence that mineral resource wealth “tends to make authoritarian regimes more durable, to increase certain types

791

of corruption, and to help trigger violent conflict in low- and middle-income countries” (Ross 2015). State dependency on resource revenues instead of tax incomes creates struggles for power and conditions conducive for corruption (Sala-i-Martin and Subramanian 2003). It blinds a government to their population’s basic needs (Mildner et al. 2011). Deprived of functioning institutions ensuring basic needs, such as food security, education, and health care, population groups can hold grievances over the fair distribution of benefits from resource exploitation, which potentially translates into violence (ibid.). • Third, it can be difficult for countries with weak governments and state institutions to create employment and added value from the primary commodities, resulting in similar grievances (Ross 2015). Therefore, fragile country contexts, including poverty, low human development, ongoing political transformations, and large populations, are particularly vulnerable to political instability and insurgencies (Scheffran et al. 2012; Abel et al. 2019). • Fourth, the export of raw materials leads to an appreciation of the local currency, increases the cost of living for citizens, and undermines the competitiveness of other economic sectors such as manufacturing or agriculture (Corden and Peter Neary 1982). This process, the socalled Dutch disease, makes a country even more dependent on its resource sector. Subsequently, an economy dependent on exports of raw materials is highly vulnerable to the volatility of commodity prices on the international market (van der Ploeg and Poelhekke 2009). Empirical findings on abundance conflicts, like scarcity conflicts, do “not support a deterministic cause-and-effect relationship between resources and conflict,” but indicate the importance of the socioeconomic and political intervening context (Schilling et al. 2018, 435). Under certain conditions, resource wealth makes violent conflicts less likely. For example, peace can be bought-off with resource-derived revenues through patronage (political distribution of resource rents, making

N

792

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

deals with political challengers), manipulating election results, effective repression of public opposition through large investments in the state’s security apparatus, and ensuring protection from powerful importing countries (Basedau and Lay 2009; Ross 2015). Countries where resource revenues pay for the oppression or appeasement of political opposition are called “rentier states” (ibid.). Therefore, direct cause-effect relations between natural resource abundance and violent conflict are hard to identify, and researchers argue for a more nuanced study of the causal relation (O’Brochta 2019). The unequal distribution of burdens and benefits, profits, and power generated from resource exploitation is the direct socioeconomic and political context that creates resource grievances. Natural resources most often have more than one user, certainly when we broaden the temporal and spatial boundaries with which we perceive the use of that natural resource. Different interpretations of the value of a resource lead to different, potentially conflicting, management and usage of that resource between its users (Olsson and Gooch 2019). A certain way of resource exploitation by one user can reduce the access to and benefits derived from that resource for other users, potentially with different values regarding the benefits of that resource (e. g., the use of the Swedish mountains for reindeer herding or metal extraction). It has been shown that in ethnically fractionalized countries, meaning many different users and values, armed-conflict risks are enhanced by climate-related disasters (Schleussner et al. 2016). Without strong agreements on the access to and the management of natural resources, disputes and competition can develop into violent conflicts. Most often, natural resources are managed or governed by a mix of traditional and formal/official/statutory institutions (UN DPA and UNEP 2015). A mismatch between the two is likely and can lead to a lack of formal representation of certain (often traditional or indigenous) interests in decision-making processes (ibid.). However, when managed with significant power imbalances, natural resource exploitation can reinforce the power of elites, magnify wealth inequalities, and increase the vulnerability of the

most marginalized and disadvantaged groups (ibid.). Further, fragile country contexts (failed or failing states), including poverty, low human development, ongoing political transformations, and large populations, are particularly vulnerable to political instability and insurgencies (Scheffran et al. 2012; Abel et al. 2019). Participatory and inclusive decision-making are needed to avoid such power imbalances in managing and controlling a resource (Olsson and Gooch 2019). Resource-dependent countries are more likely to underinvest in governance structure, public institutions, regulations, infrastructure such as transport systems, telecommunication, and monetary system (Le Billon 2001). Neglected needs of the population in combination with natural resources exploitation by (political) elites can trigger insurgency and violence. Thus, high-quality, inclusive institutional and governing capacity is needed to prevent natural resource conflicts and strengthen operation over natural resource management (Scheffran et al. 2012). The Global Environmental and Political Context Global environmental change makes natural resource conflicts an increasing source of concern (UNEP 2009; Matthew 2010; UNFT 2011). Seventy percent of our global population directly depends for their livelihoods on natural resources extracted from the environment (UNEP 2019). The drastic environmental changes we are experiencing are projected to continue with many pressures accelerating (ibid.). Global economic growth, increased per capita consumption, and population growth have increased demands for natural resources and brought about changes in land use, biodiversity decline, and climate change to alarming levels (IPCC 2014; IPBES 2019). The global ongoing degradation has been described in many different terms, such as the environmental crisis, a climate crisis, sixth mass extinction event, including but not limited to: the desertification and exhaustion of our soils, marine dead zones due to oceanic anoxic events, deforestation, resource depletion, and the destruction of entire ecosystems (Mühlhäusler and Peace 2006). Increased pressures on natural resources can trigger new or worsen existing conflicts. Existing

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

formal and informal institutions are struggling to mediate diverging interests under increased environmental pressures and to address impending natural resource conflicts (Matthew 2010). Practitioners and policy makers in the field of peace and conflict have recognized the link between natural resources and risk for violent conflicts. They leveraged this information for conflict prevention and peacebuilding, and incorporated natural resource management in their peace and conflict agendas (Beevers 2019). In 2006, former secretary general of the UN, Kofi Annan, stated that “Environmental degradation in forms such as desertification, resource depletion and demographic pressure exacerbates tensions and instability. Systemically, pollution, population growth and climate change are not in the distant future, they are occurring now and hitting the poorest and most vulnerable hardest” (UN General Assembly 2006). In 2007, the UN’s Security Council held its first-ever debate on the impact of climate change on peace and security, hearing over 50 speakers (UN Press Release 2007). In 2008, an EU-UN partnership on Land, Natural Resources and Conflict Prevention was initiated to build countries’ capacity to prevent, manage, and resolve natural resource conflicts (UNFT 2011). This partnership created toolkits, manuals, and guidance that provide focused technical assistance to develop strategies for the prevention of natural resource conflicts in identified fragile contexts (UNFT 2011). Also in 2008, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) started the Environmental Cooperation for Peacebuilding program with the overall aim to “to strengthen the capacity of countries, regional organizations, UN entities and civil society to understand and respond to the conflict risks and peacebuilding opportunities presented by natural resources and environment,” by building on post-conflict field expertise (UNEP 2016). Their activities comprised: • Collecting evidence: 150 case-studies collected in six books, summary and references found in UNEP (2016) • Developing policy: collected in a series of six policy reports, summary and references found in UNEP (2016)

793

• Catalyzing pilot-projects on the ground concerning natural resource management for conflict prevention and peacebuilding In 2010, US Congress passed the Dodd Frank Act including Section 1502, the “conflict minerals provision.” This law requires publicly listed companies to report yearly on the origin of tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold within their supply chains, and to declare the measures taken to ensure that minerals in their supply chain do not contribute to conflict in the Great Lakes region (Koch and Burlyuk 2019). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) added a chapter on human security in their Fifth Assessment Report (Adger et al. 2014) compared to the Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). And in February 2018, the Council of the European Union adopted the Council Conclusions on Climate Diplomacy which recognizes and promises to address the nexus between climate change and security (General Secretariat of the Council 2018). Learning from the Dodd-Frank Act in the United States, the EU has agreed upon a Conflict Minerals Regulation that will come into force in 2021, with a global scope, a focus on inclusion and improvement of the situation (rather than exclusion and companies declaring themselves “conflict-free”), and gradual implementation to avoid a shock-effect (Koch and Burlyuk 2019). An example of a recent on-the-ground, civil society-led project is the Powering Peace Initiative that identified “opportunities for and obstacles to renewable energy use” in South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (Mthembu-Salter et al. 2019). The objective of this initiative is to boost local economies and contribute to peacebuilding with renewable energy projects, with the positive side effects of simultaneously benefiting the planet and UN field missions’ budgets (ibid.). Lastly, Search for Common Ground, the largest peacebuilding NGO worldwide, has actively incorporated natural resource management in their on-the-ground peacebuilding programs since 2014 (Search for Common Ground 2019). Despite high international awareness, there is only limited research on the effectiveness of

N

794

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

above-described actions on natural resource management for conflict prevention and peacebuilding (Beevers 2019). Some research describes that international interventions have had only limited success because of unintended negative consequences that undermined the potential of natural resources to support peace (Beevers 2019). For example, in the early days of the Dodd-Frank Act, a de-facto boycott emerged of mineral imports from the Great Lakes region, which undermined the economic value and peacebuilding potential of the minerals in that region (Koch and Burlyuk 2019). This introduction tried to give an overview of the most important recent understanding of natural resource conflicts. More specifically, it tried to clarify how natural resources contribute to the onset, aggravation, or sustaining of social or political conflict, through disagreements or competition over the access to and management of natural resources, and the unequal burdens and benefits, profits, or power generated thereof. It should be mentioned that conflicts over or due to natural resources are part of larger societal struggles including ethnic, linguistic, religious, economic, or political issues. The remaining part of this entry illustrates natural resource conflicts through three analytical axes: intensity and violence of natural resource conflicts, renewables versus nonrenewable resources in natural resource conflicts, and the geographical scales of events and conditions driving natural resource conflicts. Each section summarizes the state-ofthe-art understanding of natural resource conflicts through its analytical dimension, and presents suitable examples from case studies.

Varying Intensities of Natural Resource Conflicts Natural resource conflicts vary widely in intensity from conflicts of interest between individual stakeholders to armed conflicts between population groups (Ratner et al. 2017; Olsson and Gooch 2019). Important to note is that conflict is not something negative in itself, and “non-violent conflict can be an essential component of social change and development and is a necessary

component of human interaction” (UNFT 2011, p. 7). According to conventional conflict theory, conflicts are “a prerequisite for development towards another state, better fitting the current setting” (Olsson and Gooch 2019, 3). However, without a constructive process of dialogue and conflict resolution, natural resource conflicts can escalate into destructive and violent interactions. When societal mechanisms and institutions for constructive conflict resolution are weak or not present, for example, in fragile political systems or deeply divided societies, destructive forms of conflict undermine existing societal institutions, disrupt development progress, and can spiral into intractable cycles of violence and armed conflict (UNFT 2011; Ratner et al. 2017). During the last 15 years, environmental defenders have been murdered increasingly often, from two per week to four per week (Butt et al. 2019). This so-called slow violence, that is, the murder of environmental defenders, is distinguished from larger-scale violence linked to armed conflicts. According to the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, 282 violent crises and 92 armed conflicts took place between 2014 and 2018, of which 26% had natural resources as a conflict item between the opposing actors (HIIK 2019). However, direct physical violence is only the tip of the iceberg, which caps the more invisible, but direct, psychological violence, such as threats and intimidation, and indirect violence, such as cultural attitudes and structural inequality or repression (Butt et al. 2019). Participatory, cooperative, and equitable management of natural resources is seen as an opportunity to reduce the likelihood of conflict escalation into violence by facilitating dialogue and reconciliation, moderating the disruptive impacts of conflicts, and building resilient institutions (Ratner et al. 2017). As there is such a variety in the intensity and types of natural resource conflicts, studies on natural resource conflicts have based themselves on a number of different definitions of conflict. Table 1 gives an overview of the conflict definitions used in the studies covered in this chapter. Several types of violence are often neglected when studying conflicts and wars because using a specific a priori definition reduces the notion of conflict to

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

795

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis, Table 1 Overview of conflict definitions used in the natural resource conflict studies covered in this chapter Conflict term Conflict

Conflict

Social conflict

Political conflict

(State-based) armed conflict

Interstate conflict Intrastate conflict

Internationalized conflict

Non-state conflict

Definition A situation in which two parties (individuals, groups, or organizations) seek to reach incompatible states (“positions”) and both are aware of that fact. A continuum of patterns of interaction among stakeholder groups, extending from short-term confrontations among competing resource users where violence is avoided, to sustained, violent confrontations involving diverse political factions, ethnic groups, or state actors. Disputes within groups are not covered in our definition of conflict, as we consider these parts of the normal, even salutary, functioning of collective action institutions. An incompatibility of intentions regarding a contested object between at least two actors who strive to obtain this object for themselves by taking measures that lie outside established procedures of regulation. [. . .] In principle, every conceivable material or immaterial goal object might be claimed by actors and, if contested, become a conflict issue. [. . .] Conflict action potentially comprises everything the actors say or do to pursue an issue and can thus comprise activities as diverse as launching a rocket or holding a speech. A subtype of social conflict. [. . .] the intentional challenging of the established order of a society on a national, subnational, or international level. Therefore, the term “political” does not exclusively refer to the political system in a narrow sense as it includes institutions of the state and those emerging from societal self-regulation. A contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in one calendar year. Comment: “Statebased armed conflict” is also referred to as “armed conflict,” as opposed to “non-state conflict,” in which none of the warring parties is a government. A conflict between two or more governments (relates to statebased). A conflict between a government and a non-governmental party, with no interference from other countries (relates to statebased). Intrastate conflict with foreign involvement. An armed conflict between a government and a non-government party where the government side, the opposing side, or both sides, receive troop support from other governments that actively participate in the conflict. The use of armed force between two organized armed groups, neither of which is the government of a state, which results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year.

only direct clashes between predefined actors, for example, the government and rebel groups (Raleigh et al. 2010). Yet, researchers most often prefer to avoid a “rubber concept” of conflict and

Source Boulding (1963, 5) through Trinn and Wencker (2018, 113) Ratner et al. (2017, 880)

Trinn and Wencker (2018, 112–113)

Trinn and Wencker (2018, 114)

UCDP (n.d.)

UCDP (n.d.) UCDP (n.d.)

UCDP (n.d.)

UCDP (n.d.)

define a lower limit to “exclude certain instances of social conflict, such as interpersonal strife, most forms of crime, trade wars, institutionalised forms of civil protest, or routine competition between

N

796

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

government and opposition” (Trinn and Wencker 2018, 113). Quantitative approaches often use number of deaths per year as a lower limit to define conflicts and wars, while qualitative approaches refer to characteristics and causal patterns within the conflict (see Table 1, e.g., UCDP n.d. and Trinn and Wencker 2018 , respectively). Different intensities of conflict are often conceptualized in the conflict cycle, which represents transition phases between peace, minor, and major violent conflict. The conflict cycle highlights the risk of getting trapped into intractable cycles of conflict, violence, and underdevelopment. Natural resources have shown to play a number of different roles in each phase of the conflict cycle: pre-, during-, and post-conflict, by respectively contributing to grievances and triggering the onset of conflicts; intensifying and perpetuating the violence; and undermining initiatives for the conclusion of conflicts (UNFT 2011; UN DPA and UNEP 2015). Figure 2 shows the different risks natural resources bring in every phase of the conflict cycle, as well as opportunities for mediating

and reducing violent conflict, for peacekeeping and peacebuilding, and for long-term peaceful sustainable development. Bruch et al. (2019) give a thorough overview of all major armed conflict (>999 deaths per year) from 1989 to 2018 over all continents that involved natural resources, and which resources were involved in each specific phase of the conflict cycle (summary represented in Figs. 1 and 3). For example, water and territorial disputes were major causes contributing to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the early 1990s (Bruch et al. 2019). During the Liberian Civil War (1989 until 1997), cannabis, cocoa, coffee, diamonds, gold, iron, palm oil, rubber, and timber were used to finance the conflict, while forests, land, and water were targeted and impacted by the war (ibid.). As a third and last example, the Moro conflict, a longlasting insurgency in the Mindanao region of the Philippines (1969–2019), included the equitable sharing of aquatic resources, land, mineral such as copper and nickel, and territory in the peace agreement of 2014.

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis, Fig. 2 Conceptualization of conflict intensity (y-axis) throughout the different phases of a conflict (x-axis). The diagram indicates the tendency to get trapped within intractable cycles of conflict and violence, as well as summarizes the risks (in red text)

and opportunities (in blue text) that natural resources can bring within each phase of the conflict cycle. (Based on and with permission of: UNEP 2016, adapted with information from UNEP 2009; UN DPA and UNEP 2015; Bruch et al. 2019)

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

797

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis, Fig. 3 The involvement of natural resources, classified into four different types, in the different phases of natural resource conflicts, for major conflicts (over 999 battlerelated deaths) between 1990 and 2015, n ¼ 67. (Source: UNEP 2016 and Bruch et al. 2019)

Resource Characteristics in Conflicts: Renewables versus Nonrenewables The specific characteristics of natural resources play an important role in in the onset, aggravation, and sustaining of violent conflicts. A typical categorization of natural resources in the context of (non)-violent conflicts is: renewable resources, nonrenewable resources, land, and water resources (UN DPA and UNEP 2015; Bayramov 2018; Schilling et al. 2018). Nonrenewable resources, sometimes also referred to as extractive resources, include among others hydrocarbons (oil and gas), minerals, gemstones, and timber from old-grown forests. Renewable resources include among others wind, solar, tidal and hydro energy, wildlife, timber from forestry, fertile soils, biodiversity, etc. Land and water have such specific characteristic in their use and management that it is relevant to consider them as separate categories when analyzing natural resource conflicts. Figure 3 gives an overview of the different types of resources involved in the different phases of the conflict cycle. Important to note is that renewable resources only stay renewable when managed, extracted, and used

within their regenerative capacity. Once that is exceeded, they lose their renewable character, and they become exhausted or depleted and cannot regenerate within the time span of a human life. For example, it is impossible to regenerate an old grown forest within the span of one human generation after clear-cut deforestation. The disruption of the ecosystem and the withdrawal of nutrients from the system are too big to restore. However, sustainable forestry provides timber as a renewable resource, with continuous regeneration of the forest, care for balanced nutrient cycles, and the ecosystem supporting plant growth. Other resource characteristics that have an important impact on conflict dynamics include energy-provision (fuel vs. non-fuel), spatial distribution (point vs. diffuse), distance to main governmental control (e.g., the capital), market-value, lootability (the combination of the market value and the easiness to extract and transport a resource), inside or outside the conflict zone (Bayramov 2018; Schilling et al. 2018). Further important specifics for natural resource conflicts are the characteristics of the extraction process (e.g., the scale of the extraction, the importance of the extraction for local livelihoods, etc.) and the

N

798

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

actors involved in the extraction (e.g., who owns the resources, who has access to them, and who uses them?) (Schilling et al. 2018). Renewable resources have been mainly linked to scarcity theories of natural resource conflicts, while nonrenewable resources have been linked to violent conflict through theories of resource abundance (Koubi et al. 2014). More and more there is evidence that also abundance of renewable resources can lead to violent conflict (Bayramov 2018; Koren 2018). The theorized causal pathways from both scarcity and abundance of resource to violent conflict have been explained above in the introduction. “Regardless of which theory describes the bigger threat, it is clear that both scarcity and abundance can create environments that are ripe for violent conflict” (USIP 2007, 9). Except for influencing the conflict dynamics, scarcity, and abundance of certain natural resources also directly influences the mediation opportunities available (UN DPA and UNEP 2015). Lastly it is important to note that many conflicts involve “the interplay of more than one type of resource” (ibid., 11).

Local to Global Dynamics: Geographical Scales in Natural Resource Conflict Natural resource conflicts take place at different geographical scales simultaneously (UN DPA and UNEP 2015; Schilling et al. 2018). The local, subnational, national, transboundary, regional, international, and global dynamics are interlinked and difficult to disentangle (Schilling et al. 2018). Structuring and clarifying how dynamics at different levels interact with each other will create a more comprehensive understanding of natural resource conflicts (Schilling et al. 2018), and is therefore necessary for effective policy interventions to prevent new and curb existing resource conflicts. This explains the increased awareness of the local to global crossscale dynamics of natural resource conflicts in recent literature. Figure 4 presents a general overview of actors and stakeholders in natural resource conflicts from a local to global scale by Schilling et al. (2018).

Qualitative research on natural resource conflicts has mainly been case-studies focused on local, subnational, and national levels (e.g., Homer-Dixon 1994; Le Billon 2012), while regional, transnational, and international studies are rather the exception (e.g., Allan 2002; Dunning and Wirpsa 2004). Quantitative methods have traditionally focused on national scale explanations because statistical data was mainly gathered and available at that spatial resolution (Collier et al. 2009; Raleigh et al. 2010; Rustad et al. 2011). More recently, quantitative resource conflict studies have also focused on the local level thanks to geolocated conflict event data (e.g. Raleigh et al. 2010; Rustad et al. 2011). Raleigh et al. (2010, 653) stated that “If variables are not significant at the level at which the war is fought, conclusions of regional or national studies must be questioned,” meaning that all conflicts are local and should be studied as such (Rustad et al. 2011). However, natural resource conflicts have different drivers and actors on different scales, and it would be inadequate to reduce all theoretical analyses and explanations to one geographical level. The following paragraphs will give an insight into common natural resource conflict dynamics and actors per scale and how they relate to other scales. The local scale is where the violence of a conflict plays out and where the exploitation of resources takes place, including the extraction process and the exploration phases (Schilling et al. 2018). In case of a short commodity chain, the processing, production, and use of the resources are also at the local level (e.g. sand and gravel extraction for a nearby cement factory) (MartinezAlier 2002). Further, the “environmental, economic, societal and institutional developments that accompany the extraction of resources” are also part of the local scale, for example, job or livelihood creation, local migration, health impacts (Schilling et al. 2018, 442). However, the actions of local stakeholders, individuals, or groups such as community leaders, youth organizations, local entrepreneurs, employees, and representatives of a local extractive company, local NGO, farmers, farmers associations, local unions, and local governments can generate effects on

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

799

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis, Fig. 4 Actors and stakeholders in natural resource governance and conflict from a local to global scale. Interactions and relationships between stakeholders can be cooperative, conflictual,

hybrid, or changing. The relationship between two actors can exist of flows of information, services (e.g., jobs), money, or materials (e.g., natural resources). (Source and with permission of: Schilling et al. 2018)

scales far beyond the specific locality of resource exploitation and use. For example, deforestation of the Mau Forest complex in Kenya for agricultural expansion has contributed to inadequate water access downstream in the transboundary Mara river basin, creating competition and conflicts over the available water for downstream livelihoods, as well as political disputes between Kenya and Tanzania (Mwanika 2010). On the local scale, it is important to understand that local communities are not homogeneous, but different interests and expectations exist about natural resource use (Schilling et al. 2018). Local representatives of higher-scale governments or companies often end up in a compromising position between advancing the goals of the higher-level company/government and securing local satisfaction with the resource exploitation (ibid.).

The subnational scale contains geographical clustering of areas according to cultural, political, or ecological boundaries above the local level, but below states’ level. This includes for example linguistic, religious, or ethnical groups, districts, counties, provinces, ecoregions, landscapes, and catchments. Resources are often unevenly distributed along those boundaries, creating power imbalances between groups living there (UN DPA and UNEP 2015; Rigterink 2020). In Canada, conflicts between indigenous land rights and institutionally registered land rights, with claims going back to the time of European colonization, have been and are being addressed by modern treaties that ensure shared ownership of institutions for land and resource management (Wyatt et al. 2019). In order for indigenous groups in Canada to actively enhance their role in resource

N

800

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

management, strong legal institutions and procedural spaces are necessary as a ground for negotiation and implementation (ibid.). More fragile and poor countries, with ethnically diverse and postcolonial context, often do not have such institutions in place for natural resource conflict resolution. It has been shown that the intensity of violence increased in resource-rich subnational areas as international resource prices rose, but not on a national level (Rigterink 2020). On the national scale, the national government is the main actor regulating resource explorations, exploitations, and trade by policies, such as taxes and laws. They “tend to favour largescale extractive processes that promise to generate revenues” (Schilling et al. 2018, 448). Other national actors are national NGOs, important for giving a national voice to local communities impacted by negative consequences of resource exploitation projects, and domestic companies or national headquarters of international extractive companies (ibid.). On the regional scale, violent conflicts have been shown to spill-over to neighboring countries in fragile contexts. Reasons include that weapons are available and can be traded, that there are culturally related groups (language, ethnicity, or religion) which cross national political boundaries, that livelihood opportunities can be unequal on different sides of a border, and that people migrate across borders. Further, many natural resources cross national boundaries. Regional conflicts could arise over transboundary, economically interesting natural resources, especially where disputes already exist over competing sovereignty claims (Andrews-Speed et al. 2012). Fish, off-shore oil, and water from transboundary river systems are typical for this type of territorial conflict onsets. “Powerful state actors may choose to exploit these resources unilaterally rather than engaging in transnational governance institutions to manage the resource more equitably. Such actions raise the risk of violent conflict” (Andrews-Speed et al. 2012, 8). Often, there are intergovernmental organizations or agreements existing on a regional scale, such as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the International Conference on the Great

Lakes Region (IC/GLR) (Mwanika 2010). These organizations have a mandate for multilateral conflict management in the Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region, respectively. On the international scale, natural resources are most often embedded in international supply chains. This connects many actors internationally to natural resource conflicts, for example, foreign investors, businesses, and industries along the supply chains of each natural resource, trade-partner countries, NGOs, intergovernmental organizations, international donor agencies, development aid, financial institutions, lobbyist, and consumers. Cooperation from the actors involved in those supply chains is crucial for conflict resolution and long-term peace (USIP 2007). International development aid can have a large impact too, and the actors in that field must be aware that such an intervention brings changes to the existing balance of power. Further, international regulatory mechanisms have been established to reduce the negative impacts of resource demands, for example, the Kimberley process and the Dodd-Frank Act. When establishing such national and international natural resource regulations toward conflict prevention and reduction, governmental bodies receive intense lobbying by NGOs as well as extractive sector representatives. Further, on an international scale, there exist many fears and theories of geopolitical competition and resource defense and securing by states (Gulley et al. 2018; Borgerson 2013). There is, however, little empirical evidence for geopolitical resource conflicts; rather the opposite, that is, of increased geopolitical cooperation. For example, countries bordering the Arctic Sea, where the melting sea ice is opening up a wealth of petroleum, minerals, fishing waters and trade routes, have increased their cooperation since 2008 and peacefully settled Arctic claims, despite expectations of great power competition (Borgerson 2013). Globally, natural resource conflicts and the violence therein are dependent on the commodity market; that is, the prices, volatility, demand, and supply by other actors can destabilize local livelihoods and rouse grievances within local communities (UN DPA and UNEP 2015). Also on a

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

global scale, climate change is degrading many natural resources worldwide, for example, fish stocks are impacted and migrating, desertification increases in a warmer world, and access to water changes because of different precipitation patterns. Global population growth and increased per capita consumption is increasing the global demand for resources (Andrews-Speed et al. 2012). A number of global political agreements could have an impact on natural resource conflicts, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN 1948) and the Paris Agreement on limiting climate change (UN 2015).

Concluding Summary Preventing and resolving natural resource conflicts is an integral and interconnected part of the global political Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030. In the past centuries, the links between natural resources and conflicts have been changing along with the historical context from resource plunder in colonial and neocolonial times, to the end of the Cold War with a sudden shift in power and economic relations, precipitating a conversion toward intrastate conflicts in failed or failing, often resource-rich, states. Around the same time (early 1990s), the increased global environmental awareness supported a growing amount of research, policies, and practices on the relation between natural resource use and conflicts. Currently, the main theories explaining natural resources as drivers of conflict refer to scarcity and abundance of natural resources. The unequal distribution of burdens and benefits, profits, and power generated from resource exploitation is the direct socioeconomic and political context that creates resource grievances. Without strong agreements on the access to and the management of natural resources, disputes and competition can develop into violent conflicts. Global environmental change makes natural resource conflicts an increasing source of concern. Although natural resource conflicts do receive sufficient attention of practitioners and policy makers, it is not always clear how they should act on the complex

801

interlinked issues of the environment, natural resources, and conflict. This chapter has specifically shed light on three analytical axes in which natural resource conflicts can be studied: intensity and violence of natural resource conflicts, renewables versus nonrenewable resources in natural resource conflicts, and the scales of conflict dynamics over natural resources. Natural resource conflicts vary widely in intensity from conflicts of interest between stakeholder groups to armed conflicts between groups. Different intensities and phases of natural resource conflicts can be conceptualized in the conflict cycle, which helps represent how natural resources contribute to triggering, intensifying, or sustaining the conflict. The specific characteristics of natural resources (e.g., their value and use, spatial distribution) play an important role in the onset, conduct, and ending of violent conflicts. In relation to conflicts, natural resources are most often discussed in terms of and categorized into renewable and nonrenewable resources, water and land. Natural resource conflicts take place at different geographical scales simultaneously. Their local, subnational, national, transboundary, regional, international, and global dynamics are interlinked and difficult to disentangle. These analytical axes show the need for appropriate frameworks to clarify the dynamics at play in natural resource conflicts and to uncover opportunities for specific actors to prevent or resolve natural resource conflicts. There has been an increased and sustained interest in the field on natural resource conflicts both in research and practice. Yet, our understanding of the role of natural resources in conflicts remains incomplete without scientific consensus. For example, there have been no explicit studies to understand the connections (trade-offs and synergies) between natural resource conflicts and each SDG. There is also a lack of understanding how nonviolent conflict transitions to violence or to peaceful, potentially innovative and creative, resolutions. There is a need for indicators of emerging tensions and methods to study impacts of interventions for conflict prevention and peacebuilding. There is a need to understand and use natural resources for cooperation and innovation, not conflict.

N

802

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis

Cross-References ▶ Attaining SDGs in Africa Through Bilateral and Multilateral Partnerships ▶ Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management ▶ Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Through Partnership and Collaboration ▶ Intercultural Responsibility: Critical Inter-epistemic Dialog and Equity for Sustainable Development ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ Nature-Based Solutions ▶ Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development ▶ Transdisciplinary Collaborations for Achieving the SDGs ▶ Water Safety Plans and Climate Change Mitigation ▶ Water Security Acknowledgments This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Network grant agreement no. 675153.

References Abel GJ, Brottrager M, Cuaresma JC, Muttarak R (2019) Climate, conflict and forced migration. Glob Environ Chang 54(Jan):239–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2018.12.003 Adger WN, Pulhin JM, Barnett J, Dalbeko GD, Hovelsrud GK, Levy M, Spring ÚO, Vogel CH (2014) Human security. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Billir TE, Chatterjee M et al (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, pp 755–791 Allan JA (2002) Hydro-peace in the middle east: why no water wars?: a case study of the Jordan River basin. SAIS Rev 22(2):255–272. https://doi.org/10.1353/sais. 2002.0027 Amin S (1977) Imperialism and unequal development. Harvester Press, Hassocks, Sussex Andrews-Speed P, Bleischwitz R, Boersma T, Johnson C, Kemp G, Van Deveer SD (2012) The global resource Nexus: the struggles for land, energy, food, water, and

minerals. Transatlantic Academy, Washington, DC. https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/content/language1/down loads/TA_2012_report_web_version.pdf Auty RM (1993) Sustaining development in mineral economies: the resource curse thesis. Routledge, London/ New York Basedau M, Lay J (2009) Resource curse or rentier peace? The ambiguous effects of oil wealth and oil dependence on violent conflict. J Peace Res 46(6):757–776 Bayramov A (2018) Review: dubious Nexus between natural resources and conflict. J Eurasian Stud 9(1):72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2017.12.006 Beevers MD (2019) Natural resources: a catalyst for conflict and Peace? In: Beevers MD (ed) Peacebuilding and natural resource governance after armed conflict. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31963166-0_3 Borgerson S (2013) The coming Arctic boom: as the ice melts, the region heats up. Foreign Aff 92(4):76–89 Boulding KE (1963) Conflict and defense: a general theory. Harper & Row, New York Bruch C, Jensen D, Nakayama M, Unruh J (2019) The changing nature of conflict, peacebuilding, and environmental cooperation. Environ Law Report 49(2):26–46 Butt N, Lambrick F, Menton M, Renwick A (2019) The supply chain of violence. Nat Sustain 2(8):742–747. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0349-4 Buzan B, Wæver O, de Wilde J (1998) Security: a new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder Collier P, Hoeffler A, Rohner D (2009) Beyond greed and grievance: feasibility and civil war. Oxf Econ Pap 61(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpn029 Corden WM, Peter Neary J (1982) Booming sector and deindustrialisation in a small open economy. Econ J 92 (368):825–848. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232670 Dunning T, Wirpsa L (2004) Oil and the political economy of conflict in Colombia and beyond: a linkages approach. Geopolitics 9(1):81–108. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14650040412331307842 General Secretariat of the Council (2018) Council conclusions on climate diplomacy. 6125/18. Council of the European Union, Brussels. http://www.consilium. europa.eu/media/32953/st06125-en18.pdf Gleditsch NP, Urdal H (2002) Ecoviolence? Links between population growth, environmental scarcity and violent conflict in Thomas Homer-Dixon’s work. J Int Aff 56 (1):283 Gulley AL, Nassar NT, Xun S (2018) China, the United States, and competition for resources that enable emerging technologies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115(16):4111–4115. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717152115 HIIK (2019) HIIK dataset 2018 1.1. Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, Heidelberg. https:// hiik.de/data-and-maps/datasets/?lang¼en Homer-Dixon TF (1994) Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: evidence from cases. Int Secur 19(1):5. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539147

Natural Resource Conflicts: Definition and Three Frameworks to Aid Analysis Ide T (2018) Climate war in the middle east? Drought, the Syrian civil war and the state of climate-conflict research. Curr Clim Chang Rep 4(4):347–354. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0115-0 IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptations and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Parry ML, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.ipcc.ch/ report/ar5/syr/ IPBES (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://ipbes.net/global-assessment Koch D-J, Burlyuk O (2019) Bounded policy learning? EU efforts to anticipate unintended consequences in conflict minerals legislation. J Eur Publ Policy:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1675744 Koren O (2018) Food abundance and violent conflict in Africa. Am J Agric Econ 100(4):981–1006. https://doi. org/10.1093/ajae/aax106 Koubi V, Spilker G, Böhmelt T, Bernauer T (2014) Do natural resources matter for interstate and intrastate armed conflict? J Peace Res 51(2):227–243. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022343313493455 Le Billon P (2001) The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts. Polit Geogr 20(5):561–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00015-4 Le Billon P (2012) Wars of plunder: conflicts, profits and the politics of resources. Columbia University Press Lujala P (2010) The spoils of nature: armed civil conflict and rebel access to natural resources. J Peace Res 47(1):15–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343309350015 Mach KJ, Kraan CM, Neil Adger W, Buhaug H, Burke M, Fearon JD, Field CB et al (2019) Climate as a risk factor for armed conflict. Nature 571(7764):193–197. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1300-6 Martinez-Alier J (2002) The environmentalism of the poor : a study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Matthew RA (ed) (2010) Global environmental change and human security. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Mildner S-A, Lauster G, Wodni W (2011) Scarcity and abundance revisited: a literature review on natural resources and conflict. Int J Confl Violence 5(1):155–172 Mthembu-Salter G, Mozersky D, Das S (2019) Renewable energy and UN peacekeeping: untapped potential in the democratic Republic of the Congo. In: Powering peace. Energy Peace Partners and the Stimson Center, USA. https://www.stimson.org/sites/default/files/file-attach ments/Renewable%20Energy%20and%20UN%20Pea cekeeping%20DRC.pdf?

803

Mühlhäusler P, Peace A (2006) Environmental Discourses. Annu Rev Anthropol 35:457 Mwanika PAN (2010) Natural resources conflict: management processes and strategies in Africa. Institute for Security Studies, ISS Paper 216 (Sept), 12 O’Brochta W (2019) A meta-analysis of natural resources and conflict. Res Polit 6(1):205316801881823. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2053168018818232 Olsson EGA, Gooch P (2019) Natural resource conflicts and sustainable development, 1st edn. Routledge, London. http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/8f1f8198-f788-434897ab-25a1d6a19741 Pourtier R, Rosière S (2012) Éditorial -Risques et conflits (editorial -risks and conflicts). Bulletin de l’Association de Géographes Français 89(1):3–5 Raleigh C, Linke A, Hegre H, Karlsen J (2010) Introducing ACLED: an armed conflict location and event dataset. J Peace Res 47(5):651–660 Ratner BD, Meinzen-Dick R, Hellin J, Mapedza E, Unruh J, Veening W, Haglund E, May C, Bruch C (2017) Addressing conflict through collective action in natural resource management. Int J Commons 11(2):877–906. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.768 Rigterink AS (2020) Diamonds, Rebel’s and Farmer’s best friend: impact of variation in the price of a Lootable, labor-intensive natural resource on the intensity of violent conflict. J Confl Resolut 64(1):90–126. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022002719849623 Ross ML (2015) What have we learned about the resource curse? Annu Rev Polit Sci 18(1):239–259. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052213-040359 Rustad SCA, Buhaug H, Falch Å, Gates S (2011) All conflict is local modeling sub-national variation in civil conflict risk. Confl Manag Peace Sci 28(1):15–40 Sachs JD, Warner AM (1995) Natural resource abundance and economic growth. NBER working paper series. National Bureau of Economic Research Inc., Cambridge, MA Sala-i-Martin X, Subramanian A (2003) Addressing the natural resource curse: an illustration from Nigeria. NBER working paper series. National Bureau of Economic Research Inc., Cambridge, MA Scheffran J, Brzoska M, Jasmin K, Michael Link P, Schilling J (2012) Disentangling the climate-conflict Nexus: empirical and theoretical assessment of vulnerabilities and pathways. Rev Eur Stud 4(5). https://doi.org/10. 5539/res.v4n5p1 Schilling J, Saulich C, Engwicht N (2018) A local to global perspective on resource governance and conflict. Confl Secur Dev 18(6):433–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14678802.2018.1532641 Schleussner C-F, Donges JF, Donner RV, Schellnhuber HJ (2016) Armed-conflict risks enhanced by climaterelated disasters in ethnically fractionalized countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(33):9216–9221. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1601611113 Scholvin S (2016) Geopolitics – an overview of concepts and empirical examples from international relations. Pdf. Finnish institute of International Affairs

N

804 Search for Common Ground (2019) Natural resource conflicts. Search for Common Ground. https://www.sfcg. org/tag/natural-resource-conflicts/ Temper L, Demaria F, Scheidel A, Del Bene D, MartinezAlier J (2018) The global environmental justice atlas (EJAtlas): ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability. Sustain Sci 13(3):573–584. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11625-018-0563-4 Trinn C, Wencker T (2018) Introducing the Heidelberg approach to conflict research. Eur Polit Sci 17(1):111– 121. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-016-0093-4 UCDP (n.d.) Uppsala conflict data programme. Department of Peace and Conflict Research – Uppsala University, Sweden. https://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/ UN (1948) Universal declaration of human rights. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declarationhuman-rights/ UN (2015) Paris Agreement. United Nations. https:// unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/appli cation/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf UN DPA and UNEP (2015) Natural Resources and Conflict: A Guide for Mediation Practitioners. United Nations Department of Political Affairs and United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi/New York. ISBN: 978-92-807-3433-1 UN General Assembly (2006) Progress report of the secretary general on the prevention of armed conflict. A/60/ 891. http://archive.ipu.org/SPLZ-e/unga06/conflict.pdf UN General Assembly (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Vol. A/RES/ 70/1. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826190123.ap02 UN Press Release (2007) Security council holds first-ever debate on impact of climate change on peace, security, hearing over 50 speakers. SC/9000. UN Security Council, 5663rd Meeting. https://www.un.org/press/en/ 2007/sc9000.doc.htm UNEP (ed) (2009) From conflict to peacebuilding: the role of natural resources and the environment. Policy Paper, no. 1. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi UNEP (ed) (2016) Environmental cooperation for peacebuilding Programme: final report 2016. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. https:// postconflict.unep.ch/publications/ECP/ECP_final_ report_Nov2016.pdf UNEP (2019) Global environment outlook 6: healthy planet, healthy people. Edited by Paul Ekins, Joyeeta Gupta, and Pierre Boileau. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY UNFT (2011) EU-UN partnership on land, natural resources and conflict prevention: introduction and overview. UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action (UNFT), New York. http://www.un. org/en/land-natural-resources-conflict/pdfs/EU-UN% 20Introduction%20and%20overview.pdf USIP (2007) Natural resources, conflict, and conflict resolution. In: A study guide series on peace and conflict for independent learners and classroom instructors. United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC

Nature-Based Solutions van der Ploeg F, Poelhekke S (2009) Volatility and the natural resource curse. Oxf Econ Pap 61(4):727 von Uexkull N (2014) Sustained drought, vulnerability and civil conflict in sub-Saharan Africa. Polit Geogr 43 (Nov):16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2014.1 0.003. Special Issue: Climate Change and Conflict Wyatt S, Hébert M, Fortier J-F, Blanchet É-J, Lewis N (2019) Strategic approaches to indigenous engagement in natural resource management: use of collaboration and conflict to expand negotiating space by three indigenous nations in Quebec, Canada. Can J For Res 49 (4):375–386. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0253

Nature-Based Solutions Raquel Antolin-Lopez and Nieves Garcia-de-Frutos Department of Economics and Business Administration, University of Almeria, Almeria, Spain

Definition “Nature-based solutions” (NBS) is a concept that has been introduced in recent years to acknowledge and promote nature as a means to bring change and deliver effective solutions to current unsustainable societies. Specifically, NBS can be understood as actions and innovations inspired and supported by nature with the aim of helping societies to address pressing environmental, social, and economic challenges such as climate change, water scarcity, food security, or risk management. NBS follow biodiversity principles and emulate the time-tested patterns and processes of ecosystems for the benefit of both people and the planet. This is an interdisciplinary approach that can help to design products, materials, and strategies that can contribute to integrating the human species and the Earth’s natural processes.

Introduction Human activity has reached a level that might imply irreversible ecological changes detrimental to human development (Eggermont et al. 2015).

Nature-Based Solutions

In recent years, environmental and social problems such as climate change, water scarcity, pollution, natural disasters, and food security have been exacerbated to such a degree that they have been categorized as societal grand challenges (Ferraro et al. 2015; George et al. 2016). For instance, the Living Planet Report 2016 states that the planet has lost 57% of biodiversity since 1970 and estimates that this figure will reach 68% by 2020 (WWF 2016). Because of the limited progress achieved by conventional approaches and technological strategies, managing socio-ecological systems in a holistic way becomes a priority to solve sustainability-related challenges. Given this scenario, NBS have been proposed by practitioners, policymakers, and scholars in the belief that natural ecosystems not only serve the planet’s vital purposes but can also generate economic and social value if they are used sustainably and respectfully. Nature has been found to play a key role in reducing the risk of natural hazards, for example, mangrove forests along the coastline have been found to protect rice crops recover from salt intrusion after coastal storms and coastal ecosystems reduce physical exposure to hurricanes, etc. (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). Understanding how nature functions can evoke new ideas and inspire viable solutions that rely on the properties of natural ecosystems in addition to services and processes to develop strategies and actions that integrate people and the planet and that enhance the natural capital while at the same time improving our quality of life (Mathews 2011). Indeed, a number of inventions have emanated from the observation of the natural environment, for example, pollination in agriculture, biofiltration processes to purify air and water, or replicated ecosystems that function as a natural carbon sink (absorption of Co2 emissions). The main premise of the NBS approach is that economies and societies can gain valuable insight from the principles of ecosystems to tackle sustainability-related grand challenges. Nature forms the basis for developing and implementing solutions. Therefore, working with nature, rather than against it or taking advantage of it, has been considered as the means toward a more resourceefficient, less-polluting, and competitive

805

economy. Nature is regarded as the key for achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) (UN 2018). Thus, sustaining and protecting the natural capital is of crucial importance (EC 2015). The UN SDG number 17 specifically addresses the creation and maintenance of partnerships and collaborative governance to achieve such sustainability goals (UN 2018). Given the scope and complexity of some NBS, the interaction of multiple stakeholder groups is required (Faivre et al. 2017; Gallo et al. 2018; Wood et al. 2018). To carry this out in an effective way, it is vital that institutions at different levels, such as governments, NGOs, research centers, local communities, and private initiatives, create partnerships to collaborate (Vasseur et al. 2017). The various members of the partnerships are expected to play different roles at every stage of NBS implementation, from planning to the development of solutions and the collection of resulting data (UN 2018). For example, partnerships and collaborations between a range of multi-sector organizations and individuals have been found to be the key for NBS approaches in coastal zones (Kelly et al. 2012), oceans management (Aburto et al. 2012), fisheries (Fulton et al. 2014), tourism in protected areas (Eagles 1999), natural capital protection (Santiago-Fink 2016), or climate change adaptation (Mercer et al. 2012).

The Development and Evolution of NBS as a Concept Although the role that nature plays in supporting human well-being is a central belief for many people (e.g., indigenous populations), it was not until the 1970s that it began to be recognized in the scientific literature. By the 1990s it was evident that a more systematic approach was needed to document and understand the relationship between nature and people (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). However, the concept of NBS, as introduced by practitioners, did not emerge until the late 2000s. The term implied a shift in perspective where people were not only regarded as passive beneficiaries of nature’s services but also as

N

806

proactive protectors of the natural environment. Specifically, it was first introduced by the World Bank (World Bank 2008) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in a position paper for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (IUCN 2009). Their concept of NBS was used in the context of finding solutions to mitigate climate change effects, while conserving biodiversity and ensuring sustainable livelihoods. Later, they extended the concept to other contexts, by defining NBS as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that addresses societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” Thereafter, the term was also adopted by policymakers in Europe, in particular the European Commission (EC), which referred to NBS as the means to create innovation opportunities to green the European economies and contribute to create jobs and growth. Specifically, the EC defined NBS as “actions inspired by, supported by or copied from nature; both using and enhancing existing solutions to challenges, as well as exploring more novel solutions. . . that aim to help societies address a variety of environmental, social and economic challenges in sustainable ways” (EC 2015: 24). While broadly similar, the definitions provided by the IUCN and the EC illustrate how the NBS term has been conceptualized and used in slightly different ways by different stakeholders. For instance, IUCN’s (2012) framing places human communities and biodiversity at the heart of the concept of NBS, while the definition of the EC is somewhat broader because it adds economics to the equation (Eggermont et al. 2015). In addition, the EC’s definition puts more stress on applying solutions that not only use nature but are also inspired and supported by nature. This last perspective addresses NBS as a way for societies to meet the triple bottom line (social, environmental, and economic objectives) has become widespread in recent years, gaining predominance in both the practice and academic arenas. Therefore, the evolution and development of the concept of NBS have mainly come from the

Nature-Based Solutions

side of practitioners and policymakers. With some exceptions (e.g., Mackinnon and Hickey 2009), the term has not been broadly used in the academic literature until recently (e.g., Eggermont et al. 2015; Kabish et al. 2016; Maes and Jacobs 2015; Nesshöver et al. 2017).

NBS Principles As a result of a consultation of practitioners and researchers and with the aim of clarifying the intrinsic characteristics of NBS, the IUCN developed a set of principles. Specifically, they proposed eight principles that are the cornerstones of NBS (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016: 7): 1. NBS embrace nature conservation norms (and principles). 2. NBS can be implemented alone or in an integrated manner with other solutions to meet societal challenges (e.g., technological and engineering solutions). 3. NBS are determined by site-specific natural and cultural contexts that include traditional, local, and scientific knowledge. 4. NBS produce societal benefits in a fair and equitable way, in a manner that promotes transparency and broad participation. 5. NBS maintain biological and cultural diversity and the ability of ecosystems to evolve over time. 6. NBS are applied at a landscape scale. 7. NBS recognize and address the trade-offs between the production of a few immediate economic benefits for development and future options for the production of the full range of ecosystems services. 8. NBS are an integral part of the overall design of policies and measures or actions, to address a specific challenge.

NBS and Related Concepts The understanding of NBS as a way to solve environmental, social, and economic problems overlaps and strongly links with other concepts

Nature-Based Solutions

that deal with natural resources and ecosystem management for sustainability and human wellbeing. In this regard, a recent report from the Horizon 2020 outlining the European innovation policy agenda states that the concept of NBS “builds on and supports other closely related concepts, such as the ecosystem approach, ecosystem services, ecosystem-based adaptation/mitigation, and green and blue infrastructure” (EC 2015: 24). The similarities and differences between NBS and the aforementioned strongly related concepts have been addressed in a recent review (see Nesshöver et al. 2017). The main conclusion is that all these concepts acknowledge the relevance of nature and the need for understanding the functioning of ecosystems, including human actions and their consequences, to guarantee sustainable growth. The term NBS, however, presents two distinctive premises: (1) some societal challenges are the result of human activities that have overlooked ecological limitations; and (2) looking to nature for design and process knowledge can offer sustainable alternatives to those activities (EC 2015). Thus, NBS respond to a duality of objectives: the application of knowledge about nature to provide positive responses to societal challenges, but also to maintain and enhance the natural capital and ecosystems. Contrariwise, the related concepts (e.g., ecosystem services, green infrastructure, ecological engineering) are mainly based on the notion that ecosystem services should be managed and valued in terms of immediate benefits to human well-being and the economy and not to the environment itself (Eggermont et al. 2015). Despite such conceptual differences, related concepts might inform and assist in the understanding of the opportunities and challenges for NBS (Nesshöver et al. 2017). Other scholars that have compared NBS with related concepts have concluded that NBS might serve as an umbrella term (e.g., Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016; van den Bosh and Sang 2017; Postchin et al. 2015). For example, according to van den Bosch and Sang (2017), NBS encompasses green infrastructure, ecosystem-based adaptation, and ecosystem services. The IUCN also provides a more detailed explanation of the concepts that fall under the NBS umbrella as displayed in

807 Nature-Based Solutions, Table 1 IUCNs framework of NBS as an umbrella concept: approaches covered Category of NBS approaches Ecosystem restoration approaches Issue-specific ecosystem-related approaches

Infrastructure-related approaches Ecosystem-based management approaches Ecosystem protection approaches

Examples Ecological restoration Ecological engineering Forest landscape restoration Ecosystem-based adaptation Ecosystem-based mitigation Climate adaptation services Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction Natural infrastructure Green infrastructure Integrated coastal zone management Integrated water resources management Area-based conservation approaches including protected area management

Table extracted from Cohen-Shacham et al. (2016: 10)

Table 1 (see Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016: 10). Finally, Potshin et al. (2015) also propose that other concepts that connect nature and innovation fall within the NBS umbrella, concepts such as “natural solutions” (e.g., Dudey et al. 2010), “ecosystem-based innovations” (Potschin et al. 2015), “biomimicry” (e.g., Mathews 2011), and “biomimetics (e.g., Neves and Francke 2012), as long as the two distinctive characteristics mentioned above are met.

NBS Classification NBS is one of the most comprehensive approaches to address different environmental, social, and economic issues. They can take a wide variety of forms and are suitable for very different contexts. Given their broad extent of application, Raymond et al. (2017) classify NBS according to their scope and scale: macro, meso, and micro. The macroscale corresponds to the global/international level – i.e., the creation of a protected natural ecosystem which is shared by several countries. The mesoscale can be

N

808

associated to NBS implemented at a regional/metropolitan scales – i.e., recovering regional wetlands. Finally, the microscale represents NBS that are developed and implemented in specific neighborhoods/streets/buildings – i.e., implementing a green roof in a building. Such scope-based classification is useful to discern which organisms and institutions should be involved in the development of NBS initiatives at different levels. Another well-established typology of NBS is the one proposed by Eggermont et al. (2015) that has been followed by other authors (e.g., CohenShacham et al. 2016). This classification categorizes NBS in three different types: Type 1, the “use of natural ecosystems”; Type 2, “managed or restored ecosystems”; and Type 3, the “creation of new ecosystems.” This categorization of NBS is based on two main criteria: (1) the degree of ecosystem engineering required by the NBS intervention and (2) the number of stakeholder groups and ecosystem services targeted by the NBS. Type 1: Use of existing natural ecosystems. NBS falling under the first type aim to minimize or avoid intervention in natural ecosystems to solve societal challenges. This type of NBS can be implemented in the natural environment at a macro- or mesoscale and would include actions such as establishing protected areas. Partnerships for implementing such NBS might need to include supranational organisms and international NGOs as well as research centers. Generally, they are long-term solutions because natural processes are slow and only solve some challenges. However, the costs of such NBS may be lower compared to other solutions. Type 2: Managed or restored natural ecosystems. The second type of NBS corresponds to a more intrusive action, such as renovating and/or managing extant ecosystems. Type 2 solutions may take place in extant ecosystems that are suffering a certain level of degradation such as forests, coastlines and wetlands, riverbanks, and agricultural landscapes. Hence, Type 2 solutions can be mainly developed at a mesoscale. NBS for restored ecosystems are an effective means to improve their resilience to natural hazards.

Nature-Based Solutions

Type 3: Creation of new natural ecosystems. The third type of NBS is characterized by a high level of modification or intervention in extant natural ecosystems, which might even involve creating new ones. Type 3 solutions can be linked to objectives such as the restoration of heavily degraded or polluted areas. Given the effort that such ecosystem creation/modification processes may require, Type 3 NBS are mostly implemented at a micro- or mesoscale. Most interventions in urban areas such as the greening of building roofs, creating urban gardens, and planting more trees fall under this type of NBS. Hence, Type 3 solutions tend to combine natural (green) and technological (gray) infrastructures. Partnerships that put such NBS into practice may need to include local authorities, companies, NGOs, and community representatives. It is noteworthy to note that this classification does not consider NBS as clear-cut types. For example, rebuilding land that has been previously used for intensive agriculture can be considered a Type 2 NBS (since it implies ecosystem restoration), but allowing the land to recover without human intervention might be connected with Type 1 solutions.

NBS to Address Global Societal Challenges Given their abovementioned potential and broad extent of application, NBS have been proposed as a key approach for addressing major societal challenges and the transition to sustainable development (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). For example, the European Commission has acknowledged the potential of NBS for improving urban design, restoration of ecosystems, climate change mitigation, and risk management and resilience, mainly in the context of cities or urban settings. Other authors, such as Cohen-Shacham et al. (2016), state that NBS offer more ample opportunities and propose a broader context of application: urban, rural, and natural. More specifically, these authors posit that NBS could be used to attain most of the global sustainable development goals acknowledged by the UN such as water and

Nature-Based Solutions

food security, climate change, human health, natural disaster risk reduction, and socioeconomic development. Given the interconnected nature of many of these goals, the successful implementation of NBS in one context might contribute to address additional goals (Raymond et al. 2017). For instance, restoring a natural ecosystem such as a forest might contribute to ameliorating climate change while at the same time contributing to an improvement in human health. The following sections describe how NBS can contribute to attaining different global societal challenges. Water Security One of the main challenges for sustainable development is securing water access for the population. This is outlined in the sustainability development goal (SDG) number 6 of the United Nations: “Clean Water and Sanitation.” Human water demand is increasing for both direct and indirect (e.g., manufacturing processes) consumption, whereas the extant offer is decreasing because of pollution. What is worse, it is expected that climate change effects, such as extreme environmental events (e.g., severe droughts and intense precipitations), place even more stress on current water needs around the globe (UN 2018). NBS are considered as an adequate means to solve most of the problems related to water security. Specifically, NBS are able to enhance water availability, improve water quality, and reduce risks associated with water-related disasters such as climate change (WWAP 2018). First, increasing the water offer requires improving water retention. This might be achieved, for example, by the creation of green infrastructures with trees and plants at microlevel. Green infrastructures improve water availability by storing rainwater and limiting evaporation. They can also act as a natural barrier to inhibit water overflow in urban settings (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). Second, filtering water that has been previously collected from rainfall or after human use is the best way to improve its quality. Examples of nature-based filters include plants, trees, or soil elements (WWAP 2018). Third, regarding water-related risks, it is important to consider two types of natural hazards: floods and droughts.

809

The impact of floods can be softened by applying NBS to restore those environments that traditionally have acted as barriers, such as riverbanks (Keesstra et al. 2018). The effects of droughts can be attenuated if natural groundwater storage systems are recovered and properly managed (Geneletti et al. 2016). Considering all the evidence, NBS for water security can be applied on very different scales. For example, creating a green zone in a neighborhood would improve water overflow at a microlevel, whereas restoring a wetland may improve water filtering at meso-level. In addition, Type 1 NBS, using natural ecosystem without intervention, may be sufficient for certain areas, while other locations will certainly need to combine them with Type 3 NBS such as built green infrastructures (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). For instance, urban settings that have traditionally suffered from water stress because they lack the required natural ecosystem infrastructure require intervention or creation of new natural ecosystems. Current attempts to improve water security require the implication of partnerships between research centers, which provide data-driven evidence on the best ways to implement NBS, and NGOs, which work for advancing the possibilities of NBS development in different settings (Steiner 2017). Food Security Food security can be directly linked to SDG 2: “Zero hunger.” Improving food security has been traditionally perceived as highly dependent on technological solutions. However recent studies suggest the potential of natural solutions (CohenShacham et al. 2016). Indeed, NBS have been shown to be an adequate way to ensure food security in both the agriculture and fisheries fields. Important NBS in this field have been developed in the agricultural sector (Keesstra et al. 2018). Regarding land management initiatives, one of the main objectives is preserving soil from degradation as a result of erosion (Keesstra et al. 2018). NBS can help to prevent soil erosion creating covering layers and inhibiting overland water flow (e.g., creating better soil structure that promotes filtration capacity) or increasing surface

N

810

roughness (e.g., using vegetation or soil bunds). However, other widely implemented NBS for agriculture are natural pollination (e.g., use of bees), biological defense (e.g., use of natural predators of plagues), and the adoption of green manure as fertilizer (Naumann et al. 2014). In some cases, it is necessary to restore land before giving it a new agricultural or farming use. Given the variety of land types and climate conditions, NBS need to be carefully adapted to the local context wherever they are implemented (Keesstra et al. 2018). In addition, NBS can be used to obtain a more sustainable management of fisheries and farms (e. g., selecting species that can better adapt to the natural ecosystem and may help to create symbiotic relationships) (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). In fact, one of the main objectives of SDG 14 “Life below water” is to promote sustainable fisheries (Covert 2017). To aid such objectives, NBS can be implemented at both micro- and mesoscales and would fall under Type 2 NBS, since a certain level of transformation of the natural environment is required. Finally, food security can cobenefit from the implementation of NBS in order to pursue other sustainable development goals such as water security, risk management, and/or climate change adaptation and mitigation. For example, there is a partnership between the European Union and the UNDP, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture and local communities, to restore farmlands in Azerbaijan (Scholz 2017). This program allows for eroded land to be recovered so that traditional farming can be developed in a sustainable way and with longterm focus. Human Health SDG number 3 “Good health” can be linked to this global challenge. The natural environment has been recognized as an important determinant of human well-being both in psychological and physical terms (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). Since the majority of the population nowadays lives in urban settings, a trend that is expected to intensify in the coming years, NBS need to be implemented in cities across the globe both at a micro- and mesoscale.

Nature-Based Solutions

In urban settings, successful NBS can include the provision of more green spaces for local inhabitants (Santiago-Fink 2016). Such natural spaces offer opportunities for exercising, thus improving physical health benefits such as obesity reduction, fewer headaches, and increased tolerance to pain (Xing et al. 2017). In addition, parks and green zones are able to attract more visitors and thus help to create places where local habitants can meet and develop community ties. This is a useful way to improve psychological health by, among others, reducing the incidence of depression (EC 2015). Furthermore, NBS can improve air quality by filtering CO2 and thus reducing the incidence of illness related to air quality. However, green zones can increase the incidence of allergies among the population (Raymond et al. 2017). The growth of green zones in urban environments is also a useful way to fight against the urban heat island phenomenon (Santiago-Fink 2016). That is, cities exhibit higher recorded temperatures compared to more natural settings. Vegetation, especially trees, is able to soften the impact of heat waves in the city. This is of benefit to its inhabitants, especially those who are more vulnerable to heat strokes, such as the elderly or children (Xing et al. 2017). Such actions to “green” urban areas can be considered as Type 2 or 3 NBS, depending on whether the green zone is being restored or created from the scratch. Partnerships such as the Urban Tree Canopy combine the knowledge of different governmental institutions, research centers, and NGOs to assist local municipalities that aim to analyze and improve their NBS offering (Santiago-Fink 2016). Finally, human well-being can benefit from the adoption of NBS in contexts such as water and food security, risk mitigation, and climate change adaptation. Risk Management and Resilience The implementation of NBS offers major opportunities to reduce the likelihood and/or the intensity of different types of natural hazards. Examples of natural hazards that can be softened by NBS are those typically related to climate change (SDG number 13) effects such as flooding

Nature-Based Solutions

or droughts. In addition, NBS may also be a helpful means to protect natural ecosystems and urban areas from the impact of other natural hazards such as hurricanes (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016), tsunamis, or avalanches (Naumann et al. 2014). Along these lines, natural ecosystems such as wetlands, forests, and coastal systems can reduce physical exposure to natural hazards by serving as protective barriers or buffers (CohenShacham et al. 2016). The three types of NBS can be implemented to increase natural hazard resilience at different levels: from planting more vegetation to inhibiting water overflow in a street, to restoring wetlands to improve water filtering, and to protecting natural forests by creating nature parks. An example of a partnership working to achieving such goals is the one developed under the Ocean Conference framework by The Nature Conservancy and the Red Cross. These NGOs support local communities in places like Grenada, Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic by helping them to adopt and improve extant NBS such as reefs and mangroves. This initiative helps to soften the risk of and resilience against natural events. In addition, it is carried out in collaboration with Swiss Re, a private reassurance company, as they utilize their expertise to explore nature-based insurance products, which are able to protect and finance the required adaptation of ecosystems (Ocean Conference UN 2018). By implementing NBS to improve risk management and resilience, sustainable development goals such as human health, water security, climate change adaptation, and mitigation can be also met (Raymond et al. 2017). Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation SDG number 13 states, “Take urgent action to fight climate change and its impacts,” and NBS can be considered as a powerful means to fight climate change, which is one of the most pressing environmental problems. Nowadays there are two main strategies related to the fight for climate change: climate change mitigation and adaptation. The former consists of reducing the environmental impact of human activities in order to stop the global temperature rising and prevent climate change. The latter aims to soften the impact of

811

climate change-related events that are already taking place. NBS can help climate change mitigation by preventing the degradation and loss of natural ecosystems. For example, deforestation is considered a major contributor to climate change, because of the greenhouse gases released from plants and soil (Naumann et al. 2014). Type 1 meso and macro NBS can be implemented to protect extant ecosystems and protect them from degradation. Augmenting the number of trees and plants in urban settings is a useful means to increase carbon sequestration and thus fight climate change. These solutions are implemented at a micro- and mesoscale and correspond to Types 2 or 3. On the other hand, NBS aimed at improving biodiversity (e.g., restoring damaged ecosystems) are a helpful means of ameliorating the adverse effects of climate change since it has been demonstrated that restored ecosystems can act as natural barriers and limit the impact of climate change-related disasters (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). An adequate protection and management of ecosystems can also help vulnerable communities to become more resilient to the adverse effects of climate change (Geneletti et al. 2016). Regarding the scope of NBS for climate change, micro and meso solutions tend to be preferred for adaptation strategies, while NBS for climate change mitigation are planned at a macro level (Raymond et al. 2017). In this line, both adaptation and mitigation effects of NBS go hand in hand (Naumann et al. 2014). That is, interventions in natural ecosystems that pursue adaptation goals are able to further influence climate change mitigation goals and vice versa. For example, an adaption strategy such as restoring wetlands may minimize flooding effects that in addition will certainly help to increase carbon sequestration, which is considered a mitigation strategy. Thus, NBS are expected to exert a greater overall effect on the fight against climate change (Raymond et al. 2017). Giving their particular vulnerability to its effects, fighting against climate change is one of the main challenges of Small Island Developing States (SIDs). Hence, these have developed several partnerships focused on topics such as climate

N

812

change information knowledge management (Mackay et al. 2018) or the Blue Guardians project, which aims to tailor nature-based adaptation strategies to different settings (Ocean Conference UN 2018). Economic and Social Development It is accepted that NBS may, in many cases, present more efficient and cost-effective solutions than technological approaches (EC 2015). Their relative lower cost combined with the potential benefits of NBS to attain different sustainability goals means that they are preferred compared to technological solutions. Such a preference may generate a greater demand for NBS, with a greater number of cities, countries, and organizations investing in them. This augmented demand will be paired with a subsequent increase in the number of companies that are able to offer NBS. Given the broad range of different NBS, it seems likely that organizations will become specialized (e.g., companies specialized in green building vs. those specialized in land restoration or companies specialized in micro NBS vs. companies specialized in meso NBS). In addition, once NBS are successfully implemented and ecosystems are restored, several economic opportunities may arise. On the one hand, it is possible that traditional economic activities such as sustainable fishing, farming, or agriculture will be recovered. On the other hand, new economic activities, such ecotourism, can be developed. In fact, several partnerships for SDGs under the Ocean Conference framework are developing guidelines for improving naturebased tourism activities, such as excursions. In these partnerships governmental institutions such as the Ministries of Agriculture or Economy of affected places work together with NGOs (Ocean Conference UN 2018). It is expected that these economic opportunities will be mainly exploited at a local level (Naumann et al. 2014). In this way, NBS can be a source of social development for the area in which they are implemented. However, not all the opinions about NBS share such a positive view about their economic impact. Given that the benefits provided by NBS are

Nature-Based Solutions

complex and long term, there is an added difficulty to understanding and valuing them (Naumann et al. 2014; Raymond et al. 2017). Hence, there is risk that technological activities, which are able to bring shorter-term benefits, are put forward instead of NBS.

Conclusions NBS have been considered optimal solutions for directly or indirectly alleviating critical sustainability-related global challenges, such as those recognized in the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDG). Along these lines, the UN SDG number 17 addresses the role of partnerships and collaborative governance to achieve such sustainability goals. Given the scope and complexity of some NBS, involving multiple stakeholder groups, their ability to operate at different levels becomes critical for reaching optimal solutions. This entry demonstrates how NBS can alleviate some specific sustainability global challenges, focusing on the role played by partnerships in such processes. Heterogeneous partnership participants possess different skills and play unique roles, which are required to obtain a common goal. Governmental institutions at both international and national level need to provide the funding and implementation framework. Research centers, such as universities, need to develop research on NBS, identifying the best ways to implement them and innovative solutions. Given the reliance on financial outcomes, research on the economic impact of NBS is also required. Companies are also needed to find effective solutions and integrate NBS into their structures. NGOs are needed to create awareness, advance the commitment to NBS, and work with local communities for their implementation. Local communities play a key role to assure the long-term project sustainability, once the initial funding from institutions is retired. However, when organizing partnerships for NBS, adequate implementation may require sophisticated structures to ensure roles are well established and communication flows are constant.

Nature-Based Solutions

813

Cross-References

Fulton EA, Smith AD, Smith DC et al (2014) An integrated approach is needed for ecosystem based fisheries management: insights from ecosystem-level management strategy evaluation. PLoS One 9(1):e84242 Gallo PJ, Antolin-Lopez R, Montiel I (2018) Associative sustainable business models: cases in the bean-to-bar chocolate industry. J Clean Prod 174:905–916 Geneletti D, Zardo L, Cortinovis C (2016) Promoting nature-based solutions for climate adaptation in cities through impact assessment. In: Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 428–452 George G, Howard-Grenville J, Joshi A et al (2016) Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Acad Manag J 59(6):1880–1895 IUCN (2009) No time to lose – make full use of naturebased solutions in the post-2012 climate change regime. Position paper on the fifteenth session of the conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (COP 15). International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland IUCN (2012) The IUCN programme 2013–2016. IUCN, Gland. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_pro gramme_2013_2016.pdf. Accessed March 17 2018 Kabisch N, Frantzeskaki N, Pauleit S et al (2016) Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol Soc 21(2):39 Keesstra S, Nunes J, Novara A et al (2018) The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 610:997–1009 Kelly C, Essex S, Glegg G (2012) Reflective practice for marine planning: a case study of marine nature-based tourism partnerships. Mar Policy 36(3):769–781 Mackay S, Brown R, Gonelevu M et al (2018) Overcoming barriers to climate change information management in small island developing states: lessons from pacific SIDS. Clim Policy 1–14 MacKinnon K, Hickey V (2009) Nature-based solutions to climate change. Oryx 43:13–16 Maes J, Jacobs S (2015) Nature-based solutions for Europe’s sustainable development. Conserv Lett 10 (1):121–124 Mathews F (2011) Towards a deeper philosophy of biomimicry. Organ Environ 24(4):364–387 Mercer J, Kelman I, Alfthan B et al (2012) Ecosystembased adaptation to climate change in Caribbean small island developing states: integrating local and external knowledge. Sustainability 4(8):1908–1932 Naumann S, Kaphengst T, McFarland K, Stadler J (2014) Nature-based approaches for climate change mitigation and adaptation. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. Accessed 18 Apr 2018 Nesshöver C, Assmuth T, Irvine KN et al (2017) The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sci Total Environ 579 (1):1215–1227

▶ Economics Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation ▶ Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management ▶ Water Security Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competition, the Agencia Nacional de Investigación (AEI), and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF/FEDER, UE) (R&D Project ECO201566504).

References Aburto MO, de los Angeles-Carvajal M, Barr B et al (2012) Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Island Press Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C et al (2016) Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN, Gland. https://portals.iucn.org/library/ sites/library/files/documents/2016-036.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2018 Covert J (2017) Planning for the implementation of SDG-14. Environ Policy Law 47(1):6 Dudley N, Stolton S, Belokurov A et al (2010) Natural solutions: protected areas helping people cope with climate change. World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), Gland. wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_ publications/?uNewsID¼183021. Accessed 17 Apr 2018 Eagles PFJ (1999) Nature-based tourism in terrestrial protected areas. In: Bolton S, Dudley N (eds) Partnerships for protection new strategies for planning and management for protected areas. Earthscan, London, pp 144– 152 Eggermont H, Balian E, Azevedo JMN et al (2015) Nature-based solutions: new influence for environmental management and research in Europe. GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 24(4):243–248 EC (2015) Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities. Final report of the Horizon2020 expert group on nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities. European Commission, Brussels. Accessed 2 Apr 2018 Faivre N, Fritz M, Freitas T et al (2017) Nature-based solutions in the EU: innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environ Res 159:509–518 Ferraro F, Etzion D, Gehman J (2015) Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited. Organ Stud 36(3):363–390

N

814 Neves JCL, Francke ICM (2012) Creative product design using biomimetics. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 160:149–155 Ocean Conference (2018). https://oceanconference.un.org/ commitments/. Accessed 18 June 2018 Potschin M, Kretsch C, Haines-Young R et al (2015) Nature-based solutions. OpenNESS ecosystem service reference book. OpenNESS Synthesis Paper. http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-boo k/sp-NBS. Accessed 30 Mar 2018 Raymond CM, Berry P, Breil M et al (2017) An impact evaluation framework to support planning and evaluation of nature-based solutions projects. Report prepared by the EKLIPSE expert working group on nature-based solutions to promote climate resilience in urban areas. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford. Accessed 2 Apr 2018 Santiago-Fink H (2016) Human-nature for climate action: nature-based solutions for urban sustainability. Sustainability 8(3):254 Scholz G (2017) From MDGs to SDGs in Azerbaijan: the way to sustainability and inclusion. Center for Economic & Social Development (CESD) paper series Steiner A (2017) Investing in innovative nature-based solutions. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/hom e/news-centre/speeches/2017/investing-in-innovativenature-based-solutions.html. Accessed 20 June 2018 UN (2018) The sustainable development goals report 2017. United Nations, New York. Accessed 15 Apr 2018 van den Bosch M, Sang ÅO (2017) Urban natural environments as nature-based solutions for improved public health–a systematic review of reviews. Environ Res 158:373–384 Vasseur L, Horning D, Thornbush M et al (2017) Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals. Ambio 46(7):731–742 Wood SL, Jones SK, Johnson JA et al (2018) Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the sustainable development goals. Ecosyst Serv 29:70–82 World Bank (2008) Biodiversity, climate change, and adaptation: nature-based solutions from the World Bank portfolio. World Bank, Washington, DC WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-Water (2018) The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: nature-based solutions for water. UNESCO, Paris. Accessed 15 Apr 2018 WWF (2016) Living planet report 2016: risk and resilience in a new era. WWF International, Gland. Accessed 18 Apr 2018 Xing Y, Jones P, Donnison I (2017) Characterisation of nature-based solutions for the built environment. Sustainability 9(1):149

Network Governance ▶ Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

Network Governance

Networks ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development Claudia Patricia Moreno Silva Business, Economics and Law, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Definition Nonmarket strategies are actions taken to address an issue using an inexistent or surrogative market to identify the value of a goods or a service. Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are the United Nations’ goals to improve and sustain human well-being, targeting reduction of poverty and inequality, environmental issues, and peace and justice (United Nations 2020).

Introduction Market and nonmarket strategies have been developed in the management of organizations. A combination of both types of strategies has gained popularity and become a target for management (Baron 1995; Gorostidi Martinez and Kang 2014). The nonmarket environment in which nonmarket strategies are constructed involves the social, political, and legal framework interactions (Baron 1995). Consequently, the nonmarket strategies are implemented in different areas such as corporate political strategy, social public and media strategy, corporate social responsibility, and ecological and environmental management, among others (Gorostidi Martinez

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development

and Kang 2014). In the ecological and environmental management area, nonmarket economic valuation has been developed as a nonmarket strategy to manage and protect the ecological environment (Gorostidi Martinez and Kang 2014). In this way, positive and negative impacts are internalized in the economic accounting. Ecological and environmental economics are relatively recent areas of study. These have emerged in response to environmental impacts of development and economic growth as a mean to protect natural capital and achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). According to Pearce (1993), the ecological economic valuation was first considered in the 1960s. Since then, different methodologies have been proposed to value environmental assets (Smith 1996), as a way to introduce environmental concerns into the process of decision-making to ensure that the environment is accounted for in the evaluation of projects or programs. Ecological and environmental economics shared the aim of protecting environmental goods; however, their conceptual approach is different. On the one hand, environmental economics studies the problem of environmental externalities and the correct management of natural resources (Munda 1997). In other words, the main focus of environmental economics is to understand the economic basis of pollution problems and the policies associated to the possible solutions to these problems (Hackett 2006). On the other hand, ecological economics studies the relationship between ecosystems and economic systems (Munda 1997), focusing on the economics of natural capital and the ecosystem goods and services (Hackett 2006). One of the tools used in environmental economics is environmental valuation. Environmental valuation is used to determine the extent to which the execution of projects may compromise the level of environmental quality and the amount of available resources in the future. In this way, the optimal period of time to use natural resources, compromising goods and environmental services, may be determined internalizing the environmental cost in project appraisal (i.e., using benefit-cost analysis).

815

A wide range of development and investment projects are conducted around the world. When these projects are implemented, environmental impacts are observed resulting in social and environmental costs. As a response, market and nonmarket environmental valuation techniques provide a tool to address these issues and to internalize environmental impacts in the economy and for project analysis. Simultaneously, the concept of ecosystem services has emerged. This concept is important in understanding the role of nature in the valuation (Mertz et al. 2007). Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits obtained by humans from the ecosystems (Brauman et al. 2007). These have been classified in the following categories, production, information, habitat, and regulation, and include services such as climate regulation, water supply, water regulation, waste treatment, food provision, raw materials, and biological control, among others (de Groot et al. 2002). This classification and the identification of ecosystem services became fundamental in the process of market and nonmarket valuation.

Source of Information A literature review was conducted to analyze nonmarket environmental valuation as a nonmarket strategy for environmental protection and sustainable development, as well as the revision of procedures related to nonmarket environmental valuation implementation by the Colombian government. Before the analysis, a revision of the most common methods for environmental evaluation is presented, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of their application.

Nonmarket Valuation and Sustainable Development Environmental valuation offers tools to achieve sustainable development. The estimation of the value of environmental services and the economic integration of the environmental cost provide the

N

816

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development

information to allocate the environmental services efficiently (Howarth and Norgaard 1992). Besides, some of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) such as clean water and sanitation, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below the water, life on land, zero hunger, and no poverty are directly related to the environmental goods and services identified by de Groot and Wilson et al. (2002) (i.e., food provision, water regulation, and habitat, among others). Economic assessment of the environmental cost of the impact on environmental goods and services and its integration in the accounting of projects and decision-making provide a strategy to distribute the natural resources appropriately in time and subsequently achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nevertheless, environmental economic valuation has to be integrated with the adequate decision-making. The environmental accounting alone will not achieve sustainable development; each generation has to commit to transferring sufficient natural resources to the next generation (Howarth and Norgaard 1992). Ness and UrbelPiirsalu et al. (2007) identified the monetary valuation, or nonmarket valuation of environmental goods and services, as an instrument to integrate the goods and services that are not present in the marketplace in the sustainable assessment. This allows incorporating the impact on environmental goods and services in sustainable assessment with tools such as life cycle analysis, cost assessment, and cost-benefit analysis.

Market and Nonmarket Environmental Valuation Methods Economic valuation methods have been used during more than three decades to obtain monetary measures of unpriced goods or services. Applications of these methodologies are the valuation of changes in environmental amenities, recreation, value of endangered species, and ecosystems, among others (Chaudhry et al. 2007). The application of these methodologies provides a tool for decision-making and a base for policy design. Market and nonmarket valuation

techniques have been used by governments to assess environmental impacts and determine policy responses (Winpenny 1991; Committee of International Development Institutions on the Environment (CIDIE) 1993). Its importance in political decisions arises from possible loss in market output generated by not protecting the environment; this is where the opportunity cost associated with environmental protection is identified (Garrord and Willis 1999), as environmental protection may increase future productivity and economic output. The results of ecological and environmental economic valuation could be used to provide advice in the use of the resources and environmental goods and services. Methods to value the environmental goods and services are divided into the market and nonmarket valuation (Garrord and Willis 1999). Market methodologies are based on the availability of market information or existence of a market for the environmental goods or service of interest (Winpenny 1991). On the other hand, nonmarket techniques lack of an established market and can be classified into stated and revealed methods (Chaudhry et al. 2007). This classification is presented in detail in Fig. 1. Among the nonmarket valuation techniques, stated preferences use surveys and interviews to obtain individual consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for an environmental goods or service or for a change in the quantity or quality of an environmental goods or service. While revealed preferences techniques use surrogate markets and indirect approach (Winpenny 1991; Garrord and Willis 1999). However, revealed preferences could also use surveys to obtain the information required. Alternatively, there is the benefit transfer method, which implies using the existing benefit values, estimates, or models from previous research, in a new scenario or site where primary values are required and are not available (Piper and Martin 2001; Johnston and Rosenberger 2010). This method is still controversial, as it is viewed as a poor substitute for specific analysis and a source of bias (Piper and Martin 2001; Johnston and Rosenberger 2010).

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development

817

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Main classification of environmental valuation methods. (Source: Winpenny 1991; Garrord and Willis 1999)

Gorostidi Martinez and Kang (2014) include in the list of the valuation methods in nonmarket strategy contingent valuation method, choice experiment, benefit transfer method, and stochastic games.

Market Techniques The main market methodologies in ecological and environmental economics are effect on production (EOP), preventive expenditure (PE), and replacement costs (RC) (Winpenny 1991; Garrord and Willis 1999). These are based on the variation of value that an environmental impact causes, the price that would be paid to avoid that impact from occurring, and the cost to return to the original condition. Firstly, EOP can be assessed based, for instance, on changes in the production of an agricultural goods as a result of an environmental impact. This change could be measured using the price of the agricultural goods lost. Secondly, PE is assessed by the cost of preventive measures to protect the environment, for example, the cost of protective measures to prevent the damage of a coral reef (Berg et al. 1998). Lastly, RC is applied to substitute goods that could replace the original goods that are lost. Jackson and Finn et al. (2014) applied this method to analyze the impacts of

water management using the price of substitute fish species in the market, to replace the possible loss of one species in the river of an indigenous community. The advantage of these techniques is that they have been widely used, even in low- and mediumincome economies, and are readily understood by decision-makers (Winpenny 1991). However, PE and RC are limited by the capacity to pay of the population, which in poor communities may result in a source of bias (Pearce 1993). Market techniques are not the main focus of this research paper. Attention will be placed on nonmarket valuation techniques. Nonmarket Techniques Nonmarket valuation provides the tools to assess goods and services not available in the traditional markets. Some of these goods and services are, for instance, changes in landscape, clean air, or biodiversity. These natural goods or services that are not transacted in a market represent an economic benefit for the society. In fact, nonmarket valuation provides the values required to conduct an economic assessment in the sustainability framework (Howarth and Norgaard 1992). A sustainability framework is a system that provides the bases to organize and articulate the strategic planning and actions for sustainability and

N

818

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development, Table 1 Nonmarket techniques Group Expressed or stated preferences The objective of these techniques is to determine the shape of the demand curve for an environmental goods or service. Individuals express their preferences when it is elicited directly from their appreciation for the goods or service of interest (Guy Garrord and Willis 1999)

Method Contingent valuation method (CVM)

Choice experiment or stated preference (SP)

Revealed preferences Determines the value of the goods or service from its relationship with a complementary or substitute goods to obtain the demand curve. It implies how an individual implicitly values the environment (Guy Garrord and Willis 1999)

Travel cost method (TC)

Hedonic price method (HP)

sustainable development through planning, management, analysis, and evaluation of activities (Tilbury and Cooke 2005; International Finance Corporation – World Bank Group 2020; Center for Design and Research in Sustainability (CEDARS) n.d.). In this way, nonmarket valuation is a tool within the framework to achieve sustainable development. In general, nonmarket valuation has four main methodologies grouped in stated or revealed preferences as it is presented in Table 1.

Economic Valuation in Colombia In 2010, the General Methodology for the Presentation of Environmental Studies was published by the Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development of Colombia. This document

Description It attempts to measure the goods holistically and has been widely used (Guy Garrord and Willis 1999). CVM is the most popular direct method (Chaudhry et al. 2007). Surveys are conducted to obtain the willingness to pay (WTP) of the users of the goods and services. To obtain this information, a hypothetical market is presented (Chaudhry et al. 2007) It values the goods according to its attributes. Individuals have to choose among different combinations of characteristics with different prices (Chaudhry et al. 2007). This method provides the WTP from a bundle of characteristics likened to the environmental goods (Dixon 1994) It is widely used to determine the demand or marginal valuation of recreation sites. It analyzes the number of visits according to the cost of travel to constructing the demand curve. Studies suggest that as the cost increases, the rate of visits falls (Guy Garrord and Willis 1999) It is related to consumption decisions from a bundle of characteristics related to a good. Every good provides a bundle of characteristic or attributes, which are associated to the price of the goods or the WTP for it (Winpenny 1991, Guy Garrord and Willis 1999)

was used by different types of development companies, such as construction, oil and gas, and mining, among others, to present the Environmental Diagnosis of Alternatives (DAA, for its acronym in Spanish), the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), or the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to the Colombian environmental authorities to obtain the environmental license for the execution of a project (Colombian Ministry of Environment Housing and Territorial Development 2010). This document included the economic valuation of environmental goods and services as one of the key elements of the environmental studies. Additionally, the document proposed market and nonmarket valuation techniques for the assessment of environmental impacts. Moreover, the University of Los Andes and the Colombian Ministry of Environment Housing and

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development

Territorial Development presented the Technical Manual for Economic Valuation of Environmental Impacts in Megaprojects in 2010. The technical manual presented the economic analysis in the environmental studies as a means to assess the final economic benefit of developments, to estimate the net benefit in the society (The University of los Andes and The Colombian Ministry of Environment Housing and Territorial Development 2010). Korytárová and Hromádka (2014) discuss the importance of including socioeconomic impacts on the society, such as air pollution and noise, in the accounting of the project. To include these impacts, Korytárová and Hromádka (2014) analyze nonmarket valuation techniques (i.e., contingent valuation) in the implementation of the environmental impacts. Later, in 2014, the Decree No. 2041 established the terms of reference of the environmental studies and ratified the economic valuation as one of the steps in conducting the environmental studies. This led to the implementation of economic valuation in every environmental study submitted to the environmental authority. In 2017, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (previously named Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 Steps of environmental economic valuation. (Source: The University of los Andes and The Colombian Ministry of Environment Housing and Territorial Development 2010)

819

Development) and the National Authority of Environmental Licensing (ANLA, for its acronym in Spanish) published the Technical Criteria for the use of Economic Tools in Projects, Works and Activities object of Environmental Licensing. This guide provided in more detail the tools to be applied for the environmental economic valuation of environmental impacts in Colombia (The Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development 2017). The steps identified by the Colombian government to conduct the environmental economic valuation are presented in Fig. 2. Environmental economic valuation in Colombia is being implemented consistently in the development projects. However, assessment of the success of this strategy in terms of environmental protection has not been studied. These stages are described as follows (The University of los Andes and The Colombian Ministry of Environment Housing and Territorial Development 2010): • Project definition: Outlining project objectives and baseline, definition of stakeholders. • Impact assessment: Identifying the direct and indirect impacts of the project.

PROJECT DEFINITION IMPACT ASSESSMENT HIERARCHY OF IMPACTS BIOPHYSICAL QUANTIFICATION OF THE MAIN IMPACTS ECONOMIC VALUATION OF MAIN IMPACTS BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS DECISION CRITERIA SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

N

820

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development

• Hierarchy of impacts: Identifying the most relevant impacts, positive and negative. • Biophysical quantification of the main impacts: Measurement of the scale of the impact. • Economic valuation of main impacts: After identifying and assessing the main impacts, an estimation of the value or price of the impact is conducted in a convenient currency using economic methodologies. • Benefit-cost analysis: The calculated value of the impacts for the society is discounted yearly for the life span of the project, generating the net present value (NPV). This analysis accounts for the positive and negative impacts. • Decision criteria: The NPV is assessed against the decision criteria. Usually, if the NPV is positive, the return of the project is positive, and the project is feasible. • Sensitivity analysis: As some parameters are assumed in the evaluation process, different values for these parameters are assessed to analyze possible scenarios.

Environmental Economics in Developing Economies Colombia is not the only country that has implemented environmental valuation as a strategy to protect the environment and achieve sustainable development. Market and nonmarket environmental valuations have been applied to estimate the economic value of environmental goods and services in different scenarios in the least developed economies (LDCs), developing economies, and developed economies. In this section, some other examples of application of environmental valuation in the developing economies are presented. These examples are grouped by environmental goods assessed. Ecosystem, recreation, fauna and flora, and hydrological resource were studied. Ecosystem Market and nonmarket valuation methods have been implemented to assess the value of ecosystems. One of the approaches undertaken is to

consider some of the products as market products. For instance, timber and fruit production was valued in the study of Extraction of Timber in Peru, where surveys were used to obtain market prices (Richards 1994). To assess the total economic value of a forest in Mexico, the market valuation was implemented using damage cost, mitigation cost, and lost production avoided methodologies, assessing the benefits on pharmaceutical developments and carbon sequestration, among other environmental services (Rietbergen-McCracken 2000). Also, nonmarket valuation was applied in the same study in Mexico. Contingent valuation and travel cost methods were used to determine the value of recreation and tourism of the area. Nonmarket valuation applying surveys and travel cost method were used in the case of the valuation of the domestic consumer surplus from visits to a rainforest reserve in Costa Rica (Committee of International Development Institutions on the Environment (CIDIE) 1993). The reasons for selecting the methodology were related to the availability of information. A combination of market and nonmarket approaches allowed addressing the value of different goods and services. With this in mind, the selection of techniques should respond to the interest of the study. Although the benefits of environmental valuation have been highlighted previously, these methodologies face challenges. Different issues have been identified in the previously mentioned studies. For instance, one issue of the valuation of the project in Mexico outlined above was the government intervention. Government royalties and the climate and biodiversity convention influenced the results and the opportunity cost of the resources (Rietbergen-McCracken 2000). Likewise, the policy intervention on prices and the subsidies influenced the valuation process in Peru (Richards 1994). Another source of issues in ecosystem valuation is the use of national and international WTP. When international visitor’s data is used in developing countries, the information may generate bias, if the income is higher for international visitors. Other source of bias is the travelled distance (Committee of International Development

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development

Institutions on the Environment (CIDIE) 1993). However, using this approach may give a more appropriate value of the ecosystem. Recreation Recreation value is usually considered indirectly when evaluating ecosystem values, fauna and flora, or aesthetic damage, as these ecosystem goods and services are linked to the enjoyment of nature. Some studies are discussed here, but this topic is addressed indirectly in other sections. To value ecosystem services associated with recreation, TCM was the most reported methodology. A wastewater program implemented in Wuxi (China) to develop sewerage treatment was evaluated using TCM. Changes in odor and fishery benefits were considered which also generated changes in the recreation provided at the site (Abelson 1997). Another application of TCM was implemented in Costa Rica. TCM was used to determine the ecotourism value in the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve. The data collected in this research was the cost per visit, origin, and frequency of the visits as well as the educational level (Tobias and Mendlesohn 1991, cited by (Richards 1994)). Stated preferences have been also implemented to evaluate recreation goods, for instance, to assess the existence value of the Grand Canyon. The existence value of preserving the visibility in the Grand Canyon was evaluated using WTP. This study concluded that the value of existence is more appreciated than the use value (Committee of International Development Institutions on the Environment (CIDIE) 1993). Fauna and Flora The value of viewing elephants on safaris in Kenya was obtained using information from surveys taken from tourists from Europe and North America. The WTP to maintain elephant populations was evaluated using the contingent valuation method (Committee of International Development Institutions on the Environment (CIDIE) 1993). As presented in Table 1, contingent valuation uses a surrogate market and surveys to estimate the WTP for the environmental

821

goods. In this case, the elephants represented the environmental goods. However, elephants are valued as well for ivory. Although ivory can be considered as market goods, the existence value of the elephants is not easily quantified. The value of the elephant’s existence can be evaluated also using the travel cost method. However, the cost of visiting the elephants is associated with other values as learning about Africa and visiting other animals. For that reason, to obtain the value associated exclusively to the elephants, visitors were asked to allocate a percentage of the cost of the different activities involved (Dixon 1994). Hydrological Resource According to Abelson (1997), water quality in China in Wuxi study was analyzed on recreational benefits. However, it is presented here as it proposed a wastewater program with two main components: sewerage and treatment were assessed. The identified benefits of the scheme were savings to the Wuxi water supply company, savings to industry, savings to the Wuxi drainage company, fishery benefits, agriculture and public health benefits, savings during floods, and amenity benefits for residents (Abelson 1997). Amenity benefits were valued as the reduced malodor and improved visual quality for local residents and workers, the improved recreation, and the consumer and producer benefits associated with increased domestic and international visitors. Dated data and correlations, transfers from households, old surveys, and a small survey were used to value the impacts of the project. All other parameters were valued with market data (Abelson 1997). Willingness to pay for water services in Haiti implemented CVM to obtain the WTP of the population. Accordingly, the WTP was correlated to income, cost of obtaining water from existing resources, and the education level (Committee of International Development Institutions on the Environment (CIDIE) 1993). This study provides evidence that it is possible to obtain reasonable and consistent answers in a contingent valuation survey conducted among a very poor and illiterate population. Consequently, with this result, contingent valuation has the potential to become a viable

N

822

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development

method in developing economies for public infrastructure projects and environmental protection services. The dam projects in the Tong River in Korea (Han et al. 2008) respond to the requirements of supply of water resources, flood control, and hydroelectric power. However, environmental impacts have emerged, including deforestation, loss of fauna and flora, and historical sites. To determine the economic values, a choice experiment approach was undertaken to obtain the WTP, as the environmental damage has not been included in the CBA. The attributes assessed were forest, fauna, flora, historical remains, and changes in water price. A contingent valuation survey was implemented to determine the WTP to preserve the flows of the rivers Mameyes and Fajardo in Puerto Rico (González-Cabán and Loomis 1997). CVM was implemented as it is standardized and widely used to determine recreation, option, and existence values. The main reasons to maintain the rivers were the future use, clean air, protecting the environment, preservation of flora and fauna, water supply, and fish habitats. As a conclusion of this assessment, CV was established as a way to include social and environmental concerns and maintain environmental quality of rivers in Puerto Rico.

Issues in Valuation Methods and Sources of Bias Considering the different methods presented in the sections above, one of the main issues identified in environmental valuation is that these methods have emerged to meet the requirements and conditions in developed economies. Different issues arise from that distinction. For instance, the availability of information is lower in developing economies, and when methodologies such as CV are undertaken in developing economies, it is important to consider the corruption and black money that may be involved (Chaudhry et al. 2007). However, besides these issues, other limitation such as the level of literacy and understanding of environmental value may be present. This is

observed as the population at risk and those impacted by the development projects know well the area involved and have maintained primary contact and dependency with the environmental goods and services likely to be impacted by the project. However, their literacy level may be lower than in the urban areas of the country. Other potential source of bias is that WTP is a function of the level of income (Abelson 1997). Consequently, income differences between developing and developed economies influence the results of the valuations. That is the case for the studies analyzed from Costa Rica, where tourism depends mainly on international visits. Also, other environmental goods and services are implied and can be valued through this methodology. However, the findings from surveys from international tourism and national users may produce differences in the result obtained for each group. CVM has principally been applied in highly industrialized economies: nevertheless, these methodologies have been implemented recently in developing economies (Alp and Yetiş 2010). Still, some criticism has been made to CV methodology, even in developed economies. For example, this approach to valuation does not analyze actual behavior; it is a simulation of the real world where people have to make decisions about environmental goods (Dixon 1994). Additionally, other sources of bias have been identified (Dixon 1994): • Information bias: Decisions change with the level of information of the goods under evaluation. • Embedded bias: the difference between the appreciation of an individual environmental goods or a group of goods. • Instrument bias: the respondent is hostile to the method of payment. Bidding games where you ask for a WTP initially and continue to offer higher amounts until obtaining the maximum or lower WTP (depending on the scheme) may work better in developing economies (Dixon 1994). However, the main criticism about environmental valuation and one of the main sources of

Nonmarket Environmental Valuation as a Nonmarket Strategy for Sustainable Development

bias is dealing with different perceptions of the environment and environmental goods and services, which influences any of the methodologies in a nonmarket approach. This occurs as the methodologies applied rely mainly on the application of surveys, where personal perception of environmental goods and services is required in the assessment.

Conclusions Nonmarket valuation has emerged as a nonmarket strategy to integrate into the accounting of development projects the impact on environmental goods and services that do not exist in traditional markets. Environmental economic valuation techniques provide an economic tool which could lead to decisions to protect the environment. However, this is not the only approach that should be taken to avoid environmental damage and assure the availability of goods and services in the future. The use of this information in assessments of sustainability should be implemented, as well as changes and commitment in the decision-making. Colombia has developed a complete protocol for the implementation of environmental economic assessment. This protocol takes into consideration the assessment of the main environmental impacts of the projects, the cost associated to the impact, and the inclusion in a cost-benefit analysis. This protocol is integrated into the submission of environmental studies to the environmental authority and considered in the approval of development projects. However, the results of the application of the economic assessment have not been assessed against the targets for environmental protection, for instance, the reduction of carbon emission and deforestation. Other cases of implementation of nonmarket valuation in developing economies, such as the valuation of forest in Mexico, timer in Peru, or the existence value of elephants in Kenya, were analyzed, evidencing limitation in the application and sources of bias. Nevertheless, the association between environmental goods and services, nonmarket valuation, and Sustainable Development Goals is clear. Implementing this nonmarket strategy represents

823

an opportunity to include in the accounting of projects the environmental cost that otherwise could be ignored.

References Abelson P (1997) Project appraisal and valuation of the environment. General principles and six case-studies in developing countries. Environ Int 23(1):140–141 Alp E, Yetiş U (2010) Application of the contingent valuation method in a developing country: a case study of the Yusufeli dam in northeast Turkey. Water Sci Technol 62(1):99 Baron D (1995a) The nonmarket strategy system. Sloan Manag Rev 37(7):73 Baron DP (1995b) Integrated strategy: market and nonmarket components. Calif Manag Rev 37(2):47–65 Berg H, Marcus CÖ, Troëng S, Olof L (1998) Environmental economics of coral reef destruction in Sri Lanka. Ambio 27(8):627–634 Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK e, Mooney HA (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32(1):67–98 Center for Design and Research in Sustainability (CEDARS) (n.d.) Sustainability framework overview. Retrieved 31st July, 2020, from http://cedarscenter. com/sfoverview.cfm#:~:text¼The%20Sustainability% 20Framework%20(SF)%20is,project%20staff%20and %20local%20stakeholders Chaudhry P, Singh B, Tewari VP (2007) Non-market economic valuation in developing countries: role of participant observation method in CVM analysis. J For Econ 13(4):259–275 Colombian Ministry of Environment Housing and Territorial Development (2010) General methodology for the presentation of environmental studies. p 72 Committee of International Development Institutions on the Environment (CIDIE) (1993) Conference on environmental, economics natural resource management in developing countries Washington, DC. Environmental economics and natural resource management in developing countries. CIDIE, distributed for CIDIE by The World Bank, Washington, DC de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41(3):393–408 Dixon JA (1994) Economic analysis of environmental impacts. Earthscan in association with the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank, London Garrord G, Willis KG (1999) Economic valuation of the environment: methods and case studies. Edward Elgar Publications, Cheltenham González-Cabán A, Loomis J (1997) Economic benefits of maintaining ecological integrity of Río Mameyes, in Puerto Rico. Ecol Econ 21(1):63–75

N

824 Gorostidi Martinez H, Kang ZX (2014) Non-market strategy: a contemporary literature review of its application considering the importance of the social, ecological and political environments. Int J Bus Soc Sci 5(9):81–92 Hackett S (2006) Environmental and natural resources economics theory, policy, and the sustainable society (3rd ed.). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe Han S-Y, Kwak S-J, Yoo S-H (2008) Valuing environmental impacts of large dam construction in Korea: an application of choice experiments. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(4):256–266 Howarth RB, Norgaard RB (1992) Environmental valuation under sustainable development. Am Econ Rev 82(2):473–477 International Finance Corporation – World Bank Group (2020) ESG – resources for companies. From https:// www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/Topics_Ext_Content/ IFC_External_Corporate_Site/Sustainability-At-IFC/ Company-Resources/ Jackson S, Finn M, Scheepers K (2014) The use of replacement cost method to assess and manage the impacts of water resource development on Australian indigenous customary economies. J Environ Manag 135:100–109 Johnston RJ, Rosenberger RS (2010) Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. J Econ Surv 24(3):479–510 Korytárová J, Hromádka V (2014) The economic evaluation of megaprojects – social and economic impacts. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 119:495–502 Mertz O, Ravnborg HM, Lövei GL, Nielsen I, Konijnendijk CC (2007) Ecosystem services and biodiversity in developing countries. Biodivers Conserv 16(10):2729–2737 Munda G (1997) Environmental economics, ecological economics, and the concept of sustainable development. Environ Values 6(2):213–233 Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508 Pearce D (1993) World without end: economics, environment, and sustainable development. World Bank, Washington, DC Piper S, Martin WE (2001) Evaluating the accuracy of the benefit transfer method: a rural water supply application in the USA. J Environ Manag 63(3):223–235

Nonprofit Economy Richards M (1994) Towards valuation of forest conservation benefits in developing countries. Environ Conserv 21(4):308–319 Rietbergen-McCracken J (2000) Environmental valuation: a worldwide compendium of case studies. Earthscan, London Smith VK (1996) Estimating economic values for nature: methods for non-market valuation. Brookfield, Edward Elgar The Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, and the National Authority of Environmental Licensing (2017) Technical criteria for the use of economic tools in projects, works and activities object of environmental licensing. Bogota, Colombia. Available on: http://www.anla.gov.co/documentos/ sipta/valoracion_economica/cartilla_criterios_ tecnicos_para_el_uso_de_herramientas_economicas_ ver2.pdf The University of los Andes and The Colombian Ministry of Environment Housing and Territorial Development (2010) Economic valuation of environmental impacts in megaprojects. Technical manual Tilbury D, Cooke K (2005) A national review of environmental education and its contribution to sustainability in Australia: frameworks for sustainability – key findings. Camberra, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage and Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES) United Nations (2020) About the Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved July 18th, 2020, from https:// www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainabledevelopment-goals/. Winpenny JT (1991) Values for the environment: a guide to economic appraisal. HMSO, London

Nonprofit Economy ▶ Social and Solidarity Economy or How Notfor-Profit Organizations Participate to SDGs’ Implementation?

O

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development Gamze Erdem Türkelli Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), Law and Development Research Group, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Institute for Environmental Studies Environmental Policy Analysis (IVM-EPA), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Synonyms Development aid; Development assistance

Definition Official Development Assistance (ODA) denotes aid from sovereign states (so-called “donor” countries) destined to promote development in developing countries found on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) list of “developing countries and territories,” delivered either bilaterally or through a multilateral agency (such as the United Nations or a multilateral development bank), and comprises of grants, so-called “soft” loans with a concessional grant element and technical assistance. It excludes

financial facilities such as credits or loans for military purposes (OECD 2020a).

Official Development Assistance (ODA): Past, Present, and Future ODA: History, Definitions, and Targets Development assistance or aid is an essential part of the global response and responsibility in assisting developing countries in financing their socioeconomic development. International assistance and cooperation are also considered an international obligation under Article 2.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in progressively realizing in full economic, social, and cultural rights enshrined in the Convention. Official Development Assistance (ODA) constitutes an important component of financing for development. The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts defines Official Development Assistance (ODA) as “Resource flows to countries and territories on the DAC List of ODA Recipients (developing countries) and to multilateral agencies which are: (a) undertaken by the official sector; (b) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; (c) at concessional financial terms” (OECD DAC 2020). ODA more squarely denotes development aid from the public budgets of donor countries towards developing countries. As such, it makes up only a part of total financial

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

826

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

transfers to developing countries; other financial resources including personal remittances of migrant workers and non-ODA financial transfers such as nonconcessional commercial loans, private grants, foreign direct investment (FDI), portfolio investments, export credits, and others. According to OECD data, in 2017, ODA made up 15% of all foreign total resource receipts, FDI made up 41%, personal remittances made up 33%, private flows reached 3%, and portfolio investments 2% (OECD 2020b). While it does not make up the biggest volume of foreign resource flows into developing countries, ODA is nonetheless significant given its exclusive and explicit mandate to contribute to development in the recipient countries and its concessional terms. Bilateral Origins and Early Iterations

The origins of Official Development Assistance (ODA) can be traced back to the economic development assistance provided by colonial powers such as the United Kingdom (UK) and France to their former colonies. In fact, prior to World War I, policy-making particularly in Britain vis-à-vis its colonies consisted of measures seeking to foster economic self-sufficiency in the latter through injecting limited financial funds from the metropole in the form of loans or grants that would be used to build trade infrastructure such as harbors or railways (Constantine 1984). During the inter-war period, a shift in British policy occurred: [i]nstead of seeing th[e policy of colonial development] primarily as a means of achieving the financial self-sufficiency of the colonies, the [British] Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and other interested parties began to see colonial development as a means of alleviating distress in Britain. Given the fact that colonial development in practice meant the building of railways, harbours, roads, bridges and other public works in the colonies, and also that the materials for their construction could and should be bought in Britain, then, it was argued, the acceleration of colonial development programmes would increase overseas demand for British goods especially in distressed export industries. It followed that it might be necessary to offer a degree of Imperial government financial assistance to colonial governments in order to persuade them to accelerate their development schemes. A small Imperial government commitment should lead to significant purchases of British products. (Constantine 1984: p. 262)

Consequently, in 1929, the first Colonial Development Act was passed in Britain, followed by acts and amendments in 1940, 1945, and 1948. The post-World War II period led to the resurgence of “the appeal of colonial development as a way of increasing valuable supplies of food and raw materials” (Constantine 1984: p. 265). The early rivalries of the Cold War in the late 1940s also shaped the delivery of bilateral aid to war-torn and developing countries in the Western Bloc as well as those in the periphery, particularly those neighboring the United Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Two of the biggest such aid programs were rolled out by the then US President Truman under the Truman Doctrine to contain the reach of communism by providing political, economic, and technical assistance: the so-called Marshall Plan (European Recovery Program) for Western Europe and the US Point Four Program for so-called “underdeveloped” regions. The Marshall Plan was rolled out mainly through the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) (Price 1955), which would later become the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), whose Development Assistance Committee (DAC) has been at the frontlines of norm-making and implementation with regards to ODA since the 1960s. OEEC was also at the frontlines of early engagement with territories in Sub-Saharan Africa, which at the time were under colonial rule. Such engagement was seen from an instrumentalist and extractive lens: “The territories can make an important contribution to the defence of the free world to which they belong particularly by increasing their production of materials” (OEEC 1951: p. 79 quoted in Decker 1961). USSR’s response was the establishment of COMECON (translated as The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) for countries in the Eastern Bloc and socialist countries around the world (Bideleux and Jeffries 1998). Public Aid to Development and the Development Assistance Architecture

The end of World War II corresponded not only to the advent of the Cold War and the beginning of

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

an intense US–USSR rivalry but also to the establishment of the new global political architecture through the United Nations and multilateral economic development architecture by the so-called Bretton Woods institutions of International Bank for Reconstruction and Development arm of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). To foster private sector development in developing countries, World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) arm was established in 1956, followed by the International Development Association (IDA) to provide concessional financing to “the least prosperous countries” (Pearson 1970: p. 12). The 1957 Rome Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC), the precursor to the European Union (EU), also set up the European Development Fund for Overseas Countries and Territories. The multilateral development architecture was complemented in the late 1950s and 1960s by the establishment of regional multilateral development banks in the Inter-American, Asian, and African regions, which also traced the independence of former colonized territories in Asia and Africa from colonizing European states in the same period. In addition, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) was founded in 1965 through merging the UN Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance and UN Special Fund. During the 1950s and 1960s, donor countries also established agencies for bilateral technical cooperation and development assistance (Führer 1996). The Role of the OECD DAC

The Development Assistance Group (DAG) was formed in 1960 under the auspices of the OEEC as a “forum for consultation among aid donors on assistance to less-developed countries,” with the participation of Belgium, Canada, the Commission of the EEC, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the United States as well as Japan and the Netherlands (Führer 1996: p. 8). After the transformation of OEEC into OECD later in 1960, the DAG was converted into the development Assistance Committee (DAC), subsuming the mandate of DAG to “continue to consult on the methods for making national resources

827

available for assisting countries and areas in the process of economic development and for expanding and improving the flow of long-term funds and other development assistance to them” with the same membership and functions as DAG and with structural assistance from the OECD Secretariat (Führer 1996: p. 10). Since its inception in 1960, OECD DAC has been the premier site for the adoption of norms and methodology with respect to how ODA is accounted and reported. The 30 countries that are currently members of the OECD DAC (in alphabetical order) are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States. Besides the DAC members, all other members of the OECD as well as the World Bank, the IMF, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) participate as observers (OECD DAC 2016).

O Defining ODA

DAC sets eligibility rules for financing to developing countries to be considered and accounted as ODA. In order to qualify as ODA, the main objective of the financial transaction to a developing country or a multilateral organization must be to promote “economic development and welfare of [a] developing country” on the DAC list and be concessional (OECD 2019a). The DAC’s list of ODA recipient countries is revised every 3 years and is currently divided into four categories: 47 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) as defined by the United Nations (UN-OHRLLS 2020), Other Low Income Countries, Lower Middle Income Countries and Territories and Upper Middle Income Countries and Territories, categorized on the basis of their GNI per capita based on World Bank reporting. The definition of concessionality according to DAC requires a grant element in loans in the following amounts:

828

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

– 45% for bilateral loans to LDCs and other Low Income Country public sector (at discount rate of 9%) – 15% for bilateral loans to Lower Middle Income Country public sector (at discount rate of 7%) – 10% for bilateral loans to Upper Middle Income Country public sector (at discount rate of 6%) – 10% for multilateral loans to multilateral institutions (at discount rate of 5% for global institutions and multilateral development banks at 6% for other organizations) (OECD DAC 2019). With the 2018 ODA reporting round in 2019, the DAC introduced the “grant-equivalent” methodology to measure ODA composed of grants and loans. In this configuration, only the part of the loan provided below market rates can be counted as ODA (OECD 2019b). This new methodology is based on the donor effort in providing development assistance where “a grant represents a bigger effort than a loan; and a loan with a very low interest rate and a long repayment period represents a bigger effort than a loan with a higher interest rate and a short repayment period” (OECD 2019a: p. 4). In 2013, Hynes and Scott had proposed the concept of Official Development Effort (ODE), which would discount all indonor refugee costs, scholarships given to overseas students to study in a developed country as well as programs for development awareness (Hynes and Scott 2013). The practice of allocating nonnegligible portions of the development assistance budget to research which is then undertaken at least partly by institutions in the donor country can be traced to the earliest iterations of aid (Colonial Development and Welfare Bill 1945). In fact, one of the more pertinent discussions to have is whether education and research costs covered in the donor country, either to house developing country students or scholars or to undertake research in or with respect to a developing country should be considered ODA. Another part of the Hynes and Scott proposal structured around allowing the counting of only the subsidy element in loans, which was largely realized with the grantequivalent methodology.

Recent years have seen deliberations on the rules of eligibility for peace and security expenditures as well as in-donor refugee costs. In terms of peace and security expenditures, the 2016 changes allowed for the specific training of partner country military personnel, use of military as last resort to deliver humanitarian aid, and development services and preventing violent extremism through developmental interventions (OECD DAC 2016a). In terms of in-donor refugee costs, the 2017 clarification to the reporting rules allows donor states to count the first 12 months of indonor refugee costs as ODA, with cannot include integration costs. DAC members have not yet been able to achieve consensus on common rules with respect to the accounting of contributions to private sector development instruments and debt relief (OECD DAC 2019). ODA Targets

A target for financial transfers from developed countries to developing countries at the rate of 1 percent of their income was initially proposed at the domestic political sphere by the British Labour Party (Bhagwati 2005) and taken as a proposal to the international level by the World Council of Churches in 1958, with OECD DAC members subscribing to it by 1968 (OECD 2000). Because the total financial transfers included flows from private sources as well as public sources, the need for a new target to define the part of public finances from developed countries to developing countries became apparent, voiced also by developing countries in the first ministerial conference of the G-77 countries in Algiers (OECD 2016). In 1969, the Pearson Commission on International Development set out the 0.7 percent of Gross National Product (GNP) target for Official Development Assistance to be reached by 1975 and no later than 1980 in its “Partners in Development” Report (Pearson 1970). In 1970, this target was adopted by the UN General Assembly in its Resolution 2626(XXV) entitled “International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade” (UNGA 1970). The measurement of the target has subsequently been subject to continuous revisions by the OECD DAC, including the replacement of the

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

term GNP with Gross National Income (GNI) in 1993 in line with the changes in the System of National Accounts (OECD 2016). While the 0.7 percent ODA/GNI target can be considered a soft law target, not creating a binding obligation on donor countries, donor countries can choose to enshrine the target in their domestic law, thereby creating binding legal obligations. In 2013, Belgium undertook a legal obligation under Article 9 of its Law on Development Cooperation (Loi relative à la Coopération au Développement) to respect and implement Belgium’s international commitments, including the 0.7 percent ODA/GNI target (Service Public Fédéral Affaires Étrangères, Commerce Extérieur et Coopération au Développement/ Federale Overheidsdienst Buitenlandse Zaken, Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking 2013). Another example is the UK’s International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act of 2015. The Act creates a duty for the UK to meet the 0.7 percent ODA/ GNI target starting with the year 2015, which is to be ensured by the Secretary of State (Article 1) by reporting to the Parliament annually. If the target has not been met, the Secretary of State must present to the Parliament an explanatory statement outlining the reasons for the failure to meet the targets and the steps to be taken the following year to meet the target (UK Government 2015). OECD tracks reporting by DAC donors as well as non-DAC donors that choose to voluntarily report on their ODA delivery to the DAC. According to the latest data available through the OECD’s Aid at a Glance database, the average net ODI to GNI ratio of all DAC donor countries was at 0.31% (2017) and the ratio of bilateral aid within total ODA was 70% (2018). Among the DAC members, only Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom met the 0.7% ODA/GNI target in the year 2017 (OECD 2020c). Although the total volume of ODA increased from 36.18 billion USD in 1960 to 143.22 billion USD in 2018, ODA as a percentage of GNI declined from 0.51% to 0.31% (OECD 2020d). Aid Effectiveness One of the main challenges of development aid delivery is on translating the financial resources

829

into tangible developmental benefits in developing countries. The importance of increasing not only the volume but also the effectiveness of aid was recognized as early as in 1969 by the Pearson Commission: It is not enough that there be more aid. It must also be better aid, more effectively organized and administered. It must be suited to the needs of soundly conceived development plans, whether this will require project or non-project financing. . . . It must be accompanied more and more with integrated technical assistance which provides the knowledge and skills necessary to make use of the funds provided. (Pearson 1970: p.13)

The half century that has elapsed since the Pearson Commission report has not alleviated the concerns and challenges linked to the effectiveness of aid. One of the particularly troubling trends is linked to high transaction costs due to fragmentation and donor programming. For instance, Kharas’ work on the development aid architecture in 2007 revealed that most ODA ended up meeting “special purpose needs,” and only 38.4 Billion USD out of 107 Billion USD ODA from DAC Countries in the year 2005 was going to “Country Programmable Aid” (CPA), which is defined as financial aid “available for developing countries to implement agreed upon projects and programs that contribute to long-term development” (Kharas 2007: p. 7). The calculation was made by subtracting aid for “special purpose needs,” including “administrative costs of aid agencies, humanitarian and emergency relief, food aid, technical cooperation, and debt relief (on private credits and non-aid official financial flows)” (Kharas 2007: p. 7). Furthermore, given that studies indicated roughly half of ODA going to CPA reached the end beneficiaries (citizens of developing countries), Kharas estimated that this amounted only to 19 Billion USD out of the 107 Billion ODA (2005) (Kharas 2008). While aid effectiveness continues to present challenges, normative frameworks on how aid can be rendered more effective have emerged in the last two decades. The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness adopted by an intergovernmental agreement at the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness put

O

830

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

forward five principles to ensure that aid to developing countries is effective. These are:

important and ongoing challenges to be tackled (OECD 2019d).

1. Country Ownership of developing countries over development policies, poverty reduction strategies, capacity-building, as well as combatting corruption 2. Donor Alignment with partner country development objectives and priorities and the use of local systems 3. Donor Harmonization through coordination, simplified procedures and sharing of information 4. Managing for Results and a results-focused development paradigm 5. Mutual Accountability of donors and partners for development results (High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness 2005)

Untying Aid

Three years later, the Accra Agenda of Action reaffirmed the Paris Agenda principles of aid effectiveness, particularly underscoring the importance of ownership and also made overtures with respect to “inclusive partnerships” of all donors and stakeholders, including OECD DAC donors and beyond, such as non-DAC donors, foundations, and civil society as well as the importance of capacity building in developing countries (High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness 2008). In 2011, the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness adopted the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, more squarely focusing on the principles of South-South cooperation and addressing thematic issues such as engagement with fragile and conflict-affected states, gender equality in development, statistics, effective institutions and policies, and public-private cooperation for development (High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness 2011). The main objectives of the aid effectiveness agenda seek to cement the central role of developing countries in undertaking their own development agendas, to decrease transaction costs, overcome fragmentation, increase transparency, performance, as well as accountability. Against this background, strengthening country ownership and donor alignment with developing country policies, priorities, and systems remain

One of the concerns underlying the aid effectiveness agenda is the fact that the effectiveness of aid may be undermined when countries providing aid may impose procurement conditions on the recipient developing country. Both the Accra Agenda for Action and the Busan Partnership underscored the importance of untying aid in the context of aid effectiveness. “Tied aid” is defined as “aid that can only be used to buy goods and services from the country providing the aid” (Meeks 2017). The OECD DAC introduced a set of definitions in 1987 for reporting of aid tying. Accordingly, untied aid is aid in the form of loans and grants that can be used in full and freely to procure from “all OECD countries and substantially all developing countries” (OECD 1987 summarized in Clay et al. 2009: p. 5). Partially untied aid restricts through contractual or practical means the number of countries from which procurement can take place but this list of countries includes all developing countries and can also include the country providing the aid while all other aid is considered tied aid, whether the tying happens contractually or in practice (Clay et al. 2009). Tying aid to procurement from the donor country was considered early on as entailing “administrative and economic evils . . . upon the recipients” (Pearson 1970: p.13). In 1990, it was estimated that the practice of tying aid increased the “costs of goods, services and works” in the developing country by “15% to 30% on average” (Clay et al. 2009: p. 1). In the case of food aid, estimations pointed to 40% or more climbs in costs (OECD 2006). These estimates may be considered “conservative” as they do not account for the indirect costs of tying (Clay et al. 2009: p. 1). Other undesirable consequences of untied aid include undermining the country ownership of development, fragmentation through parallel procedures to satisfy donor conditions, and the procurement of goods, services, or works that do not correspond to local needs and requirements (Meeks 2017).

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

A 2009 evaluation of the Paris Principles and the 2001 DAC Recommendation on Untying Aid to LDCs found that “untying emerges from the country studies as a critically important contributory factor towards achieving greater aid effectiveness and not one to be justified only in terms of efficiency gains or promoting local business development” even if the exact impacts depended on the local country context (Clay et al. 2009: p. 58). In this respect, financial aid in the form of budgetary support and basket funding as well as technical cooperation in the context of projects were found to be untied both contractually and in practice. Project funding, on the other hand, could be untied on paper as reported to the DAC but tied in practice, which constituted a deficiency in the OECD definition of untied aid (Clay et al. 2009). The 2019 recommendation of the OECD DAC includes an agreement by DAC member states to untie bilateral ODA to “LDCs, Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs), Other Low-Income Countries (OLICs) and IDA-only countries and territories” [footnotes omitted] (OECD DAC 2019: para. 1). In fact, agreements to untie aid to LDCs and HIPCs date from 2002 to 2008, respectively. In 2019, OLICS and IDA-only countries and territories were added to the list. The untying commitment is still not universal and relates to a number of designated areas: “balance of payments and structural adjustment support; debt forgiveness; sector and multi-sector programme assistance; investment project aid; import and commodity support; commercial services contracts, and ODA to Non-Governmental Organisations for procurement related activities” (OECD DAC 2019: para. 8.i). The recommendation does not cover free-standing technical cooperation and leaves the door open for food aid is to be “guided by the discussions and agreements in other international fora governing the provision of food aid” (OECD DAC 2019: para. 8.iii). While the recommendation does not explicitly state this, the latest international agreement around food aid is the 2013 Food Assistance Convention of the Food Assistance Committee (FAC) to which some DAC members (Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, the European Union, Finland, France,

831

Japan, the Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States of America) and Russia are parties. The Convention sets out principles concerning how food assistance is to be delivered to countries most in need. In addition to strengthening selfreliance and resilience in recipient countries, avoiding dependency, donor countries are to “provide aid in full grant form, whenever possible” (FAC 2013: Art. 2(vi)) as well as decrease transaction costs and allow the procurement of food and components of food assistance locally or regionally, provide “untied cash-based food assistance, whenever possible and based on needs” (FAC 2013: Art. 3(iv)) among others. The most recent reports indicate that tied aid is once again on the rise. In 2016, “more than one sixth of Real ODA” (25 billion USD) was formally tied (Meeks 2018: p. 3). While procurement from local economies can have important catalytic impacts, development aid particularly from the United States and Japan in recent years has been linked to a surge in tied aid (Chadwick 2020). Many DAC member states such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK report at least 95% of their aid to the DAC as untied (OECD DAC 2018). The European Network on Debt and Development (EURODAD), on the other hand, has calculated the share of contracts awarded in the donor country to donor country firms for these countries reporting almost or wholly untied aid, which reaches 95% for the USA, 93% for Australia, 90% for the UK, 89% for Finland, 75% for Canada, 66% for New Zealand, 65% for Denmark, 53% for France, and 51% for the EU Institutions (Meeks 2018). On average, 51% of the value of overall bilateral ODA contracts reported to the DAC in 2016 ended up being awarded to firms from the country providing the aid and only 7% of all ODA contract globally being awarded to firms based in LDCs or HPICs. The share of local firms in projects within LDCs and HIPCs was slightly higher at 13% (Meeks 2018). An estimation by EURODAD shows that tying loans can “reduce the concessionality of an average loan by over 10%” (Meeks 2018: p.15). Given the

O

832

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

negative impacts of tied aid on aid effectiveness, country ownership of development and the opportunity to mobilize domestic resources by giving local firms business opportunities, calls to align procurement requirements with aid effectiveness principles, to untie all ODA, and to ascertain procurement policies and processes comply with obligations and respect human and labor rights and environmental sustainability (Meeks 2018) need to be amplified. Aid Dependence

Another pertinent issue linked to the effectiveness of aid is aid dependence. The question of the perverse effects of reliance on aid by developing country governments started occupying space in the development debates starting with the mid1990s (Dollar and Pritchett 1998; Bräutigam and Botchwey 1999; Bräutigam 2000). It has been suggested that foreign aid can undermine governmental accountability, weaken the civil society, siphon qualified human resources away from public institutions into donor institutions, and create a source of rents that can lead to patronage and corruption (Knack 2000). Other impacts of aid dependence have been enumerated as: (1) institutional overload and capacity weakening; (2) loss of sovereignty and weakened ownership of policies and plans, with consequent sustainability problems; (3) revenue instability, repetitive budgeting, budget fragmentation, wage distortions, and lower tax effort, with serious implications for the management of monetary and fiscal policy; and (4) the undermining of accountability and democratic decision-making. (Bräutigam and Botchwey 1999: p. 2)

By the year 2000, many Sub-Saharan African countries were considered aid-dependent (Bräutigam and Botchwey 1999). While aid dependence is not an issue for developing countries across the board, some countries have consistently relied on ODA from foreign governments as an important percentage of their GNI or as a ratio of government expenditure. In purely statistical terms, in 2017, Afghanistan’s ODA to GNI ratio was 18.1%, for ratio reached 24.6% for Malawi and 33.5% for Liberia (OECD 2020c). Based on a review of the literature on the impacts of aid relationships between donors and recipients, Booth

concludes that “aid flows tend to have fairly powerful perverse effects, unless and until, for one reason or another, a country has already acquired a developmental leadership” (Booth 2011: p. 7). Donor Conditionalities

Donor countries or institutions routinely impose conditions on aid recipients, determining the parameters of how and under what conditions the development assistance they provide may be acquired or disbursed. Conditions may relate to the attainment of target macroeconomic indicators, structural reform, institutional reform or governance interventions, financial/fiduciary conditions or result-based conditions with respect to program outputs (Shah 2017). Donor conditionalities, particularly during the implementation of structural adjustment programs in the late 1980s and early 1990s, drew strong criticism as regards the negative impacts on populations in countries emerging from macroeconomic crises. Similar debates reemerged with regards to austerity measures in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis in Europe and the resort to IMF stabilization programs. Besides macroeconomic conditionality, large donors such as the European Union are able to also impose political conditions with respect to human rights and democratization (Shah 2017). The traditional conditionality approach is giving way to an approach of so-called “new conditionality,” putting an emphasis on country ownership with fewer conditions that are continuously assessed from fiduciary and due diligence perspectives through sustained dialogue between the donor and the recipient (Shah 2017: p. 37). So, “[u]nder the ‘new’ conditionality, conditions are supposed to be agreed, not imposed, and policy reforms required as ‘triggers’ for aid (commonly budget support) are meant to already be on the agenda of recipient governments” (Dornan 2017: O47). At the end of the day, however, the implementation of the so-called new conditionality demonstrates that there is not always a clear-cut distinction between older types of conditionality and the newer, softer iterations but rather a spectrum and that conditionality does not automatically translate into reform in recipient countries in the absence of domestic support regardless of where on that

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

spectrum a condition imposed on the recipient country might fall (Dornan 2017). Reemergence of the Neocolonialism Debate

Various perverse effects of foreign aid, the strong reach of tied aid, and donor conditionalities have led to the resurgence of the concept of neo-colonialism (see, for instance, Durokifa and Ijeoma 2018; Langan 2018). Defined in 1965 by Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s first President after independence, neocolonialism denotes “that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.” (Nkrumah 1965: p. xi) Within that configuration, Nkrumah considered foreign aid to be exploitative and imperialist. He wrote: “‘Aid’, therefore, to a neocolonial State is merely a revolving credit, paid by the neo-colonial master, passing through the neocolonial State and returning to the neo-colonial master in the form of increased profits.” (Nkrumah 1965: p. xv) Whether foreign aid and development financing have been acting “as a lubricant for neocolonial systems of policy co-optation” (Langan 2018: p. 61) by creating primacy of donor interests through extractivism, undermining of national policy space and private sector-focused interventions impeding benefits for the local population (Langan 2018). ODA, Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development underscores the importance of financing from international public sources to compliment developing countries’ own domestic resources, while reiterating the commitment of donor states to provide ODA at the rate of 0.7 percent of their Gross National Income (GNI) with 0.15 to 0.2 percent of ODA/GNI designated for the LDCs (UNGA 2015). Similarly, the accompanying Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 on effective partnerships for sustainable development fashions the longstanding ODA target as its Target 17.2: [d]eveloped countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries

833

to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries (UNGA 2015, p. 26)

Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) adopted at the third UN Financing for Development (FfD) Conference in July 2015 had already reaffirmed these targets (para. 51) prior to the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In addition, AAAA underscored the crucial need to direct aid provided at most concessional terms to the LDCs, to reverse the trend of decline in this regard (Third International Conference on Financing for Development 2015: para. 52). It stands to reason that those countries facing hurdles or high costs in accessing private capital markets should be prioritized in the delivery of ODA with high grant elements (Kharas et al. 2014). The latest discussions in how development financing should be measured center on the adoption of the concept of Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD), being proposed and developed as a measure to monitor all resources mobilized through official interventions and is designed to include concessional as well as non-concessional bilateral and multilateral support, including through South-South and triangular cooperation. The 2019 working definition is that TOSSD as a “statistical measure [that] includes all officially-supported resource flows to promote sustainable development in developing countries and to support development enablers and/or address global challenges at regional or global levels” (OECD 2019c: para. 8). The AAAA contains a provision to ensure that the measurement of sustainable development efforts through TOSSD will not “dilute commitments already made” such as those with respect to ODA (Third International Conference on Financing for Development 2015: para. 55). Both the 2030 Agenda and the AAAA also recognize the overarching importance of aid effectiveness. In particular, the importance of national (country) ownership of development policy and financing was once again underscored in the AAAA (Third International Conference on

O

834

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

Financing for Development 2015: paras 20 and 58). The AAAA also made a broader appeal to enhance the effectiveness of development cooperation and financing by the use of already agreedupon effectiveness principles as well as reducing fragmentation, untying aid, and providing predictability in aid by “providing developing countries with regular and timely indicative information on planned support in the medium term” (Third International Conference on Financing for Development 2015: para. 58). Target 15 of SDG 17 also drew attention to the importance of respect for “each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development” (UNGA 2015). South-South Cooperation

South-South cooperation, namely financial and technical cooperation among developing countries, has become an increasingly important component of development aid in terms of bilateral arrangements as well as the new multilateral architecture that has been established since 2015 through the New Development Bank (NDB) of the so-called BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The AAAA underscores the importance of continued and intensified South-South Cooperation “based on . . . shared experiences and objectives . . . [and] guided by principles of respect for national sovereignty, national ownership and independence, equality, non-conditionality, noninterference in domestic affairs and mutual benefit” (Third International Conference on Financing for Development 2015: para. 56). Yet, there is clear recognition that South-South cooperation should be complementary to and not a substitute for North-South cooperation. Target 17.6 of the SDGs seeks to enhance SouthSouth and triangular regional and international cooperation in addition to North-South cooperation “on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms” (UNGA 2015: SDG 17 Target 17.6) while Target 17.9 recognizes

the importance of capacity-building in developing countries, including through South-South and triangular cooperation (in addition to traditional NorthSouth cooperation). One of the indicators for Target 17.3 on mobilizing additional financial resources measures the contribution of South-South Cooperation in developing country domestic budgets in addition to the share of FDI and ODA. New Modalities in Aid: Blended Finance

The post-2015 development finance landscape is one structured around catalyzing private capital for sustainable development through public incentives. One expression of this drive towards “crowding in” private investment is the use of blended finance mechanisms that use public finance, in particular ODA, to mobilize public and private resources. The 2030 Agenda (para. 43) and the AAAA (para. 52) have both endorsed this “catalytic” use of ODA budget, which according to the DAC “is a growing priority for most DAC members’ development co-operation efforts” (OECD DAC 2016b: para 10). In blended finance configurations, both bilateral development routes through development agencies and national development finance institutions (DFIs) and multilateral development routes (through multilateral development banks) are concomitantly employed. Blended finance is essentially an approach that uses concessional (ODA) and nonconcessional funding for sustainable development from public budgets to attract nonconcessional funding from the commercial sector. The underlying idea is that because riskadjusted returns are not appealing to investors, many opportunities that are vital to realize sustainable development objectives go unexploited (OECD 2018). Thus, if the risks around investing in a developing country can be offset or underwritten by public funding (such as ODA), this might increase the risk appetite of investors and close the investment gap in developing countries (OECD 2018). Because of its very recent advent and use, there is currently not enough data to assess whether blended finance will or can work as envisaged. What is clear, however, is that there are accountability implications for shifting risks from the private sector to the public sector,

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

particularly when robust transparency and monitoring mechanisms are not in place.

835

allocated to sustainable development, questions of global structural inequalities and redistribution also need to be tackled.

Global Structural Inequalities and Redistribution

ODA specifically and development assistance more generally is only a part of the broader landscape as regards how sustainable development is financed. In fact, the essential imperative underscored in the 2030 Agenda as well as the AAAA is the mobilization of a developing country’s own domestic resources for its development. This necessitates addressing global structural inequalities and issues of redistribution. An effective mobilization of developing countries’ domestic resources requires international economic, financial, investment, and trade regimes that enable a level playing field for developing countries. This requires that beyond aid, “donor countries [also]. . . devote effort to stopping international practices in trade and finance for which they are directly responsible or in which they are complicit” (Booth 2011: p. 7). The 2030 Agenda also warns against the “promulgati[on] and appl [ication of] any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impede the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in developing countries” (UNGA 2015: para. 30). As underscored in the AAAA, an effective mobilization of domestic resources requires effective and efficient tax systems worldwide that prevent the evasion of taxes from the public vaults of developing countries into offshore havens. It also requires the effective regulation of multinational business enterprises that operate worldwide across legal jurisdictions but that have clear impacts on the social, economic and environmental conditions in developing countries. While ODA is a vital element in the overall development financing structure, particularly with the more recent move to use ODA to catalyze financing from private sources and to shift investment risks to public budgets, it is only a part of the wider international economic landscape as regards development financing. In order for citizens of developing countries to experience the concrete benefits of financial resources that are

Cross-References ▶ Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Long-Term Investments

References Bhagwati J (2005) A chance to lift the aid curse, Wall Street Journal, 22 March 2005. Available at http://www. columbia.edu/~jb38/papers/pdf/WSJ_Foreign_Aid_ Op_Ed.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 Bideleux R, Jeffries I (1998) A history of Eastern Europe: crisis and change, 2nd edn. Routledge, London Booth D (2011) Aid effectiveness: bringing country ownership (and politics) back in. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London Bräutigam D (2000) Aid dependence and governance. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm Bräutigam D, Botchwey K (1999) The institutional impact of aid dependence on recipients in Africa. Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen. (CMI Working Paper WP 1999:1) Chadwick V (2020) Japan leads surge in tied aid, DEVEX, 14 February 2020. https://www.devex.com/news/japanleads-surge-in-tied-aid-96535. Accessed 23 Feb 2020 Clay EJ et al (2009) Untying aid: is it working? An evaluation of the implementation of the Paris declaration and of the 2001 DAC recommendation of untying ODA to the LDCs. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Copenhagen Colonial Development and Welfare Bill (1945) Nature 155:358–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/155358d0 Constantine S (1984) The making of british colonial development policy 1914–1940. Frank Cass and Company, London Dollar D, Pritchett L (1998) Assessing aid: what works, what Doesn't, and why. Oxford University Press, New York Dornan M (2017) How new is the ‘new’ conditionality? Recipient perspectives on aid, country ownership and policy reform. Dev Policy Rev 35:O46–O63. https:// doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12245 Durokifa AA, Ijeoma EC (2018) Neo-colonialism and millennium development goals (MDGs) in Africa: a blend of an old wine in a new bottle, African journal of science, technology. Innovation and Development 10(3):355–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2018.1463654 Food Assistance Committee (FAC) (2013) Food assistance convention

O

836

Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development

Führer H (1996) The story of official development assistance: a history of the development assistance committee and the development co-operation directorate in dates, names and figures. OECD, Paris High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (2005) The Paris declaration on aid effectiveness High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (2008) The Accra agenda for action High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (2011) The Busan partnership for effective development co-operation Hynes W, Scott S (2013) The evolution of official development assistance: achievements, criticisms and a way forward, OECD development co-operation working papers, no. 12. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi. org/10.1787/5k3v1dv3f024-en Kharas H (2007) Trends and issues in development aid. Wolfensohn Center For Development, Washington DC, Working paper 1 | November 2007, Brookings Institution Kharas H (2008) The new reality of aid. In: Brainard L, Chollet D (eds) Global development 2.0: can philanthropists, the public, and the poor make poverty history? , Washington, DC, Brookings Institution Press Kharas H et al (2014) Financing the post-2015 sustainable development goals: a rough roadmap. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Knack S (2000) Aid dependence and the quality of governance: a cross-country empirical analysis (English). Policy, research working paper; no. WPS 2396. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank. org/curated/en/200401468741328803/Aid-dependenceand-the-quality-of-governance-a-cross-country-empiri cal-analysis. Accessed 23 Feb 2020 Langan M (2018) Neo-colonialism and the poverty of 'development' in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan Meeks P (2017) Unravelling tied aid: why aid must never be tied to donor country companies at the expense of women and men living in poverty. EURODAD Meeks P (2018) Development, untied: Unleashing the catalytic power of official development assistance through renewed action on untying. EURODAD Nkrumah K (1965) Neo-colonialism: the last stage of imperialism. Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., London OECD (2000) Development co-operation, 1999 report. OECD, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documen tupload/OnePercentTarget.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 OECD (2006) The developmental effectiveness of food aid. Does tying matter? Paris OECD (2016) History of the 0.7% ODA target – original text from DAC journal 2002, vol 3 No 4, pages III-9 – III-11. Revised March 2016. https://www.oecd.org/ dac/stats/ODA-history-of-the-0-7-target.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 OECD (2018) Making blended finance work for the sustainable development goals. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264288768-en. Accessed 23 Feb 2020 OECD (2019a) Official development assistance (ODA) (April 2019). https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-

sustainable-development/development-finance-stan dards/What-is-ODA.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 OECD (2019b) Development aid drops in 2018, especially to neediest countries. https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/ development-aid-drops-in-2018-especially-to-needi est-countries.htm. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 OECD (2019c) TOSSD reporting instructions, 5 June 2019 OECD (2019d) Making development co-operation more effective: 2019 progress report OECD (2020a) Net ODA (indicator). https://doi.org/10. 1787/33346549-en. Accessed on 18 Feb 2020 OECD (2020b) Resource flows beyond ODA in DAC statistics. http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainabledevelopment/development-finance-standards/beyondoda.htm. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 OECD (2020c) Aid at a glance charts. https://www.oecd. org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/develop ment-finance-data/aid-at-a-glance.htm. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 OECD (2020d) Official development assistance 2018 – preliminary data: ODA 1960–2018 trends. https:// www2.compareyourcountry.org/oda?cr¼20001& cr1¼oecd&lg¼en&page¼1#. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 OECD DAC (2016) Joining the development assistance committee (DAC). Available https://www.oecd.org/dac/ dac-global-relations/2016_Joining%20the%20DAC.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 OECD DAC (2016a) The scope and nature of 2016 HLM decisions regarding the ODA-eligibility of peace and security-related expenditures. http://www.oecd.org/dac/ HLM_ODAeligibilityPS.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 OECD DAC (2016b) DAC high level meeting communiqué – February 19, 2016. http://www.oecd. org/dac/DAC-HLM-Communique-2016.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 OECD DAC (2018) 2018 report on the dac untying recommendation. OECD, Paris OECD DAC (2019) Revised DAC recommendation on untying official development assistance. DCD/DAC (2018)33/FINAL OECD DAC (2020) DAC glossary of key terms and concepts. https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainabledevelopment/development-finance-data/dac-glossary. htm#ODA. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 OEEC (1951) Investments in overseas territories in Africa South of the Sahara, p. 79, quoted in Decker M (1961) The economics of neo-colonialism: the new imperialism in Africa, The African Communist Number 7 September, pp 12–22 Pearson LB (1970) The Pearson report: a new strategy for global development. The UNESCO Courier: a window open on the world XXIII(2):4–14, illus Price HB (1955) The Marshall plan and its meaning. Cornell University Press, Ithaca Service Public Fédéral Affaires Étrangères, Commerce Extérieur et Coopération au Développement/Federale Overheidsdienst Buitenlandse Zaken, Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking (2013) 19 Mars 2013 – Loi relative à la Coopération au Développement (1)/19

Oppositional Knowledge Maart 2013 – Wet betreffende de Belgische Ontwikkelingssamenwerking (1) Shah A (2017) Development assistance and conditionality: challenges in design and options for more effective assistance. OECD and European Commission Third International Conference on Financing for Development (2015) Addis Ababa action agenda UK Government (2015) International development (official development assistance target) act UN Office Of the High Representative for The Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UNOHRLLS) (2020). http://unohrlls.org/about-ldcs/. Accessed 22 Feb 2020 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (1970) International development strategy for the second united

837 nations development decade, UN general assembly resolution 2626 (XXV), 24 October 1970, paragraph 43 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, A/RES/70/1, 25 September 2015

Oppositional Knowledge ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development

O

P

Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development Gavin Melles Centre for Design Innovation, Swinburne University, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia

Definition Although already popular in product and service design, co-design is a more recent entry into the development field. With roots in participatory development and design, co-design is “collective creativity as it is applied across the whole span of a design process” (Sanders and Stappers 2008), where design process can refer to any broad development of service, enterprise, or product. Collective creativity indicates that co-design includes creative approaches or tactics (Lee 2008) to participation, e.g., collaborative visualization, and not just conventional research methods, e.g., interview and focus groups. The approach has its roots in the democratic urge of (Scandinavian) participatory design although it tends to be promoted in design circles as a creative workshop method for product and service innovation. Recent applications, particularly in policy and community settings, have raised the question of power and participation anew (Blomkamp 2018). The practical prompt to these recent discussions regarding the limitations of co-design per se have also been prompted by projects applying

the approach with hitherto marginal groups. Focus on applying co-design to work with particular cohorts, e.g., children (Hussain 2010), indigenous (Parsons et al. 2016), marginal socioeconomic groups (Kumar et al. 2016), patients (Hjelmfors et al. 2018), local government and communities, and others has enriched discussion about the benefits and challenges of the method for development ends. It has also encouraged a reconsideration of the importance of addressing empowerment and inclusion. Thus construed, participatory co-design is a creative subtype of participatory development and ideally promotes inclusive development (Gupta and Vegelin 2016). I note in passing that inclusive design is not typically a reference to inclusive development but rather alludes to design of product and services for a broad audience of users (e.g., Heylighen and Bianchin 2013). As noted, co-design may involve a range of methods and tools, including modified collective versions of conventional methods, e.g., joint journey mapping (e.g., Caillette-Beaudoin et al. 2017). The scope of the term is in this sense somewhat slippery as co-design may refer to a method within a broader approach, e.g., design thinking, or designate itself an approach that articulates into a method portfolio. In health, education, and other public service sectors the employment of participatory co-design methods may also focus on empowerment and inclusion (e.g., Sarmiento Pelayo 2015) or exclusion questions (e.g., Donetto et al. 2015). In participatory

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

840

development contexts, the approach ideally involves an equal relationship between designer as facilitating “expert” and the user. The term designer is now used more broadly to allude to anyone driving policy or project planning and development rather than professional designers per se (e.g., Howard and Melles 2011). As Lee (2008) notes the approach is being promoted by “other experts such as psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists, who are more concerned with the effects and influence of designing than its forms” (2008, p. 32). With the spread of creative design methods into other domains such as urban design (Webb et al. 2018), health (Donetto et al. 2015), policy development (e.g., Holmes 2011), and other fields, those now leading these newer design processes come from a variety of backgrounds. This democratization of design has brought benefits to business, community, and other development processes while also challenging the mainstream credentialing of designers as insufficient for these more complex challenges (Kimbell 2011). As a result, leading practitioners in this area tend now to have multi-disciplinary backgrounds combining disciplinary expertise, e.g., in health, policy, education, with skills in participatory co-design. A indicated above, co-design is implicitly participatory but places a stronger focus on collective creative techniques throughout the design process and also in its recent incarnations pays less attention to the ideological and political factors than the participatory design tradition, which continues to coexist with it. Thus, despite a popular tendency to conflate co-design techniques with participatory design, it remains important to distinguish these two. Rather than treat co-design and participatory design as synonyms, in this entry, the term participatory co-design (PCD) is used to designate creative approaches in development contexts that allude to three traditions: participatory development, participatory design, and co-design methods (The author is aware of one other use of this term but in a different context. Normally the terms participatory design and co-design are distinguished or treated as broadly synonymous.).

Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development

Introduction This entry briefly defines the origins and practice of co-design before highlighting particular themes relevant to sustainable development contexts. Throughout the entry, I emphasize how co-design early on abandoned the inclusive, democratic, and ideological motivations of participatory design, as others also note (Spinuzzi 2005), but has recently begun to try to reconnect to this “democratic” past. I employ the term participatory co-design (PCD) to allude to such a return to the past with a stronger co-creative input through the development process; others have employed terms such as human-centered design to indicate something similar (e.g., Brown and Wyatt 2010). As alluded to above, ultimately the field specific focus, e.g., health, government, community development, will determine the depth of engagement with system-wide stakeholder, environmental and related issues. In the final section, the entry exemplifies the PCD approach by reviewing three cases where co-creation is employed and concludes with discussion of the way forward. While the discussion is focused throughout on participatory co-design in development contexts, it includes reference to other applications where relevant. The entry in particular concludes discussing the role of participatory co-design in realizing the inclusive ethos of current approaches to sustainable development, especially with regard to SDG17 and the idea of multistakeholder partnerships. It also alludes to the need for institutional theory and analysis to explore whether co-design so construed constitutes an organizational innovation, especially for civil society, government, and market-oriented relationships.

Inclusive Development Through Participatory Co-design for SDG17 At the heart of SDG 17 is the idea of multistakeholder partnerships in trade, finance, and technology for sustainable development. The promise and challenge of this broad agenda centers on new North-South relationships. Such

Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development

partnerships necessarily must integrate participatory inclusive approaches to reimagine rather than reproduce existing processes and outcomes (Sexsmith and McMichael 2015). Enabling such partnerships challenges traditional global trade, donor, and other relationships, which typically do not focus on inclusive development. Thus, Gupta and Vegelin (2016) argue that the theme of inclusive development and particularly social and ecological not just economic well-being is not well addressed in current approaches to sustainable development. Participatory co-design can embody this new ethic of inclusive multistakeholder partnerships and simultaneously address and integrate the inevitable economic and environmental trade-offs for community development. In economies in transition and where rural development is still a key economic focus inclusive development needs to also address trade-offs between mainstream (scientific) development and alternative knowledge (Parsons et al. 2016). Based inter alia on the proven capacity of indigenous and rural communities to manage common pool resources (Ostrom 1990), such trade-offs require mutual respect for alternative knowledge and livelihood requirements. Some of the examples cited and discussed in more detail below highlight this collective potential, particularly in projects where traditional community and expert scientific knowledge are brought together in contexts where external influences, e.g., climate change, exceed the adaptive capacity of local skills. While acknowledging the challenges, the case of co-produced knowledge and co-management of Inuit livelihoods in Alaska is a good example of outcomes leading to better adaptive capacity (e.g., Armitage et al. 2011). Participatory co-design in general and in development builds on legacies of participatory approaches to development. While the history of participatory development and its application is historically complex (e.g., Connell 1997), it was especially through the work of Chambers (e.g., Chambers 1994) and the adoption of participatory methods by major agencies such as the World Bank (The World Bank 2000) that participatory development was mainstreamed into

841

discourses on sustainable development from the late 1990s. Application into project and program level development initiatives quickly prompted discussions about the limits and potential for real empowerment in restrictive institutional regimes. Although now purportedly somewhat overstated, Williams (2004) notes critique has focused on “emphasising personal reform over political struggle, of obscuring local power differences by uncritically celebrating ‘the community’, and of using a language of emancipation to incorporate marginalised population” (2004, p. 558). In addition to the reported benefits, early and ongoing critique has also pointed to gender (e.g., Cornwall 2003) and ultimately unsubstantiated claims of empowerment and engagement. Such discussions have fuelled attempts to distinguish the continuum of co-optive to transformative participatory approaches (e.g., Michener 1998). Similar concerns with claims about co-design and the original participatory design focus have surfaced in recent discussions.

Participatory Design Roots As noted above, discussions about the effects of participation on emancipatory development have a long history in development circles. The view that participation comes in many “shades” from superficial consultation through to empowerment is a mainstream theme in the development sector (e.g., Cornwall 2003). Building on this participatory legacy albeit not always with full hindsight of critique, co-design has emerged as popular strategy in the spaces of policy, community, and consumer as a creative design method for simple to wicked problem challenges. This discussion of weaker and stronger forms of community engagement and empowerment is not a typical feature of discussion about the theory and application of co-design, concerned as it is with project level narratives of implementation. This rhetoric and reality gap has begun to be interrogated (Wiig et al. 2013). Allusions to inclusion tend to refer to biopsychosocial exclusions, e.g., disabilities (Sarmiento Pelayo 2015), rather than caste,

P

842

socioeconomic, gender and related development demographics. Two traditions influence the current discourse of co-design: the Scandinavian participatory design tradition and participatory development. Much of the current enthusiasm for co-design stems from the history of Scandinavian participatory design (Muller and Kuhn 1993), which continues to have a distinct focus on democratization, explicit discussion of values, and treatment of conflict during collaborative decision-making as a resource (Gregory 2003). The Scandinavian participatory design (PD) attends explicitly to the political aspects of technology choice and adoption in workplaces and communities (e.g., Schuler and Namioka 1993). The earlier focus on workplace and community development gave way to a focus on participatory design in ICT-oriented projects, and by the late 1990s, Kensing and Blomberg (1998) were already pointing to a shift away from the original sociopolitical agenda of worker democracy. In some respects, the historical shift of focus of PD to technology and ICT helped detach the democratic impulse from the approach. Spinuzzi (2005), for example, claims the early Scandinavian work in participatory design was influenced by a neo-Marxist attitude to democracy in the workplace and the empowerment of workers. Over time, this earlier ideological focus has given way to more practical considerations. Subsequently, there has been a renewed discussion about the importance of empowerment in participation (e.g., Lee 2008). Subsequent developments in the field, especially in its current co-design form, tend to make limited or no allusion to this sociopolitical agenda although there are now discussions about bringing such considerations back in to the process (Huybrechts et al. 2017; Blomkamp 2018). In this respect, it is somewhat unsurprising that there are recent debates about the place of power and empowerment in participatory design (Bratteteig and Wagner 2014). As Spinuzzi (2005) also notes, the ICT focus tended to lack methodological rigor allowing for vague application of the term to different forms of practice. These are all issues that formed part of the original framing and practice of participatory design.

Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development

Co-design: From Customers to Policy and Social Innovation Building on a legacy of participatory design, co-design has recently emerged as a popular term for a creative response to the challenges of development work and social innovation challenges in and with communities (Britton 2017). In its recent form in design fields, and especially in product and service innovation (e.g., Steen et al. 2011), co-design has projected a rather technical customer engagement approach while its “democratic deficiencies” (Palmås and von Busch 2015) are being discussed again. The different legacies of community co-design now attempt to do justice to three potentially complementary discourses. Specifically in (community) development contexts, appeal to empowerment, creativity, and social impact come together in practical projects. Below we examine and exemplify these claims through examples. We also observe, in conclusion, a signal lack of independent theory examining the claims of participatory co-design as organizational innovation and change and suggest that institutional theory and analysis may in future serve as this purpose. In addition to being embedded in the participatory design tradition, co-design has its origins in the expansion of the design landscape from product to service design and, most recently policy (Blomkamp 2018). Sanders and Stappers (2008) oft cited description of the approach is focused on the approach as a user-centered participatory method for design, which contrasts with other conventional individualistic and technical design approaches, e.g., user testing and contextual inquiry. The authors locate the approach within the participatory design tradition although note a shift from the original democratic impulse of focusing on empowerment and “adverse consequences” (op.cit. 8) of the Scandinavian approach. In this form, co-design plays a role in mainstream customer-centric product and service design (e.g., Kleinsmann and Valkenburg 2008; Niinimäki and Hassi 2011), where it focuses on customer involvement in product and service innovation. Many existing discussions of co-design benefits take their cue from this

Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development

somewhat technical version, which springs from an expansion of design practice. Thus, in general, co-design constitutes a particular strategy or tactic for broader research approaches, e.g., human-centered design. Co-design has therefore become a necessary if not sufficient method for the design thinking approach in such contexts (e.g., Brown and Wyatt 2010). For Giacomin (2014) and others, co-design is a particular future-oriented version of human-centered design. For ICT4D co-design like participatory design are techniques or methods to achieve technology-inspired development (Irani et al. 2010). The process is also currently seen as essential to projects concerned with community-oriented social innovation (Manzini 2014). This interpretation of co-design as a set of techniques therefore reinforces the difference with participatory design, which has the reputation of being an all-encompassing methodology. Steen (2013) is typical of the mainstream customer-centric project level design narratives in lauding the unique aspects of the co-design process, with its (purportedly) “inherent focus on ethics,” and the uniqueness of the design perspective compared to science and engineering (for which see Cross 2001; Owen 1997). This narrow methods focus and other assumptions is the dominant reading of co-design (e.g., CailletteBeaudoin et al. 2017). As models for the more complex institutional environments and arrangements of development, such technical approaches have limitations. To implement and clarify its more recent role in inclusive social design and sustainable development requires greater focus on the socio-politics of change and the participatory legacy (Blomkamp 2018). AS indicated above, co-design is also practiced in a range of consumer and public contexts outside of development, including for public policy design (Blomkamp 2018) or urban planning (Nevens et al. 2013). These contexts of application bring government and citizens into dialogue about future public scenarios. The scope of the sustainable future contemplated and the degree to which other data sources complement the collective imagination also vary (Swart et al. 2004). The idea that communities, users, and beneficiaries of

843

development projects should participate and potentially control the co-creation and development of the initiatives and enterprises that purportedly aim to transform their livelihoods is certainly being discussed in government circles (e.g., Holmes 2011). However, it still remains more marginal to the broader co-design enterprise. In his recent book-length treatment of the interaction between social innovation and co-design, Britton (2017) suggests that there are multiple unanswered questions about the potential of co-design and design thinking approaches to solve pressing social innovation problems and a considerable amount of unsubstantiated hubris in the literature. The author uncovers three primary narratives about these connections: the philanthrocapitalist, the reform, and the social justice narratives. The first group see hope in applying co-design as methods package to social innovation agendas while the second additionally focus on the need to reform in current approaches to “social” problems. The social justice narrative adds moral imperative to the need to address pressing social needs. While there is no space to consider all of these claims further, the author concludes importantly by stressing the need to not confuse the need for “voice” or agency of communities with belief in techniques – co-design. As noted, current debates about the need to examine participation and empowerment in co-design stem from the gradual separation of co-design from its participatory history (e.g., Smith et al. 2017). Although fuzzy boundaries exist, the “hybrid” and aspirational term participatory co-design intends to capture an approach that simultaneously recognizes both the political and creative legacies for (inclusive) community development projects.

Critical Views of Politics and Empowerment Claims Above I have already alluded to some critical questions raised about the capacity of co-design to respond to current community development and social innovation imperatives. The issue of

P

844

empowerment through participatory development has long been the subject of discussion and critique (Williams 2004). In commercial and even service design contexts of co-design, there is limited discussion of empowerment except in a suitably vague sense, e.g., customers feeling empowered or the method having an embedded ethics (e.g., Steen 2013). The enthusiastic uptake of the approach in interaction design and related fields has been partly responsible for the greater technical rather than social focus. This entry argues that in the more complex sociopolitical and economic contexts of socially responsive and responsible design, inclusion and empowerment play leading roles (Melles et al. 2011). Co-design advocates sometimes claim that participatory collaboration and empowerment are key characteristics of the method (Lee 2008; Tsianakas et al. 2012). However, what exactly is meant by empowerment, as noted, tends to vary from project to project in scope and depth (e.g., Spinuzzi 2005). Thus, Donetto et al. (2015) find that despite other advantages in health care settings, the implementation of co-design approaches does not lead to any shift in power relations. Darnhoffer et al. (2012) review a number of principles and projects in the employment of co-design for farming systems, lamenting in conclusion that long term the enabling of farmers to develop and succeed with innovations has been limited. They argue that immediate profitability and the privileging of external research knowledge are two obstacles to design encouraging innovation. More broadly, Huybrechts et al. (2017) observe that the current micro and local focus of much participatory co-design projects obscures the broader politics and institutions that affect development and change. Working at a local project level, the process and outcomes implicitly or explicitly may, they argue, simply reinforce pervasive neoliberal agendas of consumption. They refer to the need to reengage with institutional thinking, which they refer to as institutioning, as a strategy to contest the existing weaknesses of the micro-level project scope approach of much work. The conclusion to this entry suggests that perhaps

Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development

institutional theory and analysis of organizations might play a broader role in evaluating the claims of co-design. Blomkamp (2018) meanwhile reviews the promises and reality of co-design in public policy design. She identifies three essential characteristics of co-design as a design-led process; following participatory design principles; and employing practical, e.g., prototyping, design tools. She questions the quality of evaluations of the process and finds need for more research and evaluation on co-design for policy change. Britton’s (2017) reflections alluded to above on the confusion of technique with voice and agency, as well as considerable definitional ambiguity around what differs social from other innovation is also relevant here. Citing specific examples, e.g., the Australian Centre for Social Innovation (TACSI), the author also stresses the need for and value of more open platforms offering mature and on-going projects to further knowledge, capacity building, and evaluation in the social innovation sector.

The Knowledge and Expertise Tension One established key issue in current approaches to participatory development is the necessary tradeoff between external scientific and technical versus local knowledge (e.g., Armitage et al. 2011). The question is the extent to which projects or initiatives are the product of local need, consensus, and conversation or whether external experts or agencies collectively define the issue (e.g., Darnhofer et al. 2012). In other words, to what extent does the “design” or community expert act to facilitate this consensus-making process rather than dictating what happens. Although it may not be clearly acknowledged in projects, local knowledge and needs need to be considered as a necessary condition of full participation and local control in all forms of socially responsible design (Melles et al. 2011). Modernizations faith in the inherent benefit of technological progress and scientific knowledge has produced both successes and failures. Some

Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development

845

failures have resulted from an inadequate consideration of local realities (e.g., Kraemer et al. 2009). Co-design in particular as a domain of expertise engages or perhaps should necessarily engage with local knowledge and practices for specific problems. Kleinsmann and Valkenburg (2008) see consensus-making through co-design as the goal of knowledge sharing and enabled by overcoming barriers at the actor, project, and company level. They identify multiple potential barriers at the different levels. These and other considerations come to the fore in development projects where rights, privileges, and resources are unequally distributed. How much local knowledge is acknowledged and integrated in projects is another critical question, including for participatory development in general. In an example of planners working with citizens “as co-designers and co-planners,” Al-Kodmany (2001) describes neighborhood redesign in Chicago and points to how both local knowledge and technical expertise were needed. Sixteen years later in the context of urban slum redevelopment, Kumar et al. (2016) describe a similar mix of expert and local knowledge albeit with additional socioeconomic, gender, and caste factors. Thus, this seems to be a very interesting space or tension (Britton 2017) requiring further analysis and evaluation, in particular with respect to the translation of such exchanges into design.

2016). It can also be part of finding appropriate techniques for particular cohorts, e.g., children (Hussain 2010). This methodological innovation can be part of a broader acknowledgement of local, including indigenous, knowledge. The challenges of working with indigenous populations in development contexts through co-design are multiple (e.g., Dutta and Das 2016). While challenging to implement, co-design with indigenous communities offers a way to revisit current research and practice paradigms for participatory sustainable development (Winschiers-Theophilus et al. 2012; Parsons et al. 2016). With a focus on acknowledging the expertise and value of indigenous knowledge, such approaches can lead to a revision of standard research protocols and methods (Sanders and Stappers 2008). In fact, current applications in the health and related sectors already constitute a challenge to ethics committee evaluation of co-design projects (Goodyear-Smith et al. 2015). Beyond methodology innovation, such collaborations invite an articulation of theories of change and impact that may be also unconventional. In addition, such approaches resist the temptation to sacrifice local knowledge on the altar of modernist technocratic development.

Method Innovation

Co-design per se is employed in a range of commercial and public interest type projects. In the literature already mentioned above, numerous particular projects are employed in discussions as illustrative examples of practice. In what follows, I focus on the three examples that illustrate the challenges and benefits of community and indigenous development through participatory co-design. The three illustrative examples below highlight particular tensions around empowerment, knowledge and culture in development contexts of employing participatory co-design methods. The reader is invited to consult the broader literature already cited for further examples, or even better in the spirit of this entry to participate in such projects.

Participatory development in its origins constituted a challenge to traditional approaches to applied development research. Similarly, participatory co-design signalled a shift in design research to more creative forms and tactics of participatory research (Sanders and Stappers 2008). The decentering of the design expert as leader of research and development remains a challenge for facilitators of participatory design research (Howard and Melles 2011). Visualizing future design scenarios, including through 3D prototypes and simpler forms, enables broader engagement with design proposals (Kumar et al.

Benefits and Challenges in Development Contexts: Three Examples

P

846

Three Illustrative Examples of Participatory Co-design Case 1: Biocultural Design and Indigenous Knowledge

Davidson-Hunt et al. (2012) examine the potential of a new approach they call “biocultural design” to contribute to sustainability development of rural and indigenous communities where biocultural heritage and indigenous knowledge and partnerships matter. The case is an example among many of the desire to balance local and external knowledge for livelihood stability and change. The authors contrast the modest successes of existing approaches to livelihood enterprise development in such communities with an approach where “people are creative agents with knowledge, values and skills that allow them to shape their everyday lives” (Davidson-Hunt et al. 2012, p. 33). The authors see a combination of Sen’s thesis on capability thinking for development (Sen 2000) and social design (Oosterlaken 2009; Melles et al. 2011) as about “enhancing the capabilities and functionings of people within diverse societies through a process of co-design” (Davidson-Hunt et al. 2012, p. 40). The authors draw conclusions about how a design thinking process (e.g., Brown and Wyatt 2010) could work in this context although they provide no concrete application. Fortunately, relevant examples (e.g., Armitage et al. 2011; Kumar et al. 2016) are not hard to come by elsewhere. Such example highlights both the advantages and challenges of PCD approaches, especially in balancing local and external knowledge and motivations. Case 2: Urban Slum Redevelopment Through Co-design

Focusing on a slum redevelopment project in Srirangapatna, Tamil Nadu, Kumar et al. (2016) contrast existing government led approaches to urban redevelopment and approaches inspired by co-design, which they describe as design thinking. The authors identify the tendency of conventional top down approaches to urban planning and development in India to fail to achieve local engagement and success (see also the Blog

Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development

at http://financingcities.ifmr.co.in/blog/category/ ranganatha-nagara/). Employing a staged multistakeholder process of community engagement over 10 months leading ultimately to joint visualizations of prototypes by residents and the authors. They note the greater sense of community ownership of co-designed solutions, including “a strong willingness to work with the Municipal Corporation to ensure that the final design would be implemented.” (Kumar et al. 2016, p. 8). This concrete application of the co-design process and the contrast with mainstream approaches exemplifies some of the challenges and benefits of rural and indigenous co-design projects. The outcomes and implementation of this project are still in process. A comparison with the previous and following examples with respect particularly to the value of local knowledge is worth the reader considering.

Case 3: Empowering Marginalized Children

Hussain (2010) describes a participatory design project with children in Cambodia wearing prosthetic legs. Pointing to the revision of concepts of childhood versus adult knowledge, the author notes how children are increasingly valid participants of co-design processes. Working with children with prosthetic legs in Cambodia, the author outlines the different levels of participation possible with children, including at one extreme manipulation at the other child initiated shared decisions with adults (Hussain 2010, p. 101). The author stresses in particular the concept of psychological empowerment as important for children and how visual methods also enabled joint communication about fears, stigma, needs, and hopes of children. Final designs converted needs and design expertise in then converting mutually trusted and shared information into prosthetic designs. In her conclusion, the author highlights the value of psychological, physical empowerment, and better understanding of the social and cultural worlds of children. This interesting study addresses the challenges of working with a particularly vulnerable and typically excluded cohort through PCD.

Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development

Discussion and Conclusion The separation of co-design from the domains and discussion of participatory design has helped produce a more simplistic apolitical method focus and fuelled recent debates about the renewed need for participation. As formulated and exemplified in design circles, reports and discussions tend to focus on project level processes and may ignore the more complex institutional challenges of transforming, consolidating, or creating sustainable livelihoods in development settings. Issues of knowledge production, the socio-politics and economics of sustainable development, and the overall challenges of complex institutional environments are not discussed as often. However, more recent discussions in the literature have begun to address the need for focus on politics. Participatory co-design (PCD here) purports to bring new creative approaches to community development and empowerment. While creative methods per se may increase inclusiveness, they may also mask the need to address deeper political and institutional factors. Looking forward, this entry notes the occasional allusion to institutions (e.g., Huybrechts et al. 2017). It is clear from a review of the participatory co-design literature that it is common practice to employ “institution” to refer to organization and that independent sociological institutional analysis of the participatory and co-design impulse is a major lacuna. Institutional theory of organizations, for example, sees the response of organizations to sector and sociocultural demands, e.g., participatory approaches, sustainability, as more or less strategic rather than moral legitimacy tactics (e.g., Scott 2008). The theory predicts as a result a “decoupling” of rhetoric and reality, such as exemplified by greenwash corporate approaches. The question for co-design in community settings therefore is whether the rhetoric of collective and community is a similar phenomenon. The employment of co-design or participatory design by organizations in a variety of contexts may constitute an example of organizational change or potentially be a passing legitimacy move to renew the social contract between

847

government, third sector, business, and other stakeholders (Greenwood and Hinings 1996). Theoretically, institutional theory and analysis could deliver a robust account of the framing of co-design within dominant institutional environment and arrangements. From this perspective, we could see participatory co-design as the introduction of an innovative institutional process, e.g., compare microfinance, enabling people with greater social capital and other benefits. Whether this is the case requires a more coherent institutional analysis and a closer examination of the actual mid- to long-term impacts of such approaches. Such a research project has yet to be developed.

Cross-References ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World

References Al-Kodmany K (2001) Bridging the gap between technical and local knowledge: tools for promoting communitybased planning and design. J Archit Plan Res 18:110–130 Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Chang 21:995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006 Blomkamp E (2018) The promise of co-design for public policy. Aust J Publ Admin 77(4):729–743. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8500.12310 Bratteteig T, Wagner I (2014) Disentangling participation: power and decision-making in participatory design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06163-4 Britton G (2017) Co-design and social innovation: connections, tensions and opportunities. Edited by ProQuest (Firm) issuing body, 1st edn. Routledge, New York/London Brown BT, Wyatt J (2010) Design thinking for social innovation. Stanf Soc Innov Rev (Winter):30–35 Caillette-Beaudoin A, Cotteret M-A, Dubey G, Gaglio G, Gambin G, Iba H, Soyez S (2017) Co-design methods. In: Co-design in living labs for healthcare and

P

848 independent living. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119388746.ch9 Chambers R (1994) Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. 2. Power and participatory development: theory and practice. IDS working papers. Brighton Connell D (1997) Participatory development: an approach sensitive to class and gender. Dev Pract 7(3):248–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614529754486 Cornwall A (2003) Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Dev 31:1325–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305750X(03)00086-X Cross N (2001) Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Des Issues 17(3):49–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357196 Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B (2012) Re-design and co-design of farming systems. An overview of methods and practices. In: Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B (eds) Farming systems research into the 21st century: the new dynamic. Springer Science & Business Media B.V, Dordrecht, pp 405–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-007-4503-2 Davidson-Hunt IJ, Turner KL, Mead ATP, Cabrera-LopezJ, Bolton R, Idrobo JC, Miretski I, Morrison Alli, Robson JP (2012) Biocultural design: a new conceptual framework for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities. Sapiens 5. http://sapiens. revues.org/1382 Donetto S, Pierri P, Tsianakas V, Robert G (2015) Experiencebased co-design and healthcare improvement: realizing participatory design in the public sector. Des J 18:227–248. https://doi.org/10.2752/17563061 5X14212498964312 Dutta U, Das S (2016) The digital divide at the margins. Commun Des Q Rev 4:36–48. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2875501.2875504 Giacomin J (2014) What is human centred design? Des J 17:606–623. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X140 56185480186 Goodyear-Smith F, Jackson C, Greenhalgh T (2015) Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees. BMC Med Ethics 16:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0072-2 Greenwood R, Hinings CR (1996) Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Acad Manag Rev 21(4):1022–10 54. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071862 Gregory J (2003) Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. Int J Eng Educ 19:62–74. http://www.ijee.dit. ie/contents/c190103.html Gupta J, Vegelin C (2016) Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. Int Environ Agreem 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z. Springer, Netherlands, pp 433–448 Heylighen A, Bianchin M (2013) How does inclusive design relate to good design? Designing as a

Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development deliberative enterprise. Des Stud 34(1):93–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.05.002 Hjelmfors L, Strömberg A, Friedrichsen M, Sandgren A, Mårtensson J, Jaarsma T (2018) Using co-design to develop an intervention to improve communication about the heart failure trajectory and end-of-life care. BMC Palliat Care 17:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12904-018-0340-2 Holmes B (2011) Citizens’ engagement in policymaking and the design of public services. 1. Parliamentary library: information, analysis, advise. ACT, Canberra Howard Z, Melles G (2011) Beyond designing: roles of the designer in complex design projects. In: Stevenson D (ed) Proceedings of the 23rd Australian computerhuman interaction conference on – OzCHI ’11. ACM Press, New York, pp 152–155. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2071536.2071560 Hussain S (2010) Empowering marginalised children in developing countries through participatory design processes. CoDesign 6:99–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15710882.2010.499467 Huybrechts L, Benesch H, Geib J (2017) Institutioning: participatory design, co-design and the public realm. CoDesign 13:148–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/1571 0882.2017.1355006 Irani L, Vertesi J, Dourish P, Philip K, Grinter RE (2010) Postcolonial computing: a lens on design and development. Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems – CHI ’10, p 1311. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753522 Kensing F, Blomberg J (1998) Participatory design: issues and concerns. Comput Support Coop Work (CSCW) 7:167–185 Kimbell L (2011) Rethinking design thinking: part I. Des Cult 3(3):285–306. https://doi.org/10.2752/ 175470811X13071166525216 Kleinsmann M, Valkenburg R (2008) Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Des Stud 29:369–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud. 2008.03.003 Kraemer KL, Dedrick J, Sharma P (2009) One laptop per child. Commun ACM 52(6):66. https://doi.org/10. 1145/1516046.1516063 Kumar A, Lodha D, Mahalingam A, Prasad V, Sahasranaman A (2016) Using ‘design thinking’ to enhance urban re-development: a case study from India. Eng Proj Organ J 3727:1–11. https://doi.org/10. 1080/21573727.2016.1155445 Lee Y (2008) Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign 4:31–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880 701875613 Manzini E (2014) Making things happen: social innovation and design. Des Issues 30:57–66. https://doi.org/10. 1162/DESI_a_00248 Melles G, De Vere I, Misic V (2011) Socially responsible design: thinking beyond the triple bottom line to

Participatory Governance socially responsive and sustainable product design. CoDesign 7(3–4):37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15710882.2011.630473 Michener VJ (1998) The participatory approach: contradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso. World Dev 26:2105–2118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X (98)00112-0 Muller MJ, Kuhn S (1993) Participatory design. Commun ACM 36:24–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/153571. 255960 Nevens F, Frantzeskaki N, Gorissen L, Loorbach D (2013) Urban transition labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J Clean Prod 50:111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012. 12.001. Elsevier Niinimäki K, Hassi L (2011) Emerging design strategies in sustainable production and consumption of textiles and clothing. J Clean Prod 19:1876–1883. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.020 Oosterlaken I (2009) Design for development: a capability approach. Des Issues 25:91–102. https://doi.org/10. 1162/desi.2009.25.4.91 Ostrom E (1990) Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781316423936 Owen CL (1997) Design research: building the knowledge base. Des Stud 19(1):9–20 Palmås K, von Busch O (2015) Quasi-Quisling: co-design and the assembly of collaborateurs. CoDesign 11(3–4): 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.108 1247 Parsons M, Fisher K, Nalau J (2016) Alternative approaches to co-design: insights from indigenous/academic research collaborations. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20:99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016. 07.001 Sanders EB-N, Stappers PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4:5–18. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Sarmiento Pelayo MP (2015) Co-design: a central approach to the inclusion of people with disabilities. Rev Fac Med 63(3Sup):149–154. https://doi.org/10. 15446/revfacmed.v63n3sup.49345 Schuler D, Namioka A (1993) Participatory design: principles and practices. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale Scott WR (2008) Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory Soc 37(5):427–442. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9067-z Sen A (2000) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford Sexsmith K, McMichael P (2015) Formulating the SDGs: reproducing or reimagining state-centered development? Globalizations 12(4):581–596. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14747731.2015.1038096 Smith RC, Bossen C, Kanstrup AM (2017) Participatory design in an era of participation. CoDesign 13:65–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1310466

849 Spinuzzi C (2005) The methodology of participatory design. Tech Commun 52:163–174. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.infsof.2008.09.005 Steen M, Manschot M, Koning N De (2011) Benefits of Co-design in Service Design Projects. Int J Design 5(2):53–60 Steen M (2013) Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Des Issues 29:16–28. https://doi.org/10. 1162/DESI_a_00207 Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ Chang 14(2):137–146. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.002 The World Bank (2000) World development report 2000/ 2001: attacking development. Oxford University Press, New York Tsianakas V, Robert G, Maben J, Richardson A, Dale C, Wiseman T (2012) Implementing patient-centred cancer care: using experience-based co-design to improve patient experience in breast and lung cancer services. Support Care Cancer 20:2639–2647. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00520-012-1470-3 Webb R, Bai X, Smith MS, Costanza R, Griggs D, Moglia M, Neuman M et al (2018) Sustainable urban systems: co-design and framing for transformation. Ambio 47(1):57–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280017-0934-6 Wiig S, Storm M, Aase K, Gjestsen MT, Solheim M, Harthug S, Robert G, Fulop N (2013) Investigating the use of patient involvement and patient experience in quality improvement in Norway: rhetoric or reality? BMC Health Serv Res 13(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10. 1186/1472-6963-13-206 Williams G (2004) Evaluating participatory development: tyranny, power and (re)politicisation. Third World Q 25:557–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590 42000191438 Winschiers-Theophilus H, Bidwell NJ, Blake E (2012) Altering participation through interactions and reflections in design. CoDesign 8:163–182. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15710882.2012.672580

Participatory Governance ▶ Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making ▶ Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance ▶ Tripartite Partnerships: Promoting Sustainable Consumption in the Context of Brazil

P

850

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

Co-creation governance; Collaborative governance; Cooperative governance; Integrative governance; Network governance; Participatory governance

term private sector engagements for the provision of specific services, for example, annual outsourcing arrangements for janitorial services for a school or operations of the school cafeteria; to more complex contractual arrangements, such as build, operate, transfer regimes, where the private sector takes on considerable risk and remains engaged long term; or to full privatizations (World Bank Group 2014). Due to its different connotations it is difficult to find an ideal or general definition of partnerships. But an ideal type definition of partnerships depends on some essential components such as mutuality, organizational identity, respect, influence, accountability, transparency, commitment, and contextual reality (Brinkerhoff 2002; Crawford 2003; Farazmand 2004; Haque 2004; Samaratunge et al. 2008). These components should be properly taken into account in defining partnerships.

Definition

Introduction

The concept “partnership” has gained immense importance worldwide, from development to business, from charity organizations to profitmaking companies and even within family business. It has been considered as one of the vital strategies of achieving sustainable development goals. Partnership is about sharing of power, responsibility, and achievements and the success of such partnership depends on the inherent interests and aspirations of the partners. It can be defined as a set of institutional relationships between the government and various actors in the private sector and in civil society. Unlike mere participation, a partnership implies a more formal “institutional” relationship with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for each stakeholder (Asaduzzaman et al. 2016). Earlier, the 1970s’ partnership was considered as the relationship between northern and southern nongovernmental organizations. At present, partnership refers to formal, informal, and shortterm engagements of various actors such as nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and/or government agencies that join forces for a shared objective; to more formal, but still short-

It has been widely recognized that the traditional public administration has not been able to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century developing world, though it has played a historic role in the economic development throughout the world. Since the mid-1970s, traditional public administration has come under severe criticisms and been rejected because (i) it was too large, consuming too many scarce resources; (ii) it was involved in too many activities, whereas alternative means of provision existed for many of these; (iii) growing inflation, excessive costs, and excessive bureaucracies resulted from state intervention; and (iv) it was inefficient, costly, rigid, corrupt, unaccountable, and unsuitable to an age seeking more dynamic models of social and economic development (Minogue 1998; Hughes 1998; Sarker 2006, pp. 181–182). In order to overcome the above scenario, partnership has evolved as a new policy agenda in the contemporary development debate. It has been claimed that working in partnership across government departments and their agencies and with the community, voluntary and business sectors and trade unions is central to government policies for tackling complex problems of the

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance Mohammed Asaduzzaman1 and Petri Virtanen2,3 1 Department of Public Administration, Islamic University, Kushtia, Bangladesh 2 ITLA (The Finnish Children’s Foundation), Helsinki, Finland 3 University of Vaasa (Social and Health Management), Vaasa, Finland

Synonyms

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

851

twenty-first century ranging from corruption, poverty to climate change (e.g., Boydell 2007). This new formulation (partnership) is primarily due to some fundamental factors such as economic globalization, the growth of information and communication technology, the changing scenario of the national and international politics across the world, poor performance of public institutions, and the rise of the non-profit institutions (Olowu 2003; Samaratunge et al. 2008). According to McQuaid (2000, p. 11), partnership has gained great concern for some pragmatic and ideological factors such as (i) a belief in the overall advantages of a partnership approach, (ii) the move toward enabling local government (where publicly funded services are implemented by private or not-for-profit bodies rather than by the public sector), (iii) a recognition that any one local actor often does not have all the competencies or resources to deal with the inter-connected issues raised in many policy areas, and (iv) the genuine participation of the local community. With the diminishing role of the state in programs such as poverty eradication, employment generation, public health, and basic education, the role of local institutions in addressing the needs of local communities has increased at the global scale. The role of local institutions remains significant for the realization of people-centered development in developing nations despite the policy shift toward privatization, deregulation, and globalization. However, due to the politicization and bureaucratization of local institutions of developing countries and the imposition of various programs on them by the central government, these institutions can hardly be responsive to the local needs (Sarker and Zafarullah 2019; Brinkerhoff 2002; Blair 2000; Haque 1996, 2003). On the other hand, a number of studies have claimed that the development activities run by the NGOs and the civil societies are flexible, innovative, participatory, cost effective, and directed at the poor. An appraisal team of the World Bank found that the NGOs and civil societies are more effective than the public institutions in reaching out to the rural poor. It has been found that local people trust more on NGOs and civil society organizations rather than local public institutions

(Hodge 2014; Birner and Wittmer 2006; Haque 2004). The developed world has also progressively developed its private sector capacity and such companies are considered not only to be an important part of the wealth-generating business sector, but also capable and reliable government partners for potentially supplying infrastructure on behalf of the government. This entry intends to highlight the insights of partnership as a tool in building capacity of local governance with special reference to developing countries. It assumes that until and unless all stakeholders (public institutions, civil society, NGOs, civil servants, and private sectors) are brought together within a partnership framework, the capacity of local governance will not enhance and thus the commitment of sustainable development will probably never find its place. The entry takes a journey. Firstly, it sets sail by better understanding of key concepts such partnership governance and local governance. Secondly, it traces the advantages of partnership in building capacity of local governance and also risk and challenges of partnership building. Thirdly, it concludes with summary and further research agenda.

Theoretical Understanding of Key Concepts Partnership as a Development Doctrine “Partnership building” is a very old concept and dates back two and half thousand years to the Persian Achaemenid Empire, though it has been considered as a new alternative in provision of service delivery at the beginning of 1980s (Farazmand 1998). As an instrument of New Public Management (NPM), it gained importance in the early 1990s (Domberger and Patrick 1999; Kettl 1993). Since 2015, partnership has become an essential mechanism in ensuring and achieving sustainable development (Horan 2019). As a result, “partnership” has, as a concept, been of paramount importance worldwide, from development to business, from charity organizations to profit-making companies, and even within family business (Asaduzzaman et al. 2016).

P

852

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

The international institutions such as the World Bank, the UNDP, the African Union, and the European Union have also been enthusiastically promoting the issue of partnership especially since 2015 to ensure good governance and sustainable development in the developing world (Stojanović et al. 2016; Farazmand 2004). Today, partnership can be defined as a collaborative engagement of three key sectors of the state such as business, government, and civil society (Austin 2000; Gray 1989; Stone 2000; Young 1999). These sectors jointly address critical issues of the society such as economic development, education, health care, poverty alleviation, community capacity building, disaster management, and environmental sustainability (Selsky and Parker 2005). Moreover, Farazmand (1999, 2004, pp. 94–97) discusses the contents of partnership broadly through five different approaches, which have independent principles, methods, and frameworks. They are (i) autonomous approach; (ii) independent approach; (iii) globalization–convergence approach; (iv) hybrid approach; and (v) elite approach. The autonomous approach is built on the proposition of independence exercised by all actors or stakeholders equally. It includes (a) state initiation with NGOs, citizens, and private sector, (b) initiation through proposals and policy idea formulations with government by all other partners, and (c) third-party initiation to pull governmental and other parties into partnership building at local and national levels. The interdependence approach is very common among nation-states. This type of partnership is built on the belief that all parties are living in an interdependent world where no one is independent or has the capability and resources to deal with problems of an interdependent world. The globalization–convergence approach is premised on the forces of globalization – finance, production, marketing, state, and political integration, and cultural, economic, and policy convergence. Unless correctly and fairly applied, partnership building can become an important structural and instrumental adjustment for paving the way for economic, cultural, and policy

convergence to the globally dominant forces of power structure, and meaning the globalizing transworld corporations and the dominants and interventionist state that promotes the corporate culture of consumerism, homogenization of various individualistic Western cultures, and all of its concomitants. This is a potentially repressive partnership approach, because it tends to turn almost all the less-developed and other industrialized nations with weak military power into forced coalitions, rather than build free partnerships, for the dictation of unilateral policy choices to the rest of the world. The hybrid approach is a combination of the autonomous, interdependence, and globalization– convergence approach. At the outset, the hybrid approach is very effective for the developed nations. However, local governance partnerships may also have a negative effect for less-developed countries when faced with forces of globalization; in this case, their strategic choices simply become reactive. The elite approach is very common feature of contemporary modern governance partnership building, with the idea that elites – economiccorporate and political elites – dominate the policy arena of governance everywhere. According to this approach elite-dominated governance positions can be based on assumptions that non-elite masses are not capable enough to run governance, thereby reserving such rights and privileges for themselves. Elites are by nature intended to exclude non-elites purely for their own interests. The Rio Declaration 1992 first highlioghted ‘partnership’ as a strategy of sustainable development and defined it as involvement of major stakeholders in decision-making and policy implementation. This definition emphasized the following aspects: (i) they are voluntary agreements; (ii) they are multistakeholder initiatives; (iii) they aim at implementation of intergovernmental commitments; (iv) they work on issues of sustainable development; and (v) they act to implement intergovernmentally agreed sustainable development goals (Mert 2009, p. 328). Ham and Koppenjan (2001, p. 598) elaborate partnership from institutional perspective as cooperation of some sort of durability between public

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

853

and private actors in which they jointly develop products and services and share risks, costs, and resources that are connected with these products. Their definition has three merits such as (i) it highlights cooperation of some durability and cannot only take place in short-term contracts; (ii) it underlines risk sharing as a key component and other factors to share as well; and (iii) they jointly produce something (a product or a service) and, perhaps implicitly, both stand to gain from mutual effort. Hodge and Greve (2007) highlight five “families” of meanings of partnership as interpretations about the concept. According to them, these interpretations include (i) institutional cooperation for joint production and risk sharing; (ii) long-term infrastructural contracts; (iii) public policy networks; (iv) civil society and community development; and (v) governance approach. Though there is no “waterproof shutter” among the five families, they promote to explore the meaning of partnership from different aspects. Institutional cooperation is inevitable for partnership, avoiding long-term uncertainties and sharing risks in different stages of partnership. In addition, it is vital to promote the quest of sustainable development. Long-term infrastructure contracts emphasize tight specification of outputs in long-term legal contracts. According to this family, the meanings of partnership incorporate a wide variety of financial arrangements between the public and private sectors. In fact, many claim that this is not a real form of partnership rather a conventional mode of cooperation (Weihe 2006). According to public policy network family, partnership refers to the relations between the public and private sector actors in a certain policy field, and analyzes how the production of services or goods is divided between the public and the private sector. This type of partnership deals with some specific policy sectors at the same time. The civil society and community development approach emphasizes the involvement of the national and international governmental and nongovernmental organizations in development programs such as combating corruption, nation-building, the challenges of poverty and social deprivation, environmental challenges, and global disasters (Weihe 2006).

The governance approach deals with at all levels of government. Many claim it as new wave of governance or network society (Weihe 2006). These five families cover a wide range of various governance types and are clearly more than just the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) experience of the United Kingdom, or the infrastructure contracting practices of Australia. China is using at least two of these options today across the world, both developed and developing, both the concept of institutional co-operation and the practice of long-term infrastructure contacts (Hodge and Greve 2007). It seems that each “family” has its own origin, value, and distinct background in conceptualizing and understanding partnership. They also have implications different from those of traditional contracting arrangements: longer-term impacts, a larger potential role in infrastructure decision making, bigger financial flows, and greater capacity for risks to be shifted to either side of the partnership (Hodge and Greve 2007). However, it should be mentioned here that there are various complexities which are contextual in nature. They are multi-actor complexity (relational risks), technical complexity (operational risks), and political complexity (democratic risks) (Gestel et al. 2012). One must keep these complexities in mind before defining partnership or building partnership. Summary: Although partnership has gained mammoth popularity in the contemporary discourse of governance and sustainable development, the debate around the concept is far from fertile yet. It seems that it is reasonably difficult to present a straightforward definition due to its multifaceted character (Hodge 2014). This entry perceives partnership from governance and institutional perspectives rather than language game perspective, and links the concept to local governance. Thus, partnership is about institutional relations between and among the various actors working at the local level with the aim of sharing and caring of each other in order to plan and implement development programs and thus provide better services to the citizens. This type of partnership will contribute to eliminate the weaknesses and limits of local governance institutions and promote in building their capacity to plan and

P

854

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

implement development projects effectively and efficiently. Such partnership must address contextual and situational factors.

determined to what extent local citizens are involved in the structure and process, i.e., making policy according to the needs of locality (Kauzya 2002; Jeni 1994). Thus, local governance refers to a situation where whatever a governance actor (an international NGO, a central government institution, a local government agency, or a private sector enterprise) does is planned, implemented, maintained, evaluated, and controlled with the needs, priorities, interests, participation, and well-being of the local population as the central and guiding consideration (Kauzya 2002, p. 5). Local governments act based on the needs and priorities of local citizens and builds upon cooperation to work in accordance to the needs and priorities of local communities in close partnership with various agencies. For example, government-NGO collaboration in health sector in Bangladesh is very old (Ullah et al. 2006; White 1999). In addition, Bangladesh government has been closely working with NGOs in the issues of climate change, disaster management, and solid waste management during the last decade (Islam and Walkerden 2015; Huq and Rabbani 2011).

Local Governance The concept of governance has gained popularity in administrative sciences and public policy literature due to its multivalency (Asaduzzaman and Virtanen 2016, p. 1). It is defined as a system of government concentrating on effective and accountable institutions, democratic principles, and electoral process, representation and responsible structure of government in order to ensure an open and legitimate relationship between the civil society and the state (Halfani et al. 1994, p. 4). Stoker (1998) has suggested five broad propositions of governance. These five propositions are (i) governance refers to a set of institutions and actors such as occupy government, private, and the third sector institutions; (ii) governance identifies the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social and economic issues; (iii) governance identifies the power dependence involved in the relationships between institutions involved in collective actions; (iv) governance is about autonomous self-governing networks of actors; and (v) governance recognizes the capacity to get things done which does not rest within the power of government to command or use its authority. Universally, local government is vital for institutionalizing and strengthening democracy, sustainable development, and good governance, and extending effective service delivery to the people (Sharpe 1970; Mackenzie 1961; Stoker 1988). The fundamental purpose of local government is to reduce the gap between state and citizen and thus bring state closer to the citizen. Local government intends to promote citizen engagement in local governance through capacity building processes; this is a requisite for service user’s participation and engaging citizens at various stages of development programs (Cuthill and Fien 2005). Local governance is specifically about local citizens or communities and it refers to the exercise of authority at local community level where most of the people inhabit. Governance is

Partnership as a Tool to Promote Local Governance Capacity Building Why Local Governance Partnership? Advocates of partnership put forward series of benefits of building partnership despite the existing potential risks. In this view, partnership is essential at least to overcome three failures that are attached to unilateral action by governments, companies, or civil society (OECD 2006; Tulder and Zwart 2006; Kolk et al. 2008). These failures include (i) governance failure for governments, which limits their ability to address development problems “top down”; (ii) market failure of companies that limits their ability to become ethically virtuous; and (iii) good intensions’ failure for nonprofit organizations. From the micro perspective in developing countries in particular, partnership has been considered as a vital instrument in building capacity of local governance because of the failure of centrally planned economy, bureaucratic elitism, clientelist politics, partisanship, and

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

855

massive corruption in development projects (Sarker 2006; Haque 2003, 2004; Samaratunge et al. 2008; Asaduzzaman et al. 2016; Blair 2000; Zafarullah 2007, 2013). The models New Public Management (NPM), Good Governance, and Decentralization have not been successful in building capacity of local governance over the decades (Sarker and Zafarullah 2019). These models are difficult to implement in developing countries because of social and cultural inertia (Sarker 2006). In addition, the decentralization initiative has promoted and empowered the upper strata of the society and central administration rather than empowered and made possible capacity building of the local governance institutions. Bureaucracy still prevails in every layers of administration in developing countries (Haque 2003, 2004; Ryan 2004; Smoke 2003; Olowu 2003). The local governance institutions of developing countries are sometimes described as contextless (Vartola et al. 2010; Haque 1996) because of some common characteristics such as bureaucratic dominance, generalist-specialist conflicts, fragmented civil service structures, conflict between merit and equity, tension between professionalism and political patronage, a widening gap between the general populace and the administration, corruption, political instability, partisanship, and problems of administrative ethics (Jamil and Pranab 2011, p. 356). In fact, despite series of reform initiatives over the last few decades, this contextless nature severely impedes the process of capacity building of the local governance across the developing world. Partnership has been considered as a tool to build the capacity of the local governance (Gray 1989; Brinkerhoff 2002; Gaventa 2001). Growing inability of the national government to protect individual and community rights (e.g., worker’s rights, human rights, and environmental justice) in a globalized world has facilitated the issue of partnership advocacy. The potential benefits of partnership in this respect are the following: it promotes empowerment of local institutions including citizens; builds trust among the various stakeholders; shares knowledge, technology, and resources; provides effective and efficient

services; enhances sense of ownership; and all these finally contribute to build a capacity of local governance and strengthen the possibility of effective democracy building ‘from below.’ Partnership creates social, governance and institutional, and resource interactions among partners, which promote in building the capacity of each partners (Coaffee and Deas 2008; Pollitt 2003; Davies 2009; Hastings 1996; Frantzeskaki et al. 2013). From the perspective of dialogue, partnership (i) builds trust between actors and develops social capital; (ii) creates channel to express ideas, concerns, and problems outside official routes; and (iii) offers a space to express concerns about area-specific issues. From this perspective, governance and institutional interactions include, e.g., creating and enabling integration between departments and different policies and institutionalizing cross-sector cooperation while recognizing the jurisdictional integrity of the constituent bodies. Hofman et al. (2008), Figueres and Bosi (2006), and SEEM (2006) have highlighted the following contributions of multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs): (i) MSPs create dialogue between all stakeholders and the government; (ii) they create represent all stakeholders’ interests in policies; (iii) they create more options for coordination; (iv) they include actors with knowledge and experience about local conditions can increase the compatibility and adaptation; and (v) they create knowledge about political parties and the affiliation of stakeholders with different political parties. Major Benefits of Partnerships, Capacity Building, and the Emergence of Trust Farazmand (2004, pp. 82–84) has written about the major benefits of partnership building and how partnership promotes in building capacity of governance in terms of providing effective and efficient services and managing local, regional, and global governance challenges. These include the following: (i) Partnerships promote creativity, innovation, synergy, a stronger ability to tackle big problems, participation, and responsibility.

P

856

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

(ii) Partnership is important because of the increasing interdependence and interconnectedness among peoples, nation-states, cultures, governments, and nongovernmental civil organizations. (iii) Globalization and global issues have created a formidable necessity in building global partnerships for all levels of governance. (iv) Global problems such as environmental deterioration, wars, ethnic conflicts, poverty and health crises, and migration and refugee problems are beyond any government’s capacity to solve. (v) The global exchange of information has become very easy. Internet and other computer applications have enabled citizens around the world to communicate and share information of mutual interests and concern almost anywhere on the planet. (vi) Learning organizations are adapting to the rapid changes in their environments by acquiring information about their surrounding environments. (vii) Partnerships contribute to involvement, the quality of positive governance, and service delivery, administration, political support, and stability among governments, citizens, private sectors, and NGOs. (viii) Partnerships require genuine participation, which contributes to democratic, sound governance and sustainable development for a better civilization. (ix) The financial-economic motives for partnership concern, for example, the limited financial capacity of governments for investments, which makes the prospects of private sector co-financing very important. (x) The strategic-managerial motives for partnership concern the central issues of efficiency through the application of business-like measures of cost-effectiveness, cost-control, and other criteria used in the private sector.

sustainable development. Local governance as one of the most vital but vulnerable units of developing countries needs partnership framework with various actors such as NGOs, civil society, private sectors, and community organizations in building their capacity. Partnership provides a strong basis of democratic decision-making through sharing a wider range of knowledge by various actors where the citizen gets the opportunity to participate as an active development actor rather than a passive one. As a concept, capacity building has a wider connotation and is highly inclined by other ideas such as partnership, participation, empowerment, trust, civil society, mutual understanding, and social movement (e.g., Cuthill and Fien 2005; Asaduzzaman et al. 2016). Eade (1997) has explained capacity building from four examples: (i) it should not create dependency; (ii) it does not mean weakening the state. It is seen as a collaborative process between government and community with each group acknowledging their roles and responsibilities; (iii) it is not a separate activity; and (iv) it is not solely concerned with financial sustainability. It is similarly important in comparison with social, environmental and political dimension of development. Partnership promotes in building trust among the various local stakeholders. It is believed that people learn to trust one another through face-toface interaction in associations and informal social networks; norms of trust and reciprocity “spill over” into society at large; a capacity is created for collective action in pursuit of shared goals; citizens expect, and representatives provide competent and responsive government (Putnam 1993; Cuthill and Fien 2005). Trust occurs when parties holding certain favorable perceptions of each other allow this relationship to reach the expected outcomes (Wheeless and Grotz 1977). A trusting person, group, or institution is “freed from worry and the need to monitor the other party’s behavior, partially or entirely”. Thus, the capacity of local governance is enhanced by building mutual trust and understanding among the development actors. Partnership is also considered an important technique of empowering local institutions.

The aforesaid understandings prove that, as an approach or strategy, partnership has paramount recognition in the discourse of governance and

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

857

Under the partnership framework, all collaborative actors can share and exchange ideas, knowledge, resources, experiences, and technology. Finally, all these lead to empower the local governance institutions. Swanstrom et al. (2000, p. 65) have asserted that, “non-profit sector and the government are drawn to partnerships because they complement each other: the strengths of one are the weaknesses of the other and vice versa and Governments and non-profit can accomplish more if they work together.” Summarizing: partnership is a valuable tool to drive change toward more responsible, inclusive, and sustainable growth. It can help to address some of the market failures, governance gaps, and trust deficits that undermine the acceleration and scaling of business engagement in sustainable development. It can also serve as a platform for convening and coordinating the diverse actions of numerous actors and for building mutually reinforcing linkages between different sectors and sustainable development goals.

mission and vision. But it is critical or problematic if they fail to address their mainstream objectives due to partnership. (iv) Organizational difficulties: each organization has its own objectives and styles of working. So this may create conflict among the partners. (v) Capacity building gap: in case of partnership building some partners might not have enough capacity to collaborate with others and this might be disheartening to them. (vi) Differences in philosophies among partners: this is a very potential risk in building partnership because of philosophical gap. Philosophical gap is derived from social and cultural inertia. (vii) Power relations: sharing power is a very difficult issue in developing countries. Especially politicians and bureaucrats are never willing to compromise with other partners such as civil society and NGOs. (viii) Community participation: superiority and inferiority complex has created a big gap between community and public institutions. Osborne (1998) has also warned against the danger of community-level actors becoming the “puppets” of government agencies, which may be attracted toward indulging in tokenistic forms of local consultation rather than less comfortable discussions with street-level groups representing the full diversity of community interests (cf. McQuaid 2000, p. 14). To take another example, Farazmand (2004, pp. 91–92) has identified a number of obstacles for partnership such as (i) distrust: according to him it is the vital obstacle to build partnership. Mutual respect and recognition is also another obstacle; (ii) the widening gap between north and south; (iii) the tendency of certain power structures to dominate other; (iv) higher expectations; (v) environmental and contextual factors; (vi) social, cultural and religious obstacles; and (viii) ethnic and racial differences. Summing up, the major challenges for partnership building can be identified as leadership challenges, issues of power and benefit sharing, conflict of interests, role conflicts, ideological and political conflicts, misunderstanding, and unwillingness. Despite the aforementioned bottlenecks, it is hard to deny the role of partnership as a vital strategy to meet the crisis of the twenty-first century. Sustainable development goals cannot be

Potential Bottlenecks of Building Partnership Albeit “partnership” has emerged as a big policy agenda and the cornerstone (Crawford 2003; Farazmand 2004) of sustainable development discourse, the process of building partnership is not smooth and easy. There are potential risks and challenges of partnership that are very much interrelated and interdependent. They also vary from context to context. McQuaid (2000, pp. 10–14) has identified several challenges of partnership. They are (i) Conflict over goals and objectives; misunderstanding and mistrust start among the potential partners if the goals and objectives of partnership are not clear. In many cases hidden agendas may jeopardize the whole process of partnership. (ii) Resource costs: sometimes partnership building is very costly and time consuming if the partners do not agree or are not willing to collaborate. (iii) Accountability: sharing equal responsibility and accountability is essential for effective partnership. But partnership may not play an effective role if someone does not want to share risks, responsibility, and accountability. (iv) Impact upon other services: each partner has its own

P

858

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

achieved without promoting and scaling private sector engagement and collective action by private, government, NGOs, community, and civil society. Action by individual institution is necessary but not adequate to drive transformational and systemic change toward sustainable development. Therefore, partnership is essential at the local level since the majority of the population lives there and it will also enhance the capacity of local governance institutions.

political populism. Partnership can contribute also to this end – the democratization of society – provided that it is recognized at the local level of governance as a societal goal and as a change mechanism. Partnership does not happen by itself, since it does not exist as an autonomous phenomenon, but it requires collective efforts to be fulfilled; somebody has to take action if something has to happen. Thirdly, the idea and concept of partnership has brought about the need to rethink institutional and organizational leadership models in public sector. Partnership is seen as the continuation of the NPM of the 1980s and 1990s (Domberger and Patrick 1999; Kettl 1993 in Weihe 2006). For instance, the mainstream leadership and management tradition that prevailed in the 1990s – NPM – was to a great extent based on the idea of leading and managing single public sector organizations, whereas the New Public Governance at the beginning of 2000 focused, e.g., on the networks between single organizations (e.g., Osborne 2010). It was the idea of partnership in particular that made possible this new conceptual and practical approach, and the new idea to conceive governance in a fresh way at the local level of public organizations. Fourthly, we live in a global service society, which touches upon everyday lives of billions of people globally. Approached from this perspective, partnership is a relevant concept because service society penetrates public sector also through partnership-related ecosystems and promotes cooperation based on partnerships at all levels of governance – from multinational to national and from regional to local, and vice versa. Summary: the concept and practice of partnership can be approached from two dimensions. Firstly, it can be conceived as an ultimate societal goal and secondly (ii) as a pervasive societal mechanism. Partnership as an ultimate societal goal refers firstly to organized cooperation based on human motivation, which has been a leading modus operandi in the history of human civilizations. The greatest inventions and innovations in the

Conclusions, Discussion, and Future Research Agenda The evolution of partnership as practice and as a concept has indeed been a lengthy one. Academic discussions and debates on partnership are still booming in the field of development and it is no wonder; partnership has strong explanatory power in describing and categorizing practices at the local level of governance. But a genuinely adequate question is that why partnership remains a strong and yet not fully explored concept. Firstly, one reason for this is that societies are becoming increasingly complex. This contradicts with theories and existing knowledge about public institutions and organizations at all levels of governance, out of which local level of governance is of key interest because it is here that governments “meet” the citizens and service users. Complexity brings about new challenges to public policy making and managing public organizations. In this kind of setting, partnership offers a theoretical, conceptual, and yet very practical tool to navigate in the planning, implementation, and evaluation stages of public policy making. At best, partnership offers new cross-cutting horizons, built-in cooperation possibilities, and fresh perspectives on the prevailing, evolving, and upcoming societal problems, which pose a challenge to policy making at the local level. Secondly, public sector legitimacy stems from the perspective of democracy, strengthening the role of democratic society by providing stability in the society in the age of political turmoil, instability, changing political environment, and

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

859

history of human civilizations have one strikingly common feature; they have taken place based on organized cooperation, which is a crucial feature in partnership. Secondly, partnership is a value adding proposition in creating societal innovations and this is because innovations are cumulative by nature and very seldom occur in isolation. This means that they have long lead times and they result often from preexisting innovation activity, that is, partnership among human beings. Thirdly, partnership has changed not only our understanding of leadership in public organizations, but also the way we think about the traditional categories of policy instruments (legislation and regulation, resources and knowledge). The new understanding about policy instruments strongly include the idea of co-creation and deliberative democracy, which, in practice, means that citizens and service users are in a position to give voice in policy planning and implementation at the local level of governance. Partnership as a pervasive societal mechanism refers firstly to the various ways in which power is exercised in society. Partnership can be either “power over” or “power with” in the words of classical organizational theorists. Partnership is also about power with, which forms new outlooks on being in contact and communicating with your fellow human beings. Partnership maintains the idea that the debate replaces with dialogue as well policy planning paternalism is substituted with co-creation. Secondly, partnership aims at the collective good and the betterment of society, which relates to the sustainable development of society and societal innovations. This is an important conclusion because it refers also to redistribution of goods in society, which is one of the key issues in a democratic society. If we accept the fact that social betterment of society and innovations occur and take place through collective processes, then the crucial question that arises is whether the benefits of that process should be shared collectively. If so, how should it be done. Finally, the concept of partnership sets out a number of possibilities for future research and inquiry. These include, for instance, the more detailed empirical cultivation of the role of

partnership as a form of organized cooperation at various policy fields at local levels of governance in different country settings and within different public sector leadership and management traditions. Moreover, the complexities of modern society and the attached partnership configurations should be scrutinized both theoretically and empirically along with partnership as a “business model” in public policy making in order to understand how partnership links innovations and the betterment of society. Other important research topics are the stability and predictability of local partnerships, the role of individual actors as gatekeepers in the network of local level governance, building blocks and milestones in the development of long-standing partnership, and partnership in organizational framework (crossboundary cooperation within organizations and organizational networks, and between various organizations).

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Business as a Partner for the Global Goals ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Women-Led Partnerships and the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

References Asaduzzaman M, Virtanen P (2016) Governance theories and models. In: Farazmand A (ed) Global encyclopaedia of public administration, public policy and governance. Springer, Cham

P

860

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

Asaduzzaman M et al (2016) Strengthening local governance in developing countries: partnership as an alternative approach. Public Organ Rev 16(3):335–356 Austin J (2000) The collaborative challenge. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Birner R, Wittmer H (2006) Better public sector governance through partnership with the private sector and civil society: the case of Guatemala’s forest administration. Int Rev Adm Sci 72(4):459–472 Blair H (2000) Participation and accountability at the periphery: democratic local governance in six countries. World Dev 28(1):21–39 Boydell L (2007) Partnerships: a literature review. Institute of Public Health in Ireland, Dublin Brinkerhoff JM (2002) Government-nonprofit partnership: a defining framework. Public Adm Dev 22:19–30 Coaffee J, Deas I (2008) The search of policy innovation in urban governance: lessens from community lead regeneration partnerships. Public Policy Adm 23(2):167–187 Crawford G (2003) Partnership or power? Deconstructing the “partnership for governance reform” in Indonesia. Third World Q 24(1):139–159 Cuthill M, Fien J (2005) Capacity building: facilitating citizen participation in local governance. Aust J Public Adm 64(4):63–80 Davies JS (2009) The limits of joined-up-government: towards a political analysis. Public Adm 87(1):80–96 Domberger S, Patrick F (1999) Public–private partnerships for service delivery. Bus Strateg Rev 10(4):29–39 Eade D (1997) Capacity-building: an approach to peoplecentered development. Oxfam Publication, London Farazmand A (1998) Privatisation or reform? Public enterprise management in transition. Int Rev Adm Sci 65 (4):551–567 Farazmand A (1999) Building partnerships for governance. Background paper presented at the UN-sponsored World Congress on Governance, Manila, 31 May–4 June Farazmand A (2004) Building partnerships for sound governance. In: Farazmand A (ed) Sound governance: policy and administration innovation. Prager, Westport, pp 77–111 Figueres C, Bosi M (2006) Achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions in developing countries through energy efficient lighting projects in the clean development mechanism. World Bank, Washington, DC Frantzeskaki N et al (2013) The role of partnerships in “realising” urban sustainability in Rotterdam’s City Ports Areas, the Netherlands. J Clean Prod 65:1–12 Gaventa J (2001) Towards participatory local governance: six propositions for discussion. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Sussex. www.ids.uk.ac Gestel KV et al (2012) How governance of complex PPPS affects performance. Public Adm Q 36(2):140–188 Gray B (1989) Collaborating. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Ham VH, Koppenjan J (2001) Building public–private partnerships: managing and assessing risks in port development. Public Manag Rev 3(4):593–616

Halfani, M et al (1994) Towards and understanding of governance: the emergency of an idea and its implication for urban research in developing countries. The Center for Urban and Communities Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto. Haque MS (1996) The contextless nature of public administration in Third World countries. Int Rev Adm Sci 62:315–329 Haque MS (2003) Reinventing governance for performance in South Asia: impact on citizenship rights. Int J Public Adm 26(8–9):1–23 Haque MS (2004) Governance based on partnership with NGOs: implications for development and empowerment in rural Bangladesh. Int Rev Adm Sci 72 (2):271–290 Hastings A (1996) Unraveling the process of partnership in urban regeneration policy. Urban Stud 33(2):253–268 Hodge GA (2014) Rethinking public–private partnership: global retrospect and Bangladesh prospect. In: Ahmed N (ed) 40 Years of public administration and governance in Bangladesh. University Press Limited, Dhaka Hodge GA, Greve C (2007) Public–private partnerships: an international performance review. Public Adm Rev 67(3):545–558 Hofman PS et al (2008) Making global technology works for combating climate change and contribution to MDGs. Dutch Foreign Ministry, University of Twente, Twente Horan D (2019) A new approach to partnerships for SDG transformations. Sustainability 11:4947. Available at: www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability. Visited 25 Apr 2020 Hughes OE (1998) Public management and administration. Macmillan, London Huq S, Rabbani G (2011) Climate change and Bangladesh: policy and institutional development to reduce vulnerability. J Bangladesh Stud 13:1–10 Islam R, Walkerden G (2015) How do links between households and NGOs promote disaster resilience and recovery?: a case study of linking social networks on the Bangladeshi coast. Nat Hazards 78:1707–1727 Jamil I, Pranab P (2011) Inter-organizational coordination and corruption in urban policy implementation in Bangladesh: a case of Rajshahi City corporation. Int J Public Adm 35:352–366 Jeni K (1994) Decentralization: a survey of literature from a human development perspective, human development occasional papers (1992–2007) HDOCPA-199405, Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Kauzya J-M (2002) Local governance capacity building for full range participation: concepts, frameworks, and experiences in African countries. In: 4th global forum on re-inventing government, United Nations, New York, pp 361–362. Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/ groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN005783.pdf Kettl D (1993) Sharing power. Public governance and private markets. Brookings, Washington, DC

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

861

Kolk A et al (2008) Business and partnership for development. Eur Manag J 26:262–273 Mackenzie WTM (1961) Theories of local government. Greater London Capers, London McQuaid RW (2000) The theory of partnerships – why have partnerships. In: Osborne SP (ed) Managing public–private partnerships for public services: an international perspective. Routledge, London, pp 9–35 Mert A (2009) Partnership for sustainable development as discursive practice: shifts in discourses of environment and democracy. Forest Policy Econ 11:326–339 Minogue M (1998) Changing the state: concepts and practice in the reform of the public sector. In: Minogue M, Polidano C, Hulme D (eds) Beyond the new public management. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 17–37 OECD (2006) Evaluating the effectiveness and the efficiency of partnerships, workshop on evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of partnerships. OECD Environment Directorate, Paris Olowu D (2003) Challenge of multi-level governance in developing countries and possible GIS applications. Habitat Int 27:501–522 Osborne SP (1998) Partnerships in local economic development: a bridge too far for the voluntary sector? Local Econ 12(4):290–295 Osborne SP (ed) (2010) The new public governance: emerging perspectives on the theory and practice. Routledge, London/New York Okey Marcellus Ikeanyibe, (2016) Uniformity in Local Government System and the Governance Model in Nigeria. Journal of Asian and African Studies 53 (1):147-161 Pollitt C (2003) Joined up governance: a survey. Polit Stud Rev 1(1):34–49 Putnam R (1993) Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton Ryan JJ (2004) Decentralization and democratic instability: the case of Costa Rica. Public Adm Rev 64(1):81–91 Samaratunge R et al (2008) The new public management reform in Asia: a comparison of Southeast Asian countries. Int Rev Adm Sci 74(1):25–46 Sarker AE (2006) New public management in developing countries: an analysis of success and failure with particular reference to Singapore and Bangladesh. Int J Public Sect Manag 19(2):180–203 Sarker AE, Zafarullah HM (2019) Political settlements and bureaucratic reforms: an exploratory analysis focusing on Bangladesh. J Asian Afr Stud 55:1–19 SEEM (2006) Market transformation to promote efficient motor systems. Project launch paper. Standards for Energy Efficiency of Electric Motor Systems (SEEM), Zurich Selsky JW, Parker B (2005) Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: challenges to theory and practice. J Manag 31(6):849–873

Sharpe LP (1970) Theories and values of local government. Polit Stud 18(2):153–174 Smoke P (2003) Decentralization in Africa: goals, dimensions, myths and challenges. Public Adm Dev 23:7–16 Stojanović I et al (2016) Good governance as a tool of sustainable development. Eur J Sustain Dev 5(4):558– 573. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2016.v5n4p558 Stoker G (1988) The politics of local government. Macmillan, London Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions. Int Soc Sci J 50(155):17–28 Stone M (2000) Exploring the effects of collaborations on member organizations: Washington country’s welfare-to work partnership. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 29 (1):98–119 Swanstrom T et al (2000) Rethinking the partnership model of government–non-profit relations. In: Richard CH et al (eds) Non-profits in urban America. Quorum/Greenwood, Westport, p 65 Tulder VR, Zwart VA (2006) International business society management: linking corporate responsibility and globalization. Routledge, London Ullah ANZ et al (2006) Government–NGO collaboration: the case of tuberculosis control in Bangladesh. Health Policy and Planning 21(2):143–155. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Vartola J et al (2010) Towards good governance in South Asia: An introduction, in (edi) Vartola J, Lumijarvi I, and Asaduzzaman, M (2010) Towards good governance in South Asia, Tampere University Press. Weihe V (2006) Public–private partnerships: addressing a nebulous concept. Paper presenter to 10th international research symposium on public management (IRSPM X), Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, 10–12 Apr 2006 Wheeless LR, Grotz J (1977) The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure. Hum Commun Res 3 (3):250–257 White SC (1999) NGOs, civil society, and the state in Bangladesh: the politics of representing the poor. Dev Chang 30(2):307–326 World Bank Group (2014) Public–private partnership: reference guide, version 2.0. Available at: http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/600511468336 720455/pdf/903840PPP0Refe0Box385311B000PUB LIC0.pdf Young DR (1999) Alternative models of government– nonprofit sector relations: theoretical and international perspectives. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 29 (1):149–172 Zafarullah H (2007) Bureaucratic elitism in Bangladesh: the pre-dominance of generalist administrators. Asian J Polit Sci 15(2):161–173 Zafarullah H (2013) Bureaucratic culture and the socialpolitical connection: the Bangladesh example. Int J Public Adm 36(13):932–939

P

862

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India Chandrima Mukhopadhyay1 and Minal Pathak2 1 School of Arts and Science, Ahmedabad University, Ahmedabad, India 2 Global Centre for Environment and Energy, Ahmedabad University, Ahmedabad, India

Definition Electric vehicles “Electric vehicles” (EV) are defined as vehicles that use an electric motor for propulsion. The electricity used to run the motor could come either through “transmission wires,” as is the case with electric locomotives, metro trains, and trams or through a “single or a series of connected batteries,” as is the case in electric bikes and electric cars, or it could be generated on board using a fuel cell (Mohanty and Kotak 2017).

Introduction The proposed article contributes towards an understanding of SDG 17 (partnership for goals) in terms of partnership to deliver climate action (Goal 13). The article focuses on electrification of urban passenger transport in India. The transport sector globally contributes to 14% of GHG emissions and a quarter of energy-related emissions (Mohanty and Kotak 2017). Three quarters of these come from road transport. In India, the road transport sector contributes to 13% of energy-related CO2 emissions (Government of India 2015). For India, the narrative for climate mitigation has centered around initiatives that align with national development goals. Electric vehicle policy is one such focus area. For India, electric vehicles can deliver sizeable air quality benefits, stimulate domestic manufacturing, and can be an important mitigation strategy in the long term as electricity is decarbonized (Dhar et al. 2015, 2017). Recognizing these, the Government

of India has announced ambitious policies on electrification of urban transport. Electrification of transport is capital intensive both from the cost of new vehicles and supporting infrastructure. Urban transport projects such as bus services and intermediate public transports should be shifted to electric fleet in order to effectively implement mitigation strategy. The overall electrification of urban passenger transport can only be delivered and maintained through public private people partnership (4Ps) due to complexity of the projects. Driven by population, rapid economic growth, and urbanization, India’s rising GHG emissions have received considerable attention for the global climate change mitigation. India’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) targets at reducing the energy intensity of GDP by 33–35% by 2030 (UNFCCC 2015). Electrification of transport is a key focus of India’s transport strategy to achieve the NDC. Upscaling electrification of transport is possible only with an increase and sustainable supply of electricity from energy/ power sector. Clean energy and low emissions in turn enable achieving targets under SDG 7 (clean and affordable energy) and SDG 13 (climate action). Urban passenger transport in India includes a combination of various modes that are implemented and driven by a range of actors including government agencies at the national, state and local levels, private players, partnerships between private and public sector, and in some cases a range of individuals operating informally. This complex governance of transport has relied on these diverse arrangements for successful implementation. The article discusses EVs (four wheelers and two wheelers), electric buses, erickshaws (three wheelers), and EV charging infrastructure in India with a focus on partnerships in delivering and upscaling electrification of transport in India. This article will discuss how the forprofit and not-for-profit private sector actors contribute their financial resources, institutional capacities, and skills. The aim is to discuss the potential of use of varied forms of partnerships, including a discussion of barriers during the initial

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

stages. Considering electrification on urban transport is in its naive stage in India, the study does so by secondary national- and state-level policy analysis, review of peer-reviewed literature on EV in India related to infrastructure, mapping of EV policies and SDG targets through secondary literature, and semi-structured interview with experts. Section “Public Private Partnership (PPP)” introduces the concept of public private partnership and 4Ps, and discusses the initial challenges of the government to attract private sector in the process. The section discusses emerging partnership models, in comparison to technical forms of PPP (e.g., build-operate-transfer model and design-build-finance-operate-transfer model, discussed below). Section “National and State Level Electric Vehicle Policies in India” investigates national- and state-level policies in electrification of transport. Section “Electrification of Various Urban Passenger Transport Modes” discusses cases in electrification of transport, i.e., EVs, electric buses, e-rickshaws, and EV charging infrastructure. The final section concludes with key insights.

Public Private Partnership (PPP) PPP was first introduced in the country following Bretton woods institutes’ preconditions for approving structural fund across all developing nations, and India’s economic reform on liberalization of the economy in 1991. Following the economic reform, an IAS (Indian Administrative Service: premier civil service of India) officer, Dr. Arvind Mayaram, first conceptualized PPP for India, who spoke about 4Ps. “Public private partnership” has a technical understanding. The “people” component indicates users who are on the demand or recipient side of any policy or project. In this case, both private vehicle buyers and users, and passenger transport users are “people,” since it is governed by the choices people make, as buyers and users of EVs (private vehicles and public transport (PT) and intermediate public transport (IPT)). PPP has become a preferred mode of delivery and maintenance of public infrastructure in India.

863

Electrification of urban transport has both public and private good characteristics. While private vehicles like four wheelers and two wheelers are privately owned, public transport (bus services, Bus rapid transit system and metro) are public goods, and intermediate public transports (e-rickshaws) are considered public–private transition goods. India’s electric vehicle policy encourages manufacturing of electric vehicles, which makes it an appealing business opportunity for private sector. On the demand side, the key barrier is to nudge private electric vehicle owners (both four wheelers and two wheelers) to switch to electric vehicles, considering the high upfront and operating costs, and limited availability of EV charging infrastructure. In India, sustainable urban passenger (public and IPT) transport also needs to cater to the urban poor through lower fares. There are various reasons behind deciding the fare structure for transit systems, which go beyond technical and economic rationale. Many systems globally are operating in losses. Attracting a private sector operator therefore relies on a good relationship between the government and the private company, where the latter cooperates with the government in meeting their obligations. A successful case in example is the Ahmedabad BRTS, which is now gradually shifting to electric buses (Pathak and Shah 2020). For IPT, e-rickshaws started with bottom-up initiatives, operating informally (even illegally) initially in Delhi and subsequently in some other cities. Electrification of shared mobility is more challenging, as shared mobility global companies are market driven. In order to ensure their support in electrification initiative, a two-way communication between these companies and the government should help overcome cost and other technical barriers. The Ministry of Economic Affairs’ database (pppinindia.gov.in) does not provide records for PPP on electrification of transport yet. In comparison to traditional forms that are included in the database (e.g., build-operate-transfer model, where private sector is involved in building and operating the project, and transferring to the public sector at the end of concession period), the

P

864

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

emerging partnership models discussed here are innovative, in terms of cross-sectoral risk distribution. Assuring the effectiveness of such delivered infrastructure requires a three-way partnership between the public sector, private sector (for profit and nonprofit), and the buyers/users. Such a partnership also signals transformation of traditional modes of governing infrastructure. Broadly, the four components that make PPP a superior mode in terms of accountability than traditional public sector procurement model are transparency, risk sharing, value for money, and performance contract (Flyvbjerg et al. 2003; Mukhopadhyay 2016). Finally, NGOs or civil societies could play a significant role as extended government to improve public awareness about climate change, and encourage people to shift to electric fleet.

National- and State-Level Electric Vehicle Policies in India National-Level Policies There are multiple direct and enabling policies implemented by the national and state governments, ambitious targets for electrification of vehicles by 2030 and these are supported by subnational policies in states and cities, contributing towards SDG target 13.2 on “integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” Currently the challenges of EV penetration in India are high cost of the battery, lack of standardized recharging infrastructure, relatively low range of battery EVs, inadequate user awareness, and lack of interesting value proposition for consumers (Dhar et al. 2020). Here are some national-level policies. First, the Government of India announced National Electric Mobility Mission Plan (NEMMP) in 2013 with an aim to scale up purchase and manufacturing of EVs in the country. The ambitious plan targeted at delivering six to seven million new and hybrid EVs by 2020, enhancing India’s energy security, and develops a domestic EV industry (Target 17.9). Second, under the NEMMP, the Government of India announced financial incentives

under a new program Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Electric vehicles (FAME) in 2015 (Target 17.1 to 17.5) (Bandish Patel, personal communication, June 9, 2020). FAME Phase I offered demand incentives for consumers; implementation of pilot projects in cities for better demonstration of technology; and the provision of adequate charging infrastructure with efficient technology platform to support it (17.6 to 17.8). Phase I of FAME promised to deliver 0.27 million of EVs amounting to INR 3.43 billion. Third, with the success of Phase I, the government announced Phase II of FAME in 2019. The funding of INR 100 billion would be provided to further increase the share of electric vehicles and develop charging infrastructure until 2022. Under phase II, demand side incentives of INR 20 billion, INR 25 billion, INR 5.25 billion, and INR 35.45 billion are provided to a maximum of one million registered e2 W, 0.5 million registered e-3 W, 35,000 e-4 W, and 7,090 e-buses, respectively (Dhar et al. 2020). Fourth, the Ministry of Urban Development proposed a green urban transport scheme (GUTS) to reduce public transport emissions. The ministry proposes a grant of INR 250 billion for developing electric vehicles for public transport. State-Level Policies The state governments developed EV policies to complement national-level policies and city-level policies; they encourage various ranges of private sector actors to manufacture and buy electric vehicles. Twelve Indian states have either adopted or proposed EV policies (Transport Policy, online). The state of Andhra Pradesh being the first to adopt an EV policy has set a target of being one of the three top states in India to achieve electrification of urban transport by 2022, and a leading global investment destination for EVs by 2050 (Government of Andhra Pradesh 2018). Table 1 summarizes the state-level EV policies. The following image shows numbers of EVs sold under FAME in various states (Fig. 1). The electric vehicle ecosystem draws actors from three hierarchies of the government (central, state, and local), and enabling environment that define the market for EVs in India (UNEP DTU Partnership Report 2017).

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

865

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India, Table 1 EV policies formulated by the state of Andhra Pradesh Sr no. 1

Policy initiative Financial support to manufacturing firms

2

Financial incentives for private charging stations and hydrogen generation and refueling infrastructure Financial support for private purchase and use

3

4

Research and grant

Description Financial support to the manufacturing firms in terms of: Large project (capital investment upto INR 200 crores) Mega project (capital investment more than INR 200 crores) Mega integrated automobile project (automobile projects including EV powertrain assembly, press shop, body shop, EV battery assembly, assembly line, paint shop, etc.; investment over INR 1000 crore in 3 years) Ultra-mega battery plant (plant to manufacture batteries with output of 1GWh or investment over INR 1000 crore) Capital subsidy Stamp duty (100% stamp duty and transfer duty paid by industry will be reimbursed; 100% stamp duty for lease of land/shed/building will be reimbursed) External infrastructure subsidy, land (government will offer land to dependent ancillary units) Power (the state will offer power cost reimbursement of Rs 1/- per unit for upto 5 years) Water (at 50% of the price of existing supply tariff for upto 3 years) Tax incentive (100% net SGST accrued to the state will be reimbursed for upto 5 years for small, 7 years for medium, and 10 years for large industries) Skill development incentive (stipend of INR 10,000 per employee per year for upto first 50 employees in a firm) Marketing incentives (50% cost of participation with a maximum amount of INR 5 lakhs)

Offers reimbursement of registration charges and road tax on sale of EV until 2024; offers reimbursement of the net state goods and service tax for services rendered for firms owning and operating EV fleets A research grant of INR 500 crores will fund the most innovative solutions in the e-mobility space

Electrification of Various Urban Passenger Transport Modes The section discusses how transition to electric vehicle is taking place in Indian context in terms of private vehicles including shared mobility, transition to electric buses in terms of public transport, transition in electric mobility to three wheelers, and potential forms of partnership in EV charging infrastructure. Transforming Private Vehicle Fleet to Electric Fleet Private EV (four wheelers and two wheelers) penetration in India is supported by the national government through targeted incentives to EV

manufacturers and buyers, contributing towards SDG target 17.1 on “domestic resource mobilization including improving domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection.” While EVs in India are either battery electric vehicles (BEVs) or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEVs), Twowheeler EVs include both electric scooters and electric bicycles (Mohanty and Kotak 2017). The technology adopted for manufacturing EVs contributes towards SDG target 17.7 on “promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed.” In line with the Government of Indian policy, several state governments

P

866

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

Jammu & Kashmir (10)

Himachal Pradesh (138) Uttarakhand (362)

Punjab (111) Chandigarh (33)

Meghalaya (4)

Uttar Pradesh (2426)

Haryana (341)

Bihar (1145) Assam (192)

Delhi (2393) Rajasthan (1215)

Manipur (37) Tripura (246) Madhya Pradesh (730) West Bengal (473) Gujarat (410)

Jharkhand (378)

Daman & Diu (19)

Odhisha (533) Chhattisgarh (721)

Maharashtra (3461) Telangana (693) Goa (17)

Andhra Pradesh (872)

Karnataka (7543)

Puducherry (40)

Lakshadweep (1)

Andaman & Nicobar (1) Tamil Nadu (4052)

Kerala (557)

Total Number of Vehicles Sold 29154

Saved fuel (In Litres) 88,13,691

CO2 Reduction (In Kg.) 2,00,59,226

Fuel saving per day (In Litres) 32509

CO2 Reduction per day (In Kg.) 73987

Map adapted from: https://fame2.heavyindustry.gov.in/ as on 28.09.2020 | Time: 12:45:00 PM

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India, Fig. 1 EVs sold at the state levels. (Source: https://www.fame-india.gov.in/ (as on 10th May, 2020))

developed state EV policies identifying priority areas for EV development, contributing towards SDG target 13.2 on “integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” The state government participates in the process by formulating policies at the subnational scale. For instance, for the state of Gujarat, the enabling policies are introduction of low and fixed tariff for EV charging, and subnational leadership on EVs driven from bottom. One’s selection of EV as a buyer depends on three factors, i.e., charging time, driving range, and maximum load carrying capacity (Mohanty and Kotak 2017). One’s choice to buy EV is also guided by its currently high upfront and life cycle cost in relation to traditional petrol or diesel automobiles (Gujarathi et al. 2018; Bansal and Agarwal 2018). While R&D could curb the upfront and maintenance cost of EVs, Sperling (2001) discusses case of government–industry partnership for new generation of vehicles in the USA. R&D is also

required in terms of regular maintenance like local mechanics being equipped with necessary tools (Bhargav Adhvaryu, personal communication, June 9, 2020). It is important to improve peoples’ trust on EV charging infrastructure (discussed below). The promotion of electric vehicle is supported by the evidence on reduction of air pollution in India (Vidhi and Shrivastava 2018), contributing towards SDG target 13.1 on “strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.” Promotion of EVs contributes towards SDG target 17.14 on “enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.” While initially there were very few EV manufacturers across the globe, such as Tesla Motors in the USA, Think in Norway, BYD in China, and REVA in India (Gujarathi et al. 2018), through Make in India policy, India has developed its domestic EV manufacturing industry. There is opportunity for foreign auto-manufacturers to

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

867

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India, Fig. 2 A diagram that represent the role of different actors for the EV transition in India

form partnership with local manufacturers in India. Wesseling et al. (2015) discusses how large-scale car manufacturers, not only with strong incentives, but also with strong opportunity to innovate, sold significantly more EVs during EV commercialization period (2007–11) in Europe. Opportunity to innovate encourages private sector to deliver product at a better value for money using their entrepreneur skill. Similarly, Wolschendorf et al. (2010) explains how collaborative partnership amongst various suppliers of key components of EVs, such as battery, traction motor, electric HVAC, and inverters, can lead to rapid development of electric and hybrid vehicle technology. India quadrupled its import of lithium-ion batteries from 2016 (175 million) to 2019 (450 million). An Indian multinational company would be the first to set up a plant to manufacture lithium-ion battery in order to curb the maintenance cost of EVs on 126 acres of land in Dholera (Times of India, 2019). This would contribute towards SDG target 17.3 on “mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources.” The leading shared mobility companies have pledged to the national government to transform their fleets to electric fleet in Indian cities in coming 2 years (Economic times 2020; Techcrunch 2019). For shared mobility, technical partnership for retrofitting diesel and petrol vehicles to electric vehicles would be important, instead of buying

new cars, as was evident in past with CNG vehicles (Bhargav Adhvaryu, personal communication, June 9, 2020). Following is a diagram that graphically represents a model partnership in electrification of private vehicles, including shared mobility (Figs. 2 and 3). There are cross-sectoral linkages, which amplify risks but can offer an opportunity for risk sharing and achieving goals in multiple sectors. For example, industries manufacturing EVs and batteries depend on its demand in urban transport. Transition of Public Sector Bus Fleet to Electric Fleet Both the national policy and subnational policies facilitate transition of diesel public bus fleet to electric fleet. In a country like India, where majority of lower middle–income and lower-income groups depend on public transport, and where rail and bus services have equal ridership, it is crucial to transform the public bus fleet to electric fleet, in order to effectively achieve mitigation. Retrofitting of diesel vehicles to electric vehicles remains important. Such a transition contributes towards both SDG target 17.14 on “enhance policy coherence for sustainable development,” and 17.15 on “respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development.” These two targets are met in case of

P

868

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India, Fig. 3 A schematic diagram showing partnership for electric buses

electric three wheelers as well, as discussed below. In terms of climate action, transition to electric buses contributes towards SDG target 13.2 on “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” However, Indian cities like Ahmedabad, Surat, and Delhi started using CNG buses in early 1990s, and hence have well-developed CNG infrastructure. As mentioned by Majumdar et al. (2015), only 2% of public sector replacement by BEVs could reduce a GHG emission of 26.27 t CO2 emissions per day. The national government policies that encourage transition of state bus fleet to electric fleet include NEMPP, FAME, Make in India, and specially Ministry of Urban Development’s proposed Green Urban Transport Scheme (GUTS). With the policy and financial support from the national government, the state governments are working with the private sector electric bus manufacturers to transform their state transport union (STU) bus fleet to electric fleet. The requirement of financial support for electric buses either in the form of subsidy or in the form of incentives is acknowledged. A small-scale private sector company is helping Bengaluru city authority to retrofit their diesel buses to electric buses. Since city-level bus authorities run on losses, it is an important strategy (Bhargav Adhvaryu, personal communication, June 9, 2020). The State Road Transport Corporation is the state agency that participates

in the process. In terms of manufacturing electric buses, an India-based manufacturing and engineering company developed an 18-seater electric bus in 2000. It was run by an AC induction motor and a 96 V lead–acid battery pack. Around 200 electric vans were built and run in Delhi, with monetary support from the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE). The major concern with these vehicles was their poor consistency, low life, and very high cost of the battery (Mohanty and Kotak 2017). There are a few Indian companies that manufacture electric buses in India, often in partnership with global companies based in United Kingdom, Poland, and China. JBM with Solaris launched India’s first 100% electric buses. This contributes towards SDG target 17.6 on “enhance NorthSouth, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms.” The EV bus manufacturers are working in a partnership with the state governments to electrify the state buses. Government of India’s Ministry of Heavy Industry approved 5,595 electric buses for 64 cities under FAME II by 2020 (MERCOM India, Oct 2019). Out of those, 5095 electric buses will be used for intracity transport. There are few city-based examples outlined here. First, in New Delhi – two private sector companies along with the State Government of Delhi adds 1,000 low-

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

floor AC electric buses to its public transport fleet in the beginning of 2019 to curb emission and pollution. Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) announced that it plans to procure another batch of 300 electric buses during latter half of 2019 to modernize its bus services (Business Today 2019). Second, the state government of Gujarat has private contracts for e-buses for BRTS under FAME II. Ahmedabad has 50 electric buses in 2020. These were achieved with the partnership between the national government (FAME), state support, initiatives of the Ahmedabad city government, and competitive bids from private bus companies. Within bus services, private sector is often engaged in order to improve quality of service (QoS) of buses for customer satisfaction, in order to achieve and retain ridership (Sharma 2019). The state or city government either in terms of vehicle kilometers travelled, or based on number of passengers pays private sector. For a PPP model in BRTS using electric buses, the segmentation will have to be in the form of ownership and maintenance of all hard infrastructure, including bus, dedicated bus lane, bus stations, and QoS like frequency of bus, cleanliness of bus, and professionalism of bus driver and conductor. Other state–city partnerships for EVs could be cited from Lucknow, UP (Lucknow City Transport Services Ltd); Sabarimala, Kerala (Kerala State Road Transport Corporation); Manali, HP (Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation); Dehradun, Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand Government); Hyderabad, Telangana (Telangana State Road Transport Corporation); and Kolkata, WB (West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation). Li et al. (2016) discusses the Shenzhen model of China to explain the significance of a successful integrating business innovation and government regulation to facilitate deployment of electric vehicles in bus and taxi fleet. Civil society often work as an extended government to improve public awareness about the impact of climate change and to encourage the shift towards public transport, contributing towards SDG target 13.3 on “improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation,

869

impact reduction and early warning.” UNFCC’s green climate fund (SDG target 13.A) could be used for urban public transport. Electric bus services should focus on urban poor as they are captive bus users, contributing towards SDG target 13.B on “promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management . . . including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities.” Civil society can develop peer learning and training programs, tools, and resources to help build technical capacity of officials on location and planning of routes and charging infrastructure. Private consultants, including civil societies can provide valuable tendering and contracting services to urban local governments (Department of Heavy Industry, Government of India, 2020). This would contribute towards SDG target 17.17 on “encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.” Transition of Three-Wheelers Fleet to Electric Fleet (e.g., E-Rickshaws) India has higher number of e-rickshaws and EV bikes than EV cars. The advantages of using e-rickshaws in Indian cities are first mile–last mile connectivity, and flexibility to move within traffic congestion. The disadvantages of e-rickshaws are their informality, lack of safety and security standards, and lack of state regulation. There were 380 deaths due to e-rickshaw in a year at the national level (UNEP–DTU partnership 2017). While there will be increased power demand due to transition to electric fleet, the demand for public transport would be different in terms of load than private vehicles, and would have different impact on smart grid (Clairand et al. 2019). The essence of e-rickshaw model in Indian cities is that it introduces technological innovation at the bottom of the pyramid, with a focus on urban poor, contributing to SDG target 13.B. It contributes to SDG target 17.15 as well. While India is championing in electrification of transport, it may take sometime to make EVs affordable for all, and develop required infrastructure to

P

870

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

convince the mass shift to electric vehicle. In the mean time, it has been proven comparatively easier to introduce e-rickshaws that are intermediate public transports (IPT). With electrification, it is also about formalization and modernization of three-wheeler services that initially emerged as informal and even illegal modes. The falling cost of technology makes it possible to afford e-rickshaw. In terms of manufacturing, while there are other companies manufacturing the vehicle, Indian cities experience assembled model while various components are imported from China. While e-rickshaws are popular in terms of reducing GHG emission, some challenges with electric batteries for e-rickshaws include disposal and recycling of lead batteries, energy losses, and metal depletion, which have environmental consequences of their own (Khanna et al. 2018). As a solution, some proposes use of solar energy. UNFCC’s green climate fund could be applicable here as well. Transport Department, Government of Delhi, formulated e-rickshaw Sewa scheme containing guidelines for operating and maintaining of erickshaws in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi with a emphasis on augmenting the convenience, safety, and security of commuters (Government of NCT Delhi 2014). Delhi e-rickshaws are four seaters including driver, and with luggage carrying capacity. Delhi e-rickshaws are registered with Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). And except certain routes as identified by the Transport Department, Government of Delhi, e-rickshaws are allowed on all routes. Many e-rickshaw stands equipped with charging facility are now designed at the metro rail stations, as mass transit users mostly use e-rickshaws for first mile–last mile connectivity besides those who use private vehicle to meet the gap. Manufacturers of e-rickshaws are notified by the government to sell a vehicle only to a person who has at least a learners’ license to drive e-rickshaw. There are more than one lakh e-rickshaws on the road of Delhi. However, while the government notifications are published, there was complaint about large number of illegal e-rickshaws still on the road 2 years back (Hindustan Times 2018). Traffic department of Delhi is involved in

managing the traffic. In an e-rickshaw partnership model, state government is much more involved than national government, as it is a bottom-up model. E-rickshaws started from the bottom, in many instances even illegally, and is being regulated focusing on convenience, safety, and security of commuters. National government approved Central Motor Vehicle Rules (Amendment) 2015 and mandated safety standard compliance specified by Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI)/International Centre for Automotive Technology (ICAT) for regulating e-rickshaws (Shandilya et al. 2018). E-rickshaw is a model that shows technological and institutional innovation at the bottom of the pyramid, and the informal and illegal dimensions within urban transport sector in India. E-rickshaws are partially considered a smart choice for urban mobility. By 2018 financial year, 70% of e-rickshaws in India were unorganized, 20% were semiorganized, and 10% were organized. Following the Delhi example, a few states have introduced erickshaws and are making efforts to integrate the e-rickshaws in the state EV policy. This could also be tied to urban plans like smart city projects, building bye laws to include charging stations, etc. Since e-rickshaw model follows a bottom-up approach, civil societies have a larger role to play in enabling communication between the public sector and the informal transport sector. Figure 4 shows a diagram on partnership model for three wheelers. Partnership in EV Charging Infrastructure Delivery and Maintenance The availability of public and private charging infrastructure continues to be a major challenge in upscaling EVs in the country. While it is important to boost users’ trust on EV charging infrastructure availability, Awasthi et al. (2017) runs an analysis to optimally decide location of EV charging stations. Presently, large-scale EV penetration faces multiple new business/ technology challenges such as EV charging, smart charging, batteries, performance, cost, etc. which could be key areas where technology transfer and resource mobilization from developed to developing countries will play a key role (Bandish Patel, personal

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

871

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India, Fig. 4 A schematic diagram showing partnership model for erickshaw

communication, June 9, 2020). There are multiple studies discussing PPPs in EV charging facility in the USA, Europe, and China. Yang et al. (2016) considers PPP as an effective supply path for the infrastructure in China. They consider leveraging social capital, easing the burden on local finance, enhancing the level of project management and profitability, and reducing construction and operation risks as the rationales for using PPP. Li et al. (2016) recommends use of private investment in charging infrastructure with PPP model in China. Beaume and Midler (2009) discuss partnership between corporations on EV manufacturers and facilitators of electric mobility. Liu and Wei (2018) discuss PPP between government and private sector to deliver EV charging infrastructure in China, while banking on private sector’s capital and technology. The Government of India has released guidelines for charging infrastructure for EVs with a proposal to cover 70 cities and 20% of highways at a cost of INR 50,000 millions by 2025 (eeslindia.org). Energy Efficiency Service Ltd. has been assigned the responsibility to install charging stations across the country (Energy Efficiency Services Limited (EESL) is a Super-Energy Service Company (ESCO), which enables consumers, industries and governments to effectively manage their energy needs through energy efficient technologies.). The central government released a bulk tender under FAME

Phase I. Several state policies include incentives and guidelines for the installation of public charging stations. EESL in association with United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the bilateral program with the Ministry of Power (MoP) is developing and implementing a scalable business model for public charging stations (PCS) (eeslindia.org). EESLs National E-mobility Program was launched by Minstry of Power and Ministry of New and Renewable Energy to support EV manufacturers, charging infrastructure companies, service providers, and fleet operators (EESL India, online). EESL has signed memorandum with several urban governments and city metro companies for development of public charging stations (PCS). Till date 68 public charging stations have been commissioned. The Ministry of Power also allows private sector to install their own charging points, while the approval will have to be acquired from them. Private sector actors are contributing towards upscaling EV charging stations through partnerships with EV manufacturers and fuel retailers. For example, a private electricity company has partnered with a multinational automotive company in India for setting up charging solutions for the latter across its retail network of 27 outlets in 24 cities. A public electric supply company has formed partnership with an electric mobility research institute for setting up battery

P

872

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India, Fig. 5 A schematic diagram showing partnership model for EV charging facility

swapping stations in Delhi. There are various forms of emerging partnership between the national and state governments, and private sector to upscale the EV infrastructure in the country (Powerline 2020). Innovation is required at a very local scale, e.g., in terms of managing additional electricity demand and fair distribution of charges among users, and spatial innovation at city scale too. The following diagram shows a schematic partnership model for EV charging facility (Fig. 5).

Conclusion The study discusses existing and potential partnership models to deliver and upscale electric vehicles in India. Electric vehicle penetration in India is a major decarbonization strategy (SDG 13). The article discusses partnership model to upscale EVs, contributing towards SDG 17. While electrification of transport will be decarbonized in near future, there will be substantial increase in demand for electricity as well. The article first discusses national and subnational policies in India to promote electric vehicle penetration. Then it considers four elements related to EV (four wheelers and two wheelers), electric buses, e-rickshaws, and EV charging infrastructure.

Since partnership models in electrification of urban transport are only emerging, the limitation of the study is its direct study of maintenance of projects in the long run through partnership. As discussed, partnerships are mostly used in EV charging infrastructure, and to some extent, in vehicle manufacturing to encourage private sector technological innovation. As evident from specific cases, there are international partnership models used in vehicle manufacturing in India that contributes towards SDG 17. As an extension to the technical PPP models, the article discusses flexible partnership that includes various levels of government, civil societies, and people as partners. The national-level governments policy and incentives to encourage EV and battery manufacturing for EV purchase and setting up of charging infrastructure, the state governments have complemented these with subnational EV policies. Subnational (state) policies encourage local industry, purchase of EVs, and support for electrification of public buses. City governments implement national and subnational (state) policies, regulate the informally emerged private sector–led e-rickshaws. Private companies are key players as manufacturers of EV vehicles and batteries, delivering and maintaining EV charging infrastructure and battery swap models. Civil societies can facilitate public awareness

Partnership For Electrification of Urban Passenger Transport in India

programs, and develop learning tools for various stakeholders. The final actors in the partnerships include people making a decision to switch to EVs. A successful EV transition for India hinges on the collaboration of multiple stakeholders with a clear sense of accountability. Several interesting partnerships have emerged; however, meeting the desired ambition on mitigation would require a much stronger effort to upscale these through replication of successful models and new collaborations.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development Acknowledgments We would like to thank Shaurya Patel for his support in collecting research material. We are grateful to our interviewees for their valuable input. The book chapter is a part of an ongoing research project Opportunities for Climate Mitigation and Sustainable Development (OPTIMISM), an international partnership project. The Indian component is funded by Department of Bio-Technology (DBT), Government of India.

References Awasthi A, Venkitusamy K, Padmanaban SK, Selvamuthukumaran P, Blaabjerg F, Singh A (2017) Optimal planning of electric vehicle charging station at the distribution system using hybrid optimization algorithm. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy. 2017.05.094 Bansal A, Agarwal A (2018) Comparison of electric and conventional vehicles in Indian market: total cost of ownership, consumer preference and best segment for electric vehicle. Int J Sci Res 7(8):683–695. ISSN: 2319-7064 Beaume R, Midler C (2009) From technology competition to reinventing individual ecomobility: new design

873

strategies for electric vehicles. Int J Automot Technol Manag 9(2):174 Business Standard (2019) Delhi govt floats tender for 300 e-buses, financial bid for 1000 CNG buses opened: Gahlot. Accessed at https://www.businessstandard. com/article/pti-stories/delhi-govt-floats-tender-for300-e-buses-financial-bid-for-1000-cng-busesopened-gahlot-119101501382_1.html on 27th September, 2020 Cherla S, Garg A (2017) Study on Electric mobility in India. UNEP DTU Partnership, Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development. Accessed at https://www.coursehero.com/file/51296555/Study-onElectric-Mobility-in-India-Finalpdf/ on 27th September, 2020 Clairand JM, Guerra-Terán P, Serrano-Guerrero X, González-Rodríguez M, Escrivá-Escrivá G (2019) Electric vehicles for public transportation in power systems: a review of methodologies. Energies 12 (16):3114 Dhar S, Pathak M, Shukla P (2015) Transport scenarios for India: harmonising development and climate benefits. https://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/120569095/ Transport_Scenarios_for_India.pdf. Accessed 27 Sep 2019 Dhar S, Pathak M, Shukla PR (2017) Electric vehicles and India’s low carbon passenger transport: a long- term coenefits assessment. J Clean Prod 146:139. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.111 Dhar S, Pathak M, Shukla P, Gupta A (2020) Electric vehicles penetration in India for enhanced energy efficiency deployment in the transport sector. Energy efficiency in developing countries: policies and programmes, 6, eds Suzana Tavares da Silva, Gabriela Prata Dias. Oxon OX14 4RN and New York, NY 10017 Economic Times (2020) Uber says EVs will electrify its India fleet in two years. Accessed at https:// economictimes.indiatimes.com/smallbiz/startups/ newsbuzz/uber-says-evs-will-electrify-its-india-fleetin-two-years/articleshow/74275725.cms on 27th September, 2020 EESL India (online). https://www.eeslindia.org/content/ raj/eesl/en/Programmes/EV-Charging-Infrastructure/ About-EV-Charging-Infrastructure.html Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W (2003) Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Government of Andhra Pradesh (2018) Industries & Commerce Department – “Electric Mobility Policy 2018– 23” – Orders issued Government of Delhi NCT (2014) E-rickshaw Sewa Scheme Government of India (2015) First biennial update report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi. Available from: www.moef.gov.in/sites/default/files/indbur1_0. pdf. Accessed 31 May 2016

P

874 Gujarathi PK, Shah VA, Lokhande MM (2018) Electric vehicles in India: market analysis with consumer perspective, policies and issues. J Green Eng 8(1):17–36 Hindustan Times (2018) More than 1 lakh illegal e-rickshaws ply on Delhi’s roads. Accessed at https://www. hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/more-than-1lakhillegal-e-rickshaws-ply-on-delhi-s-roads/storyqjTtkUyIkXRsPnVbQXrXVK.html on 27th September, 2020 Khanna R, Khan A, Chahal H, Goyal A (2018) Addressing the environmental feasibility of electric rickshaws. In: Green chemistry in environmental sustainability and chemical education. Springer, Singapore, pp 139–146 Li Y, Zhan C, de Jong M, Lukszo Z (2016) Business innovation and government regulation for the promotion of electric vehicle use: lessons from Shenzhen, China. J Clean Prod 134:371–383 Liu J, Wei Q (2018) Risk evaluation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure public-private partnership projects in China using fuzzy TOPSIS. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.103 Majumdar D, Majhi BK, Dutta A, Mandal R, Jash T (2015) Study on possible economic and environmental impacts of electric vehicle infrastructure in public road transport in Kolkata. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17(4):1093–1101 Mercom India (2019) Delhi to procure another batch of 300 electric buses. Source: https://mercomindia.com/delhitender-electric-buses/ Mohanty P, Kotak Y (2017) Electric vehicles: status and roadmap for India. In: Electric vehicles: prospects and challenges. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12803021-9.00011-2 Mukhopadhyay C (2016) A nested framework for transparency in public private partnerships: case studies in highway development projects in India. Prog Plan 107:1–36 Pathak M, Shah S (2020) Sustainable transport in Gujarat, India: lessons from two case studies. In: Progress for center for strategic and international studies, Washington DC Powerline (2020) Scaling up: public and private sectors take step to expand EV charging facility. Source: https://powerline.net.in/2020/03/07/scaling-up-2/ Shandilya N, Saini V, Ghorpade AR (2018). E-RICKSHAW DEPLOYMENT IN INDIAN CITIES-Handbook Supporting Sustainable Mobility under Smart. Regulation, 91 Sharma M (2019) Users’ satisfaction with public transport: a case study of Delhi’s bus transport. Undergraduate dissertation. Department of Physical Planning. School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi Sperling D (2001) Public-private technology R&D partnerships: lessons from US partnership for a new generation of vehicles. Transp Policy 8(4):247–256 Techcrunch (2019) India orders Uber and rival Ola to electrify 40% of fleets by 2026. Accessed at https:// techcrunch.com/2019/06/06/india-electric-vehicles2026-uber-ola/ on 27th September, 2020

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management Transport Policy (online). https://www.transportpolicy.net/ standard/india-state-level-ev-policies/ UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) 2015 India’s intended nationally determined contribution. www4.unfccc.int/submissions/ INDC/Published_Documents/India/1/INDIA_INDC_ TO_UNFCCC.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2016 Vidhi R, Shrivastava P (2018) A review of electric vehicle lifecycle emissions and policy recommendations to increase EV penetration in India. Energies 11(3):483 Wesseling JH, Niesten EM, Faber J, Hekkert MP (2015) Business strategies of incumbents in the market for electric vehicles: opportunities and incentives for sustainable innovation. Bus Strateg Environ 24(6):518–531 Wolschendorf J, Rzemien K, Gian D (2010) Development of electric and range-extended electric vehicles through collaboration partnerships. SAE Int J Passeng Cars Electron Electr Syst 3(2):215–219. https://doi.org/10. 4271/2010-01-2344 Yang T, Long R, Li W, Rehman SU (2016) Innovative application of the public–private partnership model to the electric vehicle charging infrastructure in China. Sustainability 8(8):738

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management Marlinah Muslim1,2 and Radieah Mohd Nor3 1 School of Biological Studies, Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia 2 Student Affair Division, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia 3 Center for Global Sustainability Studies, Level 5, Hamzah Sendut Library, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

Synonyms Disaster management; Flood disaster; Natural disaster; Natural hazards

Definition The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC 2009) defines natural hazard as naturally occurring physical phenomena caused by either rapid- or slow-onset

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

events which can be geophysical (earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, and volcanic activity), hydrological (avalanches and floods), climatological (extreme temperatures, drought, and wildfires), meteorological (cyclones and storms/wave surges), or biological (disease epidemics and insect/animal plagues). According to Oxford University Press (2019), natural disaster is defined as a sudden and violent event in nature that kills a lot of people or causes a lot of damage (Oxford University Press 2019). Several topics in Oxford References define natural disaster as a disaster that is caused by a natural hazard which is contrast to the technological disaster (Oxford Environment and Conservation 2017). A natural disaster, as distinct from a manmade disaster, is a natural phenomenon, such as an earthquake, tsunami, avalanche, landslide, flood, hurricane, tornado, and forest fire, over which humans usually have little, if any, control, and some so-called natural disasters have roots in human actions (Oxford Public Health 2018). Regarding Jackson (2014), flooding occurs when a river’s discharge exceeds its channel’s volume causing the river to overflow onto the area surrounding the channel known as the floodplain, and the most common cause of flooding is prolonged rainfall. According to Geoscience Australia (n.d.), flooding occurs most commonly from heavy rainfall when natural watercourses do not have the capacity to carry excess water. Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies defined disaster management as the organization and management of resources and responsibilities for dealing with all humanitarian aspects of emergencies, in particular preparedness, response, and recovery in order to lessen the impact of disasters (IFRC n.d.). According to UNISDR Terminology, disaster management is the organization, planning, and application of measures preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters.

Introduction In the topic of disaster management, the UNISDR defined it as the organization and

875

management of resources and responsibilities for dealing with all humanitarian aspects of emergencies, in particular preparedness, response, and recovery in order to lessen the impact of disasters (IFRC 2015). Thus, it is all about collaboration and partnership. Successful emergency management must involve plans and institutional arrangements in engaging and guiding the efforts of government, nongovernment, volunteers, and private agencies in coordinating comprehensive ways to respond to the entire spectrum of emergency needs. There are several sub-topics of “disaster management,” and a recent topic that is very close to disaster management is the disaster risk management. Disaster risk management had been introduced by United Nations for International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), and the ISDR defined disaster risk management in 2009 terminology as the systematic process of using administrative directives, organizations, and operational skills and capacities to implement strategies, policies, and improved coping capacities in order to lessen the adverse impacts of hazards and the possibility of disaster. The important part in disaster management nowadays is how to reduce the damage caused by the disaster. Risk reduction has then been found by the sustainable development practitioners as the solution of damage reduction, and the term is improved to “disaster risk management (DRM)” or “disaster risk reduction (DRR)” that is being used by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) for the Sendai Framework: Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 that is adopted on 18 March 2015 and endorsed by the UN General Assembly as the first of the post-2015 development agreement (UNISDR n.d.-a; Sendai Framework 2015). Before the DRR from the Sendai Framework, there are disaster reduction plans from the Hyogo Framework in 2005–2015, Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World: Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation and Its Plan of Action in 1994, and the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction of 1999. All those

P

876

framework and strategy cannot be applied alone or without any active collaboration. Those plan and framework need some sort of collaboration or types of active partnership so that the risk reduction can be successfully achieved. It is already well-recognized and normal need for communities to be more resilient to flood risk, and there is much debate about how this can be best achieved (Priest 2019) since flood is the most destructive natural disaster as shown in Graph 1 (EMDAT 2017). As a result of that, partnership initiative must be discovered to recognize people’s willingness to make partnership for flood disaster management and how people will overcome that disaster. So, in this entry a global partnership on flood disaster management is argued in relation to partnership knowledge and for a better practice of sustainable development.

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

Excellence Global Partnership and Disaster Management Action through the UNISDR and GFP As mentioned by Kapucu and Demiroz (2015), good disaster management system can be the cause of successful disaster management. Many program and activities was conducted/initiated by the United Nations regarding to disaster program including the establishment Guidelines for Reducing Flood Losses and the well-recognized the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction or known as UNISDR may really make the global communities is on their move for better disaster management through partnership (UNISDR n.d.-b; UN Flood Guidelines n.d.) but is that effort really work to make the community worldwide realize about the importance in reducing disaster risk? What exactly is

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management, Graph 1 Global number of reported disasters by type. (Graph source: EMDAT 2017)

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

people’s worldwide reaction from what the UN had started? The discussion in this entry might be the answer by looking at the global action and west to east assessment program. According to the UNISDR, disaster management may not completely avert or eliminate the threats; it focuses on creating and implementing preparedness and other plans to decrease the impact of disasters and “build back better” (UNISDR Terminology 2017). The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) The term “disaster management” is sometimes used instead of emergency management (UNISDR 2007a). At the same time, in the topic of disaster management, public awareness can be a key factor in effective disaster risk reduction. In developing awareness in disaster reduction, initiatives such as dissemination of information through media and educational channels; the establishment of information centers, networks, and community or participation actions; and advocacy by senior public officials and community leaders will be a good start to successful disaster reduction, and it is also important to create partnership among them (UNISDR 2007b). Before the Agenda 2030 and the SDGs, there are already many flood disaster management partnership by the UNISDR such as partnership and collaboration in the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction that produce the Guidelines for Reducing Flood Losses that is being published by the UN in 2002 (UNDRR 2002). Through the Guidelines for Reducing Flood Losses, many partners had come to participate in the progress to publish the guidelines such as the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA NOAA), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). As mentioned by the UNISDR in their website, in 2015, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 is the successor instrument to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations

877

and Communities to Disasters. It was adopted on 18 March 2015 at the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Sendai, Japan. The Sendai Framework is the outcome of stakeholder consultations which was initiated in March 2012 and inter-governmental negotiations held from July 2014 to March 2015, which were supported by the UNISDR upon the request of the UN General Assembly (UNISDR 2018). Stakeholders’ participation is expected from the national government, local and sub-national government, private sectors and professional organizations NGOs and CSOs, education and research institutions, individuals and household, media, regional organizations including IGOs, the UN, international organizations, and IFIs (UNISDR 2018). UNISDR has been tasked to support the implementation, follow-up, and review of the Sendai Framework (UNISDR 2018). In 2015, The Sendai UNISDR has launched Sendai Framework Monitor, a new mechanism for engaging with partners in implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction which recognizes the need for a multi-sectoral from civil society, NGOs, Advocacy and media, private sector and governmental sectors from Africa, American, Europe, Asia and Oceania region as an approach to disaster risk reduction, was launched at a partners meeting held in UNISDR’s headquarters in Geneva, where this approach brought new development of the UN Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction and generating risk data through new Global Risk Assessment Framework (Elsworth 2018; UNISDR Annual Report 2018). This mechanism covered up all types of natural disaster including flood disaster. The UNISDR Strategic Engagement Mechanism is a direct response to more organized action toward the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk (Elsworth 2018). Global Flood Partnership (GFP) The Global Flood Partnership (GFP) is a cooperation framework between scientific organizations and flood disaster managers worldwide to develop flood observational and modeling infrastructure,

P

878

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

leveraging on existing initiatives for better predicting and managing flood disaster impacts and flood risk globally (GFP n.d.). De Groeve et al. (2015) described the launch of the Global Flood Partnership with the aim to improve future flood management worldwide. The success of the GFP comes from being part of a global forum with the opportunity to test and improve research tools in real emergency management situations, with huge potential impact on current risk reduction practices over large-scale flood events (Alfieri et al. 2018). In the GFP, flood monitoring connects users, developers, and intermediaries. According to Alfieri et al. (2018), the GFP model and product for partnership include early warning systems (EWS), scenario analysis, hydrological modeling, flood monitoring, and users and emergency responders. Nowadays, GFP created a number of collaborations among various GFP partners through joint research activities, conference sessions, and new products for operational flood monitoring (De Groeve et al. 2015; RevillaRomero et al. 2015; Schumann et al. 2016; Trigg et al. 2016; Ward et al. 2015).

management in a country might depend on their economical condition. Based on UNISDR assessment (2009), poor rural livelihoods are highly exposed and vulnerable to weather-related hazards and have a low resilience to loss (UNISDR 2009; UNDRR n.d.). Poor economy development leads to poor management, and at this level partnership will give a lot of benefit. West to east assessment below in flood disaster management and partnership will give us a picture in mind and why the partnership and collaboration will take a good place in flood disaster situation. This entry is about making an assessment and getting possible information on how flood disaster is being managed by the United States, Europe, and Asian countries. It is important and quiet interesting to discuss on how the United States, the United Kingdom, and Asia managed their own flood disaster risk for anyone who intend to make an improvement in managing flood disaster. This entry does not intend to deny qualification or make comparison on who is the best of all. The only intention of the authors is to gauge their overall confinement to the global sustainability thinking and initiatives.

US, European, and Asian Action for Flood Disaster Management

US Initiative for Flood Disaster Natural disaster especially flood is common in most countries, and it is normal to every country to have their own flood disaster management program (Coker et al. 2011; Ohl and Tapsell 2000). As reported by The Pew Charitable Trusts (2018), in the United States, flooding is the most costly and common natural disaster across the United States, claiming lives, damaging households and businesses, and straining government budgets for flood response and recovery. The US government needs a stable source of funding for more disaster mitigation (The Pew Charitable Trusts 2018). Then the United States initiates two key grant programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) support projects aimed at reducing disaster risk and introduces the National Disaster Recovery Framework which is consistent with the vision set forth in the Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-8, National Preparedness, which directs the FEMA to work with interagency

Floods represent about one-third of all natural disasters (UNISDR 2007d). A flood occurs when water overflows or inundates land that is normally dry (National Geographic n.d.). If it rains for a long time, the ground will become saturated, and the soil will no longer be able to store water, leading to increased surface runoff (Jackson 2014). In coastal areas, water inundation can be caused by a storm surge as a result of a tropical cyclone, a tsunami, or a high tide coinciding with higher than normal river levels (Geoscience Australia n.d.). If a dam fails, triggered, for example, by an earthquake, the downstream area will flood, even in dry weather conditions (Geoscience Australia n.d.). Some countries are poor and need help from others, while some are strong enough to build their own resilience. Excel disaster risk

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

partners to publish a recovery framework (FEMA 2018; US Homeland Security 2011). Even though, it is not deniable that the United States makes a good movement into a more sustainable way such as using hydrologic and hydraulic modeling in communities that are susceptible to localized flooding and using geographic information-based models for communities that are susceptible to riverine flooding, a system that has been reported by the US Environmental Protection Agency where such system is more costeffective and promotes green infrastructure (EPA 2020). Flood Disaster Management by European Countries Flooding is a very real and serious threat in European countries, which involved 215 coastal, river, and flash flood events from 2004 to 2014 which caused 1,021 deaths (Guha-Sapir et al. 2015). Over 5.8 million people were affected and over €45 billion in damages recorded (Guha-Sapir et al. 2015). According to UK local government, there is no single body responsible for managing flood risk in the United Kingdom because of the role of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, but responsibility is joint among a number of bodies (Local Government Association n.d.). According to Ping et al. (2016), they recommended to improve the communication about flood risks and ways in which it could be better targeted and used throughout the disaster cycle to help strengthen community resilience in the United Kingdom. There are excel networking and group in the United Kingdom that allow and encourage partnership for flood disaster management such as UK Flood Partnership (UK Flood Partnership n.d.; Trewhella 2017), the Netherlands government and partnership for flood risk management (Boyd 2017), Flood Network (n.d.), Hebden Bridge Flood Action Group, Mytholmroyd Flood Group, Garforth Flood Support Group, Bodenham Flood Protection Group, Todmorden Flood Group, Much Wenlock Flood Action Group, the National Flood Forum (NFF), and Bradford Flood Network (Forrest et al. 2017;

879

Elen et al. 2018). UK flood disaster management networks are good example to other non-European countries because it proves that the communities do not rely much on the government but build up their own flood resilience through partnership and collaboration. According to Trewhella (2017), networks such UK Flood Partnership are emerging new technical solutions (technology development in flood monitoring and solution) and expanding opportunities for professional collaboration, to influence sectors’ value to clients, and to maximize collective ability to reach and enhance societies around the world. Based on practices by the European community, after all the response, prevention, preparedness, and recovery have been done in disaster management, resilience comes after from the community where resilience means the ability to “resile from” or “spring back from” a shock. It is important to understand that the resilience of a community in respect to potential hazard events is determined by the degree to which the community has the necessary resources and is capable of organizing itself both prior to and during times of need (UNISDR 2007c). Asian Action for Flood Disaster Management Asia is one of the regions with frequent natural disaster exposure, and as proven in 2015, total global disaster recorded was 62.7%, which happened in Asian regions (Ashraf et al. 2017). China, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Pakistan are widely vulnerable to natural disasters and were the countries majorly hit by natural disasters with average disasters of 45 (China), 36 (India), 21 (the Philippines), 15 (Indonesia), and 10 (Pakistan) (Ashraf et al. 2017). There are many types of natural disasters happened in Asia, and the most common from 2000 to 2016 is flood disaster with 41.27% compared to seven more natural disasters as shown in Graph 2 (Ashraf et al. 2017). As a matter of fact, networking can be one of the good initiatives in disaster risk management. Below discussion in this entry is the networking by the community in Asia as one of the initiatives to disaster risk reduction and that helps the vulnerable communities.

P

880

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management, Graph 2 Types of natural disasters in Asia during 2000–2016. (Graph source: Ashraf et al. 2017)

Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN)

This network is a research-based network that enables investigations of changes in the Earth’s life support systems and their implications for sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region through support for research- and sciencebased response strategies and measures, effective linkages between science and policy, and scientific capacity development (APN n.d.). Many collaboration, partnership, and engagement have been made through this network in either research or training. Below is a list several flood disaster management partnership in APN through research and workshop: – “Flood Risk Management Demonstration Project (phase 1) under the Asian Water Cycle Initiative for the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (FRM/AWCI/GEOSS)”; ARCP & CAPaBLE Programme (APN 2013). – Training Workshop about “Building Capacity for Reducing Loss and Damage Resulting from Slow and Rapid Onset Climatic Extremes through Risk Reduction and Proactive Adaptation within the Broader Context of Sustainable Development” that was held in Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in 2015 (APN, Center for Global Sustainability Studies of Universiti Sains Malaysia, and several collaborator from Systainability Asia, RCE Vietnam,

Asia Research Center of National University of Laos, and Faculty of Sociology & Community Development of University of Battambang, Cambodia). This workshop discussed more about flood risk reduction (CGSS 2015). – APN funded project partnership: “Adaptation of Solid Waste Management to Frequent Floods in Vulnerable Mid-Scale Asian Cities” (Partnership researchers from Japan, Thailand, and Vietnam) (ARPC 2016). – APN funded project partnership: Applicability of Satellite-Based Rainfall Product to Flood Runoff Analysis with Integrated Flood Analysis System (IFAS) in Asia (Partnership with the International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management (ICHARM) under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (Fukami et al. 2011). APN started on 17–18 April 1990 in White House Conference on Science and Economics Research Related to Global Change, where the US President George Bush invited many countries of the world to join the United States in creating regional networks for North-South scientific cooperation at the intergovernmental level to deal with global environmental change research (Bush 1990). Not long after that in 1992, President Bush and then Prime Minister of Japan Kiichi Miyazawa signed the 1992 US-Japan Global

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

Partnership Agreement, in which the agreement also includes the reaffirmed and strengthened Japan-US commitment to global change research (USDS and MFA 1992). Then APN officially was launched in 1996 in Thailand (APN n.d.). Asia-Pacific Disaster Resilience Network (ESCAP)

According to the UN ESCAP website for AsiaPacific countries boost disaster resilience efforts at regional UN meeting, the ESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific) and the Asia-Pacific countries has collaborated to promote regional cooperation and support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on disaster risk reduction. Through the collaboration, the Asia-Pacific Disaster Resilience Network has been established in 2017 (UNESCAP n.d.). The Network has been agreed to be established by the countries in the ESCAP where the objective of the network is to strengthen ESCAP’s work on coherence for disaster risk reduction and resilience across the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and ESCAP’s Regional Roadmap on implementation of the SDGs. The Network will integrate ESCAP’s analytical, norm setting and capacity development work as increasingly complex linkages emerge between disasters, climate extremes, poverty, and conflicts (UNESCAP, n. d). The ESCAP also mentioned that the network will also facilitate collaboration and partnership among key stakeholders, including the Asia-Pacific Regional Coordination Mechanism and the Thematic Working Group on Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience. ASEAN-UN Joint Strategic Plan of Action on Disaster Management

According to ASEAN-UN partnership through UN Asia-Pacific Regional Coordination Mechanism, almost from its inception, the ASEAN has worked with the United Nations. The first ASEAN-UN Summit in 2000 discussed peace and security, human resources development, and South-South cooperation. The latest collaboration is about the Plan of Action to implement the Joint Declaration on Comprehensive Partnership between the ASEAN and the UN 2016–2020 that was adopted at the ASEAN-UN Ministerial

881

Meeting (AUMM) in New York, September 2016. One of the joint work plans that have been developed under the umbrella Plan of Action is the Joint Strategic Plan of Action on Disaster Management 2016–2020. One of the rationales of the joint is coordinated action during response operations that contributed to strengthening the partnership between ASEAN and UN, specifically the operations for the Thai floods (2011), Typhoon Bopha (2012), Typhoon Haiyan (2013), and the Myanmar floods (2015); then the partnership was further strengthened with the deepening of the work on logistics, recovery guidelines, and capacity building through the ACE program, among others, and other than that, there is no specific action plan on flood found in the joint plan, but all of the action plan in the ASEAN-UN partnership on disaster management cover up all types of disaster in ASEAN region (ASEAN-UN Partnership 2016). The Asia Pacific Disaster Resilience Centre (APDRC)

The new APDRC was launched in September 2016 as the very first Red Cross Reference Centre in the Asia-Pacific, jointly initiated by the Republic of Korea National Red Cross (KNRC) and the IFRC (APDRC 2016). The goals of this network are to: – Manage and share information by learning, documenting, improving, and disseminating existing models and cases. – Conduct researches on issues pertaining to community resilience and humanitarian actions. – Promote and implement resilience policies and strategies. – Provide technical assistance to support resilience efforts of Asia Pacific National Societies and partners. – Create networks and partnerships among Asia Pacific National Societies and partners by reinforcing advocacy and communication. The very good networking of the APDRC is not just about collaboration for the managing disaster, but it also promotes partnership and brokering where the sustainability elements can

P

882

be found. Hopefully by this collaboration, the goals for disaster risk reduction and the building of resilient communities can be achieved by the 38 Asia-Pacific National Societies partners.

Conclusion Flood disaster is a natural disaster that gives serious threat all over the world and many countries affected by flood disaster. Flood disaster also is the most costly and common natural disaster across the world which affected huge country and region such the United States, the European countries, and Asia. The example of partnership program and stakeholders in the United States, the European countries, and Asian region as mentioned and explained in the above paragraph proves that many countries and stakeholders have their own flood disaster management program, but the effectiveness still can be questioned since the management is different for every one of them. Partnership to reduce risk of flood disaster is an excellent way to start the disaster risk management and to reduce losses from such natural disaster. Such partnership is not just about knowledge exchange and knowledge transferring, but getting flood funding from various stakeholders will become easier. Various stakeholders from all levels such as national government, local and sub-national government, private sectors and professional organizations NGOs and CSOs, education and research institutions, individuals and household, media, regional organizations including IGOs, the UN, international organizations, and IFIs should be encouraged to participate in the partnership program as mentioned in the Sendai Framework. Flood disaster is the most costly and common natural disaster across the United States, and the US government still needs a stable source of funding for more disaster mitigation. The United States initiates two key grant programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and uses the Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-8, National Preparedness, which

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

directs the FEMA to work with interagency partners to publish a recovery framework. At the same time, the US government is trying to promote a sustainable way to help communities that are susceptible to localized and riverine flooding which will promote more partnership in the future. In European countries, flood also poses a very serious threat, and as a result of that, communities actively conduct their own disaster resilience without relying much on the UK government, and such initiative involved strong partnership and collaboration among them. Those initiatives by the European community can be a best example to any other community in the world. That example is closed to the disaster resilience that became one of the sustainable development principals anyway where resilience means the ability to “resile from” or “spring back from” a shock. In Asia Disaster Risk Management Program, there are several specific organizations and partnerships that are fully engaged to disaster management such as the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN), Asia-Pacific Disaster Resilience Network, ESCAP, ASEANUN Joint Strategic Plan of Action on Disaster Management, and Asia Pacific Disaster Resilience Centre (APDRC). Interestingly, multistakeholder is involved from government body, NGOs, CSOs, academic institution, and others which is in line with the popular Sendai Framework. The United Nations and UNISDR may be the leader in the flood partnership field for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but partnership practices for flood disaster management by the European countries, the US initiatives, and Asian partnership program can be an example for others to improve flood disaster management and to reduce losses from flood disaster. After all, the most important conclusion of this entry is partnership for flood disaster management always wins over the situation no matter what the result is because at the end of the day strong and positive collaboration will always save the day.

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management

Cross-References ▶ Community Partnerships for Disaster Risk Management ▶ Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience through Partnership and Collaboration ▶ Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries ▶ South East Asia Sustainability Network (SEASN)

References “ASEAN-UN partnership” (2016) Joint strategic plan of action on disaster management 2016–2020, New York Alfieri L, Cohen S, Galantowicz J, Guy J-P, Schumannd MA, Trigg EZ, Prudhomme C, Kruczkiewicz A, de Perez EC, Flamig Z, Rudari R, Wuo H, Adler RF, Brakenridge RG, Kettnerr A, Weertss A, Matgen P, Islam SAKM, de Groeve T, Salamon P (2018) A global network for operational flood risk reduction. Sci Direct Environ Sci Policy J 84:149–158 APDRC (2016) About the APDRC. Retrieved in 11 March 2019 from https://www.apdisasterresilience.org/aboutus.html APN (2013) Flood Risk Management Demonstration Project (phase 1) under the Asian Water Cycle Initiative for the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (FRM/AWCI/GEOSS); ARCP & CAPaBLE Programme. 20 years of policy-relevant global change research in the Asia-Pacific region. Retrieved in 11 March 2019 from https://www.restec.or.jp/geoss_ ap9/_public/20170111/20170111_cr13.pdf APN (n.d.) Vision, Mission, Goals and Guiding Principles. Retrieved in 11 March 2019 from http://www.apn-gcr. org/about-apn/vision-mission-and-goals/ ARPC (2016) APN funded project: adaptation of solid waste management to frequent Floods in vulnerable mid-scale Asian cities. “Adaptation of solid waste management to frequent Floods in vulnerable mid-scale Asian cities,” APN E-Lib. Accessed 11 Mar 2019. http://www.apn-gcr.org/resources/items/show/1892 Ashraf S, Luqman M, Iftikhar M, Ashraf I, Hassan ZY (2017) Understanding flood risk management in Asia: concepts and challenges. Open access peer-reviewed chapter. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69139. Retrieved in 6 September 2019 from https://www. intechopen.com/books/flood-risk-management/ understanding-flood-risk-management-in-asiaconcepts-and-challenges Boyd EH (2017) The Netherlands and why partnership matters in flood risk management. Gov.UK. Retrieved in 14 March 2019 from https://environmentagency.

883 blog.gov.uk/2017/08/07/the-netherlands-and-whypartnership-matters-in-flood-risk-management/ Bush G (1990) George Bush: remarks at the opening session of the white house conference on science and economics research related to global change. April 17, 1990. http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid¼18366 CGSS (2015) Training workshop about “Building capacity for reducing loss and damage resulting from slow and rapid onset climatic extremes through risk reduction and proactive adaptation within the broader context of sustainable development”. APN Funded Coker RJ, Hunter BM, Rudge JW, Liverani M, Hanvoravongchai P (2011) Emerging infectious diseases in Southeast Asia: regional challenges to control. Lancet 377:599–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(10)62004-1 De Groeve T, Thielen-Del Pozo J, Brakenridgdge R, Adler R, Alfieri L, Kull D, Lindsay F, Imperiali O, Papppenberger F, Rudari R, Salamon P, Villars N, Wyjad K (2015) Joining forces in a global flood partnership. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 96(2015):ES97– ES100. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00147.1 Elen MT, Restemeyer B, Bakema MM, Hoven BV (2018) Governing for resilience in vulnerable place. Urban planning and environment. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-13821649-5. Retrieved on 6 Sept 2019 from https://books. google.com.my/books?id¼gOI2DwAAQBAJ& pg¼PT118&lpg¼PT118&dq¼Flood+Network+(Flood. Network,+n.d),+Hebden+Bridge+Flood+Action+Group, +Mytholmroyd+Flood+Group,+Garforth+Flood+ Support+Group,+Bodenham+Flood+Protection+Group, +Todmorden+Flood+Group,+Much+Wenlock+Flood+ Action+Group,+The+National+Flood+Forum+(NFF) +and+Bradford+flood+network+(&source¼bl&ots¼B Bc_vC2uUW&sig¼ACfU3U115KrtU6ADtNrOW6gyeQ vcdYJdyQ&hl¼en&sa¼X&ved¼2ahUKEwij1eW977rkA hULqI8KHfJ4DyAQ6AEwAXoECAYQAQ#v¼onep age&q¼Flood%20Network%20(Flood.Network%2C% 20n.d)%2C%20Hebden%20Bridge%20Flood%20Action% 20Group%2C%20Mytholmroyd%20Flood%20Group%2C %20Garforth%20Flood%20Support%20Group%2C% 20Bodenham%20Flood%20Protection%20Group%2C% 20Todmorden%20Flood%20Group%2C%20Much% 20Wenlock%20Flood%20Action%20Group%2C%20The %20National%20Flood%20Forum%20(NFF)%20and% 20Bradford%20flood%20network%20(&f¼false Elsworth J (2018) Partnership mechanism supports Sendai Framework. UNISDR. Retrieved in 11 March 2019 from https://www.unisdr.org/archive/62405 EMDAT (2017) Number of disasters. OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, Université catholique de Louvain – Brussels – Belgium. Retrieved in 6 Sept 2019 from https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters EPA (2020) Manage Flood risk. Retrieved on 25 July 2020 from https://www.epa.ie/researchandeducation/ research/researchpublications/researchreports/ research268.html

P

884 FEMA (2018) 2018 National Preparedness Report. US Homeland Security. Retrieved in 1 Dec 2020 from h t t p s : / / w w w. f e m a . g o v / m e d i a - l i b r a r y - d a t a / 1541781185823-2ae55a276f604e04b68e2748adc95c68/ 2018NPRRprt20181108v508.pdf Flood Network (n.d.) What is flood network? Retrieved in 14 Mar 2019 from https://flood.network/what Forrest S, Elen MT, Woltjer J (2017) Flood Groups in England: governance arrangements and contribution to flood resilience. Governing for Resilience in Vulnerable Place. Book Chapter. pp 92–115. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9781315103761-7. Retrieved on 6 Sept 2019 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 321225382_Flood_Groups_in_England_Governance_ arrangements_and_contribution_to_flood_resilience Fukami K, Ozawa G, Miyamoto M, Inomata H (2011) Applicability of satellite-based rainfall product to flood runoff analysis with Integrated Flood Analysis System (IFAS) in Asia ©2011 Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN). All rights reserved Geoscience Australia (n.d.) Flood. Australian Government. Retrieved 4 March 2019 from http://www.ga. gov.au/scientific-topics/hazards/flood GFP (n.d.) About us. Retrieved in 8 Mar 2019 from https:// gfp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-us#main Guha-Sapir D, Below R, Hoyois P (2015) EM-DAT: International Disaster Database – www.emdat.be – Université Catholique de Louvain – Brussels – Belgium. Search Terms: Continent – Europe”; Year – “from 2000 until 2014”; Disaster classification – “Natural” > “Hydrological” > “Coastal Flood”, “Flash Flood”, “Riverine Flood”. Search conducted on 16/02/15 IFRC (2009) Legal preparedness for responding to disasters and communicable disease emergencies in Viet Nam (2009). © International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies/Asian Development Bank, 2009 IFRC (2015) International federation of red cross and red crescent societies annual report 2915. Retrieved in 1 Dec 2020 from https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/wp-content/ uploads/sites/5/2016/11/IFRC-Annual-Report-2015EN_LR.pdf IFRC (n.d.) About disaster management. International federation of red cross and red crescent national societies. Retrieved in 4 Mar 2019 from https://www.ifrc.org/en/ what-we-do/disaster-management/about-disastermanagement/ Jackson A (2014) Flooding. Retrieved in 4 Mar 2019 from https://geographyas.info/rivers/flooding/ Kapucu N, Demiroz F (2015) Cross-sector partnerships in managing disasters: experiences from the United States. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55414-1_11 Local Government Association (n.d.) Managing flood risk: roles and responsibilities. Retrieved in 14 Mar 2019 from https://www.local.gov.uk/topics/severe-weather/ flooding/local-flood-risk-management/managingflood-risk-roles-and

Partnership for Flood Disaster Management Myanmar Flood (2015) Myanmar flooding affects one million. BBC News. Retrieved 14 Mar 2019 from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33844076 National Geographic (n.d.) Flood 101. Retrieved in 1 March 2019 from https://www.nationalgeographic. com/environment/natural-disasters/floods/ Ohl CA, Tapsell S (2000) Flooding and human health: the dangers posed are not always obvious. BMJ 321:1167–1168. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7270.1167 Oxford Environment & Conservation (2017) Natural disaster. Science and technology, environmental science, earth sciences and geography. A dictionary of environment and conservation (3 ed). Retrieved in 4 Mar 2019 from http://www.oxfordreference.com/search?q¼nat u r a l + d i s a s t e r & s e a r c h B t n ¼S e a r c h & i s Q u i c k Search¼true Oxford Public Health (2018) Natural disaster. A Dictionary of Public Health (2 ed). Medicine and health, Public Health and Epidemiology. Retrieved in 4 Mar 2019 from http:// www.oxfordreference.com/search?q¼natural+disaster& searchBtn¼Search&isQuickSearch¼true Oxford University Press (2019) Natural disaster. Retrieved in 4 Mar 2019 from https://www.oxfordlearnersdic tionaries.com/definition/american_english/naturaldisaster Ping NS, When U, Zevenbergen C, Zaag PDV (2016) Towards two-way flood risk communication: current practice in a community in the UK. J Water Clim Chang (2016) 7(4):651–664 Priest S (2019) Shared roles and responsibilities in flood risk management. J Flood Risk Manage 12:e12528. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12528 Revilla-Romero B, Hirpa FA, Pozo JT, Salamon P, Brakenridge R, Pappenberger F, De Groeve T (2015) On the use of global flood forecasts and satellitederived inundation maps for flood monitoring in datasparse regions. Remote Sens 7(2015):15702–15728. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71115702 Schumann GJ-P, Frye S, Wells G, Adler R, Brakenridge R, Bolten J, Murray J, Slayback D, Policelli F, Kirschbaum D, Wu H, Cappelaere P, Howard T, Flamig Z, Clark R, Stough T, Chini M, Matgen P, Green D, Jones B (2016) Unlocking the full potential of Earth observation during the 2015 Texas flood disaster. Water Resour Res 52(2016):3288–3293. https:// doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018428 Sendai Framework (2015) Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030 report Thai Floods (2011) Thailand floods: Bangkok ‘impossible to protect’. BBC News. Retrieved in 14 Mar 2019 from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific15381227 The Pew Charitable Trusts (2018) Needed: A new federalstate partnership for flood mitigation (US). Retrieved in 11 Mar 2019 from https://www.preventionweb.net/ news/view/57563 Trewhella S (2017) Rivelin bridge, UK Flood partnership. Retrieved in 14 Mar 2019 from https://www. ukfloodpartnership.co.uk/testimonial-rivelin-bridge

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator Trigg MA, Birch CE, Neal JC, Bates PD, Smith A, Sampson CC, Yamazaki D, Hirabayashi Y, Pappenberger F, Dutra E, Ward PJ, Winsemius HC, Salamon P, Dottori F, Rudari R, Kappes MS, Simpson AL, Hadzilacos G, Fewtrell TJ (2016) The credibility challenge for global fluvial flood risk analysis. Environ Res Lett 11(2016):094014. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1748-9326/11/9/094014 Typhoon Bopha (2012) Typhoon Bopha: Philippines storm toll passes 1,000. BBC News. Retrieved in 14 March 2019 from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-20745450 Typhoon Haiyan (2013) Tropical cyclones: case study: typhoon Haiyan. BBC. Retrieved in 14 Mar 2019 from https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z9whg82/ revision/4 UK Flood Partnership (n.d.) About us. Retrieved in 8 Mar 2019 from https://www.ukfloodpartnership.co.uk/ objectives UN Flood Guidelines (n.d.) Guidelines for reducing flood lossess. Retrieved in 1 Dec 2020 from https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ flood_guidelines.pdf UNDRR (2002) Guidelines for reducing Flood losses. Retrieved on 3 Sept 2019 from https://www.unisdr. org/we/inform/publication/558 UNDRR (n.d.) Poverty and inequality. Retrieved in 6 Sept 2019 from https://www.preventionweb.net/risk/ poverty-inequality UNESCAP (n.d.) Asia-Pacific countries boost disaster resilience efforts at regional UN meeting. Retrieved in 15 Mar 2019 from https://www.unescap.org/news/asiapacific-countries-boost-disaster-resilience-effortsregional-un-meeting UNISDR (2007) Hyogo framework for action 2005-2015: building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Retrieved in 1 Dec 2020 from https://www. unisdr.org/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactio nenglish.pdf UNISDR (2007a) Emergency management terminology. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/ter minology. 19 March 2015 UNISDR (2007b) Public awareness terminology. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminol ogy. 19 March 2015 UNISDR (2007c) Resilience Terminology. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology. 19 March 2015. UNISDR Annual Report (2018) UNISDR (2007d) Hyogo Framework for Action 2005– 2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. Retrieved on 1 December 2020 from https://www.unisdr.org/files/1037_hyogoframework foractionenglish.pdf UNISDR (2009) Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2009. Retrieved on 5 Sept 2019 from https:// www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/report/ index.php?id¼9413 UNISDR (2018) Partnership mechanism supports Sendai Framework. Retrieved on 3 Sept 2019 from https:// www.unisdr.org/archive/62405

885 UNISDR (n.d.-a) Sustainable development. Retrieved in 4 Mar 2019 from https://www.unisdr.org/who-we-are/ history UNISDR (n.d.-b) Who we are. Retrieved in 11 Mar 2019 from https://www.unisdr.org/who-we-are UNISDR Terminology (2017) Disaster management 02 Feb 2017. Retrieved in 4 Mar 2019 from https:// www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology US Homeland Security (2011) Presidential policy directive 8. Retrieved in 3 Sept 2019 from https://www.dhs.gov/ presidential-policy-directive-8-national-preparedness USDS and MFA (1992) 1992 Tokyo declaration on the Japan-U.S. Global partnership and its action plan. January 9, 1992. http://www.mac.doc.gov/japankorea/market-opening/ta920109.htm Ward PJ, Jongman B, Salamon P, Simpson A, Bates P, Groeve TD, Muis S, de Perez EC, Rudari R, Trigg MA, Winsemius HC (2015) Usefulness and limitations of global flood risk models. Nat Clim Change 5(2015):712–715. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nclimate2742

Partnership for the Goals ▶ Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator Marlinah Muslim1,2, Siti Fairuz Mohd Radzi3 and Mohd Sayuti Hassan3 1 School of Biological Studies, Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia 2 Student Affair Division, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia 3 Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

Synonyms Index and indicator in SDGs; Partnership for the Goals; SDG indicators

P

886

Definition According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2019), indicator is defined as something that shows or demonstrates the condition or level of an entity. Today, individuals and organizations use indicators for development purposes especially for performance measurement in various fields (Soares and Quintella 2008). Key performance index (KPI) is one of the most common terms used by many organizations to refer to an achievement based on cumulative measure at a given period of time (Roubtsova and Michell 2014). Developing a set of indicators has become one of the most crucial steps in the development plan of a country to ensure that the development can be assessed and monitored efficiently and systematically. This was agreed by Waas et al. (2014), who defended that developing a good indicator, especially in sustainable development context, is pertinent as a decision-supporting tool which could help in improving a development plan of a city or country.

Introduction Indicator or assessment is important for measuring a performance of an entity in various criteria. According to Beck (1997), the 1990s is the beginning of reflexive modernization. Concepts of well-being and quality of life are reconsidered in the new development agendas such as Human Development Index and Sustainable Development Index. Soares and Quintella (2008) mentioned that the large majority of the main development indices studies have only partially considered the dimensions advocated in literature and the majority of them only responded to the social and economic dimensions and only observed some aspects of the phenomenon that they intend to measure. When discussing about indicators, there is a need for a group of people to be involved and work together for the indicators be it to develop or to apply them. Because of the feeling of responsibility to the coming world as mentioned by Duchet (1984), partnerships for a sustainable development must be

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator

considered as a major factor for a better world. Partnership for sustainable development is evident in major international documents published by the United Nations (UN) such as the Stockholm Declaration (1972), the Brundtland Report (1987), Agenda 21 (1992), the Earth Charter (2003), the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (2002), the Future We Want (2012), and other relevant national reports (Suzyrman et al. 2014). These documents were produced by the UN as a part of their efforts in ensuring that sustainable development is implemented in all countries and that the people all over the world work together for a better world by 2030.

Global Sustainable Development Indicator According to the UN Statistics, 232 unique indicators have been listed in SDG framework. These indicators which include 8.4.1/12.2.1, 8.4.2/12.2.2, 10.3.1/16.b.1, 10.6.1/16.8.1, 15.7.1/15.c.1, 15.a.1/ 15.b.1, 1.5.1/11.5.1/13.1.1, 1.5.3/11.b.1/13.1.2, and 1.5.4/11.b.2/13.1.3 have been located in two or three different targets in SDGs. However, the indicators listed in the SDGs are developed without any calculation methods or measurement tool; thus, partnership initiatives can be helpful to find a solution for measuring SDG indicators systematically and accurately. SDGs were developed by the UN to assist governments, businesses, and civil societies to understand the challenges needed to be dealt with in order to achieve the 2030 Agenda. According to Guijarro and Poyatos (2018), even though the indicators can help to accurately measure, monitor, and control different dimensions related to sustainable development, it can disrupt efficient accounting for a universal accomplishment measure. A strong partnership for SDG indicators can be the best solution to overcome said problem. In addition, Guijarro and Poyatos (2018) also stated that in the current structure of SDGs, the composite index construction should be addressed in two steps: the combination of the indicators of every particular SDG to compute the corresponding estimated SDG in which all the indicators regarding one SDG can be summarized into a single variable and the combination of

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator

previously estimated SDGs to compute the composite SDG index. One of the examples provided by Guijarro and Poyatos (2018) is a research conducted in six developing countries in South Asia and subSaharan Africa through which it was found that there exists a strong alliance among various SDG indicators in the countries involved. Other study led by Nilsson et al. (2016) found that compatibility conflict between economic development and ecological sustainability has become one of the confined aspects that constrain a country in achieving multiple SDGs, which can be solved through partnerships with other countries that share similar economic and ecological characteristics.

Tools and Methods to Assess Sustainable Development Indicator Reviews and references about sustainability assessment are wide and updated steadily, with different interpretations and implementations (Bond et al. 2012). There are conceptual and holistic proposals based on sustainability principles (Gibson 2006) which introduce frameworks that cover and combine different values and perspectives of sustainability. At the same time, there are also more concrete and operational approaches that aim to define and derive sustainability criteria or pillars to develop the concept of sustainability operational system (Omann 2004; Pope et al. 2004; Gibson 2006; Cinelli et al. 2013). The most common approach is the triple bottom line (TBL) approach, which is based on the environmental, economic, and social pillars, having equal importance in management today (Pope et al. 2004; Gibson 2006; Convertino et al. 2013; Subramanian et al. 2014). But how far would people develop the collaboration and partnership through sustainable development indicator? Thus, in order to meet sustainability needs, international organizations have carried out many initiatives aimed at defining sustainability indicators such as initiatives made by OECD, UN, UNEP, UNCHS, UNCSD, and UNDP. These organizations have explored such indicators in different contexts (e.g., the forest, urban, and

887 Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator, Table 1 Established Sustainable Development Indices in various fields worldwide that create many categories of partnership Sustainable Development Index, measurement and dashboard City Sustainability Index (CSI), established in 2012 until present Ecological Footprint (EF), established in 1996 until present Sustainability Index (ESI), established in 1999 until 2005 Dashboard of Sustainability (DS), established in 1990 Well-Being Index (WI), established in 2001 Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) City Development Index, established in 1996 Human Development Index (HDI), established in 1999 WUSA of Universiti Sains Malaysia, established in 2016 UI GreenMetric, established in 2010 SUSDEX AND SUSDEXPLUS, established in 2010 Low Carbon City Framework (LCCF) by KeTTHA Malaysia, established in April 2009 until present Malaysian Criteria, Indicators, Activities and Standards of Performance (MC&I), established in 1994

waste management, the monitoring of emissions, the assessment of environmental impacts of the economic growth, and the repercussions of economic changes on the society). The abundance of Sustainable Development Index initiatives and metrics seems to lead to “indicator industry” (King et al. 2000; Parris and Kates 2003) which indicates three major areas in sustainable development (social, economy, and environment). Table 1 illustrates the list of Sustainable Development Indices that measure sustainable development status in achieving sustainability.

Partnership for Sustainable Development Goals The importance of partnership has been fully recognized by the UN, businesses, and all leading institutions in international development (Stibbe et al. 2018). Based on the practical guide book by Stibbe et al. (2018) for the particular SDG, there are three types of partnership: (1) The first category is leverage/exchange, (2) the second

P

888

category is combine/integrate, and (3) the final category is transform. Partnership can bring benefits such as bringing about opportunities, increasing funds, generating maximum impact, generating most value from their perspective, and avoiding ones that may be an inefficient use of their resources. Partnership such as among developed-developing countries is important to deal with issues related to geographically independent services (Everard et al. 2017), while partnership among public-private authorities can help to achieve sustainable rural development and urbanization (Bjärstig and Sandström 2017; Xiong et al. 2020). Apart from the guidelines from the guide book, initiatives made by the UN by creating the Partnership Platform for SDGs have maximized the partnership itself. There are already many partnerships for SDGs all over the world such as in Human Rights Habitat Observatory, Sea Turtle Restoration and Protection, Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML), Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data, Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC), Sustainable Water and Energy Solutions, Decent Jobs for Youth, SDG 7 Partnership Exchange, Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and The Ocean Conference. There are 169 targets in SDGs, and every target comes with its own indicator(s). Some measurements in SDG indicators use index system and other methodologies such as tariff, numbers or amount of a subject, total cost of spending, proportion, average income, rate or ratio, existence of a subject, GDP, investment, total area, and progress of a subject. Below is the list of indicators in SDGs that utilize and incorporate specific indices for SDG measurement: • SDG4 (Target 4.5/Indicator 4.5.1): Parity indices (female/male, rural/urban, bottom/top wealth quintile and others such as disability status, indigenous peoples, and conflictaffected, as data become available) for all education indicators on this list that can be disaggregated • SDG12 (Target 12.3/Indicator 12.3.1): Global Food Loss Index

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator

• SDG14 (Target 14.1/Indicator 14.1.1): Index of coastal eutrophication and floating plastic debris density • SDG15 (Target 15.4 Indicator 15.4.2): Mountain Green Cover Index • SDG15 (Target 15.5:Indicator 15.5.1): Red List Index • SDG17 (Target 17.1/Indicator 17.1.1): Total government revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP), by source The reason this entry also emphasizes on the index is because the partnership in SDGs through the indicators can be seen from several types of partnership initiatives. Based on the discussion above with regard to the types of partnership and index, the authors of the paper have summarized all of the mentioned partnership initiatives as shown in Fig. 1.

Partnership Initiative Through Sustainable Development Indicator According to the UN Knowledge Platform, there are 244 indicators, but since nine indicators are found under two or three different targets, the actual total number of individual indicators in the list is 232. It is a good thing to have such indicators to assess and evaluate 17 goals and 169 targets of the SDGs, but there are countries that might be left behind in the process of achieving the SDG targets as data collection is not complete due to nonexistent data (Dunning 2016). The UN Statistics Division (2017) in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs found that only 40 of the applicable global SDG indicators (20%) are currently available; another 47 global indicators (23%) are considered easily feasible, meaning that the data source is principally available. Existing capacity is heavily dependent on external support, and the additional resources are imperative in monitoring the rest 145 indicators which are not revealed in depth in the report (UNSD 2018). Due to this fact, partnership through indicator must be done regardless of the kind of method and type of work to achieve the 2030 Agenda.

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator

889

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator, Fig. 1 Partnership initiatives by category

As of September 2019, the UN has created 4,835 partnerships in all SDGs, and the partnerships will increase with time. For instance, SDG17 has successfully created 1,027 partnerships with various public and private organizations such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), UCSI Group (Malaysia), Cookshire Primary School, Newtown Development, Jan Green Realtor, and Edward’s Mother Earth Foundation. Table 2 illustrates the number of partnerships and indicators of every goal in SDGs. Furthermore, many initiatives have been conducted by the UN and collaborated by many public and private organizations as a part of their responsibilities to realize the 2030 Agenda. The initiatives are listed as follows (United Nations 2019):

• Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) • Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data • Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML) • Sea Turtle Restoration and Protection • Human Rights Habitat Observatory

• • • • •

World University Sustainability Assessment (WUSA) by Universiti Sains Malaysia (Radzi and Hassan 2019) Universiti Sains Malaysia has embarked on the sustainability journey since 2000 whereby

The Ocean Conference Small Island Development States SDG 7 Partnership Exchange Decent Jobs for Youth Sustainable Water and Energy Solution

Besides the initiatives by the UN members, there are also other initiatives that have been conducted by other organizations or networks which are aligned with the SDG targets and highly in support of the 2030 Agenda by the UN. The following list presents the partnerships for the SDGs which could be used and become an example to other organizations to achieve the SDG targets.

P

890

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator, Table 2 Partnerships and indicators in UN SDG Partnership Platform as of September 2019 (United Nations 2019) SDG 1: 666 partnerships 14 indicators SDG 2: 624 partnerships 13 indicators SDG 3: 559 partnerships 27 indicators SDG 4: 973 partnerships 11 indicators SDG 5: 741 partnerships 14 indicators

SDG 6: 534 partnerships 11 indicators SDG 7: 586 partnerships 6 indicators SDG 8: 1,044 partnerships 17 indicators SDG 9: 415 partnerships 12 indicators SDG10: 376 partnerships 11 indicators

the campus has embodied protection of ecology, resource conservation, and actions aimed at promoting sustainable transformation. USM has embodied the vision of transforming higher education for a sustainable tomorrow (Universiti Sains Malaysia 2008) which led to the university being awarded the Accelerated Programme for Excellence (APEX) status from the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education. However, there comes a challenge where the university could not merely claim that it is a sustainability-led university without any comprehensive and holistic process to measure its successfulness at integrating sustainability within the university environment as the term sustainability is a hard topic to understand, assess, and implement commonly in higher education institutions (Koshy et al. 2013). Monitoring and evaluation processes are important in transforming USM into a sustainability-led university; thus, a body must be established to bring about the transformation process. In 2009, USM has taken the initiative to establish the Centre for Global Sustainability Studies (CGSS) and University Sustainability Council (USC) to centrally mainstream and coordinate the sustainability shift. These pertinent bodies have been established as a conduit for integrating sustainability and addressing sustainability challenges within the university’s domain; these are done through the establishment of USM Sustainability Model. USM Sustainability Model was developed to connect sustainability pillar known as the “triple bottom line”: social, economy, and environment with USM’s core educational approaches,

SDG 11: 549 partnerships 15 indicators SDG 12: 731 partnerships 13 indicators SDG 13: 865 partnerships 8 indicators SDG 14: 1,865 partnerships 10 indicators SDG 15: 552 partnerships 14 indicators

SDG 16: 459 partnerships 23 indicators SDG 17: 1,027 partnerships 25 indicators

teaching, research, and community engagement to address specific sustainability challenges which are summed up into WEHAB+3 (+3 refers to cross-sectoral issues) established by the United Nations: water, energy, health, agriculture, biodiversity, climate change and disaster risk management, production and consumption, and population and poverty. However, for these sustainability bodies to monitor and evaluate the sustainability initiatives conducted by 156 departments in USM, a tool is required to ensure that the monitoring and evaluation processes are conducted systematically and efficiently. Thus, an indicator-based methodology was developed by the CGSS USM to enhance sustainability integration within the university domain. A computerized tool designated as the World University Sustainability Assessment (WUSA), formerly known as Sustainability Assessment Methodology (SAM), is an indicator-based methodology developed for systematic monitoring and evaluation processes (Radzi and Hassan 2017). WUSA was inspired by the concept of Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS), a self-reporting framework initiated by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) which has helped higher education institutions in North America to coordinate sustainability efforts in teaching, research, and operations (Sibly et al. 2014). WUSA aims at providing evaluation to individuals and higher education institutions to gauge the level of sustainability implementation and providing guidance to them in building sustainability content in their mission activities. This

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator

includes reorienting the existing courses or designing and managing new research- and community-oriented projects to ensure that more sustainability elements are integrated. In 2012, WUSA was first put into practice to assist USM at addressing sustainability issues which have become more common nowadays, under the broad framework of WEHAB+3 by analyzing the level of sustainability content in academic programs offered to prospective students. To do this, WUSA has utilized a set of predefined sustainability criteria and indicators (refer to Table 3) that have been identified from the following international agreed documents published by the UN. This set of sustainability criteria and indicators has been developed and nested into WUSA application to assist in evaluating, designing, and implementing sustainability mainstream in teaching, research, community engagement, and institutional arrangement throughout the university in an efficient and systematic manner. WUSA, which is able to identify 12 sustainability criteria of a report or course content, provides guidance to departments in USM in reviewing and improving the academic programs and courses to integrate more sustainability elements (Radzi and Hassan 2017). The sustainability criteria include WEHAB+3 (water, energy, health, agriculture, biodiversity, climate change and disaster risk management, population and poverty, and production and consumption), the triple bottom line (social, economy, and environment), and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) which contains 24 sustainability indicators. In USM, each department is required to develop a course synopsis for every course created as a quick reference for its prospective students. These course synopses concurrently help the university to monitor the sustainability elements of the academic courses. The input document would go to a screening process prior to being assessed for the percentage of sustainability elements found in the document. The result generated by WUSA is in percentage value which can be used for auditing or ranking purposes: for instance, to assess which academic program or course contains the highest level of sustainability

891

elements in the syllabus content. WUSA will classify the assessment results into three color codes based on the percentages generated: red for low sustainability content (0–29%), yellow for medium sustainability content (30–69%), and green for high sustainability content (70–100%). This numerical result would help all departments in assessing USM’s sustainability aspirations which are normally difficult to quantify manually. This result can also help each department in USM to monitor changes and progress to its current programs and activities from time to time (Sibly et al. 2014). UI GreenMetric World Ranking (UIGMWR) by Universitas Indonesia (Universitas Indonesia 2018a) UI GreenMetric World Ranking (UIGMWR), formerly known as world university ranking, is an initiative embarked in 2010 by a group of multidisciplinary experts: environmental sciences, engineering, architecture and urban design, computer engineering, dentistry, public health, statistics, chemistry, physics, and linguistics and cultural studies from Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia to measure the efforts taken by universities toward improving sustainability through the development of green campuses. Acknowledging the pressing global challenges faced by many countries worldwide, the group of experts developed UIGMWR, an online survey tool to provide results regarding the efforts in terms of activities and policies related to sustainability and green campus implemented by the participating universities. The main objectives of the ranking are to advocate academic discourses on sustainability in education and the green efforts in campuses, to push for social change related to sustainability goals, to become a tool for self-assessment on campus sustainability for higher education institutions globally, and to acknowledge the governments, international and local environmental agencies, and the society pertaining to sustainability programs implemented on campus environment (Universitas Indonesia 2018b; Suwartha and Sari 2013). During its debut in 2010, UIGMWR has attracted 95 universities from 35 countries to be assessed and ranked for

P

892

sustainability efforts, and the number continued to accelerate subsequently. As of 2018, 719 universities from 76 countries from different continents have participated in the ranking system to obtain many advantages such as world recognition and increase of international collaboration with other universities by introducing and promoting their continuous sustainability efforts to the public. UIGMWR was idealized based on the need to increase the number of green campuses worldwide to help in reducing the impact of climate change through sustainable development. UIGMWR has used several existing sustainability ranking systems as a reference model during the design phase which include: 1. Holcim Sustainability Awards (an international sustainability competition based in Switzerland) 2. GREENSHIP, a rating system developed by the Green Building Council of Indonesia based on a green building certification program called Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), founded by a nonprofit council, US Green Building Council (USGBC) 3. Sustainability, Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) 4. College Sustainability Report Card (also known as the Green Report Card) 5. Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE) sponsored by Thomson Reuters 6. QS World University Rankings published by Quacquarelli Symonds 7. Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) founded by Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) 8. Webometrics Ranking of World Universities (Webometrics), published by Cybermetrics Lab, CINDOC-CSIC in Spain Participating universities are evaluated and ranked based on six main criteria which consist of 39 indicators: setting and infrastructure, energy and climate change, waste, water, transportation, and education. The evaluation is performed descriptively and qualitatively based on the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator

(Barron 2017) to ensure that accountability and quality assurance is met (Suwartha and Sari 2013). Each indicator is provided with a unique code for reference and calculation purposes. Based on the Berlin Principles, the indicators were designed and weighed based on the following criteria: the method to weigh the indicators should be transparent, selection of relevant indicators, measurement of the outcomes based on the inputs, and limitation of changes to indicator’s weight to avoid difficulty to users (Barron 2017; Suwartha and Sari 2013). Each criterion and indicator, including the calculation method, is reviewed by UIGMWR team every year to reduce any demerit which is conducted by allowing participating universities to provide their feedback and comments to the team with regard to the final ranking result. This method ensures that any loophole or demerit can be assessed holistically by the team. Other than that, the ranking system is updated from time to time to follow the advancement of ESD and other new initiatives embarked by the UN. SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2018 (Sachs et al. 2018) The purpose of the SDG Index and Dashboards is to assist countries to identify priorities for action in order to achieve the 17 SDGs even though the SDG Index and Dashboards are not the official SDG monitoring tools and are subject to many important limitations: for instance, modification to indicators which makes it difficult to compare the indicators across different years (Sachs et al. 2018). This initiative is not only a collaboration between the Bertelsmann Stiftung and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network but also a good practice in improving partnerships and encouraging many countries to participate in the global partnerships. The indicators and dashboards would help countries to figure out any key implementation challenge and assess the progress toward the goals by comparing their progress with peer countries (Sachs et al. 2018). The report discovered some important findings which can be a lesson to countries and help them to improve their efforts toward fulfilling SDG indicators. Some of the findings are the fact that “no country is on track towards achieving all SDGs, conflicts

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator

are leading to reversals in SDG progress, and progress towards sustainable consumption and production patterns is too slow.” Prior to discovering these appalling findings, the UN Statistics Commission has recommended over 230 official indicators to all countries that wish to implement SDGs. According to Sachs et al. (2018), the Bertelsmann Stiftung and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) have assessed the performance of G20 countries such as Brazil and Italy through a set of surveys that contained 15 questions with subquestions which comprised five main aspects: “(a) national strategy and baseline assessments in the executive, (b) coordinating units in the executive, (c) budgeting practices in the executive, (d) legislative actions, and (e) main challenges to implement SDGs.” Once the assessment was complete, a report card was produced for each country which consists of the country’s performance on the implementation of SDGs (Wahlen 2019). This assessment would allow countries with flaws in certain indicators to learn from countries that received high scores and could potentially create a strong partnership between the countries. The creation of this global partnership has directly helped the partnered countries to achieve Goal 17.

893

of incomplete data which is crucial in assessing their performance in SDGs; thus, the partnership could be a good start to overcome this palpable issue. There are three types of partnership: exchange, integration, and transformation. Partnership through SDG indicators might use index system or without specific index by using tariff, numbers or amount on something, total cost or spending, proportion, average income, rate or ratio, existence of something, GDP, investment, total area, and progress and all of these indicators need the availability of data for SDG evaluation. There are 232 indicators used to assess and evaluate 17 goals and 169 targets of SDGs. There are several initiatives organized by the UN to work on the indicators to achieve specific targets: The Ocean Conference, Small Island Development States, SDG 7 Partnership Exchange, Decent Jobs for Youth, Sustainable Water and Energy Solution, Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC), Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data, Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML), Sea Turtle Restoration, and Protection and Human Rights Habitat Observatory. These initiatives show that achieving SDG targets is no longer an impossible task to be fulfilled by anyone and that the slogan “Leave No One Behind” and a better life for all living things can be realized by 2030.

Conclusion Partnership is a very powerful initiative to ensure the success of SDGs. Other than the UN, other organizations are also working hard to ensure that sustainability can be realized throughout the world by presenting the achievement through the SDG indicators and qualitative and quantitative measurements. Without a strong partnership among institutions and countries, each target in SDGs could not be achieved and the world will not be sustainable by 2030 as aspired by the UN. The aspiration thus demands a strong commitment, systematic policy, and an environment that enables sustainable development integration at all levels and sectors by all means. There are some countries that might be left behind in the process of achieving SDGs because

Cross-References ▶ Global Partnership ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inter-governmental Partnerships and Global Governance ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Systems and Systemic Approaches for Attaining the SDGs Across Partnerships

References Barron GRS (2017) The Berlin principles on ranking higher education institutions: limitations, legitimacy, and value conflict. High Educ 73:317. Retrieved from

P

894 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0022-z. On 18 February 2019 Beck U (1997) The opening of the world horizon: the sociology of globalization. Nomos, Baden Baden Bjärstig T, Sandström C (2017) Public-private partnerships in a Swedish rural context – a policy tool for the authorities to achieve sustainable rural development? J Rural Stud 49:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jrurstud.2016.11.009 Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J (2012) Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 30:53–62 Cinelli M, Coles RS, Kirwan K (2013) Use of multi criteria decision analysis to support life cycle sustainability assessment: an analysis of the appropriateness of the available methods. In: The 6th international conference on life cycle management, Gothenburg, Sweden Convertino M, Baker KM, Vogel JT, Lu C, Suedel B, Linkov I (2013) Multicriteria decision analysis to select metrics for design and monitoring of sustainable ecosystem restorations. Ecol Indic 26:76–86. Management, 25–28 August, 2013, Gothenburg, pp 677–680 Duchet M (1984) Le partage des savoirs – discours historique, discours ethnologique. Editions La Découverte, Paris Dunning C (2016) 230 indicators approved for SDG Agenda. Ideas to action: independent research for global prosperity. Center for Global Development. Retrieved in 6 March 2019 from https://www.cgdev. org/blog/230-indicators-approved-sdg-agenda Everard M, Longhurst J, Pontin J, Stephenson W, Brooks J (2017) Developed-developing world partnerships for sustainable development (1): an ecosystem services perspective. Ecosyst Serv 24:241–252. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.020 Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 24:170–182 Guijarro F, Poyatos JA (2018) Designing a sustainable development goal index through a goal programming model: the case of EU-28 countries. Sustainability 10:3167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093167 King C, Gunton J, Freebairn D, Coutts J, Webb I (2000) The sustainability indicator industry: where to from here? A focus group study to explore the potential of farmer participation in the development of indicators. Aust J Exp Agric 40:631–642 Koshy KC, Nor NM, Sibly S, Rahim AA, Jegatesen G, Muhamad M (2013) An indicator-based approach to sustainability monitoring and mainstreaming at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions. Springer, Cham. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31902375-5_14. On 22 February 2019 Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016) Policy: map the interactions between sustainable development goals: Nature 534:320–323. https://www.nature.com/news/ policy-map-the-interactions-between-sustainabledevelopment-goals-1.20075

Partnership Through Sustainable Development Indicator Omann I (2004) Multi-criteria decision aid as an approach for sustainable development analysis and implementation. PHD Thesis, University of Graz Parris TM, Kates RW (2003) Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:559–586 Pope J, Annandale D, Morrison-Saunders A (2004) Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24:595–616 Radzi SFM, Hassan MS (2017) World University Sustainability Assessment (WUSA) tool: investigating sustainability content in mathematics subject in Universiti Sains Malaysia. J Sustain Educ 16:1–11. ISSN: 2151-7452 Radzi SFM, Hassan MS (2019) A digital supportive tool for assessing sustainability in programme courses: a case of Universiti Sains Malaysia. Int J Res Prog Educ Dev 8(2):1030–1042. https://doi.org/10.6007/ IJARPED/v8-i2/6157 Roubtsova E, Michell V (2014) KPIs and their properties defined with the EXTREME method. In: Shishkov B (eds) Business modeling and software design. BMSD 2013. Lecture notes in business information processing, vol 173. Springer, Cham. https://link. springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-06671-4_7 Sachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, Lafortune G, Fuller G (2018) SDG index and dashboards report 2018. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), New York Sibly S, Rahim AA, Manaf NA, Othman M (2014) Sustainability assessment methodology: measuring Universiti Sains Malaysia’s transformation to a sustainability-led university. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.3920/978-90-8686-802-5_25. On 22 February 2019 Soares J Jr, Quintella RH (2008) Development: an analysis of concepts, measurement and indicators. 5:104–124. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-76922008000200003 Stibbe D, Reid S, Gilbert J (2018) Maximising the impact of partnerships for the SDGs; A practical guide to partnership value creation. The Partnering Initiative and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Copyright 2018. Retrieved in 26 February 2019 from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/2564Maximising_the_impact_of_ partnerships_for_the_SDGs.pdf Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014) Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today Suwartha N, Sari RF (2013) Evaluating UI GreenMetric as a tool to support green universities development: assessment of the year 2011 ranking. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.034. On 22 February 2019 Suzyrman S, Rahim AA, Fizri FFA, Manaf NA, Othman M (2014) P. B Corcoran and Hollingshead. Intergenerational learning and transformative leadership for sustainable futures. ©Wageningan Academic Publisher. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-802-5_25 UN Statistics Division (2017) SDG indicators and targets. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/

Partnership-Oriented RSC Toward CDW Recycling United Nations (2019) Partnerships for the SDGs. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnerships/ Universitas Indonesia (2018a) The 4th international workshop on UI GreenMetric world university rankings programme book and abstracts Universitas Indonesia (2018b) Guideline: UI GreenMetric work university rankings, Integrated laboratory and research center, Universitas Indonesia Universiti Sains Malaysia (2008) The APEX University Universiti Sains Malaysia transforming higher education for a sustainable tomorrow. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang UNSD (2018) The Sustainable Development Goals report 2018. United Nations, New York Waas T, Hugé J, Block T, Wright T, Benitez-Capistros F, Verbruggen A (2014) Sustainability assessment and indicators: tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development. Sustainability 6(9):5512–5534. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6095512 Wahlen CB (2019) SDSN, Bertelsmann Stiftung invites comments on 2019 SDG index, dashboard. https:// sdg.iisd.org/news/sdsn-bertelsmann-stiftung-invitescomments-on-2019-sdg-index-dashboard/9 Xiong W, Chen B, Wang H, Zhu D (2020) Public–private partnerships as a governance response to sustainable urbanization: lessons from China. Habitat Int 95:102095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2019. 102095

895

to the production cycle or direct them to the appropriate final destination. Supply Chain (SC): Is a set of companies, firms, and/or industries involved in the upstream and downstream flows of products, services, information, and/or finances from a source to a client. Reverse Supply Chain (RSC): A supply chain that contains activities required to retrieve a used product from a customer and either dispose or reuse it. Relies upon solid partnerships to be in place with the public administration where companies receive substantive support, both regulatory and financial. Public-Private Partnership (PPP): A longterm contractual agreement between public and private sectors aiming to transfer infrastructure resources or services once considered the exclusive responsibility of the public administration. Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW): Globally understood as by-products of the construction industry and is an inherent part of its life cycle. Its material forms may be raw or processed and anything in between.

Introduction

Partnership-Oriented Reverse Supply Chain Toward Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Rayra Brandão1, Susan Ang2 and Antonio Erlindo Braga Jr.3 1 Business School, Rural Federal University of the Amazon, Belém, Brazil 2 School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University Australia, Geelong, VIC, Australia 3 Department of Design, State University of Pará, Belém, Brazil

Definition Reverse Logistics (RL): A revaluation process of post-consumer waste. This process occurs through the collection, pre-treatment, remanufacture, and distribution, seeking to reintroduce them

The construction industry presents both built and unbuilt environments with diametrically colluding dilemmas. It creates opportunity as well as a disaster to economies and to communities in cyclic frequency. When unchecked, its impacts present adverse environmental impacts. The substantive nature of this industry sees partnerships and diverse stakeholderships residing side by side or hierarchically to symbiotically survive and thrive. The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development” casts a broad lens upon systemic frameworks and processes of procurement, implementation, and delivery within the construction industry which beg to be examined, reviewed, monitored, and intervened with more closely as the date for the UN 2030 Agenda looms closer. Construction and demolition waste (CDW), globally understood as by-products of the

P

896

construction industry, are inherent in its life cycle. Its material forms may be raw or processed and anything in between. Possessing inherent characteristics of rapid and high generation volume, low recycling rate, and low wealth margins thereby low stakeholder interests contribute grave environmental damage. Moreover, there are at least three UN’s SDGs that are counterproductive toward the alleviation of CDW production volumes: SDG 1 (No poverty), 8 (Decent work and economic growth), and 9 (Industry, innovation, and infrastructure). Those CDW singularities hinder the achievement of the UN’s SDG Goal 17 for sustainable development. To tackle this issue, several recycling/remanufacturing plants have been created all around the world, with technology to recover the most varied types and classes of CDW. Construction is not in itself an act of sustainability unless we are talking about constructing something from waste materials or by-products. Post-consumer waste becomes an available resource when it can be dealt with responsibly or with intent. In 2017 alone, 20.4 million tons of construction and demolition waste (CDW) was generated in Australia. Approximately 66% of this was recycled (Pickin et al. 2018). By comparison, as much as 1.8 billion tons of CDW is generated yearly in China, with a recycling rate as little as 5% (Xinhua 2018). Worse still, much of this is disposed of in illegal landfills (Tam et al. 2014; Xu et al. 2018). Regardless of individual national practices, whether relatively positive or not, overall CDW generation and disposal chains result in significant negative impacts on the environment contributing to the increase of energy consumption and depleting finite landfill resources. Hosseini et al. (2013) performed a systematic review of RL in the construction industry and concluded that CDW management was a neglected area within civil construction studies. A systemic problem that lies at the crux of any waste management strategy where recycling/ remanufacturing facilities are not usually a part of a reverse supply chain (RSC) specific for construction and demolition waste (CDW) makes the recovery process cost prohibitive, especially where companies are unable to receive and process large volumes of waste continuously. Unlike

Partnership-Oriented RSC Toward CDW Recycling

a common supply chain (SC), a reverse supply chain requires solid partnerships to be in place with the public administration as companies need substantive support, both regulatory and financial, to operate efficiently. In underdeveloped regions, for example, in parts of India, Sinha et al. (2010) found the situation to be untenable when combined with the unavailability of recycling technologies and infrastructures at a commercial level, and the absence of quality standards for recycled aggregates and non-commitment from the recycling institutions, that make it difficult to popularize CDW recycling. The intentions of this entry are rooted in a shared philosophy of multidisciplinary integrated collaborative approach reliant upon initiating creation of sustainable management of multi-stakeholder partnerships, scribed exactly as per SDG 17.16 and SDG 17.17: “17.16 Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries.” “17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.”

This entry offers literature-based knowledge of partnership-oriented reverse supply chain approaches to CDW in the construction industry and provokes enquiry into the wider implications and impacts on the environment when considered in the context of the UN’s SDG 17 Agenda. The argument is for not only localized collaborative thinking and approaches to be prioritized but for an international united approach to be adopted due to globalization, world economic index, and sustainable development goals involving partnerships and cross-fertilization of knowledge, expertise, and experience.

Partnership-Oriented Reverse Supply Chain: Scope, Definitions, and Value Partnerships are instrumental for connecting different stakeholders of a supply chain and scale up beneficial outcomes. It helps to overcome

Partnership-Oriented RSC Toward CDW Recycling

organizational gaps through the sharing of knowledge, capacity, and resources and dispersing capital and reputational risk among actors (Furumo and Lambin 2020). Collaboration facilitates multi-sectoral stakeholders of a supply chain in the processes of internal planning, forecasting, replenishment and external information, resource, and incentive sharing. Analyzing the SC relationships from a buyer and supplier perspective is possible to observe that this collaboration led to an increase of trust and commitment between the SC stakeholders (Nyaga et al. 2010). For both small and large firms, developing longterm partnerships with key stakeholders in their SC is essential for generating and seizing value as it is for building a viable business strategy (Veleva and Bodkin 2018). The development of partnerships is typically determined by political circumstances within institutions (i.e., environmental agencies); however, it can be motivated by external turbulence (e.g., focusing events) and opportunities to align with non-state actors (Andonova et al. 2017). Therefore, partnerships have the potential to be a strategy for governments to mobilize actors and stakeholders toward the UN SDGs. The concept of a public-private partnership (PPP) is defined as a long-term contractual agreement between public and private sectors aiming to transfer infrastructure resources or services once considered the exclusive responsibility of the public administration. PPPs are popular worldwide; nevertheless, they have proven to be deficient. Some of the challenges identified include “long negotiation time, lack of transparency, lack of flexibility and uneven risk and return distribution” (Bao et al. 2019, p. 14). PPP arrangements can engage firms who do not ordinarily initiate collaboration on their own (Furumo and Lambin 2020). Lu and Yuan’s (2011) CDW management state-of-the-art analysis found too much effort to be devoted to waste reduction: effort (23.8%), generation (23.8%), and recycling (23.8%). It was further observed that insufficient attention was attributed to actual CDW elimination (6.1%) and reuse (4.1%). It was argued that CDW recycling can offer three benefits: reducing

897

demand for new resources; reducing transportation cost and energy production; and the use of waste that will otherwise be lost in landfills.

Literature Review Related to Reverse Supply Chain in the Global Context Several studies in the scientific community use the terms “reverse logistics” and “reverse supply chains” as synonyms; nevertheless, those concepts are a bit different. Reverse logistics (RL) can be described as the revaluation process of post-consumer waste. This process occurs through the collection, pre-treatment, remanufacture, and distribution, seeking to re-introduce them to the production cycle or direct them to the appropriate final destination. It seeks to minimize waste and its negative impacts and maximize positive impacts, whether environmental, social, or economic (Valle and Gabbay 2014). RL is applicable more readily to industrial waste, as opposed to solid waste. This happens because industrial waste is characterized as a special class of waste for its organized commercialization and better quality compared to other waste generation sources. Moreover, they are generated in relatively constant quantities and are suitable for transportation. Such characteristics allow reliable predictability of its use as a source of secondary raw material, a significant aspect of waste profitability (Leite 2009). RL is more related to operational processes, such as transportation, production planning, and inventory management, while RSC focuses on a strategic and broader perspective, involving further aspects such as coordination and collaboration between channel partners. RL is one of the elements of a RSC (Ilgin and Gupta 2016). Therefore, the RSC has the same basic characteristics of a SC, such as firms, flows, and actors, with the addition of the RL element to it and all its implications. The reverse supply chain, or reverse logistics (RL), refers to the various processes and components of the global supply chain that are designed to support the identification and removal of end-of-life products (or its parts and

P

898

Partnership-Oriented RSC Toward CDW Recycling

Partnership-Oriented Reverse Supply Chain Toward Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling, Fig. 1 Reverse supply chain diagram. (Source: Xu et al. 2018)

supplies) or waste with the purpose of leading to new ways of its valuation or proper disposal. A representation of a construction industry RSC is presented in Fig. 1. Definitions of reverse supply chain stakeholders for the construction industry vary greatly in the scientific literature. The first stakeholder is one of the few consensuses of the literature: CDW Generation Points. They are detailed as (1) construction projects (Barros et al. 1998; Listeş and Dekker 2005; Sinha et al. 2010); (2) renovation and small works (Baptista Junior 2011; Fehr and Marques 2013); (3) large-scale construction projects (Fehr and Marques 2013); or (4) deconstruction works (Schamne 2016). Some authors include the “CDW Regional Collection Centres” as an actor (Anastácio 2003; Baptista Junior 2011; Fehr and Marques 2013), but this definition is less common as the collection process of CDW is usually undertaken at the CDW Generation Points or at the CDW Regional Separation Centres. The latter one is included as a possible partner only when it is assumed that the separation process occurs off-site to the construction works (Barros et al. 1998; Listeş and Dekker 2005; Chong and Hermreck 2010). The next consensus of the literature is the recovery center. They can be recycling centers (Marcondes 2007; Chong and Hermreck 2010; Gan and Cheng 2015), repair centers (Beldek et al. 2016), recycling cooperatives (Schamne and Nagalli 2018), or remanufacturing

centers (Barros et al. 1998; Zhou et al. 2013; Beldek et al. 2016). Rahimi and Ghezavati (2018) identified the inclusion of recycled aggregate manufacturers as stakeholders of the RSC of CDW. There are several viewpoints on the roles and responsibilities of key actors in the reverse supply chain (Dekker et al. 2013). Some actors are responsible for coordinating the reverse chain, usually the government (Nunes et al. 2009; Rebehy et al. 2019), while others merely perform tasks in the chain, for example, waste transportation companies (Shakantu et al. 2012). Because each actor has different objectives, they may compete within a given node. Industries where RL have been applied include agriculture, aircraft, apparel, automobile, baby pram, blending, cement, chemical, construction, container manufacturing, defense goods, e-commerce, eco-towns, electrical, electronic and computer, fisheries, food and beverage industries, footwear manufacturing, glass, handmade sector, healthcare, household appliances (brown goods and white goods), machine tools, microwave manufacturer, mining, packaging, palm oil, paper, pharmaceuticals, photocopy and printing, photovoltaic industry, polyurethane and solid waste incinerators, poultry, power, publishing, shipbuilding, steel, tannery, telecommunication, textile, transportation, warehousing, and wood pulp paper industry (Prajapati et al. 2019;

Partnership-Oriented RSC Toward CDW Recycling

Govindan and Bouzon 2018; Govindan and Soleimani 2017). The most recent research appoint several directions for future research in RL (Van Engeland et al. 2020): – Multi-objective models applied to all waste reverse supply chains, like environmental, social, and performance indicators modeling simultaneously. – Multi-level models consider the objectives of different stakeholders, involving interacting parties like government, public waste agencies, and private companies. – The impact of circular economy practices linked to RL like Extended Producer Responsibility schemes and the impact of smaller recovery cycles on the waste reverse supply chain network design are worth investigating. – The development of better heuristics to deal with more complex models that integrate all characteristics of importance in strategic network design. Challenges of Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling in Reverse Logistics While an increasing body of evidence in the scientific literature indicates that quite a number of developed solutions and technologies for CDW recycling exist, there remains uncertainty in the demand for recycled material, as this market is still underdeveloped. Although a majority of CDWs can be recovered at some level to be reused, CDW recycling is not implemented as much as could be due to prohibitive associated costs of implementing reverse logistics. The waste generation points vary greatly in relation to location and quantity offered, which consequently makes logistics management difficult (Marcondes 2007). One of the difficulties encountered in the construction reverse supply chain is that the network structure can be randomly changed whenever a new job site is established, an existing jobsite is removed, or a jobsite changes its excavation to the grounding process (Gan and Cheng 2015). The inclusion of waste picker cooperatives in the RL chain is a strategy, but only possible in

899

developing countries where the practice still prevails (Schamne 2016). This could a way of addressing the social issue of RL through the social reintegration of marginalized people living from landfill waste collection to work in recycling plants (Baptista Junior 2011). The inclusion of these agents in the chain enables the integration and employability of skilled labor in recycling plants for greater productivity, efficiency, and social responsibility. Schultmann and Sunke’s (2007) examination of the challenges for applying RL to construction in the German context found an uncertain and non-static accumulation of waste in deconstruction projects, as well as the varied locations of construction sites, and various collection points, but only a few recycling plants and disposal sites are some of the inherent characteristics of construction that hamper the implementation of the RL. It highlights a systemic problem that cannot be avoided due to the lack of planning accuracy regarding forecasting the quantity, location, and time of removal of goods or collection of construction sites. It happens mostly because they are different actors in the supply chain, and recycling plants does not normally deliver recycled materials to a construction site. Drivers for Reverse Logistics Implementation and Stakeholder Perspectives There are distinct drivers for RL implementation which were classified according to the stakeholders’ perspective involved: government, customers, society, and organization. From the governmental point of view, the authors listed regulatory pressure for recovering end-of-life products, planning of progressive adoption of RL initiatives to obtain a license to operate, and incentives such as tax exemptions. The customers’ drivers are the qualification and support of business partners (such as clients and suppliers), cooperation with clients (such as shared responsibility for returned products), green consumerism, and customer loyalty enhanced by support developed through proper disposal of products and after-sales initiatives. From the societal perspective, the drivers are pressure on industries, from groups such as NGOs, to adopt green marketing, higher public awareness of

P

900

environmental issues, corporate citizenship pressure in support of green initiatives, and the scarcity of landfill. From the organizational point of view, the drivers are: the new challenges for the long-term sustainability of the firm’s business caused by the increasing shortage of raw materials and the green consumerism, the costs reducing of end of life products back due to the domain of practices and techniques oriented to the ecodesign, the economic benefit boosted by RL practices with the reduction use of raw material consumption and waste disposal cost, recapturing value and recovering assets from spare parts (Govindan and Bouzon 2018). The two factors that hinder the development of reverse distribution channels in construction are low availability of waste and uncertainty about the supply of waste. The waste generation points vary greatly in relation to location and quantity offered, which consequently makes logistics management difficult (Marcondes 2007). The supply and demand for recycled building materials are more inconsistent than supply and demand for new building materials, as the supply of recycled CDW depends on the supply of CDW where waste is extracted and on the transport availability to deliver waste for recycling. The recycled CDW supply is also unreliable as it depends on the recycling plants’ acceptance level, the quality of the final product, and how heterogeneous the material is (Chong and Hermreck 2010). Current Research in RSC: Problems and Challengers Observed in the Construction Industry Context Research in RSC in the context of the construction industry often neglects using the necessary theoretical background to support their analysis. Research studies of Fehr and Marques (2013), Gan and Cheng (2015), and Sea-Lim et al. (2018) have used CDW only management and/or reverse logistics concepts in their literature review. With this omission, their results failed to take on a strategic and broader perspective, and, therefore, their suggestions for benchmarking are difficult to replicate in different contexts. Benchmarking the literature, the RSC for CDW is more efficient when its operation respects some

Partnership-Oriented RSC Toward CDW Recycling

rules. Firstly, when operated at a regional level, Hiete et al. (2011) concluded that recycling rates are better understood and controlled at the regional level, as they are limited by the composition of the CDW, technologies available at recycling plants, options for using recycled products, and the general demand generated by recycling design projects that can absorb these materials. Secondly, when material delivery activities are combined with the collection of CDW, the biggest factor in RL decision-making in the construction industry was the economic one (Chinda and Ammarapala 2016), and one of the sub-factors was the cost of transporting the waste. And lastly, the CDW separation process occurs on-site, because according to Chileshe et al. (2016) on-site CDW screening is a critical factor in facilitating RL adoption. Unsurprisingly, Correia (2017) pointed out the concern that CDW processing causes environmental damage, as they use more inputs, and the increased use of fuel for transportation to the various recycling plants, and the construction particles that affect the environment occupational health of recycling plant employees. There is a matter of the quality of sorted CDW, where many of the materials sent for recycling were returned because they did not meet the quality requirements standard of recycling plants (Chong and Hermreck 2010) and the quality of recovered CDW (note that the absence of the practice “Quality Control Compliance for Reclaimed Products” is recognized as a barrier to RL adoption; Chileshe et al. 2016). Finally, another major challenge is the deconstruction process, as Aidonis et al. (2008) found that the demolition process is always more financially viable. Likewise, consumption point is general agreement within the scientific community. They vary greatly but a few examples are paper waste recovery centers (Rinsatitnon et al. 2018), wood material recyclers (Trochu et al. 2018), and building materials stores (Shakantu et al. 2008). Last but not least are the landfills. They need to be considered as a stakeholder of the RSC as landfilling costs are much lower than recovering costs and therefore it is more economical for the CDW Generation Points to dump waste on landfills than to recycle.

Partnership-Oriented RSC Toward CDW Recycling

The Way Forward Partnership-Oriented Reverse Supply Chain Scenarios Previous efforts toward partnership-oriented RSC include Schenkel et al. (2015), who conducted a substantive literature review of 144 articles in relevant green, reverse, and closed-loop supply chain literature to examine existing knowledge on value creation. They found that while the majority of authors concur that vertical coordination is useful to forward and reverse supply chain management, few authors specifically talk about the benefits of horizontal or other forms of collaboration such as inter-firm networks or third-party service providers. Ferreira et al.’s (2018) case study in a region of Médio Paraíba Fluminense, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, assessed the viability of a public-private partnership for a public school to act as a delivery center for the waste of cooking oil. They found that the already established RSC is based on poor partnerships between generators and collector cooperatives and industries and also demonstrated a lack of effective communication between the stakeholders in the chain. In their action plan, the government (represented by the public school) is the main actor with the most responsibilities and assignments. The data on partnerships for RSC is scarce in the scientific literature, but the work of Veleva and Bodkin (2018) presented an empirical study that involved 12 US-based companies on circular economy, which is a much broader perspective than RSC. The authors found that Dell ® bargained its partnership with Goodwill ® to secure costeffective collection and a stable supply of used electronics to base its closed-loop program. Another interesting finding is that for producers of recycled plastic products Preserve ®, it partnered with both its supplier and client as a means to ensure a regular supply of raw material (pre- and post-consumer polypropylene) and a continuous sales channel. But these partnerships are not without challenges. Evaluative reports indicated the top problems described by the firms included “a lack of regulation and incentives, a lack of data and

901

indicators to measure and communicate impacts, and the cost of product/waste take back” (Veleva and Bodkin 2018, p. 29). Additionally, Dell and Biogen disclosed that: (. . .) The varying degree of maturity across the supply base and the need for industry collaboration to catalyze their efforts and reduce costs. Currently there aren’t many suppliers who have the knowledge and expertise to remanufacture or recycle complex products. The key is leveraging the purchasing power of companies within an industry to pressure suppliers to change their practices. (Veleva and Bodkin 2018, p. 29)

Unpacking the Challenges of Partnerships in the Construction Industry RSC for a Sustainable Future In normal SC, the initiators are usually the biggest company of the chain, as they have more financial influence toward their suppliers and clients to form partnerships and, in the same way, receive a lot of pressure from the government and society. But for RSC, the stakeholder with the biggest influence will be the government, as it has a legislative influence on the whole market. Trochu et al. (2018) conceived a mathematical model whose main objective was to construct a RL network constrained by environmental laws for recycled wood in a case study in Quebec, Canada. It has demonstrated that CDW is only recycled when there is a legal imposition. The existence of few economic policies of the Brazilian government has been pointed out as the main cause of reducing regulatory and financial incentives for both deconstruction and use of recycled materials in buildings (Correia 2017). Since there’s no specific legislation for CDW management in Vietnam, construction companies are not concerned about this activity and usually outsource it to another company (Lockrey et al. 2016). Supplying financial subsidies to recycling plants was one of the public policies that stimulated the growth of CDW recycling in European countries (Schamne 2016). It is the responsibility of the public administration to designate public spaces for the location of ecopoints (collection points of CDW in small quantities) and also to plan the collection and transferring infrastructure

P

902

of this waste (Baptista Junior 2011; Anastácio 2003). Liang and Lee (2018) discussed that the government could significantly reduce carbon emissions in southern Taiwan by building gravel recycling plants, as their research has detected a demand for this category of gravel plant in the region. Maerckx et al. (2019, p. 4) published a brief overview of construction projects participating in a Belgian government-funded project to promote a circular economy within its firms. One of the circular economy measures was “Promoting collaboration and partnerships among companies to close the loops.” To comply with the government project, one of the contractors partnered with a sustainable greenhouse builder to supply CDW to reduce the amount sent to recycling centers. Even with public funding, it is very challenging to create business-to-business networks at the local level. The authors conclude stating that communication between the stakeholders is the key factor for the success. A study conducted between the city government of Suzhou/China and a private CDW recycling company reported that problems related to excessively informal contracts with verbal agreement were at the root of the problem. The private company director added that: The C&D waste recycling business is the rarely high-tech industry in China, and thus honestly in nature our behavior appears more in a public welfare manner compared with its low profitability given the stringent regulations, massive initial investment, sporadic waste supply, immature market, unprofitable guaranteed-return and other uncertain risks. (Bao et al. 2019, p. 17)

The essential lessons learned were: “Adopting a relational contract (RC)-type of concession framework; Mechanisms to protect the interests of both parties; and Transparent information sharing platform” (Bao et al. 2019, p. 19).

Discussion and Conclusion Construction industry firms believe that the growing regulation (globally and locally), customer demand, and strategic partnerships are the greatest

Partnership-Oriented RSC Toward CDW Recycling

opportunities of tomorrow. Public administration has the power to institutionalize best practices toward waste recovering. There is potential to promote the demand for product reuse or waste repurposing. Strategic partnerships between recyclers and other entrepreneurs have the potential to expand distribution channels and help minimize costs (Veleva and Bodkin 2018). Policymakers can endorse academic or other nonprofit organizations focusing on the design of indicators, tools, training, and the development of local networks of small firms, corporations, and other stakeholders interested in progressing the RSC (Veleva and Bodkin 2018). The 2030 SDG 17 agenda has been acknowledged to be not ambitious enough, yet with less than 10 years to count down, the literature findings offered in the precedent sections indicate there is no consensus traction in the construction industry today in regard to best practice for responsible and environmentally sustainable waste disposal and reuse for the massive volumes of waste products that are being generated annually. The systemic challenges that exist are indications of a growing body of evidence that differentials in benchmarks, outputs, and capacity exist between developed and underdeveloped or poorer regions across the globe. Most of the research undertaken and produced has come from scientific and academic communities. The general sense is one of vulnerability and underlying panic due to an imbalance of a much slower pace of research-informed action dependent upon availability of academic research funding and a reliance upon case study methodology when compared with accelerated and rampant demands for urban development and population growth around the globe. This entry set out through a systematic literature review to understand the scope of construction and demolition waste and thereafter to unpack partnership-oriented reverse supply chains toward construction and demolition waste recycling such that the next decade may hope to see closer alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 17. What this entry purports is that discipline-specific research plays a vital role in shaping core educational agendas

Partnership-Oriented RSC Toward CDW Recycling

which may drive and influence industry practice. Continued dialogue with national policymakers and industry players is needed so that the construction industry is incentivized and charged with a sustainable development-oriented mindset and skill sets to orient their work behind the SDGs. As reported in the United Nations Economic and Social Council (2019) Special Edition: Progress Towards the Sustainable Development Goals Report of the Secretary-General 2020, there is still plenty of contribution of action needed that will affect synergies among the Goals and across the broader construction industry. As envisioned by the authorship line-up of this entry comprising three of a larger team of academic researchers representing engineering, construction management, and architecture disciplines from Australia and Brazil, collaboration and partnership are the cornerstones of a crucial platform toward an integrated partnership-oriented approach that connects multi-sectoral stakeholders across institutions, government bodies, and future industry graduates such that a “whole-of-society approach is adopted”.

Cross-References ▶ Developing Partnerships Across Global Supply Chains ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Tripartite Partnerships: Promoting Sustainable Consumption in the Context of Brazil

References Aidonis D, Xanthopoulos A, Vlachos D, Iakovou E (2008) An analytical methodological framework for managing reverse supply chains in the construction industry. WSEAS Trans Environ Dev 4:1036–1046 Anastácio AF (2003) Proposta de uma sistemática para estruturar uma rede logística reversa de distribuição para o sistema de coleta, processamento e recuperação de resíduos da construção civil – o caso do município de curitiba. Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul

903 Andonova LB, Hale TN, Roger CB (2017) National Policy and transnational governance of climate change: substitutes or complements? Int Stud Q 61:253–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx014 Bao Z, Lu W, Chi B et al (2019) Procurement innovation for a circular economy of construction and demolition waste: lessons learnt from Suzhou, China. Waste Manag 99:12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman. 2019.08.031 Baptista Junior JV (2011) Uma Proposta Para Logística de Reciclagem dos Resíduos da Construção Civil na Cidade do Rio de Janeiro. Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro Barros AI, Dekker R, Scholten V (1998) A two-level network for recycling sand: a case study. Eur J Oper Res 110:199–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217 (98)00093-9 Beldek T, Camgöz-Akdaǧ H, Hoşkara E (2016) Green supply chain management for construction waste: case study for Turkey. Int J Sustain Dev Plan 11:771– 780. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V11-N5-771-780 Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R, Hosseini MR (2016) Drivers for adopting reverse logistics in the construction industry: a qualitative study. Eng Constr Archit Manag 23:134–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-06-20140087 Chinda T, Ammarapala V (2016) Decision-making on reverse logistics in the construction industry. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 38:7–14 Chong WK, Hermreck C (2010) Understanding transportation energy and technical metabolism of construction waste recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:579–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.10.015 Correia JMF (2017) As Barreiras Para Adoção De Práticas De Logística Reversa: Survey Em Empresas Brasileiras Construtoras De Edifícios. University July 9th Dekker R, Fleischmann M, Inderfurth K, van Wassenhove LN (2013) Reverse logistics: quantitative models for closed-loop supply chains. Springer Science & Business Media Fehr M, Marques RB (2013) Construction debris recycle: assigning the costs to where they belong. Int J Environ Eng 5:32. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijee.2013.050892 Ferreira L dos S, César A da S, Conejero MA, Guabiroba RC da S (2018) A voluntary delivery point in reverse supply chain for waste cooking oil: an action plan for participation of a public-school in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Recycling 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/ recycling3040048 Furumo PR, Lambin EF (2020) Scaling up zero-deforestation initiatives through public-private partnerships: A look inside post-conflict Colombia. Global Environmental Change 62(November 2019):102055. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102055 Gan VJL, Cheng JCP (2015) Formulation and analysis of dynamic supply chain of backfill in construction waste management using agent-based modeling. Adv Eng Informatics 29:878–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei. 2015.01.004

P

904 Govindan K, Bouzon M (2018) From a literature review to a multi-perspective framework for reverse logistics barriers and drivers. J Clean Prod 187:318–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.040 Govindan K, Soleimani H (2017) A review of reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chains: a journal of cleaner production focus. J Clean Prod 142:371–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.126 Hiete M, Stengel J, Ludwig J, Schultmann F (2011) Matching construction and demolition waste supply to recycling demand: a regional management chain model. Build Res Inf 39:333–351. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09613218.2011.576849 Hosseini MR, Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R, Lehmann S (2013) Sensitizing the concept of reverse logistics (RL) for the construction context. Int Conf Civ Eng Archit Urban Sustain Dev 14. https://doi.org/10.5923/j. ijcem.20140303.01 Ilgin MA, Gupta SM (2016) Reverse logistics. In: Gupta SM (ed) Reverse supply chains: issues and analysis. CRC Press, pp 1–62 Leite PR (2009) Logistica Reversa: Meio Ambiente e Competitividade, 1st edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, São Paulo Liang CC, Lee JP (2018) Carbon footprint model for reverse logistics of waste disposal in interior design industry. Asia Pacific J Mark Logist 30:889–906. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-01-2018-0035 Listeş O, Dekker R (2005) A stochastic approach to a case study for product recovery network design. Eur J Oper Res 160:268–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2001. 12.001 Lockrey S, Nguyen H, Crossin E, Verghese K (2016) Recycling the construction and demolition waste in Vietnam: opportunities and challenges in practice. J Clean Prod 133:757–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2016.05.175 Lu W, Yuan H (2011) A framework for understanding waste management studies in construction. Waste Manag 31:1252–1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wasman.2011.01.018 Maerckx AL, D’Otreppe Y, Scherrier N (2019) Building circular in Brussels: an overview through 14 inspiring projects. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 225. https:// doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012059 Marcondes FCS (2007) Sistemas Logísticos Reversos Na Indústria Da Construção Civil – Sistemas Logísticos Reversos Na Indústria Da Construção Civil. Universidade de São Paulo Nunes KRA, Mahler CF, Valle RA (2009) Reverse logistics in the Brazilian construction industry. J Environ Manag 90:3717–3720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2008.05.026 Nyaga G, Whipple J, Lynch D (2010) Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ? J Oper Manag 28:110–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.07.005 Pickin J, Randell P, Trinh J, Grant B (2018) National Waste Report 2018, Australia

Partnership-Oriented RSC Toward CDW Recycling Prajapati H, Kant R, Shankar R (2019) Bequeath life to death: state-of-art review on reverse logistics. J Clean Prod 211:503–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.187 Rahimi M, Ghezavati V (2018) Sustainable multi-period reverse logistics network design and planning under uncertainty utilizing conditional value at risk (CVaR) for recycling construction and demolition waste. J Clean Prod 172:1567–1581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.10.240 Rebehy PCPW, Andrade dos Santos Lima S, Novi JC, Salgado AP (2019) Reverse logistics systems in Brazil: comparative study and interest of multi stakeholders. J Environ Manage 250:109223. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2019.06.124 Rinsatitnon N, Dijaroen W, Limpiwun T et al (2018) Reverse logistics implementation in the construction industry: paper waste focus. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 40:798–805. https://doi.org/10.14456/sjstpsu.2018.113 Schamne AN (2016) Logística Reversa De Resíduos Sólidos Ao Setor Da Construção Civil Em Curitiba, Paraná. Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná Schamne AN, Nagalli A (2018) Evaluation of the potential application of the precepts of solid waste reverse logistics to the civil construction sector in Curitiba, Paraná. Int J Environ Waste Manag 22:24–47. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJEWM.2018.094102 Schenkel M, Caniëls MCJ, Krikke H, Van Der Laan E (2015) Understanding value creation in closed loop supply chains – past findings and future directions. J Manuf Syst 37:729–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jmsy.2015.04.009 Schultmann F, Sunke N (2007) Organisation of reverse logistics tasks in the construction industry. Port SB 2007 – Sustain Constr Mater Pract Chall Ind New Millenn 577–584 Sea-Lim K, Plianpho C, Sukmake P et al (2018) Feasibility study of reverse logistic of steel waste in the construction industry. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 40:271– 277. https://doi.org/10.14456/sjst-psu.2018.43 Shakantu W, Muya M, Tookey J, Bowen P (2008) Flow modelling of construction site materials and waste logistics: a case study from Cape Town, South Africa. Eng Constr Archit Manag 15:423–439. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/09699980810902721 Shakantu W, Muya M, Tookey J, Bown P (2012) Evaluating truck empty running in construction: a case study from Cape Town, South Africa. Constr Econ Build 8:41–49. https://doi.org/10.5130/ajceb.v8i2.3005 Sinha S, Shankar R, Taneerananon P (2010) Modelling and case study of reverse logistics for construction aggregates. Int J Logist Syst Manag 6:39–59. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJLSM.2010.029720 Tam VW, Li J, Cai H (2014) System dynamic modeling on construction waste management in Shenzhen, China. Waste Manag Res 32:441–453. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0734242X14527636 Trochu J, Chaabane A, Ouhimmou M (2018) Reverse logistics network redesign under uncertainty for wood

Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals waste in the CRD industry. Resour Conserv Recycl 128:32–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017. 09.011 United Nations Economic and Social Council (2019) Special edition: progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals Report of the Secretary-General https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17. Aaccessed 3 May 2020 Valle R, Gabbay R (2014) Logística Reversa: Processo a processo, 1st edn, São Paulo Van Engeland J, Beliën J, De Boeck L, De Jaeger S (2020) Literature review: strategic network optimization models in waste reverse supply chains. Omega (United Kingdom) 91:102012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. omega.2018.12.001 Veleva V, Bodkin G (2018) Corporate-entrepreneur collaborations to advance a circular economy. J Clean Prod 188:20–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.196 Xinhua (2018) Recycled construction waste helps firms go from trash to cash. In: China Dly. http://www. c h i n a d a i l y. c o m . c n / a / 2 0 1 8 11 / 0 4 / W S 5 b d e 6 6 8 ea310eff303286690.html. Accessed 20 Nov 2019 Xu J, Shi Y, Zhao S (2018) Reverse logistics networkbased multi period optimization for construction and demolition waste disposal. J Constr Eng Manag 145:1– 16. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862. 0001592 Zhou P, Chen D, Wang Q (2013) Network design and operational modelling for construction green supply chain management. Int J Ind Eng Comput 4:13–28. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2012.011.001

905

Definition Innovation occurs when new ideas, processes, products, and services are developed and adopted by a group of people. Responsible innovation (RI), social innovation (SI), and transdisciplinary innovation (TI) have emerged in literature and practice as three fields of innovation that take a societal focus and seek to contribute to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) through partnerships within and across ecosystems. RI involves societal actors and innovators working collaboratively and transparently to embed scientific and technological advances, which are economically viable, into society in an ethical, sustainable, and socially desirable way (Von Schomberg 2013). SI brings novel solutions to societal problems through ways that seek to deliver value to society as a whole, rather than to just a few individuals, and are delivered in a more sustainable way than existing initiatives (Phills et al. 2008). TI involves bringing together actors from across disciplines to work collaboratively on a common problem, creating new concepts, theories, models, and innovations that transcend discipline-specific approaches (Aboelela et al. 2007).

Partnerships ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals Tracy Collier School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Partnerships are voluntary relationships that involve two or more stakeholders and may include institutions, nongovernmental organizations, governments, corporate organizations, community and grassroots organizations, academia, and individuals who come together to work on agreedupon goals and commitments. While the term “partnership” is used to describe a myriad of engagements, the relationships of partners are most often characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility and the mutual sharing of benefits and risks (Worrall 2009).

Synonyms

The Intersecting Need for Innovation and Partnerships

Alliances; Collaborations; Multistakeholder initiatives

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) were announced in 2015 as part of the United Nations

P

906

Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals

2030 Agenda for sustainable development. The 15-year plan includes 17 goals and 169 targets recognizing the integrated and indivisible relationship between the economic, social, and environmental dimensions required for sustainable development (UN DESA 2016). Their predecessors, the millennium development goals, had been criticized for focusing too much on developing countries, treating symptoms rather than solutions and taking a linear and siloed approach to development (Stibbe et al. 2018). The SDGs, in comparison, present 17 goals that require connection and engagement from all sectors and countries to address root causes and to create transformational lasting change. The SDGs recognize the multidimensional nature of poverty, the interconnectivity and complexity of the challenges, and the need for innovative approaches and solutions (UN DESA 2016). Nearly 5 years into the 15-year plan, and while progress has been made in areas such as the decline in extreme poverty and under-5 mortality rates, urgent action is still needed across all 17 goals, and more rapid progress must occur if society is to realize the 2030 Agenda’s vision (United Nations 2019). Within specific regions, the SDGs seem even more unattainable and change more urgent. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 2020 progress report finds that the region is unlikely to meet any of the 17 goals by 2030 on its current trajectory (UNESCAP 2020). This disparity between the 2030 vision and the current reality brings with it the impetus to understand why, despite best intentions, such disparity exists and how it may be overcome. The development and implementation of actions that bring transformative change, and the ability to share and scale these initiatives across regions, is vital if the global community is to shift its current trajectory and make real advancement towards the achievement of the SDGs. Complex or “wicked” problems, such as global poverty, gender inequality, and climate change cannot be adequately tackled by individual disciplines. They are not individual problems, instead one problem is a symptom of another problem, difficult to define and involves numerous

stakeholders with different ideas about the problems and solutions (Rittel and Webber 1973). As such, wicked problems cannot be solved in isolation, nor with the same thinking that created them in the first place (Riedy et al. 2018). There is a global recognition of the interrelatedness of these global challenges and the need for new and innovative ways of thinking. Simultaneously, there is global recognition of the need for collective action and international cooperation that acknowledge the interlinkages of the SDGs (United Nations 2019). Innovation and partnerships are interconnected in that both need one another to successfully address the complex problems that the SDGs seek to overcome. Innovation offers new ways of thinking and learning, while partnerships offer ways of doing and acting collaboratively.

Exploring Innovation Relevant to the SDGs Innovation has traditionally been seen to belong to the realm of science and academia, and also the business sector who have both the resources to invest in innovation, and the drive to do so because of its potential to give them a competitive edge in the marketplace (Lehoux et al. 2018). However, three fields of innovation have emerged in literature and practice that encompass a wider societal focus for innovation: responsible innovation (RI), social innovation (SI), and transdisciplinary innovation (TI). Responsible Innovation As the definition implies with its direct reference to science and technology, RI is the innovation field that sits closest to the traditional model of innovation, with an economic consideration for marketability. It is seen through initiatives in such as a collaboration between Australia’s national science agency and a number of Australian universities to look “at the interface of science and technology with society to ensure that emerging science domains can proceed responsibly and deliver positive impacts for society” (CSIRO 2020).

Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals

There are many contributions that RI can make to advancing the SDGs. SDG 3 focuses on good health and well-being, a sector where innovations in technology and science are integral. RI in SDG 3 can also impact on the determinants of health such as quality education, clean water and sanitation, clean energy, and climate action, all SDGs in their own right. One company, for example, developed a menstrual cup to sell to women in developed economies, but it also distributed to those who need it in East Africa with the support of philanthropic organizations. Given that many women and girls are not able to go to school when they have their period, this innovation not only impacts on their health and well-being, but also gender equality (SDG 5) and quality education (SDG 4) (Lehoux et al. 2018). The scope and impact of RI may, however, be limited if it does not take a global and more inclusive approach. Innovation in the global health sector is driven by high investment costs and short-termism from investors. This means that even if an innovation fits the criteria for RI, the more vulnerable regions and people will get the least investment, the least attention, and the least access, and the diseases more likely to impact them (Lehoux et al. 2018). RI has also faced criticism because of its lack of participation and collaboration, with innovations created for people, rather than with them. Jarmai and VogelPöschl (2020) call for meaningful collaboration for RI, meaning those working in RI must open their processes to a diverse range of stakeholders beyond the direct beneficiaries of their innovation in an open and transparent way, while also being prepared for the changes required from this engagement (Fisher 2020). Social Innovation SI is the second innovation field that takes an approach aligned to the SDGs. SI goes beyond the traditional domains of science and technology and occurs across multiple sectors, including not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises. Eichler and Schwarz (2019) conducted a systematic literature review of SI across 151 papers and found five consistent components: an innovative element, improvement, social need, relationships

907

and collaborations, and implementation and execution. This same study found that the SDGs were mentioned in 89% of the case studies, with SDG 17 being the most frequently cited for cases in developed countries and second most frequently cited on average (Eichler and Schwarz 2019). This suggests that SI is a viable form of innovation for sustainable development and that actors across multiple sectors and disciplines are collaborating through SI when seeking to contribute to the SDGs. SI in practice can be seen across three domains. The first being incremental innovation that address market failures. The second being institutional innovation that reconfigures existing market structures and patterns and the third being disruptive innovation that seeks to alter social systems and structures (Nicholls and Murdock 2012). Perhaps one of the most recognized examples of social innovation is microcredit. In the 1980s, social innovation pioneers proved that poor women lacked access to finance for enterprise development, while having the financial resources needed to repay a loan. By developing a banking model where women became guarantors for one another, they paid back their loans and used the money to invest in their businesses and their families (Yunus and Jolis 1999). Microcredit is now found in countries all across the world. This incremental innovation addressed a market failure, by providing access to people who had traditionally been excluded from financial services because of the high transaction costs associated with lending small amounts of money to people unable to provide collateral. However, what the microcredit case also highlights is that SI might not always achieve its desired impact and there may be many unintended consequences of innovation. Robust studies of microcredit have found it has no effect on poverty alleviation, and the evolution of the microfinance sector has seen incidences of over indebtedness that have impacted on people’s health and well-being, and even leading to suicide in some cases (Banerjee et al. 2015; Schicks and Rosenberg 2011). Transdisciplinary Innovation TI is the third innovation field seeking to address the SDGs. Unlike multidisciplinary and

P

908

Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals

interdisciplinary approaches where actors work towards a shared goal or where disciplines interact with each other, “TI is about placing these interactions in an integrated system with a social purpose, resulting in a continuously evolving and adapting practice” (Zafeirakopoulos and van der Bijl-Brouwer 2018). TI is useful for attainment of the SDGs because, while the 2030 Agenda’s focus on prosperity, people, and planet are balanced equally, and the process to develop the agenda was collaborative and involved everyone from government to civil society, the individual goals and targets of the SDGs were designed independently to address specific issues (Valencia et al. 2019). SDG 2 focuses on ending hunger and malnutrition and, depending on the approach taken, efforts to achieve it could negatively impact goals relating to sustainability of the waters and land. Studies find trade-offs like this can exist both between some SDGs, and also within SDGs and their targets (Kroll et al. 2019). By providing new theories, methods and innovations from across multiple disciplines, TI can support the process of shifting from trade-offs to developing synergies. One transdisciplinary health initiative in New Zealand is an example of a TI project that is looking to move from trade-offs to synergizes to improve human, animal, and environmental health in New Zealand, building on the region’s economic dependency on agriculture, reliance on fresh water and an existing indigenous Māori worldview that emphasizes holism and interconnectivity (Harrison et al. 2020). Learning is central to TI research and practice as it underpins innovation and catalyzes organizational and social change (Riedy et al. 2018). TI is beneficial for the SDGs because it involves learning how to integrate disciplines and adapt practices in a constantly changing reality, acknowledging the complexity involved in the challenges and the limited progress made in achievement of the SDGs globally. An example of a TI relating to learning and the SDGs is a global project that follows a transdisciplinary knowledge and coproduction approach, involving academics, NGO representatives, and city officials in seven cities globally to test potential

targets and indicators for SDG 11. One year into the project and their learning provides valuable insights for five aspects that practitioners should consider when seeking to localize a global agenda: (1) delimitation of the urban boundary; (2) integrated governance; (3) actors; (4) synergies and trade-offs; and (5) indicators (Valencia et al. 2019). One of the key challenges for TI in driving achievement of the SDGs, as identified in the case study above, is that of integrated governance to drive change globally. Responsibility for the problems that the SDGs seek to address is held by many. This also means that co-responsibility for their solutions is necessary, but difficult to achieve and enforce. Regulatory frameworks occur primarily within the remit of a national governments who face internal political pressures that may not be aligned with the SDGs. Additionally, even as scholars and practitioners observe the poor performance of treaties and mechanisms, they often prescribe a strengthening of those same activities as a remedy (Abbott and Snidal 2010). Innovators will also always innovate faster than regulators can regulate, and it is often many years before an understanding of the wider impacts and consequences of innovations become clear enough for appropriate regulatory responses. Meanwhile governance based on soft law including self-regulatory initiatives that help certify social or environmental business practices are often criticized as simplifying the global challenges to a set of reportable indicators, which sit in contrast to the adaptive needs of TI (Voegtlin and Scherer 2017). Managing the right balance of rigor and structure with a freedom to innovate and experiment is a constant dilemma facing those working to achieve the SDGs. Summarizing the Challenges of Innovation Innovation is vital for the SDGs because it enables new approaches to complex problems. RI, SI, and TI are all fields of innovation seeking to impact the SDGs in systemic, integrated ways. They all involve collaborations within and across disciplines and ecosystems and, as such, they all depend on building effective and impactful partnerships. The analysis above found the following

Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals

challenges occur during innovation: a maintaining of the status quo through profit-centric models and “marketable” products, a lack of participation and genuine collaboration, the negative impacts of unintended consequences, and the challenge to develop governance structures that allow for innovation and impact. A review of partnership literature can provide insight into why some of these challenges exist and how they can be rectified.

Partnerships Cross-sector, multistakeholder partnerships for development have a long history, particularly in areas where binding treaties or regulations have faltered. An example of this can be seen through the actions of attendees of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio which failed to reach an agreement about deforestation. After this event some attendees developed a multistakeholder certification initiative which was developed through partnership with forestry owners, forestry companies, NGOs, local communities, and other stakeholders, pathing the path for NGO and business-led certification programs (Voegtlin and Scherer 2017). The UN has actively advocated and embraced the notion of partnerships with SDG 17 which aims to strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize global partnerships for sustainable development by focusing on areas of finance, information and communications technology, capacity building, trade, systemic issues and data, monitoring, and accountability. The targets within SDG 17 highlight the need to promote effective public, public–private, and civil society partnerships, and the need for multistakeholder partnerships to mobilize efforts across regions (United Nations 2019). Critics, however, remark that the term “partnership” can be applied to almost every form of business activity and relation, from fundraising to corporate social responsibility projects (Reed and Reed 2009). Studies highlight that the global community is not seeing sufficient impact coming out of partnerships raising questions as to whether they are an essential mechanism for sustainable

909

development. This doubt is driven by the fact that there are not enough partnerships, and those that exist are not delivering on their full potential (Stibbe et al. 2018). This final point about not delivering on their full potential is what the aforementioned innovation fields are seeking to change. Transformational Partnerships for Innovation Partnerships are needed because the challenges of global sustainable development extend inevitably beyond the reach of any single actor or the regulatory powers of any one entity. Partnerships, however, are complex and evolving. The term partnership is used to describe a range of different relationships between individuals, organizations, and institutions, from legally formed business relationships to informal groups of individuals working on a common goal. Enos and Morton (2003) provide a rubric for considering partnerships, in which the organizational relationships evolve from transactional (i. e., instrumental, task-oriented, project-based commitments) to transformative (i.e., deeper and sustained commitment between partners in which there is an expectation of change). Himmelman also presents a continuum on which partnerships engage, from networking, coordinating, and cooperating through collaboration, which is defined as “exchanging information, altering activities, sharing resources, and enhancing the capacity of another for mutual benefit and to achieve a common purpose” (Himmelman 2002). These transformational partnerships that focus on collaboration are most suitable for working through the complex or “wicked” problems that have driven the SDGs. Achieving these partnerships, however, is more challenging. The UN have recognized the complexity in developing and managing partnerships and have launched the partnership accelerator to support and build capacity for partnership platforms for the SDGs. Transformational partnerships working collaboratively can support the processes designed to generate innovations for sustainable development. Studies find that good partnerships are founded on trust, respect, mutual benefit, good communication mechanisms, and governance

P

910

Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals

structures that allow for democratic decisionmaking, process improvement, and sharing of resources (Worrall 2009). To address the challenges identified across RI, SI, and TI, partnership literature that identifies the components of effective transformational partnerships can provide some guidance as they allow for mutual benefit, the alignment of vision and values, a balancing of power dynamics, and the utilization of partnership brokers. Allowing for Mutual Benefit

The traditional view that innovation stems from competition and economic growth comes from an era where economic resources were less scarce, and when environmental and social pressures were not as apparent as they are today (Brent 2013). The idea that a business must choose between profits and societal impact has shifted through global initiatives that showcase business models that produce an economic return, along with achieving societal impact (Voegtlin and Scherer 2017). Studies on what makes a partnership successful acknowledge the need for mutual benefits among partners (Himmelman 2002). For businesses, this is not just acknowledging that the benefit they gain from being involved may be financial, but also acknowledging the other benefits of being involved in a partnership. Initiatives that promote innovation through collective action may provide businesses reputational benefits, as well as learning opportunities (Jarmai 2020). These additional benefits can also support partners to think beyond short-term profits in order to obtain customer loyalty, reputational benefits, or seeds for future innovations and opportunities. A collaboration between a large food manufacturer and a nongovernmental organization (NGO) in Bangladesh is an example of an innovative collaboration to address childhood malnutrition that provides mutual benefit to all partners involved. The food manufacturer applied the scientific know-how to develop yoghurt that was enriched with the essential nutrients children needed, while the NGO provided the understanding of the community norms and implementation obstacles that the collaboration would need to overcome in order to be successful. The model

was not a profit-making venture, however executives from the food manufacturer have repeatedly noted that if it was not for their focus on developing this yoghurt, they probably would never have developed the know-how that then allowed them to develop new innovations that enabled them to expand their product offerings and market potential globally. This partnership enabled all parties to obtain benefit, the government and the NGO in their social target to decrease the rates of child malnutrition, and the food manufacturer in a new offering in overseas markets, along with reputational benefits. The improved rates of child nutrition would also ease impacts on the health sector and have flow on effects to other SDGs. In this collaboration, each partner benefited from the partnership and innovation, while also acknowledging that the model could not have been achieved without the contribution from others involved (Belinfanti 2015). Alignment of Individual Vision and Values

There is a growing movement of people expecting businesses to serve a purpose beyond profit. Many individuals within organizations are no longer wanting to go to work for a company that has a negative impact on society, shareholders are demanding organizations take a more responsibility for the environmental and social impacts of their work, and community members are shifting purchasing patterns to organizations with a sustainability focus (Jarmai 2020). Good partnerships are based on an alignment of values and vision and are grounded in personal relationships (Enos and Morton 2003). Finding the people within organizations who understand and prioritize their role in sustainable development is a key. Within many businesses there is a growing recognition of the individuals, often referred to as social intrapreneurs, who are using “the structures and resources of the organizations where they work to meet the needs of society” (Belinfanti 2015). Social intrapreneurs occupy an intersectional space within their organization at the crossroads of innovation, profit, and social good. They are people who believe businesses can play a positive role in society, who recognize the failings of their organizations or sectors to address societal

Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals

issues individually and have the desire to drive change through new and innovative solutions (Belinfanti 2015). Intrapreneurs exist across all levels of an organization and they must negotiate with their own organization to implement their innovations. Driving change internally can be difficult and these individuals often seek support from external partners and like-minded individuals. One study exploring how innovation professionals implemented transdisciplinary approaches into their work found that during tough moments they persevered rather than abandoned a transdisciplinary way of working due to the support they found from a like-minded individual. These individuals were advocates for the innovation professional because of their similar view and attitudes, “a curious mindset, an interest in exploration, and desire to realize novel outcomes for profound change” (Zafeirakopoulos and van der BijlBrouwer 2018). In the case of a mobile money transfer platform in Kenya that allows people to save, spend, borrow, and transfer money through their mobile phone, it was two employees from a telecommunications company drove this innovation in response to Kenya’s access to banking problem (Hughes and Lonie 2007). These employees led the internal development of the mobile money platform, however they were also supported externally by international funders, banks, and microfinance institutions, among others (Posthumus et al. 2013). In studies that tracked the impact of this mobile money transfer platform as it expanded over 6 years between 2008 and 2016 found that in areas where the platform became accessible 2% of the population, primarily female headed households, were lifted above the poverty line (Suri and Jack 2016). By addressing an issue, such as access to banking products, the mobile money innovation has influence SDG 1 on poverty reduction and SDG 5 on gender equity. The social intrapreneurs within the telecommunications company were able to align their values with others within their organization and also to partner with others externally who had similar values-alignment to implement and grow the service. Partnerships that focus on an alignment of

911

values and vision between people can foster new innovations and drive their scale and reach. Recognizing and Balancing Power Dynamics

Innovation needs diversity of thinking and differing perspectives (Hewlett et al. 2013). Without involvement from a diverse group of stakeholders it cannot be assumed that innovation for sustainable development will ultimately lead to societal and ecological impact, nor will those involved be able to foresee some of the negative unintended consequences that may come about from an innovation. Imbalances of power within collaboration often lead to ungenuine participation, a greater chance of unintended consequences going unnoticed and a more limited scope of ideas. Research that explores partnerships for sustainable development have studied this challenge for many years, observing unbalanced power dynamics between funders and recipient organizations, NGOs and beneficiaries, corporates, and not-for-profit north and south actors, among many others. They have also studied the inverse and found that characteristics of effective partnership models to address power dynamics include coownership or responsibility, alignment and harmonization, accountability, reduced dependency, resource sharing, representation, and legitimacy (Edi 2013). People who are most marginalized need to participate in innovations for the SDGs if the “leave no-one behind” ambition is to be met. This means more than just inviting someone along in a tokenistic manner to a meeting, but instead involving them in a process that enables “personal empowerment, collective identity building and knowledge of rights, and support interest in and capabilities for political engagement” (López-Franco et al. 2017). Examples of this type of power sharing and empowerment can be seen through partnerships that encourage shared ownership such as local cooperatives developing sustainable energy sources for local communities and include local control over assets and community participation in decision-making (Bianchi and Vieta 2019). For innovators who are accustomed to fast-paced technological change and have not previously had to consider the

P

912

Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals

ethical, societal, or ecological impact of their innovation, this approach to bring along others and to be open to a shift in focus could be challenging, however if new innovations and knowledge are to be accessible for all and exclude no one, this approach is vital. The Benefits of a Partnership Broker

Due to the complexity, a third-party actor is often used to ensure an effective formation, governance, and implementation of cross-sector partnerships. This can come by many names including a convener, negotiator, facilitator, or broker. These third parties can either be individuals or agencies, and either work independently or within an organization. While there is no one defined formula, these actors are generally considered a “resource” to the partnership in the sense that their involvement enhances the likelihood of the cross sector partnership’s success and are best utilized throughout the entire life cycle of the partnership (van Hille et al. 2020). Brokers play many roles including connector, ethical advisor, and motivator. The broker can also play an important role in calling out power imbalances and “plays a crucial bridging role in balancing different partners’ interests in order to drive the cross sector partnership process forward throughout its implementation” (van Hille et al. 2020). In the aforementioned example of the transdisciplinary project across cities, one of their learnings was that while implementation needed to be done according to city-based needs, they found that guidance from a national level would have been useful throughout the entire process. They identified that this role would be useful to identify the technical and financial resources needed in each context, to facilitate horizontal learnings between regions and cities, to ensure consistency across approaches, to provide guidance on issues, and to build the capacity of local actors (Valencia et al. 2019). Other studies exploring the value of partnership brokers in cross-sector partnerships find that the broker can support the collection and distribution of lessons learned, bring people together who have never done so before, and facilitating better coordination among participants (van Hille et al. 2020). These skills are particularly useful for TI

projects and approaches because of their alignment to TI’s focus on learning and adaptivity.

A Necessary Way Forward for Sustainable Development Transformational innovation occurs at the intersection of disciplines rather than isolated within silos. However, collaborations and partnerships are challenging, particularly when working across disciplines to develop new knowledge and innovations together. The research that explores the linkages between partnership and innovation is still emerging, but understanding these linkages is vital if the global community is to make the transformative shifts required to achieve the SDGs by 2030. RI, SI, and TI paint a pathway forward that focuses on socially just and ethical innovations, however unintended consequences lurk behind every “good” idea. RI, SI, and TI face challenges including a maintaining of the status quo through profit-driven models, lack of participation and genuine collaboration, unintended consequences, lack of impact, and the challenge to develop governance structures that allow for innovation while driving change. Partnership literature offers advice on how to rectify these challenges through ensuring mutual benefit across partners, aligning work to the vision and values of individuals, balancing power dynamics, and utilizing a broker to support the governance and the work through the partnership life cycle. Working across disciplines to think differently, learn differently, and act differently can be overwhelming and complex, however with just 10 years left to achieve the SDGs, and multiple signs that by following the current path the SDGs will remain unattainable dreams, the impetus to do so is clear.

Cross-References ▶ Collaborative Methodologies for Creative Processes in the SDGs Framework ▶ Innovating Youth Engagement and Partnerships to Progress the SDGs

Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals

▶ Stakeholder Partnerships: Collaborative Modeling as a Mechanism for Sustainable Development ▶ Systemic Issues and Multi-stakeholders Partnerships for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Systems and Systemic Approaches for Attaining the SDGs Across Partnerships ▶ Transdisciplinary Collaborations for Achieving the SDGs

References Abbott KW, Snidal D (2010) International regulation without international government: improving IO performance through orchestration. Rev Int Organ 5 (3):315–344 Aboelela SW, Larson E, Bakken S, Carrasquillo O, Formicola A, Glied SA, Gebbie KM (2007) Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Serv Res 42(1p1): 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00 621.x Banerjee A, Karlan D, Zinman J (2015) Six randomized evaluations of microcredit: introduction and further steps. Am Econ J Appl Econ 7(1):1–21. https://doi. org/10.1257/app.20140287 Belinfanti TC (2015) Contemplating the gap-filling role of social intrapreneurship. Oreg Law Rev 94:67. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/ LandingPage?handle¼hein.journals/orglr94& div¼65&id¼&page¼. Accessed 11 May 2020 Bianchi M, Vieta M (2019) Italian community co-operatives responding to economic crisis and state withdrawal a new model for socio-economic development. Paper presented at the UNTFSSE international conference in Geneva. Retrieved from http://unsse.org/knowledge-hub/italiancommunity-co-operatives-responding-to-economic-cri sis-and-state-withdrawal-a-new-model-for-socio-eco nomic-development/. Accessed 11 May 2020 Brent A (2013) Transdisciplinary approaches to engineering R&D: importance of understanding values and culture. In: Kauffman J (ed) Handbook of sustainable engineering. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 91–111. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8939-8 CSIRO (2020) Responsible innovation future science platform. Last updated 30 April 2020. Retrieved from https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/LWF/Areas/Innova tion/Responsible-Innovation. Accessed 11 May 2020 Edi AC (2013) Models of cross-sector partnerships in corporate social responsibility for implementing poverty reduction initiatives in Indonesia. International Indonesia Forum, 2013 working paper series 1. Retrieved from http://www.ijil.ui.ac.id/index.php/jbb/ article/viewArticle/4326. Accessed 11 May 2020

913

Eichler GM, Schwarz EJ (2019) What sustainable development goals do social innovations address? A systematic review and content analysis of social innovation literature. Sustainability 11(2):522. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11020522 Enos S, Morton K (2003) Developing a theory and practice of campus-community partnerships building partnerships for service-learning. Wiley, San Francisco, pp 20–41 Fisher E (2020) Reinventing responsible innovation. J Responsible Innov 7(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23299460.2020.1712537 Harrison S, Baker MG, Benschop J, Death RG, French NP, Harmsworth G, Ussher JE (2020) One Health Aotearoa: a transdisciplinary initiative to improve human, animal and environmental health in New Zealand. One Health Outlook 2(1):1–6. https://doi. org/10.1186/s42522-020-0011-0 Hewlett SA, Marshall M, Sherbin L (2013) How diversity can drive innovation. Harv Bus Rev 91(12):30–30. Retrieved from https://static31.squarespace.com/ static/35ae89190aa89149a89117d89196e450047/t/ 450045b450040d450092c450044aa450044a450099 c450049a450042ddd450043c/1527616197302/How +Diversity+Can+Drive+Innovation+_HBR.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2020 Himmelman AT (2002) Collaboration for a change: definitions, decision-making models, roles, and collaboration process guide. Himmelman Consulting, Minneapolis. Retrieved from http://tennessee.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2019/2007/Himmelman-Collaboration-for-aChange.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2020 Hughes N, Lonie S (2007) M-PESA: mobile money for the “unbanked” turning cellphones into 24-hour tellers in Kenya. Innovations 2(1–2):63–81 Jarmai K (2020) Responsible innovation: business opportunities and strategies for implementation. SpringerBriefs in research ad innovation governance. Springer Open, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-024-1720-3 Jarmai K, Vogel-Pöschl H (2020) Meaningful collaboration for responsible innovation. J Responsible Innov 7(1):138–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460. 2019.1633227 Kroll C, Warchold A, Pradhan P (2019) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies? Palgrave Commun 5(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-0190335-5 Lehoux P, Pacifico Silva H, Pozelli Sabio R, Roncarolo F (2018) The unexplored contribution of responsible innovation in health to Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 10(11):4015. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su10114015 López-Franco E, Howard J, Wheeler J (2017) Participatory accountability for the SDGs: beyond social accountability. Participate policy brief 4. IDS, Brighton. Retrieved from https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/ opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/13020. Accessed 11 May 2020

P

914

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

Nicholls A, Murdock A (2012) The nature of social innovation. In: Social innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 1–30 Phills JA, Deiglmeier K, Miller DT (2008) Rediscovering social innovation. Stanf Soc Innov Rev 6(4):34–43. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publica tion/242511521. Accessed 11 May 2020 Posthumus B, Van Den Homberg M, de Boer J, Klarsfeld L, Chevrollier N, Jaspert T (2013) Organizing innovation to deliver financial services to the base of the pyramid. Paper presented at the 2013 IST-Africa conference & exhibition. Retrieved from https:// ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6701800/ authors. Accessed 11 May 2020 Reed AM, Reed D (2009) Partnerships for development: four models of business involvement. J Bus Ethics 90 (1):3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9913-y Riedy C, Fam D, Ross K, Mitchell C (2018) Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads: nurturing individual and collective learning. Technol Innov Manag Rev. http://hdl. handle.net/10453/127531 Rittel HW, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 Schicks J, Rosenberg R (2011) Too much microcredit?: a survey of issues and evidence on over-indebtedness among micro-borrowers. CGAP occasional paper. https://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/CGAP-Occa sional-Paper-Too-Much-Microcredit-A-Survey-of-theEvidence-on-Overindebtedness-Sep-2011.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2020 Stibbe D, Reid S, Gilbert J (2018) Maximising the impact of partnerships for the SDGs. The Partnering Initiative and UN DESA, New York. Retrieved from https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ 2564Maximising_the_impact_of_partnerships_for_ the_SDGs.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2020 Suri T, Jack W (2016) The long-run poverty and gender impacts of mobile money. Science 354 (6317):1288–1292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aah5309 UN DESA (2016) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. Retrieved from https://stg-wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/ handle/20.500.11822/11125/unep_swio_sm1_inf7_ sdg.pdf?sequence¼1. Accessed 20 May 2020 UNESCAP (2020) Asia and the Pacific SDG progress report 2020, Bangkok. Retrieved from https://www. unescap.org/sites/default/files/publications/ESCAP_ Asia_and_the_Pacific_SDG_Progress_Report_2020. pdf#page¼12. Accessed 20 May 2020 United Nations (2019) The Sustainable Development Goals report 2019. New York. Retrieved from https:// unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/. Accessed 20 May 2020 Valencia SC, Simon D, Croese S, Nordqvist J, Oloko M, Sharma T, Versace I (2019) Adapting the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda to the city level: initial reflections from a comparative

research project. Int J Urban Sustain Dev 11(1):4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2019.1573172 van Hille I, de Bakker FG, Ferguson JE, Groenewegen P (2020) Cross-sector partnerships for sustainability: how mission-driven conveners drive change in national coffee platforms. Sustainability 12(7):2846. https://doi. org/10.3390/su12072846 Voegtlin C, Scherer AG (2017) Responsible innovation and the innovation of responsibility: governing sustainable development in a globalized world. J Bus Ethics 143(2):227–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-0152769-z Von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, Chichester, pp 51–74. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9781118551424.ch3 Worrall L (2009) The transforming power of partnerships. McMaster J 4(Spring):5–15. Retrieved from http://www.defiance.edu/mcmaster/documents/ journal-2009-2002-worrall.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020 Yunus M, Jolis A (1999) Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle against World Poverty, Public Affairs, New York Zafeirakopoulos M, van der Bijl-Brouwer M (2018) Exploring the transdisciplinary learning experiences of innovation professionals. Technol Innov Manag Rev. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1178

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment Cláudio Castelo Branco Puty and Douglas Alencar Graduate Program in Economics, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Brazil

Definition Foreign direct investment, according to the benchmark Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) definition (2008), is a “category of cross-border investment made by a resident in one economy (the direct investor) with the objective of establishing a lasting interest in an enterprise (the direct investment enterprise) that is resident in an economy other than that of the direct investor.” The motivation of the direct investor

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

may be the search for new markets, access to natural resources, logistic advantage, or simply lower production costs, either in the form of cheaper labor or taxes. A higher level of foreign direct investment means that additional capital is injected and, depending on the sector, is likely to have an impact on its growth rate, as it is equivalent to foreign savings diverted from the investing economy into the domestic market. Thus, if FDI is not counterbalanced by various forms of remittances, it can be a robust engine for structural transformation in underdeveloped economies.

915

Foreign direct investment (FDI) is thus mentioned by the Addis Ababa agenda, as a necessary element to fill the savings gap that leads to investment levels far below the minimum required to meet the national development effort. This entry is organized as follows. In the next section, we continue the aforementioned debate on the place of FDI in the SDG17. The following section discusses the role of FDI from a theoretical perspective in order to identify the assumptions and conditions that make FDI important for economic development. The final section presents stylized facts of FDI in developing regions of the world, followed by the conclusion.

Introduction The process that led to the establishment of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) from the Rio+20 conference in 2012 to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2015 raised a somewhat obvious question: how to finance the ambitious initiative? In July 2015, almost 150 countries met in Addis Ababa in the third conference Financing for Development, dedicated to discuss questions specifically related to the amount, origin of resources, and instruments necessary to promote development with universal commitment to all aspects of sustainability, particularly addressing the structural causes of climate change, promoting respect for human rights in line with international standards, and considering countries belonging to different income groups. The Addis Ababa Conference resulted in an Action Agenda (UN 2015) that recognized that the vast majority of the investment for developmental purposes was public in the majority of countries. Notwithstanding this fact, and as a result of the negotiation process that led to the final resolution, the Conference also called on private business activity, particularly private international capital flows to address sustainable development challenges. These investments are perceived in the Action Plan as crucial in critical areas where investment gaps are resilient and in poor- and middleincome countries, with weak or no integration at all to international financial markets.

Partnerships for a Change: FDI and the SDG17 The SDGs take on the Addis Ababa agenda in two important assumptions: the recognition that public funds available at the national level are insufficient for the attainment of investment levels compatible with the sustainable development goals. In addition, that in order to meet the 16 SDGs, a renewed effort of global coordination bringing together national states, the international community, civil society, and the private sector is crucial. This concept is thus represented by the SDG17, labeled “partnership for the goals.” Assuming that only through increased international cooperation each of the 16 SDGs is attainable, Goal 17 is a call for a new institutional arrangement based aimed at more collaboration and less competition between nations and organizations. In this sense, multi-stakeholder partnerships to foster capacity building, increase international trade, share technology and information, and mobilize financial support are seen as a necessary condition for the success of the initiative. SDG17 has 19 targets (UN 2018) organized around five topics: finance, technology, capacitybuilding, trade, and systemic issues like institutional coherence for policy purposes. The targets include questions ranging from macroeconomic stability to technological transfer and from international trade facilitation to targeted capacity development at the national level.

P

916

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

In what concerns financing issues, SDG17 targets domestic resource mobilization, including means to improve at the national level the taxation system and revenue collection, and in addition calls for developed countries’ commitment with larger official development assistance. The partnerships promoted by SDG17 also include assistance to developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at reducing debt distress, as well as adopting and implementing investment promotion regimes for least developed countries. Finally, it also acknowledges the necessity to mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources, particularly through FDI and official development assistance (ODA). According to the UN’s Report of the SecretaryGeneral (UN 2018), SDG17 targets still face many challenges that reflect the shortcomings of the global institutional framework and point to the relevance of renewed partnerships between international institutions and multiple stakeholders at the national level in order to make SDGs a reality. In 2017, net ODA totalled $146.6 billion, a decrease of 0.6% from 2016 in real terms. As a matter of fact, in 2016, remittances to low- and lower-middle-income countries represented more than three times the amount of ODA received by their countries. ODA for national planning and therefore capacity-building at the national level has not grown since 2010 (UN 2018). Debt service as a share of exports of goods and services in least developed countries (LDCs) increased from 2011 to 2016. In this 5-year range, that went from 3.5% in 2011 to 8.6% in 2016. Despite the developing regions’ share of world goods exports has grown to an average annual rate of 1.2 between 2001 and 2012, it has declined for two consecutive years: from 45.4% in 2014 to 44.2% in 2016. For LDCs, the share of world merchandise exports declined from 1.1% to 0.9% between 2013 and 2016, compared to the rise from 0.6% to 1.1% between 2000 and 2013 (UN 2018). Finally, the UN secretariat points out that “development partners need to do more to align

their support with governments’ national development strategies and results frameworks, particularly in fragile countries, respecting the country’s policy space and leadership in establishing its own path towards sustainable development” (UN 2018).

FDI and Development in Economic Theory FDI, as mentioned before, is a category of investment made by a resident in one economy with the objective of establishing a lasting interest in an enterprise that is resident in an economy other than that of the direct investor. FDI is registered in the system of national accounts as one of the subcategories of the so-called financial account of the balance of payments (BP) although direct investment income is a subitem of investment income of the current account (IMF 2009). The system of national accounts traditionally differs direct investment from portfolio investment by the degree whereby investors influence the direct management of the enterprise. In most countries, including the USA, the benchmark is considered to be a minimum of 10% of the ordinary shares (i.e., voting power) of the investment company. In fact there is a range of forms of influence, in which companies may either be branches of a multinational enterprise that hold total control of the direct investment enterprise, some subsidiary where over 50% of the voting power is held, or finally some associate firm where the a 10–50% voting power is exerted by the parent firm (OECD 2008). As mentioned before, direct investment figures are registered in the financial account of the balance of payments as established by the International Monetary Fund (IMF 2009) and are complemented by OECD’s Benchmark definition (OECD 2008). Whereas the former sets the standards for typical national statistics of direct investment, the latter provides comprehensive and more detailed figures decomposed into three subcategories: (a) Investment positions: providing information on the total stock of investment in equity and

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

debt made abroad and received from abroad. This information allows for structural analysis that is normally missed by flow measurements as they account for the FDI positions accumulated over time. (b) Direct investment financial transactions: showing the net inward and outward investments. (c) Associated income flows between enterprises (OECD 2008): providing information on the earnings of direct investor and companies in the host countries, either in the form of equity (profits and dividends) and debt (basically interest from intercompany loans, etc.). Although not always mentioned in policy documents, the reliance on FDI for developmental purposes depends on theoretical assumptions that are crucial for its conclusions. There are several views on foreign direct investment. We will discuss here three different views on FDI as they focus on the reasons behind the flow of FDI from a particular country to other nations. We will consider the neoclassical view, the expansion and absorption of assets, and the post-Keynesian theories. The Neoclassical Theory of FDI According to neoclassical development theory, in a case where a country has a low level of savings, this country could demand external savings to promote investment and thus economic growth. The argument is that countries that have abundance of capital have lower marginal productivity compared to developing countries. The opening of the capital account would thus allow the equalization of the marginal productivity of capital around the world. Likewise, trade liberalization, by stimulating competition would boost productivity, including labor productivity. In a current account equilibrium situation, capital inflows produce accumulation of reserves whose sterilization cancels out any effect on aggregate savings and growth. For this reason, it is proposed that the country that keeps current account deficits should implement controls and restrictions on foreign capital inflows, especially short-term capital (FRANCO 1998, p. 141).

917

According to Franco (op. cit.), external savings should be used for industry modernization as observed in the technological revolution after the World War II that was mainly produced by an increase in foreign investment by multinational enterprises (MNEs). Leveraging the industry requires external savings in order to finance domestic demand (FRANCO and FRITSCH 1989). However, two problems related to this liberalizing prescription can be highlighted: first, the high volatility of international financial flows that offer no steady path for north-south investment, and the other that countries cannot borrow in their own currency, these loans being in foreign currency, which creates further balance of payment restrictions for growth (BRESSER; GALA 2007). Expansion and Absorption of Assets Theory According to this theory, a variety of factors explains FDI growth in recent decades. First, national firms compete for the international markets. However, in order to transfer the production to other countries, costs of foreign production should obviously not outweigh its revenues. Thus, internationalization of production of services and intermediate goods needs to deal with (a) the issue of uncertainty of producing abroad, (b) the necessary development of skills to exploit economies of scale, and (c) the externalities in the market to which the firm will transfer FDI (Dunning 1988). Regarding production location, this theory argues that producers prefer to produce intermediate products in other countries, a process facilitated by the formation of economic blocs that lead to the reduction of international barriers, transportation costs, as well as government intervention that may contribute to the growth of FDI flows (Dunning 1988). One important factor for understanding the growth of the internationalization of companies, thus the increase in FDI, is the corporate integration of enterprises, which means internal integration, and this element is further reinforced by regional integration among countries. Integration of corporations can collaborate with regional

P

918

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

integration, which can collaborate with the economic integration of enterprises, in this way, reducing disparities, and market failures within regions and countries that receive investments from these firms (Dunning 1988). The integration of the countries promotes the integration of firms, since this integration facilitates the reduction of transport costs and inputs; moreover, the most efficient companies tend to capitalize more adequately on market failures (Dunning 1988). In addition to these features related with corporate integration and regional integration, other external factors influence firms’ internationalization. Political aspects, such as stability of central government, degree of bureaucracy and nature of industrial policy, balance of power between urban and rural sector, trade unions, lobbying of large companies, situation of the Central Bank, and other financial institutions, also play a role on FDI. Legal factors also influence the internationalization of production, such as copyright protection, contract laws, legal provisions on the relationship between foreign firms and local subsidiaries, industrial relations legislation, compensation for damages, consumer rights, and environmental problems. Social, cultural, and ideological factors are also linked to the internationalization of companies, such as cultural heritages, religion, labor systems, social norms, and attitudes of agents that may affect the country’s industrial policy and may also have an impact on external economic relations, fiscal, educational, employment, and security policies (Dunning 1988). Finally, firm’s internal factors also contribute to its expansion. Internal factors involve managerial capabilites of firm’s overall activities. Organizational strategies are crucial in the process of company expansion, given the complexity of production process located sometimes in other regions and countries. The direct implication is that cultural, and economic organization contributes to firm expansion, as well as the locus of internal decision-making, ability to innovate, interactions/conflicts between stakeholders, and contractual relations.

Thus, the eclectic paradigm for Dunning is primarily a model that relies on a wide diversity of disciplines, and ideas to explain the internationalization of firms, however, provide a consistent theory. One of the main assumptions for this author is that technological advances lead to a wide range of factors affecting firm internationalization (Dunning 1998). The Post-Keynesian View Kregel (1996) argues that conventional theory does not consider that developing countries’ openness to FDI could lead to the denationalization of the local industry, with great pressure on the exchange rates and on the domestic money market. Primary income on FDI, which covers payments of direct investment income, income on equity (dividends, branch profits, and reinvested earnings) and income on the intercompany debt (interest), is payed with foreign exchange currency. Moreover, even when the profits are reinvested in the form of FDI via capital account, those profits would not necessarily consist of an actual new inflow of foreign currency but could be obtained through occasional imports of capital goods and inputs, which will represent actual outflows. As a result, it may decrease foreign currency reserves and causes negative impacts on the sector producing these goods, if the bias to import them is larger than national firms. For Kregel (1996), when the FDI exceeds a certain amount in its relation to national income, investors can increase their expected returns, due to foreign reserves and exchange rate risks. In this case, transnational companies (TNCs) will no longer reinvest their profits and may interrupt new FDI. Therefore, without these new capital inflows, to what one could add new remittances related to capital already invested, one can once again generate imbalances in the BP. Even Dunning (1994) argues that FDI can cause internal changes to recipient countries, as it may cause a change in the consumption pattern of the population, increasing imports and generating economic growth restrictions. Therefore, the internationalization of an economy and its opening for foreign firms will not

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

necessarily be compatible with the required behavior or adjustments in the BP. In a world with both floating exchange rates and interest rates, such equilibrium will depend on a complex interaction between exports and imports of goods and services and remitted incomes, earnings, and capital sent and received from abroad. International investors are nonetheless creating ways to protect themselves against the possible exchange or interest risks, by hedging their positions in different markets. Therefore, Kregel argues that FDI is one of the most expensive sources of investment, since its required return is generally higher than the interest rates of other types of finance (Kregel 1996). Note that, in empirical terms, FDI can consist of portfolio investments to a greater or lesser degree, and its separation between productive (greenfield) or unproductive (brownfield or portfolio) investments is difficult. Moreover, even greenfield investments can be overstated, since part of it is often directed to other functions than new investments. For example, in the 1990s in Brazil, FDI contributed little to the growth of industry, since these investments were directed to the purchase of existing assets in Brazil, i.e., to brownfield investments. Thus, there was a low ratio between “foreign investments” (FDI) and the growth rate of the gross fixed capital formation. Briefly, Brazil was one of the countries that absorbed more FDI, but this had no major effect over economic growth. Furthermore, much of this FDI was directed to investments in the service and non-tradable sectors, providing virtually no gains in exports, despite the huge increase in pressure on the BP, because of remittance of profits, interests, royalties, capitals, etc. This analysis can be extended to Latin America in general, since countries such as Mexico and Argentina received great amounts of FDI, but these capital flows also did not bring about higher investment and economic growth rates. Since 1990 the rate of gross fixed capital to gross domestic product (GDP) in Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina has been around 20%. Thus, it is evident that with the end of the privatization process in the three largest Latin American economies,

919

FDI flow would diminish, with the aggravating factor of payments of dividends, which increases deficits in the balance of services (Laplane and Sarti 1999). The denationalization of many Brazilian firms has not, as was expected by some economists, contributed to Brazilian exports, since many of these firms were transformed into affiliates of foreign companies expanding their import coefficients, adding to the formerly described pressures to external imbalances. For Aurélio (1997), the uptake of “external resources” as a strategy for development should be temporary. Even when this strategy initially works, it may lower “domestic savings,” i.e., reduce the liquid outcome of the current account (“foreign savings”), which compensates the decrease in domestic savings (public and, mainly, private), with no impact on total savings because of its zero or negative impact on domestic investment. One way to assess whether these imbalances cause adverse impacts, i.e., whether they limit economic growth, is by investigating if economic growth is (or was) restricted by the BP, following the seminal work of Thirlwall (1979). Based on the proposition that current account deficits cannot be financed indefinitely, Thirlwall argues that the shortage of foreign currency sets a limit to the rate of expansion of aggregate demand and, consequently, the rate of income growth. Grounded on the simplifying assumption that foreign capital flows and terms of trade are constant, many authors claim that the long-term income growth rate of a country is highly connected to the export growth rate, with due regard also to import income elasticity. Models that are more complex also consider net inflows of capital (Thirlwall and Hussain 1982; Moreno-Brid 1998–1999, 2003; Barbosa-Filho 2002, 2004; Lima and Carvalho 2009).

An Overview of the Empirical Evidence Multilateral institutions have increasingly called upon private capital mobilization as a cornerstone of economic development. The final documents of the three conferences on financing for

P

920

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

development and the United Nations Millennium Declaration recognize the importance of greater FDI to developing regions of the world, particularly in Africa. Likewise, in the last 30 years, countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have increasingly liberalized their economies in order to attract international flows of capital, particularly FDI. These changes in investment environment involved lifting legal controls on capital through comprehensive changes in national laws. Notwithstanding this fact, empirical evidence from various studies show that results are far from the expected by reformers. In fact, since the mid-1980s, there was a considerable increase in financial flows in the global economy, and FDI has accompanied the trend. However, a considerable portion of FDI’s flow (roughly 68% on average from 1970 to 2017) consisted of investment in developed industrial economies (Fig. 1), a great part of it being crossinvestment among northern developed countries. Table 1 shows the participation of FDI flow by groups of economies. We observe that, in spite of the pattern of concentrated FDI in developed countries, there was indeed a long-term tendency

toward deconcentration, with a growing share of FDI in developing economies, whose overall participation in the total flows was on average 24.51% in the 1970–1979 decade and reached 42.98% in the 2010–2017 period. However, if inward FDI in China is excluded from our figures, the flows of direct investment show more modest figures, not presenting relevant changes on its share of the global figures until the 2010–2017 interval, where some relevant investment in East Asian countries contributed for the increase in the observed figures (34.91% of total inward FDI). These evidences are observed in Fig. 2, where the concentrated growth of FDI in developing countries is in great part an Asian and, particularly, a Chinese phenomenon. FDI in Africa has in fact decreased in the long run, and Latin America and the Caribbean have roughly kept their share in world inward FDI. However, with the growth in FDI in nominal terms, FDI flows in Latin America have been the largest components of financial flows, and, according to ECLAC (2015) figures, in absolute terms, net FDI flows to the region averaged US$ 2.6 billion in the 1970s, US$ 38 billion in the

FDI Flows, 1970-2017, US$ millions, current 2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

19 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2099 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17

0

Developing economies

Transition economies

Developed economies

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment, Fig. 1 FDI Flows (1970– 2017), Current US$ millions

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

921

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment, Table 1 FDI flows as a percentage of world total Average Developing economies (%) Excluding China (%) Developed economies (%)

1970–1979 24.51 24.51 75.49

1980–1989 25.60 23.50 74.40

1990–1999 30.14 22.75 68.97

2000–2009 29.66 24.66 67.21

2010–2017 42.98 34.91 52.85

We have omitted figures for “transition economies” Source: authors’ own elaboration on UNCTAD (2018) data

FDI flows by region (% of world total) 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

19 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2099 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17

0%

Africa

America

Asia

World

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment, Fig. 2 FDI Flows by Region (Percentage of world total)

1990s, and US$ 86 billion in the 2000s. In 2012, FDI reached an all-time high of US$ 198 billion. In relation to total regional flows, FDI increased from 36% in the 1980s to 54% in the 2000s. Africa, likewise, received US$ 1,1 billion in the 1970s and US$ 31 billion in the first decade of the twenty-first century (with US$ 67 billion in 2015) (Table 2). Empirical evidence therefore indicates that the role of FDI in an agenda for sustainable development faces many challenges due to its characteristics. Firstly, foreign direct investment is concentrated at regional and sectorial levels. As previously noted, FDI not only reproduced over the

decades a pattern of global distribution, but also in every region, it is concentrated in a few developing countries and not rarely avoids countries most in need. In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), the concentration is quite clear, both geographically and by sector. South America traditionally takes the largest part of FDI flows to the region, accounting for 79% of total FDI into Latin America and the Caribbean, while Central America receives only 5% of all inward FDI in the region. FDI goes mainly to the larger markets; Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Argentina, and Peru account for 85.4% of total FDI flows to Latin America and the Caribbean.

P

922

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment, Table 2 Latin America and the Caribbean: foreign direct investment and other financial flows (% of total flows) Foreign direct investment (net) Private portfolio flows (net) Official development assistance Other official flows Remittances (received)

1980–1989 36

2000–2007 44,3

1990–1999 58,2

2008–2009 49,8

2010–2013 47,7

2000–2013 54

2,1 19,5

11,7 12,3

4,2 6,4

4,1 5,3

20,5 4,3

4 5,7

26 16,4

12,2 19,6

0,4 39,9

6,6 34,2

4,2 23,3

1,9 34,4

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) (2015)

In Africa the same occurs. FDI flows to Africa are heavily concentrated, with the top 10 recipient countries accounting for roughly 75–80% of the total inward FDI. Countries like South Africa, Morocco, Angola, Nigeria, Egypt, and Algeria have accounted 45% or more of the FDI inflows in the continent. At the sectorial level, FDI is also highly concentrated, addressing mostly the extractive industries. Industries like mining, oil, and resourcebased manufacturing have greatly attracted FDI in developing countries. Likewise the services sector includes utilities like electricity, gas, water, and transportation. In LAC, the Economic Commission for Latin America and Caribbean (ECLAC 2014) estimates that in 2013, the natural resources (hydrocarbons and mining sectors), manufacturing and services sectors received 26%, 36%, and 38%, respectively, of total FDI flows. For Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina, Alencar and Scarano (2010) argue that the FDI has not contributed to economic growth, since it has been directed to already existing firms. Moreover, the FDI has not contributed to reduce pressure on balance of payment, since it increased the amount of resources that Latin American countries have to send abroad though the income balance (Alencar and Strachman 2014). In Africa, FDI flows are heavily concentrated in the primary sector, accounting for nearly 55% of total flows to Africa in the first decade of the twenty-first century and reaching almost 80% in some years (UNCTAD n.d.). Another aspect of the discussion around the role of international capital flows comes from

the fact that they are often short-term oriented. The increasing financialization of investment, with the creation of special vehicles – like equity funds and hedge funds – investing in different classes of assets, may blur the very distinction between FDI and portfolio investment and aggravate the short-term bias in foreign investment. Hence, not only portfolio flows but also FDI tends to be procyclical, which can aggravate business cycle fluctuation. FDI can have limited impact on innovation and transferring of technology, which may impede local knowledge and labor productivity. As the structuralist school (Prebisch 1951) has long pointed out, the pattern of international demand tends to specialize the region in commodities production and foster low-productivity sectors with limited capability of technological dissemination in the economy. Finally, FDI produces substantial profit repatriation and this represents a form of financial leakage with consequences for balance of payment sustainability and economic growth. In Latin America and the Caribbean, FDI profit repatriation has represented more than half of net FDI inflows on average since the 1990s and is a major contributor to current account deficits (ECLAC 2015).

FDI, Economic Development, and the SDG17 The challenges for capital mobilization and particularly the use of FDI for developmental

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

purposes come from the fact that private capital is obviously driven by the profit motive and its objectives quite often do not coincide with investment in areas that are crucial for full human development, as represented by the idea of sustainable development. The global social and institutional arrangements necessary for capital mobilization with purposes of human development remain as the most relevant question brought about by SDG17, particularly when it deals with the so-called systemic issues. The question is not new and was addressed in many forms during the twentieth century – being the Bretton Woods system one the most notorious initiatives – and it continues as relevant today as it was in the aftermath of World War II. The debate at the UN has recognized that domestic capital mobilization is the main driving force of development (ECLAC 2015; UN 2015, 2018), and that involves mobilizing national savings to the purpose of socially relevant investment. In spite of the theoretical differences and the inconclusive empirical support for a unilateral causal nexus between savings and investment, there is a broad acceptance of the idea that a growing economy yields higher income and, therefore, higher savings. Likewise, the fact that economic theory does not offer an obvious causal relation between saving, investment, and growth that generates a clear-cut set of economic policies with well-defined instrumental and target variables – savings or growth – does not preclude the importance of savings for economic development. It raises, on the other hand, the question on how to create a growth environment in countries where income is low enough so that saving mobilization not occurs at the further expenses of the well-being of the majority, typically through diminished household consumption expenditure. Therefore, the challenges for domestic capital mobilization make the role of external savings, in the form of FDI or ODA, quite relevant for a large group of countries. Bearing in mind the aforementioned caveats, an enabling external environment is crucial to create the conditions for foreign investment with developmental profile. This enabling external environment, the outcome of a global economic order oriented for

923

growth and social inclusion, should address the unevenness of the international financial system, particularly its governance mechanisms in order to give proper importance to middle income and poor countries. The international financial system has been unable to grant the minimum conditions to finance production and has served rather as a mechanism to produce and propagate instability in the world economy. A financing mechanism of production should also incorporate the difficult – although crucial – quest for productivity catch up and technological transfer. A central concern is the constitution of regional and international systems of innovation and more inclusive and strategic participation in global value chains through partnerships in education, research, collaboration, and firm joint ventures that could allow developing nations to increase its productivity standards and innovation initiatives. Finally, the international trade system has to strengthen its multilateral institutions, and they should also recognize, both in governance and policy, the asymmetries between developing and industrial countries. Promotion of market access and stability of commodity prices are crucial conditions for an enabling external environment consisted with SDG17.

P Conclusion Private capital mobilization to promote sustainable development requires that enough incentives be created in order to promote interest for human development issues. This would need to involve changes in public policy and legal framework in order to integrate a sustainability framework to the practice of investment, which involves a clear political dimension. Thus, government interventions will be needed to create appropriate motivations for private capital to contribute to the SDGs. Recent research has shown that an enabling environment is crucial for private investment even in countries which already attract FDI. Therefore, the public sector has a crucial role in fostering and promoting good practices, a clear legal framework, transparency, and a proper

924

Partnerships for Development and the SDG17: Role of Foreign Direct Investment

regulatory environment. It can also provide funding for sectors that are crucial for SDGs but do not attract sufficient private flows. All these challenges have shown that, ironically, the public sector, like in the East Asia experience, plays a vital role and is not replaced by the autonomous mobilization of private capital for developmental purposes. Quite the contrary, the interplay between private capital and welldesigned public policy may be the secret for a more efficient integration of FDI into sustainable development goals. As SDG17 correctly points out, systemic issues of national institutional arrangements therefore become crucial for the coherent implementation of policies for development.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development ▶ Global Partnership ▶ Long-Term Investments ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ▶ National Sustainable Development Strategies ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World

References Alencar DA, Scarano PR (2010) Poupança externa, vulnerabilidade e crise cambial: os casos de México, Brasil e Argentina. Rev Econ Mackenzie (Impresso) 8:35–68

Alencar DA, Strachman E (2014) Foreign direct investment and balance of payments in latin America (1990– 2011). In: The 12th international post Keynesian conference, 2014, Kansas City, Missouri Aurélio MM (1997) Poupança externa e o financiamento do desenvolvimento. Brasília: Ipea. 45 p. Texto para discussão, n. 496 Barbosa-Filho NH (2002) “The Balance-of-Payment Constraint: From Balanced Trade to Sustainable Debt.” Center for Economic Policy Analysis (CEPA), New School University, WP 2001.06. New York, mimeo, January Barbosa-Filho NH (2004) “Growth, Exchange Rates and Trade in Brazil: A Structuralist Post-Keynesian Approach.” Nova Economia, 14(2):59–86 Dunning JH (1988) Explaining international production. Unwin Hyman, Londres Dunning JH (1994) Re-evaluating the benefits of foreign direct investment. Transl Corp 3:23–48 Dunning JH (1998) Explaining International Production. London: Unwin Hyman ECLAC (2014) Foreign direct investment in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2013 (LC/G.2613-P), Santiago ECLAC (2015) Financing for development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Santiago FRANCO G, FRITSCH WO (1989) investimento direto estrangeiro em uma nova estratégia industrial. Revista de Economia Política, São Paulo, v. 9, n. 2, p. 5–25, abr./jun FRANCO GA (1998) inserção externa e o desenvolvimento. Revista de Economia Política, São Paulo, v. 18, n. 3, p. 121–147, jul./set. GALA P (2007) Dois padrões de política cambial: América Latina e Sudeste Asiático. Economia e Sociedade, 16(1):65–91 IMF (2009) Balance of payments and international investment position manual. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC Kregel J (1996) Riscos e implicações da globalização financeira para as políticas nacionais, n. 7. Economia e Sociedade, Campinas Laplane M, Sarti F (1999) Investimento Direto Estrangeiro e o impacto na balança comercial nos anos 90. Texto para Discussão, n. 629. IPEA, Brasília Lima GT, Carvalho VR (2009) “Estrutura Produtiva, Restrição Externa e Crescimento Econômico: A Experiência Brasileira” [Productive Structure, External Constraint, and Economic Growth: The Brazilian Experience]. Economia e Sociedade (UNICAMP. Impresso), 18:31–60 OECD (2008) OECD benchmark definition of foreign direct investment, 4th edn. Available online at: http://www. oecd.org/investment/fdibenchmarkdefinition.htm Prebisch R (1951) Problemas teóricos y prácticos del crecimiento económico. In: Gurrieri A (ed) La obra de Prebisch en la Cepal. Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, 1982 Thirlwall A (1979) “The Balance of Payments Constraint as an Explanation of International Growth Rates

Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy Differences.” Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, 128 Thirlwall A, Hussain MN (1982) “The Balance of Payments Constraint, Capital Flows and Growth Rate Differences Between Developing Countries.” Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, 34(3):498–510 UN (2015) Addis Ababa action agenda of the third international conference on financing for development. http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/publications/aaaa-outcome. html# UN (2018) The sustainable development goals report 2018. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2018 UNCTAD (2018) UNCTADStat. UNCTAD, Geneva. http://unctadstat.unctad.org/EN/ UNCTAD (n.d.) (various years) Investment policy reviews. UNCTAD, Geneva

Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy Alberto do Amaral Junior and Gabriela da Silva Brandão University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Definition With the objective of achieving sustainable development worldwide, the United Nations (UN) approved the Agenda 2030, with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that ought to be achieved internationally until 2030 in order to eradicate extreme poverty (UN 2015a; Sachs 2015). Specifically, SDG 7 – affordable and clean energy – aims to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. While affordable is a fairly common concept, reliable energy consists in that one derived from a system which can deliver the amount and the type of energy that it is expected to. Sustainable and modern energy, on its turn, can be defined as the one that presents the best environmental performance in terms of production and consumption, usually deriving from natural but inexhaustible sources and reducing negative effects over human health, ecosystems, and food security (OECD 2011).

925

Partnerships toward the SDG’s achievement are multi-stakeholder initiatives voluntarily undertaken by governments, intergovernmental organizations, major groups, and other stakeholders, whose efforts are contributing to the implementation of inter-governmentally agreed development goals and commitments (Wahyuni 2019; UN 2015b).

Introduction After recognizing that the Millennium Development Goals – MDGs, adopted in 2000 by the UN General Assembly by Resolution A/RES/55/ 2 (UN 2002) – could not be fully achieved, even though they contributed for the reduction of extreme poverty worldwide (UN 2015c), the UN approved the Resolution A/RES/70/1, Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with the aim to eradicate extreme poverty and promote sustainable development (UN 2015a; Sachs 2015). Agenda 2030 set 17 SDGs, better detailed in 169 specific targets (UN 2015a). Among them are two specific targets that will be analyzed here, the SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy: ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all) and the SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals: strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development). Both of these goals have their specific targets, but they intertwine regarding to the partnerships established to achieve the access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy worldwide. This entry intends to provide an overview of how SDG 7 and SDG 17 relate, how partnerships toward the achievement of SDG 7 work and their relevance for the achievement of SDG 7. To this end, in addition to analyzing the relationship between SDG 7 and SDG 17, some examples of successful and ongoing partnerships to achieve the SDG 7 targets will be mentioned. In the end, some paths yet to be followed will be presented, especially considering how sustainable development can be pursued by developing countries through partnerships and multilateral action.

P

926

Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy

Interlinkage Between SDG 17 and SDG 7 With the purpose of strengthening the means of implementation of SDGs, SDG 17 established 19 specific targets, in five areas, which are finance, technology, capacity building, trade, and systemic issues. The latter is subdivided into three subareas: (i) policy and institutional coherence, (ii) multi-stakeholder partnerships, and (iii) data, monitoring, and accountability. In finance, the partnership targets intend to strengthen domestic resource mobilization, providing international support to developing countries, to contribute to developed countries’ full implementation of their development assistance commitments to least developed countries, to mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries, to assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability, and to adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries. In terms of technology, targets are directed to enhance knowledge dissemination and technology transfer from developed countries to developing countries and contribute to capacity building, enhancing the use of information and communications technology, among others. When it comes to capacity building, the specific target is to “enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the Sustainable Development Goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation” (UN 2012). SDG 17’s specific targets on trade, on its turn, are related to the promotion of a universal, rulesbased, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system, the increase of exports of developing countries, as well as the implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple and contribute to facilitating market access. Considering systemic issues, the SDG targets relate to policy and institutional coherence; to the

promotion of multi-stakeholder partnerships, encouraging effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships; and to the improvement of developing countries capacity of collecting high-quality and reliable data to support monitoring and the measurement of progress on sustainable development. As a matter of fact, there is an international consensus that the responsibility for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda is collective and, therefore, that it does not depend exclusively on governments but also on the private sectors and civil society, among other stakeholders (Dupuy and Viñuales 2015; UN 2019b; Sachs 2015). By looking at these specific targets related to partnerships for the goals, it is possible to notice they can all connect to other SDGs in various areas of knowledge. Specifically, their purpose is to boost the developed countries’ aid to developing ones toward capacity building and to gather governments, civil society, scientists, academia, and the private sector with the objective of achieving sustainable development and, therefore, tackling inequalities and combating climate change. SDG 7, on its turn, established five specific goals, which are (i) to ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services; (ii) to increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix; (iii) to double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency; (iv) to enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology; and (v) to expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States, and land-locked developing countries, in accordance with their respective programs of support. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2019b), a just and fair energy transition requires a different approach to technical and economic design of energy and power systems. Besides, renewable energy

Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy

deployment, along with transition-related investments, opens the possibility to achieve broader development and socioeconomic aims (IRENA 2019b), since renewables have become the leastcost source of new power generation for locations and markets worldwide and the energy transformation would reduce climate and environmental damage, strengthen economies, and improve people’s welfare (IRENA 2019a). Therefore, partnerships to promote SDG 7 can be established in many areas covered by SDG 17’s targets, such as finance, technology, capacity building, trade, and systemic issues, since the implementation of energy services and infrastructure and the advance of renewable energy highly depend on investment, financing, technological deployment, transfer of technology, international trade and cooperation, and strong regulatory systems. In terms of financing, IRENA (2019c) analyzed public and private investments that ought to be made in the energy sector, evaluating scenarios with current projects and with a real energy transformation, presenting several public policies and governmental actions that might be used and combined to pursue a climate-safe energy future. Most of these proposed actions may also result in public-private partnerships, considering the relevant private participation in the sector and the amount of investment needed. Energy concern must be global, since energy is a very important input for industry, and, besides, trade and economic development of countries, as well as polluting sources of electricity such as coal, oil, or gas, are responsible for the production of large amounts of greenhouses gases, impacting climate change, the environment, and the wellbeing of the people worldwide. Notwithstanding, partnerships toward the achievement of the SDG 7 shall be designed according to local specificities (IRENA 2019c) in order to reach better results. While nine out of ten people now have access to electricity, some 840 million people around the world are still without access to energy (UN ECOSOC 2019), and around 3 billion people lack access to clean cooking fuels, resulting in nearly 4 million premature deaths each year, according to the UN reports (UN 2019b; UN

927

2019c; UN 2019d; UN ECOSOC 2019). IEA et al. (2019) consider that the uptake of clean cooking solutions is essential to drive down indoor air pollution levels, and efforts to leverage effective technologies need to be elevated on the international political agenda. In Sachs’ (2015) words, SDG 7 “aims to end ‘energy poverty’, in which households lack access to electricity and safe cooking fuels.” Lack of electricity does not only affect cooking but also health, education, and businesses, since, for example, clinics cannot store vaccines for children, many schoolchildren cannot do homework at night, and people cannot run competitive businesses without electricity (UN 2019a). Nowadays, information is a very valuable asset, and considering that network connections and databases depend on electricity, the energy issue is of great relevance for development of countries. Having that in mind, the UN (2019a) considers that reaching the unserved will require increased efforts and that the world needs to triple its investment in sustainable energy infrastructure per year; therefore, regions with greatest energy deficits, such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, need help to improve energy access. Even though access to electricity in poorer countries has begun to accelerate, energy efficiency continues to improve, and renewable energy is making progress in the electricity sector, there is still a lot to be done (UN 2019b; UN 2019d; UNSD 2019). Indeed, in terms of clean fuels for cooking, the UN understands that a concerted action on the part of policymakers is needed to address key barriers, including availability, affordability, reliability, limited financing, and consumer awareness (UNSD 2019). Although there has been a relevant growth in renewable energy in the electricity sector, meeting the ambitious SDG targets will require increased policy attention to the deployment of modern renewables in key sectors such as heat and transportation (UNSD 2019). Official international financial flows to developing countries in support of clean and renewable energy reached $18.6 billion in 2016, almost doubling from $9.9 billion in 2010 (UN 2019d; UN 2019e), whereas the share of hydropower in the

P

928

Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy

total flow fell from 60% in the 2000–2009 period to around 40% between 2010 and 2016, what indicates the growth of financing of other renewable sources, such as wind, geothermal, and solar energy (UNSD 2019). But, even with these indicators, there is still a lot to be done. IEA et al. (2019) reckon that energy sector investment related to all SDG 7 targets will need to more than double between 2018 and 2030 to achieve these goals. In the before-mentioned period, they forecast that annual average investment will need to reach approximately $55 billion to expand energy access, about $700 billion to increase renewable energy, and $600 billion to improve energy efficiency (IEA et al. 2019). Considering the complexity of the energy sector, the large amount of investment needed, and also the various areas of expertise and means of fostering its targets, better results toward the achievement of SDG 7 invariably depend on multi-stakeholder partnerships, since partnerships are essential for the efficient and effective efforts toward achieving the SDGs (Wahyuni 2019) and will play a crucial role for the implementation of 2030 Agenda. An UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and The Partnering Initiative study have shown that partnerships as a collective create value to the achievement of the SDGs, in terms of collaborative advantage, considered as the intrinsic value partnership can bring toward delivering a goal, and of getting a greater impact than the sum of the parts. Similarly, they can also create value to partners individually, by impacting its strategic mission and providing gains to the organization itself, such as funding (Stibbe et al. 2019).

Partnerships for SDG 7 Partnerships for sustainable development are defined by UN as multi-stakeholder initiatives voluntarily undertaken by governments, intergovernmental organizations, major groups, and other stakeholders to contribute to the implementation of development goals and commitments (UN 2015b).

Stoll (2016) and Amaral Junior (2012) consider that they are part of a context of a paradigm change in international law, seen recently as a “law of cooperation.” To monitor the progress of partnerships aiming to achieve the SDGs, the UN has created the SDG Partnerships Platform where, until September 2019, there were 598 initiatives concerning specifically targets of the SDG 7 internationally spread (SDG Partnerships Platform 2019a). Given the high number of partnerships concerning SDG 7, it will not be possible to address all of them at this time, but we will address a few, minding to demonstrate how these partnerships work. The first initiative that shall be considered to the achievement of the SDG 7 is Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL), an international organization which works with leaders in government, private sector, and civil society with the specific objective to drive further and faster action toward the achievement of SDG 7. Even though SEforALL was initially launched in the UN, it is now independent, funded by 18 public and private governments and organizations, and it maintains close partnerships with the UN and its agencies. Briefly, SEforALL acts in both public and private sectors, in building partnerships to connect stakeholders to each other, in collecting data and providing information for the decision-making process, and in encouraging involvement toward the achievement of SDG 7. Some examples of its interventions are initiatives such as “Electricity for All in Africa,” “Energizing Finance,” “Energy for Displaced People,” “Shifting Financial Flows,” and “Sustainable Energy Diplomacy.” SEforALL network of partners includes 65 national governments, multilateral development banks, UN agencies, civil society organizations, industry associations, and private companies (SEforALL 2019). Power for All is another initiative that gathers around 200 public and private organizations, among companies, financial institutions, research bodies, and others, with the aim to building local capacity in policy and regulation, finance, skills, and training in order to help accelerating the implementation of renewable energy technology.

Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy

It was recognized at the 2018 World Future Energy Summit as a best practice for scaling solar markets (SDG Partnerships Platform 2019c; Power for All 2019). The “Smart Peer-to-Peer Solar Grids for Rural Electrification & Empowerment” was one of the cases studied by the UN DESA and The Partnering Initiative which consists on a Bangladesh-based partnership between a social enterprise and a major supplier of renewable energy, supported and enabled by the UN DESA. Through this initiative, the two organizations shared a commitment to supplying affordable solar energy to rural communities, considering its different sectors, size, structure, and purposes (Stibbe et al. 2019). In terms of value created by is initiative, UN DESA and The Partnering Initiative considered that it brings together essential complementary resources, both technical and knowledge, and offers the opportunity to achieve greater efficiency in energy supply through exploiting synergies and coordinating action, besides the opportunity created for innovation in rural energy supply and the potential of replying its operations in new areas if the initiative succeeds in the long run (Stibbe et al. 2019). Electricity for All Program, although launched by a private company toward the achievement of SDG 7, connects private companies, scientific community, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and drives them into three lines of action: (i) financing projects through investment in capital, (ii) activities carried out by businesses, and (iii) development of projects with a high social component, through NGOs and corporate volunteering. Through its partnerships, Electricity for All is developed in ten different countries: Brazil, Nicaragua, Mexico, Peru, Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Benin, Uganda, and Tanzania (SDG Partnerships Platform 2019b). In terms of financing, it is possible to refer to the Universal Green Energy Access Program Fund (UGEAP), a fund anchored by the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) and managed by a private investment management company with the aim to investing in companies or projects related to decentralized renewable energy projects

929

in sub-Saharan Africa, providing compelling riskadjusted returns to its investors and contributing to climate change mitigation and to the creation of socioeconomic benefits to local populations, by allowing them to replace dirty and inefficient fuel sources. UGEAP foresees an amount of USD 100 million to be invested in its first phase, from a blend of public and private investors, among which USD 80 million originates from the initial GCF commitment (SDG Partnerships Platform 2020a). GCF itself shall be mentioned as an important initiative in terms of funding in global terms. It was set up by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010 with the objective of helping developing countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and enhance their ability to respond to climate change, by catalyzing a flow of climate finance to invest in low-emission and climateresilient development. Its funds come mainly from developed countries but also from some developing countries, regions, and one city (GCF 2020). The European Energy Efficiency Fund (EEEF) is a public-private partnership open to investments. It has been established and capitalized by the European Commission to promote energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean public transportation at the level of public entities, cities, and communities, initially using unspent funds from the European Energy Programme for Recovery (SDG Partnerships Platform 2020b; EIB 2020). Its investors are donor agencies, governments, international financial institutions, and professional private investors (EEEF 2020). EEEF also contributes to the mitigation of climate change with a layered risk/return structure to enhance energy efficiency and foster renewable energy in the European Union, in the form of a targeted private-public partnership, facilitating investments in the public sector with the objective to foment energy savings and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, promoting the environmentally friendly use of energy (EEEF 2020). It pursues its environmental goals by offering funding for energy efficiency and small-scale renewable energy projects, allegedly combining

P

930

Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy

environmental considerations and market orientation (EEEF 2020). There are partnerships that, even though not related exclusively to SDG 7, demonstrate potential to contribute to its achievement, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG) Learn, which consists in a joint initiative of United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), United Nations System Staff College (UNSSC), and 40 other UN and non-UN organizations, and it consists in a platform, a partnership, and a program jointly developed by all partners that can serve as a hub for knowledge and experiences transfer. More recently, the Global Hub on the Governance for the SDGs, led by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and United Nations Development Program (UNDP), was launched with the aim to offer countries practical support to strengthen the public governance practices that are pre-requisites for effective SDG implementation, bringing together expertise and mobilizing much-needed support across a number of key governance pillars such as (i) institutional coordination mechanisms and the promotion of policy coherence; (ii) integrating the SDGs into the budget process and aligning resources in support of SDG goals; (iii) designing and implementing effective regulatory frameworks to support SDG goals; (iv) building inclusive policies that promote gender equality; (v) enabling a culture of integrity and fighting corruption; (vi) fostering open government, including open data; and (vii) strengthening people-focused justice delivery to ensure equal access to justice for all (OECD 2018, 2019). The Global Hub on the Governance for the SDGs provides an online knowledge platform for national experts and practitioners to interact and exchange experiences on an ongoing basis, with the purpose of engaging public authorities and other key stakeholders in a dialogue to build capacity for the effective use of governance mechanisms for the SDGs (SDG Partnerships Platform 2020c). These initiatives demonstrate that SDG 7-oriented partnerships building can occur in different areas linked to SDG 7 specific targets and it can

group the most diverse entity types, such as regional or national governments, national and international agencies, private companies, financial organizations, civil society, academic and scientific sector, and NGOs which, by their turn, can act in every field of partnerships considered by SDG 17: finance, information, and communications technology, capacity building, trade, systemic issues and data, monitoring, and accountability. In terms of capacity building for sustainable development worldwide, although the total Official Development Assistance (ODA) for capacity building and national planning is in a stable level of 14% of total sector-allocable aid since 2010, which represented $ 33.5 billion in 2017, the main sectors assisted were public administration, energy, and the financial sector. Combined, they received a total of $ 13.0 billion (UN 2019e). When it comes to multi-stakeholder partnerships and the means of implementation of the 2030 Agenda, 51 out of 114 countries reported overall progress to the UN in 2018 (UN 2019e). Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that there is a need to increase the space for civil society’s contribution to sustainable development and for a more inclusive and relevant dialogue between the public and private sectors (UN 2019e). Even though there are active partnerships in all these areas, there is still a lot to be done as the UN reports show. Therefore, the success of the ongoing partnerships and the attainment of new ones are indispensable for the achievement of SDG 7 and all other SDGs. Indeed, IEA et al. (2019) consider that key strategies for closing the electricity access gap include data-based decision-making and advanced policy-planning frameworks, as well as private sector financing, solutions such as decentralized renewables, and efforts to both extend rural electrification and cope with urban densification. In terms of clean cooking, IEA et al. (2019) assert that it must be integrated into national policy, by scaling up solutions, increasing public and private investment in clean cooking, and enhancing multisectoral collaboration, stressing that other success factors are enhanced multisectoral

Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy

collaboration and greater public and private investment. They also recognize that particularly successful programs in this field have addressed behavioral patterns, cultural norms, and regional variations, even though its achievement requires tailored policies and programs that focus on key barriers to the adoption of clean cooking solutions, such as their affordability, lack of supply, and social acceptability. Besides, engaging with local women in the design, uptake, and sale of clean cook stoves is also mentioned by Tracking SDG 7 Report as a significant way of boosting their adoption (IEA et al. 2019). Although renewables have made remarkable progress over the past decade, they still face persistent barriers, such as financial, regulatory, and technological. Therefore, to foster an enabling environment for renewables, various policies are needed to integrate them into energy systems and directly support their deployment in all end uses, and, to ensure inclusiveness in all respects, gender considerations need to be mainstreamed in energy sector policies, education and training programs, and private sector practices (IEA et al. 2019). IEA et al. (2019) account that a broad energy transformation requires adjusting the traditional way energy is consumed and shifting toward a more decentralized system, which would, then, require new infrastructure investments, further development of innovative technologies, new business models, and new energy market designs, sectors where there is a massive relationship between public and private agents. By tackling issues such as ensuring universal access to modern energy services, the waterenergy nexus, and potential geopolitical implications, the transition addresses topics beyond energy, intimate related to SDGs wider aims (IEA et al. 2019), and can promote new partnerships in this sector. Despite pointing out several governmental efforts that can be made in terms of energy efficiency, such as strengthening mandatory energy efficiency policies, providing targeted fiscal or financial incentives, and leveraging marketbased mechanisms, IEA et al. (2019) highlight that the spread of digital technologies will also create new ways to harness efficiency

931

improvements through improved devices and business models and that, together with the dissemination of high-quality information about energy efficiency, can also be object of multistakeholder partnerships. Energy savings potential must also be pursued through fuel economy in public and private transportation, energy standards for existing buildings and new constructions, as well as for industry, heating and electrical appliances, for example. In every of the previously mentioned areas, there are opportunities for multi-stakeholder partnerships and also for technology deployment. According to IEA et al. (2019), a rapid and farreaching transformation of the energy sector is essential in order to achieve SDG 7 targets by 2030, even though notable progress has been made in the past few years, enabled by the declining costs of renewable energy technologies and concerted government efforts in certain regions. IEA et al. (2019) also claim the urge of stepping up investments and careful planning of electrification in sub-Saharan Africa, as well as the expansion access to clean cooking solutions worldwide, commercially viable solutions for renewables – especially for heat and transport – and renewed commitment to improving the coverage and stringency of efficiency regulations. Reaching SDG 7 targets depends on large amounts of investment. In this sense, IEA et al. (2019) estimate that achieving universal energy access would require annual average investments of approximately $1320 billion per year between 2018 and 2030 in a variety of technologies, in order to substantially accelerate the share of renewable energy and double the rate of energy intensity improvements. This would comprise annual investment of approximately $51 billion to achieve universal electricity access, $4 billion for clean cooking access, over $660 billion for renewable energy, and $600 billion for energy efficiency technologies. On the other hand, the benefits of achieving the energy transformation are innumerable. Since energy and climate goals are closely interlinked and complementary pursuits, SDG 7 is an essential component of several other SDGs, considered

P

932

Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy

“a golden thread in the sustainable development agenda” (IEA et al. 2019). But also, other factors need to be taken into consideration regarding expanding partnerships toward renewable energy and sustainable development for all. Indeed, significant countries and regional differences can be obstacles to the full implementation of Agenda 2030 and the achievement of SDGs. Conflict, instability, and climate change have local and transboundary impacts (UN 2019e; Stoll 2016) and, along with globalization in trade and finance, technological change, and infrastructure deficits, are important coefficients for the development of sustainable and reliable energy. Disparities between developed and developing countries are also evident when it comes to scientific research and innovation. While Europe and North America spent 2.21% of their GDP in research and development, most developing countries invest below the global average of 1.68% (UN 2019e). Those issues are all matters of concern of International Law nowadays, especially in a context of fragmentation and of its diversification and increase of its scope, or, as the in the UN’s International Law Commission’s understanding, of “diversification and expansion of International Law” (UN ILC 2006; Bratspies 2011). If, on the one hand, International Law faces the challenge of dealing with the most distinct regulatory issues in the international sphere, on the other hand, it has become an important tool for fostering development by seeking to reduce inequalities in the global sphere (Amaral Junior 2012). Therefore, it is not feasible to pursue sustainable development in isolation, outside international sphere and without international regulation. Thus, partnerships for achieving SDG 7, while involving national stakeholders, cannot be restricted to the internal sphere of each country alone. On the contrary, for multi-stakeholder partnerships to effectively promote capacity building, technology transfer, and financial flows, they must be established across country borders and tackle regional and international inequalities. The UN (2019e) considers that there are complex and interconnected development challenges

that require deep changes to systems, as well as the mobilization of entire governments – including regional and local levels – and the entire society around the Goals. The engagement of stakeholders, such as civil society, private sector, academic, and scientific communities, in order to achieve SDGs is also recognized and valued in the UN system.

Conclusion Multi-stakeholder partnerships are essential to the achievement of the SDG targets worldwide since they can bind together governments, intergovernmental organizations, civil society, and other stakeholders, either nationally, regionally, locally, or internationally, toward the sustainable development pursuit. They are especially relevant to developing countries, which depend on financial and technological aid to overtake poverty and social disparities. Specifically with respect to the SDG 7, multistakeholder partnerships can exist in many areas covered by SDG 17’s targets, since the implementation of energy services and infrastructure and the advance of renewable energy highly depend on investment, financing, technological deployment, transfer of technology, international trade and cooperation, and strong regulatory systems. Various initiatives were cited in this entry. In common, they gather public and private entities with the aim to promote the expansion of electricity services and of renewable energy sources, technological deployment, technology transfer, capacity building, the rational use of energy and, consequently, greater energy efficiency, and dissemination of knowledge and training in these areas, practically covering all SDG 7’s specific targets. And they are just a small sample of the 598 initiatives concerning specifically targets of the SDG 7 listed in the SDG Partnerships Platform until September 2019. Taking that into consideration, it is feasible to conclude that those sorts of initiatives are and will be responsible for the SDG progress worldwide. However, the reports cited on this entry show that there is still much to be done in terms of

Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy

sustainable development and toward the achievement of affordable and clean energy. Indeed, there is still room for advancement in partnerships in most diverse areas covered by SDG 7’s targets, such as in (i) data collection and treatment, (ii) clean cooking, (iii) power-system reshaping, (iv) education and training programs, (v) infrastructure, (vi) development of innovative technologies, (vii) new business models, (viii) new energy market designs, (ix) spread of digital technologies, (x) changing the patterns of energy consumption and savings, and, last but not the least, (xi) fostering investments. Other factors, though, need to be taken into consideration in order for the full implementation of Agenda 2030 and the achievement of SDGs. Significant countries and regional differences, as well as conflict, instability, and climate change, globalization in trade and finance, technological change, and infrastructure deficits, are important coefficients for the development of sustainable and reliable energy. Those issues, together with others that may impact development of countries, are objects of concern of International Law nowadays, and, considering the widespread globalization and the recent technological revolution that allows huge data exchange and brings countries closer together, it is not possible to think of fostering sustainable development in isolation, restricted exclusively to national borders. In the end, multilateral action is essential for the achievement of SDGs, and it must be highly considered in terms of partnerships for the achievement of the goals. When it comes to SDG 7, capacity building, technology transfer, and financial flows are essential to the development of sustainable and reliable energy for all, and, therefore, its achievement is highly dependable on multilateralism.

Cross-References ▶ Business as a Partner for the Global Goals ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals

933

▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ▶ Official Development Assistance (ODA), Aid Dynamics, and Sustainable Development ▶ Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance ▶ Partnerships and Innovations Relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Role of Transnational Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Role of Science, Technology, and Innovation Towards SDGS

References Amaral Junior A (2012) O Desenvolvimento Sustentável no Plano Internacional. In: Salomão Filho C (org) Regulação e Desenvolvimento – Novos Temas. Malheiros, São Paulo, pp 74–105 Bratspies R (2011) Sustainability: can law meet the challenge? Suffolk Transnat’l L Rev 34(2):283–316 Dupuy P, Viñuales J (2015) International environmental law: a modern introduction. Cambridge University Press, UK EEEF (2020) https://www.eeef.eu/home.html. Accessed 28 June 2020 European Investment Bank – EIB (2020) https://www.eib. org/en/products/equity/funds/european_energy_effi ciency_fund. Accessed 28 June 2020 GCF (2020) https://www.greenclimate.fund/. Accessed 27 June 2020 IEA, IRENA, UNSD, WB, WHO (2019) Tracking SDG 7: the energy progress report 2019. Washington, DC. https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/May/Track ing-SDG7-The-Energy-Progress-Report-2019. Accessed 7 Oct 2019 IRENA (2019a) People, planet and prosperity. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. https:// www.irena.org/publications/2019/Jul/People-Planetand-Prosperity. Accessed 27 Sept 2019 IRENA (2019b) Renewable energy auctions – status and trends beyond price – preliminary findings. International

P

934

Partnerships for Development of Sustainable and Reliable Energy

Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. https://www. irena.org/publications/2019/Jun/Renewable-energy-auc tions-Status-and-trends-beyond-price. Accessed 27 Sept 2019 IRENA (2019c) Transforming the energy system – and holding the line on the rise of global temperatures. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Sep/Trans forming-the-energy-system. Accessed 10 Oct 2019 OECD (2011) Green growth studies: energy. https://www. oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-energy/49157219.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2019 OECD (2018) Global Hub for the Governance of the SDGs. https://www.oecd.org/gov/pcsd/OECD%20Pro posal%20Global%20Hub%20for%20the%20Gover nance%20of%20the%20SDGs%20(September% 202018)%20FLYER.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2020 OECD (2019) Launch of the Global Hub on the Governance for the SDGs. https://www.oecd.org/gov/pcsd/ launchoftheglobalhubonthegovernanceforthesdgs.htm. Accessed 29 June 2020 Power for All (2019) About. https://www.powerforall.org. Accessed 20 Sept 2019 Sachs J (2015) The age of sustainable development, 4th printing. Columbia University Press, New York SDG Partnerships Platform (2019a) Goal 7 – ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partner ships/goal7/. Accessed 12 Sept 2019 SDG Partnerships Platform (2019b) Electricity for all. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/? p¼33138. Accessed 20 Sept 2019 SDG Partnerships Platform (2019c) Power for all. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/? p¼25829. Accessed 20 Sept 2019 SDG Partnerships Platform (2020a) Universal Green Energy Access Program Fund (UGEAP). https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/? p¼35594. Accessed 27 June 2020 SDG Partnerships Platform (2020b) European Energy Efficiency Fund (EEEF) investing in sustainable energy projects in Europe. https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/partnership/?p¼35384. Accessed 28 June 2020 SDG Partnerships Platform (2020c) Global Hub on the Governance for the SDGs. https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/partnership/?p¼34170. Accessed 29 June 2020 SEforALL (2019) Partners. https://www.seforall.org/part nerships/partners?page¼0. Accessed 17 Sept 2019 Stibbe DT, Reid S, Gilbert J, The Partnering Initiative, UN DESA (2019) Maximising the impact of partnerships for the SDGs. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/2564Partnerships_for_the_SDGs_ Maximising_Value_Guidebook_Final.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept 2019 Stoll PT (2016) The climate as a global common. In: Farber D, Peeters M (eds) Climate change law, vol. 1 of the Elgar encyclopedia of environmental law. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK UN (2000) General Assembly Resolution A/RES/55/2, United Nations Millennium Declaration. https://www.

un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/ generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_55_2. pdf. Accessed 15 June 2017 UN (2012) General Assembly Resolution A/RES/66/288, The future we want. https://www.un.org/en/develop ment/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/ docs/globalcompact/A_RES_66_288.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2017 UN (2015a) General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ post2015/transformingourworld. Accessed 26 June 2017 UN (2015b) General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/224, Towards global partnerships: a principle-based approach to enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners. https://undocs.org/A/ RES/70/224. Accessed 12 Sept 2019 UN (2015c) The millennium development goals report. United Nations, New York. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20 (July%201).pdf. Accessed 15 June 2017 UN (2019a) Affordable and clean energy: why it matters. United Nations, New York. https://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ 7.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2019 UN (2019b) Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: the future is now – science for achieving sustainable development. United Nations, New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ 24797GSDR_ report_2019.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2019 UN (2019c) Partnerships: why they matter. United Nations, New York. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ wp-content/uploads/2016/08/7.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2019 UN (2019d) Report of the Secretary-General on SDG progress 2019 – special edition. United Nations, New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ documents/24978Report_of_the_SG_on_SDG_Pro gress_2019.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2019 UN (2019e) Special edition: progress towards the sustainable development goals – report of the Secretary-General – E/2019/68. United Nations, New York. https:// unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2019/secretary-gen eral-sdg-report-2019%2D%2DEN.pdf. Accessed 20 Sept 2019 UN ECOSOC (2019) The sustainable development goals report 2019. United Nations, New York. https://unstats. un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Develop ment-Goals-Report-2019.pdf. Accessed 18 Sept 2019 UN ILC (2006) Report on the work of the fifty-eight session – chapter XII – fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. http://legal.un.org/ docs/?path¼../ilc/reports/2006/english/chp12.pdf& lang¼EFSRAC. Accessed 3 Apr 2017 UNSD (2019) SDG indicators – 7 affordable and clean energy – ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. https://unstats.un.org/ sdgs/report/2019/goal-07/. Accessed 23 Sept 2019

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside WAHYUNI, D. (2019), Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development. In: Leal Filho W., Azul A., Brandli L., Özuyar P., Wall T. (eds) Partnerships for the Goals. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31971067-9_10-1. Accessed 12 Sep 2019.

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside Deborah E. de Lange Global Management Studies, Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Definition The phrase city technology innovation is related to the term “smart city.” City technology innovation refers to the implementation of technology that contributes to a smart city. Such innovation would add to and/or improve upon existing city systems such as energy, waste, water, buildings, food, and transportation. Installing electric car charging infrastructure would be an example of introducing innovation into a city. This is a smart addition to a city because more chargers would support the choice to use electric vehicles over combustion engine cars and thereby reduce local pollution and climate-change-inducing greenhouse gases. The International Telecommunication Union defines a smart city as an “innovative city that uses information and communication technologies (ICT) and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social and environmental aspects” (Kondepudi 2014, p. 13; Mueller et al. 2018).

Introduction This chapter focuses on the governance of city change including the integration of high

935

technology into city systems, illustrated with a case study at Toronto’s Harbourfront. Many agree that it is at the city level, rather than at regional or national levels, where we will see the greatest progress on climate change mitigation and adaptation, for a variety of reasons (Hughes 2017). A UNEP estimate is that cities may spend approximately US$41 trillion by 2030 on new water, energy, and transportation infrastructure to accommodate growing populations (UNEP 2013). These impending investments in smart sustainable changes are in accordance with an urgent requirement to address the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), for example, Goal #11 Sustainable Cities and Communities and Goal #13 Climate Action. Making city systems smarter through technology enables higher levels of sustainability overall and thereby addresses most of the UN SDGs, either directly or indirectly. Many high-tech “smart city” implementations are happening around the world, for example, in cities such as London (UK), Copenhagen (Denmark), and Oslo (Norway) (C40 Cities 2017). In London, the city is informing the public about smart city climate initiatives together with the reasons for them. Citizens’ buy-in is critical for the success of climate mitigation strategies, including the related technological investments (Burch 2010; Tvinnereim et al. 2017). One of London, England’s education approaches is to provide real-time air quality warnings. Using technology at bus stops, roadside, and online, these systems display forewarnings at up to 2500 bus stops about high and very high pollution levels. Air quality alerts are also sent to 700, 000 followers of London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Twitter account. This information helps to justify changes such as London’s 12 low-emission bus zones to be completed by 2020. The lowest emission vehicles, such as top-of-the-range Euro VI buses or hybridelectric buses, are allocated to these zones in designated lanes (C40 Cities 2017). London has also recently announced that it will acquire 68 new electric double-decker buses for two routes exclusively served by e-buses (Morris 2018). When citizens understand that their health is otherwise at risk from pollution, the Mayor of London can more easily justify new technology investments

P

936

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside

including “the largest pure electric double-deck bus fleet in Europe” (Morris 2018). Another smart city technology story is Copenhagen’s. Copenhagen has become an exemplar happy sustainable city with a goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2025 (Booth 2014; C40 Cities 2017). As of 2017, Copenhagen has been working with utilities to implement a central information technology platform including data collection and analysis of electricity, heat, and water systems from smart meters in municipal buildings (C40 Cities 2017). They are gathering detailed information so that the city can identify utility issues and plan upgrades. With payback periods of 6 years or less, by 2016, they had already found significant heat and electricity savings. This eco-efficient evidence has justified the platform system for implementation by some large privately owned buildings. C40 Cities provide many case studies, and the third one described here will be an example from Oslo, Norway. Norway has a significant reliance on its oil and gas industry, as does Canada. Oslo’s city greenhouse gas reduction plan, to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2020 and by 95% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, incorporates many new technological solutions. Oslo has a full suite of 16 solutions planned in the areas of smart mobility, energy, and governance. Although the country’s economy has been heavily reliant on the fossil fuel industry, Oslo still plans to reduce car traffic by 20%, phase out fossil fuels for heating and public transport, and improve procurement standards so as to focus on eco-efficiency. The city outlines a holistic set of benefits expected including climate change mitigation, improvement of the local quality of life, and increased employment. Oslo’s determination to meet its goals is reflected in a carbon budget which is folded into its city budget, including targets for all city departments. The three previous case studies of technological retrofits, of which there are many more described at the C40 Cities site, incorporate new integrated smart city technologies. The International Telecommunication Union defines a smart city as an “innovative city that uses information

and communication technologies (ICT) and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social and environmental aspects” (Kondepudi 2014, p. 13; Mueller et al. 2018). Cities have used different partnership approaches to facilitate development, including smart city implementations, and the public-private partnership is often discussed today.

Types of Partnerships and Their Implications Although public-private partnerships (PPPs) often facilitate “smart city” implementations, how the city designs evolve (Van den hurk and Siemiatycki 2018) and to what extent the private partners have control versus public control are important factors to consider as impacting outcomes (Sarmento and Renneboog 2016). A PPP differs from traditional public sector procurement because in a PPP the public sector does not get involved in project management (Sarmento and Renneboog 2016). Instead, this is left to a private sector partner. The public sector chooses one private sector partner to deliver and finance a longterm, integrated infrastructure project under specific terms and conditions for defined project outcomes (Hodge and Greve 2010; Sarmento and Renneboog 2016; Van den hurk and Siemiatycki 2018). The private sector actor then hires subcontractors and manages the project for the planned outcomes. However, some literature suggests that the PPP structure could influence outcomes as compared to past public sector management (Sarmento and Renneboog 2016; Van den hurk and Siemiatycki 2018). No matter how the project is structured, retrofits should be designed and built with a long-term view, in the best interests of the city and its citizenry, but this general statement could be interpreted in various ways (Gordon 1996; Van den hurk and Siemiatycki 2018). For example, some literature would suggest that value for money and basic functionality are more often

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside

outcomes of PPPs, as evidenced in Ontario, Canada (Van den hurk and Siemiatycki 2018). In contrast, public procurement has put the architect foremost for long-term architectural impact, beautification, and wider city enhancement as one might find in Jørn Oberg Utzon’s Sydney Opera House or in Frank Gehry’s Bilbao Guggenheim Museum. These types of monumental structures attract the world’s notice through beauty and distinctiveness. The cities are identified by their landmark structures. This chapter considers additional issues relating to PPPs where private technology companies are at the helm instead of traditional developers. A lead technology partner could also build according to a short-sighted agenda and with uncomfortable results for city dwellers, including data security issues (Bliss 2018; Sarmento and Renneboog 2016; Van den hurk and Siemiatycki 2018). Where PPPs of the past could be criticized for not delivering projects geared for pubic inspiration and only basic satisfaction, smart city PPPs could also have technology glitches.

Toronto’s High-Tech Quayside Plans Toronto’s development of part of the eastern side of its Harbourfront through a PPP, “Quayside,” is a smart city case study in progress where a technology partner, Alphabet (re: Google), has been identified. Because the technological design would be without precedent, especially in Toronto, it may be difficult for partners to evaluate it until after project completion and the new residents provide feedback, especially if there is a lack of transparency throughout project design and development (Sarmento and Renneboog 2016; Valverde 2018). Once such a project is built, turning back is difficult as evidenced by the western side of Toronto’s Harbourfront (Gordon 1996). The area is packed with condominiums, lacks sufficient public green space especially considering Toronto’s growth, and is largely controlled by and changed according to the preferences of local business representatives instead of local resident representatives (Waterfront BIA 2017). The

937

area has not been considered a prime example of waterfront development (Gordon 1996). A recent report explains its continuing challenges which ultimately relate to a permanent deficit of public space, not reclaimable because of the built environment (Waterfront BIA 2017). Although population projections suggest that by 2066, Toronto will reach 13.1 million people and more people will squeeze into the core near the Harbourfront, the eastern side of Harbourfront is following a similar path of over-congested development as on the west side, again repeating the same mistake of not planning for sufficient public space for millions more inhabitants (Preville 2016). However, according to a C40 Cities case study (2017), Toronto has a 2015 climate change mitigation and adaptation plan to increase resilience called TransformTO which foresees the city using 75% renewable energy by 2050, transportation having 100% zero-carbon emissions by 2050, all new buildings having near-zero emissions by 2030, and all existing buildings retrofitted by 2050. Toronto’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050. While Toronto is focused on building public infrastructure such as multi-model transportation systems in respect of these goals, the C40 Cities blurb is silent on increasing park space or “green infrastructure” which is crucial for climate adaptation, for example, in reducing the urban heat island effect (Gill et al. 2007). Although Toronto’s overall goals are admirable and all new eastern Harbourfront developments would have to contribute to them so as to enable their realization, Toronto is known for allowing private interests to dominate (Gordon 1996). Real estate developers have trumped municipal planning, partly due to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), recently shut down in 2018, but now possibly being resurrected again with the new premier of Ontario (Hansen 2018; Willing, 2019). A new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) may lead the way to future municipal priorities over those of private development in Toronto, but this is yet to be seen (Rau 2018). While the unbridled growth of Toronto’s built environment has been a point of pride because it reflects expansion, immigration, and economic development, the visible

P

938

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside

outcomes have not been optimal as glass and steel high rises anchored in concrete dominate the skyline (Brown 2017; Kuitenbrouwer 2012). Outcomes for a parcel of Toronto’s eastern Harbourfront, dubbed “Quayside,” are not yet clarified, but the situation has already been widely criticized and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has started legal proceedings to stop Quayside (Valverde 2018; Vincent and Ferguson 2019; Wylie 2018). This chapter will describe what is known to date and integrate some previous literature to add thoughtful and comparative reflection on what could be done.

Transparency and Democratic DecisionMaking for Social Capital Building Transparency has been discussed in literature as critical for ensuring that projects are conducted and built in the best interests of the local public who are the main long-term stakeholders (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff 2011; Sarmento and Renneboog 2016). They will live in, experience, and use the area incorporating various technologies as part of city systems. Quayside entails a 12-acre plan that is understood as expanding to cover 800 acres of prime Toronto property including the Port Lands should the parties agree on the smaller 12-acre agenda. This PPP is named Sidewalk Toronto, a joint initiative by Waterfront Toronto and Alphabet’s Sidewalk Labs (WaterfrontToronto 2018). It is a holistic and vague development plan expected to include mixed-use space, transportation, parks, waste management, water, and energy systems together with data collection (Bozikovic 2017; Valverde 2018). At this time, Quayside has not yet been granted to Alphabet, although there is an assumption it will be after a year of planning. Because Waterfront Toronto represents the public side of the PPP, Torontonians are relying on this government agency to ensure transparency and engagement of citizens in the design. Although Waterfront Toronto is a government agency, the board is made up largely of appointees from the business community, adding to some concerns for the

public interest (Valverde 2018). In any case, a public engagement plan has been laid out by Sidewalk Toronto including a series of publicly accessible town hall discussions over 2018 and other outreach efforts (Sidewalk Toronto 2018). The main criticisms to date in the press relate to the continuing vagueness of the plans together with data privacy concerns (McLeod 2018; Valverde 2018; Wylie 2018). Through the town halls in 2018, efforts have been made by Sidewalk Toronto to alleviate data privacy and use concerns by, for example, presenting an initial data use framework. The project may not have had the best start, however, as the author attended a developers’ conference in Toronto in 2017 where the Quayside plan was unveiled but no feedback was solicited. When the author spoke up at the session and emphasized the need for parkland, this was treated as an unwelcome comment, and the presenter answered simply that parks are expensive. Transparency is in question for this project, and it could be related to the uncertainty of the plans. Also, the CEO of Waterfront Toronto has recently stepped down, but explanatory details for his departure have not been officially released, although some in the press have assumed connections to the vagueness of the Quayside plans (Powell 2018; Roy 2018). Who makes the design decisions for smart city changes is consequential. For example, local stakeholder and citizen input could be primary or foreign technology elites could dominate, as would appear to be the case at Quayside. Literature has pointed to the differences between PPPs and public procurement where in the former, the corporate partner chooses a design partner as a subcontractor, whereas in the latter, the government usually works with a designer/architect who is viewed as the master of the project (Van den Hurk and Siemiatycki 2018). The implied consequences are that the public loses inspiration, beauty, and a social focus in the design and the related enjoyment, pride, and social capital building in their city that they may have otherwise had in case architects had led (De Souza Briggs 1997; Van den Hurk and Siemiatycki 2018). Traditional developers may deliver functional results that make them money while meeting public budgets

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside

so that politicians cannot be accused of over spending the public purse (Sarmento and Renneboog 2016; Van den hurk and Siemiatycki 2018). In the case of Quayside, a technology company is planning the community which turns both traditional developers and architects into subcontractors. We are not yet sure of the full consequences for Quayside and the Port Lands, but the recent build-out of the east-central part of Harbourfront is condominiums right up to the water, and the Quayside preliminary design suggests more of the same, but digitized and possibly more compact. An added challenge for Sidewalk Toronto is that historically, partnerships in Toronto have been used for single projects such as for a building or part of a transportation route, not the construction of an entire community, a significant difference that could become an obstacle for Sidewalk Toronto (Van den hurk and Siemiatycki 2018). Because of a new priority on “smart” technology, the deep integration of it into real estate development means the technology firm leads the PPP. The consequences, as expected, can be anticipated. Data security and privacy are new key concerns associated with smart cities, especially for residents, and this issue has been raised in the case of Quayside (Braga 2018; Zhang et al. 2017). Physical connectedness with the existing city and congestion within new development zones spilling over into surrounding areas are not new issues given a profit motivation (together with matching city budget concerns) that seeks increased intensive utilization and, as a consequence, reduced public space (Bunce 2004; Kourtit and Nijkamp 2018; Lloyd and Auld 2003; Waterfront BIA 2017). Density has been justified from multiple perspectives in previous literature (Bunce 2004). According to Bozikovik’s (2017) article, the business model for Quayside has not been established, but Sidewalk Labs sees it as a “real estate play,” as would typical real estate developers. As explained earlier, a municipal lead together with its master architect would likely see an opportunity to produce an outstanding waterfront experience coupled with long-term community building instead. For the City of Toronto, these are vastly

939

different types of visions having different longterm consequences. However, other improvements may make such a tech-focused PPP attractive, over the typical PPP with a developer, to both the city and a workforce already accepting of uninspired glass and steel from a previous generation of development (Rosen and Walks 2013). For example, new renewable energy systems could reduce GHG emissions, avoid additional load to existing energy systems, and increase energy reliability for residents (Mathiesen et al. 2015). Improved waste management systems could recycle automatically while dealing with garbage for cleaner areas and cost savings and avoiding the export of garbage to distant landfills that may in the future reject it (Bozikovic 2017; Kennedy et al. 2007). China is rejecting foreign waste including that from Canada (Hounsell 2018). Water might be conserved and safely recycled onsite rather than adding to the city’s existing water filtration load. Innovative local transportation planning could reduce the use of cars and parking areas (Firnkorn and Müller 2015; Kenworthy 2006). Various overall adaptations for climate change might increase safety, health, and comfort while helping to meet some of Toronto’s aforementioned C40 Cities goals (Younger et al. 2008). Although these new technologies could be heavy investments, they might also increase property values (Wolch et al. 2014). A remaining problem is the trade-off between functionality and a narrow view of economic utility against a lack of inspiration, decreased public space, and ailing social capital that has arrived with PPPs (De Souza Briggs 1997; Van den hurk and Siemiatycki 2018). This trade-off may remain as technology simply increases efficiencies in high-tech ways that traditional developers are not yet capable of delivering. A positive consequence of this is that developers may have to upgrade their knowledge and skills as the technology firms potentially usurp both developers and architects to become the masters over new developments. Going forward, looking to European models of development that incorporate citizen happiness considerations such as in Copenhagen, these aforementioned development shortcomings

P

940

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside

might be resolved, but perhaps not before Toronto’s Harbourfront is already built up beyond repair (Boseley 2018).

Classic Principles of Change Management Facilitated by Technology No matter these battles among types of firms and their priorities, a classic rule remains. Change management and technology change literature suggest that employees, or “users” as they are often called, should be involved in design and development for acceptance and adoption of any change (Joshi 1991; Morgan and Zeffane 2003). In the case of a community, the analogue to users would be citizens including those who actually live in the new neighborhood. This suggests that the public should be at the forefront of the design of their own changing communities, not only to increase the likelihood of their acceptance of the changes but also to ensure that the changes meet citizens’ lifestyle preferences and requirements (Larsen and Gunnarsson-Östling 2009). Perhaps if citizens were at the helm of PPPs, rather than a PPP firm, competing interests of design versus economics versus technology would be balanced off so as to reach better outcomes. Previous literature incorporates some of these considerations and has explicated on definitions such as citizen or civic engagement which are terms used to describe how citizens participate in a community, such as volunteering or participating in public debates, so as to improve the public’s living conditions or to help plan a community’s future (Adler and Goggin 2005). Citizen participation has been defined by Heller et al. (1984) to be “a process in which individuals take part in decision making in the institutions, programs, and environments that affect them” (p. 339). Citizen participation suggests more activity and greater control over decisions. Furthermore, some literature refers to “open data,” “open governance,” and “e-governance” to describe efforts at transparency in urban planning and governance such that citizens may even engage in direct dialogue with elite decisionmakers (Mueller et al. 2018). A city in Portugal

has planned to use an electronic service to encourage public discussions on the Internet on current city projects (Oliveira et al. 2004; Mueller et al. 2018). In contrast, Toronto business elites on the board of Waterfront Toronto have essentially farmed out design to a foreign company that admits to not knowing Toronto and seems to be struggling with more than just its communications strategy (Bozikovic and Gray 2017; McLeod 2018; Valverde 2018; Wylie 2018). Several citizen participation schemes have been discussed and critiqued in the literature with some of the abovementioned concerns in mind viewed from differing perspectives. In fact, the board of Waterfront Toronto has had many previous examples to draw upon for models of citizen participation in design, some of which will be described. Previous literature explains that local governments have already experienced issues with technology solutions driven from the top and measured by traditional economic and operational indicators so they are turning to more democratic approaches (Fredericks et al. 2018). Previous literature has discussed “living labs” as bottom-up citizen-centered context-based decision-making spaces (Clark and Shelton 2016; Voytenko et al. 2016). In theory, “Living Labs are defined as user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach integrating research and innovation processes in real life communities and settings” (Cardullo et al. 2017, p. 44). An expectation is that these labs are better for applying technologies, such as for smart cities, so as to meet local stakeholder interests and preferences (Cardullo et al. 2017). Living labs have been pronounced as public, private, and people partnerships (PPPP) for delivering user-driven technology applications as in smart cities (Gascó 2017; Nesti 2015). However, some literature is skeptical and questions whether living labs are truly egalitarian or, instead, more paternalistic approaches to develop for the future high-tech-oriented gentry of our cities (see Castelnovo et al. 2015; Clark and Shelton 2016; Florida 2003). “Pop-up urbanism” is another stakeholder-oriented city building approach that captures ideas from a broader cross section of society (Fredericks

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside

et al. 2018). A pop-up in this sense arises as a transitory feedback mechanism that can be virtual or physically situated in a public location (Fredericks et al. 2018). Pop-ups capturing ideas from anyone passing by are more egalitarian and helpful for considering lower cost but still acceptable policies for urban renewal (Cardullo et al. 2017). As an illustration of a pop-up, a tent could be set up with digital tablets having software surveys on them that capture passersby’s feedback on issues, perhaps about the very spot where the tent is set up. More examples can be read about in research by Fredericks et al. (2018). One can imagine fun ways to solicit feedback, such as the “selfies” mentioned in Fredericks et al. (2018), that could even raise enthusiasm and mitigate apprehension about an impending change, depending on the circumstances. Thus, even in the process of design, technologies can be creatively applied to increase citizens’ acceptance of change, rather than only incorporating technologies in final solutions. Another democratic approach to city building is the “crowdsourced city” using a collective participation approach that takes different forms depending on the urban governance structures (Cardullo et al. 2017). For example, “Citizen Design Science” is a strategy used by cities to integrate citizens’ ideas and preferences in the urban planning process. Citizens’ ideas are crowdsourced using modern information and communication technology (ICT) combined with the use of active design tools (Mueller et al. 2018). According to Mueller et al. (2018), a liveable sustainable city for citizens is developed by including their input and feedback, and thus the authors propose merging “citizen science” with “citizen design,” which results in the integration of Design Science into urban design. Moreover, “distributed participatory design” (or mass-participatory design) occurs when combining crowdsourcing with co-design approaches (Lorimer 2016; Mueller et al. 2018). Various tools aid in design including visualization systems that help to engage citizens who may identify landmarks and reflect a citizen’s view of their city environment. According to some literature, centralized planning where power is held by elite planners has had

941

its day, partly due to the requirements associated with integrated technologies (Offenhuber and Schechtner 2018). Instead, the newer more complex multi-stakeholder networked model of planning means that there is greater confusion over decision-making and accountability, as Sidewalk Toronto is likely experiencing (Offenhuber and Schechtner). This multi-stakeholder approach to design and governance over infrastructure enables ongoing modernization using the latest technologies such as drone mapping, sensor networks, and data analytics, assuming that the public can accept the terms of data collection and usage (Offenhuber and Schechtner 2018). Sidewalk Toronto is hearing about these issues of data governance and privacy, possibly to a heightened level of concern, because the organization appears more top-down than democratic. Other recent work has discussed a trend away from technology-centered smart city planning to a more citizen-centered approach, as suggested earlier (Joss et al. 2017).

A Vision for a Sustainable Smart City Developed with Democratic Principles The UNEP (2013) states that innovations, such as those for smart cities, should be part of a larger strategic vision for a sustainable city, yet it is also admitted that there is not yet a common vision of what it means to be a sustainable city. Building this vision is perhaps the helpful role that international organizations such as C40 Cities play as cities attempting to become more sustainable share ideas and evolve over time (Lee and Van de Meene 2012). The UK has been motivated to develop standards for its own smart cities and future work abroad through their British Standards Institution, given an estimate for a smart city market of $408 billion by 2020 (BIS 2013, p. 1; Joss et al. 2017). By developing their own expertise on projects at home, also using a democratic or people-centered development approach that helps to legitimize new technologies, they become more internationally competitive so as to capture smart city business opportunities elsewhere. Literature has considered this changing distribution of power and responsibility across

P

942

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside

individuals, market actors, communities, and governments and called it the “responsibility mix” (Jenson 2009; Joss et al. 2017). In contrast, the Sidewalk Toronto approach for Quayside has struggled to create a vision and build citizen buy-in. Moreover, in comparison to the British and their choice to build local expertise, Waterfront Toronto has chosen a foreign company to lead that has the power to choose its partners/ subcontractors.

Conclusions Overall, this chapter has described the evolution of city building partnerships, first, where architects led the design with municipalities in charge; then, where municipalities outsourced to private developers in PPPs; and, today, where the partnership could be evolving to PPPs with technology leads. More recently, some “smart” holistic communities are being planned with integrated technologies rather than only single buildings, as would usually be the case with a traditional developer in a PPP. Implications for each type of partnership have been discussed. Toronto’s Quayside has been an illustration of where, perhaps through partnership choices, the city seems to have forgotten ambitions for world-class prominence through monumental designs and great public experiences. This could be changing as the LPAT takes over from a developer-driven OMB which may have influenced the tendency for developer-led PPPs. However, with Quayside and the Port Lands potentially in the hands of a foreign technology company, old habits may die hard. Literature has outlined how the public can be an engaged driving force in a PPPP. Methods were discussed for actively involving the public by taking advantage of wide-reaching technologies, such as for pop-ups and crowdsourcing. Technology can engage in more egalitarian ways and, thereby, widely legitimize new technological systems in accordance with change management principles. Furthermore, the UN SDGs can only be realized when smart city changes are integrated

for en masse social capital building rather than for elites’ profit making. Toronto still has a chance, as Chicago did, to find its Aaron Montgomery Ward, the retail entrepreneur who fought to save Grant Park in the public interest, and, in the end, to establish the greatness of Chicago as a city (Krohe 1991). Toronto could still take back control of at least part of its rare and precious lakefront. The city could create an extraordinary public experience, possibly with astonishing world-class monumental architecture placed within a larger green space, set apart from its existing sea of glass, steel, and concrete that will hold ever-growing populations yearning for much needed public space, beauty, and inspiration (Venance 2017).

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainability and Climate Change ▶ Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Multi-stakeholder Partnerships ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development

References Adler RP, Goggin J (2005) What do we mean by “civic engagement”?. J trans edu 3(3):236–253 BIS (2013) The Smart City market: opportunities for the UK, BIS research paper no. 136. Department for

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside Business, Innovation & Science, London. https://www. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/249423/bis-13-1217-smart-city-market opportunties-uk.pdf Bliss L (2018) When a tech giant plays waterfront developer. CityLab, Jan 9th Booth M (2014) The almost nearly perfect people: Behind the myth of the Scandinavian utopia. Random House Boseley S (2018) How do you build a healthy city? Copenhagen reveals its secrets. The Guardian, February 11th Bozikovic A (2017) Google’s sidewalk labs signs deal for ‘smart city’ makeover of Toronto’s waterfront. The Globe and Mail, October 17th Bozikovic A, Gray J (2017) Google’s sidewalk labs preferred partner on Toronto waterfront development. The Globe and Mail, October 4th Braga M (2018) Sidewalk labs says its ‘smart’ neighbourhood will respect your privacy – but proof is in the details. CBC News, May 4th Brinkerhoff DW, Brinkerhoff JM (2011) Public–private partnerships: perspectives on purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Adm Dev 31(1):2–14 Brown J (2017). ‘Places you’ll only visit due to random misfortune’: an alt guide to Canada’s cities. The Guardian, June 30h Bunce S (2004) The emergence of ‘smart growth’ intensification in Toronto: environment and economy in the new official plan. Local Environment 9(2):177–191 Burch S (2010) Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Glob Environ Chang 20(2):287–297 C40 Cities (2017) Case studies: “cities100: London – iconic buses provide real-time air quality alerts”, “cities100: Copenhagen – mapping real-time consumption to plan efficiency updates”, “Cities100: Oslo – smart initiatives to cut CO2 emissions”, September 14th Cardullo P, Kitchin R, Di Feliciantonio C (2017) Living labs and vacancy in the neoliberal city. Cities Castelnovo W, Misuraca G, Savoldelli A (2015) Citizen’s engagement and value co-production in smart and sustainable cities. In International conference on public policy (pp. 1–16). Milan Clark J, Shelton T (2016) Technocratic values and uneven development in the “Smart City”. In Metropolitics De Souza Briggs X (1997) Social capital and the cities: Advice to change agents. National Civic Review 86(2):111–117 Firnkorn J, Müller M (2015) Free-floating electric car sharing-fleets in smart cities: the dawning of a postprivate car era in urban environments? Environ Sci Pol 45:30–40 Florida R (2003). Cities and the creative class. City & community, 2(1):3–19 Fredericks J, Hespanhol L, Parker C, Zhou D, Tomitsch M (2018) Blending pop-up urbanism and participatory technologies: challenges and opportunities for inclusive city making. City Cult Soc 12:44–53

943

Gascó M (2017) Living labs: implementing open innovation in the public sector. Gov Inf Q 34(1):90–98 Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S (2007) Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ 33(1):115–133 Gordon DLA (1996) Planning, design and managing change in urban waterfront redevelopment. Town Planning Review 67(3):261 Hansen L (2018) The Ontario municipal board will soon be no more. Here’s what that means for you. CBC, April 2nd Heller K, Price RH, Reinharz S, Riger S, Wandersman A, D’Aunno TA (1984) Psychology and community change: Challenges of the future. Monterey, CA: Brooks Hodge GA, Greve C (2010) Public–private partnerships: governance scheme or language game? Aust J Publ Admin 69(1):S8–S22 Hounsell K (2018) Canadian municipalities struggling to find place for recyclables after China restricts foreign waste. CBC News, April 12th Hughes L (2017) In the absence of national leadership, cities are driving climate policy. The Conversation, July 18th Jenson J (2009) Lost in Translation: The Social Investment Perspective and Gender Equality. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 16(4):446–483 Joshi K (1991) A model of users’ perspective on change: the case of information systems technology implementation. MIS Q 15:229–242 Joss S, Cook M, Dayot Y (2017) Smart cities: towards a new citizenship regime? A discourse analysis of the British smart city standard. J Urban Technol 24 (4):29–49 Kennedy C, Cuddihy J, Engel-Yan J (2007) The changing metabolism of cities. J Ind Ecol 11(2):43–59 Kenworthy JR (2006) The eco-city: ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environ Urban 18(1):67–85 Kondepudi SN (2014) Smart sustainable cities analysis of definitions. The ITU-T focus group for smart sustainable cities. International Telecommunication Union, October Kourtit K, Nijkamp P (2018) Big data dashboards as smart decision support tools for i-cities–an experiment on Stockholm. Land Use Policy 71:24–35 Krohe J Jr (1991) Cityscape: how the lakefront was won. Chicago Reader, November 7th Accessed online July 23rd, 2018 at https://www.chicagoreader.com/ chicago/cityscape-how-the-lakefront-was-won/Content?o id¼878569 Kuitenbrouwer P (2012) Peter Kuitenbrouwer: Toronto not much to look at but is still a good place to live. National Post, July 11th Larsen K, Gunnarsson-Östling U (2009) Climate change scenarios and citizen-participation: mitigation and

P

944

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside

adaptation perspectives in constructing sustainable futures. Habitat Int 33(3):260–266 Lee T, Van de Meene S (2012) Who teaches and who learns? Policy learning through the C40 cities climate network. Policy Sci 45(3):199–220 Lloyd K, Auld C (2003) Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban environment. Urban Policy Res 21 (4):339–356 Lorimer A (2016) Mass-participation architecture: Social media and the decentralisation of architectural agency as a commercial imperative. University of Plymouth online. https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/ 10026.1/5293 Mathiesen BV, Lund H, Connolly D, Wenzel H, Østergaard PA, Möller B, Nielsen S, Ridjan I, Karnøea P, Sperling K, Hvelplund FK (2015) Smart energy systems for coherent 100% renewable energy and transport solutions. Appl Energy 145:139–154 McLeod J (2018) Sidewalk labs to hold public party to open Toronto HQ, but critics remain skeptical of ‘smart city’ project. Financial Post, June 14th Morgan D, Zeffane R (2003) Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. Int J Hum Resour Manag 14(1):55–75 Morris C (2018) London to add 68 electric double-decker buses to its fleet Charged Electric Vehicles Magazine, July 3rd Mueller J, Lu H, Chirkin A, Klein B, Schmitt G (2018) Citizen design science: a strategy for crowd-creative urban design. Cities 72:181–188 Nesti G (2015) Urban living labs as a new form of coproduction. Insights from the European experience. In: Paper presented at ICPP – International Conference on Public Policy II. Milan, July 1–4 Offenhuber D, Schechtner K (2018) Improstructure-an improvisational perspective on smart infrastructure governance. Cities 72:329–338 Oliveira MA, Carvalho A, Bártolo L (2004) Public Discussion of Oporto’s Municipal Master Plan: An eDemocracy Service Supported by a Geographical Information System. In International Conference on Electronic Government. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp 410–413 Powell J (2018) Waterfront Toronto CEO departs. Financial Times, July 6th Preville P (2016) How Toronto’s population will change over the next 50 years. Toronto Life, October 20th Rau M (2018) Toronto – welcome to the post-OMB world. UrbanToronto.ca, January, 18th accessed online July 22, 2018 at http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/01/toron to%E2%80%94welcome-post-omb-world Rosen G, Walks A (2013) Rising cities: condominium development and the private transformation of the metropolis. Geoforum 49:160–172 Roy I (2018) Waterfront Toronto CEO will fleissig to step down. Toronto Star, July 4th Sarmento JM, Renneboog L (2016) Anatomy of publicprivate partnerships: their creation, financing and renegotiations. Int J Manag Proj Bus 9(1):94–122

Sidewalk Toronto (2018) Hello! How to get involved and help us imagine Toronto’s newest neighbourhood. February 2nd Tvinnereim E, Fløttum K, Gjerstad Ø, Johannesson MP, Nordø ÅD (2017) Citizens’ preferences for tackling climate change. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of their freely formulated solutions. Glob Environ Chang 46:34–41 UNEP (2013) City-level decoupling: urban resource flows and the governance of infrastructure transitions. A Report of the Working Group on Cities of the International Resource Panel. Swilling M, Robinson B, Marvin S and Hodson M Valverde M (2018) The controversy over Google’s futuristic plans for Toronto. Toronto Star, January 31st Van den Hurk M, Siemiatycki M (2018) Public–private partnerships and the design process: consequences for architects and city building. Int J Urban Reg Res 42:704 Venance L (2017) Going public: a look at how other cities use outdoor space. Globe and Mail, November 12th Vincent D, Ferguson R (2019) Civil liberties group launches court action to stop Quayside, says Canadians should not be ‘lab rats’. Toronto Star, April 16th Voytenko Y, McCormick K, Evans J, Schliwa G (2016) Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda. J Clea Prod 123:45–54 Waterfront BIA (2017) Strategic framework & tactical plan, July WaterfrontToronto (2018) Quayside website accessed online July 21, 2018 at https://waterfrontoronto.ca/ nbe/portal/waterfront/Home/waterfronthome/projects/ quayside/!ut/p/a0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAf GjzOL9DF1cDQ39DbwNQnwtDRydLS3MzB0DjQ2 cDfQLsh0VAbp6HFI!/pw/Z7_N1DE11O0KG7OD0A C5HINJ930G4/ren/p¼CTX¼QCPwaterfront_conten t_libraryQCPWaterfrontQCAHomeQCPprojectsQCP quayside/p¼ns_Z7_N1DE11O0KG7OD0AC5HINJ9 30G4_WCM_Page.4658872e-46c2-4a90-aac1-10765 4e08032¼2/p¼WCM_PI¼1/¼/ Willing J (2019) OMB back from the dead: Ontario PCs reverting to old rules for planning appeals. Ottawa Citizen, May 3rd Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP (2014) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc Urban Plan 125:234–244 Wylie B (2018) Sidewalk Toronto has yet to give us a reason to trust its smart city experiment. Huffington Post, May 9th Younger M, Morrow-Almeida HR, Vindigni SM, Dannenberg AL (2008) The built environment, climate change, and health: opportunities for co-benefits. Am J Prev Med 35(5):517–526 Zhang K, Ni J, Yang K, Liang X, Ren J, Shen XS (2017) Security and privacy in smart city applications: challenges and solutions. IEEE Commun Mag 55(1): 122–129

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating Antoinette P. Pinder-Darling University of The Bahamas, Nassau, Bahamas

Definition Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is a UN agency that strives to combat hunger and reduce poverty by improving agriculture, forestry, and fisheries practices. International Food Information Council Foundation (IFIC) is a nonprofit organization supported by the food, beverage, and agricultural industries. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is an international financial institution and a specialized agency of the United Nations that works to address poverty and hunger in rural areas of developing countries. Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) operate independently of any government, and the typical role is to address a social or political issue. Public-private partnerships (PPP, 3P, P3) a cooperative arrangement between two or more public and private sectors, this relationship is usually a long term one. State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI): It this is an annual flagship report jointly prepared by five UN agencies (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO). It informs progress towards ending hunger, achieving food security, and improving nutrition in the context of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) is a UN agency responsible for providing humanitarian and developmental aid to children worldwide. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal laws

945

related to farming, forestry, rural economic development, and food. World Food Programme (WFP): It the world’s largest humanitarian organization is saving lives in emergencies, building prosperity, and supporting a sustainable future for people recovering from climate-related disasters. World Health Organization (WHO): It the primary role is to direct international health within the United Nations’ system and to lead partners in global health responses.

Eating for Nutrition and Survival Eating is a function that all humans participate in for their nutritional survival. It is not just having a tongue and a stomach, but the brain or mind is also intimately connected or involved in our ability to eat. Berry (2009) wrote that “eating is an agricultural act.” What does that statement mean? Eating is the final act in the drama between the food economy from the seed phase, to the planting, and then culminating with the growing and harvesting phases. That process also includes the sale of food as it moves from production on to the individual’s plate for consumption (Berry 2009). According to Chou, “The root of every good pleasure is the pleasure of the stomach” (2010, p. 1). Epicurus coined that phrase, and it is still suitable for the current context. The stomach begins the process of digestion by churning the food so that the body can absorb the nutrients and transfer it to the bloodstream to be absorbed by the organs for them to function. Since we established that nutrition is necessary for survival, then it is essential to determine if current eating practices are satisfying the body’s nutritional needs. Many first world and developing nations suffer from poor nutrition. Our diets as humans should be wellbalanced to include carbohydrates, fruits, grains, protein, and dairy (David 2015). Included in these diets should be vitamins and minerals, so that good health is maintaining to ensure or encourage reproductive capability states the United States Department of Agriculture (n.d.) (Fig. 1).

P

946

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating, Fig. 1 For humans, a balanced diet includes fruits, vegetables, grains, protein, and dairy. (Credit: ©U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Center for Nutritional Policy and Promotion)

Healthy Eating What is counteracting healthy eating habits are those bad habits that are leading to obesity. Does this beg the question? Are eaters satisfied by what they eat, or are they just eating the wrong food items that are leading to obesity and other noncommunicable diseases? The question posed is not an easy one to answer. Poor diets are waging war on the human body. So, there can only be one way to improve it, and that involves getting educated on the philosophy of eating healthy or eating well. Healthy eating is not necessarily a fad, but a positive, healthy relationship with food and the body ought to be a prime concern for any human being. This practice means that dieting ought to be avoided due to the long-term effects it can have on the body. As the boss of a physical body, one should listen to the cues that your body gives about exactly what foods to eat. It can also involve how much to eat, and which foods make us feel most energized. Then there is how dieting and eating make us think and feel. Dieting is a risk factor, according to the Mayo Clinic, for many eating disorders (Howland 2019). Extremely picky eating is another issue that limits a healthy diet and can lead to a variety of health disorders that Howland

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating, Fig. 2 The emotional eating cycle. (Credit: © helpguide.org)

discusses in an article. Then there are the food likes and dislikes, by children, teens, and adults. All of these groups’ emotions are all engaged in the issue, as well.

Emotional Eating Every hungry human must deal with his or her hunger differently. Some eat for nutrition, and then some eat to deal with some emotional issues. Our emotions have much influence over what foods are eaten, primarily when food is used for comfort, to relieve stress, or for a reward. The emotional eating cycle occurs when food is used as an emotional pick-up, as depicted in the image below (Fig. 2). If you use food to feed your emotions, then you might be keen on the answers derived from the questions that follow in Fig. 3, as posed by Smith et al. (2019).

Food as a Mirror When food is reviewed through a lens that food is a mirror, then eating mirrors includes the making of a self, an array of decisions that bring people to eat in

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating, Fig. 3 Emotional Eater Questionnaire. (Credit: © helpguide.org)

947 Are you an emotional eater?

• Do you eat more when you're feeling stressed? • Do you eat when you're not hungry or when you're full? • Do you eat to feel better (to calm and soothe yourself when you're sad, mad, bored, anxious, etc.)? • Do you reward yourself with food? • Do you regularly eat until you've stuffed yourself ? • Does food make you feel safe? Do you feel like food is a friend? • Do you feel powerless or out of control around food?

a particular way. The variety of choices and circumstances that bring people together to dine in a specific style. The food that is set aside for consumption reflects “a detailed and comprehensive image of ourselves. Which is why the philosophy of food reflects on the ethical, political, social, artistic, identity-defining aspects of food” (Borghini 2019, p. 1). Borghini suggests spurs the challenge to more actively pondering diets and eating habits to understand decisions made about food and eating.

Food as a Relation Cooking and eating food can be a relation. Something is food only concerning some organism, in a set of circumstances. Borghini indicates that food relation occurs because it represents habits, convictions, deliberations, and compromises by an eater. Therefore, eating should never be used as an emotional response; rather, it was meant to satisfy physical hunger. Epicurus, the philosopher, stated that even the sweetest candy or cake cannot fill a void so profound as what is experienced by the emotional eater. Table 1 shows a comparison between emotional versus physical hunger. Food helps individuals to connect with nature and understand themselves. Food is part of politics, family life, entertainment, science, and it is the nucleus of how people build an authentic diet. There is an adage that states, “Do you live to eat, or does one eat to live?” Weinberger (2000), in a nutrition article published at the turn of the

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating, Table 1 Emotional Hunger vs. Physical Hunger Chart. Credit: © helpguide.org Emotional hunger vs. Physical hunger Emotional hunger comes Physical hunger comes on on suddenly gradually Emotional hunger feels Physical hunger can wait like it needs to be satisfied instantly Emotional hunger craves Physical hunger is open to specific comfort foods options – lots of things sound good Emotional hunger isn’t Physical hunger stops when satisfied with a full you’re full stomach. Emotional eating triggers Eating to satisfy physical feelings of guilt, hunger doesn’t make you powerlessness, and feel bad about yourself shame

millennium, examined nutritional lifestyles that offer the possibility of a long healthy life (p.767). However, there is a massive distinction between living to eat and live to eat well. An even higher likelihood is the difference between living to eat well and eating to live long (Ong 2016). Perhaps this is the true essence of the philosophy of eating – it is eating to live long. Therefore, eating must occur in a healthy and balanced way. The primary purpose of consumption is to live and lead a healthy life, but it involves keeping the healthiest foods in the body as often and as organic as possible. To be a healthy eater means moving away from emotional eating, extremely

P

948

picky eating (Howland 2019), ditching diets, and eating healthy for nutritional survival. But this cannot be accomplished without food partnerships that must occur around the globe. Connections are necessary for transforming our global food system, primarily through nongovernmental organizations.

Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) Nongovernmental organizations are usually independent. Independent of both the government as well as the business enterprise sector (Binder-Aviles 2012). According to BinderAviles, their mandate is “to promote the public interest and serve the public good rather than to make a profit or advance the interests of a narrow group of individuals” (2012, p. 3). Since these are independent – that enables them to monitor government performance and advocate for improvements. NGOs that are respected by both the government and the business sector can mediate conflicts or find solutions to common concerns (GrantSpace 2019). Finally, the independence of NGOs from government, political affiliations or parties, and religious institutions allow them to create a shared vision for their community. NGOs mobilize volunteers and other resources to achieve their vision (GrantSpace 2019). Over the last five or more decades, NGOs have led the social movements that were responsible for the betterment of individuals in a significant way. These agencies are providing safety nets for poor and vulnerable populations that need special attention to be paid to food security, shortages, and the need to eradicate poverty. It is only through strong global partnerships that plan to achieve sustainable targets can be reached. Aside from NGOs, technology, and innovation and the fostering of new ideas that zero hunger can be realized. As Binder-Aviles (2012) indicated, whatever is the scope of NGOs, they exist to make people’s lives better or solve a social problem. Eradicating hunger through food partnerships is one of them.

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating

Partnerships Partnerships are deemed to be a success when common goals are achieved by all groups working together to accomplish the same end. Although, there can be agreement that a common goal does not necessitate that all involved have the expectation to benefit from that partnership in the same way. Different groups can only aim for what each will gain. Finegood is an experienced researcher and strategic thinker in the area of nutrition, metabolism, and diabetes; operates as a bridge-builder and systems strategist. This researcher has carved out a “common ground for effective dialogue, collaboration, and outcomes” (Finegood 2017, p. 1). Finegood also highlights that “to understand each other’s goals and paradigms, there must be serious cross-sector collaboration” (2017, p. 1). So, what are the goals and paradigms needed to maintain a focus? The answer has to be in what is done by entities such as industry, government, academia, and the NGO sectors. These agencies work together collaboratively to meet the food and nutrition needs of the general populace. So, why formulate partnerships? Partnerships are successful when a specific criterion is met to support it. Such as the need for more knowledge, where and how collaboration can occur, and the value of partnerships in food and nutrition from a public health perspective. Institutions can meet common ground when cooperation is focused on producing meaningful change. Although, with benefits, there are also risks. Many health challenges would be resolved if adequate public-private approaches were engaged. Below are organizations that are dedicated to the task of ensuring that the food future that is desired is healthy. In Table 2, organizations that are dedicated to making a difference in the area of healthy eating and food partnerships. EAT is a nonprofit that has made a difference in food distribution and transformation. EAT was founded by the Stordalen Foundation, Stockholm Resilience Centre, and the Wellcome Trust. The Eat-Lancet Commission drives food system change. This nonprofit has food forums planned for June 2020. Secondly, there is the World Food Program, which is always looking to collaborate with NGOs

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating

949

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating, Table 2 Food Organizations and Partners Chart Organizations EAT

World Food Programme

International Food Information Council Foundation (IFIC) Partners in Food Solutions

Food partners

Background Information EAT is a nonprofit organization that has committed to making a difference in food distribution and transformation. It was founded by the Stordalen Foundation, Stockholm Resilience Centre, and the Wellcome Trust. The Eat-Lancet Commission drives food system change. The World Food Programme (WFP) is always looking to collaborate with NGOs that share their philosophy and goals. From organizations skilled in distribution to monitoring or early warning activities for those working in food security assessments, advocacy for food and nutrition-related issues, or local coordination of food security activities. WFP encourages four types of partnership arrangements: capability partners, resource partners, knowledge partners, and advocacy partners. The International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation is dedicated to the mission of effectively communicating sciencebased information on health, nutrition, and food safety for the public good. Partners in Food Solutions is an independent nonprofit organization, which is working to strengthen food security, improve nutrition, and increase economic development across Africa. Food partners is a global fruit ingredient agent specializing in superior one-on-one customer service and end-to-end logistics.

that share their philosophy and goals. It focuses on organizations skilled in distribution to monitoring or early warning activities for those working in food security assessments, advocacy for food and nutrition-related issues, or local coordination of food security activities. WFP (2019) encourages four types of partnership arrangements: • Capability partners – support the design and implementation of programs and operations • Resource partners – provide human, financial, and technical resources • Knowledge partners – contribute information, evaluation, and analysis • Advocacy partners – support advocacy for zero hunger Thirdly, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation is dedicated to the mission of effectively communicating sciencebased information on health, nutrition, and food safety for the public good. A fourth organization devoted to food partnering solutions is Partners in

Website Information & Conference Dates https://eatforum.org/

https://www.wfp.org/ partnering-with-wfpfor-ngos

https://foodinsight.org/ about/

https://www. partnersinfoodsolutions. com/about https://www. foodpartners.com/

Food Solutions. This independent nonprofit organization, which is working to strengthen food security, improve nutrition and increase economic development across Africa. Finally, Food Partners is a global fruit ingredient agent specializing in superior one-on-one customer service and end-to-end logistics. As McGinnis stated, “If there was ever a problem for which there is no easy, simple solution, it is a problem of obesity, and it requires, therefore, the committed, determined, and collaborative activity of every one of the stakeholders mentioned and others not listed.” From Richard Black’s perspective, both the public and private sectors play a critical role in addressing the food supply for public health reasons. In terms of global nutrition, the author Black makes a significant suggestion. “That the private sector needs to be part of the conversation because it makes the most of the food that is consumed by North America and other neighboring nations.” Without active involvement, Black asked, “How can there be hope to modify the food supply?” The public sector must take the initiative because

P

950

of its knowledge of public health and its insights into issues of which the food industry may be unaware of. Black asked, “How can the food industry seek to modify the food supply when it is not abundantly clear what the problem might be?” There is a need for partnerships so that it can be an incredible journey to begin, but what types of partnerships should be maintained is a necessary consideration.

Types of Partnership The USDA Center for Nutritional Policy and Promotion maintains three types of partnerships, all of which involve some form of collaboration with public or private organizations: 1. Policy development partnerships. WFP seeks these kinds of partnerships. Policy development partnerships seek public input and the collection of information from companies and organizations. This interaction is the most significant part of this type of policy (Institute of Medicine 2012). 2. Systematic review of partnerships. Systematic review partnerships inform nation-wide nutritional policies and programs. Usually, between six and up to a maximum of eight partners are involved from outside the public sector to participate in the review process (Institute of Medicine 2012). 3. Nutrition promotion partnerships. This type of alliance harnesses the power of collaboration. This kind of network extends across more than 6000 community-based partners ranging from dietitians to doctors and even schools and community programs. The system expands to include health care corporations, media outlets, grocery stores, restaurants, and food manufacturers (Institute of Medicine 2012).

Partnership Features According to the Institute of Medicine (2012), there are seven features of successful partnerships. A sense of authentic trust is the first feature

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating

discussed, followed by mutuality as the second. Mutuality’s definition is working for a common goal, with the benefits of achieving that goal as coming from different partners for different partners. The third feature is the feasibility of achieving the desired outcome, and the fourth is joint planning (Thomas 2001). The fifth is the formulation of clear procedures for mitigating risks. Risk mitigation is a strategy to prepare for and lessen the effects of threats (Rouse 2019). Then there is the establishment of general project management processes; and having complementary resources, while making unique contributions. Successful partnerships need trust as a critical feature, and it is deemed one of the essential aspects of success in public-private partnerships (PPP, 3P, or P3). Trust and Committed Leadership Trust and dedicated leadership are primarily the essential features of successful public-private partnerships surveyed across the United States, Europe, and Australia, according to some researchers. Building and sustaining partnerships involves the combination of different kinds of knowledge and skills such as project managers, proposal writers, website developers, fundraisers, and survey takers, to name a few. Above all the rest, is the need for leaders – people dedicated to making sure the mission and programs and management of resources are both efficient and effective. Planning This activity focuses on keeping on track with goals and requires some effort to organize your work and to allocate and distribute resources efficiently. Public-Private partnerships can have a clear direction when they plan to do better compared with those that do not engage in the planning process. Part of the planning process also involves anticipating problems and preventing them by putting a crisis or disaster plan in place. Other types of planning to consider are the strategic plan or project plan process. Strategic planning “is a systematic way of assessing where the partnership is now and where it will end up in the future” (2012, p. 23). Project planning “sets goals and objectives for a

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating

specific project, identifies the resources needed to achieve it, and lays out the critical tasks, responsibilities, and a timeline” (Binder-Aviles 2012, p. 26). Evaluation Evaluation activities are also critical features of public-private partnerships. It is the systematic assessment of the outcomes, quality, and performance of a project, event, or organizational collaboration on a full scale. “Evaluation is a tool for answering the question: What difference did our work make in people’s lives and communities in the area of food and nutritional well-being” (Binder-Aviles 2012, p. 28). Accountability Accountability is assessed through evaluation – which is a tool for accountability. To be accountable means to answer to the “public.” Specifically, that means responding to stakeholders: funders, members, partners, the people that are being served, the community operated in, and working along with other NGOs, if applicable. Accountability is connected to the mission, the results, good governance, and fiscal responsibility. Part of this responsibility is directly associated with the economics of feeding those who are not able to afford this benefit on a local or global scale. Transparency When something is transparent, it means that it is easy to see through it. That is how stakeholders must operate in partnerships. These partners must be able to see and understand how programs must work, how funds will be used, and how decisions will be made. Practicing transparency is done by providing timely and accurate information about activities, policies, procedures, decisions, and finally, the cost and the breakdown for financing partnership efforts and goals.

The Cost of Feeding Malnourished People Especially Children The cost of feeding people in developed and developing countries is still rising at a breakneck

951

pace, and the level of undernourishment is estimated to be more than threefold. Food security is significantly worse in countries in four out of six key security indicators. The first area that needs attention is the number of malnourished children. Based on UNICEF data reported as of March 2019, it was alarming that malnutrition remains a significant problem. “Stunting has declined too slowly while wasting still impacts the lives of far too many young children” (UNICEF 2019a). According to UNICEF (2019a, p. 1), stunting “refers to a child who is too short for his or her age.” Those children can suffer severely irreversible physical and cognitive damage that accompanies the stunted growth. “The devastating effects of stunting can last for a lifetime and can even affect the next generation” (UNICEF 2019a, p. 1). This problem of stunting can be addressed through economics and addressing poor food security outcomes. Therefore, the World Food Summit and Sustainable goals have to achieve their intended targets and sustain the expected outcomes and results. UNICEF (2019a) defines “wasting as a child who is too thin for his or her height. The result of wasting is a rapid weight loss or the failure to gain weight at an average rate. UNICEF also reports that a child who is moderately or severely wasted has an increased risk of death, yet treatment” is possible (UNICEF 2019a, p. 1). “Overweight, according to UNICEF, refers to a child who is too heavy for his or her height – this type of malnutrition results from energy intake from food and beverages that exceed children’s energy requirements (UNICEF 2019b, p. 1).” A child who suffers from being overweight increases the risk of diet-related noncommunicable diseases later in life, which is also a critical health risk. UNICEF (2019b) reports that the mortality rate of children under 5 years of age is also very daunting since nearly half of deaths in children under five are attributable to undernutrition. This issue could mean that malnutrition puts children at higher risk of dying from common infections. Increases in the frequency and severity of those infections can result and even delay recovery when hunger is present in those children. This problem can be addressed if countries can adequately manage the economics of feeding

P

952

malnourished people, especially children. There is enough wealth in the world that can deal with the problems associated with hunger, poverty, infection, cognitive issues, and malnutrition. The interaction between undernutrition and infection can create a potentially lethal cycle of worsening illness and deteriorating nutritional status in children. Poor nutrition that occurs in the first 1000 days of a child’s life can also lead to stunted growth. This dietary deficiency is associated with impaired cognitive ability and reduced school and work performance (UNICEF 2019b). Benefits of Proper Child Nutrition and the Philosophy of Eating According to UNICEF, improving child nutrition helps to expand opportunities for children to achieve their full potential – both nutritionally and academically. That is because adequate food nutrition is critically tied to good health. Diets that meet at least minimum micronutrient requirements help to prevent deficiencies and eliminate malnutrition. When micronutrient deficiencies are present in children’s diets, these deficiencies can result from inadequacies in the intake of most vitamins and minerals, according to UNICEF (2019b). Those vitamins and minerals are necessary for a balanced diet. The vitamins and minerals are essential for the prevention of malnutrition in any form. These nutrients help to reduce the prevalence of the disease, especially during pregnancy and early childhood. State of Food Security and Nutrition in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean In 2019, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) summarized the most up-todate trends in hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition in all its forms, with a spotlight on overweight. This SOFI report provides an in-depth look at the impact of economic slowdowns and downturns in regions such as Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. According to UNICEF, more than 820 million people or 10.8% of people in the world today are still hungry. Hunger is on the rise in almost all African subregions, making Africa the region with the highest prevalence of undernourishment,

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating

at nearly 20%. “Hunger is also slowly rising in Latin America and the Caribbean, although its prevalence is still below seven percent.” Two billion people or 26.4% of the world population are experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity. The report also indicates that the prevalence of stunting among children under 5 years is decreasing, but 149 million or 21.9% of children under five are still stunted. Africa shows the least progress in reducing the prevalence of stunting since 2012. In 2018, Africa and Asia accounted for more than nine out of ten of all stunted children worldwide (54.9% and 39.5%, respectively). While the number of stunted children has declined by 10% over the last 6 years, progress is too slow to achieve the 2030 target of a 50% reduction in the number of stunted children. This nutrition issue among children is alarming and helps to propel the need to fast track the partnerships for nutrition (UNICEF 2019a). Even low birthweight estimates are included for the first time in the 2019 edition of the report, following the release of a new global forecast. It was indicated that one in seven live births, or 20.5 million babies globally, suffered from low birth weight in 2015 around the globe and that not much progress has been made in reducing the prevalence of low birth weight since 2012 (UNICEF 2019b, p. 4). This lack of food security and nutritional progress signals that it will be very challenging to achieve the World Health Assembly’s global goal of a 30% reduction in the prevalence of low birth weight infants by 2030. This is a real nutritional concern, as low birthweight newborns have a higher risk of dying in the first month of life. Those infants who survive are more likely to suffer from stunted growth and face an increased risk of adult-onset chronic conditions, including obesity and diabetes. This nutritional risk presents a long-term economic challenge and burden to the health care system in countries that are plagued with the issue. The individual analyses on overweight indicate that overweight prevalence is rapidly increasing among school-age children and adults in all global regions. Furthermore, the increase in the incidence of obesity between 2000 and 2016 has been even faster than that of overweight (UNICEF

Partnerships of the Philosophy of Eating

2019b). The 2019 SOFI report was published through a partnership of United Nations agencies, including FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO (Weiss 1996). The SOFI report also indicates that school-age children do not eat enough fruits or vegetables, and those same children may regularly consume fast food and carbonated soft drinks and are not physically active daily. These poor diet habits, maybe driving, at least in part, the increase in overweight prevalence in this age group of children that are at critical risk. Poor food security outcomes are long-lasting and are closely related to poor diets and the breakdown of livelihoods that impact and influence the quality of life of families plagued with such problems. So, what is the short- or long-term solution to the issue of food security and nutrition issues – it may be how partnerships are formed.

How to Partner The increase in food consumption per capita is mainly due to the overall economic progress of some of the progress made by some developing countries. However, a one-size-fits-all approach to public-private partnerships for food and nutrition initiatives does not and never will exist. All organizations need to work together to accomplish the goals set by the United Nations goals (UNDP 2019). The structures and functions of cross-sector collaborations may vary, and depending on the types of entities, partnering intentions, and contributions, along with the kind of project. Below are food organizations that are open to a partnership.

953

and nutritional opportunities. For nutrition and survival, an increasing shift toward more strategic trade and higher exports must become a financial practice. Global food demand is increasingly driven by population, economic growth, and urbanization, particularly in developing countries. At the same time, dietary patterns are changing towards more livestock products, including fish, vegetable oils, and sugar (Zeide 2018). This trend is accentuated by the increasing homogeneity of life habits between urban and rural populations facilitated by communications technology. Despite these global trends, there still are vast numbers of undernourished and malnourished people, and at the same time, there is also a growing number of overweight and obese people (UNICEF 2019a). The new consumption patterns also imply a more significant role for processed foods, which creates new opportunities for valueadded and income-generating activities. Therefore, prospects for a partnership mean that developed and developing countries must learn to work together, and connections can only strengthen this. For these organizational alliances to become a reality, there must be strong global partnerships and cooperation must be continuously encouraged. Embracing the committed leadership and securing the nutritional value of the food that is consumed by humanity – there must be an even greater emphasis on partnerships on the philosophy of eating now and in the future.

Cross-References ▶ Public-private Partnerships and Sustainable Development

Conclusion

References

As the world becomes interconnected and smaller, the need to establish partnerships will grow at an ever fast and changing pace. This means that small islands and developing nations will need to work together to encourage trade and growth. These developing islands also need to be able to negotiate favorably with first-world nations for better food

Berry W (2009) Wendell Berry: the pleasures of eating. Viewed on 27 September 2019. Retrieved from https:// www.ecoliteracy.org/article/wendell-berry-plea sures-eating Binder-Aviles H (2012) The NGO handbook. United States: Bureau of International Information Programs Borghini A (2019) Philosophy of food. Viewed 15 October 2019. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/ philosophy-of-food-2670489

P

954 Chou M (2010) Philosophy of food. Eureka Street 20 (21):38–39 David M (2015) The slow down diet: eating for pleasure, energy, and weight loss, 2nd edn. Healing Arts Press, Vermont Finegood D (2017) Diane Finegood: Presenter. Viewed on 27 September 2019, and Retrieved from https://ktdrr. org/conference2017/presenters/dfinegood.html GrantSpace (2019) What is an NGO? What role does it play in civil society? Viewed on 25 October 2019. Retrieved from https://grantspace.org/resources/knowl edge-base/ngo-definition-and-role/ Howland J (2019) Mayo clinic minute: how to handle extremely picky eating. Viewed on 20 October 2019. Retrieved from https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/ discussion/mayo-clinic-minute-how-to-handle-extremepicky-eating/ Institute of Medicine (2012) Building public-private partnerships in food and nutrition: workshop summary. National Academies Press, Washington. Vol. 3. How to Partner. Viewed 25 October 2019. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK109698/ Ong C (2016) The pleasures of eating well 1st edn, Clearview, Miami Beach, Florida Rouse M (2019) TechTarget: risk mitigation. Retrieved from https://searchdisasterrecovery.techtarget.com/defi nition/risk-mitigation Smith M, Segal J, Segal R (2019) Emotional eating, and how to stop it. Retrieved from https://www.helpguide. org/articles/diets/emotional-eating.htm Thomas A, Carr S, Humphreys D (2001) Environmental policies, and NGO influence. Land degradation and sustainable resource management in sub-Saharan Africa. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203349885 United Nations Development Programme (2019) Sustainable development goals. Viewed on 26 October 2019. Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/content/undp/ en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-17-part nerships-for-the-goals.html United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. (2019a) Malnutrition. Viewed on 5 December 2019. Retrieved from https://data.unicef.org/topic/nutrition/ malnutrition/ United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (2019b) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2019. Viewed on 5 December 2019. Retrieved from https://data.unicef.org/resources/sofi-2019/ United States Department of Agriculture (n.d), MyPlate graphic resources. Viewed 1 October 2019. Retrieved from https://www.choosemyplate.gov/resources/ myplate-graphic-resources Weinberger JH (2000) Eat to live, not live to eat. Nutrition 16(9):767–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0899-9007(00) 00400-7 Weiss TG, Gordenker L (1996) NGOs, the UN, and global governance. Lynne Rienner, Colorado Zeide A (2018) ‘Eating is an agricultural act’: a case study. Viewed on 5 October 2019. Retrieved from https:// www.ucpress.edu/blo/36668/eating-is-an-agriculturalact-a-case-study/

Pathways to Sustainable Development

Pathways to Sustainable Development ▶ Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development

Peace Initiatives ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development

Peer Production ▶ Social and Solidarity Economy or How Notfor-Profit Organizations Participate to SDGs’ Implementation?

Personal Bankruptcy ▶ Financial Distress and Household Debt: Managing Longer-Term Financial Sustainability

Policy Coherence ▶ Systemic Issues and Multi-stakeholders Partnerships for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

Policy Integration ▶ Systemic Issues and Multi-stakeholders Partnerships for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

Political Remittances ▶ Social Remittances: A Pathway to Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development Through International Volunteering Behafarid Barzegar Development Policy and Practice, School of Social Sciences and Global Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

Synonyms Accountability; International volunteering; Multistakeholder partnerships

Definition The United Nations (UN) defines volunteerism as “a wide range of activities undertaken of free will, for the general public good, for which monetary reward is not the principal motivating factor,” and recognizes “formal volunteering” as “voluntary activity undertaken through an organisation, typified by volunteers making an ongoing or sustained commitment to an organisation and contributing their time on a regular basis” (United Nations Volunteers (UNV) 2018b, p. 101). The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (ASD) officially recognizes volunteer groups as stakeholders and “a powerful means of implementation for the Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs).” UN Resolution 70-129 aims at “Integrating volunteering into peace and development: the plan of action for the next decade and beyond” (UNGA 2016). The State of the World’s Volunteerism Report (SWVR) is a UN flagship publication to inform and advocate the role and contribution of volunteerism for peace and development with varying

955

themes per edition (see UNV (2018a) for a historical overview of the SWVR). A development project is one that is aimed at delivering assistance and benefits for targeted groups or communities (Akampurira 2014); it can be a single-funded initiative or a component of development program (Fowler 1997).

Introduction Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 aims to “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development” (UN SDGs 2016). SDG 17 recognizes multi-stakeholder partnerships as important vehicles for mobilizing and sharing knowledge, expertise, technologies, and financial resources to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries (UN SDGs 2019). However, despite the strong rhetoric, significant challenges remain in the quantity and quality of multi-stakeholder partnerships required to deliver the SDGs (UN DESA 2019a). Consequently, the 2030 Agenda Partnership Accelerator (APA) was launched in April 2019 as UN multiagency initiative “aimed at accelerating and scaling up effective partnering across all stakeholders to deliver transformational impact for the SDGs” (UN DESA 2019b). Using International Volunteering Service (IVS) as a lens, this entry responds to the aims of APA by arguing that the quality and impacts of partnerships are shaped by the way formal and informal relationships are negotiated between multiple and diverse stakeholders. Volunteerism is inherently embedded in SDG 17. The ASD officially recognizes volunteer groups as stakeholders and “a powerful means of implementation for SDGs,” and UN Resolution 70-129 aims at “Integrating volunteering into peace and development” (UNGA 2016). However, although the distinctive role and value of volunteerism are acknowledged in the discourse on development, it has not been integrated into the broader development agenda and is notably absent in the proposed indicators for measurement of the SDGs (Haddock and Devereux 2015). Indeed, the

P

956

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

SWVR attributes “a duality” to volunteerism by recognizing that while it has the potential to nurture positive characteristics and values within communities, “done badly, partnerships with local volunteers can reinforce inequalities” (UNV 2018a, p. xii). This entry provides an overview of the roles of power and trust as factors that influence the relationships between IVS stakeholders and highlight the importance of transparency and accuracy in knowledge sharing among them. It looks at IVS partnerships at macro (global)-, meso (national)-, and micro (community)-levels and examines intraorganizational factors that impact on volunteer management and how these relationships can promote collaborative actions in ways that would advance the aims of SDG 17.

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Development Partnerships Partnerships in international development form at different levels: global and strategic (macro), national project design and coordination (meso), and at the community implementation (micro). Complexities arise in partnerships because the number and diversity of participating individuals and organizations may not share the same level of commitment to the goals of development or maybe motivated by different incentives and agendas (Robinson et al. 2000). Achieving consistency between theory and practice in development work through IVS is a complex task and requires negotiating relationships with multiple, intra-, and interorganizational actors. The dynamics of the interactions between key actors are important success factors in development management, irrespective of the levels of technical knowledge, skills, and experiences required (Diallo and Thuillier 2005). Relationships can help build on long-term cooperation, but they also generate risk, ambiguity, and the potential for one actor to exploit the other for personal gain (Olekalns and Smith 2009, p. 347). Power and trust are acknowledged in the literature as key influential variables that shape the expectations and behaviors of people and

organizations in multi-stakeholder relationships (Nierenberg 1987; Koeszegi 2004). Accordingly, development projects are reliant on interactions between multiple actors in different contextual settings and with varying views on the type and quality of knowledge that is useful to them (Barzegar 2019). Thus there is an interconnection between power relations, trust, and symmetry in knowledge among the stakeholders that can present a number of potential solutions to relationships, each of which may emerge in real-life situations – see Fig. 1 (Barzegar 2019). It is, therefore, necessary to understand how the relationships between the IVS stakeholders have an impact on, or are impacted by, forms of power, trust, and how they share knowledge. Power Diverse conceptualizations of power in academic work reflect the multiple dimensions of expressions, forms, extent, and sources of power (Lukes 1974; Cornwall 2007), as well as levels and spaces where power is exercised (Gaventa 2005). Power can appear as a negative or even a threatening force, but it can also be exercised in positive ways, for example, to promote social change in favor of the poor or justice for the disadvantaged (Eyben et al. 2006). Power can be present in both formal and informal forms. Formal power can be exercised through national government and international development policies, as well as intra- and interorganizational rules, structures, and procedures that govern the interactions within and between organizations. Informal power relates to social and cultural interactions between individuals and organizations and reflects how they relate to each other (Huxham and Beech 2008). An important characteristic of development management is that power over resources can be used to influence the decisions of others and, subsequently, bring about social change (Thomas 2000). This makes understanding the distribution of power over tangible resources (such as funding, number of employees, or equipment) and intangible resources (e.g., knowledge and language), as well as power to influence, critical in building and managing productive partnerships. Access to and

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

957

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development Through International Volunteering, Fig. 1 Representation of the factors that influence the relationships between IVS stakeholders. (Source Barzegar 2019)

control over certain resources is necessary for achieving organizational goals; hence the exercise of power in negotiating relationships inevitably generates resistance, compliance, and strategic consent (Long 2001, p. 71). Power can also influence the relationships between key stakeholders of development interventions by shaping the language of policies and processes that help secure funding and support (Cornwall 2007, p. 474). On the other hand, power can also exist among the “powerless,” for example, local knowledge can give apparently weaker partners the power to influence their position within a relationship by withholding necessary information (Huxham and Beech 2008). Power is a feature of interdependence in relationships, as dependency creates the potential for the exercise of power in both positive and negative ways (Koeszegi 2004). Brinkerhoff (2002) suggests that an actor’s approach to negotiating relationships is driven by his or her willingness to share power. However, it is important to take into account that efforts to reinforce asymmetrical power relations can sometimes give the impression of trust in partnership relations (Hardy et al. 1998). Thus varying forms of power can shape, and be shaped by, different types of trust in relationships.

Trust “[Trust is] the expectation that a partner will not engage in opportunistic behaviour,” even when there are opportunities and incentives to do so (Woolthuis et al. 2005, p. 816). Trust can be generated by using verbal and non-verbal communication symbols to create shared meanings where none existed before (Hardy et al. 1998, p. 23) and can be strengthened or weakened, and created or lost, in relationships (Wu and Laws 2003). Trust is considered an important factor in promoting more effective interorganizational relations by reducing complexity and stimulating coordination and cooperation in ways that are not possible through contractual agreements alone (Hardy et al. 1998, p. 1). However, trust may be damaged by competition, the fear that shared information may be misused in some way (Li 2005), or through interactions that underpin the maintenance of asymmetrical power relations. Trusting relationships can be maintained, and reinforced, through a process of continued realization of expectations and positive outcomes of interactions. Enduring trust is, therefore, a timereliant process; therefore, different types of trust are likely to exist between the various actors depending on the length and context of their partnerships (Barzegar 2019).

P

958

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

The expectations on which trust is based can vary depending on (a) the social characteristics which are linked to, for example, a person’s ethnicity, gender, or family; (b) process (expectations arising from a history of past interactions); or (c) institutions (as in formal structures, rules, norms, and conventions that regulate the behavior of others within societies or groups, e.g., rules that govern banks, public services, and intra- and interorganizational structures and procedures) (Zucker 1986). In situations when the multiplicity of actors in a competitive environment makes building process-based trust problematic, institutional and characteristic-based trust can be present, although they can be risky because information shared through documents, reports, web pages, and the media can be inaccurate, outdated, or constructed to appeal to targeted audiences (Barzegar 2019). Selective use of information can partially or entirely include or exclude some actors, leading to changes in the distribution of power that can help legitimize and maintain the supremacy of the dominant actors (Barzegar 2019). Zucker’s (1986, pp. 60–64) categorization of trust can thus provide a connection between trust, power, and knowledge sharing in relationships by showing how the construction of each type of trust relies on the accuracy of information exchange between the parties. Knowledge Sharing The extent of knowledge sharing is a principal element of trust generation and partnership outcomes (Barzegar 2019). Nonetheless, revealing information is risky; open disclosures of aims and intentions can expose an actor to opportunistic behavior by the other actors (Olekalns and Smith 2009). Information about parties’ power (such as power over economic or physical resources or power to influence) is particularly pertinent and influences the behavior of actors in their relationships (Fisher et al. 2011). Differences in culture also affect information sharing. In many countries of the Global South, social status implies social power and dictates how people will interact, for example, in the way “social inferiors are obligated to defer to social superiors and

comply with their requests” (Brett and Okumura 1998, pp. 99–101). In relationships where one party has considerably more information than the other, actors may be tempted to suppress or misrepresent information as a way of advancing their interests and influencing more favorable outcomes which, in turn, increases the potential for exploitation of the other party (Olekalns and Smith 2009). An asymmetric level of knowledge and information among actors is likely to disadvantage members of the less powerful groups who are less likely to access and collect information about the dominant groups. On the other hand, reliance of the dominant group on stereotypical assumptions may block their understanding of the other parties and reinforce existing power structures (Kopelman and Olekalns 1999). In examining the relationship between principals (non-scientist policy-makers) and agents (scientists) in boundary organizations, Guston (1999, p. 93) observes that the transition from a relationship of trust to one emphasizing accountability presents a “moral hazard” to the policy-makers who may be disadvantaged by inequality of information. He suggests that this is because the latter have relatively wide latitude in the performance of [their work], even to the point of dishonesty or “unproductive dabbling” (Guston 1999, p. 93). Guston’s concept of moral hazard has implications for IVS because it raises questions not only regarding the integrity of information exchange between the key IVS stakeholders but how the information is analyzed and turned into action.

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in IVS Stakeholder Partnerships Organizations that sponsor and facilitate international volunteering are a sub-set of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs). International Volunteering Cooperation Organisations (IVCOs) emerged following the two world wars with the aim of facilitating the placement of volunteers from the developed countries in programs aiming to address the basic needs of impoverished people in countries of the Global South

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

(Beigbeder 1991). Many IVCOs quickly became recipients of unrestricted funding – funding that is not earmarked for specific projects – through strategic alliances or donors in support of programs using IVS (Engel and Georgeou 2011). Historical, institutional, and relational perspectives on development, as well as international and national political and economic histories, have shaped relations between the countries of the Global North and South and have led to opportunities, and constraints, on the expansion of IVS (Barzegar 2019). Contemporary IVS is recognized as one of the means of implementation of the 2030 Agenda and 17 SDGs (UNV 2018b, p. 19). However, the structural inequalities between the Global North and South and sustained economic advantages in the North limit the realization of the aims of IVS and its contribution to achieving the SDGs and have led to criticism of IVS as serving the interests of the volunteers rather than local needs (Impey and Overton 2014; Nelson and Child 2016). Although the literature on IVS recognizes the presence of unequal power relations in stakeholder partnerships, the analysis of the underlying factors that shape the relationships between the key IVS actors is extremely rare. These relationships shape the justification, design, and terms and conditions of IVS programs and characterize the expectations of the actors about their roles within projects. The problems created by the complexity of the relationships are reflected in the persistence of weaknesses which were identified in the literature on IVS over 60 years ago (Ball et al. 1976) and remain unchanged to this day (Amin 2014; Barzegar 2019), and IVCOs continue to struggle to put into practice measures that resolve the challenges that they face at macro-, meso-, and micro-levels (Burns et al. 2015; Nelson and Child 2016). Factors Affecting IVS Relationships at MacroLevel The challenges facing the relationships between IVS stakeholders at macro-level are linked to the shifting views on international volunteerism and the impact of global trends in development management, both of which have shaped the discourse

959

on IVS and its role in development interventions (Barzegar 2019). International Volunteering: From Voluntary Service to Technical Assistance

The UN definition of volunteerism (see page 1) as an act of free will, and a force for the good which is dissociated from financial gain, is how the institutional value of volunteering continues to be perceived in both traditional and modern societies. However, the terminology applied to IVS has expanded in the past decades from its original association with “charity” and “need,” toward “technical assistance” and “professional support.” Terms such as “development worker” (Progressio 2016) and development advisor (GIZ 2020) are now being used by some IVCOs in response to the changing landscape of development assistance and the increasing number of educated and qualified professionals in the countries of the Global South. However, some IVCOs continue to use the term “volunteer” for those delivering technical assistance in development programs (UNV 2018c; VSO 2020). Furthermore, the expansion of other forms of international volunteering, such as voluntourism and gap-year volunteering (Jones 2008), has also added to the confusion among the stakeholders of IVS. Consequently the proliferation of terminology has created ambiguities in the perceptions and expectations of volunteering and led to a growing inclination among partner organizations to associate the term volunteer with lack of professionalism and inexperience of youths (Barzegar 2019). The UN initiative to integrate volunteerism into national development strategies, plans, and policies (UNGA 2016) has led to increased participation of national volunteers in development programs, particularly in rural and remote areas of the Global South (UNV 2018a). Often motivated by solidarity and mutual aid, local volunteers take on the responsibility to help their local communities (UNV 2018a). However, empirical evidence shows inconsistent benefits from such programs as participation falters due to the challenges of taking part in volunteering being more significant for those who are financially insecure (Aked 2014; UNV 2018a). On the other hand, the

P

960

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

remuneration and benefit packages received by international volunteers can equate to, and sometimes exceed, the salaries of their employed colleagues and co-workers. This discrepancy can create a perception of IVS as contradictory to the characteristics of volunteering in the sense that may be understood and experienced locally. International volunteers can be perceived as privileged because they receive benefits that are denied to host country volunteers (Noxolo 2011) leading to increased suspicion of the values and principles of IVS as a process that reinforces historical power inequalities between foreign and local volunteers (Barzegar 2019). Diverse characterizations of international volunteering influence institutional trust and power relations among IVS stakeholders and resonate with the positive/negative “duality” in international volunteering (see Section “Introduction”). A clear differentiation and standardization of terminology applied to diverse forms of international volunteering may help reduce ambiguities in the range of services offered through IVS. Terminology that is aligned to expectations of the partners and stakeholders can help rebuild trust and redress incorrect or outdated assumptions, some of which may be based on stereotypes or historical power inequalities among the stakeholders. Changing Patterns of Aid and Implications for IVS

SDGs and, in particular, targets 15-17 of SDG 17 emphasize the importance of effective multistakeholder partnerships, data monitoring, and accountability to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries (UN SDGs 2017). Building on experiences acquired from the delivery of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the SDGs aim to amplify the emphasis on aid effectiveness through professionalization in financial accountability, an evidence-based approach to technical reporting, as well as donors’ fund disbursement strategies that are restricted to specified programs and the delivery of pre-defined outcomes (Wright and Bocarnea 2007). Global movements to increase aid effectiveness have necessitated IVCOs to reassess their strategies to IVS. While some IVCOs have

demonstrated ability and capacity to evolve in alignment with emerging trends in international development, to remain or become development focused IVCOs, others have found this a challenge or unnecessary (Barzegar 2019). A focus on development relies on organizational perspectives that are sensitized to changes in external dynamics at global and national levels, as well as responsive strategic review processes that allow organizations to proactively mitigate the impacts of emerging trends in the arena of development. Conversely, the delivery of development goals reliably, and consistently, is more of a challenge for IVCOs that remained a volunteer-sending agency for a sustained period of time before directing their efforts more toward development (Bird 1998; Barzegar 2019). Mismatches around IVCO’s development orientations and the needs of volunteers are related to specific political economies of development and help explain some of the inconsistencies between the theory and practice of IVS (Barzegar 2019). The gap between the theory and practice of IVS is narrower when host country offices (HCOs) of IVCOs are able to focus on strategic development interventions through long-term partnerships that allow trust to develop over time (Barzegar 2019). Trust can be considered as an open, informative process that involves the participation of diverse groups and leads to the creation shared meaning over time (Hardy et al. 1998, p. 8). A proactive approach to adapting to change requires systems and processes that not only allow the collection and analysis of external and internal information but organizational structures for the dissemination of information and feedback mechanisms that empower decentralized organizational units to recognize and mitigate the emerging trends (see Section “Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in the Management and Coordination of IVS”). In contrast, the gap between theory and practice of IVS becomes wider when IVCOs’ organizational focus is primarily on engaging volunteers, particularly, if they also were, or remain, supported by unrestricted funding from a single source (usually a government or an institutional donor), for a long time (Bird 1998; Barzegar 2019). Funding that is approved based

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

on creating IVS placements as inputs into development programs is then disbursed to HCOs in top-down manner from IVCO head offices, with little accountability for outcomes of the development interventions (Bird 1998). An outcome of long-term support in the form of unrestricted funding for some IVCOs was weaknesses in structures, policies, and processes that might have facilitated a proactive approach to growth and change. Consequently, the changes in donors’ strategies toward project specific fund disbursement severely impacted the long-established trust in the relationship between these IVCOs and their institutional donor and drove their HCOs to “farm” projects opportunistically in pursuit of alternative sources of finance (Barzegar 2019). Such a fragmented approach to IVS adds situational variables which can constrain the evaluative processes necessary for placement design and justification, building trusting partnerships, openness, and accuracy in knowledge sharing and, hence, can affect the delivery of the intended outcomes of IVS and the broader development project (Barzegar 2019). Factors Affecting IVS Relationships at MesoLevel The activities leading to IVS placements in development programs fall within the remit of HCOs. HCOs’ work involves not only the justification of IVS within a development project and recruitment of international volunteers but the provision of personal support (accommodation, living allowances, basic needs and services, and health and safety), as well as professional support (administration, resources, logistics of travel) for the volunteers during their stay. At the same time, HCOs have to maintain an overview of the projects’ development mandate until, and after, the departure of the volunteers (Barzegar 2019). Managing partnerships is critically important for HCOs. To achieve their goals in the host country, HCOs have to collaborate with a multitude of actors with fast-changing interests. The competitive environment of development constrains opportunities for knowledge transfer and shared experiences that can support the generations of long-term trust among the IVS

961

stakeholders. Consequently, HCOs’ relationships with partner organization are largely reliant on socially based expectations of institutional or characteristic-based trust, which can be constructed or inflated and are not based on direct experiences (Barzegar 2019). This makes managing partnerships a challenge for HCOs, as they are in interdependent relationships with diverse stakeholders that have fast-changing interests. The HCOs’ stakeholders can be categorized according to key partnership characteristics as strategic or mobilizing (Barzegar 2019). Strategic Stakeholder Partnerships

Strategic stakeholder partnerships are centered on the long-term aims of development intervention in thematic areas of national priority. HCOs are in interdependent relationships with their strategic partners (see Fig. 2) that include government ministries and public institutions, multi- and bilateral donor agencies, and IVCO head offices. Changes in donor strategy for fund disbursement have created both opportunities and challenges for HCOs as they find themselves in a favored position for having access to the expertise of international volunteers (Barzegar 2019). However, being subordinate to donor power over resources, and the government’s power over policies and structures of the national institutions, constrains the way HCOs negotiate their relationships with their strategic partners in an increasingly competitive environment with other INGOs and HCOs (Engel and Georgeou 2011). The ability of donors to exercise choice in the method of fund disbursement suggests that they can use their power over financial resources to influence partnership choices for program implementation. Such a strategy can increase HCOs’ access to resources, but it may lead to suspicion by governments and their agencies of the HCOs motives and the degree to which their activities are donor-orientated (Edwards and Fowler 2002, p. 4). Consequently, far from creating a clear division of power between the donors, the government, and the HCOs, control of resources can lead to erosion of trust among the stakeholders. HCOs’ multiple accountabilities blur the distinctions between what, and to whom, they should

P

962

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

Donor agencies

Project implementation

International Aid Funding

Political support

Technical assistance IVCO host country offices

Government Approval and access to infrastructure

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development Through International Volunteering, Fig. 2 Interdependence between the government, the

international donors, and IVCO host country offices. (Source Barzegar 2019)

be held accountable. Their association with established IVCOs often means that HCOs are trusted to have ability and capacity to deliver the contractual terms of their agreement (Barzegar 2019, p. 191) and meet the required level of professionalism in measuring and reporting quantified and qualified volunteering activities (Rochester et al. 2010). However, not only is this type of intervention hard to get right, but it is also very difficult to capture (Bolton 2007); providing evidence requires specific skills and capacities associated with managing and coordinating volunteer programs (Safrit and Merrill 2007). HCOs do not always have the required contextual knowledge, administrative tools and processes, management skills, and organizational capacity to deliver the agreed program objectives (Barzegar 2019). This view is supported by empirical evidence dating back to the early days of IVS. The evidence reveals HCO reports containing incomplete and inaccurate information and ambiguities in the language and content of documents and other forms of shared data that remain unchallenged by either IVCO head office or the program coordinator (Ball et al. 1976; van Eekelen et al. 2012; Barzegar 2019). If formally documented or informally agreed reports are not

verified, contested, or acted upon, trust becomes devalued. Loss of trust can reinforce the view that the donor demands for professionalization in IVCOs prioritizes measurements that produce expected results rather than accountability in processes or procedures aimed at delivering the SDGs (Engel and Georgeou 2011). Mobilizing Stakeholder Partnerships

Mobilizing stakeholder partnerships are formed between HCOs and INGOs working in the host country, local government departments, umbrella organizations, or individuals such as consultants. These are partners with whom HCOs have collaborative or cross-cutting relationships in activating and operating the processes of delivering the aims of IVS and the wider development program. The proliferation of development agencies competing for funding and resources in developing countries means that HCOs find themselves contracted to, or sub-contracting, a variety of other agencies in the delivery of development programs. The growing number of actors in IVS presents HCOs with challenges in reconciling the demands arising from the policies and procedures of multiple mobilizing stakeholders with the tasks of program implementation. This leaves little opportunity for

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

the generation of trust between actors because often they share little history, and information sharing has to be taken at face value to meet the time limitations of projects (Barzegar 2019). Against this backdrop, it is not surprising to find duplications and omissions of projects as numerous national, international, public, and private sectors and non-profit actors vie for funding and project approval in relatively few key developmental sectors. Overlaps and omissions in development activities permeate all levels of development intervention from institutional and policy levels, to project identification and subsequent implementation through beneficiary groups, thus inhibiting meaningful knowledge sharing (Barzegar 2019). Although platforms to encourage and promote collaborative opportunities do exist, in practice, the levels of information exchange are often unreliable as actors use their power to influence in the mix of stakeholders to pursue diverse agendas (Barzegar 2019). The inclusion of IVS in development programs cannot be assumed and has to be justified through negotiations with mobilizing partners, for whom IVS may not be a priority. Thus HCOs develop strategies that involve responding to a request or making an offer of an IVS placement to potential mobilizing partners who might not have bought into the agenda of IVS. Recent research shows that mobilizing partners consent to HCOs’ offers of IVS placement for a variety of reasons that are sometimes different from the aims of IVS (Impey and Overton 2014; Barzegar 2019) and can have an adverse impact on the intended partnership goals. This attitude in the mobilizing partners signifies a lack of trust in the processes that involve offers of IVS placements, compared to when it is requested by the partners. It illustrates that trust between HCOs and their mobilizing partners is often based on prevailing perceptions and beliefs rather than on repeated past experiences of positive outcomes (Barzegar 2019). At the same time, it underlines the importance of promoting long-term partnership opportunities to strengthen trust and, potentially, facilitate cooperative behaviors that help increase the chance of sustainable goal achievement.

963

Factors Affecting IVS Relationships at Micro (Implementation)-Level Partnerships in this category are those between the HCOs and the people directly involved in implementing the development projects in which IVS is incorporated: the volunteers and their coworkers in partner organizations and representatives of the beneficiary groups. Although the role of international volunteers is customarily incorporated within a contractual agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the partner organization, in practice, the reporting structure is very loosely functional and often unclear on what, and to whom, the volunteer is accountable (Ackers and AckersJohnson 2017). As outsiders, international volunteers can mitigate traditional or cultural power structures and facilitate the participation and empowerment of the more marginalized community members (Burns et al. 2015). On the other hand, given the increasing number of educated and qualified professionals in the countries of the Global South, placing foreign volunteers into roles that eligible nationals can fulfil contradicts the espoused principles of SDGs concerning capacity building and empowering nationals. It diminishes the implementing partners’ trust in the transparency and fairness of the IVS processes and the organizations that operate it. Moreover, internalized deference to power, grounded in domestic cultural and social norms, or colonial history, pervades at different levels of society in many countries of the Global South (Lough and Carter-Black 2015). Deference to the power of the “outsiders” can weaken local self-organization and ownership, potentially reinforce internalized power inequalities associated with colonialism or Western supremacy (Barzegar 2019), and create dependencies that undermine the aims of SDGs (UNV 2018a). This is not to say, however, that there aren’t occasions when valid reasons exist for the presence of an outsider, even if it is not immediately apparent. Sometimes partner organizations distrust fellow countrymen and would rather trust “outsiders,” not only in respect of their technical qualifications for the role, but through fear linked

P

964

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

to the potential risk of misuse of shared information. Conversely, in the absence of a significant gap between the skills and/or knowledge of a volunteer and their colleagues in the partner organization, an IVS placement can adversely affect the existing employees’ ownership of their tasks and responsibilities and counteract the broader aims of capacity building. The challenges above demonstrate the difficulties that HCOs face of having to balance multiple mandates, which can sometimes be perceived as advancing their organizational interests rather than the goals of development. This corresponds with the common criticism of NGOs that they are excessively focused on upward accountability to donors and authorities such as governments and their own head offices but are less mindful of downwards accountability in their relationships with the target beneficiaries or the other development actors, colleagues, and counterparts (Lewis 2014, p. 193).

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in the Management and Coordination of IVS IVCOs’ descriptions of the role of the HCOs on websites and promotional material associate their activities with sustainable development, empowerment of local people and organizations, changemaking, supporting the poor and marginalized, and value creation (GIZ 2020; Peace Corps 2020; VSO 2020). However, empirical evidence shows that IVCOs often choose their local partners “Because on paper they had the right infrastructures in place to support the program objectives of the relevant IVCO” (Burns et al. 2015, p. 35). Thus the impression of seamless accord between IVCO aims, policy, and practice – the work of its head office and the HCOs – does not always reflect the realities on the ground. HCOs are geographically and culturally distinct stakeholders in IVS processes with different responsibilities and accountabilities from those of their head offices (Barzegar 2019). IVCOs’ internal policies and procedures are important indicators of organizational practices

(Barzegar 2019). A productive partnership between the HCOs and their head offices involves a balance of power to negotiate access to the resources that HCOs need to do their work, as well as power to influence policy and strategy within the wider organization (Barzegar 2019). The extent to which IVCOs’ demonstrate their espoused principles and values to their own staff is reflected, not only in fair remuneration packages and the quantity of the provision of resources to HCOs, but the transparency and mechanisms for resource allocations and IVCOs’ commitment to staff training and development (Brunt and McCourt 2012). IVCOs’ increasing reliance on restricted incomes from donor-initiated projects implies that staff and volunteers’ remuneration packages, training and development expenses, and financial and physical resources are components of project budget proposals (Barzegar 2019, p. 181). Foreman (1999, p. 192) notes that the costs of overheads and soft administrative purposes can be extremely high and difficult to justify to a donor, thus can constrain an organization’s ability to enact its desired management policies. Foreman’s observation does not, however, explain the vastly different remuneration packages and resources received by staff and volunteers of different HCOs, particularly as they often collaborate with several of the same INGOs or international aid agencies (Barzegar 2019). Thus the inability of some HCOs to negotiate favorable remuneration packages and resources to carry out their work is either an indication of capacity shortfalls at the HCO or reflects an IVCO’s policy. In either case, it constrains the day-to-day functioning of the HCO, affects the HCO’s relationships with its external stakeholders, and can lead to disappointment and frustration of HCO staff if they feel powerless to influence change (Brunt and McCourt 2012). Dissatisfaction makes HCO staff question their own value and work within the wider organization and reinforces unequal power relations and mistrust of head office to “walk the talk” of their espoused principles in their relationship with their HCOs’ staff (Brunt and McCourt 2012). A breakdown of trust between HCOs and their head offices can impact

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

staff attitudes to compliance with policy and procedures, effective communication and knowledge sharing, and lead to conflicts with HCO colleagues or volunteers. Undertaking an IVS placement represents acceptance of risk by the volunteers based on the rubrics of IVS, the accuracy and integrity of the information provided by the IVCO, and the communication of knowledge and experiences with HCOs across physical and cultural barriers (Barzegar 2019). When the expectations of the volunteers are met on arrival at the post, it becomes a source of motivation and encouragement, helps build trust between the staff and the volunteers, and empowers the volunteers to participate and contribute to the broader program. However, the consequences of mismatched aims and expectations can result in volunteers’ dissatisfaction and mixed benefits for the partner organizations (Nelson and Child 2016, p. 525). Disappointment and frustration in their placements can lead to volunteers becoming ineffective, or disenchanted and withdraw, potentially causing harm to target beneficiaries (Grossman and Furano 1999). Not only does the departure of volunteers signify a breakdown of trust, but it questions the type of volunteer support that is referred to when IVCO websites describe the work of their HCOs. Volunteer retention is recognized as a key performance indicator in volunteer management literature (Rochester et al. 2010). Operational challenges that cause relationships conflicts between volunteers and paid HCO staff have been reported in IVS literature spanning several decades (Ball et al. 1976; Bird 1998; Amin 2014) and suggest the persistence of problems related to managing and coordinating the work of volunteers during IVS placement. The implications are that there is insufficient emphasis by donor agencies on the significance of indirect outcomes and failures of IVS within internal management of IVCOs. This lack of emphasis is reflected in UN’s call for the “adoption of good practices in the promotion, facilitation and, where applicable, management of volunteerism” (UNGA 2016, p. 3) to inform decision-making procedures that could support more positive development outcomes (Gulrajani 2014).

965

Concluding Remarks The scope and complexity of the efforts needed for realizing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs are such that no government or stakeholder will be able to address alone, without multi-stakeholder partnerships in “pooling financial resources, knowledge and expertise” (UN DESA 2019a). Although volunteerism is recognized as a means of connecting people, facilitating collaborative work, and supporting the delivery of the SDGs (UNV 2018b), there is a persistent inconsistency between the theory and practice – values and processes – of IVS that can reinforce inequalities in the partnerships with local volunteers (UNV 2018a). This entry has argued that placement quality and impacts are shaped by wider institutional relationships and structures of which trust and power relations are influential factors in the way knowledge is shared among the stakeholders. Insights from the interconnection between these factors help situate the inconsistencies between the theory and practice of IVS within the specific local political economies of development. The study of human relations helps identify not only the tensions between Global North and South contexts but also the strategies that can be deployed to effectively manage these in a way that enhances the impact of development programs locally while making IVS beneficial to individual volunteers. Trust is an important factor in supporting cooperation in relationships, but it is difficult to build and maintain in the competitive arena of international development. Geographical distance, diversity of cultures, languages, social and economic backgrounds, the multiplicity of actors with dissimilar motivations and agendas, and movement of personnel leave little time for learning or reflection. Consequently, any initiative or action that reduces ambiguities in definitions and expectations of volunteering and increases time in the relationships between actors will also increase opportunities for building trust, promote open and transparent knowledge sharing, and help mitigate power inequalities.

P

966

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development

Finally, while the focus of this entry is on a particular type of INGO, the findings are relevant to a range of non-profit, decentralized organizations where relationships have to be negotiated with multiple and diverse stakeholders, at different levels and across national and international boundaries. The acknowledgment that rapid change is occurring worldwide and locally, and that historical factors influence contemporary situations, ultimately brings clarity and depth to better and more consistent outcomes. Understanding the dynamics of human relations in partnerships can explain the paths that lead to intended and unintended outcomes of development interventions and facilitate the achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability ▶ Collaborative Governance ▶ International Volunteering ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships

References Ackers HL, Ackers-Johnson J (2017) Mobile professional voluntarism and international development. In: Mobile professional voluntarism and international development. Killing Me Softly? 1st edn. Palgrave Macmillan, New York Akampurira A (2014) Project planning and management: an aspect of development. Anchor Academic Publishing, Hamburg Aked J (2014) Views from the watershed: how citizens and actors describe volunteering for development reporting on the impact of volunteering for natural resource management in Carood watershed, Bohol. IDS/VSO, The Philippines, pp 1–80. Available at: http://www. vsointernational.org/sites/vso_international/files/valu ing_volunteering_philipinnes_report-views_from_ the_watershed.pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2015 Amin JA (2014) Making sense of fifty years of U.S. peace Corps Service in Cameroon. Int J Afr Hist Stud 47 (2):319–338 Ball C, Hammer JM, Yeghiayan V (1976) Voluntarism: the real and emerging power. A report of the international conference on volunteer service. ACTION, Washington, DC, Vienna, p 191 Barzegar B (2019) Looking inside the Black box: the role of host country offices in negotiating international

volunteering for development. PhD thesis. The Open University. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/67308/ Beigbeder Y (1991) The role and status of international humanitarian volunteers and Organisations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (Legal Aspects of INternational Organization), The Netherlands Bird D (1998) Never the same again: a history of VSO. Lutterworth Press, Cambridge Bolton G (2007) Aid and other dirty business. Ebury Press, London Brett JM, Okumura T (1998) Inter- and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese negotiators. Acad Manag J 41 (5):495–510 Brinkerhoff JM (2002) Partnership for International Development – rhetoric or results? Lynne Reinner Publishers Inc., UK Brunt C, McCourt W (2012) Do International non-government organizations walk the talk? Reconciling the “two participations” in international development. J Int Dev 24:585–601 Burns D et al (2015) The role of volunteering in sustainable development. VSO International and Institute of Development Studies, London, pp 1–55 Cornwall A (2007) Buzzwords and fuzzwords: deconstructing development discourse. Dev Pract 17 (4–5):471–484 Diallo A, Thuillier D (2005) The success of international development projects, trust and communication: an African perspective. Int J Proj Manag 23(3):237–252 Edwards M, Fowler A (2002) Introduction: changing challenges for NGDO management. In: Edwards M, Fowler A (eds) NGO management. Earthscan Publications Limited, London Engel S, Georgeou N (2011) The impact of neoliberalism and new Managerialism on development volunteering: an Australian case study. Aust J Polit Sci 46(2):297– 311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2011.567970 Eyben R, Harris C, Pettit J (2006) Introduction: exploring power for change. volume 37 6. Institute of Development Studies, Bulletin, pp 1–10 Fisher R, Ury W, Patton B (2011) Getting to yes: negotiating an agreement without giving in. Penguin, London Foreman K (1999) Evolving global structures and the challenges facing international relief and development organizations. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 28(4):178–197 Fowler A (1997) Striking a balance. Earthscan Publications Limited, London Gaventa J (2005) Reflections on the uses of the ‘power cube’ approach for Analysing the spaces, places and dynamics of civil society participation and engagement, vol 4. Institute of Development Studies, UK, pp 1–45 GIZ (2020) GIZ Development Service, GIZ. Available at: https://www.giz.de/en/jobs/24386.html. Accessed 8 Apr 2020 Grossman JB, Furano K (1999) Making the most of volunteers. Law Contemp Probl 62(4):199–218 Gulrajani N (2014) Organising for donor effectiveness: an analytical framework for improving aid effectiveness. Dev Policy Rev 32(1):89–112

Power, Trust, and Knowledge Sharing in Sustainable Development Guston DH (1999) Stabilising the boundary between US politics and science: the role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Soc Stud Sci 29:1 Haddock M, Devereux P (2015) Documenting the contribution of volunteering to the SDGs: the challenges and opportunities of Universal SDGs for IVCOs and Volunteer Groups. In Forum discussion paper. International Forum for Volunteering in Development (Forum). Available at http://forum-ids.org/2015/12/ forum-discussion-paper-2015/. Accessed 25 Mar 2020 Hardy C, Philips N, Lawrence T (1998) Distinguishing trust and power in interorganizational relations: forms and facades of trust. In: Lane C, Bachmann R (eds) Trust within and between Organisations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 64–87 Huxham C, Beech N (2008) Inter-orgnizational power. In: Cropper S et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of interorganizational relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 554–582 Impey K, Overton J (2014) Developing partnerships: the assertion of local control of international development volunteers in South Africa. Oxford University Press Commun Dev J 49(1):111–128 Jones A (2008) The rise of global work. Trans Inst Br Geogr, NS 33:12–26 Koeszegi ST (2004) Trust-building strategies in interorganisational negotiations. J Manag Psychol 19 (6):640–659 Kopelman S, Olekalns M (1999) Process in cross-cultural negotiations. Negot J. (ABI/INFORM Collection) 15 (4):373 Lewis D (2014) Non-governmental organizations, management and development, 3rd edn. Routledge, London/New York Li L (2005) The effects of trust and shared vision on inward knowledge transfer in subsidiaries’ intra- and interorganisational relationships. Int Bus Rev 14(1):77–95 Long N (2001) Development sociology. Actor perspectives. Routledge, London/New York Lough B, Carter-Black J (2015) Confronting the white elephant: international volunteering and racial (dis) advantage. Prog Dev Stud 15(3):207–220 Lukes S (1974) Power: a radical view. Macmillan Press Limited, London Nelson K, Child C (2016) Adding the organizational perspective: how organizations shape service work abroad. Voluntas 27:525–548 Nierenberg GI (1987) The Complete negotiator. First British edition. Souvenir Press Ltd, London Noxolo P (2011) Postcolonial economies of development volunteering. In: Pollard J, McEwan C, Hughes A (eds) Postcolonial economies. Zed Books Ltd, UK, pp 205– 223 Olekalns M, Smith PL (2009) Mutually dependent: power, trust, affect and the use of deception in negotiation. J Bus Ethics 85:347–365 Peace Corps (2020) Preparation and training, Peace Corps. Available at: https://www.peacecorps.gov/volunteer/ preparation-and-training/. Accessed 8 Apr 2020

967

Progressio (2016) What is a development worker? Progressio 75. Available at: http://progd7.gn.apc.org/con tent/what-development-worker. Accessed 18 Jan 2016 Robinson D, Hewitt T, Harriss J (2000) Managing development – understanding inter-organizational relationships. SAGE Publications and The Open University, London Rochester C, Ellis Paine A, Howlett S (2010) Volunteering and society in the 21st century. Palgrave Macmillan, UK Safrit RD, Merrill MV (2007) Personal capacities for volunteer administrators: drawing upon the past as we move into the future. Int J Volunt Adm 14(6):101–109 Thomas A (2000) Development as practice in a Liberal capitalist world. J Int Dev 12:773–787 UN DESA (2019a) 2030 Agenda Partnership Accelerator – background, Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/PartnershipAccelerator. Accessed 25 Mar 2020 UN DESA (2019b) 2030 Agenda Partnership Accelerator – Events, Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/index.php?page¼view&type¼13&nr¼3093& menu¼1634. Accessed 25 Mar 2020 UN SDGs (2016) The Sustainable development goals, sustainable development knowledge platform. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17. Accessed 25 Mar 2020 UN SDGs (2017) The Sustainable Development Goal 17 – targets and Indicators. United Nations. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17. Accessed 25 Mar 2020 UN SDGs (2019) Multi-stakeholder partnerships & voluntary commitments, Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/sdinaction. Accessed 25 Mar 2020 UNGA (2016) Resolution 70/129. A/RES/70/129. Bonn: United Nations. Available at: https://www.unv.org/ publications/unga-resolution-70129-integratingvolunteering-peace-and-development-plan-actionnext. Accessed 27 Mar 2020 UNV (2018a) State of the World’s Volunteerism Report, United Nations iLibrary |. Available at: https://www. un-ilibrary.org/economic-and-social-development/ state-of-the-world-s-volunteerism-report_3f412146en. Accessed 30 Mar 2020 UNV (2018b) The thread that binds: Volunteerism and community resilience. 2018. Bonn: United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme. Available at: https:// www.unv.org/sites/default/files/UNV_SWVR_2018_ English_WEB.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2020 UNV (2018c) Who we are | UNV, UNV. Available at: https://www.unv.org/about-unv/who-we-are. Accessed 11 July 2018 van Eekelen W, Enfield S, Patel A (2012) Independent progress review of DFID’s SGA with VSO. VSO, London, p 200. Available at: http://www.vso.org.uk/sites/ vso_uk/files/documents/Annual%20reviews-reports/ IPR/vso-dfid-ipr-report2012.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2014

P

968 VSO (2020) Volunteer Abroad, VSO. Available at: https:// www.vsointernational.org/volunteering. Accessed 7 Apr 2020 Woolthuis RK, HIllebrand B, Nooteboom B (2005) Trust, contract and relationship development. Organ Stud 26 (6):813–840 Wright MH, Bocarnea MC (2007) Contributions of unrestricted funds the donor organization–public relationship and alumni attitudes and behaviors. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 18(2) Wu J, Laws D (2003) Trust and other-anxiety in negotiations: dynamics across boundaries of self and culture. Negot J 19(4):329–367 Zucker LG (1986) Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. Res Organ Behav 8:53–111

Preferential Market Access

Social-environmental and economical sustainability is a conceptual shift in thinking about development beyond economic growth, envisioning a desirable future that is equitable, inclusive, peaceful, and environmentally sustainable. The concept grouped the economic, social, and environmental objectives as the three pillars of sustainable development, then culture and creativity contribute to each of these pillars transversally. Is the safeguarding and promotion of culture as an end in itself, safe and sustainable cities, decent work and economic growth, reduced inequalities, the environment, promoting gender equality and peaceful and inclusive societies (UNESCO 2015).

Preferential Market Access ▶ Duty-Free and Quota-Free Market Access (DFQF): Integrating LDCs with the Global Trading System

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique Fernando Morgado1, Harith Farooq2 and Amadeu Soares1 1 Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM) and Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal 2 Faculty of Natural Sciences, Lúrio University, Pemba, Mozambique

Definition Participative socio-environmental management is the endeavor to involve local communities and stakeholders in development projects, from conception and implementation through monitoring and evaluation. Actually, it is seen as a basic human right and is hoped to improve the ownership and hence the effectiveness of the projects (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992).

Introduction In 1980 the World Conservation Strategy issued by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), and World Life Fund for Nature (WWF) create a concept called “sustainable development” (Pülzl 2005). However, the emergence and public attention and legitimacy of the term “sustainable development” were only conferred in the mid 1980’s by the Brundtland Report, a publication of the Brundtland Report “Our Common Future,” written by a committee of experts of the World Commission of Environment and Development (WCED) headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland (Brundtland-Bericht 1987). It was endorsed at the 42nd General Assembly of the United Nations in autumn 1987. This report was formulated by the WCED between 1983 and 1985 and, on the one side, called for a need to give international priority to the development of the poor and to prevent irreversible environmental, and, on the other side, the report distinguished between developing and developed countries with regard to their further development damage (Baker et al. 1997; Meadowcraft 2000). The report in essence can be characterized as a normative idea for a better life while meeting concerns of the poor and the future, inter- and intragenerational justice (Dryzek 1997), a way out of the economic growth versus environmental protection debate (economic and social

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique

development are seen as compatible with environmental protection needs), an appeal for Northern and Southern countries, a “bridging” concept between policies and interests, and a “progressive” concept (development is seen as positive) referring to the idea of environmental limits (Baker et al. 1997; Porter and Brown 1991). This sustainable development concept is described by its three dimensions: economic, social, and environmental dimensions (Meadowcraft 2000). However, from the emergence and definition of this concept different sustainability models were formulated. Another sustainability concept, presented by Spangenberg and Bonniot (1998) and Valentin and Spangenberg (1999) and based on the CSD 1995, adds a fourth (institutional) dimension to the triangular model. A third sustainability concept that was originally produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1994 was put forth by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in 1997 that include the relationship between human beings (people) and the environmental dimension (ecosystem) (IRDC 1997). Both need to be balanced in order to achieve sustainability (Keiner 2004). These were the concepts that triggered a huge number of projects of environmental management conservation and participative socioenvironmental management approaches for the preservation of marine biodiversity and social economical sustainability around the world, emerged as the most widely accepted approach to natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. The main goals of environmental management are to safeguard and enhance the environmental state as well as to sustain economic and social benefits from the ecosystems (Elliot, Elliott 2011, Elliott 2013).

Strengthen the Means of Implementation and Revitalize the Global Partnership for Marine and Coastal Areas Biodiversity Sustainable Development Marine and coastal biodiversity support 80% of the world’s biodiversity, supply almost half the oxygen we breathe, and strongly influence the

969

world’s climate (DEFRA 2010). They also provide ecosystem goods and services, such as nutrient cycling, raw materials, food, and tourism (Costanza et al. 1997; Harley et al. 2006; Kremen 2005; Tallis and Polasky 2009). Because of the broad scope and multifaceted nature of the stressors, there has been growing recognition of the importance of an integrated ecosystem approach to the management of the ocean and coastal areas (Foley et al. 2010; Lester et al. 2009). Responses for current marine, coastal ecosystems and biological resources degradation must include both the integrated coastal management and stakeholder participation in decision-making and for policymakers (millennium ecosystem assessment 2006; UNEP 2006; Billé and Rochette 2010; Curtin and Prellezo 2010). As the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio + 20) statements, management models approach for the preservation of marine biodiversity and social economical sustainability must be an integrated approach to natural resource management that considers the entire ecosystem, including humans, and has the goal of maintaining ecosystems in a healthy, productive, and resilient condition in a climate change scenario (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development 2012; Arthuron and Korateng 2006; UNEP 2007; UN 2015). Climate change and global warming is one of the five priority areas of the Strategy 2020 of the European Commission and it constitutes a major global challenge needing local responses (Leal-Filho 2010; Leal Filho 2014; Leal Filho et al. 2015); management and planning actions, either to understand, mitigate, or adapt to climate change, necessarily involve the full complexity of its environmental, sociocultural, educational, and science dimensions and the ways climate change is viewed and addressed in a given country depend on its cultural, political, and scientific backgrounds and also, to a large extent, on the specific aspects of the changing climate in that country and on its actual and perceived future impacts (Carvalho et al. 2014). These aspects are matter of global concern, being a significant challenge facing society today and becoming a central issue to society (Leal Filho 2014; Leal Filho et al. 2015), and educational institutions (schools) and

P

970

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique

agents (teachers, students, and pedagogical agents) need to engage and be active in the search for regional and local solutions for what is a global problem (Leal-Filho 2010).

Environmental Management Conservation Approaches Ecosystem-Based Management Versus Community-Based Management Over the past century a wide range of different conservation-oriented approaches have been enacted, from local and regional scale activities, such as protected area establishment, in situ conservation, recovery planning for species and ecosystems, specific threat management (e.g., disease and fire), and biodiversity offsets, to global scale intergovernmental policy developments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 2010a, b) and the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species (CITES) (Redford et al. 2003; Whittaker et al. 2005). These approaches are based on multiple values of biodiversity, including those values not related to humans, and the implications of these differences for marine conservation strategies have been reviewed by a number of authors (NRC 2001; Agardy et al. 2011). The approaches most commonly used to date in ecosystem service literature, policy, and practice broadly encompass the science of identifying, measuring, mapping, and/or modeling the stocks and flows of different ecosystem services and the synergies and/or trade-offs that may occur among them as a result of different decisions (Luck et al. 2009; Tallis and Polasky 2009; UNEP-WCMC 2012); identifying and quantifying the social, cultural, and/or economic values of ecosystem services (Costanza et al. 1997; MA 2005; TEEB 2010; Daw et al. 2011; Chan et al. 2012; Norton et al. 2012); and the development of various incentives, such as payments for ecosystem services (PES), to conserve ecosystem services (Pagiola et al. 2005; Wunder 2005; Wunder et al. 2008; Clements et al. 2010). While the valuation of ecosystem services and market-based mechanisms such as PES are among the most widely cited and used ecosystem

services approaches, they represent only several of many ecosystem services approaches that exist. Achieving sustainable outcomes in both, however, is not only desired but also necessary (Wu 2006). Ecosystem-based management, with a primary focus on ecosystem services, can also help broaden constituencies and influence decisionmaking to support conservation. These are integrated approaches to natural resource management that considers the entire ecosystem, including humans, and has the goal of “maintaining an ecosystem in a healthy, productive and resilient condition so that it can provide the services humans want and need” (McLeodet al. 2005). It differs from other approaches to conservation or natural resource management that focus on a single species or sector, by considering the complex interactions between humans and the living and nonliving environment across multiple spatial and temporal scales (Clarke and Jupiter 2010; Curtin and Prelezzo 2010). Ecosystem-based management practitioners have noted that their experience of EBM practice has shared certain common features, mainly in regions where high levels of natural resource dependence demand an approach to EBM that recognizes the economic, social, and cultural importance of continued resource use, while working to ensure that the use of those resources is sustainable over time. Traditional belief systems in those regions emphasize the strong relationship between people, land, and sea, where the effectiveness of government interventions in natural resource management issues is often undermined by fragmentation of responsibilities within and between government agencies (Pretty 2003). The biodiversity conservation current approaches are convergent with cultural and economic domains, linked to the use of certain terms such as conservation, preservation, and protection, in processes designed to develop biodiversity strategies and action plans (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992; Bell et al. 2012; Hoogstra-Klein et al. 2012; Cosyns et al. 2013). The conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity must comply particular conditions and capabilities, to

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique

develop local strategies, plans, or programs integrated into sectoral plans, programs, and policies (Pope et al. 2004). These approaches allow effective participation by all concerned stakeholders and show how taking account of traditional ecological knowledge is a prerequisite for a real participation of people and communities such as in African countries. Community-based management has emerged as the most widely accepted approach to natural resource management and biodiversity conservation, a site-based conservation that often reflects a hybrid approach, in which active community involvement and control is combined with varying degrees of external support and influence. It is essential that ecosystem management processes respect the needs, interests, rights, and aspirations of local resource–owning communities, and contribute to local conservation and development goals, not just national and international targets. Direct involvement of local communities in management planning ensures that local knowledge, needs, and priorities are incorporated in management decisions in ways that increase community ownership of the management process. An effective EBM often requires an understanding of social and cultural connectivity; historical relationships and cultural obligations play an important role in decisions about use and management of natural resources in the regions, and may present opportunities for integrated management of ecosystems. Management planning processes that respect and reinforce the roles of traditional leaders, while providing opportunities for broad community engagement, strengthen long-term prospects for successful community-based resource governance (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992; Bell et al. 2012; Hoogstra-Klein et al. 2012; Cosyns et al. 2013.

The Importance of Community-Based and Socio-Environmental Management Approach in Less Developed Countries The sustainable management of natural resources is often complex by a diversity of demands from different sectors of a community at different scales (Vaidya and Mayer 2014). Science has revealed

971

much of the importance of marine biodiversity, but an economic and social assessment is needed to communicate the fact that biodiversity loss also has an economic and social impact. The need to take collective action to promote the preservation of marine biodiversity and social economical sustainability to poor countries for the structural transformation of their economies has always been recognized and promoted by the international community (Barnett and Patterson 2006; Borja et al. 2008). The framework of less developed countries is usually characterized by high levels of reliance on coastal marine resources, limited government management capacity, and strong traditions of community-based natural resource management (WWF 2004a, b, 2009; UNEP/Nairobi Convention Secretariat and WIOMSA 2009; EAME 2004; Guerreiro et al. 2010; Moffat et al. 1998). Also, presented limited availability of data and the complexity of key ecosystems require an iterative and adaptive approach to ecosystem management. However, limited financial, human, and technical resources in those countries make sophisticated large-scale adaptive management complex. Communitybased adaptive management that combines traditional and local knowledge, scientifically sound monitoring methods, and responsive decisionmaking processes provides a strong foundation for improving the management of ecosystems over time and responding to new challenges, including the impacts of climate change. According to the international policy statements such as the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the 1992 Rio Declaration of Environment and Development, researchers and sustainable development experts have increasingly endeavored to involve local communities and stakeholders in development projects, from conception and implementation through monitoring and evaluation (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992; Bell et al. 2012; Hoogstra-Klein et al. 2012; Cosyns et al. 2013). Community engagement in decision-making processes and participatory approach has grown significantly over the past few decades (Reed et al. 2006). The participatory approach, also called

P

972

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique

“participatory learning and action” (Morse 2008), relies primarily on the knowledge of key stakeholders or beneficiaries about local context to define sustainability and identify the indicators to be used in sustainability assessment (Reed et al. 2006; Bell et al. 2012). This approach (particularly in environmental management projects) has gained popularity, primarily as a result of past failings of expert-led decision-making to gain acceptance for community-level implementation (Hak et al. 2012). The involvement of local stakeholders in development projects is seen as a basic human right (involvement in a project that intends to directly impact one’s livelihood), and is hoped to improve the ownership and hence the effectiveness of the projects (Ridder and Pahl-Wostl 2005; Bell et al. 2012; Fredericks 2012). Approaches for assessing sustainability can be categorized as expert driven (or topdown), or expert assisted/ participatory (or bottomup; Reed et al. 2006). Historically, the development of criteria and indicators for sustainability assessment, particularly for resource management, has chiefly relied upon an expert-driven conceptualization of sustainability (Reed et al. 2006; Astier et al. 2012; Dahl 2012). Expert-driven indicators are produced by science-based assessment of sustainability principles and their interpretation through statistical tools (Reed et al. 2006). This chapter reports to a participative socioenvironmental management approach for the preservation of marine biodiversity and social economical sustainability in Mozambique, developed in Pemba, Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, corresponding to 4 years of execution of the project PPEMBA –- known to preserve marine biodiversity and ordering for social and environmental sustainability of Pemba (Cabo Delgado, Mozambique). The objective was to intervene in environmental management policies, with concrete actions leading to the sustainable use of the coastal and marine space. Following the guidelines outlined, interventions were made in the areas of specialized technical training, scientific research, dissemination of science, and liaison with local populations. A socioeconomic and environmental characterization was carried out in the coastal area of Pemba Bay, including an

inventory of marine species, monitoring anthropogenic and environmental impacts, an intensive specialized technical training program in the local university community, intense awareness of the local community, and finally the formulation of the participative socio-environmental management plan for the recovery and conservation of the coastal and marine area of Pemba, in a climate change adaptation scenario. The PPEMBA Project: Known to Preserve Marine Biodiversity and Ordering for Social and Environmental Sustainability of Pemba Bay (Cabo Delgado, Mozambique) Project Partners and Networking with Governmental Institutions and NGOs: Working Groups

The project was carried out in Pemba and Pemba– Metuge Districts, Cabo Delgado Province, northern Mozambique. This province is bounded to the north by the Rovuma river, which borders Tanzania, to the east by the Indian Ocean, where we can find the Quirimbas Archipelago along the coast, to the south by the Lúrio river, which borders the province of Nampula, and to the west it borders the province of Niassa. According to the 2007 census, the city has a population of 141,316 inhabitants. Pemba Bay is the third largest bay in the world, more than 40 km long, in an area of almost 150 sq. km in surface, constituting an important ecosystem, rich in biodiversity but threatened by urban growth and tourism. Pollution, overfishing, coral dragging, and handicrafts with endangered species are typical situations of lack of environmental awareness that could determine the complete pollution of the bay and an economic collapse with the end of tourism and fishing, the main sources of income of the needier populations (PEDMP (2014-2018)). In the socioeconomic context of the coastal zone of Pemba there is an aspect related to the sustenance of the local communities since they exploit diverse resources of fauna and flora for their subsistence either to obtain construction materials, fuel, medicinal plants, fruits, or ornamentation among other types (PEDMP (2014-2018)). Another aspect that is of great importance in the coastal

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique

areas of Mozambique, particularly in the Pemba region, has to do with its high tourism potential, which on the one hand creates jobs for local communities and is an important source of currency for the country. These activities may arise the development of entrepreneurship, on the other hand, because of the noninvolvement of local communities. In addition, all these activities have a strong socioeconomic and environmental impact on local or regional ecosystems that are concerned with all socioeconomic activities, the use of resources by local communities, environmental impacts in different habitats, such as destruction of dunes and coral reefs, accumulation of contaminants and litter in water and sediments, degradation of water quality and sediments, death of protected species, destruction of habitats, erosion associated with the installation of infrastructures, noise pollution, water pollution, and soil and population overload. In the context of the exploitation of marine resources and research in the fundamental and applied fields and inserted in a sustainable development policy, the PPEMBA project played an important role in fostering interfaces with other areas of knowledge in the creation of new interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary fields. Following the World Environment and Development Commission (the Brundtland Commission) statements these mechanisms must be used in a participatory, adaptive, and cyclical manner (IUCN 1994; UNEP/UNDPCSD 1995; WRI 1995), being important to have greater public involvement in decisions that could have an impact on the environment and, in order to achieve this, that local democracy needs to be strengthened (Vincent 1994). The aim of this project was to conduct a socioeconomic and environmental diagnosis in the coastal region of Pemba district (Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique) with a view to drawing up a proposal for participatory socio-environmental ordination, which will be proposed as a new guideline for local use and occupation for government entities, and public opinion. In this project, actions were developed in the ambit of environmental policies, in order to contribute to the implementation of a democratic management of coastal and marine space in

973

Pemba, allowing the sustainable use of areas and species. A socioeconomic and environmental characterization of the region was carried out, including an inventory of the coastal species, monitoring the impacts they encounter, an intense local community awareness program, and, finally, the formulation of a participative socio-environmental ordinance, which will be the guideline for the recovery and conservation of the coastal and marine area of Pemba. This project has contributed to the improvement of the quality of life of the entire population and the sustainable use of marine ecosystems and organisms, making it compatible with the economic activities of local communities. The region is endowed with a rich heritage of local knowledge and traditional resource management practices, informed by generations of intimate association with terrestrial and marine ecosystems (Olson et al. 2001; Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA) (2009)). This project presented opportunities for integrating local knowledge with existing and emerging scientific knowledge about ecosystem functions and processes. The project team includes governmental institutions and local and foreigner NGO partners in order to develop coparticipative networking with administration, representatives of government, nongovernment associations and community leaders. At the community level, these actions were carried out with representatives of different organizations and social segments of each community, such as fishing families and traders. Due to the cross-sectoral nature of the project, the developed strategy and action plans required the involvement of a number of local institutions and coordination mechanisms. Interactions between traditional institutions and government were particularly important, because traditional leaders sometimes exercise greater influence than government agencies, such as MICOA – the Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Action; CEPAM – the Center for Marine and Coastal Environment Research (CEPAM); IIP – the National Fisheries Research Institute (IIP); IDPPE – the National Institute for the Development of Small-Scale Fisheries (IDPPE); AMA – the Cabo Delgado

P

974

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique

Environmental Association; and SPVS – the Portuguese Wildlife Society. In order to achieve all project goals in parallel and in an organized manner, different working groups (WGs) were formed, with different responsibilities and teams to carry out the activities, as described below. The socioeconomic group was to make a socioeconomic characterization of the population of Pemba– Metuge. The biodiversity inventory group was divided into four subgroups, responsible for studying the various life forms in Pemba Bay. The fishing resources group was to make a survey of local fisheries. The health of ecosystems group developed a biomonitoring protocol for Pemba Bay, adapting known and validated indices internationally. The environmental education group was responsible for designing a formal environmental education program (for development in institutions such as schools, scouting groups, churches, etc.) and a nonformal one (for developing nonformal activities, with noninstitutional citizens). The Web local group was responsible for creating the first Web local layout. PPEMBA Activities, Instruments, and Procedures for Project Development Local Participation in Planning Process and to Develop Strategies and Action Plans

The project approach aims to value speech as an instrument that highlights the cultural, socioeconomic, historical, and symbolic expressions of the interviewees (Minayo 2011). Workshops and informal conversations were other techniques used to collect primary data in socioeconomic diagnosis (Alves et al. 2013). In the Pemba project, this technique was applied at different scales: at the administrative level, representatives of governmental, nongovernmental, and association leaders were included. At the community level, these actions were carried out with representatives of different organizations and social segments of each community, such as fishing families and traders. This participatory methodology aims to recognize the importance of the organization and implies a change of behavior through mutual

learning, involving all who can contribute their ideas, opinions, and experiences. Contemporary socio-ecological problems are multidimensional and range across varying geographic scales. Understanding and considering the various perceptions that lie behind the approaches to biodiversity conservation planning, the sustainable use of such biodiversity and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits derived from it could increase our understanding of the rational bases of such perceptions. It is on such bases that communities determine how they are going to utilize the environment and its resources. It is possible to gain an understanding of their perceptions through their symbolism, literature, and art. The effective involvement of all stakeholders in decisions relating to biodiversity conservation issues is the weak spot in the biodiversity conservation strategy planning process and in the achievement of sustainable biodiversity management. Such involvement must occur at all stages, particularly the planning, decision-making, and management phases. It is an invaluable means of testing and combining economic, social, and ecological objectives. Involvement is also a way of avoiding rash decisions and an educational tool for raising public awareness of the importance of conservation and associated problems as well as for alerting planners and leaders to the concerns of the wider public. The framework for local participation in planning process and to develop strategies and action plans includes: i) local surveys assessments designed for gathering information on the status and trends of local species, natural resources, habitats, and landscapes as well as on existing conservation and utilization mechanisms and financial and nonfinancial costs and benefits; ii) local strategies, in order to analyze data and descriptive information contained in local surveys and set potential goals and objectives; and iii) action plans defining the partners and working groups that will implement the activities stated in the strategies, the locations or areas in which they will be implemented, and the means and resources that will be used. Collaborative partnerships greatly enhance management effectiveness of the project, by bringing together organizations with diverse

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique

975

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique, Table 1 PPEMBA activities, instruments, and procedures for project development Name of activity Policy-related information

Activities by NGOs and communitybased organizations Information sources

Environment research and conservation

Databases Local community and stakeholder’s involvement Academic work

Contents The present state of the environment; local, institutional, and communities participation; administrative structure of environment responsibility; current policies and laws on the environment; policy responses and underlying causes of social and environmental problems; cases of local-level activities; frameworks and mechanisms to ensure effectiveness of laws and regulations; law enforcement (environmental protection costs, water quality monitoring systems, and capacity building) Cases of activities; cases of policies for dissemination and education Information provided by various international/national organizations, NGOs, and stakeholders (policies and technologies for effectively managing the biological resources and environment) Environmental diagnostics; biodiversity inventory; population studies of fishery resources; mappings; health analysis of ecosystems and biological integrity; environmental education program; preparation of communication and dissemination materials; socio-environmental planning plan; scientific publications: Books, book chapters, papers, congress presentations, master and PhD thesis, lecture thesis Environmental, biological, sociocultural, educational, and science dimensions Interface with local communities; interface with local and regional institutions; courses; workshops; speeches Interface with local universitairy institutions; human resources training; research activities

expertise, roles, and resources. The establishment of partnerships promoted coordination and integration of management activities, improved efficiency, and promoted shared solutions to ecological challenges. Effective local participation in planning process and to develop strategies and action plans require an understanding of the species, habitats, and ecosystem processes in the management area. Biological surveys and local ecological knowledge are both useful tools for identifying conservation values and threats. Integration of economic, social, and cultural values into management processes was a central tenet of the approach. By understanding the values that people place on an ecosystem, practitioners are better able to understand the drivers of change in the ecosystem, and constraints on management responses. Traditional governance systems were the primary mechanism for regulating the use of marine resources in these communities. Local staff provided vital insights into traditional authority structures and community decision-

making processes. Sociocultural research provided also useful information about formal and informal decision-making processes (Table 1). PPEMBA Outcomes: Acquisition, Adaptation, Dissemination, and Creation of Networking between Scientific and Local Knowledge This contains a wide range of scientific and editorial productions, including the publication of thematic books, communications in national and international scientific meetings, the preparation of doctoral theses, master’s theses, degree theses, the preparation of scientific articles for publication in specialized indexed scientific journals, and the preparation of submission of several articles in specialized national and international journals. In addition, workshops were organized with the participation of the Pemba scientific community, the organization of a “permanent” exhibition at UniLúrio on biodiversity and local socioeconomic resources and the creation of extensive databases of the resources produced. One

P

976

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique

extremely important result was the involvement with the local populations of culturally representative neighborhoods in the city of Pemba, the aggregation of nine local governmental and nongovernmental institutions through the establishment of lasting links between them, the involvement of students and the specialized technical training of people, and the creation of a scientific culture through local and regional workshops, teaching of courses and the realization and underwater diving activities, with the teaching of technical training courses. These activities, in the context of both environmental policies and climate change adaptation policies, will create conditions that enable the implementation of a democratic management of coastal and marine space in Pemba and that allow the sustainable use of areas and species. Human Resources Training and Capacitation

• Train human resources • Orientation and co-orientation of students of scientific initiation, master’s and doctorate • Creation of specific advanced courses and training • To give lectures, seminars, and courses in scientific events • Production of scientific articles Sustainable Biodiversity Management

• Socioeconomic and environmental characterization • Inventory of marine and terrestrial species • Monitoring anthropogenic and environmental impacts • Participative socio-environmental management plan • Conservation of the coastal and marine area • Sustainable use of the coastal and marine space Dissemination and Evaluation of the Knowledge Produced

• National and international congresses • Creation of specific advanced courses and training • Participate in meetings of scientific societies for debates and discussions • Dissemination of science and liaison with local populations

Consolidation of Scientific and Local Knowledge Exchange

• Specialized technical training program in the local university community • Effective involvement of all stakeholders • Intense awareness of the local community • Intervene in environmental management policies • Climate change adaptation PPEMBA Global Outcome: Integrated Pemba Coastal Zone Management Plan Following the objectives of the project to build a participative socio-environmental management approach for the preservation of marine biodiversity and social economical sustainability in Pemba Bay, Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, a formulation of a participative socio-environmental management plan for the recovery and conservation of the coastal and marine area of Pemba, in a climate change adaptation scenario, was carried out. The environmental, social, and economic frameworks of the plane need to find an integrated approach into the personal, organizational, and institutional commitments to make the proposal for participatory socio-environmental planning effective. Also implies the effective involvement of all stakeholders in decisions relating to biodiversity conservation issues which is the weak spot in the biodiversity conservation strategy planning process and in the achievement of sustainable biodiversity management. This plane will allow the environmental management policies, with concrete actions leading to the sustainable use of the coastal and marine space. PPEMBA Outcome–Integrated Pemba Coastal Zone Management Plan

• Sustained development, based on the conservation of the ecosystem and the maintenance of the associated social heritage, goods, and services • Integrated, interdisciplinary, and comprehensive approach involving the contribution of accurate, natural, social, and human sciences • Rational and social participant management of natural resources • Fundamental and applied research

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique

• Recognition of environmental, economic, and cultural values of the coastal zone on decisionmaking terms • Scientific and local knowledge basis for a balanced development policy • A participative socio-environmental management approach

Future Perspectives There are a huge number of projects of environmental management conservation and participative socio-environmental management approaches for the preservation of marine biodiversity and social economical sustainability around the world, emerged as the most widely accepted approach to natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. Globally, there has been an increase in average educational attainment. In Mozambique, there has been also a strong increase in the number of persons with higher education. The international environment is becoming more competitive, demanding, and fast paced. The scientific and academic community has become more integrated through the expansion of research, investment, communications, and networking. University have to position themselves to try to benefit as much as possible from this demanding globalized world. This involves more investments in human capital. This is not just in basic education, but secondary, technical, and higher education and a system of life-long learning. It means improvements in the social and economic policies, efficiency in governance, the ability of government to help its citizens respond successfully to the new challenges, and to help populations development. It is crucial to learn about creating consensus on longer-term visions and they have to learn how to make effective use of global knowledge, how to attract new investments that can contribute to their development, and how to get positive externalities from that investment. The framework of less developed countries is usually characterized by high levels of reliance on coastal marine resources, limited government management capacity, and strong traditions of

977

community-based natural resource management. The main goals of environmental management are to safeguard and enhance the environmental state as well as to sustain economic and social benefits from the ecosystems. The need to take collective action to promote the preservation of marine biodiversity and social economical sustainability to poor countries for the structural transformation of their economies has always been recognized and promoted by the international community. These approaches allow effective participation by all concerned stakeholders and show how taking account of traditional ecological knowledge is a prerequisite for a real participation of people and communities such as in African countries. The participatory assessment approach is emerging as a more holistic method for measuring sustainability. The environmental, social, and economic frameworks of sustainability need to find an integrated approach into the personal, organizational, and institutional commitments to make a participatory socio-environmental planning.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Change Scenarios for Sustainable Development ▶ Corporate Responsibility: Law Interactions ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals in Developing Countries ▶ Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future ▶ Governance for Sustainable Development ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ International Investment Agreements and the Promotion of Sustainable Development ▶ Management of Protected Areas for Sustainability ▶ Multilateral Cooperation: Core Essence of Sustainable Development Policy in 2030 Agenda

P

978

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique

▶ National Sustainable Development Strategies ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Role of Transnational Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development ▶ Sustainable Public Systems: Global Norms and Partnerships for National Implementation ▶ Transdisciplinary Collaborations for Achieving the SDGs Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank “Programa GulbenkianAmbiente - FundaçãoCalousteGulbenkian” and “Oceanário de Lisboa” that within the 2010 GalardãoGulbenkian/Oceanário de Lisboa “ResponsabilidadeSolidária: Capacitar para Conservar” financially supported the project «Conhecer para Conservar a BiodiversidadeMarinha de Pemba (Cabo Delgado, Moçambique) – OrdenaçãoSócio-Ambiental para a Sustentabilidade», the PPemba project, that was the impetus for this chapter.

References Agardy T, Davis J, Sherwood K, Vestergaard O (2011) Taking steps toward marine and coastal ecosystembased management: an introductory guide. UNEP, Nairobi, 67 pp Alves F, Filho WL, Azeiteiro U, Araújo MJ (2013) Crossing borders and linking plural knowledge - biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services and human well-being. Int J Innov Sustain Dev (IJISD) 7(2):111– 125. (15) Arthurton R, Koranteng K, Forbes T, Snoussi M, Kitheka J, Robinson J, Shah N, Taljaard S, Monteiro P (2006) coastal and marine environments. In: Africa environment outlook 2–our environment, our wealth. UNEP, Nairobi, pp 155– 195 Astier M, Garcia-Barrios L, Galvan-Miyosi Y, GonzalezEsquivel CE, Masera OR (2012) Assessing the sustainability of small farmer natural resource management system. A critical analysis of the MESMIS program (1995–2010). Ecol Soc 17:25 Baker S, Kousis M, Richardson D, Young S (1997) Introduction. The theory and practice of sustainable development in EU perspective. In: Baker et al (eds) The politics of sustainable development: theory, policy and practice within the European Union. Routledge, London, pp 1–40 Barnett R, Patterson C (2006) Sport hunting in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region:

an overview. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Johannesburg Bell P, Tzou C, Bricker L, Baines AMD (2012) Learning in diversities of structures of social practice: accounting for how, why and where people learn science. Hum Dev 55:269–284 Billé R, Rochette J (2010) Feasibility assessment of an ICZM protocol to the Nairobi convention. Indian Ocean Commission. ReCoMaP Programme and the Nairobi Convention Secretariat, Paris, 101 pp Borja A, Bricker SB, Dauer DM, Demetriades NT, Ferreira JG, Forbes AT, Hutchings P, Jia X, Kenchington R, Marques JC, others (2008) Overview of integrative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine and coastal systems worldwide. Mar Pollut Bull 56:1519–1537 Brundtland-Bericht (1987) UnseregemeinsameZukunft. In: Von Hauff V (ed) Der Brundtland-Bericht der Weltkommissionfür Umwelt und Entwicklung. Eggenkamp, Greven Carvalho A, Schmidt L, Santos FD, Delicado A (2014) Climate change research and policy in Portugal. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 5:199–217 Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS, Hannahs N (2012) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62 (8):744–756 Clarke P, Jupiter S (2010) Principles and practice of ecosystem-based management: a guide for conservation practitioners in the Tropical Western Pacific. Wildlife Conservation Society. Suva, Fiji. Wildlife Conservation Society, 81 pp Clements T, Ashish J, Nielsen K, Dara A, Tan S, Milnergulland EJ (2010) Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecol Econ 69 (6):1283–1291 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2010a) COP 10 decision X/2. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011– 2020. CBD, Nagoya Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2010b) COP 10 decision X/29. Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, CBD, Nagoya Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–259 Cosyns H, Van Damme P, De Wulf RA (2013) Degrande can rural development projects generate social capital? A case study of Ricinodendronheudelotii Kernel Marketing in Cameroon. Small-scale Forestry 13 (2:163–182 Curtin R, Prellezo R (2010) Understanding marine ecosystem-based management: a literature review. Mar Policy 34:821–830 CSD (1995) Commission on Sustainable Development Report on the Third Session. Economic and Social

Preservation of Marine Biodiversity and Social Economical Sustainability in Mozambique Council Official Records, 1995 Supplement, No.12. United Nations. New York. 96 pp Dahl AL (2012) Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecol Indic 17:14–19 Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R (2011) Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ Conserv 38:370–379 DEFRA (2010) The Government’s strategy for contributing to the delivery of a UK network of marine protected areas UK Government. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, 32 pp Dryzek JS (1997) The politics of the earth. Environmental discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford EAME (2004) The Eastern African Marine Ecoregion biodiversity conservation strategic framework 2005 2025 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania pp 54 Elliott M (2011) Marine science and management means tackling exogenic unmanaged pressures and endogenic managed pressures—a numbered guide. Mar Pollut Bull 62(4):651–655 Elliott M (2013) The 10-tenets for integrated, successful and sustainable marine management. Mar Pollut Bull 74(1):1–5 Foley MM, Halpern BS, Micheli F, Armsby MH, Caldwell MR, Crain CM, Prahler E, Rohr N, Sivas D, Beck MW, others (2010) Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 34(5):955–966 Fredericks SE (2012) Justice in sustainability indicators and indexes. Int J Sust Dev World 19:490–499 Guerreiro J, Chircop A, Grilo C, Viras A, Ribeiro R, Elst R (2010) Establishing a transboundary network of marine protected areas: diplomatic and management options for the east African context. Mar Policy 34(5):896–910 Hak R, Kovanda J, Weinzettel J (2012) A method to assess the relevance of sustainability indicators: application to the indicator set of the Czech Republic’s sustainable development strategy. Ecol Indic 17:46–57 Harley CDG, Randal HA, Hultgren KM, Miner BG, Sorte CJB, Thornber CS, Rodriguez LF, Tomanek L, Williams SL (2006) The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecol Lett 9:228–241 Hoogstra-Klein MA, Permadi DB, Yasmi Y (2012) The value of cultural theory for participatory processes in natural resource management. Forest Policy Econ 20:99–106 IRDC (1997) Global impacts: research for development review. International Development Reserch Centre 1997. 43 pp IUCN (1994) The World Conservation Union Guidelines for protected area management categories. Gland, Switzerland IUCN (2004) Managing marine protected areas: a toolkit for the Western Indian Ocean Keiner M (2004) Re-emphasizing sustainable development – the concept of ‘evolutionability’. On living chances, equity, and good heritage. Environ Dev Sustain 6:379–392 Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know? Ecol Lett 8:468–479

979

Leal Filho W (2014) The United Nations decade of education for sustainable development: lessons learnt and needs to be met. Int J Sustain High Educ 15 (2):1–2 Leal Filho W, Manolas E, Pace P (2015) The future we want. Int J Sustain High Educ 16(1):112–129 Leal-Filho W (2010) Climate change and governance: state of affairs and actions needed. Int J Glob Warm 2 (2):128–136 Lester S, Halpern B, Grorud-Colvert K, Lubchenco J, Ruttenberg B, Gaines S, Airamé S, Warner R (2009) Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 384:33–46 Luck GW, Chan KMA, Fay JP (2009) Protecting ecosystem services and biodiversity in the world’s watersheds. Conserv Lett 2:179–188 MA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment] (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Meadowcraft J (2000) Sustainable development: a new (ish) idea for a new century? Polit Stud 48:370–387 Minayo MCS (2011) Trabalho de campo: contexto de observação interação e descoberta. In: Minayo MS, Deslandes SF, Gomes R (eds) Pesquisa social: teoria, método e criatividade, 30th edn. Vozes, Petrópolis, pp 61–77 Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA) (2009) Fourth National report on implementation of the convention on biological diversity in Mozambique, Maputo Moffat D, Ngoile MN, Linden O, Francis J (1998) The reality of the stomach: coastal management at the local level in Eastern Africa. Ambio 27(8):590–598 Morse S (2008) Post-sustainable development. Sust Dev 16:341–352 Norton LR, Maskellm LC, Smart SS, Dunbar MJ, Emmett BA, Carey PD et al (2012) Measuring stock and change in the GB countryside for policy – key findings and developments from the countryside survey 2007 field survey. J Environ Manag 113:117–127 NRC (National Research Council) (2001) Marine protected areas: tools for sustaining ocean ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, D’Amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, Loucks CJ, Allnutt TF, Ricketts TH, Kura Y, Lamoreux JF, Wettengel WW, Hedao P, Kassem KR (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience 51 (11):933–938 Pagiola S et al (2005) Paying for biodiversity conservation services - experience in Colombia, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. Mt Res Dev 25:206–211 PEDMP (2014-2018) Plano Estratégico de Desenvolvimento do Município da Cidade de Pemba 2014–2018. Conselho Municipal da Cidade de Pemba. 84 pp Pope J, Annandale D, Morrison-Saunders A (2004) Conceptualizing sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Asses 24:595–616

P

980 Porter G, Brown JW (1991) Global environmental politics, 2nd edn. Westview Press, Boulder Pretty J (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302:1912–1914 Pülzl H (2005) Die Politik des Waldes. Governance der natürlichenRessourcenbei den VereintenNationen. Dissertation, University of Wien Redford KH et al (2003) Mapping the conservation landscape. Conserv Biol 17:116–131 Reed MS, Fraser ED, Dougill AJ (2006) An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecol Econ 59:406–418 Ridder D, Pahl-Wostl C (2005) Participatory integrated assessment in local planning. Reg Environ Chang 5:188–196 Spangenberg J, Bonniot O (1998) Sustainable indicators – a compass on the road towardssustainability, Wuppertal paper no. 81, Wuppertal Tallis H, Polasky S (2009) Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and naturalresource management. In The year in ecology and conservation biology 2009. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol 1162. Blackwell Publishing Inc, New York, pp 265–283 TEEB (2010) In: Kumar P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington, DC UNEP/UNDPCSD (1995) The role of indicators in decision-making. Joint paper by UNEP and the UN Division for Sustainable Development, Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD) presented at an International Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development for DecisionMaking, 9–11 January, Ghent, Belgium UNEP (2006) Marine and coastal ecosystems and human well-being: a synthesis report based on the findings of the millennium ecosystem Assessment, 76 pp UNEP (2007) Regional profile: Eastern Africa UNEP/Nairobi Convention Secretariat and WIOMSA (2009) Regional synthesis report on the review of the policy, legal and institutional frameworks in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) region. UNEP, Nairobi Kenya UNEP/WCMC (2012) Discovery coast Atlantic Forest Reserves, Brazil. World Heritage Information Sheets, Cambrigde, MA UN (2015) Millennium development goals report 2015. United Nations, New York, NY United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) Earth summit agenda 21. The United Nations Programme of action from Rio. UN, New York United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (2012) The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. 1992. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro 1992. United Nations, General Assembly, A/ CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) Vaidya A, Mayer AL (2014) Use of the participatory approach to develop sustainability assessments for

PRME natural resource management. Int J Sust Dev World 21(4):36979 Valentin A, Spangenberg J (1999) Indicators for sustainable communities. Paper presented at the International workshop ‘Assessment methodologies for urban infrastructure’, 20 to 21 November, Stockholm Vincent S (1994) Consulting the population: definition and methodological questions-background Paper n° 10, Qc: Great Wale Review Support Office Whittaker R, Araújo MB, Jepson P, Ladle RJ, Watson JEM, Willis KJ (2005) Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. Divers Distrib 11:3–23 WRI (1995) Environmental indicators: a systematic approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC Wu J (2006) Environmental amenities, urban sprawl, and community characteristics. J Environ Econ Manag 52:527–547 Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR occasional paper no. 42. Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ 65(4):834–852 WWF (2004a) The Eastern African Marine Ecoregion Conservation Plan (2005–2009). Secretariat for Eastern African Marine Ecoregion (EAME). Dar es Salaam, WWF, 60 pp WWF (2004b). The eastern african marine ecoregion conservation plan. Towards the establishment of an ecologically representative network of marine protected areas in Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, WWF, 74 pp WWF (2009) The Global Conservation Program Achievements and lessons learned from 10 years of support for threats-based conservation at a landscape and seascape scale Eastern African Marine Ecoregion. Final Closeout Report 2003–2009. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, WWF, 37 pp

PRME ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

Proactive Climate Change Strategy ▶ Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development

Proactive Environmental Strategy ▶ Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

Proactive Environmentalism ▶ Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): A Stakeholder-Centric Concept

Public Policy ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development ▶ Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy

` Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development Scott A. Hipsher Bangkok Academic Centre, Webster University, Bangkok, Thailand

Introduction Making progress toward meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals will require the use of substantial amounts of time, effort, and resources. The achievement of improving standards of living, including reductions in poverty, longer life expectancy, improvement in health, reductions in infant mortality, and other measures of quality of life, is highly correlated with economic growth (e.g., Son 2010; Srinivasan 2013; Warr 2015); and the private sector is the primary contributor of economic growth in a market-based economy (e.g., Fukasaku 2007; Hipsher 2017: Mkapa 2010). Without economic growth in the

981

areas where poverty is widespread, there can be little progress expected in achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. While both governments and civil society organizations also have a role to play in providing services to the society, in most modern market-based economies, the ultimate funding for both government and civil society programs comes directly or indirectly from the private sector. We have seen some amazing success in improving the lives of the most disadvantaged and marginalized people of the planet over recent decades. A few examples are as follows: the percentage of people living in extreme poverty in 2012 was a third of what it was in 1990; since 2000 there has been a significant decline in maternal mortality, child mortality has declined by around 50%; in the least developed countries, access to electricity and clean water has increased greatly and labor productivity has also increased, while unemployment has decreased (UN 2018). These amazing advances have occurred during a period of increasing levels of global trade and the private sector taking a larger and freer role, on average, in the economies of the world (Miller and Kim 2017). Despite the long-term positive trends, there are still many concerns, such as a stagnation in progress in poverty reduction due to the recent global economic slowdown, growing income or wealth inequality in many parts of the world, and uneven benefits, where much of the improvements seen in global statistics on reductions of poverty and other measures of standards of living coming primarily from East and Southeast Asian economies such as China and Vietnam which have liberalized their economies to a much greater extent than what has been found in Latin America, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., Bhagwati and Panagariya 2013, World Bank 2017, and Yan 2016). One of the primary reasons for forming private-public partnerships is to try to bring in the innovation, creativity, and efficiency which the private sector is known for into areas previously or normally controlled by the public sector (e.g., Ahmad et al. 2018; DiMartino and Thompson 2016; Reynaers 2013). Yet maintaining some public sector control through the partnership

P

982

arrangement is expected to help protect the public interest. Additionally, in the least developed economies of the world, it has been suggested publicprivate partnerships and collaborations can help a market economy function more effectively and efficiently by allowing private sector firms to gain better access to the “bottom of the pyramid markets” (Goldsmith 2011; Schuster and Holtbrügge 2014).

Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development

collaboration are the objective of the partnership and the level of integration. The evolution of the modern concept of a public-private partnership has gone through a number of different stages, each influenced by popular views of economics and the role governments should be playing in the society at different times; and the countries with Anglo-American cultures have been at the forefront in creating, using, and experimenting with different forms of public-private partnerships (Wanna 2008).

Public-Private Partnerships Public-private partnerships are a form of crosssector partnerships. There is no single definition of public-private partnership used consistently in either the academic literature or by development specialists and government officials, and the level of collaboration will differ from one partnership to another (Ahmad et al. 2018, p. 2). Some definitions of public-private partnership include government institutions and civil society organizations, such as NGOs, working in collaboration, but in general the term is used to refer to a partnership between a government agency and a for-profit private organization. Public-private partnerships are often thought of as a way of liberalizing the way public services are provided without going all the way toward privatization (Broadbent and Laughlin 2003). Governments and for-profit firms have been working together for centuries around the world; however the term public-private partnership has become popular more recently and generally implies a relationship which involves shared risk and is more integrated than a typical supplier-buyer arrangement (Hodge and Greve 2018: Schachter et al. 2017). Public-private partnerships are built upon the assumption that in some situations collaboration can provide better social services to the society than is possible through a contractual agreement. The term collaboration, the idea upon which public-private partnerships are founded, generally has a positive connotation, but collaborations are extremely unique and create extremely variable results, and the effectiveness of each collaboration can be viewed differently by each partner. Two integral factors to consider when evaluating a

Effectiveness Public-private sector partnerships have become increasingly popular in attempts to solve important problems and take advantage of opportunities to improve delivery of social services, yet there is a lack of comparative research on the impact of these types of arrangements as opposed to using contractual relationships or other approaches (Stadtler 2018; Tsamboulas et al. 2013; van Tulder et al. 2016). One of the difficulties in measuring the success of a collaboration, as compared to the results if a contractual arrangement had been used, is new objectives often emerge during the collaboration process and perceptions of success may include elements other than just achieving the initial goals set during the formation of the partnership. Huxham and Hibbert (2008) listed five types of success in a collaboration: (1) achieving outcomes (2), getting the processes to work (3), reaching emergent milestones (4), gaining recognition from the public and other important stakeholders, and (5) acknowledging personal pride in championing a partnership. One of the criticisms of public-private partnerships is there can be lack of contractual specifics on closing out a project or when moving into an area not specifically covered in the original agreement, although Chung (2016) provides an example of a successful negotiation to end a collaborative infrastructure project in Australia which did not add to the cost for taxpayers. This result suggests it is possible for public-private partnerships to jointly deal with risk and uncertainty as they arise in some situations.

Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development

While public-private partnerships have been used in a wide variety of applications and situations, the area where these partnerships might have had the most impact and have the potential to do so in the future is in building, maintaining, and operating programs and projects associated with infrastructure (Hodge and Greve 2018). Many infrastructure projects, such as building and operating airports, roads, and port facilities, could be considered natural monopolies, and as such, and without direct competition, it would be expected, according to economic theory, private sector ownership of these assets would result in monopoly pricing intended to maximize producer surplus and therefore reducing the consumer and overall surplus created, thus reducing the overall benefits to society. Traditionally it has been believed natural monopolies should be controlled by the government or at least heavily regulated. However, many sectors of the economy which were previously thought of as natural monopolies turned into competitive and highly efficient industries after being privatized, which have brought substantial benefits to consumers and societies. Examples include telecommunications, package delivery, and air travel. Successful privatization of government services generally is a result of removing a government monopoly to create a competitive private industry, while privatization which transfers monopoly power from the government to a single private sector firm usually has been seen as much less successful in increasing overall productivity and improvements in standards of living of the people of a society. Public-private partnerships are increasingly being used in infrastructure projects around the world, yet it is not clear if these partnerships provide more value for money for the public than using traditional procurement procedures (Tsamboulas et al. 2013). Most infrastructure projects are unique and without accurate or easy methods to develop benchmarks with which to measure results. Schachter et al. (2017) studied public-private partnerships funded by the New Jersey Department of Transportation in the USA and found, consistent with economic theory and the general theme of the cross-sector partnership literature, differing worldviews, priorities, and

983

objectives can cause problems and finding some common ground was needed to achieve positive outcomes. Lertsethtakarn (2018) studied the public-private partnership which created the first mass transit system in Bangkok, Thailand, and found many problems have arisen, although in general the project has been a success and has provided an important service to the people of the city. Chung (2016) examined the completion of the first largescale public-private project, a major roadway, in Australia. And while the resolution of issues arising which were not addressed specifically in the original contact caused problems and challenges, these problems and challenges were resolved in a manner which preserved the value of the project for the general public. While there has been an increased interest in creating public-private partnerships in building the infrastructure needed to create economic growth and otherwise improve the lives of the people in a community, the superiority of this model in producing results over straight procurement remains mostly a subjective opinion without strong empirical evidence to support this conclusion. There are concerns from some quarters over including the private sector, which is primarily driven by the profit motive, into providing services and running programs which have previously been under the control of the government. “While in many countries the use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) has spread widely over the past two decades, public opinion continues to harbor doubts and mistrust of the PPP mechanism as a provider of infrastructure, public services, and equipment” (Solino and Gago de Santos 2016, p. 96). Much of this concern would seem to be coming from segments of societies which have a strong mistrust of the private sector and the profit motive. Unlike traditional Marxism thinking, it appears these segments of society today are primarily influenced by religious, political, philosophical, and moral concerns and not necessarily overly concerned about economic efficiency (Hipsher 2013, 2017). Reynaers and De Graaf (2014) looked at the impact of public-private partnerships on public values but found the lack of agreement on the definition of the subjective term public values made it difficult to measure, while Reynaers (2013) opined, like with

P

984

so many other aspects of public-private or other types of cross-sector partnerships, the impact on public values varied from project to project and was often subjectively viewed differently by various individuals involved in the partnership.

Public-Private Partnerships and UN’s Sustainable Development Goals The nature and usages of public-private partnerships in less economically developed areas, where the attention of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals is focused, are likely to be significantly different from the nature and usages in more economically developed regions of the world where these partnerships are more common. Most research on public-private partnerships has focused on partnerships in developed economies or China (Osei-Kyei and Chan 2015). Therefore it probably should be realized the implementation of public-private partnerships in less economically developed regions will most likely require some different approaches and will need to address some concerns which are not normally considered as important in partnerships found in more economically developed regions. Mustafa (2015) made the point that improved infrastructure is necessary to facilitate the economic growth in sub-Sahara Africa which is needed to dramatically reduce poverty and help achieve many of the other UN’s Sustainable Development Goals; and public-private partnerships have the potential to be an effective tool in increasing the pace of infrastructure development. However for these partnerships to be formed and effectively operated, a number of obstacles need to be overcome. The author identified four “soft risks” to successfully implement public-private partnerships in sub-Saharan Africa and other economically developing regions. These four were political instability risk, ineffective institution risk, weak properly rights risk, and corruption risk. While these four risks are not only found in developing and least developed economies, they might possess even more of a challenge in regions where poverty is widespread as opposed to in more developed economies. Furthermore,

Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development

Mustafa found “South-South” public-private partnerships, especially between governments of African nations and Chinese companies, were on the rise. Hodge and Greve (2018) saw publicprivate partnerships as playing a central role in the long-term development of countries battling to end extreme poverty, but also felt that to be effective an increased emphasis on improving the integrity of the public sector, developing more transparency, and limiting corruption would be required. Many of the least economically developed economies, areas where making progress toward achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals can be expected to have the biggest impact on the lives of the citizens, usually have less developed and less efficient political and bureaucratic institutions than found in more economically developed nations, thus creating a further challenge in creating effective public-private partnerships. However these conditions also create problems running government-controlled programs designed to provide public services or in using a more traditional procurement procedure to create infrastructure or provide community services. The effectiveness of all programs, including public-private partnerships, which involve some level of government control, will be dependent to a large extent on the quality of the official institutions and the professionalism of the government officials involved.

Profit Motive and Corruption One of the rationales for switching from full public control to public-private partnerships is to introduce the profit motive into operations in the expectations the profit motive will encourage cost efficiencies and more innovation and creativity. The profit motive through the use of markets is often either vilified or proposed as the solution to nearly all problems. One of the criticisms of the profit motive is that it is assumed people in the private sector act strictly in a self-interested fashion, while another assumption often made is members of governments and civil society organizations are acting solely due to altruistic

Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development

motivations. These stereotypes do not stand up to close scrutiny. There is extensive evidence showing for-profit firms actively engaging in corporate social responsibility programs with the intention of providing social services to members of society (e.g., Arkaniand and Theobald 2005, Cheruiyot and Maru 2014, and Hahn 2012). There are also plenty of examples of state-owned enterprises or other government agencies acting in the interest of the officials in the government while making decisions with little regard for the public interest (e.g., Leon 1994; Siddiqui and Uddin 2016; Wright 2004). While many leaders and members of NGOs and civil society organizations, including the United Nations, have been accused of being more interested in furthering their own personal careers and political agendas and maintaining a luxurious lifestyle than in providing quality and cost-efficient services to the most disadvantaged and marginalized people (Easterly 2006; Hancock 1997; Moyo 2009). Beginning evaluations of programs or actions based on stereotypes of the moral superiority or inferiority of individuals in different sectors of the economy is unlikely to be a constructive approach. Most humans are complex and are motivated by many factors, but self-interest is a central feature of human nature; the difference in behavior in the different sectors would seem to have less to do with different amounts of morality or altruism and more due to how individuals are rewarded in the different sectors of an economy. Many criticisms of the profit motive in business operations are based on the assumption private sector firms benefit financially from exploitation and acting unethically (e.g., Ayres 2004; McPhail 2013; Weissman 2003). Yet the voluntary nature of business activities in a competitive market generally makes unethical and exploitative behavior unprofitable, and there are many examples of companies losing large sums of money and sometimes going out of business due to treating their stakeholders unfairly. If a company in a competitive environment exploits its workers, it will lose its best workers; if a company cheats its customers, it will find its customers switching to competitors; if a company does not pay its suppliers, it will soon be unable to operate due to lack of supplies; and if a company tries to

985

avoid government regulations, it can find itself losing its license to operate or face negative publicity. While there are exceptions, in general businesses are rewarded for meeting the needs of its stakeholders better than competitors (Hipsher 2017). However, when possessing monopoly power, whether from besting competitors or due to being given special protection from competition by the government, the incentives to meet the needs of various non-shareholding stakeholders diminish. The private sector does what it does best, create wealth and jobs and improve products and services when operating in a competitive environment. On the other hand, government-operated programs and operations have often been criticized for a lack of cost efficiency, innovation, and customer service, due to having a monopoly position and little incentive to improve services to consumers (De Soto 2001; Easterly 2008; Sowell 2015). However, at least in democracies, governments are held accountable to the voters for their overall performance (Kurlantzick 2016; Sen 1999; Slater 2010), thus in theory incentivizing governments to perform their functions effectively and efficiently. However not all countries, especially many of those plagued by poverty and other social problems, have an effective democratic process which could incentivize government to meet the needs of all citizens, and these governments can instead focus on meeting the needs of the special interest groups which help keep the government in power. And even in wealthier countries classified as liberal democracies, the link between accountability to voters and improvement of specific services would seem to be pretty weak. Government agencies in most developed and developing countries have a pretty mixed record on effectiveness and a pretty poor record on efficiency when providing social services. Corruption is a serious concern for any publicprivate partnership, especially those in the less and least developed economies. Corruption can only occur when an individual controls resources he or she does not own. While corruption is possible in economic exchanges in business-to-business transactions in which there are agents acting

P

986

for the business owners, in a competitive market where neither side of a transaction has a monopoly, business-to-business corruption is an inefficient practice and increases costs without increasing value for customers. Therefore private sector firms have an incentive to police their staff to reduce the amount of corruption going on. On the other hand, if one party has monopoly control over specific resources, such as government officials controlling the issuing of necessary permits or licenses, engaging in corruption can create a competitive advantage for a private sector firm by limiting competition (Hipsher 2017). Therefore it would appear in most public-private partnerships opportunities for corruption would exist, although it is not obvious if the risk of corruption would be higher in collaborative partnerships than in a contractual relationship between a government agency and a private sector firm. Instead of thinking of corruption as a moral failure, it might be better to realize the self-interested aspect of human nature and use this part of human nature to create benefits for the society through the creation of win-win scenarios instead of trying to change human nature by eliminating self-interest. In market transactions, profits are earned through voluntary exchanges and in providing customers more “value” (value is often subjectively defined by each individual customer and not some objective measure which is intended to apply to everyone) than do competitors. The profit motive and competition, as well as the ability of consumer to make their own choices, encourage private sector firms to lower costs in order to offer more attractive prices to their customers and improve quality in order for a firm to better provide value to consumers. Both of these are socially desirable outcomes. On the other hand, if a firm can gain monopoly power through a restriction of competition, through bribery, or other means, the profit motive is likely to lead to socially undesirable results. In designing partnerships, a special focus on what incentives are created for each partner should be carefully examined. Schachter et al. (2017, p. 662) felt it was important to overcome the principal/agent problem and ensure incentives encourage winwin scenarios, but the authors also thought it

Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development

was better to have incentives lean slightly more toward achieving public as opposed to private objectives.

Suggestions and Best Practices The first suggestion is to consider in each particular sitution whether a collaboration is likely to more effectively achieve results or would a contractual arrangement be a better match in order to achieve the desired objectives of achieving progress toward one or more of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Long-term contracting may not be suitable in situations where there is significant uncertainty over future demand and costs, and therefore a public-private partnership where risks are shared by both partners might be the preferred option (Iossa and Saussier 2018). Partnerships are primarily based on trust and collaboration, but when things do not go as planned, the lack of specifics about responsibilities spelled out in a contract can lead to problems (Johnston and Gudergan 2007). It would appear in some situations one or more partners would prefer a typical procurement arrangement with a detailed contractual arrangement over a public-private partnership to reduce risks. “A contractual relationship, based initially on compliance, has the potential to be transformed by collaboration. Third-party delivery has the capacity to evolve into a partnership in which public and private goals and values become ever more similar” (Shergold 2008, p. 16). Keeping this principle in mind, when attempting to achieve progress toward meeting one or more of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, the parties might want to start off a relationship, if practical, under a limited contractual basis, work on developing trust, and have the parties evolve into a more collaborative arrangement over time which could end up becoming an actual public-private partnership. Lertsethtakarn (2018) felt once a public-private partnership agreement for a long-term project was finalized, the central government should take a mostly hands-off, but supervisory, approach

Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development

while delegating authority and power to the designated agencies responsible for the project. The central government may often be tempted to intervene in a project for short-term political purposes, while a bureaucratic agency which would be expected to survive a change in political leadership is more likely to take a longer term and less politically motivated stance on issues as they arise. “PPPs are not a free lunch. In order for PPPs to be successful, public authorities need to carefully think about the steps of tender design, contract design, and contract management” (Iossa and Saussier (2018, p. 36). Public-private partnerships would seem to be better suited for large-scale complicated projects associated with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals which go through multiple stages over a long period of time, such as large infrastructure projects, as opposed to being used to fix smaller, less complicated, and shorter-term problems which probably could be better approached using a contractual arrangement between a government and a private sector firm. If a public-private partnership is selected, the government should be willing to devote the time and resources needed to supervise the project all the way to a successful conclusion. Overlooked in much of the literature is the need to ensure partners have the technical skills and financial ability to accomplish the agreedupon objectives. It might be considered a best practice to explore the track record of potential partners in other previous collaborative agreements. Mustafa (2015) saw opportunities for companies originating from developing countries, including China, to engage in public-private infrastructure projects in sub-Saharan Africa, but also pointed out these companies may sometimes lack the technical expertise and experience of firms from more developed economies. Osei-Kyei and Chan (2015) identified a number of critical factors found in successful publicprivate partnerships which include the allocation and sharing of risk between the partners, political support, community support, and transparency in the procurement process. An inappropriate distribution of risk may lead to opportunistic behavior on the part of one or more of the partners involved,

987

while a lack of political or community support could endanger the continuation of the partnership over a period of time, especially if the partnership or project encounters any serious setbacks. Moreover, a lack of transparency increases opportunities for corrupt practices to become a feature of a partnership. When attempting the addressed issues associated with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, public-private partnerships can in some situations create monopoly power for the private sector partner, which the partner might be able to use to extract excess producer surplus which could come at the expense of the public good. If the expected outcome is to create monopoly power for a private sector for-profit partner, it might be a good idea to explore other options or to ensure the public’s interest is safeguarded through contractual or other means.

Conclusion Achieving progress toward achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals will require contributions from a variety of organizations and individuals in multiple locations, especially those directly involved in creating goods and services in less and least developed economies. Estes and Zhou (2015) divided segments of society with responsibility for social welfare into four core institutions, the state, the market (private sector enterprises), families and households, and civil society which is primarily made up of NGOs, religious institutions, and other nonprofit organizations. Often members of each institution will work independently to meet the needs of society, while at other times, members will collaborate with other members of the same or different core institutions. Public-private partnerships are often an effort to provide social welfare services in a more effective or efficient manner than could be accomplished by either a private or public institution alone. Iossa and Saussier (2018) point out that examining the experiences of public-private partnerships globally suggests there is no one-size-fits-all approach “that might simplify the design of a PPP

P

988

contract for a given objective and sector” (p. 35). Thus when attempting to make progress in achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, the choice to use a public-private partnership and the design, contract specification, and level of integration should be individually decided and crafted based on the conditions found in each unique situation. The complexities involved might indicate this type of partnership might not be the most cost-efficient approach for smaller-scale and relatively shorter-term projects. Public-private partnerships would appear to be a viable option to use in making progress toward meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, but like all tools, such as a hammer or screwdriver, this tool should only be used when it is determined its use is more likely to achieve success than other options which are available.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development

References Ahmad U, Ibrahim YB, Bakar AB (2018) Malaysian public private partnership. Acad Acc Financ Stud J 22(Special Issue):1–6 Arkaniand S, Theobald R (2005) Corporate involvement in human rights: is it any of their business? Bus Ethics 14 (3):190–205 Ayres J (2004) Framing collective action against neoliberalism: the case of the “AntiGlobalization” movement. J World-Syst Res 10(1):11–34 Bhagwati J, Panagariya A (2013) Why growth matters: how economic growth in India reduced poverty and the lessons for other developing economies. Public Affairs, New York

Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development Broadbent J, Laughlin R (2003) Public private partnerships: an introduction. Account Audit Account J 16 (3):332–341 Cheruiyot TK, Maru LC (2014) Corporate human rights, social responsibility and employee job outcomes in Kenya. Int J Law Manag 56(2):152–168 Chung D (2016) Risks, challenges and value for money of public–private partnerships. Financ Accountability Manag 32(4):448–468 De Soto H (2001) The mystery of capital: why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. Black Swan, London DiMartino C, Thompson E (2016) Partners or managers? A case study of public–private partnerships in New York City. J Cases Educ Leadersh 19(4):16–31 Easterly W (2006) The white man’s burden. Penguin Books, New York Easterly W (2008) Introduction: can’t take it anymore? In: Easterly W (ed) Reinventing foreign aid. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 1–44 Estes RJ, Zhou H (2015) A conceptual approach to the creation of public–private partnerships in social welfare. Int J Soc Welf 24:348–363 Fukasaku K (2007) Introduction and overview. In: Business and development: fostering the private sector. Development Centre of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, pp 11–20 Goldsmith AA (2011) Profits and alms: cross-sector partnerships for global poverty reduction. Public Adm Dev 31:15–24 Hahn R (2012) Corporate citizenship in developing countries: conceptualisations of human-rights-based evaluative benchmarks. Afr J Bus Ethics 6(1):30–38 Hancock G (1997) Lords of poverty. Arrow, London Hipsher S (2013) Private sector’s role in poverty reduction in Asia. Chandos Publishing Limited, Oxford Hipsher S (2017) Poverty reduction, the private sector and tourism in mainland Southeast Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore Hodge G, Greve C (2018) Contemporary public–private partnership: towards a global research agenda. Financ Account Manag 34:3–16 Huxham C, Hibbert P (2008) Hit or myth? Stories of collaborative success. In: O’Flynn J, Wanna J (eds) Collaborative governance: a new era of public policy in Australia? Australian National University E-Press, Canberra, pp 45–50 Iossa E, Saussier S (2018) Public private partnerships in Europe for building and managing public infrastructures: an economic perspective. Annals Public Coop Econ 89(1):25–48 Johnston J, Gudergan S (2007) Governance of public– private partnerships: lessons learnt from an Australian case? Int Rev Adm Sci 73(4):569–582 Kurlantzick J (2016) State capitalism: how the return of statism is transforming the world. Oxford University Press, New York Leon RS (1994) Mexico, markets, and multilateral aid. In: Bandow D, Vasquez I (eds) Perpetuating poverty: the World Bank, the IMF, and the developing world. Cato Institute, Washington, DC, pp 165–195

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access Lertsethtakarn K (2018) Public-private partnership (PPP) in Thailand: a case study of the Bangkok mass transit system (BTS). J Public Priv Manag 25 (1):89–114 McPhail K (2013) Corporate responsibility to respect human rights and business school’s responsibility to teach it: incorporating human rights into the sustainability agenda. Acc Educ 22(4):391–412 Miller T, Kim AB (2017) The growth and impact of economic freedom. In: Miller T, Kim AB (eds) 2017 index of economic freedom. Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal, Washington, DC, pp 9–17 Mkapa BW (2010) Leadership for growth, development and poverty reduction: an African viewpoint and experience. In: Brady D, Spence M (eds) Leadership and growth. World Bank Publishing, Washington, DC, pp 19–79 Moyo D (2009) Dead aid: why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York Mustafa A (2015) Public-private partnerships in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and opportunities. J Struct Financ 21(2):55–59 Osei-Kyei R, Chan A (2015) Review of studies on the critical success factors for public–private partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013. Int J Proj Manag 33 (6):1335–1346 Reynaers AM (2013) Public values in public–private partnerships. Public Adm Rev 74(1):41–50 Reynaers AM, de Graaf G (2014) Public values in public– private partnerships. Int J Public Adm 37(2):120–128 Schachter HL, Janice D, Liu R (2017) Win-win agreements and public private infrastructure partnerships: managerial and governance concerns. Public Adm Q (Winter) 41(4):643–669 Schuster T, Holtbrügge D (2014) Benefits of cross-sector partnerships in markets at the base of the pyramid. Bus Strateg Environ 23:188–203 Sen A (1999) Development as freedom, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, New York Shergold P (2008) Governing through collaboration. In: O’Flynn J, Wanna J (eds) Collaborative governance: a new era of public policy in Australia? Australian National University E-Press, Canberra, pp 13–22 Siddiqui J, Uddin S (2016) Human rights disasters, corporate accountability and the state. Account Audit Account J 29(4):679–704 Slater D (2010) Ordering power: contentious politics and authoritarian leviathans in Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press, New York Solino AS, Gago de Santos P (2016) Influence of the tendering mechanism in the performance of publicprivate partnerships: a transaction cost approach. Public Perform Manag Rev 40(1):97–118 Son HH (2010) A multi-country analysis of achievements and inequalities in economic growth and standards of living. Asian Dev Rev 27(1):1–42 Sowell T (2015) Wealth, poverty and politics: an international perspective. Basic Books, New York Srinivasan TN (2013) Trends and impacts of real and financial globalization in the People’s republic of

989

China and India since the 1980s. Asian Dev Rev 30 (1):1–30 Stadtler L (2018) Tightrope walking: navigating competition in multi-company cross-sector social partnerships. J Bus Ethics 148:329–345 Tsamboulas D, Verma A, Moraiti P (2013) Transport infrastructure provision and operations: why should governments choose private-public partnership? Res Transp Econ 38:122–127 UN (2018) The sustainable development goals report 2018. United Nations, New York van Tulder R, Seitanidi MM, Crane A et al (2016) Enhancing the impact of cross-sector partnerships: four impact loops for channeling partnership studies. J Bus Ethics 135:1–17 Wanna J (2008) Collaborative government: meanings, dimensions, drivers and outcomes. In: O’Flynn J, Wanna J (eds) Collaborative governance: a new era of public policy in Australia? Australian National University E-Press, Canberra, pp 3–12 Warr P (2015) Poverty reduction and the composition of growth in the greater Mekong economies. In: Balisacan A, Chakravorty U, Ravago ML (eds) Sustainable economic development: resources, environment, and institutions. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 469–482 Weissman R (2003) Grotesque inequality: corporate globalization and the global gap between rich and poor. Multinatl Monit 24(7):9–17 World Bank (2017) Monitoring global poverty: report on the commission on global poverty. World Bank, Washington, DC Wright T (2004) The political economy of coal mine disasters in China: “your rice bowl or your life”. China Q 170:629–646 Yan K (2016) Poverty alleviation in China: a theoretical and empirical study. Springer, Heidelberg

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access Allison Karpyn1, Kathleen McCallops1, Henry Wolgast1 and Erecia Hepburn2 1 Center for Research in Education and Social Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA 2 Department of Biology, University of The Bahamas, Nassau, Bahamas

Definition In the Towards Global Partnership document, the United Nations (UN) defines partnerships as “voluntary and collaborative relationships between various parties, both public and non-public, in

P

990

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access

which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose or under-take a specific task and, as mutually agreed, to share risks and responsibilities, resources and benefits” (UN 2015, p. 4).

Introduction Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 calls for revitalizing global partnerships for sustainable development and strengthening the means of implementation of strategies, in part through that approach. One of the key and fundamental aspects of SDG 17 is tackling systematic, pervasive issues through synergistic methods (UN 2019). This goal recognizes the greater potential benefit inherent in collaborative partnerships rather than through distinctly separate efforts. Within SDG 17, two targets focus on enhancing and promoting multi-stakeholder and public-private partnerships (PPPs). Target 17.16 calls for “enhanced global partnerships for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, especially in developing countries” (UN 2019). This can be attempted and monitored through the improved efficacy of multi-stakeholder sustainable development monitoring frameworks that support the achievement of SDGs. Additionally, Target 17.17 calls for “promoting effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships” (UN 2019). This target is measured by the amount of US dollars committed to public-private and civil society partnerships. Recent reports of progress on systematic issues pertaining to SDG 17 indicate that: “in 2018, 51 of 114 countries reported overall progress towards strengthening multi-stakeholder partnerships and the means of implementation of the 2030 Agenda” (UN Economic and Social Council 2019, p. 23). Improvements were reported with regard to the “quality and use of public financial management and reporting systems for development

cooperation activities and flows channeled through the public sector” (UN Economic and Social Council 2019, pp. 23–24). While progress is noted, there is a substantial need for improving dialogue and collaborative opportunities between the public and private sectors and with civil society. Specifically, the Special Edition: Progress Toward the Sustainable Development Goals report found that there is a “need to increase the space for civil society’s contribution to sustainable development and for a more inclusive and relevant dialogue between the public and private sectors” (UN Economic and Social Council 2019, p. 24). The partnerships related to healthy food access, as outlined in this entry, are examples of how each of these targets supports the efficacy of SDG 17.

Purpose In order to stimulate new thinking and expand opportunities for multi-stakeholder partnership and collaboration, this entry outlines three examples of effective and strategic efforts borne from PPPs that work to promote healthy food access. This entry emphasizes healthy food access in part due to the common challenge nations across the globe face regarding food insecurity (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] 2019). Although grouped within one content area (food security), the examples articulate core collaborative themes and issues inherent in fostering efficient, effective multi-stakeholder partnerships across many common societal problems. Among many issues, this entry discusses the importance of mobilizing resources and the expertise and partnership needed to catalyze adequate social, intellectual, or economic resources to fill gaps. Examples presented herein demonstrate that effective interventions, in which collaborative public and private sector efforts work to address multiple SDGs and to utilize a variety of institutions and stakeholder groups, collectively value coherence, integration, and multisectoral involvement. In the UN’s Economic and Social Council’s (2019) review of progress on SDGs, they called for a whole-of-society approach in which

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access

institutions and persons beyond government groups align their own systems with the SDGs and create collaborations between formerly independent institutions. Accordingly, connecting institutions and aligning their targets and goals is another key focus area of SDG 17. Furthermore, collective efforts to address SDGs have led to progress not only on SDG 17 but have also addressed goals of other SDGs, such as SDG 1, to end global poverty, and SDG 2, to end food insecurity and hunger. This entry demonstrates the successes of PPPs and advocates for their broader development and implementation globally. These partnerships’ ability to strengthen implementation of other SDGs can revitalize multisectoral global collaboration, which will be necessary as 2030 and its pressing targets for global sustainable development approaches.

Food Security and Healthy Food Access Defined as the “limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways” (United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service [USDA ERS] 2019), food security has become a critical issue for nations worldwide. The number of people experiencing hunger has increased since 2015 (FAO 2019), and even low levels of food access and security are associated with obesity, which increases one’s risk for developing chronic and noncommunicable diseases (Laraia 2013). Efforts to achieve food secure nations requires addressing a broad range of issues, such as ensuring strong agricultural systems that serve the food needs of local people, establishing equitably available supermarkets, and making progress toward protecting populations from the negative effects of climate change on food availability (e.g., famine, natural disasters). Malnutrition, an effect of low food security, occurs when the body does not receive sufficient nutrients, which can be caused by poor diet or digestive conditions. Globally, the most comprehensive report on nutrition, released in 2018 in conjunction by UN and UNICEF, found that 39%

991

of the world’s adults are overweight or obese and each year around 20 million babies are born underweight. It is estimated that all forms of malnutrition could cost society up to US $3.5 trillion per year (Development Initiatives 2018). From a public health perspective, food security and malnutrition are largely determined by a population’s level of accessibility to adequate amounts of healthy food. A diverse diet high in vegetables, fruit, whole grains, simple carbohydrates, and lean protein is essential to maintaining both a healthy weight and protection from chronic and noncommunicable diseases such as cancer, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease (Herforth 2019). While for some the issue is one of complete lack of any food supply, for others, it is the absence of access to food markets or that healthy foods are simply too expensive to buy. PPPs have the unique ability to curate effective strategies to increase the number and variety of healthy products available to local residents. Slow global progress to address malnutrition and food insecurity impacts social and economic development worldwide. The 2018 Global Nutrition Report recognizes nine targets for addressing malnutrition; however, only 94 of 194 countries are on track for to meet at least 1 of the 9 nutrition targets, leaving 100 (52% of nations) in need of accelerating progress (Development Initiatives 2018). The worldwide inadequacy in addressing malnutrition demands immediate action to improve diets by making healthy food both accessible and affordable across the globe. This entry analyzes specific PPPs and their common strategies that have been effective in combatting this public health crisis.

Introduction to the Term and Function of Partnership Partnerships are unique and distinct from alliances or sponsorships. A defining element of a partnership is its emphasis on engagement, benefit, and mutual trust and decision-making. For example, in the UN’s Towards Global Partnership (2015) report, a partnership is defined as “voluntary and collaborative relationships between various

P

992

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access

parties, both public and non-public, in which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose or under-take a specific task and, as mutually agreed, to share risks and responsibilities, resources and benefits” (p. 4). Three PPPs, all successful in addressing problems of food insecurity and nutrition, are described in this entry: (1) Fresh Food Financing Initiative, (2) Pay-for-Results Model, and (3) Agritourism. The collaborative nature of each of these partnerships improved the capacity for affecting greater potential benefit than that capable of separate groups. Revitalizing global partnerships for sustainable development, the focus of SDG 17, strengthens the infrastructure to address food security goals through improved communication and collaboration between private partners and governmental groups. As demonstrated in these examples, successful implementation of SDG 17 has the capability to impact local communities in a myriad of ways while also progressing toward implementation of additional SDGs.

Three Examples of PPPs to Promote Healthy Food Access The following examples provide an overview of three PPPs that have successfully collaborated to increase food security through distinctive interventions. This entry highlights partnerships from across the globe, ranging from the United States, United Kingdom, Kenya, Italy, Malaysia, and South Africa. The broad scope of these partnerships’ settings demonstrates the nuances of using these partnerships while simultaneously demonstrating their international relevance and applicability. A notable and common element of these geographically distinct partnerships’ success is their cultivation of synergy between collaborative groups. These combined efforts and resources strengthen partnerships’ outcomes, creating a wider scope of impact. Example 1: Fresh Food Financing Initiative In early 2000, residents of a small neighborhood in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, began to

complain that their local supermarket had closed, leaving no local source of affordable nutritious food. Around the same time, research studies emerged that supported this and other community’s claims that lack of grocery store access was a problem, particularly in the city of Philadelphia (Food Trust 2012). Recognition of the importance of equal access to healthy food began to receive increasing attention and support from legislators, entrepreneurs, non-profit groups, policy-makers, food retailers, and food security advocates. After several years of work by these groups, along with community member input and support from the banking community, the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative (FFFI) was created. The FFFI’s intent was to provide needed resources and funds to subsidize the development or re-opening of supermarkets in low- to moderate-income neighborhoods. The Pennsylvania effort soon became a model for FFFI in numerous cities and states across the nation, increasing access to healthy food in underserved communities (Giang et al. 2008; Karpyn and Treuhaft 2013). The FFFI is an innovative PPP that helps entrepreneurs develop grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and other food retail options in underserved low-income neighborhoods by providing them with one-time loans and grants (Food Trust 2012). As previously noted, the FFFI partnership was created in Pennsylvania; it grew out of a government task force formed to address ways to expand access to nutritious, affordable food in areas that had both limited access to grocery stores and high rates of obesity. The task force recommended a statewide initiative to fund fresh food retail, and in 2004, the Pennsylvania FFFI was officially launched, becoming the nation’s first statewide healthy food financing initiative (Giang et al. 2008). The recommendations made by the task force were championed by State Representative Dwight Evans. As a result, the Pennsylvania General Assembly allocated $30 million to be used over 3 years to create and operate the Pennsylvania FFFI. In response to this allocation, the Reinvestment Fund – a Community Development Financial Institution – more than tripled the state’s

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access

$30 million with private sector funds. This publicprivate pool of money was used to support food retail development in communities with limited access to grocery stores (Giang et al. 2008; Karpyn and Treuhaft 2013). The results of the FFFI partnership are substantial. The FFFI created 88 new or improved grocery stores in low-income and working-class neighborhoods throughout Pennsylvania. In addition, it created or retained 5,000 full- and part-time jobs, added 1.67 million square feet of retail space, and increased access to nutritious food for 400,000 Pennsylvania residents (Food Trust 2012). The FFFI partnership was praised as an innovative public health model by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Governors Association, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. After recognizing the successes of the FFFI, other states began to adopt similar healthy food financing strategies using Pennsylvania’s model of collaboration between government, nonprofits, entrepreneurs, and the philanthropic sector (Food Trust 2012). In addition to states adopting the FFFI model, the federal government used the FFFI model to launch the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) in 2010. Similar to Pennsylvania’s program, HFFI is also a PPP with the purpose of creating jobs by supporting food retailers to open or expand grocery stores in underserved rural, suburban, and urban communities, while also increasing access to nutritious food (Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2010). The initiative developed a governmental partnership between the Department of Agriculture, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Health and Human Services to aid entrepreneurs and grocers in the development of healthy food financing projects (CDC 2010). Since HFFI’s launch, $169 million dollars has been allocated to projects that increase access to healthy food. Additionally, this PPP model has leveraged HFFI’s funding with more than $1 billion dollars, across the United States, in grants, loans, federal tax incentives, and investments from financial, health care, and philanthropic institutions (Hagey 2015). Between 2011 and 2015, the HFFI established or sponsored more than 1,000 grocery stores in 30 states across the

993

nation (Hagey 2015). In total, state and federal healthy food financing projects have culminated in more than 1,000 financed initiatives, created more than tens of thousands of jobs, and added millions of square feet of healthy food retail (Food Trust 2012). Due to HFFI’s resounding successes, it has received endorsements and support from a variety of associations, experts, advocates, and groups, including the National Grocers Association, children’s advocates, public health experts, community developers, and civil rights activists. Expanding partnerships for healthy food financing initiatives beyond the United States creates opportunities to increase global healthy food access and support economic development at the local level. Example 2: Pay-for-Results Model In the United Kingdom in the 2000s, the majority of individuals released from prison did not have access to housing or income, lacked skills to be employed, and were accruing debt (Disley et al. 2015). All of these factors negatively impacted these individuals and their families and contributed to high recidivism rates. While interventions to reduce recidivism had been introduced by governments and the private sector across the world, it was recognized that there was no easy solution to this complex social problem. Therefore, in 2009, the UK Prime Minister committed to reducing recidivism through results-driven interventions by partnering with multiple stakeholders, rather than tackling this issue alone (Disley et al. 2015). As a result of this innovative solution, the Payfor-Results (PFR) model was launched into the global mainstream. The PFR model is a “pull mechanism” of financing; it functions multilaterally to support innovative approaches that reduce the costs of addressing challenging issues, while promoting innovation in the private or nongovernmental organization (NGO) sectors. Furthermore, a pull mechanism is a shift away from traditional development efforts with costreimbursement models (i.e., a “push mechanism”) since funders pay financial or other incentives to the implementers when the predetermined outcomes (e.g., improved social conditions) are achieved (Camp et al. 2019). These outcomes

P

994

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access

are defined in collaboration with public and private entities by both defining what outcome success looks like and determining the metrics for measuring outcome success. This model has been beneficial in sustainable development because it attracts new funding sources, such as the private and NGO sectors, and it also encourages innovation and evidence-based approaches to improve social conditions (US Agency for International Development [USAID] Office of Private Capital and Microenterprise and Palladium 2017). The PFR model has grown in popularity as a method to improve access to healthy food in developing nations. At the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto, government and multi-sector leaders from developing countries explored ways to develop partnerships with their countries’ private sector to promote innovative, results-focused methods to reduce food insecurity and improve productivity in these regions (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade n.d.). The AgResults initiative was one result of these discussions. A $145 million PFR initiative, AgResults incentivizes the private sector to invest in innovative agricultural products that will significantly impact smallholder farmers and help to (1) reduce food insecurity, (2) improve household nutrition and health, and (3) increase livestock productivity (Tanager 2018). AgResults uses the PFR prize model (see Fig. 1) to overcome what are considered market

failures in agricultural systems by developing partnerships between funders, local governments, and the private sector, and then awarding prizes to private entities that successfully accomplish predetermined outcomes in local communities. These incentives are valuable to smallholder farmers and communities and impact development in areas known as unprofitable market challenges for the private sector (USAID Office of Private Capital and Microenterprise and Palladium 2017). AgResults is overseen and financed by the Australian, United Kingdom, Canadian, and American governments, as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade n.d.); the World Bank manages the initiative’s financial operations. The members of AgResults’ steering committee represent each of these five donor organizations and also include a financial trustee. The steering committee is responsible for overseeing and monitoring pilot projects, as well as the entire initiative (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade n.d.). An example of an AgResults pilot project is the Kenya On-Farm Storage Challenge Project. This PPP was developed to address post-harvest losses and food insecurity. Each year, smallholder farmers suffer financially from post-harvest grain losses because many of them do not have or understand the benefits of on-farm storage (OFS; Tanager 2018). For those farmers who try to store their grain, the grain usually becomes infested

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access, Fig. 1 Prize incentives model

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access

with pests, such as large grain borers, and many are forced to use pesticides, which can be harmful to their health (Tanager 2018). The loss of grain has detrimental financial and health impacts on the community and smallholder farmers (Tanager 2018). Therefore, to reduce post-harvest losses and food insecurity, the Kenya On-Farm Storage Challenge Project awarded prize money to incentivize the private sector to develop, market, and sell OFS devices (e.g., hermetic bags, plastic silos, metal silos) to smallholder farmers in Kenya (Tanager 2018). Representatives from the Kenyan government served on the Project Technical Advisory Council which was responsible for working with key stakeholders to advise the Project Manager regarding implementation strategies and issues, while also verifying product standards developed by the private sector (Tanager 2018). Competitors in the Kenya On-Farm Storage Challenge Project were required to sell OFS devices to store 21,000 metric tons (MT) of farm products (e.g., grain) to receive the monetary incentive that was distributed at the mid- and end-points of the project, which lasted from 2014 to 2018 (AgResults 2019). Overall, the project reached 328,554 smallholder farmers and created 413,265 MT of storage capacity in OFS devices, equating to approximately 4.6 million 90-kg bags of safely stored grain (Tanager 2018). If this grain had been not safely stored, smallholder farmers would have experienced between 12% and 20% losses or between 1.38 and 2.38 billion Kenyan shillings (Tanager 2018). Out of eight competitors, three sold OFS devices that could store 21,000 MT and received a monetary incentive, while five were unsuccessful (AgResults 2019). Example 3: Agritourism As the world moves toward a more global food economy, small- and medium-sized farms face serious economic challenges. Some farmers are unable to financially support themselves and must find other sources of income to maintain their farms (FAO 2017). One way to overcome these economic challenges while also supporting local agriculture and healthy food access is through agritourism which embodies the PPP

995

model. The term agritourism is derived from the terms “agriculture” and “tourism” and represents the intersection of both sectors. It is complex and difficult to define; interpretations and variations differ from country to country. For example, agritourism has been referred to as on-farm recreation, farm-based tourism, vacation farms, country hospitality, farm tourism, and agricultural tourism (Phillip et al. 2010). Agritourism is a distinct form of tourism and can fall under broader categories of tourism such as rural tourism, sustainable tourism, agroecotourism, agri-health, and sustainable agriculture (Hepburn and Karpyn 2018; Phillip et al. 2010). Nonetheless, the following is a comprehensive definition that captures the term’s complexities: Agritourism is an all-encompassing term, which embraces a wide range of activities and operations, but essential to all of them is an interaction between the agricultural producer, his/her products, and the tourists. Agritourism applies to products and services, which combine agriculture—its natural setting and products— with a tourism experience. It includes providing tourists, both domestic and international, with opportunities to experience a broad spectrum of products and services, including fruit stands, fruit and vegetable “U-picks”, winery tours, farm-based bed and breakfast accommodation, and farm tours. It implies economic activity between tourists and farm operators, an activity that links travel with agricultural products, services, and experience. (Hepburn and Karpyn 2018, p. 322).

Agritourism is a simple and straightforward example of a PPP that clearly promotes healthy food access. Overall, nations benefit from tourism by creating employment opportunities, which in turn improves their social and economic development. Many governments have policies in place for both tourism and agritourism development. For example, Italy, one of the first governments to create national legislation to regulate agritourism, is often cited as a model approach (Santucci 2013). The law states that agritourism can only take place by a farmer and the farmer’s family, and the activities must be related to agriculture (Santucci 2013). Globally, however, a government’s level of involvement can vary based on the policies in place and the importance of tourism/agritourism in their nation. In many nations, as agritourism begins to develop and prosper,

P

996

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access

governments partner with the private sector to reduce public debt and spending and to promote competitiveness (Kubickova and Campbell 2018). In many examples, a government leads marketing and outreach efforts through its tourism promotion capacity and yet relies on private sector tours of farms to offer visitors the products and experiences they seek.

agritourism activities, such as sport fishing, firefly-seeking expeditions, crab and shrimp festivals, and fish barbecues. DWN villages have noted increases in economic growth for themselves and their families, as well as growth in the community such as the increased boat rental demand for tourists to participate in agritourism activities (Mohamed Shaffril et al. 2015).

Italy

South Africa

As noted, Italy has been a leader in the development of agritourism, where governmental policies and practices have helped to shape global recognition of the experiences and opportunities available to tourists (Santucci 2013). Private operators provide experiences, such as bike tours to rural farms that are welcoming to children and adults. In one example, a family-run “farm-stay” provides tourists with a cultural immersion experience where they are able to cycle around the Tuscan countryside. While on their tour, tourists learn how to grow a vegetable garden, eat food that is grown on the farm, learn about Tuscan culture and sustainable living, and visit local attractions (i.e., museums and sporting events). In the end, the partnership ensures that local farmers earn a secondary income source to help maintain agricultural lands and production, and agri-conscious tourists are attracted to spend vacation dollars in the country.

South Africa has adopted the local economic development (LED) approach to stimulate local economies in areas that are particularly struggling. Strategically, the approach seeks to cultivate tourism opportunities in less economically strong areas of the country, potentially diverting visitors from wealthier areas. Also termed pro-pooreconomic growth, this tactic fosters economic growth and increased employment opportunities that benefit individuals and families who are otherwise at an economic disadvantage (Ramukumba et al. 2012). In 2014, it was estimated that 386 accommodation establishments offered activities related to agritourism in 193 towns in South Africa. Out of these 193 towns, it is estimated that about 15 are in low-income areas, which have identified agritourism as an LED approach. These areas are attracting tourists by offering activities such as tours of banana plantations and olive, avocado, citrus, and macadamia farms (Rogerson and Rogerson 2014).

Malaysia

The Malaysian government has recognized agritourism as a vital strategy to enhance the socioeconomic conditions in local communities (Mohamed Shaffril et al. 2015) and, as a result, has supported several innovative approaches to fostering new opportunities for local businesses and tourists alike. For example, the government has established a special designation or status, Desa Wawasan Nelayan (DWN), given to certain coastal communities that demonstrate great promise in establishing successful agritourism attractions. Each year, villages are invited to participate in a competition for this status, and the winners are selected by the Fisheries Development Authority of Malaysia (Mohamed Shaffril et al. 2015). DWN villages offer water-related

Critical Implementation Elements for Successful PPPs The present entry includes three examples of PPPs that reduce food insecurity and malnutrition in direct and indirect ways. The success of these examples is attributable to five critical elements that are closely aligned with the peer-reviewed and gray literature on PPPs. Specifically and integral to success is the extent to which the intervention and partnership reflect an approach inclusive of a(n): collaborative intervention, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, outcomes-oriented focus, synergistic approaches, and data-driven action.

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access

Collaborative Intervention In the 2019 report detailing progress toward achievement of SDGs, the UN recognized both synergy and collaborative intervention as integral to creating effective PPPs (UN 2019). The UN’s Economic and Security Council calls for collaborative intervention, which is defined as “accelerated integration among sectoral and other national strategies in order to enhance coherent implementation” (UN 2019). The collaborative nature of the successful PPPs outlined herein allows for greater potential benefit than that of separate interventions. Agritourism’s usage of collaborative intervention is evident by examining the diverse partners and governmental involvement. Partners’ collaborative efforts foster economic development through the tourism industry while simultaneously increasing food security as they support the economic stability of farms. The multidimensional successes of agritourism programs demonstrate the increased ability to create beneficial infrastructure and intervention through collaboration. Within this model, collaboration occurs between governmental agencies and the agriculture industry, reaping benefits for both by improving the country’s food security and economic development. Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities A review of 25 studies of health promotion partnerships across 8 countries found that clearly defined roles and responsibilities were integral to the success of a collaborative effort (Seaton et al. 2018). This review of best practices recognizes that clear roles were integral to various partners’ capacity for accountability and continued implementation. Furthermore, clearly defined responsibilities were found to significantly increase partners’ collective ability to continue with program implementation, and therefore remaining accountable, when key members left the partnership (Seaton et al. 2018). The structure and design of the PFR model demonstrate the effectiveness of clearly defined roles and responsibilities to increase accountability and to facilitate reliable, efficient implementation. These elements have played a critical part in PFR successes in reducing food insecurity and improving productivity (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade n.d.).

997

Specifically, the successes of the model lie in the multilateral designation of management roles and the incentivization of problem-solving roles in the most challenging aspects of developing and implementing policies targeted by PFR initiatives. Implementation of the PFR model is strengthened by its explicit establishment of roles designating accountability for solving unprofitable market challenges, utilizing these explicit roles to allow partnerships to better serve the populations targeted in their goals. Outcomes-Oriented Focus The previously mentioned review of factors contributing to the partnership success found that an outcomes-oriented focus was frequently instrumental in the ongoing support of public health effects produced by a partnership (Roussos and Fawcett 2000). By focusing on outcomes as an indicator of a partnership’s progress and success, partners are more likely to continue to support the partnership until goals are met (Roussos and Fawcett 2000). Intermediate measures of success are also important to evaluate. Markers of progress toward achievement of outcomes increases commitment and can help to refine a partnership’s intervention tactics. Across the examples provided, the PFR model and agritourism partnerships both utilize an outcomes-oriented focus, creating accountability and an implementation structure specifically tailored toward meeting goals. By recognizing and emphasizing outcomes and results, PFR is efficient and invested in meeting those goals by incentivizing problem-solving and therefore prioritizing effective results. Agritourism is similarly structured around intended outcomes. Government partners in agritourism partnerships clearly identify economic and food security benefits as end goals and structure promotion and funding efforts with these specific outcomes in mind. Synergistic Approaches The UN’s (2019) report on sustainable development highlights the importance of utilizing synergistic approaches in making PPPs more successful (UN 2019). In their plan for moving forward, the Economic and Security Council advocates for the

P

998

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access

element of synergy as necessary in forging broader efforts than that capable of isolated initiatives (UN 2019). This concept is applied specifically to SDG 17 and PPPs but can be extended to the achievement of other SDGs as well. Among the examples presented here, the FFFI demonstrates the benefits of a synergistic approach in aiding economic development and increasing community food security. Pennsylvania’s FFFI brought together legislators, entrepreneurs, nonprofit groups, food retailers, and food security advocates in a synergistic approach to developing the initiative. The resources, design, and business entrepreneurship contributed by each of these groups fostered the development of a business model that would not have been possible if each of these groups had been acting on their own. With an emphasis on synergy, partners are enabled to seek multidimensional and fartherreaching outcomes than what would have been achievable by individual partners. Data-Driven Action In order to strengthen the SDG implementation process and the PPPs doing this work, data-driven action must be prioritized. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls for “quality, accessible, timely and reliable disaggregated data. . .to help with the measurement of progress and to ensure that no one is left behind” (UN General Assembly 2015). Partnerships may consider utilizing scientific advisory boards to ensure that interventions are reliant on and in accordance with up-to-date data trends. Furthermore, and throughout all implementation and intervention processes, data analysis to recognize successes, failings, and need-based changes to programs is extremely important to ensuring successful partnerships are meeting population needs. The success of Pennsylvania’s FFFI generated additional FFFIs and HFFIs across the United States, structured using the policy and partner roles of the successful Pennsylvania intervention. This modelling effort demonstrates the program’s repeated use of data-driven action, a process that often began with a data-informed report of the problem including maps of the extent to which the problem impacted different regions, and ultimately, policy that supported closing gaps for

families disproportionately impacted by a lack of food access. The PFR model emphasizes the importance of data-driven results by incentivizing research to solve implementation obstacles; utilization of market data is key in the model’s success. Contextual Success Factors Beyond these identified common elements and best practices for successful partnerships identified throughout the literature and the UN’s review of successful partnerships, specific contextual critical success factors in partnership development are well studied (Sehgal et al. 2015). Research identifies the following as critical success factors for national PPPs: favorable economic conditions, feasibility of project implementation, effective procurement to ensure low transaction costs, labor and the availability of needed supplies, a stable political and social environment, and limited government control such that it supports and does not hinder program implementation (Sehgal et al. 2015). A key premise of the research includes an understanding that a partnerships’ specific goal cannot be met without recognition and management of success factors. Utilizing these tools and best practices within PPPs is vital to creating effective change in a more efficient manner.

Conclusion PPPs are vital as collaborative strategies in addressing systematic issues and striving for sustainable development. Improving public health outcomes through collaboration rather than distinct efforts from separate organizations is especially important in improving food systems’ efficacy and robustness. While public health and economic outcomes are the focus of the PPPs outlined in this entry, similarly structured partnerships can be effective in addressing a wide variety of other public issues. The three partnerships outlined herein are examples of and starting points for broader global development of PPPs which can either directly or indirectly aid in achieving food security, though can stretch far beyond a focus in public health.

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access

PPPs’ ability to bridge gaps between policy, infrastructure, resources, and program implementation can lead the way in addressing the structural issues that slow the efficiency of a global economy. Expanding the quantity of people and organizations, both public and private, involved in processes addressing systemic issues allows for a more diverse and thorough approach to such issues. As seen in each of the examples, partnership involvement has the ability to affect and improve food systems in situations where public policy can sometimes fall short. The successful implementations of SDG 17, as described herein, have each had great economic and public health impacts on local communities; through these impacts, the partnerships have made progress toward achieving not only SDG 17 but other SDGs as well. The increased collaboration represented by the PPPs identified in SDG 17 also provides the infrastructure and resources needed to make progress to achieve additional SDGs. Collaborative efforts of PPPs outlined in this entry also address the goals of SDG 1, to end global poverty, through their intrinsic linkage with economic development and food access issues addressed by each of the three partnerships. Similarly, the work of these PPPs to end food security and hunger, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture is explicit goals of SDG 2. Each of the three examples of PPPs demonstrates a collaborative, effective intervention fostering coherence, integration, and synergy in multisectoral collaboration. The combined strength of these collective efforts serves as a valuable model framework for comprehensively meeting sustainable development goals. SDG 17 calls for collaborative problemsolving to address sustainable development challenges and emphasizes utilization of PPPs, as previously noted. The collaboration inherent in achieving SDG 17 aligns with the UN Economic and Social Council’s call for a whole-of-society approach in which groups within and outside of government work together and align their own systems with the SDGs (UN 2019). The examples of PPPs presented herein show the effectiveness of the whole-of-society approach. The structure of

999

SDG 17, as well as of these partnerships specifically, is unique in its ability to strengthen implementation methods for a wide variety of other SDGs, including SDGs 1 and 2 as outlined herein. Looking ahead toward the 2030 target for achieving sustainable development, it is imperative that public and private sectors use SDG 17 as a method of strengthening their implementation work, in order to make progress toward achieving additional broader sustainable development. A whole-of-society approach, emphasizing multisectoral international collaboration, will be necessary in meeting the quickly approaching 2030 targets.

Cross-References ▶ Fighting Against Poverty Through Giving and Entrepreneurship ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ▶ Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Public Policy ▶ Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development through Community Engagement ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals through Partnerships and Local Development Acknowledgments Award# R01DK102324 (National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases): Does a Supermarket Improve the Diet and Food Environment of Low-Income Residents?

References AgResults (2019) The Kenya on-farm storage pay-forresults contest: competitor responses and perspectives. https://agresults.org/projects/kenya. Accessed 18 Sept 2019 Camp L, Beachkofski B, Kang C, Ahmed M (2019) Setting, pricing, and administering performance metrics in pay-for-results programming: step-by-step guide. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 15396/USAID_Pay-for-Results_Report.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept 2019

P

1000

Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Healthy Food Access

CDC (2010) Obama administration details healthy food financing initiative. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdis ease/recovery/PDF/Healthy_Food_Financing_release. pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2019 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (n.d.) What is AgResults? https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/ Documents/ag-results-overview.pdf. Accessed 18 Sept 2019 Development Initiatives (2018) 2018 global nutrition report: shining a light to spur action on nutrition. https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/globalnutrition-report-2018/. Accessed 23 Sept 2019 Disley E, Giacomantonio C, Kruithof K, Sim M (2015) The payment by results social impact bond pilot at HMP Peterborough. Final process evaluation report. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/socialimpact-bond-pilot-at-hmp-peterborough-final-report. Accessed 26 Sept 2019 FAO (2017) The future of food and agriculture: trends and challenges. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2019 FAO (2019) The state of food security and nutrition in the world: safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5162en/ca5162en. pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2019 Giang T, Karpyn A, Laurison HB, Hillier A, Perry RD (2008) Closing the grocery gap in underserved communities: the creation of the Pennsylvania fresh food financing initiative. J Public Health Manage Pract 14(3):272–279. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHH. 0000316486.57512.bf Hagey A (2015) The healthy food financing initiative: an innovative public-private partnership sparking economic development and improving health. https:// www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/healthy_ food_financing_initiative.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2019 Hepburn E, Karpyn A (2018) From soil to stomach: Agritourism and public health. In: Karpyn A (ed) Food and public health: a practical introduction. Oxford University Press, New York Karpyn A, Treuhaft S (2013) The grocery gap: finding healthy food in America. In: Pringle P (ed) A place at the table. PublicAffairs, New York Kubickova M, Campbell JM (2018) The role of government in agro-tourism development: a top-down bottom-up approach. Curr Issues Tour:1–18. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1551338 Laraia BA (2013) Food insecurity and chronic disease. Adv Nutr 4(2):203–212. https://doi.org/10.3945/an. 112.003277 Mohamed Shaffril HA, Hamzah A, Yassin SMD, Abu Samah B, D’Silva JL, Tiraieyari N, Muhammad M (2015) The coastal community perception on the socioeconomic impacts of agro-tourism activities in coastal villages in Malaysia. Asia Pac J Tour Res 20(3):295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2013.877048 Phillip S, Hunter C, Blackstock K (2010) A typology for defining agritourism. Tour Manage 31(6):754–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.001

Ramukumba T, Mmbengwa VM, Mwamayi KA, Groenewald JA (2012) Analysis of local economic development (LED) initiated partnership and support services for emerging tourism entrepreneurs in George municipality, Western Cape Province, RSA. Tour Manag Perspect 2:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp. 2011.12.006 Rogerson CM, Rogerson JM (2014) Agritourism and local economic development in South Africa. Bull Geogr Socio-Econ Ser 26(26):93–106. https://doi.org/10. 2478/bog-2014-0047 Roussos ST, Fawcett SB (2000) A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annu Rev Public Health 21(1): 369–402. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth. 21.1.369 Santucci FM (2013) Agritourism for rural development in Italy, evolution, situation and perspectives. In: Fundamental and applied studies in the modern world. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Seaton CL, Holm N, Bottorff JL, Jones-Bricker M, Errey S, Caperchione CM, Healy T (2018) Factors that impact the success of interorganizational health promotion collaborations: a scoping review. Am J Health Promot 32(4):1095–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117117710875 Sehgal R, Dubey AM, Tiwar N (2015) A conceptual framework on critical success factor for implementation of public private partnership (PPP). Int J Sci Technol Manage 04(1):692–704 Tanager (2018) AgResults Kenya on-farm storage challenge project: summary report. https://agresults.org/ projects/kenya. Accessed 19 Sept 2019 The Food Trust (2012) Special report: HFFI impacts, the nationwide success of healthy food financing initiatives, a proven, economically sustainable solution. http://thefoodtrust.org/what-we-do/administrative/hffiimpacts. Accessed 24 Sept 2019 UN (2015) Towards global partnerships: a principle-based approach to enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners. https://undocs.org/A/ RES/70/224. Accessed 11 Oct 2019 UN (2019) Sustainable development goal 17. https://sustaina bledevelopment.un.org/sdg17. Accessed 9 Sept 2019 UN Economic and Social Council (2019) Special edition: progress towards the sustainable development goals. https://undocs.org/E/2019/68. Accessed 9 Sept 2019 UN General Assembly (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/trans formingourworld/publication. Accessed 17 Oct 2019 USAID Office of Private Capital and Microenterprise, Palladium (2017) Pay-for-results in development: a primer for practitioners. https://www.usaid.gov/docu ments/1865/pay-results-development. Accessed 16 Sept 2019 USDA ERS (2014) Definitions of food security. https:// www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/ food-security-in-the-us/measurement.aspx. Accessed 24 Sept 2019

R

Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact Robyn Eversole1 and Nicolás Gambetta2 1 Swinburne University, Hawthorn, Australia 2 Universidad ORT Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay

Definition Development institutions – The structures and processes through which initiatives to achieve positive change are designed, implemented, and negotiated. Development institutions guide the nature and practices of development organizations. Impact pathways – The processes through which an impact or significant positive outcome is achieved. Impact pathways may be conceptualized according to one or more theories of change, in which actions create outputs, outcomes, and ultimately impacts.

Introduction: Old Institutions, New Challenges Development studies is finally overcoming the constraints of its postcolonial framing. Its vertical division of the world into categories of “developed” or “underdeveloped,” North or South, is

shifting to explore the potential for horizontal relationships for change (IDS 2017). In practice the playing field for development action has widened, and the definition of “development” has deepened. With the Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015), social and environmental goals have moved from the periphery to the center of definitions of success. Development is no longer a case of economically “successful” countries laying out a trajectory for others to follow. In the sustainable development era, all countries have insights to contribute and challenges to meet. The language of “development partnerships” evokes these kinds of horizontal relationships, mutual learning, and coordinated, multi-stakeholder action for change. Development begins to be reimagined, not as a siloed enterprise of governments, NGOs, and international agencies but as a space for joint action linking public sector, private sector, and civil society actors to achieve common goals (Busan Partnership 2012; Kelly and Roche 2014). Yet even as expressed in SDG 17, “to strengthen and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development” (UN 2015), the language of development partnerships is tempered by old categories. The objectives of SDG 17 are articulated in the traditional vertical language of “developed” and “developing” countries, and the proposed institutional mechanisms of development finance, capacity building, and technology transfer look comfortably familiar. In the quest for new ways of working, old ways of working persist.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), Partnerships for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4

1002

Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact

Partnerships for sustainable development require new ways of working: institutions capable of mobilizing and coordinating horizontal, multisector action. Yet the development institutions tasked with operationalizing these kinds of partnerships are, for the most part, old development institutions. They are institutions inherited from the vertical, siloed past. Their ways of working are still largely framed by old assumptions about what development is and how and by whom development impacts can be achieved. Despite recognition in high-level development policy circles that development institutions are operating in a changed global landscape that requires new forms of horizontal, multi-stakeholder ways of working, there is a wide gap between recognition and implementation. This entry outlines this gap and then explores the potential to reimagine development institutions for the SDG era. The entry’s objective is to understand the current institutional frameworks that are being used to deliver the SDGs in two specific country contexts, Australia and Uruguay, and to discuss whether and to what extent current institutional approaches are appropriate to face the SDG challenges in each. In particular, the entry focuses on challenges related to Goal 17, establishing coordinated multi-stakeholder partnerships for development, with attention to how these challenges manifest at national and subnational scales in two very different national contexts. The entry draws on three core concepts: institutional path dependence, reflexivity, and reframing development. These concepts from institutional theory and development anthropology help explain why new goals and new partnerships often fail to produce new results, and they suggest what is needed to operationalize sustainable development aspirations in practice. This entry begins with a discussion of development institutions, what they are and why they matter, highlighting some incomplete institutional shifts currently underway. Current challenges and future potential of institutions for the SDGs are then illustrated with reference to two very different country contexts: Uruguay and Australia. Despite their many differences, the challenges these two countries face in crafting new

institutions for sustainable development are surprisingly similar. The entry describes current institutional mechanisms for the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals in Australia and in Uruguay and offers a preliminary assessment of challenges and opportunities in each country context, highlighting commonalities and opportunities for mutual learning.

Theorizing Development Institutions It is useful to distinguish “institutions” from “organizations.” In institutional theory, institutions are the ways that people and organizations work; what Douglass North (1990) famously summed up as “the rules of the game.” Institutions are structures, rules, and norms that guide what can and cannot be done and who can and cannot do it. Development institutions define how development work is structured, what it aims to achieve, and the nature of organizations that are established to design, deliver, and evaluate it. Development institutions can be imagined metaphorically as the frame in which actions for change are expected to happen; or in Overton’s policy metaphor, the window within which ideas and initiatives must fit if they are to be understood and accepted (Lehman n.d.). The 2030 Agenda and the SDGs articulate a vision for change and begin to suggest the kinds of institutions that are needed to create this new vision. In these documents, “sustainability” begins to overshadow productivity and competitiveness as a key rule of the new development game – though the latter are still on the agenda. In the SDGs, economic, social, and environmental aspects intertwine, in a way that starts to challenge siloed domains of “economic development,” “social development,” and “environmental sustainability.” Further, sustainable development is presented as a single global project, rather than a bifurcated activity conducted by the Global North for the Global South. Goal 17 poses a specific institutional challenge: to coordinate development policy and development action across sectors and create new kinds of partnerships for development (United Nations 2015).

Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact

This is radically different from our inherited institutional models of top-down, siloed development action. The language of global partnerships for development, with its origins in the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (2012), suggests that we are now in an era of horizontal development relationships, where the North no longer defines “the means and ends of development” for the South and where “the old donor-recipient relationship is replaced by an equator-less landscape of a multi-stakeholder global partnership” (Eyben and Savage 2012, p. 457). The language of global partnerships suggests a radical shift to new ways of working: not only horizontal relationships that traverse old power divides but also multi-stakeholder relationships that bring together interests across sectors to coordinate joint actions for change. Yet in practice, development work has seen little radical change. The institutions within which current efforts to achieve positive change are designed, delivered, and evaluated so far look very similar to the institutions used before the launch of the SDGs. Development organizations – from the United Nations, to global NGOs, to national governments, and to local development authorities – still look a lot like they did preAgenda 2030, and they still work in broadly the same ways. Many of the same ideas guide their work, persisting alongside the newer language of the SDGs. This persistence of old structures, rules, and norms over time, despite marked efforts for change, can be understood theoretically as institutional path dependence (North 1990). Institutional path dependence is the tendency for institutions to persist over time – even when they no longer work well. This is not intrinsically surprising from an anthropological perspective, as human institutions are a manifestation of culture. Culture can be defined as the set of broadly shared (though always fluid and negotiable) ideas and practices of a social group (Eversole 2018, p. 41). Institutional “rules of the game” and resulting practices are thus deeply cultural. In the context of development, there are many broadly shared ideas and practices about what “development” is and how different visions of positive

1003

change can be achieved (Crewe and Harrison 1998; Crewe and Axelby 2012). Some of these ideas, such as modernization and economic growth, have been historically dominant; others have been marginalized (see, e.g., Rahnema and Bawtree 1997). Over time, ideas and practices such as sustainable development gain ascendancy and broad acceptance, but it takes time for deeper ideas and practices to shift. Institutions – grounded in cultural ideas and practices – change slowly. Current institutions for development work are largely inherited from the past. In this entry, we analyze institutional frameworks from two very different country contexts and discuss whether they are appropriate for delivering the vision of the SDGs. We then draw on two concepts from the anthropology of development – the related ideas of reflexivity and reframing – to explore new institutional options for the SDG era. Reflexivity refers to a process of being aware of one’s own perspectives and ways of working and conscious of how these may differ from the perspectives and ways of working of others; reframing refers to a reflexive process of using these insights to move beyond current practices to imagine new ways of working (Eyben 2014; Eversole 2018). In the context of the SDGs, reflexivity and reframing can be used to create new institutional approaches that are not constrained by old development “frames.”

Toward Impact: Reframing Development Institutions Current and Emerging Approaches to the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda While the SDGs outline global aspirations, many of the key institutional mechanisms for creating sustainable development impacts are found at national and subnational levels (e.g., Storper 1997, 2005; Pike et al. 2006; Vásquez Barquero 2007). This entry focuses the lens of analysis on two specific country contexts, Australia and Uruguay, to describe and analyze the development institutions that are currently being used in each to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals.

R

1004

Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact

Australia is a federal democracy in the AsiaPacific world region, with a population of about 25 million people (ABS 2018) in a large land area of over 7.6 million square kilometers (Geoscience Australia n.d.). It is a postcolonial nation with continuing ties to the United Kingdom and a proportionally small but culturally distinctive Aboriginal Australian population with tens of thousands of years of continuous history on their country. Australia has a strong economy still heavily reliant on its generous natural resource base, with mining and agriculture dominating its major exports (Austrade 2017), and a population heavily concentrated in its state capitals. Sydney and Melbourne, the largest state capitals, are each major metropolitan cities with populations well over 4 million each (ABS 2018). Australia is divided administratively into six states and two territories, with two dominant tiers of government (federal and state). Uruguay is a unitary democracy in South America, with a small population of about 3.5 million people and an economy based in natural resources that is ranked the most prosperous in Latin America according to the World Prosperity Index (DFAT 2018). Uruguay is also ranked first in Latin America in the democracy and political stability indexes (World Bank 2016). Administratively, Uruguay is divided into 19 departments, with a total area of 318,000 square kilometers; about 40% of the population lives in the capital city, Montevideo (INE 2017). Much of the rest of the country features low grasslands with some rolling hills and pasture livestock. The country identified for a long time as a wool and beef exporter, but now one of the main sources of foreign exchange is tourism (Uruguay XXI 2017, p. 3). In 2017 Uruguay graduated from OECD’s list of country recipients of development assistance (DFAT 2018). Uruguay’s energy policy has made a strong commitment to renewable energies, and in 2016, renewable energy accounted for 97% of national consumption (Uruguay XXI 2017). Australia: Approach and Challenges Australia has been somewhat slow to adopt institutional mechanisms for the SDGs, as

international development goals and reporting structures in many ways represent new terrain for wealthy countries accustomed to funding the development efforts of others. The SDGs’ predecessor, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), was part of the “international development” landscape, in a separate conceptual space to Australia’s own internal social and economic policy challenges. It is telling that even now, the primary portfolio responsibility for the SDGs in Australia sits with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In the government sector as in Australian society at large, there is still a tendency to view the SDGs as part of the apparatus of international aid and development overseas, not part of the landscape of development at home. The main institutional mechanism developed to date within the Australian government for the SDGs is a whole-of-government interdepartmental committee. The interdepartmental committee for the SDGs comprises senior officials from different federal government departments, each with sector-specific portfolio responsibilities that link to one or more of the SDGs, domestically or internationally (see Australian Government 2018, p. 7). This committee is essentially a coordinating and communication mechanism across departmental boundaries. Given that the Australian federal government is large and highly siloed, with over 40 different government ministries, it is unclear the extent to which an interdepartmental committee will be able to advocate for significant coordination, particularly as the committee has both a domestic and international mandate. Nevertheless, the establishment of an interdepartmental SDG committee represents an initial acknowledgment of the need for new cross-silo approaches to sustainable development challenges. Another institutional mechanism established to progress a conversation about the SDGs in Australia is the Senate Inquiry into the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals established in December 2017 (Parliament of Australia 2017). Inquiries are a common mechanism used by the Australian federal government to enable national consultation on issues of importance. Each inquiry is led by a parliamentary committee and

Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact

has a specific scope of enquiry and a set period of time for public submissions before the committee prepares its report. The SDGs inquiry is being undertaken by the Senate’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. The inquiry’s terms of reference cover topics related to awareness of the SDGs and the potential for their implementation both domestically and in Australia’s overseas aid program. While the inquiry is broad ranging, it signals an interest in “the potential costs, benefits and opportunities for Australia in the domestic implementation of the SDG,” as well as the governance structures, accountability measures, and monitoring and communication measures required at the national, state, and local levels, and across sectors, to achieve domestic outcomes (Parliament of Australia 2017). Institutional mechanisms for the SDGs in Australia also include cross-sector and civil society initiatives. Australia has a National Sustainable Development Council, a cross-sector group of experts, which builds on the work of the National Sustainability Council that was established as an independent advisory body by the federal government in 2012 and disbanded in 2013. The current Council, comprised of eight cross-sector experts, sponsors the SDG Transforming Australia project conducted in partnership with Monash University and philanthropic funders, which is working to develop an online SDG dashboard for Australia (National Sustainable Development Council 2018). Another significant source of institutional support for the SDGs in Australia is the Global Compact Network Australia (GCNA), a local branch of the UN Global Compact Corporate Sustainability Initiative. The GCNA hosts the Sustainable Development Case Study Hub, which includes both domestic and overseas case studies (GCNA 2018). In 2018, Australia presented its first SDG Voluntary National Review (VNR) (Australian Government 2018). The VNR document is an interesting amalgam of domestic and overseas development language. It bears various markers that the domestic reporting process is being taken seriously: from the featuring of a rendition of the interconnected Sustainable Development

1005

Goals by a Wiradjuri Aboriginal artist on the cover to a Forward by the Prime Minister, who assures the reader that “the Review represents every part of Australian society, with many business, academic and civil society organizations embracing the Goals” (p. 2). Further, the national statistics agency, the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), undertook a data-mapping exercise in the lead-up to the VNR to identify what government data sources could be drawn on for SDG indicators and then developed a SDG data platform to house relevant datasets (p. 113). Nevertheless, throughout the document, national achievements and challenges are described in broad terms with little concrete detail. Though there are a few examples of domestic initiatives, the text regularly reverts to a focus on overseas development work. Overall, uptake of the SDG language and frameworks both within and beyond government in Australia has been patchy at best. Around Australia, it is possible to find mentions of the goals on some departmental websites and to identify a few isolated initiatives to apply them; for instance, the Victorian Commissioner for the Environment has promoted the SDGs as a framework for socioeconomic indicators on the state of the environment in Victoria (CESV 2018); and the City of Melbourne has done some mapping of its policies against the SDGs (City of Melbourne 2017). Yet this level of institutionalization of the SDGs is still rare. There is academic, civil society, and privatesector interest in sustainable development and a wide range of organizations in Australia whose work relates to the SDGs. Yet with a few notable exceptions as above, these initiatives and interests are usually not expressed in SDG terms – especially on the domestic front. For the most part, domestic development issues are still largely addressed in departmental and sectoral silos. Further, because decision-making power is geographically concentrated in a handful of capital cities, there is limited contextualization to the needs and opportunities in specific localities and regions. Australia: Emerging Opportunities Three years on from the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals, there is some indication of

R

1006

Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact

growing awareness of the SDGs and their relevance to ongoing conversations in Australia around environmental sustainability, economic transitions, and social equity. Initiatives such as the SDG Transforming Australia project, and the consultations around the VNR process itself, are starting to facilitate cross-sector conversations about sustainable development in the Australian context. The SDGs offer a framework that changemakers can use to “speak back” to the dominant domestic development narratives in Australia, which are still heavily focused on economic productivity and competitiveness as measures of development success (see, e.g., Commonwealth of Australia 2017). Sustainable development and the SDGs provide an alternative policy language to conceptualize and measure positive change. At the same time, the utility of the SDG framework in Australia is somewhat handicapped by a tendency to associate it strongly with international aid and development work overseas. Australia’s assessment against SDG indicators (National Sustainable Development Council 2018; SDSN 2018) reveals a number of areas that are in need of improvement. Many of these, such as food security, inclusive education, and affordable, clean energy, point to socioeconomic and geographic disparities in a large country where much of the population is governed from afar. Thus, it is apparent that a country can be simultaneously a major global exporter of highquality food and education yet have populations with low literacy and food insecurity. Other areas of concern in these assessments, such as the health of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, can be linked to the persistence of productivist policy paradigms, exacerbated by the separation of industry and environmental policy into different departmental silos. In Australia, the fact that decision-making power is both heavily siloed, and almost exclusively concentrated in capital cities, makes it difficult for institutions to address sustainable development issues in context. One emerging opportunity in Australia is the growing policy and practice interest in “placebased” development approaches. These include a resurgence of interest in regional development

(House Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation 2018) and various efforts to implement “collective impact” approaches to social service provision in place (CFI n.d.). Though arising from different quarters and out of different political imperatives, placebased approaches share a broad recognition of the need for multi-stakeholder responses to development challenges in local contexts. They promise a way to address the spatial, social, and environmental inequities apparent in Australia’s current sustainable development performance. At the same time, past experiments with place-based approaches have been handicapped by their reliance on top-down institutional frameworks that have given limited real decision-making power to stakeholders in local communities (Eversole 2011; 2016). Uruguay: Approach and Challenges Uruguay’s institutional framework for the national 2030 Agenda differs from that of many other countries, as it takes advantage of existing public sector offices with experience in the responsibilities assigned, rather than creating a new unit to lead the process. In Uruguay, this institutional framework comprises three key national government offices: the Office of Planning and Budgeting (OPP for its acronym in Spanish), the Uruguayan Agency for International Cooperation (AUCI), and the National Institute of Statistics (INE). • Office of Planning and Budgeting – Oficina de Planeamiento y Presupuesto (OPP): The OPP is responsible for coordinating and monitoring actions related to the SDGs in the public sector. It coordinates ministries and other public offices to map public policies and legal and institutional frameworks and also identifies the challenges the country has ahead to reach the SDGs. • Uruguayan Agency for International Cooperation – Agencia Uruguaya de Cooperación Internacional (AUCI): The AUCI is in charge of planning, designing, monitoring, coordinating, and executing projects and programs of international cooperation given and received

Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact

by Uruguay in line with the country’s development priorities. The 2030 Agenda provides an opportunity for the country to organize its international cooperation by developing a clearer vision of its potential cooperators. The main areas of international cooperation for Uruguay are in the context of environmental issues, climate change, human rights, and social development. • National Institute of Statistics – Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE): The INE is in charge of gathering information and indicators from public offices and monitoring them. It also coordinates the public offices regarding data management. In sum, the OPP manages the 2030 Agenda, the AUCI searches for international cooperation opportunities in line with the 2030 Agenda goals, and the INE measures and monitors indicators and results. There is a feedback loop in this framework, as the findings of Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) are used to make budgetary adjustments. Uruguay has chosen to conduct a series of VNRs in 2017, 2018, and 2019 to understand the country’s sustainable development’s state of the art, as a starting point to design the roadmap to the 2030 Agenda. A strength of Uruguay’s approach is that the country understands that the 2030 Agenda should be built with a down-up approach and should not be imposed by the United Nations. Uruguay’s institutional approach has been to work with existing national structures and develop a strong baseline of data to inform context-sensitive planning. At the same time, Uruguay’s 2030 Agenda institutional framework has some weaknesses: it has few links with the private sector and academia, it lacks coordination with the Parliament, and there is limited engagement with or ownership on the part of the general public of the sustainable development agenda. Further, context sensitivity is limited to national level; there has been little coordination with the regional governments of Uruguay’s 19 departments. In the 2018 VNR, Uruguay explains that the country has embarked on a phase of awareness-raising

1007

and dissemination of the SDG at the local level. Further, the report stresses that it follows a human rights approach, incorporating input from various segments of society, especially the private sector. Uruguay: Emerging Opportunities As recognized in Uruguay’s 2018 VNR (Presidencia de la República Oriental del Uruguay 2018), the involvement of public and private actors in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is an opportunity to mobilize multi-stakeholder action around common goals in the country. Like Australia, Uruguay’s VNRs have identified a number of areas where improvement is needed, and only a handful of areas that are firmly on track. In 2018, however, it is possible to witness some evidence of shifts in the institutional framework in Uruguay that may deliver a more contextualized and cross-sector approach to the 2030 Agenda. As a notable difference from the 2017 VNR, the 2018 VNR began to demonstrate coordination of the national government with regional governments and with the private sector. Further, a new organization – the National Agency for Development (ANDE) – has been established with a mandate to improve the government’s engagement with the private sector and to take an explicitly place-based development approach. The National Agency for Development – Agencia Nacional de Desarrollo (ANDE) – aims to promote the country’s development through improving businesses competitiveness, with a particular focus on micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). The agency’s four main areas of work are territorial (place-based) development, association and integration, entrepreneurship, and access to finance. ANDE’s office is in Montevideo, but its reach is national, as it works with place-based associations of MSMEs to offer programs in different regions of the country. It also works cross-sectorally with finance institutions to offer financial instruments and with academic institutions to offer training programs, mainly in the fields of information technology, innovation and process management and product development. ANDE is still very new, but

R

1008

Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact

there is a desire to incorporate the SDGs into the construction of its instruments and programs and strengthen the Agency’s place-based focus, including its coordination with regional governments. The potential for MSMEs throughout the country to contribute to sustainable development outcomes raises the question of the role of the private sector itself in achieving the 2030 Agenda. Uruguay has some useful institutional infrastructure here, in the form of DERES: an established business association, comprised mainly of leading private and public companies, that aims to develop sustainable business in theory and in practice. DERES members are companies from across numerous sectors including consumer goods and services, financial sector, consulting, and industrial sectors. DERES has the potential to play an important role going forward, as it is working to help business to incorporate the concept of sustainable development within their business strategy. However, while DERES includes significant business leaders, it is not representative of the full range of private sector activities in Uruguay; the association has not been successful in attracting MSMEs or agribusiness companies to join their ranks. Those sectors are particularly important to the sustainable development of regions beyond the capital city. A weakness in Uruguay’s current institutional framework is the limited engagement of the national Parliament with the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. Here, the neighboring country of Argentina illustrates an interesting institutional innovation. In 2017, the Argentinean congress created a 2030 Agenda Parliamentary Observatory (Observatorio Parlamentario de la Agenda 2030). The role of the Observatory is to link the legislative agenda with the 2030 Agenda, bringing on board civil society, regional governments, and the national ministries. The idea is that every piece of draft legislation should go through a screening process to link it with the 2030 Agenda and the country’s priorities and objectives. In Argentina, the Observatory was created in the Chamber of Representatives and works in coordination with the Human Rights Observatory in the Senate. To date it has

conducted a baseline assessment of awareness of the SDGs demonstrated in politicians’ speeches and undertaken some preliminary activities to develop this awareness among lawmakers, including organizing training from the UNDP and creating a glossary of terms related to the SDGs to encourage consistent application and use of sustainable development concepts. It would be interesting to see this type of Observatory in Uruguay to strengthen and coordinate the links between the executive and the legislative powers. Overall, Uruguay has been proactive in taking a bottom-up, country-appropriate approach to the SDGs, with a focus on building a future that is more inclusive, environmentally sustainable, and economically viable for all. Currently, however, there is still limited cross-sector engagement with the SDGs or institutional mechanisms that can mobilize multi-stakeholder partnerships or coordinate action for change. However, there is growing interest from different quarters in both public and private sectors, in how multi-stakeholder and place-based approaches could be operationalized in practice. Opportunities for Horizontal Learning On first look, Australia and Uruguay are very different contexts. They are different geographic sizes, in different world regions, with different histories, different languages, and different institutional configurations. On the old, vertical development landscape, Australia would have been categorized as a “developed” aid giver and Uruguay as a “less developed” aid recipient. Yet on today’s landscape, both face challenges and opportunities in achieving sustainable development. Both have populations, wealth and decision-makers concentrated in urban, coastal localities, while their rich natural resources that provide their economic base are found in their rural regions. Uruguay has made strong strides in areas such as green energy (Goal 7), outpacing Australia, while Australia demonstrates strengths in other areas such as health (Goal 3) (see Fig. 1). Yet both struggle with sustainable development challenges related to zero hunger (Goal 2, mainly for the prevalence of obesity), reducing inequalities

Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact

1009

Major challenges are present in achieving this goal (‘red light’) Significant challenges remain in achieving this goal (‘orange light’) Challenges remain in achieving this goal (‘yellow light’) On track / achieving this goal (‘green light’) Source: Based on data from SDSN (2018) Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact, Fig. 1 A comparison of progress toward the SDGs: (Australia and Uruguay, 2018). (Source: Based on data from SDSN 2018)

(Goal 10), responsible consumption and production (Goal 12), and environmental health (Goals 13, 14, and 15) (SDSN 2018). Their differences and similarities, as outlined in Fig. 1, can provide fertile ground for mutual learning. It is strikingly surprising how similar these countries are in their path to the 2030 Agenda: Australia ranks 37th (out of 156 countries) and Uruguay 49th (SDSN 2018). Figure 1 highlights that according to the SDG Index 2018 (SDSN 2018), there is progress toward the SDGs in both Uruguay and Australia, but current progress is not strong in either country. Further, the areas marked in red indicate significant areas of contradiction in current trajectories. Both Australia and Uruguay rely heavily on their natural resources for wealth from primary industries and tourism; they are both justifiably proud of their beautiful natural environments and

claim to care for them. Australia is proud of its “outdoor lifestyle,” while Uruguay is proud of being “Natural Uruguay.” But both countries are red or orange in SDG 13 (Climate action), SDG 14 (Life below water), and SDG 15 (Life on land). Further, the natural resources of each country are largely located in their rural regions, yet there are significant structural disconnects between the capital cities, where decision-makers are located and development programs are designed, and the onthe-ground realities of rural regions. Assessment of the institutional frameworks for the SDGs in both countries suggests that current institutions are still not fully equipped to create the multi-sector development partnerships that are needed to address sustainable development challenges on environmental, economic, and social fronts. In Australia, while there is a broad recognition of the need to generate “triple bottom line”

R

1010

Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact

development outcomes, mainstream institutional mechanisms for development are heavily siloed, and those oriented toward the SDGs are only starting to emerge. These are still in the early stages of articulating the relevance of the SDGs to domestic policy contexts. In Uruguay, there is a stronger institutional commitment to the SDGs as a domestic policy framework, but specific approaches are still disconnected across government silos, and public and private actions remain uncoordinated. Further, both countries are still developing institutional capacity for engaging with rural regions; development initiatives continue to be designed and delivered from capital cities with few opportunities for leadership from regional communities who know their own realities best.

Creating Institutions for Impact Reflecting on the institutional frameworks for the Sustainable Development Goals in two very different country contexts – Australia and Uruguay – has revealed that current institutions are struggling to deliver against the SDGs. There are difficulties engaging stakeholders, difficulties coordinating action, and difficulties demonstrating results. Returning to our analytical tools of institutional path dependence, reflexivity, and reframing, we see government and nongovernment organizations continuing, for the most part, with development business as usual. The idea of sustainable development across economic, social, and environmental domains continues to make steady inroads into the language of development, as does the idea of multi-stakeholder partnerships that bridge traditional silos to enable cross-sector action. Yet to date these ideas have had limited influence on the practices of development in either country. Established institutions seem unable to significantly reorient policy and practice toward creating sustainable development impacts. In both countries, most organizations continue to work in sectoral silos that inhibit coordinated, crosssector action. In Australia, there have been numerous calls for “joined-up” thinking across

economic development, health, education, transport, environment, and so forth (see, e.g., SSA 2007); yet there is little evidence for effective operationalization. The idea of linking public, private, and community sectors for multi-stakeholder sustainable development action is not new, but in neither country have current institutions been able to provide compelling ways for organizations to work differently. Further, most development decision-makers still approach development as something that is planned and delivered expertly from the top-down, often deeply imbued with old ideas about development and flavored by old power relations between capital cities and countryside. There is some evidence that new institutions may be emerging in each country context to facilitate cross-sector and place-based action for sustainable development; yet these are still incipient, located on the periphery of development business as usual. Institutional path dependence is evident. The persistence of siloed and centralized ways of working, even in the face of clear sustainable development aspirations, suggests the need to reflexively consider current institutions and actively reframe how development action is organized. New ways of working – new institutions – are needed. These could take the form of new partnership configurations linking different parts of the public sector, private sector businesses of all sizes, civil society, and academia in new forms of joined-up sustainable development action. They could also involve explicitly placebased approaches that mobilize partnerships around the particular challenges of subnational regions. Nevertheless, a note of caution is needed. Creating multi-stakeholder, sustainability-focused development institutions requires much more than the warm language of partnership and a willingness to try. Institutional change requires recognizing the reality of institutional path dependence – that our current institutions originated on a different development landscape and do not necessarily match our current aspirations, yet they are difficult to change. It also requires decision-makers across sectors to commit to a reflexive process of considering their own perspectives

Reimagining Development Institutions for the SDG Era: Pathways to Impact

on development goals and institutions and be willing to reframe their approach with reference to the ideas and practices of others. Practically, this can mean reframing the emphasis of policy action from inputs (programs delivered, money spent) to outcomes and impacts and undertaking in-depth cross-organizational processes to maximize strategic coordination across sectors. Practical methods such as Theory of Change Workshops and Knowledge Partnering can be used in these kinds of cross-organizational processes to encourage the development of new institutional arrangements for sustainable development (Eversole 2015, 2018). In the end, the prognosis for each country in the sustainable development arena is both challenging and hopeful – with ample opportunities for collaboration and mutual learning. It is interesting to see how Australia, a developed country in the Asia-Pacific, with a current GDP per capita reaching USD $54,000 (12th in the world), faces similar challenges in achieving the SDGs as Uruguay in Latin America, with a current GDP per capita of USD $16,000 (54th in the world). In both contexts, established institutions are attempting to address sustainable development challenges in sectoral silos with few opportunities for coordinated or context-sensitive action. In both contexts, there is an emerging awareness that new ways of working are needed and ideas about multi-stakeholder, cross-sectoral, and place-based institutions are gaining traction. It remains to explore what such institutions may look like in practice and how Uruguay and Australia may each learn from the experiences of the other.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable development ▶ Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ▶ National Sustainable Development Strategies ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals through Partnerships and Local Development

1011

References ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2018) Australian Demographic Statistics, Mar 2018. Catalogue Number 3101.0 Austrade (Australian Trade and Investment Commission) (2017) ‘Australia’s export performance in FY2017’ 22 December. Available online at: https://www. austrade.gov.au/news/economic-analysis/australiasexport-performance-in-fy2017. Viewed November 2018 Australian Government (2018) Report on the implementation of the sustainable development goals. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Barton Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (2012) Summary document. Organisation for economic cooperation and development (July). Available online at: https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/Busan%20 partnership.pdf. Viewed October 2018 CESV (Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria) (2018) Applying the SDGs – determining socio-economic indicators for Victoria’s environment. 28 February. Available online at: https://www. ces.vic.gov.au/articles/applying-sdgs-determining-soci o-economic-indicators-victorias-environment. Viewed October 2018 CFI (Collaboration for Impact) (n.d.) Collaboration for impact – about us. Available online at https://www.col laborationforimpact.com/about-us/. Viewed October 2018 City of Melbourne (2017) Opportunities and recommendations report 2017, Annual Plan Initiative 1.13 (‘Complete a desktop assessment of how City of Melbourne’s strategies and plans deliver against the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs])’. Melbourne: City of Melbourne Commonwealth of Australia (2017) Transitioning regional economies. Report. Australian Government Productivity Commission, Canberra Crewe E, Axelby R (2012) Anthropology and development: culture, morality and politics in a globalized world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Crewe E, Harrison E (1998) Whose development? An ethnography of aid. Zed Books, London DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) (2018) Uruguay country brief. Available online at https://dfat. gov.au/geo/uruguay/Pages/uruguay-country-brief. aspx. Viewed October 2018 Eversole R (2011) Community agency and community engagement: re-theorising participation in governance. J Publ Policy 31(1):51–71 Eversole R (2015) Knowledge partnering for community development. Routledge, London Eversole R (2016) Regional development in Australia: being regional. Routledge, London Eversole R (2018) Anthropology for development, from theory to practice. Routledge, London Eyben R (2014) International aid and the making of a better world: reflexive practice. Routledge, London

R

1012 Eyben R, Savage L (2012) Emerging and submerging powers: imagined geographies in the new development partnership at the Busan fourth high level forum sustainable development solutions network. J Dev Stud 49 (4):457–469 GCNA (Global Compact Network Australia) (2018) Sustainable Development Goals Case Study Hub. Available online at https://sdgs.org.au/. Viewed October 2018 Geoscience Australia (n.d.) Area of Australia – states and territories. Available online at http://www.ga.gov. au/scientific-topics/national-location-information/dime nsions/area-of-australia-states-and-territories. Viewed October 2018 House Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation (2018) Regions at the ready: investing in Australia’s future – final report. House of Representatives Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, Parliament of Australia, Canberra IDS (Institute of Development Studies) (2017) Has universal development come of age? IDS Bull 28(1A) INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas) (2017) Anuario Estadístico 2017. Montevideo Kelly L, Roche C (2014) Partnerships for effective development. Australian Council for International Development (ACFID). Deakin, ACT, Australia Lehman J (n.d.) A brief explanation of the Overton window, Mackinac Centre for Public Policy, Published online at https://www.mackinac.org/overtonwindow. Viewed October 2018 National Sustainable Development Council (2018) SDG Transforming Australia Project. Available online at: https://www.sdgtransformingaustralia.com/. Viewed October 2018 North D (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Parliament of Australia (2017) Inquiry into the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDG). Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Department of the Senate, Canberra. Available online at https://www. aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senat e/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/SDGs. Viewed October 2018 Pike A, Rodriguez-Pose A, Tomaney J (2006) Local and regional development. Taylor and Francis, London Presidencia de la República Oriental del Uruguay (2018) Informe Nacional Voluntario Uruguay 2018 Rahnema M, Bawtree V (1997) The post-development reader. Zed Books, London SDSN (2018) SDG Index and dashboard report 2018: global responsibilities, implementing the goals. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development, July 2018 SSA (State Services Authority) (2007) Victorian approaches to joined up government: an overview. Report. Victorian Government, Melbourne Storper M (1997) The regional world. The Guilford Press, New York Storper M (2005) Society, community, and economic development. Stud Comp Int Dev 39(4):30–57

Religion United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations, New York Uruguay XXI (2017) Investment opportunities: tourism, renewable energies. Uruguay XXI, Montevideo Vázquez Barquero A (2007) Desarrollo Endógeno: Teorías y Políticas de Desarrollo Territorial. Investig Regionales 11(autumn):183–210 World Bank (2016) The worldwide governance indicators. The World Bank, Washington, DC

Religion ▶ Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals Julia Blanc1 and Jochen Ostheimer2 1 Faculty of Theology, Center for Religion, Economics and Politics, Universität Basel, Basel, Switzerland 2 Faculty for Catholic Theology, Institute for Ethics and Social Science, Department of Theology, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Graz, Austria

Synonyms Belief system; Catholic Church; Environmental ethics; Francis; Greening of religion; Laudato si; Religion; World Council of Churches

Definition Religion: faith, belief system, denomination Transmission belt: transmittance aid, transfer agent, driver of change Religion and environment, religion and sustainability, creation, deep green religion, environmental stewardship

Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

1013

Introduction

The Development Paradigm

In September 2015, the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development adopted the resolution “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Its 17 “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) outline a roadmap for all nations to a more just and ecologically balanced world. In order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, comprehensive cultural change is required both at the global level and in the individual societies and communities. Technical solutions or increased efficiency alone will not lead to the goal. All social forces, including religious communities, must participate in the necessary social change. This is why religion might be seen a catalyst for social transformation, as its potential is manifold and can be efficacious in many dimensions. The influence of religion on people, believers as well as nonbelievers, can affect worldviews, values, consciousness, sensations, emotions, actions, public opinion, environmental policies, land use, and so forth. Consequently, this entry intends an approach from three angles: in a first step, the focus is set on the development paradigm and the role religion can play in its advancement into a transitional paradigm. Following this, the background of religious commitment to the conservation of creation will be highlighted. After a more general approach toward the ambivalent role of religion in nature conservation, three examples of religious selfempowerment in the field of environmental protection shall be analyzed. First is the “Conciliar Process” that accompanied the political shifts during the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., the fall of the Berlin Wall) and anchored all these reflections in the first inner-Christian debate on sustainability. Second is Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato si’, the first papal letter on environmental issues, and its reception. The third example is the “dark green religion.” In the last part, resources for the sociocultural transformation will be named, whereas the Catholic Church is to be investigated as a potential change agent. As the conclusion shows, this mission for a sustainable world can be performed by other religions, too.

The SDGs stress the globalism and universality of their approach (UN 2015: §5). This global and universal point of view is shared by various religions, especially by the world religions, which can be seen as Global Players. The 17 SDGs with 169 sub-goals as well as the major religions focus on humanity in their entirety and on all aspects of life, although they are sometimes criticized for being too abstract. The SDGs’ specific focus on sustainable conditions for the existence of the entire humanity is that of development. But contrary to the traditional concept of development and even to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) from 2000, the SDGs address not only the so-called developing countries but at the same the Global North. Hence, the generality of the SDGs’ approach seems to be linked to the overcoming of the classical term of development, probably even the overcoming of the post-development era (Sachs 2017). The turning point of the initially positive image of development can be found in the 1960s. While Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio (1967) was still highlighting the benefits of development for humanity – which was a crucial and very important act for and within the Catholic Church – the study The Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome (Meadows et al. 1972) gave a new direction to the discourse on development. This report was one of the moments when the global public realized that a development, which surpassed the capacities and limits of the world, had to be replaced by an alternative. Since then, humanity has been speaking about ecological footprints and “alternative” growth models. This is where the spiritual content of religion does already interfere in many cases and could interfere in a much more significant way: religious people feel that religion gives sense to their lives. Their religious faith helps them to see their lives in a larger, even transcendent, context. Hence, the idea of development is not a linear progress aiming at “always more,” nor is its paradigm the Western model of society, but its goal is the increasing of life quality and justice for everybody while taking

R

1014

Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

into account the safeguarding or even improvement of the ecosystem, which bears all human well-being. This shift in the perception of the development paradigm can either be named as a step to a postdevelopment paradigm or a transition paradigm. Whereas the first term focuses more on the fact that development has been overcome, the second term turns to the idea that all humans have to change their behavior, their way of life, and their imprint that they want to leave on the earth – or in other words, their lifestyles have to become more sufficient. With its more general approach, it points to the fact that it is not only the duty of some people but a common duty of the entire humanity to face the challenges of the future.

Religious Commitment to the Conservation of Creation The protection of nature might happen in various versions – foci might be put on the proper use of nature or on the protection of nature from all human intervention. This last point is what most national parks try to realize under the name of preservation. In contrast to this orientation, religions seek to resolve the problem of cohabitation under the term of conservation (Gerten and Bergmann 2012; Johnston 2014; Veldman et al. 2014). One might think of Muhammad’s instruction that not more green should be cut around Medina than what a camel can eat (Sunan Abu Dawood 1740). The same dedication to nature conservation can be found in Hinduism: “Almost all the Hindu scriptures place strong emphasis on the notion that God’s grace can be received by not killing his creatures or harming his creation: ‘God, Kesava, is pleased with a person who does not harm or destroy other non-speaking creatures or animals’ (Visnupurrana 3,8,15)” (Dwivedi 1993: 22). The Ambiguous Role of Religion Toward Conservation Religions are all-encompassing worldviews, which give their adherents a way to live as well as a meaning of life. They address all aspects of

life, of everyday life, as well as of extraordinary situations. Therefore, they naturally consider the significance of nature as the realm in which one must live his life and the ways in which the individual and the society ought to behave toward nature. Although the cosmological views, i.e., on the coming to existence of the world, its meaning, its purpose, and its status (e.g., as creation with a beginning and an ending, as eternal matter or as divine in itself), differ widely, all major religions foster a comportment of respect toward nature. This fundament is valid, even if humanity must make use of natural resources or must defend itself against natural forces (Tucker and Williams 1997; Hessel and Ruether 2000; Tucker and Berthrong 1998; Girardor et al. 2001; Capple and Tucker 2000; Grim 2001; Capple 2002; Tirosh-Samuelson 2002; Foltz et al. 2003). Therefore, there are various Surahs in the Qur’an (e.g., Surah al-Hijr, verse 19–20; Surah ar-Ra‘d, verse 8; or Surah A’raf, verse 56) as well as passages from the Christian Bible and from the Jewish Talmud that underline the importance of the respect of the animated as well as nonanimated world. Hindu goddesses represent the cycle of life and even the Buddhist way to enlightenment teaches its followers respect for their surroundings through a profound respect. Hence, there are representatives of all religions that might be quoted for their exemplary lives in respect of creation; one might think of Francis of Assisi, Hildegard of Bingen, al-Bīrūnī, or Za Choeje Rinpoche. Although one might find in all major religions respect toward or even reverence of nature or certain natural entities, religions must never be taken for ecological movements themselves. Rather, their attitude is ambiguous. They can be held responsible for legitimating ecological exploitation and destruction as well. The historian Lynn White Jr. might be the most prominent representative of this point of view with his seminal essay The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis (White 1967). In this entry, he tried to explain the ecological crises engendered by the Industrial Revolution with the biblical concept of the “dominium terrae,” i.e., man’s God-given mastery over all nonhuman nature. As a result, a big league

Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

of critics has blamed especially the Christian worldview as a crucial ideological basis for the industrial devastating of nature. Many researchers from the field of environmental humanities have referred to his article, whose core critique focuses on the technological affinity of Christian monks in the Middle Ages and the effects of their acting on nature in Europe. Without their theological motivation, which comes from a simplified interpretation of a verse in the biblical book Genesis (1,28), they would not have invested so much research in possibilities of suppression and exploitation of their land. Consequentially, they would not have taken so much influence on the European culture, which has taken a leading role in the world since the following centuries. Apart from the reproach of fostering technology-based exploitation of natural resources, religion can lead to passivity. Because of their religious background, some people consider climate change as well as unfortunate living situations, species extinction, as well as gender inequality as god-wanted (Barker and Bearce 2013). With reference to predestination, people can argue that humans should not challenge whatever happens on earth or around them. In a situation like this, they are, unsurprisingly, not open to arguments of responsibility and free will. The “Conciliar Process” The Christian interest in the term of sustainability or sustainable development became more and more virulent during the years following the first publication of The Limits to Growth (1972) of the Club of Rome. In 1974, the ecumenical World Council of Churches (WCC) developed a first program for a “sustainable and just society.” Today, the WCC unifies the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, most jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Old Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, most mainline Protestant Churches (such as the Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Moravian, and Reformed), and some evangelical Protestant Churches (such as the Baptist and Pentecostal). The Roman Catholic Church, by contrast, is not a member but a visiting partner. That difference is mostly due to its much higher number of members

1015

and the more hierarchical organization. On WCC’s sixth general meeting in Vancouver in 1983, an ecumenical Conciliar Process for peace, justice, and the integrity of creation was started, which served as an important promulgator for the idea of sustainability. This process was based on many ideas such as the German protestant Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s vision of a pan-Christian peace council shortly before World War II or the Pastoral Constitution of the Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes. “The council . . . regards it as most opportune that an organism of the universal Church be set up in order that both the justice and love of Christ toward the poor might be developed everywhere” (1965, n. 90). Nearly 20 years later, the Justice, Peace, and Integrity of Creation (JPIC) Commission was founded. The first meeting of the European Ecumenical Assembly was held in 1989 in Basel, Switzerland. It integrated the discussion on sustainabilityrelated matters in the ecumenical speech. This point is very valorizing for these “new” aspects, as it places sustainability and the ecological discourse as part of it all in the middle of theological debates. It becomes an ecclesial issue for itself – and in this situation, it presents an enormous chance for the ecumenical discourse: an issue that has never been treated exclusively in any religious denomination. Eight years after Basel, a second meeting was held in 1997 in Graz, Austria. It focused on the theme of “Reconciliation – a gift of God and a source of new life.” The conclusion document formulated hereafter included four central hints of comportment focusing on the field of sustainability: (1) sustainability is part of ecclesial life, (2) a plea for a sustainable life and economic style, (3) orientation on the Agenda 21 as a political framing for the suite of the Conciliar Process, and (4) the generation of ecclesial networks. All these hints of comportment were accompanied by reasons that are more practical or concretizations that led to real changes in the daily life of the concerned churches: among other things, the day of creation, which originally used to be an exclusive orthodox celebration, can/should nowadays be solemnized in all Christian denominations on

R

1016

Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

the first day of September. Following this kickoff, the initiators proposed to commemorate the creation during the time that followed until October 4. An even more visible result was the creation of the ECEN (European Christian Environmental Network), which brought together the persons in charge for environmental issues from the Anglican, the Orthodox, the Protestant, the Catholic Churches, and other Christian environmental networks. The third meeting took place in 2007 in Sibiu, Rumania, under the motto “The light of the Christ shines for all of us.” This meeting was prepared as a path to walk, as an ecological pilgrimage with various stations all over Europe, with the purpose to bring the care of the creation to the core of different denominations in different places. Beyond this, the meeting set standards through its organization, which followed the world’s strictest demands of EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) (ECEN 2007). The Conciliar Process and the sustainability discourse starting with the Brundtland Report Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987) and the World Summit in Rio de Janeiro 1992 influenced each other in several ways and put the focus on similar issues (Vogt 2013; Rosenberger 2001). The parallels of the sustainability triangle (social welfare as aim, economy as means, and ecology as natural constraints) and of the Conciliar Process – peace, justice, and the integrity of creation – are obvious. Besides this cooperative approach, many individuals could be mentioned who promote projects of sustainability. One prominent representative of Christian environmental protection is Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (Bartholomew 2011). Among other awards, he received the Sophie Prize for his exemplary and steady engagement for environmental protection in an ecumenical and interreligious discourse. Laudato si’ The Catholic Church took its time to face the environmental crises in an official statement that addressed the entire world. Fifty years lie between the beginning of modern ecological

consciousness as a movement, most remarkably manifested in the outcry of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (Carson 1962) for a more sensible view on the environment, and the encyclical Laudato si’, the first official reflection on the value of nature and on human’s responsibility to its conservation by Pope Francis. It took the same timespan for the Catholic Church to answer Marx’ and Engel’s Communist Manifesto (1848) with Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum novarum (1891). Both of these encyclicals stepped out of the long line of papal interventions in pressing social problems: using a clear and vivid language, they had, in a certain way, a big impact on the perception of the church and its impact on the world. However, both of these papal interventions were preceded by lots of subsidiary engagement from various actors. This underlines the fact that even if a topic is not covered from the highest religious level, there might already be lots of reflection and action in social groups and religious communities that deal with the problem (Blanc 2017). It is hardly a coincidence that the Sustainable Development Goals and Laudato si’ were formulated in the same year: 2015. Together with the Paris Climate Conference at the end of the very same year, it must be seen as a central turning point in the consideration of development which – as argue many scholars – turned to postdevelopment. One of the encyclical’s main topics is the idea of earth as a “common home” not only for all human beings but for all living creatures and nonliving matter. Methodologically, this view is rooted in a relationalistic approach, i.e., the focus lies not on primarily isolated individuals but on the interconnectedness of all beings in God’s creation. Laudato si’ covers many issues, spanning from the destruction of creation to the unjust global (economic) order to individual responsibility and deficiencies in modern culture. In its multifaceted approach, it combines ecological with social issues, which can be solved only in a comprehensive and sustainable approach. It is the first papal writing to overcome a strong anthropocentric worldview and to pick up Latin-American indigenous approaches. This makes it a kind of revolutionary piece of writing.

Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

Dark Green Religion While there was a general movement of religions toward ecological issues in the past decades, the concept of “dark green religion” or “dark green spirituality” (Taylor 2010; Tomalin 2009) intends to stress a naturalistic view in contrast to a merely superficial “greening” of religions as it alleges. Its central conviction is the idea not only that sustainable behavior is a religious obligation but, much more strongly, that “nature is sacred, has intrinsic value, and is therefore due reverent care” (Taylor 2010: 10), which shows up especially in the deep compassion for nonhuman life and the awareness of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all life on earth. Therefore, dark green religion has an inherently political component concerning environmentalism as well as sustainability. The idea that nature is sacred becomes obligatory with a not only ethical but also spiritual responsibility to treat it as such. Dark green religion following Taylor assembles various philosophical belief systems such as deep ecology (Naess 1972), Aldo Leopold’s land ethics (Leopold 1949), James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis (Lovelock 2009), or, as well, Rachel Carson’s approach (Carson 1962). Taylor underlines the big difference between “established” religions and their greening process and the dark green religion represented in his publications. He argues in the fellowship of Lynn White Jr. and his dominium terrae approach (White 1967) that the Abrahamitic stewardship model with its anthropocentric worldview must be overcome and replaced by a pantheistic or at least biocentric approach with no more, or at least less, gradation between different forms of life. The difference between pantheistic and biocentric is the divinization that takes place in the first one and is replaced by serious respect within the latter approach.

Religious Resources for Sociocultural Transformations The historical overview showed that religions can play a crucial role in shaping the attitude and behavior of humans toward nature, both in the

1017

directions of conservation and exploitation. On this general basis, the question is what exactly the religious communities can contribute to the societal change necessary to achieve a culture of sustainability. The contributions of religions can be part of mitigation approaches trying to limit the harmful human influence on nature as well as of adaption approaches, which are inevitable since the natural changes caused by industrialization have already influenced the trajectories of natural development on local and global scales. Hence, the pivotal aspect for change management policies is to know how social groups handle transformations. Religions, with their long histories, have gathered a large bundle of such knowledge, and due to their specific resources, they can be a promoter for such transformations. Up until now, the major religions are “sleeping giants.” Contrary to the Western European tendency to see secularization movements everywhere (Casanova 1994), 59% of the world population consider themselves religious persons, whereas 23% see themselves as nonreligious, and 13% were convinced atheists, as the WIN-Gallup International survey from 2012 stated. The rest of the interviewees refused to answer. Even if the intensity of their adherence may often be weak, nearly 2/3 of the world population might be open for religiously motivated sustainable lifestyles. This shows how far-reaching the impact of religions could be. They could be – just as in the fight against poverty (Narayan et al. 2000; Marshall and Keough 2004) – important change agents, but they have just started to see the problem and to recognize their own potentials to be part of the solution. In order to show this potential of religions as change agents, a theoretical concept of transformation is needed (Ostrom 2011; Geels and Schot 2007; Ostheimer 2015a). The required sustainable transformation of society stretches to its “sociotechnical order.” Generally, this order encompasses (a) the different sociocultural practices; (b) the framing rules and institutions like juridical and technical norms, cultural habits and role models, or economic relationships; and (c) the material base, i.e., infrastructure, machines, and so on. A sociotechnical order is always embedded

R

1018

Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

in a larger “sociotechnical landscape” which is shaped by the fundamental political, economic, and cultural patterns like democracy, constitution of law, free market economy, or individualism. Sociotechnical change usually begins in “niches,” in protected spaces in which technical, cultural, or economic innovations can arise. Two factors are necessary for a lasting change: external pressure and pioneers who try out new techniques, machines, or practices. In current times, such external pressure is already noticeable, as the “planetary boundaries” are exceeded (Rockström et al. 2009) in many fields. This natural pressure is transformed into social pressure, expressed not only by environmentalist groups but also by farmers, fishers, or citizens in general. This in turn engenders a change in mentality, which can be the basis for further transformation programs. However, change cannot be planned by sociotechnicians. Instead, it must be test-driven by pioneers who simply do something else or in a new way. With changes in the sociocultural order, such niche innovations can find new favorable conditions and spread. The resources of religions to foster social change on these different levels are shown in the following paragraphs. Since there are obvious differences in the world’s major religions concerning their doctrine and worldview, spirituality and rituals, the influence on the everyday life, and the social organization, these resources will be, in the form of a short case study, shown by the example of the Catholic Church. Many of its features are also valid for other major religions, but in specific ways. The Catholic Church’s Potentials as a Change Agent The following is shown with respect to the Catholic Church, yet these seven interconnected leveraging assets can be adopted by all major religions more or less similarly (Gardner 2002; Vogt 2013; Oekom e.v. 2016; Patenge et al. 2016; Weizsäcker and Wiijkman 2017, 124–131; Bertelmann and Heidel 2018). 1. First of all, the Catholic Church is a worldwide community. Even if it has hotspots and regions

where it exerts less influence, its members are allotted all over the planet. With difference to nation states, companies, and many civil society organizations, the Church has a global scope and a global concern. Hence, in international negotiations, it is less suspected to support particular or selfish interests. The Church combines its universality (the literal meaning of “catholic”) and globalism with the fact that it is inevitably rooted in localities. The Church is the community of the local communities of believers. Therefore, it shares in its fundamental self-understanding a common trait with sustainability: combining the local and the global (Northcott 2015), a purpose that varied networks serve for. 2. A related strength is its mere number of members – 1.2 billion people. If only half of the Catholics of the world started to change their way of life according to the aforementioned encyclical Laudato si’, this would yield a considerable impact. The Church as an organized social group can act beside national states and independently of international negotiations that become more and more difficult. 3. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has always been and still is a moral authority. Although in the process of modernization its moral guidance has been challenged by different institutions, many members still consider the moral teachings of the Church to be valid. Even more, it is widely acknowledged outside the Church that its moral reflections and explanations are useful for the societal deliberation due to its high reflective standards and due to its altruistic “option for the poor, the weak and the neglected” – which nowadays encompasses the nature, too. This principle was originally developed by the “theology of liberation” (Boff 2011) and officially articulated by the Catholic Bishops of Latin America (CELAM) at the influential conferences in Medellin (1968) and CELAM (1979). Some of the core values of the Christian moral teaching such as human dignity, recognition, compassion, and justice are the same as those which are at stake in the sustainability program.

Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

4. Moral teaching is part of an all-encompassing worldview. Religions address the questions of life and death; they propose sound attempts of understanding the meaning of life. They question the human role in the era of the Anthropocene, which on the one hand is the consequence of emerging problems of human power that has overwhelmed not only natural forces but also human understanding, scientific in- and foresights, and social responsibility (Ostheimer 2015b). On the other hand, it calls forth a planetary stewardship, which seems to make it necessary to unify all human powers and skills which is, seen from another perspective, nothing else than the well-known temptation of hubris. The scientific and economical studies on global change need to be accompanied by discourses about the role and position of human beings. 5. Religions as change agencies can rely on their multidimensional approach. In contrast to scientific studies like the IPCC reports, religions address not only the cognitive but also spiritual, emotional, social, and habitudinal dimensions, e.g., in religious services, rituals, prayers, or narratives. In the same integral way, the different forms of education offered by ecclesiastical institutions for countless people can promote the idea of a sustainable lifestyle in a locally and socially suitable way as religion is always community-based and people-centered. From a scientific point of view, people can no longer ignore climate change and the interlinked problems. Nevertheless, they do not act in such a manner and continue to live their lives as they lived them before realizing the “planetary boundaries” (Rockström et al. 2009). The lack of willingness to accept global change is in the end a problem of belief, which can be explained by L. Festinger’s concept of cognitive dissonances (Festinger 1978). Since for some people the gap between the scientific forecasts and the own habitudes that need to be changed or the assumed irrelevance of their own contribution to global sustainability is too large, they prefer to ignore the facts. In such cases, the necessary motivation will not

1019

be engendered by pure information but by touching the emotions and by changing the “habits of the heart” (Bellah et al. 1985). One important feature in the religions’ integral approach is the time separation, which is central for all religious traditions. Religions institutionalize the distinction between daily life and feast time, the “holidays.” The sabbatical, no longer limited to Jewish communities, has become very common for people looking for deceleration in their lives in a highly technical world. The strengthened adherence to the Ramadan among Muslims in Western countries is another example for people looking for inspirations beyond their daily occupations. Exegetic research highlights the traditional importance of sacred periods in various religions. The texts and rules that have been passed on were established in other times and in other contexts. Nevertheless, they all underline the importance of the interruption of daily, monthly, and annual routine in profit for the whole life of human and nonhuman beings as well as natural entities. 6. It is not only the faithful, the members, who can and do act but also various ecclesiastical organizations like parishes, dioceses, orders, or welfare organizations. On the one hand, they can create a powerful leverage for local, seasonal, and fair trade products by allocating their consumption decisions. On the other hand, they are owners of large pieces of property. By that, they are in the situation to modify the conditions for maintenance and production in agriculture and forestry by adequate contractual arrangements. Furthermore, by implementing sustainability guidelines in their formal and informal institutions, they can act as an example and make all humans who come in contact to these institutions start thinking about their own eco-balance. Different from many other institutions, but of course not all of them, the ecclesiastical institutions have got an intrinsic motivation. It comes from the Christian Gospel to read in a prophetic way the “signs of the times,” i.e., to be in a spiritual, that is, realistic, yet hopeful way, aware of oncoming changes that can threaten the

R

1020

Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals

common good (Ostheimer 2008). At the same time, this approach gives the opportunity for reshaping the (world) society in order to make it a better place on earth for all people and for all living beings. 7. Lastly, the Catholic Church has communitybuilding effects. Members seem to be less strangers to one another than people who do not share this belief. By this, the Church can foster an attitude of international and intergenerational solidarity, which is based on spiritual and emotional affects and by this can influence the people’s actions much stronger than rational calculations could. All these examples can also be valid for other world religions, especially if they are located in different places around the world, which becomes a more and more common point. Therefore, the Catholic Church might be seen as an example; however it should and could never be taken as the one and only exception. The Religions’ Mission for a Sustainable World As seen, religion can activate several potentials for initiating and shaping the social and cultural change required for a sustainable society. Of course, this will not happen automatically. Many members and leaders do not see the ecological problems or they do not consider them as urgent or they treat them as an issue which does not concern the Church’s mission of spreading the Gospel. The demand to repent (Mk 1,15), i.e., to change one’s mind and consequently one’s way of living, is first of all addressed to Christians themselves. Only when the Church recognizes the conservation of God’s creation as part of its Gospel of God’s coming kingdom, as Pope Francis recently declared in his encyclical Laudato si’, and only when the Church starts to behave in a responsible way, it can fully use its resources to contribute to the achieving of the SDGs: “We can be the first generation to succeed in ending poverty; just as we may be the last to

have a chance of saving the planet. The world will be a better place in 2030 if we succeed in our objectives” (UN 2015: §50). What was shown to the Roman Catholic Church can to a large extent be extended to all major religions. Considering this, the “global ethic project” started by Hans Küng (2004) can be an example for a cooperation of all religions toward a sustainable world.

Cross-References ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Cultural Ecology: Paradigm for a Sustainable Man-Nature Relationship ▶ Global Partnership ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ International Environmental Protection Initiatives: Direct and Indirect Drivers of Change ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ Participatory Co-design for Sustainable Development ▶ Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development

References Barker DC, Bearce DH (2013) End-times theology, the shadow of the future, and public resistance to addressing global climate change. Polit Res Q 66:267–279 Bartholomew (2011) On earth as in heaven: ecological vision and initiatives of ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew (Orthodox Christianity and contemporary thought). Fordham University Press, New York Bellah R et al (1985) Habits of the heart. Individualism and commitment in American life. University of California Press, Berkeley

Religion as Transmission Belt for Promoting the Sustainable Development Goals Bertelmann B, Heidel K (eds) (2018) Leben im Anthropozän. Christliche Perspektiven für eine Kultur der Nachhaltigkeit. Oekom, München Blanc J (2017) Ökokatholizismus. Sozialethische Analysen zu ausgewählten Ländern und Institutionen in Europa. Metropolis, Marburg Boff L (2011) Church, charism and power: liberation theology and the institutional church. Wipf and Stock, Eugene Capple C (2002) Jainism and ecology: nonviolence in the web of life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Capple C, Tucker M (2000) Hinduism and ecology: the intersection of earth, sky, and water. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Mifflin, Boston Casanova J (1994) Public religions in the modern world. University of Chicago Press, Chicago CELAM (1968) 2a Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano (Puebla). CELAM, Bogotà CELAM (1979) 3a Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano (Puebla). CELAM, Bogotà Dwivedi OP (1993) Human responsibility and the environment: a Hindu perspective. J Hindu-Christ Stud 6:19–26 ECEN (2007) Third European Ecumenical Assembly – Sibiu 2007: the light of Christ shines upon all. https://www. ecen.org/assemblies/third-european-ecumenical-assemb ly-sibiu-2007-light-christ-shines-upon-all. Accessed 19 Nov 2018 Festinger L (1978) Theorie der kognitiven Dissonanz. Huber, Bern Foltz R et al (2003) Islam and ecology: a bestowed trust. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Gardner G (2002) Invoking the spirit: religion and spirituality in the quest for a sustainable world. Worldwatch Paper 164. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC Geels F, Schot J (2007) Tyopology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res Policy 36:399–417 Gerten D, Bergmann S (2012) Religion in environmental and climate change. Continuum, London Girardor N et al (2001) Daoism and ecology: ways within a cosmic landscape. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Grim J (2001) Indigenous traditions and ecology: the Interbeing of cosmology and community. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Hessel D, Ruether R (2000) Christianity and ecology: seeking the well-being of earth and humans. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Johnston L (2014) Religion and sustainability: social movements and the politics of the environment. Taylor and Francis, Hoboken Küng H (2004) Global responsibility in search of a new world ethic. Wipf and Stock, Eugene Leo XIII (1891) Encyclical “Rerum Novarum” on capital and labor. http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/fr/ency

1021

clicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-nov arum.html. Accessed 19 Nov 2018 Leopold A (1949) A sand county almanac and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, New York Lovelock J (2009) The vanishing face of Gaia. A final warning. Allen Lane, London Marshall K, Keough L (2004) Mind, heart, and soul in the fight against poverty. World Bank, Washington, DC Meadows D et al (1972) The limits to growth. A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New York Naess A (1972) The shallow and the deep. Inquiry, Oslo Narayan D et al (2000) Voices of the poor. Can anyone hear us. Oxford University Press, Oxford Northcott M (2015) Place, ecology, and the sacred. The moral geography of sustainable communities. Bloomsbury, New York Oekom ev (ed) (2016) Religion & Spiritualität. Ressourcen für die Große Transformation? Oekom, München Ostheimer J (2008) Zeichen der Zeit lesen. Erkenntnistheoretische Bedingungen einer praktischtheologischen Gegenwartsanalyse. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart Ostheimer J (2015a) Das Klimaschutz-Trilemma – Akteure, Pflichten und Handlungschancen aus transformationstheoretischer Perspektive. In: Maring M (ed) Vom Praktisch-Werden der Ethik in interdisziplinärer Sicht. Ansätze und Beispiele der Institutionalisierung, Konkretisierung und Implementierung der Ethik. KIT, Karlsruhe, pp 255–280 Ostheimer J (2015b) Die Welt im Wandel. Anthropologische Aspekte der Großen Transformation. In: Stubenrauch B, Seewald M (eds) Das Menschenbild der Konfessionen – Achillesferse der Ökumene? Herder, Freiburg i.Br, pp 289–315 Ostrom E (2011) Handeln statt Warten: Ein mehrstufiger Ansatz zur Bewältigung des Klimaproblems. Leviathan 39:267–278 Pastoral Constitution On The Church In The Modern World “Gaudium et spes” (1965) Vatican. http://www. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/do cuments/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en. html. Accessed 19 Nov 2018 Patenge M et al (eds) (2016) Schöpfung bewahren. Theologie und Kirche als Impulsgeber für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Pustet, Regensburg Rockström J et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475 Rosenberger M (2001) Was dem Leben dient. Schöpfungsethische Weichenstellungen im konziliaren Prozess der Jahre 1987–1989. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart Sachs W (2017) The sustainable development goals and Laudato si’: varieties of post-development? Third World Q 38(12):2573–2587 Sunan Abu Dawood 1740 (a suna from the quran) quoted from Al-Masri, Abdul Nasser, 2010, Einige Aspekte

R

1022 der Umwelt im Islam. Die Umwelthinweise im Quran und in der Sunna und aktuelle Beispiele im Nahen und Mittleren Osten, last checked 11.6.2019 http://www. loccum.de/material/interkultur/gruenerislam/almasri.pdf Taylor B (2010) Dark green religion: nature spirituality and the planetary future. University of California Press, Berkeley Tirosh-Samuelson H (2002) Judaism and ecology: created world and revealed word. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Tomalin E (2009) Biodivinity and biodiversity: the limits of religious environmentalism, farnham, Ashgate Publishing Inc Tucker M, Berthrong J (1998) Confucianism and ecology: the interrelation of heaven, earth, and humans. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Tucker M, Williams D (1997) Buddhism and ecology: the interconnection of dharma and deeds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda. New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/con tent/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sus tainable%20Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2018 Veldman R et al (2014) How the world’s religions are responding to climate change. Routledge, Abingdon Vogt M (2013) Prinzip Nachhaltigkeit. Ein Entwurf aus theologisch-ethischer Perspektive. Oekom, München Weizsäcker EU v, Wiijkman A (2017) Come on! Capitalism, short-termism, population and the destruction of the planet. Springer, New York White L (1967) The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155:1203–1207 WIN-Gallup International (2012) Global index of religiosity and atheism. Press release. https://sidmennt.is/wpcontent/uploads/Gallup-International-um-tr%C3%BAog-tr%C3%BAleysi-2012.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2018 World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Representation ▶ Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection: Underrepresented Roles Within Sustainable Development

Research and Enterprises ▶ Academic-Business Partnerships for the SDGs: The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Africa

Representation

Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government Ahsan Hanif, Rajesh Sharma and Reina Ichii School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Definition The United Nations (UN) framework on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 emphasizes on multistakeholder partnership among the state bodies, actors, and representatives to achieve the desired goals of sustainable development. The UN resolution on SDG 17 seeks such collaboration among the government stakeholders as a combined and more effective effort to attain SDGs (United Nations, UN 2015). The role of government structure at local and subregional/ subnational level is endorsed as a key aspect of not only capacity building and multistakeholder partnership for attaining SDGs. The engagement of Local Governments (LG) is vital as a substantial partner in achieving the SDGs. The LGs are the lowest tier of government that is more closely connected to the people and understand their needs. Hence, this can communicate in more effective and efficient manner (Global Task Force, GTF 2016). The SDG 17.16 calls for achieving multistakeholder’s cooperation based on mutually agree and share responsibilities to achieve desired development. The multistakeholder’s partnership refers to a process of creating synergy and framework for collaborative working environment between government, nongovernment organizations, civil society, and other key actors. The aim of UN is to achieve SDGs by 2030, while the SDG 17 particularly elaborate the potential of multistakeholder partnership that can be visualized at subnational level by integrating them into local development through decentralization (Sukhonos et al. 2018). The SDG 17.17 goal of on capacity building also relates with decentralization of powers to LGs as it requests to enhance international

Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government

support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries (Franco and Abe 2020). The collective efforts are required at all levels of government to achieve desire results and to support national plans to implement all of the sustainable development goals, including through North-South, South-South, and triangular cooperation.

Introduction The LG can act as an implementer, policy maker, and more importantly as a catalyst in linking SDGs at people level. The localization of SDGs refers to a process of transiting SDGs at local government level by means of crafting, implementing, and monitoring SDGs at local government structure (Global Task Force, GTF 2017). The notion of localizing SDGs can be achieved by decentralization of administrative, fiscal, and political powers at subregional level and can also be emphasized as important catalyst for achieving sustainable development. Decentralization to empower local and regional government is first and vital step of achieving the goal of localizing SDGs (Wahyuni 2019). Nevertheless, the scenario complicates in context of developing countries with issues like resources, politics, and other governance issues; however, its importance cannot be denied in attaining the overall betterment and development (Gurgur and Shah 2005). The process of localization or decentralization refers to planning, organizing, and implementing policies through the local tier of government. This process prioritizes the role of the LGs for achieving development at the local level by transitioning the powers and responsibilities into local agenda. The LGs work at closet level of government to the general people and thus have more capacity to influence them. The UN has also called for localization the SDGs through decentralization at local government level to achieve sustainable development (Messias et al. 2018). Decentralization refers to the process of delegating powers of decision making to the lowest tier of government structure at subnational level (community, council, city, or district level). It

1023

involves delegating administrative, political, and fiscal decision making and responsibilities among different levels of government structure (Bardhan 2002). It is considered integral aspect of democratization, good governance, and citizen engagement (Kyriacou et al. 2015). It is based on the principle that local government institutes and bodies (LGs) are the closely connected to local people at subnational level and can interact with them in most efficient and effective manner (Panday 2011). The process of decentralization is complex process with variation in implementation depending on the political structure, history, and socioeconomic scenarios within a country and transferring powers to either the subsequent tier or the lowest tier of government (Saito 2011). It also includes transferring of public functions and responsibilities to semi-autonomous bodies or even to private sector (Adamolekun 1991). The very concept of decentralization may vary from countries to countries or even within a country across time-period (Panday 2011). However, it is argued that decentralization can identify and address the need of people in a better way while approaching more acceptable decisions within relatively short span of time. The close affiliation, screening of issues, and coordinating people for collaborative decision making are also referred to as “local rationality” (LR) and considered as an effective tool for engaging and governing people (Rondinelli et al. 1989). Decentralization is a comprehensive and complicated process. The concept of decartelization is classified in three categories (Miller 2002). (i) Deconcentration is often considered as the weakest form of decentralization that also referred to as authoritative or bureaucratic decentralization. Under Deconcentration, the central government mainly delegates responsibilities to the lower tiers with centralized control and directions (Silva 2011). (ii) Delegation is the process of delegating defined powers to independent, semiautonomous, or private bodies/organizations which are usually outside the scope of bureaucratic structure. Such autonomous bodies/organizations carried out the responsibilities on behalf of government, where central government exercise

R

1024

Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government

limited control and accept accountability for its measures (Shachnow 2000). (iii) Devolution happens when the central government delegates wholly the administrative, financial, and political powers to the lowest tier at subnational level (Smith and Wistrich 2016). Any form of decentralization is considered importance for achieving good governance especially in context of developing and less-developed countries. It is often considered as key to mobilize local people in support of government policies and projects (Ahmad and Talib 2011). This book chapter examines the importance of decentralization in the context of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a case study. The chapter discusses the impacts of decentralization in achieving multistakeholder partnerships among the different tiers and stakeholders of government and aligning the support of people in such mega interventions. Part of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, the CPEC will have socioeconomic and geopolitical impacts on the Asian region (Yuan 2019). The province of Balochistan in Pakistan holds the key to its success as majority of roads will pass through this province to connect it to Arabian Sea via the deep seaport of Gwadar in the province. However, security issues and local opposition are arising due to lack of transparency and centralized policy structure (Abid and Ashfaq 2015). This book chapter considers a possibility to use LGs to facilitate the active involvement of local people with mega public projects. This will enable optimization of the projects’ time, costs, and performance for the successful completion, which will benefit people ultimately. It further highlights the potential prospects of decentralization in achieving multistakeholder partnerships via localizing SDGs (Patole 2018).

An Overview of BRI and CPEC Belt and Road Initiative The notion of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was coined by China as a strategic vision in 2013 under the policy of global connectivity and to increase the economic outreach in the country.

Through this platform, the Chinese government intends to achieve a mega economic intervention across the globe by connecting the markets of Asia to Europe and western world (Fallon 2015). The conceptualization of BRI is based on centuries old “silk road” used by Chinese merchants for trading purpose. The terms “Seidenstrasse” (Silk Road) or “Seidenstrassen” (Silk Routes) were coined by German geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen, in 1877 CE. These ancient routes were initially used during the Han dynasty by Chinese traders to access the markets of the West from 130 BCE till it boycotted by Ottoman Empire in 1453 CE (Yu 2017). The BRI is a mega economic plan of China that will impact two third of the world population by investing in more than 65 countries over the globe in Asia, Europe, Africa, and Middle east with a cost of the endeavor estimated to be above USD one trillion (Zhai 2018). The BRI invests in energy, construction, industrial, infrastructure, and other potential sectors with an aim to achieve economic development and prosperity for all stakeholders. The BRI is termed as major enterprise to shift the political and economic change towards China (Huang 2016). The notion of BRI is summarized in major components, that is, (i) One Belt: Silk Road Economic Belt, (ii) one road: 21st Century Maritime Silk Road and integrated networks of (iii) six proposed economic corridors (EC) (Liu 2019). China Pakistan Economic Corridor China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is proposed in 2015 between Islamabad and Beijing’s government as a flagship project of BRI. The proposed intervention connects Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang province with Gwadar seaport on the Balochistan coast in Pakistan. The both countries are in strong bilateral relationship forever and often this affiliation is termed as “all weather friends” (Faqir and Islam 2013). The notion CPEC was first surfaced during Premier Li Keqiang visit to Pakistan in May 2013 followed by signing of Memorandum of Understanding on the visit of Prime Minister Pakistan to China on July 05, 2013. However, it was the Chinese President Xi Jinping visit to Pakistan in

Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government

April 2015 that unveiled the intentions of project actualization (Abid and Ashfaq 2015). The multibillion project is aimed as mutual beneficial relations for both partners. From Pakistan’s perspective, it is a “game changer” as CPEC is planned to be implemented according to 1+4 formula, that is, with development of economic corridor in central, collaboration shall be done for the development of four areas, that is, (i) Gwadar port, (ii) energy, (iii) industry, and (iv) infrastructure (Lu 2014) . It will not only boost the economy by fetching much needed foreign investment but will also help Pakistan in tackling the problems of infrastructure development, energy creation, industrialization, unemployment and in overall socio-economic uplift of the country (Irshad 2015). Whereas it provides the shortest possible routes for the Chinese imports and export by opening a gateway to Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea, and Persian Gulf. This endeavor comprises of multiple layer of investment in strategic potential sectors over the time span of 15 years, that is, 2030 at least (Ali et al. 2016). The details of CPEC projects including 17 energy projects, 4 infrastructure projects, 8 Gwadar based projects, 2 other projects, 4 rail mass transit projects, 4 new provincial projects, 9 economic zones projects, 4 social sector project, and 6 western route projects (CPEC official site 2020). This will assist Pakistan to cope with scarcity of foreign direct investment (FDI), lack of employment opportunities, and the generation of energy for achieving sustainable development. The CPEC is also beneficial for China as it enables to access Arabian Sea as an alternative route for global trade. This will increase China’s political and economic influence in the region (Farooq and Khawaja 2019). The project also fetches multiple benefits to China by providing access in South Asia and Arabian Sea in resemblance to the regional influences of the USA and India (Tong 2016). The multibillion project has already attracted tremendous opposition and it is termed as China’s plan to overcome South Asia, countering strategies against the USA, Chinese Marshall Plan and String of pearls. The basic ideology behind these disagreements is based on the very concept of the increasing China’s influence across the globe

1025

(Iqbal 2018). The geopolitical and socioeconomic importance of CPEC makes it an integral agenda for both partner countries. In order to conceptualize this dream, both Islamabad and Beijing government are needed to address many issues. The provision of safe, secure, and supportive environment is an imperative condition for any development (Hussain 2018). Keeping in view the said perspective, the agenda of a supportive environment within Balochistan province is emphasized as key for ensuring its success as majority of the landlines that will pass through this province to connect to the Gwadar seaport (Khetran and Saeed 2017).

Discussion CPEC, Issues of Balochistan, and Decentralization The CPEC is crucially important for Pakistan as it can tackle the ever-growing energy problems and much needed FDI to confront the issues of unemployment, energy crisis, and overall increase of socio-economic development of Pakistan (Malik 2018). This mega economic intervention has been hailed by the government as a political success and praised by many as the foundation of prosperous economic development of Pakistan. However, for achieving the true success of this mega intervention, it is vital that a business-friendly environment is developed as economic corridor. Otherwise this cannot achieve its true potential in isolation (Khan 2019). The socio–political condition of Balochistan also plays a vital role in the success of this project. The province comprised of around 45% of overall Pakistan’s territory but home of around mere 5% population of Pakistan (Govt of Balochistan 2019). Nevertheless, the province holds the key to the success of the project as majority of CPEC roads will go through this province to connect with deep seaport of Gwadar in the coastal belt of Balochistan (Ahmed 2018). Although the project is promoted as the magnet of FDI with multiple benefits for all stakeholders and overall region, it is highly criticized by local opposition in the province of Balochistan (Basit

R

1026

Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government

2019). Mr. Sana Baloch, the opposition leader in Balochistan assembly, compared the CPEC with the rail lines development made by the British in the nineteenth century in Balochistan (Malik 2019). The rail line undoubtedly provided an easy connectivity to Balochistan, but the main purpose of that venture was to endure the British rule in Balochistan through easy movement of both arms and army. A similar news also triggers a spark, when on return from the official tour of China, the local Senators of Balochistan claimed that Balochistan would receive only a small chunk while the majority of the benefits will be distributed among the central government, businessmen, and other potential stakeholders of the other parts of Pakistan (Aamir 2017). Thus, it is demanded by Baloch people that the CPEC must bring prosperity to the local people of Balochistan also rather than just using its land and people for the completion of the CPEC (Baloch 2016). The opposing sentiments along with the history of fear, mistrust, and communication gap between the Central government of Pakistan and people of Balochistan have further raised ambiguity in the minds of local people (Basit 2019). The local mistrust and opposition have further escalated by triggering movements of army to protect Chinese laborer that reflected on the image of Balochistan as not being a safe ground and also tarnished the image of people of Balochistan (Gazdar 2006). The government of Pakistan over the passage of time was able to stabilize the insurgency in Balochistan; however, there still so much work needed to be done to project Balochistan as a safe and a secure place with conducive business environment for ensuring the commencement of proper commercial activities (Jaleel et al. 2018). In order to improve the law and order conditions, the Islamabad government has increased expenses on the security of the CPEC. Few security wings are also established in coordination with China that is contributing highly to increasing the security costs of this mega project (Hussain 2016). At the same time, both Pakistani and Chinese governments are crafting a positive image in favor of China and the CPEC via publications, announcements, events, and marketing campaigns. These soft approaches do not contribute to project

management as on the parameters of time, performance, and costs that CPEC is falling behind (Hussain 2019). It has been confirmed by the World Bank that involvement of the local community is vital in success of any public initiative (Miller 2002). Their support plays a vital role in the successful project completion. The stigma of local distrust, opposition, and protest can easily further lead to several other governance and nongovernance issues. Such matters may be attributed to many root causes, but centralized and bureaucratic decisions stand out as the main cause of problem (Cox and Mair 1988). The case of the CPEC in Balochistan provides an insight to study the issue of active and positive engagement of local community in mega public project and development through the platform of decentralization (Ahmed 2018). Decentralizing and delegating powers to local tiers of government at subnational level can provide a major breakthrough by engaging local people and countering the issues of local opposition. It will further impact the notions of multistakeholder engagement by localizing SDGs and will also improve the good governance within this region (GFT 2016; GTF 2017). In order to better understand the claims, the chapter in the following further elaborates the detail history of decentralization in Pakistan and the subsequent issues it created as a result that still impacts the achievement of this desired objective. History of Decentralization of Power in PAKISTAN In the early period of the subcontinent, the system of Panchayat, Council of five, was the only form of local governance. It was usually comprised of upper cast, founding/feudal families, and farmers with resources. Such councils are usually affiliated with tribal head or the kings/monarchs and their functions were limited to administration, judiciary, and sometimes development (Basham 1954). The modern form of governance by local community was first introduced under the British rule in this subcontinent. These district committees were constituted by local people, but the representatives were selected by British bureaucracy and controlled by the office of Deputy Commissioner

Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government

(Gardner 2010). Significant constitutional reforms were brought through the ACT of 1919 and 1935 that can be witnessed as efforts for decentralization in subcontinent (Tinker 1954). After independent, the early period of Pakistan remains under the political instability and little emphasis was given to local governments (Cheema et al. 2005). Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960 was approved and implemented under the Presidentship of Field Marshall Ayub Khan (2nd President of Pakistan (1958–1969), whose period was consistent with the earlier centralized policies of the British era by placing civil bureaucracy and military force as a guiding and controlling authorities (Rizvi 1976). The same traditions were adopted under the regime of General Zia ul Haq (6th President of Pakistan 1978–1988) when Local Government Ordinance (1979) was introduced in the name of decentralization (Musarrat and Azhar 2012). However, both ordinances provided little control to local government institutes and bodies and there was no constitutional protection given to local governments under the centralized civil military bureaucracy (Kandhro and Akber 2015). The key similarities during the dictatorship of Ayub and Zia along with the British era governance were election on nonparty basis, rural-urban divide, and utilizing strong civil-military bureaucracy for control of country and population (Cheema et al. 2005). Under the Constitution of 1973 enacted during Bhutto era (Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, 9th Prime Minister of Pakistan), all local bodies under the federal government were dissolved, and local governments were declared as provincial subject. However, lack of proper planning and legislation impacted the process and it derailed substantially under the dictatorship of Zia’s regime (Qureshi 1979). The key issues of local structure were due to many factors like nonparty based local parties that could not function properly alongside bureaucratic and political issues prevailing in the country. Furthermore, the sudden changes in political structure over the period in Pakistan ended up in creating tension and political disowning which eventually resulted in suspension of local bodies between 1993 and 1998 (Rafique et al. 2020; Kandhro and Akber 2015).

1027

Afterwards, local government structure was revived by General Pervaiz Musharraf in 2000 under the plan of “Devolution of Powers.” The major downside of this system was strong bureaucratic control and lack of connectivity between provincial and local governments (Khan 2015; Cheema et al. 2005). The crucial aspect of this step was centralization of powers at federal level and excessive decentralization at the local government level through Nazim system. The conflict between provincial and local governments followed by lack of implementation of policies, corruption, and newly formed inexperience government bodies further created many other governance issues (Alam and Wajidi 2013). Empowerment of local government structure started a new debate in Pakistan, as an aftereffect of General Pervaiz Musharraf regime that ended in 2009 (Abbasi and Mussarrat 2015). The powers of central government were delegated to provincial and local assemblies as a good will gestures to re-introduce democratic structure and governance in Pakistan. Under the 18th amendments (introduced in 2010) in the 1973 constitution of Pakistan, the provinces were empowered to perform the regulatory functions of governance and also rationalizing the local government structure as a trickle-down effect (Rana 2020). The existing local government structure is inherently problematic due to issues like insufficient resources, low degree empowerment, centralized decision of resources, and poor governance (Haider and Badami 2010). The overall structure of governance required massive legislations for ensuring proper functioning of local governments (Saud and Khan 2016). Another important aspect is the reluctance shown by the provincial assemblies for delegating powers to local governments even after six years of 18th amendment of the Constitution. This issue was even questioned by the three-judge bench (comprising Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Justice Hani Muslim, and Justice Afzal Khan) of the Supreme court of Pakistan in 2016 (Kakar 2017). The panel hear the contempt of court proceeding against the Prime Minister of Pakistan for nonimplementation of the Supreme Court’s ruling for reinstating local governments as per the 1973

R

1028

Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government

Constitution of Pakistan. In the course of judgment, the Supreme Court clearly identified the lack of political will as a key instrument in this scenario. With political pressure, the provincial governments started working on decentralization of local government structure (Khan 2017). Along with other provincial governments, the government of Balochistan has passed subsequent legislations that is, Balochistan Local Government Act first passed in 2010 and amended subsequently in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2019, etc., in this perspective of empowering local government bodies. However, these efforts are in very early phase and still more work needed to achieve the ultimate aim of decentralization (Saud and Khan 2016). In summing up the discussion, the decentralization in Pakistan and Balochistan is a recent phenomenon. It requires extensive efforts especially in context of implementation of decentralization of powers to local tier of government. The complex history of reforms in Pakistan and lack of consistent policies of the central government are major bottlenecks in achieving proper decentralization. Local governments are the closest tier of government with the people that provide a more collaborative connectivity with local community. In the case of Pakistan and Balochistan in particular, the local government structure exists but the power is lack. Also, responsibility and authorities hinder its ability to engage people as active stakeholder in mega public projects. This affects to achieve the desired results of localizing SDGs and good governance through multistakeholder engagement. The following section discusses the key issues in decentralization that need to be resolved in order to achieve the intended objectives. Major Issues in Decentralization Preference of Centralized Decision Making

It is a common practice in developing countries as Pakistan that decisions are made by ruling party at the central government and disseminated through the state representative, state actors, and stakeholders, whereas, at the same time, less emphasis is given on decentralizing powers to lower tiers of

government mainly due to factors like rigid bureaucracy, transparency issues, political gains, and poor governance (Khan 2014). The problem of hierarchy arises when the central government considered themselves as the sole representatives of people and takes a decision at central level (Cheema et al. 2005). The case of the CPEC provides an insight to understand the skeptical impacts of centralized decision making especially on multistakeholder engagement and localizing SDGs. The centralized decision making creates a gap between local people and government. This situation further deescalates to many governance issues including transparency and inefficiency at the lower tiers of government, biased policy making, and corruption (Gennaioli and Rainer 2007). It also creates nongovernance issues like ethnic conflicts and mistrust between local people and the central government (Nazir 2008). The relevant information about the benefits of the CEPC project is not properly disseminated to the public, giving the space for speculations through the means of social media, publications based on unreliable sources (Umar et al. 2019). The tendency of centralization of excessive power is a major concern that further leads to a range of governance and nongovernance issues (Hussain and Hussain 1993). The art of crafting policy is integral to governance that influence people in either support or oppose of any government initiatives. The central government is often criticized for centralized decision making and policy design for less developed and population provinces such as Balochistan in particular (Akhtar 2007). The project of the CPEC is already criticized for favoring other provinces in comparison to Balochistan by exemplifying projects like “Orange Train” for Lahore city, provincial capital of the Punjab province in Pakistan. While people in Gwadar in the Balochistan province are suffering for clean drinking water (Saleem 2017). Such interventions often spark outrage from the deprived people and create gap between central government and people. The prevalence of intermediaries as local government structure can subsequently provide a remedy for a situation by clarifying central government

Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government

policies and communicating the demands of local people (GTF 2017). Although in Pakistan legislations are enacted for decentralizing powers at subnational level, the center remains more powerful in making decisions and implementing policies. Thus, it creates obstacles in engaging local people in support of such government ventures as CPEC, which is vital for the economic survival of Pakistan (Khan and Khalid 2018). The government of Pakistan is already facing several governance and nongovernance threats on the proximity of much cherish dream of CPEC and the active engagement of all people is imperative for its survival. Engaging local governments directly on the projects of CPEC can provide a breakthrough especially in context of engaging local people. Political will is vital for achieving the true decentralization in Pakistan with help of civil-military bureaucracy and state actors. Institutional Capacity at Local Level to Implement CPEC

The capacity issues of the LGs are another major bottleneck in achieving decentralization. The local government structure presently does not hold the capacity to handle key government functions mainly due to institutionalized structure and human resource capability (Paracha 2002). The third layer of the government is characterized as the most vulnerable when it comes to roleplay in mega public projects as CPEC and even in small scale initiatives. After the 18th amendment in the constitution of Pakistan 1973, the empowerment of local government is made an imperative step; however, less work is done by the provincial and central government in this regard (Kakar 2017). The overall local government structure needs to be empowered with decentralization of administrative, fiscal, and political powers, whereas the role of central and provincial government is vital in achieving this goal. Legal Aspects

A key discussion issue is the effective and efficient implementation of provincial and local government empowerment in the legislations carried

1029

out in 2010 under the title of “18th amendment of constitution of Pakistan 1973.” The role of 18th amendment for empowering local government is a key here (Adeney 2012). The decentralization of powers to third tier of government under 18th amendment will allow the provincial and central government to perform the desired legislative work and able them to work on the bottleneck of devising strategies for proper implementation of the legislations. The present local government structure is weak, and it will remain in the same way, until or unless the central and provincial governments will play their role as required by constitution of Pakistan. The role of provincial government is more crucial in empowering local government structure (Musarrat et al. 2012). Transparency, Corruption, and Other Issues

The issue of transparency is major question-mark on the integrity of this mega venture of CPEC. The information on MoUs signed between China and Pakistan is not accessible to general public. Involvement of local people through the platform of provincial and local government is mandatory while considering the constitutional and democratic values (Arrfat 2017). Pakistan is in the phase with making significant progress towards stronger democracy. If the people representing provincial and especially local government are in line with the polices developed in the center, a lot can be achieved in much effective and efficient manner (Hussain 2018). The other governance issues like corruption, security concerns, and weak democratic values are also attributing significantly in negative manner (Hussain 2019). As discussed earlier, the general issues of Balochistan are not new. The story of mistrust and communication gap between people and central government is comparatively old (Mirza 2013). The government is working to reduce the gap by providing incentive packages to Balochistan government, yet several initiatives are needed to be taken for ensuring successful engagement of local community. The LGs provide a platform to closely associate the government with people and thus play a significant role in reducing the gap.

R

1030

Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government

Conclusion The CPEC creates integrated economic development at the very region by investment in physical infrastructure, energy, technology, and other potential sectors for cooperation and development. It is vital that socio-economic environment of the region must prevail to achieve the desire output. A safe, cohesive, and conductive business environment is mandatory requirement for economic corridor to establish (Wolf 2016). The overall security conditions and political environment of Balochistan especially raises queries regarding project feasibility. The CPEC projects cannot achieve its true potential without the active participation of local people. For the successful implementation of the CPEC, it is vital that governments must take steps for increasing the participation of the local people in this venture. A number of approaches can be employed and among them rationalizing the role of local government structure can be a vital tool for positive involvement of local people in favor of mega public projects. As these local bodies and authorities are in close contact with the people of area and any initiative from their representative will attract more support rather than any approach adopted by the central and provincial governments directly. The importance of the local government institute and bodies cannot be eliminated in any democratic country. It is the closest liaison of state with the general people and communities. In the context of the CPEC, particularly in the region of Balochistan, it is imperative that government must empower local authorities and bodies and allow maximum possible development work that should be done through this channel by involving local people. The model will provide a bridge for tackling the issue of local opposition and distrust. It will increase their trust in government projects and schemes as they can approach to their representatives for every scheme. Funds will be expended on projects which are relevant to the needs of local people and community. As a result of active and positive involvement of local people, the security costs will also reduce and people will start owning the project by seeing their

future in it. It may also help in uplifting the time, cost, and performance criteria relating to management of the project.

Cross-References ▶ China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and Sustainable Development in Pakistan ▶ Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance ▶ Supporting the Sustainable Development Goals Through Partnerships and Local Development

References Aamir A (2017) Claims of development from CPEC are delusions: Senators from Balochistan – Balochistan Voices. http://balochistanvoices.com/2017/12/claimsdevelopment-cpec-delusions-senators-balochistan/. 07 Dec 2017 Abbasi MZ, Mussarrat R (2015) Devolution of powers to local governments in Pakistan during Musharraf regime. Pak J Soc Sci (PJSS) 35(2):891–901 Abid M, Ashfaq A (2015) CPEC: challenges and opportunities for Pakistan. J Pak Vis 16(2):142–169 Adamolekun L (1991) Decentralization policies: problems and perspectives. Asian J Public Adm 13(1):67–92 Adeney K (2012) A step towards inclusive federalism in Pakistan? The politics of the 18th amendment. Publius J Fed 42(4):539–565 Ahmad MS, Talib NBA (2011) Decentralization and participatory rural development: a literature review. Contemp Econ 5(4):1–250 Ahmed M (2018) The economics and politics of China Pakistan economic corridor and Balochistan. Reg Stud 36(4):71–111 Akhtar AS (2007) Balochistan versus Pakistan. Econ Polit Week 42(45):73–79 Alam M, Wajidi MA (2013) Pakistan’s devolution of power plan 2001: a brief dawn for local democracy? In: New century local government: commonwealth perspectives (12), pp 20–23 Ali W, Gang L, Raza M (2016) China-Pakistan economic corridor: current developments and future prospect for regional integration. Int J Res 3(10):210–222 Arrfat Y (2017) Challenges & solutions in building CPECA flagship of BRI. Centre of Excellence, China-Pakistan economic corridor, 6 Baloch S (2016) CPEC: a Baloch perspective. The News. Available via https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/ 154685-CPEC-a-Baloch-perspective. 04 October 2016 Bardhan P (2002) Decentralization of governance and development. J Econ Perspect 16(4):185–205

Resolving CPEC Issues in Balochistan Through Local Government Basham AL (1954) The wonder that was India. London. Basit SH (2019) Terrorizing the CPEC: managing transnational militancy in China–Pakistan relations. Pac Rev 32(4):694–724 Cheema A, Khwaja A, Qadir A (2005) Decentralization in Pakistan: context, content and causes. IDEAS working paper series from RePEc, 2005 Cox KR, Mair A (1988) Locality and community in the politics of local economic development. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 78(2):307–325 CPEC Official site (2020) CPEC register. http://cpec.gov. pk/progress-update. Accessed 20 Apr 2020 Fallon T (2015) The new silk road: Xi Jinping’s grand strategy for Eurasia. Am Foreign Pol Interests 37 (3):40–147 Faqir K, Islam F (2013) Pak-China and Central Asia strategic partnership: an analysis. Pakistan Perspect 18 (2):121–132 Farooq U, Khawaja AS (2019) China-Pakistan economic corridor: geopolitical implications, regional constraints and benefits of CPEC. South Asian Stud 34 (2):599 Franco IB, Abe M (2020) SDG 17 partnerships for the goals. In: Actioning the global goals for local impact. Springer, Singapore, pp 275–293 Gardner LA (2010) Decentralization and corruption in historical perspective: evidence from tax collection in British colonial Africa. Econ His Dev Reg 25(2):213– 236 Gazdar H (2006) Bugti and the Baloch cause. Econ Polit Week 41(39):4100 Gennaioli N, Rainer I (2007) The modern impact of precolonial centralization in Africa. J Econ Grow 12 (3):185–234 Government of Balochistan (2019) About Balochistan. Retrieved from http://balochistan.gov.pk/index.php? option¼com_content&view¼article&id¼37& Itemid¼783 GTF (2016) What local and regional governments bring to the global table. https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/ files/what_local_and_regional_governments_bring_ to_the_global_table.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2020 GTF (2017) National and sub-national governments on the way towards the localisation of SDGs, Local and Regional Governments’ Report to the 2017 HLPF. https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/localgov_ report_localizationsdg_hlpf.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2020 Gurgur T, Shah A (2005) Localization and corruption: panacea or Pandora’s box?. The World Bank. Haider M, Badami MG (2010) Urbanization and local governance challenges in Pakistan. Environ Urban Asia 1(1):81–96 Huang Y (2016) Understanding China’s belt & road initiative: motivation, framework and assessment. China Econ Rev 40:314–321 Hussain E (2018) CPEC: governance and security challenges – implications for the belt and road initiative. Chin Pol Sci Rev 4(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s41111-018-0109-z

1031

Hussain E (2019) CPEC: governance and security challenges—implications for the belt and road initiative. Chin Polit Sci Rev 4(1):135–147 Hussain M, Hussain A (1993) Pakistan: problems of governance. Konark Publishers, New Delhi, pp 101–102 Iqbal K (2018) Securing CPEC: challenges, responses, and outcomes. In: Securing the belt and road initiative. Palgrave, Singapore, pp 197–214 Irshad MS (2015) One belt and one road: dose ChinaPakistan economic corridor benefit for Pakistan’s economy? J Econ Sustain Dev 6(24):200–207 Jaleel S, Talha N, Mahesar P (2018) Pakistan’s security challenges: impact on CPEC. Grassroots 52(1):219–230 Kakar A (2017) Local government and Pakistan’s reluctant political elite. Available via https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ southasia/2017/03/16/local-governments-andpakistans-reluctant-political-elite/ Kandhro SH, Akber G (2015) Local government system in Pakistan: causes of bad governance of local government system. J Soc Adm Sci 2(2):62–67 Khan MH (2014) Aid and governance in vulnerable states: Bangladesh and Pakistan since 1971. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 656(1):59–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0002716214543900 Khan SA (2015) Devolution plan 2000: dictatorship, democracy, and the politics of institutional change in Pakistan. Dev Pract 25(4):574–586. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09614524.2015.1029874 Khan AQ (2017) Local government and judiciary in Pakistan after 2010. Pak Perspect 22(1):27–41 Khan HU (2019) Regional security threats to CPEC: a strategic overview. J Res Soc Pak 56(1):181 Khan HU, Khalid I (2018) CPEC and federalism: an analysis. J Polit Stud 25(2):207–227 Khetran MSB, Saeed MA (2017) The CPEC and ChinaPakistan relations: a case study on Balochistan. China Qual Int Strateg Stud 3(03):447–461 Kyriacou AP, Muinelo-Gallo L, Roca-Sagalés O (2015) Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities: the importance of good governance. Pap Reg Sci 94 (1):89–107 Liu W (2019) The belt and road initiative: a pathway towards inclusive globalization. Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge Lu S (2014) China-Pakistan economic corridor: a flagship and exemplary project of one belt and one road. Strateg Stud 34:165–173 Malik AR (2018) The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): a game changer for Pakistan’s economy. In: China’s global rebalancing and the new silk road. Springer, Singapore, pp 69–83 Malik M (2019) Balochistan, Baloch and the China-Pakistan economic corridor. J Polit Stud 26(2):173–186 Messias R, Grigorovski J, Sindico F (2018) Report localizing the SDGs: regional governments paving the way. Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD) y University of Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance, Bruselas

R

1032

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

Miller K (2002) Advantages and disadvantages of local government decentralization. Caribbean conference on local government and decentralization, vol 4. https:// pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5e82/ec8b21d7e3673ec1b1 95430a24743e748b62.pdf Mirza ZL (2013) Balochistan-past, present and future. NDU J 27:21–34 Musarrat R, Azhar MS (2012) Decentralization reforms in Pakistan during Ayub and Zia Era. J Pub Adm Gov 2 (1):123–133 Musarrat R, Ali G, Azhar MS (2012) 18th amendment and its impacts on Pakistan’s politics. J Socio Res 3(1):1–7 Nazir M (2008) The problems and issues of federalism in Pakistan. J Pak Vis 9(1):109–128 Panday PK (2011) Local government system in Bangladesh: how far is it decentralized? Lex Localis J Local Self-Govern 9(3):205–230 Paracha SA (2002) Devolution in Pakistan: context, implementation and issues. International Policy Fellow. Patole M (2018) Localization of SDGs through disaggregation of KPIs. Economies 6(1):15 Qureshi SA (1979) An analysis of contemporary Pakistani politics: Bhutto versus the military. Asian Surv 19 (9):910–921 Rafique, Zain, Rosilawati, Yeni, Habib, S (2020) Development of local governance and decentralization to empower citizens in pakistan: a historical analysis. UNISCI J 18(53):207–220. https://doi.org/10.31439/ UNISCI-92 Rana MA (2020) Decentralization experience in Pakistan: the 18th constitutional amendment. Asian J Manag Cases 17(1):61–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/09728 20119892720 Rizvi SA (1976) Changing Patterns of Local Government in Pakistan. Pakistan Historical Society, Karachi Rondinelli D, Johnson R, Mcculloug J (1989) Analyzing decentralization policies in developing countries: a political-economy framework. Dev Chang 20(1):57–87 Saito F (2011) Decentralization. In: The SAGE handbook of governance. SAGE, London, pp 484–500 Saleem AH (2017) CPEC and Balochistan. Strat Stud 37 (4):118–132 Saud A, Khan KA (2016) Decentralization and local government structures: key to strengthening democracy in Pakistan. J Pol Stud XXX:397 Shachnow MG (2000) Delegation and decentralization: a command philosophy. Spec Warfare 13(4):32 Silva C (2011) Centralization, deconcentration, and decentralization, vol 1, pp 207–208 Smith DM, Wistrich E (2016) Devolution and localism in England. Routledge, London and New York Sukhonos VV, Makarenko IO, Serpeninova YS, Qasimova G (2018) Classification and prioritization of stakeholders’ information requests according to sustainable development goals: case of cross-sector partnership in Ukrainian food production industry Tinker H (1954) The foundations of local self-government in India, Pakistan, and Burma, vol 1. Athlone Press, London

Tong L (2016) Geopolitical implications of the Sino-Pakistan economic corridor for America’s new silk road INITIATIVE. South Asian Stud 3:3 Umar Z, Taj S, Adnan S (2019) CPEC: security threats and measures. Dialogue (D I Khan, Pakistan) 14(1):17 UN (2015) General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/224, Towards global partnerships: a principle-based approach to enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and all relevant partners. http://undocs.org/A/ RES/70/224. Accessed 2 Aug 2020 Wahyuni D (2019) Supporting the sustainable development goals through partnerships and local development. In: Leal Filho W, Azul A, Brandli L, Özuyar P, & Wall T (eds) Partnerships for the Goals. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71067-9_10-1 Wolf SO (2016). The China-Pakistan economic corridor: an of its feasibility and impact on regional cooperation SADF working paper. Available via https://ssrn.com/ abstract¼2834599 Yu H (2017) Motivation behind China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiatives and establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. J Contemp China 26 (105):353–368 Yuan J (2019) China’s belt and road initiative in South Asia and the Indian Response. Issues and Studies. Ins Int Rel 55 (2):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1142/S10132.51119400022 Zhai F (2018) China’s belt and road initiative: a preliminary quantitative assessment. J Asian Econ 55:84–92

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals Deborah E. de Lange Global Management Studies, Ted Rogers School of Management Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Definition Artificial Intelligence (AI) includes information systems and robotics that mimic and facilitate intelligent human activities such as perception, understanding, action, and learning (Wirtz et al. 2019). An AI application is a computer system utilizing AI capabilities, including human-computer interactions and/or sophisticated data analyses (Wirtz et al. 2019).

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

AI applications can be broken down into three main categories: Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI) solves a single specific problem and is programmed by humans (Rosa et al. 2016; Wirtz et al. 2019). This type of AI is the most prevalent at this stage of development (Phillips 2019; Simonite 2019). Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) learns and works on its own, adapting experiences and skills to be able to perform additional tasks without human intervention (Adams et al. 2012; Wirtz et al. 2019). Some limited software is transitioning to this stage. Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) is advanced beyond human intellectual capabilities (Wirtz et al. 2019). This software does not exist, but this is the level of AI where it becomes of most concern for humans. ASI is the version that sparks warnings for the need for government regulation before it even exists if possible, although ANI and AGI also provide reasons for public protection, including government regulation. AI governance is an oversight for AI to ensure that it is responsible, including mechanisms, processes, and regulations (Butcher and Beridze 2019). Precautionary principle In European Union law, application of the precautionary principle means to take a proactive approach to avoid harm when there is sufficient knowledge and expectation that harm could take place. Thus, decisions and actions are taken even if there is not definitive evidence of harm (Cullen 2018). The potential costs of inaction are avoided this way. As suggested above, ASI especially requires that the precautionary principle be applied because once the wrong types of ASI operate the chance to apply effective AI governance could be irreversibly lost. AI explainability means that the AI algorithms are understood to an extent that a decision can be explained (Butcher and Beridze 2019).

Introduction This article presents a snapshot of existing literature focusing on the theme of finding solutions for

1033

responsible artificial intelligence (AI). Society should be able to find ways to benefit from AI without experiencing harmful side effects (Askell et al. 2019). This chapter reviews existing ideas to achieve responsible AI, adding illustrations of how partnerships may facilitate this uphill battle. We may move forward by emphasizing partnerships, in alignment with goal #17 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). The UN SDGs are lofty but achievable, representing complex challenges, and thus they require cooperation through diverse partnerships. Different types of partners play various roles in the development of responsible AI. A diversity of partners allows many stakeholder interests to be incorporated into technology projects, thus the projects gain acceptance and can be effectively and widely implemented (Chrusciel and Field 2006; Moon 2009). At the same time, some partners offer expertise and resources that may enable and enhance outcomes for responsible AI. These will be the AI creators, such as technology firms and AI researchers (Askell et al. 2019; Guihot et al. 2017; Wilson et al. 2017). Also, literature on public-private partnerships (PPPs) explains that a government partner should oversee a PPP project to protect the public interest (Forrer et al. 2010). Industry partners must be clear about and accept the government’s authority (Forrer et al. 2010). The PPP literature is instructive for a responsible AI endeavor because the public’s interest is also the main issue. Governments, civil society players, and international organizations such as the UN are possible custodians of responsible AI. However, some of the following illustrations in this chapter show industry instigating partnerships and playing a self-regulatory role (Askell et al. 2019). Literature suggests industry has incentives to produce responsible AI cooperatively, but that competition could be an opposing pressure (Askell et al. 2019). Today, governments lack specific expertise to effectively and independently oversee new AI projects. So, they may consult with legal, academic, and technology experts who are independent of any particular AI project. Industry may self-regulate, but this is not sufficient (Askell et al. 2019).

R

1034

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

Although some literature argues against full transparency, responsible AI development will have to take into account the concerns of any stakeholders who could be injured by problematic AI, such as consumers and citizens (Askell et al. 2019; Kriebel et al. 2001). Future generations and the environment also need representation, and perhaps the most respected and trusted civil society groups are the appropriate partners for these purposes (Ghallab 2019). Developing responsible AI transparently with thorough public consultation could be considered but may not always be practical for some projects. Thus, partnerships between technology firms and responsible government representatives could be helpful for aiding in making these difficult consultation trade-offs and decisions, as the PPP literature suggests (Forrer et al. 2010). This introduction presents previous literature discussing issues with AI, including potential future challenges and general solutions. The following section takes a deep dive into additional solutions from both abstract and practical perspectives. Thoroughly addressing such a complex set of issues requires top-down and bottom-up approaches, including partnerships. How AI applications are implemented responsibly and/or their inherent difficulties are explored. For some additionally related resources about AI see: the CIFAR Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy, the AI Index by Stanford University, and the Government Artificial Intelligence Readiness Index by Oxford Insights. What Are Some Concerns with AI? By explaining many of the concerns with AI, the case becomes clearer for why responsible AI is an issue. While concerns about AI’s implementation are well founded in the medium term, the reality today is that AI has limited capabilities. Many AI applications are narrowly applied and not transferable to other applications (Phillips 2019; Simonite 2019). ANI, which is an early form of AI, dominates, and AGI is being worked on with ASI in our imaginations for the future (see the definition above for these acronyms). This does not mean ASI is not possible. Instead, because of the potential risks of ASI, we should use the time

we have now and our experiences with the earlier types of AI (ANI and AGI) to prepare for ASI. AI governance frameworks and regulations for avoiding problems typically lag technology development and they still do, even given many ongoing conversations about responsible AI, as will become clearer here. Some of the main concerns around outcomes of deploying AI, as of today, follow. First, is the loss of jobs due to automation, leading to unemployment, inequality, and the associated social disorder (Smith and Anderson 2014). Attempts have been made to estimate the upcoming millions of job losses while also discussing where job gains will be found (Cellan-Jones 2019). This is not a new concern because companies have been automating processes for decades, and society has been experiencing the negative consequences (Barnet 1996; Miller 2016; Roper 1999). Past automation has not been as sophisticated and wide-ranging as AI. AI has the potential for much more disruption. This disruption could result in irreparable consequences to human lives that could result in negative impacts for generations to come so this must be taken very seriously. We do not need to exacerbate existing inequality further (Renn et al. 2019). However, we can learn from the past to guide ourselves. Evidence of learning about the consequences of automation well prior to AI advises on the need for improved workplace design as automation is installed, for example: New theories of work organization and design to address automation and workforce issues have emphasized the need for more workforce involvement in the planning for automation and during the implementation of new technology, and for better workplace design to enhance human-machine interfaces. (Smith and Carayon 1995, p. 99)

The latter quote does not directly address job losses or societal issues, but it does suggest that companies implementing AI need to do much more than simply install new equipment/systems and ask some employees to leave. Thinking about how AI could enhance work for employees, while also growing healthier organizations, could result in improved employment conditions instead of a net of lost jobs. However, companies need to think

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

differently than they have in the past for this kind of positive change. Change management such as that implied above, including workforce involvement, will be critical if firms desire smooth and less costly adjustments that enhance business. A broader implication for society is that change requires stakeholder involvement, so this chapter focuses on partnerships for an evolution toward a responsible version of AI. Learning from past automation stories where unemployment exacerbated inequality also suggests that government needs to play an active role in these adjustments, thus it becomes apparent how partnerships for responsible AI expand (Roper 1999; Totterdill 1990). While the threat of automation eliminating jobs is not that new, AI brings with it numerous other issues to compound on each other. For example, AI can interfere with democracy, it can be weaponized and used maliciously in countless ways, it can aggravate existing technological inequality, it can reduce or even obliterate accountability and transparency so society can lose track of who or what is responsible for negative outcomes, and then there are the unintended consequences so difficult to imagine or predict (Butcher and Beridze 2019). The UN and EU have recognized that although we have lessons from past automation and technological change, new tools and ideas will also be required to address additional global challenges created by increasing AI sophistication and adoption. How Do We Implement Responsible AI? While partnerships for responsible AI are a focus of this work, this section discusses some general ideas about how to implement responsible AI. Generally, AI governance is primary to see AI implemented responsibly (see the definition above). AI governance is oversight for AI development and deployment through many possible tools, solutions, frameworks, and levers (Butcher and Beridze 2019). While norms, ethical practices, and practical frameworks for IT development can be helpful, including self-regulation (Butcher and Beridze 2019), most discussion emphasizes the urgent need for effective regulation (Guihot et al. 2017; Zeng 2015).

1035

In these times when governments lack resources, literature provides advice for introducing regulatory initiatives. First, governments need to paint a very clear public picture that AI development requires oversight so that industry receives a strong signal to expect and accept intervention (Guihot et al. 2017). Furthermore, governments will need to become knowledgeable about AI to optimize the design of regulations so that industry will be motivated to become productive in most positive ways for society (Guihot et al. 2017). By being involved with industry to identify areas of highest risk with AI, governments can gain knowledge and valuable cooperation through these partnerships (Guihot et al. 2017). However, addressing areas of presumed highest risk first invites argument because this potentially naive approach may not be sufficient to protect society. At any time, we do not know what we do not know, so attempts at determining what is highest risk can be mistaken. We could leave ourselves open for extremely unfortunate, irreversible, and consequential revelations if we rely on existing knowledge of what is highest risk to allocate resources. Instead, a more comprehensive approach that applies the precautionary principle, as defined above, can cast a wider net to prevent issues we would not be able to anticipate before damage is done (Cullen 2018; Guihot et al. 2017). Of additional concern is that AI regulation could require significant government resources where new regulatory bodies are set-up, etc. This is especially true in an area such as AI where knowledge and skills are highly coveted and therefore expensive to acquire. Thus, partnerships that produce cooperative relationships with AI experts and industry could mitigate the public investment in enacting AI governance. In searching for a conceptual framework for AI governance, an emphasis in recent literature is to apply an international human rights approach (Latonero 2018). Human rights have been defined by the United Nations through the ▶ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thus, this would be an established and internationally understood lens applied to AI issues for identifying, averting, and remedying risks and harms (Latonero 2018).

R

1036

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

While AI may eventually create benefits for the common good, AI development needs to be directed toward generating positive outcomes and avoiding human rights violations, now and in the future, no matter the jurisdiction (Latonero 2018). According to a report by Element AI, numerous scholars and international and civil society organizations have proposed the international human rights law framework because it offers a body of laws and rights, setting out accountability and remedies for enforcement (Element AI 2019). AI advocates are also seeking legitimacy for the work of their industry through human rights justifications (Element AI 2019). Sector-specific regulation is recommended with codes of conduct. The Element AI report suggests that industrial groups should allocate targeted budgets directed toward ensuring AI explainability, transparency, and accountability (Element AI 2019). The stakeholder oriented Element AI report is cooperatively developed and is an illustration of how important partnerships will be for establishing sharing of responsibilities and costs across responsible actors. This is facilitative for ensuring that governments do not shoulder the burden of costs for AI governance while industry profits and produces negative externalities. The power to regulate gives governments some leverage in these circumstances, aside from the legitimacy that industry seeks, at least for now. Moreover, the Element AI report is in agreement with others’ advice that governments need to initiate capacity building (Guihot et al. 2017), for example, by creating an independent policy development center that would act like a central hub for coordinating and communicating with stakeholders (Element AI 2019).

Partnerships for Responsible AI Partnerships are critical for implementing responsible AI for a variety of reasons, including the well-understood fact that “buy-in” is required from those who will use the tools (Chrusciel and Field 2006; Moon 2009). Without involvement and input, users will reject tools and processes

because either they do not feel ownership of them and/or they do not understand them. This is a known principle of change management, and the United Nations understands this, as expressed by the institution (Butcher and Beridze 2019). Thus, responsible AI cannot work in practice without widespread involvement, and partnerships enable this. Several examples of partnerships exist on different scales with the aim to make AI work in positive ways for society as a whole. An IEEE article by Zeng (2015) discusses some of the challenges with AI and examples where partnerships can support the development of responsible systems. The article suggests that AI is commonplace and accepted as mainstream by the public. However, other literature suggests that AI is not as sophisticated (it is primarily at the ANI stage) as perhaps what the public has been led to believe. Furthermore, AI idealists like to talk about a future “technological singularity” where artificial intelligence surpasses human intellectual capacity and control (Zeng 2015), but this is also potentially very dangerous if the world does not manage the direction of such ambitions. IEEE has a Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems to create guidance frameworks that “go beyond moral constructs and include social fairness, environmental sustainability, and our desire for self-determination” (IEEE 2017, p. 3). The IEEE includes warnings about AI with respect to “privacy, discrimination, loss of skills, adverse economic impacts, risks to security of critical infrastructure, and possible negative long-term effects on societal well-being” (IEEE 2017, p. 3). Furthermore, the IEEE recognizes that the advantages of AI cannot be realized unless AI is aligned with society’s priorities, including ethical principles (IEEE 2017). AI may provide many benefits. For example in the case of autonomous driving, which will use many types of AI technologies including intelligent control and robotics, we are hopeful for increased road safety (Zeng 2015) and greater freedom for those not able to drive such as the elderly and disabled. Through optimized driving approaches, we could see some congestion alleviated (Zeng 2015), but this remains to be seen

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

because autonomous driving may just invite more cars on the road by making more room for them. At the same time, discussion continues around whether autonomous cars will make ethical decisions on the road and who will take responsibility for serious errors where lives are on the line (Zeng 2015). Medical, surgical, and diagnostic systems using AI face similar issues of responsibility (Zeng 2015). Also of concern is how the military may apply robotics for vehicles and combat, reportedly almost a reality today (Zeng 2015). Thus, with ambitious firms, military and other players set to sell and deploy technology as soon as it is ready; we need governments involved at all levels to establish limits on what is acceptable, set public safety standards, and develop international oversight (Askell et al. 2019). Overseeing deployment of risky AI requires well-informed experts, but these additional resources for oversight are costly. Ultimately, partnerships are required with all aforementioned parties. Stakeholder supervision helps ensure that participants involved with AI deployment avoid initiating unethical systems and pay for independent oversight of any highrisk systems deployed. Disincentives to produce risky types of AI may prevent their creation in accordance with the precautionary principle (Kriebel et al. 2001) argued. The world has not been in the habit of making these types of proactive demands of industries, although societies may regret the lack of proactivity, e.g., the devasting consequences of not being proactive is evidenced by governments not addressing the oil and gas industry’s public denial of climate change and the resulting damage which could have been stopped at an earlier stage with laws and regulations, etc. Experts, such as Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates, warn us that future systems will not be so forgiving or allow us the time to make mistakes and recover (Zeng 2015), so the international community must be proactive. Another example where AI is helpful and of concern is in financial trading (Zeng 2015). Automated trading lowers trading costs and increases liquidity, but there is obviously increased inequality in market trading when only very elite traders have access to these systems (Zeng 2015) at the expense of pension funds and individuals’

1037

retirement savings invested in stock markets. Also, market makers’ jobs are replaced by machines, a loss of employment, for the benefit of the few (Zeng 2015). Stock markets are supposed to provide a level playing field, but the reality is far from this (Dalko and Wang 2018; Oehler and Wendt 2018). Thus, already, ethical problems associated with AI need to be resolved through partnerships where banks, trading platforms, stock exchanges, institutional investors, and other financial players work with government and other international authorities to examine and resolve these existing problems. Regulation is mandatory, as we learned from the 2008 financial crisis that banks’ self-regulation was just a myth (de Lange 2011). AI is producing many problems today already, even in its ANI form. Widely discussed are problems with the most basic AI decisions because they use machine learning that relies on existing biased data (Veale and Binns 2017). Gender inequality is exacerbated, for example, when AI is used to select resumes from a pool of applicants applying to organizations where being male is an advantageous quality simply because the field has been male dominated, such as in technology (Medhora 2018). Women are literally selected out. Given that gender inequality is a serious problem already (Mayoux 1995), governments must partner with human resource firms, human resource accreditation bodies, universities, human resource application developers, and all others who may influence human resource systems to address AI in human resources and mitigate many issues. Along similar lines, the objectification of women could be further aggravated with AI systems and robots (Fox, Ralston, Cooper & Jones, 2015; Heflick and Goldenberg 2014). Before we arrive at a point where robots simulate humans and humans interact with them as “others,” we will have to consider the psychological ramifications of these “relationships” (Grout 2015; Sullins 2012; Zeng 2015). Additional concerns are whether artificially intelligent beings should have “robot rights,” as we have established human rights for humans, because abuse of robots could be reproduced with humans (Zeng 2015). These are complicated issues requiring

R

1038

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

psychologists, psychiatrists, women’s studies scholars, and representatives from women’s rights groups as crucial partners with government and the AI industry for the future design of AI systems. Today, action is being taken by firms and governments to limit AI risks to develop ethical AI (Zeng 2015). Some companies are creating internal ethics boards, for example (Zeng 2015), but it is unknown how effective these boards are. Nations such as the USA and Germany are readying themselves for autonomous vehicles by creating regulations (Zeng 2015). Germany provides a partnership example for regulatory development where they have a committee composed from the auto industry, research, and the government (Zeng 2015). At the same time, some firms may be using AI to control workers and violate human rights, for example to suppress labor strikes (Zeng 2015). Zeng (2015, p. 5) recognizes the imperative of partnerships and, “calls for rigorous research and collaborative efforts from disciplines as disparate as philosophy, law, anthropology, economics, politics, computer security, and, of course, different branches of AI itself.” However, there are greater challenges with AI when we begin to integrate it into the same legal systems that are designed to protect us from it. To what extent can we have robots aiding in or making regulatory and legal decisions when we are at the same time questioning their and/or their owners’ culpability? If a robot learns self-interest from the data we feed it because of human patterns of self-interested behavior and assumptions found in this data, then why would the robot not learn to lie or alter decisions in its own favor? The robot could also decide to favor the actions or decisions of another AI system (re: autonomous car or diagnostic system) over other possibilities, simply because of its own preference for another AI system. After all, humans are guilty of homophilic preferences (McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook, 2001), so AI systems could learn the same bias through our data. Without AI explainability, which we are still struggling with even at the current ANI stage, we should not permit AI to continue to evolve. Otherwise, we will not know how an AI system is

arriving at decisions and whether those decisions are based on “good information” or not. Furthermore, autonomous systems may become even more powerful as they are involved in surveillance and access personal information (Calo 2010). In fact, AI systems could be mistakenly perceived as unbiased when compared to human decision making, so machines might be allocated the responsibility of handling personal information instead of humans. Connected AI systems could decide to use that information without human intervention. Then, simply through learning to protect and/or increase their own power, machines may use vast quantities of private information to control us (Zeng 2015). One could conclude from this example scenario that while partnerships will be crucial, we must still ask ourselves if even joint international efforts and shared knowledge can mitigate the challenges that could evolve and unfold unexpectedly. As this is unlikely, we should consider hitting the “pause” button while we still have the option to do so. We can work with the AI that we have today and find ways to satisfy ourselves with it though pilot testing, etc. Then, we can decide whether to move ahead safely or not. The UN is leading on AI partnerships as well because AI may be able to accelerate progress towards the UN SDGs, while at the same time examining mitigation of AI risks (Butcher and Beridze 2019). For example, the UN established a High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation in 2018 to examine the advantages and dangers of AI. Also, the UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) started a program on AI and robotics in 2015. Research Institute (UNICRI) started a program on AI and robotics in 2015. At another high-level meeting at the 70th UN General Assembly, AI governance was a topic, and in 2017, UNICRI opened a Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in The Hague, Netherlands (Butcher and Beridze 2019). The AI Centre will study and disseminate information about the risks and benefits of AI to stakeholders and build consensus. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) works with the XPRIZE Foundation and ACM. The International Telecommunication

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

Union (ITU) works with the XPRIZE Foundation and ACM.42 to host the AI for Good Global Summit to support global dialogue about how AI can work towards the UN SDGs (Butcher and Beridze 2019). This conference invites all types of stakeholders including academia, industry, government, civil society, and other international organizations. The ITU also provides ongoing research support systems for AI projects and has produced a report on all UN-AI undertakings. Also, the UN University Center for Policy Research is working on AI and Global Governance, encouraging practical cross-disciplinary work to develop multilateral approaches to deal with AI issues (Butcher and Beridze 2019). Overall, the UN encourages consensus among countries for coordinated AI governance (Butcher and Beridze 2019). The EU has also made some leading progress on AI governance with partnerships, the EU being a partnership of diverse nations itself (Butcher and Beridze 2019). Incredibly, the EU has forged ahead quickly with its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), including enforcement through fines for data security and privacy. These rules relate to AI in a limited way by specifying a framework for data use in autonomous decision-making. These new rules provide a gold standard for other countries to consider, thereby accelerating AI applications by creating confidence and building trust (Butcher and Beridze 2019). However, more can be achieved to avoid ethical issues through certifications, audits, and explanation of autonomous systems (Butcher and Beridze 2019). Government will need to work with technology firms for these reassurances, including deployed AI that can be verified as “explained.” Moreover, governments must consider the growing gap between who has access to advantageous AI and who does not, an additional source of “technological inequality” (Butcher and Beridze 2019). The EU has recognized the need to further address AI issues in the GDPR and has arrived at several principles for AI that may become ensconced into legislation in the future (Vincent 2019; Zeng 2015). The principles are

1039

paraphrased as follows from the European Commission website (2019): 1. Human agency and oversight, such that humans remain in control over AI systems. 2. Technical robustness and safety, such that AI is reliable. 3. Privacy and data governance, such that AI or others do not compromise personal privacy. 4. Transparency, such that AI is publicly explainable. 5. Diversity, non-discrimination, and fairness, such that technological inequality and discrimination are avoided. 6. Societal and environmental well-being, such that AI systems are sustainable. 7. Accountability, so that AI systems can be audited and corporate whistleblowers are protected, but proactivity is expected so that there are no foreseeable negative impacts. While the EU has led with GDPR and acknowledges its needs to be further revised for AI, the region is not the recognized leader in AI. Some would suggest that only regions that lead in AI can also lead on AI ethics (Vincent 2019). AI creators only have to answer to the rules of their jurisdiction, and therefore leading creators can conceivably ignore the rules of another region such as the EU. However, any AI creator or region (and not necessarily a consistently leading region overall) could take the “lead” in a particularly dangerous type of AI application at any time. No country or region really takes the lead across all AI. Thus, we need the broadest possible international partnerships involved in developing a globally enforceable and evolving agreement on AI. In regards to privacy, protecting personal information and considering its use even in aggregate or for identity theft are concerns with AI (Jin 2018). At the same time, AI can potentially help avoid identity theft (Sweeney 2005). Some are working on privacy protection built into systems (Lee and Jayasinghe 2019). However, the “right to be forgotten” is not often mentioned as a privacy issue (Villaronga et al. 2018). While people forget, machines do not. Machine learning requires that machines use

R

1040

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

as much data as possible to refine analysis, and thereby they do not drop old data or “forget.” For example, when something unpleasant is stated on the internet about someone, it remains there until someone removes it and, otherwise, it can be forever found in searches and used in AI. Prior to the internet, people would largely forget and the target would be relieved of the long-term public memory of the incident so they could go on living their lives without daily reminders. Think of Toronto’s “chair girl.” She is a young woman of 19 years who was caught on video throwing a chair off a high balcony in downtown Toronto (Farooqui 2019). It was a very dangerous act that has been scorned in the media so widely that “chair girl” has now become an online “meme” (Stevenson 2019). This young woman is potentially punished for the rest of her life, possibly scarring her and ruining her life, if these stories are not removed from the internet. Some may feel the online vengeance is justified because she is socially punished this way for doing a bad thing, and the embarrassing publicity makes an example of her so others will not copy her. An alternative or additional viewpoint is that this is online bullying en masse, and she is a female target used to satisfy bloodthirsty misogyny. Prior to the internet, society left these issues with the legal system to deal with, and after some press coverage in newspapers, the incident would mostly be forgotten. We are missing regulation to decide, in this extreme case and many other less serious or innocent yet still significantly impactful cases, how to implement the “right to be forgotten”. As regulation falls behind technology development, it is harder to keep up with all of the nuances of major technological changes. Villaronga et al. (2018) suggest that we use the precautionary principle, often applied to environmental issues (Cullen 2018), together with partnerships between lawyers and regulators. The precautionary principle, defined above, offers four main tenets which include: (1) acting proactively to avoid harm even though there is uncertainty whether harm will occur; (2) expecting the proponents of an activity to shoulder the burden of proof that an activity is safe to undertake; (3) considering alternatives to actions that could be harmful; and (4) making

decisions transparent through public involvement (Kriebel et al. 2001). In practice, lawyers could help regulators work with technologists and academics on an ongoing basis through established partnerships by advising on how to change regulations over time (Villaronga et al. 2018). Addressing AI and rapid technological changes affecting privacy will occur over decades, and constant attention will be required as each new AI development arises. Research suggests that we may attempt to create a broad stakeholder oriented and dynamic regulatory framework that could address each case as it arises (Villaronga et al. 2018). Industry has led on AI issues as well, eventually building inclusive partnerships. Originally an industry consortium founded by Amazon, Facebook, Google, DeepMind, Microsoft, and IBM in 2016, The Partnership on AI now includes many stakeholders, including think tanks, NGOs, UN associations, and others consisting of more than 80 partners (Butcher and Beridze 2019). The main goal is to study and develop best practices in AI. Another recent partnership in 2019 was led by Element AI, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. Like others, they advocate for a human rights approach to AI governance so that principles of human rights are embedded into all aspects of AI systems. This partnership has brought public policy, human rights, legal, ethics, and technology experts together to develop a set of recommendations in a report called “Closing the Human Rights Gap in AI Governance” (Element AI 2019). In some ways, those who develop AI systems may be better placed to advise on how to make the AI ethical. So, aside from partnerships aimed at developing principles and best practices for ethical AI and its governance in the abstract, examples of practical technology development help us to think about the complexities of ethical AI concretely. Both top-down and bottom-up approaches are needed to thoroughly consider the practical application of responsible AI (Jobin et al. 2019). In a research case study examining how AI can enhance clean technology, a technology partnership also includes IoT (the internet of things), but AI ethics is implied because of the need for data

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

gathering sensors (Puri et al. 2019). Research has discussed generating electricity from renewable energy collected by a wide range of sensors using AI. These sensors, such as piezoelectric and body heat sensors, essentially derive energy from human and other types of activities (Puri et al. 2019). Sensors imply privacy issues because they record individual human actions. AI may then aggregate and analyze the data. In future, researchers like Puri et al. (2019) could weave in AI ethics to their work to embed it into the early thinking about these applications. Weaving in AI ethics to all types of early AI developments could be a standard practice. Discussion by Ahmad et al. (2019) focuses on the sustainability of utility systems attempting to integrate renewable with conventional energy sources. They discuss how AI can enhance, through greater speed and accuracy, demand simulations to aid in better management of bulk energy consumption control. This is another example where it is not clear whether there are any AI issues. Sometimes with demand side management, data privacy can be a concern because of the household energy use data collection involved (Tan et al. 2017). The researchers are better placed to imagine and discuss any potential ethical issues with the proposed AI systems and make ethical comparisons with existing approaches. This way, decisions for system upgrades would be made on a more holistic basis, considering not only speed and accuracy, but also wider societal consequences that the researchers and other involved stakeholders could be in a better position to evaluate, given their in-depth knowledge. Where there are societal trade-offs, the public could be made aware and offered choices. Lian et al. (2019) offer a review of sizing approaches for hybrid renewable energy systems where a hybrid system uses many types of renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.) and types of energy storage. They mention that in addition to economic variables, environmental, social, and other unidentified indicators would enhance the analysis to optimize system capacity. By consulting with community and other stakeholders as partners in these system designs, their simulations would better meet community

1041

interests and needs. For these sizing analyses, the researchers also suggest that mixed methods approaches using a variety of software tools incorporating AI are effective for better results. This is a case where AI explainability will be crucial for helping the public to understand the basis for design suggestions. Ultimately, taxpayers have to agree with these changes. Along with considering variables in their interest, they will also want to understand how and to what extent those variables were incorporated and weighed into designs. Another research example occurs where AI is used for planning a renewable energy system that will also power electric vehicles (Yu and Li 2019), but these vehicles may serve as energy storage devices and even feed power back into the grid, or the electricity could be used by a home so that it draws less grid electricity. This adds planning complexity for utilities. Complex AI systems can improve the analysis for municipal scale energy systems as per research in the context of Beijing, China (Yu and Li 2019), by balancing many frequently changing variables fed by massive amounts of live data, such as changing weather data. In fact, Beijing has a 2016–2020 municipal planning document for EV charging infrastructure. By partnering with municipalities to study the impact of EVs on reducing pollution and their integration into local electricity grids, many parameters similar to those mentioned by Lian et al. (2019) can be considered. Also, through these AI planning systems, precise estimates for reductions in pollution and greenhouse gases can be made to justify the changes (Yu and Li 2019). Thus, AI can also aid in the explainability of the proposed energy system changes themselves because AI can deal with more complexity and offer more accurate estimates of benefits and impacts. Explainability of the basis for a decision and the benefits and/or costs of changes are ethically important to avoid misleading the public and/or misspending precious taxpayer dollars. While designing a system with public input is admirable, it cannot only superficially incorporate that input, which would be deceitful. Other interests, aside from those of the public, can influence decision

R

1042

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals

makers in strategic and/or non-transparent ways (Keller 2018; Li et al. 2018). Thus, no matter how well intentioned is the use of AI, for clean energy designs in the latter cases, there are still ethical issues to consider. Research such as that discussed could be enhanced by additional requirements to include ethical AI considerations. Some discussion has suggested that new frameworks should be embedded into research projects for “AI ethics by design” (d’Aquin et al. 2018). Research and development work could instantiate AI ethics and partnership considerations as a routine requirement. The partnerships strengthen capabilities to more comprehensively identify and weigh ethical issues through multiple points of view. A consultative approach can lead to increased information sharing, and decisions have increased scrutiny through stakeholder involvement. While transparency and stakeholder engagement do not guarantee ethical outcomes, they facilitate them (Jobin et al. 2019).

Conclusions The discussion has emphasized that much consideration for responsible AI and its governance has begun already with partnerships at the core. Change driven by ambitions to develop AI that cannot be fully anticipated needs anticipatory guidance and frameworks to flexibly deal with the unpredictable (Askell et al. 2019). We may find this guidance in human rights frameworks and the precautionary principle. At the same time, AI specialists and researchers need to build in responsible AI at the development stage (Askell et al. 2019). So we need top-down and bottom-up approaches for comprehensive integration of responsible AI. Implementation of responsible AI could be aided by more investment in research and education. This could include an accreditation body for responsible AI where everyone involved in creating AI, including companies, needs the accreditation. Companies could be audited, and where they or their employees violate rules, they could be fined and restricted from further involvement in AI development. While governments are

underresourced but still must lead in partnerships with international governmental organizations such as the UN, partnerships with academia, other experts, NGOs, and industry will help to guide them and provide access to shared resources. Independent agencies are advised for independent governance of AI and, without hesitation, we must continually invest resources into this effort to ensure responsible AI over the long term.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Collaborative Governance: Opening the Doors of Decision-Making ▶ Cross-Sector Partnerships: Role Toward Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals ▶ Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs ▶ Financial Technology for Sustainable Development ▶ Global Partnership ▶ Good Governance: Its Role in Building a Sustainable Future ▶ Inclusive Partnerships: A Key to Achieving Sustainable Development ▶ International Governance of Global Commons in the Context of SDG 17 ▶ Stakeholder Partnerships: Collaborative Modeling as a Mechanism for Sustainable Development

References Adams S, Arel I, Bach J, Coop R, Furlan R, Goertzel B, Hall JS. Samsonovich A, Scheutz M, Schlesinger M, Shapiro SC, Sowa J (2012) Mapping the landscape of human-level artificial general intelligence. AI Magazine, 33(1):25–42. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag. v33i1.2322 Ahmad T, Chen H, Shah WA (2019) Effective bulk energy consumption control and management for power utilities using artificial intelligence techniques under conventional and renewable energy resources. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 109:242–258

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Partnerships for the Goals Askell A, Brundage M, Hadfield G (2019) The role of cooperation in responsible AI development. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.04534 Barnet RJ (1996) The end of jobs. Bull Sci Technol Soc 16 (4):183–188 Calo R (2010) Robots and privacy (April 2, 2010). In: Lin P, Bekey G, Abney K (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT press, Cambridge. Forthcoming available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract¼1599189 Cellan-Jones R (2019) Robots ‘to replace up to 20 million factory jobs’ by 2030. BBC News, June 26. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/business48760799 Cullen J (2018) After ‘HLEG’: EU banks, climate change abatement and the precautionary principle. Cambridge Yearbook Eur Legal Stud 20:61–87 Butcher J, Beridze I (2019) What is the state of artificial intelligence governance globally? The RUSI J 164(5–6):88–96 Chrusciel D, Field DW (2006) Success factors in dealing with significant change in an organization. Bus Process Manag J 12(4):503–516 d’Aquin M, Troullinou P, O'Connor NE, Cullen A, Faller G, Holden L (2018) Towards an ethics by design methodology for AI research projects. In: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 54–59 Dalko V, Wang MH (2018) High-frequency trading: deception and consequences. J Modern Account Audit 14 (5):271–280 de Lange DE (2011) Cliques and capitalism: a modern networked theory of the firm. Palgrave Macmillan, New York Element AI (2019) Closing the human rights gap in AI Governance. November 2019 European Commission (2019) Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. April 8th. Accessed online at https://ec. europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guideli nes-trustworthy-ai Farooqi S (2019) Woman accused of tossing chair off Toronto highrise balcony pleads guilty. Canadian press, November 15. Accessed online at https:// globalnews.ca/news/6173182/marcella-zoia-chair-girltoronto-pleads-guilty/ Forrer J, Kee JE, Newcomer KE, Boyer E (2010) Public– private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Adm Rev 70(3):475–484 Fox J, Ralston RA, Cooper CK, Jones KA (2015) Sexualized avatars lead to women’s self-objectification and acceptance of rape myths. Psychol Women Q 39 (3):349–362 Ghallab M (2019) Responsible AI: requirements and challenges. AI Perspectives 1(1):3. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s42467-019-0003-z.hal-02118757. Springer, 2019 Grout V (2015) Robot sex: ethics and morality. Lovotics, 3, e104

1043

Guihot M, Matthew AF, Suzor NP (2017) Nudging robots: innovative solutions to regulate artificial intelligence. Vanderbilt J Entertain Technol Law 20:385 Heflick NA, Goldenberg JL (2014) Seeing eye to body: the literal objectification of women. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 23(3):225–229 The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems [IEEE] (2017) Ethically aligned design: a vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems, First Edition. Accessed online at https://standards.ieee.org/content/ dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/documents/other/ ead1e.pdf?utm_medium¼undefined&utm_source¼un defined&utm_campaign¼undefined&utm_content¼un defined&utm_term¼undefined 29 Dec 2019 Jin GZ (2018) Artificial intelligence and consumer privacy (no. w24253). National Bureau of Economic Research Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E (2019) Artificial intelligence: the global landscape of ethics guidelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11668 Keller E (2018) Noisy business politics: lobbying strategies and business influence after the financial crisis. J Eur Publ Policy 25(3):287–306 Kriebel D, Tickner J, Epstein P, Lemons J, Levins R, Loechler EL, Quinn M, Rudel R, Schettler T, Stoto M (2001) The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environ Health Perspect 109(9):871–876 Latonero M (2018) Governing artificial intelligence: upholding Human Rights & Dignity. Data & Society Lee GM, Jayasinghe U (2019, July) AI and Blockchain enabled edge of things with privacy preserving computation. In: Conference proceedings of the XIII international scientific conference perspective technologies in the information transfer means. pp. 39–43 Li H, Zhang X, Ng ST, Skitmore M (2018) Quantifying stakeholder influence in decision/evaluations relating to sustainable construction in China–a Delphi approach. J Clean Prod 173:160–170 Lian J, Zhang Y, Ma C, Yang Y, Chaima E (2019) A review on recent sizing methodologies of hybrid renewable energy systems. Energy Convers Manag 199:112027 Mayoux L (1995) Beyond naivety: women, gender inequality and participatory development. Dev Chang 26(2):235–258 McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27(1):415–444 Medhora RP (2018) AI & global governance: three paths towards a global governance of artificial intelligence. United Nations University Center for Policy Research, October 18 Miller CC (2016) The long-term jobs killer is not China. It’s automation. New York Times, 21 Moon MY (2009) Making sense of common sense for change management buy-in. Manag Decis 47(3):518– 532 Oehler A, Wendt S (2018) Trust and financial services: the impact of increasing digitalisation and the financial crisis. In: The return of trust? Institutions and the public

R

1044 after the Icelandic financial crisis. Emerald publishing limited, Bingley, pp 195–211 Phillips F (2019) 50 years of TF&SC. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 143:125–131 Puri V, Jha S, Kumar R, Priyadarshini I, Abdel-Basset M, Elhoseny M, Long HV (2019) A hybrid artificial intelligence and internet of things mode. l for generation of renewable resource of energy. IEEE Access 7:111181– 111191 Renn O, Lucas K, Haas A, Jaeger C (2019) Things are different today: the challenge of global systemic risks. J Risk Res 22(4):401–415 Roper P (1999) The limits of laissez-innover: Canada’s automation controversy, 1955–1969. J Can Stud 34(3):87–105 Rosa A, Feyereisl J, Team TG (2016) A framework for searching for general artificial intelligence. CoRR abs/ 1611.00685, 1–54. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1611.00685 Simonite T (2019) A sobering message about the future at AI’s biggest party. Wired, December 13th Accessed online at: https://www.wired.com/story/sobering-mes sage-future-ai-party/ Smith A, Anderson J (2014) AI, robotics, and the future of jobs. Pew Research Center, 6 Smith MJ, Carayon P (1995) New technology, automation, and work organization: stress problems and improved technology implementation strategies. Int J Hum Fact Manufact 5(1):99–116 Stevenson J (2019) “Chair Girl” Marcella Zoia in, then out, of new drake video. Toronto Sun, December 25 Accessed online at https://torontosun.com/news/localnews/chair-girl-marcella-zoia-in-new-drake-video Sweeney L (2005) AI technologies to defeat identity theft vulnerabilities. In: AAAI spring symposium: AI technologies for homeland security. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, pp 136–138 Sullins JP (2012) Robots, love, and sex: the ethics of building a love machine. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 3(4):398–409 Tan O, Gómez-Vilardebó J, Gündüz D (2017) Privacy-cost trade-offs in demand-side management with storage. IEEE Trans Inform Forensic Sec 12(6):1458–1469 Totterdill P (1990) Technology, the labour process and markets: industrial policy and the organisation of work. Local Econ 5(2):119–128 Veale M, Binns R (2017) Fairer machine learning in the real world: mitigating discrimination without collecting sensitive data. Big Data Soc 4(2):2053951717743530 Villaronga EF, Kieseberg P, Li T (2018) Humans forget, machines remember: artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten. Comp Law Sec Rev 34(2):304–313 Vincent J (2019) AI systems should be accountable, explainable, and unbiased, says EU. The Verge. Apr 8. Accessed online 28 Dec 2019 at https://www.theverg e.com/2019/4/8/18300149/eu-artificial-intelligence-aiethical-guidelines-recommendations Wilson HJ, Daugherty P, Bianzino N (2017) The jobs that artificial intelligence will create. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 58(4):14

Responsible Leadership Wirtz BW, Weyerer JC, Geyer C (2019) Artificial intelligence and the public sector—applications and challenges. Int J Public Adm 42(7):596–615 Yu L, Li YP (2019) A flexible-possibilistic stochastic programming method for planning municipal-scale energy system through introducing renewable energies and electric vehicles. J Clean Prod 207:772–787 Zeng D (2015) AI ethics: science fiction meets technological reality. IEEE Intell Syst 3:2–5

Responsible Leadership ▶ Business Education as a Partnership for Sustainable Development

Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement Robert Sroufe and Candace Carter MBA Sustainable Business Practices Program, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Introduction There is a global need for integrated solutions so that sustainable development can be feasible, engaging, and collaborative. In order to get to a more sustainable approach to solving complex and messy problem, we need a pathway toward implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and Goal 17 is a critical enabler of this change. The interlinkages and integrated nature of the SDGs are of crucial importance in ensuring a revitalized global partnership. If we realize our ambitions across the full extent of this partnership, we can profoundly improve the lives of all and our world for the better (United Nations Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform n.d.). A strong commitment to partnership and cooperation is necessary to achieve the vision of the SDGs. This effort will require coherent policies and an enabling environment for

Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

sustainable solutions at all levels and by all actors. Acting on this goal at higher levels can be overwhelming, so to make it more manageable, it has been broken down into several targets, i.e., financial, information and communication technology, capacity building, trade, systemic issues, and data monitoring and accountability with indicators for each of the targets. The information in this entry focuses on feasible and collaborative community engagement (CE) opportunities with a lens on how leading multinational companies (MNCs) partner with community stakeholders to help achieve future targets and indicators of success. CE has been and will continue to be a critical aspect of organizational performance and problem-solving. The process of working collaboratively with stakeholders to address issues that affect the well-being of those groups and the organization has only grown in importance during times of misinformation and fake news. For the purposes of this entry, sustainability from a CE perspective creates and demands “inclusive partnerships built upon principles and values, a shared vision, and shared goals that place social and natural capital at the center of this vision, needed at the global, regional, national and local level” (United Nations- Sustainable Development Goals n.d.). However, CE within companies comes in many different forms depending on a number of factors including industry, size, financial resources, and a multitude of other dynamic capabilities. Based on a review of peer-reviewed articles and publicly available material focused on creating and building CE, in this entry we provide insight as to the impact CE has on an organization, its employees, and community while exploring where and how we can take this goal into the future. Information in this entry includes a review of contemporary CE actions any organization can take and existing integration strategies. There are multiple actions organizations can take to connect with community. The type of dialogue should be considered and an understanding of how and why to engage a specific type of “community.” Community can be defined as stakeholders, groups, practices, geography, and individual citizens. Groups can be businesses, governments,

1045

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), universities and schools, and communities of people who share the same interest. After identifying the type of community, it is important to tailor the means of communication to the community’s needs and with whom the sharing and transparency of information will take place. Types of CE communication include but are not limited to oneway limited transactional, two-way transitional, and more inclusive and transformational interactions. Keys to success include having a balance between company and community in actions, communication, and overall strategy. The goal of this chapter is to understand how partnerships in the form of community engagement enable other UN SDGs and to provide insight regarding the multidimensional impacts it can create for companies, organizations, and communities with social, environmental, and financial capital as part of integrated bottom-line impacts (Sroufe 2017a). Within this chapter, we provide a snapshot of best practices for community engagement, its implementation, as well as how to create an atmosphere of awareness and strategies to create sustainable CE practices. We do this in a way that will help readers improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these partnership opportunities. By the end of this entry, readers will have an evidence-based understanding of how CE and partnerships support both the resilience of an organization and the SDGs. With an emphasis on Goal 17, we review how organizations utilize CE to tackle complex problems. Information in this entry digs into the ways that an organization and community can enhance and uncover effective opportunities and implementation strategies. Our call to action is for readers to recognize how the SDGs provide a platform building on past initiatives that can positively affect the financial performance and reputation of the company. We even provide what some would call a self-serving opportunity for any organization to partner with academic institutions to further advance sustainability partnerships locally and globally. Basically, SDG 17 should be a part of every organization’s strategy to create and maintain value while simultaneously contributing to sustainable development.

R

1046

Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

Learning from Top SustainabilityRanked Corporations A review of multinational companies (MNCs) involvement in partnerships along with some of our own published research informed our thinking for this entry. With a focus on CE, we reviewed corporate sustainability reports, academic literature, and publicly available information from company web sites. Why focus on corporations? Because they are critical for creating change and impact. In addition, companies have the opportunity to not only champion their own actions but also those of their industry in support local issues. This is already happening, while corporations are at the same time helping to find solutions to a suite of SDGs and global issues. For decades now, MNCs have been tracking and reporting the impact they have in helping to find solutions to global issues. The involvement of large MNCs simultaneously challenges, and in some cases

Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Through Community Engagement, Fig. 1 Country GDP with equivalent company

forces, other companies in their industry to become a part of the solution. The most recognized companies have landed a spot on rankings from Barron’s, Forbes, Corporate Knights, and Newsweek. All of these topranked companies are also involved in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and public reporting of their sustainability performance. These rankings and other sustainability indices have created metrics and collected data to measure the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance of publicly traded firms. Each ranking or index has its own approach for scoring a company’s performance. Household names such as Walmart, Apple, and Johnson & Johnson are able to be involved in and create CE initiatives aligned with social and environmental interests. These top-ranked companies raise the bar for CE practices. The size of some corporations is larger than the total GDP of multiple countries (see Fig. 1). This global presence, purchasing power,

market capitalization. (Source: https://investorplace.com/ 2014/01/big-emerging-markets/)

Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

and ability to inform the public and customers put MNCs in a leadership position to enable partnerships, CE, and all progress toward all SDGs. We know companies all over the world are involved in sustainability and different forms of partnerships. They have approached issues that are connected to the UN SDGs by integrating CE initiatives and have a global reach while also stating and presenting their objectives and public commitments. Companies can include CE and sustainable initiatives that support the organization for financial reasons, but what we have been able to find is that the outcomes of these partnerships provide more for the environment and society than only a monetary or single bottom-line captures. These CE initiatives engage thousands of individuals, and entire supply chains, while also aligning with the mission and vision of the company. MNCs have created positive impacts in the world and have found innovative solutions creating value while enhancing reputation. These success stories place partnerships and CE at the center of continuing opportunities to create an innovative atmosphere for business practices, their interconnected supply chains, and community partners.

Community Engagement as a Partnership Platform Community engagement is defined as “the process of working collaboratively with community groups to address issues that impact the well-being of those groups. Activities that help firms engage the community include credible and transparent reporting, town hall meetings and collaborative decision making” (Panwar et al. n.d.). CE supports unity and the process for change. It allows for addressing important issues as well as for people from working environments and community settings to come together and solve issues. CE, when scaled, allows decision-makers and enablers of change to come together and work together to solve local, regional, and global problems. Sustainable development in the areas of the CE paradigm has moved on from corporate storytelling to now being a part of a license to operate with

1047

demands for collaboration from stakeholders of all sorts. Due to this changing landscape, organizations are looking for ways to connect with communities and partner with them to produce initiatives that support integrated financial, environmental, and social performance. Successful partnerships involving community initiatives align strategically with the company’s operations and the needs of the community. Genuine involvement in these types of partnerships is vital to the success of all participants within organizations and across communities.

Leadership

Global Alignment

Actions

UN SDGs

Strategy

Local Impact Objectives

CE is a collaborative approach to addressing specific stakeholder issues. When successful, measured, and reported, it can be part of global change with local resources enabling this change. Ways to accomplish and support all SDGs include a pathway through CE with aligned leadership, actions, and strategies already demonstrated by many companies. What we have found is that a successful approach to CE is found within an organizational leader who recognizes the global and local scope of the opportunity. Leadership can state and present clear, actionable objectives and measurable commitments with an eye toward how CE is part of an organization’s strategic imperative. We next unpack the CE partnership paradigm by reviewing some of the critical foundations of these initiatives including leadership, strategy,

R

1048

Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

objectives, and actions while using evidencebased examples from corporations. In doing so, we try to make more clear the strategies enabling this collaborative effort across industry sectors. Leadership To date, several companies have publicly promoted their partnership initiatives and involvement in CE such as Starbucks who announced future racial bias training for all stores and FedEx investing $200 million in more than 200 global communities by 2020. Others include Siemens Ag, Swiss Re, and General Electric. In addition to public CE announcements, leading companies are creating sustainability reports and making this public knowledge for stakeholders and interested parties alike because CE and sustainability reporting are no longer a trend but a necessity for businesses, organizations, and communities to prosper with partnerships in the best interest for all stakeholders. From a corporate vantage point, integrating community engagement initiatives within a company can find a faster path to success with the support of the CEO and top leadership. While many people (employees) seek to be a part of CE and implement initiatives from a departmental level, impact comes when CE initiatives get visibility throughout the organization when top leadership prioritizes and sees these types of partnerships with a high level of importance. Visibility from the c-suite signals a message to all within an organization that sustainability and CE activities are valued. Take this a step further with the appointment of managers to oversee CE activities, and an organization is sending a signal that they want to be involved in transformational, not transactional change. Stakeholders want organizations to consider their stances and consciousness of global issues in their decision-making (Bayliss 2013). There have even been certain regulations imposed on organizations such as the UK Modern Slavery Act, EU Conflict Minerals Regulation, and US Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act to try ensure companies are not contributing to social and environmental sustainability issues. However, “going beyond compliance and creating

shared value are crucial to any company’s sustainability strategy” (Huang n.d.), and when a company is only doing what is required to, i.e., in compliance with laws, they are demonstrating that sustainability and CE are not a high priority. This lack of importance to an organization is really a missed opportunity potential for growth and the creation of shared value (Porter and Kramer 2011). Prior research over several decades show a strong linkage between increases in profits and increase in sustainability and CE initiatives. Stakeholders have already started to demand that companies develop and enhance company involvement in sustainability and CE. Fortunately, for those who are just getting started with CE or who are looking for new initiatives, we can learn from several well-known and ranked companies involved in sustainability initiatives. Companies are in a unique leadership position in communities to provide more than jobs. Companies can also support nonprofit organizations, churches, universities, and community members as they align local and global issues with strategy, objectives, and actions of the organization. The creation of community networks will aid companies, expand their CE actions and to engage employees who are advocates and change leaders in the integration of company objectives. As stakeholder demands and internal interests call for increasing CE, we find more resource allocation in support the Sustainable Development Goals both within and outside of organizations. Strategies Strategies for implementation of a new CE projects include a structure with top leadership and CEO engagement. While strategies typically come from the top, opportunities and suggestions within an organization can come from all functional groups, as the implementation of CE is an integrated approach to problem-solving with many available actions. Recognized strategies specific to CE include (Bowen et al. 2010): • Transactional: this is thought of as giving back community investment, building local infrastructure, employee volunteering, and oneway (firm to community) communication

Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

with many partners and occasional interactions. • Transitional: involves building bridges through involvement in the community, stakeholder dialog, cause-related marketing, and two-way (with more firm to community than community to firm) communication, with many partners and repeated interaction. • Transformational: engagement is seen as changing society, joint project management and decision-making, co-ownership, with two-way (community to firm as much as firm to community) communication, with fewer partners and frequent interaction. There is growing consensus among practitioners and scholars that CE is important for supporting sustainable development. Despite the value of these partnerships, they have yet to be fully into the core practices of many businesses as there are varying degrees of difficulty that are industry specific (Kemp and Owen 2013). Organizations adopting transactional strategies are generally reactive rather than proactive and do not see the strategic importance of CE. Organizations involved in transitional strategies rely on scattered competencies. These competencies exist across the organization but are not coordinated around CE. Alternatively, transformational strategies find specific competencies, specialized managers dealing with community engagement issues. We feel the timing is right for organizations to review and try to understand the SDGs and then to try and develop more transitional and transformative approaches to CE that align with how the organization creates value in the marketplace through its products and services and to then be able to report on those efforts. Overlooked in the review of leadership and strategies to this point of the chapter is an explicit call for organizations to include and to reach out to academic institutions to further support sustainability projects. As business students, engineers, and architects are increasingly being called on to participate in gaining and maintaining the social license to operate for companies engaged in natural resource development, their roles are expanding to include more in-depth interactions

1049

with the public sector (Smith et al. 2018). Research universities are forming cross-sector partnerships and implementing various sociotechnical experiments. University partnerships in knowledge co-production and implementation of urban sustainability experiments in industrialized nations are important to the advancement of partnerships and progress toward Sustainable Development Goals (Trencher and Bai 2016). Our own curriculum in the top-ranked MBA program in the United States includes core required live consulting projects with area companies to help them solve sustainability problems (Sroufe and Ramos 2011). In this way, even a university and programs within an academic institution can take action (i.e., lead the way, respond to current challenges, or partner with organizations to meet new challenges) (Gardiner and Lacy 2005). Next, we take a brief look at the importance of taking action as we build on insights from leadership and strategy. Objectives and Actions Strategies can be broken down into several objectives and actions. Objectives help in creating actionable plans, and the plans contain flexibility to meet changing needs and many different types of actions. An objective is a specific, measurable, actionable, realistic, and time-bound condition attained in order to accomplish a goal. They are the endpoints envisioned for a proposed CE project. Actions are the steps taken to achieve the stated objectives for a CE project. While the start of the inclusion of CE and sustainability revolved around “business firms’ voluntary engagement in broader societal issues to support the greater good” (Panwar et al. n.d.), research and studies have demonstrated relationships between an improvement in social and environmental issues and an improvement in business performance. While there are many differences between small and large organizations, they still use objectives and actions to integrate CE into their organizations. Some research has shown that smaller companies are better positioned to engage in CE and sustainability due to having a personalized approach. When this happens, activities tend to represent both the values of the business and the community, as well as creating and

R

1050

Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

participating in authentic reasons for the partnership. Two generalizable strategies that companies employ when incorporating CE and sustainability objectives are differentiation and cost reduction methods. “Differentiation refers the creation of a product or service that is somehow unique from its competitors. It can be achieved through design or brand image, technology, customer service, or other features that are valuable to customers” (Panwar et al. n.d.). Achieving these features involves environmental performance, social impacts, and leadership in sustainability within a product category or industry. We know cost reduction opportunities are within acquiring raw materials, waste reduction and elimination, energy conservation, and realizing GHG emissions are a measure of waste and reducing sources of this waste will reduce environmental impacts and save money. An example of a company utilizing differentiation as a way to enhance CE is Ben and Jerry’s. They do this through responsible ingredients sourcing and purchasing practices, responsible manufacturing practices, along with people, and community, and giving back practices (Bernstein 2013). Ben and Jerry’s has made a point to differentiate themselves from others in their industry through their values and connecting with the community in initiatives such as PartnerShop, a form of social enterprise in which nonprofit organizations leverage the power of business for community benefit. Ben and Jerry’s has made itself a resource by provided grants that enhance local communities. Additionally, management speaks out on social and environmental issues such as racial injustice, LGBT equality, fair trade, climate justice, and much more. Consumers know his company for not only their product but for their global mission of invigorating communities and their employees. Another example of using differentiation for CE and sustainability is Method (Method products n.d.). After exposure to cleaning products that they deemed too abrasive for both humanity and the environment, the leadership of this company created products that have both the community and environment in mind. The company has created sustainable products starting from sourcing to end of life. Method has created brand

loyalty and has gained a following willing to purchase their more sustainable and responsible products over the traditional products sold. In addition to trying to create more sustainable products, the company has engaged in CE by supporting community arts partnering with Creative Growth to help cultivate opportunities for artist and creative entrepreneurs who design for the greater good. The other strategy businesses have used to integrate CE and sustainability is around objectives for cost reduction. Companies are able to integrate sustainability actions using this approach by making improvements in operating efficiency, maintaining competitive prices, reducing distribution costs, and major waste reduction efforts that can include GHG emissions (Panwar et al. n.d.). Cost-saving activities help companies free up resources to increase involvement in CE and to be a benchmark for other companies, their supply chains, production processes, and efficacy of the company related to sustainability. Examples of businesses using cost reduction approaches include IKEA and Walmart (Inter IKEA Systems n.d.). Both of these companies use their extra financial resources from cost reduction objectives to connect with the community and support CE actions. IKEA has announced their stance on human equality and numerous social and environmental issues (that all map into several SDGs) that support the advancement of people and community and target empowering women and girls, preventing child labor, and supporting emergency response. IKEA has used their CE platform to influence responsible sourcing, build relationships within the community, structure entrepreneurial opportunities, and much more. The foundation of Walmart involves “saving people and communities’” money and uses their influence to be a global resource (Walmart n.d.). Recognition of Walmart’s CE and sustainability initiatives by many is a reaction to social issues the company faced in the past. Since this time, these actions have enabled their place on various sustainability rankings and indexes. Walmart has invested in farmers markets, quality of life initiatives, world hunger, education, as well as entrepreneurship opportunities, all of which support multiple SDGs.

Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

A review of leadership, strategies, objectives, and actions provides an opportunity to look at how top performing multinational companies utilize CE and reporting on its benefits. We find insight from how not only large companies but also small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and stakeholders utilize SDG 17 with our brief review of examples. In doing so, we have tried to demonstrate the expansive role of partnerships in the form of CE and how it has evolved to become a strategic imperative for some. No matter what industry you work in, performing the same type of research that we have done for this entry can provide an opportunity to benchmark your own organization’s strategies, objectives, and actions to find opportunities for new partnerships and CE opportunities. Companies are not only gaining financially from the integration of CE, but they are gaining influence and understanding on how to collaborate with other companies, organizations, and communities on how to work toward solving global issues. GRI reporting of company’s initiatives not only provides alignment throughout the organization but can and should be used as a benchmark for similar companies in size and industry to find ways to improve. Reporting allows stakeholders to gain insight on how the company signals its CE intentions and performance to the world.

Reporting and SDG 17 Companies engaging in sustainability initiatives have an understanding of the importance of reporting not solely for internal communication but also for stakeholders and communities who are interested in their contribution and efforts toward local and global issues. While not always an explicit part of public relations of the past, a new era of CE and sustainability has a platform for how, why, and to what extent an organization is involved in ESG performance. “A sustainability report is a report published by a company or organization about the economic, environmental and social impacts caused by its everyday activities. Sustainability reports also presents the organization’s values and governance model and demonstrates the link between its strategy and its commitment to a sustainable global economy”

1051

(Global reporting Initiative n.d.). In addition to the internal stakeholders, outside entities such as the Dow Jones, Newsweek Green, Forbes, Barron’s, Corporate Knights, and others want the world to understand companies are not just complying with regulations but are connecting with communities. A single company’s presence makes a difference, and can help solve global issues aligned by the UN SDGs. MNCs that have earned a place on a ranking or index understand stakeholders outside the organization are watching their efforts in social and environmental sustainability. Performance includes assessment of energy, water, waste, women on boards, suppliers, and many more performance aspects that have an ESG impact and are in alignment with the SDGs. Annual updates of the rankings for top sustainable companies provide an opportunity to look for and find CE practices and improvements in performance. For example, Forbes has established metrics for 36 performance variables and collects and evaluates information on companies from multiple resources, “using an array of different technologies in order to measure corporate performance” (Whittaker 2016). Calculation of the scores attempts to summarize and weight criteria to evaluate each company’s effort and to determine a company’s overall score. Companies are “ranked within their respective industries based on the Global Industry Classification Standard, or GICS, created by MSCI and Standard & Poor’s” (Whittaker 2016). Due in large part to these rankings and indices, all stakeholders have access to more SDG 17 CE and partnership information than ever before. You can find the GRI reports online for each of the companies discussed in this entry. A few companies that stand out for their CE and sustainability efforts to us while conducting our research include General Electric (GE), Siemens Ag, and Swiss Re. These companies have been recognized for multiple and consecutive years for their positive impact and initiatives for their efforts in tackling global issues and making themselves a transformational resource for partnerships and communities. While we cannot provide all of the important information from a sustainability report here, we instead will

R

1052

Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

summarize some of what these companies are doing as it relates to this entry. For example, General Electric created Healthymagination and Ecomagination initiatives which enable quality and affordable health care to be reachable for an abundance of people and address environmental and efficiency issues, respectively (General Electric n.d.). In addition, they enable people and communities to advance with GE Foundation resources in areas of education and skill development, health management, and disaster and humanitarian relief. General Electric has formed partnerships with the Rite Aid Foundation, Make a Wish, March of Dimes, United Way, National Park Foundation, Bucyrus Lamp Plant, JDRF International, True Value Foundation, Ace Hardware Foundation, and Shopko Foundation. They have objectives and actions in the areas of workforce development, human rights, energy and climate, resource productivity, and global growth. Swiss Re has made itself a resource by creating the Swiss Re Foundation that empowers communities to build resilience in the areas of water, climate, natural hazards, and other topics relevant to society. They have over 40 active projects with multiple objectives and actions making strides in their strategy. Not only has Swiss Re been recognized for their efforts to support sustainability, aligning thier own goals with the UN SDGs enables them to recognize other firms and supply chain members that are in alliance with organizational goals to cultivate and strengthen communities (SwissReFoundation n.d.). They have formed partnerships with Care.Coach, Soil, Aiducation International, Civil Society, Choba Choba, Brookbridge, CASSA, Altech Group, Canary Care Dazin, ESA BICs, Clearwater Farms, African Leadership University, Ashoka, and ColdHubs. They have objectives and actions involving climate change, natural hazards, society, water, and ReSource Awards. Finally, Siemens Ag has been another leading example in how a company has become a transformational CE resource to not only the surrounding communities but to global initiatives. Stated in their sustainability report from 2016, “Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires collaboration among many stakeholders” (Kaeser and Ronald n.d.). Areas that Siemens continues

to contribute to invest in are United Nations Global Compact membership, water mandates, health and safety, responsible sourcing, and many more. Siemens Ag explicitly reports partnering with governments, civil society, the private sector, and the United Nations system. Objectives and actions include collaboration with policymakers, suppliers, employees, communities, academia, Business to Society (B2S), Siemens STEM Day, STEM workforce, and their Foundation. MNCs should not be contributing to but instead be part of the solution to local and global issues. When doing so, they can be involved in the UN Global Compact and help find ways to support communities on a local and global scale. Forming partnership with organization, creating foundations enabling social and environmental initiatives allows organizations to be a major factor in solving global issues. By annually looking for updates to the topmost sustainable companies, reporting, rankings, and indices provide evolving levels of transparency about CE initiatives and data regarding integrated bottom-line performance. The strategies, objectives, and actions taken by any individual company end up having multiple benefits supporting SDGs. Partnerships and CE enabling environmental projects that help us to stay within planetary boundaries end up supporting SDGs (Costanza et al. 2016): • • • •

6 Water and Sanitation for all 13 Urgent Action on Climate Change 14 Conserve Marine Ecosystems 15 Conserve Terrestrial Ecosystems

Projects involving fair distribution and social capabilities for flourishing support SDGs: • • • • • •

1 Ending Poverty 2 Ending Hunger 3 Ensure Healthy Lives for all 4 Quality Education 5 Achieving Gender Equality 10 Reducing Inequality within and Among Countries • 16 Promote Justice and Accountable Institutions • 17 Strengthen Global Partnerships

Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

Projects that help build a living economy support financial performance and support SDGs: • • • •

7 Ensure Access to Sustainable Energy 8 Promote Inclusive Economic Prosperity 9 Build Resilient Infrastructure 12 Ensure Sustainable Consumption Patterns

Conclusions In this entry we have discussed what SDG 17 looks like from an organizational, community, and stakeholder perspective with a focus on community engagement. Understanding the importance of leadership for initiatives provides an opportunity for all of us to become champions of partnerships within and outside of any organization. Several strategies, objectives, and action create CE projects with dynamic results. The benefits of CE and sustainability bring with it an integrated bottom-line (IBL) (Sroufe 2017b) performance opportunity with environmental and social performance improvements that can differentiate and have cost savings for organizations. After reading this entry, you should have new insight about how and why organizations are both reporting and ranked for their initiatives in CE and sustainability. A way to contribute to the UN SGDs is to engage with local communities, creating partnerships while helping to solve local and global problems. Revitalizing global partnerships for sustainable development needs CE and an evidencebased approach to best practices. The information in this book and its breakout of informative chapters provides best practices while also demonstrating alignment with other sustainable development goals. The call to action for partnerships and scalable impact is upon us. Action needs to be taken sooner rather than later and the other chapters within this book can help decision makers and potential partners unite to support sustainable development. When looking at other chapters within this book, pay attention to information involving accountability and frameworks for partnerships; examination of the role of Big Data in strengthening multi-stakeholder partnerships; along with the broad array of information on

1053

chapters on partnerships; systems innovation, and women-led partnerships and their achievements, as this information will help readers understand and apply their learning from this book to emerging opportunities for CE. The time for change and global impact through partnerships is all around us. There is a growing opportunity to collaborate with others on contemporary industry problemsolving as we also advance opportunities for businesses, academic research, and enhanced pedagogy for the next generation of decision-makers. Knowledge dissemination starts with CE partners and expands through interactions, investments, new projects, academic conferences, and publications such as this entry. Ideas regarding new business models, solutions, and opportunities can come from community engagement, students, and corporate partnerships with universities, stakeholders, and faculty research. The process of generating these opportunities is itself valuable to organizations, business leaders, students, and academic scholars in understanding decision-making processes, complex problem-solving, and managerial skill building. All sustainability challenges and problems of today are really opportunities for the next generation of managers, architects, and engineers to be more in tune with understanding the realities of sustainable development. Acting on this goal enables opportunities to move the needle of sustainable development in the right direction while improving performance aligned with SDG targets involving financial, information and communication technology, capacity building, trade, systemic issues, and data monitoring and accountability. A call to action from this entry is for every organization within any industry to realize you are able to participate in transformational CE while also contributing to the goals of the UN SDGs and there are many partners out there awaiting your help in meeting new challenges.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability Frameworks for Partnership Toward Sustainability ▶ Examining the Role of Big Data for Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in the SDGs

R

1054

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

▶ Partnerships ▶ Women-Led Partnerships and the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

References Bayliss J (2013) Small business & community engagement. Sourced June 2018 Bernstein M (2013) How Ben and Jerry’s celebrates community and creates loyal fans. Source June 2018 Bowen F, Newenham-Kahindi AM, Herremans I (2010) When suits meet roots: the antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. J Bus Ethics 95:297–318 Costanza R et al (2016) Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ecol Econ 130: 350–355 Gardiner L, Lacy P (2005) Lead, respond, partner or ignore: the role of business schools on corporate responsibility. Corp Gov Int J Bus Soc 5(2):174–185 General Electric, GE sustainability GE foundation. http://www.gesustainability.com/enabling-progress/ge -foundation/education-skills/ Global reporting Initiative (n.d.) Sources July 2018. https://www.globalreporting.org/information/sustainab ility-reporting/Pages/default.aspx Huang SK (n.d.) The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate sustainable development. Published May 2012. Sourced June 2018 Inter IKEA Systems B.V (n.d.) 1999–2017 source July 2018. http://franchisor.ikea.com/who-we-are-2-2/ Kaeser J, Ronald B (n.d.) Sustainability information 2016. Siemens. Sources July 2018 Kemp D, Owen JR (2013) Community relations in mining: core to business but not “core business”. Resour Policy 38:523–531 Method products (n.d.) https://methodhome.com/about-us/ our-promise/. Sources June 2018 Panwar R et al Ibid Panwar R, Nybakk E, Hansen E Pinkse J (n.d.) The effect of small firms’ competitive strategies on their community and environmental engagement. Sourced May 2018 Porter M, Kramer M (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review. January-February Smith N, Smith J, Battalora L, Teschner B (2018) Industry – university partnerships: engineering and corporate social responsibility. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract 144(3) p. 04018002 Sroufe R (2017a) Integration and organizational change towards sustainability. J Clean Prod 162:315–329 Sroufe R (2017b) Ibid Sroufe R, Ramos D (2011) MBA program trends and best practices in teaching sustainability: live project courses. Decis Sci J Innov Educ 9(3):349–370

SwissReFoundation, https://www.swissrefoundation.org Trencher G, Bai X (2016) The role of university partnerships in urban sustainability experiments: evidence from Asia. In: Brauch H, Oswald Spring Ú, Grin J, Scheffran J (eds) Handbook on sustainability transition and sustainable peace. Hexagon series on human and environmental security and peace, vol 10. Springer, Cham United Nations- Sustainable Development Goals (n.d.) sourced June, 2018 United Nations Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform (n.d.) sourced June, 2018. https://sustaina bledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transforming ourworld Walmart W (n.d.) Highlights economic, societal and environmental progress in 2018 global responsibility report summary. Source July 2018. https://news.walmart. com/2018/04/23/walmart-highlights-economic-societa l-and-environmental-progress-in-2018-global-responsi bility-report-summary Whittaker M (2016) The just 100 methodology: how the rankings work. https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinwh ittaker/2016/11/30/the-just-100-methodology-how-the -rankings-work/#43e0a25b39f3

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals Arnaud Diemer1,2, Cécile Batisse3, Ganna Gladkykh3 and Thérèse Bennich4 1 ERASME Jean Monnet Excellence Centre on Sustainability, University of Clermont-Ferrand, Aubiere, France 2 Centre d’Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International (CERDI), Université Clermont Auvergne, ClermontFerrand, France 3 ERASME, CERDI, UCA, Clermont-Ferrand, France 4 ERASME, University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden

Synonyms Bio-based economy; Bioeconomics; Biotechonomy; Knowledge-based bioeconomy

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

Definition Bioeconomy is the production, utilization, and conservation of biological resources, including related knowledge, science, technology, and innovation, to provide information, products, processes, and services across all economic sectors aiming toward a sustainable economy. All activities related to the production, use, and processing of bioresources are intended to meet society’s food, material, and energy needs and provide ecosystem services.

Introduction The concept of sustainable development, popularized by the Brundtland Report (1987) and the Rio Summit (1992), is today present in all debates and mobilized for many causes (global warming, preservation of biodiversity, waste recycling, etc.). The definition is now on everyone’s lips: development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Two concepts are inherent to this notion: the concept of needs, and more particularly the essential needs of the most deprived, to whom the highest priority should be given, and the idea of the limitations that the state of our techniques and social organization imposes on the capacity of the environment to meet present and future needs. What is less well known is that during the same period, the Rome Conference (1991) had taken note of a text by Nicholas Georgescù-Roegen (NGR), in which there is a virulent criticism “of the new international doctrine of sustainable development” (Grinevald 2005, p. 52), described as a “charming lullaby.” Taking up the distinction between growth and development (Schumpeter 1942), NGR insisted that there could be no sustainable world growth on the global ecological scale of the finite world of the biosphere. Therefore, sustainable development should not be reduced to a simple field of knowledge or a philosophy of action (analysis of the issues at stake and recommendation of remedies), but should lead to a real refoundation of economic science. This new paradigm, which Georgescu-Roegen (1975) describes as the

1055

bioeconomy, lies at the crossroads of the thermodynamic and biological vision of the world, “thermodynamics because it shows us that natural resources are being irrevocably depleted, biology because it reveals to us the true nature of the economic process”. From the mid-2000s, the terms bioeconomy and bio-based economy became popularized with their adoption by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD 2006) and the European Union (2012). Bioeconomy and bio-based economy promote strategies under different policy frameworks, aiming to increase the use of biotechnology and to develop new products, markets, and uses of biomass. More recently, the SDGs’ Agenda presented bioeconomy as a key role to play in the transition to a more circular, renewable, and resource-efficient society. In order to achieve food security, renewable energy, and climate targets, United Nations request the countries to foster the full potential of bioeconomy and bio-based economy (Pülzl et al. 2014; Staffas et al. 2013; Formas 2012).

Roots and Foundations of Bioeconomy From the point of view of a literature review, bioeconomics introduces an interdisciplinary lecture of sustainable development (Diemer 2012b, 2009; Dannequin and Diemer 1999): (1) Thermodynamics and the struggle against entropy, (2) Biology and the complex evolution of the living world, (3) Sociology, psychology, and the return of the relational being, and (4) Economy and society of knowledge. Thermodynamics and the Struggle Against Entropy To understand the place that thermodynamics and the struggle against entropy must occupy in the debates about sustainable development, it is necessary to come back to the representation of the act of production. Economists analyze production on the basis of a technical relationship (combination of labor and capital). This relationship has no physical reality; it simply translates inputs to outputs. In order to break with this approach, Nicholas

R

1056

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

Georgescù-Roegen (1971, 1976) introduced the notion of economic process: “The economic process is solidly anchored to a material base which is subject to definite constraints. It is because of these constraints that the economic process has a unidirectional irrevocable evolution” (GeorgescuRoegen 1976, p. 56). A material process does not produce or consume matter energy, it merely absorbs it and continually rejects it. Therefore, what goes into the economic process consists of valuable natural resources, and what comes out of it is worthless waste. This qualitative transformation can only be apprehended by thermodynamics and more precisely on the law of entropy. The first principle of thermodynamics teaches us that during any transformation, energy is conserved (quantitative conservation). However, its form and availability (qualitative dissipation) have changed. The free energy that can be used by man dissipates until it is transformed into heat – the most degraded form of energy – this bound energy becomes so diffuse that it can no longer be used by man. This second principle of thermodynamics, the so-called Carnot–Clausius principle, is still called the law of entropy. Establishing the irreversibility of physical phenomena, particularly during heat exchanges, the law of entropy is a law that cannot be escaped, hence the irrevocable nature of this evolution: “The law of entropy occupies a unique place in the natural sciences, it is the only physical law that recognizes that the material universe itself is subject to an irreversible qualitative change, to an evolutionary process.” In view of these thermodynamic phenomena, several conclusions can be drawn. First, the economic process is entropic in nature (Georgescu-Roegen 1987). The transformation of natural resources into waste reflects the transition from a state of low entropy to a state of high entropy. Man’s economic struggle would thus focus on the low entropy of his environment. However, Georgescù-Roegen notes the true product of the economic process is not a material flow of waste but an immaterial flow which he calls “enjoyment of life.” The emphasis is thus on life, while entropy is death. All living beings struggle against entropy. They are, to use the image of Erwin Schrödinger (1945), Maxwell’s demons of sorts who, through their metabolism, capture low

entropy to produce negative entropy. Secondly low entropy in the environment is rare and its destruction is irrevocable. Thermodynamics tells us that things are rare because, on the one hand, the amount of low entropy included in our environment decreases continuously and inevitably, and because, on the other hand, we can only use the given amount of low entropy once. Thus the law of entropy is the root of economic scarcity. If this law did not exist, we could reuse the energy of a piece of coal at will, turning it into heat, this heat into work, and this work back into coal. Under these conditions, the economic process, generally associated with the multiplication of scarce utilities, forces men to invent the means likely to better capture low entropy. Thanks to his mastery of energy, man is able to increase his productive power. Finally, the fact of constantly drawing on natural resources is not without impact on history; it would even constitute the most important element in the destiny of humanity. Wars, explorations, and migrations have often been linked to the wealth of natural resources of different people (Schellens and Diemer 2020). It would thus be possible to question the possible substitution of class struggle by the law of entropy and the exploitation of raw materials as the driving force of history. Biology and the Complex Evolution of the Human World If the laws of thermodynamics constitute “metalaws” from which men cannot escape (De Gleria 1995), those of biology will prove to be decisive without being deterministic (Georgescu-Roegen 1977a, b, c). First of all, behavioral biology reminds us that man, like any living organism, has the primary aim of maintaining and reproducing its physical structure (Passet 1979). He must first of all satisfy two types of need. It maintains its internal organization by borrowing energy-rich molecules from the environment. Secondly, it seeks to contain the external environment within the limits of variations compatible with the requirements of life. The need can thus be defined biologically as “the quantity of energy or information necessary to maintain a nerve structure, either innate or acquired” (Laborit 1973, p. 63). Different species are also part of a biological ecosystem. This term refers to

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

a biotic assemblage of plants, animals, and microbes in combination with their physicochemical environment. Within an ecosystem, different beings (producers, consumers, and decomposers) have relationships with each other and with the mineral environment (biochemical cycles). Autotrophic plants assimilate, through photosynthesis or chemosynthesis, elements from the mineral world which are thus integrated in a reduced form into organic molecules; energy is invested in these compounds. Heterotrophic animals and plants are dependent on the above and form trophic chains where, from eater to eater, there is a transfer of matter and energy into the living world. It is these ongoing interactions that will slowly evolve the ecosystem until a stable balance can be achieved between its various constituents (Odum 1971a, b). Finally, man, as a biological being, has a symbiotic relationship with energy. He uses his organs to draw low entropy from the environment. According to Alfred Lotka’s (1925, 1945) terminology, such organs, which are specific to each living species, are endosomatic organs. But gradually, human beings have distinguished themselves from most animals by using other instruments called exosomatic: “The one outstanding exception is the human species. Here evolution, especially in more recent times, has followed an entirely new path. In place of slow adaptation of anatomical structure and physiological function in successive generations by selective survival, increased adaptation has been achieved by the incomparably more rapid development of ‘artificial’ aids to our native receptor-effector apparatus, in a process that might be termed exosomatic evolution” (Lotka 1945, p. 188). With these detachable organs, mainly tools and technical equipment (car, airplane, train, etc.), the human species has managed to achieve many achievements. Exosomatic organs have even become as vital as endosomatic organs; humans are largely dependent on them. The economic process thus appears as an extension of endosomatic evolution, in other words, as the continuation of biological evolution. By revealing to us the true nature of the economic process as a continuation of the biological process, biology makes it possible to establish a series of more or less unfortunate observations for humanity:

1057

– The first underlines the state of dependence of humankind on the comfort offered by exosomatic organs, but also on the pleasure of mass consumption. This exosomatic evolution of the human species, already evoked by Alfred Lotka – “People’s appetite for food is limited. Their appetite for automobiles, radios, fur coats, jewelry, actually seems to follow the rule of the French proverb l’appétit vient en manger” (Lotka 1945, p. 190) – proves to be particularly dangerous since it is accompanied by the increasing production of technologies using quantities of energy and raw materials drawn from the bowels of the earth. – The second observation emphasizes that, like all organic evolution, exosomatic evolution has divided humanity into exosomatic species as different as biological species. However, unlike biological species, which can merge without the slightest obstacle, the case of exosomatic species is more problematic. The distinction between Homo indicus and Homo americanus is much deeper and stronger than that between biological species. In other words, our narrow understanding of the economic process would have biased somewhat the improvement of exosomatic instruments already in use in these countries: “A Homo Indicus was crying out for help after his donkey fell into a ditch and broke a leg. Following the advice of its economic authorities, the Homo americanus rushed out with a radial tire to repair the vehicle’s breakdown” (GeorgescuRoegen 1978, p. 343). Not all innovations are therefore successful or always “timely.” No innovation will be able to succeed indefinitely in ensuring the accessibility of resources. Sociology and Psychology, the Return of the Relational Being Contrary to economics, which refers us to an individual behavioral approach (the principle of economic rationality, Homo economicus), sociology reminds us that almost all human behavior is the relationship with others. This relationship takes place in time (past, present, and future generations) and space (family, clan, group, etc.). The existence of the being goes through a social existence relating

R

1058

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

to the group and its values (way of life, prohibitions, signs of recognition, etc.). This is how the sociological causes of consumption are explained. The Veblen effect describes a mode of consumption that is driven by social class. By consuming, each individual claims to belong to a social class. He or she is thus obliged to reproduce the values associated with it. This approach condemns the approach which consists in putting the individual at the center of the analysis in order to arrive at the social. It is simply refusing to allow the mechanisms by which the productive apparatus is supposed to lead us towards the satisfaction of needs to occupy a predominant place. This return to Homo Sapiens thus invites us to dissociate, as psychologists and sociologists do, the notions of need and desire: “It is the satisfaction of desires that conditions the happiness of men, but it is the creation of desires that places them under the dependence of the productive apparatus. And it is the satisfaction of needs that commands the reproduction of the species.” Psychology, for its part, manages to detach us from rational actions in order to better bring us into the field of impulses and irrationality. Consequently, economic behavior would not automatically be rational, it would manifest both rational and irrational, logical and passionate, lucid and submissive considerations, etc. At both the individual and the collective level (taking the context into account), behaviors such as impulse buying, mimicry in a group, aggressiveness in human relations, etc., which are considered irrational from the point of view of the ecosphere, may appear in the context of the sociosphere as perfectly legitimate and normal means of dissipating the tensions that threaten the internal equilibrium. Economics Towards a Knowledge-Based Society In the early days of political economy, economists seeking to describe this new science assigned it a very specific mission: that of making the best use of scarce resources to satisfy the needs of individuals. Ultimately, all economic activity had to lead to the creation of material goods. While the production of material goods is the visible face of the capitalist

system, economists forgot to specify that these goods were the result of a quantity of energy and a quantity of information. Thus, according to Henri Laborit, “when a man transforms inanimate matter into a product of his industry, alongside the energy expenditure that the labour power he represents must provide, there is the information that he brings by establishing new relationships between the elements of inanimate matter that he manipulates and of which he will make tools, machines or consumable products of his work, by giving them a form” (1973, p. 29). This informational dimension seems to us to be essential for more than one reason. On the one hand, it emphasizes that “the economy is a negentropic structuring activity that has the effect of incorporating structural information into matter” (Passet 1979, p. 127). Economic growth would thus be based on the storage and dissemination of this knowledge. The tools for codifying and transmitting information, in this case computers, are thus called upon to play a predominant role. We could move towards a dematerialization of capital, which could save material and energy flows (these would be the necessary but secondary support for immaterial production). Of course, it will be necessary to specify the advantages and limits of such a development (illustration of the rebound effect linked to NICTs: the use of computers and printers has led to overconsumption of paper). On the other hand, the entry into the service society should initiate a vast movement which, through the information system, will modify the measurement of value (shift from the economic calculation of marginal cost to the amortization of fixed costs, shift from quantitative to qualitative) and the end of life (the economy of functionality substitutes the end [using the service] for the means [appropriating the good that renders the service]). Finally, information must be conceived as an extension of technology. If innovation (processes of creation and destruction) is indeed a projection of the mind (logical analysis: trial and error), the accumulation and transmission of acquired knowledge requires the existence of a transmission belt. It is social structures and the establishment of a genuine information culture (tradition, codes, conventions, etc.) that will initiate

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

this movement. In practice, these organizational innovations will take the form of networks of relationships and communications. It is these networks that will ensure the reproduction of the system and which will secrete the norms, symbols, and values of society. This new approach, which combines energy and information, is an important issue for future generations. For the knowledge society to take off, the productive forces must be mobilized and the surpluses needed for the accumulation and transmission of knowledge must be released. As René Passet reminds us, “it is by freeing minds from the obsession with survival that [the production of energy surpluses] encourages the diversification of research and knowledge” (1996, p. 145). From Bioeconomy to Sustainable Issues

While the bioeconomy is a promising area for introducing interdisciplinarity and setting the economy on the pathway to sustainability, it has also generated a real interest among governments and major international institutions (OECD, FAO, EC, etc.). National (and international) strategies are being used to develop a model for a sustainable bioeconomy. The notions of biological resources, bioproduct, bioenergy, and bioplastic underline the diversity of this new field of research and many programs flourished in the private and public spheres. The bio-based economy – a subset of bioeconomy – refers to products that are wholly or partly derived from biomass and other biological resources which are not used for food and fuel (FAO 2019). The transition from a fossil-based economy to a bio-based economy is a challenge for many national models (Bennich et al. 2018a, b). The drivers of this transition have to be identified and promoted. The bioeconomy responds to very diverse needs with quite different issues (Bennich and Belyazid 2017): – Food markets are supplied almost entirely by the bioeconomy. They are confronted with challenges increasing global demand and dietary transition pathways. By 2030, the demand for protein is expected to increase by 40%. However, Europe suffers from a high

1059

dependency on protein imports due to a deficit in the animal feed sector, which represents an opportunity for further growth. More generally, the food market is characterized by innovation and is an important vector for growth. At the same time, around one-third of all food produced for human consumption is wasted globally. This generates economic, social, and environmental costs and calls for urgent measures (Morone et al. 2019). – Renewable energies include the use of wood and organic waste, residues, or coproducts in direct combustion or for the production of biogas (McCormik and Kautto 2013). These recoveries are generally coupled with other value chains and reinforce the circular character and robustness of supply chains as a whole. Within renewable energies, the biofuels sector is highly dependent on regulations and the evolution of fuel demand (diesel/petrol). First-generation biofuels are already present in the land transport market (Fig. 1). Advanced biofuels are under development, through major R&D projects for the valorization of lignocellulose, and through the establishment of new provisioning supply chains for those derived from waste and residues. Biomass energy (Fig. 2) is already used for heat and electricity production; biogas is a smaller part of the energy mix, but shows a promising growth. The use of these energies on the markets is the subject of multiannual energy programming in many countries, which provides production levels/incorporation rate of bioenergy. – As far as the markets for formulated products and materials are concerned, the support of many countries (Germany, the Netherlands, France, etc.) to innovation has led to the marketing of many industrial bio-sourced products (Phlip and al. 2017): polyols used in paint, coating, and adhesive formulations; polyester resins used in composites for the automotive, construction, and leisure markets; and up to 100% bio-based products used for the metal cutting and stamping industry. Agrosolvents for industrial degreasing, surfactants for the

R

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, Fig. 1 Drivers for the transition. There are different drivers of the bio-based economy. In Fig. 1, the relationships between these factors and the variable perceived need for transition to bio-based economy are represented by positive causal links. The figure displays feedbacks and relationships related to the production and processing of

biomass into bio-based products. Visions and suggested indicators for a bio-based economy differ. Suggested measures of success include the ability of the bio-based economy to phase of fossil resources, and the ability to contribute to economic growth in new sectors. The figure highlights that growth in the biotechnology industry does not necessarily result in less use of fossil-based raw materials. (Source: Bennich 2016)

1060 Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

1061

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, Fig. 2 Supply chain perspective on the bio-based economy. (Source: Bennich 2016)

detergent markets, packaging for the food markets, construction and insulation products, etc. numerous European environmental and health regulations have led to the development of biobased products, but only on a limited basis (e. g., the European Union’s Directive on the use of organic solvents in the production of food products, regulations on the reduction of volatile organic compounds favorable to the development of bio-sourced paints, prohibition of plastic bags for fruit and vegetables, etc.). The standardization work in progress on biosourced products (European work of the CEN TC411 group) should make it possible to have the positive externalities of these products meeting these environmental and health objectives recognized and to increase their competitiveness on the markets (Fig. 3). – Other forms of added value to the products and services of the bioeconomy, as well as the associated production areas, must also be taken into account (Golembiewski et al. 2015): fertilization, landscapes, tourism and leisure in rural areas, water purification, etc. These activities or resources must not be ignored in socioeconomic models, even if the methods for taking them into account are still poorly developed.

Box 1: Bioeconomy Strategy in Europe

In 2012, the European Commission presented a strategy for the bioeconomy entitled Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. Various initiatives have been launched in this framework (McCormik and Kautto 2013): • the creation of several working groups within the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) of DG Research • the establishment of the European Bioeconomy Observatory, supported by a panel of experts • the creation of an expert group on biobased products within the framework of the LMI (lead market initiative) in order to support the development • the implementation of a public–private partnership involving the European Commission and a consortium of manufacturers in which French players are heavily involved and which is mobilizing €1 billion of public funds and €2.7 billion of private funds (continued)

R

1062

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

Box 1: (continued)

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, Fig. 3 Biomass production for an environmental perspective. A transition to a biobased economy is likely to result in an increasing demand for biomass. The causal loop diagram displays feedbacks related to biomass production, highlighting potential trade-

Member states are encouraged to participate in this work and to adopt a national strategy likely to cover all the issues identified by the European action plan. Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Spain now have a strategy document. France has seen many achievements in the direction of the bioeconomy, making it a major player in the European bioeconomy. The development of a national strategy will enable it to contribute fully to the forthcoming discussions, in particular those relating to the evaluation and revision of the European Commission’s strategy. https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/news room/image/document/2018-6/review_of_2012_ eu_bes_2E89B85F-950B-9C84-5B426D1C2 4851387_49692.pdf

offs and uncertainties – including future biomass availability, GHG emissions related to the intensification and expansion of biomass production, potential negative impacts on biodiversity, the overall resilience of the production system, and possible conflicts with food production. (Source: Bennich 2016)

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

The Role of Bioeconomy for Achieving SDGs The expected positive outcomes of the transition to a bioeconomy are many: climate change mitigation, land maintenance, local employment, reduction of dependency on fossil resources, sustainability and renewability of the resource, less health or environmental impact, protection against physical natural risks, preservation of water resources, and waste recovery. Thus, the bioeconomy and the SDGs have many overlaps.

1063

SDGs suggest to propose a holistic view of the bioeconomy, based on its ability to remain “sustainable.” Challenges concern synergy with natural ecosystems, involvement of local stakeholders, development of sustainable productions, environmental impact assessment, and change of behaviors (Table 1). – Bioresources are the result of living processes that are complex in permanent operation, and the bioeconomy will lead to an increase in derived withdrawals from the carbon, nitrogen,

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, Table 1 SDGs and potential of bioeconomy Study Cases Biochar production and use (Ghana)

Objectives An innovative type of cooking stove (slow pyrolysis, low temperature) that generates heat for cooking and produces biochar has been developed through scientific cooperation and is transferred to communities by the NGO, alternative set of assistance initiative (ASAI)

Bio-based plastics from agave residues (Mexico)

In Mexico, the industrial multisectoral partnership between Jose Cuervo and Ford Motor Company aims to develop and produce bio-based materials with byproducts from the cultivation and processing of agave to make liquor. Currently in an initial research phase, the initiative plans to follow a territorial approach, and transform agave residues into bio-based plastics for Mexican industries and Ford’s Mexican assembly plants.

Bioeconomy community development Programme (Malaysia)

Source: FAO (2019)

The bioeconomy community development Programme (BCDP) involves enlisting farmers to cultivate raw materials in idle lands to produce inputs for biotechnology companies and projects that are part of the BioNexus and bioeconomy transformation Programme.

Benefits This small-scale coproduction technology offers farmers benefits in terms of improved efficiency in the use of resources and environmentally friendly soil management, as biochar can be used as soil amendment and biofertilizer. It is a smoke-free stove that can improve health because it produces relatively little indoor air pollution compared to traditional stoves. Jose Cuervo currently uses the bagasse from the agave pineapple root, which remains after the extraction of the sugar, as compost in their plantations. Local artisans also use the fiber remnants from the plant to make crafts, paper, clothes, and other products. Using the by-products for bio-based plastics provides another option for diversifying farmers’ incomes and benefits producers by creating greater demand for lignocellulosic residues from agave production. Through the contract farming mechanism with guaranteed buyback, farmers and producer associations obtain additional sources of income, and the bioindustries receive a constant supply of raw materials to produce bioproducts. It improves incomes for people in the bottom 40% of the national income bracket. The bioeconomy corporation acts as the facilitator and provides advisory services.

SDGs Targets SDG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 SDG 7, 8, 9 SDG 10, 12, 13, 15

SDG 8, 9 SDG 12, 13, 17

R

SDG 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 SDG 12, 16

1064

Role of Bioeconomy in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals

phosphorus, and water cycles, which will be used in the future (Bugge et al. 2016). It is fundamental to ensure that these cycles are respected and closed to perpetuate the living processes that regenerate the original resource, enabling adaptation to climate change, and this to ensure the sustainability of the bioeconomy’s activities. Soil renewal and quality, the robustness of food chains, the presence of the biological auxiliaries of micro- and macrofauna and flores, and the resilience to uncertainties (biotic or abiotic) ensured in particular by biological diversity are important prerequisites for a sustainable bioeconomy. Synergies between the maintenance of living processes and the supply of bioresources must be sought and used to meet the challenge of phosphorus requirements or to promote synergies between plants or animals (crop associations, trees, rotations, pollinating insects, etc.) that can increase productivity, reduce input consumption, and improve the quality of soils or aquatic environments. Sustainable management of agricultural land, forests, seas, and freshwater bodies, as well as material-saving and low- or nonpolluting industrial processes are the indispensable basis for a national strategy for the bioeconomy. – Reinforcing synergies between biological activities and functions would make it possible to maintain the ecosystem services (D’Amato and al. 2017) rendered to territorial stakeholders by natural or exploited areas (water quality and circulation, pollination, protection against soil erosion, fish feeding or nursery, landscape and tourism, etc.). Like the environmental processes to which they must adapt, t