February 28, 2015

SDGs fail to address interlinkages between goals and targets

In a recently released review of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), my colleagues and I find that the goal on food security, improved nutrition and sustainable agriculture is a vast improvement over the Millennium Development Goals, which did not consider agriculture at all. But, the SDGs fail to address important complementarities and tradeoffs among goals and their targets.

Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on the Agriculture and Ecosystems Blog on February 23, 2015. Intergovernmental negotiations on the Sustainable Development Agenda continue until September 2015, when the United Nations General Assembly is set to approve them. The Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative issued a similar position statement on integration within the targets and indicators of the Sustainable Development Goals in March 2014.

My colleagues and I were part of a group of 41 scientists who were asked to implement a scientific review of the SDGs and targets to guide policymakers in the finalization of the SDGs.

We focused on the second goal (of the 17 total): food security, improved nutrition and sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture is key to ending hunger, but inequality and ensuring universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation are also important; these interlinkages are unaddressed by the 17 separate SDGs.

Care must be taken to simultaneously defeat hunger, increase agricultural productivity and avoid adverse impacts on the natural resource base. If we do not address key interlinkages among goals and targets, and reduce tradeoffs, several goals will remain out of reach of the poorest.

For example, an increase in agricultural land to help end hunger can lead to biodiversity loss, as well as overuse and/or pollution of water resources and downstream (likely negative) effects on marine resources, which in turn could exacerbate food security concerns.

If there are so many interconnections, what can be done?

Tradeoff analysis is one solution. Governments in developing countries will move ahead in addressing at least some of the SDGs either way but they can go a lot further if they assess the tradeoffs and synergies across goals and targets supporting the goals.

The selection of indicators for the targets and SDG is another avenue to ensure that tradeoffs and synergies among goals and targets are accounted for. For food security and nutrition indicators are already well-established, but protocols and data collection are insufficient to measure changes in hunger (e.g. calorie availability per capita per day, dietary diversity score, stunting/wasting with a focus on those below the age of 5 and a specific focus on those below the age of 2, as well as the measuring of micronutrient deficiency indicators keyed to the regions where specific deficiencies are most prevalent).

Indicators for sustainable agriculture, however, are much more complex as important tradeoffs even exist among some of the indicators supporting sustainability in agriculture, such as emissions per hectare of agriculture land; crop and animal yields per unit of water; energy intensity of agriculture, etc.

The SDGs take a significant step forward into the complexity of sustainable human development. This complexity requires support from the scientific community, including targeted capacity building for tradeoff analysis and monitoring.

Photo by Kyknoord on Flickr.

Photo by Kyknoord on Flickr.

Continue Reading on the Agriculture and Ecosystems Blog.

Claudia Ringler is Deputy Division Director, Environment and Production Technology Division at the International Food Policy Research Institute and is Co-leader of the Managing Resource Variability Theme of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems Program.
More From

No comments

  • Hal Michael
    February 28, 2015 at 10:21am

    I suggest that the reason why the linkages are not clearly identified is because the primary linkage is the growth of human population. That is what what puts pressure on resources. At the same time, it is an increasing population that is necessary to grow economies to support the governments. Even in a perfectly functioning government, with waste, graft, and incompetence eliminated, more money (taxes) are needed to support infrastructure, safety nets, education, and so on. So, the population must grow, which then threatens natural resources, the ability to grow food, the supply of energy, and so on.
    It is far easier to provide the “30,000 foot view” of what is needed than it is to actually get onto the ground and deal with the issues face ot face.