Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: the role of environment–human linkages

Only 10 years remain to achieve all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) globally, so there is a growing need to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of action by targeting multiple SDGs. The SDGs were conceived as an ‘indivisible whole’, but interactions between SDGs need to be better understood. Several previous assessments have begun to explore interactions including synergies and possible conflicts between the SDGs, and differ widely in their conclusions. Although some highlight the role of the more environmentally-focused SDGs in underpinning sustainable development, none specifically focuses on environment-human linkages. Assessing interactions between SDGs, and the influence of environment on them, can make an important contribution to informing decisions in 2020 and beyond. Here, we review previous assessments of interactions among SDGs, apply an influence matrix to assess pairwise interactions between all SDGs, and show how viewing these from the perspective of environment-human linkages can influence the outcome. Environment, and environment-human linkages, influence most interactions between SDGs. Our action-focused assessment enables decision makers to focus environmental management to have the greatest impacts, and to identify opportunities to build on synergies and reduce trade-offs between particular SDGs. It may enable sectoral decision makers to seek support from environment managers for achieving their goals. We explore cross-cutting issues and the relevance and potential application of our approach in supporting decision making for progress to achieve the SDGs

Global goals mapping: the environment-human landscape

The UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), The Rockefeller Foundation (RF), and the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) recognise that the development challenges of the 21st century require both a shift in thinking and actions that prepare us for the future, while enabling more effective development interventions today. These organisations are establishing a new initiative: 'Towards a Sustainable Earth: Environment-human Systems and the UN Global Goals' (TaSE) as part of their commitment to seeing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (also known as Global Goals) become a reality. The core premise of the TaSE initiative is that environment-human interactions must be central to all development. The TaSE initiative is convening a meeting at The Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Centre (7-11 November 2016) to identify the major research and innovation questions relevant to the achievement of the overarching ambition of this initiative. To help focus discussions during this meeting, NERC commissioned the Sussex Sustainability Research Programme (SSRP) at the University of Sussex and the UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) to produce a “synthesis of past and current research and innovation relating to the policy landscape surrounding the environment-human relationships and systems that interact across the UN Global Goals”. The commissioned work is encapsulated in this report, Global Goals mapping: the environment-human landscape. For each Goal, the first part of this report summarises the role of environment-human interactions and synthesises relevant research evidence, key innovations and policies, and knowledge and research gaps. The syntheses of research evidence, key innovations and policies presented for individual Global Goals show that environment-human interactions are important for the achievement of all of the Goals. However, the number of environment-human interactions, and the extent to which these interactions need to be considered for achieving each Goal, varies among Global Goals. Although research, innovation and policy have advanced substantially since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, knowledge and research gaps related to environment-human interactions remain for all Goals. The Global Goals were conceived as an 'indivisible whole'. The Goals relate to and depend on each other, but relationships between Goals need to be better understood. Previous analyses have begun to explore relationships including synergies and possible conflicts between the Goals from a number of different perspectives and differ widely in their conclusions. While many highlight the role of the more environmentally-focused Goals in underpinning sustainable development, none specifically focuses on environment-human interactions, which are the focus of the TaSE initiative and crucial to the achievement of the Goals. This report uses a new analysis to suggest which relationships between Global Goals may be most influenced by environment-human interactions. It is based on a pairwise view of relationships between Goals, assessing the influence that action (research, policy, innovation and/or management) towards one Goal may have on the potential for achieving others. It highlights 20 pairwise relationships between Goals where these influences may be especially strong, and illustrates for some of these how the knowledge and research gaps identified in Part 1 are relevant to the relationships between the Goals. In reality relationships among Goals are more complex and multidimensional than a pairwise analysis can illustrate, but visualising all connections among them is challenging. Further knowledge gaps and challenges related to the trade-offs, synergies and unintended consequences of the relationships among Goals will need to be addressed to achieve all 17 Goals. In order to understand relationships among Global Goals and prioritize action, including research, it is essential to consider multiple cross-cutting factors, including: temporal and spatial scales of action and impact; context for the action, whether local or other; the (multi) directionality of the relationships among Goals; thresholds and tipping points; number and types of people affected; human behaviour; governance, institutions and power; existence and accessibility of different types of knowledge; and the feasibility of obtaining and scaling-up research results and innovations by 2030. Several approaches have attempted to tackle interconnected challenges, including nexus thinking, pathways, leverage points, indigenous and local knowledge, integrated environmental assessments and integrated modelling. However, there is a need for more work and holistic approaches to achieve all 17 Goals. The syntheses of research evidence, innovations and policies regarding environment-human interactions relevant to each Global Goal and the analysis of the relationships among Goals provide a basis for identifying priority areas for new research, innovation and policy. The Bellagio Group has a vital role to play in building on this to help the TaSE initiative identify a research, innovation and research translation agenda in support of the Global Goals

Can the Provision of Alternative Livelihoods Reduce the Impact of Wild Meat Hunting in West and Central Africa?

As threats to the world's ecosystems continue to escalate, the demand for evidence-based conservation approaches from conservation scientists, practitioners, policy-makers and donors is growing. Wild meat hunting represents one of the biggest threats to tropical forest ecosystems and various conservation strategies have been employed with the aim of reducing hunting impacts. Alternative livelihood projects have been implemented at the community level to reduce hunting through the provision of protein and income substitutes to wild meat. However, there is scant evidence of these projects' impact on hunting practices and wildlife populations. This study addresses this knowledge gap, focusing on alternative livelihood projects in West Africa and Central Africa. A comprehensive literature review and call for information identified 155 past and current projects, of which 19 were analysed in detail through key informant interviews. The study found that a range of different livelihood alternatives are being offered. Most projects are run by local and national non-governmental organisations, and project managers acknowledged the importance of involving communities in project decision-making; however, many projects are funded through small, short-term grants and struggle to meet their objectives with the available time, funding and capacity. Given these constraints, few projects monitor their outcomes and impacts. Projects also seldom implement conditionalities and sanctions, which may lead to the alternatives offered becoming additional rather than substitutional activities. Applying currently available best-practice guidelines for Integrated Conservation and Development Project design and implementation, including the use of simple monitoring methods for evaluating outcomes and impact, would greatly increase the chances of success for alternative livelihood projects, along with a restructuring of current funding models

Introducing a common taxonomy to support learning from failure in conservation.

Conservation practitioners are increasingly interested in the lessons gained through failure. While other sectors have made significant progress in learning from failure, there is currently limited consensus on how a similar transition could best be achieved in conservation, and what is required to facilitate this. One of the key enabling conditions for other sectors is a widely accepted and standardized classification system for identifying and analyzing root causes of failure. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive taxonomy of root causes of failure affecting conservation projects. To develop this, we solicited examples of real-life conservation efforts that were deemed to have failed in some way, identified their underlying root causes of failure and used these to develop a generic, three-tier taxonomy of the ways in which projects fail. We subsequently tested the taxonomy by asking conservation practitioners to use it to classify the causes of failure for conservation efforts they had been involved in. No significant gaps or redundancies were identified during this testing phase. We then analyzed the frequency that particular root causes were encountered by projects within this test sample, which suggested that some root causes may be more likely to be reported in projects implementing particular types of conservation action, while others may frequently occur across a range of different project types. We propose that this taxonomy could be used to help improve identification, analysis and subsequent learning from failed conservation efforts, address some of the barriers that currently limit the ability of conservation practitioners to learn from failure, and contribute to establishing an effective culture of learning from failure within conservation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Introducing a common taxonomy to support learning from failure in conservation.

Conservation practitioners are increasingly interested in the lessons gained through failure. While other sectors have made significant progress in learning from failure, there is currently limited consensus on how a similar transition could best be achieved in conservation, and what is required to facilitate this. One of the key enabling conditions for other sectors is a widely accepted and standardized classification system for identifying and analyzing root causes of failure. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive taxonomy of root causes of failure affecting conservation projects. To develop this, we solicited examples of real-life conservation efforts that were deemed to have failed in some way, identified their underlying root causes of failure and used these to develop a generic, three-tier taxonomy of the ways in which projects fail. We subsequently tested the taxonomy by asking conservation practitioners to use it to classify the causes of failure for conservation efforts they had been involved in. No significant gaps or redundancies were identified during this testing phase. We then analyzed the frequency that particular root causes were encountered by projects within this test sample, which suggested that some root causes may be more likely to be reported in projects implementing particular types of conservation action, while others may frequently occur across a range of different project types. We propose that this taxonomy could be used to help improve identification, analysis and subsequent learning from failed conservation efforts, address some of the barriers that currently limit the ability of conservation practitioners to learn from failure, and contribute to establishing an effective culture of learning from failure within conservation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved