Our understanding of the Arctic rests to a great extent on the capacity to build long-term observations series. The overall aim of these scientifically based observations is to reach a sustainable development that counter-acts the troublesome future scenario we foresee today. While major drivers of climate change are found outside the Arctic, there is nevertheless a strong need also for the four million people that live in the Arctic to act responsible in order to create capacity for sustainable development. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer an important framework for both guiding a sustainable development of the region, as well as for improving existing and developing new observation and monitoring systems for the Arctic. This allows an approach where the challenges, changes and the adaptation potential of societies and the ecological systems can be well monitored

Baer, Kristina

Biebow, Nicole

Latola, Kirsi

Scheepstra, Adriana

Sköld, Peter

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

   University of GroningenThe SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicatorsSköld, Peter; Baer, Kristina; Scheepstra, Adriana; Latola, Kirsi; Biebow, NicoleIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2018Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Sköld, P., Baer, K., Scheepstra, A., Latola, K., & Biebow, N. (2018). The SDGs and the Arctic: The need forpolar indicators. Paper presented at Arctic Observing Summit 2018, Davos, Switzerland.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 10-09-2023 Arctic Observing Summit 2018  Statement on the Need for the Observing System: Societal Benefits – Long-Term Perspec-tive delivered by EU-PolarNet   The SDGs and the Arctic:  The need for polar indicators  Peter Sköld1, Kristina C. Baer2, Annette Scheepstra3, Kirsi Latola4, Nicole Biebow2   1 Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden 2 Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research,  Am Handelshafen 12, DE-27570 Bremerhaven, Germany 3 University of Groningen, Arctic Centre, Aweg 30, PO Box 716, NL-9700 Groningen, Netherlands 4 University of Oulu, Thule Institute, PO Box 7300, FI-90014, Finland   Corresponding author   Peter Sköld Professor, Executive director, Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University,  SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden Phone: +46 90 7866347 Email: peter.skold@umu.se                         1  The SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicators 1 Introduction 2 Our understanding of the Arctic rests to a great extent on the capacity to build long-term ob-3 servations series. The overall aim of these scientifically based observations is to reach a sus-4 tainable development that counter-acts the troublesome future scenario we foresee today. 5 While major drivers of climate change are found outside the Arctic, there is nevertheless a 6 strong need also for the four million people that live in the Arctic to act responsible in order to 7 create capacity for sustainable development. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8 offer an important framework for both guiding a sustainable development of the region, as well 9 as for improving existing and developing new observation and monitoring systems for the Arc-10 tic. This allows an approach where the challenges, changes and the adaptation potential of 11 societies and the ecological systems can be well monitored.   12 The 17 goals and 169 targets of the SDGs are set up as an integrated and indivisible concept 13 to enable a global sustainable development (UN, 2015). They are unprecedented in scope and 14 significance (ibid.), however, this global approach has also been criticised as being top-down 15 and too focused on the belief that global problems can be solved on the level of governments 16 and international organisations (Hajer et al., 2015). In order to be relevant to specific contexts, 17 the goals and their targets would need to be scaled down from their global level (Burford et al., 18 2013).  19 This especially holds true when applying the SDGs to the Arctic. The SDGs have “not been 20 produced with the Polar Regions in mind” (Sköld et al., 2018), which has led to discrepancies 21 to how well the SDGs, their targets and indicators apply to the High North. Due to this mis-22 match, it is unlikely that pathways towards implementing the SDGs in the Arctic can effectively 23 be assessed and tracked (ibid.). Sköld et al. (2018:3) thus states that ”[t]here is a dire need for 24 a suite of polar indicators that allow us to cross-reference to the SDGs while having the tool to 25   2  monitor change in the Polar Regions. Developing such a suite of polar indicators will neces-26 sarily inform work on a post-2030 development agenda.” Further it is important to find the 27 prerequisites that will enable UN member states to address sustainable development issues 28 in their countries in a way that gives meaning to ‘nationally owned development’ (Adams, 29 2015:2). 30 SDG indicators and the need to put them into context 31 The 232 indicators of the SDGs can be regarded as a voluntary management tool to compre-32 hend if sustainable development measures prove successful and if the SDGs are on track. 33 While the UN (2017a) has acknowledged that the indicators need to be adjusted to local needs 34 and priorities under involvement of stakeholders, the indicators are still criticized to be of little 35 relevance to local communities (Simon et al., 2016; Sköld et al., 2018). In the Arctic for exam-36 ple, climate change especially affects indigenous peoples whose way of life, culture and iden-37 tity are closely interwoven with the environment (Adger et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2014). Sus-38 tainable development indicators should also monitor the “invisible” losses and changes that 39 are not directly measurable, but play an important role for individuals and communities, such 40 as culture, self-determination and wellbeing (Wolf et al., 2013:549).  41 Already in the development of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the forerunner of 42 the SDGs, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UN-PFII) raised its concern that 43 none of the available indicators were appropriate to measure the process of the MDGs in the 44 cultural context of indigenous peoples (UN-PFII, 2006; Burford et al., 2013). Sköld et al. (2018) 45 also point out that in the current SDGs no single indicator focusses on cultural wellbeing or on 46 the retention of ancestral languages. Further, the economic indicators do not pay account to 47 the importance of mixed and subsistence economies, while migration related indicators (10.7.1 48 and 10.7.2) are not applicable to the rapid population and demographic shifts in the Arctic 49 (ibid). Appropriate, context-relevant indicators are thus needed that integrate “all possible lev-50 els of the polar social-ecological systems (including the atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, 51 biosphere and socio-cultural and politico-economic systems)” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). 52   3  Suggested strategy 53 This statement advocates developing a suite of polar indicators to assess the state of the so-54 cial-ecological systems in the Arctic, and to create guidelines for sustainable monitoring and 55 regular assessments that track the progress on pathways towards a sustainable development. 56 This would improve disaster preparedness, the adaptive capacity of hard and soft infrastruc-57 tures, address food, water and energy security, and sustainable economic development (Sköld 58 et al., 2018).  59 Various efforts are already working towards this goal: The Arctic Council Sustainable Devel-60 opment Working Group for example proposed a suite of Arctic Social Indicators (ASI, 2014) 61 and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration currently funds a project that 62 looks into possibilities for defining relevant indicators that asses biophysical changes in the 63 Arctic. These projects, however, represent fragmented and disconnected efforts. What is 64 needed is a comprehensive and integrated suite of polar indicators, which includes (1) relevant 65 elements from the biophysical, socio-cultural, and politico-economic environments, and (2) ac-66 counts for their often coupled nature (Sköld et al., 2018).  67 When selecting appropriate indicators, it is necessary to compare the amount of data already 68 provided (and their potential use for assessing progress) with the cost of creating the neces-69 sary soft infrastructure to collect the relevant data. It is also essential to co-produce the indica-70 tors with scientific experts and stake- and right holders respectively and to validate their ap-71 propriateness with local communities in the Arctic (Sköld et al., 2018).  72 Furthermore, these indicators are only useful if the relevant information is collected on sus-73 tained, i.e. long-term, basis. This has been a problem for many small-scale research projects, 74 as they typically do not concern themselves with a sustained collection of information beyond 75 the project’s duration. This was also a problem with the MDGs where 46% of the data needed 76   4  were not available for reporting at the end of 2015, and the challenge is apparent for the pre-77 sent UNECE member countries to currently be able to produce data in support of SDG indica-78 tors (Road map, 2017).  79 The way forward 80 We can conclude that accurate and relevant indicators for the Arctic need to be developed and 81 that sustained and feasible monitoring has to be ensured. This will enable us to observe 82 changes in the complex polar social-ecological systems on a long-term basis and to develop 83 meaningful sustainable development measures based on these observations (Sköld et al., 84 2018). “Unless, we commit to this [initiative] now, we will miss a unique opportunity to be pre-85 pared for the future in the Arctic, to build an informed post-2030 development agenda and to 86 link the SDGs to developments and change in the Arctic region.” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). In 87 developing relevant SDG indicators for the Arctic, we suggest the following steps: 88 • examination of the existing SDGs indicators' framework and seeing what indicators ap-89 ply to the Arctic; 90 • examination of what other indicators for the Polar Regions have been used/proposed 91 in social science projects (e.g. Arctic Social Indicators, Arctic Human Development Re-92 port, ECONOR); it would be equally essential to reach out to natural scientists and 93 representatives of indigenous and local communities for their input; 94 • estimation of how much data is collected for the current indicators. Even if this data 95 is stored in various forms, locations and institutions, such information could be a great 96 starting point to show the present knowledge about Polar Social and Environmental 97 Standards. 98 Finally, it is important to establish a relation to non-Arctic partners involved in implementing 99 the Agenda 2030, and specifically the use of the SDG indicators. There is a lot to be learned 100 from the work of others, both at regional and national levels, and vice versa the efforts in the 101 Arctic can add significant value to the progress in other regions (a joint discussion has already 102   5  been established with the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region). This efforts respond to the United 103 Nations, which urges  104 • “international organizations to base the global review on data produced by national 105 statistical systems and, if specific country data are not available for reliable estimation, 106 to consult with concerned countries to produce and validate modelled estimates before 107 publication”,  108 • “that communication and coordination among international organizations be enhanced 109 in order to avoid duplicate reports, ensure consistency of data and reduce response 110 burdens on countries”, 111 • “international organizations to provide the methodologies used to harmonize country 112 data for international comparability and produce estimates through transparent mech-113 anisms” (United Nations, 2017b:3).  114 Background 115 This statement is based on the EU-PolarNet White Paper: The Road to the Desired States of 116 Social-Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions (Sköld et al., 2018), which was developed at 117 the EU-PolarNet white paper workshop. The objective of the workshop, which took place in 118 September 2017 in Spain, was to develop five white papers with topics of high interest to the 119 European society. It brought together thoroughly chosen international polar experts including 120 natural and social scientists, representatives of indigenous peoples and business representa-121 tives. 122  123  124  125   6  References 126 Adger, W. N.; Huq, S.; Brown, K.; Conway, D.; and Hulme, M. 2003. Adaptation to climate 127 change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3 (3), S. 179–195. 128 DOI: 10.1191/1464993403ps060oa. 129 Adams, B. 2015. SDG indicators and data: Who collects? Who reports? Who benefits?. 130 Global Policy Watch 2015:9. 131 ASI. 2014. Arctic Social Indicators II: Implementation. Larsen, J.N.; Schweitzer, P.; and Pet-132 rov, A. (eds.). TemaNord. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 133 Burford, G.; Hoover, E.; Velasco, I.; Janoušková, S.; Jimenez, A.; Piggot, G.; Podger, D.; and 134 Harder, M.K. 2013. Bringing the “missing pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals. 135 Towards intersubjective values-based indicators. Sustainability 5 (7), S. 3035–3059. 136 DOI: 10.3390/su5073035. 137 Hajer, M.; Nilsson, M.; Raworth, K.; Bakker, P.; Berkhout, F.; de Boer, Y.; Rockström, Y.; et 138 al. 2015. Beyond Cockpitism. Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of 139 the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 7 (2), S. 1651–1660. DOI: 140 10.3390/su7021651. 141 Reid, M.G.; Hamilton, C.; Reid, S.K.; Trousdale, W.; Hill, C.; Turner, N.; Picard, C.R., et al. 142 2014. Indigenous climate change adaptation planning using a values-focused approach. 143 A case study with the Gitga'at Nation. Journal of Ethnobiology 34 (3), S. 401–424. DOI: 144 10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.401. 145 Road map on statistics for Sustainable development goals. 2017. United Nations Economic 146 Commission for Europe. United Nations: New York and Geneva.  147 Simon, D.; Arfvidsson, H.; Anand, G.; Bazaz, A.; Fenna, G.; Foster, K.; Jain, G., et al. 2016. 148 Developing and testing the urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and indica-149 tors – a five-city study. Environment and Urbanization 28 (1), S. 49–63. DOI: 150 10.1177/0956247815619865. 151 Sköld, P.; Liggett, D.; Smieszek, M.; Staffansson, J.; Bastmeijer C. J.; Evengård, B.; Muir, 152 M.; Scheepstra, A.J.M.; and Latola, K., 2018. ‘The Road to the Desired States of Social-153   7  Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions’. EU-PolarNet White Paper.  154 Manuscript in preparation. 155 United Nations 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-156 ment. RES/70/1, Seventieth United Nations General Assembly. 157 United Nations 2017a. Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Devel-158 opment Goal. Indicators revised list of global Sustainable Development Goal indicators. 159 E/CN.3/2017/2. United Nations. 160 United Nations 2017b. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining  161 to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/71/313.United Nations.  162 UN-PFII, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2006. Report on the fifth 163 session (15-26 May 2006). E/2006/43. Unite Nations Economic and Social Council. New 164 York (Official Records, Supplement No. 23). 165 Wolf, J.; Allice, I.; and Bell, T. 2013. Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation. 166 Evidence from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Global Environmental Change 23 167 (2), S. 548–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.007. 168 

English

The SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicators

University of Groningen Research Database

  
 University of Groningen
The SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicators
Sköld, Peter; Baer, Kristina; Scheepstra, Adriana; Latola, Kirsi; Biebow, Nicole
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2018
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Sköld, P., Baer, K., Scheepstra, A., Latola, K., & Biebow, N. (2018). The SDGs and the Arctic: The need for
polar indicators. Paper presented at Arctic Observing Summit 2018, Davos, Switzerland.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the
author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the
number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 01-05-2018
 Arctic Observing Summit 2018 
 
Statement on the Need for the Observing System: Societal Benefits – Long-Term Perspec-
tive delivered by EU-PolarNet 
 
 
The SDGs and the Arctic:  
The need for polar indicators 
 
Peter Sköld1, Kristina C. Baer2, Annette Scheepstra3, Kirsi Latola4, Nicole Biebow2 
 
 
1 Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden 
2 Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research,  
Am Handelshafen 12, DE-27570 Bremerhaven, Germany 
3 University of Groningen, Arctic Centre, Aweg 30, PO Box 716, NL-9700 Groningen, 
Netherlands 
4 University of Oulu, Thule Institute, PO Box 7300, FI-90014, Finland 
 
 
Corresponding author  
 
Peter Sköld 
Professor, Executive director, Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University,  
SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden 
Phone: +46 90 7866347 
Email: peter.skold@umu.se  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 
 
The SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicators 1 
Introduction 2 
Our understanding of the Arctic rests to a great extent on the capacity to build long-term ob-3 
servations series. The overall aim of these scientifically based observations is to reach a sus-4 
tainable development that counter-acts the troublesome future scenario we foresee today. 5 
While major drivers of climate change are found outside the Arctic, there is nevertheless a 6 
strong need also for the four million people that live in the Arctic to act responsible in order to 7 
create capacity for sustainable development. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8 
offer an important framework for both guiding a sustainable development of the region, as well 9 
as for improving existing and developing new observation and monitoring systems for the Arc-10 
tic. This allows an approach where the challenges, changes and the adaptation potential of 11 
societies and the ecological systems can be well monitored.   12 
The 17 goals and 169 targets of the SDGs are set up as an integrated and indivisible concept 13 
to enable a global sustainable development (UN, 2015). They are unprecedented in scope and 14 
significance (ibid.), however, this global approach has also been criticised as being top-down 15 
and too focused on the belief that global problems can be solved on the level of governments 16 
and international organisations (Hajer et al., 2015). In order to be relevant to specific contexts, 17 
the goals and their targets would need to be scaled down from their global level (Burford et al., 18 
2013).  19 
This especially holds true when applying the SDGs to the Arctic. The SDGs have “not been 20 
produced with the Polar Regions in mind” (Sköld et al., 2018), which has led to discrepancies 21 
to how well the SDGs, their targets and indicators apply to the High North. Due to this mis-22 
match, it is unlikely that pathways towards implementing the SDGs in the Arctic can effectively 23 
be assessed and tracked (ibid.). Sköld et al. (2018:3) thus states that ”[t]here is a dire need for 24 
a suite of polar indicators that allow us to cross-reference to the SDGs while having the tool to 25 
 
 
2 
 
monitor change in the Polar Regions. Developing such a suite of polar indicators will neces-26 
sarily inform work on a post-2030 development agenda.” Further it is important to find the 27 
prerequisites that will enable UN member states to address sustainable development issues 28 
in their countries in a way that gives meaning to ‘nationally owned development’ (Adams, 29 
2015:2). 30 
SDG indicators and the need to put them into context 31 
The 232 indicators of the SDGs can be regarded as a voluntary management tool to compre-32 
hend if sustainable development measures prove successful and if the SDGs are on track. 33 
While the UN (2017a) has acknowledged that the indicators need to be adjusted to local needs 34 
and priorities under involvement of stakeholders, the indicators are still criticized to be of little 35 
relevance to local communities (Simon et al., 2016; Sköld et al., 2018). In the Arctic for exam-36 
ple, climate change especially affects indigenous peoples whose way of life, culture and iden-37 
tity are closely interwoven with the environment (Adger et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2014). Sus-38 
tainable development indicators should also monitor the “invisible” losses and changes that 39 
are not directly measurable, but play an important role for individuals and communities, such 40 
as culture, self-determination and wellbeing (Wolf et al., 2013:549).  41 
Already in the development of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the forerunner of 42 
the SDGs, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UN-PFII) raised its concern that 43 
none of the available indicators were appropriate to measure the process of the MDGs in the 44 
cultural context of indigenous peoples (UN-PFII, 2006; Burford et al., 2013). Sköld et al. (2018) 45 
also point out that in the current SDGs no single indicator focusses on cultural wellbeing or on 46 
the retention of ancestral languages. Further, the economic indicators do not pay account to 47 
the importance of mixed and subsistence economies, while migration related indicators (10.7.1 48 
and 10.7.2) are not applicable to the rapid population and demographic shifts in the Arctic 49 
(ibid). Appropriate, context-relevant indicators are thus needed that integrate “all possible lev-50 
els of the polar social-ecological systems (including the atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, 51 
biosphere and socio-cultural and politico-economic systems)” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). 52 
 
 
3 
 
Suggested strategy 53 
This statement advocates developing a suite of polar indicators to assess the state of the so-54 
cial-ecological systems in the Arctic, and to create guidelines for sustainable monitoring and 55 
regular assessments that track the progress on pathways towards a sustainable development. 56 
This would improve disaster preparedness, the adaptive capacity of hard and soft infrastruc-57 
tures, address food, water and energy security, and sustainable economic development (Sköld 58 
et al., 2018).  59 
Various efforts are already working towards this goal: The Arctic Council Sustainable Devel-60 
opment Working Group for example proposed a suite of Arctic Social Indicators (ASI, 2014) 61 
and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration currently funds a project that 62 
looks into possibilities for defining relevant indicators that asses biophysical changes in the 63 
Arctic. These projects, however, represent fragmented and disconnected efforts. What is 64 
needed is a comprehensive and integrated suite of polar indicators, which includes (1) relevant 65 
elements from the biophysical, socio-cultural, and politico-economic environments, and (2) ac-66 
counts for their often coupled nature (Sköld et al., 2018).  67 
When selecting appropriate indicators, it is necessary to compare the amount of data already 68 
provided (and their potential use for assessing progress) with the cost of creating the neces-69 
sary soft infrastructure to collect the relevant data. It is also essential to co-produce the indica-70 
tors with scientific experts and stake- and right holders respectively and to validate their ap-71 
propriateness with local communities in the Arctic (Sköld et al., 2018).  72 
Furthermore, these indicators are only useful if the relevant information is collected on sus-73 
tained, i.e. long-term, basis. This has been a problem for many small-scale research projects, 74 
as they typically do not concern themselves with a sustained collection of information beyond 75 
the project’s duration. This was also a problem with the MDGs where 46% of the data needed 76 
 
 
4 
 
were not available for reporting at the end of 2015, and the challenge is apparent for the pre-77 
sent UNECE member countries to currently be able to produce data in support of SDG indica-78 
tors (Road map, 2017).  79 
The way forward 80 
We can conclude that accurate and relevant indicators for the Arctic need to be developed and 81 
that sustained and feasible monitoring has to be ensured. This will enable us to observe 82 
changes in the complex polar social-ecological systems on a long-term basis and to develop 83 
meaningful sustainable development measures based on these observations (Sköld et al., 84 
2018). “Unless, we commit to this [initiative] now, we will miss a unique opportunity to be pre-85 
pared for the future in the Arctic, to build an informed post-2030 development agenda and to 86 
link the SDGs to developments and change in the Arctic region.” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). In 87 
developing relevant SDG indicators for the Arctic, we suggest the following steps: 88 
• examination of the existing SDGs indicators' framework and seeing what indicators ap-89 
ply to the Arctic; 90 
• examination of what other indicators for the Polar Regions have been used/proposed 91 
in social science projects (e.g. Arctic Social Indicators, Arctic Human Development Re-92 
port, ECONOR); it would be equally essential to reach out to natural scientists and 93 
representatives of indigenous and local communities for their input; 94 
• estimation of how much data is collected for the current indicators. Even if this data 95 
is stored in various forms, locations and institutions, such information could be a great 96 
starting point to show the present knowledge about Polar Social and Environmental 97 
Standards. 98 
Finally, it is important to establish a relation to non-Arctic partners involved in implementing 99 
the Agenda 2030, and specifically the use of the SDG indicators. There is a lot to be learned 100 
from the work of others, both at regional and national levels, and vice versa the efforts in the 101 
Arctic can add significant value to the progress in other regions (a joint discussion has already 102 
 
 
5 
 
been established with the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region). This efforts respond to the United 103 
Nations, which urges  104 
• “international organizations to base the global review on data produced by national 105 
statistical systems and, if specific country data are not available for reliable estimation, 106 
to consult with concerned countries to produce and validate modelled estimates before 107 
publication”,  108 
• “that communication and coordination among international organizations be enhanced 109 
in order to avoid duplicate reports, ensure consistency of data and reduce response 110 
burdens on countries”, 111 
• “international organizations to provide the methodologies used to harmonize country 112 
data for international comparability and produce estimates through transparent mech-113 
anisms” (United Nations, 2017b:3).  114 
Background 115 
This statement is based on the EU-PolarNet White Paper: The Road to the Desired States of 116 
Social-Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions (Sköld et al., 2018), which was developed at 117 
the EU-PolarNet white paper workshop. The objective of the workshop, which took place in 118 
September 2017 in Spain, was to develop five white papers with topics of high interest to the 119 
European society. It brought together thoroughly chosen international polar experts including 120 
natural and social scientists, representatives of indigenous peoples and business representa-121 
tives. 122 
 123 
 124 
 125 
 
 
6 
 
References 126 
Adger, W. N.; Huq, S.; Brown, K.; Conway, D.; and Hulme, M. 2003. Adaptation to climate 127 
change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3 (3), S. 179–195. 128 
DOI: 10.1191/1464993403ps060oa. 129 
Adams, B. 2015. SDG indicators and data: Who collects? Who reports? Who benefits?. 130 
Global Policy Watch 2015:9. 131 
ASI. 2014. Arctic Social Indicators II: Implementation. Larsen, J.N.; Schweitzer, P.; and Pet-132 
rov, A. (eds.). TemaNord. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 133 
Burford, G.; Hoover, E.; Velasco, I.; Janoušková, S.; Jimenez, A.; Piggot, G.; Podger, D.; and 134 
Harder, M.K. 2013. Bringing the “missing pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals. 135 
Towards intersubjective values-based indicators. Sustainability 5 (7), S. 3035–3059. 136 
DOI: 10.3390/su5073035. 137 
Hajer, M.; Nilsson, M.; Raworth, K.; Bakker, P.; Berkhout, F.; de Boer, Y.; Rockström, Y.; et 138 
al. 2015. Beyond Cockpitism. Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of 139 
the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 7 (2), S. 1651–1660. DOI: 140 
10.3390/su7021651. 141 
Reid, M.G.; Hamilton, C.; Reid, S.K.; Trousdale, W.; Hill, C.; Turner, N.; Picard, C.R., et al. 142 
2014. Indigenous climate change adaptation planning using a values-focused approach. 143 
A case study with the Gitga'at Nation. Journal of Ethnobiology 34 (3), S. 401–424. DOI: 144 
10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.401. 145 
Road map on statistics for Sustainable development goals. 2017. United Nations Economic 146 
Commission for Europe. United Nations: New York and Geneva.  147 
Simon, D.; Arfvidsson, H.; Anand, G.; Bazaz, A.; Fenna, G.; Foster, K.; Jain, G., et al. 2016. 148 
Developing and testing the urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and indica-149 
tors – a five-city study. Environment and Urbanization 28 (1), S. 49–63. DOI: 150 
10.1177/0956247815619865. 151 
Sköld, P.; Liggett, D.; Smieszek, M.; Staffansson, J.; Bastmeijer C. J.; Evengård, B.; Muir, 152 
M.; Scheepstra, A.J.M.; and Latola, K., 2018. ‘The Road to the Desired States of Social-153 
 
 
7 
 
Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions’. EU-PolarNet White Paper.  154 
Manuscript in preparation. 155 
United Nations 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-156 
ment. RES/70/1, Seventieth United Nations General Assembly. 157 
United Nations 2017a. Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Devel-158 
opment Goal. Indicators revised list of global Sustainable Development Goal indicators. 159 
E/CN.3/2017/2. United Nations. 160 
United Nations 2017b. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining  161 
to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/71/313.United Nations.  162 
UN-PFII, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2006. Report on the fifth 163 
session (15-26 May 2006). E/2006/43. Unite Nations Economic and Social Council. New 164 
York (Official Records, Supplement No. 23). 165 
Wolf, J.; Allice, I.; and Bell, T. 2013. Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation. 166 
Evidence from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Global Environmental Change 23 167 
(2), S. 548–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.007. 168 


Dissertations of the University of Groningen

   University of GroningenThe SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicatorsSköld, Peter; Baer, Kristina; Scheepstra, Adriana; Latola, Kirsi; Biebow, NicoleIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2018Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Sköld, P., Baer, K., Scheepstra, A., Latola, K., & Biebow, N. (2018). The SDGs and the Arctic: The need forpolar indicators. Paper presented at Arctic Observing Summit 2018, Davos, Switzerland.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 09-09-2023 Arctic Observing Summit 2018  Statement on the Need for the Observing System: Societal Benefits – Long-Term Perspec-tive delivered by EU-PolarNet   The SDGs and the Arctic:  The need for polar indicators  Peter Sköld1, Kristina C. Baer2, Annette Scheepstra3, Kirsi Latola4, Nicole Biebow2   1 Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden 2 Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research,  Am Handelshafen 12, DE-27570 Bremerhaven, Germany 3 University of Groningen, Arctic Centre, Aweg 30, PO Box 716, NL-9700 Groningen, Netherlands 4 University of Oulu, Thule Institute, PO Box 7300, FI-90014, Finland   Corresponding author   Peter Sköld Professor, Executive director, Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University,  SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden Phone: +46 90 7866347 Email: peter.skold@umu.se                         1  The SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicators 1 Introduction 2 Our understanding of the Arctic rests to a great extent on the capacity to build long-term ob-3 servations series. The overall aim of these scientifically based observations is to reach a sus-4 tainable development that counter-acts the troublesome future scenario we foresee today. 5 While major drivers of climate change are found outside the Arctic, there is nevertheless a 6 strong need also for the four million people that live in the Arctic to act responsible in order to 7 create capacity for sustainable development. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8 offer an important framework for both guiding a sustainable development of the region, as well 9 as for improving existing and developing new observation and monitoring systems for the Arc-10 tic. This allows an approach where the challenges, changes and the adaptation potential of 11 societies and the ecological systems can be well monitored.   12 The 17 goals and 169 targets of the SDGs are set up as an integrated and indivisible concept 13 to enable a global sustainable development (UN, 2015). They are unprecedented in scope and 14 significance (ibid.), however, this global approach has also been criticised as being top-down 15 and too focused on the belief that global problems can be solved on the level of governments 16 and international organisations (Hajer et al., 2015). In order to be relevant to specific contexts, 17 the goals and their targets would need to be scaled down from their global level (Burford et al., 18 2013).  19 This especially holds true when applying the SDGs to the Arctic. The SDGs have “not been 20 produced with the Polar Regions in mind” (Sköld et al., 2018), which has led to discrepancies 21 to how well the SDGs, their targets and indicators apply to the High North. Due to this mis-22 match, it is unlikely that pathways towards implementing the SDGs in the Arctic can effectively 23 be assessed and tracked (ibid.). Sköld et al. (2018:3) thus states that ”[t]here is a dire need for 24 a suite of polar indicators that allow us to cross-reference to the SDGs while having the tool to 25   2  monitor change in the Polar Regions. Developing such a suite of polar indicators will neces-26 sarily inform work on a post-2030 development agenda.” Further it is important to find the 27 prerequisites that will enable UN member states to address sustainable development issues 28 in their countries in a way that gives meaning to ‘nationally owned development’ (Adams, 29 2015:2). 30 SDG indicators and the need to put them into context 31 The 232 indicators of the SDGs can be regarded as a voluntary management tool to compre-32 hend if sustainable development measures prove successful and if the SDGs are on track. 33 While the UN (2017a) has acknowledged that the indicators need to be adjusted to local needs 34 and priorities under involvement of stakeholders, the indicators are still criticized to be of little 35 relevance to local communities (Simon et al., 2016; Sköld et al., 2018). In the Arctic for exam-36 ple, climate change especially affects indigenous peoples whose way of life, culture and iden-37 tity are closely interwoven with the environment (Adger et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2014). Sus-38 tainable development indicators should also monitor the “invisible” losses and changes that 39 are not directly measurable, but play an important role for individuals and communities, such 40 as culture, self-determination and wellbeing (Wolf et al., 2013:549).  41 Already in the development of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the forerunner of 42 the SDGs, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UN-PFII) raised its concern that 43 none of the available indicators were appropriate to measure the process of the MDGs in the 44 cultural context of indigenous peoples (UN-PFII, 2006; Burford et al., 2013). Sköld et al. (2018) 45 also point out that in the current SDGs no single indicator focusses on cultural wellbeing or on 46 the retention of ancestral languages. Further, the economic indicators do not pay account to 47 the importance of mixed and subsistence economies, while migration related indicators (10.7.1 48 and 10.7.2) are not applicable to the rapid population and demographic shifts in the Arctic 49 (ibid). Appropriate, context-relevant indicators are thus needed that integrate “all possible lev-50 els of the polar social-ecological systems (including the atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, 51 biosphere and socio-cultural and politico-economic systems)” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). 52   3  Suggested strategy 53 This statement advocates developing a suite of polar indicators to assess the state of the so-54 cial-ecological systems in the Arctic, and to create guidelines for sustainable monitoring and 55 regular assessments that track the progress on pathways towards a sustainable development. 56 This would improve disaster preparedness, the adaptive capacity of hard and soft infrastruc-57 tures, address food, water and energy security, and sustainable economic development (Sköld 58 et al., 2018).  59 Various efforts are already working towards this goal: The Arctic Council Sustainable Devel-60 opment Working Group for example proposed a suite of Arctic Social Indicators (ASI, 2014) 61 and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration currently funds a project that 62 looks into possibilities for defining relevant indicators that asses biophysical changes in the 63 Arctic. These projects, however, represent fragmented and disconnected efforts. What is 64 needed is a comprehensive and integrated suite of polar indicators, which includes (1) relevant 65 elements from the biophysical, socio-cultural, and politico-economic environments, and (2) ac-66 counts for their often coupled nature (Sköld et al., 2018).  67 When selecting appropriate indicators, it is necessary to compare the amount of data already 68 provided (and their potential use for assessing progress) with the cost of creating the neces-69 sary soft infrastructure to collect the relevant data. It is also essential to co-produce the indica-70 tors with scientific experts and stake- and right holders respectively and to validate their ap-71 propriateness with local communities in the Arctic (Sköld et al., 2018).  72 Furthermore, these indicators are only useful if the relevant information is collected on sus-73 tained, i.e. long-term, basis. This has been a problem for many small-scale research projects, 74 as they typically do not concern themselves with a sustained collection of information beyond 75 the project’s duration. This was also a problem with the MDGs where 46% of the data needed 76   4  were not available for reporting at the end of 2015, and the challenge is apparent for the pre-77 sent UNECE member countries to currently be able to produce data in support of SDG indica-78 tors (Road map, 2017).  79 The way forward 80 We can conclude that accurate and relevant indicators for the Arctic need to be developed and 81 that sustained and feasible monitoring has to be ensured. This will enable us to observe 82 changes in the complex polar social-ecological systems on a long-term basis and to develop 83 meaningful sustainable development measures based on these observations (Sköld et al., 84 2018). “Unless, we commit to this [initiative] now, we will miss a unique opportunity to be pre-85 pared for the future in the Arctic, to build an informed post-2030 development agenda and to 86 link the SDGs to developments and change in the Arctic region.” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). In 87 developing relevant SDG indicators for the Arctic, we suggest the following steps: 88 • examination of the existing SDGs indicators' framework and seeing what indicators ap-89 ply to the Arctic; 90 • examination of what other indicators for the Polar Regions have been used/proposed 91 in social science projects (e.g. Arctic Social Indicators, Arctic Human Development Re-92 port, ECONOR); it would be equally essential to reach out to natural scientists and 93 representatives of indigenous and local communities for their input; 94 • estimation of how much data is collected for the current indicators. Even if this data 95 is stored in various forms, locations and institutions, such information could be a great 96 starting point to show the present knowledge about Polar Social and Environmental 97 Standards. 98 Finally, it is important to establish a relation to non-Arctic partners involved in implementing 99 the Agenda 2030, and specifically the use of the SDG indicators. There is a lot to be learned 100 from the work of others, both at regional and national levels, and vice versa the efforts in the 101 Arctic can add significant value to the progress in other regions (a joint discussion has already 102   5  been established with the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region). This efforts respond to the United 103 Nations, which urges  104 • “international organizations to base the global review on data produced by national 105 statistical systems and, if specific country data are not available for reliable estimation, 106 to consult with concerned countries to produce and validate modelled estimates before 107 publication”,  108 • “that communication and coordination among international organizations be enhanced 109 in order to avoid duplicate reports, ensure consistency of data and reduce response 110 burdens on countries”, 111 • “international organizations to provide the methodologies used to harmonize country 112 data for international comparability and produce estimates through transparent mech-113 anisms” (United Nations, 2017b:3).  114 Background 115 This statement is based on the EU-PolarNet White Paper: The Road to the Desired States of 116 Social-Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions (Sköld et al., 2018), which was developed at 117 the EU-PolarNet white paper workshop. The objective of the workshop, which took place in 118 September 2017 in Spain, was to develop five white papers with topics of high interest to the 119 European society. It brought together thoroughly chosen international polar experts including 120 natural and social scientists, representatives of indigenous peoples and business representa-121 tives. 122  123  124  125   6  References 126 Adger, W. N.; Huq, S.; Brown, K.; Conway, D.; and Hulme, M. 2003. Adaptation to climate 127 change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3 (3), S. 179–195. 128 DOI: 10.1191/1464993403ps060oa. 129 Adams, B. 2015. SDG indicators and data: Who collects? Who reports? Who benefits?. 130 Global Policy Watch 2015:9. 131 ASI. 2014. Arctic Social Indicators II: Implementation. Larsen, J.N.; Schweitzer, P.; and Pet-132 rov, A. (eds.). TemaNord. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 133 Burford, G.; Hoover, E.; Velasco, I.; Janoušková, S.; Jimenez, A.; Piggot, G.; Podger, D.; and 134 Harder, M.K. 2013. Bringing the “missing pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals. 135 Towards intersubjective values-based indicators. Sustainability 5 (7), S. 3035–3059. 136 DOI: 10.3390/su5073035. 137 Hajer, M.; Nilsson, M.; Raworth, K.; Bakker, P.; Berkhout, F.; de Boer, Y.; Rockström, Y.; et 138 al. 2015. Beyond Cockpitism. Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of 139 the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 7 (2), S. 1651–1660. DOI: 140 10.3390/su7021651. 141 Reid, M.G.; Hamilton, C.; Reid, S.K.; Trousdale, W.; Hill, C.; Turner, N.; Picard, C.R., et al. 142 2014. Indigenous climate change adaptation planning using a values-focused approach. 143 A case study with the Gitga'at Nation. Journal of Ethnobiology 34 (3), S. 401–424. DOI: 144 10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.401. 145 Road map on statistics for Sustainable development goals. 2017. United Nations Economic 146 Commission for Europe. United Nations: New York and Geneva.  147 Simon, D.; Arfvidsson, H.; Anand, G.; Bazaz, A.; Fenna, G.; Foster, K.; Jain, G., et al. 2016. 148 Developing and testing the urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and indica-149 tors – a five-city study. Environment and Urbanization 28 (1), S. 49–63. DOI: 150 10.1177/0956247815619865. 151 Sköld, P.; Liggett, D.; Smieszek, M.; Staffansson, J.; Bastmeijer C. J.; Evengård, B.; Muir, 152 M.; Scheepstra, A.J.M.; and Latola, K., 2018. ‘The Road to the Desired States of Social-153   7  Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions’. EU-PolarNet White Paper.  154 Manuscript in preparation. 155 United Nations 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-156 ment. RES/70/1, Seventieth United Nations General Assembly. 157 United Nations 2017a. Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Devel-158 opment Goal. Indicators revised list of global Sustainable Development Goal indicators. 159 E/CN.3/2017/2. United Nations. 160 United Nations 2017b. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining  161 to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/71/313.United Nations.  162 UN-PFII, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2006. Report on the fifth 163 session (15-26 May 2006). E/2006/43. Unite Nations Economic and Social Council. New 164 York (Official Records, Supplement No. 23). 165 Wolf, J.; Allice, I.; and Bell, T. 2013. Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation. 166 Evidence from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Global Environmental Change 23 167 (2), S. 548–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.007. 168 

University of Groningen

   University of GroningenThe SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicatorsSköld, Peter; Baer, Kristina; Scheepstra, Adriana; Latola, Kirsi; Biebow, NicoleIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2018Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Sköld, P., Baer, K., Scheepstra, A., Latola, K., & Biebow, N. (2018). The SDGs and the Arctic: The need forpolar indicators. Paper presented at Arctic Observing Summit 2018, Davos, Switzerland.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 12-11-2019 Arctic Observing Summit 2018  Statement on the Need for the Observing System: Societal Benefits – Long-Term Perspec-tive delivered by EU-PolarNet   The SDGs and the Arctic:  The need for polar indicators  Peter Sköld1, Kristina C. Baer2, Annette Scheepstra3, Kirsi Latola4, Nicole Biebow2   1 Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden 2 Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research,  Am Handelshafen 12, DE-27570 Bremerhaven, Germany 3 University of Groningen, Arctic Centre, Aweg 30, PO Box 716, NL-9700 Groningen, Netherlands 4 University of Oulu, Thule Institute, PO Box 7300, FI-90014, Finland   Corresponding author   Peter Sköld Professor, Executive director, Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University,  SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden Phone: +46 90 7866347 Email: peter.skold@umu.se                         1  The SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicators 1 Introduction 2 Our understanding of the Arctic rests to a great extent on the capacity to build long-term ob-3 servations series. The overall aim of these scientifically based observations is to reach a sus-4 tainable development that counter-acts the troublesome future scenario we foresee today. 5 While major drivers of climate change are found outside the Arctic, there is nevertheless a 6 strong need also for the four million people that live in the Arctic to act responsible in order to 7 create capacity for sustainable development. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8 offer an important framework for both guiding a sustainable development of the region, as well 9 as for improving existing and developing new observation and monitoring systems for the Arc-10 tic. This allows an approach where the challenges, changes and the adaptation potential of 11 societies and the ecological systems can be well monitored.   12 The 17 goals and 169 targets of the SDGs are set up as an integrated and indivisible concept 13 to enable a global sustainable development (UN, 2015). They are unprecedented in scope and 14 significance (ibid.), however, this global approach has also been criticised as being top-down 15 and too focused on the belief that global problems can be solved on the level of governments 16 and international organisations (Hajer et al., 2015). In order to be relevant to specific contexts, 17 the goals and their targets would need to be scaled down from their global level (Burford et al., 18 2013).  19 This especially holds true when applying the SDGs to the Arctic. The SDGs have “not been 20 produced with the Polar Regions in mind” (Sköld et al., 2018), which has led to discrepancies 21 to how well the SDGs, their targets and indicators apply to the High North. Due to this mis-22 match, it is unlikely that pathways towards implementing the SDGs in the Arctic can effectively 23 be assessed and tracked (ibid.). Sköld et al. (2018:3) thus states that ”[t]here is a dire need for 24 a suite of polar indicators that allow us to cross-reference to the SDGs while having the tool to 25   2  monitor change in the Polar Regions. Developing such a suite of polar indicators will neces-26 sarily inform work on a post-2030 development agenda.” Further it is important to find the 27 prerequisites that will enable UN member states to address sustainable development issues 28 in their countries in a way that gives meaning to ‘nationally owned development’ (Adams, 29 2015:2). 30 SDG indicators and the need to put them into context 31 The 232 indicators of the SDGs can be regarded as a voluntary management tool to compre-32 hend if sustainable development measures prove successful and if the SDGs are on track. 33 While the UN (2017a) has acknowledged that the indicators need to be adjusted to local needs 34 and priorities under involvement of stakeholders, the indicators are still criticized to be of little 35 relevance to local communities (Simon et al., 2016; Sköld et al., 2018). In the Arctic for exam-36 ple, climate change especially affects indigenous peoples whose way of life, culture and iden-37 tity are closely interwoven with the environment (Adger et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2014). Sus-38 tainable development indicators should also monitor the “invisible” losses and changes that 39 are not directly measurable, but play an important role for individuals and communities, such 40 as culture, self-determination and wellbeing (Wolf et al., 2013:549).  41 Already in the development of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the forerunner of 42 the SDGs, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UN-PFII) raised its concern that 43 none of the available indicators were appropriate to measure the process of the MDGs in the 44 cultural context of indigenous peoples (UN-PFII, 2006; Burford et al., 2013). Sköld et al. (2018) 45 also point out that in the current SDGs no single indicator focusses on cultural wellbeing or on 46 the retention of ancestral languages. Further, the economic indicators do not pay account to 47 the importance of mixed and subsistence economies, while migration related indicators (10.7.1 48 and 10.7.2) are not applicable to the rapid population and demographic shifts in the Arctic 49 (ibid). Appropriate, context-relevant indicators are thus needed that integrate “all possible lev-50 els of the polar social-ecological systems (including the atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, 51 biosphere and socio-cultural and politico-economic systems)” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). 52   3  Suggested strategy 53 This statement advocates developing a suite of polar indicators to assess the state of the so-54 cial-ecological systems in the Arctic, and to create guidelines for sustainable monitoring and 55 regular assessments that track the progress on pathways towards a sustainable development. 56 This would improve disaster preparedness, the adaptive capacity of hard and soft infrastruc-57 tures, address food, water and energy security, and sustainable economic development (Sköld 58 et al., 2018).  59 Various efforts are already working towards this goal: The Arctic Council Sustainable Devel-60 opment Working Group for example proposed a suite of Arctic Social Indicators (ASI, 2014) 61 and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration currently funds a project that 62 looks into possibilities for defining relevant indicators that asses biophysical changes in the 63 Arctic. These projects, however, represent fragmented and disconnected efforts. What is 64 needed is a comprehensive and integrated suite of polar indicators, which includes (1) relevant 65 elements from the biophysical, socio-cultural, and politico-economic environments, and (2) ac-66 counts for their often coupled nature (Sköld et al., 2018).  67 When selecting appropriate indicators, it is necessary to compare the amount of data already 68 provided (and their potential use for assessing progress) with the cost of creating the neces-69 sary soft infrastructure to collect the relevant data. It is also essential to co-produce the indica-70 tors with scientific experts and stake- and right holders respectively and to validate their ap-71 propriateness with local communities in the Arctic (Sköld et al., 2018).  72 Furthermore, these indicators are only useful if the relevant information is collected on sus-73 tained, i.e. long-term, basis. This has been a problem for many small-scale research projects, 74 as they typically do not concern themselves with a sustained collection of information beyond 75 the project’s duration. This was also a problem with the MDGs where 46% of the data needed 76   4  were not available for reporting at the end of 2015, and the challenge is apparent for the pre-77 sent UNECE member countries to currently be able to produce data in support of SDG indica-78 tors (Road map, 2017).  79 The way forward 80 We can conclude that accurate and relevant indicators for the Arctic need to be developed and 81 that sustained and feasible monitoring has to be ensured. This will enable us to observe 82 changes in the complex polar social-ecological systems on a long-term basis and to develop 83 meaningful sustainable development measures based on these observations (Sköld et al., 84 2018). “Unless, we commit to this [initiative] now, we will miss a unique opportunity to be pre-85 pared for the future in the Arctic, to build an informed post-2030 development agenda and to 86 link the SDGs to developments and change in the Arctic region.” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). In 87 developing relevant SDG indicators for the Arctic, we suggest the following steps: 88 • examination of the existing SDGs indicators' framework and seeing what indicators ap-89 ply to the Arctic; 90 • examination of what other indicators for the Polar Regions have been used/proposed 91 in social science projects (e.g. Arctic Social Indicators, Arctic Human Development Re-92 port, ECONOR); it would be equally essential to reach out to natural scientists and 93 representatives of indigenous and local communities for their input; 94 • estimation of how much data is collected for the current indicators. Even if this data 95 is stored in various forms, locations and institutions, such information could be a great 96 starting point to show the present knowledge about Polar Social and Environmental 97 Standards. 98 Finally, it is important to establish a relation to non-Arctic partners involved in implementing 99 the Agenda 2030, and specifically the use of the SDG indicators. There is a lot to be learned 100 from the work of others, both at regional and national levels, and vice versa the efforts in the 101 Arctic can add significant value to the progress in other regions (a joint discussion has already 102   5  been established with the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region). This efforts respond to the United 103 Nations, which urges  104 • “international organizations to base the global review on data produced by national 105 statistical systems and, if specific country data are not available for reliable estimation, 106 to consult with concerned countries to produce and validate modelled estimates before 107 publication”,  108 • “that communication and coordination among international organizations be enhanced 109 in order to avoid duplicate reports, ensure consistency of data and reduce response 110 burdens on countries”, 111 • “international organizations to provide the methodologies used to harmonize country 112 data for international comparability and produce estimates through transparent mech-113 anisms” (United Nations, 2017b:3).  114 Background 115 This statement is based on the EU-PolarNet White Paper: The Road to the Desired States of 116 Social-Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions (Sköld et al., 2018), which was developed at 117 the EU-PolarNet white paper workshop. The objective of the workshop, which took place in 118 September 2017 in Spain, was to develop five white papers with topics of high interest to the 119 European society. It brought together thoroughly chosen international polar experts including 120 natural and social scientists, representatives of indigenous peoples and business representa-121 tives. 122  123  124  125   6  References 126 Adger, W. N.; Huq, S.; Brown, K.; Conway, D.; and Hulme, M. 2003. Adaptation to climate 127 change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3 (3), S. 179–195. 128 DOI: 10.1191/1464993403ps060oa. 129 Adams, B. 2015. SDG indicators and data: Who collects? Who reports? Who benefits?. 130 Global Policy Watch 2015:9. 131 ASI. 2014. Arctic Social Indicators II: Implementation. Larsen, J.N.; Schweitzer, P.; and Pet-132 rov, A. (eds.). TemaNord. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 133 Burford, G.; Hoover, E.; Velasco, I.; Janoušková, S.; Jimenez, A.; Piggot, G.; Podger, D.; and 134 Harder, M.K. 2013. Bringing the “missing pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals. 135 Towards intersubjective values-based indicators. Sustainability 5 (7), S. 3035–3059. 136 DOI: 10.3390/su5073035. 137 Hajer, M.; Nilsson, M.; Raworth, K.; Bakker, P.; Berkhout, F.; de Boer, Y.; Rockström, Y.; et 138 al. 2015. Beyond Cockpitism. Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of 139 the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 7 (2), S. 1651–1660. DOI: 140 10.3390/su7021651. 141 Reid, M.G.; Hamilton, C.; Reid, S.K.; Trousdale, W.; Hill, C.; Turner, N.; Picard, C.R., et al. 142 2014. Indigenous climate change adaptation planning using a values-focused approach. 143 A case study with the Gitga'at Nation. Journal of Ethnobiology 34 (3), S. 401–424. DOI: 144 10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.401. 145 Road map on statistics for Sustainable development goals. 2017. United Nations Economic 146 Commission for Europe. United Nations: New York and Geneva.  147 Simon, D.; Arfvidsson, H.; Anand, G.; Bazaz, A.; Fenna, G.; Foster, K.; Jain, G., et al. 2016. 148 Developing and testing the urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and indica-149 tors – a five-city study. Environment and Urbanization 28 (1), S. 49–63. DOI: 150 10.1177/0956247815619865. 151 Sköld, P.; Liggett, D.; Smieszek, M.; Staffansson, J.; Bastmeijer C. J.; Evengård, B.; Muir, 152 M.; Scheepstra, A.J.M.; and Latola, K., 2018. ‘The Road to the Desired States of Social-153   7  Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions’. EU-PolarNet White Paper.  154 Manuscript in preparation. 155 United Nations 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-156 ment. RES/70/1, Seventieth United Nations General Assembly. 157 United Nations 2017a. Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Devel-158 opment Goal. Indicators revised list of global Sustainable Development Goal indicators. 159 E/CN.3/2017/2. United Nations. 160 United Nations 2017b. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining  161 to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/71/313.United Nations.  162 UN-PFII, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2006. Report on the fifth 163 session (15-26 May 2006). E/2006/43. Unite Nations Economic and Social Council. New 164 York (Official Records, Supplement No. 23). 165 Wolf, J.; Allice, I.; and Bell, T. 2013. Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation. 166 Evidence from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Global Environmental Change 23 167 (2), S. 548–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.007. 168 

Proceedings - University of Groningen

   University of GroningenThe SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicatorsSköld, Peter; Baer, Kristina; Scheepstra, Adriana; Latola, Kirsi; Biebow, NicoleIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2018Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Sköld, P., Baer, K., Scheepstra, A., Latola, K., & Biebow, N. (2018). The SDGs and the Arctic: The need forpolar indicators. Paper presented at Arctic Observing Summit 2018, Davos, Switzerland.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 05-06-2022 Arctic Observing Summit 2018  Statement on the Need for the Observing System: Societal Benefits – Long-Term Perspec-tive delivered by EU-PolarNet   The SDGs and the Arctic:  The need for polar indicators  Peter Sköld1, Kristina C. Baer2, Annette Scheepstra3, Kirsi Latola4, Nicole Biebow2   1 Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden 2 Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research,  Am Handelshafen 12, DE-27570 Bremerhaven, Germany 3 University of Groningen, Arctic Centre, Aweg 30, PO Box 716, NL-9700 Groningen, Netherlands 4 University of Oulu, Thule Institute, PO Box 7300, FI-90014, Finland   Corresponding author   Peter Sköld Professor, Executive director, Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University,  SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden Phone: +46 90 7866347 Email: peter.skold@umu.se                         1  The SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicators 1 Introduction 2 Our understanding of the Arctic rests to a great extent on the capacity to build long-term ob-3 servations series. The overall aim of these scientifically based observations is to reach a sus-4 tainable development that counter-acts the troublesome future scenario we foresee today. 5 While major drivers of climate change are found outside the Arctic, there is nevertheless a 6 strong need also for the four million people that live in the Arctic to act responsible in order to 7 create capacity for sustainable development. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8 offer an important framework for both guiding a sustainable development of the region, as well 9 as for improving existing and developing new observation and monitoring systems for the Arc-10 tic. This allows an approach where the challenges, changes and the adaptation potential of 11 societies and the ecological systems can be well monitored.   12 The 17 goals and 169 targets of the SDGs are set up as an integrated and indivisible concept 13 to enable a global sustainable development (UN, 2015). They are unprecedented in scope and 14 significance (ibid.), however, this global approach has also been criticised as being top-down 15 and too focused on the belief that global problems can be solved on the level of governments 16 and international organisations (Hajer et al., 2015). In order to be relevant to specific contexts, 17 the goals and their targets would need to be scaled down from their global level (Burford et al., 18 2013).  19 This especially holds true when applying the SDGs to the Arctic. The SDGs have “not been 20 produced with the Polar Regions in mind” (Sköld et al., 2018), which has led to discrepancies 21 to how well the SDGs, their targets and indicators apply to the High North. Due to this mis-22 match, it is unlikely that pathways towards implementing the SDGs in the Arctic can effectively 23 be assessed and tracked (ibid.). Sköld et al. (2018:3) thus states that ”[t]here is a dire need for 24 a suite of polar indicators that allow us to cross-reference to the SDGs while having the tool to 25   2  monitor change in the Polar Regions. Developing such a suite of polar indicators will neces-26 sarily inform work on a post-2030 development agenda.” Further it is important to find the 27 prerequisites that will enable UN member states to address sustainable development issues 28 in their countries in a way that gives meaning to ‘nationally owned development’ (Adams, 29 2015:2). 30 SDG indicators and the need to put them into context 31 The 232 indicators of the SDGs can be regarded as a voluntary management tool to compre-32 hend if sustainable development measures prove successful and if the SDGs are on track. 33 While the UN (2017a) has acknowledged that the indicators need to be adjusted to local needs 34 and priorities under involvement of stakeholders, the indicators are still criticized to be of little 35 relevance to local communities (Simon et al., 2016; Sköld et al., 2018). In the Arctic for exam-36 ple, climate change especially affects indigenous peoples whose way of life, culture and iden-37 tity are closely interwoven with the environment (Adger et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2014). Sus-38 tainable development indicators should also monitor the “invisible” losses and changes that 39 are not directly measurable, but play an important role for individuals and communities, such 40 as culture, self-determination and wellbeing (Wolf et al., 2013:549).  41 Already in the development of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the forerunner of 42 the SDGs, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UN-PFII) raised its concern that 43 none of the available indicators were appropriate to measure the process of the MDGs in the 44 cultural context of indigenous peoples (UN-PFII, 2006; Burford et al., 2013). Sköld et al. (2018) 45 also point out that in the current SDGs no single indicator focusses on cultural wellbeing or on 46 the retention of ancestral languages. Further, the economic indicators do not pay account to 47 the importance of mixed and subsistence economies, while migration related indicators (10.7.1 48 and 10.7.2) are not applicable to the rapid population and demographic shifts in the Arctic 49 (ibid). Appropriate, context-relevant indicators are thus needed that integrate “all possible lev-50 els of the polar social-ecological systems (including the atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, 51 biosphere and socio-cultural and politico-economic systems)” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). 52   3  Suggested strategy 53 This statement advocates developing a suite of polar indicators to assess the state of the so-54 cial-ecological systems in the Arctic, and to create guidelines for sustainable monitoring and 55 regular assessments that track the progress on pathways towards a sustainable development. 56 This would improve disaster preparedness, the adaptive capacity of hard and soft infrastruc-57 tures, address food, water and energy security, and sustainable economic development (Sköld 58 et al., 2018).  59 Various efforts are already working towards this goal: The Arctic Council Sustainable Devel-60 opment Working Group for example proposed a suite of Arctic Social Indicators (ASI, 2014) 61 and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration currently funds a project that 62 looks into possibilities for defining relevant indicators that asses biophysical changes in the 63 Arctic. These projects, however, represent fragmented and disconnected efforts. What is 64 needed is a comprehensive and integrated suite of polar indicators, which includes (1) relevant 65 elements from the biophysical, socio-cultural, and politico-economic environments, and (2) ac-66 counts for their often coupled nature (Sköld et al., 2018).  67 When selecting appropriate indicators, it is necessary to compare the amount of data already 68 provided (and their potential use for assessing progress) with the cost of creating the neces-69 sary soft infrastructure to collect the relevant data. It is also essential to co-produce the indica-70 tors with scientific experts and stake- and right holders respectively and to validate their ap-71 propriateness with local communities in the Arctic (Sköld et al., 2018).  72 Furthermore, these indicators are only useful if the relevant information is collected on sus-73 tained, i.e. long-term, basis. This has been a problem for many small-scale research projects, 74 as they typically do not concern themselves with a sustained collection of information beyond 75 the project’s duration. This was also a problem with the MDGs where 46% of the data needed 76   4  were not available for reporting at the end of 2015, and the challenge is apparent for the pre-77 sent UNECE member countries to currently be able to produce data in support of SDG indica-78 tors (Road map, 2017).  79 The way forward 80 We can conclude that accurate and relevant indicators for the Arctic need to be developed and 81 that sustained and feasible monitoring has to be ensured. This will enable us to observe 82 changes in the complex polar social-ecological systems on a long-term basis and to develop 83 meaningful sustainable development measures based on these observations (Sköld et al., 84 2018). “Unless, we commit to this [initiative] now, we will miss a unique opportunity to be pre-85 pared for the future in the Arctic, to build an informed post-2030 development agenda and to 86 link the SDGs to developments and change in the Arctic region.” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). In 87 developing relevant SDG indicators for the Arctic, we suggest the following steps: 88 • examination of the existing SDGs indicators' framework and seeing what indicators ap-89 ply to the Arctic; 90 • examination of what other indicators for the Polar Regions have been used/proposed 91 in social science projects (e.g. Arctic Social Indicators, Arctic Human Development Re-92 port, ECONOR); it would be equally essential to reach out to natural scientists and 93 representatives of indigenous and local communities for their input; 94 • estimation of how much data is collected for the current indicators. Even if this data 95 is stored in various forms, locations and institutions, such information could be a great 96 starting point to show the present knowledge about Polar Social and Environmental 97 Standards. 98 Finally, it is important to establish a relation to non-Arctic partners involved in implementing 99 the Agenda 2030, and specifically the use of the SDG indicators. There is a lot to be learned 100 from the work of others, both at regional and national levels, and vice versa the efforts in the 101 Arctic can add significant value to the progress in other regions (a joint discussion has already 102   5  been established with the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region). This efforts respond to the United 103 Nations, which urges  104 • “international organizations to base the global review on data produced by national 105 statistical systems and, if specific country data are not available for reliable estimation, 106 to consult with concerned countries to produce and validate modelled estimates before 107 publication”,  108 • “that communication and coordination among international organizations be enhanced 109 in order to avoid duplicate reports, ensure consistency of data and reduce response 110 burdens on countries”, 111 • “international organizations to provide the methodologies used to harmonize country 112 data for international comparability and produce estimates through transparent mech-113 anisms” (United Nations, 2017b:3).  114 Background 115 This statement is based on the EU-PolarNet White Paper: The Road to the Desired States of 116 Social-Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions (Sköld et al., 2018), which was developed at 117 the EU-PolarNet white paper workshop. The objective of the workshop, which took place in 118 September 2017 in Spain, was to develop five white papers with topics of high interest to the 119 European society. It brought together thoroughly chosen international polar experts including 120 natural and social scientists, representatives of indigenous peoples and business representa-121 tives. 122  123  124  125   6  References 126 Adger, W. N.; Huq, S.; Brown, K.; Conway, D.; and Hulme, M. 2003. Adaptation to climate 127 change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3 (3), S. 179–195. 128 DOI: 10.1191/1464993403ps060oa. 129 Adams, B. 2015. SDG indicators and data: Who collects? Who reports? Who benefits?. 130 Global Policy Watch 2015:9. 131 ASI. 2014. Arctic Social Indicators II: Implementation. Larsen, J.N.; Schweitzer, P.; and Pet-132 rov, A. (eds.). TemaNord. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 133 Burford, G.; Hoover, E.; Velasco, I.; Janoušková, S.; Jimenez, A.; Piggot, G.; Podger, D.; and 134 Harder, M.K. 2013. Bringing the “missing pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals. 135 Towards intersubjective values-based indicators. Sustainability 5 (7), S. 3035–3059. 136 DOI: 10.3390/su5073035. 137 Hajer, M.; Nilsson, M.; Raworth, K.; Bakker, P.; Berkhout, F.; de Boer, Y.; Rockström, Y.; et 138 al. 2015. Beyond Cockpitism. Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of 139 the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 7 (2), S. 1651–1660. DOI: 140 10.3390/su7021651. 141 Reid, M.G.; Hamilton, C.; Reid, S.K.; Trousdale, W.; Hill, C.; Turner, N.; Picard, C.R., et al. 142 2014. Indigenous climate change adaptation planning using a values-focused approach. 143 A case study with the Gitga'at Nation. Journal of Ethnobiology 34 (3), S. 401–424. DOI: 144 10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.401. 145 Road map on statistics for Sustainable development goals. 2017. United Nations Economic 146 Commission for Europe. United Nations: New York and Geneva.  147 Simon, D.; Arfvidsson, H.; Anand, G.; Bazaz, A.; Fenna, G.; Foster, K.; Jain, G., et al. 2016. 148 Developing and testing the urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and indica-149 tors – a five-city study. Environment and Urbanization 28 (1), S. 49–63. DOI: 150 10.1177/0956247815619865. 151 Sköld, P.; Liggett, D.; Smieszek, M.; Staffansson, J.; Bastmeijer C. J.; Evengård, B.; Muir, 152 M.; Scheepstra, A.J.M.; and Latola, K., 2018. ‘The Road to the Desired States of Social-153   7  Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions’. EU-PolarNet White Paper.  154 Manuscript in preparation. 155 United Nations 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-156 ment. RES/70/1, Seventieth United Nations General Assembly. 157 United Nations 2017a. Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Devel-158 opment Goal. Indicators revised list of global Sustainable Development Goal indicators. 159 E/CN.3/2017/2. United Nations. 160 United Nations 2017b. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining  161 to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/71/313.United Nations.  162 UN-PFII, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2006. Report on the fifth 163 session (15-26 May 2006). E/2006/43. Unite Nations Economic and Social Council. New 164 York (Official Records, Supplement No. 23). 165 Wolf, J.; Allice, I.; and Bell, T. 2013. Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation. 166 Evidence from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Global Environmental Change 23 167 (2), S. 548–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.007. 168 

NARCIS 

   University of GroningenThe SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicatorsSköld, Peter; Baer, Kristina; Scheepstra, Adriana; Latola, Kirsi; Biebow, NicoleIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2018Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Sköld, P., Baer, K., Scheepstra, A., Latola, K., & Biebow, N. (2018). The SDGs and the Arctic: The need forpolar indicators. Paper presented at Arctic Observing Summit 2018, Davos, Switzerland.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 05-12-2023 Arctic Observing Summit 2018  Statement on the Need for the Observing System: Societal Benefits – Long-Term Perspec-tive delivered by EU-PolarNet   The SDGs and the Arctic:  The need for polar indicators  Peter Sköld1, Kristina C. Baer2, Annette Scheepstra3, Kirsi Latola4, Nicole Biebow2   1 Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden 2 Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research,  Am Handelshafen 12, DE-27570 Bremerhaven, Germany 3 University of Groningen, Arctic Centre, Aweg 30, PO Box 716, NL-9700 Groningen, Netherlands 4 University of Oulu, Thule Institute, PO Box 7300, FI-90014, Finland   Corresponding author   Peter Sköld Professor, Executive director, Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University,  SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden Phone: +46 90 7866347 Email: peter.skold@umu.se                         1  The SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicators 1 Introduction 2 Our understanding of the Arctic rests to a great extent on the capacity to build long-term ob-3 servations series. The overall aim of these scientifically based observations is to reach a sus-4 tainable development that counter-acts the troublesome future scenario we foresee today. 5 While major drivers of climate change are found outside the Arctic, there is nevertheless a 6 strong need also for the four million people that live in the Arctic to act responsible in order to 7 create capacity for sustainable development. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8 offer an important framework for both guiding a sustainable development of the region, as well 9 as for improving existing and developing new observation and monitoring systems for the Arc-10 tic. This allows an approach where the challenges, changes and the adaptation potential of 11 societies and the ecological systems can be well monitored.   12 The 17 goals and 169 targets of the SDGs are set up as an integrated and indivisible concept 13 to enable a global sustainable development (UN, 2015). They are unprecedented in scope and 14 significance (ibid.), however, this global approach has also been criticised as being top-down 15 and too focused on the belief that global problems can be solved on the level of governments 16 and international organisations (Hajer et al., 2015). In order to be relevant to specific contexts, 17 the goals and their targets would need to be scaled down from their global level (Burford et al., 18 2013).  19 This especially holds true when applying the SDGs to the Arctic. The SDGs have “not been 20 produced with the Polar Regions in mind” (Sköld et al., 2018), which has led to discrepancies 21 to how well the SDGs, their targets and indicators apply to the High North. Due to this mis-22 match, it is unlikely that pathways towards implementing the SDGs in the Arctic can effectively 23 be assessed and tracked (ibid.). Sköld et al. (2018:3) thus states that ”[t]here is a dire need for 24 a suite of polar indicators that allow us to cross-reference to the SDGs while having the tool to 25   2  monitor change in the Polar Regions. Developing such a suite of polar indicators will neces-26 sarily inform work on a post-2030 development agenda.” Further it is important to find the 27 prerequisites that will enable UN member states to address sustainable development issues 28 in their countries in a way that gives meaning to ‘nationally owned development’ (Adams, 29 2015:2). 30 SDG indicators and the need to put them into context 31 The 232 indicators of the SDGs can be regarded as a voluntary management tool to compre-32 hend if sustainable development measures prove successful and if the SDGs are on track. 33 While the UN (2017a) has acknowledged that the indicators need to be adjusted to local needs 34 and priorities under involvement of stakeholders, the indicators are still criticized to be of little 35 relevance to local communities (Simon et al., 2016; Sköld et al., 2018). In the Arctic for exam-36 ple, climate change especially affects indigenous peoples whose way of life, culture and iden-37 tity are closely interwoven with the environment (Adger et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2014). Sus-38 tainable development indicators should also monitor the “invisible” losses and changes that 39 are not directly measurable, but play an important role for individuals and communities, such 40 as culture, self-determination and wellbeing (Wolf et al., 2013:549).  41 Already in the development of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the forerunner of 42 the SDGs, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UN-PFII) raised its concern that 43 none of the available indicators were appropriate to measure the process of the MDGs in the 44 cultural context of indigenous peoples (UN-PFII, 2006; Burford et al., 2013). Sköld et al. (2018) 45 also point out that in the current SDGs no single indicator focusses on cultural wellbeing or on 46 the retention of ancestral languages. Further, the economic indicators do not pay account to 47 the importance of mixed and subsistence economies, while migration related indicators (10.7.1 48 and 10.7.2) are not applicable to the rapid population and demographic shifts in the Arctic 49 (ibid). Appropriate, context-relevant indicators are thus needed that integrate “all possible lev-50 els of the polar social-ecological systems (including the atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, 51 biosphere and socio-cultural and politico-economic systems)” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). 52   3  Suggested strategy 53 This statement advocates developing a suite of polar indicators to assess the state of the so-54 cial-ecological systems in the Arctic, and to create guidelines for sustainable monitoring and 55 regular assessments that track the progress on pathways towards a sustainable development. 56 This would improve disaster preparedness, the adaptive capacity of hard and soft infrastruc-57 tures, address food, water and energy security, and sustainable economic development (Sköld 58 et al., 2018).  59 Various efforts are already working towards this goal: The Arctic Council Sustainable Devel-60 opment Working Group for example proposed a suite of Arctic Social Indicators (ASI, 2014) 61 and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration currently funds a project that 62 looks into possibilities for defining relevant indicators that asses biophysical changes in the 63 Arctic. These projects, however, represent fragmented and disconnected efforts. What is 64 needed is a comprehensive and integrated suite of polar indicators, which includes (1) relevant 65 elements from the biophysical, socio-cultural, and politico-economic environments, and (2) ac-66 counts for their often coupled nature (Sköld et al., 2018).  67 When selecting appropriate indicators, it is necessary to compare the amount of data already 68 provided (and their potential use for assessing progress) with the cost of creating the neces-69 sary soft infrastructure to collect the relevant data. It is also essential to co-produce the indica-70 tors with scientific experts and stake- and right holders respectively and to validate their ap-71 propriateness with local communities in the Arctic (Sköld et al., 2018).  72 Furthermore, these indicators are only useful if the relevant information is collected on sus-73 tained, i.e. long-term, basis. This has been a problem for many small-scale research projects, 74 as they typically do not concern themselves with a sustained collection of information beyond 75 the project’s duration. This was also a problem with the MDGs where 46% of the data needed 76   4  were not available for reporting at the end of 2015, and the challenge is apparent for the pre-77 sent UNECE member countries to currently be able to produce data in support of SDG indica-78 tors (Road map, 2017).  79 The way forward 80 We can conclude that accurate and relevant indicators for the Arctic need to be developed and 81 that sustained and feasible monitoring has to be ensured. This will enable us to observe 82 changes in the complex polar social-ecological systems on a long-term basis and to develop 83 meaningful sustainable development measures based on these observations (Sköld et al., 84 2018). “Unless, we commit to this [initiative] now, we will miss a unique opportunity to be pre-85 pared for the future in the Arctic, to build an informed post-2030 development agenda and to 86 link the SDGs to developments and change in the Arctic region.” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). In 87 developing relevant SDG indicators for the Arctic, we suggest the following steps: 88 • examination of the existing SDGs indicators' framework and seeing what indicators ap-89 ply to the Arctic; 90 • examination of what other indicators for the Polar Regions have been used/proposed 91 in social science projects (e.g. Arctic Social Indicators, Arctic Human Development Re-92 port, ECONOR); it would be equally essential to reach out to natural scientists and 93 representatives of indigenous and local communities for their input; 94 • estimation of how much data is collected for the current indicators. Even if this data 95 is stored in various forms, locations and institutions, such information could be a great 96 starting point to show the present knowledge about Polar Social and Environmental 97 Standards. 98 Finally, it is important to establish a relation to non-Arctic partners involved in implementing 99 the Agenda 2030, and specifically the use of the SDG indicators. There is a lot to be learned 100 from the work of others, both at regional and national levels, and vice versa the efforts in the 101 Arctic can add significant value to the progress in other regions (a joint discussion has already 102   5  been established with the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region). This efforts respond to the United 103 Nations, which urges  104 • “international organizations to base the global review on data produced by national 105 statistical systems and, if specific country data are not available for reliable estimation, 106 to consult with concerned countries to produce and validate modelled estimates before 107 publication”,  108 • “that communication and coordination among international organizations be enhanced 109 in order to avoid duplicate reports, ensure consistency of data and reduce response 110 burdens on countries”, 111 • “international organizations to provide the methodologies used to harmonize country 112 data for international comparability and produce estimates through transparent mech-113 anisms” (United Nations, 2017b:3).  114 Background 115 This statement is based on the EU-PolarNet White Paper: The Road to the Desired States of 116 Social-Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions (Sköld et al., 2018), which was developed at 117 the EU-PolarNet white paper workshop. The objective of the workshop, which took place in 118 September 2017 in Spain, was to develop five white papers with topics of high interest to the 119 European society. It brought together thoroughly chosen international polar experts including 120 natural and social scientists, representatives of indigenous peoples and business representa-121 tives. 122  123  124  125   6  References 126 Adger, W. N.; Huq, S.; Brown, K.; Conway, D.; and Hulme, M. 2003. Adaptation to climate 127 change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3 (3), S. 179–195. 128 DOI: 10.1191/1464993403ps060oa. 129 Adams, B. 2015. SDG indicators and data: Who collects? Who reports? Who benefits?. 130 Global Policy Watch 2015:9. 131 ASI. 2014. Arctic Social Indicators II: Implementation. Larsen, J.N.; Schweitzer, P.; and Pet-132 rov, A. (eds.). TemaNord. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 133 Burford, G.; Hoover, E.; Velasco, I.; Janoušková, S.; Jimenez, A.; Piggot, G.; Podger, D.; and 134 Harder, M.K. 2013. Bringing the “missing pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals. 135 Towards intersubjective values-based indicators. Sustainability 5 (7), S. 3035–3059. 136 DOI: 10.3390/su5073035. 137 Hajer, M.; Nilsson, M.; Raworth, K.; Bakker, P.; Berkhout, F.; de Boer, Y.; Rockström, Y.; et 138 al. 2015. Beyond Cockpitism. Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of 139 the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 7 (2), S. 1651–1660. DOI: 140 10.3390/su7021651. 141 Reid, M.G.; Hamilton, C.; Reid, S.K.; Trousdale, W.; Hill, C.; Turner, N.; Picard, C.R., et al. 142 2014. Indigenous climate change adaptation planning using a values-focused approach. 143 A case study with the Gitga'at Nation. Journal of Ethnobiology 34 (3), S. 401–424. DOI: 144 10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.401. 145 Road map on statistics for Sustainable development goals. 2017. United Nations Economic 146 Commission for Europe. United Nations: New York and Geneva.  147 Simon, D.; Arfvidsson, H.; Anand, G.; Bazaz, A.; Fenna, G.; Foster, K.; Jain, G., et al. 2016. 148 Developing and testing the urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and indica-149 tors – a five-city study. Environment and Urbanization 28 (1), S. 49–63. DOI: 150 10.1177/0956247815619865. 151 Sköld, P.; Liggett, D.; Smieszek, M.; Staffansson, J.; Bastmeijer C. J.; Evengård, B.; Muir, 152 M.; Scheepstra, A.J.M.; and Latola, K., 2018. ‘The Road to the Desired States of Social-153   7  Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions’. EU-PolarNet White Paper.  154 Manuscript in preparation. 155 United Nations 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-156 ment. RES/70/1, Seventieth United Nations General Assembly. 157 United Nations 2017a. Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Devel-158 opment Goal. Indicators revised list of global Sustainable Development Goal indicators. 159 E/CN.3/2017/2. United Nations. 160 United Nations 2017b. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining  161 to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/71/313.United Nations.  162 UN-PFII, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2006. Report on the fifth 163 session (15-26 May 2006). E/2006/43. Unite Nations Economic and Social Council. New 164 York (Official Records, Supplement No. 23). 165 Wolf, J.; Allice, I.; and Bell, T. 2013. Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation. 166 Evidence from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Global Environmental Change 23 167 (2), S. 548–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.007. 168 

   University of GroningenThe SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicatorsSköld, Peter; Baer, Kristina; Scheepstra, Adriana; Latola, Kirsi; Biebow, NicoleIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2018Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Sköld, P., Baer, K., Scheepstra, A., Latola, K., & Biebow, N. (2018). The SDGs and the Arctic: The need forpolar indicators. Paper presented at Arctic Observing Summit 2018, Davos, Switzerland.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 30-10-2023 Arctic Observing Summit 2018  Statement on the Need for the Observing System: Societal Benefits – Long-Term Perspec-tive delivered by EU-PolarNet   The SDGs and the Arctic:  The need for polar indicators  Peter Sköld1, Kristina C. Baer2, Annette Scheepstra3, Kirsi Latola4, Nicole Biebow2   1 Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden 2 Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research,  Am Handelshafen 12, DE-27570 Bremerhaven, Germany 3 University of Groningen, Arctic Centre, Aweg 30, PO Box 716, NL-9700 Groningen, Netherlands 4 University of Oulu, Thule Institute, PO Box 7300, FI-90014, Finland   Corresponding author   Peter Sköld Professor, Executive director, Arctic Research Centre at Umeå University,  SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden Phone: +46 90 7866347 Email: peter.skold@umu.se                         1  The SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicators 1 Introduction 2 Our understanding of the Arctic rests to a great extent on the capacity to build long-term ob-3 servations series. The overall aim of these scientifically based observations is to reach a sus-4 tainable development that counter-acts the troublesome future scenario we foresee today. 5 While major drivers of climate change are found outside the Arctic, there is nevertheless a 6 strong need also for the four million people that live in the Arctic to act responsible in order to 7 create capacity for sustainable development. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8 offer an important framework for both guiding a sustainable development of the region, as well 9 as for improving existing and developing new observation and monitoring systems for the Arc-10 tic. This allows an approach where the challenges, changes and the adaptation potential of 11 societies and the ecological systems can be well monitored.   12 The 17 goals and 169 targets of the SDGs are set up as an integrated and indivisible concept 13 to enable a global sustainable development (UN, 2015). They are unprecedented in scope and 14 significance (ibid.), however, this global approach has also been criticised as being top-down 15 and too focused on the belief that global problems can be solved on the level of governments 16 and international organisations (Hajer et al., 2015). In order to be relevant to specific contexts, 17 the goals and their targets would need to be scaled down from their global level (Burford et al., 18 2013).  19 This especially holds true when applying the SDGs to the Arctic. The SDGs have “not been 20 produced with the Polar Regions in mind” (Sköld et al., 2018), which has led to discrepancies 21 to how well the SDGs, their targets and indicators apply to the High North. Due to this mis-22 match, it is unlikely that pathways towards implementing the SDGs in the Arctic can effectively 23 be assessed and tracked (ibid.). Sköld et al. (2018:3) thus states that ”[t]here is a dire need for 24 a suite of polar indicators that allow us to cross-reference to the SDGs while having the tool to 25   2  monitor change in the Polar Regions. Developing such a suite of polar indicators will neces-26 sarily inform work on a post-2030 development agenda.” Further it is important to find the 27 prerequisites that will enable UN member states to address sustainable development issues 28 in their countries in a way that gives meaning to ‘nationally owned development’ (Adams, 29 2015:2). 30 SDG indicators and the need to put them into context 31 The 232 indicators of the SDGs can be regarded as a voluntary management tool to compre-32 hend if sustainable development measures prove successful and if the SDGs are on track. 33 While the UN (2017a) has acknowledged that the indicators need to be adjusted to local needs 34 and priorities under involvement of stakeholders, the indicators are still criticized to be of little 35 relevance to local communities (Simon et al., 2016; Sköld et al., 2018). In the Arctic for exam-36 ple, climate change especially affects indigenous peoples whose way of life, culture and iden-37 tity are closely interwoven with the environment (Adger et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2014). Sus-38 tainable development indicators should also monitor the “invisible” losses and changes that 39 are not directly measurable, but play an important role for individuals and communities, such 40 as culture, self-determination and wellbeing (Wolf et al., 2013:549).  41 Already in the development of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the forerunner of 42 the SDGs, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UN-PFII) raised its concern that 43 none of the available indicators were appropriate to measure the process of the MDGs in the 44 cultural context of indigenous peoples (UN-PFII, 2006; Burford et al., 2013). Sköld et al. (2018) 45 also point out that in the current SDGs no single indicator focusses on cultural wellbeing or on 46 the retention of ancestral languages. Further, the economic indicators do not pay account to 47 the importance of mixed and subsistence economies, while migration related indicators (10.7.1 48 and 10.7.2) are not applicable to the rapid population and demographic shifts in the Arctic 49 (ibid). Appropriate, context-relevant indicators are thus needed that integrate “all possible lev-50 els of the polar social-ecological systems (including the atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, 51 biosphere and socio-cultural and politico-economic systems)” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). 52   3  Suggested strategy 53 This statement advocates developing a suite of polar indicators to assess the state of the so-54 cial-ecological systems in the Arctic, and to create guidelines for sustainable monitoring and 55 regular assessments that track the progress on pathways towards a sustainable development. 56 This would improve disaster preparedness, the adaptive capacity of hard and soft infrastruc-57 tures, address food, water and energy security, and sustainable economic development (Sköld 58 et al., 2018).  59 Various efforts are already working towards this goal: The Arctic Council Sustainable Devel-60 opment Working Group for example proposed a suite of Arctic Social Indicators (ASI, 2014) 61 and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration currently funds a project that 62 looks into possibilities for defining relevant indicators that asses biophysical changes in the 63 Arctic. These projects, however, represent fragmented and disconnected efforts. What is 64 needed is a comprehensive and integrated suite of polar indicators, which includes (1) relevant 65 elements from the biophysical, socio-cultural, and politico-economic environments, and (2) ac-66 counts for their often coupled nature (Sköld et al., 2018).  67 When selecting appropriate indicators, it is necessary to compare the amount of data already 68 provided (and their potential use for assessing progress) with the cost of creating the neces-69 sary soft infrastructure to collect the relevant data. It is also essential to co-produce the indica-70 tors with scientific experts and stake- and right holders respectively and to validate their ap-71 propriateness with local communities in the Arctic (Sköld et al., 2018).  72 Furthermore, these indicators are only useful if the relevant information is collected on sus-73 tained, i.e. long-term, basis. This has been a problem for many small-scale research projects, 74 as they typically do not concern themselves with a sustained collection of information beyond 75 the project’s duration. This was also a problem with the MDGs where 46% of the data needed 76   4  were not available for reporting at the end of 2015, and the challenge is apparent for the pre-77 sent UNECE member countries to currently be able to produce data in support of SDG indica-78 tors (Road map, 2017).  79 The way forward 80 We can conclude that accurate and relevant indicators for the Arctic need to be developed and 81 that sustained and feasible monitoring has to be ensured. This will enable us to observe 82 changes in the complex polar social-ecological systems on a long-term basis and to develop 83 meaningful sustainable development measures based on these observations (Sköld et al., 84 2018). “Unless, we commit to this [initiative] now, we will miss a unique opportunity to be pre-85 pared for the future in the Arctic, to build an informed post-2030 development agenda and to 86 link the SDGs to developments and change in the Arctic region.” (Sköld et al., 2018:4). In 87 developing relevant SDG indicators for the Arctic, we suggest the following steps: 88 • examination of the existing SDGs indicators' framework and seeing what indicators ap-89 ply to the Arctic; 90 • examination of what other indicators for the Polar Regions have been used/proposed 91 in social science projects (e.g. Arctic Social Indicators, Arctic Human Development Re-92 port, ECONOR); it would be equally essential to reach out to natural scientists and 93 representatives of indigenous and local communities for their input; 94 • estimation of how much data is collected for the current indicators. Even if this data 95 is stored in various forms, locations and institutions, such information could be a great 96 starting point to show the present knowledge about Polar Social and Environmental 97 Standards. 98 Finally, it is important to establish a relation to non-Arctic partners involved in implementing 99 the Agenda 2030, and specifically the use of the SDG indicators. There is a lot to be learned 100 from the work of others, both at regional and national levels, and vice versa the efforts in the 101 Arctic can add significant value to the progress in other regions (a joint discussion has already 102   5  been established with the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region). This efforts respond to the United 103 Nations, which urges  104 • “international organizations to base the global review on data produced by national 105 statistical systems and, if specific country data are not available for reliable estimation, 106 to consult with concerned countries to produce and validate modelled estimates before 107 publication”,  108 • “that communication and coordination among international organizations be enhanced 109 in order to avoid duplicate reports, ensure consistency of data and reduce response 110 burdens on countries”, 111 • “international organizations to provide the methodologies used to harmonize country 112 data for international comparability and produce estimates through transparent mech-113 anisms” (United Nations, 2017b:3).  114 Background 115 This statement is based on the EU-PolarNet White Paper: The Road to the Desired States of 116 Social-Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions (Sköld et al., 2018), which was developed at 117 the EU-PolarNet white paper workshop. The objective of the workshop, which took place in 118 September 2017 in Spain, was to develop five white papers with topics of high interest to the 119 European society. It brought together thoroughly chosen international polar experts including 120 natural and social scientists, representatives of indigenous peoples and business representa-121 tives. 122  123  124  125   6  References 126 Adger, W. N.; Huq, S.; Brown, K.; Conway, D.; and Hulme, M. 2003. Adaptation to climate 127 change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3 (3), S. 179–195. 128 DOI: 10.1191/1464993403ps060oa. 129 Adams, B. 2015. SDG indicators and data: Who collects? Who reports? Who benefits?. 130 Global Policy Watch 2015:9. 131 ASI. 2014. Arctic Social Indicators II: Implementation. Larsen, J.N.; Schweitzer, P.; and Pet-132 rov, A. (eds.). TemaNord. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 133 Burford, G.; Hoover, E.; Velasco, I.; Janoušková, S.; Jimenez, A.; Piggot, G.; Podger, D.; and 134 Harder, M.K. 2013. Bringing the “missing pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals. 135 Towards intersubjective values-based indicators. Sustainability 5 (7), S. 3035–3059. 136 DOI: 10.3390/su5073035. 137 Hajer, M.; Nilsson, M.; Raworth, K.; Bakker, P.; Berkhout, F.; de Boer, Y.; Rockström, Y.; et 138 al. 2015. Beyond Cockpitism. Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of 139 the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 7 (2), S. 1651–1660. DOI: 140 10.3390/su7021651. 141 Reid, M.G.; Hamilton, C.; Reid, S.K.; Trousdale, W.; Hill, C.; Turner, N.; Picard, C.R., et al. 142 2014. Indigenous climate change adaptation planning using a values-focused approach. 143 A case study with the Gitga'at Nation. Journal of Ethnobiology 34 (3), S. 401–424. DOI: 144 10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.401. 145 Road map on statistics for Sustainable development goals. 2017. United Nations Economic 146 Commission for Europe. United Nations: New York and Geneva.  147 Simon, D.; Arfvidsson, H.; Anand, G.; Bazaz, A.; Fenna, G.; Foster, K.; Jain, G., et al. 2016. 148 Developing and testing the urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and indica-149 tors – a five-city study. Environment and Urbanization 28 (1), S. 49–63. DOI: 150 10.1177/0956247815619865. 151 Sköld, P.; Liggett, D.; Smieszek, M.; Staffansson, J.; Bastmeijer C. J.; Evengård, B.; Muir, 152 M.; Scheepstra, A.J.M.; and Latola, K., 2018. ‘The Road to the Desired States of Social-153   7  Ecological Systems in the Polar Regions’. EU-PolarNet White Paper.  154 Manuscript in preparation. 155 United Nations 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-156 ment. RES/70/1, Seventieth United Nations General Assembly. 157 United Nations 2017a. Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Devel-158 opment Goal. Indicators revised list of global Sustainable Development Goal indicators. 159 E/CN.3/2017/2. United Nations. 160 United Nations 2017b. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining  161 to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/71/313.United Nations.  162 UN-PFII, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2006. Report on the fifth 163 session (15-26 May 2006). E/2006/43. Unite Nations Economic and Social Council. New 164 York (Official Records, Supplement No. 23). 165 Wolf, J.; Allice, I.; and Bell, T. 2013. Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation. 166 Evidence from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Global Environmental Change 23 167 (2), S. 548–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.007. 168 

https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/57866287/The_SDGs_and_the_Arctic.pdf

The SDGs and the Arctic: The need for polar indicators

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

University of Groningen Research Database

Dissertations of the University of Groningen

University of Groningen

Proceedings - University of Groningen

NARCIS

Proceedings - University of Groningen

Dissertations of the University of Groningen

ARTS repository - University of Groningen