Abstract
This first chapter takes off by explaining the objectives of this book on governance for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It explains what the SDGs are and how they came into being. Then, the chapter sets out the opportunities and challenges that are linked with the SDGs and in particular with SDG 6 on sustainable energy and SDG 13 on climate change. The chapter also gives a definition of the key term global change, sustainable development and governance. Finally, it lays out the structure of this book.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Good governance focuses on processes of decision-making and their institutional foundations. Values such as enhanced participation and inclusion, transparency, accountability and access to information are covered by this concept and will be discussed in this book. Good governance has also focused on combatting corruption, securing basic human rights and the rule of law.
- 2.
- 3.
Effective governance concerns the problem-solving capacity of governments, or countries more broadly, to pursue sustainable development. Effective governance is linked to institutional capacity, technology, expertise and financial resources and the ability to engage in long-term planning to deal with interconnected problems, not just procedural elements such as the rule of law.
- 4.
Equitable governance focuses attention on distributional outcomes and equitable treatment, including of the very poor and marginalized. A notion of equitable governance applies both to decision-making, including ongoing demands for greater equity in global decision-making, especially in economic governance, but also to the distribution of wealth, resources, and opportunities within societies.
- 5.
The term ‘global governance’ is generally used to describe specific forms of governance at the planetary level and processes of (intergovernmental) world politics, although there is no consensus on its definition (Commission on Global Governance 1995).
- 6.
Sustainability science is “use-inspired research that spans and integrates a broad range of science, engineering, and policy disciplines and is directed towards the management of human–environment systems in ways that meet needs for human livelihoods while protecting ecosystem and environmental integrity” (Clark and Dickson 2003; Turner et al. 2003). Sustainability science goes beyond earlier representations of science and policy as distinct and separate worlds and attempts to close the gap between them.
- 7.
Transdisciplinary studies integrate academic research from disciplines with different research approaches as well as non-academic participants (such as public or private sector decision-makers and other stakeholders) to research a common goal and create new knowledge, new theories and new options to solve societal problems.
Transdisciplinarity combines interdisciplinarity with a participatory approach. All involved parties, academic and non-academic, define and develop the research goals and methods together to reach a common goal. This approach integrates disciplines and subdisciplines and non-academic knowledge, to share power equally (Evely et al. 2010). For Lawrence (2010), transdisciplinarity has the following aims: (1) to tackle complexity in science and challenge knowledge fragmentation in a nonlinear and reflexive way which transcends academic disciplines; (2) to accept local contexts and uncertainty; (3) intercommunicative action; (4) action-oriented research.
- 8.
“Transformation or transformability in social–ecological systems is defined as the capacity to create untried beginnings from which to evolve a fundamentally new way of living when existing ecological, economic and social conditions make the current system untenable” (Stockholm Resilience Centre 2012).
- 9.
Officially, SDG 16 is “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”.
- 10.
Officially, SDG 17 is “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.”.
- 11.
The document that contains the SDGs is officially known as Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and is available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
- 12.
- 13.
Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html.
- 14.
http://www.ndcfootprints.org/pdf/asiareport_july.pdf TERI also developed a tool for further exploring the linkages and synergies between climate plans and the SDGs: http://www.ndcfootprints.org/.
- 15.
For ways in which the idea of planetary boundaries can support national implementation of the 2030 agenda, see https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-2017-PB-Hoff-HowthePlanetary.pdf.
- 16.
According to the Stern report, the costs of climate change can be up to 20% of global GDP, which is much higher than the costs of mitigation which are around 0.06% of global GDP per year (IPCC 2014). In contrast, the financial crises and bailing out banks as a result of the 2008/2009 financial crisis cost tens of trillions of dollars. As Hugo Chavez said in his speech at COP 15 in Copenhagen, "If the climate were a bank, we would have saved it by now".
- 17.
According to Hsiang et al. (2013), changes in temperature and rainfall across countries can be associated with a rise in crime, conflict and war.
- 18.
One example of an area where there are strong systemic linkages is the area of combined energy and water supply. Water pumps require significant amounts of water, water desalination is a highly energy intensive process, hydropower requires a steady flow of water and the production of coal (not to mention shale gas) requires enormous amounts of water, and thermal power plants use enormous amounts of water. Not thinking in a systemic way about water and energy will have “potentially calamitous implications for business, society and the environment” (KPMG 2013).
- 19.
Because GHGs mix globally in the atmosphere, their impacts are spread around the world independent from the location of emissions. This also means that any governance level taking action—a region, a country, a state, or a city—will incur the direct costs of mitigation, but the direct benefits from averted climate change will be distributed globally. Therefore, “the direct climate benefits a jurisdiction reaps from its actions will inevitably be less than the costs it incurs, despite the fact that global climate benefits may be greater—possibly much greater—than global costs” (Stavins 2014). It is in the interest of no country to take action on the global commons problem of climate change, but each country can reap the benefits of any countries that do take action (a classical free-rider problem). This explains why global cooperation on climate change is essential.
- 20.
Sgouridis and Csala (2014: 2609) define sustainable energy transitions as: “a controlled process that leads an advanced, technical society to replace all major fossil fuel primary energy inputs with sustainable renewable resources while maintaining a sufficient final energy service level per capita.” Besides the energy transition, Rogers and Daines (2014) identify three other major global transitions: the “urban population transition”, the “nutrition transition” (in terms of greatly increased consumption of animal products and other high-value foods), and the “agricultural transition” from small-scale subsistence farming to large-scale commercial operations.
- 21.
For the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), a fragmented world is the worst-case scenario for the future, as such a world would be failing to achieve global development goals, and make little progress in reducing resource intensity, fossil fuel dependency, or addressing local environmental concerns such as air pollution. A regionalized world would lead to reduced trade flows, and institutional development would be unfavourable, leaving large numbers of people vulnerable to climate change and many parts of the world with low adaptive capacity (O’Neill et al. 2012).
- 22.
Goldthau and Sovacool (2012: 233) refer by energy to “the socio-technical system in place to convert energy fuels and carriers into services—thus not just technology or hardware such as power plants and pipelines, but also other elements of the ‘‘fuel cycle’’ such as coal mines and oil wells in addition to the institutions and agencies such as electric utilities or transnational corporations that manage the system.”.
- 23.
Whereas “integrative” in this research stands for the process of bringing different dimensions of governance together, “integrated” signifies an output which results from combining different parts. To be integrative means gaining perspective and acknowledging the partiality of any analysis of complex (sustainability) problems (Hirsch and Brosius 2013).
- 24.
According to the Brundtland report, ‘sustainable development’ contains the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given. Despite the economic rise of developing countries, many people are unemployed, and 3 billion in severe poverty.
- 25.
The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks 2014 report ranked income disparity as the most likely risk to cause an impact on a global scale in the next decade. One sign of the growing economic inequality in the world, which according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks 2014 report is the most likely risk to cause an impact on a global scale in the next decade, is that the richest 85 individuals in the world have the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the world population (3, 6 billion people); another sign is that the richest 1% of the global population holds more wealth than the other 99% together. Oxfam Novib (2015), Turchin (2010) claims that the growth of a civilization or empire depends on social cohesion, and acknowledges inequality as a fundamental barrier to social cohesion and predicts political instability and impending crisis in Western Europe and the US peaking in 2020.
The interests in the topic of inequality are also reflected by the popularity of Piketty’s (2014) book ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’. Piketty argues that wealth will concentrate if the rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of economic growth. Over the long term, Piketty thinks that inequality can lead to economic instability. James Robinson has criticized Piketty for focusing too much on statistical data without proving causality and correlation. Instead, Robinson argues that it is ‘inclusive institutions’ (access to education and the market, autonomous organisations of free citizens, property rights and political pluralism) which provide for economic incentives, opportunities for all and solid economic growth (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012).
- 26.
According to the FAO, the global amount of arable and productive land per person in 2050 will be only one quarter of the level in 1960, and there will be no topsoil left in 60 years due to chemical-intensive farming techniques, deforestation and global warming (Arsenault 2014).
- 27.
There are passionate debates ongoing on the question whether humanity can ‘break’ the planet. Brook et al. (2013) suggest that while human society modifies and, often enough, permanently and abruptly changes the dynamics of local and regional ecosystems, the collective impact of all this on a planetary scale is too often overstated. A growing body of research over the last several years has suggested though that there are very real planetary boundaries beyond which the entire terra machina starts to break down. Barnosky et al. (2012) have argued that population growth, destruction of natural ecosystems and climate change may be driving Earth toward a planet-wide tipping point that would have destructive consequences absent adequate preparation and mitigation.
- 28.
Climate change and energy are linked with a range of other environmental issues: ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, deforestation, water, the ozone layer, land use changes and short-lived chemicals.
- 29.
More in detail, the term “global change” can encompass: population, climate, the economy, resource use, energy development, transport, communication, land use and land cover, urbanization, globalization, atmospheric circulation, ocean circulation, the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the water cycle and other cycles, sea ice loss, sea-level rise, food webs, biological diversity, pollution, health, overfishing, etc.
- 30.
The term “sustainable” was used already in 1905 when Gifford Pinchot used it in describing “sustainable yield” as a criterion for harvesting timber on a long-term continual basis. (SOAS University of London 2015) The term ‘sustainable development’ was used in the World Conservation Strategy (published by IUCN, UNEP and WWF) in 1980.
- 31.
- 32.
The nested, hierarchical concept as put forward by Mebratu (among others) is gaining traction also in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) deliberations. See, e.g., Griggs et al. (2013).
- 33.
Nair (2014) outlines a hierarchy of needs in terms of capital which can be closely linked with Mebratu's model of sustainable development as outlined above in Fig. 5: first, there is natural capital (water, air, flora and fauna, geology, soil, etc.); second, there is human capital (welfare and wellness, health, ideas, motivation and creativity); third is social capital (institutions that allow people to reach their potential including education, law and order, health care, religion, etc.); and fourth is economic capital. Based on this hierarchy, Nair argues that the preoccupation with economic capital-based inequality (e.g. as a result of Piketty’s book—see footnote 24 supra) is unjustified as economic capital has no value if it destroys or does not contribute to the other forms of capital.
- 34.
Politics in general is understood to be more of a normative activity than governance as it is often associated with power struggles (Sharp 1990), distribution of resources (Laswell 1936) and the threat and application of physical force (Weber 1919). The dimension of “politics” denotes the actual process side of governance where individual and collective actors with diverging views and interests interact. Controversy over problems, solutions and rules of the game and the (power) struggle of actors to get their particular view established as the “common view” are relevant in this dimension. Howlett et al. (2009) propose to use power as a key factor for distinguishing governance arrangements in the politics dimension.
- 35.
According to Scott (2008: 48), “institutions are comprised of regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life”. At the same time, institutions are shaped by human interaction. Examples of institutions are marriage, religion, schools, government, civil society, (mass) media, industry (businesses) and the military. Institutions are one of the principal objects of study in the social sciences. Different disciplines (e.g. sociology, political science, international relations) can have different understanding of what an institution entails. The definition of institutions in this dissertation is broader than those limited to physical organizations because of the author’s legal background and because a broader definition allows for taking deliberation and discourses that shape institutions into account. According to Acemoglu and Robinson (2012), ‘good’ (inclusive and not extractive) institutions are the main factor in the success of nations. Ansell (2011: 39) has a more transactional understanding of institutions as multilevel, grounded conceptual ecologies with audiences; institutions are based on higher-level guiding metaconcepts whose meanings are experimentally determined at lower levels.
- 36.
- 37.
Cumulative investment in low-carbon energy and energy efficiency would need to reach USD 53 trillion by 2035 to keep global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. This is only 10% more than the USD 48 trillion investment that is needed in any case in the energy sector (IEA 2014). More recently, Citigroup (2015) calculated that transitioning to sustainable energy is actually cheaper than a business-as-usual investment in energy scenario, even when the benefits from mitigated climate change are excluded. (also, see https://ir.citi.com/hsq32Jl1m4aIzicMqH8sBkPnbsqfnwy4Jgb1J2kIPYWIw5eM8yD3FY9VbGpK%2Baax).
- 38.
According to Walker and Salt (2006: 7), “Though efficiency per se is not the problem, when it is applied to only a narrow range of values and a particular set of interests it sets the system on a trajectory that, due to its complex nature, leads inevitably to unwanted outcomes.” Thus, while it makes sense to make a specific technology more optimal or efficient, broader systems implications must be taken into account (e.g. rebound effects of energy and resource efficiency) to determine the true potential for improved sustainability.
- 39.
RobecoSAM’s Country Sustainability Ranking (available at http://www.robecosam.com/en/sustainability-insights/about-sustainability/country-sustainability-ranking.jsp), for example, is based on three dimensions: environmental, social and governance. While the environmental and social dimensions make up for 15 and 25%, respectively, of the final country sustainability score, the governance dimension is dominant and makes up for 60% of the final score.
References
Acemoglu D, Robinson JA (2012) Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty. Crown Publishing Group, New York
Adams WM (2001) Green development: environment and sustainability in the third world. Routledge, London
Adger WN, Jordan A (eds) (2009) Governing sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ansell CK (2011) Pragmatist democracy: evolutionary learning as public philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Arsenault C (2014) Only 60 years of farming left if soil degradation continues. Scientific American
Ayre G, Callway R (eds) (2005) Governance for sustainable development: a foundation for the future. Earthscan, London
Baker S, Kousis M, Richardson D, Young S (eds) (1997) Politics of sustainable development: theory, policy and practice in the European Union. Routledge, London
Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bascompte J et al (2012) Approaching a state shift in earth’s biosphere. Nature 486:52–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11018
Biermann F, Stevens C, Bernstein S et al (2017) Global goal setting for improving national governance and policy. In: Kanie N, Biermann F (eds) Governing through goals: sustainable development goals as governance innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge
Brook BW, Ellis EC, Perring MP et al (2013) Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points? Trends Ecol Evol 28:396–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.016
Bruyninckx H, Happaerts S, Van den Brande K (2012) Sustainable development and sub-national governments: policy-making and multi-level interactions. Macmillan, London
Citigroup (2015) Energy Darwinism II: why a low carbon future doesn’t have to cost the earth. Citigroup, London
Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:1737–1738. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611291104
Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8059–8061. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231333100
Commission on Global Governance (1995) Our global neighbourhood: the report of the commission on global governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Davis SJ, Cao L, Caldeira K, Hoffert MI (2013) Rethinking wedges. Environ Res Lett 8:011001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011001
Ecofys (2014) Subsidies and costs of EU energy. European Commission, Brussels
Elder M, Bengtsson M, Akenji L (2016) An optimistic analysis of the means of implementation for sustainable development goals: thinking about goals as means. Sustainability 8:962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090962
European Commission (2009) Mainstreaming sustainable development into EU policies. European Union, Brussels
Evely AC, Fazey I, Lambin X et al (2010) Defining and evaluating the impact of cross-disciplinary conservation research. Environ Conserv 37:442–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000792
Frantzeskaki N, Castan Broto V, Coenen L, Loorbach D (2017) Urban sustainability transitions. Routledge, New York
Globescan Sustainability (2017) Evaluating progress towards the sustainable development goals. Globescan/Sustainability, New York
Goldthau A, Sovacool BK (2012) The uniqueness of the energy security, justice, and governance problem. Energy Policy 41:232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.042
Greenpeace (2015) Energy (r)evolution: a sustainable world energy outlook 2015: 100% renewable energy for all. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
Griggs DJ, Stafford-Smith M, Gaffney O et al (2013) Policy: sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495:305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/495305a
Grubb M (2014) Planetary economics: energy, climate change and the three domains of sustainable development. Routledge, London
Hirsch PD, Brosius JP (2013) Navigating complex trade-offs in conservation and development: an integrative framework. Issues Interdisc Studies 31:99–122
Howlett M, Rayner J, Tollefson C (2009) From government to governance in forest planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia great bear rainforest initiative. Forest Policy Econ 11:383–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.01.003
Hsiang SM, Burke M, Miguel E (2013) Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict. Science 341:1235367. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235367
Hufty M (2011) Governance: exploring four approaches and their relevance to research. In: Wiesmann U, Hurni H (eds) Research for sustainable development: foundations, experiences, and perspectives. University of Bern, Bern, NCCR North-South, pp 165–183
Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
ICSU (International Council for Science) (2017) A guide to SDG interactions: from science to implementation. International Council for Science, Paris
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2014) Energy technology perspectives 2014: harnessing electricity’s potential. IEA, Paris
IGBP (The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme) (2010) Global change and the earth system: a planet under pressure. IGBP, Stockholm
IPCC (Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change) (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. IPCC, New York
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), WWF (World Wildlife Fund) et al (eds) (1980) World conservation strategy: living resource conservation for sustainable development. IUCN, Gland
Jackson T (2009) Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite planet. Earthscan, London
Jordan A (2008) The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards. Environ Plann C: Gov Policy 26:17–33. https://doi.org/10.1068/cav6
Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment 47:8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2005.10524444
KPMG (2013) Water scarcity. https://home.kpmg.com/uk/en/home/services/audit/sustainability-services/water-scarcity.html. Accessed 21 Nov 2016
Lasswell HD (1936) Politics: who gets what, when, how. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead
Lawrence RJ (2010) Beyond disciplinary confinement to imaginative transdisciplinarity. In: Brown VA, Harris JA, Russell JY (eds) Tackling wicked problems: through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan, London, pp 16–30
Le Blanc D (2015) Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Sustain Dev 23:176–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1582
Loorbach D (2014) To transition! Governance panarchy in the new transformation. Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2006) Managing transitions for sustainable development. In: Olsthoorn X, Wieczorek A (eds) Understanding industrial transformation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 187–206
Martens P, Rotmans J (2005) Transitions in a globalising world. Futures 37:1133–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.02.010
McDonough W, Braungart M (2010) Why being “less bad” is no good. The Globalist
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington
Meadowcroft J (2007) Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex world. J Environ Plann Policy Manage 9:299–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080701631544
Meadowcroft J, Langhelle O, Ruud A (2012) Governance, democracy and sustainable development: moving beyond the impasse. In: Meadowcroft J, Langhelle O, Ruud A (eds) Governance, democracy and sustainable development: moving beyond the impasse. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 1–13
Mebratu D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 18:493–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00019-5
Meuleman L (2008) Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets: the feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations. Springer, New York
Meuleman L (ed) (2012) Transgovernance: advancing sustainability governance. Springer, New York
Nair C (2014) Inequality and the nature of capital: a reminder to economists. Yale Global Online
Niblett R (2017) Liberalism in retreat: the demise of dream. Foreign Aff 96:17
Nye JSJ (2017) Will the liberal order survive: the history of an idea. Foreign Aff 96:10–16
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2017) Investing in climate, investing in growth. OECD Publishing, Paris
O’Neill B, Carter TR, Ebi KL et al (2012) Workshop on the nature and use of new socio-economic pathways for climate change research. NCAR(National Center for Atmospheric Research), Boulder
Ostrom E, Janssen MA, Anderies JM (2007) Going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:15176–15178. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701886104
Oxfam N (2015) Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016. Oxfam International Website
Paquet G (2005) The new geo-governance: a baroque approach. University of Ottawa Press, Ottowa
Patrick S, Bennett I (2015) Geopolitics is back and global governance is out. Foreign Policy Experts Round Table, The National Interest
Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twentyfirst century. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Putnam RD (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. J Democracy 6:65–78. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1995.0002
Richardson D (1997) The politics of sustainable development. In: Baker S, Kousis M, Ricardson D, Young S (eds) The politics of sustainable development: theory, policy and practice within the European Union. Routledge, London, pp 41–58
Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM et al (2017) World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice. BioScience bix125. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14:32
Rogers P, Daines S (2014) A safe space for humanity: the nexus of food, water, energy and climate. Asian Development Bank, Metro Manila
Rosenau JN (1998) Governance and democracy in a globalizing world. In: Archibugi D, Held D, Kohler M (eds) Re-imagining political community: studies in cosmopolitan democracy. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 28–57
Scharmer CO (2007) Theory U: learning from the future as it emerges: the social technology of presencing. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Franscico
Scott WR (2008) Institutions and organizations: ideas, interests, and identities. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks
Sgouridis S, Csala D (2014) A framework for defining sustainable energy transitions: principles, dynamics, and implications. Sustainability 6:2601–2622. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6052601
Sharp G (1990) The role of power in non-violent struggle. Albert Einstein Institution, Boston
SOAS University of London (2015) Unit 1: Sustainable forest management and the global forest estate. http://www.soas.ac.uk/cedep-demos/000_P585_SFM_K3736-Demo/unit1/page_08.htm. Accessed 15 Apr 2017
Stavins (2014) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-stavins/what-are-the-benefits-and_b_5656483.html
Steffen W, Sanderson RA, Tyson PD et al (2004) Global change and the earth system: a planet under pressure. Springer, New York
Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
Stockholm Resilience Centre (2012) Resilience thinking can help us understand how to initiate and navigate large-scale transformations in social-ecological systems
TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute) (2017) SDG Footprint of Asian NDC’s: exploring synergies between domestic policies and international goals. TERI, New Delhi
Turchin P (2010) Political instability may be a contributor in the coming decade. Nature 463:608. https://doi.org/10.1038/463608a
Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA et al (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8074–8079. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231335100
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2014) Governance for sustainable development: integrating governance in the post-2015 development framework. UNDP, New York
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2012) 21 Issues for the 21st century: results of the UNEP foresight process on emerging environmental issues. UNEP, Nairobi
Verbong G, Loorbach D (2012) Governing the energy transition: reality, illusion or necessity?. Routledge, London
Vinuales JE (2013) The rise and fall of sustainable development. Rev of Eur, Comp Int Environ Law 22:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12021
Walker B, Salt D (2006) Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press, Washington
Weber M (1919) Politics as a vocation
WEF (World Economic Forum) (2015) Global risks 2015. WEF, Cologny
World Bank (2015) Decarbonizing development: three steps to a zero-carbon future. World Bank, Washington
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development
WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) (2012) Living planet: biodiversity, biocapacity and better choices. WWF, Gland
XKCD (2017) Sustainable. https://xkcd.com/1007/. Accessed 13 Oct 2017
Young OR (1994). International Governance: Protecting the Environment in a Stateless Society. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Monkelbaan, J. (2019). Introduction: Objectives, Substantive Issues and Structure of This Book. In: Governance for the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0475-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0475-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0474-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0475-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)