International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Planetary Boundaries Initiative (PBI)
1. The Planetary Boundaries Initiative (PBI) is a new NGO, formed to explore the implications for governance, law, and policy of recent scientific work identifying a set of nine “planetary boundaries”. The planetary boundaries analysis has been put forward in various scientific papers, including the initial papers which had Johan Rockstrom as their lead author, and is the subject of a major research programme based at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. This analysis provides a clear way of conceptualising and working towards quantifying the environmental limits which human activities should stay within. The “planetary boundaries” concept responds to current scientific understanding of the functioning of the Earth System. Scientists now consider it possible to quantify the risk of crossing thresholds or tipping points which would lead to fundamental state changes with major implications for human societies.
See: http://www.nature.com/news/specials/planetaryboundaries/index.html
2. Although we will not attempt here to evaluate the success of the MDG process, there is however one general point about such processes, including the future SDG process, which we want to emphasise. This is the importance of following up any agreement on goals with decisions to establish means of implementation in order to achieve those goals. This implies particularly implementation through legal frameworks, governance arrangements, and finance. We urge the UK Government to play an active role in supporting the work of the 30-member UN expert advisory committee on the mobilisation of finance, established by the Rio 2012 outcome document, and wish to see the Government regard the success of that committee’s work as essential to the success of the SDG process. There is also a need to link the review of SDGs to a consideration of possible changes in international treaties and the structure of international governance.
3. PBI agrees with the point made by many other organisations that there is a need for close integration of the post-MDG and SDG processes, with the aim of establishing a single set of agreed goals for the world community. However, we would add the need to include within this integration a third process: the process for agreeing goals on climate change. The question of climate change was deliberately not highlighted at Rio 2012, and consequently conceivably might not be included amongst the SDGs, but it nevertheless remains crucial for any setting of realistic goals for development and for sustainability.
4. We accept what appears to be a general consensus that the SDGs will not be specifically environmental goals, but will principally be development goals, placed in the context of sustainability. This implies to us that each goal should incorporate a social/economic development aspect and an environmental sustainability aspect. The “planetary boundaries” analysis provides an important resource for addressing the question of what the sustainability component of each of the SDGs should be.
5. An important aspect of the planetary boundary concept is that it can reflect the way in which earth systems interact with one another—that transgressing one safe boundary may affect the distance from another, bringing it closer to a tipping point. For example, the many positive impacts from nitrogen deposition, such as increased crop yields, needs to be considered along with the negative impacts that increasing use at a global scale will have on the increase of greenhouse gases and the loss of biodiversity.
6. The nine earth system processes identified in the work of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and others concern the following subjects: rate of biodiversity loss, interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, freshwater use, land use, chemical pollution, and atmospheric aerosol loading. Three of these were found to have already reached levels or rates beyond a safe biophysical boundary: climate change, biodiversity loss, and interference with the nitrogen cycle. The proposed boundaries are set at what is considered to be a safe distance from the risk of critical feedbacks and non-linear shift triggering dangerous adverse impacts to the environment. Their position is aimed to reflect the degree of risk that the global community is willing to take and how long they can be transgressed before a threshold is crossed. Another function of the positioning of the boundary is to reflect the social and ecological resilience of an impacted society.
7. It would be relatively straightforward conceptually to establish a goal for each boundary, where effects at a global scale can be quantified, such that environmental change would stay within that boundary. This would imply also the need for action to be taken to bring back within the boundaries the three respects in which the world has already gone beyond them. However approach would fail to meet the requirement to establish a set of goals which integrate development and sustainability considerations within each goal.
8. There are around 80 possible permutations of the nine boundaries combined with a set of a similar number of social and environmental objectives, and clearly this would be too large a number to constitute an effective set of SDGs: there is therefore a need to establish priorities. The Rio 2012 outcome document does not include a set of recommended topics for SD Goals, despite proposals from some quarters that it should. However the text of the document, in Part V Section A, “Thematic areas and cross-sectoral issues”, clearly identifies some priority issues for SDGs to address. In setting out our own proposals, we have borne these in mind, as well as the nine planetary boundaries.
9. Before setting out our proposed Sustainable Development Goals, it is important that we emphasise the caveat that any decisions about SDGs should be made following a thorough process of review of relevant evidence and consultation with the widest possible range of stakeholders. PBI’s proposals here are simply a contribution to the current early stage of post-Rio debate about the SDG set. The thorough process of review should be based on the five foundations set out in paragraph 246 of the Rio outcome document: “a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs), which are based on [1] Agenda 21 and Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, [2] fully respect all Rio Principles, taking into account different national circumstances, capacities and priorities, [3] are consistent with international law,[4] build upon commitments already made, and [5] contribute to the full implementation of the outcomes of all major Summits in the economic, social and environmental fields, including this outcome document...”
PBI’s Proposals for Sustainable Development Goals
10. We consider that there should be an SDG on food consumption, highlighting nutrition derived from food rather than quantities of food per se, combined with wording about nitrogen, biodiversity, and land use. The goal could be adequate nutrition for all achieved within the nitrogen, biodiversity, and land use boundaries. The relevant indicators for this would include: percentage of people falling below a defined minimum standard for calorie intake (taking into account differences in need for calorie intake); and indicators on nitrogen deposition established on a regional basis, reflective of the need to reduce nitrogen deposition in some regions, such as Europe, and of the need to reduce overall global emissions of ammonia; annual rate of species extinction; and percentage of ice-free land used for crops.
11. There should be an SDG on water availability, combined with wording about freshwater appropriation. For example, the goal could be an adequate supply of safe drinking water for all, achieved within the local and regional boundary for freshwater appropriation for each area. According to the recent “GEO5” report (p97) the planetary boundary for human consumptive blue water use—when used groundwater and surface water is not made available for reuse in the same basin—is estimated to be 4,000 km3 per year, with current consumptive blue water use estimated at approximately 2,600 km3 per year. Projected water demands may reach planetary boundaries in the coming decades. The relevant indicators would include percentage of people living in areas of water stress; water withdrawals, groundwater withdrawals; and net water footprint.
12. PBI proposes an SDG on access to energy supply, combined with wording about the climate boundary. For example, the goal could be access to an adequate supply of energy within the boundary of a sustainable level of atmospheric concentration of CO2, set perhaps at 350 parts per million. This could be combined with the aim of keeping within the boundary for ocean acidification (perhaps set in terms of the average aragonite saturation ratio).
13. There should also be a single cross-cutting goal requiring protection of a set of key critical boundaries beyond which harmful effects are observable and which are accepted as constituting unacceptable human induced environmental change. This should include progress metrics or indicators in order to focus policy attention and drive overall development outcomes to reflect the need to remain within a safe operating space.
14. The success of any goals agreed to will require overarching principles for strong public participation at the heart of the development of the SDGs, integration of principles of responsible citizenship, as well as principles of the foundations of good governance. Participation of citizens and good governance will be key to the successful implementation of a nation’s Sustainable Development Goals.
15. It is important that the world community does not pursue environmental, social, or economic goals on their own. The important challenge of our times is to combine together the achievement of objectives for each of these three aspects of sustainable development. Appropriate wording and indicators of SDGs for food, water, and energy would enable the world community to focus its attention on areas where reconciling apparently conflicting considerations is difficult, yet essential.
September 2012