{"id":2312,"date":"2014-01-06T10:26:12","date_gmt":"2014-01-06T10:26:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xsf.stakeholderforum.org\/2014\/01\/06\/analysis-of-proposals-in-the-sdgs-e-inventory-related-to-the-themes-of-the-seventh-session-of-the-open-working-group-on-sdgs\/"},"modified":"2014-01-06T10:26:12","modified_gmt":"2014-01-06T10:26:12","slug":"analysis-of-proposals-in-the-sdgs-e-inventory-related-to-the-themes-of-the-seventh-session-of-the-open-working-group-on-sdgs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/index.php\/analysis-of-proposals-in-the-sdgs-e-inventory-related-to-the-themes-of-the-seventh-session-of-the-open-working-group-on-sdgs\/","title":{"rendered":"Analysis of proposals in the SDGs e-Inventory related to the themes of the Seventh Session of the Open Working Group on SDGs"},"content":{"rendered":"

By David Kroeker Maus and Jack Cornforth, Stakeholder Forum<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

January 2014<\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span><\/span>Sustainable Development Goals e-Inventory<\/span> <\/span><\/a>is an interactive online tool which enables stakeholders to outline their visions for new post-2015 global goals<\/a>. This may be in the form of fully formed proposals, which include detailed targets and indicators, or simply principles and themes that should be applied to the goals. The e-Inventory also enables stakeholders to search existing proposals.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The UN General Assembly\u2019<\/span>s Open Working Group (OWG)<\/a> on SDGs was mandated by Member States at Rio+20 to propose a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs) by September 2014. The Seventh Session of the OWG (6-10 January) will consider the thematic areas of: Sustainable cities and human settlements and sustainable transport; sustainable consumption and production (including chemicals and waste); and climate change and disaster risk reduction.<\/span><\/p>\n

In order to inform the deliberations of the January OWG meeting, Stakeholder Forum has conducted an analysis of the proposals currently housed within the SDGs e-Inventory which relate to the thematic areas of the Seventh Session. For most of these topics, the SDG e-Inventory already contains a diverse range of proposals, from a wide variety of stakeholders from all global regions. It is hoped that this analysis will be a useful resource for the OWG members, as well other stakeholders involved in discussions on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, whether working specifically on the themes of this OWG meeting or otherwise.
<\/span><\/p>\n

Methodology<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Using the search function of the SDGs e-Inventory, relevant proposals were identified using the thematic labels applied to the proposals when they were uploaded. The proposals analysed in the Sustainable cities and human settlements and sustainable transport section were categorised with the themes \u2018Cities and urbanisation\u2019 and\/or \u2018Transportation\u2019. Proposals analysed in the Sustainable Consumption and Production thematic area were categorised under a thematic area of the same name and\/or \u2018Sustainable resource management\u2019. Proposals analysed in the final section, entitled Climate change and disaster risk reduction were categorised with the themes \u2018Climate change\u2019 and\/or \u2018Natural disasters\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Frequency of OWG 7 thematic areas in the SDGs e-Inventory<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The thematic areas being considered at OWG 7 vary quite significantly in terms of their popularity in e-Inventory proposals. Of the 55 e-Inventory thematic areas Climate change is the 12th most common, Natural disasters 20th, Cities and urbanisation 21st, Sustainable consumption and production 23rd, Sustainable resource management 25th, Transportation 38th, and Chemicals and waste 54th.<\/span><\/p>\n

Analysis of proposals<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Sustainable cities and human settlements and sustainable transport<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The cross-UN<\/span> Technical Support Team\u2019s (TST) Issues Brief on cities<\/a> notes that ‘Humanity is now half urban and expected to be nearly 70 per cent urban by 2050,’ indicating that for the SDGs to be globally relevant, the needs and interests of city-dwellers must be considered. Furthermore, ’60 per cent of the area expected to be urban by 2030 remains to be built,’ suggesting much scope for the SDGs to influence the urbanisation and infrastructure agenda in the coming years. The<\/span> TST Issues Brief on Sustainable Transport<\/a> emphasises that in both urban and rural contexts transport services and infrastructure are central for inclusive economic growth, social development and have the ability to help address a host of environmental issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

There are essentially three types of proposals related to cities and transport in the e-Inventory:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Proposals that call for a stand-alone goal on cities (e.g. ESCAP\/ADB\/UNDP; Governments of Colombia, Peru and UAE; and United Cities and Local Governments).<\/span>\n
      \n
    1. Many of which include targets on sustainable transport (eg Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies [IASS]; and the Communitas Coalition);<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
    2. Proposals with a stand-alone goal on transport (e.g. ODI, The Campaign for Global Road Safety, and SloCaT); and<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Proposals containing general goals on environmental sustainability that include targets on urbanisation and\/or transportation (e.g. Campaign for Peoples Goals for Sustainable Development [CPGSD], and African Youth Declaration on Post-2015 Agenda).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The geographical distribution of proposals which address these thematic areas is relatively consistent with that of other themes, with the majority coming from \u2018International\u2019 authors, along with a number of others emanating from Europe, Africa and Asia.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Sustainable cities and human settlement
      <\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

      Of the 31 proposals which selected ‘Cities and urbanisation’ as a thematic area (as displayed in Figure 1), 18 proposed specific goals, targets and indicators (GTIs). As noted above, many proposals include stand-alone goals with titles such as ‘Sustainable and Resilient Cities’ (Governments of Colombia, Peru, and United Arab Emirates) and ‘Sustainable Urbanisation’ (United Cities and Local Governments).<\/span><\/p>\n

      Seemingly the most comprehensive proposal for a stand-alone goal on cities in the e-Inventory so far comes from the Communitas Coalition, which puts forward a wide range of \u2018zero draft\u2019 targets and indicators (both quantitative and qualitative) on urbanisation and interrelated issues. These are broken down into several subcategories with a view to addressing all three dimensions of sustainable development, as well as to suggest some supporting policies and structures to help achieve these targets and monitor progress towards them. These are: Fundamental Urban Patterns; An Urban Life of Dignity for All within Planetary Boundaries; Enabling Policies; Territorial Dimension of other Sustainable Development Policies; and Governance & Accountability.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Figure 1: Share of proposals related to \u2018Cities and urbanisation\u2019 within the e-Inventory<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      \"Figure<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      The Communitas Coalition is one of a number of partners belonging to the Campaign for an Urban Sustainable Development Goal (#urbanSDG), a multi-stakeholder group coordinated by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). While the #urbanSDG Coalition has not yet proposed targets and indicators for a goal on cities, the e-Inventory does contain a #urbanSDG proposal which outlines the reasons why a stand-alone urbanisation goal is a must for the new framework.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Owing perhaps to the complex nature of cities and the massive array of cross-cutting issues involved, there was no single area of focus that dominated the numerous other proposals related to the \u2018Cities and urbanisation\u2019 thematic area. Nevertheless, a few recurring issues emerged.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Several proposals dealt with the problem of waste management in growing cities. K. Savitha (India) deplores the lack of waste management strategies to keep pace with growing urbanisation and the ‘overflowing garbage cans.\u2019 The UNCSD Major Group for Youth and Children propose a target to \u2018Reduce urban waste production by 50%.\u2019 Others (including ESCAP\/ADB\/UNDP, the African Youth Conference on Post-2015 Development Agenda and the French Foreign Ministry) suggest targets on waste management, but without any quantitative figures.<\/span><\/p>\n

      In a similar vein, several proposals also suggest targets for drainage systems, noting the cross-cutting benefits, such as preventing flooding and the spread of water-borne diseases. The 64th Annual DPI\/NGO Conference Declaration proposed a target that \u2018By 2030, urban areas with significant storm water pollution issues reduce impervious surface area by 30 per cent below 2012 levels.\u2019 In a proposed stand-alone goal entitled \u2018Liveable Cities,\u2019 ESCAP\/ADB\/UNDP include a target on \u2018Drainage and flood control systems which prioritize low-elevation coastal zones or vulnerable areas sensitive to surface run off.\u2019 This link to resilience and natural disaster preparedness is also made by Communitas Coalition proposal. Finally, a few different authors proposed a range of targets related to urban density and green space. The UNCSD Major Group for Youth and Children proposed a target to \u2018control urban sprawl,\u2019 whilst a zero draft target from Communitas states that all city-regions should adopt policies aimed at \u2018enhancing urban density and halving the current rate of conversion of additional greenfield land for urban development,\u2019 thereby introducing an environmental element to this particular issue. Similarly, the goal on cities from IASS includes a target to \u2018Maintain or increase the rate of green areas.\u2019 ESCAP\/ADB\/UNDP\u2019s target on \u2018Habitat Density\u2019, however, envisions \u2018Sufficient living space available per person.\u2019 Such targets need not be contradictory, but further discussion on the optimal balance between urban density, personal living space and green areas may be beneficial.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Sustainable Transport<\/span><\/strong><\/em>
      <\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

      Of the 21 e-Inventory proposals tagged with the ‘Transportation’ thematic label (as shown in Figure 2), 14 contained specific GTIs. As noted above, there are a number of proposed stand-alone goals on transportation, many using similar language. The Campaign for Global Road Safety call for a stand-alone goal entitled ‘Safe and Sustainable Roads’ and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) propose a goal to \u2018Realise universal access to sustainable transport mobility.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

      There are several distinct categories of transport-related GTIs within the e-Inventory. A significant number of proposals address transport safety: The Campaign for Global Road Safety proposes a target of \u2018Reducing global road deaths by 50% from 2010 levels by 2030,\u2019 with Communitas proposing a similar target under its goal on cities. The Partnership for Sustainable Low Carbon Transport (SloCaT) supports an even more ambitious target of cutting traffic-related deaths in half by 2025. ESCAP\/ADP\/UNDP propose a target with a gender dimension, on \u2018Safe, affordable and convenient transport and mobility options for women and girls to help prevent and address gender-based violence in cities.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

      A few proposals also address transport access. As noted above ODI proposes a stand-alone goal, entitled, \u2018Realise universal access to sustainable transport mobility.\u2019 At the target level, the French Foreign Ministry proposes the \u2018Connection of all people through guaranteed service access\u2019 to, among other things, transport.<\/span><\/p>\n

      But by far the most common theme among proposals is modal share of non-motorised or public transport. SloCaT propose the target: \u2018Maintain 2010 share of personal trips by public and non-motorized transport for countries currently above 50%, and where this share is currently below 50% achieve at least a 10% gain by 2025.\u2019 The 64th Annual DPI\/NGO Conference Declaration proposes a target: \u2018By 2030, city transport needs are or remain predominantly met by mass transport, walking and bicycling.\u2019 The Environment Strategic Policy Committee of the Offaly County Council (Ireland) proposes a target of cycle routes in every town and village. The IASS proposal for a cities goal also suggests a target on limiting the use of private vehicles. In addition, the Communitas proposal for a goal on cities contains an ambitious target for the reduction of air pollution from passenger and freight transport, to reach peak global transport greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2020 at the latest, with an ultimate vision of achieving 40-60% reductions by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. This is just one of several examples of proposals which make a clear link between cities, transport and climate change (in relation to GHGs).
      <\/span><\/p>\n

      Figure 2: Share of proposals related to ‘Transportation’ within the e-Inventory<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      \"Figure<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      Comparison with official Post-2015 Development Agenda process inputs
      <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Cities and human settlements<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      Both the High-Level Panel (HLP) and the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) are relatively quiet about cities, only adding an urban dimension to targets on water and energy respectively. The SDSN, however proposes a stand-alone goal entitled, \u2018Empower Inclusive, Productive and Resilient Cities,\u2019 which contains three targets:<\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. End extreme urban poverty, expand employment and productivity, and raise living standards, especially in slums;<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. Ensure universal access to a secure and affordable built environment and basic urban services, including housing; water, sanitation and waste management; low-carbon energy and transport; and mobile and broadband communication; and<\/span><\/li>\n
      3. Ensure safe air and water quality for all, and integrate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, efficient land and resource use, and climate and disaster resilience into investments and standards.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        As all of these targets are echoed in at least one proposal by stakeholders in the e-Inventory, the SDSN goal appears to represent a comprehensive approach to addressing cities and interrelated thematic areas in the new goals framework. The lack of urban GTIs in two of the official process inputs is significantly at odds with the e-Inventory, where many stakeholders (including among others the Governments of Colombia, Peru and the UAE; ESCAP\/ADP\/UNDP; and United Cities and Local Governments) call for a stand-alone goal on cities and urbanisation. The HLP admits the importance of cities in the 21st century, going so far as to say, \u2018Cities are where the battle for sustainable development will be won or lost.\u2019 Given this sentiment, and the apparent stakeholder enthusiasm for a stand-alone urban goal, it seems cities deserve more attention in terms of GTIs than they have currently received in official post-2015 deliberations.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Sustainable transport<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

        The SDSN, the HLP and the UNGC propose targets on access to transport, but with significant variance between them. The SDSN proposes a target to ensure \u2018universal access to \u201clow-carbon\u201d transport.\u2019 The UNGC, on the other hand, proposes to \u2018Double the share of the population with easy and affordable access to public transportation systems. The HLP is more ambiguous still, simply proposing a target on universal access to transport, without any qualifiers as to what types of transport. The ambiguities and differences in targets among both stakeholders and official process inputs suggest a need to clarify the desired outcomes for transport access.<\/span><\/p>\n

        None of the official process inputs propose any targets for transport safety, suggesting a possible gap thus far between official deliberations and stakeholder concerns.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Sustainable consumption and production (including chemicals and waste)
        <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

        The<\/span> TST Issues Brief on sustainable consumption and production<\/a> (SCP) highlights the centrality of this theme to the achievement of sustainable development, stating that ‘Changing consumption and production patterns is vital for poverty and hunger eradication, and also for protecting and managing the natural resource base and ecosystems, which underpin development.’<\/span><\/p>\n

        Of the 33 proposals in the e-Inventory tagged with the SCP thematic area (including Chemicals and waste \u2013 see Figure 3) only a relatively small number have put forward specific GTIs on this topic so far. A few proposals suggest stand-alone goals on SCP, such as those from SSA Social Justice Office and the 64th Annual DPI\/NGO Conference Declaration. More common, however, has been for proposals to address this issue under other stand-alone goals such as those to: promote greener economic growth and thriving lives and livelihoods (United Nations Population Fund \u2013 UNFPA and Griggs et al); achieve environmental sustainability (Campaign for People\u2019s Goals for Sustainable Development \u2013 CPGSD, and the French Foreign Ministry); deliver sustainable energy for all (Save the Children); and provide water and sanitation for all (Dr. Tom Mitchell – UK).<\/span><\/p>\n

        Prof. Mohan Munasinghe (Sri Lanka), however, has proposed an entire set of ‘Millennium Consumption Goals\u2019 with possible target areas such as \u2018healthier diets and obesity reduction,\u2019 sustainable livelihoods\u2019 and \u2018reduced workweek and improved working conditions.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

        It should be noted that many of the proposals that were categorised under the SCP thematic area addressed limiting greenhouse gas emissions, such as those from AFDEF and the Forum for Environmental Renewal Equity, a Sustainability Field Hearing Partner from Uganda, and the Beyond 2015, GCAP and IFP synthesis of post-2015 national deliberations in 10 Asian countries. This points to the important linkages between SCP and climate change. As climate change will also be considered at OWG 7, proposals that suggest emissions targets will be addressed in the section on climate change below.<\/span><\/p>\n

        As with most other thematic areas, the largest share of proposals came from \u2018International\u2019 authors. After that, however, the proportion is somewhat different than for other areas, with Asia and Europe accounting for the second and third highest share of proposals, respectively. Africa accounts for a noticeably smaller share (less than 10%) of proposals related to SCP than for the other thematic areas considered in this analysis. This may be because unsustainable consumption and production is perceived as a more pressing issue in Europe and the fast-growing Asian economies.<\/span><\/p>\n

        One of the most common trends emerging from proposals related to SCP was a focus on the sustainable use of natural resources. The CONCORD European Task Force propose a stand-alone goal entitled \u2018Equitable access to natural resources\u2019 and ESCAP\/ADB\/UNDP propose another entitled \u2018Environmental responsibility and management of natural resources\u2019 whilst Saferworld has put forward a slightly different stand-alone goal on respect for planetary boundaries which nonetheless maintains a focus on sustainable resource management and SCP. Mathieu Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso) proposes targets on \u2018Existence of local mechanisms for the management of natural resources\u2019 and \u2018Growth in the rate of the adoption of practices for the sustainable management of natural resources.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

        The Asia Pacific Forum on Women- Law and Development (APWLD) propose a target on SCP that has a social dimension: \u2018Ensure resource extraction, such as water use, fishing, logging and mining, is according to the needs of communities and subject to sustainable management, while protecting the rights of fisherfolk, small farmholders, indigenous people and women.\u2019 Similarly, proposals from stakeholders in Bolivia (UNITAS), Nepal (NAFAN), India (Vinoba Bhave) and the Participate initiative have all emphasised the need to improve access and rights to natural resources for local and marginalised communities in particular. A rights based approach to natural resource access and ownership is also put forward in a proposal from the World Federation of Engineering Organisations and Coraid, showing that this is not just an idea being espoused by stakeholders in the Global South.<\/span><\/p>\n

        There are also several proposals that address the need to reduce waste. The International Fertilizer Industry Association\u2019s proposal includes targets on reducing post-harvest loss and food waste, whilst the French Foreign Ministry includes a target on \u2018better management of waste (burial) and chemicals. Unnayan Onneshan proposes the indicator: \u2018Tons of solid waste generated and solid waste recycled per capita.\u2019 The only proposal related to the thematic area of SCP that specifically addressed chemicals was from the Monash Sustainability Institute, which suggests targets on ‘critical loads for man-made [sic] chemical compounds and toxic materials.’<\/span><\/p>\n

        Whilst most proposals focus on encouraging an overall shift in consumption and production patterns, some proposals do target particular unsustainable practices. Thus, the Government of Mongolia proposes a goal on responsible mining, with indicators such as \u2018Ratio of remediation square and exploration square.\u2019 The 64th Annual DPI\/NGO Conference Declaration proposed a target that, by 2020: \u2018Wasteful practices, such as planned obsolescence, are identified and eliminated.\u2019 In addition, under a stand-alone goal on \u2018Environmental responsibility and management of natural resources\u2019, ESCAP\/ADB\/UNDP emphasise the need to change how goods and energy are produced.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Figure 3: Share of proposals related to SCP (inc. chemicals & waste) within the e-Inventory<\/span><\/em>
        <\/span><\/p>\n

        \"Figure<\/span><\/p>\n

        Comparison with official Post-2015 Development Agenda process inputs<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

        While none of the three official inputs propose a stand-alone goal on SCP, two of them do discuss the theme under another related goal. The SDSN report suggests a goal entitled \u2018Achieve Development within Planetary Boundaries,\u2019 which aims to ensure SCP patterns through improved reporting on a country\u2019s contribution to planetary boundaries (beyond GDP) and stabilising populations through reducing fertility \u2013 two SCP-related topics only a very small number of e-inventory proposals discuss under this particular theme. The HLP report proposes a stand-alone goal entitled \u2018Manage Natural Resource Assets Sustainably,\u2019 but once again its targets are slightly different from many in the e-inventory that are concerned with natural resources and SCP. In general, the HLP targets focus on scientific phenomena (deforestation rates, genetic diversity, soil quality, etc.) whilst the proposals in the e-Inventory deal more with social implications of natural resource management (what might be called \u2018political ecology\u2019). A comprehensive framework could benefit from inclusion of both types of indicators in any goal or targets related to natural resources. The HLP and SDSN both include targets on food waste, with the HLP proposing \u2018 Reduce postharvest loss and food waste by x%\u2019 and the SDSN setting a target for sustainable food systems \u2018with low food losses and waste.\u2019 Nonetheless, the lack of defined numerical targets in either the e-Inventory or official process inputs suggest that although there is some agreement that food waste needs to be reduced, there is further work to be done to define reliable indicators for measuring progress in this area.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Climate change and disaster risk reduction
        <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

        The<\/span> TST Issues Brief on climate change and disaster risk<\/a> notes that these interrelated thematic areas are \u2018fundamental threats to sustainable development and the eradication of poverty\u2019 which have the potential to reverse progress made in these areas over recent years. It notes that despite many aspects of these thematic areas being addressed under a separate United Nations process (UNFCCC), the SDGs provide a \u2018unique opportunity\u2019 to increase the coherence between these efforts and the broader but heavily interdependent sustainable development agenda, both now and for generations to come.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Climate change<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

        There are 51 proposals within the e-Inventory which selected \u2018Climate change\u2019 as a thematic area (as shown in Figure 4). Of these, 30 proposed specific GTIs, although very few could be considered stand-alone goals on climate change. For the most part, climate change is identified as a concern in broader environmental sustainability goals, with titles such as \u2018Respect for Nature and the Planetary Boundaries\u2019 (Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives) and \u2018Low carbon development strategies pursued by all countries\u2019 (CONCORD – European Task Force). There are also a few proposals which identify climate change as a cross-cutting issue in GTIs related to energy.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Although there is a good mix of proposals related to both climate change adaptation and mitigation within the e-Inventory, it is quite striking that all proposals related to climate change adaptation come from the Global South. Perhaps it is to be expected that the countries that currently and will continue to feel the worst effects of climate change would be more likely to include GTIs on climate change adaptation, which corresponds with the importance these countries (i.e. the G77 and China) have placed on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) throughout the discussions on SDGs.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Regarding climate change mitigation, there is a slight variance in the ambitiousness of the targets proposed and the timescales for meeting them. The 64th Annual DPI\/NGO Conference Declaration calls for \u2018clear pathways towards climate sustainability that regulates the global temperature rise below 1.5 degree centigrade \u2019 by 2050.\u2019 The CPGSD also sets a target of limiting global temperature rise to under 1.5 degree centigrade, but without any timescale. The French Foreign Ministry, on the other hand, only sets a target of limiting the average global temperature increase to 2C, also without any timescale. The proposal from the Monash Sustainability Institute (Australia) proposes a much more flexible target: \u2018To ensure at least a 50% probability of staying within 2 degree centigrade warming, sustainability targets should aim for global greenhouse-gas emissions to peak in 2015-20, drop by 35% a year until 2030, and fall by 50-80% by 2050.\u2019Regarding climate change mitigation, there is a slight variance in the ambitiousness of the targets proposed and the timescales for meeting them. The 64th Annual DPI\/NGO Conference Declaration calls for \u2018clear pathways towards climate sustainability that regulates the global temperature rise below 1.5 degree centigrade \u2019 by 2050.\u2019 The CPGSD also sets a target of limiting global temperature rise to under 1.5 degree centigrade, but without any timescale. The French Foreign Ministry, on the other hand, only sets a target of limiting the average global temperature increase to 2 degree centigrade, also without any timescale. The proposal from the Monash Sustainability Institute (Australia) proposes a much more flexible target: \u2018To ensure at least a 50% probability of staying within 2 degree centigrade warming, sustainability targets should aim for global greenhouse-gas emissions to peak in 2015-20, drop by 35% a year until 2030, and fall by 50-80% by 2050.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

        Regarding adaptation, the Asian Regional Synthesis of the Civil Society Demands for the Post 2015 Agenda proposed that ‘Developed countries should commit to obligatory, addtional, non-debt creating pulic finance to cover the full cost of adaptations to climate change.’ The Asia-Pacific Forum on Women – Law and Development make a similar proposal, with climate finance contributed on the basis of historical responsibility –  a clear nod to the principle of CBDR. The African Youth Conference on the Post-2015 Development Agenda proposed targets for ‘Climate change responsive policies,’ arguing that ‘Climate research by governments and civil societies should be enhanced to develop adaptation capacity,’ suggesting a link between climate change and means of implementation – a thematic area discussed at the previous OWG meeting.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Figure 4: Share of proposals related to \u2018Climate change\u2019 within the e-Inventory<\/span><\/em>
        <\/span><\/p>\n

        \"Figure<\/span><\/p>\n

        Natural Disasters<\/span><\/strong><\/em>
        <\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

        There are 31 proposals within the e-Inventory which selected ‘Natural Disasters’ as a thematic area (as shown in Figure 5). Of these, 18 propose specific GTIs, and many of these are stand-alone goals, as noted below. Although for most thematic areas, the largest share of proposals come from authors whose geographic location is listed as \u2018International\u2019, for disasters, Asia accounts for approximately the same number of unique submissions.<\/span><\/p>\n

        The level of sophistication in proposals related to disasters is noteworthy: most proposals distinguish between disaster preparedness and disaster risk reduction, with many proposing separate GTIs for each. A proposal by A.K.M. Shahidul Islam, a Sustainability Field Hearing Partner from Bangladesh goes so far as to distinguish targets for Disaster Risk Reduction, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Prevention, Disaster Response and Disaster Rehabilitation. Additionally, only two proposals use the phrase \u2018Natural disasters\u2019, suggesting a recognition of the role of human agency in exacerbating natural hazards and \u2018disasters\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

        The majority of proposals on this thematic area which contain GTIs propose stand-alone goals related to disaster preparedness\/risk reduction. Many proposals area situated within a resilience framework, such as the International Poverty Reduction Center in China, whose stand-alone goal is simply titled \u2018Resilience to disaster.\u2019 It is interesting that only a few proposals address disaster preparedness\/risk reduction in tandem with climate change adaptation\/mitigation (such as AUC\/UNECA\/AfDB\/UNDP and Cordaid [Netherlands]).<\/span>
        Regarding disaster preparedness, the UNCSD Major Group for Youth and Children propose a stand-alone goal (\u2018Improve disaster risk preparedness with a particular focus on youth\u2019) with targets such as \u201820% increase in the number of trained youth volunteers registered under Disaster Response Task Forces.\u2019 Mathieu Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso) proposes a stand-alone goal entitled \u2018Reinforcing community resilience to disasters and ability to adapt to climate change\u2019 with a target for functioning early warning systems. Regarding disaster risk reduction, the French Foreign Ministry propose a target to: \u2018Develop and enforce territorial development plans governing building in flood-risk areas, coastal areas subject to erosion, and other areas vulnerable to climate risks.\u2019 Mathieu Ouedraogo also proposes a target for \u2018infrastructure for the reduction and mitigation of disaster risks.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

        Similarly, there are several proposed process GTIs focused on mainstreaming disaster preparedness into development planning. For example, the stand-alone goal on disaster risk reduction proposed by ESCAP\/ADB\/UNDP argues that \u2018any new development agenda should help mainstream disaster risk reduction in national budgets and development programmes.\u2019 Similarly, Save the Children\u2019s stand-alone goal on resilience to disasters features the target: \u2018All nations to develop a national disaster risk reduction and resilience plan by 2020.\u2019 The Communitas Coalition also includes specific process-related targets on both disaster preparedness and risk reduction under its stand-alone goal on cities.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Figure 5: Share of proposals related to \u2018Natural disasters\u2019 within the e-Inventory<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

        \"Figure<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

        Comparison with official Post-2015 Development Agenda process inputs<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

        Climate change<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

        Unlike several stakeholder proposals, most of the official process inputs shy away from overall carbon emissions targets \u2013 something they likely consider better left to the separate UNFCCC process. Nonetheless the SDSN report proposes targets on pricing of greenhouse gas emissions and on non-energy related emissions, whilst UNGC report includes a target on reversing greenhouse gas emissions from farming and livestock production.<\/span>
        Similarly, none of the official process inputs include any GTIs on climate change adaptation. It is possible that there has so far been a desire to avoid advocating for commitments to fund climate adaptation activities under a separate framework to the UNFCCC. In any case, it appears from the submissions in the e-Inventory that climate change adaptation cannot be ignored in the SDGs. Moreover, there seems to be the need for further consideration of how the SDGs interact and are made compatible with the targets agreed through the UNFCCC process.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Distasters<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/span> <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

        Unlike many proposals housed within the e-Inventory, no official process inputs contain a stand-alone goal on disasters. Nevertheless the report of the SDSN includes targets on disaster resilience under its goals on agriculture and cities. The HLP report also includes a disaster resilience target, however this is under its end poverty goal: \u2018Build resilience and reduce deaths from natural disasters by x2.\u2019
        The lack of GTIs on disasters is understandable, as \u2018development\u2019 and \u2018disaster response\/management\u2019 are often seen as separate spheres. But the heightened vulnerability of \u2018developing\u2019 countries to disasters, and the inclusion of GTIs on this theme by so many stakeholders suggests the need for further consideration on where disaster-related GTIs could fit within the post-2015 goals framework.<\/span><\/p>\n

        More information<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

        Stakeholder Forum will be publishing a briefing paper with an analysis of proposals in the SDGs e-Inventory related to the themes of each of the remaining Open Working Group meeting (OWG 8, Feb 2014).<\/span><\/p>\n

        Stakeholder Forum will also be undertaking a comprehensive analysis of all proposals housed within the e-Inventory to coincide with the second Intersessional Meeting between Major Groups and other stakeholders and the Open Working Group which is set to take place towards the end of the OWG\u2019s input phase of work in February 2014.<\/span><\/p>\n

        For further information, to search existing proposals, or to submit your vision for new global goals visit: www.sdgseinventory.org<\/a> or contact Jack Cornforth \u2013 <\/a>jcornforth@stakeholderforum.org.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

        The SDGs e-Inventory is administered by:<\/span><\/p>\n

        \"stakelogoscaled\"<\/span><\/p>\n

        The SDGs e-Inventory is<\/span> supported by:
        <\/span><\/p>\n

         \"German<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

        Project partners:<\/span><\/p>\n

        \"Partners<\/span> <\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n

        \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
        Rank<\/strong><\/td>\nTheme<\/strong><\/td>\nNo. of proposals that discuss theme<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        1<\/td>\nGovernance (national)<\/td>\n79<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        2<\/td>\nGender equality<\/td>\n75<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        3<\/td>\nSocial protection<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        4<\/td>\nEducation<\/td>\n67<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Human rights<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        6<\/td>\nHealth<\/td>\n65<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        7<\/td>\nGovernance (global\/regional)<\/td>\n63<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        8<\/td>\nEmployment and labour<\/td>\n62<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        9<\/td>\nFood security<\/td>\n60<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        10<\/td>\nEquality<\/td>\n59<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        By David Kroeker Maus and Jack Cornforth, Stakeholder Forum January 2014 Introduction The Sustainable Development Goals e-Inventory is an interactive online tool which enables stakeholders to outline their visions for new post-2015 global goals. This...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2307,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2312","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/Figure_1_-_OWG7.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2312","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2312"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2312\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2307"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sf.stakeholderforum.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}