IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i2p462-d198376.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining and Quantifying National-Level Targets, Indicators and Benchmarks for Management of Natural Resources to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals

Author

Listed:
  • Chris Dickens

    (International Water Management Institute, 0184, Pretoria, South Africa)

  • Vladimir Smakhtin

    (United Nations University - Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH). Hamilton, ON L8P 0A1, Canada)

  • Matthew McCartney

    (International Water Management Institute, IWMI-SEA, PO Box 4199, Vientiane, Laos)

  • Gordon O’Brien

    (School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Sciences, University of Mpumalanga, Private Bag X11283, Nelspruit, South Africa)

  • Lula Dahir

    (International Water Management Institute, 0184, Pretoria, South Africa)

Abstract

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), are high on the agenda for most countries of the world. In its publication of the SDGs, the UN has provided the goals and target descriptions that, if implemented at a country level, would lead towards a sustainable future. The IAEG (InterAgency Expert Group of the SDGs) was tasked with disseminating indicators and methods to countries that can be used to gather data describing the global progress towards sustainability. However, 2030 Agenda leaves it to countries to adopt the targets with each government setting its own national targets guided by the global level of ambition but taking into account national circumstances. At present, guidance on how to go about this is scant but it is clear that the responsibility is with countries to implement and that it is actions at a country level that will determine the success of the SDGs. Reporting on SDGs by country takes on two forms: i) global reporting using prescribed indicator methods and data; ii) National Voluntary Reviews where a country reports on its own progress in more detail but is also able to present data that are more appropriate for the country. For the latter, countries need to be able to adapt the global indicators to fit national priorities and context, thus the global description of an indicator could be reduced to describe only what is relevant to the country. Countries may also, for the National Voluntary Review, use indicators that are unique to the country but nevertheless contribute to measurement of progress towards the global SDG target. Importantly, for those indicators that relate to the security of natural resources security (e.g., water) indicators, there are no prescribed numerical targets/standards or benchmarks. Rather countries will need to set their own benchmarks or standards against which performance can be evaluated. This paper presents a procedure that would enable a country to describe national targets with associated benchmarks that are appropriate for the country. The procedure builds on precedent set in other countries but in particular on a procedure developed for the setting of Resource Quality Objectives in South Africa. The procedure focusses on those SDG targets that are natural resource-security focused, for example, extent of water-related ecosystems (6.6), desertification (15.3) and so forth, because the selection of indicator methods and benchmarks is based on the location of natural resources, their use and present state and how they fit into national strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Dickens & Vladimir Smakhtin & Matthew McCartney & Gordon O’Brien & Lula Dahir, 2019. "Defining and Quantifying National-Level Targets, Indicators and Benchmarks for Management of Natural Resources to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:2:p:462-:d:198376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/462/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/462/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna Martyka & Dorota Jopek & Izabela Skrzypczak, 2022. "Analysis of the Sustainable Development Index in the Communes of the Podkarpackie Voivodeship: A Polish Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    2. Raejung Lee & Jinho Kim, 2021. "Developing a Social Index for Measuring the Public Opinion Regarding the Attainment of Sustainable Development Goals," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 201-221, July.
    3. Di Vaio, Assunta & Trujillo, Lourdes & D'Amore, Gabriella & Palladino, Rosa, 2021. "Water governance models for meeting sustainable development Goals:A structured literature review," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    4. Alam, Gazi Mahabubul & Forhad, Abdur Rahman & Ismail, Ismi Arif, 2020. "Can education as an ‘International Commodity’ be the backbone or cane of a nation in the era of fourth industrial revolution? - A Comparative study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    5. You-Kyung Lee, 2020. "The Relationship between Green Country Image, Green Trust, and Purchase Intention of Korean Products: Focusing on Vietnamese Gen Z Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, June.
    6. David Le Blanc, 2020. "Some considerations on external audits of SDG implementation," Working Papers 166, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    7. Javier García López & Raffaele Sisto & Javier Benayas & Álvaro de Juanes & Julio Lumbreras & Carlos Mataix, 2021. "Assessment of the Results and Methodology of the Sustainable Development Index for Spanish Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, June.
    8. Annamaria Di Fabio & Marc A. Rosen, 2020. "An Exploratory Study of a New Psychological Instrument for Evaluating Sustainability: The Sustainable Development Goals Psychological Inventory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Nicolás Gambetta & Paula Azadian & Victoria Hourcade & María Elisa Reyes, 2019. "The Financing Framework for Sustainable Development in Emerging Economies: The Case of Uruguay," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    10. Christopher Dickens & Matthew McCartney & David Tickner & Ian J. Harrison & Pablo Pacheco & Brown Ndhlovu, 2020. "Evaluating the Global State of Ecosystems and Natural Resources: Within and Beyond the SDGs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-22, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:2:p:462-:d:198376. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.