IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/diebps/132017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) in the context of the German Sustainable Development Strategy: are we leaving the starving behind?

Author

Listed:
  • Holzapfel, Sarah
  • Brüntrup, Michael

Abstract

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted within the framework of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda are universal and apply to all countries, whereby each country is free to establish its own priorities. In order to address the concern that support for the problems of poverty endemic in developing countries could be curtailed in the process, industrial nations including Germany pledged to link national challenges with international objectives, particularly those relating to poor developing countries – in accordance with the Agenda's principle Leaving no one behind. We analysed the revised version of the “German Sustainable Development Strategy,” (GSDS), adopted on 11 January 2017, which outlines measures designed to implement the 2030 Agenda, with regard to a primary concern of the developing countries, namely goal number 2: ending hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture. Specifically, we analysed the indicators, i.e. the strategy’s measurable substance. However, the indicators cited in the GSDS fail to incorporate the developing countries’ immediate needs. Measures implemented at national level are aimed chiefly at improving ecological sustainability within the context of German agriculture. Here, particular reference is made to two verifiable indicators relating to the propagation of organic farming and the reduction of the nitrogen surplus in the agricultural sector. These objectives are doubtless desirable for Germany, and may make a meaningful contribution towards the achievement of other SDGs (e.g. water, biodiversity, health). However, they hardly contribute to the essence of SDG 2. On the contrary, no account is taken of the possible consequences of these two indicators for food security efforts in developing countries, and, with this, their coherence in terms of development policy. Said consequences could include agricultural extensification and a tendency towards increased food prices. Other policy areas which (could) exercise a considerable influence on global food security, such as bioenergy and agricultural trade, are also overlooked. Although important and necessary measures are described for the international context, which Germany must implement in order to achieve SDG 2, verifiable indicators and commitments that these efforts will be continued in future are lacking. All things considered, the German Sustainable Development Strategy has so far failed to meet the requirements of the 2030 Agenda as regards SDG 2. Which changes are necessary for the further development of the GSDS, planned for 2018? In a national context, an indicator ensuring the (examination of and endeavours to achieve) development coherence in the field of national policy measures surround¬ing SDG 2 is required. As far as the international context is concerned, a credible safeguarding of the current engagements in the field of development cooperation (DC), or a voluntary commit¬ment to increasing the German contribution even after the end of the special initiative “ONE WORLD – No Hunger”, is essential. Indicators concerning the sustainability of German agriculture as a whole, the consumption of agricultural products, specifically animal products, and genetic diversity would be particularly expedient in this regard.

Suggested Citation

  • Holzapfel, Sarah & Brüntrup, Michael, 2017. "SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) in the context of the German Sustainable Development Strategy: are we leaving the starving behind?," Briefing Papers 13/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:diebps:132017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/199801/1/die-bp-2017-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wolfram Mauser & Gernot Klepper & Florian Zabel & Ruth Delzeit & Tobias Hank & Birgitta Putzenlechner & Alvaro Calzadilla, 2015. "Global biomass production potentials exceed expected future demand without the need for cropland expansion," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cailong Xu & Ruidong Li & Wenwen Song & Tingting Wu & Shi Sun & Shuixiu Hu & Tianfu Han & Cunxiang Wu, 2021. "Responses of Branch Number and Yield Component of Soybean Cultivars Tested in Different Planting Densities," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    3. Yibo Luan & Wenquan Zhu & Xuefeng Cui & Günther Fischer & Terence P. Dawson & Peijun Shi & Zhenke Zhang, 2019. "Cropland yield divergence over Africa and its implication for mitigating food insecurity," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 707-734, June.
    4. Holzapfel, Sarah & Brüntrup, Michael, 2017. "SDG 2 (kein Hunger) in der Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie: lassen wir die Hungernden zurück?," Analysen und Stellungnahmen 11/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    5. Kotir, Julius H. & Bell, Lindsay W. & Kirkegaard, John A. & Whish, Jeremy & Aikins, Kojo Atta, 2022. "Labour demand – The forgotten input influencing the execution and adoptability of alternative cropping systems in Eastern Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    6. Ruth Delzeit & Robert Beach & Ruben Bibas & Wolfgang Britz & Jean Chateau & Florian Freund & Julien Lefevre & Franziska Schuenemann & Timothy Sulser & Hugo Valin & Bas van Ruijven & Matthias Weitzel &, 2020. "Linking Global CGE Models with Sectoral Models to Generate Baseline Scenarios: Approaches, Challenges, and Opportunities," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 5(1), pages 162-195, June.
    7. Delzeit, Ruth & Heimann, Tobias & Schünemann, Franziska & Söder, Mareike, 2021. "Scenarios for an impact assessment of global bioeconomy strategies: Results from a co-design process," Kiel Working Papers 2188, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    8. Martin Henseler & Ruth Delzeit & Marcel Adenäuer & Sarah Baum & Peter Kreins, 2020. "Nitrogen Tax and Set-Aside as Greenhouse Gas Abatement Policies Under Global Change Scenarios: A Case Study for Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 299-329, July.
    9. Ke, Xinli & Chen, Jing & Zuo, Chengchao & Wang, Xiaoqian, 2024. "The cropland intensive utilisation transition in China: An induced factor substitution perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    10. Ayyad, Saher & Karimi, Poolad & Langensiepen, Matthias & Ribbe, Lars & Rebelo, Lisa-Maria & Becker, Mathias, 2022. "Remote sensing assessment of available green water to increase crop production in seasonal floodplain wetlands of sub-Saharan Africa," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    11. Ruth Delzeit & Roberto Beach & Ruben Bibas & Wolfgang Britz & Jean Chateau & Florian Freund & Julien Lefevre & Franziska Schuenemann & Timothy Sulser & Hugo Valin & Bas van Ruijven & Matthias Weitzel , 2020. "Linking global CGE models with sectoral models to generate baseline scenarios: Approaches, opportunities and pitfalls," Post-Print hal-03128285, HAL.
    12. Azeb W. Degife & Florian Zabel & Wolfram Mauser, 2019. "Land Use Scenarios and Their Effect on Potential Crop Production: The Case of Gambella Region, Ethiopia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, May.
    13. Yu, Qiangyi & Xiang, Mingtao & Sun, Zhanli & Wu, Wenbin, 2021. "The complexity of measuring cropland use intensity: An empirical study," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 192.
    14. Srivastava, Amit Kumar & Mboh, Cho Miltin & Gaiser, Thomas & Kuhn, Arnim & Ermias, Engida & Ewert, Frank, 2019. "Effect of mineral fertilizer on rain water and radiation use efficiencies for maize yield and stover biomass productivity in Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 88-100.
    15. Sabin Shrestha & Janaki Mahat, 2022. "Sustainable Food Security: How To Feed An Increasing Population? A Review," INWASCON Technology Magazine(i-TECH MAG), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 4, pages 15-18, April.
    16. Delzeit, Ruth & Sipangule, Kacana & Thiele, Rainer, 2015. "Achieving food security in the face of climate change," PEGNet Policy Briefs 2/2015, PEGNet - Poverty Reduction, Equity and Growth Network, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    17. Qin, Zhangcai & Zhuang, Qianlai & Cai, Ximing & He, Yujie & Huang, Yao & Jiang, Dong & Lin, Erda & Liu, Yaling & Tang, Ya & Wang, Michael Q., 2018. "Biomass and biofuels in China: Toward bioenergy resource potentials and their impacts on the environment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2387-2400.
    18. Qiming Zheng & Tim Ha & Alexander V. Prishchepov & Yiwen Zeng & He Yin & Lian Pin Koh, 2023. "The neglected role of abandoned cropland in supporting both food security and climate change mitigation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Yu, Qiangyi & Wu, Wenbin & You, Liangzhi & Zhu, Tingju & van Vliet, Jasper & Verburg, Peter H. & Liu, Zhenhuan & Li, Zhengguo & Yang, Peng & Zhou, Qingbo & Tang, Huajun, 2017. "Assessing the harvested area gap in China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 212-220.
    20. Bernd Hansjürgens & Andreas Lienkamp & Stefan Möckel, 2018. "Justifying Soil Protection and Sustainable Soil Management: Creation-Ethical, Legal and Economic Considerations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-12, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agenda 2030;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:diebps:132017. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ditubde.html .

    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.