Towards Sustainability
Element 5: Presence of generic good governance principles
There are indications that governing trade-offs between different policy objectives is easier, if meta-governance or good governance principles, such as transparent, accountable, and inclusive institutions are in place (Weitz et al., 2017). Hence, WEF nexus governance may be supported by the presence of meta-governance principles as reflected in SDG 16 (target16.6:
‘Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels’ and target 16.7 ‘Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels’
as well as by multi-stakeholder partnerships call for in SDG 17 (Section 4.2)). It can furthermore be argued that governing of interlinkages relies heavily on the existence of rule of law and enforcement of rules and institutions. The Hidrosogamoso case (Example 2) illustrates how failing to apply the principle of prior and informed consent may lead to conflict with affected communities.
4.3.4 Obstacles towards governing SDG interlinkages and the WEF nexus
Obviously, multiple obstacles towards governing interlinkages exist. Based on their comprehensive evaluation of the literature on Integrative Environmental Governance, Weitz et al. (2017) highlight the following challenges for governing the WEF nexus:
1) negotiation usually take place among actors with unequal power, 2) nexus governance may be inhibited by the transaction costs of involving all affected actors, and 3) that solutions may simply lie outside the concerned WEF nexus sectors. These and additional barriers have been illustrated by various case studies on different types of nexus situations (Examples 1-3).
Research on developing countries also confirms these obstacles, but highlights additional challenges in these settings in dealing with WEF nexus problems that pertain to low state and implementation capacities (Section 4.2) as well as lack of data related to natural resource use (summarized in Dombrowsky et al., 2016). The latter makes the assessment of externalities and the design of responses obviously much more difficult.
Overall, in dealing with trade-offs it has to be acknowledged that competing demands and conflicting interests over natural resources may not always be overcome and may require compromises to mediate such trade-offs instead of solving them. The larger the extent (spatial, sectorial or temporal) of a trade-off is, the more winners and losers will be produced through a decision and the more difficult it will be to mediate the trade-off; or the higher the time urgency is to achieve a goal (for example climate action), the costlier it will be to delay action.
Hence decision-making of how to deal with existing trade-offs requires a critical reflection process of the competing demands and interests to arrive at justifiable recommendations regarding the prioritization and sequencing of policy actions. Norms and ethical criteria may differ between contexts, depending for example on the social contract on which a society is based, or on the cultural norms that are prevalent in this society. Mediating trade-offs requires dealing with these three dimensions: 1)
“How to deal with the trade-off?” (procedural dimension), 2)
“Who is eligible to take decisions?” (legitimization dimension) and 3) “For whom are decisions taken and what compensation mechanisms may be applicable?” (justification dimension) (Breuer et al., 2017).
4.3.5 Conclusions
Dealing with the synergies and trade-offs related to the pursuit of interrelated goal systems – and hence governing interlinkages among various SDGs – is one important element of a transformation towards sustainability. The WEF nexus debate arguably provides important insights for simultaneously pursuing HLPF SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12 and 15.
Governing interlinkages may require adequate policy mixes, including comprehensive reforms of public finance and existing subsidy schemes, and fostering sector, multi-level, multi-scalar and multi-actor governance processes. It is likely that this would be supported by synergistically combining the strengths of hierarchical, market and network governance within polycentric governance arrangements. It furthermore relies on effective governance capacities and arguably the presence of transparent and inclusive institutions. However, governing interlinkages also needs actively addressing the role of asymmetrical power balances and the politics behind interconnected social and biophysical systems. While these arguments may hold in general for implementing the system of 17 interrelated goals of the 2030 Agenda, governing the SDGs related to the WEF nexus requires particular attention to the scale of physical interdependencies and relies on adequate data and information to inform decision-making.
In view of the HLPF’s sectoral approach towards the thematic reviews, the section also highlights why we should not limit ourselves to monitoring individual SDGs.
4.4 Three bifurcations on the road to sustainability
This report shows that a major transformation towards sustainability is both necessary and possible. The past few decades have seen many of the foundations laid for transitioning to sustainability: Technologies, transformative networks of actors, mental models, sectoral roadmaps for sustainable transformation (e.g., in energy management, the mobility sector, the agricultural industry) and entrepreneurial business models geared towards sustainability have been developed in many countries. The 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement can be considered the pillars of a global social contract for the transformation towards sustainability in the 21st century. “The conditions of possibility” (Immanuel Kant) for this transformation are now in place. From this perspective, the global sustainability evolution has succeeded and many of our societies are now at a tipping point where they can step up the pace of transition towards implementing the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement. This tipping point situation is characterized by three major bifurcations: The transformation towards sustainability, nationalist counter-transformations and the far-reaching dynamics of the digital transformation.
4.4.1 Major challenges in the transformation towards sustainability
In many countries the forerunners and pioneers of the transformation to sustainability are not yet large and powerful
enough to direct the economy and society as a whole onto sustainable pathways. As in other epochal transitional phases, such as the “transformation of the world in the 19th century” (Osterhammel, 2009) from agrarian to industrial societies, there can be great leaps forward as well as setbacks – even in parallel. Deep transformations are times of historical discontinuity based on a concurrence of multiple changes (Häufigkeitsverdichtungen) in many areas of society and the economy towards the formation of a new societal regime (Messner, 2016). These Häufigkeitsverdichtungen can either be an ongoing progress or take place with interruptions; they can occur either additively or cumulatively, either reversibly or irreversibly, either at a steady or an unsteady pace. Phases of deep change are driven by economic, social, technological, political and cultural processes at different speeds (Osterhammel, 2009;
Braudel, 1985). We have seen huge changes within the energy sector in recent decades with regard to renewable energy production; these developments took place simultaneously in many places around the world. Currently there are some signs of similar transformations in the mobility sector as well. When it comes to the agricultural sector, or resource consumption, and the construction of new cities for the two to three billion additional people that will move to urban areas by 2050 worldwide, movement on the sustainability front has so far only been tentative and slow. Inequality is also on the rise in many countries, reducing people’s development prospects and undermining social cohesion within many societies. The transformation towards sustainability is not an event, but rather a process characterized by asynchronisms.
In order to actually implement the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda, it is necessary to scale up approaches for sustainable transformation, accelerate change processes and leverage dynamics of systemic change, for example with regard to deep decarbonization, a comprehensive circular economy and urban development that includes globally the lower 20 to 40% of urban dwellers. The transition from the “conditions of possibility” to a radical transformation is an ambitious one that needs to be properly shaped by drivers of change, but that could also fail and generate resistance and crises.
Common analyses and theories of social change (Chan, 2018;
Messner, 2016; Geels, 2014; Kahneman, 2011; Appiah, 2010;
Osterhammel, 2009; Leach et al., 2005; Mayntz, 2002) show that, for the transformation towards sustainability to succeed, there is a need for reorientation at the following levels:
4.4.1.1 Constellations of change agents
Past interests are always better organized than emerging future interests. We often fail to overcome climate-damaging production patterns and incentive systems due to social, political and power based path dependencies and well organized interests within the fossil fuel-based economy. Consequently, it is especially important to develop transformative partnerships and pioneer alliances for sustainable transformation. Cross-sectoral cooperation between change agents from the business and financial sector, research, policymaking, cultural and
societal spheres brings about structural change and breaks up traditional networks representing past interests. As this report illustrates, many societies are on the move: new companies and business models are emerging, some of them in “old” sectors as well (such as automotive and energy companies); civil society actors, cities and science could become the driving force behind the transformation towards sustainability. Reform processes, such as the one at the World Bank, show how bastions of the
“old economy” can become drivers of decarbonization (World Bank, 2015). Key actors, such as Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, are unlocking transformation prospects from the center of the global financial sector (Carney, 2018).
The Paris Agreement has contributed to a multiplication of partnerships of climate change mitigation actors (Chan, 2018;
WBGU, 2016).
4.4.1.2 Three motivating factors that create a willingness for transformation
Sustainability research has shown that tipping points could be triggered in our planetary system over the course of the 21st century, with far-reaching consequences for human civilization (Rockström et al., 2009). Social science studies outline how the erosion of societal cohesion can pose a risk to stability and security and trigger conflict (Alvaredo et al., 2018; World Bank, 2016).
Scientific investigation has played a key role in highlighting future risks and establishing the need for a transformation towards sustainability. At the same time, such crisis scenarios can also leave people feeling paralyzed and give rise to a sense of helplessness, hopelessness and sometimes even anger.
Attractive, hopeful, future-oriented and horizon-broadening narratives of opportunities and pathways to change can help people look to the future with confidence. Transformation (towards sustainability), that is, radical change, goes hand in hand with disruption, insecurity, unintended consequences, and events that cannot be planned and are often virtually impossible to anticipate. Equally, these costs and risks of transformation are some of the reasons people hold on to the established order and are resistant to sustainability reforms. Historically, people and societies only develop a willingness to change when there is a major crisis. European unification, the United Nations and the development of European welfare states were the consequences of two devastating world wars. The current crisis has a different shape. There is now a need in the 21st century to avoid reaching irreversible tipping points in our planetary system. When it comes to sustainability transformation, we need to move from a crisis mode of transformation to a preventive action mode. As such, it is necessary to generate, boost and spread motivation for the transformation towards sustainability. What drives people to work to bring about sustainable transformation?
There are three main drivers of motivation that could play a key role here: 1) People respond to normative challenges and to developments that they consider to be unacceptable states of affairs – “How can we accept it that...?” is the initial impetus here. “How can we accept that this generation is destroying the environmental foundations for all future generations? How can we accept it that, despite all the prosperity we enjoy, a large proportion of the world’s population still has no access to vital
infrastructure?” “Moral revolutions” (Appiah, 2010) can serve as a starting point for transformation. 2) Fears about the largely unforeseeable consequences of deep changes (decarbonization of energy and mobility systems) can be allayed through the documentation of examples of successful transformation, thus, “showing what is possible...”, e.g., the Energiewende (energy transition) in Germany, implementation of ambitious decarbonization plans in northern European cities, positive effects of resource-efficient business practices on labor markets in the United States and China, and an intelligent and generous refugee policy on the part of Uganda, a poor nation, since the outbreak of civil war in South Sudan. Demonstrating that transformations can succeed is a key driver for boosting motivation and bolstering courage for change. 3) The third type of motivational driver for difficult transformations is quite likely the most powerful (and renewable!) driver in the cultural evolution of humankind: imagination, creativity and the desire to create something new, beautiful, worthwhile and good.
Time, and again visions, that is, positive narratives, of possible and better futures, have motivated people to push ahead with changes despite all the uncertainty they bring with them.
Democracy, human rights, the end of slavery and welfare states are examples for such path breaking social innovations which changed the trajectories of human civilization. Currently, the 2030 Agenda is one such universal narrative of the possibility of a good life for many people – leave no one behind. It must be translated in many countries, regions, cities, communities and companies into diverse, attractive and practical future strategies which reflect the unique characteristics of the actors and communities concerned.
4.4.1.3 Four key normative innovations in the transition to sustainability
The transformation towards sustainability requires technological, institutional and economic innovations.
However, for these to succeed, there needs to be a reinvention of people’s normative horizons. Immanuel Kant described the essence of the enlightenment as a change in people’s ways of thinking (Veränderung der Denkungsart der Menschen) – human rights, the rule of law and democracy that were
“invented” and then spread successively to many societies.
The transition to sustainability calls for similar normative innovations and reorientations, the four core elements of which are already found in the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement:
1) the responsibility of the respective acting generations to prevent irreversible and dangerous changes in the planetary system (Rockström et al., 2009); 2) the linking of the concepts of national and global commons, which cannot take place without transnational reconciliation of interests, fairness and justice (Pogge and Mehta, 2016); 3) the acceptance of responsibility for the consequences of our current actions for many or (in cases e.g., of climate-induced sea level rises) even all future generations (WBGU, 2014); 4) the development of a global culture of cooperation which builds on the mobilization of the diversity of societies, their cultures, and the whole range of different normative systems of human communities as a resource for solving globally connected future problems (Zürn,
2018; Messner and Weinlich, 2016a; Tomasello, 2014). These core elements form the central points of reference of a new world view of global sustainable development. Anchoring them in our societies by means of education, knowledge diffusion, culture, joint action, standards, norms, political regimes and investments is a civilizational task.
4.4.1.4 Protection of the planetary system, efforts to strengthen social cohesion, and global cooperation are three linked concepts
Experience in many countries show that, without massive investment in the reduction of inequalities and the strengthening of social cohesion, it will not be possible to mobilize legitimation for structural reforms to mitigate climate change and protect other parts of the planetary system (WBGU, 2017). The social and environmental issues can only be solved through an integrated approach. At the same time, we see social justice and social cohesion within societies provide a basis not only for climate change mitigation and protection of the planetary system, but also for global cooperation (Messner and Weinlich, 2016b). If the social glue of societies crumbles and dangerous nationalist movements increase, then the willingness to engage in transnational cooperation for global sustainable development will decrease (Messner and Nakicenovic, 2017).
It becomes clear that the “conditions of possibility” (Kant) for mobilizing a major transformation towards sustainability and overcoming resistance to this transformation is a cultural and civilizational challenge for humankind, of an order similar to the major civilizational transformations that came in the wake of the Neolithic Revolution some 10,000 years ago and the Industrial Revolution, which began well over 200 years ago (WBGU, 2011).
Moreover, it is important to realize, that the sustainability transformations are taking place at a historic moment characterized by two other fundamental change dynamics that were still largely disregarded during the preparation and ratification of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement in 2015: “our county first” movements on the one hand and digital change processes on the other. The sustainability transformation can only succeed by simultaneously finding an appropriate response to these two major trends at the beginning of the 21st century.