Search results

Promoting the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require aligning government institutions and must contend with the often siloed nature of institutions within organizations, making the identification of cooperative institutional networks that promote SDGs a priority. We develop and apply a method which combines SDG interlinkage analysis, which helps determine priorities and prerequisites for SDG attainment, with the transition management framework, which aligns policy goals with institutional designs and programs. Using Aruba as a model case study of a small island state with a planning committee for SDG 14 and a current economic reliance on marine tourism, we show that prioritizing increased benefits to SIDS from sustainable development of marine resources includine tourism (SDG 14.7) provides the most direct co-benefits to other SDGs. When considering indirect co-benefits, reducing marine pollution (SDG 14.1) emerged as an key supporting target to achieve other important ocean targets. In order to support sustainable ocean development, we show that Aruba depends on international support through mitigating climate change (SDG 13) and developing international partnerships (SDG 17) as well as promoting sustainable economies (SDG 8), terrestrial conservation (SDG 15), building strong institutions (SDG 16) and promoting sustainable consumption and production practices (SDG 12) domestically. Using SDG interlinkages as a guide for institutional cooperation, we find that the Aruban institutions with the most potential to coordinate action for sustainable ocean development are those that coordinate economic, social, and international policy, rather than institutions specifically focused on environmental policy. Our results provide insight for sustainable development planning across small island states where ocean resources are key for development priorities.

Marine capture fishery resources are declining, and demand for them is rising. These trends are suspected to incite conflict, but their effects have not been quantitatively examined. We applied a multi-model ensemble approach to a global database of international fishery conflicts between 1974 and 2016 to test the supply-induced scarcity hypothesis (diminishing supplies of fishery resources increase fisheries conflict), the demand-induced scarcity hypothesis (rising demand for fishery resources increases fisheries conflict), and three alternative political and economic hypotheses. While no single indicator was able to fully explain international conflict over fishery resources, we found a positive relationship between increased conflict over fishery resources and higher levels of per capita GDP for the period 1975–1996. For the period 1997–2016, we found evidence supporting the demand-induced scarcity hypothesis, and the notion that an increase in supply of fishery resources is linked to an increase in conflict occurrence. By identifying significant predictors of international fisheries conflict, our analysis provides useful information for policy approaches for conflict anticipation and management.

Recent studies suggest that the pervasive impacts on global fishery resources caused by stressors such as overfishing and climate change could dramatically increase the likelihood of fishery conflict. However, existing projections do not consider wider economic, social, or political trends when assessing the likelihood of, and influences on, future conflict trajectories. In this paper, we build four future fishery conflict scenarios by considering multiple fishery conflict drivers derived from an expert workshop, a longitudinal database of international fishery conflict, secondary data on conflict driver trends, and regional expert reviews. The scenarios take place between the years 2030 and 2060 in the North-East Atlantic ("scramble for the Atlantic"), the East China Sea ("the remodeled empire"), the coast of West Africa ("oceanic decolonization"), and the Arctic ("polar renaissance"). The scenarios explore the implications of ongoing trends in conflict-prone regions of the world and function as accessible, science-based communication tools that can help foster anticipatory governance capacity in the pursuit of future ocean security.

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre-emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision-making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non-substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling-up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. ; Fil: Chan, Kai M. A. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Boyd, David R. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Gould, Rachelle. University of Vermont; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Jetzkowitz, Jens. Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde Stuttgart; Alemania ; Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Muraca, Bárbara. University of Oregon; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Naidoo, Robin. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Beck, Paige. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Satterfield, Terre. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Selomane, Odirilwe. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Singh, Gerald G. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Sumaila, Rashid. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Ngo, Hien T. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania ; Fil: Boedhihartono, Agni Klintuni. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Agard, John. The University Of The West Indies; Trinidad y Tobago ; Fil: de Aguiar, Ana Paula D. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia ; Fil: Armenteras, Dolors. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Colombia ; Fil: Balint, Lenke. BirdLife International; Reino Unido ; Fil: Barrington-Leigh, Christopher. Mcgill University; Canadá ; Fil: Cheung, William W. L. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina ; Fil: Driscoll, John. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Esler, Karen. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Eyster, Harold. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Gregr, Edward J. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Hashimoto, Shizuka. The University Of Tokyo; Japón ; Fil: Hernández Pedraza, Gladys Cecilia. The World Economy Research Center; Cuba ; Fil: Hickler, Thomas. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; Alemania ; Fil: Kok, Marcel. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos ; Fil: Lazarova, Tanya. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos ; Fil: Mohamed, Assem A. A. Central Laboratory for Agricultural Climate; Egipto ; Fil: Murray-Hudson, Mike. University Of Botswana; Botsuana ; Fil: O'Farrell, Patrick. University of Cape Town; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España ; Fil: Saysel, Ali Kerem. Boğaziçi University; Turquía ; Fil: Seppelt, Ralf. Martin-universität Halle-wittenberg; Alemania ; Fil: Settele, Josef. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research-iDiv; Alemania ; Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina; Brasil ; Fil: Xue, Dayuan. Minzu University Of China; China ; Fil: Brondízio, Eduardo S. Indiana University; Estados Unidos