Staying within planetary boundaries as a premise for sustainability: On the responsibility to address counteracting sustainable development goals
Heidi Rapp Nilsen
Department
of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Faculty of
Humanities, NTNU, heidi.r.nilsen@ntnu.no
Sustainable development, as
explained through the three pillars of
environment, society and economy, is a
well-known concept and has been used extensively
in recent decades. There is finally a growing
acknowledgement that environmental
sustainability is the prerequisite for achieving
the other two pillars of societal and economic
sustainability. Nevertheless, there is a
tendency to not explicate the negative
interactions between the pillars of
sustainability, as in the interlinkages between
the UN’s sustainable development goals. In this
paper, we draw attention to a method for
explicating both reinforcing and counteracting
goals. This is a conceptual paper but with
short, illustrative examples from different
levels of the R&D sphere on how this method
can be used: one example is at the project
level, two are from financiers of R&D
projects, and the other is at the UN level.
Finally, a longer discussion on relevant ethical
guidelines is presented. This paper addresses
the responsibility to recognize when and how
sustainability goals counteract each other
through two key actions. The first action is to
identify transgressions of global ecological
system boundaries and the resulting serious
consequences for trading on environmental
sustainability. The second involves bringing to
the fore relevant ethical guidelines from the
Norwegian National Research Ethics Committee. An
update of these guidelines is suggested to
reflect recent research on the transgression of
planetary boundaries and the consequences for a
safe operating space for humans on Earth.
Introduction
Humankind has affected and
changed nature for as long as we have
existed as a species. Nevertheless, the changes that we are causing now have a
breadth and pace that are unprecedented (Stenøien
and Andersen 2018; McNeill 2000). Unlike only a century ago, we now have
advanced knowledge of the effects that we are causing through the
recognized framework of planetary boundaries
(PB). This framework defines a safe
operating space for humanity based on the
intrinsic biophysical processes that
regulate the stability of the Earth system
(Rockström, Steffen,
Noone, Persson, Chapin, Lambin,
… Foley 2009; Steffen, Richardson, Rockström,
Cornell, Fetzer, Bennett,… Sörlin
2015).
In the same period that the work on the PB
framework progressed, the UN developed its
17 sustainable development goals (SDGs),
which the UN General Assembly adopted in
2015 (United Nations 2015a). These goals are
now being extensively used in policymaking,
and by industry and academia. However, there
is a tendency to explicate single SDGs or an
SDG that enables or reinforces another SDG,
while leaving out negative
interactions between SDGs (United Nations
2017, European Commission 2016,
Forskningsrådet 2017). In this paper, we highlight the obligation, especially within research, to address when and how
sustainability goals counteract each other.
We do this by addressing 1) transgressions
of the planetary boundaries and the
consequences of the trade-offs between SDGs,
and in light of these transgressions, 2) bringing to the forefront
relevant ethical guidelines from the Norwegian National
Research Ethics Committee (2018a; 2018b). We
suggest an update of these guidelines to
reflect recent research findings, such as
the transgression of planetary boundaries
for a safe human existence on Earth.
Sustainable development has been an extensively used and
well-known concept for 30 years, since the
publication of the report titled Our
common future (World Commission on
Environment and Development 1987). The
operationalization of the concept has to a
large degree been the three-pillar approach
of sustainable environment, sustainable
society and sustainable economy (Folke, Biggs,
Norström, Reyers and Rockström 2004,
Holden, Linnerud, Banister, Schwanitz
and Wierling 2018: 24), although other
pillars, such as institutions, culture
and/or politics have sometimes been added
(Spangenberg 2002, Keitch, Kua and Skjerven
2016, Lafferty and Langhelle 1999). In most
policy and business communities, the three pillars – also referred to as aspects or dimensions – have either been given equal weight
(Folke and others 2016), or the economic
pillar has been given priority (Nilsen 2010,
Giddings, Hopwood and O’Brien 2002, Kallio,
Nordberg and Ahonen 2007). However, there is
now growing knowledge and acknowledgement
regarding the importance of environmental
sustainability as a premise for economic and
social sustainability and even human
existence, as projected by the PB framework.
SDGs aspire to find a coherent way of
thinking about how, for instance, poverty, innovation and
climate change fit together as intertwined
social, economic and environmental targets
(United Nations 2015a). The goals depend on
each other, but the dependency and
interactions are both positive and negative.
One SDG may reinforce the other or reduce
the effect of a third SDG (Hickel 2019,
Gupta and Vegelin 2016, Pongiglione 2015).
We therefore draw attention to a method for
explicating both reinforcing and
counteracting goals. This is a conceptual
paper but with short, illustrative examples
from different levels of the R&D sphere: one at the project level, two on
financiers of R&D projects, and one at the UN level. Finally, a longer
discussion on relevant ethical guidelines
for research is presented.
We want to raise awareness about a warning
regarding the use of the SDGs as formulated
by Nilsson, Griggs and Visbeck (2016: 320):
“If countries ignore the overlaps and simply
start trying to tick off targets one by
one, they risk perverse outcomes.” The
perverse outcome that we address in this paper, and
hence want to avoid, is to contribute to the
transgression of planetary boundaries. From
the PB framework, we know that biosphere-based
sustainability is a prerequisite to
achieving sustainability within societies
and economies (Folke and others 2016).
Disturbingly, it is estimated that humanity
has already transgressed at least four of
the nine defined boundaries: climate change,
loss of biodiversity, biogeochemical flows
of phosphorus and nitrogen, and land-system
change (Steffen and others 2015). We have
entered the age of the Anthropocene,
signifying that the planet is leaving the
geological epoch of the Holocene, as our
influence outweighs the impact of natural forces
on the functioning of the Earth system
(Crutzen 2002).
Furthermore, in this paper, sustainability
refers to biosphere-based sustainability. In
the three-pillar approach, this means that environmental
sustainability is the prerequisite for a
sustainable society and a sustainable
economy.1
In the next section we present the
problem of counteracting SDGs and the
suggested method for addressing such
problems. The following section focuses
on the planetary boundaries for a safe
operating space for humanity, linked to
counteracting SDGs. We then present
examples from different levels of the
R&D sphere and discuss them in
relation to the suggested method.
Lastly, before summing up, we present
relevant guidelines and suggest updates
to reflect that research has an ethical
obligation to contribute to a
biosphere-based sustainability.
The overall aim of SDGs is to promote human dignity and prosperity while safeguarding the Earth’s vital biophysical processes and ecosystem services (United Nations 2015a). SDGs originated at the 2012 Rio conference in the final declaration, ‘The Future We Want’ (United Nations 2012). At the more formal level, SDGs are replacing the United Nations’ millennium development goals (MDGs), which the UN member states agreed to try to achieve by 2015. The United Nations’ Millennium Declaration, signed in 2000, committed world leaders to work towards eight goals to combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women and to develop a global partnership for development. However, MDGs prolonged the traditional marginalistic approach of focusing on one natural resource at a time (Folke and others 2016). Therefore, the SDG agenda represents a new way of thinking about how issues such as poverty, innovation and climate change are intertwined. Implicit in the SDG logic is that the 17 goals depend on each other, but without specifying exactly how.
Figure 1 is the official short version of the goals. All SDGs have longer titles that are followed by specific targets, totalling 169 targets. As an example, the full title of SDG 14 is ‘Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development,’ and target 14.1 states the following: “By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution” (United Nations 2015a). These SDGs can be mutually reinforcing, but they can also be contradictory, as pointed out by several scholars. Gupta and Vegelin (2016) claim that there are trade-offs in favour of economic growth over social and ecological viability. Pongiglione (2015) argues for the prioritization of SDGs that are compatible and that facilitate other sustainability objectives. Hickel (2019) adds to this literature by quantifying that economic growth, as outlined in SDG 8, is at odds with human development objectives that rely on equity both within nations and between them. Nilsson and others (2016) suggest an approach in which the influence of one SDG on another is organized on a scale consisting of the following seven levels: indivisible, reinforcing, enabling, consistent, constraining, counteracting, and cancelling. This scale is illustrated in Table 1, which also offers examples of SDGs influencing other SDGs. A strength of this method is that it allows for a wider sphere of interactions to be assessed, beyond the more well-known economic growth versus sustainable society and sustainable environment discourse.
Figure 1. The United Nations’ sustainable development goals
In the following section, we present the planetary boundary framework in more detail and discuss this situation in relation to trade-offs between SDGs in research.
Table 1.
Interactions
among the
United
Nations’
sustainable
development
goals (Nilsson
and others
2016, p. 321)
In
this paper, we
take as a
premise that
we want to
avoid
transgressing
the planetary
boundaries
further and to
stay within
those
boundaries
that we have
not yet
transgressed.
Climate change
and biosphere
integrity are
‘core’
boundaries
based on their
fundamental
importance for
the Earth
system. The crossing of one or more of the other boundaries
may seriously
affect human
well-being and
may predispose
the
transgression
of a core
boundary but
does not by
itself lead to
a new state of
the system of
this planet.
Of these two
core
boundaries,
biosphere
integrity is
the least
known. The
biosphere is
the global
ecological
system
integrating
all living
beings, their
relationships,
and their
dynamic
interplay with
the
atmosphere,
water cycle,
biogeochemical
cycles and the
dynamics of
the Earth
system as a
whole. Diversity
in the
biosphere
provides
resilience to
terrestrial
and marine
ecosystems
(Biggs, Schlüter, Biggs, Bohensky, BurnSilver, Cundill, …
West 2012; Cumming, Olsson, Chapin and Holling 2013).
The biosphere
not only
interacts with
the other
planetary
boundaries but
also increases
the capacity
of the Earth
to persist in
a given state
under changes
in these other
boundaries.
Even though
the
transgression
of global
boundaries yields a new situation with respect to
the
possibility of
achieving
biosphere-based
sustainability,
there has been
scientific
knowledge for
a long time
that such
effects
eventually
emerge. In
1896,
the Swedish
chemist
Arrhenius
calculated
that a
doubling in
the
concentration
of CO2
would increase
the mean or middle global temperature
by approximately
5 degrees
Celsius
(Barrett,
2003, p. 363).
The capacity
of the
biosphere as
part of the
complex
dynamics of
the Earth
system to
sustain human
development
also has a
long legacy
and was made
explicit with,
for example,
the
development of
ecological
economics.
Here, the
economy is a
subsystem of
the biosphere,
and it is
explicit that
the increase
in scale and
the
connectivity
and speed of
the globalized
world shapes
the biosphere
and our own
future in
profound ways
(Odum 1971,
Costanza, R.
1989). However, only recently has there been a broader and
more
systematic
approach to
identifying,
evaluating,
and
quantifying
the risks of
abrupt
planetary-level
shifts due to
the
overshooting
of key Earth
system
parameters (Rockström
and others
2009; Steffen
and others
2015).
In light of
the severe
situation of
continuous
contributions
to (further)
transgressing
the PBs, we
argue for the
ethical
obligation of
research to
assess and
articulate
when there is
a risk of
trade-offs
between the
sustainability
pillars and,
in particular,
when the
trading is
done at the
cost of
environmental
sustainability.
Such
assessments
can be made
through SDGs
and the
suggestions of
Table 1,
as four of the
SDGs are goals
that
contribute to
a resilient
biosphere
(Folke and
others 2016):
climate
action (number
13), life
below water
(number 14), life
on land
(number 15)
and clean
water and
sanitation
(number 6). Of
course,
positive and
negative
contributions
to the other
SDGs should
also be
expressed, but
our concern in
this paper is
primarily that
biosphere-based
sustainability
is the
foundation
upon which the
pillars of a
sustainable
society and
economy rest.
It can be
challenging to
assess and
articulate
possible
interactions
in R&D
between
sustainability
pillars. If
this is
outside a
researcher’s
or project’s
area of
expertise, then the project team must be
expanded to
include
relevant
expertise to
address these
questions. The
level and
depth of the
assessments
will have to
vary,
depending on
various
factors such
as
the character
of the
project, the
type and
strength of
interactions,
and the
recipient’s
need and
processing of
the
information.
This paper
does not offer
a description
of more
specific
requirements
for level and
depth, beyond
the examples
presented
in the next
section.
More
importantly,
such an
assessment
gives the
researchers an
opportunity to
revise the
project idea
and project
plan to avoid
or reduce
trade-offs.
Possible
negative
interactions
that cannot be
resolved by
revising the
particular
research
project still
need to be
explicated, so
that they can
be addressed
elsewhere,
such as by
other research
programmes or
politically.
Until negative
interactions
are stopped
and as long as
these
interactions
irreversibly
contribute to
transgressing
PBs, the
research
project is not
appropriate
for a
biosphere-based
sustainability.
Examples and discussion of methodx
In this paper, we discuss the method of Table 1 in relation to examples of the different levels of the R&D sphere: an international R&D project pursuing innovative solutions for marine plastic waste, two different programmes for financing R&D projects, and one example from the UN level.
The Circular Ocean (2015–2018) was an R&D project seeking to inspire enterprises and entrepreneurs to realize hidden opportunities in discarded fishing nets and ropes in the Northern Periphery and Arctic region. A part of the Circular Ocean was to call a competition for innovative project ideas to recycle plastic waste from the fishing industry.2 The contestants were asked, amongst other questions, to explain the following in their application: “How does the solution contribute to the UN’s sustainable development goals?” (Circular Ocean 2018). This question gives no incentive to use the limited space of a maximum of 100 words to describe how their innovative projects might constrain or even cancel another goal. Some contest applicants may have described negative interactions,3 but that does not change the point of this example: The question for contestants should ask for both positive and negative effects on other SDGs. Moreover, the contestants could have been asked to reflect on the strength of such interactions, the possibility of these interactions actually occurring, and the possibility of negative interactions outweighing the positive effects of the innovation.
Our objective is not that the contestants, or others discussing interlinkages between SDGs, must arrive at a specific figure on the total effect of interactions, based on figures from the leftmost column in Table 1. More important is to use the examples in the other columns as a guide for how a discussion of interactions can be carried out. Table 1 addresses the macro level, whereas we argue that these considerations should also be taken into account at the project level when sustainability is an issue.
Other considerations beyond Table 1 include discussing the reversibility of the interrelations. The innovative solution of repurposing discarded fishing nets can be used as an example. A new product on the market made from discarded fishing nets leads to enhanced greenhouse gas emissions from production and transportation – if this new product is manufactured in addition to other products, instead of as a replacement for other products. In that case, this new product puts an irreversible constraint on SDG 13 ‘Climate action’. It may be difficult to revise a project to avoid this interrelation, and naturally it is not appealing to researchers to highlight such negative implications. However, if trade-offs are not resolved at the project level, it is even more important to articulate them so that they can be addressed elsewhere, for instance by financiers of R&D. It should therefore also be in the interest of investment programmes of R&D projects to ask for considerations and transparency regarding negative interactions. Accordingly, we have looked briefly at two financiers, the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme and the Norwegian Research Council.
The Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 2014-2020 cofinanced the Circular Ocean and has been evaluated with regard to its possible overall environmental effect. “To ensure the viability of the approach, there is a need to ensure a balanced consideration of the different dimensions of sustainable development, preventing the domination of one dimension over the others” (Clement 2014:54). However, no specification has been provided on how to ensure this balance. As this programme was not completed by the time this paper was written, how and if such a consideration is undertaken remains to be seen. We argue that such a consideration requires having information on interactions at the project level, including details on direction, possibility, strength and reversibility. This is increasingly important the larger and more complex research projects become, as increasing complexity makes it even more difficult for people who are not part of the project team to assess relevant interactions.
The Norwegian Research Council says in its strategy for sustainability that applicants will have to describe how the project will contribute to increased sustainability when this is of relevance (Forskningsrådet 2017). We argue that when sustainability is an issue, it is equally important to point out to the applicants that there are inherent contradictions at the macro level between many of the SDGs and that projects must therefore reflect any possible contributions to reduced sustainability. This should spur applicants to revise their projects to decrease negative interactions as far as possible. Moreover, financiers or specific research programmes should perform an overview and evaluate the balance between the different dimensions of sustainability or between SDGs. An aggregate imbalance in disfavour of biosphere-based sustainability can then be acted upon, for instance, by earmarking more means for projects that contribute to biosphere-based sustainability.
In discussing counteracting SDGs in a research
project, it may be helpful to distinguish
between the effect of an R&D project and the impacts of
the insights generated through research or the
scaling-up of what has been developed. The
impacts of insights generated through the R-part
in R&D may be difficult to assess, whereas
the scaling-up of the D-part is probably easier.
Many other striking examples can be found, where
negative interactions between the UN’s SDGs are
not accounted for, including at the macro level
within the UN itself. A report reviewing one
SDG, developed by 12 UN entities, uses the scale
of Table 1, but only the positive interactions
are presented (United Nations 2017). All 17 SDGs
are placed on this scale, but no possible
negative cross-cutting interactions are
portrayed. In the text accompanying the table,
the reader is made aware that the sustainability
of life below water (e.g., SDG 14) can be
traded off by other pillars of sustainability –
here, economic growth – if necessary changes are
not made. Continuous emissions of greenhouse
gases are creating warmer seas and killing coral
reefs and may serve as an example of a change
needed to arrive at environmentally sustainable
oceans. Nevertheless, the text accompanying the
table does not reflect that the necessary
economic changes are of enormous dimensions,
from global structural changes to individual
attitudes. At the global level, the viability of
achieving an expansion of the ocean economy
based on a ‘sustainable use of the oceans’ – as
explicitly stated in the SDG 14 title – has yet
to be demonstrated.
The process that we suggest in the
previous section can be seen as a
responsibility4. In
this section, we examine whether and how this responsibility is
specified in ethical guidelines for research
and, in particular, in the Norwegian ethical
guidelines for research. These guidelines were
created by the Norwegian National Committees for
Research Ethics, which
is an independent administrative agency under
the Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research. There are four different committees,
and according to their webpages, the
committees are to be impartial advisory bodies providing
guidance and advice on research ethics and where
the guidelines are seen as important tools for
promoting good scientific practice in the
Norwegian research system. In this section, we present the paragraphs that are most relevant with regard to
the planetary boundaries and suggest a few
examples of proposed revisions5
to bring them in line with environmental
sustainability as biosphere-based
sustainability.
The Norwegian National Committees for Research
Ethics have created seven different guidelines
for research. One of these is ‘Guidelines for
research ethics in science and technology,’6 issued by
the National Committee for Research Ethics in
Science and Technology (NENT). With regard
to the theme of this paper, we examine the chapter titled ‘The obligations of
research to society’, paragraphs 2 and 8 (the Norwegian National
Committees for Research Ethics 2016):
2 Research should be compatible
with sustainable development.
Researchers and research
institutions have a collective responsibility to
contribute to sustainable development and the
preservation of biological diversity. The
concept of "sustainability" encompasses
economic, social, institutional, and
environmental aspects.
The second sentence in the citation above from
NENT states that sustainability encompasses four
aspects.7
We propose to add that the environmental aspect
is a foundation for the other sustainability
aspects, in line with the PB framework. Biosphere capacity serves as the
foundation for human well-being, and human
well-being is embedded in and rests on a
resilient biosphere (Folke and others 2016;
Steffen and others 2015).
Furthermore, the first sentence of this citation
stresses the importance of preserving biological
diversity. Nevertheless,
biological diversity is defined as something
that happens in addition to sustainable
development, with the ‘and’ between them: “(…)
contribute to sustainable development and the
preservation of biological diversity.” This can
be interpreted in two ways, which we denote as
a) and b) below:
a. Preserving biological diversity is
a responsibility, regardless of sustainable
development. The concept of sustainable
development is by and large anthropocentric, in
the sense that only human beings have moral
standing. However, many different
non-anthropocentric approaches grant other
living beings and non-living substances, such as water and mountains, a moral
standing (DesJardins, 2006). In these
approaches, biological diversity – or the parts
that in sum make up biological diversity – has
intrinsic value. Biological diversity is not to
be valued according to how it contributes to
sustainable development. If this is a correct
interpretation, then we suggest no changes to
this sentence.
b. Biological diversity is a necessary
part of sustainable development and is to be
preserved without trade-offs with the other
pillars and other SDGs. This is an approach in
line with biosphere-based sustainability.
However, this approach does not encompass the
complexity of biosphere-based sustainability, as
biological diversity alone cannot keep us within
a safe operating space for humanity. If
biological diversity is included because it is a
necessary part of biosphere-based
sustainability, then several other necessary
parts should also be listed. Most importantly, the other three defined
boundaries are already in a critical state: climate change, biogeochemical
flows of phosphorus and nitrogen, and
land-system change (Steffen and others 2015). If
listing the necessary aspects of environmental
sustainability is not a goal, specifying
biological diversity should be removed. Then,
it is especially important to make the change
proposed above in the second sentence and
state that the environmental aspect is a
foundation for the other sustainability
aspects. Otherwise, removing ‘preservation of
biological diversity’ weakens biosphere-based
sustainability in this paragraph from NENT.
The next paragraphs from NENT
address researchers’ responsibility to
assess uncertainty and strive to
observe the precautionary principle. Both
these paragraphs are of relevance for
assessing counteracting SDGs. We
suggest that NENT consider explicitly including
the problem of counteracting SDGs in these
paragraphs as an overall purpose and also
because so many R&D projects already refer
to SDGs.
8 Researchers must clarify the
degree of uncertainty in their research and
evaluate the risk associated with the research
findings
Researchers must clarify the degree
of certainty and precision that characterises
their research results. They must be
particularly meticulous about clarifying the
relative certainty and validity range of their
findings. In addition to presenting knowledge
critically and in context, researchers must
strive to point out any risk and uncertainty
factors that may have a bearing on the
interpretation and possible applications of the
research findings. Communicating the relative
certainty and validity of knowledge is part of a
researcher's ethical responsibility and effort
to achieve objectivity. Where possible,
researchers should also use appropriate methods
for demonstrating the uncertainty of the
research. Research institutions have an
obligation to teach these methods to their
employees and students.
In paragraph 8 cited above, the
second-to-last sentence asks for appropriate
methods for demonstrating the uncertainty of the
research. When uncertainty is related to the
pillars of sustainable development or
specifically related to achieving one or more of
the SDGs, Table 1 above offers a method for discussing that kind
of uncertainty.
9 Researchers must strive to
observe the precautionary principle
Where there is plausible, but
uncertain knowledge to the effect that a
technological application or a development of a
research field may lead to ethically
unacceptable consequences for health, society,
or the environment, the researchers in the field
in question must strive to contribute knowledge
that is relevant for observing the precautionary
principle. This means that researchers must work
together with other relevant parties in
observing the precautionary principle. The
precautionary principle is defined here as
follows: "When human activities may lead to
morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically
plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken
to avoid or diminish that harm." This principle
is important for a large part of science and
technology research, and researchers have a
shared responsibility for ensuring that
evaluations are based on the precautionary
principle and contribute to avoiding or
diminishing harm.
Conclusion
The United Nations sustainable
development goals (SDGs) have been widely
welcomed, and in academia, they have sparked a new way of approaching
the complex issue of sustainability. However,
the 17 SDGs have inherent contradictions at the macro level, and it seems to be
overlooked that this has implications at lower
levels, such as in research programmes and
R&D projects. We argue that possible
negative effects for sustainable development
should be critically addressed.
The two main reasons for this obligation are, first, the global biosphere-based
situation for a continuous safe operating space
for humanity, where the core planetary
boundaries of climate change and biosphere
integrity are being transgressed (Steffen and
others 2015). We
therefore need to plan and implement R&D
that contribute to preserving ecosystems that
are critical for maintaining the function of the
Earth system. This capacity is called a
biosphere-based sustainability and is the
premise for a sustainable society and a
sustainable economy.
We highlight a method by Nilsson and others
(2016) on how to discuss the possible
constraining, counteracting and cancelling of
SDGs. We expand on how this method should be
used by offering examples from different levels
relevant to research, such as an international
R&D competition on recycling fishing gear
and financiers of R&D. Key features in this
method are to reflect on the strength of both
positive and negative interactions between
goals, the possibility and reversibility of the
interactions and whether negative interactions
may outweigh the positive effects of an action.
Interactions that put further pressure on
planetary boundaries contribute, however
marginally, to driving us further away from the
Holocene and are a concern for all of humanity.
This needs to be articulated because it then
gives researchers the ability to revise or stop
the project or to pass this concern on to their
financiers or to politicians.
The other reason to critically address possible negative
interlinkages is a responsibility to comply with
ethical guidelines for research. We have looked
into the Norwegian ethical guidelines and
relevant paragraphs, which are guided by the terms of
sustainable development, uncertainty and the
precautionary principle. We suggest how these
ethical guidelines should be updated to reflect
the recent developments within sustainability
science and how they can be linked to address
the problem of counteracting SDGs.
Acknowledgements
This paper is part of a pilot program HAVANSVAR Blue Humanities Initiative, which is an NTNU Oceans Pilot on ethical, cultural, communicative, narrative and historic dimensions of Ocean-related research and innovation. NTNU Oceans is one of NTNU's four strategic research areas. The author of this paper thanks Circular Ocean for the opportunity to be a judge in the competition that provided insight into the theme of this paper. The author also thanks the anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback in developing this paper.
1
Often, the
terms
sustainability
and
sustainable
development
are used
interchangeably
(Wilderer
2007), as we
also do in
this paper.
This has
induced
critique that the obvious needs of developing
countries to
develop are
excluded (Barkemeyer,
Holt,
Preuss and
Tsang 2014).
It is outside
the scope of
this paper to
discuss this
critique,
beyond stating
an explanation
for using
sustainability
in this paper:
we have
concluded that
environmental
sustainability
is the
requisite
foundation for
the other two
pillars. The
consequences
of this
premise, for
research on
SDGs, have
been the
primary points
of discussion
in this paper.
2
Looking for an
R&D
project to use
as an example
in this paper,
we chose to
use this
project
because the
author of this
paper knew the
project from
being an
external judge
in this
competition.
It is
important to
note that all
the
information
provided in
this paper is
public.
Moreover, the
critical light
on Circular
Ocean in this
paper only has
to do with the
particular
part
concerning the
use of the
SDGs in the
competition.
We have not
investigated
other parts of
the project
and thus have
no reason to
question any
other aspects
of Circular
Ocean.
3 As a
judge in this
competition,
this author
was able to
evaluate
entrants and
how they
described the
effect on
SDGs. The
project
management of
Circular Ocean
was asked to
release data
so that
contestants’
contributions
on SDGs could
be analysed
and aggregated
anonymously in
this paper.
This request
was declined
and of course
complied with.
4
In this
paper we are
using
‘obligation’
and
responsibility
in these later
section. The
nuance between
these two
words is
described as
follows in a
well-recognized
web resource:
“[…] a
responsibility
is something
you can be
held
accountable
for. ... Being
responsible
means you have
a sense of
moral or
ethical duty
to something
or someone
which may
imply an
obligation to
do something.
An obligation
is simply a
mandate to do
something that
does not
connote any
moral or
ethical
dimension.”
(english.stackexchange.com)
5 By
the time this
paper is
published,
these
guidelines may
already have
been updated,
possibly
according to
some of the
recommendations
in this paper. An earlier
version of
this paper was
presented at
the ELSA
conference in
Norway in
November 2018
(https://www.ntnu.no/blogger/elsa/).
A
representative
from The Norwegian National
Research
Ethics
Committees was
present, and
in March 2020
she asked for
and was given
the
suggestions in
writing, for a
possible
revision of
the
guidelines.
6 The
remaining six
guidelines are
for medical
and health
research, the
social
sciences, law
and the
humanities,
internet
research,
human remains,
research
ethics
checklist, and
use of animals
in research.
7
We have
not used a
separate
pillar or
aspect of
institutions
in our
previous
discussion. It
is the
biosphere as
the foundation
for all other
pillars of
sustainability
that is the
main point we
raise. NENT
refer to
aspects, not
pillars, but
this does not
change the
main point:
the biosphere
as the
foundation for
the other
aspects of
sustainability.
References
Barkemeyer, R., Holt, D., Preuss, L. and Tsang, (2014). What happened to the development in ‘sustainable development’? Sustainable Development, 22(1): 15-32. Crossref
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E.L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., … West, P.C. (2012). Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review Environmental Resources 37: 421–448. Crossref
Circular Ocean (2018). Downloaded
September 2018 from: http://www.circular
ocean.eu/competitions/
Clement, K. 2014. STRATEGIC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE NORTHERN
PERIPHERY AND ARCTIC PROGRAMME 2014-2020.
European Policies Research Centre, University of
Strathclyde. Downloaded September 2018 from
http://www.interreg-npa.eu/fileadmin/Programme
_Documents/NPA_Programme_SEA_Report.pdf
Costanza, R. (1989). What is
ecological economics. Ecological
Economics, 1(1): 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(89)90020-7
Crutzen, P. (2002). Geology of Mankind. Nature 415: 23. Crossref
Cumming, G. S., Olsson, P., Chapin
III. F. S., Holling, C. S. (2013). Resilience,
experimentation and scale mismatches in
socialecological systems. Landscape
Ecol. 28:
1139–1150. Crossref
DesJardins, J. R. (2006), Environmental
ethics: an introduction to environmental
philosophy (4th ed.). Belmont, Calif.:
Thomson Wadsworth.
European Commission (2016). Next steps for a sustainable
European future. European action for
sustainability. Strasbourg, 22.11.2016 COM(2016)
739 final . Downloaded March 2020 from
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/
/COM-2016-739-F1-EN-MAIN.PDF
Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B. & Rockström, J. (2016). Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21(3):41. Crossref
Forskningsrådet 2017. Forskning for bærekraftig samfunns- og næringsutvikling. Forskningsrådets strategi for bærekraft 2017–2020. Downloaded March 2020 from https://www.forskningsradet.no/om-forskningsradet/publikasjoner/
2017/forskning-for-barekraftig-samfunns--og-naringsutvikling/
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. & O’Brien (2002). Environment, economy and society. Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10(4), 187-196. Crossref
Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(3), 433–448. Crossref
Hickel, J. (2019). The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet. Sustainable Development 2019; 1-12. Crossref
Holden, E., Linnerud, K., Banister, D., Schwanitz, V.J. & Wierling, A. (2018). The Imperatives of Sustainable Development. Needs, Justice, Limits. Earthscan from Routledge, London and New York. Crossref
Kallio, T.J., Nordberg, P. & Ahonen, A. (2007). Rationalizing Sustainable Development – a Critical Treatise. Sustainable Development 15: 41-51. Crossref
Keitch, M.M., Kua, H.W. & Skjerven, A. (2016). Special Issue: The Cultural Dimension of Sustainability and Resilience. Sustainable Development, 24(5), 273-343. Crossref
Lafferty, W.M.& Langhelle, O.
(eds) (1999). Towards Sustainable
Development: On the Goals of Development and
the Conditions of Sustainability.
Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave Macmillan.
McNeill, J.R. (2000). Something
new under the sun: an environmental history of
the twentieth century. W.W.Norton, New
York, USA.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus
strong sustainability: exploring the limits of
two opposing paradigms (2nd
ed.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Nilsen, H.R. (2010). The joint discourse ‘Reflexive Sustainable Development’ – From Weak towards Strong Sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 69 (3): 495-501. Crossref
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. and Visbeck, M. (2016). Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534: 320-322. Crossref
Odum, H. T. (1971). Environment,
power, and society. Wiley-Interscience,
New York.
Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut
Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a
21st-Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction,
Vermont.
Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. S. Chapin, III, E. Lambin, … Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): 32. Crossref
Pongiglione, F. (2015). The need for a priority structure for the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Global Ethics, 11(1), 37–42. Crossref
Spangenberg, J.H. (2002). Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: Frameworks for indicators measuring sustainable development. Ecological Indicators, 2, 295-309. Crossref
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., …Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:6223 Crossref
Stenøien, H. K. & Andersen, R.
(2018). Arten som forandret
alt: Historien om menneskets erobring av
naturen. Stenersens forlag.
The
Norwegian National Research Ethics Committee
(2014). General
guidelines for research ethics. Last
updated in September 2014. Downloaded in
September 2018 from: https://www.etikkom.no
/en/ethical-guidelines-for-research/
general-guidelines-for-
research-ethics/
The Norwegian National Research
Ethics Committee (2016). Guidelines
for research ethics in science and technology.
Last updated in June 2016. Downloaded
in September 2018 from: https://www.etikkom.no/en/ethical-guidelines-for-research
/guidelines-for-research-ethics-in-science-and-technology/the-
obligations-of-research-to-society/
The World commission on Environment
and Development (1987). Our common
future. Oxford University Press.
United Nations, 2012. “The Future
We Want.” Downloaded March 2020 from
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html
United Nations, 2015a. “Sustainable
Development Goals. 17 Goals to transform our
world.” Downloaded August 2018 from
https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-
development-goals/
United Nations, 2015b. “Millennium
Development Goal 8 Taking Stock of the Global
Partnership for Development.
MDG Gap Task Force Report
2015.”Downloaded September 2018 from
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoal/pdf/MDG_Gap_2015_E_web.pdf
United Nations, 2017. “High
Level Political Forum Thematic review of SDG 14:
Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas
and marine resources for sustainable
development.”
Background note developed by
members of ECESA Plus as a coordinated
contribution by the UN system to the 2017 HLPF
in depth review of SDG 14. Co-leads: FAO and
UNESCO/IOC with contributions from OHRLLS, ITU,
World Bank Group, ILO, UN Habitat, UN Women,
UNEP, UNDP, UNIDO, WHO and UN-DESA.
Wilderer,
P.A. (2007) Sustainable water resource
management: The science behind the scene.
Sustain. Sci. 2: 1–4. Crossref