Janos J. Bogardi

by Janos J. Bogardi

The United Nations Resolution A/RES/70/1 Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015) which includes the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was, and is a major political achievement. The formulation of these paramount consensus goals and their altogether 169 targets is nothing less than the declaration of the self-imposed obligation of the Member States of UN to achieve these global goals for a sustainable and equitable world for all. With a time-horizon of one and a half decade, it was a Herculean task. By now 40% of this time has passed and with the prevailing pandemic the world faces its biggest challenge since World War II. Thus much efforts and perseverance are needed to keep these cherished goals in the focus of politics.

Even those, who are aware of the complexities inherent in texts resulting from an intergovernmental negotiation process over the wording of a UN resolution, have to admit that the SDGs are fairly straightforward with a clear and powerful message. They are not only the summary of goals and targets to guide the world towards “the future we want” as defined by the UN Resolution A/RES/66/288 (UN 2012), but they serve also as much needed benchmarks against which progress can be measured.

No doubt, we have a global agreement with well-articulated goals and subsequent targets.  Having reached these positive conclusions about SDGs and the role they could and should play, the reader may wonder about the role scientists still see for themselves in this context. The issue, it seems, is thus rather to act on them, instead of continuing scientific contemplations.

Given their universal importance, the implementation of the SDGs should be pursued with utmost priority. The credibility of our international and national governance systems is at stake to prove that clearly formulated sustainability goals can be translated into targets and subsequent actions to achieve them.

However, with “implementation” we touch upon the fundamental weakness of the SDG construct. While aspiration levels and time tables to reach them were decided and meticulously prescribed, no explicit and binding financial obligations (neither on supranational, nor on national levels) were made to secure the necessary funding which matches the time schedule. This lack of financial obligation implied a “voluntary homework” for national governments to do. As could have been expected, it was (and is) frequently treated the same way as reluctant pupils would do with similar tasks.

Thus, further engagements, including scientific scrutiny may be still needed to analyze reasons of the hurdles and devise potential remedies to facilitate the process turning noble goals into sustainable realities. Following a common scientific practice samples will be taken and viewed through a magnifier glass.

Due to two reasons the sample taken will be the dedicated water goal SDG 6 “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”.  Viewing the SDGs through this “water lens” is not only the consequence that this blog is authored by someone with fifty plus years of professional and scientific experience with water, but it reflects the conviction of many people, even beyond the “water community”, that SDG 6 has a similar function within the construct of SDGs as a capstone has for a dome (see Fig. 1). But even without this architectural comparison, the essential, if not determining role of water in our ecosystems, agricultural or industrial production processes, every aspects of human life, hygiene, recreation and spiritual practices, is obvious.

Fig.1 The water-centered display of the Sustainable Development Goals

Arguably, if the implementation of the “water goal”, which is directly and intricately intertwined with many (if not all) SDGs, were found less than optimal, then this finding could be extrapolated with a fair sense of accuracy to represent the general state of the SDG affairs.

Consequently, already the first comprehensive assessment of the implementation of SDG 6 by UN-Water (UN-Water 2018) was expected with much interest. The clear conclusion, based on several indicators accounting for various facets of the targets to be achieved, was that the implementation of SDG 6 was not on track. This was a wakening call, the more so that this sobering conclusion was based on voluntary, thus neither universal, nor really controllable, reporting by the Member States. Furthermore 2018 was still a pre-COVID year. Even more disappointing is the summary status shown by the UN SDG website in 2021 (see Fig.2.

Next to the serious funding gap the present pandemic situation clearly emphasizes how much the SDGs (in this case in particular SDG 6 and the health goal, SDG 3 are interconnected.

With predicting approximately 700 million people to become water scarcity-driven migrants in the present decade the goals “Climate action” (SDG 13), but also “Zero hunger” (SDG 2) and “No poverty” (SDG 1) are explicitly implied. Whether this staggering number of displacements would indeed materialize depends very much on how the world performs with respect to SDGs displayed along the outer rim of the circular display of Fig. 1. Migration is a powerful “eye-opener” to realize global interconnectedness. Yet, scientific warnings regarding forthcoming migratory waves, especially “environmentally induced” ones (Renaud et al 2007) were consistently overheard and conveniently ignored.

But even progress to achieve the “core targets” of SDG 6, the universal provision of safe and affordable drinking water and adequate sanitation and hygiene for all (Targets 6.1 and 6.2) seems to be missing.

Depending on (unfortunately confusing) definitions like “improved water supply” as used in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (UN 2015) as shown in the following Box 1, and the terminology of “safely managed” drinking water and sanitation (see Fig. 2), the impression cannot be denied that instead of progress in achieving its targets the world may stagnate or even fall back. Not to mention the deviations of the numbers between the MDGs report from 2015 and the 2021 status quo (UN 2021) by hundreds of millions of people.

If this is due to the still very strong growth of the global population, then this seemingly unbroken trend should be factored in our targets and predicted trends.

Fig. 2 Summary status of the implementation of SDG 6 (Source UN 2021)

Box 1 Millennium Development Goals 2000 - 2015

Target 7.C:
Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation

The world has met the target of halving the proportion of people without access to improved sources of water, five years ahead of schedule.Between 1990 and 2015, 2.6 billion people gained access to improved drinking water sources.Worldwide 2.1 billion people have gained access to improved sanitation. Despite progress, 2.4 billion are still using unimproved sanitation facilities, including 946 million people who are still practicing open defecation.

While crucial, “implementation” is only one of the “I” problems associated with the SDGs (Bhaduri et al 2016). The other two “I” problems refer to “inter-linkages” and “indicators”.

The 17 SDGs reflect, maybe except some general ones, the objectives as might have been formulated by any line ministry in any country. One may see the hand-writing of ministries of industry, environment, agriculture, health, family and social affairs or others. The goals and targets are all commendable, but having been formulated without considering interactions, potential conflicts and tradeoffs between the achievements of different goals.

One may visualize the SDGs as an elevator moving within tight rails and hanging on 17 ropes without any guidance to its operator what to do if one rope is pulled too much and the elevator cabin gets stuck.

This simple comparison, while explains the pitfalls of uncoordinated actions, does not reveal the much more profound theoretical problem which is inherent – among others- in the concept of sustainability. Namely that we face a so called ‘wicked problem’ (Rittel and Webber 1973; Conklin 2005). This wicked nature of the problem and the lack of even verbal consideration of inter-linkages between goals, targets and their respective achievement levels is a further reason, next to its less than satisfactory pace of implementation why the SDGs should remain subject of scientific analysis and assistance.

The third “I” problem is related to the question how to measure progress? Again some indicators of targets of SDG 6 will be used as examples. The abbreviated title of SDG 6 “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all” would suggest an exclusive focus on these two main aspects of water resources management as encapsulated in targets 6.1 and 6.2. Fortunately, SDG 6, which combines altogether 8 targets goes much beyond these principal targets. It aims also water quality improvement, rehabilitation of aquatic ecosystems, increasing efficiency of water use, integrated water resources management and also some “how to do” targets such as cooperation, capacity building and participation of local stakeholders. Thus, SDG 6 seems to be quite comprehensive. Only water-related hazards and risks are addressed under a different SDG (SDG 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable), where Target 11.5 is calling for reduction of death, number of people affected and economic losses due to -among others- water-related disasters). This inclusion in SDG 11, what looks to many water-minded experts as a misplacement, is rather the proof that what could have belonged to SDG 6 as a water-related target, fits also into a SDG focusing on human settlements. Double, or even multiple placements of targets were however avoided. Still, the 17 goals are supported at the next level of objective hierarchy by altogether 169 targets. Thus in the sense of the above mentioned elevator cabin is hanging on rather 169 than 17 ropes.

Why are the SDG targets so important? There are two good reasons for that. The number and scope of the targets represent the width of issues and aspirations encapsulated in the respective goal. No doubt that the final selection of the number and definition of the targets within a certain SDG represent a compromise between “manageable” and “desirable”.

The other reason is related to measurability. By acknowledging that none of the SDGs can be measured by simple metrics the number of targets increased practically tenfold versus that of the goals. This extension may represent the width of the goal and expected to enable the measurement of the more focused target with the help of target-specific indicator(s). As a general conclusion target achievements are officially measured with the help of one or two selected indicators to be monitored and reported on by the Member States. The 8 targets of the water goal, SDG 6 are measured with the help of 11 indicators. This limited increase of the number of indicators is commendable. However, as some of the targets are not explicitly quantified, the respective indicator(s), even if quantitative, cannot be translated into clear categories, whether the implementation is successful or not. The example cited here refers to SDG 6 Target 6.4 which is worded as:

“By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity”.

The achievement of this, “non-numerical” target is to be measured with the help of two indicators (UN 2021):

6.4.1 Change in water use efficiency over time

6.4.2 Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available freshwater resources   

While both target and indicators seem to be reasonable, several questions remain open. Water use efficiency varies considerably among water use sectors. Thus having one single indicator value rather blurs the picture than highlighting the situation and would indicate what should be improved. Disaggregating indicator 6.4.1 sector wise may help, but increases the number of officially not recognized (sub) indicators. If water use efficiency could be improved “substantially” in the usually least water efficient agricultural sector, then, due to the fact that agriculture is the biggest water user, the overall efficiency improvement could look good. But it is unlikely that the SDGs aim to provide this loophole for other sectors to postpone improving their respective water efficiencies. Similarly, the achievements of a large country count more for global sustainability. But if a small and a large country improves water use efficiency by say 10% each, their performance may be graded equal, irrespective of the magnitude of resource savings.

Even if water use efficiencies are monitored at the scale of the user (like households, municipalities, factories or irrigation perimeters), reporting will be at an aggregated, national level. This amalgamating of different water use efficiencies averages out differences and becomes, due to the scale dependence, quite incomparable.

The second indicator of Target 6.4 (6.4.2) identifies water stress as the ratio of the withdrawn portion of freshwater to the available resource base. While this ratio indicates how much the available resources (surface and groundwater bodies) are stressed, but it does not measure the component of the target to reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity. If people would migrate (or resettled) from water scarce to water rich areas (as predicted by the status quo summary of UN 2021), or if the resource base would be overstressed by say 80% withdrawal rate then suffering of humans and their economies from water scarcity may be improved but at the expense of jeopardizing both sustainability and freshwater bodies as viable aquatic ecosystems. Neither option is likely to be encouraged by the SDGs or the respective authorities, but questioning the policy relevance of an ill-defined indicator is justified.

Just to refer to the often used, but rather empirical value of 40% withdrawal rate of the annually renewable water resource as threshold for serious water scarcity (Vörösmarty et al 2000). It is certain that water bodies, their size, seasonal fluctuations, recharge opportunities, climatic and geological conditions but also the legitimate water demands and their distribution imply the need for more accurate and geographically distributed estimates of the threshold of serious water scarcity. In a world, where water is used in many, especially water scarce regions, beyond the rate of the annual renewal of the resource by “mining” groundwater, the question is not only that of sustainability, but also that of ethics and human solidarity. Solutions need compassion, ingenuity and scientific foundations, as well as engaged governments providing viable funding and conducive incentives, next to the intergovernmental framework provided by the SDGs.

Asking questions, even unpleasant ones is a right of scientists. But the SDGs, irrespective of their above illustrated “I” problems and other potential shortcomings, are much more important, than just being the subject of curiosity-driven questioning. Science and scientists have also an obligation to be involved in finding the answers to their own and other’s questions. Fortunately, I am knocking on open doors as far as engagement of scientists is concerned. Several scientists, engaged in sustainability science, probe already the SDGs with special interest on the “I” problem interlinkages among the SDGs. The website of IGES (2021) is cited here as an illustration. Furthermore, a special issue of the Springer journal Sustainability Science is planned to be published by the end of 2021 dedicated to the subject of synergies and tradeoffs among SDGs and targets.

SDGs can be analyzed from a multitude of viewpoints. Critical comments, like the ones mentioned here, can certainly be made. But the SDGs are manifesting the universal human will to sustain our planet and our societies. Neither governments, nor scientists can afford the SDGs to fail! 

References

Bhaduri A, Bogardi J, Siddiqi A, Voigt H, Vörösmarty C, Pahl-Wostl C, Bunn, S.E, Shrivastava P, Lawford R, Foster S, Kremer H, Renaud F.G, Bruns A, Osuna V.R (2016) Achieving Sustainable Development Goals from a Water Perspective. Frontiers in Environmental Science October 2016 Vol.4 Article 64 doi:10.3389/envs.2016.00064

Conklin J (2005) Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Hoboken, Wiley, 266p.

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (2021) https://www.iges.or.jp/en/pub/list/keywords/4533?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=c8e454c6f2cfca667be644b67deff89bd7561e59-1619644803-0-AWucrYo8N2pLZfu5cGS_svwbwayRxu7iDROzwuWUbGw9ds2pEVMCTAeu689LXZjE7YRdjQ7oXOB9GB2cjqSocfYfQPrrzvLeqZ97_BNIAvmgewXQnQjXP1kQivs63L5WwnFmBZvya-XgRqNBk02ZeanRnI7yIPXZ-bkldM9AfgrH9kV7jW6Vyf0xC_hxELEznEwQvxzJ_HbyJSKks6E9AhGDahfhK_llNYiuLP3qfGQoaflO8W0sjX2YCR2ITiw4tc3PF8ppuL0rrgXjT9q_VYxjJ7ucCelFSX6ITNxD5iMDraah5DHsBA06fFN3XHf5wxjYTa7xOZRJRpOK2Al-bAA_sm9kaKFSt7OLEmR5lNmgKtFvZgVIaWa40HhvdL4fnC9eHmH3-8CB7ikaEZxr3fedNW0sbZKAVY7j9GBGgUtD website visited on 29th April 2021

Renaud F, Bogardi J.J, Dun O, Warner k (2007) Control, Adapt or Flee How to Face Environmental Migration? Interdisciplinary Security Connections (InterSecTions) Publication Series of UNU-EHS No 5., 44p.

Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4. Amsterdam, Elsevier Scientific Publishing, 155-159

UN (2012) The future we want www.undocs.org/A/RES/66/288

UN (2015) Millennium Development Goals Goal 7 https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml visited on 26th April 2021

UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development www.undocs.org/A/RES/70/1

UN (2021) https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal6 website visited on 26th April 2021

UN Water (2018) SDG 6 Synthesis Report 2018 on Water and Sanitation https://www.unwater.org/publications/highlights-sdg-6-synthesis-report-2018-on-water-and-sanitation-2/

Vörösmarty C.J, Green P.A, Salisbury J, Lammers R.B (2000) Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289:284-288

About the author:

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dr. h.c. Janos J. Bogardi has been the Director of the United Nations University - Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) since 2003. Simultaneously he is also Vice-Rector a.i. of the Vice Rectorate in Europe since May 2007. Prof. Bogardi started his professional career as Assistant Professor at the Institute for Water Resources Management of the Technical University of Budapest. Shortly after having relocated to Germany, he became part of the scientific staff in the Federal Institute for Hydraulic Engineering in Karlsruhe, and the University of Karlsruhe, respectively. Between 1971-1973 and 1983-1985 he worked as a consulting engineer amongst others in Africa. He was then seconded by the German Agency for Technical Co-operation (GTZ) to the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) in Bangkok, Thailand, between 1985 and 1988. For the next almost seven years he worked as professor for Hydraulics, and quantitative Water Resource Management at the Agricultural University of Wageningen, the Netherlands. Janos Bogardi started his UN career in 1995 with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Paris, France, as a Senior Programme Specialist and soon became the Chief of the Section on Sustainable Water Resources and Management.