Report of SynLink SDGs workshop-

Research and Action Framework for Synergistic Scientific and Institutional Linkages between the
SDG Targets

March 5th -7th, 2017
Glen Cove Mansion, New York, USA

Co- hosted by:
Global Environmental System Leaders Program (GESL), Keio University
UNU-IAS
Earth System GovernanceFuture Earth SDG KAN

Co-supported byEnvironment Research and Technology Development Fund of Japan’s Ministry of the Environment (S-16)

Global Environmental System Leaders Program (GESL), Keio University
Program Coordinator:
Yasushi Kiyoki (Graduate school of Environment and Information Studies, Keio University)
Workshop Organizing Team:
Norichika Kanie(Graduate school of Media and Governance, Keio University)
Wendy Broadgate(Future Earth -Sweden hub)
Dave Griggs(Monash University)
Jimena Leiva Roesch(International Peace Institute)
Shiori Sasaki(GESL, Graduate school of Media and Governance, Keio University)
Eri Aoki(GESL, Graduate school of Media and Governance, Keio University)©2017 Global Environmental System Leaders Program (GESL), Keio University

ContentsOutline (concept and objective) of the workshop ................................................................................ 3Opening session .................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1
Opening session by Norichika Kanie, Professor, Keio University and Senior Research Fellow,
United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS) ...................... 4
2.2

Opening speech by Yasushi Kiyoki, GESL program coordinator & Professor, Keio University .... 5

Presentations ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.1

Architecture of the overall framework ........................................................................................ 6

3.1.1 How to deal with interactions between the SDGs - Dave Griggs, Professor, Monash
University/ Future Earth ....................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Insights from Research on Governance Regarding Linkages among the SDGs – Oran Young,
Professor Emeritus, University of California ......................................................................................... 6
3.1.3
3.2

Orchestration - Rak Kim, Assistant Professor, Utrecht University .......................................... 6
Science-policy interface in action ................................................................................................ 7

3.2.1 Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR) & the Science-Policy Interface - Eeva
Furman, Director and Professor, Finnish Environment Institute .......................................................... 7
3.2.2 New entry points for Science at the UN in the context of the 2030 Agenda & SDGs - Alex
Roehrl, Senior Economic Affairs Officer, UNDESA ................................................................................ 7
3.2.3 The SDGs Knowledge Action Network (SDG KAN) – Wendy Broadgate, Global Hub Director,
Future Earth .......................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3

Scientific tools.............................................................................................................................. 8

3.3.1 The World in 2050 - Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Deputy Director General and Deputy CEO,International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) ................................................................ 8
3.3.2 Global Environmental System Leaders Programme - Yasushi Kiyoki, Professor, Keio
University and GESL Program Coordinator and Wanglin Yan, Professor, Keio University ................... 9Poster presentaƟon on interacƟons of the SDG targets by GESL students ........................................ 10
4.1

IntroducƟon ............................................................................................................................... 10

4.2Group PresentaƟon ................................................................................................................... 10

4.2.1 Visualising interacƟons through the 5D World Map: Synergies and Tradeoīs of increasing
agricultural producƟvity (SDG 2.3) with biodiversity, water and climate in tropical countries - Alizan
Mahadi, Chalisa Veesommai, Irene Erlyn Rarhmawan and Jimmika Wijidechakul, GESL .................. 10
4.3

Individual PresentaƟons ............................................................................................................ 10

4.3.1 Towards a Framework for implemenƟng naƟonal level inter-linkages through SDGs: Review
of tools to link the drivers and beneĮts of Forest Cover in Malaysia - Alizan Mahadi, GESL ............. 10
4.3.2 SynergeƟc SDGs naƟonal level inter-linkages implementaƟon: “Mapping the Water
SanitaƟon for Sustainable Water-use” – Chalisa Veesommai, GESL .................................................. 11−1−

4.3.3 SynergeƟc SDGs naƟonal level inter-linkages implementaƟon: “Environmental system:
ObservaƟon DeforestaƟon Eīect in Global Tropical Forest” - Irene Erlyn Wina Rachmawan, GESL . 11
4.3.4 SynergeƟc Inter-linkages for naƟonal SDGs implementaƟon : “Knowledge-Based SharingPlaƞorm for Sustainable Food ProducƟon” to support and monitor system for woman farmer –Jinmika Wijitdechakul, GESL ............................................................................................................... 12
4.3.5 CreaƟon of Empirical Knowledge using ICT Tools for Sustainable Livestock Husbandry - Case
Study of Mongolia – Ahmad MuzĂīar Baharudin, GESL .................................................................... 12
4.3.6

The ApplicaƟon of the Assemblage Theory to Inter-Linkages Model – Vuk Radovic, GESL . 13

4.3.7 Building a Sustainable Society by Developing Municipal Solid Waste Management Policies –Qiannan Zhuo, GESL ............................................................................................................................ 13
InteracƟve discussions ........................................................................................................................ 14
5.1

IntroducƟon ............................................................................................................................... 14

5.2

Synthesis of discussion .............................................................................................................. 14

5.2.1

Stakeholder ........................................................................................................................... 14

5.2.2

AcƟon Coherence .................................................................................................................. 15

5.2.3

Tools ...................................................................................................................................... 17

5.2.4

Capacity Building ................................................................................................................... 19

5.3



Key concepts Harvested In InteracƟve & Breakout Sessions .................................................... 21

5.3.1

Stakeholder ........................................................................................................................... 21

5.3.2

AcƟon Coherence .................................................................................................................. 22

5.3.3

Tools ...................................................................................................................................... 22

5.3.4

Capacity Building ................................................................................................................... 23

Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 24

Annexe I – List of parƟcipants of the Workshop......................................................................................... 27
Annexe II – GESL Student Poster and PresentaƟons .................................................................................. 30−2− Outline (concept and objective) of the workshop
The purpose of the workshop was to develop a research framework for securing effective
implementation of actions to attain the SDG targets that are related to solving a problem in asustainable manner. This requires two different, but inter-related, tasks. Firstly, is the need tounderstand interaction of the SDG targets in addressing a particular problem. For example, halving per
capita food consumption by 2030 (12.3) has interactions with waste reduction (12.5) and effective useof resources (12.2), as well as zero hunger (2.1) and effective water use (6.4). This exercise requires bothnatural and social scientific knowledge on the interaction between economic, social and environmental
dimensions of sustainable development. Secondly, is to consider institutional dimensions to address thetargets, and develop governance mechanisms to enhance and facilitate synergistic interactions and to
reduce and eradicate negative interactions. Here, two types of institutions need to be considered:interaction of formal institutions such as within and between UN and governmental organizations, andof informal institutions such as public-private partnerships and certificate schemes.
The workshop considered ways to address these two dimensions, and link up the two tasks in one
framework of analysis, which will then be implemented by stakeholders. The intended outcome was tobuild a framework and present it in a journal, and implement it in case studies that may follow. A
funding proposal for Belmont Forum’s Transformation to Sustainability was made for a case study or
two.

Figure 1 Gap between effective interaction of SDG targets and institutional and governance reality−3− Opening session
2.1 OPENING SESSION BY NORICHIKA KANIE, PROFESSOR, KEIO UNIVERSITY AND SENIORRESEARCH FELLOW, UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCED STUDY OF
SUSTAINABILITY (UNU-IAS)
Norichika Kanie provided an overview of the overall process of the workshop as well as introduced theresearch-action framework as a starting point for discussion. The purpose of the workshop was stated as
to develop a research framework for securing effective implementation of actions to attain the SDG
targets that are related to solving a problem in a sustainable manner. Framework should be realistic touse for solving the problems by stakeholders. The need for the application of “transdisciplinarity” wasemphasized with the co-design, co-production and co-delivery of knowledge at the heart of theframework. It was argued that there is a need to develop theoretical framework for Knowledge-Action(theoretically warranted action) that can be used across multiple stakeholders. This includes a usable
research framework for action; structures research on application of the frameworks; strategies; tools;
guidelines; advisory activities; skills for active engagement/ praxis; and, significantly, full on coparticipants with other stakeholders contributing to the actions and developments. As a starting point, aframework was proposed (Figure 1). The session was closed by going through the details of the
programme of the following two days of the workshop.

Figure 2 Securing Effective implementation of actions to attain the SDG targets−4−2.2 OPENING SPEECH BY YASUSHI KIYOKI, GESL PROGRAM COORDINATOR & PROFESSOR, KEIO
UNIVERSITY
Yasushi Kiyoki provided welcoming remarks to participants via skype and emphasised the need forsharing new ideas that focus on the global environmental system. Highlighting the need for an
integration between cyber and digital spaces with the physical environmental space, it was illustrated
that dynamic mapping with data mining by active multimedia systems can help provide actual
knowledge propagation and actuation in the physical world. To catalyse this integration, it was argued
that there was a need for a new value creation with connection merit. This can be achieved throughprocess integration of a few areas, namely, technology & governance; physical space & cyber spacetechnology and; emergent change & long-term change. While this requires innovation, evoking Jared
Diamond’s Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed, and illustrating the human journey startingfrom the Out of Africa mass immigration 82,000 years ago to the present, he argued that our history
tells us that “Civilizations have never been created without innovation, and civilization has been createdby challengerss, and every civilization has disappeared if the society could not keep the consciousness ofinnovation. He closed with stating that the vision and mission is to always try to make "challenge toinnovation knowledge creation, propagation, big data & knowledge systems. Additionally, there needs
to be an element of passion in this pursuit.

−5− Presentations
3.1

ARCHITECTURE OF THE OVERALL FRAMEWORK

3.1.1 How to deal with interactions between the SDGs - Dave Griggs, Professor, Monash University/
Future Earth
Dave Griggs provided an overview of the draft framework proposed by the International Council for
Science (ICSU) for understanding SDG interactions. Highlighting that while the UN Secretary Generaldescribed the SDGs as “an indivisible whole”, the problem lies in the fact that everything fromgovernment departments to university faculties and international organisations operate in silos. Early
studies undertaken with ICSU demonstrate that if countries ignore the overlaps and simply start trying
to tick off targets one by one, they risk perverse outcomes. In order to meet this challenge a scoring
system was devised utilising a simple 7-point scale of the influence of one goal or target to another.
Ranging from +3 as indivisible to -3 as cancelling, the framework provides a scoring for both synergies
and trade-offs amongst goals and targets. It is important to note that there are other dependencies thathave to be taken into consideration when undertaking the scoring. This includes reversibility,
directionality, strength and uncertainty. In the context of the SDGs, one of the key challenges toaddressing interlinkages is in understanding and addressing the need for governments around the world
to prioritise. While it is OK to prioritise the SDGs to reflect national contexts, it cannot be done on what
is easy or achievable, on reporting what ‘makes you look good’ and/or ignore the implications of action
on other SDGs. This highlights the need to take into account the interlinkages when taking action on theSDGs.
3.1.2 Insights from Research on Governance Regarding Linkages among the SDGs – Oran Young,
Professor Emeritus, University of California
Oran Young provided a presentation based on research on governance in relation to the SDGs. Two
broad themes, in particular, were relevant. These were addressing the problem of fit - creating andimplementing institutions that are well-matched to the main features of the problems they are intended
to solve; and interplay – managing interactions among distinct problems and institutions to minimize
conflict and promote synergy. In the context of the SDGs, the paradigm of governance through goals
was highlighted where goal setting rather than rule-making is adopted as the steering mechanism.
Understanding this phenomenon requires skills in identifying the key features of problems and matching
governance systems to these features, where there is a need for a set of institutional diagnostics. In
relating the problem of interplay with the SDGs, it is argued that there are two agendas embedded in
the SDGs – human security and planetary boundaries agenda. The challenge is to ensure that these
agendas are synergistic rather than competitive. It was warned that there is also a danger of duelinggoals, whereby fragmentation and dilution occur as diverse interest groups vie for attention andresources to make sure their goal is fully protected and promoted. He closed with offering somepossible way forward including grouping the goals into a few linked priorities, focusing on crosscutting
concerns and identifying meta-goals are goals that are essential to pursue all the others (i.e.
order/justice).
3.1.3 Orchestration - Rak Kim, Assistant Professor, Utrecht University
Rak Kim introduced the concept of orchestration in relation to governing interlinkages through the SDGs.

−6−

Demonstrating previous work on interactions such as utilising network analysis in understanding thelinks of multilateral environmental agreements as well as mapping of institutional interactions, it isshown that there are already complex relationships between international regimes and institutions.
Orchestration, defined as “directing or arranging (policies) coherently to produce desired effects”
provides an indirect and soft mode of governance that is argued to be already used widely byinternational organisations, which “enlist and support intermediary actors to address target actors inpursuit of IGO governance goals”. While highlighting the role of the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) as
a potential orchestrator of orchestrators, it is however argued that the HLPF needs to clarify anoverarching goal by initiating a global dialogue through which an updated definition of sustainable
development would eventuate. In summary, with the SDGs supposedly integrated and indivisible but
still mirroring the silo structure, international organisations (IGOs) working through intermediaries mayhelp cut across SDGs. However, IGOs themselves need to be orchestrated, and HLPF, as a key
orchestrator of orchestrators, needs to initiate a global dialogue on a normative vision.

3.2

SCIENCE-POLICY INTERFACE IN ACTION

3.2.1 Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR) & the Science-Policy Interface - Eeva Furman,
Director and Professor, Finnish Environment InstituteEeva Furman provided an update on the activities of the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR)
including its organisatonal setup, opportunities, threats as well as next steps including possible
collaboration with the SDG Knowledge Action Network (SDG Kan). The GSDR was established to provide
guidance on the state of global sustainable development from a scientific perspective, including lessons
learned and addressing new and emerging issues, trends and actions. The drafting of the GSDR consistsof an independent group of scientists which includes 15 experts from various backgrounds, scientificdiscplines, institution as well as a balanced representation geographically and in terms of gender. The
independent group of scientists are supported by a task team co-chaired by one representative each of
the United Nations Secretariat, UNESCO, UNEP, UNDP, UNCTAD and the World Bank. The GSDR has thepotential to become a key element of the follow-up and review process, with a non-negotiated report asits outcome and its success measured by its relevance. The first report is highly relevant to interlinkages,
focusing on SDG interactions in an integrated and universal manner. Challenges are still prevalent,
including balancing scientific rigour against policy relevance. More specifically, there is currently anunder-representation in political and social science, sustainability governance, macro-economics andfinances. Nonetheless, the GSDR has the potential to create strong links amongst science networks andorchestrate a network of networks. Moving forward, establishing collaboration, networks as well as
having outreach to society will determine the success of GSDR. This includes aligning and coordinatingtimelines, objectives and networks with potential collaborators such as SDG Kan.
3.2.2 New entry points for Science at the UN in the context of the 2030 Agenda & SDGs - Alex
Roehrl, Senior Economic Affairs Officer, UNDESAAlex Roehrl provided a UN perspective on the issue of addressing interlinkages and SDG interactions,and in particular, the science-policy interface. The SDGs along with other developments at IGOs provides
unprecedented new entry points for science. This includes the HLPF, Technology Facilitation Mechanism(TFM), GSDR and the Voluntary National Reviews. The challenge remains in bridging the divide between
science and politics where science is inherently uncertain and skeptical, while politics requires certainty
where skepticism is heresy. Other factors such as issue of focus differs from long-term to short term,−7−and the ultimate target of win-win in science conflicts with the zero-sum game often applied in politics.
The HLPF in particular has the mandate to address this issue with a function “to strengthen the sciencepolicy interface”, including through GSDR. Beyond the HLPF, the Technology Factilitation Mechanism(TFM), consisting of a 10-member group of credible scientists, was created to harness science,technology and innovation to achieve the SDGs. The SDGs Voluntary National reviews, alreadycommenced with 22 in 2016 and 44 in 2017 will also require scientific input at the national level. These
are only a few examples where together, there are both new and old types of entry points for science at
the UN which can be harnessed towards achieving the SDGs.
3.2.3 The SDGs Knowledge Action Network (SDG KAN) – Wendy Broadgate, Global Hub Director,
Future EarthWendy presented on activities of the Future Earth generally as well as the SDG Kan specifically. In
general, Future Earth play a dual role as a global research platform to generate new knowledge as wellas to catalyse transformation through solutions and societal engagement. In achieving this sciencepolicy interface, research questions are co-designed with users from the research community as well as
communities of practice. Knowledge Action Networks (KAN) are established in areas of Health,Decarbonisation, Oceans, Natural Assets, Water-Energy-Food Nexus, Transformations, Finance &Economics, Cities, as well as specifically on the SDGs. THE SDG KAN aims to catalyse scientific research toprovide policymakers with knowledge and tools to help collaboration between sectors to meet the SDGs.
This includes informing the UN GSDR & HLPF processes, and conferences including the Global Goals
Conference in August 2017 and the SDGs and Earth Observations Conference in 2018. Specifically in
relation to securing interlinkages, the SDG KAN is focusing on pathways to achieve goals simultaneously
and address cross-cutting challenges, synergies and trade-offs. Towards this end, SDG KAN isundertaking collaboration with IIASA on The World in 2050 with the aim to provide tools that can help
craft local, national and international policy.

3.3

SCIENTIFIC TOOLS

3.3.1 The World in 2050 - Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Deputy Director General and Deputy CEO,International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Nebojsa Nakicenovic gave insights in developing the World in 2050 project, utilising a backcasting
approach to scenario analyses. The Global Energy Assessment provided a template and example where
2030 goals and targets were established. These were, universal access to modern energy, double energy
efficiency improvement and double renewable share in final energy. By utilising historical data andpossible scenarios (i.e. % of reneawable energy deployment), the different scenarios for fuel mix was
illustrated with possible transformational pathways identified. Interestingly and relevant to interlinkages,
the scenario also coupled energy systems with global water withdrawal, which demonstrated the nexus
between water and energy along with its trade-offs. In conceptualizing the World in 2050, one key linkwith sustainable development and SDGs is in including the concept of planetary boundaries and the aimof achieving global development within a safe and just operating space. The SDGs, more explicitly, isused as the 2030 target basis while a second target space is 2050 and beyond for achieving sustainability.
The backcasting storyline, for example in the form of narratives, and joining them with the target spaces
can highlight the transformational change required. The model and narrative storyline interpretations
result in the sustainable development pathways. In such a complex system, a few factors must be taken
into consideration. Firstly, there is a growing number of actors of change, including businesses, cities,−8−

civil society, science and IGOs. The transformational pathways can also be bottom up (i.e. cities andnational level) and not just top down at the UN or global level. Ultimately, the backasting approachrequires a system based thinking which looks at synergies, trade-offs and conflicts, where interlinkages
across issues will play an important role.
3.3.2 Global Environmental System Leaders Programme - Yasushi Kiyoki, Professor, Keio University
and GESL Program Coordinator and Wanglin Yan, Professor, Keio University
Wanglin Yan and Yasushi Kiyoki introduced the Global Environmental System Leaders (GESL) programme
to participants. Emphasising the need for interdisciplinary mode of studies, GESL was demonstrated as aprogramme that requires students to be innovative in pursuing studies that go beyond single disciplines.

−9− Poster presentation on interactions of the SDG targets by
GESL students
4.1

INTRODUCTION

Students of the Global Environmental Systems Programme (GESL), presented their group and individual
research in the context of addressing synergistic interlinkages of the SDGs.

4.2

GROUP PRESENTATION

4.2.1 Visualising interactions through the 5D World Map: Synergies and Tradeoffs of increasing
agricultural productivity (SDG 2.3) with biodiversity, water and climate in tropical countries - Alizan
Mahadi, Chalisa Veesommai, Irene Erlyn Rarhmawan and Jimmika Wijidechakul, GESL
A demonstration of how the 5D World map can be used as a visual tool for addressing interlinkages waspresented. Taking advantage of the various areas of research of the students, the interlinkages among
these areas were studied by using the 5D world Map. Starting from the aim of doubling agricultural
productivity (SDG 2.3), the interlinkages with the inter-linkages with biodiversity and forest cover (SDG
15.1), climate change (SDG 13), Water quality and efficiency (SDG 6.3 and 6.4) are investigated. As ademonstration, tropical countries with large forested areas, Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia wereselected. The investigation of interlinkages were carried out in two stages. Firstly, visualising the spatiotemporal trends of headline indicators in the mentioned areas using the a function in 5D world map
demonstrates a possible correlation in terms of general trends were in general, each indicator is at an
upward trend. To investigate the causality of these trends, the second stage zoomed in into each issue
and location specific data which can be investigated through a search function of the 5D world map. This
demonstrated that oil palm may be a critical node in addressing interactions as it interacts with climatechange through deforestation and forest fires, reduces water quality near plantations and compete with
agriculture for land. As a conclusion, while the 5D World Map may not conclusively infer, it is a useful
tool to identify potential inter-linkages. It is recommended that the nexus between AgricultureBiodiversity-Climate-Water should be researched more in depth and specifically, and that addressing
Sustainable Palm Oil could potentially be a critical node that addresses multiple SDGs. Furthermore,either through the 5D database or other means, there is a need to have such databases for researchers
as a collaborative platform.

4.3

INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS

4.3.1 Towards a Framework for implementing national level inter-linkages through SDGs: Review oftools to link the drivers and benefits of Forest Cover in Malaysia - Alizan Mahadi, GESLThe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) implementation is required to be taken as an integrated
package with the goals and targets indivisible from each other. The Global Sustainable Development
Reports (GSDR) demonstrates the use of an integrated approach that looks at clusters of stronglyinterlinked issues rather than integrated assessments as a whole. But how do we coherently assess
these inter-linkages, synergies and trade-offs for SDGs implementation of which are credibly based on
scientific evidence, relevant to policy and legitimate in terms of its process? This poster presentation
reviewed the current approaches utilized to implement the inter-linkages in the context of the SDGs.
These approaches are then applied in the context of implementing inter-linkages of the drivers and− 10 −

benefits of forest cover in Malaysia. The results demonstrate that by using a combination of existing
approaches such as scoring of interaction of the SDGs by ICSU (Nilsson, et al., 2016), issue mapping
through network analysis, and subsequently verified by basic scientific methods to infer causalities,
clusters of strongly inter-linked issues at the national level, such as the Forest-Climate-Resilience nexus
can be identified. In addressing the implementation of identified inter-linkages, and in particular, theinstitutional dimensions, a fragmented and siloed approach to address the Forest-Climate-Resilience
nexus is found with various mandates and responsibilities across multiple government agencies. In
conclusion, approaches that go beyond normative organizational arrangements and processes inparticular are argued to be of importance, with dynamics of actor configurations and the understandingof intermediary functions such as through orchestration deserving special attention.
4.3.2 Synergetic SDGs national level inter-linkages implementation: “Mapping the Water Sanitationfor Sustainable Water-use” – Chalisa Veesommai, GESL
The sustainable development goal is well known in the sustainable development research field. Because
sustainable development has been defined as development that meet the present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Clean and accessible water are
an essential part of the world we want to live in. There is sufficient fresh water on the planet. But
economics increasing and poor infrastructure has caused millions of people (most of them are children)
to die from diseases with inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene every year. In relation to this,water-quality analysis plays an important and an essential role in life, and an important aspect indesigning environmental systems and management system. The most effective goal of SDGs in water
areas that present in this poster address in goal 6 (clean water and sanitation, and 14 (life below water),which is represented the interaction among of (1) ensure access to safe water resources and sanitation
for all. (2) Conserve and sustainably use the world’s oceans, sea and marine source. (3) Water usage. (4)Renewable energy product. (5) Irrigation and agriculture Usage. In this poster presentation, a riverwater-quality system is demonstrated to realize the SPA process and analysis multi water-quality
parameters for interpreting water situation on water resource to public users. Finally, this poster
describes the overall architecture for the river water-quality analysis system. It highlights the challenges
of water-quality analysis field such as: (1) Local analysis of the water-quality in many places can beshared and visualized from the global viewpoints. (2) To develop the meta-level knowledge of riverwater-quality databases for the environmental engineering field. (3) To provide the broader waterquality analysis with many spots along the river and among many rivers. And (4) to compare river-waterquality in the global scale: the global comparisons for water-quality analysis.
4.3.3 Synergetic SDGs national level inter-linkages implementation: “Environmental system:
Observation Deforestation Effect in Global Tropical Forest” - Irene Erlyn Wina Rachmawan, GESLThe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) promotes countries under UN to combat deforestation byapproaching using Goal 15 of desertification, land degradation, and the biodiversity loss byaccommodating the rule to protecting the forest for sustainable environment. It is followed by 10
targets, which includes the integration of ecosystem and biodiversity values into national planning,development processes, and poverty reduction strategies and accounts, and a target to mobilize andsignificantly increase from all sources financial resources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity
and ecosystems. This poster presentation reviewed the new possible approaches utilized to implement
the inter-linkages of the critical component of Goal 15 for addressing forest development to tackle
deforestation, land degradation, and the protection of biodiversity, especially the target 15.2 and 15.3.
In present circumstances, two of the main issues in forestry mentioned by the SDGs 15 are the high− 11 −

number of deforestation activity in tropical forest and how to halt its effect on land degradation andbiodiversity. Much of remaining tropical forest has been impacted by human activities and no longer
retains its full function. Several international initiatives facilitate monitoring and evaluating the progressof this goal. These include the Indicators for the Annual change in forest area and land under cultivation.
Area of forest under sustainable forest management as a percent of forest area, and annual change indegraded or desertification arable land (%or ha). Although, some indicators under the Strategic Plan of
Reforestation address indigenous and traditional knowledge, new knowledge sharing system are needed
to support process to address deforestation issues. More effort is needed on indicators that make senseat the local scale and this could be achieved through engaging local stakeholders, citizen groups andindigenous communities. In conclusion, different possible approach that may go beyond normative
organizational are important, by the key role of scientist who dealing with real condition tends to becontributes high effectivity to develop the progress on tackling the problem of deforestation.
4.3.4 Synergetic Inter-linkages for national SDGs implementation : “Knowledge-Based Sharing
Platform for Sustainable Food Production” to support and monitor system for woman farmer –Jinmika Wijitdechakul, GESLAgriculture is the basic source of the food supply of all the countries of the world. The high demand for
agricultural products is increasing every year due to the number of population that is also increasing.
But the decline in crop productivity is facing to our societies. Knowledge-based sharing platform is able
to utilize the information for crop condition monitoring and provide decision-making information for theworking out of agricultural policy and commissariat. The research finding also aims to provide a futurereference on SDGs contribution as: (1) Achieve food security and promote sustainable agriculture thataims for zero hunger in the future, (2) Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, and (3)Adapting farming for climate change that aims to take urgent action to combat climate change and its
impacts. This research aims to provide the effective system to support the sustainable agriculture
production that can be helped to increase high quality and quantity agriculture products. This is system
mainly focus on women farmers according to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) said If If woman had access to resources, on-farm yields could increase 20-30% and this extra
output could reduce the number of hungry people in the world 12-17%. We classified the objective of
this system in (1) household level for knowledge sharing, (2) community level for information sharing
and (3) national level for market sharing, to promote women farmers in rural areas for expanding
sustainable agriculture and to Produce food for combating starvation in their communities. This system
also implement the sustainable development goals (Goal 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,12,13 and 15) and targets that
related to sustainable agriculture to achieve the sustainable food production and zero end hunger insocieties. Expected outcome are to (1) provide the technology and information to improve quality,
increase crop and animal output, (2) integrate the collaboration among local farmers, state and national
government and research institutes for achieving the sustainable agriculture, and (3) support the
women farmer on food production process and acquire the actual data from them.
4.3.5 Creation of Empirical Knowledge using ICT Tools for Sustainable Livestock Husbandry - Case
Study of Mongolia – Ahmad Muzaffar Baharudin, GESL
Livestock husbandry is a global contributor of socio-economic well-being by ensuring food security
nevertheless, highly vulnerable to Climate Change impacts. In Mongolia, massive amounts of livestock
die as extreme weather strikes. The simplistic hypothesis of Climate-Livestock mortality alone might be
untrue. The fact is, nomadic husbandry culture is still being practice, the uncontrolled number ofanimals can lead to the degradation of grasslands. How various factors interact and inter-linked and how− 12 −

do we collect the data? In this poster presentation, we introduce a novel system for livestock data
aggregation towards creating new empirical knowledge for a sustainable livestock husbandry future.
Through a combination of various off-the-shelf technologies such as Wireless Sensor network (WSN),
solar panel and 2G/3G wireless communication technology, this system can improve conventional
ineffective livestock data collection by a digitalized data aggregation process and contribute to thecreation of empirical knowledge towards assisting better decisions and actions.
4.3.6 The Application of the Assemblage Theory to Inter-Linkages Model – Vuk Radovic, GESLThe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is a set of aspirational ideas that build on a set of tangible
targets and indicators that provide the bedrock on which these ideas can be achieved. The SDGs cover avast array of social and scientific topics; some as diverse as womens’ rights, cities, economics etc. allwith the intent of providing a roadmap towards a more sustainable world in the future. A way ofinterpreting the goals and making tangible links between the different goals, targets and indicators is
the “inter-linkages” model (Nilsson et al, 2016). The basic logic behind the inter-linkages model is thateach goal, target and indicator is directly linked to each other goal, target and indicator within a rating
scale that of +3 (very positive link, actively contributing to the other) to -3 (a very negative, or actively
negating the other). The inter-linkages model has many theoretical similarities with the assemblagesocial theory (DeLanda, 2006) which is a social application of a philosophy introduced by Gilles Deleuzeand Felix Guattari (Deleuze, Guattari, 1980). At its core it is a way of understanding all humaninteractions as being in concert with one another. DeLanda explains this point as “in short, analysis inassemblage theory is not conceptual but casual, concerned with the discovery of the actual mechanisms
operating at a given spatial scale” (DeLanda, 2006, pg.31) It discards the Heideggerian notion of theessence of things (Heidegger, 1927) being at the foundation of existance, and suggests that all things
have to be looked at as casual mechanisms acting upon one another, irrespective to scale. Within theparadigm of SDG interlink-ages, one can interpret this as suggesting that each goal, target and indicators
acts upon each of each other not only at the scale of each but at each scale. This is to say that a certain
indicator cannot be distilled to its essence, and that each only exists as an interaction between the many.
The poster presented during the workshop illustrated the abovementioned interactions within thelarger framework of urban theory and how such theory could be applied on the SDGs and theirrespective inter-linkages.
4.3.7 Building a Sustainable Society by Developing Municipal Solid Waste Management Policies –Qiannan Zhuo, GESLIn Sustainable Development Goals, which is signed by 193 countries in 2015 to achieve a sustainable
society, 4 (G8, G9, G11, G12) out of 17 goals are related to the circular economy which shows theimportance of circular economy to building a sustainable society. Making better treatment of wastes toclose the linear economy and to encourage the resources circulate more efficiently is an important
approach. In this research, the author compares current situations of circular economy in more than 30
major countries all over the world by analyzing theirs Material Flows from Input, Production,
Consumption to Disposal. A comprehensive evaluation of each country by using various indicators forthe 4 steps is undertaken. The result of this study points out some problems. Though developed
countries show a relatively better state than developing countries, there is no big difference between
developed countries and developing countries and there are still tons much progress required both fordeveloped and developing countries. The significance of this research is to encourage countries/regions
to exchange their technologies and know-hows on municipal solid waste management to smoothen the
resources circulation for building a sustainable society.

− 13 −

 Interactive discussions
5.1

INTRODUCTION

Intensive and interactive discussions were held throughout the three-day workshop towards theobjective of providing inputs into a research-action framework for addressing synergistic linkages of the
SDGs. The format of the discussions began with small group discussions on each table (approximately 10
persons per group across six tables) as well as further broken down to dyads and triads (two or three
person groups) to harvest ideas and inputs. This format allowed for the identification of the mostimportant building blocks that can act as an action guidance on achieving the SDGs. These wereidentified as stakeholder, action coherence, tools and capacity building. Subsequently, a world café
approach was utilized to further discuss the four identified areas with the aim of providing the guiding
principles in each building block. The following sections provide a synthesis of the discussions as well asa breakdown of the key concepts harvested during the course of the workshop.

5.2

SYNTHESIS OF DISCUSSION
As a result of the three-day workshop, the final day of the workshop consisted of breakout sessions onof the four building blocks identified as critical for a research-action framework in achieving the SDGs. A
synthesis of these four building blocks are elaborated below.
5.2.1 Stakeholder
Defining what and who is a stakeholder is a challenge in the first place. Stakeholders can be
distinguished between those who have stakes (are affected) and those who have agency. Their identities
need not be tied to nation states or specific issues where ownership can be broadened trans-nationallyand across scales. The UN major groups were often mentioned as an existing system for stakeholder
engagement, though also highlighted to have substantial and structural flaws. In some cases and value
systems, even nature is also considered a stakeholder. The scientific community plays a crucial role, with
the need to strengthen the GSDR panel and/or better designing of science panels proposed.
In addressing inter-linkages, methodologies to identify stakeholders, and in accordance with the theoryof change, those who are particularly with agency on addressing interlinkages should be established.
How to institutionalise a space for people to empower action on SDGs and its interactions should beconsidered. There is a need for mapping of stakeholders at various levels and contexts. In overcoming
silos, how to incentivise stakeholders to address areas beyond their mandate deserves attention. This
also includes increasing access and the right to information, including a transparent monitoring andreporting system on inter-linkages can facilitate participation.
More specifically, three sets of stakeholders deserve special attention and reform to achieve synergistic
interlinkages through the SDGs.
High Level Political Forum (HLPF)
Firstly, the HLPF is argued to be weak and requires strengthening. There is a need to further study therole of HLPF in orchestrating stakeholders and understand whether it needs to be reformed completely
or incrementally. One (revolutionary) idea would be to replace it with a global bicameral assembly.

− 14 −

Science at the Global Level
Science at the global level, which consists of two groupings, GSDR and ICSU need strengthening in termsof both financial resources as well as wider institutional reforms. With years of experience in
representing the science community to policymakers, ICSU themselves should be opened up for a
research to understand how to better bridge the gap between science and policy.
Role of Private Sector
As the discussions were focused on governance rather than government, the role of the private sector increating cross-cutting practices were highlighted as a key part of addressing interlinkages.
Transformation across the private sector can incrementally lead to increased policy coherence acrosssilos. In terms of communication, it may not necessarily be directly under the guise of SDGs or
integration directly, but rather more generically such as in establishing uniform corporate practices anddesign principles have the potential of influencing integration and affect implementation by design
practices that are more sustainable. Examples of this in the construction sector, such as Green Star,LEED and BREEAM, serve as a testament to private led standards from the professional industry.
Conceptually the initial ranking system is conceived by the engineering/science community but it soon
became self-regulating. Nonetheless, both positive and negative outcomes towards sustainable goals
can currently be found, requiring the standards themselves to be aligned to SDGs and/or better
practices more generally. For example, certain efforts by governments, agencies could be 'judged' via an
impartial mechanism attributing scores to certain criteria. The private sector can also catalyse more
understanding and awareness of consumers. An example of this was the 'heart-foundation-tick' which
separates certain brands from others showing consumers that they are purchasing something that is'better' than something else. A similar 'tick' could be used to formally identify something that falls within
the SDGs. This would encourage a learning by doing process and encourage reflection about the SDGs.
5.2.2 Action Coherence
In order to manage the many and complex interactions between SDG goals and targets new levels ofcoherence of action are required. How can the necessary action coherence be achieved, including
coherence between sectors, institutions and stakeholders and across different time and spatial scales 1.
The term “action coherence” was used to reflect that it in order to manage the many and diverse
interactions between SDG goals and targets a joined up approach is required in order to maximise
potential synergies and minimise potential negative interactions or trade-offs.
In examining the ways to maximise action coherence it is useful to consider some of the reasons behind“action incoherence” or why interactions are often ignored or are not fully taken into account.
1.
Everything is siloed
Government departments, company divisions, university faculties, international institutions areorganised into discipline or sector based silos. There is good reason for this as it simplifies decision
making and makes taking action easier.
2.
Systems are setup to be competitive
Government departments compete for budget, businesses compete for market share, universities
1E.g. see Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B.,
Shrivastava, P., Leach, M., O’Connell, D. (2016) Integration: the key to implementing the Sustainable
Development Goals. Sustainability Science [on-line first], doi:10.1007/s11625-11016-10383-11623.

− 15 −

compete for research income and students, NGOs compete for philanthropic funding. In a competitive
system it is difficult to form the partnerships necessary for managing interactions.
3.
There is an overhead to acting coherently
There is an overhead in terms of time, effort and money to act coherently as people have to take thetime to form partnerships and learn to understand an issue from other perspectives. This also takes
effort and costs money for people to meet and work together.
The SDGs require a coherent approach to achieve the “indivisible whole”. But these three factors
systematically and self-reinforcing provide incentives against working together. Thus it is not surprisingthat we are already starting to see fragmentation and turf wars as organisations take the lead
responsibility internationally, nationally or locally for implementation of a particular goal or target.
So how do you get coherence in an inherently competitive system?
1.
Set the rules of the game
Those with power and responsibility can require a joined up approach.
2.
Add new rules or goals to the gameFor example the move for businesses to require a social licence to operate has added a new rule to thegame; B-company legislation is an institutionalised version of this.
3.
Make the rules of the game universal
It is essential that everyone is playing by the same rules so that nobody can gain an advantage by notadhering to the rules (avoid free-riding).
4.
Power distorts the rules of the game
Therefore systems that redistribute power need to be supported, such as international agreements,
consumer power and labelling, and market knowledge.
5.
Demonstrate the benefits of multi-stakeholder engagement
These can include greater financing, access to resources, greater influence/impact, the ability to address
weaknesses and increased efficacy. In particular, formalised systems of multi-stakeholder engagement
can balance (or at least expose) power issues.
6.
Demonstrate that you get a better outcome
More work needs to be done to provide clear evidence that a joined up approach leads to better
outcomes that justify the additional overheads.
How do you set the rules of the game?
Each sector has its own rules, for example business has industry standards, science has peer review andgovernment has regulation. The challenge is to come up with mechanisms that are effective across thesilos. These could include incentives and benefits (requiring a better understanding of those benefits),
bottom-up activism by consumers acting coherently, participatory decision making,education/awareness and localised narratives. Mobilising consumers and the electorate are both key
factors.
Different types of organisations and different levels within organisations will require different
approaches. Critically, there must usually be a higher level of organisation that drives the change (thismay be hierarchically higher such as national governments or more complex horizontally such as aconsumer organisation), though their efficacy may depend on bottom up action.
How do the SDGs help us to realign power structures?
The SDGs provide normative principles to follow and a common direction to pursue and they give a− 16 −

legitimacy to this direction. They provide a clear rationale and rallying point for a more coherent
approach, and a scope for defining the breadth of stakeholders to be included in considering a particularcoherence problem. They provide an opportunity to respond to clearly identified major problems
through multi-stakeholder involvement, a transparent reporting process and through promoting
coordination in national development plans. They thus support action by some higher level oforganisation to establish coherence.
What are the properties required of institutional arrangements that are well suited to addressing the
SDGs?
They must be driven by a higher common purpose, e.g., the SDGs, rather than sector based, short term
drivers. They must be flexible and participatory, involving all the relevant stakeholders that haveexpertise to bring to bear, which will bring new actors into the system. They need to be more flexible
than in the past, adapting quickly to changing needs and new information. They must be able to work
effectively across pillars or silos. They must be open and transparent so progress towards achieving theSDGs can be monitored and evaluated. They must provide a place for safe discussions and piloting
solutions. They must be able to communicate effectively the benefits of meeting the SDGs and to movebeyond empire building to partnerships for impact.
But it is not possible to simply replace all the current institutions, so what are the options? Reform of
current institutions can and should happen but new institutions and mechanisms that are more fit for
purpose will also be required. Understanding which approach is needed contextually is an importanttask.
So how do we get from the institutions and governance arrangements we have to those that weneed?
Ɣ There needs to be a clear demonstration of the value proposition of a coherent approach todelivering the SDGs.
Ɣ Focused multi-stakeholder fora need to be established at national and other levels
Ɣ Integrated national development plans and consequent integrated oversight ministries are one
important approach at a national level.
Ɣ Helping institutions re-frame their goals (e.g. through their place in the SDGs) is important.
Ɣ Mechanisms for popularising, tracking and reporting on the SDGs need to be developed with good
examples of success.
Ɣ Need to be realistic about and address power relations, for example the power of multinational
companies, and develop incentives for some players to give up their power
5.2.3 Tools
SDGs are inherently complex requiring tools to simplify them to aid its achievement. Tools can allow us
to see the whole picture, ensure feasibility of implementation, help set priorities, and help us to grapple
with complex issues.
The challenge is that there is a proliferation and overload of tools. Examples include scenario-based
tools, conceptual frameworks, guidelines, visual tools, codes of conduct, sharing platforms, models,
tools for checking mainstream systems, methodologies for analysis and assessment, learning networks,
business tools as well as communication tools such as social media. Policy instruments such as legal,financial, market-based, educational and policy documents can also be considered tools. Furthermore,
there is a lack of sharing of tools resulting in recreating the wheel all the time, which in turns, further− 17 −

worsens the problem of having too many tools.
In order to address this challenge, there needs to be clear concept of tools in the context of facilitating aprocess towards sustainable development and addressing SDG interlinkages. Lessons fromtransdisciplinary research provide approaches to cluster the different types of tools required to addresscomplex issues. It requires encompassing three types of knowledge - systems knowledge, target
knowledge and transformational knowledge.
Systems Knowledge
Systems knowledge describes how the system works. This is largely based on empirical evidence andprovides information of the state of things, for example the state of environment. Understanding thesystem will also help to problematize the issue. For example, studies on the rate of biodiversity loss
allows for the understanding that biodiversity loss has been accelerating for the past 50 years. Hence,systems knowledge allows the identification of what is the problem or issue at hand. Examples include
the various methodologies for monitoring and evaluation as well as mapping of SDG interactions (suchas the ICSU framework) as well as tools to understand drivers of change.
Target Knowledge
Target knowledge helps you understand where you want to go (from where you currently are). Whileknowledge achieved in systems knowledge helps identify the problem, it lacks the purposive aspect inunderstanding what are the better practices that are available. While the investigation of targets relies
heavily on systems knowledge, it also requires taking into consideration practices of actors into accountin understanding what are the desirable practices. In the context of the SDGs, this includes tools thatbuild a common understanding of the SDGs such as platforms and online tools.
Transformation knowledge
Transformation knowledge allows us to understand how you are going to where you want to go. Tools
to help understand how existing practices can be changed must take into account both the target
knowledge and systems knowledge. This requires normative and pragmatic level tools that can analyse
possible transformative pathways. Examples include the scenario analyses tools such as the World in
2050 which allows for understanding the transformative pathways and its potential impacts. Tools to
help orchestrate change is also another example where behavioral change can be affected.
Figure 3 demonstrates the relationship between the three types of knowledge. Beyond the tools thatcan be clustered into the three areas, many types of tools also intersect between them. For example,
intersecting across systems knowledge and target knowledge are priority setting tools which requires
understanding of targets and the current state of play. Monitoring and evaluation intersects bothtransformation knowledge and systems knowledge with the need to understand how to get there
before monitoring the state of play. Experimentation, innovation & testing is often required as alearning by doing method before we achieve the knowledge of how to get there, intersecting between
target knowledge and transformation knowledge. On top of that, a knowledge sharing hub encompasses
all the types of knowledge as repository that can be accessed by all stakeholders.

− 18 −

Figure 3 Framework for organizing tools for synergistic interlinkages
Monitoring &Evaluation

Transformation
Kowledge•

How to get there

Ho
How
ow to
ow
o workw k totogetheroge¾ Sharing hub¾ Strategic assessment¾ Orchestration

Experimentation,
innovation &testing¾ Mapping interactions¾ Understand
Understanding driversof change

Systems
Knowledge•

How the system works

Stakeholders

TargetKnowledge•

Where to go(SDGs)

Priority
setting

Co
Commonommon understanding of SDGsom
¾ Mapping interactions¾ Understanding drivers of change

Knowledge Sharing Hub

5.2.4 Capacity Building
Enhancing capacity to meet sustainability targets and ultimately to fulfill the SDGs themselves will
require a concerted effort to overcome reductionist approaches to knowledge and the institutional
fragmentation that reductionism engenders at many levels and in many settings. The resultant challenge
is not limited to the traditional focus of strengthening the capacity of small or developing countries toparticipate effectively in international governance agreements. Overcoming institutional fragmentation
is a critical challenge for advanced industrial societies as well.
Three factors make this challenge particularly critical under current conditions. First, what is now known
as the Great Acceleration starting during the second half of the 20th century has produced a situation inwhich human actions are driving forces at a planetary scale and made the need to understand the
dynamics of socio ecological systems a critical priority. In addition, rapid advances in knowledge in areas
ranging from artificial intelligence through genetic programming, synthetic biology, and geoengineering
are increasing the capacity of humans manipulate biophysical systems, a development that introduces aneed for ethical principles and codes of conduct designed to ensure that new knowledge is used forappropriate purposes. A major consequence of these developments is the rise of increasingly complex
systems characterized by high levels of connectivity, the prominence of nonlinear patterns of change,
and the importance of emergent properties. All three factors highlight the importance both of thecomplexity of individual goals and of (often unintended) interactions among the SDGs. Together, they
increase the importance of strengthening capacity to think in systemic terms among practitioners andanalysts alike.
In the context of inter-linkages there is a need to recognise complexity through understanding therelationship between things in general, and the benefits to come from SDGs by addressing theinteractions that are relevant to achieve them. Enhancing capacity to understand these systemic− 19 −

processes and to steer them in a fashion needed to fulfill the SDGs will require adjustments in a wide
range of institutions:
Educational institutions
The key to educational reform is to alleviate reductionism leading to an intense focus on relatively
narrow topics and a lack of concern for the linkages that constitute a prominent feature of complex
systems. This challenge arises at all levels from early childhood education to advanced training inbusiness schools and medical schools. Addressing this concern must include curricular innovation bothto integrate the natural and social sciences and to introduce an appreciation of humanistic concerns (e.g.
values, ethics, and norms regarding the place of humans in the Earth system). Achieving success in thiseffort will require in turn a restructuring of educational organizations and of the incentive structuresthat are associated with the existing compartmentalization of these organizations.
Scientific institutions
Institutions at the national level (e.g. national academies of sciences) and the international level (e.g. theInternational Council of Science) need to play a prominent role both in reframing the research agenda
and in building relations of trust between the producers of scientific knowledge and the users of thatknowledge. While policymakers respond to numerous considerations in arriving at final choices about
matters of importance to society, there is no substitute for evidence-based assessment of policy options.
Scientific institutions can help to synthesize existing knowledge to highlight its relevance to current
policy concerns and to clarify the nature and magnitude of remaining uncertainties. There is a need aswell to frame research agendas with the concerns of policymakers in mind.
Financial and corporate institutions
Those who make investment decisions regarding large scale projects and control the flow of capital to
new initiatives often fail to pay sufficient attention to the (often unintended and sometimes unforeseen)side effects of these activities, not to mention the longer term consequences affecting society as awhole. Particular gaps relate to the effects of new projects on ecosystem services that are hard tomeasure and that often affect the wellbeing of broader publics rather than those who stand to benefit
directly from the initiation of new projects (e.g. investors and shareholders in the relevant corporations).
One possible way forward regarding this problem would be to require environmental impact
assessments (EIAs) for major private investments of a sort that are similar to those required for major
public actions.
Political institutions
There is a need to strengthen capacity to address issues like the SDGs in political institutions all the way
from the local level to the global level. Sometimes this is a matter of interagency coordination or evenreorganization to alleviate the compartmentalization that produces tunnel vision and a lack of concern
for broader systemic impacts of public actions. An additional problem concerns time horizons, sincepolitical decisionmaking typically operates on a short cycle (e.g. two-four years) that leads to a lack ofattention to longer term matters of the sort emphasized in the SDGs.
Civil society institutions
There is also a need to empower actors in civil society not only by providing points of entry for NGOs
into political processes but also by enhancing the capacity of these organizations to understand thelinkages among individual elements of complex systems. One way forward would be to provide training
for the leaders of NGOs to enhance their awareness of the interactions among issues and to strengthen
their ability to direct their efforts toward the fulfillment of relevant SDGs.
Given the status of the SDGs as an initiative of the United Nations, a topic of particular interest− 20 −

regarding the capacity needed to fulfill the SDGs concerns the reform of international organizationalarrangements. The creation of the High Level Policy Forum (HLPF) is an opportunity. But the creation ofthis forum alone will not solve the problem of enhancing institutionalized capacity to address the SDGs
and specifically to recognize the interactions among them. In this connection, it is worth considering thecreation of an Intergovernmental Panel on Sustainable Development (IPSD) that would play a rolesimilar to IPCC or IPBES in evaluating and distilling relevant knowledge or even the negotiation of a UN
Framework Convention on Sustainable Development that would serve as a clearinghouse for knowledge
relating to the fulfillment of the SDGs. A UNFCSD in particular might provide a constitutive foundationthat would prioritize strengthening capacity as one of the essential building blocks for an effective effort
to make progress toward fulfilling the SDGs over time.

5.3

KEY CONCEPTS HARVESTED IN INTERACTIVE & BREAKOUT SESSIONSIn developing a research-action framework for securing effective implementation of actions to attain the
SDG targets, participants of the workshop were asked to identify key concepts towards this aim. The
four building blocks and the key concepts highlighted by participants are highlighted below along withthe key concepts illustrated through word clouds based on post it notes by participants on what isperceived to be the most crucial elements as key concepts in the framework.
5.3.1 Stakeholder
Stakeholders can be distinguished between those who have stakes (are affected) and those who haveagency. Their identities need not be tied to nation states or specific issues where ownership can bebroadened trans-nationally and across scales. The UN major groups have substantial and structural flaws
but is an existing system for stakeholder engagement. In some cases, and value systems, nature is also
considered a stakeholder. The scientific community plays a crucial role, with the need to strengthen the
GSDR panel and/or better designing of science panels proposed.
In addressing inter-linkages, methodologies to identify stakeholders, and in accordance with the theoryof change, those who are particularly with agency on addressing interlinkages should be established.
How to institutionalise a space for people to empower action on SDGs and its interactions should beconsidered. There is a need for mapping of stakeholders at various levels and contexts. In overcoming
silos, how to incentivise stakeholders to address areas beyond their mandate deserves attention.
Access and the right to information, including a transparent monitoring and reporting system on interlinkages can facilitate participation. This includes exploring the establishment of a platform to promote
citizen science.
Figure 4 Word cloud in relation to discussions on stakeholders− 21 −

5.3.2 Action Coherence
Action coherence is broader than institutional coherence as it goes beyond institutions. Conventional
governance structures aren’t able to keep up with the pace of change. The pathway from the current
scenario to a desirable future requires interventions that support action coherence to achieve the SDGs.
Steering a systems change, an integrated approach that addresses multiple factors require cross scaleinteractions among issues, stakeholders, policy domains and levels. This must take into considerationthat coherence require collaboration and partnership in an entire system based on competition.
There is need to understand how to forge commonalities between policy communities. The mechanismsof how emergent logic in policy communities who share ideas about the connectivity on different issues
on the policy landscape should be understood. Beyond government, coherence amongst target
audiences such as multinational corporations along with the possible interventions to involve them.
Clear identification and alignment of benefits, such as, through cost benefit analyses and mapping
should be demonstrated. Establishing shared narratives, vision and values with SDGs as a social contract
should also take place. The proper and actual role of science panels to explain consequences of action
should be investigated.
Figure 5 Word cloud relevant to discussions on action coherence

5.3.3 Tools
SDGs are inherently complex requiring tools to simplify them to aid its achievement. Tools can allow to
see the whole picture, ensure feasibility of implementation, help set priorities, act as an equalizer, easy
to implement, accessible and universal, and able to grapple with complex issues but usable by non
experts. It can be used to create narratives and discourse.
Examples include scenario-based tools, conceptual frameworks, guidelines, visual tools, codes ofconduct, sharing platforms, models, Tools for checking mainstream systems, methodologies for analysis
and assessment, learning networks, business tools as well as communication tools such as social media.
Policy instruments such as legal, financial, market-based, educational and policy documents can also be
considered tools.
Challenges include the lack of sharing of tools resulting in recreating the wheel all the time, which inturns, creates a proliferation and overload of tools. Tools must also be adapted to the audience with its
use to be guided.

− 22 −

Figure 6 Word cloud based on discussions on tools

5.3.4 Capacity Building
In the context of interlinkgaes there is a need to recognise complexity through understanding therelationship between things in general, and the benefits to come from SDGs by addressing theinteractions that are relevant to achieve them. A narrative for a new social contract that goes beyond
individual benefits towards collective benefits should be promoted to build appetite for contextually
relevant action. Education may include both early education, action learning and life-long learning.
Capacity building ‘of whom’ and ‘for what’ were identified. Key stakeholders include the next generation,
civil society organisations, the scientific community, policymakers, and the private sector amongst many.
Examples of capacity building include (but not limited to) systems thinking, learning how to facilitate
wide system change, networking abilities, training of trainers, and training for international
development. In its implementation, there is a need to find ways to create multi-stakeholder demandfor capacity building and not be dependent on government funding.
Figure 7 Word cloud relevant to discussions on capacity building− 23 −

 Summary
Adopting a co-design and co-production philosophy in conducting the workshop, scholars andpractitioners relevant to the SDGs and addressing interlinkages from various backgrounds anddisciplines came together with the aim of producing a research-action framework for securing effective
implementation of actions to attain the SDG targets. Four building blocks emerged as the key elements
to address interlinkages – stakeholders, action coherence, tools and capacity building.
Stakeholders address issues of agency, where the question of who can catalyse the changes as well as
who are impacted being discussed. At the UN level, the HLPF, in particular, was highlighted as playing a
key role as orchestrator of orchestrators, though institutional reform was suggested to take place inorder for it to be effective. The role of scientists and bridging the science-policy interface was also
highlighted with the GSDR providing an opportunity and entry point for scientific input. With action at
the centre of the framework, the role of the private sector must also be taken into consideration as a
key stakeholder to address interlinkages.
Action coherence emerged as a guiding principle to manage the diverse and complex interactions
between SDG goals and targets. Calling for a joined-up approach, solutions to maximize potential
synergies and minimize potential negative interactions sit at the heart of the framework and discussions.
Ultimately, there needs to be a shift from merely understanding what the interlinkages are and have aclear value proposition communicated to the key stakeholders and those with agency.
Both tools and capacity building were highlighted as key mechanisms to both understand interlinkages
as well as affecting behavioural change as transformative pathways towards SDGs. With an overload oftools currently available, there is a need to both identify the types of tools required and a knowledge
hub that acts as a repository to disseminate these tools. An organizing framework was proposed in thediscussions towards this end. In terms of capacity building, enhancing the understanding of the complex
and systemic nature of the challenges is required. Reform is required not only in educational institutions
but also scientific, financial and corporate, political and civil society institutions.
These building blocks can act as guidance to address interlinkages and interactions amongst SDGs. A
checklist of key concepts over the duration of the workshop are summarized in the table below: PRINCIPLES TO ENABLE ACTION COHERENCE
Backcasting
俵 Integrated approach that addresses multiple factors
There needs to be a clear demonstration of the value proposition of a coherent approach todelivering the SDGs
俵 Long-term thinking
俵 Game change (rules of the game)Participatory decision-making
俵 Bring new actors
俵 Co-design and new community creation (e.g. Future Earth)
俵 Legitimacy and definition on who should be involved
Adaptive governance
MECHANISMS FOR BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE
Systems to redistribute power relations
俵 Integrated national development plans and consequent integrated oversight ministries are− 24 −

one important approach at a national level
俵 Helping institutions re-frame their goals (e.g. through their place in the SDGs) is important
俵 Need to be realistic about and address power relations, for example the power of multinational companies, and develop incentives for some players to give up their power
俵 Focused multi-stakeholder fora need to be established at national and other levels
俵 Stakeholder-driven priority setting
俵 Enhance ability to create successful multi-stakeholder processes
Learning skills on facilitating stakeholders
Budget rules aligned with the SDGs
俵 Financial tools
Non-state market based tools
俵 Certification schemes
俵 Standard-setting
俵 Code of conduct
俵 Business sector tools including templates of SDGs planning for industry
俵 Other incentives
Communication tools
俵 Communicating success stories and best practices
俵 Establish shared and localized narratives
俵 Visual tools and online platform
New design of science panels
俵 Enhance SPI by regional network of scientists and building research communities in DCs
俵 Tools for adaptive governance
俵 Enhance adaptive capacity of institutions
俵 Learning by doing
俵 Learning network
俵 Promotion of citizen science (and its platform)
俵 [some major groups work effectively at HLPF]
Monitoring and evaluation
俵 Sustainability reporting
俵 Data sharing
俵 Transparency of data
俵 Mechanisms for popularising, tracking and reporting on the SDGs need to be developed withgood examples of success
Scenarios and models
Integrated cost-benefit analysis (not just about economic costs)
俵 SDGs education
俵 Civil society awareness俵 Skills of system thinking
AGENCIES FOR CHANGE
Nature
Review UN major groups
Local stakeholders
Private sector
National government in coordinating stakeholders− 25 −

Beyond the four building blocks, there is a need to recognize the multi-level nature of the challenge ofaddressing interlinkages. Examples demonstrated that context matters and implementation will largely
be undertaken at the national and local levels. Any framework must be cognizant of addressing thisissue of scale and ensuring that it can be translated into various levels.
Participants agreed to continue the discussions on developing a research-action framework to secure
effective implementation of the SDGs with a journal entry and research fund proposal targeted to be
finalised before the High Level Political Forum in July 2017.

− 26 −

Annexe I – List of participants of the Workshop
First Name

Family Name

Organization

Position

1 TanyaAbrahamse

South African National Biodiversity
Institute

Chief Executive Officer

2 Albrecht

Ehrensperger

University of Bern

Head of Cluster SocioEconomic Transitions

3 Rajae

El Aouad

Hassan II Academy of Science andTechnology. Morocco

Resident Member, Professor

4 EevaFurmanFinnish Environment Institute

Director of the centre,
Professor

5 Peter

M Haas

University of Massachusetts
AmherstProfessor

6 Rak

Kim

Utrecht University

Assistant professor

7 Nebojsa

Nakicenovic

International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA)

Deputy Director General and
Deputy CEO

8 Paul

Shrivastava

Concordia University

Professor

9 MarkStafford-Smith

CSIRO

Chief Coordinating Scientist

10 AnneSophie StevanceInternational Council for Science(ICSU)

Science Officer

11 OranYoung

University of California

Professor Emeritus

12 RubenZondervan

Earth System Governance Project

Exective director

1 Lis Mullin

Bernhardt

United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP)

Programme Officer

2 Ran

Kim

3 David

Le Blanc

4 LucyMungai

United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP)

Civil Society Support-Legal

5 Aneta

Nikolova

UN ESCAP

Environment Affairs Officer

Researchers

UN organizations

United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)
United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)− 27 −

Governance and public
administration officer
Senior Sustainable
Development Officer

Roehrl

United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)

Senior Economic Affairs
Officer1 Steve

Waddell

NetworkingAction

Principal

2 Farooq

Ullah

Stakeholder Forum for a
Sustainable Future

DirectorKƅrösi

Office of the President of the
Republic of Hungary

Director

6 AlexStakeholders

Governments
1 Csaba

Organiser: Keio GESL and Future Earth
1 Wendy

Broadgate

Future Earth -Sweden

Global hub director

2 DaveGriggsMonash University/ Future Earth

Professor

3 Norichika

Kanie

Keio University/ Future Earth

Professor

4 Eri

Aoki

Keio University/ Future Earth

Project research associate

5 Wanglin

Yan

Keio University

Professor

6 Shiori

Sasaki

Keio University

Project Associate Professor

7 KanakoMoritaKeio University/ Forestry andForest Products Research InstituteProject Assistant Professor,
Senior Researcher

8 Mari

KosakaKeio University

Project Assistant Professor

Early careers: GESL students
1 Chalisa

Veesommai

Keio University

GESL student

2 Takuma

NozawaKeio University

GESL student

3 AhmadMuzaffar bin
Baharudin

Keio University

GESL student

4 IreneErlyn Rachmawan

Keio University

GESL student

5 Vuk

Radovic

Keio University

GESL student

6 Alizan

Mahadi

Keio University

GESL student− 28 −

7 Seinan

Saku

Keio University

GESL student

8 Jinmika

Wijitdechakul

Keio University

GESL student

9 Megumi

Wada

Keio University

GESL student− 29 −

Annexe II – GESL Student Poster and Presentations
6.1.1

Alizan Mahadi Poster Presentation− 30 −

6.1.2

Chalisee Veesommai Poster Presentation− 31 −

6.1.3Jinmika Wijitdechakul Poster Presentation− 32 −

6.1.4

Irene Erlyn Wina Rachmawan− 33 −

6.1.5

Ahmad Muzaffar bin Baharudin− 34 −

6.1.6

Vuk Radovic Poster Presentation− 35 −

6.1.7

Qiannan Zhuo Poster Presentation− 36 −