Photo: Francesco Scaglioni,
https://flic.kr/p/5sbJAj

SEEING THE WHOLE
Implementing the SDGs in an
Integrated and Coherent Way
A RESEARCH PILOT BY STAKEHOLDER FORUM, BIOREGIONAL AND NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITYAUTHORS: Anna Coopman, Derek Osborn and Farooq Ullah – Stakeholder Forum
Emily Auckland – Bioregional, and Dr Graham Long – Newcastle University

Project partners:

Project Sponsor:

ABOUT US
Stakeholder Forum www.stakeholderforum.org – Stakeholder Forum (SF) is an international non-governmental organisation(NGO) working to enhance open, accountable and participatory international decision-making on sustainable development andclimate change. SF has extensive experience engaging with UN processes and multilateral negotiations, but works at all levelsof governance. SF has also been a lead organisation developing and facilitating global multi-stakeholder processes onsustainable development.
Bioregional www.bioregional.com – Bioregional is an international charity and award winning social enterprise championing
a better, more sustainable way to live. We work with partners around the world on sustainable consumption andproduction in the communities in which we live and through products and services. We call our approach One Planet Living.
Bioregional is Global NGO Focal Point for UNEP’s 10 Year Framework of Programmes and a member of the Sustainable Building& Construction Programme MAC.
Newcastle University www.ncl.ac.uk – Newcastle University is a public research university located in Newcastle upon Tyne in
the North-East of England. It is a member of the Russell Group, one of 24 leading research universities in the UK and has a
global reputation for academic excellence. We emphasise that the primary feature of a civic university is its sense of purpose– an understanding of not just what it is good at, but what it is good for.

AUTHORSSTAKEHOLDER FORUM
Anna Coopman, Project Manager – acoopman@stakeholderforum.org
Farooq Ullah, Executive Director – fullah@stakeholderforum.org
Derek Osborn, President
BIOREGIONAL
Emily Auckland, Development & Policy Manager – emily.auckland@bioregional.com
NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY
Dr Graham Long, Senior Lecturer – graham.long@newcastle.ac.uk
We are grateful to the Government of Finland for their support in funding this study and report.

There are many interlinkages between the 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and their 169 targets adopted by
the United Nations in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. This study seeks to offer methods and analysis
to aid in the implementation of this universal and integrated
agenda whist also upholding those two characterising principles.
With support from the Government of Finland, Stakeholder
Forum, Bioregional and the University of Newcastle haveformed a research team to undertake a study of theimplications of SDG implementation in developed countries
through an in-depth analysis of the Sustainable Consumption
and Production (SCP) SDGS (SDG 12). This report is theoutput of that study and is comprised of two separate but
related components:• Interlinkages (Section 2) – This section proposes a methodof analysis to classify the nature and strength ofinterlinkages between SDGs targets in order to help create
more integrated and coherent packages of policies andmeasures to aid in the implementation of the SDGs. Given

this is a pilot study, only the SCP SDG is used for this analysis
with interlinkages between SDG 12 and other SDGs explored.
• SCP in the EU (Section 3) – This section seeks to improve
provide an understanding of the current state of European
Union (EU) action in respect of SCP. In order to ascertain how
far the EU is implementing SCP, research was undertaken tocollate what current EU legislation/policy exists, identify
any areas it could improve upon and highlight any gaps.
While these two sections are not directly related, together
they connect ways in which to understand how to implement
the SDGs through integrated policy-making. Section 2 offersa method for developing new policies, building on what
is already in place to both raise ambition and provide
greater policy coherence. Section 3 explores and discusses
the existing EU policies in relation to SCP offering
an examination of a specific region’s current status on the
SCP theme as an example. Understanding both themes
and how they connect will be crucial to successful
implementation of the SDGs.

1. INTRODUCTION
This study addresses the complex question of how the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by United
Nations (UN) Member States in September 2015 should be
implemented in an integrated way.
Two features of the SDGs are fundamental to theirimplementation – the fact that they have been created asuniversal objectives, applying to all countries; and thatthey have been created as an indivisible package of goals
and objectives all of which need to be pursued in an
integrated way.
In an earlier report Stakeholder Forum (SF) analysed theimplications of the geographical universality of the SDGs andin particular the transformational challenge they represent
for the countries of the developed world as well as thedeveloping world, using European experience and challenges
as the main test bed for the analytical approach adopted.
That report identified the challenge of sustainableconsumption and production (SCP) as the single biggest
transformational challenge amongst the SDGs for thedeveloped world (along with the related challenges inenergy and climate change).
In this new report the three research partners have createda methodology to analyse the implications of theindivisibility of the SDGs and how countries can ensure thatthe packages of policy measures they develop are wellshaped to implement the SDGs in an integrated way.
This first application of the new methodology has been
applied to exploring the linkages SCP targets in and thetargets of other goals. SCP was identified by the previous
study as the single biggest transformational challenge fordeveloped countries and is commonly regarded as an
overarching strategic objective with strong links to manyother more specific subjects and policies. This research should
help to identify where pursuit of other targets can mostfruitfully support, reinforce or strengthen SCP targets andvice versa. It will also help identify where there may be somerisk of conflict between SCP targets and other targets unlessspecial care is taken to analyse and resolve the potential
conflicts so as to create a more integrated approach.
The EU has been used again in this study as the test bed forthe approach adopted. Particular attention is given to theEU’s recent Circular Economy Package to analyse how far thiswill take the EU in implementing SDG 12 and liked targets in
an integrated way. But we have also drawn much broader
conclusions concerning how to identify and categoriseinterlinkages between SDGs targets, and how one can, in
practice, assess the “fit” between SDGs and existing policies.
The totality of current patterns of production andconsumption in the world today are clearly unsustainable inseveral important respects. They produce too muchpollution and waste, damaging the environment. They leadto dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions. They use
scarce or finite resources. They can lead to negative healthimpact. And they can promote inequalities. But moving tomore sustainable patterns is not easy. It will involve muchcleaner modes of production and sources of energy. It will
involve reduction, reuse or recycling of waste. It will meansignificant changes in behaviour and lifestyles. It will require
modifications to the prevailing economic paradigm based oncontinuous economic growth and consumption of resources
as the dominant societal objective. The analysis of linkages
will clearly reveal tensions and potential conflict between
some of the SDG targets as well as complementarities inother cases. The analysis should help to identify some of thecritical tensions that will need further examination as wellas potential synergies.
The SCP goal was widely identified in the SDG negotiations as
an area where developed countries should take the lead – asindeed is expressed in the text of the goal itself. Developed
countries addressing unsustainable consumption andproduction to a greater degree than developing countries isprecisely what universality and the integrated 2030 Agenda
requires. As the European Commission notes “unsustainable
patterns of current economic development are still largely
determined by developed countries… while poorer countries
are disproportionately impacted”.1 They need todemonstrate the possibility of achieving more sustainable
patterns of consumption and production both so as toreduce the impact of their own economies on the world’s
natural systems and cycles, and to help the developing
countries of the world find development pathways forthemselves that avoid the errors of unsustainability thatmany developed countries have experienced up to now.
1.1. CONTEXTAt the UN Summit meeting in September 2015, which
adopted the SDGs, world leaders acknowledged that theworld is facing many grave problems and that thetransformation to a more sustainable world is a crucial andfundamental task for the decades ahead. In order to haveany chance of bringing about this fundamental change thewhole of the SDG package needs to be implemented in avigorous, committed and systematic way by all the countriesof the world. They affirmed that the SDGs are universally
applicable, and that they are integrated and indivisible.
Universality indicates that the SDGs apply to both developing
and developed countries and need to be implemented by all.2
Although the nature and balance of the challenges the SDGs
embody differs as between countries and groups of countries,
every country will find that they represent major andtransformative challenges. Business as usual is not an option3.

1

European Commission A Decent Life for All: Ending poverty and giving the world a sustainable future COM/2013/92 (2013)2

For a discussion the complexities of universality, see G. Long “The Idea of Universality in the Sustainable Development Goals” Ethics and International Affairs (2015 29:2)

3	Council of the European Union Council conclusions on a transformative post-2015 agenda (Dec 2014) para 14; CONCORD - Beyond2015 ETF Putting People and Planet First:
Business as Usual is not an Option (2013)

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way3

www.stakeholderforum.org

As debate and action now moves on towards implementationof the SDGs around the world, much of the discussion willrightly focus on the needs of the developing countries andhow the SDGs can help them to chart their forward
development path. At the same time, the SDGs represent a
major challenge for the societies of the developed world totransform their economies and ways of life into a moresustainable pattern for the future. The realisation of all thegoals and targets everywhere is the ultimate objective.
Comprehensive implementation is needed in both thedeveloping and the developed world.
Furthermore, the intent of the SDGs is to develop a more
integrated agenda; one that successfully combines three
dimensions (economic, social and environmental) of
sustainable development, and one in which goal areas areenmeshed and interrelated. The very wide scope of thetotal package of SDGs itself displays the intention of thenations of the world to integrate all their long-term aims ina single integrated agenda. The challenge now is to findways of carrying that integrated approach through to theimplementation stage at all levels.
Many countries will no doubt be creating or revising nationalsustainable development strategies (NSDSs) to draw together
all the actions needed and to establish priorities. But thecreation of a single strategy does not guarantee an
integrated approach. In the past some strategies have notamounted to much more than listing a wide range ofdisparate activities loosely related to sustainable
development without a proper examination of theirinteractions and the possibility of synergy or of tension andconflict between different targets and actions. There is an
obvious danger of losing momentum and coherence if
individual targets are pursued separately each by different
Government Departments and policy communities in theirown familiar silos, thus neglecting important connections
between the different goals and targets and the measures
adopted to implement them, and losing opportunities for
optimizing any opportunities for trade-offs, synergies andwin-win solutions.
A way needs to be found of operationalizing more effective
integration.
Trying to develop analytical systems to optimise the best
integrated approach to 169 separate targets at the sametime may be too ambitious, at least in the first instance.
What is needed therefore is a method of analysis that can
pinpoint the most important linkages between different
targets indicating areas where it will be particularly
beneficial to promote joint or cooperative action between
the actors involved in the linked targets and integrated
policy measures that will have an impact on two or more
separate targets.
In some cases there may be measures or policies that
could help to achieve several different targets that would
deliver results more effectively and efficiently than trying
to find policies focused solely on an individual target byitself. Co-operation between the different policy

4communities involved might help to identify a better, more
integrated approach.
In other cases the single-minded pursuit of a single target
or goal by itself might actually make it harder to achieve
other goals or targets due to policy incoherence or
unforeseen externalities. In this kind of case there needs
to be a thorough examination of the situation to see how
the potential conflict or tension between different
objectives and policies can be resolved and an integrated
approach secured.
SCP is itself a strongly integrating concept. Ever since thefirst Rio Summit of 1992, SCP has been regarded as anover-arching aim that should be taken into account in manydifferent subject and policy areas. It is not to be expected
therefore that its full force can be encompassed within justone of the 17 SDGs. SDG 12 does indeed contain a number of
specific elements needed for the achievement of SCP. But it
is not a complete description of what SCP involves or
requires. In order to extract a fuller description of what isrequired to achieve SCP from the larger SDG Framework,
SDG 12 needs to be coupled with and enriched by manyother targets from different SD goals. Just as the SDG
package as a whole needs to be pursued in an integrated
way in order to deliver sustainability as a whole, so too does
sustainable consumption and production. SDG 12 and its
targets are therefore a very suitable area for testing thisstudy’s approach to identifying links with other targets.
The EU and its Member States have been amongst the mostactive in debating the various aspects of SCP over the years
and have a number of policies, programmes and initiatives
in place that should help to make further progress. But
when one considers the whole range of SDGs targets
identified in this report linked to SDG 12, and the unresolved
tensions inherent in the SDG Framework (e.g. the old debate
on whether economic growth and sustainable development
can ever be compatible), it is clear that there is still muchto be done to bring about the necessary transformation in
Europe. This is important not only for the EU itself, but for
the example it could provide and the assistance it could giveto other parts of the world, particularly the developing
countries, in finding their own, more sustainable,
development pathways.
Mapping the targets of SDG 12 onto the policies and plans of
the EU and its Member States is an important starting point
for examining how far Europe is shaping up the SCP
challenge in the SDGs. But the exercise will subsequently
need to be taken further to examine the EU’s state ofreadiness for dealing with all the other targets positively
linked to SDG 12 and for resolving their approach to thedifficult areas of conflict or tension between different
targets. Section 3 of this report examines this challenge for
the EU and its member states and uses the methodology ofSection 2 to identify some areas that will require further
attention if the EU is to develop an approach to SCP that iscommensurate with the level of global ambition set out in
the SDGs as a whole.

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

Photo: acrowephotography.com
https://flic.kr/p/pyXBBY/

www.stakeholderforum.org

PROJECTWith support from the Government of Finland, Stakeholder
Forum, Bioregional and the University of Newcastle haveformed a research team to undertake this study of theimplications of SDG implementation in developed countries
through an in-depth analysis of the SCP SDG.
This analysis takes on three important tasks:
1.	It develops a taxonomy and system of classification forunderstanding the types and strengths of interlinkages
between SDG targets. This is a crucial development if
the indivisible and interdependent nature of the 2030
Agenda, and its implications for policy, are to beunderstood.
2.	It applies this methodology/tool to an identification andassessment of the interlinkages between SDG 12 on SCP
and other targets within the SDGs. This allow us both totest and reflect on the methodology, but also to position
SCP within the SDGs, noting drivers and levers topromote SCP within and through the other SDGs.
3.	It identifies EU law and policy relevant to the targets of
SDG 12, and offers an assessment of the alignment ofsuch policy with SDG 12, engaging in detail with thewording of the SCP goal and present and future EU policy
to assess coverage and ambition.
Tasks one and two are covered in Section 2 of the report andtask three in Section 3.

While these two sections are not directly related, together
they connect ways in which to understand how to implement
the SDGs through integrated policy-making. Section 2 offer amethod for developing new policies building on what isalready in place to both raise ambition and provide greater
policy coherence, while Section 3 explores and discusses
the existing EU policies in relation to SCP offering a
examination of a specific region’s current status on the SCP
theme as an example. Understanding both approaches andhow they connect will be crucial to successful
implementation of the SDGs.
This methodology developed and used in this study is, inprinciple, applicable to analysing the relationship between
any pair of targets throughout the whole SDG set. But inorder to test the approach in a more limited context in thefirst instance it was decided for the purposes of this study toapply it to the particular set of targets that are linked to
the goal of sustainable consumption and production (SCP),
and to analyse the results and implications in that field in
more detail.
Overall, the aim of this report – through its direct
recommendations, but also its underpinning methodology andanalysis – is to ensure the universality and indivisibility of
SDGs is better understood and upheld in the implementationof the 2030 Agenda, and to provide some guidance andapproaches for the application of the SDGs in all countries,
particularly developed countries, and particularly in relation
to sustainable consumption and production.

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

5

2. INTERLINKAGES
2.1. METHODOLOGY FOR CLASSIFYING INTERLINKAGES
To understand the nature of interlinkages in the SDG agenda
a new methodology was designed to identify and analysevarious different types of linkage between different targets,
focusing particularly on the interlinkages between thetargets in SDG 12 (the SCP goal) and targets in all of theother SDGs.
The first task for this methodology was to assess thedifferent ways in which targets can relate to each other, asa tool to understand and explain the idea of interlinkage.
Targets can enable, support, repeat or sometimes conflictwith one another. Different types of linkage are policyrelevant in different ways.
There is, to our knowledge, no existing typology ofinterlinkages between goals and targets in print. This report
has therefore created a new classification of types ofinterlinkage between different targets. The object is todeepen understanding of the relationships between
different targets so that policy-makers can escape from thesilo model of policy-making (one policy programme for eachtarget with little connection between them). One can then
optimise the mix of different elements of the policy andaction programmes which they adopt in a more integrated
way so as to make the best overall progress on different but
linked targets at the same time.
For the purposes of this first application of the new
methodology we have focused solely on SCP and the linkages
between the targets in SDG 12 and targets in other SDGs
that are relevant to the pursuit of the over-arching
objectives of it. Our classification of these linkages allows
for the identification of both the type of linkage that exists
between SDG 12 targets and other SCP-related targets, aswell as the strength of this connection. This is important as
it means our results can indicate to policy-makers whichtargets have the strongest relationships and therefore act asa guide on how to develop policies and initiatives whichhave the potential for greatest impact.
This work breaks new ground in the field of SDGs study.
However, the classification and methodology it proposes isstill evolving and could no doubt be refined in future
iterations. In principle, however, we believe that it could bea useful and powerful tool for analysing the relationships
between different targets across the whole field of the SDGs
and helping policy makers and others to develop integrated
policy programmes across a broad front in a systematic way.
Classifying types of relationship between different SDG
targets is not a straightforward task due to the diverse
nature of the SDGs targets themselves. Some are succinct,
expressing a single very specific idea. While others combine
a number of different component parts, at times in ways
which are unclear. Some specify both objectives and meansof reaching those objectives (and in some cases covering
multiple issues), whilst others do not clearly identify either
component. Targets can be based on a simple, linear

6

indicator of progress, or in other cases may rely on the stateof a range of underpinning indicators to reveal progress.
Just as the targets themselves differ in these ways, so too
do the linkages between them. In spite of these difficulties,
this study found it possible to identify eight key types ofinterlinkage that exist between SDG 12 targets and othertargets relevant to SCP. We achieved this by studying thelinkages identified in detail and distilling the type of
relationship present in each linkage into a definition. The
eight key types identified themselves fit into three categories:
1. Supporting – Targets that support one another tend to do
so by fulfilling objectives expressed by each target.
Enabling/disenabling – Targets that enable (or adversely
2.	
affect) one another by having an impact on theachievement on another target.
3. Relying – Targets that rely on one another derive from a
relationship of logical necessity which exists between
the two targets.
The eight types of interlinkages under these three broader
categories are defined in Table 1, opposite. Note that in thedefinitions, targets A and B do not refer specifically to eithera SDG 12 or non-goal 12 target as these could be reversed
relationships and could be applied to any targets in the SDGs
Framework. There is an element of overlap between thethree overarching categories. This was felt to be preferable
to attempting a categorisation of interlinkages in which
each fits into only one. Notably, our approach fulfils three
key criteria for such a typology:
1.	It fits the complexity we encountered, as it allows eachinterlinkage to be classified by its unique characteristics
in any one, or all, of these types of interlinkages.
2.	It allows us flexibility to deal with targets that specify
multiple sets of objectives and processes (of which there
are several in the SCP context).
3.	It allows for expression of complex relationships in moremanageable and understandable classifications.
Again, these categorisations are not meant to be mutually
exclusive or exhaustive. They are a relatively manageable
tool for identifying aspects and characteristics the SCPspecific interlinkages. Further analysis would be needed tosee how this methodology might best be applied across thefull spectrum of the SDGs.
It is worth noting that at the time of the writing of thisreport, the UN expert group working on the SDGs indicators
have just finalised the 231 indicators underpinning the goals
and targets to compete the framework. However, as they
are not yet signed-off by the UN Statistical Commission or
the UN General Assembly, we did not assess the links
between the indicators themselves. But this methodology
could, in theory, be adapted to explore the links between
these indicators in a further study.

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

www.stakeholderforum.org

TABLE 1: Assessment Methodology – Classification of Type and Nature of SDGs Interlinkages
CATEGORY

CATEGORY DEFINITION

TYPE

TYPE DEFINITION

Supporting

Targets that support one another tend
to do so by fulfilling objectives
expressed by each target.

Commonly supporting

Both targets contribute to the same
objective

1

Mutually supporting

Target A’s objective is achieved byTarget B’s means of implementation,and vice versa

2

Disenabling

Implementing target B may hinder orreverse the achievement of Target (egby competing with it for resources, ormore fundamentally because thetypical means of implementation of
the first target actually worsen theunderlying problem which the second
target is addressing)0

Indirect Enabling

Target B’s implementation indirectly
enables the achievement of Target A

1

Direct Enabling

Target B’s implementation directly
enables the achievement of Target A

2

Direct Enabling in
Both Directions

Target B’s implementation directly
enables the achievement of Target A,
and Target A’s implementation directly
enables Target B’s achievement

3

Partial relianceTarget B is a subcategory of Target A
and adds some detail as to how Target
A can be achieved

1

Full relianceTarget B’s implementation is necessaryfor, but not intrinsic to, Target A’s
achievement

2

Enabling

Relying

Targets that enable one another satisfy
this relationship by having an impact
on the achievement of another target.

Targets that rely on one another derivefrom a relationship of logical necessity
which exists between the two targets.

2.2. METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING
INTERLINKAGES
These eight types of interlinkage form the basis for theassessment and evaluation of the relevant SCP interlinkages.
Each interlinkage, of which 25 were identified (see below for
selection process), is assessed against these three categories
and classified against the relevant eight types of interlinkage.
The major decisions in the analysis included producing a listof interlinkages, deciding on necessary terms and definitions
and assigning the definitions to the interlinkages themselves.
One key problem faced in the course of the research was
the ambiguity of the SCP targets’ wording. For example,
in Target 12.2, Member States are required to “achieve, by
2030, sustainable management and efficient use of natural
resources”, it was felt that such a target could lead to avariety of interpretations, owing to the lack of specificityof the terms ‘sustainable management’, ‘efficient use’,and even ‘natural resources’. When confronted with
ambiguous wording, this study looked to the emerging
SDGs indicators framework to aid in our understanding of
the target. Bioregional’s assessment of each target wasalso taken into account, given their expertise in the field.
Please look to Annex D to refer to these indicators andBioregional’s clarifications of the targets, whilst reading theassessment below.

SCORE

Amongst the interlinkages selected for analysis, some caused
discussion amongst the team. For example, Targets 7.2 and7.3 on renewable energy (“achieving more efficient use ofnatural resources”), as a connection to Target 12.3. Given
conflicting opinions on the scope of the definition of natural
resources, a degree of interpretation was required to justify
the inclusion of these targets and their interlinkages in the
study. Natural resources includes all raw materials - andfossil fuels - making it very broad in scope. But should it also
be taken to include renewable energy? and how might thesedifferent components relate to each other in the analysis?
The research team opted to keep the target in and consider
renewable energy to be a special type of natural resource so
as to widen the discussion, and then consider the
implications of involving these targets in the analysis section.
In order to facilitate the selection of which interlinkages
present between SCP and non-SCP targets for use in thisresearch, we started with the connections which Bioregional
had previously identified in their report Sustainable
Consumption and Production and the Post-2015 Sustainable
Development Goals4. In addition to this, the research teamanalysed the full list of targets to identify any missing
interlinkages for inclusion in this analysis. Arguably almost
all of the 169 targets have some plausible link to SCP,
reflecting its core role in the transition to sustainable
development. The analysis identified a subset of targets that4	F. Seath, N. Schoon Sustainable Consumption and Production and the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (Bioregional, 2014)
http://www.bioregional.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/SCP-Nov-2014.pdf

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way7www.stakeholderforum.org

have a clear and direct link to sustainable consumption orsustainable production and use of natural assets orresources. It is important to note that this process ofidentification differs from, and goes beyond, themethodology used in UN DESA’s recent paper oninterlinkages.5 The UN DESA study links SCP targets to othergoal areas by identifying those explicitly referred to in thewording. Here we undertake the more complex work oflinking targets to targets, aiming to identify a wider rangeof relationships that might be obscured, rather thanrevealed, by the wording of the goals.
It was decided to focus on target-to-target interlinkages, as
opposed to target-to-goal interlinkages, primarily to for thesake of simplicity and user-friendliness, and to avoid
creating a methodology which identified quite obvious
relationships between individual targets and overarchinggoals which may detract from the more complex andinteresting findings.
In principle, one might envisage analysing all possible
linkages between each and every one of the 169 targets in
the SDGs. Unfortunately, such an approach was deemed outof scope for this study due to resources and time. Instead
this study has endeavoured to create a fairly simple methodof first order analysis that can pinpoint and characterise themost important linkages between different targets. The
objective is to identify pairs of target areas where it is likely
to be particularly beneficial to promote integrated measuresand joint or cooperative action between the actors involved.
The research team also considered the interlinkages
between individual SCP targets applying the same
methodology. The judgement was that the extensive – andthoroughly expected – nature of the intra-SCP interlinkages
did not add distinctive value to the analysis at this stage.
Therefore, SCP-SCP interlinkages were not included in theanalysis. However, these interlinkages should be given
consideration by policy-makers. Further detail on this point
is given in Section 2.3 below, and we identify a list of
SCP-SCP interlinkages in Annex B as a supplement.
Once both the list of interlinkages and the assessment
methodology were agreed, four analysts evaluated thelinkages separately. Where all four assessors agreed in theirclassification their agreed evaluation was adopted. Where
only three out of four analysts agreed on classification, thefinal evaluation was taken from the three which concurred.
Where only two analysts identified a common evaluation,
the moderator referred to each analyst’s reasoning to
finalise the definition and ensure consistent responses. In
the last situation, further discussions between the assessors
resulted in commonly agreed classifications.
As well as classification, a numerical value was given toeach interlinkage and a total score derived. This is possible
since the sub-categories of each of the three relationships
represent an aspect of the strength of the connection.
Disenabling is the only type with a strength of 0 as it could
be a negative interlinkage resulting in a detrimental impact,
depending on how it is interpreted and implemented.

58Commonly supporting, indirect enabling, and partial
reliance all receive 1 point, as these are notable, but notespecially close relationships. Mutually supporting, direct
enabling and full reliance were awarded 2 points to signify
the closer connection that linkages between targets of thisnature possess. Importantly, these may hold moresignificance for those tasked with implementing suchtargets. Direct enabling in both directions carries 3 points,
signifying how inextricably linked targets are in this case,and the potential powerful implications for policy-makers.
These values are summarised in Table 1 above. Targets are
assigned one mark per category of interlinkage, and thefinal score has been aggregated.
This exercise of assigning a rating to each dimension, andaggregating them, yields a score we have termed strength.
We offer this here as an “at a glance” assessment of theoverall density of the interlinkages across all of thesecategories. Nevertheless, such an exercise has limitations– in many ways, the detail of these interlinkages is central
to their usefulness for policymakers. An analysis of different
types of interlinkage does not easily lend itself to a total:
we are not claiming, for example, that a score of 6 indicates
three times as much interlinkage as a score of 2. This roughmeasure of strength should be placed in the context of both
our accounts of the different categories and our analysis
that follows. A relatively weak interlinkage on our aggregate
measure – scoring 2, say, - could actually reflect a very
specific enabling precondition for another target, but noother kinds of link. In many cases, though, we expect
interlinkages of different types to be coexistent andmutually reinforcing – for example, a very strong link mightwell be enabling in a way that is tantamount to complete
reliance; a target that tackles a necessary component of alarger target in depth, offering specific means to achieve
this aspect, might well support that target in part throughenabling its achievement.
Such a scoring of strength of interlinkages is also useful as a
back-up check on or verification of the validity of theinterlinkages chosen for analysis. If a low or zero score isderived, one must question whether the interlinkage
identified truly exists.
2.3. RESULTS
The final agreed evaluation of interlinkages (classificationand final scoring) is presented in Annex A below (due to thesize of the table).
Table 2, opposite, summarises the aggregate scores of theinterlinkages, and shows the distribution across the scores.
Table 3, opposite, shows the frequency of the type ofinterlinkage within the analysis. This indicates theprevalence and commonality of each classification from theanalysis of the interlinkage identified for this study.

D. Le Blanc. Integration at last? DESA Working Paper 141 (2015), p2 http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2015/wp141_2015.pdf

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

www.stakeholderforum.org

TABLE 2: Aggregate Scores and Strength of Interlinkages
SCORINGFREQUENCY

STRENGTH

7

0

High

6

4

High

5

6

Medium4

9

Medium3

3

Medium

2

3

Low

1

0

Low

0

0

Low

TABLE 3: Frequency of Type of Interlinkage
SUPPORTINGSCPTARGET

NON-SCPTARGET

Frequency

ENABLINGRELYING

Commonlysupportive(1)

Mutually
supporting(2)

Disabling(0)

Indirectly
enabling (1)Directlyenabling (2)Mutually
enabling (3)PartialReliance (1)Fullreliance (2)

17

2

1

4

13

9

19

5

2.4. ANALYSISThe analysis of the interlinkages evaluations presented
several interesting findings:
1. Relationships – Commonly reoccurring ‘relationships’
between interlinkages are important to understand.
Knowingly employing these relationships can result in
more sophisticated policy design and amplified impacts
on the ground.
•	
In reviewing Table 2, the first point of analysis is theoverlap and relationship between certain
interlinkages. For example, partial reliance andcommonly supporting frequently occur together. Thisis unsurprising considering that if one target is a
sub-category of another larger target – and possibly
adds detail as to how the larger target is to beachieved (partial reliance) – then the two targets willcontribute to the same larger objective (commonly
supporting). This is not always the case, however, as
sometimes the non-SCP target may put emphasis on aslightly different objective, but still add further detailas to how a subset of the SCP target can be achieved,by coincidence of the fact that the two objectives
involve the same means of implementation. See
Targets 12.5 and 6.3 as an example.
•	
Another commonly occurring pair of interlinkages ispartial reliance and direct enabling. This is also logicalgiven that the implementation of a target focusing on
a sub-category of the SCP target would inevitably help
to achieve the SCP target by the fact that it is an
intrinsic component of it. For example, Target 14.2
(sustainably managing and protecting marine andcoastal ecosystems) will directly facilitate theachievement of Target 12.2 (sustainable managementof the wider category of natural resources). In the
results of the evaluations, partial reliance neveroccurs without some form of enabling factor, be it
indirect, direct, or direct in both directions.
•	
Mutually supporting arises together with direct
enabling too. Again, this is not surprising, given theoverlap in their definitions: if the means of one target
are the objective of the other, then this target will
inevitably enable the other’s achievement.
2.	Higher investment, Greater Return – Higher
investment (time, resources and leadership) indeveloping the stronger, more advanced interlinkages(which are more challenging, based on theircomplexity) into policies and related initiatives islikely to result in greater gains through greater policy
coherence and the realisation of co-benefits.
•	The highly occurring interlinkage, commonly
supporting (17 occurrences), demonstrates
integration within the SDGs Framework (andspecifically between SCP and other SDGs) in that manytargets share objectives with other targets. It is, ofcourse, important for successful implementation of
the SDGs that targets share similar objectives, inorder for the relevant end points to be reached. This
also reflects the integrated nature of sustainable
development and supports a view that this has been,at least partially, achieved in the SDGs.
•	
Another particularly recurrent interlinkage is partial
reliance (19 occurrences), which shows that manytargets interact with SCP by adding further detail as

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

9www.stakeholderforum.org

to how SCP can be achieved. This interlinkage ishelpful for policy-makers looking for policies toachieve SCP: just use a partially relying target as apolicy to achieve the interlinking SCP target.
•	
However, these more frequently occurringinterlinkages are actually less significant in terms ofadded value. While it is expected that interlinked
targets would support the same objective (commonly
supporting) and add further content to other targets(partial reliance), at times these overlaps can result in
duplicated text, means and outcomes indicating a levelof wasteful repetition within the SDGs Framework.

•	
Policy-makers will only implement SDGs successfully,
therefore, if they are willing to provide ambitious
policies which draw upon the skills and powers ofother sectors or departments in their national orregional contexts. Such a transdisciplinary approach
will require time, capacity building and investment.
But the return on such investments can be large
and profound.

•	
The more important interlinkages to explore are thehigher value, but more infrequent ones. Connections
such as mutually supporting (2 occurrences),mutually enabling (3 occurrences), and full reliance(5 occurrences) – i.e. those with the highest scores inthis methodology – carry closer and more intimate
relationships. Where one target’s success depends onanother target (full reliance), or where the means andends of the targets are interlinked (mutually
supporting), policy-makers will have greater impact ifthey implement both at the same time. This provides
a (further) rationale for more joined-up policy-making.

3.	Conflicting targets – Some interlinkages must be
highlighted to show that the achievement of certain
targets may prejudice or even undermine
achievement the achievement of other targets if not
implemented appropriately.

•	This approach will be harder than implementing lower
value relationships, like partial reliance andcommonly supporting, because often the targets arethematically separate, such as Targets 12.4 and 3.9
and 6.3, which are mutually supporting, even though
their connection is a close one. The policy-maker will
have to combine policies on pollution and health with
SCP to achieve the outcomes stated in these targets.
However, as a result, the policy-maker will be more
highly rewarded, as both targets in separate spheres(improving health and reducing environmental impact)
will be satisfied.
•	This is also true for Targets 12.2 (efficient use ofnatural resources) and 14.6 (fisheries subsidies),
which we have identified as fully reliant. 14.6 uses
economic measures, whilst 12.2 broadly refers to
improving environmental management. This meansthat economic and environmental departments needto collaborate to achieve the most effective results.

10

other applies to “people everywhere”. The targets arelinked and will help each other only if there iscollaboration between the multiple parts of the wider
educational policy framework.

•	
The analysis shows at least one linkage where one
target demonstrates the potential for ‘disenabling’
another. Whilst is it important for targets to facilitateand complement one another, it is of greater
importance for targets not to sabotage another’sachievement. SCP requires the integration ofenvironmental, social and economic policies, however
there is high potential for the SDGs’ economic policies
to prejudice the achievement of SCP if executed
inappropriately.
•	For example we have identified that 2.4 on
implementing food production systems and agricultural
practices that increase productivity and production,
could negatively impact the achievement of 12.2. Thismeans that policymakers must interpret 2.4 in linewith 12.2 in order to not prejudice its achievement;
increasing productivity and production must be realised
in a sustainable manner, in order to fulfil 12.2’s aim toachieve sustainable management of natural resources.

•	
Equally Targets 12.2 (efficient use of natural
resources) and 14.4 (effectively regulate harvestingand end overfishing) necessitates the collaboration
between scientific, legal and regulatory and industrial
spheres to achieve the best outcome. We havelabelled this interlinkage direct enabling in both
directions. In this way, new partnerships andinvestment in both science and engagement will reap
the highest rewards for those seeking to implement
the SDGs and SCP in the most successful manner.

•	This interlinkage is not the only one in the SDGs which
may have a conflicting rather than complementing
relationship. The interlinkages identified between
12.2 and 7.2 could be both indirectly enabling anddisenabling depending on subject of theimplementation approach. For example an increase in
the use of renewable energy sourced from biomass orwater may be achieved using unsustainable methods
should good environmental management be overlooked
in a bid to achieve the target. At the same time, byincreasing the share of energy from renewable sources
the use of fossil fuels should decrease, indirectly
supporting the achievement of target 12.2. These twotargets illustrate the complexity of understanding theinterlinkages and informing policy making when thetargets encompass broad subject matter and are
dependent on interpretation.

•	This is not to say that all positive outcomes must arise
from cross-sectoral collaboration. Targets 12.8 and 4.7
enable each other directly in both directions, andboth policies lie with the responsibility of educational
bodies. However inter-sectoral approaches are
required, as one target refers to “learners” whilst the•	As our selection of linkages focussed on positive
relationships rather than negative ones, we identified
fewer conflicting linkages in our study. In a more
expansive study, more negative relationships could be
identified amongst the SDGs. For now, policy-makers
should be aware of potential conflicts, particularly

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

Photo: © Dana Smillie / World Bank
https://flic.kr/p/8nTnAW

www.stakeholderforum.org

between economic and environmental targets.
Effective policies should advance all aspects ofsustainable development without compromising one
another. Investing in research and development to findgreen technologies that increase productivity
sustainably, for example, is one way both
environmental and economic targets can be met.
4.	Missing Links – Despite a large number and variety ofgood interlinkages between the SDGs on sustainableconsumption and production (SCP) and other aspectsof the SDGs framework, there are some profound andimportant missing links which must be addressed in
the implementation of the SDGs.
•	
The analysis shows that, in accordance with the aim
to integrate SCP across the sustainable development
agenda, the variety of interlinking targets with SCPtargets is indeed large. In the analysis, the aggregatedscoring has been used to explore where key groupings
exist amongst the interlinkages:		 ◦	Scores of 6 – Amongst top-scoring interlinkages
with an aggregate score of 6, each linking target
comes from a different non-SCP Goal. Therefore,
no trend was noted.
		 ◦ S cores of 5+ – Within interlinkages scoring 5 or 6,
there are more connections between Goal 14(conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas andmarine resources) and SDG 12 than other SDGs

		 ◦	Scores of 4+ – Including scores of 4, SDG 6 (ensure
access to water and sanitation for all), and SDG 15(sustainably manage forests, combat desertification,
halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversityloss) are also frequent connections to SDG 12.
•	This analysis demonstrates the ubiquity ofenvironmental interlinkages with SCP; a good thing.
However, despite the fact that SCP by definition
should be closely linked with industry and production,
the SDG 12 deals with the impact of consumption andproduction on the environment better than it deals
with the causes of such unsustainable behaviour. For
example, there are few interlinkages with economic
targets in the analysis, even though our analysis showsthat such interlinking targets may have the greatest
impact for achieving SCP, as per Target 12.2 (natural
resource management) and Target 14.6 (fisheries
subsidies) as highlighted above.
•	This point is made clearly for Targets 12.6 (businesssustainability reports) and 12.7 (procurement
practices), where no interlinkages were identified at
all elsewhere in the SDGs Framework. Working in
isolation to achieving such cross-cutting targets will bechallenging, but particularly if these targets are notmore strongly linked to economic drivers and rewards.
•	
Another example is Target 8.4, which mentions
decoupling. However this would only be possible
where Targets 8.1-8.3 on economic growth andproductivity work in tandem with Target 8.4.

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

11www.stakeholderforum.org

Therefore, there are missing links here; partial
reliance would be helpful to understand how toachieve decoupling, and direct enabling would help
in defining how to achieve sustainable growth. This
raises again a perennial debate in sustainable
development on whether this aim is in fact possible.
Sustainable development will not be achievable
without the support of economics and industry.
•	
Lastly, we have identified no interlinkages in our
analysis between SCP and Inequalities (SDG 10). True
sustainable consumption and production will aid in
the reduction of inequalities between, and within,countries and in combatting chronic over- andunder-consumption. While, SDG 12 does mentiondifferentiated responsibilities in Targets 12.1 (10 Year
Framework of Programmes) and 12.a (strengthening
the capacities of developing countries throughscientific and technological support), there is room to
expand these concepts and interactions further. As a
key aim of this report is to promote the principles ofuniversality and indivisibility/integration of the SDGs,
developing a greater understanding about theinteraction between SDG 10 and 12 in implementationin policies could provide mutually supportinginterlinkages. For example, through determining afairer allocation of resources amongst and withincountries. Currently, interlinkages connecting SCP with
Inequalities are missing from the SDG Framework. Thisshould be address in the formation of relevant policies.
5. SCP-SCP links – Given its cross-cutting nature, the 10
Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP) should begiven special attention to ensure SCP to SCP
interlinkages are identified, developed and enhanced,
including to draw out policies involving economic andequality measures.
•	
While we did not include SCP-SCP interlinkages in theanalysis, there is some merit in considering theseconnections more generally. The economy-focused
Targets 12.6, 12.7 and 12.c have one or no other links
to other SDGs targets (as reported under Missing Links
above), whilst other environmental and waste targets
have 3-5 on average (see Annex B). The bestconnected target is Target 12.1 (10YFP), thanks to thebreadth of this programme, and Target 12.2 onsustainable management of natural resources, owing
to the ambiguity of the wording. Therefore Target
12.1 and the 10YFP should be used as a means toaddress and provide interlinkages to aid in theachievement of Targets 12.6, 12.7 and 12.c.
6.	Scores and Strength – This study indicates that thestrength of the interlinkages between the SCP SDG and
the other SDGs is high overall, and that theseinterlinkages are relatively well integrated.
•	Overall, the majority of interlinkages are found to be‘high’ or ‘medium’ in strength (22 of 25 or 88%). Thisis unsurprising given the crosscutting nature of the
SCP SDG across the SDGs framework; furthermore, itis precisely what our method would lead us to expect.
But the relative absence of weak interlinkages might
be significant.
•	However, no interlinkage received the highest possible
score (7), indicating that even within theseinterlinkages more could be done to improve theintegration of the observed interlinkages.
•	
Equally, none of the observed interlinkages scored at
the bottom of the range (1 or 0), indicating that theinterlinkages observed are of a relatively highstrength as judged by this methodology.
Other key findings have been raised from the analysis which
may help to ensure enhanced integration of all componentsof the SDGs and increased effectiveness of policies. Please
see the Section 4 - Recommendations for these proposals.

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - INTERLINKAGES•	Focus on interlinked targets to amplify output on SCP and across the SDGs
		 •	Refer to partially relying targets to discover means of implementing the linking target.
		 •	Look to commonly supporting targets to find out how to contribute to the same goal with separate targets.
		 •	Consider enabling targets to make achieving another target easier.
•	Higher value interlinking targets are more challenging to address but provide greater reward to policy-makers.
•	There is a need to address missing links, specifically more financial/economic SCP policies and those which work
towards reducing inequalities.
•	Where there is potential for conflict, interpret targets and create policies such that they contribute to the same
objective and do not sabotage another’s achievement.
•	Use the 10YFP as a platform to achieve other SCP and non-SCP targets.

12

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

3. SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION IN THE EU
Implementing the SDGs in the EU presents particular
problems because of the division of roles, competences andpowers between the EU institutions and the Member States.
Vigorous action will clearly be needed at both levels but it
will be a complex task to sort out what should be done at
which level and how to secure optimal collaboration
between the levels so as to secure the most coherent andintegrated implementation. The EU has already set out what
this action should look like, stating “the post-2015 agenda
should be reflected in the internal and external policies ofthe Member States and of the EU, including the renewed EU
Sustainable Development Strategy, and the Europe 2020
strategy and related policies”.6

how the EU is currently approaching the task of promoting
SCP in the EU. In the light of the analysis in the previous
sections, the study identifies areas where additional action
at EU level may be needed to secure an adequate European
response to the external challenge which the SDGs represent
in relation to SCP.

One approach might be to start from the UN’s own
affirmation that the primary responsibility for delivering theSDGs should be regarded as lying at national level. Everycountry in the EU will accordingly need to formulate its own
implementation strategy and regularly report progress against
the totality of the SDGs. When these national strategies andplans are available it will be easier to see more clearly where
they may need reinforcement or co-ordination at EU level.

This exercise should be taken as a contribution to an
ongoing, collective exercise in analysing the alignment of EU
policy with the SDGs. However, it is hoped that the approach
used here could also inform similar exercises at the national
level and in other regions.

Past experience shows however that the EU already has awide range of crucial responsibilities in relation tosustainable development generally and will therefore clearly
have an important role to play in SDGs implementation
either through the exercise of powers within EU competenceor through promoting and encouraging co-operative action
amongst Member States on issues that will benefit from acommon approach. Therefore it seems appropriate for the
EU not simply to wait for national implementation strategies
to emerge but to undertake its own proactive review of the
SDG implementation task in Europe and the role of EU
action on this. SCP in particular is one main SDGs theme
that will need to be vigorously pursued at European level
because of the many topics within this theme for which
there is already EU competence, and a body of legislationand other action to build on.
In a separate study7 for the European Economic and Social
Committee in 2015, Stakeholder Forum accordingly made anumber of general recommendations about how SDG
implementation might be addressed in the EU and how
stakeholders of all kinds might be involved in the process. At
the time of writing this report the European Commission has
not yet come forward with a comprehensive approach to
SDG implementation in Europe. It does, however, have anumber of actions and initiatives in hand that will clearly be
relevant, and in the recent Circular Economy package it has
made new proposals that relate strongly to theimplementation of SDG 12 and related targets.
In the absence of a comprehensive overview of SDG
implementation from the European Commission (EC) the
present study has confined itself to reviewing in more depth

Section 2 of this study developed a methodology for
categorising and assessing interlinkages, and applied that tointerlinkages in the SCP context. This Section turns fromunderstanding the nature of 2030 Agenda and the targets andlinks that compose it, with a focus on SCP, to understanding
the current state of EU action in respect of SCP.

In order to ascertain how far the EU is implementing SCP,
research was undertaken to collate what current EU
legislation/policy exists, identify any areas it could improveupon and highlight any gaps.
The EU policy instruments considered include regulations,directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions.
Regulations are binding in their entirety and directly
applicable in all Member States. Decisions are binding intheir entirety with regard to the specific parties to whomthey are addressed. Directives are binding, as to the result
to be achieved, but not the methods states employ forachieving the result. States possess autonomy as to how toapply and realise the objectives of directives in their own
context. EU recommendations, opinions, and communications
have no binding force or mandatory authority.
Policy as well as legislation was therefore included to ensure
the full spectrum of EU activity was considered where it does
not have the legislative competence to direct Member States’
affairs, or where it is has not chosen to enact laws. Proposedand future policy or legislation has also been included where
relevant, in order to take future EU visions into account.
Policy and legislation generally refers to Member States only,or even EU policy referring to itself (for example
procurement practices of EU institutions) and not the EU’s
relationship with non-Member States (for example sustainable
tourism in 12.b principally refers to tourism within the EUonly). Our analysis is focused on EU internal policies on SCP:
we cannot address the wider commitment of the EU and its
Member States to play “their full part in all aspects of theagenda including means of implementation”8 here.
Annex C lays out the SCP targets against existing or proposed
EU legislation or policy. It then assesses the fit of EU policy
instruments in terms of whether it addresses or covers all

6

EU Council conclusions on a transformative post-2015 agenda December 2014, para 28

7

EESC - Building the Europe We Want. (EESC, June 2015) - http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/qe-04-15-507-en-n.pdf

8EU, A Transformative Post-2015 Agenda, para 28

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

13

Photo: James Meacockhttps://flic.kr/p/7GTn3M

www.stakeholderforum.org

aspects of a particular target, and whether the level ofambition in EU policy matches, falls short of, or exceeds, theambition present in the relevant SDG target. The analysis
identifies jurisdictional responsibility for implementationand the particular body responsible, and then offers a briefcommentary on problems observed, and any recommendations
to ensure that the target would be adequately met.
The ambiguity inherent in the wording of both SDG targets
and EU policy presented a problem for this analysis. For
example, it is not clear what would count as adequately“promoting” certain aspects of the agenda or how thesuccess of this would be measured. However, no instanceswere observed where EU and SDG wording was truly
incommensurable – that is, could not be set against eachother and compared. In light of these ambiguities, theanalysis invoked the SDG indicators under development (atthe time of the writing of this report) to give guidance on
the meaning of targets (see Annex D). Where the indicator
presents a more specific, even numerical value to be fulfilled
in order to reach the target, the specified aim in the indicator
was included as well as other EU policies or legislation which
would lead to achieving the target in its general sense.
3.1. RESULTS
The results of our research can be found in Annex C below.
3.2. ANALYSIS
The detail identified in the analysis in Annex C below is
worth considering, since the specificities of each area are
precisely what states and inter-state institutions mustgrapple with in the implementation process. Simultaneously,
though, a number of key themes and issues emerge from theanalysis. Five key findings are presented below:
1.	The presence of clear strengths in EU environmental
legislation – In this section, it was discovered that EU
legislation’s strength and weakness tends to reflect those
identified in the interlinkages evaluation. As withinterlinkages for the SDG 12, EU legislation concernedwith SCP is particularly strong on environmental matters,
including waste legislation. The proposed adaptations to
the Waste Framework Directive are ambitious, e.g.
maximum of 10% waste to go to landfill, albeit not asmuch so as the previously proposed framework, which
put this figure at 0%. This is one of the clearest examples

14of EU legislation aligning with SCP targets. It is worth
noting that international agreements such as the Baseland Rotterdam Conventions provide parameters within
which the EU and Member States should operate inrelation to specific SCP targets (assuming they are
signatories) and offer an opportunity to better integratesocial dimensions of SCP by addressing the humanconsequences of environmental unsustainability.
2. The need to reach an agreed understanding on thesubstance of some SDG targets – In some cases, theease with which SCP targets could be met reflects not
the strength of EU policy, let alone the universal
implementation of that policy across Europe, but rather
the ambiguity of the wording of the SCP targets and theirindicators. For example, Target 12.2 (sustainable
management and efficient use of resources) to bemonitored by its indicator ‘material footprint’, will be
met without particular efforts for improvements by the
EU due to the lack of specific numerical targets to give
content to the idea of “sustainability” or “efficiency”.
The EU and Members States should look beyond thetargets and indicators here in order to set appropriate
standards for themselves, particularly where none exist.
While the SDGs are an important common standard, they
do not fully define the content of universality here – thatis, the SDGs should be seen as the floor not the ceiling inregards to both opportunities and the EU’s
responsibilities of achieving sustainable development.
3.	
The need for legislation to be aligned to the SDGs –In some places, legislation does not quite reflect theambition of the SCP targets in the SDGs, including therequirement to ‘reduce’ food waste rather than ‘halve’it, (as called for by Target 12.3). Without this alignment
in stated ambition, there is no guarantee that the SDGs
target will be met. Here, and elsewhere (e.g. business
reporting which allows for broad flexibility and several
exemptions within the requirement for sustainability
reporting – Target 12.6) EU legislation could be revisited
to ensure alignment with the SDGs.
4.	The importance of EU competence and political will as
limits to action – Stronger EU action in the form oflegislation cannot be expected in areas where EU
competence is limited. For example, it will only ever beable to recommend, coordinate and support state action

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

www.stakeholderforum.org

on sustainable development education (Target 4.7), as it
does not have the authority to alter educational curricula
in Member States. This is the same with ending fossil fuelsubsidies (Target 12.c), which is only proposed as apolicy by the EU in Europe2020. Given a current climateof concern over EU “competence creep”, an agenda of“better regulation” and relatively low public confidencein EU institutions, the question of how EU competences
should be used to their full extent, let alone extended,is one to be approached with caution. In this climate, it
is clear that it is the role of the Member States to push
the EU agenda on SCP, since the EU’s ambition will rarely
outreach that of the Member States. By advertising theirown strengths and achievements, states can encourage
the EU to raise the bar to the standard reached by thehighest achieving Member State. The EU could, of course,
coordinate and support such an exercise, and act as aforum where ambition would be raised. This suggests a role
for the EU not necessarily as a driver of legislative action,
but rather of peer review and learning. It could coordinate
full completion of National Action Plans on Education of
Sustainable Developmetn (ESD) or the involvement ofMember States in the 10YFP, for example, to encouragechange in these areas. At the same time, in areas where“only joint action at European level can deliver the desired
results”9, concerted effort by states to working together
and utilise EU competencies and institutions is required.
5.	The importance of the EU Circular Economy Package– It should be noted that the recent Circular Economy
Package serves to integrate consumption and production
processes more closely with their environmental
impacts. Proposals such as developing quality standards
for secondary raw materials to increase market
confidence, adopting a waste-to-energy initiative forwaste that cannot be used otherwise under the wastehierarchy, promoting economic instruments to discourage
landfilling, or providing economic incentives for
producers to put greener products on the market andsupport recovery and recycling schemes, would narrow
the current gaps between industrial processes andenvironmental protection, if implemented.
	Therefore it is recommended that the Circular Economy
Package be harnessed and used for policy ideas in theachievement of the SDGs where such opportunities are

currently missing, as highlighted in this and the previous
section. Additionally, the former Waste Framework
Directive proposals (which were scrapped in 2014) should
be re-examined, for example, the targets on achieving
30% resource efficiency by 2030. States should consider
these sets of recommendations for more ambitious andintegrated policy guidance.
6.	The unresolved tension between economic growth andenvironmental sustainability – As with the interlinkages
section, attention is most lacking in an area that is mostvital to SCP: sustainability within business and industry.
EU legislation surpasses the UN requirement by enacting
such reporting as law, however this in itself will not
accelerate the journey towards truly sustainableconsumption and production.
	Target 12.6 on corporate sustainability reporting in the
SDGs is a minor step where much stronger governmental
action is needed to spur change in this area.
	A larger tension between environmental sustainability
and development-as-growth is not just evident in EU
policy, but the SDGs themselves. Whilst the SDGs claim
to be thoroughly integrated and interdependent, they
have not wholly reconciled the ambitions of “sustained
economic growth” –including over 7% growth in GDP indeveloping countries (target 8.1) – and the vision of “aworld in which consumption and production patterns anduse of all natural resources are sustainable” (preamble).
The SDGs themselves address this squarely only once,
and with starkly limited ambition – pledging to“endeavour to decouple economic growth fromenvironmental degradation” (target 8.4). The SDGs,
perhaps, could not be expected to resolve this issue,
which goes to the heart of how sustainable development
should be understood.
	In the EU context, an arguably dormant EU Sustainable
Development Strategy coupled the narrow understandingof sustainability in the EU2020 strategy as a matter ofclimate change, efficiency and energy, might suggestthat the tension between growth and sustainability has
not been resolved through reconciliation, but rather
prioritisation, especially through a narrative of growth
in a time of economic crisis.

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS – SCP IN THE EU•	The EU is doing well on management and reduction of waste, but this is not the only element of SCP.
•	Clarify ambiguous targets where the wording and the indicators are still unclear.
•	Raise EU ambition where it is wanting or lacking (e.g. food waste, business reporting).
•	Member States should set the standards where the EU cannot (e.g. education, taxation).
•

The EU can encourage and support national responses (e.g. National Action Plans) where its competence is otherwise limited.

•	Harness the Circular Economy proposals to implement the most integrated policies.
•	Call for more ambitious green economy schemes in the EU which alter current patterns of consumption andproduction, or push the agenda in the EU by implementing these in domestic policy.

9

Juncker, letter to 1st VP Timmermans, November 2014: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/cwt/files/commissioner_mission_letters/timmermans_en.pdf

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

15

4. CONCLUSION
This two-part project set out to advance understanding of
how the interlinked, universal SDG agenda might be
implemented, focusing on SCP as found in goal 12: itaddressed both key interlinkages with SCP targets, and how
far current EU policy can be mapped against SCP targets. In
the first part, we developed a methodology and deployed it
to analyse target-to-target interlinkages surrounding goal
12. In the second, we identified a range of EU policy
implements related to goal 12. Here, we summarise ourfindings and identify limitations of this pilot that constituteareas for further research. Lastly, we highlight key
recommendations for policymakers.
The methodology we developed identified markedly
different types of linkage between targets, some of which
are more significant than others. In some cases a target
under one SDG virtually repeats one under another goal, or
else provides a little more detail about the content of an
objective. In other cases, however, the interlinkage ismore significant - where for example one target is a driveror enabler for another one, or else a precondition for its
achievement. In such cases it will be important that thoseplanning implementation consider how to employ thesesignificant linkages, optimising the mix of policies andplans so as to move forward in a well-integrated way. In
other cases, there may actually be tension or conflict
between targets.
Our analysis of goal 12 shows a considerable number of
positive linkages between single targets under SDG 12 (the“headline” goal for sustainable consumption andproduction) and targets under other goals which ought to betaken forward in a well-integrated approach to
implementing SCP. But it also highlights the potential fortension between SDG 12 targets and those elsewhere in theframework. This kind of tension is perhaps particularly
likely to occur between growth-oriented economic
objectives, and environmental or social objectives which
may seem to imply restraints on growth. Policy-makers
might try to resolve this kind of tension by seeking green
growth and decoupling economic growth and job creationfrom growth in material consumption of natural resources
and pollution. But this desirable synthesis is by no meanscomplete in practice, and the kind of analysis proposed inthis report may help to identify a number of the key areas
where such policy integration still needs to be developed
further if all the SDGs are to be implemented in a successful
and coherent way.
The analysis identifies some missing interlinkages in the
SDGs and targets – where we would expect to find a link,
but the link is not present. Thus, although the 17 goals
and 169 targets are a wide-ranging list, they are not a
fully comprehensive and holistic framework. We found,furthermore, that in the SCP context some of the targets
were expressed vaguely or weakly. Individually and jointly,
then, it is important to recognise that the SDGs are
insufficient as a roadmap for, or test of, full global
sustainability.

16

This is not to say that Implementation of SDG 12 and its
interlinked targets is not worth doing. On the contrary full
implementation of all these linked targets in a wellintegrated way would be a major step forward for any
developed country or group of countries such as the EU.
This reflection illuminates the analysis we undertook on
policy action at EU level on the SCP areas identified in
the SDG 12 targets.
In principle the range of EU policies in place or underdevelopment in recent new initiatives such as the Circular
Economy package appear well judged to deliver most of thetargets in SDG 12, and could be regarded as representing agood framework for the EU to address this - limited characterisation of the SCP challenge. Our analysis suggeststhat there will be further work needed to firm up the levelof ambition in relation to some of the SCP policy elements(partly through the selection of appropriately stretchingindicators of progress and timetables for change).
However, the single most important limitation of ouranalysis is that the limited scope of our pilot means that we
could not address the adequacy of EU policy in respect of awider and more transformative SCP agenda encompassing all
the interlinked target areas we identified beyond the SCP
goal. The outcome of such an analysis, we hypothesise,would lead to a less favourable assessment of the EU policy
environment. Certainly, adequacy in respect of goal 12
should not be regarded as the end of the SCP journey, as far
as EU policy is concerned.
Four additional limitations of this pilot project should behighlighted. Together, these point to a larger context of SDG
implementation and serve to identify areas for urgent future
research. First, in identifying relevant EU policies, we did
not assess how effectively they had been implemented andenforced at EU and member state level. Effective national
implementation of SCP policies is crucial, and there is muchto be done to encourage EU member states to adopt acomprehensive and ambitious approach to SCP, particularly
those that have given it less attention hitherto.
Second, our focus here was narrowly internal: we did not
address how the EU’s full share of implementation on SCP
should be reflected in its external policies, for example inits contribution to global implementation of SCP, or in its
relations with its near-neighbours and trading partners.
Third, we have not set implementation of SCP in thecontext of the implementation of a wider SDG agenda.
Whilst SCP is clearly a priority area, we make no judgement
here on how far beyond this the EU’s contribution toachievement of the SDGs must go, either within or beyond
the borders of the EU.
Fourth, though we have addressed the universal andinterrelated nature of the SDGs, we have not assessed
other central elements. One of these is country-level
differentiation: reflecting diverse country contexts in
Europe might present a challenge for universal

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

Photo: https://flic.kr/p/8fTUPg

www.stakeholderforum.org

implementation of SCP in the EU. Another is the imperativeat the foundation of the SDG agenda to “leave no one
behind”. Achieving SCP in a way that is especially concernedwith the most marginalised social and economic groups
poses an additional transformative challenge requiring, as aminimum, careful policy design, constant data
disaggregation, and focus in monitoring and review.

These are all ways in which our work here could usefully be
extended. Despite these limitations, though, this pilot offers
an important analysis of how, and to what degree, SCP is
integrated with other goals, and an independent survey of
EU activity in the area of goal
Our key findings for policymakers are summarised in thebox below.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS - CONCLUSION•	Where SDG wording and indicators are unclear, clarify ambiguous targets in domestic policy•	Focus on interlinked targets to amplify output on SCP and across the SDGs
•	Higher value interlinking targets are more challenging to address but provide greater reward to policy-makers•	Add in the missing links to create a more integrated framework with more economic targets and those which work
towards reducing inequalities•	Interpret potentially conflicting targets such that they complement each other•	Use the 10YFP to maximise output in SCP and non-SCP targets•	Build on the EU’s ambition with waste legislation in other weaker areas required for SCP (food waste, business reporting)•	Member States should push the SD agenda and take on responsibility where the EU cannot (education, taxation)•	Harness the Circular Economy proposals to implement integrated policies.

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

17

ANNEX A – INTERLINKAGES EVALUATIONS AND SCORINGSUPPORTING#SCP TARGETNON-SCP TARGET

Frequency
12

12.1 Implement the
10-Year Framework ofProgrammes onsustainableconsumption andproduction (10YFP),
all countries taking
action, with developed
countries taking thelead, taking into
account thedevelopment andcapabilities ofdeveloping countries

12.2 ‘by 2030 achievesustainable
management andefficient use of natural
resources’

RELYING

Commonlysupportive(1)

Mutually
supporting(2)

Disabling(0)

Indirectly
enabling(1)

Directlyenabling(2)

Mutually
enabling(3)

PartialReliance(1)

Full
reliance
(2)

17

2

1

4

13

9

19

5

8.4 Improve
progressively, through2030, global resource
efficiency inconsumption andproduction andendeavour to decouple
economic growth fromenvironmental
degradation, in
accordance with the
10-year framework ofprogrammes onsustainableconsumption andproduction, with
developed countries
taking the leadXX

9.4 By 2030, upgrade
infrastructure andretrofit industries tomake themsustainable, withincreased resource-use
efficiency and greater
adoption of clean andenvironmentally soundtechnologies andindustrial processes,with all countries
taking action inaccordance with theirrespective
capabilities"

XX

2.4 By 2030, ensuresustainable foodproduction systems
and implement
resilient agricultural
practices that increase
productivity andproduction, that help
maintain ecosystems,
that strengthen
capacity foradaptation to climatechange, extreme
weather, drought,
flooding and otherdisasters and that
progressively improveland and soil quality
6.4, By 2030, improvewater quality by
reducing pollution,
eliminating dumping
and minimizing releaseof hazardous
chemicals andmaterials, halving the
proportion of
untreated wastewaterand substantially
increasing recycling
and safe reuse globally

18

ENABLING

X

X

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

X

SCORE

6

X

5

X

X

3

X

X

4

www.stakeholderforum.org

SUPPORTING#SCP TARGETNON-SCP TARGET

Frequency
2

6.6 By 2020, protect
and restore waterrelated ecosystems,
including mountains,forests, wetlands,
rivers, aquifers andlakes

ENABLINGRELYING

Commonlysupportive(1)

Mutually
supporting(2)

Disabling(0)

Indirectly
enabling(1)

Directlyenabling(2)

Mutually
enabling(3)

PartialReliance(1)

Full
reliance
(2)

17

2

1

4

13

9

19

5

X

X

SCORE

X

4

7.2, By 2030, increase
substantially the shareof renewable energy
in the global energy
mix

X

X

2

7.3 By 2030, double
the global rate of
improvement inenergy efficiency

X

X

2

8.4Improve
progressively, through2030, global resource
efficiency inconsumption andproduction andendeavour to decouple
economic growth fromenvironmental
degradation, in
accordance with the
10-year framework ofprogrammes onsustainableconsumption andproduction, with
developed countries
taking the leadX

11.4 ‘strengthen
efforts to protect andsafeguard the world’s
cultural and natural
heritage’X

14.2, By 2020,
sustainably manageand protect marine
and coastal
ecosystems to avoid
significant adverse
impacts, including bystrengthening theirresilience, and takeaction for theirrestoration in order toachieve healthy andproductive oceansX

14.4, By 2020,
effectively regulate
harvesting and end
overfishing, illegal,
unreported andunregulated fishingand destructive fishingpractices andimplement sciencebased management
plans, in order torestore fish stocks inthe shortest time
feasible, at least tolevels that can produce
maximum sustainable
yield as determined bytheir biologicalcharacteristics

X

X

X

X

X

4

X

3

X

4

X

5

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

19

www.stakeholderforum.org

SUPPORTING#SCP TARGETNON-SCP TARGET

Frequency
2

20

ENABLINGRELYING

Commonlysupportive(1)

Mutually
supporting(2)

Disabling(0)

Indirectly
enabling(1)

Directlyenabling(2)

Mutually
enabling(3)

PartialReliance(1)

Full
reliance
(2)

17

2

1

4

13

9

19

5

14.6 By 2020, prohibit
certain forms offisheries subsidies
which contribute toovercapacity andoverfishing, eliminate
subsidies that
contribute to illegal,
unreported andunregulated fishingand refrain fromintroducing new such
subsidies, recognizingthat appropriate andeffective special anddifferential treatment
for developing andleast developed
countries should be an
integral part of theWorld Trade
Organization fisheries
subsidies negotiation

XX

14.7, By 2030,
increase the economic
benefits to Small
Island developing
States and least
developed countries
from the sustainable
use of marine
resources, including
through sustainable
management offisheries, aquaculture
and tourism

XX

15.1, By 2020, ensure
the conservation,
restoration andsustainable use ofterrestrial and inland
freshwater ecosystems
and their services, inparticular forests,
wetlands, mountains
and drylands, in linewith obligations underinternational
agreements

X

15.2, By 2020,
promote theimplementation ofsustainable
management of all
types of forests, halt
deforestation, restore
degraded forests andsubstantially increaseafforestation andreforestation globally
15.4 By 2030, ensure
the conservation ofmountain ecosystems,
including theirbiodiversity, in orderto enhance theircapacity to provide
benefits that are
essential forsustainable
development

X

SCORE

6

X

5

X

X

4

X

X

X

4

X

X

X

4

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

www.stakeholderforum.org

SUPPORTING#SCP TARGETNON-SCP TARGET

Frequency
3

4

12.3 ‘by 2030 halve
per capita global foodwaste at the retail andconsumer level, andreduce food losses
along production andsupply chains including
post-harvest losses’

12.4 ‘by 2020 achieveenvironmentally soundmanagement ofchemicals and all
wastes throughout
their life cycle inaccordance withagreed internationalframeworks andsignificantly reduce
their release to air,water and soil tominimize their adverse
impacts on humanhealth and theenvironment’

12.5 ‘by 2030,
substantially reduce
waste generation
through prevention,
reduction, recycling,
and reuse’

RELYING

Commonlysupportive(1)

Mutually
supporting(2)

Disabling(0)

Indirectly
enabling(1)

Directlyenabling(2)

Mutually
enabling(3)

PartialReliance(1)

Full
reliance
(2)

17

2

1

4

13

9

19

5

2.4 By 2030, ensuresustainable foodproduction systems
and implement
resilient agricultural
practices that increase
productivity andproduction, that help
maintain ecosystems,
that strengthen
capacity foradaptation to climatechange, extreme
weather, drought,
flooding and otherdisasters and that
progressively improveland and soil quality

X

SCORE

2

3.9 ‘by 2030
substantially reduce
the number of deaths
and illnesses fromhazardous chemicals
and air, water, and soil
pollution andcontamination’XX

6.3 By 2030, improvewater quality by
reducing pollution,
eliminating dumping
and minimizing releaseof hazardous
chemicals andmaterials, halving the
proportion of
untreated wastewaterand substantially
increasing recycling
and safe reuse globally

X

X

X

5

X

X

3

X

X

4

X

X

5

14.1 By 2025, preventand significantly
reduce marine
pollution of all kinds,
in particular fromland-based activities,
including marine
debris and nutrient
pollution
5

ENABLING

6.3 By 2030, improvewater quality by
reducing pollution,
eliminating dumping
and minimizing releaseof hazardous
chemicals andmaterials, halving the
proportion of
untreated wastewaterand substantially
increasing recycling
and safe reuse globally
11.6 ‘by 2030, reduce
the adverse per capita
environmental impactof cities, including by
paying attention to air
quality, municipal andother waste
management’

X

X

6

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

21

www.stakeholderforum.org

SUPPORTING#SCP TARGETNON-SCP TARGET

Frequency
6

7

8

9

10

22

ENABLINGRELYING

Commonlysupportive(1)

Mutually
supporting(2)

Disabling(0)

Indirectly
enabling(1)

Directlyenabling(2)

Mutually
enabling(3)

PartialReliance(1)

Full
reliance
(2)

17

2

1

4

13

9

19

5

12.6 Encouragecompanies, especiallylarge andtransnational
companies, to adopt
sustainable practices
and to integratesustainability
information into theirreporting cycle

n/a12.7 Promote public
procurement practices
that are sustainable inaccordance withnational policies andpriorities

n/a

12.8 ‘by 2030 ensurethat people
everywhere have therelevant information
and awareness forsustainable
development andlifestyles in harmony
with nature’

4.7 ‘by 2030 ensurethat all learners
acquire knowledge
and skills needed topromote sustainable
development,
including among
others througheducation forsustainable
development andsustainable
lifestyles…’X

13.3 Improveeducation, awarenessraising and human andinstitutional capacity
on climate change
mitigation,
adaptation, impact
reduction and early
warningXX

12.a Support
developing countries
to strengthen theirscientific andtechnologicalcapacities to movetowards moresustainable patterns ofconsumption andproduction

9.5 Enhance scientificresearch, upgrade thetechnologicalcapabilities ofindustrial sectors in all
countries, in particulardeveloping countries,
including, by 2030,
encouraging
innovation andsubstantially
increasing the numberof research anddevelopment workers
per 1 million people
and public and private
research anddevelopment spendingX

X

12.b Develop andimplement tools tomonitor sustainable
development impacts
for sustainable tourism
that creates jobs,
promotes local culture
and products

n/a

SCORE

0

0

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

X

X

X

6

X

5

4

0

www.stakeholderforum.org

SUPPORTING#SCP TARGETNON-SCP TARGET

Frequency
11

12.c Rationalize
inefficient fossil fuelsubsidies thatencourage wasteful
consumption byremoving market
distortions, inaccordance withnational
circumstances,including byrestructuring taxationand phasing out those
harmful subsidies,
where they exist, toreflect theirenvironmental
impacts, taking fully
into account the
specific needs andconditions ofdeveloping countries
and minimizing thepossible adverse
impacts on theirdevelopment in amanner that protects
the poor and theaffected communities

ENABLINGRELYING

Commonlysupportive(1)

Mutually
supporting(2)

Disabling(0)

Indirectly
enabling(1)

Directlyenabling(2)

Mutually
enabling(3)

PartialReliance(1)

Full
reliance
(2)

17

2

1

4

13

9

19

5

SCORE

13.2 Integrate climatechange measures into
national policies,
strategies andplanning

X

X

20

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

23

ANNEX B – SCP-SCP INTERLINKAGESSCP TARGETSCP TARGET

12.1 Implement the 10-Year Framework of Programmes onsustainable consumption and production (10YFP), all countries taking
action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into accountthe development and capabilities of developing countries

12.2 ‘by 2030 achieve sustainable management and efficient use ofnatural resources’
12.3 ‘by 2030 halve per capita global food waste at the retail andconsumer level, and reduce food losses along production and supply
chains including post-harvest losses’
12.4 ‘by 2020 achieve environmentally sound management ofchemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle in accordancewith agreed international frameworks and significantly reduce theirrelease to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts onhuman health and the environment’
12.5 ‘by 2030, substantially reduce waste generation throughprevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse’
12.7Promotepublic procurement practices that aresustainablein
accordance withnational policies and priorities
12.8 ‘by 2030 ensure that people everywhere have the relevant
information and awareness for sustainable development andlifestyles in harmony with nature’
12.a Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific andtechnological capacities to move towards more sustainable patternsof consumption and production
12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable
development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs,
promotes local culture and products

12.2 ‘by 2030 achieve sustainable management and efficient use ofnatural resources’

12.3 ‘by 2030 halve per capita global food waste at the retail andconsumer level, and reduce food losses along production and supply
chains including post-harvest losses’
12.4 ‘by 2020 achieve environmentally sound management ofchemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle in accordancewith agreed international frameworks and significantly reduce theirrelease to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts onhuman health and the environment’
12.5 ‘by 2030, substantially reduce waste generation throughprevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse’
12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational
companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integratesustainability information into their reporting cycle
12.c Rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage
wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordancewith national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation andphasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect
their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specificneeds and conditions of developing countries and minimizing thepossible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that
protects the poor and the affected communities

12.3 ‘by 2030 halve per capita global food waste at the retail andconsumer level, and reduce food losses along production and supply
chains including post-harvest losses’

12.1Implement the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on sustainableconsumption and production (10YFP), all countries taking action,with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account thedevelopment and capabilities of developing countries
12.2 ‘by 2030 achieve sustainable management and efficient use ofnatural resources’
12.4 ‘by 2020 achieve environmentally sound management ofchemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle in accordancewith agreed international frameworks and significantly reduce theirrelease to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts onhuman health and the environment’
12.5 ‘by 2030, substantially reduce waste generation throughprevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse’24

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

www.stakeholderforum.org

SCP TARGETSCP TARGET

12.4 ‘by 2020 achieve environmentally sound management ofchemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle in accordancewith agreed international frameworks and significantly reduce theirrelease to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts onhuman health and the environment’

12.2 ‘by 2030 achieve sustainable management and efficient use ofnatural resources’

12.5 ‘by 2030, substantially reduce waste generation throughprevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse’

12.1Implement the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on sustainableconsumption and production (10YFP), all countries taking action,with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account thedevelopment and capabilities of developing countries

12.5 ‘by 2030, substantially reduce waste generation throughprevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse’12.c Rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage
wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordancewith national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation andphasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect
their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specificneeds and conditions of developing countries and minimizing thepossible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that
protects the poor and the affected communities

12.3 ‘by 2030 halve per capita global food waste at the retail andconsumer level, and reduce food losses along production and supply
chains including post-harvest losses’
12.4 ‘by 2020 achieve environmentally sound management ofchemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle in accordancewith agreed international frameworks and significantly reduce theirrelease to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts onhuman health and the environment’
12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational
companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integratesustainability information into their reporting cycle
12.7 Promote public procurement practices that aresustainablein
accordance withnational policies and priorities

12.1Implement the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on sustainableconsumption and production (10YFP), all countries taking action,with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account thedevelopment and capabilities of developing countries

12.8 ‘by 2030 ensure that people everywhere have the relevant
information and awareness for sustainable development andlifestyles in harmony with nature’

12.1Implement the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on sustainableconsumption and production (10YFP), all countries taking action,with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account thedevelopment and capabilities of developing countries
12.a Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific andtechnological capacities to move towards more sustainable patternsof consumption and production
12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable
development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs,
promotes local culture and products

12.a Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific andtechnological capacities to move towards more sustainable patternsof consumption and production

12.1Implement the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on sustainableconsumption and production (10YFP), all countries taking action,with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account thedevelopment and capabilities of developing countries
12.8 ‘by 2030 ensure that people everywhere have the relevant
information and awareness for sustainable development andlifestyles in harmony with nature’
12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable
development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs,
promotes local culture and products

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

25

www.stakeholderforum.org

SCP TARGETSCP TARGET

12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable
development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs,
promotes local culture and products

12.1Implement the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on sustainableconsumption and production (10YFP), all countries taking action,with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account thedevelopment and capabilities of developing countries
12.8 ‘by 2030 ensure that people everywhere have the relevant
information and awareness for sustainable development andlifestyles in harmony with nature’
12.a Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific andtechnological capacities to move towards more sustainable patternsof consumption and production

12.c Rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage
wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordancewith national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation andphasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect
their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specificneeds and conditions of developing countries and minimizing thepossible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that
protects the poor and the affected communities26

12.2 ‘by 2030 achieve sustainable management and efficient use ofnatural resources’
12.4 ‘by 2020 achieve environmentally sound management ofchemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle in accordancewith agreed international frameworks and significantly reduce theirrelease to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts onhuman health and the environment’

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

ANNEX C – ANALYSIS OF EU POLICIES AND SDG 12
GOAL 12:SCPTARGET

CURRENT IAEG
INDICATORRELEVANT EU LEGISLATION AND
POLICYGAPS AND
LIMITATIONSRESPONSIBILITIESASSIGNEDCOMMENTARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 Implement the
10-Year Frameworkof Programmes onsustainableconsumption andproduction (10YFP),
all countries taking
action, with
developed countries
taking the lead,taking into accountthe development
and capabilities ofdeveloping countries

Number of countries
with SCP National
Actions Plans or SCP
mainstreamed as apriority or target into
national policies,
poverty reduction
strategies andsustainable
development
strategies

The 10YFP is voluntary to sign up toso there is no legally binding policyon 10YFP

Voluntary nature of
Framework.

Responsibility for
implementation sitswith national
governments throughjoining the 10YFP
Programme. UNEP
lead but UN &Regional bodies have arole in supporting thespecific programmesof the 10YFP.

The policies andlegislation included
below in this tablecover a lot of the
10YFP’s aims more
specifically anddirectly

EU countries are already playing asubstantial role in supporting thelogistical delivery of the 10YFP andfinancing the projects it will fund. As
is the EU as a whole: also,
contributing to the implementationof the 10YFP through the creation of
NAPs, e.g. Czech Republic, Finland,
Poland and UK and meeting
facilitation.
The EU runs three capacity building
programmes on SCP for Asia, Africa
and the Mediterranean called
SWITCH.

The South Eastern
Europe (SEE) andEastern Europe aswell as the Caucasus
and Central Asia
(EECCA) countries
have not yet adopted
a regional strategy on
SCP
Countries may haveadopted SD policies,
mainstreamed into
general national
policies, but notnecessarily reported
this back to the 10YFP
or produced a NAP.
There is no list
available on numberof EU countries withSCP NAPs

Regional groups
including WEOG, SEE,
EECCA, as well as
national andstakeholder focal
points, support theimplementation of
the 10YFP
Any country/
stakeholder/large-scale partner
can volunteer to takepart in the MultiStakeholder Advisory
Committee for the 6
10YFP programmes

EU legislation would
not really be relevantto this target, given
the nature of theframework (e.g. a
focus on building
capacity for developing
countries, its role as aframework rather thanspecific policies/
targets)
The EU might explore
cooperative
mechanisms to help
ensure EU member
states adopt National
Action Plans.

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

27

www.stakeholderforum.org

GOAL 12:SCPTARGET

CURRENT IAEG
INDICATORRELEVANT EU LEGISLATION AND
POLICYGAPS AND
LIMITATIONSRESPONSIBILITIESASSIGNEDCOMMENTARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

12.2 By 2030
achieve sustainable
management andefficient use ofnatural resources

Material footprint(MF) and MF/capita(Grey)

EU policy and legislation with respect
to various natural resources includes:

Policy in this area
tends not to be legallybinding, save theEnergy Efficiency
Directive (asapplicable) and Waste
Framework Directive- these legally binding
policies are notdirectly associatedwith resource use, butrather deal withrecycling of material

EU conducts its own
broad-ranging policy
on resource efficiency

As a whole the four
broad policy initiatives
are ambitious in scope.
EU requirements on
recycling do act toreduce material
footprint

Material Footprint of
Nations (Wiedmann T
et al, 2013) isdefined as “theglobal allocation ofused raw material
extraction to thefinal demand of an
economy”.
Raw material covers
the headline
categories of metalores, fossil fuels,
construction minerals
and biomass. Biomass
includes crops forhuman consumption
and fodder crops,
crop residues, andgrazed biomass andbiofuels
The definition
therefore includes
initial andsubsequent use of
the material, insofar
as the material isused for the economy

Raw materials in general:
Resource Efficient Europe – Flagship
Initiative under Europe 2020: EU Raw
Material Initiative
Energy Union
7th Environmental Action Programme
Waste Framework Directive proposals
65% recycling of municipal waste will
impact indirectly the material
footprint
Metal ores and construction minerals:
Directive 2006/21/EC requires allmines to have a permit based on the“Best Available Techniques” (BAT)
approach, encouraging means ofrecycling, reusing or reclaiming ofwaste.

Where a percentage
decrease in use ofenergy is required,the figure is low at
1.5%

Biomass: non-legally binding
recommendations exist on
sustainable use of biomass
Fossil fuels: Energy Union policies
and Renewable Energy Directive will
indirectly impact use of fossil fuels.
Energy Efficiency Directive: energy
distributors or retail energy sales
companies have to achieve 1.5%
energy savings per year through theimplementation of energy efficiency
measures
Biodiversity strategy to 2020 presents
6 key targets including requirement
to implement EU nature legislation toprotect biodiversity, Better
protection for ecosystems, and more
use of green infrastructure, Moresustainable agriculture and forestry,
Better management of fish stocks
Common Agricultural Strategy
arguably prevents sustainable
management of water courses,
upland habitats etc.
2015 Communication on Circular
Economy offers:
potential requirements forrecyclability of electronic devices
Mining waste guidance and bestpractice in 2018 to improve raw
materials recovery. Revise the EU
Fertiliser Regulation 2003 torecognise organic and waste-based
fertilisers and support the role ofbio-nutrients, Developing quality
standards for secondary raw
materials to increase market
confidence. Adopting a waste-toenergy initiative for waste thatcannot be used otherwise under thewaste hierarchy.

28

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

National bodies
including regional andlocal authorities
responsible forindustry, waste
management,sustainability would
implement EU-derived
policies

Given that the level of‘efficient use’ and the
reduction in material
footprint isunspecified, it ispossible that thistarget could be met
without much change
having taken place
NB The revised Waste
Framework package
notably omits the 2014
package target of 30%
resource efficiency by2030 relative to 2014.

www.stakeholderforum.org

GOAL 12:SCPTARGET

CURRENT IAEG
INDICATORRELEVANT EU LEGISLATION AND
POLICYGAPS AND
LIMITATIONSRESPONSIBILITIESASSIGNEDCOMMENTARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

12.3 By 2030 halve
per capita global
food waste at theretail and consumer
levels, and reducefood losses alongproduction andsupply chains
including postharvest losses

Global Food Loss
Index (GFLI)

New measures to promote
prevention, including for food waste,
and re-use included in proposal toamend waste directive 2008/98/EC- In this proposal, it says Member
states should comply with UN SDG
12.3 and establish specific measuresand monitoring systems to achieve it- para 12:

The mention of‘halving’ per capita
global food waste asper SDG target 12.3
only exists in thepreamble to the
proposed revision.

This revised directive
would necessitate MS
governments toimplement thepolicies through its
own legislation, hence
the national bodies
responsible for food/agriculture/businesswould be responsiblefor implementation

New proposals aim to
reduce but not halve
current food wastageat all levels mentioned
in the target – apotential mismatch inalignment foodwastage

The EU treaties
determine EU’s ability
to sign up tointernational
agreements

Overall this target iscovered quite well by
current EU legislation.

(under developmentin FAO)

Commission may adopt implementing
acts to establish indicators
Commission shall adopt an
implementing act to establish
methodology

The legally binding
aspect only uses theword ‘reduce’, not‘halve’, and does not
explicitly cover retail,consumer, production
and supply chains,post-harvest losses

Also included: a common
measurement methodology, improved
date marking
The Waste Framework Directive 2008
does not reference food waste
specifically, but it falls into thedefinition of ‘waste’, so waste
management plan requirements etc.
apply (50% recycling/reuse fromhouseholds)

The EU Food Waste
web page also claims
EU will take measures
to clarify EU legislation
related to waste, foodand feed and facilitate
food donation and theuse of former
foodstuffs andby-products from thefood chain for feed
production, withoutcompromising food andfeed safety – if
fulfilled, these would
aid attainment oftarget 12.2

EU has adopted a Communication on
halving food waste non-legislative
proposal 2012 (Practical Law)
EU Commission co-chairs European
Food Sustainable Consumption and
Production Round Table
12.4 By 2020
achieve theenvironmentallysound managementof chemicals and all
wastes throughout
their lifecycle inaccordance withagreed internationalframeworks andsignificantly reduce
their release to air,water and soil tominimize theiradverse impacts onhuman health andthe environment

Number of Parties tointernational
multilateralenvironmental
agreements on
hazardous and otherchemicals and wastethat meet theircommitments andobligations intransmitting
information as
required by eachrelevant agreement
We identify therelevant agreements
as the Rotterdam,
Stockholm & Basel
Conventions andMontreal Protocol,and the Convention
on the Prevention ofMarine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes
and Other Matter,(London Convention)
amended in 2006
(London Protocol)

Articles 17 to 20 of Directive
2008/98/EC on hazardous waste:
additional labelling, record keeping,monitoring and control obligations
from the “cradle to the grave” andstricter permit exemptions forhazardous waste - will have indirect
not direct impact on whether there is
reduced release into air, water or soil
Article 12 & 13 on waste disposal andprotection of human health andenvironment: ‘Member States shalltake the necessary measures toensure that waste management iscarried out without endangering
human health, without harming theenvironment and, in particular: (a)without risk to water, air, soil, plants
or animals…’
Industrial Emissions Directive 2010
limits release of emissions into air
and water including specificquantities
specific reference to carbon dioxide
as a chemical pollutant and emission
reductions targets through the
Climate and energy 2020 package and2030 framework and regulation
around air quality in particular in
Directive 2008/50/EC
Circular Economy Package
Communication on circular economy
includes a target for significantly
reducing marine litter by 30% by
2020.
The EU is a party itself of theRotterdam, Stockholm & Basel
Conventions, and Montreal Protocol,
and is bound by the conventions or
protocols to fulfil its obligations withregards to each agreement

EU is not a signatory
to the London
Convention but manyMSs are signatories
Art 13 of Directive
2008/98/EC doesn’t
require a specificlevel of reduction ofchemicals’ release
into air/water/soil
but helps to ensure
the aim of the target:that there is no risk tohuman health and theenvironment

Waste management isa shared competence- art 4(2)(e) TFEU.
The directives we citehere require Member
states to implement
these requirements intheir domestic
systems.
Member States are
permitted to sign up
to international
agreements regardlessof and in addition to
the EUInternationalframeworks can besigned up to andadhered to in parallelwith EU legislation, so
the EU cannot be said
to conflict with theaim to achieveenvironmentally soundmanagement ofchemicals and all
wastes throughout
their life cycle inaccordance with these
agreements.
The wording of the2008 Waste Framework
Directive calls for thecomplete removal ofadverse impacts onhuman health and theenvironment – setting
the ambition higher
than “minimizing”,
however it could
achieve this without‘significantly reducing’chemicals’ release toair, water and soil, but
purely by releasingchemicals ‘without risk
to water, air, soil…’
which is not the samething (‘risk’ is notdefined in the
directive)

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

29

www.stakeholderforum.org

GOAL 12:SCPTARGET

CURRENT IAEG
INDICATORRELEVANT EU LEGISLATION AND
POLICYGAPS AND
LIMITATIONSRESPONSIBILITIESASSIGNEDCOMMENTARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

12.5 By 2030,
substantially reduce
waste generation
through prevention,
reduction,
recycling, and reuse

National recycling
rate, tonnes ofmaterial recycled

Circular Economy Package includes
proposals for new targets anddirectives on landfill waste,
packaging, batteries and electronics
and amendments to previous
directives, such as 2008 Waste
Framework Directive, (65% by weightfor preparing municipal waste forre-use and recycling by 2030,
recycling target of 75% by weight for
packaging waste by 2030)

Some EU countries
have until 2035 toachieve the same
goals as othercountries, however
they will still haveachieved ‘substantial’
progress by 2030

DG Environment is
responsible for thelegislation, but asthey are directives,
the responsibility lies
with the MS to designand enact appropriate
national legislation

The three main
targets of the new
proposals covermunicipal waste,
packaging and landfill,
so non- municipal
waste is neglected(see earlier definitionof waste in the
Directive)

The appropriate
national body that
deals with waste
management would
then be responsiblefor implementation

The circular economy
package is anambitious proposal.
There is still room for
improvement (e.g. it
offers a 10% not 0%
maximum of waste put
to landfill, recycling
65% of municipal
waste, 75% of
packaging waste),particularly as the2014 legislation
proposals were more
ambitious but all
targets neverthelessrepresent substantial
improvements.

N.B. Challenges:
no reference toreuse/ reduction/
prevention. +‘Substantial’ is not
specific

The 2008 directive establishes awaste management hierarchy,
requires waste management plans tobe established, and sets goals
including 50% preparing for re-use
and recycling of certain wastematerials from households and otherorigins similar to households, and 70%
preparing for re-use, recycling andother recovery of construction anddemolition waste by 2020

National state of
implementation tends
to be very variable

The proposed
legislation covers allwords ‘prevention,
reduction, recycling
and reuse’ given
specific targets onreuse and recycling
and policies focusing
on promoting
prevention, reuse andrecycling e.g. througheconomic incentives.
Current legislation also
will substantiallyreduce waste
generation throughrecycling and reuse,and changing
definitions on waste.

It should be notedthat Waste has gone
up in some categories
despite these policies

Other current legislation includes
Waste electrical and electronicequipment (WEEE) Packaging waste
Landfill, End of life vehicles, Waste
batteries directives. NB. The new
proposals for the Waste Framework
Directive aim to consolidate these
directives.

The revised package
notably omits the 2014
package target of 30%
resource efficiency by2030 relative to 2014.
12.6 Encouragecompanies,
especially large andtransnational
companies, to adopt
sustainable
practices and tointegrate
sustainability
information into
their reporting cycle

Number of companies
publishingsustainability reports

Directive 2014/95/EU requires large
undertakings to provide a nonfinancial statement on ‘the group’s
development, performance, position
and impact of its activity, relating to,
as a minimum, environmental, socialand employee matters, respect forhuman rights, anti-corruption andbribery matters’ by identifying risks,
indicators and relevant policies. The
deadline for implementation into
national legislation is December 6,
2016.

The ambition torequire sustainability
reporting exceeds
12.6.
‘Adoption ofsustainable practices’
is broad and may becovered by thepolicies mentioned on
the left

The Commission will publish
non-mandatory guidelines on
methodology for December 6 2016
The EU indirectly encourages
companies to adopt sustainable
practices through GPP, Energy
Labelling Regulations, Eco-design,
Sustainable Industry Low Carbon
programmes.
Corporate Social Responsibility
policies are not legally binding in theEU

EU has sharedcompetence inrespect of an internalmarket for banking
and finance,
expressed in directive
2014/95/EU. The
directive will oblige
MSs to implement
appropriate
legislation before therequired time.
There is significant
flexibility forcompanies to disclose
relevant information(including reporting ina separate report), in
formats followinginternational,
European or nationalguidelines (e.g. the
UN Global Compact,
the OECD Guidelines
for Multinational
Enterprises, ISO
26000, etc.). see
sourceFurther possibilities
for exemptions are
identified in the
directive.

30

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

The EU surpasses thetarget by requiring inlaw that large
companies (publicinterest entities ofover 500 employees)
carry out sustainable
reporting
The EU is encouraging
MSs to adopt
sustainable practices
through its various
policies on the green
economy and productdesign and labellingwww.stakeholderforum.org

GOAL 12:SCPTARGET

CURRENT IAEG
INDICATORRELEVANT EU LEGISLATION AND
POLICYGAPS AND
LIMITATIONSRESPONSIBILITIESASSIGNEDCOMMENTARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

12.7 Promote public
procurement
practices that are
sustainable inaccordance withnational policies andpriorities

Number of countries
implementing
Sustainable Public
Procurement policies
and action plans

GPP (Green Public Procurement)
policy framework exists but nolegally binding policies.

GPP policy is notlegally binding andCase law has limited
the use of GPP incontracts

DG Environment leads
on promotion ofGreen Public
Procurement andencouraging NAP.

EU did promotesustainable public
procurement practices
in 2003 with 23/28
states submitting theirassociated national
policies.

Challenges:‘promotion’ and‘national policies’2015 Circular economy
communication includes proposal tocomplete actions on green public
procurement (GPP), including new orrevised criteria to emphasise circular
economy aspects and leading by
example through Commission
procurement.
2003 Communication on Integrated
Product Policy (IPP) encouraged
Member States to draw up publicly
available National Action Plans(NAPs) for greening their public
procurement - 23/28 countries
submitted their NAPs (see thisdocument, correct as of Nov 2014)5/28 countries havenot submitted the
National Action Plans
invited by the 2003
communication.

NAPs allow Member
States to choose theoptions that best suit
their politicalframework and thelevel they havereached - however the
NAPS are not binding,nor is there arequirement for theremaining 5 countries
to submit their policies

The EU itself is notpart of the NAPs
document. Its
sustainableprocurement rules
only say that acontract could havean environmental
factor.

Circular economy
package actions are
yet to be completed.

Public procurement directives
stipulate that environmental factors
can be taken into account incontracts, under certain conditions.
More broadly, 2014/24/EC stipulates
that EU member states shall takeappropriate measures to ensurecompliance with environmental,social and labour law’ - art18(2)2014/24/EC

Overall, there isevidence of EU
promotion, in line withthe ambition of the
SDG target.

12.8 By 2030 ensurethat people
everywhere havethe relevant
information andawareness forsustainable
development andlifestyles in harmony
with nature

Number of countries
reporting inclusion ofsustainable
development andlifestyles topics informal education
curricula (yellow)

European Council issued a notice in2011 underlining the importance of
Education for Sustainable
Development and urging for the
inclusion of sustainable development
into formal curricula

At least 10 countries
were reported to have
ESD national plansaccording to UNECE in
2011, with moredetailing ESD innational documents

EU has supporting
competence only inthe area of education– hence, it cannot
legislate on contentsof member states’
curricula. MS
governments andnational education
bodies are responsiblefor integrating ESD
themselves

There is a lack of
information available
guiding us on whether
the indicator has been
fulfilled

12.a Support
developing countries
to strengthen theirscientific andtechnologicalcapacities to movetowards moresustainable patternsof consumption andproduction

Number of qualified
green patentapplications (yellow)

European Commission (EC) is
implementing in partnership with
UNEP a four-year project, Promoting
Resource Efficiency and Ecoinnovation in Developing andTransition Economies (REEDTE)

Green patentapplications aremeasured differently
in different countries,
or not at all, hence it
is very difficult tomonitor green patentapplications

EU as a whole andcountries of the EU
are signed up to the
COP 21 Paris
agreement, so therelevant bodies would
be responsible
individually and as aunit. EC is responsible
for partnership with
UNEP in REEDTE

Very difficult tomonitor numbers ofqualified green patentapplications= Number of qualified
patents granted
annually indeveloping countries,
for SCP products /innovations

The project aims to change
consumption and production patterns
in developing and transition
economies by encouraging businesses
to reduce their environmental
footprint.
The Paris Agreement on climatechange, to which EU is a signatory,
recognises need for knowledgetransfer and capacity building fordeveloping countries

Content on capacity
building in Paris
agreement not legally
enforceable but
parties are legallyobliged to report on
their capacity transfer
efforts

A non-binding
mechanism to ensure
ESD national actionplans are in place,
could be in line with
the EU’s sharply
limited competence.

However, more
broadly, the Paris
agreement shouldbolster current efforts(including REEDTE) to
encourage scientificand technologicalcapacities indeveloping countries

9th priority objective of 7th
Environment Action Programme
The EU undertakes General capacity
building development work, and the
EU response to the SDGs notes acommitment to more of this.

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

31

www.stakeholderforum.org

GOAL 12:SCPTARGET

CURRENT IAEG
INDICATORRELEVANT EU LEGISLATION AND
POLICYGAPS AND
LIMITATIONSRESPONSIBILITIESASSIGNEDCOMMENTARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

12.b Develop andimplement tools tomonitor sustainable
development
impacts forsustainable tourism
that creates jobs,
promotes local
culture and products

Residual flows
generated as a resultof tourism direct GDP(derived from anextended version of
the System ofEnvironmentalEconomic Accounting(SEEA) for tourism)(grey)A voluntary European Tourism
Indicators System for sustainable
destination management exists – thisis a comprehensive and simple tool tohelp destinations measure andmonitor their sustainable
management performance andenhance their sustainability,
currently finishing its second pilot
phase. It includes indicators thatmeasure economic, social andcultural, jobs, environmental impact

Any gap here depends
on how stringent wetake the SDG target tobe.

Voluntarily used by
tourism agencies,
companies, or
imposed by local/
national tourism
authorities

The tool has beendeveloped very
thoroughly, however,here is no information
on how many tourism
sites have used thesystem since the 2nd
pilot phase has
finished. (however 86
sites took part in thepilot phases fromacross the EU, which
could lead to a highuptake)Europe2020 policies
are recommendations
only, that could be,(and in the past, havebeen assessed) in the
open method of
coordination

EU does not have thecompetence tolegislate an end to
subsidies for fossil
fuels, but canrecommend thatstates do so – as it hasdone so in Europe2020
and the proposal for
European Energy
Union.

EU has encouraged
reform throughRenewable Energy
Directive, Emissions
Trading Scheme and its
recommendations but
could identify fossil
fuel subsidies as a
specific
recommendation incountry specificrecommendations.

See also The 2007 agenda forsustainable and competitive EU
tourism; an EU guidebook preparedas part on a EU aid project onsustainable tourism in developing
countries]
12.c Rationalize
inefficient fossil fuelsubsidies thatencourage wasteful
consumption byremoving market
distortions, inaccordance withnational
circumstances,including byrestructuring
taxation and phasingout those harmful
subsidies, where
they exist, to reflect
their environmental
impacts, taking fully
into account the
specific needs andconditions ofdeveloping countries
and minimizing thepossible adverse
impacts on theirdevelopment in amanner that
protects the poorand the affected
communities

32

Amount of fossil fuelsubsidies, per unit of
GDP (production andconsumption), and as
proportion of total
national expenditure
on fossil fuels

Europe2020 (policy) as arecommendation
Phasing out environmentally harmful
subsidies for 2020 is a “milestone” on
the roadmap to a resource-efficient
Europe, though this has no binding
force.
This is reflected in the Proposal for
European Energy Union(COM/2015/080 final)
Related recommendations include:
Restructure vehicle taxation and/or
phase out environmentally harmful
subsidies such as reduced VAT rates
on energy products and income tax
expenditures for the private use ofcompany cars.

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

ANNEX D – DEFINING THE SCP TARGETS
TARGET

CURRENT IAEG INDICATOR(GREEN UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED)BIOREGIONAL’S CLARIFICATIONS

12.1 Implement the 10-Year Framework ofProgrammes on sustainable consumption andproduction (10YFP), all countries taking
action, with developed countries taking thelead, taking into account the development
and capabilities of developing countries

Number of countries with SCP National
Actions Plans or SCP mainstreamed as apriority or target into national policies,
poverty reduction strategies and sustainable
development strategies

12.2 By 2030 achieve sustainable
management and efficient use of natural
resources

Material footprint (MF) and MF/capita (Grey)

We understand material footprint from thedefinition of Material Footprint of Nations(Wiedmann T et al, 2013) as “the global
allocation of used raw material extraction to
the final demand of an economy”. Raw
material covers the headline categories ofmetal ores, fossil fuels, construction minerals
and biomass. Biomass includes crops forhuman consumption and fodder crops, crop
residues, and grazed biomass and biofuels.
Raw materials can also be said to include
ecosystems and their benefits.

12.3 By 2030 halve per capita global foodwaste at the retail and consumer levels, andreduce food losses along production andsupply chains including post-harvest losses

Global Food Loss Index (GFLI)

Types of food loss and waste covered include
that resulting from agricultural production,
post-harvest handling and storage, processing,
distribution and consumption.

12.4 By 2020 achieve the environmentallysound management of chemicals and all
wastes throughout their life cycle inaccordance with agreed internationalframeworks and significantly reduce theirrelease to air, water and soil to minimize
their adverse impacts on human health andthe environment

Number of Parties to international
multilateral environmental agreements on
hazardous and other chemicals and wastethat meet their commitments andobligations in transmitting information as
required by each relevant agreement

Chemicals and waste are unused by-productsof manufacturing, services and consumption,
including hazardous chemical wastes andmunicipal refuse. Pollutants and carbon
dioxide can be seen as ‘wastes’ but they arevery widely diffused in air, soil and water.
Other examples include fertilisers or black
liquor from paper production, or air pollutants
like carbon monoxide released from vehicles.
These less widely distributed products
represent a wasteful use of natural resources
and cause significant environmental problems
if they are not treated or disposed ofappropriately.
The international agreements, such as
Rotterdam, Stockholm & Basel Conventions
and Montreal Protocol, deal with chemical
pollution such as mercury.

12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste
generation through prevention, reduction,
recycling, and reuse

National recycling rate, tonnes of material
recycled

12.6 Encourage companies, especially large
and transnational companies, to adopt
sustainable practices and to integratesustainability information into theirreporting cycle

Number of companies publishingsustainability reports

12.7 Promote public procurement practices
that are sustainable in accordance withnational policies and priorities

Number of countries implementing
Sustainable Public Procurement policies andaction plans

12.8 By 2030 ensure that people everywhere
have the relevant information andawareness for sustainable development andlifestyles in harmony with nature

Number of countries reporting inclusion ofsustainable development and lifestyles
topics in formal education curricula (yellow)

12.a Support developing countries tostrengthen their scientific and technologicalcapacities to move towards more sustainable
patterns of consumption and production

Number of qualified green patentapplications (yellow)

Waste here refers to non-degradable items.
This would exclude food products themselves
but could include packaging.

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

33

www.stakeholderforum.org

TARGET

34

CURRENT IAEG INDICATOR(GREEN UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED)

12.b Develop and implement tools tomonitor sustainable development impacts
for sustainable tourism that creates jobs,
promotes local culture and products

Residual flows generated as a result of
tourism direct GDP (derived from anextended version of the System ofEnvironmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA)
for tourism) (grey)

12.c Rationalize inefficient fossil fuelsubsidies that encourage wasteful
consumption by removing market
distortions, in accordance with national
circumstances, including by restructuring
taxation and phasing out those harmful
subsidies, where they exist, to reflect theirenvironmental impacts, taking fully into
account the specific needs and conditions ofdeveloping countries and minimizing thepossible adverse impacts on theirdevelopment in a manner that protects thepoor and the affected communities

Amount of fossil fuel subsidies, per unit of
GDP (production and consumption), and as
proportion of total national expenditure on
fossil fuels

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

BIOREGIONAL’S CLARIFICATIONSPhoto: www.steve-c-foto.fr/
https://flic.kr/p/bNAxCz

www.stakeholderforum.org

SEEING THE WHOLE – Implementing the SDGs in an Integrated and Coherent Way

35

Project partners:

Project Sponsor: