4.6 Article

A New Approach to Partnerships for SDG Transformations

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 11, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11184947

关键词

sustainable development; SDG transformations; means of implementation; partnerships; governance; governments

资金

  1. European Commission
  2. Irish Research Council Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [713279]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent scientific reports highlight the urgent need for transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and long-term sustainability. This paper presents a new approach to partnerships that focuses on their role in transformations, the types of partnerships that may be needed and their enabling environment. It introduces transformation effectiveness as a criterion to evaluate a portfolio of partnerships and pathways as a tool to frame discussion of required partnerships. Guided by energy decarbonization and using a simple model of partnership formation, I highlight a (potential) mismatch between the types of partnerships required for transformation and the partnership types arising under the currently dominant voluntary approach. The model suggests the bottom-up approach can deliver some, but not all, of the partnerships needed. Five specific problems are identified-compensation for losers, partnering capacity, short-time horizons, inadequate coordination mechanisms and misaligned incentives. The paper then outlines some policy tools-transfers, regulation, public investment-governments could use to strengthen the bottom-up framework and orchestrate missing partnerships. The conclusion addresses two problems specific to the transformation approach: how to identify more systematically the partnerships needed (identification problem) and how to implement them (implementation problem); and outlines some ways to deal with these-science, deliberation, international leadership coalitions and frameworks/monitoring systems for transition partnerships.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据