National Sustainable Development Strategies (NSDS)

National Sustainable Development Strategies (NSDS) form a fundamental pillar in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs were designed with a universal scope, yet their realization heavily relies on national and local action. This is where NSDS come into play, translating the global vision into local reality.

NSDS are strategic, comprehensive policy frameworks that countries develop and implement to promote sustainable development at the national level. They reflect the economic, social, and environmental realities of each country, taking into account their unique challenges, opportunities, and resources. Thus, NSDS allows each country to tailor the SDGs to its own context, ensuring they address the most pressing issues.

The process of creating and implementing NSDS also encourages stakeholder participation and promotes cooperation across different sectors. It fosters a sense of ownership and commitment among stakeholders, vital for the successful realization of the SDGs. For instance, NSDS might call for collaboration between the private sector, civil society, and government to tackle SDG 13, "Climate Action," by reducing carbon emissions or investing in renewable energy sources.

Moreover, NSDS often include mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating progress towards sustainable development. This aligns with SDG 17, "Partnership for the Goals," which emphasizes the importance of accountability and data-driven decision-making in achieving the SDGs. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms embedded within NSDS ensure continuous learning and adjustment, which is crucial in addressing the dynamic and complex nature of sustainable development.

Global warming and the acute domestic air pollution in China have necessitated transition to a sustainable energy system away from coal-dominated energy production. Through a systematic review of the national policy documents, this study investigates the policy mix adopted by the Chinese government to facilitate its energy transition and how that policy mix has evolved between 1981 and 2020. The chronological analysis emphasizes two dimensions of temporal changes in the policy mix: (1) changes in the policy intensity and density, and (2) the shift in policy instrument combinations.
With the increasing importance of ‘emerging powers’ in the global economy, questions are raised about the role of developing countries in shaping global norms. The assumption in much of the literature has been to see global norms as originating in the ‘North’ (or the ‘West’). Recent research has begun to challenge this view. This paper contributes to this debate in studying the agency of the South in the adoption of sustainable development as the consensus framework for international development (SDGs).
The unprecedented global heatwave of 2014–2017 was a defining event for many ecosystems. Widespread degradation caused by coral bleaching, for example, highlighted the vulnerability of hundreds of millions of people dependent on reefs for their livelihoods, well-being, and food security. Scientists and policy makers are now reassessing long-held assumptions about coping with anthropogenic climate change, particularly the assumption that strong local institutions can maintain ecological and social resilience through ecosystem-based management, adaptation, and restoration.
Elsevier, Global Environmental Change, Volume 60, January 2020
There is widespread belief that meaningful interaction between scientists and practitioners, or co-production, increases use of scientific knowledge about sustainability and environmental change. Although funders are increasingly encouraging co-production, there have been few empirical studies assessing the outcomes of these efforts in shaping knowledge use. In this study, we systematically analyze research project reports (n = 120) and interview project participants (n = 40) funded by the U.S. National Estuarine Research Reserve System from 1998 to 2014 to support coastal management.
Economic development projects are increasingly applying the mitigation hierarchy to achieve No Net Loss, or even a Net Gain, of biodiversity. Because people value biodiversity and ecosystem services, this can affect the well-being of local people; however, these types of social impacts from development receive limited consideration. We present ethical, practical, and regulatory reasons why development projects applying the mitigation hierarchy should consider related social impacts.
Municipal advisory committees are becoming increasingly influential in guiding decision-making processes that address climatic issues. According to the Adaptigation Institutionalization Framework (included in the recent IPCC report), the implementation of such participatory structures is vital for the effective, joint institutionalization of climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support this claim. Against this background, this paper tests the Adaptigation Framework using the example of municipal advisory committees in Germany.
The number of countries with a national development plan has more than doubled, from about 62 in 2006 to 134 in 2018. More than 80 per cent of the global population now lives in a country with a national development plan of one form or another. This is a stunning recovery of a practice that had been discredited in the 1980s and 1990s as a relic of directed economies and state-led development. Several factors have fostered this re-emergence but from about 2015 the momentum for producing plans has accelerated, driven in part by a need to plan for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Elsevier, Progress in Disaster Science, Volume 2, July 2019
Elsevier, Progress in Disaster Science, Volume 2, July 2019
Elsevier, Progress in Disaster Science, Volume 2, July 2019
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction encourages investment in innovation and technology development in disaster risk management. However, needs for science and technology inputs are unmet, and there is a lack of policy making that is based on science and evidence. This paper identified three key issues that could help overcome these barriers: networking, coproduction of knowledge, and a stronger role played by academia.