3.3 Resource Stewardship

3. Resource stewardship

Possibilities for managing resources sustainably and power over the decision-making process

Divergent thinking about population and resource consumption trends:

• pessimistic views, including neo-Malthusian views

• optimistic views, including Boserup

• balanced views, including resource stewardship

Resource stewardship strategies, including:

• the value of the circular economy as a systems approach for effective cycling of materials and energy

• the role of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and progress made toward meeting them

Discussion: Discuss the merits of the criticisms made by Bjorn Lomborg and the research of the Copenhagen Consensus research. (see below) 

 To what extent do you:

• • • • • • think Lomborg's arguments are coming true?

          • think that the SDGs are achieving 'what they say in the can'?

          • agree that the SDGs leave no one behind through their multi-stakeholder approach?

Debate: The UN SDGs were doomed to fail

The Copenhagen Consensus Critique of the SDGs

At the outset of the SDGs in 2015, Bjorn Lomberg, the director of the think tank, Copenhagen Consensus Center criticised the UN’s goals for being too broad. He stated that the UN had attempted to please too many people and questioned the impacts the goals would have. He suggested that the potential $2.5 trillion in development aid that would be ploughed into projects over the time period, would have little effect due to its dilution across so many targets and actions. With no fewer than 14,775 individual SDG actions by November 2020, and worryingly poor progress across the goals, he may actually have a point.

Bjorn identified that the impossible task would be in prioritising between the 169 targets contained within the 17 goals. Research for Copenhagen Consensus, explored how much social benefit the targets would achieve, and found that some targets could achieve a huge deal, while others very little. By spreading money, time and resources among so many targets it reduces the overall good each can do.

The research that was led by an international panel including several Nobel laureate economists, found that there were only 19 specific targets within the 169 that would attain more than $15 of good for every dollar spent reaching it. For example, achieving universal access to contraception and family planning would mean fewer orphans and mothers dying in childbirth. It would also generate a demographic dividend—more people of productive age. In total, every dollar spent would mean about $120 of benefits to society.

Another example was ending tuberculosis by 2030. This would save nearly 1.5 million lives a year, with each dollar leading to $43 worth of benefits. The research concluded that by focusing development spending on just the top 19 targets identified by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, it would achieve roughly four times more than it would, if it was distributed among all 169 targets.