To Achieve a Sustainable Blue Future, Progress Assessments Must Include Interdependencies between the Sustainable Development Goals

Abstract

The Sustainable Development Goals link society, the economy, and the biosphereIndicator assessments of progress toward the SDGs do not account for these linksThus, progress assessments mask important trade-offs and synergies among the goalsThis oversight risks reducing society’s capacity to achieve sustainability The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) focus on providing society with a sustainable future. Progress toward the goals is being tracked by a series of indicators. These indicators show progress toward individual goals and targets but do not show how success or failure in relation to one goal might affect success or failure in another area. We show how interactions between the oceans and human poverty, hunger, and gender equity are hidden by indicator assessments and how this undermines the capacity of governments and organizations to maximize long-term moves toward sustainability. These findings are important for decision makers who work in the public and private sectors and wish to avoid unforeseen outcomes when implementing sustainability initiatives. Here, we suggest extensions to the current assessment framework to help counteract the identified issues, providing a research agenda for scientists working in all fields of sustainability science. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were designed to address interactions between the economy, society, and the biosphere. However, indicators used for assessing progress toward the goals do not account for these interactions. To understand the potential implications of this compartmentalized assessment framework, we explore progress evaluations toward SDG 14 (Life below Water) and intersecting social goals presented in submissions to the UN High-Level Political Forum. We show that there is a disconnect between the apparent progress shown by indicators and long-term sustainability; for example, short-term gains in reducing hunger or poverty might be undermined by poor ocean health, particularly in countries dependent on fisheries or developing their blue economy. We suggest an extension to existing indicator assessments to integrate scenarios and social-ecological modeling. This approach would ensure that decision makers are provided with knowledge fundamental to directing actions to attain SDGs while minimizing unintended outcomes due to interactions among goals. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were designed to address interactions between the economy, society, and the biosphere. However, indicators used for assessing progress toward the goals do not account for these interactions. To understand the potential implications of this compartmentalized assessment framework, we explore progress evaluations toward SDG 14 (Life below Water) and intersecting social goals presented in submissions to the UN High-Level Political Forum. We show that there is a disconnect between the apparent progress shown by indicators and long-term sustainability; for example, short-term gains in reducing hunger or poverty might be undermined by poor ocean health, particularly in countries dependent on fisheries or developing their blue economy. We suggest an extension to existing indicator assessments to integrate scenarios and social-ecological modeling. This approach would ensure that decision makers are provided with knowledge fundamental to directing actions to attain SDGs while minimizing unintended outcomes due to interactions among goals. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), launched in 2015, articulate a negotiated international strategy to support environmental and human well-being.1United NationsTransforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworldDate: 2015Google Scholar,2Norstrom A.V. Dannenberg A. McCarney G. Milkoreit M. Diekert F. Engstrom G. Fishman R. Gars J. Kyriakopoolou E. Manoussi V. et al.Three necessary conditions for establishing effective Sustainable Development Goals in the Anthropocene.Ecol. Soc. 2014; 19: 8Crossref Scopus (32) Google Scholar The SDGs recognize three interlinked pillars of sustainability: society, the economy, and the biosphere (the global ecological system). The SDGs are composed of 17 goals split into 169 targets. Primary targets (designated by numbers) communicate desirable outcomes, whereas secondary targets (designated by letters) express means of implementing the goals.1United NationsTransforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworldDate: 2015Google Scholar The three pillars of sustainability are incorporated into this structure in two forms. First, some goals place a greater emphasis on a particular pillar, for example, the biosphere (e.g., SDG 14: Life below Water), society (e.g., SDG 1: No Poverty), or the economy (e.g., SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth). Second, and perhaps more important considering the necessarily integrated nature of sustainability, the goals and targets were structured to interweave components of these three pillars.3Nilsson M. Griggs D. Visbeck M. Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals.Nature. 2016; 534: 320-322Crossref PubMed Scopus (545) Google Scholar, 4Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPolicy coherence for sustainable development in the SDG framework: shaping targets and monitoring progress.http://www.oecd.org/governance/pcsd/Note%20on%20Shaping%20Targets.pdfDate: 2015Google Scholar, 5Gibson R.B. Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-making.J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manage. 2006; 8: 259-280Crossref Scopus (247) Google Scholar For example, target 1.4 clearly integrates economic, societal, and biosphere components: “by 2030, ensure that all men and women, particularly the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership, and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology, and financial services including microfinance.” Effective policy development, resourcing, and implementation at the local, national, and international levels are central to society’s capacity to meet the SDGs.6United Nations Development ProgrammeSustainable Development Goals.http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.htmlDate: 2018Google Scholar Consequently, decision makers are now tasked with directing actions that progress toward attainment of the SDGs while minimizing adverse outcomes. To achieve the desired outcomes, decision makers must understand the feedbacks and interactions between society, the economy, and the biosphere, prompting research efforts to understand how synergies and trade-offs influence our ability to achieve the 2030 Agenda.3Nilsson M. Griggs D. Visbeck M. Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals.Nature. 2016; 534: 320-322Crossref PubMed Scopus (545) Google Scholar,7International Science CouncilA guide to SDG interactions: from science to implementation.https://council.science/publications/a-guide-to-sdg-interactions-from-science-to-implementation/Date: 2017Google Scholar, 8Singh G.G. Cisneros-Montemayor A.M. Swartz W. Cheung W. Guy J.A. Kenny T.-A. McOwen C.J. Asch R. Geffert J.L. Wabnitz C.C.C. et al.A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals.Mar. Policy. 2017; 93: 223-231Crossref Scopus (144) Google Scholar, 9Scharlemann J.P.W. Mant R.C. Balfour N. Brown C. Burgess N.D. Guth M. Ingram D.J. Lane R. Martin J. Wicander S. Kapos V. Global goals mapping: the environment-human landscape. Sussex Sustainability Research Programme, University of Sussex, and UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 2016https://nerc.ukri.org/research/partnerships/international/tase/mapping/Google Scholar The emergence of literature on interactions among the goals is a welcome step;3Nilsson M. Griggs D. Visbeck M. Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals.Nature. 2016; 534: 320-322Crossref PubMed Scopus (545) Google Scholar,8Singh G.G. Cisneros-Montemayor A.M. Swartz W. Cheung W. Guy J.A. Kenny T.-A. McOwen C.J. Asch R. Geffert J.L. Wabnitz C.C.C. et al.A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals.Mar. Policy. 2017; 93: 223-231Crossref Scopus (144) Google Scholar,10D’Odorico P. Davis K.F. Rosa L. Carr J.A. Chiarelli D. Dell’Angelo J. Gephart J. MacDonald G.K. Seekell D.A. Suweis S. et al.The global food-energy-water nexus.Rev. Geophys. 2018; 56: 456-531Crossref Scopus (151) Google Scholar,11Weitz N. Huber-Lee A. Nilsson M. Cross-sectoral integration in the Sustainable Development Goals: a nexus approach. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2014https://www.sei.org/publications/cross-sectoral-integration-in-the-sustainable-development-goals-a-nexus-approach/Google Scholar however, these trade-offs and synergies are not a core component of the SDG evaluation protocol. Indicators have been developed for each target by the Inter-agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators, a group made up of participants from UN member states. The feedback that decision makers receive on progress toward achieving the 2030 Agenda is based on assessments that use one, or occasionally a few, of these indicators to evaluate goal and target attainment.12Inter-agency Expert Group on SDG IndicatorsIAEG-SDG Reports to the UN Statistical Commission. UN Statistics Division, 2017https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/report-iaeg-sdgs/Google Scholar,13Sachs J.D. Schmidt-Traub G. Kroll C. Lafortune G. Fuller G. SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2018. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2018https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/sdg-index-and-dashboards-2018/Google Scholar The current indicator approach does not provide an understanding of why targets are on track or unfulfilled14Nicholson E. Collen B. Barausse A. Blanchard J.L. Costelloe B.T. Sullivan K.M.E. Underwood F.M. Burn R.W. Fritz S. Jones J.P.G. et al.Making robust policy decisions using global biodiversity indicators.PLoS One. 2012; 7: e41128Crossref PubMed Scopus (57) Google Scholar,15Jones J.P.G. Collen B. Atkinson G. Baxter P.W.J. Bubb P. Illian J.B. Katzner T.E. Keane A. Loh J. McDonald-Madden E. et al.The why, what, and how of global biodiversity indicators beyond the 2010 target.Conserv. Biol. 2011; 25: 450-457Crossref PubMed Scopus (98) Google Scholar or to which factors change can be attributed, lacks clear measures of performance relative to targets, and does not evaluate how interdependence of the three pillars of sustainability might affect goal and target attainment. This oversight risks implementation of palliative policy responses that act to address short-term gains in localized geographies or populations rather than support the long-term sustainability of human activities. Here, we explore whether ignoring within- and among-target interactions risks prioritizing short-term attainment of the SDGs to the detriment of long-term, sustained achievement of these outcomes. We examine the role that the marine environment plays in supporting social and economic goals and targets. We focus on the marine environment for four reasons:(1)There are real challenges associated with understanding human impacts on the oceans and society’s capacity to meet SDG 14 (Life below Water). For example, monitoring ocean state and function is extremely difficult, as ongoing debates about fish-stock status have shown, even for places with high monitoring and analytical capacity.16Branch T.A. Jensen O.P. Ricard D. Ye Y. Hilborn R. Contrasting global trends in marine fishery status obtained from catches and from stock assessments.Conserv. Biol. 2011; 25: 777-786Crossref PubMed Scopus (180) Google Scholar,17Pitcher T.J. Cheung W.W.L. Fisheries: hope or despair?.Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013; 74: 506-516Crossref PubMed Scopus (72) Google Scholar Furthermore, the large-scale and numerous effects of climate change on ocean ecosystems present a moving target for those tasked with addressing SDG 14.18Singh G.G. Hilmi N. Bernhardt J.R. Cisneros Montemayor A.M. Cashion M. Ota Y. Acar S. Brown J.M. Cottrell R. Djoundourian S. et al.Climate impacts on the ocean are making the Sustainable Development Goals a moving target travelling away from us.People Nat. 2019; 1: 317-330Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar(2)A low level of prioritization is being placed on SDG 14. This goal is consistently considered the least-important SDG by government leaders responsible for developing actions to support the 2030 Agenda.19Custer S. DiLorenzo M. Masaki T. Sethi T. Harutyunyan A. Listening to leaders 2018: is development cooperation tuned-in or tone-deaf?. AidData at the College of William & Mary, 2018https://www.aiddata.org/publications/listening-to-leaders-2018Google Scholar,20Sethi T. Custer S. Turner J. Sims J. DiLorenzo M. Latourell R. Realizing Agenda 2030: will donor dollars and country priorities align with global goals?. AidData at the College of William & Mary, 2017http://docs.aiddata.org/ad4/pdfs/Realizing_Agenda_2030.pdfGoogle Scholar These perspectives are mirrored by sustainability professionals, non-governmental organizations, development and donor organizations, and the private sector, resulting in a lack of urgency related to improving ocean health.19Custer S. DiLorenzo M. Masaki T. Sethi T. Harutyunyan A. Listening to leaders 2018: is development cooperation tuned-in or tone-deaf?. AidData at the College of William & Mary, 2018https://www.aiddata.org/publications/listening-to-leaders-2018Google Scholar,21Brackley A. Lee M. Evaluating progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SustainAbility).https://sustainability.com/our-work/reports/evaluating-progress-towards-sustainable-development-goals/Date: 2017Google Scholar,22United Nations Global Compact2017 United Nations Global Compact progress report: business solutions to sustainable development.https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/5431Date: 2017Google Scholar Furthermore, the oceans have received limited focus in conceptual frameworks that informed the development of the SDGs, such as planetary boundaries.23Nash K.L. Cvitanovic C. Fulton E.A. Halpern B.S. Milner-Gulland E.J. Watson R.A. Blanchard J.L. Planetary boundaries for a blue planet.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017; 1: 1625-1634Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar This low level of prioritization is understandable in some instances. For example, landlocked countries, which have insufficient capital (monetary or human) to meet all the SDGs, might view SDG 14 as peripheral to their planning for the 2030 Agenda despite the indirect benefits that the oceans afford to these countries.(3)There is wide-scale enthusiasm for the expanding role and projected growth of the blue economy, which is doubling in size per decade and is already equivalent to the seventh-largest economy on the planet.24Kraemer R.A. A sustainable ocean economy, innovation and growth: a G20 initiative. Center for International Governance Innovation, 2017https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/PB%20No.113WEB_0.pdfGoogle Scholar,25Hoegh-Guldberg O. Reviving the ocean economy: the case for action. World Wildlife Fund, 2015https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/reviving-the-oceans-economy-the-case-for-action-2015Google Scholar If society is to realize the anticipated expansion of benefits gained from the oceans across multiple sectors, a healthy ocean is necessary and will have implications for the fulfilment of the SDGs more generally.(4)Research that makes trade-offs and interactions among the SDGs explicit can open up space for dialogues and exploration of scenarios where the interests of multiple groups are acknowledged and shared. Interpretation of the blue-economy concept is contested and varies from a focus on business development (including resource extraction) to the ocean as a provider of natural capital and livelihoods.26Voyer M. Quirk G. McIlgorm A. Azmi K. Shades of blue: what do competing interpretations of the blue economy mean for oceans governance?.J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2018; 20: 595-616Crossref Scopus (64) Google Scholar,27Cohen P.J. Allison E.H. Andrew N.L. Cinner J. Evans L.S. Fabinyi M. Garces L.R. Hall S.J. Hicks C.C. Hughes T.P. et al.Securing a just space for small-scale fisheries in the blue economy.Front. Mar. Sci. 2019; 6: 171Crossref Scopus (80) Google Scholar These contrasting perspectives exemplify the various framings of sustainability issues that must be acknowledged in any discussion of synergies and trade-offs in the SDGs, providing fertile ground for such research. In delivering our analysis on the interdependencies between the SDGs with respect to the ocean, we first evaluate the likelihood that sustainability targets for the oceans will be achieved by the specified dates or 2030. We then examine the intersections among social goals and SDG 14 through the lens of the indicators used for assessing progress toward goal attainment. To illustrate the breadth of interdependencies, risks, and opportunities, we draw on three examples—SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG 5 (Gender Equity)—and their respective links to the oceans. We evaluated progress toward the targets in SDG 14 by using stakeholder submissions and indicator assessments provided to the annual High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) and thematic reviews arising from the HLPF.12Inter-agency Expert Group on SDG IndicatorsIAEG-SDG Reports to the UN Statistical Commission. UN Statistics Division, 2017https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/report-iaeg-sdgs/Google Scholar,13Sachs J.D. Schmidt-Traub G. Kroll C. Lafortune G. Fuller G. SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2018. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2018https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/sdg-index-and-dashboards-2018/Google Scholar,28Convention on Biological DiversityBiodiversity at the heart of sustainable development.https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/18277CBD_input_to_2018_HLPF.pdfDate: 2018Google Scholar,29Executive Committee on Economic and Social AffairsHigh-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. Thematic review of SDG 14: conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/14375SDG14format-revOD.pdfDate: 2017Google Scholar The evidence provided in these submissions (Table S1) suggests that only 2% of countries are likely to achieve SDG 14 by 2030 (Table 1).13Sachs J.D. Schmidt-Traub G. Kroll C. Lafortune G. Fuller G. SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2018. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2018https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/sdg-index-and-dashboards-2018/Google Scholar As a result of the inherent problems associated with forecasting future trends in the context of interacting social, biophysical, and economic dynamics, there are uncertainties around these predictions. Nevertheless, these findings are supported by independent, private-sector research indicating that no country with sufficient data to make an assessment is currently on track to attain SDG 14 by 2030.31Global e-Sustainability Initiative#SystemTransformation: how digital solutions will drive progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.http://systemtransformation-sdg.gesi.org/160608_GeSI_SystemTransformation.pdfDate: 2016Google Scholar Similarly, the trajectories and status of the individual targets under SDG 14 are of considerable concern: five of the seven targets will not be met, and the remaining two are unlikely to be met by 2030 or in the prescribed time periods (Table 1).Table 1Global Status of Targets within SDG 14 (Life below Water)Goal or TargetLikelihood of Meeting Goal or TargetEvidence Used for Assessing the Likelihood of Achieving Goal or Target14life underwater: conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable developmentwill not be metSDSN: only 2% of countries are currently on track to meeting SDG 14 by 203014.1by 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, particularly from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollutionuncertainCBD: “lagging behind” Aichi 2020 timelineTR: potential to meet 2025 timeline is uncertain, but the current state of coastal waters is deteriorating14.2by 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceanswill not be metCBD: “lagging behind” Aichi 2020 timelineTR: status unclear14.3minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levelswill not be metCBD: “lagging behind” 2020 timelineTR: significant efforts needed to achieve this target by 2030 are currently lacking14.4by 2020, effectively (1) regulate harvesting, (2) end overfishing; illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; and destructive fishing practices, (3) and implement science-based management plans in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce a maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristicswill not be metCBD: “lagging behind” 2020 timelineTR: wild fishery production is relatively stable (2006–2015), but over 30% of marine fish stocks are overfished, and this percentage has been rising since the 1970s14.5by 2020, conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific informationuncertainTR: coastal waters are on track (13.2% up to 200 nm), but very little of the open ocean is protected (0.25% of area outside national jurisdictions)14.6by 2020, prohibit certain forms of fishery subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing; eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; and refrain from introducing new such subsidies by recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least-developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization’s fishery-subsidy negotiationuncertainCBD: “lagging behind” 2020 timelineWTO: the 2017 WTO Ministerial Decision on Fisheries Subsidies was an agreement among members to agree on a fishery subsidy by the end of 2019; negotiations to reach this are ongoing at this time14.7by 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 of fisheries, aquaculture, and tourismuncertainCBD: “lagging behind” 2020 timelineTR: potential to meet 2030 timeline is uncertainStatus is based on evidence provided in submissions to the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF): SDSN, 2018 submission by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network; CBD, 2018 submission by the Convention on Biological Diversity; TR, 2017 HLPF thematic review;13Sachs J.D. Schmidt-Traub G. Kroll C. Lafortune G. Fuller G. SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2018. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2018https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/sdg-index-and-dashboards-2018/Google Scholar,28Convention on Biological DiversityBiodiversity at the heart of sustainable development.https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/18277CBD_input_to_2018_HLPF.pdfDate: 2018Google Scholar,29Executive Committee on Economic and Social AffairsHigh-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. Thematic review of SDG 14: conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/14375SDG14format-revOD.pdfDate: 2017Google Scholar WTO, 2019 report from the World Trade Organization.30World Trade OrganizationHigh-level panel highlights urgent need for WTO deal to limit harmful fisheries subsidies.https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news19_e/fish_08oct19_e.htmDate: 2019Google Scholar Open table in a new tab Status is based on evidence provided in submissions to the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF): SDSN, 2018 submission by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network; CBD, 2018 submission by the Convention on Biological Diversity; TR, 2017 HLPF thematic review;13Sachs J.D. Schmidt-Traub G. Kroll C. Lafortune G. Fuller G. SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2018. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2018https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/sdg-index-and-dashboards-2018/Google Scholar,28Convention on Biological DiversityBiodiversity at the heart of sustainable development.https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/18277CBD_input_to_2018_HLPF.pdfDate: 2018Google Scholar,29Executive Committee on Economic and Social AffairsHigh-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. Thematic review of SDG 14: conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/14375SDG14format-revOD.pdfDate: 2017Google Scholar WTO, 2019 report from the World Trade Organization.30World Trade OrganizationHigh-level panel highlights urgent need for WTO deal to limit harmful fisheries subsidies.https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news19_e/fish_08oct19_e.htmDate: 2019Google Scholar However, bright spots with respect to SDG 14 include the focus on ocean conservation in Palau and the efforts made to remove fishery subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing within the World Trade Organization (target 14.6). Nonetheless, the predominantly discouraging trajectories (Table 1) are likely to be compounded by the large-scale and increasing impacts of climate change on ocean ecosystems.18Singh G.G. Hilmi N. Bernhardt J.R. Cisneros Montemayor A.M. Cashion M. Ota Y. Acar S. Brown J.M. Cottrell R. Djoundourian S. et al.Climate impacts on the ocean are making the Sustainable Development Goals a moving target travelling away from us.People Nat. 2019; 1: 317-330Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar As a result, substantial effort will be required not only to counteract ecosystem decline in the marine environment but also to improve ocean health to the level required to meet SDG 14.23Nash K.L. Cvitanovic C. Fulton E.A. Halpern B.S. Milner-Gulland E.J. Watson R.A. Blanchard J.L. Planetary boundaries for a blue planet.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017; 1: 1625-1634Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar,32Newbold T. Hudson L.N. Arnell A.P. Contu S. De Palma A. Ferrier S. Hill S.L.L. Hoskins A.J. Lysenko I. Phillips H.R.P. et al.Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment.Science. 2016; 353: 288-291Crossref PubMed Scopus (405) Google Scholar,33Butchart S.H.M. Walpole M. Collen B. van Strien A. Scharlemann J.P.W. Almond R.E.A. Baillie J.E.M. Bomhard B. Brown C. Bruno J. et al.Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines.Science. 2010; 328: 1164-1168Crossref PubMed Scopus (2761) Google Scholar The challenges associated with improving marine health and the low prioritization and funding that decision makers in the public and private sectors are giving to SDG 14 suggest that this effort might not be made.19Custer S. DiLorenzo M. Masaki T. Sethi T. Harutyunyan A. Listening to leaders 2018: is development cooperation tuned-in or tone-deaf?. AidData at the College of William & Mary, 2018https://www.aiddata.org/publications/listening-to-leaders-2018Google Scholar, 20Sethi T. Custer S. Turner J. Sims J. DiLorenzo M. Latourell R. Realizing Agenda 2030: will donor dollars and country priorities align with global goals?. AidData at the College of William & Mary, 2017http://docs.aiddata.org/ad4/pdfs/Realizing_Agenda_2030.pdfGoogle Scholar, 21Brackley A. Lee M. Evaluating progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SustainAbility).https://sustainability.com/our-work/reports/evaluating-progress-towards-sustainable-development-goals/Date: 2017Google Scholar, 22United Nations Global Compact2017 United Nations Global Compact progress report: business solutions to sustainable development.https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/5431Date: 2017Google Scholar Poor environmental health, such as discussed above in relation to the oceans and SDG 14, has broad-scale implications. The biosphere is central to many of the social and economic goals and the targets within them: 34 of the 91 social and economic primary targets are identified by the UN as being directly reliant on the biosphere.34Convention on Biological DiversityBiodiversity and sustainable development: technical note. Report no. UNEP/CBD/COP/13/10/Add.1. United Nations Environment Programme, 2016https://www.cbd.int/kb/record/meetingDocument/110547Google Scholar Thus, ecosystem degradation has the potential to trigger a decline in society’s capacity to meet other targets that are reliant on the health of the biosphere;35Folke C. Biggs R. Norström A.V. Reyers B. Rockström J. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science.Ecol. Soc. 2016; 21: 41Crossref Scopus (314) Google Scholar for example, pollution might affect water security and health despite initiatives focused on improving access to water sources. These interactions between the biosphere, society, and the economy are increasingly recognized. For example, an evaluation by Singh et al.,8Singh G.G. C