Silos

The world’s crises demand coordinated global action. The UN 2030 Agenda is a globally adopted plan to tackle social and environmental challenges via 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1]. Yet despite nearly a decade of implementation, progress remains elusive [2]. At the heart of this stagnation is our inability to overcome silo mindsets and behaviors expressed in a failure to perceive individual realities as part of a globally interconnected whole, and a short-sighted pursuit of national interest over humanity’s welfare and survival. In terms of the SDGs, silo mindsets and behaviors come about in terms of “thematic silos” and “national silos”. The former takes place when actions to advance specific SDG-targets neglect their effects on other targets. The latter occurs when countries disregard the spillover effects of their actions on other countries’ SDGs.

Have the SDGs been approached with a thematic-silo-mentality? Progress has been uneven, with some SDGs advancing while others regress [3]. This suggests that some SDG-targets have been neglected in the face of others, or worse, advancing at the expense of others. For instance, expanding food production to combat hunger (target 2.1) while exacerbating deforestation (target 15.2) [4].

Have the SDGs been addressed within national silos? Attention to spillover effects was called for as early as 2017, acknowledging that “only if such positive and negative spillovers across countries are managed carefully can the promise of Agenda 2030 be fulfilled” [5]. Nowadays, the importance of tackling negative spillovers is increasingly recognized, notably in the 2022 SDG Resolution adopted by the European Parliament [6] and in the Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) of Finland, France, and Germany (among others). Yet, countries’ actions continue to generate large negative spillover effects [7], particularly countries with high SDG-performance [2], raising the question: Is progress in some countries coming at the expense of others?

Breaking up silos

Breaking thematic silos requires moving beyond individual SDG-targets and focusing on their interlinkages. This requires SDG-nexus approaches to develop strategies that advance progress across all SDGs [8]. Frameworks have been proposed in the form of SDG “entry-points” [3] or “transformations” [9] that recognize synergies and trade-offs across the goals. Forward-looking pathways (e.g., in food and land systems) can help design strategies that integrate various SDG-targets [10]. Yet, since considering interactions among all 169 SDG-targets is difficult, if not insurmountable, selecting SDG-targets for nexus frameworks can be informed by previous studies or network analyses [11]. However, such studies only reflect what is covered in the literature and cannot account for interactions in specific temporal and geographical contexts [8]. Therefore, projects, policies, and strategies should, at minimum, be guided by a set of relevant environmental, social, and economic SDG-targets, and be periodically reviewed considering the integrated nature of the SDGs [1].

Much less recognized are synergies and trade-offs across international borders [8]. Breaking such national silos requires identifying countries’ spillover effects, and prompting international collaborations to ensure that progress in one country is not achieved at the expense of (negative spillover), but aiding (positive spillover), progress elsewhere. Unfortunately, the conceptualization of these effects is still in its infancy. Moving forward requires formally defining them, classifying them, identifying suitable methodologies to assess them, and mobilizing means of implementation to systematically track, report, and tackle them.

SDG-spillovers

To distinguish SDG-related spillovers from all other country-to-country influences, we propose the term “SDG-spillover effects” (or simply “SDG-spillovers”) to refer to the subset of effects specifically impacting the SDGs. SDG-spillovers would thus be defined as “the influence that a country, region, or socio-economic unit has on another, directly or indirectly, in a way that contributes or undermines the latter’s efforts to achieve the SDGs (i.e., can be mapped to specific SDG-targets and/or SDG-indicators from the UN Global Indicator Framework [12])”. The terms region and socio-economic unit are included to allow for the eventual consideration of spillovers across geographical regions, either at sub-national (e.g., cities) or supra-national levels (e.g., Europe), as well as those caused by industries or corporations.

We then propose classifying SDG-spillovers according to four interactions (Fig 1). This classification builds on previous work (Table 1) that, although illustrative of the range of effects, can be ambiguous (e.g., are CO₂ emissions embodied in trade an “environmental flow” or a “trade flow”?) and not indicative of applicable methodologies to assess them.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Four types of interactions that generate SDG-spillover effects.

Interactions are shown as effects from “A” onto “B”, which influence/affect B’s efforts to achieve its SDGs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000157.g001

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Previous and current typology of spillover effects.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000157.t001

Under the proposed categorization, SDG-spillovers from actions aimed at advancing SDG-targets constitute SDG-nexuses in the form of international SDG-synergies or SDG-trade-offs. For instance, a country facilitating the use and transfer of cutting-edge digital technologies (achieving target 17.16) may help to upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors (target 9.5) in other countries (SDG-synergy). Conversely, a country importing food to address domestic hunger (target 2.1) may drive biodiversity loss (target 15.5) in the exporting country (SDG-trade-off). Next, we suggest examples of SDG-spillovers, along with indicators (based on the UN Global Indicator Framework [12]), methodologies, and potential data sources (Table 2), many of which have already been used in SDG-progress assessments [2].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Proposed classification of SDG-spillover effects.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000157.t002

While many indicators and methodologies need to be further defined and developed, Multi-Regional Input–Output (MRIO) analysis has been proven to be applicable for import-related SDG-spillovers. This is because the part of “footprint indicators” (commonly calculated with MRIO models) that corresponds to the impacts of imports is equivalent to import-SDG-spillovers. Thus, considering the extensive literature on footprints, the scope of import-SDG-spillover indicators can (and should) be extended [15].

Altogether, the proposed categorization may be more informative of how countries influence one another, and how to assess SDG-spillovers. For instance, regardless of whether spillovers are “socio-economic” or “environmental” in nature or result from different types of “flows” (as previously classified, Table 1), all import-related SDG-spillovers can be monitored via MRIO analysis.

Concluding remarks

Advancing towards the SDGs in the remaining years requires avoiding trade-offs and enhancing synergies, within and across countries. This calls for adopting SDG-nexus approaches and implementing strategies to tackle SDG-spillover effects based on shared global responsibilities. SDG-spillovers must be systematically assessed and integrated into countries’ progress reports, such as VNRs. They should also be considered in both implemented and planned policies and strategies for the SDGs. Ultimately, achieving sustainable development depends on international partnerships aimed at reducing or eliminating negative spillovers, which is crucial for global policy coherence.