Shedding light on the evidence blind spots confounding the multiple objectives of SDG 2
| Autor: | Ruth DeFries, Livia Bizikova, Leslie Lipper |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
0106 biological sciences
0301 basic medicine Sustainable development Natural resource economics business.industry media_common.quotation_subject Plant Science medicine.disease 01 natural sciences 03 medical and health sciences Malnutrition 030104 developmental biology Agriculture Sustainability Global health medicine Psychological resilience Agricultural productivity business Productivity 010606 plant biology & botany media_common |
| Zdroj: | Nature Plants. 6:1203-1210 |
| ISSN: | 2055-0278 |
| Popis: | Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 consists of five targets ranging from the eradication of hunger and malnutrition to doubling productivity of small-scale farmers and ensuring sustainable and resilient food production systems. Trade-offs and synergies arise between strategies to achieve any one of these targets, which complicates the use of evidence to guide policies and investments since most analyses focus solely on one objective. This gives rise to ‘blind spots’ in the evidence base, where acting to achieve one objective can have strong impacts on achieving others, hampering attempts to establish a systematic approach to attaining the multiple objectives of SDG 2. Here, we focus on three key blind spots that arise from potential interactions between increasing agricultural productivity and enhancing the sustainability of food production systems, eradicating hunger and malnutrition, and increasing the resilience of food production systems to climate change. Incorporating the consideration of synergies and trade-offs into policy-making is also essential; however, there is relatively little evidence of this occurring in national policies to date. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 2 encompasses targets ranging from the eradication of hunger and malnutrition to ensuring a sustainable food production system. Conflicts between these goals gives rise to gaps in our understanding that hamper attempts at evidence-based policy-making. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink