The politics of national SDG indicator systems: A comparison of four European countries.

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) constitute an ambitious comprehensive global framework including monitoring mechanisms and indicators to evaluate progress towards precise targets of sustainable development. Most European countries have adapted their national sustainability indicator systems to conform to the UN Agenda 2030 for sustainable development, introducing new indicators and monitoring frameworks and governance processes in which these are embedded. What do we know about the political processes and struggles of implementing this important global framework? How does the politics of indicators differ in national contexts? We propose a classification of national indicator systems along dimensions of indicator selection, appraisal landscape, participatory nature, and political communication. We empirically explore these dimensions for four European national sustainability indicator systems through a comparative analysis based on national policy documents, indicator databases, and web portals as well as inputs from workshops and expert interviews. Given the considerable variation with respect to the trajectory of national sustainability indicator systems, we posit that these differences correspond to different national interpretations of sustainability.

Sustainable Development Goals and risks: The Yin and the Yang of the paths towards sustainability.

The United Nations 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) define a path towards a sustainable future, but given that uncertainty characterises the outcomes of any SDG-related actions, risks in the implementation of the Agenda need to be addressed. At the same time, most risk assessments are narrowed to sectoral approaches and do not refer to SDGs. Here, on the basis of a literature review and workshops, it is analysed how SDGs and risks relate to each other's in different communities. Then, it is formally demonstrated that, as soon as the mathematical definition of risks is broadened to embrace a more systemic perspective, acting to maintain socio-environmental systems within their sustainability domain can be done by risk minimisation. This makes Sustainable Development Goals and risks "the Yin and the Yang of the paths towards sustainability". Eventually, the usefulness of the SDG-risk nexus for both sustainability and risk management is emphasized.

Assuming accuracy, pretending influence? Risks of measuring, monitoring and reporting sustainable development goals.

From the local to global level, indicators and reports are produced and published to support the transition towards sustainable development. Building from two European-level science-policy workshops, this perspective essay discusses the types of risks involved with such sustainability reporting. The analysis is rooted in the framework of the UN 2030 Agenda and sustainable development goals (SDG). As a globally adopted framework, it provides an example of how risks are either recognised and framed, or non-recognised. Well recognised risks include data availability for SDGs and siloed preparation of indicators, while risks receiving less attention are ritualistic reporting lacking a critical evaluation of the limitations of the SDG framework itself. These different risks are likely to reinforce each other. A specific risk is a too narrow focus on one-way communication aiming to inform individual policy decisions. Risks related to SDGs are best managed with iterative, integrative and interactive knowledge production fostering holistic understanding.

Citizen Science in Deliberative Systems: Participation, Epistemic Injustice, and Civic Empowerment.

In this paper, we bring together the literature on citizen science and on deliberative democracy and epistemic injustice. We argue that citizen science can be seen as one element of "deliberative systems," as described by Mansbridge et al. But in order to fulfil its democratic potential, citizen science needs to be attentive to various forms of exclusion and epistemic injustice, as analyzed by Fricker, Medina and others. Moreover, to tap the potentials of citizen science from the perspective of deliberative democracy, it needs to move towards a more empowered approach, in which citizens do not only deliver data points, but also, in invited or uninvited settings, participate in discussions about the goals and implications of research. Integrating citizen science into the deliberative systems approach embeds it in a broader framework of democratic theory and suggests the transmission of certain practical strategies (e.g., randomized sampling). It can also contribute to realism about both the potentials and the limits of citizen science. As part of a deliberative system, citizen science cannot, and need not, be the only place in which reforms are necessary for creating stronger ties between science and society and for aligning science with democratic values.

Making the COVID-19 crisis a real opportunity for environmental sustainability.

An optimistic narrative has gained momentum during the first year of the pandemic: the COVID-19 crisis may have opened a window of opportunity to "rebuild better", to spur societal transitions towards environmental sustainability. In this comment, we review first evidence of individual and political changes made so far. Findings suggest that economies worldwide are not yet building back better. Against this background, we argue that a naïve opportunity narrative may even impair the progress of transitions towards environmental sustainability because it may render green recovery measures ineffective, costly, or infeasible. Based on these observations, we derive conditions for green recovery policies to succeed. They should consist of a policy mix combining well-targeted green subsidies with initiatives to price emissions and scrap environmentally harmful subsidies. Moreover, green recovery policies must be embedded into a narrative that avoids trading off environmental sustainability with other domains of sustainability-and rather highlights respective synergies that can be realized when recovering from the COVID-19 crisis.