Ecological Contradictions of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in Malaysia

• DOI: 10.1177/10704965211060296
• Published date: 01 March 2022
• Author: William G. McDowell,Ellen T. Fitzpatrick,Mariko L. Frame
• Date: 01 March 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The Journal of Environment &

Development

2022, Vol. 31(1) 54–87

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10704965211060296

journals.sagepub.com/home/jed

Ecological Contradictions

of the UN Sustainable

Development Goals in

Malaysia

Mariko L. Frame

1

, William G.

McDowell

2

, and Ellen T. Fitzpatrick

3

Abstract

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) promote a broad set of

socio-economic and environmental goals. Through a case study on Malaysia, this

paper investigates how economic Goal 8 (economic growth), Goal 9 (industry), and

Goal 17(increased partnerships) are likely to conflict with environmental Goal 13

(climate action), Goal 14 (life below water), and Goal 15 (life on land). We analyze

data from Economy-Wide Material Flows Analysis (EW-MFA) that captures Ma-

laysia’s aggregate resource use over time and also assess the likely economic and

environmental contradictions for Malaysia’sfuturetrajectorybylookingatmajor

drivers of Malaysia’s economic growth. Using policy-scoring, we provide a detailed

analysis of how the various sectors of growth are likely to result in synergies or trade-

offs with the environmental SDGs. We find substantial contradictions between the

economic and environmental SDGs for Malaysia. Our paper questions whether or

not, when examining a concrete case study, economic and environmental SDGs are

compatible.

Introduction

In 2015 all United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development, which consists of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These

1

Department of Economics, Merrimack College, North Andover, MA, USA

2

Department of Biology, Merrimack College, North Andover, MA, USA

3

Interdisciplinary Institute, Merrimack College, North Andover, MA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Mariko L. Frame, Department of Economics, Merrimack College, 315 Turnpike St, North Andover, MA

01845, USA.

Email: framem@merrimack.edu

goals contain a blueprint for a variety of development goals while simultaneously

addressing the most significant environmental challenges. The SDGs have become

ubiquitous in the NGO world with project and funding proposals often requiring

reference to the Goals.

While laudable, a close examination of the economic goals reveals serious con-

tradictions that are likely to undermine the environmental objectives of the SDGs.

Through a case study on Malaysia, this paper investigates how the economic goals 8

(decent work and economic growth), 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), and 17

(partnerships for the goal), conflict with the environmental goals 13 (climate action), 14

(life below water), and 15 (life on land). Substantial extant literature has revealed major

contradictions between endless economic growth, industrialization processes, glob-

alization, and environmental sustainability. However, the SDG economic goals en-

courage, in a largely business-as-usual way, their continuation. As such, we must ask

several critical questions. First, do the economic goals mentioned above sufficiently

integrate sustainability considerations and depart from the business-as-usual economic

pathways responsible for our current environmental crises? Or, if followed, would they

replicate known economic activities that contribute to environmental degradation?

Even if they do represent a “greener”pathway to development, is it sufficient given

both the scale of the environmental crises and the short timeline in which humanity

must make drastic change?

The first section provides an overview of the extant literature on how economic

activities related to Goal 8 (growth), Goal 9 (expansion of industrialization), and Goal

17 (encouraging traditional patterns of export-led development) are linked to envi-

ronmental degradation. The second section introduces the case study of Malaysia.

While substantial literature has theorized the “synergistic”possibilities of SDGs,

whereby economic goals and environmental goals do not conflict but instead help each

other out in a virtuous cycle (Campbell, 2018;International Council for Science, n.d.;

Nerini et al., 2018), abstract theorizing and concrete circumstances can diverge

considerably. A country-specific case study is necessary as all countries that have

adopted these goals will be attempting to achieve them from distinct histori cal cir-

cumstances, particular political economies, and specific environmental contexts.

Malaysia in particular is often held up as an emerging economy example of growth and

poverty reduction. A case study on Malaysia allows us to concretely assess the en-

vironmental sacrifices the country has already made in its economic growth and poverty

reduction, and the environmental sacrifices it will most likely continue to make for

further growth, industrialization, and trade. Through the case study on Malaysia, we

can better understand the likely environmental sacrifices other developing countries are

making, and will continue to make, as they grow and reduce poverty. In the third

section, we discuss the two primary methodologies used in this paper: material flows

accounting and a form of policy goal-scoring created by Nilsson et al. (2016), along

with our results. The fourth and fifth sections include our discussion, policy recom-

mendations, and conclusion.

Frame et al. 55

Contradictions Between Growth, Industrialization, Trade and

Environmental SDGs: The Extant Literature

Over the past several decades substantial literature has revealed major contr adictions

between endless economic growth, industrialization processes, globalization, and

environmental sustainability. Unfortunately, the SDG economic goals 8, 9, and 17

seemingly encourage, in a largely business-as-usual way, their continuation.

Goal 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth

SDG Goal 8 seeks to promote decent work and economic growth while reconciling the

tensions between economic growth and sustainability by progressively improving,

through 2030, global resource efficiency and decoupling economic growth from en-

vironmental degradation. The authors of this paper question the feasibility of envi-

ronmental sustainability and endless economic growth. At the Earth system level,

sustainability scientists have identified nine quantitative planetary boundaries which, if

crossed, risk generating large-scale abrupt or irreversible environmental changes

(Rockstrom et al., 2009;Steffen et al., 2015).Two of the planetary boundaries, bio-

sphere integrity and biogeochemical flows, are already at high risk, while others,

including climate change and land system change, are in the zone of increasing risk

(Stockholm Resilience Centre, n.d.). As such, any economic policies advocated as

green or sustainable must be critically vetted in terms of both time and scale. Will they

bring about sufficient change in the time frame needed, and will they bring about

sufficient change to address the scale of the problem?

There are several important points to make in regards to this question. First, studies

such as O’Neil et al. (2018) find that currently no country meets basic needs for its

citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use. Thus, to harmonize economic

and environmental goals the amount of natural resources needed for continued eco-

nomic growth would have to “decouple”absolutely from economic growth. “De-

coupling”denotes the process by which economic growth continues alongside the

reduction in environmental pressures and impacts. Decoupling can be relative (GDP

grows at a faster rate than material usage, but total material usage still continues to

increase), or absolute (economic growth continues while total material usage de-

creases). Analysis using the same indicators suggested in Targets 8.4.1 (material

footprint) and 8.4.2 (domestic material consumption) suggests that this is not occurring

at the global level in terms of resources. According to data compiled by the Material

Flow Data Portal: Decoupling Material Use and Economic Performance (n.d.), despite

some relative decoupling of the global economy from 1990 to 2009, there has been no

absolute decoupling overall. Other studies confirm this dilemma. A comprehensive

meta-study (Parrique et al., 2019) for example, argues that there is no empirical ev-

idence of absolute, permanent, global, large and fast enough decoupling of economic

growth from all critical environmental pressures.

The contradictions between endless growth and environmental sustainability are

also pointed out in the literature on SDGs as well. Spaiser et al. (2017) find that

56 The Journal of Environment & Development 31(1)