**************************************************************************
This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department for
Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD). Reproduction and
dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is
encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the
United Nations in making it available.
*************************************************************************
DEPARTMENT FOR POLICY COORDINATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Sustained Risks: A Lasting Phenomenon
A Study by the Scientific Council for
Government Policy in the Netherlands
Background Paper No.10
Prepared by the Division for Sustainable Development for the
Commission on Sustainable Development
Fourth Session
18 April - 3 May 1996
New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREFACE
The definition of sustainable development in "Our Common Future"
is open to various interpretations. They largely depend on how the
needs of present and future generations, and the earth's carrying
capacity are defined. Since such questions can not be answered by only
scientific analysis, normative choices need to be made.
Thus, policy development is guided by a certain interpretation of
sustainability and by a perception of the risks associated with projected
trends in societal environmental developments.
The Dutch Government asked its Scientific Council for Government Policy
(WRR) to address these questions and to explore various options for
sustainable development. The council took a global perspective in its
analysis, and positioned Dutch policy making within it. The Council
explored several policy scenarios and examined these in a number of
leading problem areas in environment and development, namely the world
food supply, energy supply, raw materials, nature and water.
The United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable
Development (DPCSD) believes that the global dimensions of the report
are of interest for all Member States grappling with similar problems
in environmental policy making, and that the analysis is especially
useful for furthering the international debate on changing consumption
and production patterns. Accordingly, DPCSD staff have made a selection
of the most relevant chapters of the Council's report.
This background paper for the inter-sessional on changing consumption
and production patterns focuses on, and illustrates, national policy
dilemmas in the pursuit of sustainable development from a global
perspective. The background paper includes the case study scenarios
of food and energy supply, raw materials and nature. (The full version
of the report, which was published in 1994, can be obtained from:
WRR, P.O.Box 20004, 2500 EA the Hague, the Netherlands,
Fax: +31 70 3564685).
The DPCSD greatly appreciates the co-operation which the Netherlands
Council for Government Policy has shown in agreeing to this use of the
report "Sustained Risks: a Lasting Phenomenon".
New York, February 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENT
SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL UTILISATION SPACE AND
ACTION PERSPECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2 Sustainable development: from abstract principle to usable
preconditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.1 The subjective nature of sustainable development . . . . . . 8
1.2.2 The relationship between the environment and society . . . . 10
1.3 The 'environmental utilisation space' as basis for
environmental policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.3.1 Origins of the concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3.2 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.4 Risk as central concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.5 Action perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.5.1 Perception of risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.5.2 Elaboration into action perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.5.3 The Utilizing action perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.5.4 The Saving action perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1.5.5 The Managing action perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.5.6 The Preserving action perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.5.7 Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2. SCENARIOS IN SELECTED AREAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.2 World food supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.2 Reference scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.2.3 Lack of knowledge and structural uncertainties . . . . . . . 43
2.2.4 Action perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.2.5 Translation of the action perspectives into scenarios. . . . 48
2.2.6 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.3 Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.3.2 Reference scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.3.3 Consequences of the emission of carbon dioxide . . . . . . . 67
2.3.4 Action perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.3.5 Elaboration of action perspectives in scenarios. . . . . . . 72
2.3.6 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.4 Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.4.2 Reference scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.4.3 Action perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2.4.4 Elaboration of the action perspectives in scenarios. . . . . 91
2.4.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.5 Raw materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
2.5.1 Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2.5.1.1 Reference scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2.5.1.2 Action perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.5.1.3 Translation of action perspectives into scenarios. . . . . . 107
2.5.1.4 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
2.5.2 Chlorine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
2.5.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
2.5.2.2 Environmental impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
2.5.2.3 Uncertainties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
2.5.2.4 Action perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
2.5.2.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3. Towards a policy agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.2 Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
3.3 Land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.3.2 Food production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.3.3 Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.4 Raw materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
3.4.1 Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
3.4.2 Chlorine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
In 'Sustained Risks: a Lasting Phenomenon', the Scientific Council for
Government Policy (WRR) examines the various ways in which the concept
of sustainable development can be manageably translated into policy
terms. This approach centres on the notion that the operationalization
of this concept is unable to circumvent the uncertainties associated
with the interdependence of the environment and society. The resultant
risks for the environment and the economy will need to be weighed
against each other.
Over the next half-century, global economic activity will have increased
to the point that the relationship with the natural environment has
radically altered. The long-term continuity of both economic activity
and the global economic system would appear threatened as a result. At
the same time there is major scientific uncertainty concerning the
conditions under which the continuity can be assured in both areas.
On account of these threats and despite this uncertainty, sustainable
development is regarded as an important guideline for government policy.
In the customary policy elaboration of sustainable development the
notion of the 'environmental utilisation space' (EUS) occupies a key
place. In essence, however, this by-passes the uncertainty concerning
the relationship between the environment and the economy.
This report argues that it is impossible to work with an objectively
fixed elaboration of sustainable development. In order to elaborate the
concept of sustainability as a genuinely operative policy concept it is
necessary for normative choices in relation to the identified risks and
uncertainties to be made explicit.
Under the approach towards sustainable development advocated by the WRR,
the operationalization of sustainable development involves a survey of
the risks. Insight into the existing uncertainties renders it possible
to enter into a discussion as to how these risks should be handled.
Various action perspectives have been worked out in this report as an
elaboration of the various directions in which a development may be
regarded as sustainable. In this respect not just differing perceptions
of environmental risks are a factor but also divergent perceptions of
social risks, namely attitudes towards society's ability to cope with
processes of change.
The action perspectives are ideal-type constructions that seek to bring
out the potential differences in practical implementation. In practice,
however, this policy process does not in any way come down to a
once-and-for-all action perspective but on-going adjustments are made
to the perspective on the basis of a continual process of reassessment,
for example as new information becomes available.
The accumulation of scientific knowledge provides the basis for the
identification of environmental problems. Advances in ecological
understanding have drawn attention to hitherto unknown and unsuspected
problems. At the same time, science relativizes its own products, in
that the uncertainty concerning the relationship between the environment
and science is itself fed by science.
Environmental policy aimed at resolving and preventing environmental
problems therefore essentially implies making decisions on an uncertain
basis. The present state of knowledge is limited and hedged about with
uncertainties, but is all that policy-makers have at their disposal in
making choices.
The concept of the EUS, which has become an established feature in many
studies of sustainability, implicitly assumes that it is possible
scientifically to determine the limits to the burden that may be imposed
on the environment. This, however, fails to do justice to the value
driven and hence political nature of the choices that have to be made.
There is also the suggestion that the determination of the EUS is of a
higher order than political considerations, so that weighing it against
these 'lower' goals and interests would be inappropriate. It is
conceivable that these kinds of absolute criteria arise when the
survival of the human species is at issue; this is not open to
bargaining. It needs however to be recognized that in respect of most
environmental problems such threats do not arise. Even if one were to
have complete knowledge at one's disposal concerning the extent to
which the environment is capable of absorbing the consequences of
human action now and in the future, the scale of 'the' EUS would still
not be firmly stablished. Auxiliary concepts such as 'restoration of
the natural situation' or 'maintenance of natural balances' are not
axiomatic but derive from judgments as to the goal to be pursued. The
link between the empiricism established by science and judgements on
that subject is not a logical, coercive one but a normative one. The
requirements imposed by the environment are not immanent features but
assigned ones. In this respect the approach towards the environment
does not differ from that of other policy areas. This does not render
the application of norms or targets any the less legitimate, but there
can be no suggestion of science supplying such legitimacy.
Policy is characterized by factual and normative uncertainty; this
already applies in the current situation and even more so with respect
to the future. Factual uncertainties are characteristic not just of the
ecological but also of the social domain. While it is true that the lack
of correspondence between the desired and the expected ecological
situation provides grounds for talking of unsustainability, not just
ecological but also economic and other social risks play a role in
formulating possible solutions to this problem. The assessment of such
information and the weighing of the risks is the essence of politics.
Even when one is working on the basis of the same information attitudes
towards sustainability can therefore diverge considerably. On the basis
of the differing weight attached to facts, uncertainties and risks with
respect to the environment and society, each of these approaches
- elaborated in this report as 'action perspectives' - may justifiably
at first sight be labelled as 'sustainable'. The consequences of these
differing weights, perceptions and acceptances of risks are very great.
The elaboration of each of these action perspectives based on
sustainability into long-term scenarios brings this out clearly and may
in consequence result in the tightening or adjustment of the action
perspectives.
Four action perspectives have been elaborated in this report in the
various sub-areas. These have been termed Utilizing, Saving, Managing
and Preserving. These action perspectives differ from one another in
two respects, mainly the extent to which they avoid or accept
environmental and social risks and the degree to which they intervene
in the form of adjustments in the production and/or consumption sphere.
The environmental risks to which the action perspectives relate concern
the exhaustion of finite resources and the disruption of ecosystems as
a result of human activities.
The Utilizing action perspective is based on confidence in the
resilience of the environment. By contrast, the ability to influence
social dynamics by policy measures is considered limited. Environmental
problems need to become urgent before sufficient creative energy can be
mobilized in society in order to solve that problem. This approach
places particular reliance on technological solutions.
In the Saving action perspective confidence in the resilience of the
environment does not extend across the board. On account of the enormous
growth in the scale of human activities, the continuity of those
activities is even regarded as under threat in the long term. A cut in
living standards is therefore required, which is where policy comes to
bear. The possibilities for applying technology must not be
overestimated.
Under the Managing action perspective, the risks to the ecological
system are avoided as far possible. This is, however, subject to the
condition that the rise in living standards is largely left undisturbed.
Under this perspective, the social risks of rigorous intervention are
regarded as so great as to call into question the legitimacy of such
intervention. Although the Managing perspective does provide for some
moderation of consumption the solutions are primarily sought in the
technological sphere.
The Preserving action perspective exhibits little confidence in the
resilience of the environment, for which reason adjustments are required
to economic and other social activities that impose a burden on on the
environment. Measures can be brought to bear both in the field of
consumer behaviour and with respect to the production system.
Ultimately, the necessary social willingness is deemed to exist under
this perspective.
These four action perspectives have been elaborated in the form of
scenarios looking to the year 2040. The scenarios describe the course
of a number of basic environmental issues, such as the world food
supply, the global energy supply, nature conservation and the management
of resources (especially copper and chlorine). For each of these aspects
a reference scenario is provided which sets out the potential
developments given unchanged policies. In most cases these provide clear
evidence of situations that may be regarded as unsustainable.
In the case of the world food supply the elaboration has taken the form
of asking whether the rapidly growing world population could potentially
be fed and whether the agricultural methods with which this would have
to be done can satisfy various ecological requirements. In this respect
a distinction has been drawn in the consumption sphere between a
relatively 'luxurious' and a more moderate food package and in the
production sphere between globally and locally-oriented agriculture.
On a world scale an adequate food supply appears realizable for all
four scenarios; depending on the scenario between 11 and 44 billion
people can be fed. Regionally, self-sufficiency is not universally
attainable; in East and Southeast Asia this is possibly only given a
moderate food package and globally-oriented agriculture. In Africa
enough food can be produced for self-sufficiency under all four
scenarios. This contrasts with the situation described in the reference
scenario. Although sustainability does not run into fundamental
obstacles in any of the four scenarios, achieving it does involve
far-reaching objectives for the world community.
The reference scenario anticipates an explosive growth in the consumption
of energy in the next century, caused in particular by rapid population
growth and a rise in living standards in the Third World. This growth in
energy consumption will be coupled with a substantial burden on the
environment due to energy extraction, as well as a very rapid rise
in C02 emissions. Due to the differing estimates of the risks of fossil
fuels and alternatives such as nuclear energy and renewable sources of
energy, the scenarios aimed at sustainability exhibit major differences
in energy consumption and in the mix of energy sources. In all four
scenarios achieving the desired situations calls for a radical effort
on the part of the world community.
The Preserving and Saving scenarios essentially aim at the preservation
of unspoiled nature, while the Managing and Utilizing scenarios centre
on the preservation of interesting natural features. In the first two
cases the emphasis is therefore on preventing the loss of biodiversity
as a result of human intervention, while the other two aim at an
interesting living environment. The second dimension where the scenarios
differ concerns the space to be set aside for natural areas; under the
Utilizing and Saving scenarios a smaller area is set aside for future
generations than under the Managing and Preserving scenarios. If nature
protection is to have anything other than symbolic meaning under any of
these scenarios this will involve radical changes.
In the reference scenario for copper, it is clear that consumption will
increase sharply in the coming decades, particularly as a result of the
growing economic importance of the Third World. The sustainability
scenarios differ in terms of estimates of copper reserves and the damage
to the ecological system that is accepted as a result of the extraction
of copper ore. The varying estimates of the stocks give rise to various
levels of extraction, now and in the future, that are deemed sustainable.
In the Saving and Preserving scenarios, the reserves are in principle
regarded as finite whereas the Utilizing and Managing scenarios assume
unlimited reserves. The latter do, however, involve the continual
exhaustion of richer ore deposits. This in turn means that ever poorer
ore deposits have to be used, with an increase in the extraction costs.
Greatly stepped-up recycling is therefore advocated under all four
scenarios.
The pollution aspects of raw materials are illustrated on the basis of
chlorine and chlorine products. Attention to chlorine is in order
because it is highly damaging in certain compounds. The action
perspectives indicate how chlorine compounds need to be handled, either
as intermediary products or as final products. In the first place
consideration may be given to the replacement or non-replacement of
chlorine compounds by alternatives. Secondly, the functions fulfilled
by chlorine can in certain cases be scaled down.
Most of the elaborations described are on a global scale. This is indeed
self-evident: sustainable development is a global issue. Many
environmental issues of relevance for domestic policy consequently also
have a global dimension.
A policy aimed at sustainable development is also by nature a policy
aimed at the longer term. The elaborated scenarios may therefore be
regarded as making a particular contribution towards strategic
policy-formation. This places heavy demands on the political
decision-making. The findings of the various analyses highlight all
sorts of issues which, in the Council's opinion, require a more
prominent place on the political agenda. The exhaustion of fossil fuels
is, for example, a very real prospect; this raises the question of the
possibilities for a radical energy-conservation policy as well as for
encouraging alternatives. In the case of food supply the possibilities
for globally or locally-oriented agriculture need to be drawn into the
debate in the light of the rapidly growing world population. Radical
choices also arise in the other areas investigated.
In the interests of the debate, the WRR has also adopted its own
standpoint in the light of the analysis of the various attitudes and
elaborations of sustainable development. In this respect it has been
guided by three considerations: the future freedom of action must be
guaranteed as far as possible, the interests of future generations must
be visible in the decisions taken and the measures must be primarily
directed towards adjustments in the production sphere. On the basis of
these considerations and the results of the scenarios, the Council notes
that it is not possible to arrive at a uniform application of one
scenario of sustainable development. It has therefore decided in favour
of differing scenarios for the various environmental aspects. In the
case of energy the transition from finite to renewable energy needs
to be promoted. Active environmental diplomacy and the deployment of
adequate market-based instruments will be jointly required to get this
transition under way. In the case of this elaboration the Council has
opted for a scenario in between Managing and Preserving. In the case of
the world food supply, globally-oriented agriculture needs to be
encouraged as far as possible, while the promotion of a moderate food
packet at global level is neither desirable nor necessary. In this
respect the Council opts for a scenario between Utilizing and Saving.
In the case of nature conservation the Council has opted in favour of
safeguarding the greatest possible area in the interests of maintaining
biodiversity. This implies a scenario between Preserving and Saving.
This choice cannot be viewed in isolation from the position adopted by
the WRR in approaching the world food supply issue. Precisely in the
case of an efficient, globally-oriented agriculture the pressure to use
natural areas for food production is lowest. In the case of the domestic
water supply the Council opts for a scenario aimed at Saving supplemented
by elements from the Managing scenario. In particular the use of mains
water can be effectively tackled. The necessary measures do, however,
call for purposeful decisions. In view of the anticipated sharp rise in
the global demand for copper and the uncertainties about the ultimately
extractable reserves, the demand needs to be cut back. Policy should be
more closely concerned with the promotion of recycling, conservation and
substitution; the possibilities have been barely exploited. In the case
of chlorine the Council notes that a policy aimed at chlorine in a
general sense will lack any real substance; the problems surrounding
chlorine do not so much concern extraction and transport as the use of
chlorine in certain products. This calls for a flexible strategy in
which the policy is aimed at problematical applications of chlorine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL UTILISATION SPACE AND
ACTION PERSPECTIVES
1.1 Introduction
Sustainable development is concerned with a longlasting relationship
between human beings, the environment and nature. It was noted in
Chapter 1 that this concept has now largely become a symbol that nobody
cares to oppose. Many people have therefore seen the importance of
defining the concept more precisely and have made efforts in that
direction. This has resulted in a large number of highly divergent
interpretations. Generally speaking these approaches assume that the
boundaries between a sustainable and a non-sustainable development can
be unambiguously determined, in other words that it is possible to
indicate the 'carrying capacity' of the environment.
By contrast this chapter argues that it is exceptionally difficult and
often even scientifically impossible to determine the carrying capacity
of the environment. Even if this were to succeed it would then be
difficult to translate the carrying capacity into constraints for
activities - apart from which it is not easy to translate these
constraints into behavioural precepts. All this knowledge is required
in order to establish a link between sustainable development and human
activity. Only then does it become possible to make directional
statements concerning the strategy to be pursued.
In the absence of clearcut criteria, it will be argued below that the strategy
can only be determined by trade-offs based on normative interpretations. The
argument leads to four action perspectives that illustrate the possible
differences in normative attitudes when making a trade-off between human
activities and the effects of those activities. The action perspectives have
been worked out in Chapter 3 in scenarios up to the year 2040. Taken as a
whole they illustrate normative choices, the uncertainty in the scientific
field and the uncertainty concerning the possibilities and consequences of
social change based on proactive rather than reactive policy.
1.2 Sustainable development: from abstract principle to usable
preconditions
In the report Our Common Future, the Brundtland Commission provides a
formulation of the concept of sustainable development that leaves a good deal
of room for individual interpretation 1/. The message in the report that
'sustainable development' is threatened by both wealth (over-exploitation) and
poverty (neglect) has, however, been broadly adopted. In the case of the Dutch
government, a commitment was made in response to the Brundtland report in the
Government Declaration of 1989 to achieve sustainable development within the
space of a single generation 2/. The Brundtland Report states that: 'In
essence, sustainable development is a process of change in which the
exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of
technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and
enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and
aspirations.'
This definition makes it clear that sustainable development is concerned with
at least two dimensions: the continued well-being of humankind and that of the
environment. In doing so harmony must be established between all the
activities required in order to meet human needs. This does not, however, say
anything about the extent to which human needs should be met. In addition
attitudes towards what are acceptable human needs will vary. The Brundtland
Report does not elaborate what is meant by the harmonious treatment of the
environment or when human activities will result in unacceptable damage to the
environment. The fact that divergent responses are possible to these questions
is evident from the differing measures used to determine this limit. In the
Netherlands National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP), for example, the
yardstick for sustainability consists primarily of the feedback link to source
of environmental problems aimed at the closing of substance cycles, the
conservation of energy and promotion of product quality 3/. This differs
markedly from the way in which the concept has been elaborated by S.
Swaminathan of India, the former chairman of the World Conservation Union
(IUCN) and former minister in the Indian government, who distinguishes six
decisive elements for sustainable development: nature and food production,
economic and social values and two equity values.
Both these elaborations take the Brundtland Report as their starting point.
The report, in fact, broadly sets the stage, without any precise definition or
elaboration.
1.2.1 The subjective nature of sustainable development
The room that the Brundtland Report leaves for interpretation has made it
possible for deeply-rooted differences in interpretation to surface. One
controversial point, for instance, is whether economic growth is required for
sustainable development. The Business Council for Sustainable Development, for
example, considers that it is 4/. In the Council's view a change for the
better for the environment can only be brought about in a dynamic system
driven by economic growth. The non-sustainable nature of present-day society
is caused on the one hand by the nature of the technology applied and on the
other by the forms of social organisation. It is for example inevitable that
people will use more energy, but sustainability demands that non-fossil energy
sources be explored. Scientists have also been prominent in this field: Van
Noort and others, for example, have calculated on the basis of a number of
simple assumptions that an economic growth rate of at least two per cent is
required for a sustainable environmental policy 5/.
Ranged against this is the view that economic growth is in fact responsible
for the environmental problems. Hueting, for example, concludes that a growth
in national income is the last thing we need in order to relieve the burden on
the environment 6/. In an analysis of the preconditions for a 'sustainable
natural environment in the Netherlands', Stortenbeker argues that sustainable
development cannot come about if economic growth is a precondition 7/. At
best, in his view, there would be sustainable use. As a minimum, the growth of
GNP would need to be adjusted to reflect the degradation of nature and the
environment in order to achieve sustainable development.
The list of examples on this subject is virtually inexhaustible. In essence,
however, each of these examples turns out to involve a partial approach. The
question as to whether or not economic growth is 'necessary' cannot be
answered without examining other considerations. Ultimately, the answer
depends heavily on the type of sustainable development that is desired.
When it comes to implementing environmental policy, conflicts arise because
people do not agree on the social sacrifices required to achieve environmental
goals. In the ultimate choice a trade-off made has to be reached that does
justice to both the environmental criteria and the social criteria. This then
raises the question as to how a trade-off between these criteria can be
achieved.
1.2.2 The relationship between the environment and society
The differences in definitions and elaborations make it clear that sustainable
development is not an objective feature of a process. Instead it involves
assigning the label of 'sustainable' or 'non-sustainable' to human activities
and their consequences for the environment. Sustainable development is a two-
sided relationship as both the well-being of mankind and society and that of
the environment play a role in evaluating those activities. Social well-being
can be measured in terms of the extent to which needs are satisfied and the
well-being of the environment in terms of the extent to which environmental
functions and assets are left unharmed. In defining these needs we are dealing
with a broad concept; these cover the needs not just of the present generation
but also of future generations. The definition of the needs of future gener-
ations must be viewed as a need felt by the present generation on behalf of
the future generations. The assessment as to whether human activities deserve
to be labelled 'sustainable' consequently needs to be based on these two
fundamentally different approaches towards developments that are deemed
desirable.
Figure 1.1 indicates how this satisfaction of social needs and the quality of
the environment are interrelated. In fact there are two separate 'circles'. In
the economic circle activities affect society via the satisfaction of existing
needs and in the ecological circle activities affect environmental functions
and values via the inevitable emissions of (for example) polluting substances.
The burden imposed on the environment by a particular activity can take many
different forms. Apart from emissions there may be disruption, fragmentation
and exhaustion, etc. Together, these influences are known as 'impact'. So,
apart from having a positive effect on the satisfaction of needs, an activity
can therefore have a negative impact on the environment. There may moreover be
a feedback with the economic system if the impact involves damage to an
environmental function or asset that helps meet an identified need in the
economic system.
The impact of human activities on the environment exhibits a relationship with
the number of people involved in that activity and the way in which the
activity is carried out. Take for example the environmental impact of the
production and use of paper. In the first place the impact on the environment
depends on the number of people using paper. Secondly, the impact depends on
the amount of paper each person uses. Finally, the impact depends on the way
in which the paper is manufactured, i.e. the way in which wood-fibres are
processed into pulp, whether or not the paper is bleached and whether waste
paper is recycled, etc.
Figure 1.1 shows that the size of the impact (I) is the resultant of a certain
population size (population P), a certain degree of per capita prosperity
(i.e. material welfare) (welfare W) and the environmental intensity of the
human activity, which is a function of the environmental intensity of the
production (Ep) and that of the consumption (Ec). At a particular level of
prosperity the environmental intensity will be affected by both consumption
(consumer preferences) and production (technological improvements), emission
and immission reductions). The relationship between these five variables may
be expressed with the aid of the following equation 8/:
I = P x W x f (Ep, Ec)
In many elaborations of sustainable development just one of the two circles is
taken into consideration, either as a condition of the ecological system to be
defined in isolation (the large circle) or the economic system (the small
circle). In the former case a standard is assigned to elements of the
environment that may not be exceeded. In the second case the satisfaction of
defined needs is considered necessary. Both cases are dealing with sustainable
development from their own particular vantage point.
Where the emphasis is placed on the ecological system this may manifest itself
in a proposal to set a sustainability norm in order to adjust national
income 9/ or to accord greater priority to 'environmental criteria' than to
human needs 10/. In this approach, 'ecological constraints' are determined
in absolute values or an 'environmental utilisation space' is determined. This
indicates the limits within which human activity must take place if it is to
be sustainable 11/. The maximum impact (I) is determined by specifying
requirements for environmental values and functions. Generally speaking this
means that the impact must decline in relation to the present situation. On
the basis of the definitional equation given above this can be achieved by
reducing the product of the population (P), material welfare (W), the
environmental intensity of production (Ep) and the environmental intensity of
consumption (Ec).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1.1 Interrelationships between activities, needs and the envi-
ronment in the economic and ecological system
(Not available on the Internet)
Source: WRR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In principle all four variables are potential objects of government policy.
This then identifies the steering variables of policy. The most far-reaching
are proposals for population control (B). This is generally prompted by the
anticipated growth of the population in developing countries. Combined with a
rise in living standards this would impose an unacceptable burden on the
ecological system. In these cases the view may be taken that environmental
criteria necessitate an active population policy 12/.
Instead proposals may also relate to the adaptation of material welfare (W).
Under this perspective per capita income is reduced so as to relieve the
burden on the environment. This should not be confused with a variant under
which it has been proposed that consumption, especially in the rich West,
should be 'de-materialised'. In the latter case the starting point is that the
impact on the environment will be reduced if human wants on average assume a
less material nature. For example, the consumption of culture (e.g. going to a
concert) is less harmful to the environment than the procurement and use of a
speed boat. Under this approach, however, policy does not come to bear on
living standards but on the environmental intensity of consumption Ec.
Finally, it may be urged that the environmental intensity of production Ep be
modified. This would involve investments in new, replacement technology in
order to turn the negative effect on the environment around.
If the sole focus is on the assets and functions of the environment, this
means that a significant element of the social satisfaction of wants is either
left out of account or becomes a derivative factor. Proponents of
environmental interests can, for example, adopt the uncompromising standpoint
that all use of chlorinated hydrocarbons is unacceptable on account of the
environmental consequences, without taking into account the consequences for
human activities and other interests. This position is justified by those
concerned with the notion that the environmental risks are exceptionally great
and that the latter may not therefore be exposed to a 'corrupting' process of
trade-offs. This ignores the fact that others may have an - in their eyes -
equally as justified although totally different attitude towards the use of
these substances, in which the environmental risks are kept within acceptable
limits. In these circumstances 'hard' environmental requirements come in to
conflict with the 'hard' requirements of society, with, in the background, a
difference of interpretation concerning the risks involved. If the required
standard of living, the environmental intensity of production and consumption
or population size cannot be regulated, or only with difficulty, a stalemate
is reached. The most common response to an absolutist but unattainable norm is
to find a way of escaping the burden imposed by that norm. In these
circumstances there is a risk that when concrete choices have to be made, the
skin will prove closer than the shirt and that priority will be given on
imperative grounds to employment, economic growth, improvement of the
infrastructure and so on - in brief, to more 'worldly' needs.
Alternatively, confidence in the ecological system may be so robust that
emphasis is placed one-sidedly on the economic system. In these circumstances
the evaluation of activities is conducted entirely against the background of
social needs. The satisfaction of those wants is given primacy and any
consequences for the environment are justified in terms of the express desire
of meeting those needs. Under this viewpoint, the risks of undermining these
social needs are regarded as excessive.
In the definitional equation provided earlier this means that the level of
material welfare (W) is left unfettered and that the impact (I) is simply
accepted. This approach does not primarily examine whether needs can be
satisfied in an 'environmentally-friendlier' manner. Under this approach
environmental interests automatically come into focus if the perceived social
needs which the environment is required to facilitate can no longer be
achieved. If the I should prove too great the scope can then be examined for
modifying the environmental intensity of production and consumption or the
population size. This 'learning by doing' approach implies that there are
sufficient feedback mechanisms in society and that there is enough reaction
time. A clear exponent of this vision is Wildavsky 13/:
'Formerly people always needed a justification for doing nothing. These days
we need a justification for doing something. Progress is based on trial and
error, but now we suddenly want a trial without error. We want a free lunch.
Unfortunately there's no such thing.'
Both the one-sided approaches discussed above fail to do justice to the
complexity of society. In the one case environmental requirements are imposed
and the rest of the social system has to fit in as best as possible. In the
other case economic requirements prevail and the resulting quality of the
environment is accepted as an inevitable factor. These partial approaches
cloak a risk of an imperative denial of other potential approaches.
Schwartz and Thompson have illustrated the danger of such an a priori division
into proponents and opponents on the basis of the debate about nuclear
energy 14/. By reducing the analysis to one of proponents and opponents the
complexity of this kind of decision-making fails to come into its own.
Schwartz and Thompson argue that politics, technology and public choices are
inextricably interwoven. By concentrating unduly on one of the elements the
view of the whole is lost and the issue is tackled simplistically.
Similarly in the case of sustainable development, there is a danger of
reducing the debate to proponents and opponents. It is, however, critically
important to acknowledge that there are a number of highly divergent and in
some cases conflicting perceptions of sustainability that exist side by side.
Each of these perceptions provides its own interpretation of the two most
important aspects of sustainable development: the ecological norms and values
to be respected and the socio-economic norms and values to be respected.
Failure to take into account all the relevant aspects in elaborating the
concept of sustainable development is the rule rather than the exception. For
this reason the Council considers it essential for both the broadly
interpreted socio-economic and ecological dimension to be incorporated in the
analysis for the purposes of rendering sustainable development operational.
Choices in favour of certain environmental values or certain human needs need
to be determined in the light of the consequences of those choices or the
other dimension. This is not in itself a new notion but this 'double goal' is
not always equally as clear in the present policies aimed at bringing about
sustainable development.
1.3 The 'environmental utilisation space' as basis for environ-
mental policy
In the debate about the appropriate environmental policy, the concept of the
'environmental utilisation space' (EUS) has been introduced in recent years in
an attempt to pin down the maximum permitted damage to the environment. In
doing so primacy is explicitly attached to the environment: society must act
in accordance with the potential room for use of the environment. There can be
no question of a trade-off with social goals.
Interpreting the concept of the EUS requires information on the absorption
capacity of the environment; an indication is provided of the margins within
which properties and functions of the environment may be used. The limits
within which change must take place are thus made explicit. Once the EUS has
been determined limits can be set on activities that could affect the quality
of the environment in one way or another.
The concept of the EUS derives from resource economics 15/. This presup-
poses well defined limits to the scale of reserves, such as those of raw
materials and energy, familiarity with the resilience of natural and agro-
ecosystems, clarity about the effects and degree of tolerance of alien
substances, and so on. Although various researchers acknowledged that the
information in certain areas remains inadequate, this does not eliminate the
fact that the notion of an objective, generally accepted definition of the EUS
has been broadly adopted at all levels of aggregation.
Administratively, the concept appears highly attractive. In principle the EUS
can be determined without the intervention of politics but is based on
scientific (i.e. objectified) argumentation. Ecological insights and analyses
provide the basis for determining the burden that the environment can
withstand. The EUS is therefore a usable intermediate stop for the development
of norms. Once those norms have been established they can be used to develop
policies and instruments can be selected and deployed. In doing so
environmental control is reduced to the determination of the EUS, after which
the selection of the appropriate instruments is a question of applying well-
tried mechanisms. For this reason the concept is very much in vogue in
environmental policy. In view of the one-dimensional nature of the EUS,
however, its usability in working towards sustainable development is
questionable. Further analysis will expose the weak spots.
1.3.1 Origins of the concept
The basic idea behind the EUS is that 'the biosphere' provides a finite base
in the form of stocks of natural resources and the capacity to absorb
pollution and environmental degradation 16/. 'Finiteness' should not be
interpreted in a geological but in a human timeframe: the limits of the EUS
can be achieved within one or two generations. In this respect sustainable
development has been interpreted as a 'form of economic development which
ensures that the resulting environmental burden can be "ecologically
assimilated"'. By this is meant that 'the future functioning of regeneration
systems, absorption capacities and other elements of the EUS are qualitatively
and quantitatively guaranteed as regards the exploitation potential'. Wetering
en Opschoor indicate that we are concerned here with an aspect of environ-
mental quality. The environment must also comply with criteria with respect to
diversity, integrity and amenity 17/. All this is, however, based on the
underlying premise that scientific consensus can be achieved concerning the
EUS in such areas as nature, energy, raw materials and land-use. This then
sets the limits for politics and administration.
The EUS may be regarded as the embodiment of the carrying capacity of the
environment. In order to clarify this Daly has introduced the metaphor of the
'Plimsoll mark' for the environment 18/. Plimsoll was a British Member of
Parliament who proposed in 1875 that a line be painted on the hulls of ships,
indicating the maximum depth to which they could be safely loaded. The mark
was designed to prevent ships from being overloaded - a frequent occurrence in
the cut-throat competition of those days, and the cause of shipping disasters.
An example of a Plimsoll mark is shown in Figure 1.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1.2 Example of a Plimsoll mark on the hull of a ship. The lines
indicate the maximum depth to which the ship may be loaded in
differing conditions
(Not available on the Internet)
Source: WRR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Plimsoll mark for the environment would therefore indicate the level to
which the environment can be burdened without unacceptable consequences. In an
economic sense this mark may be interpreted as a limiting condition imposed on
the economic system. Within that constraint, the trade-off mechanisms of the
economy are allowed to operate. To continue the metaphor, the economy can
ensure that the load is distributed evenly throughout the vessel, but the
amount of cargo is determined by the Plimsoll mark - the economic system
itself is unable to influence the latter in any way.
The drawing up of Plimsoll marks is also evident in numerous other policy
fields. These are not generally based on scientifically determined
possibilities; instead a norm is postulated for which various arguments are
advanced. In drawing up this norm a political wish is translated into
operational variables. All manner of examples could be cited: the burden of
tax and social security contributions should not exceed 53.6 per cent for a
financially healthy government; according to the Nature Conservation Policy
Plan, an area of 250,000 hectares should be designated as 'natural areas'; in
order to ensure that workers have a minimum degree of financial independence,
a minimum wage has been set.
1.3.2 Problems
The notion that the EUS can objectively and unequivocally indicate the margins
within which human activities must take place is, to begin with, at variance
with the observation made earlier that sustainable development is about the
quality of both the environment and society. If the 'demands' of the
environment do not cut across social desiderata there is of course no problem.
In practice, we accordingly find that the greatest progress is made in 'win-
win' situations of this kind. Where ecological and social desiderata come into
conflict with one another, however, the EUS rapidly ceases to act as a guide:
if a criterion that is laid down as 'absolute' proves to be unattainable, the
policy in question will cease to provide a guiding framework.
The aim of reducing the world population to two billion people on the basis of
an 'objectively' determined EUS forms an example of this 19/. Whatever the
inherent merits of this calculation, the social consequences rule it out as a
practical proposition. The calculated EUS does not, however, provide any
guideline as to what sort of population figure should be aimed at.
Even if an abstract consensus has been reached about the need to work on the
basis of an EUS, the latter can suddenly prove paper-thin once the
consequences become visible and tangible. This is evident from the
construction of motorways, car mobility and industrial development, etc.
Instead of providing clarity the application of the concept then simply leads
to escapist behaviour.
The concept of the EUS suggests that definitive knowledge is achievable in
principle, i.e. knowledge that enables the limits to and criteria for
behaviour to be determined. This is what makes the concept so attractive for
government administration: hard, scientifically formulated constraints and
parameters can render all sorts of political debates superfluous.
This is, however, to deny the dynamic nature of science. New knowledge is
consistently generated that qualifies or tightens previously formulated
'demands' on society. What was previously regarded as incontrovertible
knowledge then proves to have been no more than provisional knowledge. This is
not just a consequence of the fact that the accumulation of knowledge in
general is an on-going process while in the environmental field many of the
areas of scientific investigation are still in their infancy, but also of the
fact that relevant knowledge also derives from action itself, or in other
words from experience.
But apart from these fundamental problems there are also difficulties with
applying the concept of the EUS. By way of analogy with the Plimsoll mark, a
good deal of research and effort has been put into defining the EUS with the
aid of a set of sustainability indicators. It has not, however, proved
possible to draw up clear-cut indicators for sustainability or sustainable
development 20/.
The metaphor of the Plimsoll mark is itself illustrative of the problems one
encounters in seeking to identify clear-cut indicators. As may be seen in
Figure 1.3, the mark does not show a single maximum level but a whole series.
Different loading limits apply for freshwater and saltwater, for various seas
and oceans and for various seasons. The deadweight capacity of the vessel is
not fixed but depends on the salt-content of the water and the anticipated
weather conditions. Even in the case of a relatively uncomplicated issue such
as the permissable load of a ship, we therefore find that there are a number
of mutually interacting factors which, taken as a whole, produce a highly
differentiated system.
The complexity of sustainability indicators as an operationalisation of the
EUS is, however, much greater again. To start with, far more factors determine
the carrying capacity of the environment than just the salt-content and wind.
Furthermore, the individual contribution of those factors is often unclear.
But even where these are clear, it is often virtually impossible to indicate
the critical values (i.e. windforce 8 or 9). The question then arises as to
what an indicator in fact shows.
The main scientific problem in determining the EUS is the lack of the
requisite information for a complete and coherent analysis. In many cases the
knowledge concerning environmental developments and the impact of human
activities on those trends is no more than fragmentary. In particular two
problems arise: ignorance and uncertainty.
Inherent ignorance
The EUS may be depicted as a system in which certain limits have to be set. As
noted, it is a complex system, which is concerned with setting quality
standards for the environment. The environment does not exist as a unit or
entity but needs to be defined as a system of differing ecosystems (such as
forests, fenlands and river deltas, etc.) supplemented by abiotic elements
(e.g. a supply of raw materials). The ecology is concerned with the analysis
of ecosystems and could therefore provide the most important building blocks
for the quality standards for the environment. To date, however, it has proved
all but impossible unambiguously to determine which elements are vital for the
sustainable functioning of an ecosystem.
This may be clarified by drawing a distinction between repeatable and unique
systems. Repeatable (agro) ecosystems such as a field of potatoes or wheat can
be identified and the mechanisms of their functioning explained. The time-
scale of the system is known and the number of elements of the system is
limited. Hypotheses on the functioning are testable and can be experimentally
falsified, not least because the object of the system is clear, i.e. to
produce potatoes or wheat. All non-productive elements of the original natural
ecosystems, such as weeds and vermin, are therefore eliminated as far as
possible in the development of the ecosystem. All other external influences on
the system are related to the ultimate goal. In a productive sense this
knowledge is used in order to respond to changing influences. If for example
the density of a plague organism exceeds an experimentally determined
threshold, it may be decided to take countermeasures.
Even in the case of these comparatively simple systems there is no lack of any
ambiguity concerning the relevant indicators for sustainable development. The
concepts of stability, resilience, productivity and tenability are employed
side-by-side, with attention to the use of both renewable and non-renewable
resources.
The majority of natural ecosystems, however, form part of the unique systems
in which the time-scale is in fact infinite. Unique systems are characterised
by a large number of unknown positive and negative feedbacks, so that the
characteristics of the system cannot be described. In contrast to repeatable
agro-ecosystems, the most important goal of the system, and consequently the
most important elements in it, are less clear in the case of natural
ecosystems. For this reason numerous qualitative standards are imposed on
ecosystems that are highly localised and time-bound and which draw for their
frame of reference on the state of nature in the past. Salmon, for example,
should return to the Rhine. In consequence, various indicators of sustainable
development can co-exist, without the ability to assign priority to them on
scientific grounds.
If quality standards relate to the entire system, the system characteristics
become important. In the case of more complex natural ecosystems, however,
knowledge of the resilience, robustness and persistence of the system is
highly limited. Much may, on the other hand, be known about individual
elements of such systems and the consequences of disruption can therefore be
estimated. The consequences of such disruption for the system as a whole,
however, remain largely confined to speculation. The tropical rainforest, for
example, is known especially for its abundance of species, but the precise
numbers, what their frequency should be and the precise situation concerning
persistence are unknown.
Whereas science is at best able to provide a partial and conditional insight
into positive and negative feedbacks, policy by contrast is interested in the
net result and seeks absolute statements: is the earth warming up or not?
Especially in the case of unique systems, science is unable to indicate all
the determining factors for the functioning of the ecosystems. In the absence
of such knowledge, it is, precisely for these unique systems, impossible
unambiguously to determine the quality of the environment. Similarly it is
also often impossible to provide a response to questions about ecological
disruption. The absence of unambiguous indicators and lack of knowlegde about
the consequences of change is virtually characteristic of unique systems.
Clear-cut, non-controversial definitions prove impossible, as illustrated in
Chapter 2.
Uncertainty
Determining the EUS is hampered by statistical and fundamental uncertainty.
The statistical uncertainty stems from the lack of precise knowledge
concerning human intervention and its effects on the environment, while the
fundamental uncertainty stems from partial knowledge of complex relationships
that may lead to differences in insight concerning that relationship. In a
number of places, it is possible within reasonable limits to predict the
consequences for the quality of the environment of a certain intensity of
human activity by means of dose-effect relationships. This applies for example
to the relationship between urbanisation and nature conservation; clearly,
nature must give way where urban development takes place. In many cases,
however, this relationship is surrounded by uncertainties and ambiguities.
Industrial activities, for example, result in the emission of acidifying
substances such as nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide, but the effects on the
vitality of forests can only be determined by averaging a large number of
observations on lowered vitality. In this regard the system is treated as a
black box and the impact is only examined on the outside of that box (i.e. the
imposition of acidifying substances) and the effect (declining vitality).
Sometimes, causal relationships can be established at the level of the
component elements. This applies for example to the effects of acidification
on the bio-chemical process that forms part of photosynthesis. Extrapolation
of these relationships to crop situations is controversial and conclusions
cannot be reached straightforwardly with respect to the growth and production
of forests. In this case it is therefore necessary to make do with a
statistical estimate of the average effect of acidifying deposition on the
vitality of forests. The relationship between the dose and the effect may then
be portrayed in the form of a scatter diagram indicating that a number of
effects have been observed for a particular intervention. The relationship
between the intervention and the effect is evidently disturbed by background
interference that cannot be screened out.
In the case of many dose-effect relationships it is not even possible to
provide an indication of the size of the background interference and there is
total uncertainty about the precise position of the points. The reason for
this is that much scientific research into these relationships does not only
reveal statistical uncertainties but also that more fundamental uncertainties
prove unbridgeable. A good example is provided by the theoretical foundations
for measures in the field of climate control. Far-reaching statements have
been made about climatic changes due to the greenhouse effect, all of varying
reliability. These statements range from the belief that the next ice age will
be brought forward to a zero effect and finally the accelerated warming of the
earth.
A study by the IPCC, however, has examined the status of the various data by
classifying these into facts, suppositions and guesses 21/. It is for
example a scientifically established fact that the CO2 content of the
atmosphere has been increasing at an accelerating rate due to human activity
(i.e. the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation). The increase in CO2
levels is, however, lower than would otherwise be expected on the basis of the
combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation; there is a gap in the carbon
balance sheet. It has been suggested that this may be because more C02 is
absorbed by the oceans or because greater quantities are stored in root
systems, but there is no scientific certainty. It is suspected that the
increase in C02 levels will enhance the greenhouse effect and result in higher
average temperatures on earth. This supposition is based on calculations using
incomplete models of the 'unique' climate system. Tests can be conducted on
the component elements of these models but not on the models as a whole. This
means that, depending on the feedbacks allowed for, the results can vary
considerably. For this reason it is necessary to speak of estimates and
suppositions and not of probabilities and facts. Finally there are guesses
that the greenhouse effect will result in a rise in sea levels; these are not
based on hydrological models of the world but are generally no more than
speculative in nature and therefore highly controversial 22/.
However, even if the relationship between (for example) the use of fossil
fuels and the rise in sea levels is unknown, choices have to be made for
policy purposes. In these circumstances the potential risks thought to be
incurred become the determining factor in the choice. In the case of a
statistical risk this can be estimated and both the distinguishing capacity
and the reliability of the statements can then be calculated. In the case of
theoretical risks one is confined to making a normatively determined estimate
of that risk. In fact we are therefore concerned here with the perception of
risks, with respect to both the environment (i.e. can the environment cope
with a particular impact) and the socio-economic order (can society with its
needs, wishes and institutions, etc., adapt to new activities without
problems).
These perceptions of risk come into play when a choice has to be made in a
specific instance about adapting economic activities in order to reduce the
burden imposed on the environment. Generally speaking this will then mean that
environmental investments have to be made. If the relationship between
environmental investments and environmental quality is a diffuse one, it will
not be clear how great the investment needs to be in order to achieve a given
level of environmental quality, and conversely it is unclear what level of
environmental improvement will be achieved by a given investment. The recent
debate concerning the costs for the agricultural industry of manure policy in
the Netherlands and the supposed benefits in the form of vital forests
provides one example. Many farmers are naturally well disposed towards the
natural environment but they did not all prove convinced of the need to
eliminate every last emission of (for example) ammonia from animal pens at
high cost because the benefits were not immediately apparent to them. The
estimation of risks therefore invariably comes with a price tag, either for
the socio-economic order or for the environment.
Apart from differences of insight concerning the relevant dimensions there is
also a difference of insight concerning the extreme value that a
sustainability indicator may assume while still falling within the EUS. It is,
however, by no means always the case that if an assigned critical value or an
indicator is exceeded, life as we know it will cease to exist. It is,
accordingly, virtually impossible to base policy decisions on scientifically
established facts. An attempt has, for example, been made to draw up
sustainability indicators for copper and aluminium 23/. In doing so the
present level of consumption has been compared with 'permitted consumption'.
The latter has been derived from a calculation based on the exhaustion of
reserves in 50 years' time. As will be shown in Chapter 2, however, the latter
is subject to highly varying interpretations. Taking the case of aluminium,
there is an enormous difference between the present commercially exploitable
reserves and the geological reserves, which differ by a factor of 400 million.
On the basis of what is considered technically feasible at present, the
technically extractable reserves are estimated at roughly 700 times the
currently commercial reserves. Differing assumptions about technological
progress may lead to lower but also substantially higher estimates of these
technical reserves. Reducing all these uncertainties to a 'safe' margin of 50
years is therefore, at the very least, a gross simplification of reality. The
length of the critical reserve period is in fact determined by the uncertainty
concerning the volume of the reserves and the development of suitable
substitutes. If that uncertainty is assessed differently this then results in
a different indicator.
Opschoor and Reijnders accordingly note rightly that the problems surrounding
the determination of indicators for sustainable development arise at both
scientific and ethical/normative level 24/. For example, the question as to
whether species and quality characteristics need to be taken into account in
order to determine the functioning of an ecosystem needs itself only partially
to a scientific answer. Normative arguments also come into the discussion:
which elements of the environment are regarded as vital for the quality of the
environment? Opinions on this aspect tend to vary considerably.
The ethical question as to whether the sustainability indicator in question
must relate to the conditions of existence for human beings or also to those
of other organisms is an additional factor. Do plant and animal species have
an independent value and should they therefore come under the goals of
sustainable development, or do they have a value only in so far as human
beings are able to utilize them in some way?
The answer to these questions proves heavily dependent on the assumptions one
makes with respect to the resilience and absorption capacity of the
environment. In order to illustrate these differing interpretations, Schwartz
and Thompson have distinguished four 'Myths of Nature' that determine the
attitude one adopts towards trade-off issues between social interests and the
interests of nature and the environment 25/. The various attitudes they
distinguish are shown in Figure 1.3. Nature has been conceived as a ball on a
plane. Human beings are able to exert influence on the natural environment.
Depending on the assumption one makes concerning the plane, the latter may
cause the ball to oscillate slightly or dislodge it from its unstable position
of equilibrium. Various assumptions about the robustness of nature therefore
lead to totally different judgements concerning damage to the environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1.3 Four different attitudes towards nature
(Not available on the Internet)
Source: M. Schwartz and M. Thompson, Divided we stand. Redefining politics,
technology and social choice; Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York, 1990.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four different attitudes that one can adopt towards nature are also
reflected in the discussion concerning the importance of environmental
indicators. What those who regard nature as 'benign' consider to be an impact
readily absorbed by the environment because the latter is well able to absorb
a shock is contested by others. Those who regard nature as 'tolerant', for
example, will not be unduly concerned about the risk of exceeding threshold
values. If however one considers that nature is in an unstable position of
equilibrium (i.e. 'ephemeral') then each adverse impact is one too many. Even
if scientific uncertainties can be reduced to a minimum, differences in
normative attitudes mean that there will still be uncertainty concerning the
delimitation of the EUS. This is in part a consequence of the multi-
dimensional nature of the concept of environment. The identification of
environmental problems depends on the state of science in combination with
culturally determined attitudes concerning 'good' nature and a 'good'
environmental result. This perception of environmental problems plays a major
role in determining the EUS.
When it comes to operationalisation, however, it is evident that critical
values are interpreted wholly differently. Scientific research may, for
example, demonstrate that the extent to which surface water may be burdened
with unavoidable pollution as a result of human group activity depends on the
season. The possibilities for natural recovery vary throughout the year. This
does not, however, say anything about the critical values. These are dependent
on the weight assigned to the activity in question, the environmental damage
and the possibility of compensation. Evidently the perception of the risks
incurred by the environment plays a decisive role.
1.4 Risk as central concept
From the above it will be clear that both scientific and normative problems
may be traced back to perceptions of the risks at issue. Specific scientific
research can in certain cases help draw a distinction between facts,
suppositions, probabilities and beliefs. Statistical risks can also be
reduced, for example by improved observations, and some fundamental risks can
be eliminated by unravelling causal links. The advancement of knowledge will,
however, always be relative, in the sense that greater knowledge about the
functioning of systems is also accompanied by greater knowledge about the
possible threats to those systems. In addition, research does not resolve the
fact that opinions may differ about the relevance of environmental assets.
In the former case account will need to be taken when a concrete decision is
taken of the statistical risks inherent in the inadequate knowledge of dose-
effect relationships. In the second case there are fundamental risks which
people will or will not be prepared to take. Normative perceptions of this
kind of risk are a major factor in the final policy action.
What this ultimately comes down to is people's perception of the risks at
issue. How great is the risk put that certain relevant variables have been
overlooked? How great is the chance that the uncertainty has been incorrectly
estimated? Part of the effects of human activities can only be indicated in
the form of a certain probability of an effect. In these circumstances one can
only conduct a probability calculation. A familiar example is the discussion
about the height of dykes. At a given height of the dyke there is a
probability of X per cent of a collapse. This is then expressed as 'once in so
many years'. The distinction between sea and river dykes and between lowland
or highland rivers refines these statements but ultimately it remains a
probability calculation.
The average citizen is accustomed to dealing with risks. People for example
take out insurance against the risk of fire and accident. The public is also
familiar with individual risks (smoking, alcohol consumption, participation in
traffic) and collective risks (the collapse of a dyke, energy supply). In
addition a distinction is also often drawn between micro-risks (i.e. minor or
major probability with local or comparatively brief effects) and macro-risks
(low probability but with very great and drawn-out consequences, such as an
uncontrolled fission process in a nuclear power plant). In the debate about
sustainable development, a classification of this kind into the various sorts
of risks often takes a back seat, meaning that no trade-offs are made vis-a`-
vis other risks or social needs. Further elaboration is required to prevent
the trade-off being made implicitly and by a small group of decision-makers
rather than explicitly and by public participation. It may not prove possible
to achieve consensus, but at least a democratic basis of support can be
achieved.
1.5 Action perspectives
1.5.1 Perception of risks
Achieving the goal of sustainability necessarily involves weighing the
available information on the environment and the impact of human activity. In
view of the numerous gaps in the available knowledge, such a weighing also
involves uncertainties and risks. The solutions that people put forward can
therefore never be solely dictated by the available information. Among other
things, the solutions are determined by assumptions and attitudes arrived at
on the basis of historical experience, contemporary opinion-formation and the
context in which one operates.
For example, the information that the reserves of a particular resource will
be exhausted in 20 years' time is not as straightforward as it seems, in that
the exploration for further reserves is never final. No-one therefore knows
whether the known reserves are in fact the 'final' reserves or whether we are
still at an earlier stage of the reserve curve. Historical experience never
provides a single lesson: one person will be able to use past experience to
show that further exploration will demonstrate the existence of new reserves
or that replacement raw materials can be found, while another can cite
analogous cases of exhaustion.
If sustainability is to be achieved on the basis of these attitudes - which
differ in particular concerning the extent to which environmental risks are to
be avoided - the consequences can vary widely. The notion of sustainability
obliges one to ask what form the responsibility towards future generations
should take. The belief that reserves 'will last for only another 20 years'
will necessitate cutbacks in consumption so that something is left for future
generations. On the basis of this environmental-risk-avoiding attitude, the
debate will then centre particularly on the question as to how much should be
left. If, on the other hand, the risks to the environment are considered less
great, one will be expected to be more optimistic about the reserves; here the
reasoning will be more in terms of a dynamic stock. Further exploration will
be expected to result in new reserves. It will therefore more readily be
assumed that there will be enough for future generations or that it will be
possible to switch to substitutes. The responsibility for future generations
will be sought in the generation and transfer of adequate know-how and
techniques for the extraction of the raw material or alternatives.
Similarly the information about the disruption of ecosystems due to human
activity does not automatically lead to conclusions. The judgement made will
depend on assumptions concerning the fragility or robustness of nature. If
nature is regarded as a complex system of precarious equilibria, one will be
more inclined to assume that small changes in the component parts can have an
enormous knock-on effect. In this case sustainability will be largely
interpreted in the sense of avoiding the violation of what are regarded as
fragile ecosystems and minimising activities that pose risks to the natural
environment. If, by contrast, nature is regarded as a dynamic and robust
system, there will be a certain amount of a priori confidence in its
resilience. It will then be noted that negative feedbacks soften the effects
of positive feedbacks. Furthermore, ecosystems are - quite independently of
any human activity - permanently in a state of flux, and a further adaptation
of the effects of human activity need not necessarily be associated with a
loss of specific environmental features and functions. And where this cannot
be avoided, this will be regarded under this approach as a challenge to human
ingenuity: if nature becomes scarce it will have to be produced. If there are
signals that the resilience is being undermined, on the other hand, caution
will be called for; it may be that gene banks or genetic manipulation can
provide some solace by giving nature a helping hand in the selection process.
It will be clear that these kinds of assumptions provide frameworks for the
interpretation of the available partial information. In this respect they also
play a role in assessing which activities should take place to assist the
environment and which should be discontinued.
The risk perceptions with respect to the environment are therefore relative in
so far as environmental risks can never be totally excluded, however risk-
avoiding one sets out to be. Conversely it is not the case that no risks
whatever are incurred, however robust nature may be perceived as being.
Furthermore a certain risk perception need not be adhered to once and for all;
human beings are capable of learning and altering their stance in response to
fresh information. Nor will the same assumptions be applied across the board
in the environment: it is perfectly conceivable that the uncertainties in the
energy field will be interpreted differently from those applying to nature. If
anything the distinction brings out the ambivalence that can arise using
uncertain information.
It was suggested above that the label of sustainability or reduction of
insustainability relates to the quality of the relationship between the
ecological and social systems. In the same way that it is impossible
unambiguously to interpret the environmental situation we are working towards,
the same applies to the social transformation that is deemed desirable and
possible from the viewpoint of sustainability. Similarly the consequences of
social intervention for environmental reasons are often uncertain and imply
certain risks. Undesired environmental effects are generally the consequence
of behaviour patterns that are essentially regarded as normal and also
desirable, and which are underpinned by numerous institutions in society. The
packaging of consumer goods is based on considerations of efficiency, hygiene,
competition and customer-friendliness but in fact generates an enormous amount
of waste. Consumption, and hence the assault on scarce resources and the
generation of waste, is, among other things, a function of the number of
households. The fall in average household size means that the number of
households and, therefore, consumption is growing. The curtailment and
'internalisation' of undesired environmental effects can touch, therefore, on
deeply felt rights and freedoms. Interference with these - such as the freedom
of production and consumption or the size of households - can produce
reactions that cut across the desired objectives. The violation of interests
can also have undesirable political and economic consequences. A recent
example concerns the threat created by the further tightening of environmental
regulations that economic activities could be transferred to other countries
with less strict rules.
Opinions may also differ about the risks to society that one is prepared to
accept in response to proposed changes to improve the environment. It may for
example be assumed that the well-tested mechanisms behind the existing socio-
economic dynamics will once again demonstrate their problem-solving capacity
if they are confronted with the environmental issue. The risks of far-reaching
autonomous social intervention are, moreover, deemed excessive. Improvement of
the existing mechanisms is therefore the appropriate path. The social risks
are minimised if the 'scarcity' of the environment is as far as possible
regulated by means of the normal coordination mechanisms. The market (under
this approach) is viewed as the most efficient and effective path.
The market will show just how valuable particular needs are considered to be.
Prices bring together information in a highly efficient manner. If prices
reflect environmental preferences this will then elicit the necessary change
in behaviour. It will also give rise to a process of technological information
aimed at mitigating the environmental problem in question. Assimilation into
the world economy is, accordingly, regarded as the best way of countering the
environmental problems in the Third World and ensuring that people there also
have access to scarce resources. The West can contribute to this process by
creating favourable conditions for economic take-off, i.e. liberalisation of
the world market and the abolition of protective measures.
If however the 'normal' coordination mechanisms are feared to be inadequate,
it will be argued that more rigorous adjustments are required in order to
establish a sustainable relationship with the environment. It is also argued
that the market's time-horizon is short by definition, whereas in the case of
the environment we are concerned with short-term changes in the interests of
preventing problems in the long term. Furthermore there are also environmental
interests that cannot be expressed in price terms. Particularly where the
necessary changes in behaviour take the form of a slowdown in consumption and
production the curative effects of the market cannot be guaranteed. Refraining
from certain forms of consumption or needs, acceptance of redistribution in
favour of the Third World and future generations on account of the scarcity of
resources and the stimulation of technological change even where there is no
consumer demand are all new paths the social consequences of which are not
readily brought into focus. The social risks need not, however, be taken too
seriously. Confronted with this wholly new assignment, society must certainly
be deemed capable of developing new organisational forms, given the necessary
commitment.
Under this view, it is held that society is willing to accept these political
and socio-economic 'innovations' on account of the ecological threat, or that
it can be mobilised to do so. In other words, the risks of social adjustments
weigh less heavily than they do under the previously discussed set of views.
If, on account of prisoner's dilemmas, these changes are not spontaneously
reflected in the economic process it is then regarded as desirable and
possible for this to be superimposed, namely by legitimating governments to
impose conditions on individual or state behaviour.
The respective attitudes towards environmental and social risks are both
relative positions. Even if one seeks to avoid social risks, one will
nevertheless be prepared to accept some such risks - for example as a result
of a change in prices - in the interests of sustainability.
The judgement about social flexibility need not be the mirror-image of that
concerning the environmental risks. If one considers that social activity
poses major risks to the environment this does not necessarily mean that the
social potential for change will be considered high. Nor need the reverse
apply: faith in the changeability of society need not necessarily mean that
major importance is assigned to environmental risks. Both dimensions may,
therefore, be viewed to some extent in isolation from one another. On the
other hand, as argued previously, the two are by no means always seen in
combined terms. Calls for a radical improvement of the environment presuppose
the capacity for substantial social change, but this sometimes remains
implicit. Conversely, trivialisation of environmental problems is often
prompted by the unexpressed assumption that social processes cannot or should
not be changed.
This report is based on the assumption that sustainability implies that the
present environmental risks are regarded as unacceptable and that there is a
willingness to make social adjustments. Various positions may be adopted with
respect to the seriousness of the perceived environmental risks and the extent
to which one is prepared to accept social risks in order to mitigate the
impact on the environment. These positions are discussed below in stylised
form.
1.5.2 Elaboration into action perspectives
Choices must be made in both risk domains. To this end an estimate has to be
made of the environmental risks that one is prepared to accept or which one
considers should be avoided. The same applies to an estimate of social
resilience. This finally gives rise to an estimate of the ability to prevent
environmental problems by means of adjustments in human activities.
Although, as seen in section 1.2.2, the size of the population and level of
prosperity also affect the impact of human activity on the environment,
consumer and producer behaviour lend themselves particularly to direct
intervention by (government) policy. On environmental grounds, an active
population policy is highly relevant. In order to place this in perspective,
account has been taken in the elaboration of the action perspectives of the
various variants of population developments.
In tackling the environmental problem, the action perspectives focus
especially on the consumer needs or functions that are to be fulfilled and/or
the activities with which those needs are to be met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.1 Four action perspectives aimed at the achievement of
sustainable development
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumption
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production high low
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptation of production methods Utilizing Saving
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in nature of production methods Managing Preserving
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: WRR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The view may for example be taken that only minimal adjustments are required
in order to cope with environmental problems. Both the present level of
consumption and the production technology can be continued with some
adjustment over a lengthy period without endangering sustainability. This
perspective may be described as Utilizing.
It can also be argued that the solution should not be sought so much in the
production sphere but that, more especially, the volume or pattern of
consumption - for example of energy or animal proteins - should be adapted.
This perspective may be labelled Saving.
Another alternative is to counter environmental problems by continuing to meet
the present high level of consumer needs while modifying the productive
activities directed towards those needs, for example by a change in technology
or the use of different energy sources. This action perspective may be
described as Managing.
Fourthly, environmental problems may be viewed so seriously that both the
level of consumption and production processes need to be adapted. This
perspective is concerned with Preserving.
The four attitudes or sets of views which have been taken as the starting
point are outlined in more detail below. The description of these action
perspectives is confined to the a priori attitudes. The tenability of those
attitudes will be examined more closely in Chapter 2 on the basis of the
scenarios worked out for the next 50 years in the various areas.
1.5.3 The Utilizing action perspective
Deliberately engineered radical social transformation for environmental
purposes is regarded under the Utilizing action perspective as undesirable and
impossible. At best the social dynamic can be adjusted, not directed. In
addition there is the danger that simpler solutions to environmental problems
will be ruled out in the laborious process of imposed behavioural change. This
applies not just to consumption processes but also to excessive intervention
in production processes. Problems need to achieve a certain scale in order to
unleash creative energy.
This may be at the expense of particular environmental wishes; a certain level
of environmental risk can never be ruled out. Some forms or levels of
pollution of water, soil and air are, however, acceptable. Others can be
mitigated by means of technological adaptations. The availability of energy
and raw materials is not regarded as a major problem. Much can be achieved by
technology. Furthermore, the growing scarcity of resources will mean a rise in
prices, leading in turn to endogenous substitutions. If the conventional
sources of energy are exhausted in the next century this may not be a problem
if the know-how and technology for other sources have been developed in the
meantime. This means that in those areas where energy is now freely available
investments need to be made in good time in new know-how. Nuclear energy,
including in particular nuclear fusion, are options that must not be put to
one side. Terrible though catastrophes such as Chernobyl are, they have also
produced some benefits, e.g. in the form of improvements in the safety of
nuclear power plants in Eastern Europe. The problem of the storage of nuclear
waste could also be nearing a solution. Risks cannot be totally excluded but
are comparable with those associated with (for example) the extraction of coal
(i.e. lung disease and accidents). The nuclear energy option is therefore
placed in a new light, particularly if the environmental aspects - the
physical exhaustion of fossil energy, acidification and C02 - are taken into
account.
Under this action perspective there is a particular need to check the rapid
growth of the world population. The growth of the population in the Third
World is the source of major concern. The associated poverty results in major
environmental problems (erosion, destruction of the tropical rainforests,
etc). Precisely because it is difficult to alter the development of
consumption and production, tackling poverty becomes an important lever. A
rapid increase in prosperity is called for, both indirectly in order to
mitigate the population numbers and directly to improve the environment. An
increase in prosperity in Western countries is also regarded as desirable and
possible. The institutions predicated on high living standards are so firmly
enshrined that any reduction in prosperity may be regarded as illusory.
1.5.4 The Saving action perspective
Under the Saving action perspective, both environmental risks and the risks
inherent in the process of social adaptation are, to a certain extent,
accepted and taken in the interests of sustainability, in that the resilience
of both systems is regarded as considerable. Methods of production, including
technology, cannot however be changed rapidly. Nor is this required from the
viewpoint of environmental risks. These can be reduced to acceptable levels by
reducing the volume of consumption bearing on the environment. This provides
the most important lever for change. Major cutbacks in consumption are not
just required for the environment but are also regarded as necessary in the
interests of a fairer distribution of scarce resources both worldwide and
between present and future generations.
Under this view, it is desirable to work towards a package of consumer needs
in which each world citizen makes limited use of natural resources. This is
based on the assumption that ultimately everyone has the same right of access
to sufficient resources in order to meet certain priority consumer needs (i.e.
redistribution), before all kinds of luxury needs can be met. Environmental
problems which, despite the lower level of consumption, could still arise, are
accepted as potentially insoluble or inevitable. There is however little
confidence in the effectiveness of banning certain substances or the rapid
development and application of renewable resources. Nor does this particular
set of beliefs share the optimistic noises about the possibilities for
recycling and the replacement of existing raw materials. In many cases this
just leads to the displacement of problems. Because it can never be determined
in advance whether or not environmental problems are insoluble it is best to
allow for a cautious margin for error by exercising restraint with respect to
consumer needs. This applies all the more since a high level of population
growth cannot be ruled out. Emphasis is also placed on reducing dependence on
natural resources.
1.5.5 The Managing action perspective
The Managing action perspective is based on the assumption that, contrary to
the way in which they are met, needs cannot be rapidly changed. The natural
environment is regarded as 'robust within limits', meaning that these limits
need to be monitored closely in order to prevent accidents. Risks exceeding
those limits are not acceptable. The social capacity for adjustment is
regarded as considerable, but the optimism of the Preserving action
perspective is not shared. It is not for nothing that the present of level of
consumption in the West is widely pursued throughout the world. For this
reason the potential in terms of organised human inventiveness - R & D - needs
to be exploited in order to come up with new production methods that spare the
environment as far as possible. The focus is placed on regulating adjustments
in production.
It is important to accumulate as much information as possible in order to
provide the foundation for a deliberate, future-oriented policy. This
information is used in order to accelerate the dematerialisation of
production, possibly followed by the dematerialisation of consumption. This
applies especially to the West, for at global level the consumption of
materials is increasing. By 'investing in the future' - for example by the
development of 'clean' technologies and new materials - it becomes possible on
a worldwide scale to revive renewable resources and reduce leakages.
1.5.6 The Preserving action perspective
Under the Preserving action perspective there is a willingness to change both
consumer and producer behaviour. Environmental risks are regarded as high and
avoiding them requires adjustments to the level or pattern of consumption and
changes in the relevant production activities. It is held that the necessary
social willingness will ultimately be available. Undoubtedly this will arouse
resistance, since the necessary intervention will cut across numerous
interests and acquired rights.
This perspective seeks to minimise the uptake of non-renewable resources and
to control the utilisation of renewable resources in such a way that their
regenerative capacity is not overburdened. Under this vision, sustainable
development means that people must submit to tight ecological constraints and
reconcile themselves to a sober lifestyle. There is also considerable
confidence in the potential that technological contributions can make towards
solving environmental problems, but this is technology concerned with the
recycling of scarce raw materials and renewable sources of energy. By cutting
back heavily on the initial consumption of raw materials, the large-scale
closure of cycles and the increasing use of renewable resources, environmental
risks can be minimised. Even more than in the Saving perspective, the emphasis
is on meeting certain priority consumer needs for each world citizen now and
in the future. This course of action is advocated since a substantial increase
in population must be allowed for. The uptake of scarce resources by the rich
countries must be reduced so as to leave something for the developing
countries and for future generations.
Where there is certainty about the consequences of human intervention (e.g.
the hole in the ozone layer), immediate adjustments in both production and
consumption are automatically required. New products may only be marketed if
their harmlessness to the environment has been demonstrated. As long as there
is uncertainty concerning the environmental consequences of behaviour that
behaviour needs to be modified in line with the risk. The scientific
uncertainty concerning the consequences of the combustion of fossil fuels or
the temperature of the earth, for example, entails such major risks that
energy use must be radically reduced as long as non-harmful energy extraction
(i.e. renewable sources) is not available. At the same time the process of
innovation must concentrate more on renewables. To an even greater extent than
under the Saving perspective the radical government intervention is
legitimated. This in turn calls for strong governments that are capable of
making use of all the available means, both directly and indirectly, for
example via the market.
1.5.7 Scenarios
The description of the four sets of views above is based on the attitudes that
stem logically from the various risk perceptions in the ecological
(environmental) and societal/socio-economic domain. On the basis of those
perceptions choices are made. Confrontation with the consequences of those
choices can lead to a review of the a priori attitudes. For this reason, a
number of scenarios have been worked out in particular areas in Chapter 2. On
the one hand these illustrate the incompleteness of the information and the
scientific uncertainty, while on the other they demonstrate how different
attitudes need to be adopted in various areas if sustainability is to be a
'realistic' concept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1/ World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future;
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987.
2/ 'Regeringsverklaring nieuw kabinet: Beleid gericht op
rechtvaardigeen evenwichtige verhoudingen' (Government declaration
by new administration: Policy directed towards equitable and
balanced relationships); Staatscourant, 27 November 1989, no. 231.
3/ Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan (National Environmental Policy Plan),
Tweede Kamer 1988/1989, 21 137, nos. 1 and 2.
4/ Stephan Schmidheiny with the Business Council for Sustainable
Development, Changing Course: a global business perspective on
development and the environment; Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 1992.
5/ P.C. van den Noort, 'Groei als voorwaarde voor duurzaamheid' (Growth
as a precondition for sustainability); Economisch Statistische
Berichten, 4 August 1993, vol. 78, no. 3922.
6/ R. Hueting, 'The Brundtland report: a matter of conflicting goals';
Ecological Economics, volume 2, 1990, pp. 109-117.
7/ C. Stortenbeker, 'Op weg naar het Paaseilandscenario' (On the way to
the Easter Island scenario), in: Het Milieu: denkbeelden voor de
21ste eeuw; by Commissie Lange Termijn Milieubeleid, Zeist,
Kerkebosch bv, 1990.
8/ The dimension of I is environmental pollution, e.g. in the form of
SO2 emissions or another emission unit; P is population size; W is
gross national product per person in guilders; Ep is environmental
intensity for unit of production in for example SO2 emissions and Ec
ditto per unit of consumption, so that the dimension analysis
balances.
9/ R. Hueting, op. cit.
10/ H.E. Daly, 'Towards some operational principles of sustainable deve-
lopment'; Ecological Economics, Vol. 2, 1-6-1990.
11/ J.B. Opschoor, Duurzaamheid en verandering; over de ecologische
inpasbaarheid van economische activiteiten (Sustainability and
change: on the ecological compatibility of economic activities);
oration, Amsterdam, VU Uitgeverij, 1987.
12/ In his farewell lecture as Professor of Atmospheric Hygiene and
Pollution at Wageningen Agricultural University, Adema refers to
evolutionary development which '....as long as human beings do not
get in the way in my view... is the purest form of sustainable
development'. On the basis of a maximum permitted burden on the
environment and the desired level of prosperity, he calculates that
there is room for a maximum of two billion people in the year 2040.
See: E.H. Adema, Boeren tussen hemel en aarde, hoe lang nog?
(Farmers between heaven and earth, how much longer?), farewell
lecture as Professor of Atmospheric Hygiene and Pollution at
Wageningen Agricultural University on 28 April 1992.
13/ S. Rozendaal, 'Milieubeleid is geldverspilling. De tegendraadse
opvattingen van politicoloog Aaron Wildavsky' (Environmental policy
is a waste of money. The heretical views of the political scientist
Aaron Wildavsky); Elsevier, 12 December 1992.
14/ M. Schwartz and M. Thompson, Divided we stand. Redefining politics,
technology and social choice; New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990.
15/ G.A.J. Klaassen and J.B. Opschoor, 'Economic of sustainability or
the sustainability of economics; different paradigms'; Ecological
Economics, Vol. 4, 1991, pp. 93-115.
16/ R.A.P.M. Weterings & J.B. Opschoor, De milieugebruiksruimte als
uitdaging voor technologie-ontwikkeling (The environmental
utilization space, a challenge for technological development); Raad
voor het Milieu- en Natuuronderzoek, Rijswijk, April 1992.
17/ Ibid.
18/ H.E. Daly, Steady-state economics, San Francisco, Freeman, 1973.
19/ E.H. Adema, op. cit.
20/ In search of indicators of sustainable development; by O. Kuik and
H. Verbruggen (eds.), Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991.
21/ J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Climate
change: the IPCC scientific assessment; Cambridge University Press,
1990.
22/ For a commentary on the IPCC conclusions see for example: C.J.F.
B”ttcher, Science and fiction of the greenhouse effect and carbon
dioxide; The Hague, The Global Institute for the Study of Natural
Resources, 1992.
23/ P. van Egmond, F. Graafland, E. Hanekamp, A. Petit, J. Raad, Y. van
Sark, N. Spanbroek and J. Vlak, 'Is een duurzaamheidsindicator (al)
een betrouwbare barometer?' ('Is a sustainability indicator
(already)a reliable barometer?'); Milieu, 1992/4, pp. 120-128.
24/ H. Opschoor, L. Reijnders, 'Towards sustainable development indica-
tors'; in: O. Kuik and H. Verbruggen, op. cit.
25/ M. Schwartz and M. Thompson, op. cit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. SCENARIOS IN SELECTED AREAS
2.1 Introduction
Sustainable development has been discussed in a general sense above. It was
made clear that science cannot be expected to reveal the path to
sustainability in any clear-cut manner; the available knowledge is too
fragmentary. But even full-scale (although inherently unattainable) knowledge
would still not dictate the goals, in that information, including the inherent
uncertainty and risks, can be weighed differently. It was contended that this
trade-off relates to both the ecological and the social domain. The analysis
gave rise to four generally formulated action perspectives, in which the risks
are weighed differently.
The action perspectives will be worked out in more detail in time and space in
a number of areas that may be regarded as particularly problematical from an
environmental viewpoint. By working the action perspectives up into concrete
objectives and examining the adjustments this would require, greater clarity
may be obtained about the ways in which it is considered that sustainability
should be approached.
The action perspectives and their specifications may be regarded as input
parameters for scenarios covering the period 1990-2040. For some this time-
span will be too long for achieving the proposed sustainability, while for
others it will be too short. The nature of the consequences to which the
selected goals in the various areas give rise may mean that the original
judgements have to be qualified.
The topics examined below are, in order, the world food supply, energy, nature
and various resources. Although this selection does not cover the full range
of environmental problems, it does cover those areas where the demand for
sustainability is particularly acute. Not only do all these areas involve
radical environmental consequences but major social interests are also at
issue. The trade-off between the environment and social goals is particularly
stark in these areas, and the breaks in the trend that are deemed necessary
will therefore have substantial consequences.
Most of the topics selected have been worked out at global level. That this
should be so is largely self-evident: energy and food supply, for example, are
global issues. Analysis at more local levels is not meaningless but can easily
remain a matter of good intentions if higher levels are not examined as well.
The primarily global scale of sustainability does not mean that the analyses
have to be conducted solely at that level. Insight into the global energy
problem means that account has to be taken of highly divergent regional
developments. The nature of the regional particularisation required for the
analysis differs from topic to topic. Insight into the food supply, for
example, can be obtained at more local level than in the case of the energy
supply.
Separate studies have been conducted on each of these topics, which form an
important source of inspiration for the analysis below 1/. In addition the
suggestions made by a number of experts to whom the studies had been submitted
for comment were used.
As far as possible each of the topics has been dealt with along the same lines
below. Following the identification of present developments, a 'reference'
scenario is extrapolated to the year 2040. To avoid any misunderstanding, this
is not the most likely development but is simply designed to show where the
present developments would lead in the absence of an exogenously or
endogenously induced change of course. The four action perspectives aimed at
sustainability are then each elaborated for the problem area in question. In
this way it becomes clear what weighting has been assigned to the
uncertainties and risks in the individual areas and the choices to which that
weighting has led. By examining these action perspectives in the form of
scenarios against the developments in the next 50 years, insight is obtained
into the potential consequences of the choices made. This is then examined in
more detail in the evaluation.
The growth in population to the year 2040 is of major importance for both the
reference scenarios and the scenarios based on the action perspectives.
Although the growth in the world population depends in part on the action
perspective in question, it has been treated here as an exogenous variable. In
order to identify the potential impact of the action perspectives, a number of
variants of population growth have been used.
Demographic trends vary widely throughout the world. In some parts of the
world there is concern about ageing 2/, while in other, much more sizeable
parts of the world with a comparatively youthful population structure, we are
witnessing population explosions.
In order to incorporate demographic developments into the scenarios, the
United Nations long-term scenarios have been used. These forecasts elaborate
demographic developments at subcontinent level. The UN estimates that
depending on the growth scenario in question, there will be between 5 and 28
billion people in the world in the 2150 3/.
Because the scenarios presented in this report look to the year 2040 and
sometimes also relate to a lower level of scale, use has also been made of
another UN publication containing population projections for individual
countries up to the year 2025 4/. The population size in the year 2040 has
been arrived at by linear extrapolation between 2025 and 2150 and has then
been translated into the regions distinguished below. In those cases where the
analysis carried out for the present study relates to regions smaller than
those in the UN projections the latter figures have been adjusted. The results
are shown in Table 2.1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.1 Population size of 19 world regions according to low, mean and
high population growth in the period up to 2040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population size
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region low growth middle growth high growth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
South America 481 558 663
Central America 202 241 282
Caribbean 48 55 65
North America 274 328 398
North Africa 277 343 419
West Africa 466 635 798
Central Africa 190 240 286
East Africa 537 679 842
South Africa 89 100 123
Oceania 32 37 44
Southeast Asia 658 820 1005
East Asia 1503 1770 2098
South Asia 1964 2408 2888
West Asia 249 324 399
USSR 323 369 419
Eastern Europe 104 119 135
Southern Europe 126 143 161
Western Europe 131 151 172
Northen Europe 75 85 95
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World total 7729 9405 11292
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: WRR on basis of United Nations, Long-range World Population
Projections (1950-2150); New York, 1992; United Nations Population
Reference Bureau, World Population data sheet; Washington D.C., 1992.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2 World food supply
2.2.1 Introduction
The most elementary prior condition for sustainable development is an
undisturbed food supply, as the persistence of the human race obviously
depends critically on a guaranteed food supply. At the same time agriculture
constitutes a threat to the continuation of nature and environment in many
places. In the case of the world food supply, the essence of the trade-off
problem outlined in Chapter 1 therefore soon becomes clear.
The explosive growth of the world population has been accompanied by an
enormous expansion in food production. Whether the fivefold increase in the
world population in the 20th century has been made possible by the farmer or
the doctor is hard to say. What can be stated with certainty is that
structural food shortages have been eliminated in this century. The world food
production is now more than sufficient to feed everyone, but wars and other
disasters are responsible for acute local shortages. At the same time it has
become clear that agricultural production is not equally as easy everywhere.
Nor is it always risk-free. In some places too much is demanded of the
productive capacity of the land. Where there is over-exploitation this becomes
visible in various forms of environmental degradation, such as exhaustion,
erosion, soil pollution and salination.
In order to obtain a clearer view of the problems relating to the food supply,
a reference scenario is first worked out below. In this scenario a number of
current problems are discussed as well as problems that could develop up to
the reference year 2040 (partly in the light of the population growth). Four
scenarios are then examined each providing a different interpretation of a
sustainable agricultural system that would also be able to meet a reasonable
demand for food for well into the future without occasioning insuperable
socio-economic and/or environmental problems. The differences between the
scenarios are based on a distinction in the method of agricultural production
and differences in the consumer's level of needs. The elaboration of the
scenarios concludes with an evaluation, which includes a discussion of what is
needed in order to realise the various scenarios. It is then examined whether
those requirements could in fact be met. In doing so a distinction is drawn
between the required social adjustments, the uncertainties with respect to the
consequences for the environment and the potential conflicts between the
desire to meet the demand for food and other objectives relating to land and
water use.
2.2.2 Reference scenario 5/
Trends in agricultural production
Part of the increase in world food production has been due to the expansion of
the area under cultivation, but the bulk of the increase has been due to the
increase in agricultural productivity.
Agricultural techniqu