Where in the world do children and adults alike not enjoy books and films about our marvellous

planet and its nature?

Which culture does not have its literary treasures and ancient wisdom about the land it calls home? These sources
express awareness of our human dependence on the natural world for food, clothing, shelter and general well-being.
When we pay attention to the beauty and diversity of life around us, we develop a sense of marvel and gratitude. Planet
Earth is an amazingly hospitable place compared to the cold and darkness of outer space.

The past half century, we have seen enormous social and economic changes, which have made deep impacts on the
plane na al o ld The next half century, we are likely to witness much more of it. The global population is projected
to grow from seven billion in 2010 to over nine billion in 2050. At the same time, there is huge movement of people from
the countryside into the cities. In the period up to 2030, there will be almost 1.5 billion additional city dwellers. Many of
these will live in the megacities of the developing world that are already overstretched for houses, jobs and
infrastructure. Moreover, income growth in a group of large developing countries (DCs) has lifted millions out of poverty
and has enabled millions more to join the global middle classes. Figure 1.1 highlights the growth and distribution of the
global middle class across world regions. In fact, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) wrote in 2013 that
the three leading economies of the developing world Brazil, China and India produced about the same value of goods
and services as the six leading industrialised countries (ICs) Canada, France, Italy, Germany, the UK and the USA. The rise
of the Global South (the DCs) in general, and of the strongest emerging economies in particular, has been unparalleled in
speed and scale. At least 20 countries have done much better in their human development during the past two decades
than expected on the basis of previous performance. Growth of their domestic consumption has been an important driver
of growth. This became especially evident after 2009, when they continued their growth despite a slump in IC markets.
UNDP expects that by 2025, the Global South will account for around 60% of the one billion households earning more
than US$20,000 a year.

Nevertheless, both within and between countries, income inequality has been on the rise for decades. DCs have major
problems as large shares of their population are living in poverty. Over 1.6 billion people do not have access to modern
energy services, 2.6 billion do not have access to improved sanitation and 1.1 billion have no access to safe drinking
water. As a result, each year, 0.5 billion children under age of five die of diarrhoea. Degradation of the environment and
natural resources adds to the hardship of the people, especially the poor in DCs. Climate change makes problems such as
drought and flooding worse, with disastrous consequences for those who have little or no capacity to deal with such
adversity. Finally, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) wrote in its 2011 Green Economy Report that a long list of
countries were suffering from environmental damage of up to 10% of their annual production value (gross domestic
product or GDP).

In 2015, with this in mind, virtually all world leaders committed to 17 strategic policy goals for 2030. They are called the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), where sustainable means that this kind of development could continue
indefinitely, because it does not undermine the basis of its own success.
Governments want development that is balanced in its economic, social and environmental dimensions. They emphasise
that these dimensions have to be addressed in an integrated manner in their mutual relations, at the same time and
over all the earth. The world is fast becoming more diverse, more connected and interdependent. Countries rich, poor
and in-between need each o he mo e han e e The SDG decla a ion peak of a g ea collec i e jo ne

The SDGs come at a time of tremendous problems and suffering. There are huge gaps in opportunity, wealth and power
between individuals, social groups and countries. The UN says that global threats to public health, more frequent and
intense natural disasters, more civil unrest and displacement of people could reverse recent achievements and threaten
future development. Table 1.1 links major global trends to the development issues and SDGs they are likely to impact. In
this chapter, we will discuss evidence that environmental degradation, climate change and many other issues are now so
serious that they could affect the well-being and survival of billions, especially megacities on low-lying coastal plains, such
as Karachi, Dhaka and Mumbai, are at risk.

At the same time, the SDG declaration also recognises that we live in a time of immense opportunity. Access to education
and health care has greatly increased for both boys and girls. International colleges and universities are springing up all
over the developing world. Emerging countries produce more and more research themselves, suitable for their own
development needs. Countries in the Global South are increasingly trading and exchanging experience among themselves
as they face similar challenges. Information and communication technologies have become accessible to many all over
the world. This access is still very unequal, but it has the potential to contribute to solving economic, social and
environmental issues everywhere. Technologies using the energy of sun and wind have seen large cost reductions and are
now widely used in DCs. Moreover, they are extremely useful in taking energy to the underserved in remote areas where
there is no central power grid. We need to find out, then, how we can harness positive forces to effect change towards
achieving the SDGs.

While h man de elopmen and ec i a e clo el linked o he condi ion of he plane na al em hi i no

always easy to see at the local level. Part of the reason is that ecosystems are complex, and the impacts of our actions
need time to develop. As a result, we lack knowledge until the impacts on human well-being force us to study the
problem. In the past, there have been situations where the wrong management of natural resources led to the weakening
or even the collapse of a society. Ancient Sumer in Mesopotamia, for instance, suffered from lack of food supply due to
dec ea ing oil fe ili Wi h oda in igh e kno ha he al b ild-up in the soil was caused by over-irrigation.
Now, this may be an extreme example, but it does show that the consequences may be severe, if we misinterpret
na e ign

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED; named after its chair Ms Brundtland) noted
ha g o h ha no e limi in e m of pop la ion o e o ce e be ond hich lie ecological di a e O Common
Future, emphasis mine). The commission expected limits to be felt per issue at different times and in different ways, for
example, through rising resource cost and diminishing returns. It said that more efficient resource use could stretch those
limits, so it recommended policy action long before such limits were reached. We should, thus, be alert to the signs of
decline.

The art of sustainable development (SD) centres on balancing local needs and aspirations with the particular
opportunities and limitations of the local environment. This balance might look very differently for a wetland region in
Bangladesh than for a dryland area in neighbouring India. Scarcities of water or fertile land will play a central role, as will
the condition of local ecosystems. If they are degraded, strategies will have to include a mix of development and
conservation efforts, based on a deep understanding of ecological specifics and livelihoods. Solutions may have to be
pragmatic and out of the ordinary. For instance, when a region that exports water-intensive crops runs into scarcity, it
should perhaps invest in dramatic improvements of water use efficiency or switch crops. In these processes, there are
multiple interactions between stakeholder interests, for example smallholder farmers without influence and bigger well-
connected landowners. Also if we integrate policy links with other relevant issues such as energy and food security, the
complexity grows. Consultations and partnerships are inevitable in producing widely accepted, durable outcomes. Part II
of this book looks at the various stakeholders and the tools they have to attain SD.

In the next two sections, we will present scientific evidence of environmental stress signals that have prompted
governments to take action. History will tell if it was enough. The fourth section of every chapter is about schools of
thought. This is an expression of the fact that opinions about SD, like all grand social themes, are heavily influenced by
people deepl held con ic ion abo life he o ld and ho hing ho ld be In hi chap e e in od ce fo pical
worldview categories that are broad enough to include most views. All are reasonable and put varying emphases on such
things as markets, institutions, ecology and human solidarity. Finally, the last section of this chapter introduces the idea of
transition a long-term, complex social change process with many uncertainties, high stakes and steering problems. We
apply this term to the co-ordinated system changes needed to lead society onto a SD path. In subsequent chapters, we
ill e ie each chap e heme in he ligh of he o e all an i ion

A historical overview of human interactions with the planet reveals a trend from taking nature as it was to increasingly
interfering with natural processes to suit human needs. Also, the scale at which humans impact the natural environment
has increased dramatically, especially in the last few centuries. With it, we believe, human responsibility for its impacts
has grown. Yet our action to fulfil this responsibility is seriously lagging behind.

In ancient times, people lived together in small groups near coasts and rivers or in forests, making a living from gathering
plants, fruits and nuts, and/or hunting for animals and fish. Over time, their skills and instruments developed as they
learned to make fire and new materials such as bronze and iron. Essentially, they took for their daily use what nature
provided and were totally dependent on their natural environment. Some groups managed to domesticate wild animals
and use them for their milk, meat and skins. If their animals were used to trekking over large distances to find food and
have their young in safe conditions, people would often trek along with them. A few such groups still exist in the Arctic
regions of Eurasia and North America.

The next development step happened when people learnt to use plant seeds to grow crops near their homes rather than
go out to find the harvest where it happened to grow. This way, they could keep an eye on their crops and prevent
animals from eating them. In other words, people became farmers. Excavations at Beida in Jordan testify to this step
which took place around 9,000 years ago. Again, through the ages, people learnt to improve outcomes by a process of
experimenting with seeds called selective breeding. Similarly, they learnt to allow only those animals to produce offspring
that had the most desirable properties for human use, such as maximum milk and meat production, or a docile nature
and short legs so that they would not easily run away. In this phase, we see that people started actively intervening in
natural processes to suit their needs. Nevertheless, life was still largely local, and apart from nomads and traders, few
people ever travelled beyond their town or village. This pattern remained for many centuries, while small towns were
established for protection, artisan trades and exchange of goods along trade corridors, such as the Silk Route.

With the third step around 1800 CE began the age of great inventions that shaped modern life, such as the steam engine.
The ability to use coal to generate energy and do heavy work led to a complete turnaround in the production of goods
and services, called the Industrial Revolution. Entrepreneurial people with excess money (capital) bought machines and
hired workers. Their businesses brought resources in from afar, transforming them into industrial products, which were
then spread over a wide area. Since machines were also introduced in food production agricultural productivity went up
and people were released to work in the cities. Transportation was costly and time-consuming, so they also moved to the
cities a new wave of urbanisation had begun.

The fourth step is connected to the fast economic and population growth that took place after 1950 CE. Industrial
production methods entered every sphere of life and resulted in large monocultures. These are large areas that mankind
has dedicated to one species and where all other species are excluded. Thus, in some countries, there are huge
agricultural fields under one staple crop (sugar cane or wheat). Other species are kept out by fences or killed by guns or
pe icide Al o h mani ci ie a e a monoc l e a he a e ca ef ll managed en i onmen he e h man a e he
dominant species. Yet people do not wish to live entirely without natural elements, so they keep plants and domestic
animals in and around their houses and apartments. Of the animals that themselves choose to live with us, some are
welcome, such as birds making their nests under the roof. However, mice, rats and cockroaches are rigorously
exterminated. Otherwise, they take our food or other items such as paper, spoil them and spread disease.

Although this fourth phase has so far been relatively short, the size and scale of human impacts on the natural
environment accelerates. For instance, the flows of goods and people moving across the globe are ever-increasing. Every
decade, there are new world records of the tallest building, the largest hydropower dam and so on.

Our ability to change the environment to meet our needs and wants seems never ending. This potential should be paired
with responsible attitudes or it will become self-destructive. Unfortunately, we are not doing a good job of managing the
planet from the perspective of our long-term survival, nor from the perspective of our responsibility to share the planet
with other life forms. According to the scientists from all over the world that wrote the World Conservation Strategy (WCS
1980), this is what we must do:

We m no de o he po en ial of he Ea h e o ce to provide for future generations.

We must not interfere with the basic processes that sustain life on our planet, such as the organisms that clean air, water
and soil.

We must preserve the very diversity of life.

We begin with the basic principles that underlie all natural processes, so we may learn to fit in with natural limits.
Changing them is not an op ion All na e ma e ial mo e h o gh c cle o p od ce i all endle pplie of f e h
air, water and soil. A large variety in conditions of soil, water, daylight hours, temperature and food sustain a dazzling
diversity of life on the planet. A network of landscapes, living organisms and their mutual relations is called an ecosystem.
Examples include grassland, forest, coastal zone and mountain ecosystems. All of these produce material goods that
people need to survive food, fibre, water at an efficiency unmatched by human technology. They also provide services
such as air or water purification, nutrient recycling and top soil production that people cannot replace at a reasonable
price. Table 1.2 orders these services to society by ecosystem type. Thi able i ba ed on he epo The F a ing Web of
Life WRI hich al o map he condi ion of he e eco em

So ho m ch a e he plane eco em affec ed b h man ac ion a hi poin in ime To an e hi e ion

scientists had to work for years doing research on the ground all around the world. In the early 2000s, the UN brought all
this information together in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005). The next section presents a few highlights
of this study. Its main conclusion is that the human wealth increase of the last half century has come at the cost of
ecosystem damage and the suffering of the people that depend on them the most. The report also warns that future
benefits from these ecosystems will be significantly lower if the problems are not addressed.

In the last half century, there has been more global change than in any other phase of human history. The world economy
is almost five times the size it was half a century ago. Humans have managed to build giant structures, such as
hydropower dams, oil platforms, skyscrapers and coastal defences. Airline routes and transport networks span the globe.
Information and communication technology (ICT) have made the world feel like a small place. Yet rivers dry up or are
heavily polluted, and air quality is unbearable in megacities. Heat waves and forest fires are increasingly frequent and
severe. Hazardous waste from industrial centres suddenly turn up in poor regions to make victims of unsuspecting
people. Extreme weather events seem to get worse and do more damage all the time. Has the natural environment really
become worse? How is it influencing people in different regions of the world?

In order to find out, the UN ordered an extensive review of scientific research, involving 1,360 experts from 95 countries.
The result was published in 2005 under the title Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. It focused on the services that
ecosystems provide for people and the way that the observed changes of the last half century affect future provision. The
report provides amazing details, which are too numerous to repeat here. Helpful summaries for non-experts are available
a g eenfac o g nde he label Clea S mma ie of Scien ific Repo on he S a e of he En i onmen A fe
major points are highlighted further.

About 60% of the ecosystems services appeared degraded or used unsustainably. Figure 1.2 provides more detail about
ali lo in he o ld ag o-ecosystem. Sustainable use requires that humans do not harvest more than the amount
which allows the resource to remain in service. If they use more, the resource will gradually or suddenly lose quality and
quantity, and break down. Examples of breakdown exist in many places across the world. They include forests, fish stocks,
and dryland agriculture.

More land was converted to cropland after 1950 than between 1700 and 1850, much of it at the expense of forests,
pastures or other land unsuitable for intensive cultivation. The loss of a forest that provided food products, firewood and
flood regulation affects poor people directly, but it also represents a loss of natural wealth of the country concerned.
Also, 35% of mangrove coastal forests have been lost in the recent decades; since they protect the land against storms,
their removal has led to extensive loss of life and damage.
As a result of overfishing and other causes, world fisheries collapsed in the 1990s, severely affecting poor fishing
communities. Also, 20% of he o ld co al eef e e lo and deg aded in he la e e al decade hich impac
fisheries and tourism. As a result, per capita fish consumption in DCs declined between 1985 and 1997. This, in turn,
resulted in undernourishment and poorer health.

Dryland regions cover just over 40% of the land surface in the world. About 10% 20% of them are degraded. The two
billion people living in dryland regions have the highest population growth rate. Per head of the population, only two-
thirds of their water needs are available. Their levels of well-being are the lowest in the world. On top of that, the deserts
are expanding due to natural and human causes. This is affecting the livelihoods of millions of people. By the end of the
twenty-first century, climate change is expected to be the dominant driving force of changes in ecosystem services and
biodiversity loss worldwide.

The MA team expressed deep concern over the impacts on freshwater and biological diversity:

The amount of freshwater collected in reservoirs has increased fourfold since 1960, while withdrawals from rivers and
lakes has doubled since 1960. In many places, such as the Middle East and South Asia, groundwater is used faster than it
is replenished. As a result, an increasing number of world regions have water scarcity and/or lack of good quality water,
which in turn affects economic development, public health and conditions for plant and animal life. In extreme cases,
such as the Aral Sea or Lake Chad, the water bodies turned to desert and people were forced to move away.

Due to human interference plant and animal species die out 1,000 times faster than the natural speed. Between 10% and
30% of mammal, bird and amphibian species are now threatened with extinction. Major causes include destruction of
their habitats (forests and wetlands), hunting, pollution and introduction of exotic species. The loss of coral reefs, forest
or grassland species and systems keeps tourists away and deprive local communities of income. Species diversity is a form
of long-term risk reduction for agriculture.
The MA 2005 also studied the causes of environmental degradation in order to point out directions for change towards
sustainability. The processes that cause change and keep it going are called driving forces. Figure 1.3 shows how drivers of
change might affect ecosystem services and human well-being. Direct drivers are factors that represent a direct change
on the ground, such as land-use change (farmland turned to urban use) or species introduction/removal by humans.
Indirect drivers are broader developments in population, technology or institutions that lead to more intense human
activity in nature.

As population more than doubled in the last 50 years, there have been constant incentives to increase food production,
water use, hydropower capacity, and so on. However, it turns out that our impressive economic achievements have been
obtained at the cost of degraded ecosystems. Their ecosystem services are below full potential, and unless we take action
to restore them, they will provide even less to future generations. Unfortunately, the major global trends until 2050
suggest that the pressures will only go up. A quick glance at the SDGs also leads to the conclusion that resource
requirements are huge. So the restoration work will have to be carried out under extremely challenging conditions. It will
be crucial that millions more people will receive access to water, improved sanitation, food, clean and affordable energy
and so on in ways that minimise ecological burdens, especially in places already suffering from degradation and scarcities.
The combined use of land, water and energy is quickly becoming a new focus for study and decision-making. They are all
connected as the production of food requires land, water and energy. Also, the pumping and purification of water require
energy. Last but not least, the energy sector needs increasing amounts of water for cooling as well as land plus water for
growing biofuels. Some estimate that by 2030, we will need 30% more water, 40% more energy and 50% more food. Our
chapters on energy, food and agriculture, and urban development have more details about the trade-offs to be made in
these areas. In general, however, this book does not provide an encyclopaedic overview of economic, social and
environmental sustainability problems. Rather, it identifies their common roots and seeks to build a new vision and
attitude that prevents new problems and enables adequate solutions to existing ones.
We conclude from this section that the ongoing degradation of ecosystem services is a big barrier in achieving the UN
development goals that world leaders set for the period until 2030. Reduction in hunger, poverty, preventable disease
and child mortality as well as increases in access to basic education, safe drinking water and sanitation are all dependent
on healthy ecosystems. The dominant economic growth model has achieved a good standard of living for hundreds of
millions, while on the other hand, it does not even meet the basic needs of a third of the world population. Moreover, it
has obtained results at the expense of ecosystem and resource degradation, which will undermine the livelihood of our
children and grandchildren. Only fundamental policy changes across the world could reverse the negative trends we are
seeing today. In this era of ever-growing population and affluence, economic development decisions should no longer be
made apart from decisions on ecological quality and social well-being, and vice versa.

The widespread use of the terms (un)sustainable and development may lead you to think that those are well-defined
e m Unfo na el hi i no e The e a e a m iad of in e p e a ion of ocie p oblem and p opo ed ol ion
that may leave you really confused. This section presents a way to group opinions together under several headings and
link hem o people deepl held belief in ma e of economic and ocial de elopmen

When thinking about development, academics and policy-makers have generally put the growth of material wealth at the
top of their list. In other words, economic considerations take centre stage in theories and government policies on
development. Other legitimate interests are often ignored until the affected people give voice to their concerns. When
the misbalance between the rights of employers and workers became too great, labour unions took up the interests of
fair remuneration, mass job loss, child labour and other socio-economic issues. As economies developed more on the
industrial and services path, they needed more highly qualified workers, so equal access to education became an issue. In
all of these change processes, a new balance had to be achieved. It was never easy for both sides to give and take,
especially when they were in an unequal power relationship. Governments often interfered in large-scale labour disputes,
because of their disrupting impacts.

Political philosophies have formed around visions of the proper role of government in the economy. On the one hand,
o ha e ho e ho belie e ha he a e ole i o c ea e a minim m of law and order within which economic actors
can produce wealth. Their policies emphasise clear and protected property rights, flexible labour laws and low taxes.
Historically, in Europe, they were called right-wing or conservative thinkers.

On the other hand, there are those who want government to be an instrument of change for the masses. They are called
left-wing or progressive thinkers. In their perspective, there is a large role for the state in the economy, because there are
big power gaps between stakeholders. They want the state to create systems of solidarity which reduce differences in
income and opportunity between groups in society. Their policies emphasise fair wages (a legal minimum), access to
education and health care, and a tax system that puts a heavier burden on the rich than on the poor.

The first environmental issues were relatively small. They could be seen as local problems that required local, technical
solutions. Over time, more and more issues came up, which impacted the natural world at an ever bigger scale. While air
pollution is mostly local, expansion of deserts is regional or national, and cross-border trade in hazardous waste and
endangered species is global. Scientists pointed to interactions between issues and proposed solutions. Often the
response to one problem made another worse. For instance, treating waste water or gases usually leads to a
concentrated solid waste residue that requires special treatment.

At the global level, environment and development were first officially linked in 1972. In the same year, a group of
scientists called the Club of Rome published a report that expressed concern over the social and environmental
con e ence of he o ld economic g o h de elopmen model B hen acco ding o man he p oblem was no
longer in the components, but in the system itself. Some criticised capitalism, whose basic principle is that the means of
production are in private hands. However, as in the 1990s the world learned of the environmental problems that state
sociali m had ca ed in Cen al and Ea e n E ope cen al planning did no look like he c e fo he o ld ill ei he
At the same time, capitalism seemed capable of reforming itself and including environmental concerns in decision-
making. In the 1980s, a group of leading policy-makers was asked by the UN to find a way to reconcile the ideas of
environment and development. This commission, chaired by Ms Gro Harlem Brundtland from Norway, launched the
concept of SD as a new direction for government strategies. They defined it as a kind of development that meets the
needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. As a result
of its wide adoption by world leaders at the 1992 Earth Summit, it is often called a new paradigm. However, we shall see
that it is so broad that it could be filled with many different ideas of a sustainable future.

In this book, we give due attention to worldviews and values because of their importance for individual and collective
action. Worldviews are thought systems based on assumptions about how the world hangs together and should be. They
are a way of looking at the world. Sometimes these worldviews are based on tradition and not consciously thought
through by an individual. By contrast, an environmental or economic philosophy is a well-defined system that people
adopt with conviction.

There are many perspectives on the right interactions between social, economic and environmental processes. Each has
its own distinct way of perceiving issues and prescribing solutions. Clapp and Dauvergne (2011) have grouped and
described them in four categories in Paths to a Green World. These worldviews are (a) bio-environmentalist, (b)
institutionalist, (c) ma ke libe al and d ocial g een The a e ideal ca ego ie hich mean ha empha i i ed o
make distinctions between them. The authors did this to help readers make sense of an enormous flow of conflicting
information and analysis. None of these views are acknowledged in this book as the correct view, and so they are listed in
alphabetical order. The basic assumptions of each view are explained in this chapter along with their overall assessment
of the problem of unsustainability. Other aspects of the worldviews are treated in subsequent chapters. Our hope is that
these types also broadly fit the universe in which you operate.

Bio-environmentalists: This group st e e he Ea h biological limi o ppo h man ocie its carrying capacity.
They agree that humans as a species are self-cen ed and a e con ming mo e of he plane e o ce han i can bea
Obviously, the global environment is in crisis. They fear that the increasing scarcity of natural resources will lead to more
disasters, conflicts and wars. Indeed, they already see the signs around them in deforestation, fisheries collapse, and so
on. The authors put the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) network (a nature and wildlife organisation) and the
Worldwatch Institute in this category. Nineteenth century thinker Malthus, twentieth century biologist Ehrlich and
economist Daly are also representatives of this group.

Institutionalists: This group is concerned about social inequality and resource scarcity, but they do not reject the global
political and economic system. Indeed, they value economic growth, trade, technology and foreign investment. Their
belief that states need strong institutions to go beyond their self-interest and stick to collective norms sets them apart
from the other categories. The authors have found such views in UNEP, among academics that study international
organisations, and in statements of such key political figures as Ms Gro Harlem Brundtland (chair of the WCED) and the
Canadian diplomat Mr Maurice Strong (founder of Earth Charter).

Market Liberals: This group has the strongest supporters of the current economic and political system. They believe that
more freedom and equal opportunities for market forces will create more wealth and prosperity. Economic history leads
them to assume that natural resources are never a restriction to economic development. In this view, there is no global
ecological crisis. While social inequality and pollution may be high in the short run, society will be better off in the long
run. The authors have found that market liberal analysis dominates in the World Bank (WB), the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), as well as in such media as
The Economist (a US weekly).

Social Greens: This group builds on radical theories that see social and environmental problems as having the same roots.
These are inequality within and between countries, and domination of the poor by the rich. They have unequal access to
natural resources and unequal exposure to pollution. The social greens agree with bio-environmentalists that there is a
global ecological crisis, but they do not see population growth as an issue. Social green ideas are found in magazines such
as The Ecologist and in reports of groups such as the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) and the Third World
Network (TWN).

From this, we conclude that people may have a very different perspective on the issue of sustainability depending on how
they believe the world works and should be. Of course, a person may change their view through study or a significant life
event, but in practice, this will not happen a lot. How organisations and communities view the world around them may
depend on the beliefs of their founders as written down in a charter and continued in the organisational culture.
However, it may also be a function of those who are in charge today if they have powerful ways to lead by vision and
example. This could happen as part of a wider process of organisational learning, as we shall see in our chapters on
individual choice and institutional context. In the next section, we turn to the idea that the road to a more sustainable
society requires a clearly orchestrated transition.

Can humanity attain a more equitable standard of living which does not exceed the carrying capacity of the planet? The
Brundtland Commission (officially WCED) believed that we can, and this is the way they described the process back in
1987:

Sustainable Development (SD) is a type of development that meets the needs of the present generation without
compromising the possibilities of future generations to meet their needs.

This definition contains two key elements: the first is that development is all about meeting human needs, and the second
is that the sustainable aspect is about those types of development that do not degrade the natural environment so much
that our children and grandchildren will not be able to enjoy their full ecosystem services. This is probably what
everybody agrees on, but what does this mean in practice? Three adjectives describe the main ideas that the Brundtland
Commission intended:

Durable

Equitable

Flexible

Durable refers to the idea that true development should be steady, each stage building on the previous one, in order to
achieve a better kind of society. It implies that no one should put social or ecological burdens on society that they ought
o bea hem el e D able hif he foc of a en ion f om he ho e m o he long e m G o no and clean p
la e i no a d able app oach

Equitable means that there is some kind of fairness in society regarding who bears the costs and benefits of the economic
process. If the economic outcomes consistently leave certain people groups out, then the process is not inclusive. As a
e l i doe no de e e he label e i able The B nd land Commi ion empha i ed ha fairness should motivate
he p e en gene a ion o lea e a li eable o ld o ho e ho come ne b al o o p ead oda e o ce mo e
evenly across the peoples of the world.

Flexible is used here to bring up the idea of dynamic limitations. Nature is resilient, so it can recover from disturbance.
Ultimately, however, there are limits. The relationship between impact and effect need not be linear. Ecologists say
natural systems may not regain a stable balance beyond certain thresholds or tipping points. The ability of the planet to
absorb the effects of human action is sometimes called the carrying capacity. Some management techniques could
reduce or enlarge it. The Brundtland Commission also says that the current state of technology and social organisation
imposes restrictions on economic growth. However, through careful planning and management of change these
restrictions could be eased over time.

The major global trends we have signalled in this chapter require large amounts of resources, and so does the
implementation of the SDGs of 2030. Normally, the impacts of such huge extra burdens would cause tremendous
ecological and social stress on top of the problems we already have. Indeed, a collapse of entire ecosystems, like the
recent collapse of some fish stocks, looks probable. True SD, then, must look very different from what was traditionally
called de elopmen S akeholde ill ha e o do a lo of hing diffe en l in e e ec o a e e le el So nd
complex? Well, it is, and on top of that there are structural uncertainties, high stakes and steering problems. According to
a group of scientists that call themselves transition experts, the move to a sustainable society is really a different kind of
problem that requires innovative thinking and leadership. Incremental changes will not be enough. There needs to be a
change at the system level.
The transition to sustainability is urgent because the deterioration of global life-support systems the environment
imposes a time limit. (Goodland 1994)

Jan Rotmans, from the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, is one such transition expert. He defines a
transition as a social transformation process with the following characteristics:

Change to the structure of part or the whole of society.

Large-scale technological, economic and socio-cultural influences that reinforce each other.

Developments at different scale levels (local, regional and global) interact.

It is in this sense that we use the term sustainability transition in this book. Changes are required in all countries and
sectors of society, whereby changes in one sector or level will cause adjustments in another. Thus, there will have to be
overall planning and co-ordination to make this work and to overcome the frictions and barriers that occur in
organisational and social change. This is a long and complex process that may take several generations.

Every person, organisation and community makes choices that affect the lives of others and the quality of the natural
environment. How could all these actors live and work more sustainably in a coherent manner? Obviously, this requires
lots of talking between stakeholders, and learning of the knowledge and skills that we do not have yet. We need to
imagine the future we want, so that we can then think back and plan the steps that lead there. This process must be
intentional but flexible. It requires strong leadership and sense of direction.

Hopefully, this chapter has convinced the reader that the consequences of unsustainable development are simply too big
and e io o o e look The a e affec ing mo e people han e e befo e Some ha e aid Ea h can ai e canno
Indeed, our planet needs more leaders who care enough to live and work for a more sustainable and inclusive world.

The ne chap e in e iga e he oo of n ainabili We need o kno ha a nhelpf l in he ligh of oda

knowledge and insights, so that we can avoid repeating mistakes. That sets the stage for the vision of a sustainable future,
our overarching goal for the rest of the book.
This section describes major global economic and technological trends that have changed our world dramatically. The
overview forms the background for the historical section, where we review the development of thought on the causes of
unsustainable development. Attention for the time frame and conditions in which they were suggested helps us to make
sense of the arguments. Next, the ‘Current State of the Issue’ section orders the outcomes and concludes that structural
approaches are needed to change behaviour, institutions and technology as part of an overall transition to SD. The
‘Schools of Thought’ section alerts us to the phenomenon that deeply held worldviews, such as the ones we described in
Chapter , have very different ways of perceiving the idea of sustainability, and so also of the causes of unsustainability.
The final section reflects on what kind of transition we can expect in the light of the whole chapter.

The global debate about development and environment of the last years has to be understood against the background
of the wide and growing income gap between countries. Within two decades after , the world had seen the break-up
of colonial empires. As a result, dozens of low-income states were welcomed into the United Nations Organisation. It was
agreed that these new states should receive help to raise their living standards through international support funds,
called official development assistance(ODA).

Around these money flows, a whole aid industry sprang up of development banks, non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and consultants, who all brought their views and ideologies regarding the core issue—how could we promote
better living standards? Figure . depicts a workshop where the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) builds capacity in Kyrgyzstan’s education sector for including the subject of sustainable development. The
wealthier countries recovered fairly quickly from the Second World War and entered a prolonged period of economic
growth. This was aided by technological innovations, relatively free trade and a new culture of advertising and mass
consumption. ODA donors and their recipients assumed that DCs needed to follow a similar path more quickly. The
application of science and technology played a major part in this concept of development, which is why this school of
thought is called modernisation theory. Its advocates were thinking that ICs were further along this linear track, so they
advised transfers of their finance, technology and entrepreneurial skills to the DCs. The benefits of development, they
reasoned, would naturally flow from the advanced to the less developed regions.

However, after two decades of this policy, economic growth had been achieved but inequality between and within DCs
had increased as well. Obviously, development was more complex and would take longer to attain. New thoughts came
from developing nations themselves, for instance, from Andre Gunder Frank during the s. The view was called
dependency theory. It held that global patterns of economically strong regions and weaker surrounding countries tend to
freeze over time. Once a country takes its position in the global division of labour, it would be hard to break out and move
to the next stage. Global population rose fast in DCs, often faster than economic growth. Providing food, clothing, shelter,
jobs and education for all these people was a huge challenge. With international assistance, major crises were averted;
but in many DCs, large sections of their people remained below the poverty line. Conflict and natural disasters frequently
made things worse. Providing more security and prosperity to the masses had to be a top priority in many countries.

For countries overly dependent on the export of one or a few export commodities, such as agricultural crops or mining
products, there were additional complications. As long as demand for the commodity was strong, world market prices
were on the high end. However, when demand slumped because of economic crisis or technological changes, the impacts
on dependent exporters were severe. When this happened in the s, DCs called for a new international economic
order. ICs’ appreciation of market forces was very different, and they refused to put trade system reform on the agenda.
Since then, the issue of fairness in relation to international trade has never been far from debates on development and
environment.

Ideas of what development really was and ‘how to do it’ included more and more factors—first economic, later social and
finally also environmental ones. By the s, the conviction grew that DCs should find their own path to prosperity
instead of copying the ways of the ICs. Nevertheless, economic growth through industrialisation remained a top priority.
Calls to integrate environmental protection into development policies and projects were perceived as a brake on
development. However, if donors insisted, they should provide extra financial and technical assistance (FTA). Several
international environmental treaties, for instance the Montreal Protocol for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, followed
this idea by establishing a fund to help DCs fulfil treaty commitments. Since then, a lot of bargaining over environment
and development issues has been over agreement in exchange for additional FTA.

DCs use a mix of commercial and public lending to finance investment, especially in infrastructure. In times when their
debts were low and international banks had trust in government debtors, too many loans were handed out. These debts
became a heavy burden for some countries in the s, when their ability to pay back had fallen with prices of their
dominant export commodities. The WB and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stepped in to support countries in
payment difficulties. However, they saw the situation not as a short-term cash issue but as a medium-term problem that
needed structural measures. Many high-income countries also went through economic crises in the early s, and they
tackled their debt problem in part by reducing the tax burden and national debt and by simplifying and reducing public
regulation. With this experience in mind, WB and IMF required lender countries to carry out structural adjustment
programmes (SAPs). These have become heavily contested, because they were blamed for a whole range of social and
environmental ills that are relevant for sustainability, for instance, that governments were forced to increase exports and
reduce government spending. However, additional exports of cash crops led to more environmental degradation, and
cuts in education and health care spending led to bigger social inequality.

The s saw an acceleration of new information and communication technologies spreading throughout the world. The
combined effect of more market opportunities and less government led to a steep rise in business investment in other
countries. Capital and currencies were traded faster and on an ever larger scale, following the most profitable options
anywhere in the world. This process of increasing connectedness has become known as globalisation. Events in one part
of the world now have more immediate consequences in others. One implication is that some countries are more
vulnerable to outside shocks, which could leave them impoverished and unstable. Short-term profit became more
important and led companies to move production facilities to cheap labour or resource locations. This so-called foreign
direct investment (FDI) initially targeted other high-income countries, but gradually urban industrial regions everywhere
became part of globe-spanning supply chains or networks. However, there are dozens of DCs left out of the main
communications and investment networks.

Looking back over years of development assistance, we have made some achievements and have learned a lot.
However, the goal of acceptable living standards for most and a fairer distribution of wealth in the world have not been
attained. Indeed, the income gap within and between countries has only grown wider. Figure . illustrates the size of the
gap and the percentage of world population above and below the average in the year . Around the year , the
Worldwatch Institute calculated that the wealthiest countries, where at the time of the world’s population lived,
used about of the global resources. More recently, a Swiss reinsurance company reported that the richest of
individuals owned or controlled almost half of all assets. The inequality trend is worsening in most parts of the world and
has drawn a lot of attention in recent years. For instance, the World Economic Forum called it a serious risk factor that
could lead to social and political instability. That, in turn, would harm prospects for continued wealth creation where it is
most needed.

Many different causes of unsustainable development have been debated throughout the last half century. Each one
reflects the spirit of the times and the state of the art in environmental science and policy. We will discuss several here.

P a G h

Population growth in a country is the result of birth rate minus death rate plus net migration. In ICs, death rates fell with
the improvement of health care and sanitation in the late nineteenth century. Birth rates came down in the s as
more educated couples wanted to have smaller families. This way, they could give their children better living conditions
and education. New ways of anti-conception enabled them to control family size. The move from high birth and death
rates to low ones is called the demographic transition. In many DCs, health care and sanitation improvement reduced the
death rate some decades ago, but birth rates have remained high. Figure . shows how fast world population has grown
as a result of the delayed demographic transition. One reason is that in some countries many mothers still die in child
birth and many infants do not live until age five. Another reason is that numerous poor families survive on the income
that children help generate. Also, in some cultures, there is a powerful cultural image that having many children is a sign
of prosperity or blessing. Some authors expect birth rates to drop further when women get a stronger voice in decisions
on family size.

When we look at the long-term trend of world population numbers, we can understand why some people in the
twentieth century felt that growth itself was the problem. Global population was remarkably stable until the nineteenth
century. The first billion was only reached in and it took years to double. The three billion mark was passed in
(only years later), and the six billion mark in —an accelerating trend. In the meantime, we are over seven
billion people, and though worldwide growth continues, the rate is going down. The demographic gap is closing

There is indeed such a thing as excessive population growth, but today it is only a real issue in some parts of the
developing world. Many countries have moderate population growth ( . – . per year), while some have zero or
negative growth. Those parts of Africa and Asia that are still growing over . per year will probably need another few
decades before populations stabilise. The UN population division has adjusted its projections for downward, and
expects world population to peak at around nine billion.

So are human population numbers a problem for sustainability? During the nineteenth century in Europe, there were
fears that fast population growth would lead to conflict and war. They believed this because they assumed that the total
amount of resources was finite and the technological ability to turn them into products (our efficiency) could not change
much. However, during the next century, more resources were discovered and efficiencies dramatically improved, thanks
to research. As a result, later theories about economic development were much more optimistic about the solutions that
human ingenuity would find to overcome resource constraints. Population as a factor of public concern disappeared until
, when Paul Ehrlich published his Population Bomb. He was writing at a time when IC economies and DC populations
had been growing fast for two decades. Pressures to deplete and pollute seemed relentless, while known reserves of the
world’s favourite fossil fuels would run out within decades. However, a decade or two later, the perspective changed
again. The s’ oil crises led to an intensive search for alternative energy sources and to dramatic efficiency
improvements. Food production too substantially increased so that the greatest fears from the s did not come true.
The prospect of shortfalls in food or energy led some to predict disaster and others to intensify research to prevent it.
Today, the world produces over , Kcal per man, woman and child, while the daily need of an adult varies , – ,
Kcal. However, million people are hungry, and food price rises after pushed that number up. Research has
highlighted that the price effect was at least in part due to increased competition for land by fuel crops grown for
developed-country markets. Also, recent studies emphasise that the percentage of food wasted is unacceptably high due
to consumer attitudes and producer inefficiencies. All this wasted food used up a lot of resources, so eliminating this
wastage frees up means to feed more people. In short, the big picture of population numbers in relation to resources is
quite complicated. It is a matter of efficiency but also of attitudes and justice.

Does this mean we can simply forget about population as a factor in sustainability? Not quite. Let us now turn to the
question of how fast population growth impacts social well-being, wealth generation and ecological conditions.

First of all, populations have been growing too rapidly for governments to provide education, jobs and public services to
keep pace with needs. Rising unemployment and poor public services are a source of frustration and social tension. Also,
many young people have migrated to far-away countries in search of work. While labour migration does bring benefits to
the recipient country in terms of remittances (money sent home), the social cost to society of family disruption is high.
Second, the number of cities with a population over million went up from zero to fifteen in half a century. Many of
these people ended up living in slums, and working in the informal sector. Finally, the impact on the land’s long-term
capacity to sustain life is negative in many cases. Fast-growing populations turn higher quality pasture land into fields for
cultivating food for the markets. Herders lose the better grazing land, which is their security in case of drought. Since the
size of grazing land is reduced, the available grasslands are more intensively grazed, which leads to degradation. Also,
poor farmers, who only grow enough to support their families, have to reduce fallow periods. Those are times when the
land is left without crops in order to recover and build-up new fertility. Without sufficient inputs from compost and
fertiliser, the soil runs out of nutrients and crops will fail. As a result, soil degradation and erosion get worse. The number
of people in dry and degraded areas now stands at . billion. Refugees and displaced persons that have lost their homes
to fires, floods, hurricanes or civil war have also been forced to stay in such places. Now, out of the countries with civil
conflict in the s, three-quarters have significant rural populations on fragile lands. It seems then that there is a
connection between crowdedness and conflict over access to resources.

O ec

Until the early twentieth century, even the wealthiest nations experienced the forces of nature as powerful and
sometimes overwhelming, but the tide was already turning. The nineteenth century laws that promoted land settlement
and resource extraction led to increased pollution and disappearance of plant and animal species as well as valued
landscapes. In response, the first environmental citizens’ initiatives were aimed at preserving species and landscapes
through the creation of natural parks around CE. Then, for decades, little changed as the world got caught up in
devastating wars.

Around CE, a period of accelerating change began. Science and technology were continually being developed and
applied in new products and services. Commercial advertising fuelled a process of ever-increasing aspirations for new
things. Items that used to be available only to elites increasingly became available to the masses. Items that used to last a
lifetime were now made to last only a few years. Fashion change or technical breakdowns would render them unusable.
Design might keep you from opening your product and repairing it. Spare parts would no longer be available after a while.
Replacement became cheaper than repair. The amounts of solid waste from business and households relentlessly
increased with income growth. They went up from around kg per person per day in to more than double that in
. Lifestyles changed dramatically from one generation to the next, and with that, people shifted their expectation of
what a normal standard of living was. High-income cities’ and countries’ economies rely strongly on ever-increasing
amounts of consumption. Indeed, societies where consumption becomes so defining we call consumerist. Obviously, this
phenomenon is a tremendous challenge to SD.

Perhaps we might not find the side effects so bad if the associated products meet our real needs. What if all this extra
consumption no longer produces more well-being or happiness? According to sustainability researchers such as Tim
Jackson, people use things not just to satisfy basic physical needs, such as food, clothing and shelter. Material goods also
serve to tell stories of people’s success in life and their status in relation to other individuals or groups. In secular social
settings, material goods even to some extent replace religious beliefs in a search for meaning. The researchers found that
people’s sense of happiness was based on a lot more than the amount of stuff they owned. A range of factors matter,
such as family, friendships, health, peer approval, community and sense of purpose. Meanwhile, other researchers made
calculations to correct income growth for changes in happiness factors. When comparing the two, it turned out that many
high-income societies had long ago ceased to become happier. Tim Jackson concludes that people know what makes
them happy, but they do not seem to know how to achieve those things. In the meantime, they are constantly
bombarded with commercial messages suggesting that a good deal of happiness will come with the purchase of this or
that good or service. These messages, crafted on the basis of behaviour research, are so subtle that they persuade lots of
people to buy. But there is more.

In consumer societies, people are persuaded to spend money they don’t have on things they don’t need to create
impressions that won’t last on people they don’t care about. (Tim Jackson)

Using the World Values Survey, researchers have found that the income-to-happiness link clearly works at low income
levels. They also noticed that as income increases still further, the happiness increase diminishes. Between one high-
income country and another, there is barely any difference in happiness despite rising incomes. In fact, other key aspects
of well-being seem a better explanation of the differences between those countries. Consumerist lifestyles are time-
focused and stressful. People constantly compare with one another and try to keep up or improve their relative status.
Those who cannot keep up get a sense of social exclusion. Also, in consumerist societies, some key institutions of
happiness are increasingly under stress—the strength of family, friendship and community. Marriages and families break
down more often, so that more children grow up without one or more parents. People’s sense of trust and belonging
have fallen a lot in many countries. Rates of mental illnesses and depression have gone up in the last half century.
According to Tim Jackson, the earlier-mentioned trends do not necessarily mean that one thing causes another. However,
his evidence does show that the structures and institutions that support continued economic growth also erode social
relationships. We will review some of this in the next chapter. For now, we conclude that overconsumption happens
when the increase in material possessions no longer leads to more happiness but to erosion of the institutions that
support it.

P b cP c Fa e

We may observe that during periods of unsustainable growth, people are generally willing to ignore an important
downside of their prosperity—its waste flows. London and Los Angeles already had serious air pollution in the s and
the s, while Beijing and Delhi’s experience is present and growing. In the ICs, the authorities responded by setting air
quality standards and moving power stations away from urban areas. While this seemed a rational thing to do at the time,
the move turned out to simply shift the burden to another place. The sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides released high
into the atmosphere were blown to neighbouring countries and deposited in lakes and forests. In Europe, this was found
out two decades later as their waters and soils became so acidic that plants and animals died. The large-scale dying of
forest caused great alarm in Europe and North America. Moreover, the emissions that came down in urban areas harmed
people’s health and damaged architectural treasures. The turning point came in , when the Convention on Long-
range Trans-boundary Air Pollution sealed international co-operation to reduce the amounts of acidifying pollutants by
more than half.
Water pollution was the next issue to become a major policy focus. Special water laws were made, permit systems
introduced and pollution control technologies installed. Again, a decade or so later, soil pollution in urban areas of
developed countries hit the headlines—Love Canal in the USA and Lekkerkerk in the Netherlands. Inhabitants of recently
built residential neighbourhoods were experiencing health problems that they related to liquids and gases in their
gardens or cellars. It turned out their houses had been built on top a former chemical waste dump whose barrels had
started leaking. In many cases, people had to be resettled and houses broken down in order to replace or clean the soil.
Many more sites were discovered after that. Often, the companies that caused the problem were no longer in existence,
so taxpayers ended up footing the very high bills for the clean-up. These cases created a new awareness in society that
our industrial wastes may cause problems for future generations if not properly dealt with. Disposing of waste out of sight
evidently meant that the problem had not gone away but passed on to another place or person.

Governments tried to solve these crises one by one, but discovered they were happening more frequently and getting
bigger all the time. In fact, they were not accidents but the symptoms of a deeper, worrying trend—the disharmony
between humans and the natural systems they depend on. By the s and the s, environmental laws and
regulations in ICs were becoming a burden. Often, businesses had to fulfil conflicting requirements for different state
agencies. Also, the recommended solutions to one environmental problem would typically make another worse. For
instance, water pollution control equipment produces sludge with high concentrations of pollutants that should not be
sent to a normal landfill. It either needs to be kept in isolated storage until further treatment or must be incinerated, that
is burned at high temperatures under controlled conditions. Thus, an approach that treats air, water and soil as separate
areas leads to inconsistencies in public policy and conflict in society. In response, this period was characterised by
increased co-ordination and integration of sector strategies. The WCED added one more integration step: one strategic
plan for the SD of the whole of society. Ironically, an important driver of unsustainable development was left in place
much longer. It is treated under a separate heading: subsidies for resource exploration, exploitation and use. Table .
summarises this historic development of policy responses with rough time indication.

National governments have sometimes broken up community-managed forests and lands in order to give more people
access to land. The goal was legitimate, but the effects turned out bad. Where no alternative institutions were formed,
nobody felt responsible for the land anymore. It was overused as the state had no money, staff or vehicles to monitor and
manage the situation. Lower rates of population growth will reduce the pressure on natural resources, but this effect will
be offset by the increase in per capita consumption. To benefit from the opportunities that a stabilising population
provides, it is critical that governments anticipate problems and design response strategies to improve the quality of life
without further resource degradation.

Madagascar is an island nation off the coast of Southern Africa, known for its rich and unique biodiversity. Its forests are
an attraction for tourists, and some of its plants have brought great benefit to human health through new medicines.
According to UNDP’s World Development Report, Madagascar has seen its income per capita decrease since ,
and its forest decrease by almost half. In , of its children died before age five. Agricultural productivity hardly
changed, while the population tripled. Madagascar used little fertiliser and allowed its road system to fall to pieces, so
that people could hardly get crops to market. Under pressure from rising numbers of people, small farmers burnt state
forest in order to grow more rice. Initially, the return is attractive, but tropical forest soil does not support more than
years of crops without fertiliser. After that, it may be used for cattle or lay abandoned. New forest takes to years to
grow, but it will not become rich in biodiversity. Forest destruction also impacts existing farmland and infrastructure
through erosion and flooding. Washed away soil from bare hillsides also clogs hydropower lakes and threatens freshwater
wildlife. Clearly, government priorities have allowed this situation to deteriorate, so it is time to reconsider.

The Aral Sea basin comprises all five former Soviet republics in Central Asia, whose rivers Syr Darya and Amu Darya flow
towards the sea. ‘Aral’ once moderated the microclimate in this arid region, but it has now shrunk to about of its
original size as the water level dropped over m. (The yellow line in Figure . indicates the original shore in ).
Soviet planners greatly expanded the area under cotton, and this needed a lot of irrigation water. They expected the level
of the sea to drop, but they failed to notice that a high concentration of salt in the water would kill all the fish and ruin
the local fish industry. Eliminating traditional land and water management practices, the Soviet planners made water and
pesticides abundantly available and set high cotton production targets. The combination of excessive irrigation and poor
land management led to the soils becoming more salty and less fertile. Cotton yields dropped by – from the
peak levels. Excess pesticides washed out of the soils into the rivers and were deposited on the bottom of the Aral Sea.
When the drying sea left its seabed exposed, the desert winds blew the salt and pesticide remains into the wider region,
degrading the land and damaging people’s health.
Pe e e S b d e

In the last half century, many wealthy nations have supported the modernisation of their fishing fleets with subsidies. As
a result, fishing fleets have become larger, more powerful and better at finding fish even in the most remote corners of
the oceans. They started using sonar technology, satellite navigation, depth sensors and bottom trawling (dragging a net
across the sea floor). Some even received fuel subsidies in order to travel further to foreign fishing grounds. These
policies have had at least two destructive effects. Now, the modern vessels from developed countries could travel to DC
waters to catch more of the world’s dwindling fish stocks. Even where they did so with legal permission, they were
unequal competition for poor coastal fishing communities in those countries. Moreover, ocean fish catch around the
world has been falling for some years as an estimated of large fish have now been eliminated. So modern fishing
practice temporarily gave the illusion of a low-cost protein source and profitable business, but it took place at the
expense of nature and poor coastal communities, who have little or no political influence.

Apart from fisheries, governments around the world give hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies every year to other
economic sectors. The reasons vary from promoting general economic growth (in case of transport and energy) or
import-substitution (wood-processing) to preserving regional jobs (in coal mining or fishing) and keeping distant corners
of their countries populated. In the last years, these subsidies have been under increasing scrutiny of international
organisations because of their harmful effects on markets and the environment. Hence the word ‘perverse’ in the
heading. Subsidies enable the recipient sectors to offer their products or services at below-market prices. As a result,
consumers are willing to take more than they would at unsubsidised prices. Thus, long-lasting user subsidies
unintentionally increase environmental depletion and pollution from these sectors.

Ma e a d Tech g Fa e

The societal debate over the cost of pollution control was long and hard in high-income countries, and perhaps still is in
many places. Businesses regarded the cost of environmental expenditure as a financial burden, saying that it would
reduce investment, growth and jobs. Nevertheless, public pressure forced governments to make laws to reduce air, water
and soil pollution. Businesses developed new technologies and processes to solve the problems, and results were
generally reasonable. A survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in
highlighted that pollution control policies had had a positive effect on economic growth and employment, quite apart
from the avoided damage to health and property. In fact, environmental laws generated a new branch of industry, the
environmental technology sector.

The idea that more environmental protection means lower economic growth, profits and jobs is still very popular.
However, in the long-term perspective, the economy versus environment trade-off is a false one. Natural resources such
as clean air, water and soil are dwindling, but economics still treats them as cheap or nearly free until governments
impose restrictions. Markets cannot value social or environmental benefits as well as they value scarcity of products.
Now, if you cannot put a proper value on natural resource inputs, then how can you tell if the value of industrial goods is
higher than the value of the resource that was used-up to make them? Apparently, prices are not always a reliable cost
indicator as part of the cost is transferred to other people or future generations.

Costs related to pollution and environmental degradation have long not been included in market prices. In recent
decades, pricing schemes for including environmental costs in prices of goods and services have gained popularity.
Examples include pollution charges (on a unit of dirty air or water discharged) and subsidies on pollution control
equipment. (More about those is given in Chapter on the public sector role.) At first, few countries introduced these
economic instruments (EIs). Also, such schemes are less effective where internationally competing businesses are
exempted. If they are not, then competitors in other countries would have an unfair advantage. They would benefit
economically, while the objective of the charge would not be achieved.

While defensive attitudes are still widespread today, forward-looking companies have demonstrated since the s that
there is another way. They complied with environmental law, met customer demand in better ways and saved inputs and
money all at the same time! See Box . about M’s amazing experience with pollution prevention. Much more research
and practice by others has demonstrated the same principle at work. Therefore, if companies integrate pollution
prevention into their whole way of operating, the environment does not cost money, but it generates higher and more
stable income. Moreover, it also causes higher employee satisfaction, and a more positive image of the company in
financial markets and society at large. Business responsibility for its impacts on society and the environment is now
taught in many business schools. Global standards for the quality of business processes, such as ISO, include management
of environmental impacts.

De e e Pa g Fa e

Since the s, international development banks and agencies have been involved in many large infrastructure projects.
Among those, big hydropower dams were popular but also hotly contested. In many DCs, these dams were planned in
hilly or mountainous areas with lush vegetation, fertile agricultural land and numerous human settlements. As a result,
lots of livelihoods were destroyed and families forcibly resettled with often little or no consultation and compensation. In
response to the growing opposition to dam projects, the WB and the World Conservation Union (International Union for
the Conservation of Nature or IUCN) established the World Commission on Dams (WCD) in . It carried out an
assessment of the effectiveness of the dams for the countries’ development. It also studied alternative water and power
sources in order to find out if better solutions were available when the decision to build was made. The WCD concluded
that while dams have made important contributions to development, ‘in too many cases an unacceptable and often
unnecessary price has been paid to secure those benefits’. The commission came up with guidelines that are now strongly
recommended to all development banks and agencies. Social and environmental impact assessment became standard
procedure for large internationally supported projects.

In the early decades of development co-operation, donor countries provided loans and grants to pay for pesticide
supplies as part of agricultural projects. However, many tons of pesticides remained unused because local institutions
could not distribute them properly and farmers could not use them in time. Now, the pesticides are obsolete and useless
but still dangerous. UNDP’s World Development Report says that there is a stockpile of , tons of in Africa
alone. Central Asian countries have a similar problem with pesticides leftover from Soviet times. The soils under and
around the inadequate storage facilities are heavily contaminated. Children and animals often have easy access to the
sites as they are no longer properly guarded. Many have suffered poisoning. Safe disposal of the obsolete pesticides has
become yet another development issue. Many countries have legacies from the past that may pose serious hazards if not
dealt with in time.

What has become clear through this discussion of causes? Could it be that virtually all stakeholders bear a degree of
responsibility for the unsustainability in our world—businesses, households, governments, and international
development banks and agencies. All have been part of the problem. All should become part of the solution and join the
transition to a sustainable world. If we have identified the root causes, we can move on.

Our task in this chapter is exposing the roots of unsustainability, so that we can apply solutions at the right place. In the
previous section, we have reviewed several reasons for unsustainability. However, we suspect that deeper causes exist
behind the ones that we listed. It really matters how big or small you frame an issue. If you draw narrow boundaries, your
solution will also be small. However, if you step back and take a broader, long-term perspective, your solution will also be
bigger. Now, we will illustrate the difference in approach by means of a drinking water issue.

Many arid parts of the world draw on ground water for daily needs of irrigation, agriculture and cities. Sometimes there is
no surface water available or it is all channelled to agriculture at heavily subsidised prices. As demand grows with rising
population and income; easy supplies run out. The groundwater reservoir shrinks and the water company has to drill
deeper and deeper to access the water. If you take a short-term approach, you might say that the problem is to find
affordable drinking water for the people’s obvious needs: a political call to make. Consequently, your solution will be to
invest in deeper wells and better pumps. However, since the city has neglected the long-term issue of responsible
consumption, the problem will come back in a short while. It will be worse, since the groundwater quality declines and
you need to purify more. Will you simply increase the water subsidy?

Now, here is an alternative problem analysis. Water user choices are affected by their needs, the price of water and the
efficiency of use. Most people take efficiency as a given, unless prices are so high that savings make a big difference. The
higher their income is, the more significant the saving should be. Otherwise, people will not bother. In many countries,
water tariffs are very low because water is a basic good that should be affordable for everyone. However, if all water use
is cheap, then more and more luxury use will emerge over time, such as daily showers, car washes and watering the
garden or greenhouse. Per capita use will continue to go up with rising income. This can only be stopped by charging
people closer to full-cost levels, at least for luxury uses. For households, a basic amount of water could still be subsidised,
but an upper limit ensures that citizens have strong incentives to save. If the water company ignores the signs until
groundwater is finished, the cost of replacing the source will be much higher. Evidently, the rational, sustainable thing is
to look at the long-term balance. Table . has primary and deeper causes for several policy issues.

After this brief analysis, we can see that there are three factors that matter most at a fundamental level: our daily
choices, the efficiency of our resource use, and the institutions that encourage or discourage us to save resources. Let us
explore these in more detail.

Behaviour: The personal choices we make in resource use, especially the routine ones that millions of people make on a
daily basis. Such actions are motivated by comfort, convenience or status. Now, once a person is ready to participate in
the change for sustainability, they should begin at home in their own lives. Only then can they credibly call upon others to
follow their example. Together, millions of sustainable acts make a difference, but there is potential for more gain. As we
saw in Chapter , all individual actions find limits in the current state of technology and institutions. In order to change,
these sustainability change agents will have to co-operate with others (form coalitions).

Technology: It is not static, but develops in a framework of driving forces, such as market prices, business and research
agency interests. This means that medium- to long-term technology development could be directed to serve the goals of
sustainability. In the late twentieth century, many wealthy countries achieved per year improvement rates in their
energy efficiency. However, the environmental gain was soon lost when people started increasing their comfort
requirements. This so-called rebound effect shows that sustainability will not be achieved with only technology policies.

Institutions: In line with the Human Development Report, we will define institutions as,

[T he rules, organizations, and social norms that facilitate coordination of human action. On the informal end they go
from trust and traditions governing social behaviour to informal mechanisms and networks for coordination. On the
formal end, they include a country’s codified rules and laws, and the procedures and organizations for making, modifying,
interpreting, and enforcing the rules and laws (from the law giver to the central bank).

In working for a more sustainable future, change agents may be limited by rules or organisational structures that were
made without regard to the environment. By following applicable procedures and building coalitions, they may change
those rules and structures. Where community members have shared values, change agents could mobilise them for SD
initiatives.

In conclusion, we can observe that the unsustainability in society comes from:

The technologies used, such as hazardous substances and wasteful irrigation methods,

The institutional systems that direct people’s actions, such as ideologies favouring human domination of nature and
misguided subsidy programmes

The choices that millions of individuals make on a routine basis, often with inadequate knowledge of the consequences
and fanned by advertising

.The way you look determines what you see or emphasise. When you are out in the country looking at a rock or
mountain, one person may see a natural work of art in it, while another sees a valuable building material. In Chapter ,
worldviews were introduced as thought patterns that perceive world events according to their foundational principles.
We also learned that SD is a broad concept reconciling the complex ideas of development and environment. The
Brundtland definition allowed each of the four worldviews a way to integrate it into their framework of meaning. As a
result, each worldview has its own version of the causes of unsustainability and its own vision of a sustainable future.

In Chapter we listed the basic assumptions of the bio-environmentalist, the institutionalist, the market liberal and the
social green perspective. In this chapter we are adding their views on the causes of unsustainability.

Bio-environmentalists: This group stresses that humans as a species are self-centred and are consuming more of the
planet’s resources than it can bear. They believe that the assumption of infinite economic growth and consumerism are
key causes of the global ecological crisis. Fast population growth aggravates the problem. They fear that increasing
scarcity will lead to more disasters, conflicts and war.

Institutionalists: Their ideas are from the fields of political science and international relations. Unsustainability comes
either from a lack of organisation or from institutions whose design or mandate does not support sustainable choices. For
instance, where no clear user rules apply to a forest or fish stock, people are likely to overuse the resource. Nobody feels
responsible for the long-term quality of the resource. Laws and organisations that were created before the time when
sustainability became a concern may work against efforts correct the problem. Nevertheless, institutionalists believe that
all forms of government need strong institutions to go beyond their self-interest and stick to collective norms.

Market Liberals: They see market and policy failures, as described in this chapter, as drivers of environmental
degradation. They acknowledge that poverty causes some forms of environment degradation, but ascribe this to the
struggle for survival. The lack of clear property or access rules, or strong institutions to enforce them, may be part of the
problem. In the end, all market liberal strategies amount to correction of market or policy failure, so that economic
growth could drive social, economic and ultimately also environmental change for the better. It should come as no
surprise that they never talk about consumerism or the endless growth ideology as a problem.

Social Greens: This group identifies inequality within and between countries, and domination of the poor by the rich as
root causes. These lead to unequal access to natural resources and unequal exposure to pollution. Since physical limits to
growth exist, the use of environmental space is a matter of fairness. According to social greens, overconsumption,
particularly in the ICs, puts a great strain on the global environment. By contrast, the poor only have a small ecological
footprint. A fairer distribution of wealth will slow down population growth. So the numbers themselves are not an issue,
but the lack of equity in the world is. Inspired by Marxist theory, they point to capitalist multinational business spreading
across the world and increasingly concentrating wealth and political influence in the hands of few.

Of course, new knowledge and insights matter. These have grown along with the number, scale and impact of
environmental issues through research carried out in response to concrete problems. Research takes lots of time from
well-paid experts and so it is expensive. It is no surprise, then, that the bulk of this research is carried out in and by ICs. In
recent years, the share of environment-related research in and by DCs has been growing. In relation to international and
especially global issues, having one’s own research can be quite important. Nevertheless, the contrast is still so stark that
some speak of a North–South knowledge divide.

In this section, we have learnt that individuals and organisations point to a wide variety of problems and deeper causes
for the unsustainability in our world. Depending on what’s important to each school of thought, they claim that the most
important causes are in human nature, lack of quality institutions, market and policy failure, or social inequality. These
perspectives turn out to be very deep-seated, so that they may be called worldviews. They are like philosophical and
religious convictions in the sense that people base their values and attitudes on them, pursue them with fervour and
rarely change them, if at all.

The approach of taking of fresh resources from nature and dumping waste products after use is called the linear model of
resource use. Historically, governments have often facilitated this model by minimising regulation and fees for natural
resource exploitation and waste disposal. This invites users to demand greater amounts of resources and place greater
strains on nature through depletion and pollution. This model is unsustainable. According to scientists, continuing
business as usual will lead to increasing instabilities in ecosystems and societies. As we shall see in the next chapter,
sustainable resource use is represented by a circular model. It keeps non-renewable materials like metals circulating
within societies, so that waste is reduced and less metal ore needs to be mined.

In this chapter, we learned that the roots of unsustainability are found in inadequate institutions, hazardous and
inefficient technologies, and unhelpful personal choices. Within one or two generations, we should shift society on a
learning curve from the linear model to a more circular economy. This is the sustainability transition. In Chapter , we
concluded that the transition to a more sustainable world would be long and complex. It requires a lot of learning on the
go. There needs to be stable, strong leadership and management:

Within each agency, business and community,

Between different agencies and layers of government

In different economic sectors,

Between governments worldwide.

So, leaders will have to become literate in sustainability issues through education and training. They need to clearly
communicate the need and direction for change, and create the conditions for others to follow. In Chapter , we examine
what steps may help to lead an organisation successfully through change. Nevertheless, there will always be
disagreement about the causes of unsustainability in the same way as we have political differences regarding the general
way we want society to develop. Moreover, there are people who easily spot opportunities, innovate and come out
stronger, and those who focus on what they might lose.

Under unsustainable framework conditions, such as the endless growth ideology and the perverse subsidies mentioned
here, certain activities have grown too big and dirty. Once the public debate about adjusting the framework conditions
begins, vested interests will gear into action. They will lobby and try to influence the outcomes in a direction favourable
to them. In the context of the transition, that means to cause maximum delay or disruption. An example of this strategy is
discussed in Chapter , where the world’s major fossil fuel producing companies and countries try hard to discredit
climate science and discourage effective climate protection policies. Of course, we should have patience with people who
do not like change and/or lack the skills or resources to make change, but we should not allow them to block the path to a
sustainable future for all.

Debate and defence of particular interests are, of course, inherent in the democratic process. Vested interests have to be
overcome by democratic means: namely, by more effective mobilization of public opinion aimed at gaining support at all
levels: international, national and local. The difficulties in achieving this goal should not, however, be under-estimated.
(...) A vigilant and informed world public represents a powerful counterweight to the vested interests that appear, at
present, to have the upper hand on many issues. It is no accident that the countries that are militating most strongly for
controls on emissions and other environmental measures are the same nations that have strong environmental lobbies
and publics committed to action – locally, nationally and internationally—to preserve the environment. (UNESCO )

World leaders have agreed on two important milestones in —the SDGs for and the Paris Agreement on Climate
Protection. They were not only convinced by science to avert dangerous climate change and social disruption but they
were also propelled by examples of vitality and innovation in their societies. Challenges are at the same time a threat and
opportunity.

This means that entrepreneurs, community leaders and civil society activists should read the signs and start or join an
initiative with positive impact. In the next chapter, we will explore in more detail how societies could meet more needs
and use resource more sustainably at the same time.
It is widely recognised that the global economic system has created a lot of wealth, but also that it has left too many
people out and has caused too much environmental damage. If current trends continue, in a few decades, our world may
see yet more inequality, more ecological destruction and, because of these, more conflict and instability. The generation
now in college or university could make the difference and steer their families, companies and communities away from
this scenario. So how can we get a good impression of the big picture? What is the sustainable future worth working for?

SD is a grand vision for types of development that meet the needs of today’s people in equitable ways without damaging
the resource base for present and future generations. We will explore the three dimensions of sustainability—economic,
social and environmental. This chapter details the vision so that we will get a more concrete idea of what sustainability
means in a variety of settings. It also points to directions where we could find sustainability and suggests in what ways
and how fast we should try to get there.

Scientists brought together by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, have explored the idea of the Earth as a system with
natural safety limits. They propose a set of nine threshold values for interrelated Earth-system processes that keep our
planet in a relatively stable state. These are listed in the left-hand column of Table . . Natural systems are generally
resilient: after a disturbance, they tend to gravitate back to equilibrium. However, when impacts become too large, the
system may move in an unpredictable direction away from the equilibrium state that humans are comfortable with. Earth
can exist without humans, but we cannot live without the natural systems that sustain us. So the planetary boundaries
are really warning lines which we should make every effort not to cross for our own sake. Unfortunately, out of the nine
boundaries listed, we have already overstretched the top three. The consequences are not immediately noticeable, but
we are already in a danger zone.

Moreover, coalitions of development practitioners and academics have suggested that, in a similar vein, we may also set
social boundaries. Below those lines, there is unacceptable human deprivation. These boundaries have been derived from
the UN Charter and declarations, as well as from consultations that were held in the run-up to the Rio summit. They
are listed in the right-hand column of Table . . The space between the planetary and social boundaries is the free space
within which each country may choose its own development path. Kate Raworth of Oxford University’s Environmental
Change Institute calls it ‘a safe and just space for humanity’ (Raworth ). Unfortunately, here too, there are major
deficits. For example, of the world’s population are undernourished, do not have regular access to essential
medicines and lack access to clean cooking facilities. At the same time, these deficits present all stakeholders with
very challenging and, therefore, also potentially rewarding tasks. In this book, we discuss four major sustainability
challenges in Chapters to . Here is a short introduction.

Transforming our energy production and use to fit within the safe and just space is no doubt our biggest task. In the
words of Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen, energy is the master resource. Since fossil fuels are running out and their use causes
a range of atmospheric and health problems, we must phase them out and replace them with renewable forms of energy.
This is the theme of Chapter .

The next huge sustainability challenge is to green the ongoing urbanisation of the world. Currently, just over half of the
world population ( . billion) live in cities, and the UN expects this will jump to six billion. This means that . billion are
added over three decades, the majority in megacities that already host million or more. If they are to become
drastically more inclusive and environmentally sustainable places to live, work and thrive, urban development strategies
will have to change. Chapter takes you on a journey to cities that have inspiring stories to tell.

Guiding the food and agriculture system into the safe and just space is the subject of Chapter . We present it as the
third major challenge, because of the expected population growth, urbanisation, increase and lifestyle change of the
global middle class, and the impacts of climate change. By , the world will have two billion more mouths to feed and
one billion to nourish in better ways. Now this is only half the job, for – of soils worldwide are in various states of
degradation. In the last years, an area two times the size of China has already been lost. Moreover, agricultural
productivity is restricted by limits on water, whose scarcity is a growing discomfort in arid countries and regions. Here
too, drastic efficiency improvement is desirable and possible. We should take into account that a third of food is currently
wasted in different sections of the production chain. Last but not least, according to experts, the food system challenges
should be better co-ordinated with those of the water and energy sectors. The reason is that planning decisions in one
sector seriously affect the chances of success in the others.

Green economy (GE; the theme of Chapter ) is essentially a vision for an inclusive, sustainable future of a country or a
sector, and a strategy of long-term goals and co-ordinated policy changes that take it towards achievement. These
policies focus on key development parameters, such as energy and water tariff systems. They guide public and private
entities in their strategic decision-making and so enable all stakeholders to conduct their affairs in unison. Big gains in
efficiency and inclusion have happened before, over the long term. According to the stakeholders involved in preparing
the Rio summit, thriving in a safe and just space is ‘the future we want’. So it’s inevitable that we aim high.
However, to succeed, we need long-term, nationally co-ordinated transformation strategies initiated by impassioned
leaders who understand the social and ecological imperatives of our time.

At the political level, world leaders have adopted SDGs as a reflection of their global consensus. These apply to all
countries in the world and contain goals for all three dimensions of sustainability. The sub-goals provide specifications for
each SDG, and various governmental and NGOs have come up with interpretations of what they mean in their focus area.
The challenge to a DC is very different from the challenge to an IC. The strategic priorities a city, company or country
should set depend on its own specific conditions. In an area of low efficiency and widespread poverty, for instance,
efficiency improvement could free up resources for meeting the basic needs of the poor. At the same time, a change in
attitudes and behaviour cannot wait. It enables the ongoing movement towards a sustainable future. Families and schools
should teach and practice social and environmental engagement. Public utilities should encourage and facilitate
economical use of energy and water. Governments, citizens and businesses should work together to create a new public
culture that does not exalt material consumption.

In this chapter, we continue our analysis of how our routine behaviour, our institutions and our technology enable or
discourage us to work for a sustainable future. Behaviour is about the individual choices we make within the framework
of our society’s institutions and technology. Institutions are the rules, organisations and socials norms that facilitate co-
ordination of human action (World Development Report ). The term technology may refer, first and foremost, to the
tools and instruments that people develop to adapt nature to their needs and solve life’s problems. However, it is also
used to speak about the knowledge used to produce goods and services. As we shall see in Chapter , this knowledge is
neither static nor autonomous. It develops within a framework of conditions that can be influenced by public sector
policies and, thus, can be made to work for a sustainable future.

In this chapter, we take you on a journey of sustainability as a new way of thinking about issues of development and
environment. In fact, it is so different from today’s habitual ways that we call it thinking outside the box. That expression
means that sustainable solutions are found outside the boundaries of our usual patterns of thought and behaviour. We
have to make connections with other issues where we did not do so before. In every specific situation, we have to study
how we ended up in the present condition—the historical perspective—the second section of every chapter in this book.
We have to consider issues from different perspectives (our worldview section), which may not be easy in our cultural or
political context. Finally, we need to determine for each theme or area how far we are off the long-term target and what
we should do to keep moving towards it—the subject of our transition section.
The journey along many case studies takes us all over the world. SD is already in the making. The purpose of this book is
to entice and equip you to become partners in the global movement for sustainability. Be ready to become a lifelong
learner, know your world well and be passionate about making it a little better.

We learned that the idea of SD was not entirely new when it made headlines. The notions of development and
environment evolved separately for decades, but became intertwined during the last part of the twentieth century. In
, the SD concept broke through with the publication of Our Common Future—the report of the WCED. Despite the
advent of the new favourite of the development community, the older ideas of modernisation, dependency and basic
human needs never completely disappeared.

Sustainability was all about restoring balance by integrating the third dimension into development policy and practice—
managing environmental impacts. DCs had resisted this, so why did they change their minds? In the middle of the
twentieth century, nature conservation had been about putting a fence around and area of particular beauty and keeping
potential users out. However, in the s, a new environmental consciousness was born in response to crises in air,
water and soil pollution in Western nations. This was no longer about preserving animal and plant species, their habitat or
a cultural heritage landscape. This was about the everyday quality of life for humans, and indeed the future of all of life
on Earth. Rachel Carson’s book on the risks of unrestricted pesticide use inspired numerous citizens to work together for
the common good in NGOs (Chapter ). They pooled their own resources and often gave freely of their own time and
expertise. The growing influence of modern media was very important in the success of many campaigns, such as the first
Earth Day (USA, ).

The Western environmental movement did not receive much support in DCs. Meanwhile, DC elites still accepted pollution
and environmental degradation as inevitable sacrifices for the achievement of a greater good—material prosperity. When
Western governments brought up environmental issues in relation to development, they were met with sceptical
attitudes. DCs perceived them as attempts by wealthy countries to limit their chances for growth through the use of their
own natural wealth. That way, they reasoned, the rich countries could continue to use the bulk of the Earth’s resources.
That does not imply that DCs were totally unaware of tensions between development and environment interests. In Brazil
and India, for example, indigenous movements had sprung up to defend community forests against plans to cut them for
short-term economic gain.

A UN high-level expert seminar in Founex near Geneva ( ) helped the two sides come closer together. First, there was
recognition for the fact that some environmental issues stem from poverty. Programmes to overcome poverty would,
thus, make a contribution to both development and environment. Also, participants demonstrated a deeper
understanding and appreciation for various aspects of development, including industrialisation, and social and cultural
matters. As a result, the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm ( ) drew substantial DC
participation and support for a closer link between environment and development issues. An important outcome was the
decision to create the UNEP and to headquarter it in Nairobi, Kenya.
In , the IUCN published the WCS. This document stressed the interdependence of development and nature
conservation—the world cannot have one without the other. The UN General Assembly affirmed this principle years
later in its World Charter for Nature, and again in its job description for the WCED. This independent commission of
politicians and diplomats, chaired by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Brundtland, had to design an action agenda.
To avoid polarised debate, the outcome had to be based on consensus. In its report Our Common Future, the
commission chose the term SD to signal that our choice is not between two opposing goals—environment or
development. Instead, we must aim for a type of development that meets today’s needs without reducing the
possibilities for future generations of people to meet their needs also. Table . presents the scope and content of the
commission’s report. The Brundtland Commission emphasised that it is not only rational to leave the Earth’s resources
intact for future users but it is also our moral obligation to do so. Now, if we should be equitable between generations,
the commission reasoned, we should also be equitable within our generation.

The concept of sustainable development does imply limits—not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present
state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the
effects of human activities. But technology and social organization can both be managed and improved to make way for a
new era of economic growth. The Commission believes that widespread poverty is no longer inevitable. Poverty is not
only an evil in itself, but sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the
opportunity to fulfil their aspirations for a better life. A world in which poverty is endemic will always be prone to
ecological and other catastrophes.

(...)Yet in the end, sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change in which the
exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional
change are made consistent with future as well as present needs. We do not pretend that the process is easy or
straightforward. Painful choices have to be made. Thus, in the final analysis, sustainable development must rest on
political will. (WCED , – )

SD was quickly adopted as the new goal of the international community. What might explain this great political success?
First and foremost, it was the reasonable message that the Brundtland Commission presented to the world. We want
development for poverty alleviation and reduction of global inequality, but we need a type that will not destroy the
potential for future development. Second, concern about environmental problems had considerably increased during the
s as major disasters made headlines—the Chernobyl nuclear accident, drought and famine in Africa and the
discovery of a hole in the Earth’s ozone shield over Antarctica. Third, there was more room for co-operative international
action. Economic concerns had decreased as oil prices came down in and foreign debts felt less acute. Also,
international relations were more relaxed between the East and the West, especially after the collapse of state socialism
in Eastern Europe and the former USSR.

The Brundtland Report had recommended a global conference to take specific steps to pursue the goals laid down in the
report. The UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)or Earth Summit’ (Rio de Janeiro, June ) was
planned several years ahead. This way, preparatory working groups had a few years to prepare documents and treaty
texts. This work led to a real build-up of expectation and momentum. When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union fell
apart, optimism rose to even greater heights. Now the nations of the world would have a historical opportunity to turn
savings on defence spending into gains for poverty reduction and environmental protection. UNCED was bigger than any
other international environmental event— national delegations, over heads of government, a separate event
called the Global Forum for , NGO representatives and, of course, a lot of media attention.

Several documents were opened for signature at UNCED:

The Framework Convention on Climate Change

The Convention on Biological Diversity

Statement on Forest Principles

The Rio Declaration

Agenda
The Earth Summit is remembered as a productive and hope-giving event. Yet it did not produce all that the organisers had
aimed for. The Global North (ICs) and the Global South (DCs) had very different expectations. The former wanted to focus
on environmental degradation as a short-term, technically solvable issue. The latter argued that such an approach only
tackled the symptoms of the crisis and ignored the root causes. They maintained that the international trade system
treated rich and poor countries as equal and, therefore, caused the rich to grow richer and the poor to lose out.
Obviously, young DC firms are easily outcompeted by well-equipped transnational corporations (TNCs). Moreover, DC
debt burdens had led many to overexploit their natural resources in an attempt to pay back their debts with commodities
whose prices went down in oversupplied global markets. There was insufficient support for this view, and so trade and
debt were treated as separate issues. Of course, the lack of consensus on what had caused the world’s environment and
development problems impacted the quality of the outcomes.

The climate change treaty could have been a beacon of international solidarity. Instead, it became a toothless framework
convention as most states felt that scientific evidence was not strong enough for strict emissions limits. It only set the
long-term goal of stabilisation of concentrations by the year ce. It did acknowledge the prime responsibility of ICs
for the emerging climate problem, since they had emitted the bulk of historical emissions. The principle of Common but
Differentiated Responsibilitiesled them to accept the obligation to stabilise their emissions by the year at
levels. Yet in later years, that principle was interpreted in rather different ways by the Global North and South.

Similarly, the convention on biodiversity only affirmed the principles of state sovereignty over resources, as well as their
sustainable exploitation and equitable sharing. The statement on forest principles emerged after negotiations for a forest
convention collapsed from lack of consensus. It affirmed state sovereignty over resources, but did not contain any targets
or timetables for halting widespread deforestation.

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Developmentwas very much a compromise document with rather more of a
human than environmental focus. Thus, the Principle stated that ‘[h uman beings are at the centre of concerns for
sustainable development; they are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature’. The fact that
Principles and affirm the right to development and to state sovereignty over resources shows how important these
points were for many participants. Environmental protection was recognised as an integral part of the development
process. It was embodied in the polluter pays principle (PPP) and the precautionary principle, which received global
support this way. The former states that polluters should pay for cleaning up the pollution they caused, usually via
charges and taxes. The latter is applied where the potential consequences of an environmental problem are so serious
that action is required even in the absence of full scientific certainty. Nevertheless, governments resisted obligations and
mechanisms which would invite other States to hold them accountable on environmental outcomes.

Finally, Agenda is an action list outlining how SD principles could be put into practice. Remarkably, it highlights the role
of non-state actors in this process—businesses, NGOs and citizen organisations. This is a recognition of the fact that the
transformation of society towards a sustainable one requires the participation of all stakeholders. It cannot be ordered
from the top, since it requires great creativity, co-operation and motivation. Financing the conventions and Agenda
turned out to be a thorny issue too. The UNCED Secretariat had estimated that the Agenda programmes would cost
US billion a year. It hoped that US billion a year would come as aid from ICs. Although these countries had
already committed to spending . of their national product on ODA, they were not actually spending it. Nor were they
willing at the Earth Summit to direct such sums to SD. They eventually pledged US billion over years, less than of
the needed amount! Moreover, this money was channelled through the Global Environment Facility (GEF), then a fund
hosted and controlled by the WB. That institution did not enjoy the trust of many DCs. We may conclude that Agenda
failed as a short-term action plan because it was perceived as too expensive. However, it did become a starting point and
beacon for manifold local initiatives that brought a variety of stakeholders together.

Not long after the Earth Summit, international political priorities moved on to other themes, such as humanitarian crises,
immigration and terrorism that required urgent attention. However, numerous businesses, communities, city authorities
and others began the journey of finding their own local path to SD. These initiatives depended on visionary leaders and
often took place in contrast to their national governments’ inactivity or obstructive policies. Such initiatives were strongly
promoted at the next World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in in Johannesburg, South Africa. Its
low ambitions reflected the less optimistic mood that reigned in those days, barely a year after the terrorist attack on the
World Trade Center in New York. World leaders had only just committed to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
which included a lot of social and economic development and very little environmental conservation. Rather than setting
new goals, the organisers aimed for co-operation models between governments, businesses and civil society in order to
accelerate concrete action towards SD. According to a rough count by summit organisers, over agreements were
reached at Johannesburg, representing around US million in pledged resources. The vast majority of these were
programmes of technical co-operation in energy generation and conservation.

The years since have seen a further decline in the effectiveness of international treaties dealing with environmental
problems—commonly called multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). A notable exception has been the
Convention on the Right to Information, Participation in Decision-making, and Justice in Environmental Matters,
concluded in in Aarhus, Denmark. This treaty was worked out by the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE), the Eurasia office of the UN. Later, the convention was also opened up for countries outside that world
region. This treaty is described in detail in Part II of this book. The reason we mention it here is to complement the shift in
action for sustainability. Clearly, the Aarhus Convention is a treaty that enables smaller stakeholders in society to take
action for a better environment and quality of life when leading stakeholders are on a business-as-usual course. Thus, the
convention recognises that the real sustainability champions in society are not always those with the power and
resources to effect change.

UNEP (now UN Environment Assembly or UNEA), the UN’s leading body for environmental action, has been quite
effective (Ivanova ), for instance, in collecting information on the ecological state of the planet and co-ordinating
action to protect the oceans and the atmosphere. A good example of the first task is the MA , which painted an
alarming picture of the state of the world’s ecosystems. For this reason, the MA prompted new international SD
efforts in many areas. In the sphere of action, we could mention initiatives where UNEP has brought together public and
private stakeholders to address a particular problem, such as mercury pollution, or a specific sector, such as the financial
institutions. In Part II we will discuss the main SD stakeholders in more detail. Here, it is enough to conclude that much
progress in environmental quality depends on stakeholder initiatives that take place in relative quiet between the large
international conferences.

The global financial and economic crisis, which started in , spread quickly around the Western world and had its
impacts way beyond. Normally, economic downturns have negative effects on social and environmental policies as
business and governments switch priorities and cut spending. This time, international players like UNEP and development
agencies took a novel view of the situation, and with some success. They saw the crisis as evidence of the fact that the
short-term focused economic model was bankrupt. Moreover, they urged world leaders to turn the crisis into an
opportunity for structural change. Some governments adopted this view and implemented reforms to promote a stronger
drive to sustainability. UNEP started spreading the idea of GE as a tool to provide consistent incentives for business and
households towards sustainable choices. UNEP, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the WB and the OECD, all
argued that GE plans would also be good for income generation and poverty alleviation. GE policies, they said, create jobs
in such labour-intensive sectors as recycling and renewable energy. UNEP took the lead, investigating the idea further,
and proposed it as one of two key topics for the upcoming world summit on SD.

This so-called Rio conference was again held in Rio de Janeiro, years after the Earth Summit. Its other major topic
of discussion was the UN’s organisational capacity to take care of the global environment. The conference did not lead to
significant new initiatives, except the restructuring of UNEP into UNEA to make it stronger and more universal. Principles
and policies from earlier earth summits were reaffirmed, which in itself is a testimony. By contrast, some government
leaders argued that we needed new approaches when older ones had not produced fruit. Others, however, maintained
that the lack of results comes from unfulfilled promises, not from unhelpful ideas. Chapter has more on the GE, a
comprehensive approach to kick-starting SD.

Over the last years, the concept of SD has grown through study, experiment and innovative practices. It has inspired
some to develop new business models or green designs. It has led development agencies to take renewables to remote
communities, so that clean energy can change their lives for good. It has challenged local authorities to tackle their
energy, transport and waste issues in fresh ways that are both socially inclusive and environmentally tenable.
Sustainability is here to stay and inspire new generations to take it further.

SD is a concept that beautifully expresses the broad ideas of environmental care and equity within and between
generations. However, it needs specific terms and tools to help people make decisions in real life situations.

Let us consider a simple model representing society’s use of the environment. Its most basic form shows society as a
rectangle with an arrow pointing in from ‘sources’ on the left and another one pointing out to ‘sinks’ on the right.
Obviously, sources refers to the materials and energy which people turn into the products and services that meet their
needs. Sinks, on the right-hand side, represent the environment’s role as a processor of the solid, fluid and gaseous
wastes that we release into it. The size of the box reflects the number of people on Earth, while the breadth of the arrows
represents the total volume of production and consumption. Both have grown over time, especially fast during the
industrial era. They deplete or damage resources, pollute the environment and cause negative feedback effects on
humans. From a sustainability perspective, the problem with this model is that it’s linear.

Resources come in two basic types, renewable and non-renewable resources. The former type is replenished by natural
processes at a natural pace; examples include forest, freshwater and fish. They remain available for human use if we
harvest no more than the rate of increase, known as the maximum sustainable yield. If fishermen leave enough fish in the
ocean to reproduce and maintain the population, there will be catches in the long term. However, if they catch even the
small fishes today, catches will collapse tomorrow. This is no longer just a bad dream. In the last years, overfishing has
dramatically reduced fish stocks worldwide. Non-renewable resources are replenished at such a slow rate compared to
human use that we basically draw down the resource. Old-growth forests, metals and minerals, and fossil fuels such as oil
and gas belong in this category.

Environmental effects have to be reduced or eliminated by rerouting major parts of the discarded materials flow back
into the society box. This will reduce the size of the input and waste flows. The principles of sustainable resource
management listed here aim to do just that. The first three, located on the left-hand side of the society box, reduce the
flow size: efficiency improvement, input substitution, and reuse and recycling. Let us look more closely at each of these
principles.

. Efficiency is understood as the amount of useful output produced for each unit of input. Thus, efficiency goes up
when a process change leads to material and/or energy saving; in other words, a higher output per unit of input.
Some examples from daily life: The compact fluorescent lighting device produces the same light output as a
traditional bulb, but needs less energy! A water-saving shower head gives the same sense comfort but uses
less water ( . instead of litres per minute). If you keep boiled water in a thermos for your second cup of
tea or coffee, you avoid having to boil water again. If you brush your teeth or do the dishes without keeping the
tap running, you may save lots of water and, thus, improve your efficiency. This shows that efficiency is a matter
of both behaviour and technology.
. Input substitution is about replacing a material whose production or consumption has negative impacts with a
less problematic alternative. For instance, if you take your cotton or canvas shopping bag to the market, you may
replace a lot of plastic bags every day. The replacement of oil-based plastic by bio-plastic in disposable food
containers could also be an improvement. While the former accumulate in streets, waterways or landfills, the
latter break down without a trace in a matter of weeks. Moreover, their components are taken up in the soil and
act as a fertiliser or soil improver. It is even better if the manufacture of your product requires little or no harmful
inputs. Hemp has been known as an industrial crop for centuries, for it produces excellent paper and vegetable
oil. A co-operative in France has developed more uses that could replace less benign materials, for instance, as an
insulation material for buildings and as indoor panelling in cars. Hemp does not need fertilisers or pesticides to
grow, and almost every part of the plant can be used. Finally, turning agricultural waste into biogas is an option
that can replace fossil fuels or firewood.
. Reuse refers to products finding new uses or owners after the first use is finished. When you put the glass jars in
which you buy fruit juice to new use for holding dried or preserved food, you apply this principle. The jars need to
be cleaned, but otherwise no change is needed. Recycling, on the other hand, involves reuse of the materials
rather than the products themselves. The materials are collected and sent for reprocessing into new products,
thus, saving raw materials and energy. Producing products such as glass or metals from virgin materials costs a lot
more energy than from recycling. Whether in practice recycling is financially worthwhile depends on local
circumstances such as distance to factory and resource prices.

Three other principles do not actually change the size of the original flow but minimise its harmful effects after pollution
has already occurred. Since extra equipment is needed, which also needs to be produced, the net environmental effect is
less harmful but not necessarily smaller. These output management principles are pollution control, remediation and
restoration.

. Pollution control is about adding equipment to the production process in order to deal with harmful wastes—
solid, fluid or gaseous. Thus, scrubbers clean exhaust fumes from coal-fired power stations from sulphur dioxide
 and soot. These wastes would otherwise cause public health problems and render far-away forests and lakes acid
and lifeless. A wastewater treatment plant in Pakistani Punjab now purifies thousands of litres of heavily
contaminated water from leather tanneries that used to make life in the region quite miserable. The multi-million
dollar facility produces clean surface water and also enables tanners to regain some of the chromium from the
wastewater sludge. However, that sludge is still highly toxic and is stored in open pits until a treatment method is
found.
. Remediation techniques clean up the effects of pollution after it has already been released into the environment.
A well-known example are efforts to contain and destroy spilled oil or chemicals after an industrial accident.
Another example is the techniques to clean soil that was contaminated by chemical waste.
. Restoration, finally, attempts to return structure, function or specific organisms to a degraded landscape, for
instance a mountain slope, forest or wetland. In many cases, restoration is demanded by the public and
undertaken by NGOs or government agencies. The process takes a lot of time and money, and is not always
successful. Accumulated knowledge in this sphere has added a new branch to ecology.

The principles of sustainable resource use reflect the basic physical ways in which humans could meet their needs while
reducing their use of energy and materials. In consistent steps over several decades, our economies will fit in better with
the Earth’s natural processes, which all run in cycles. Therefore, some authors call it the circular economy.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. (Albert Einstein)

Obviously, we are not talking of a minor or marginal change, but of a substantial restructuring of our economies and
societies, which will take decades to accomplish. In Chapter we learned that unsustainability is in our daily choices
(attitudes and routine behaviour), institutions and technology. For that reason, the solutions should also affect all of
these spheres. Table . gives an indication of what this might mean for various levels of society.

The term SD merges the idea of developing resources to meet human needs with the idea to limit environmental impacts
now for the sake of other living species and future generations of humans. Even after years, the term SD still means
different things to different people. A question that we should ask, however, is whether these interpretations are true to
the spirit of the Brundtland Commission. It may seem that some have so watered down sustainability that it is no
different from business as usual. In this section, we return to the four worldviews introduced in Chapter . We describe
their visions of a sustainable future and their advice on how to get there.

Their visions are all based on theoretical ideas about the relationship between natural resources, labour and human-
made capital goods (machines) on the one hand and products or services on the other. Natural resources are renewable
(wood) or non-renewable (metal), and are used up in the production process. By contrast, capital goods (machines)
perform their tasks for years, gradually wearing out and needing replacement at the end of their technical (breaks down)
or economic (becomes unprofitable) lifetime. The same long-term capacity to produce can be applied to renewable
resources such as farmland, forests or freshwater reserves. For that reason, economists call them natural capital. They
may lose their usefulness when not properly maintained or overexploited.

The money needed to build or replace capital goods is called investment, because entrepreneurs are expecting to earn it
back through the products or services made by them. Now, the sustainability perspective raises questions about the ways
and the speed in which resources are turned into goods and services. We have already seen that renewable resources
should be harvested at a speed lower than the rate at which nature can replenish them. What about non-renewable
resources? There are several approaches, which make different assumptions about the value of natural capital.

One approach says that you cannot consider human-made capital as a true replacement of natural capital. In other words,
natural capital such as forest ecosystems cannot be substituted. The consequence of this reasoning is that a lot of human
uses of the environment should no longer be allowed. This would make human society as we know it impossible. The
second approach, strong sustainability, allows the use of non-renewable resources only if compensated by an equivalent
increase in human-made capital in the same sphere. For example, it would approve the depletion of oil or gas reserves
only if the resulting income is invested in renewable energy capacity, for instance, solar panels. Forests may only be cut if
an equivalent forest is planted elsewhere, so the present amount must be preserved. The third one, called weak
sustainability, allows depletion of fossil fuel reserves if the income is invested in capital goods or in human capital through
education. The total amount must be the same, and a specified minimum of natural capital should be preserved. This
refers to renewable resources such as forest and fish stocks, which are vital for maintaining the Earth’s life-support
systems. Forms of weak sustainability are close to what is being practised today in environmentally conscious countries.

. Bio-environmentalists: This group emphasises the Earth’s biological limits and so supports the idea of strong
sustainability. They consider both human numbers and overconsumption as core problems that are closely linked.
Globalisation encourages the spread of Western consumption patterns to the developing world, thereby
threatening its fragile ecosystems. Therefore, they recommend world leaders to slow down economic and
population growth. Since politicians need better information about the present economic, social and
environmental conditions, they also suggest new ways of measuring well-being or progress. This group of
ecological economists, such as Herman Daly, proposed reforms to economic models to include the notion of
physical limits from the natural sciences.
. Institutionalists: This is the approach advocated by the Brundtland Commission. It advocates a weaker form of
sustainability. They emphasise the need for effective global organisations and treaties as well as state and local
government ability to direct the economy and society towards sustainability. Organisations everywhere should
build SD principles into their rules and procedures. DCs should receive assistance in this process. Institutions also
serve to get technology and funds to poor countries in order to take them along in the transition as well, for
instance through the Montreal Protocol Fund.
. Market liberals: They argue that production and consumption growth create the funds and attitudes that will
improve environmental conditions. Therefore, they accept social inequality and pollution as short-term problems.
They assume that the economic value of manufactured goods is bigger than the value of the natural resources
consumed in the process. Unique cultural or natural landscapes only become valuable enough to preserve if this
is expressed in people’s implicit willingness to pay. Their advice is to reduce poverty and promote economic
growth by the kind of institution that creates trust, lowers transaction cost and enables market transactions,
providing secure property rights, removing subsidies, and abolishing trade and investment restrictions. Market-
based policy tools may correct the failure of markets to include all costs in the price. As a result, science,
technology and international co-operation will overcome resource and pollution problems. The result is the
weakest form of sustainability.
. Social greens: Social greens call for responsible consumption and production to reign in the spirit of endless
growth and more is better. They see small-scale local economies as ideal, where traditional indigenous knowledge
had already found a sustainable lifestyle for each local context—for instance the nomadic pastoralist in the
grasslands of Inner Asia. Some say economic globalisation assists corporate exploitation of the developing world.
It weakens local community and leads to new forms of domination and dependence. Therefore, it is considered as
a cause of injustice and inequality within and between countries. Instead, social greens advocate radical
dismantling of current global economic institutions. They want to restore local community autonomy over
resources to strengthen social relationships and the natural environment. Unlike bio-environmentalists, they see
population control policies as a threat to the self-determination of women and the poor. They want to invest in
 giving voice to individuals and communities that have become marginalised by the process of economic
globalisation. Many social greens see local cultural diversity as essential to maintain biological diversity.

Each of these four worldviews has insights to add to the issues of (un)sustainability. Each view has its own logic which fits
with its assumptions. Thus, like Clapp and Dauvergne, we do not present any of these views as the correct one. Through
its values and interpretations, each worldview chooses to emphasise different things. This can be quite confusing at
times, but we hope that their inclusion in this book will help the reader to make sense of the huge variety of views on
sustainability, and to make up their mind about their own journey in this field.

Significant change is needed in all spheres of life, including our lifestyle choices, the infrastructures we use every day and
the institutions that order our life as a society. These elements maintain complex mutual relations. Such a complex
transition cannot wait for spontaneous change to happen. It must be planned. Also, changes only within organisations
and communities are not enough. The transition must somehow be socially and collectively guided with a strong sense of
urgency.

A typical phenomenon of modern industrial society is that many products follow an S-curve in the way they penetrate the
market. While initially only more affluent citizens can afford them, gradually, they become accessible to the majority of
the population at an accelerating rate. This phenomenon is called the democratisation of privilege. It deserves mention
in this book, because unsustainable aspects of products become acute problems under the influence of mass
consumption. Thus, the car may be perceived as the best thing mankind ever invented, but the downsides of mass
motorised transport have made themselves felt in serious air pollution and congestion. Urban sprawl happens when cities
develop large fringes of low-density housing by which they significantly affect landscape quality and force their
inhabitants to move around in cars to cover the large distances. Another well-known example is the plastic bag. When it
was scarce and expensive, it was welcomed as a great innovation with many wonderful applications. Today it has become
so prolific that plastic litters streets and fields and blocks drains, forcing governments to impose bans or taxes to reduce
the problem. Indeed, the rate at which products penetrate global mass markets is increasing. It took the car half a
century; with today’s technological development and global trade, the penetration process has been only three decades
for computers and less than two decades for the mobile phone. People in poorer countries may not have access to these
devices on the same favourable conditions as their wealthier counterparts, but new gadgets have become as much part
of city life in transitioning and DCs as they are in ICs. It’s against this background that sustainability educators attempt to
have people see other perspectives and challenge them to reconsider their choices in the light of behavioural impacts.

If the global movement of change-makers grows exponentially, there is hope to move the world closer to a SD path over
the next few decades. Therefore, we need to understand well what (the prospect of) change does to people, and how
leaders could help their followers move through change successfully.

The literature on social and organisational change teaches that:

. People generally fear and resist change,

. Change is more difficult the longer and more complex the process is,
. Many people feel insecure when not all outcomes are known at the start,
. People accept change more readily if they can see, touch and understand the projected solutions or try out the
proposed change for a while,
. People are willing to change their behaviour and even sacrifice some convenience as long as everybody else joins
in.

All of these factors play a role in the changes needed for SD. Thus, many changes are about a switch of habitual behaviour
that people associate with ‘normality’. To alter that requires sustained effort and reinforcement that it is right. People
arrive at the limits of their individual choice when faced with decisions made by other people and organisations. Changing
those is more complex. For instance, to eliminate the use of disposable cups and plates, there needs to be a facility to
wash durable cups and plates. Also, someone needs to make an effort to do it, or perhaps a person should be paid to do
that job. Unsustainable society had put this burden on others (tax payers) by having the waste removal service take the
extra waste without additional charge. Following a system of separate collection of waste fractions for recycling might be
a bit much for some people. Trying it out on a smaller scale or holding a demonstration session might take care of this.
Finally, many people are willing to change their habit of using washable cups or separating their waste as long as
everybody does. Making sure that the participation rate is high, thus, becomes essential to the success of the system.
Since all these factors apply to the changes needed for SD, this transition may be considered a deep social change
process.

We define the transition to a more SD path as a deep social change process that needs strong leadership, finance and
motivational tools in every family, organisation and community.

Next, we need to find a way to make that transition successful. In the s, John Kotter wrote his book Leading Change
to help businesses become excellent performers in global competition. At the core is an eight-step process to lead
organisational change, which seems just the right advice for our sustainability change-makers. Let us consider each step in
the context of the sustainability transition:

. Establish a sense of urgency: If those supposed to follow the lead of the change-maker are not convinced that the
proposed change is necessary and urgent, they are likely to delay or block the change.
. Form a guiding coalition: If the change-maker fails to draw influential stakeholders into the steering group, then
there is a chance of such a person becoming an opponent.
. Formulate a strong vision and strategy: If there is no appealing picture of the ideal future and steps to get there,
many followers will be aimless and less co-operative.
. Communicate the vision on every occasion: If the members of the guiding coalition fail to frequently remind
followers of the goal, or if they do not walk the talk themselves, they will lose support for the change.
. Enable the organisation to make the change: If the guiding coalition does not identify obstacles to change and
eliminate them, followers will stick to old instructions.
. Plan short-term gains: If the wait-and-see followers do not see any short-term gains, they will continue to
withhold support for the change, and perhaps influence others to do so too.
. Reinforce results and keep the change going: If the gains of the change are not reinforced by rewards and positive
communication, then support may dwindle over time.
. Anchor the change in the organisation’s structures: If the organisation’s rule books, job descriptions and salary
systems do not support the change, it may wear off as proponents leave the organisation and newcomers are not
required to adopt the new sustainable ways.

Apart from people’s attitude towards change, there’s another potential obstacle to the sustainability transition—the
financial cost of change. During the initial decades of environmental policy, measures were taken when there was a real
urgency to do so. As there was little tolerance for delay, there was too little time to work on pollution reduction. Most
measures fell in the category of what we called pollution control in this chapter. Negotiations about these technologies,
such as scrubbers for power stations, were difficult as they were seen as a cost-raising measure. There was no raise in
final product prices, and so pollution control would put pressure on profits. As a result, many in business and society had
the perception that one always had to choose between the economy and the environment. Things got worse before they
got better. In the s, contaminated soil sites were discovered and responsible polluters were charged with their clean-
up cost. These costs were enormous, and often the state had to step in to move problem sites to a solution.

Fortunately, some businesses did not wait until governments forced them to reduce their pollution. Encouraged by strict
legislation, they investigated opportunities to reformulate their products and/or redesign their production processes to
maximise efficiency and minimise cost. This attitude is called being proactive, as it works on issues before they become
crisis-like and costly. It is one of the habits of effective professionals and leaders, which Stephen Covey set out in his best-
selling book The Habits of Highly Effective People. This is entrepreneurial attitude, and it has paid off for these
businesses. They have not only more cost-effectively complied with their countries’ environmental laws but also saved a
lot of money in the process. A model for this redesign was first developed in the s by Dr Joseph Ling at M: he called
it P! Their example is now followed by businesses around the world and taught in business schools. The company would
run an annual competition among its staff for innovative ideas for product and process improvements. Of course, they
had the best knowledge and insight into client preferences and technological issues. The best idea would be awarded and
put into practice.

The typical cost curve for pollution control reveals that the first – of pollution can normally be reduced at a
relatively low cost. However, after a certain point, the cost goes up steeply. So for a given production technology, there is
a technical and economic limit to what pollution control (remember, a form of output management) can achieve. It is this
cost-curve story that motivates defensive businessmen to resist environmental legislation and block progress to
sustainability. However, the left end of the curve is the low-cost part, because pollution prevention is built into the design
of products and processes. Environmental investment decisions are made in step with the normal investment cycles in
the business. Then the curve slopes up to the pollution control section, which deals with pollution after the fact. Finally,
the steepest section of the curve is the part that deals with the damage of past pollution.

Two decades of experience in trying to elaborate and implement the principles of SD have taught us that changing
systems is tougher than we thought. The globalised production and consumption system has numerous connections.
Initiating a change in one part prompts reactions in other parts. Change causes uncertainty. When one element or sub-
system wants change, it needs to co-ordinate this with other parts (or impose change if it has the power). Top-down
change is also difficult, because those who stand to lose from it, often have good access to the corridors of power and
they will resist. Nevertheless, change has got to come, but it requires study and experimentation to find workable ways.
Transition theory is doing just that. More details about this are given in Chapter .
How in the world are we going to develop our societies to provide for nine billion people by without ecological
collapse? The short answer is: by working out locally suitable forms of SD for every community, company and country. The
process of creating and introducing them in any of these settings is called the sustainability transition. Each will have to go
through its own change process and may also have to adjust to the changing world around it. Obviously, we need many
change-makers like you, who can lead their (future) families, communities and businesses towards economic, social and
environmental sustainability. All of them need the knowledge, skills and motivation to do their part: knowledge about more
sustainable technologies and behaviours, skills to practise new ways of working and living and motivation to change habitual
actions. Where and how could people learn these things?

The first foundation is normally laid in a person’s upbringing in the family—treating people and nature with respect, not
throwing waste on the ground and saving scarce resources. People may learn additional principles and skills in community
organisations, such as the scouts or a faith-based group. The things we learn and practise in childhood are the ones we are
likely to continue as adults—consciously or without noticing. Yet, it is not only the habitual aspect of things learned in our
early years that make them so strong. As we will examine in more depth in Chapter , environmental attitudes based in
values, and often rooted in worldview, are stronger and longer lasting than any other, because we hold them to be true and
good. However, when other motivators—financial gain or peer pressure—work against the behaviour that we know as good,
the values-based actions often don’t hold out. This is why any form of education or training should address both knowledge
and motivation factors.

The next most important institution after family is the school, where we spend years or more of our lives. Most schools
around the world teach children something about biology or ecology—different life forms, where they live and how they
interact. Such knowledge is interesting, but it does not usually help us reflect on the environmental impacts of our daily
decisions. Environmental education discusses the interactions between humans and the natural environment. It includes
instruction about simple ways to treat the environment with more respect and minimise our impact on it. Environmental
education does not limit itself to the formal system of schools and colleges. It also includes public awareness campaigns on
TV, in newspapers and in brochures, as well as action-oriented initiatives by citizens groups.

In the last years, a broader type of education has received much attention and global support—education for sustainable
development (ESD). According to UNESCO, it allows every human being to acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values
necessary to shape a sustainable future for our society and the world. The Internet-based www.esdtoolkit.org emphasises
that the ‘for’ indicates purpose, namely, to make the world more liveable for this and future generations. It does this by
motivating and enabling students to be lifelong learners so they might find innovative solutions to the economic, social and
environmental issues they encounter in their career. Table . gives an impression of priority issues for the Asia-Pacific
region. ESD was first mentioned by Agenda , the UN’s global sustainability agenda for this century. It specifically listed four
major tasks:

. Improve basic education for all

. Reorient existing education to address SD
. Develop public awareness and understanding, and
. Training for all sectors of economy and society

The first two items listed address the classroom-style learning that goes on in schools, colleges and universities—both
general and specific (agricultural, technical and business colleges). This is the formal education system. It is structured
according to academic disciplines or themes, and it follows a pattern of learning goals and objectives, exams, internships,
grading and, finally, the awarding of a degree, diploma or certificate. The other two address all kinds of learning elsewhere in
society. Apart from the formal education and training system, the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) defines two
categories of learning:
 . Informal learning is learning that occurs in daily life, in the family, in the workplace, in communities and through
interests and activities of individuals.
. Non-formal learning is learning that has been acquired in addition or alternatively to formal learning. In some cases,
it is also structured according to educational and training arrangements, but is more flexible. It usually takes place in
community settings, the workplace and through the activities of civil society organisations.

Even if the primary and secondary education systems were on a sustainable track today, it would still be – years before
the first graduates entered the workforce or colleges and universities. If all higher education graduates were fully aware of
sustainability matters from today, it would still be another decade before they worked in positions where they might impact
their organisations towards SD. Clearly, when we consider the task of equipping and motivating whole societies to join the
movement towards sustainability, the effort must go way beyond the formal education system. Otherwise, the transition to
true sustainability will simply take too long.

People who have completed formal education that did not include sustainability should also learn SD approaches in practice.
It is a kind of re-training or continuing education in order to keep up with the changing requirements of labour markets. For
them, postgraduate courses, adult evening classes or civil society initiatives might bridge the gap. The SDGs will be
unattainable if we do not take massive educational and practical action over the next to years. Therefore, in this
chapter we consider all forms of education and training that may contribute to raising awareness, skill and motivation
throughout society.

The economic, social and environmental challenges are vastly different from one world region to another. Therefore, ESD
should imbue in students a sensitivity to local context. Relevant research and education should prepare society’s leaders to
face their organisation’s challenges within a SD framework. Countries facing extreme poverty, widespread AIDS and rapid
biodiversity loss will choose different priorities than countries facing strong consumerism and high dependency on fossil
fuels (domestic or imported). In this way, ESD gives orientation and meaning to the UN’s slogan, Education for All.

What makes ESD different from other types of education and training? The fact, for instance, that education for a sustainable
future is about equipping people so that they could reorient businesses, redesign products and processes, rewrite rules and
regulations and so on. Although a lot of sustainable technologies, business models and arrangements are already available,
we really do not know exactly what the world will look like by the time graduates work in places where they could make a
difference. By contrast, in traditional forms of education, students are supposed to learn the way things work now or have
been done until now. In sustainability, we are discovering and developing the forms that we’ll need in the future. Also, global
conditions keep changing, leading to some obstacles being overcome but others appearing. For equipping change-makers,
we need education that will help people make choices that move society in the right direction. Therefore, education should
enable students to think critically and creatively about alternative development paths rather than teaching them to imitate
what exists. Copying what has been done is relatively easy, but imagining a future that is radically different is difficult.
Fortunately, the Internet, computer-aided design and social media can help students to visualise things that no one has ever
seen before. Or at least, they can bring experience from elsewhere closer through success stories, maps and videos. Thus,
innovative solutions can be adapted and spread more quickly than before.

The goals of ESD could be formulated as follows:

. First, it should prepare us to make plans for meeting society’s urgent needs through carefully selected investment
programmes and projects. These should help to enable the poor to work themselves out of poverty and reduce
inequality of income and opportunity.
. Second, we need scientific knowledge and insight to consider our local impacts on the living and non-living
environment in the context of a globalising world.
. Third, we should keep these impacts within ecological limits by a combination of technological, behavioural and
institutional measures.
 . Fourth, we should know how to use organisational decision-making in our businesses and communities in order to
change the systems (rules, prices and taxes) so that they will enable us all to live more sustainably.
. Fifth, we must use every opportunity in daily life to meet our needs in sustainable ways and encourage our families
and peers to do the same (personal choices). For this, we need the values and attitudes to care about all living
organisms, other people than our close ones and indeed our whole planet (motivation).

If you are planning for a year, sow rice; if you are planning for a decade, plant trees; if you are planning for a lifetime,
educate people. (Chinese proverb)

A general introduction to SD may be taught as a separate course, but this will not change much in students’ thinking if all
other courses ignore sustainability. Therefore, SD needs to be integrated into all relevant courses. Terms frequently used in
ESD planning include: connecting local and global vision, investigative attitude, understanding complex systems, problem
solving across disciplines, learning to be responsible, decision-making skills, participating in group work and learning to
change. Obviously, moving up from elementary through secondary education to university level, the emphasis will shift from
basic knowledge and skills to more complex systems and co-operation skills. Universities have a special role to play since
they train future leaders of business, civil society and government. These leaders will make decisions about the institutions
and technologies that enable the rest of society to be less or more sustainable. Therefore, universities should be among the
leaders in the transition to a sustainable future.

Lecturer, researcher and consultant Niko Roorda from the Netherlands has developed a model on the competencies
(knowledge and skills) that university graduates need for a career in sustainability. The model can be used as a tool for
personal development and as an instrument for reshaping teaching programmes to include sustainability. The model is called
RESFIA D, where the letters of the first part are the initials of general abilities and D stands for the abilities that SD
professionals should have in their own discipline (field of specialisation). Here is what the initials mean:

. Responsibility: Identify and involve relevant stakeholders; take personal responsibility for one’s professional opinions
and decisions; and prepare to be held accountable by stakeholders.
. Emotional Intelligence: Recognise and respect one’s own values and those of other people, groups or cultures;
distinguish between facts, assumptions and opinions; and co-operate effectively with people from different
professional disciplines and backgrounds.
. System Orientation: Think at system level (holistically) and component level (analytically), and switch between the
two levels if necessary.
. Future Orientation: Think in the appropriate time scale—long term or short term; be unafraid to apply creative,
unorthodox solutions.
. Involvement: Build sustainability into one’s personal and professional attitude; work towards ideals with
perseverance and the will to overcome obstacles.
. Action Skills: Manage uncertainties, weigh up all relevant factor, and decide when the timing is right.

Now that we know what competences students need to acquire, we now turn to the methodology question. How important
are the ways by which this is taught? Clearly, students cannot learn these knowledge, skills, attitudes and values only by
listening to lectures and making notes. A variety of learning tasks should challenge them to investigate their personal values
and attitudes, discuss different perspectives in a sphere of mutual respect and offer locally relevant practice opportunities in
research and co-operation. ESD requires much creativity on the part of the educators to design learning experiences that are
truly inspiring and rewarding. They may include a great variety of input materials, such as books and articles, case studies,
educational films, interactive DVDs, field visits, discussion questions and so on. Education psychologist Kurt Lewin concluded
from his research that adults learn more effectively when they work with their peers in small groups on the study material. A
learning task is more effective when it combines spoken language, images and some kind of physical action. For instance,
people will learn a lot about biogas, if they may build a biogas digester, operate it for several weeks and study the process
under different conditions.

Informal and non-formal learning for SD include a wide variety of settings from renewable energy workshops in rural areas to
water and sanitation training in urban slums. These kinds of training are more practice-oriented and tailor-made. A lot of
invaluable NGO projects and programmes these days are designed with a view to replicating them in other settings. In many
of these places, the consequences of unsustainable development have hit the poor so much that development agencies have
to include social and environmental features into their project design. Obviously, much of the people’s learning is directly
hands-on rather than through books and training manuals. What matters is that it may be truly transforming their view of
development.
World leaders at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro unanimously agreed that environmental education was not broad
enough to deal with the idea of SD. Therefore, they included a complete chapter on ESD in Agenda , a UN action list for the
twenty-first century.

As only a handful of countries had taken action to integrate ESD into their curriculum by , the WSSD meeting that year
in Johannesburg recommended a decade of active promotion for ESD. The UN General Assembly adopted the idea, and so
the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) ran from January till December . UNESCO was
the key co-ordinator. There were four overarching goals:

. Promote and improve the quality of education: The aim is to refocus life-long learning on the knowledge, skills and
values needed to improve the quality of life.
. Reorient the curricula: From pre-school to university, education must be re-thought and reformed to become a
vehicle of knowledge, thought patterns and values needed to build a sustainable world.
. Raise public awareness for SD: This will make it possible to develop enlightened, active and responsible citizenship,
locally, nationally and internationally.
. Train the workforce: Continuing technical and vocational education of directors and workers, particularly those in
trade and industry, will be enriched to enable them to adopt sustainable modes of production and consumption.

Another international process that had been going on since the early s, is the UN’s Education for All (EFA) initiative
primarily aimed at DCs. It overlaps with ESD but is narrower in the sense that it focuses on providing formal education to
every child, especially literacy and basic education. By contrast, ESD includes the developed countries and is aimed at
objectives beyond education, namely, input into the social change process of the sustainability transition.

In , just before the Decade for ESD closed, UNESCO held extensive consultations to draft an agenda for SD education
beyond the decade. They called it the Global Action Programme or GAP on ESD. It was officially launched at the Aichi-Nagoya
conference in Japan ( ). Participants there celebrated the DESD’s successes and made recommendations intended for the
international negotiations on post- development goals. At the World Education Forum held in May at Incheon in
South Korea, the two movements came together in the Incheon Declaration, one integrated global agenda for education. It
recognises ESD as an essential objective alongside gender equality, non-discrimination and others. It is supported by
UNESCO, UNICEF (children), UNFPA (population), UNDP, UN Women, UNHCR (refugees) and WB. The main points have found
their way into Goal of the new SDGs, also adopted in . It reads:

By , ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including,
among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality,
promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s
contribution to sustainable development (SDG post- )

Source: http://www.globalgoals.org/global-goals/quality-education/ (accessed on January )

Quality education: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

In order to allow governments, educators, civil society and others to track progress on all these lofty goals and declarations,
the UN orders the annual so-called Global Monitoring Report under its EFA process. From , the Global Education
Monitoring (GEM) report does the tracking for both EFA and ESD. Its work helps standardise the way governments collect
information on education developments and which indicators they use to measure progress. Remember that it now does this
not only for DCs but for every country in the world. Finally, at the invitation of the Centre for Environment Education (CEE),
India, SD educators and policy-makers met at Ahmedabad in January to formulate recommendations on education’s
contribution to attaining the SDGs.

We can learn from this that there are a growing number of organisations and initiatives that could help learners to become
literate in SD matters and join the movement of change-makers. Nevertheless, when you decide to go against the flow in an
overwhelmingly unsustainable context, you have to be very wise, open-minded and co-operative. Here, we present the
stories of inspiring people who have used their knowledge, values, attitudes and skills to empower other people for
sustainable action. They did not wait for a business or the government to solve their problems but began with small
initiatives that built community spirit and hope. Next, they taught others and began to be noticed. Sometimes they ran into
opposition and suffering, because unjust situations in our world are defended by those who benefit from them. Fortunately,
they overcame many difficulties and are now celebrated as role models for the world.
Our first hero is Wangari Maathai ( – ) from Kenya, who was the first African woman with a PhD degree. She grew
up in a forested hill country, where she used to enjoy the beauty and peace of nature. Then she got an opportunity to study
biology in the USA. After her return to Kenya in the s, she started a family and taught at university. On visiting her home
region, she noticed how it had changed. Also, the rural women told her how far they had to walk for water and firewood.
Many parts of the hill country had become deforested and dry. In part, this was due to landless people burning the forest to
obtain land for agriculture. However, there was also illegal logging going on. As a biologist, Wangari Maathai knew that there
was a connection between removal of the tree cover and changes in the water availability. Forests hold on to the rains and
gradually release the water, thus, keeping the land moist and green. Without the trees, the water ran off fast, taking with it
lots of fertile soil (erosion). The land turned into a desert, and life for the people became hard.

Wangari taught the rural women to grow trees, and together they created a nursery. Little by little, they replanted trees in
their own area and gained a sense of control over their future. They always had their children with them, and so they
playfully taught them their new attitude to nature. Wangari founded an organisation, called the Greenbelt Movement, to
replicate the success to other parts of Kenya and beyond. The local people from another area called in their help to resist the
cutting of their community forest. This was their first confrontation with the powerful forces that benefit from unsustainable
resource use. Another clash happened when the government of Kenya wanted to use the land of Nairobi’s only park to build
a luxury hotel and conference centre. This time the police used violence against unarmed people and put several peaceful
protesters behind bars for a while. Ultimately, the plan for the park’s conversion was abandoned. Moreover, the
authoritarian government of Arap Moi fell, and the Kenyan people regained the right to choose their own representatives.
Wangari Maathai became a member of parliament, where she could continue to spread her SD thinking—good for people
and the planet. In , she received the Nobel Peace Prize for her life’s work. That is the time when Wangari’s picture
(Figure . ) was taken. The Greenbelt Movement is credited for having planted millions of trees in East Africa, and the work
continued after Wangari Maathai died of cancer in . You may get more inspiration from the film Taking Root. The Story
of Wangari Maathai.

World leaders at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro unanimously agreed that environmental education was not broad
enough to deal with the idea of SD. Therefore, they included a complete chapter on ESD in Agenda , a UN action list for the
twenty-first century.

As only a handful of countries had taken action to integrate ESD into their curriculum by , the WSSD meeting that year
in Johannesburg recommended a decade of active promotion for ESD. The UN General Assembly adopted the idea, and so
the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) ran from January till December . UNESCO was
the key co-ordinator. There were four overarching goals:

. Promote and improve the quality of education: The aim is to refocus life-long learning on the knowledge, skills and
values needed to improve the quality of life.
. Reorient the curricula: From pre-school to university, education must be re-thought and reformed to become a
vehicle of knowledge, thought patterns and values needed to build a sustainable world.
. Raise public awareness for SD: This will make it possible to develop enlightened, active and responsible citizenship,
locally, nationally and internationally.
. Train the workforce: Continuing technical and vocational education of directors and workers, particularly those in
trade and industry, will be enriched to enable them to adopt sustainable modes of production and consumption.

Another international process that had been going on since the early s, is the UN’s Education for All (EFA) initiative
primarily aimed at DCs. It overlaps with ESD but is narrower in the sense that it focuses on providing formal education to
every child, especially literacy and basic education. By contrast, ESD includes the developed countries and is aimed at
objectives beyond education, namely, input into the social change process of the sustainability transition.

In , just before the Decade for ESD closed, UNESCO held extensive consultations to draft an agenda for SD education
beyond the decade. They called it the Global Action Programme or GAP on ESD. It was officially launched at the Aichi-Nagoya
conference in Japan ( ). Participants there celebrated the DESD’s successes and made recommendations intended for the
international negotiations on post- development goals. At the World Education Forum held in May at Incheon in
South Korea, the two movements came together in the Incheon Declaration, one integrated global agenda for education. It
recognises ESD as an essential objective alongside gender equality, non-discrimination and others. It is supported by
UNESCO, UNICEF (children), UNFPA (population), UNDP, UN Women, UNHCR (refugees) and WB. The main points have found
their way into Goal of the new SDGs, also adopted in . It reads:

By , ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including,
among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality,
promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s
contribution to sustainable development (SDG post- )

Source: http://www.globalgoals.org/global-goals/quality-education/ (accessed on January )

Quality education: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

In order to allow governments, educators, civil society and others to track progress on all these lofty goals and declarations,
the UN orders the annual so-called Global Monitoring Report under its EFA process. From , the Global Education
Monitoring (GEM) report does the tracking for both EFA and ESD. Its work helps standardise the way governments collect
information on education developments and which indicators they use to measure progress. Remember that it now does this
not only for DCs but for every country in the world. Finally, at the invitation of the Centre for Environment Education (CEE),
India, SD educators and policy-makers met at Ahmedabad in January to formulate recommendations on education’s
contribution to attaining the SDGs.

We can learn from this that there are a growing number of organisations and initiatives that could help learners to become
literate in SD matters and join the movement of change-makers. Nevertheless, when you decide to go against the flow in an
overwhelmingly unsustainable context, you have to be very wise, open-minded and co-operative. Here, we present the
stories of inspiring people who have used their knowledge, values, attitudes and skills to empower other people for
sustainable action. They did not wait for a business or the government to solve their problems but began with small
initiatives that built community spirit and hope. Next, they taught others and began to be noticed. Sometimes they ran into
opposition and suffering, because unjust situations in our world are defended by those who benefit from them. Fortunately,
they overcame many difficulties and are now celebrated as role models for the world.

Our first hero is Wangari Maathai ( – ) from Kenya, who was the first African woman with a PhD degree. She grew
up in a forested hill country, where she used to enjoy the beauty and peace of nature. Then she got an opportunity to study
biology in the USA. After her return to Kenya in the s, she started a family and taught at university. On visiting her home
region, she noticed how it had changed. Also, the rural women told her how far they had to walk for water and firewood.
Many parts of the hill country had become deforested and dry. In part, this was due to landless people burning the forest to
obtain land for agriculture. However, there was also illegal logging going on. As a biologist, Wangari Maathai knew that there
was a connection between removal of the tree cover and changes in the water availability. Forests hold on to the rains and
gradually release the water, thus, keeping the land moist and green. Without the trees, the water ran off fast, taking with it
lots of fertile soil (erosion). The land turned into a desert, and life for the people became hard.

Wangari taught the rural women to grow trees, and together they created a nursery. Little by little, they replanted trees in
their own area and gained a sense of control over their future. They always had their children with them, and so they
playfully taught them their new attitude to nature. Wangari founded an organisation, called the Greenbelt Movement, to
replicate the success to other parts of Kenya and beyond. The local people from another area called in their help to resist the
cutting of their community forest. This was their first confrontation with the powerful forces that benefit from unsustainable
resource use. Another clash happened when the government of Kenya wanted to use the land of Nairobi’s only park to build
a luxury hotel and conference centre. This time the police used violence against unarmed people and put several peaceful
protesters behind bars for a while. Ultimately, the plan for the park’s conversion was abandoned. Moreover, the
authoritarian government of Arap Moi fell, and the Kenyan people regained the right to choose their own representatives.
Wangari Maathai became a member of parliament, where she could continue to spread her SD thinking—good for people
and the planet. In , she received the Nobel Peace Prize for her life’s work. That is the time when Wangari’s picture
(Figure . ) was taken. The Greenbelt Movement is credited for having planted millions of trees in East Africa, and the work
continued after Wangari Maathai died of cancer in . You may get more inspiration from the film Taking Root. The Story
of Wangari Maathai.

It is too big a task to draw a sustainability awareness map of the world. Indeed, if one could, it would soon be outdated,
because of the constant winds of change. It seems, therefore, more helpful to investigate how levels of awareness generally
impact public support for action. Like other issues in society, environment and development issues go through cycles of high
and low levels of public attention. The reason is that the public can only maintain high attention for a few issues at a time.
Anthony Downs described this in his article ‘Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue-attention Cycle’. All kinds of issues
constantly compete for a place on the political-administrative agenda. So an interest group that wants to put an issue on the
agenda must have strong arguments and evidence to succeed. If it does, then the public sector may do what it can to solve
the issue. Here, we focus on the relationship between heightened public and political attention for issues and their progress.
While alternatives are being investigated and debated, public attention is high, since proposed options affect the costs and
benefits of interest groups in society in different ways. These groups will, therefore, try to influence the outcome in a
direction that maximises benefits and minimises costs to the group. Once the policy solution is enacted, the process moves
into the implementation stage. That’s when public attention switches to other issues. Some interest groups keep monitoring
the situation, ready to speak up when developments give cause to alarm. Public and political attention declines further when
an issue is considered solved. We’ll now look in more detail at four learning contexts: public awareness-building through
mass-media campaigns, community learning, in-company training and higher education initiatives.

Awareness building

Public information campaigns are a collection of messages by governments or NGOs aimed at changing the public’s attitude
towards an issue and encouraging a behavioural change. If they are to design a successful public awareness campaign, they
need to know how the attitudes and behaviour of their target group are formed. Table . summarises the purpose and
appropriate focus of campaign messages.

The target group is the particular group of people addressed by a policy initiative or campaign, which share certain general
characteristics. Having a clear image of the target group will help shape the policy or campaign to the needs and interests of
that group.

. People who do not ask for environmental information will not likely expose themselves to it. Policy-makers will have
to carefully search the right kind of education to reach the target group.
. A campaign will only have the desired effect if the receiver understands the meaning of the message, so it should be
written in easy language that could be understood by the target group without problems. If the target group is the
general public, then aim for adolescents.
. A campaign will only lead to a change of attitude if it influences people’s weighing of pros and cons. It needs to
highlight the disadvantages of unsustainable behaviour while also making the advantages of sustainable behaviour
really attractive. The campaign source must be credible and the message format and content must be carefully tuned
to the target group’s attitude.
. Changing social norms is difficult. One option is to influence groups such as school children or neighbourhoods rather
than individuals. Another option is to prepare individuals for a negative response and encourage them to become
change agents. People may listen better when a public opinion leader, such as an actor or sportsman, features in a
public information campaign.
. Behavioural change occurs where there are enough practical options to put the preferred behaviour into action. The
campaign must not only address the desirability of the action but also explain how this new behaviour can be put
into practice. If government has set up new infrastructure to facilitate the behaviour, that should be shown.
. Finally, environmental education must lead to permanently changed behaviour. People should notice that the new
way of doing things indeed has the anticipated advantages. This is positive feedback. For instance, in case of
promoting energy conservation in homes, families should see that their energy bills are lower.

Before making a public awareness campaign policy-makers should have a specialised agency do analytical research. While
the campaign is implemented, effects should be monitored, and afterwards the whole campaign should be evaluated. Pre-
campaign research is needed in order to establish what knowledge, attitudes, social norms and behavioural options were like
before the campaign took place. The information should be used to shape the awareness campaign. Accompanying research
during implementation monitors if everything is carried out according to plan. If necessary, adjustments can be made.
Evaluation research is needed in order to assess the validity of the choices made in campaign design so that improvements
can be made in the future. There are two important characteristics of evaluation. First, it is essential that the research
method is correct. There should be an adequate control group, which is not exposed to the campaign, so that a comparison
can be made. Second, the evaluation should follow the change process. The policy-makers need to know where it went
wrong, especially when the ultimate effect of a programme is limited. It makes quite a difference if the target group did not
understand the campaign message or if a social norm prevented it from changing behaviour. Only when the change process
has been evaluated, can educational efforts be adjusted and improved over time.

Community Learning

The UIL has examined community-based ESD and described some successful cases in a recent report (Nuguchi, Guevara and
Yorozu ). The six cases cover the following themes:

. Environmental conservation
. Disaster risk reduction
. Income generation, entrepreneurship and community development
. Cultural diversity and dialogue, and intergenerational exchange
. Empowerment
. Literacy

Here, we will summarise one example from Bangladesh. NGOs have established numerous community learning centres
around the country. They were initially set up to teach literacy, but were gradually expanded into other activities in response
to local demand. Other training includes early childhood care, sanitation and income generation. These activities are useful
in themselves but also reinforce the literacy skills that people acquired. Before these options existed, people had quickly lost
their reading and writing skills because they did not use them. Now, they keep learning new things and also finding new
applications in popular theatre, cultural shows and wall magazines. Income generation training includes life skills, marketing
skills and the principles of reduce-reuse-recycle. Literacy activities on social issues, thus, allowed villagers to dialogue with
community members and local authorities, and take action to solve problems.

In company Training

Where education is general in nature, training is usually preparation for specific jobs or tasks. When applied to sustainability,
it might include waste reduction, handling hazardous substances or learning to use solar cookers. These kinds of training
often teach more than just a procedure or an attitude. They also address matters where the users have to learn new ways of
doing familiar things. For instance, solar cookers can only be used during the day, so people might have to change their daily
routine in order to use them.

All sectors of the workforce have to integrate sustainability into their behaviour, systems and routines. The starting point
might be new legislation or the requirement of shareholders or banks. Sustainability is changing the practice in one industry
after another—finance, fisheries, forestry, journalism, manufacturing, mining, tourism and so on. However, training should
be more than just introducing new rules or realities. It also needs to engage employees and perhaps suppliers in working out
new processes of resource management, production and pollution control. The training model may have to be more
interactive than usual and include trials and experiments.

Higher Education Initiatives

We have already mentioned that universities and colleges train future leaders for business, government and civil society. In
those leadership positions, graduates take part in decision-making about the institutions and infrastructures that promote or
discourage sustainable behaviour by the rest of us. Moreover, universities have a role to play in pioneering research and
development (R D) to fill the knowledge gaps that exist. Now, in order to fulfil their role with credibility, universities must
first attain a higher level of sustainability themselves. In some universities, the process of going green started as an initiative
of teachers, staff and/or students and ended with a university-wide commitment to SD. In other cases, visionary top leaders
signed sustainability declarations and then led the whole university through a process of deep change. Thus, over a hundred
university presidents and administrators from around the world have signed the Talloires Declaration since and assisted
one another in putting it into action. European governments founded the Copernicus Network to support their universities
integrating sustainability into their principles, procedures and operations. Other countries and regions have their own
schemes.

A university’s core business is education and research. This is often where it starts, when creative teachers build
sustainability into their courses; for instance, a literature course studying texts that critically reflect on society’s use of the
environment. A foreign language course could include the writing of a newsletter in the target language about a
sustainability theme. Northern Arizona University in the USA worked out a project with the help of an NGO called Second
Nature to help teachers connect their subject with sustainability ideas (Barlett and Chase ). Table . highlights how
sustainability might be connected to a variety of courses.

They called it the Ponderosa Project and ran it for several years. Teachers from a diverse range of disciplines participated on
a voluntary basis. They first attended a two-day seminar where resource experts presented many different topics in
interactive ways. The way in which material was offered enabled participants to discover new insights and acquire new
values and attitudes. During the academic holiday, they would design their new course at adequate financial compensation.
While this is already important in a wealthy country, it is even more critical in countries where teachers may not get paid
during the summer months when there are no lectures. At the end of the summer holiday, the participants would meet
again to present their new courses and give each other feedback. They discovered that examining issues of sustainability
does not mean giving up essential content. Rather, focusing on them is a way of making teaching material relevant to
student experience. Students will sense that the material is connected to larger problems they face as students and that they
will face as citizens and professionals throughout their lives. In order to fully integrate sustainability in the university
curriculum, it should offer:

. A compulsory course that makes students of all degree programmes familiar with the basic ideas of SD.
. Sustainability training as part of every relevant academic programme.
. An opportunity for specialisation in sustainability.

Apart from educational programmes and courses, there is another area where universities may demonstrate to the world
that they not only teach SD but also practise it. They own or operate large buildings and sometimes also large gardens or
parks around their buildings. These buildings consume large amounts of energy for heating/cooling, lighting and computer
use. Installing roof-top solar panels is one way to green Mizoram University, as Figure . shows. Moreover, universities use
large amounts of other resources, such as paper, ink cartridges, hot and cold drinks, and cafeteria food. They could stimulate
the market for socially and environmentally friendly products by setting a green purchasing policy. If they do not own the
food and beverage outlets on campus, then they could at least include sustainability conditions in the tender and contract
for catering services. In all these areas, the ultimate environmental effect is big, simply because the scale is often big. Lots of
projects from universities around the world have shown that the impact reduction of sustainability action can also be large.
In short, there are lots of ways in which university campuses can send daily signals to their users that sustainability is
practical and innovative.
Students may investigate the university’s operations in the context of their course or programme or as an extra-curricular
activity. An inventory of the university’s use of materials and energy reveals that the potential for conservation and harm
reduction is big. Such outcomes might then lead to academic seminars where teachers, staff and students learn more about
sustainability in daily practice. Next, there might be a campaign to make certain changes or even a proposal to establish a
sustainability working group for a more structural approach. There are examples of universities that decided to include
sustainability principles in the renovation of an old building or the construction of a new one. The section on transition in this
chapter contains an information box on the example of the American University of Central Asia’s new campus in Bishkek.

The UN tries to accelerate this process by developing models and best practices, setting up networks and financing research.
Thus, UNEP has set up the Global Universities Partnership for Environment and Sustainability (GUPES) for education and the
ProSPER network for research. It invests in regional centres of expertise for major world regions, organising conferences and
exchanges, award competitions and so-called massive open online courses.

According to UIL ( ), concepts of ESD are closely related to different concepts of SD itself. With ecologist David Orr, UIL
roughly puts them in two categories, labelled technological and ecological. The former seeks to maintain economic growth
with minimal negative effects, mainly through new technologies and institutions. The latter aims for transformation of
current socio-economic systems through a combination of scientific and ancient, indigenous knowledge. These two
categories require fundamentally different approaches to the transition process. The technological approach puts scientific
and technological experts in the driver seat and is essentially top-down. It minimises the role of behaviour apart from
technological or institutional systems. By contrast, the ecological approach needs the collaboration of all stakeholders, both
experts and ordinary people. Out of our four typical worldviews, the social green view is obviously ecological, and the market
liberal is clearly technological. The other two are in between; the bio-environmentalist group is ecological but seems open to
technological solutions. Institutionalists, on the other hand, are essentially technological, but some seem very open to
ecological solutions.

Now, what does this imply for our theme ‘enabling and motivating for sustainability’? If you believe that the solution to
unsustainability problems is essentially technological, you favour:

Better institutions and regulation to fix governance failures

Financial incentive schemes and voluntary programmes to fix market failures
More public money to scientific and technological research, even for options that treat the symptoms of
unsustainable development rather than the root causes
More economic growth to pay for these expensive solutions

However, if you believe that the best response to unsustainability is redesigning the socio-economic systems, you will favour
a rather different set of strategies:

Strong emphasis on reorienting the formal education system towards SD to engage the maximum number of people
in the transition
Use the whole spectrum of informal and non-formal, community-based learning types, so that signs of hope become
visible everywhere
Promote community-managed solutions to renewable energy, urban food production and so on
Advocate public investment in solutions that drive sustainability, e.g. urban bicycle networks and strong public
transport
Shift emphasis from ever-increasing scale (globalisation) to smaller scale arrangements and systems where possible
and practical

Let us look closely at ways in which our schools of thoughts are making contributions to learning.

. Bio-environmentalists emphasise that the human economy is a sub-system of the earth’s biosphere. This means that
the human economy is the smaller entity that exchanges material and energy flows with the bigger ecological
system. Unsustainable development means to treat the earth as a business in liquidation, as if the current
generation is the last one on earth. Bio-environmentalists, therefore, focus on exploring the resilience of natural
systems. The knowledge and insights they generate are related to the state of ecosystems, their likely condition
under increased stresses and their potential revitalisation under sustainable forms of management. Some have
calculated and described how humanity could share global resources within those limits and thrive. Examples of this
 include ecological economists like Herman Daly, the World Wildlife Fund, and Michael Carley and Philipe Spapens,
authors of the book Sharing the World. Bio-environmentalists are trying to save threatened plant and animal species
from extinction by creating seed banks and impacting agricultural education. Others study ancient indigenous
traditions in resource management as inspiration for change. Of course, they support the general view that the
dominant modernity view has thrown out a lot of good old practices simply because they were considered outdated.
Indeed, we must admit that many ancient peoples had learned valuable lessons of survival in difficult ecological
environments. For example, the nomadic lifestyle seems much better at SD in the steppes of Africa and Inner Asia
than sedentary patterns.
. Institutionalists are concerned about social inequality and resource scarcity. However, they want to know how social
and ecological issues could be addressed through institutional changes to the current global economy. Consequently,
we would expect institutionalists to study and research in social and legal spheres in order to make contributions to
their field. Environmental governance is a relatively new field that studies treaties, organisations and institutions
which together guide the use of resources, for instance the use of the seas. EIs for all kinds of government policy are
part of this field. We will treat them in more detail in the following chapter. Governance in general has risen in
importance due to globalisation and public pressures for greater government effectiveness. This is an expression of
the growing popularity of institutionalist arguments.
. Market liberals are the strongest supporters of the existing global political and economic system. Their main interest
is in demonstrating that social and ecological problems are consequences of external effects of an otherwise ideal
system. Shamsul Hacque, political science lecturer from Singapore, wrote in that they are ‘primarily concerned
with the continuity of economic growth and accumulation based on market competition, and express apprehension
about potential economic stagnation and market failures’. Market and policy failures are invariably identified as
causes, and recommendations include market-based instruments to fix the problem. Their research and education
programmes are aimed at collecting evidence and spreading their views.
. Social greens build on radical theories that point to inequality within and between countries as root causes for a
range of social and ecological ills. They make their point by research and publications that link resource use and
pollution to the existence of income and power gaps. Also, their activist position drives them to take grassroots
initiatives to strengthen local economies. They want to demonstrate that poorer people can meet (most of) their
needs by fairer systems of local sharing.

Whenever we consider research or opinions of an institution, we need to be aware of the worldview that produced them. In
this book, we attempt to describe each one of them in fair terms. All have valuable insights to contribute, yet all may be
incomplete or myopic in one way or another. You may have your preference already, but you may also take your time to
make up your mind. For now, it is important to realise that these deeply held worldviews exist, and that they shine through
in many places—education, opinion articles, public policy-making, business practices and so on.

Finally, we want to make a distinction between scepticism and denial. The science of environmental issues is complex, too
difficult for ordinary people. So we rely on the integrity of scientists to do their work according to academic standards and
tell us what they know and how certain they are of what they know. Unfortunately, when scientific work becomes part of a
political issue, the science itself—and often also the scientist—come under attack. The interest group’s worldview has a far-
reaching impact on the way issues are perceived and framed, research is being conducted and outcomes are presented.
However, when people are truly scientific in their approach, the debate will be clear on assumptions and procedures, so that
all can verify the correctness of outcomes. Where details about the investigation, the researchers and especially their
funding are hidden, suspicion will be that conditions are manipulated to produce desired outcomes. When considering issues
of sustainability, we should all be sceptics to the extent that we investigate both sides of an argument with equal scientific
rigour. Given uncertainties, we may then arrive at an outcome that can be defended by a generally accepted method. By
contrast, denial is a refusal to accept something no matter what the evidence says. Denial has always been common and
seems to relate to a person’s refusal to change.

The different forms of education and training discussed in this chapter have the potential to raise awareness, build skill and
convey a sense of urgency and motivation to the participants. Much depends on the quality of the methods, the materials,
and the teachers or trainers. For them to have this quality, they need to be first trained themselves. This could be done at
their teacher-training college, but also through continuing education for those who already entered the workforce. For these
training facilities and programmes to be in place, numerous decision-makers in education ministries and relevant colleges
need to acknowledge the urgency and change their strategies. Having defined the sustainability transition as a deep social
change process in the previous chapter, we now turn to John Kotter’s success factors for leading organisational change.
You can’t solve a problem with the same thinking that created it. (Einstein)

It is past education that has produced the graduates whose decisions overexploited resources and caused ecological
problems from the local level to the global. Would modest reforms be enough to steer society in a sustainable direction?
Judging by his insight quoted earlier, Einstein would not think so. Likewise, many sustainability educators today argue for a
complete overhaul of educational methods and structures, based on a new vision of education’s role in development and
society. Not transfer of knowledge on how the world works today, but equipping and motivating students to take part in
shaping tomorrow’s more sustainable society.

For education to become a driving force in the sustainability transition, according to John Kotter’s change model introduced
in Chapter , there needs to be a sense of urgency (Step ) for achieving SD in every institution and in the overall education
leadership. Second, each organisation should form a guiding coalition (Step ) to write a vision and strategy (Step ), and to
oversee the whole process. These leaders should communicate the vision on every occasion and model the change in their
own behaviour (Step ). Steps and are to enable education institutions to make the change and plan for short-term gains
that may persuade doubters to support the change too. Finally, Steps and are about keeping the change going and
anchoring it in relevant rule books and procedures. The more high-level the political and financial support for change, the
faster it may go.

Education and all institutions involved in sustainable development need to urgently transform to act accordingly in a
sustainable world. Education is a driver of change in facilitating the effective implementation of the Sustainable
Development Goals in formal, non-formal, informal and life-long learning contexts and should be inclusive of all people. As
such, education should be recognised within each of the goals; and as a cross cutting, integrating force and enabler
necessary for realising all of the Sustainable Development Goals. Education for Sustainable Development empowers learners
to transform themselves and the society they live in. (Ahmedabad Plan of Action, January ).

Transforming education is not a new thing in many countries. In fact, some people complain that the system is in a continual
state of change, adapting to trends in society and political ideas. Indeed, education has to fulfil lots of public purposes, and
there is fierce competition around giving themes a place in the curriculum. Moreover, every change is sensitive as most
citizens have an opinion about education, often a passionate one. Sometimes, the system just cannot keep up with the
changing insights. For instance, in the early s, an Indian High Court ruling geared the government into action to include
environmental education in school curricula. Several years later, the approach has widened under the influence of the UN
DESD. This time, there is not enough political support for another system change. Nevertheless, creative teachers and
students may still gain experience and positive impact by using what room they have to bring up sustainability. In time,
hopefully, the movement from below will gain enough momentum to take educational change to the next level.

Does the transition work best top-down or bottom-up? We cannot say, but it seems that a combination of the two produces
good results. Leaders cannot make significant change without support from the grassroots level. Building awareness for
climate change among school children as did by the India Science Express Climate Action Special (Figure . ), creates
understanding and acceptance for climate protection policies. On the other hand, the possibilities in society or organisation
are hugely enlarged when the top-level facilitates change. Could individual people or institutions attain successes in the
absence of support by their leaders? Indeed they can, and the more they build coalitions with like-minded people or groups,
the wider their influence goes. We conclude with highlighting some examples of sustainability.

Handprint for Positive Action

The handprint is a common tool in education to invite participants to express their commitment for learning or action on
paper. After being inspired by a -year-old girl in one of their village projects, the CEE India launched it as a symbol for a
caring attitude and positive action for sustainability. Since then, many NGOs and others have been using the handprint to
bring up dialogue on positive action instead of campaigning against unsustainable things. The handprint also represents the
belief that ordinary people can make a difference through individual and collective actions to solve environmental issues.

A Student Model to Multiply Sustainable Action

The Student Union at Bristol (UK) designed a four-step approach to greening student attitudes and practice, not only during
their time at university but also beyond. They call it,

Learn Act Engage Create,

where each step reinforces the previous one and expands on it.
Global youth-led organisation AIESEC, developing business and society leaders through its internship programmes in
countries involving around , people a year, have made sustainability a defining characteristic of leadership. On their
website they write:

It’s not often that we consider one of the most important traits of a leader to be ‘sustainable’. However, the question of
sustainability is a growing concern in leadership. It is not enough to have just one good leader—but rather, a generation of
good leaders. This is how change happens.

Your country is probably somewhere in the transition to a SD path. Perhaps it has not even begun yet. In that case, it needs
leaders that will start up the process. Will you be part of this? It will not be easy, but it will be challenging the best in you,
and it will give great satisfaction.

So where do you begin to green your world? By adopting a sustainable lifestyle yourself, and pledging to keep learning and
sharing what you’ve learned with others. For instance, by organising an event on World Environment Day, using the official
logo (Figure . ) and sharing your experience on their website. Furthermore, you could green your choices for academic
electives and assignments within relevant courses. For instance, if you need to make a presentation about an inspiring
person, choose one mentioned earlier in the chapter. Also, why not participate in extra-curricular activities on your campus
or in your city? It will give you practice in organising activities, recruiting, publicity and teamwork. Your university may
require you to take an internship, so you may turn to an organisation with a sustainability agenda. Finally, on the basis of
your proven interest in sustainability during your undergrad years, you stand a chance to be eligible for a master’s
programme in sustainability that builds on your speciality. Sustainability programmes exist for a wide variety of fields:
business studies, urban development, governance, architecture, journalism and so on. Your sustainable future begins today.

Ours is the first generation with the potential to end poverty—and the last to act to avoid worst effects of climate change.
(Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary-General)
Environmental sustainability issues may come up in a wide variety of contexts. They may arise for households wondering
how to safely dispose of harmful waste, such as batteries or paint. They may arise for businesses considering how to meet
clients’ concerns and comply with environmental laws in a cost-effective way. Finally, they arise at the national and
international levels where governments deal with the increasing number and scale of interrelated social, economic and
environmental issues. This book approaches the issues from the standpoint of an individual person or professional, who is
faced with such questions in their home, business or community. The general principle states that change for a better
environment and society always starts with you, wherever you are. Moreover, when the issue at hand goes beyond your
personal influence and resources, you can only move ahead with the support of others. If you form a coalition of
individuals or organisations around an issue of common concern, you can multiply resources and impact. This way, you
overcome the barriers to sustainable action that lie in technology and institutional structures. This chapter studies the
interactions of human behaviour, institutions and technology. It also discusses how society has learnt from policies that
have been applied over the last half century. Finally, we look at what those successes and failures mean for the challenges
ahead on our path towards SD.

The environmental impacts from any human action are the result of the complex interaction between technological
devices (machines and equipment), applicable legal or organisational rules (institutions), and individual behavioural
choices. Therefore, for every project or process, we can find ideas for minimising those impacts by looking at the project
or process in three basic ways:

Behavioural: Which factors drive individual choices and how could they be influenced
Institutional: Which formal or informal rules limit environment-friendly change
Technological: Which technological factors limit efficiency and produce waste

Let us now consider illustrations from different spheres of life to see how this way of looking applies.

Illustration : Your Household Electricity Bill

Your monthly electricity bill is the result of the price per kWh, the time you operate your electric appliances and the
specific energy need of each appliance. You may say that you need all these items, so you have no choice. In the short
term, you may be right; but in the longer term, your options increase. When it comes to using lights or your computer,
you may switch them off when you leave the room for an extended period of time. Also you could unplug electrical
devices that are normally on standby all the time. This saves a lot of energy over the long haul.

The technical characteristics of your home appliances pose limitations on how much you can save. For some, their energy
use depends on how well they are maintained; but otherwise, your only option is to sell your appliance and get a more
energy-efficient one. More and more countries now use the international energy label to guide consumers in their
purchase decisions. The label shows with coloured arrows how the item’s energy use compares with other appliances in
the market. This is particularly important for devices that are on all the time (fridges and heaters) or used frequently
(washing machines and air conditioners). A simple calculation shows how long it will take before you have earned the
higher purchase price back through savings on your energy bill.

Finally, the price per kWh is a given for you as a client, but one day in your career you may be in a position to influence
the energy company’s pricing policy. Many countries still have one price per kWh for households and another one for
organisations, regardless of the time of day or night. However, countries that were forced to save energy after oil crises
have found that they could keep overall energy use down by introducing a high daytime charge and a lower night-time
charge. This encourages clients to move non-essential uses to the off-peak hours, so that the energy company has lower
daytime peak usage. Long term, this may delay the necessity to build a new power plant simply to cope with peak use.
Many modern devices have the option to programme their use, so that they could operate at night without needing the
owner to stay up late and press the button.

Illustration : Street Food Business

Imagine a street food business cooking and selling hot meals to people who flock the streets of tropical countries at the
end of a long, hot day. What options does the business have to reduce its environmental impact? A quick inventory shows
that its main environmental impacts are from the food, energy used and waste produced. The most sustainable food is
locally grown with minimal use of fertiliser and pesticides, and is transported directly to the nearest market. For energy
use, the main options available are more energy-efficient cooking and refrigeration facilities and/or a different approach
to planning, storing and cooking routines. Finally, the waste is produced at the input buying stage and the selling stage.
Packaging waste per unit of useful product can be reduced by buying larger quantities, taking one’s own reusable bags to
market, and selling food in durable or biodegradable containers. Of course, there is a trade-off as durable plates and cups
need to be washed, which requires hot water and washing-up liquid, as well as time and space. Biodegradable containers
are a relatively new phenomenon that is not yet widespread. When the Thailand government decided that plastic food
containers had become too big a problem ( , tons a day of waste), it worked together with Kasetsart University to
develop a biodegradable alternative on the basis of cassava. This root crop is locally available in large quantities and is,
therefore, affordable. After years of trials, they brought the food containers to the market. These initially had a higher
price than their plastic counterparts, but a waste removal charge on plastic disposables could eliminate that cost
differential. Then, it is up to business buyers to show how socially responsible they are.

So how does this example show the behavioural, institutional and technological components? The behavioural aspect
comes out best in the waste minimisation choices that the business could make. The technological ones in the more
energy-efficient equipment that could be purchased during the next investment cycle. The institutional aspect is, for
instance, in the electricity price system that the utility company uses and possible energy conservation programmes it
might have. Again, Thailand is a good example, for it introduced a large-scale energy-saving programme in the s. This
included setting up a public energy conservation agency and offering business low-cost energy-saving advice. The other
illustration is in the earlier-mentioned biodegradable alternative to plastic that the Thailand government helped develop.
These efforts show that when a needed improvement is beyond the means of individual households or businesses, the
government should step in.

Illustration : More Sustainable Urban Transportation

Cities are responsible for building and maintaining roads as well as organising or providing public transportation. The
overall goal is that people can get around in fast, comfortable and affordable ways. However, how an urban
transportation system grows during a time of fast urbanisation may be quite unsustainable from a long-term perspective.
DCs import older, used cars and minibuses from wealthier countries. While reuse might be a good thing in itself, these
countries do acquire vehicles with a relatively low fuel-efficiency. In their public transport system, passengers pay for
every bus ride, regardless of the distance travelled. There is limited co-ordination between transportation modes and
routes, and little or no publication of travel times. Buses and minibuses are very full, and provide little comfort or safety.
Finally, as many cities have growing congestion, both public and private vehicles suffer delays and poor air quality. What
is the way out of this?

The Brazilian city of Curitiba (now having three million inhabitants) has had visionary mayors and strong city planners for
the last years. They built a public transportation system consisting of three types of buses: (a) bi-articulated buses
running on dedicated bus arteries to cover large distances fast, (b) feeder routes that bring people from the
neighbourhoods to bus terminals where they can change lines and (c) circular lines that take passengers from one
outlying area to another without travelling via the city centre. This system works in combination with Curitiba’s land-use
policy and its unique road system on the five arteries (see Chapter for details). The city has a ticketing system that
allows people to travel on different lines paying only once. It also hands out public transport tickets as part of its social
support programmes. The public transport system has become so popular that of citizens use it every day, leaving
their car at home. Applying the behavioural perspective to the story, we see that people with alternative transport are
drawn to the buses by a mix of system quality, pricing and awareness-building measures. Institutional aspects are all over
this story, starting from the road system and land-use policies to the ticketing system. The technological component of
the system’s environmental impact is in the fuel efficiency of the buses, the fact that more people travel in fewer vehicles
and the fuel saved from reduced congestion.
In the previous section, we have made the point that effective policies for minimising environmental impacts from
resource use and waste must include a behavioural, an institutional and a technological component. This lesson has been
learned the hard way during the past five decades.

In the early days of environmental debates, pollution was perceived as an unavoidable side effect of our efforts to raise
living standards. This was the denial stage. Next, at some point, a particular issue such as air pollution became such a
nuisance that something had to be done urgently. The health damage of pollution had become unacceptable. In other
words, the cost of overcoming the pollution effects was getting too big in relation to the benefits of production. Here, the
problem was framed (i.e., defined) as a technological issue and the speed of negotiating a solution depended on its cost
and who would bear it. In order not to endanger the profitability of industry, the government would sometimes share the
cost through subsidies or tax reductions on pollution control equipment. Since this approach provided a market for new
types of environment-friendly technologies, this fact was heralded by governments as a benefit to society overall.

However, since behavioural and institutional aspects were barely addressed at the time, they continued to drive
development in unsustainable directions. Thus, for instance, the emissions from traffic kept going up because people
bought bigger cars and drove more kilometres each year. The increased fuel efficiency had enabled motorists to save
money that was now spent in an equally problematic way. Similarly, when countries facilitated the mass introduction of
compact fluorescent lighting, they found out after a while that people put them in places where they had no light before
and burn them longer since they are so efficient. This phenomenon is called the rebound effect, where fuel or electricity
use is first pushed down by the policy but then bounces back up as a result of consumer response. This was an important
learning point: apparently, it was not enough to take technological measures. Behaviour was important too. For ICs, this
happened round about , when environmental concern was high in anticipation of the first Earth Summit. Public
awareness campaigns were launched in order to persuade people to adopt environment-friendly innovations and
lifestyle.

It did not take long for governments to discover that the majority of the general public do not respond in great measure
to open calls for behavioural change. The campaign effects quickly wore off. Issues come and issues go, and the public
forgets, so it needs to be reminded. Moreover, researchers found that people experience lots of obstacles in putting
environment-friendly habits and purchases into practice. These include availability, price, lack of proper infrastructure,
poor social image and so on. These are all institutional factors, and there are many more as we shall see. Awareness
campaigns became more targeted to specific issues and desired behaviours. Also they are more often part of a mix of
policies along with regulation and EIs. Regulation is a type of instrument that a board of directors could use to ban an
undesirable action or command a necessary one. It requires clear limits and credible rule or law enforcement in order to
achieve its objective. By contrast, EIs rely on the power of financial incentives to influence people’s choices—a reward for
desired behaviour or a price on the undesired alternative.

The Brundtland Commission framed the issues of social inequality and environmental degradation differently from
before. They were no longer a narrow technological problem to be solved, but a developmental imbalance that
threatened the very survival of life on Earth. To avoid lower quality of life for growing numbers of people, leaders would
have to include social and environmental considerations in their policy-making at every level. The Rio Declaration and
Agenda , therefore, made recommendations in many different areas. The commission realised very well that people
were limited by the systems and arrangements about which authorities or businesses decide. They not only needed
logical reasons to change but also material incentives. Therefore, the commission recommended legal and institutional
change to facilitate SD. Following this advice, academics and governments dedicated increased attention to the potential
of changes in laws, agency structures and pricing mechanisms. Since there was also a broader trend for less regulation
and more market-based policy tools, EIs became quite popular. This attention brought up new issues, for instance the
role of subsidies. Financial or in-kind advantages that governments grant to economic sectors, such as energy subsidies,
have unsustainable side effects. Where the subsidies translate into a lower market price, consumers are willing to buy
more. As a result, there are more environmental and social negatives of these higher sales. Moreover, people have
weaker incentives to use energy sparingly. This issue has been getting a lot of research attention and publicity since the
early s, and now international organisations frequently recommend their reduction and reform.

The WSSD (Johannesburg, ) put the implementation of Agenda squarely in the centre; no new agreements, but
arrangements to put in practice what had already been agreed. This summit worked more than any other on institutional
ways to get public and private parties to work together on a range of issues. We see more of this in the Rio Summit,
which had ‘Green Economy in the Context of Sustainable Development’ as a major theme. This too, is essentially an
institutional theme in the sense that it co-ordinates the green, inclusive development policies at the strategic government
level. However, behaviour was also back on the agenda, after having been out of the limelight for two decades. Indeed,
sustainable production and consumption are not just a matter of green technology and innovative institutions, but of
human choices.

Finally, the Rio Conference (Brazil, ) focused on two themes, both institutional—an effective framework for SD
and GE. The latter we discuss in Chapter as a high-level co-ordination instrument to kick-start a sector or nation
towards SD. The former eventually led to the adoption, in , of the new SDGs for , which equally apply to all
countries of the world. Global development discussions traditionally centre on finance and transfer of technology.
However, to effectively implement the SDGs, we will need measures in all dimensions, including institutions and
behaviour.

This chapter investigates the ways in which behaviour, institutions and technology interact to produce certain user
patterns of energy and materials. This will help us to advise individuals and communities to adjust the factor(s) they can
influence by taking these interactions into account.

Behavioural Dimension

Behaviour is defined here as the individual choices we make within the framework of society’s current institutions and
technology. Let us study a simple model of how individuals make decisions about satisfying material needs. Of course,
every human will take other people’s opinions into account, but the degree to which they do this depends on character
and culture. When making decisions, you choose between alternative actions that satisfy your goals. To make things easy,
you will try to rate your options based on your personal values and/or opinions from significant people around you. Let us
first look at the internal factors that may explain a person’s actions:

Worldview Values A tudes Ac ons (arrows point in the direc on of influence)

Worldviews are the most fundamental ideas or assumptions that a person holds about themselves, the world and their
place in it. They are considered ‘truth’ and are not regularly questioned, so their impact tends to be long-lasting.
Worldviews come in the form of philosophies or religions, often intentionally adhered to but sometimes followed out of
habit or modified to individual taste.

Values are statements of good or bad about issues or situations. They are usually rooted in a person’s worldview. They
are also long-lasting, but may be questioned more often.

Attitudes are states of mind about a thing or issue, a disposition that easily leads to action.

Actions are the ordinary things people do that have an impact on their environment. The bigger the environmental
impacts of an action, the more people practise it, and the more frequently this action is repeated, the larger the overall
impact. The most logical targets for sustainable action, then, are routine actions performed by everyone (taking a shower)
and big projects (home renovation). The parallels for companies are daily emissions (exhaust fumes) or effluents (waste
water) and a new investment project.

An example may clarify the nuances between these terms. If a person’s worldview is that humans are the masters of the
Earth, then the person’s values will be to maximise human benefits from its resources. Consequently, his or her attitude
to environmental pollution will depend on the material benefits that he or she needs to give up in exchange for pollution
reduction. His or her actions, finally, will negatively affect the Earth until environmental problems cause serious damage
to health or livelihoods. On the other hand, if a person’s worldview is that the Earth belongs to its Creator, then looking
after the Earth becomes a matter of honouring its maker. Based on this foundation, a value would be to minimise harm
from human production and consumption. Such a person would logically have a positive attitude to saving water, energy
and materials. Also he or she is likely to install energy- and water-saving devices in their homes (action).

Apart from these internal processes, people’s intention to act is also influenced by social norms. The attitude is a person’s
own input, while social norms are the input from the person’s social environment. Social group norms often agree with
attitudes, but sometimes there is a difference between the person’s own conviction and what people around him or her
expect. Also social group norms may agree with generally accepted norms in society or they may deviate. Commercial
advertising is a factor that strongly and subtly influences individual preferences and social norms. It uses the best
knowledge and insight of psychology for the purpose of generating and shaping human desire for products and services.
A personal attitude is the result of this person weighing all pros and cons (plusses and minuses) of a certain behavioural
alternative. Two factors determine whether environmental arguments win—time horizon and personal versus social
interest. First, most people find consequences in the near future more important than consequences that may take place
in the more distant future. This is a disadvantage for the environment as unsustainable action usually generates short-
term benefits for the individual, whereas the benefits for society of sustainable behaviour only become evident in the
longer term. Second, many environment and development issues involve social dilemmas. Society’s interest requires
behaviour, which seems to contradict the personal interest. Research has shown that in such situations, people usually
act on their personal interest, even though this harms society in the long term. Now, the action a person initially chooses
may come under criticism by their peers. For instance, negative social feedback on a sustainable action may cause the
actor to reconsider that behaviour and even the attitude behind it. However, values and worldviews are held more deeply
and they can survive negative responses from the social environment. They may be moderated or altered, but rarely
given up. It takes a significant life event to do that.

Live simply, that others may simply live. (Mahatma Gandhi)

Of course, the reason to highlight the importance of worldview here is not to say that it is a leader’s job to change a
target group’s worldview. Rather, if business or community leaders appeal to a widely held worldview in support of
sustainable action, this may generate strong and lasting motivation for the common good. Moreover, if the value
principle ‘care for distant humans and other forms of life’ is first applied in one area, it is likely to be transferred to other
areas as well. We shall see further that value-based campaigns are sometimes even more effective than legislative action.
Worldviews belong to the category of informal institutions that have great potential to motivate people for sustainability.
Therefore, it is now time to investigate the wider field of institutions and their potential for making a contribution to
sustainability.

Institutional Dimension

Institutions are the rules, organisations and socials norms that facilitate co-ordination of human action (World
Development Report ). Figure . orders the field of institutions along two dimensions. On the horizontal axis is the
degree of formality—informal institutions on the left and formal ones on the right. On the vertical axis, we see that
institutions near the top are easy to change and those near the bottom are difficult to change. Informal institutions are
the oldest and based on tacit agreement that has grown through generations. Rules and networks are easy to change, but
traditions demand respect and observance. Trust is a delicate and important thing—hard and time-consuming to build—
but easy to lose. Formal institutions are created for a specific purpose and on the basis of a written agreement, which has
to follow procedures for making, changing and enforcing. For instance, if the university wishes to make new rules for
students or staff, they have to write a proposal, have it approved by the appropriate decision-making body and publish it
in written form on a website or in a rule book. Some formal institutions, such as courts and constitutions, have special
rules in their charters that make them hard to change. This was done for a reason, namely, to achieve the stability that is
needed for orderly development.
We do not wish to put formal over informal institutions or vice versa. Both can do a good job of managing natural
resources and both have demonstrated incompetence in some cases. In general, communities have a good historical
record of managing communal resources, such as forests or pasture land. What is essential is that information on the
condition of the resource is regularly fed back to the community leaders, and that they have the authority to take
adequate measures. Generally, however, the institutions of the modern state have taken over responsibility for natural
resource management. Yet even modern institutions have been unable to prevent the collapse of cod fisheries in the
North Atlantic or the commercial overexploitation of India’s forests. In both cases, tens of thousands of people suffered
loss of income and livelihood, and resources may not recover for a very long time.

The quality of institutions is not only in their knowledge of the resource, but also in their decision-making structures. If
they reward decisions that are popular in the short term but risky or disastrous in the long term, the incentives are
unsustainable. The boundaries and impacts of human activities are stretching ever farther into the wild. There is
increasing pressure on regions that traditionally had extensive cattle breeding to include forms of agriculture. Nomadic
people groups with unwritten or unclear property rights are increasingly pushed to the fringes. With them, indigenous
knowledge of sustainably managing the land for present and future generations is in decline. Without trivialising issues of
land use and water management, we now present out-of-the-box institutional solutions that feature in a TVE film entitled
Shed Loads.

One slot shows the Elephant River Basin in South Africa, where a large group of water users cause the river to run
dangerously low. The interests of industrial water users clash with those of farmers and wildlife park tourists. With
outside help, an NGO consultant is hired to investigate the options for a different water-sharing arrangement. It turns out
that relatively low investment is sufficient to solve the problem, while participants are all better off than before. The
money is needed to replace a flood-irrigation system by a more efficient drip-irrigation system, to line irrigation canals
with plastic to reduce leakage and increase water recycling in the mining sector. What solved the issue cost-effectively is
the institution of co-operation between water users, where an NGO helps them to work out a resource-sharing
arrangement.

Another slot shows a lush valley in Bolivia where water quality and biodiversity were under threat from deforestation.
There, with outside help again, upstream and downstream water users met to work out a solution that benefits all. Key
was that deforestation had to be stopped in order to maintain moisture and water purification functions of the tropical
hill forest. However, in order to persuade the highland people to protect the forest, the lowland people had to offer
compensation. They did so in the form of bee boxes that enabled the highland people to earn additional income while
leaving the forest intact. The better the quality of the forest, the more bee boxes were given. The quality assessment and
monitoring was done by an independent third party, an environmental NGO. Here too, we see how the institution of co-
operation between water users with some outside help led to an outcome that was beneficial for ecological, social and
environmental interests. Note that they did not invest in water purification or finding new water sources, but they simply
restored the natural mechanism by giving land owners an incentive to protect the forest.

It may not be hard for you to see how changes in formal institutions enable many people to behave in more environment-
friendly ways. However, you might be surprised to hear that informal institutions can do similar things. This is why we
now turn to the role of environmental ethics.

Science can help us predict the environmental consequences of certain actions. Economics may support decision-making
by calculating the benefits and costs of action and inaction. However, we may still be faced with choices that force us to
weigh risks and balance the interests of different groups in society. What is right or wise in this particular situation? Do
human concerns (jobs, lumber and tax income from logging) outweigh the concerns of plants and animals in the forest? Is
pollution only bad if it interferes with human interests? Is nature there to serve humans or should we protect the natural
world for its own sake? Should we build power plants to meet today’s needs and wants even if this means that future
generations will have to deal with the radiation (nuclear power) or climate change (coal, oil and gas) consequences?
These questions are ethical for they ask what ought to be done. Environmental ethics is the field that investigates
worldviews, values and attitudes to the Earth and its resources. It often also contains norms for correct behaviour.
Environmental ethics can be viewed as part of a larger worldview (philosophy or religion)—a description and
understanding of how the world came into being and what humans’ place in it is. Every human decision made in relation
to the environment springs from an environmental philosophy. It may be well thought out or vague and barely conscious.

For the last half century, our world has been increasingly driven by the grand goals of materialism and economic growth.
Even people of faith and/or principle seemed to have accepted it without much questioning. However, philosophical
movements and world religions are slowly awakening to the assets they have to help us conserve our environment. Read
more about the contribution from faith communities in Box . .

In , the WWF invited representatives of the world’s religions to an environment conference in Assisi, Italy—the home
of Francis, patron saint of nature. Here, the major religions committed themselves to making ecology and conservation a
focus of their actions and prayers. From this meeting, a movement of religions for sustainable action has grown. In ,
the Worldwatch Institute published an overview of what faith communities around the world were doing to promote
sustainability under the title Inspiring Progress.

According to Worldwatch Institute author Gary Gardner, religions bring the following assets to the job of promoting a
more sustainable world:

Their worldview provides followers with a sense of meaning and purpose

Their messages usually inspire and project moral authority
Their campaigns invite large numbers of adherents to change behaviour together
They may directly apply sustainability principles to their communal land and buildings
They have strong social capital—bonds of trust, co-operation and information-sharing that create
cohesive communities for lasting change

The degree to which people really accept their religious principles varies widely, and so does the willingness of believers
to put their faith into community action or lifestyle choices. Nevertheless, when challenged with the faith argument for
sustainable behaviour, many believers are not only surprised but also open to change. So helping adherents reconnect
worldview and environmental attitudes could be a powerful and lasting motivator. Yet faith communities are not the only
ones that have a lot to contribute to a movement away from thoughtless consumerism and towards moderate lifestyles
for well-being. Non-religious communities all over the world are trying to solve their issues in integrated sustainable ways
too, especially since the Earth Summit formulated a local Agenda . Many have joined a network such as eco-villages,
transition towns or one planet communities. Quite a few have received government subsidies to promote innovation and
dissemination of their experience.

Technological Dimension

Finally, we turn our attention to the third factor—technology. The term technology may refer to several ideas. First, to
the tools and instruments that people develop to adapt nature to their needs and solve life’s problems. Second,
technology is used to speak about the knowledge used to produce goods and services. Third, there is a cultural
component in technology as major stages in human development are defined by our ability to make certain materials or
machines, such as the Iron Age or the Steam Age. These days, the fruits of technology have become so woven into the
fabric of society that we can barely think of our lives apart from the gadgets we use.

Science is often mentioned in one breath with technology, but it should be distinguished. Science is the process of
searching for objective knowledge about nature and society according to agreed rigorous methodologies. Thus, science is
more a more fundamental thing and a pillar to support applied know-how. In reality, the boundaries between science and
technology have become blurred. Science is not as objective as people once thought, while technology often involves a
search for fundamental principles that could be used in new products, processes and services.

Science and technology have powerful impacts on our world. They are also perceived by many as a positive force in
society. They have improved standards of living for many, provided medicine to combat disease and brought people
closer together through transport, and information and communication devices. At the same time, science and
technology have also enabled intense resource extraction and release of hazardous materials into nature. In fact, the
same piece of know-how may serve a beneficial purpose in medical equipment and a destructive one in a weapon system.
Clearly, much depends on the context in which knowledge is developed and applied. Vergragt ( ) in his paper ‘How
Technology Could Contribute to a Sustainable World’ signals contradictions between an improving life for the wealthy few
and increasing poverty and environmental degradation for billions. These realities led him to explore the nature of
technology and its relationship to society for the purpose of finding ways towards a more equitable and sustainable
world.

Technology multiplied by the number of people on Earth and their lifestyles produces the overall environmental impacts
that humanity makes. The question, then, of what makes a technology unsustainable or inappropriate is a difficult one.
There are three options
 It’s in the type of resources used,
The technical process by which these are changed into products,
Or in the way people use them under conditions of culture, government and markets.

Non-renewable resources, such as metals and fossil fuels, are used a million times faster than could be replenished in
nature. We only learnt this by seeing the depletion and pollution impacts of mass production and consumption. Our
production model was linear—too much use of virgin resources that ended up as waste after limited use. In response, we
have developed ways to recycle materials and save energy. What if we could dramatically improve efficiency and
recycling of non-renewable resources? Would that make them sustainable?

The technical process that turns raw materials into products matters too. It may produce hazardous waste, it may be
woefully inefficient or it may cause health risks to those working in the factory. They all add up to the total environmental
and social impacts that a product makes over its lifetime from extraction (field or mine) through basic material processing
to consumption and waste stage. It seems important, then, to know why certain technologies are used and others not.
The answer is, at least in part, in the institutional conditions under which society operates.

Since the Industrial Revolution, governments have made many policies that encourage or subsidise the exploitation of
natural resources and the discarding of unwanted by-products. As a result, society has become used to the constant flows
of new materials taken out of nature (virgin resources) and of waste removed from our cities and dumped in big holes (or
landfills). With the growth of populations and income levels, these flows have dramatically increased. Research suggests
that waste flows are positively associated with income growth. Thus, as long as governments keep taxes and fees for
resource exploitation and waste removal low, they actually invite society to be wasteful. When they reform tax and
subsidy policies and have society pay close to the real price for these goods and services, then the rational decisions at
individual and company level will also be rational for society as a whole—with lower environmental impacts as a result. In
other words, a change in parameters will stimulate a gradual shift towards more efficiency. We will revisit this point in the
transition section at the end of this chapter.

These worrying facts have probably not changed much since they were written:

of industrial energy in product life cycles is used for mining and processing basic materials; recycling requires much
less

Less than of materials taken out of nature is embodied in a product; the rest is waste

Design decisions determine - of life-cycle economic ecological cost (Hawkin, Lovins and Lovins )

Under unfavourable institutional conditions, some companies already saw reason enough to invest in pollution
prevention, but the movement remained small. In Chapter , we gave the example of M, which gained worldwide
acclaim for its programme P. Their key learning point was that input reduction strategies (such as efficiency
improvement, input substitution, and reuse and recycling) paid off and enabled the company to comply with the law in
cost-effective ways. Another point was that the best ideas came from their own staff, who knew the company inside out.
From these beginnings has come a whole movement that drives so-called eco-innovations with the aim of satisfying
customer needs with much lower ecological impacts. Some technological research and consulting agencies have extensive
experience in assisting businesses to redesign products and production processes. Based on this, Hawken and Lovins
estimate that efficiency gains of to can be made in many manufacturing processes in just a few decades. Similar
ambitions underlie the European programme for a circular economy. They raise the expectation of what can be achieved
in industry with appropriate research and investment policies. Here are some practical strategies:

Reduce consumption of resources: Minimise use of energy, materials, water and land; enhance recyclability and
product life time; and close material loops
Reduce impacts on the environment: Minimise discharges to air, water and land, and hazardous substances (by-
products)
Increase product or service value: Concentrate on functions that customers actually want, which means that the
company should know its clients much better
Integrate and manage environmental aspects via an environmental management system, a complex of
procedures, measurements and reporting intended to keep managers posted on material/energy flows and
compliance aspects
When you hear about modern technologies, there is a good chance that you think about high-tech electronic equipment.
However, a lot of innovative products or methods fall in the category of appropriate technologies that effectively meet
the needs of poor people within ecological limits. The appropriate part means that the technologies are simple and user-
friendly, affordable and easy to get by. The UN, under the climate convention, has created a clean technology platform
where everyone can freely learn about hundreds of technologies from simple to complex in dozens of sectors including
agriculture, energy, transport and waste management. Many NGOs have made their experience accessible online too, for
instance, the Natural Edge or www.lemelsen.org. Often, the items are made of used or at least locally available materials,
so that the spreading of the innovation can be undertaken by local entrepreneurs. Examples include:

Water pumps that work on water pressure or human/animal power;

Olive presses that uses gravity pulling down a heavy weight;
Shade for hotel rooms provided by climbing plants in front of the windows;
Solar-powered lanterns that charge during the day and provide home lighting at night.

Many ideas for innovations come from new ways of looking at products and processes and from new sources of
inspiration. These include ‘cradle-to-cradle’ and biomimicry. The term ‘cradle-to-grave’ was first used to describe the
whole product life time from the moment of extracting natural resources to the disposal of the item at the end of its
useful life. The concept of ‘cradle-to-cradle’, introduced by Walter Stahel in , takes this further in the direction of
sustainability. It envisaged the expansion of companies that repair and rebuild older equipment in order to create jobs,
reduce environmental impacts and reduce the need for fresh resource extraction. It could also include taking old items
apart and reusing or recycling useful parts. Biomimicry is the title of a book written by Janine Benyus which looks at
nature for ideas about sustainable products and processes. So what can we learn from nature? First, nature runs on
sunlight, not on reserves of ancient deposits which run out and disturb natural cycles. Second, nature makes things at
outdoor temperatures, next to something that’s alive. It leaves no waste to be dealt with later, for it uses the output of all
processes as input to some other process. Nature finds its resources locally and creates beauty.

We have learned that our individual choices interact with market opportunities in a context of particular technology and
institutions. Each generation of technology has a given efficiency, but over time, technology develops under the same
institutional framework conditions that guide you and me to be either wasteful or economical. True SD requires changes
to all three.

In this chapter, we study three elements of the sustainability transition that need to be changed in co-ordinated ways. If
we miss one out entirely or leave it lagging behind the others, the result will be disappointing. Concerted action requires
strong vision and leadership. This is difficult as the more actors are involved, the more wide-ranging their worldviews and
interests are. So let us review what the four worldviews say about behaviour, institutions and technology.

The market liberal worldview builds on centuries-old economic theories of prosperity through industrialisation and free
trade. Initially, market liberals assumed more or less fixed efficiencies for turning raw materials into products. During the
nineteenth century, however, technological change enabled great efficiency improvements, and so they became real
technology optimists. The idea that resource scarcity will normally be overcome by human ingenuity became their article
of faith. That is why they are so confident in advocating endless economic growth for all the world’s problems. In the
market liberal view, the self-interested behaviour of many leads to the best result for society as a whole via the market
mechanism.

Since human behaviour is assumed to have positive impacts, market liberals have a hard time admitting that behaviour
itself could be a problem. Economic theory considers the process of forming preferences in the realm of the social
sciences. They simply assume that human needs are boundless and more is always better. However, the marketing
branch of business studies actively uses psychology to influence human perception of their own needs. As we mentioned
before, it has been extremely successful in driving consumerist culture worldwide. Now, social marketing is a form of
communication that promotes environmental, social and health ideas for the benefit of society at large. This is the kind of
awareness-raising preferred by market liberals as it relies on open competition. They are also in favour of labelling that
increases consumer information, but are against government intervention that limits consumer choice based on social or
environmental arguments.
Market liberals have a deep appreciation of the institutions that made the free market economy what it is—private
property protection, an independent judiciary and anti-monopoly regulation. The economic crisis of the s and the
s left them with a sense that overregulation and over-taxation make the economy too inflexible in the face of global
challenges. For them, the growing mobility of people and financial capital is desirable in itself, despite such consequences
as the shifting global division of labour and pollution. Only social and environmental problems framed as policy or market
failures qualify for market-based intervention. Governments may tweak the institutional framework, but only in a way
that does not leave some companies worse off than others. In a globalised world, the scale at which to change institutions
is more often the regional or global level. Interests are so diverse here that it is extremely hard to secure environmental
protection. Market liberals accept risk to people or planet rather than to their economic principles.

The institutionalist worldview remains close to the market liberal thinking, because it accepts the basic institutions of the
existing global economic system. Where freedom for market forces is an article of faith for market liberals, the
institutionalists actively promote new rules and organisations to deal with social and environmental policy problems. In
their view, institutions are meant to restrict human action and direct policies to the goals written in the law’s preamble or
the organisation’s charter. Thus, they campaign for changing the mandate of organisations to include sustainability, and
they are active in designing, proposing and establishing new organisations and rules to deal with over-exploitation,
poaching, illegal trade and so on. Institutionalists are also optimistic about the potential of technological innovation for
sustainable solutions. Obviously, their aim is to create incentives for developing and applying technologies that address
the world’s social and environmental challenges. Finally, they are more outspoken than market liberals about the need to
change public awareness and attitudes for sustainability. They advocate various kinds of ESD, including specialised
training courses, experimentation and exhibition centres, and mass media campaigns.

The bio-environmentalist and social green worldviews are quite different from the first two. They see technology and
institutions much more as part of the problem. For instance, they argue that a lot of technologies are inherently flawed
because they were developed with a limitless faith in science. They say it is the attitude of humans being that masters
over nature is destroying the Earth. They point to the problems surrounding agricultural pesticides, toxic chemicals and
hazardous waste, and major industrial disasters. In a more gradual way, they see technology as a driver in ongoing
mechanisation and computerisation, which result in job losses and a replacement of people by machines in daily life.
More people are sidelined, while society gets addicted to ever-higher energy use. Bio-environmentalists and social greens
question the dehumanising effects of these changes as well as the stresses that increasingly characterise modern, urban
life. They emphasise that technology must serve people, and that small can also be beautiful. They develop technologies
and institutions that support the local economy and a simpler, unhurried kind of life with sufficient time for community
tasks, such as the time bank where people exchange one hour of their expertise for one hour of another.

In Chapter , we described the path to SD as a deep, personal and social change. It may take an individual months to
change their patterns of habit. An organisational deep change process takes at least years, according to John Kotter. So
we may expect that a society-wide change process takes one to two generations. Such a process will not happen
spontaneously, so it must be initiated and planned by top leaders of businesses, communities and countries. In this
chapter, we added that changes in behaviour, institutions and technologies should be concerted in the planning. If one of
them is left out, the whole process will fail to achieve its goals. If individuals undertake change without support from
business or government, their impact is limited and they may get frustrated. If organisations attempt a change process
without credible examples from their leaders, their staff are unlikely to follow in a big way. If new technology is
developed without an institutional framework promoting sustainability, then the change may be inappropriate for the
challenges ahead. For all these stakeholders to move harmoniously in the same direction, much consultation and strong
visionary leadership are needed.

From Kotter’s model of organisational change, we have learned that the change process can only successfully start up if
stakeholders are convinced of its urgency. A strong guiding coalition needs to have adequate participation from people
with different expertise and position power. The vision and strategy for change must be communicated through word and
deed at every occasion. These are only the first four steps which should ideally be fulfilled in every organisation that
participates in the sustainability transition. Imagine the sheer number of people, literate in matters of sustainability,
needed to form those guiding coalitions. If an organisation or community currently does not have enough such people,
then it needs time and resources to get them trained. The size of the challenge is enormous, but the sustainability vision
is compelling enough for large numbers of change-makers. Even better, a career in sustainability is a source of deep
personal and professional satisfaction.
What are our options in the spheres of behaviour, institutions and technology?

Behavioural Dimension

Given that we live in a world with ‘islands of prosperity and oceans of poverty’ (Madhav Gadjil, Indian ecologist), you may
not think much of these simple living initiatives by the well-off. Nevertheless, they point to the fact that there is growing
dissatisfaction with the limitless pursuit of consumption, given that the forces driving the consumerist engine are
extremely strong. It takes a lot of courage and creativity to choose a different lifestyle and go against the flow.
Consumption comes naturally to people anywhere in the world, but restraint does not.

Concern about the social and environmental cost of consumerism has revived the search for models of moderation.
Simple living is the term for a lifestyle that looks rather basic, but is rich in meaning to the people who practise it. They do
so because of the higher purpose they find in sacrificing for the sake of their fellow humans and/or to honour their
Creator. Sociologist Amitai Etzioni defines three groups of simple living practitioners, who vary in their degree of
commitment:

Downshifters: People who reduce work-time and income in order to spend more time with their family or take up
a form of community service, such as aid for the homeless or dying
Strong Simplifiers: A smaller group of those who give up a high-status, well-paid job in order to pursue a radically
simple lifestyle
Dedicated, Holistic Simplifiers: The most radical individuals who see life as indivisible (or whole) and change
everything in their lives according to their ethical vision of simplicity

The sustainability transition needs growing groups and communities of people who practise forms of simplicity, and
through their communication, reinforce an alternative to commercial messages about what people want.

Technological Dimension

Experts tell us that many technologies which could make the quality of life and the environment much better already
exist. Perhaps they need to be adapted to make them suitable for particular local contexts. Perhaps they need
complementary facilities to fit them into existing systems. We do not need to achieve sustainability tomorrow, but we do
need to start the change today.

Having said that, historical developments invite us to argue that dramatic change is possible over extended periods of
time. Hargroves and Smith ( ) in The Natural Advantage of Nation show the waves of innovation that have happened
during the last two centuries. People who have lived during the twentieth century have witnessed tremendous change—
first water power, second steam power, third electricity and chemicals, fourth electronics and aviation, fifth ICT and so
on. If creativity and collaboration could overcome barriers before, perhaps they can do so again. After all, this time the
well-being of humanity, and indeed life on Earth, depend on it. There seems to be a wave building motivated by the great
global need for radical resource productivity and sustainability. This generation can make a change, but will it be bigger
than all previous waves of innovation?

Vergragt says that questions about who makes decisions about the development direction of new technologies have
seldom been asked, and even less often answered. In his view, what works against any attempt to establish democratic
control over such important development decisions is the perception that the forces of science, technology and markets
are both pervasive and overwhelming. Technological determinism holds that science invents, technology applies and
market selects. In other words, all three spheres are black boxes to society that seem to hold no promise of revealing
their secrets. According to Vergragt, the ‘myth of technological fix’ reinforces this idea that these processes are somehow
autonomous. This myth also says that science and technology, given enough time, will fix most of society’s problems to a
large degree. Perhaps it is no coincidence that, shortly before, he discussed the connection between modern science and
technology on the one hand and economic-political systems on the other. In some of the world’s biggest economies,
there is such a close connection between the military and civilian research sectors that they are considered as a military-
industrial complex. We know that many inventions from this complex have later been applied in civilian sectors. The most
notable example is the Internet for information exchange and communication. If governments have leverage over the
direction of R D in their countries, then they also have a responsibility to use this influence for the good of society.

Relevant knowledge remains under-produced, underutilized, unevenly distributed. (UNDP).

From the early s, academics and officials have developed technology assessment methods to foresee and evaluate
possible future directions of science and technology. The purpose was to bring about a discussion with government and
society about types of technologies desired by society. As a result, we would also have ideas of how to reduce or abort
research that would go in undesirable directions. Military and business planners were the first to use these techniques to
increase the quality of their decisions. Also, in , a study having used such techniques appeared, that would be a
milestone in global debates on environment and development. The Club of Rome put its name on the cover, and the
report’s title was Limits to Growth. It was the first public document to forecast a looming energy crisis and to warn that
fossil fuels would run out within decades.

In the mid- s, the Netherlands’ government established a temporary committee to advise on directions for spending
its long-term research money. The Foresight Steering Committee on Science and Technology brought together dozens of
researchers and users of research to design scenarios affecting their knowledge field. Based on those scenarios, the
committee gave advice to the government and other stakeholders on desirable directions for science and technologies in
those areas. Research fields included energy, earth sciences, agricultural sciences, transportation and many others.
Degrees of environmental degradation and crisis, rising resource prices and growing flows of environmental refugees
were among the trends that participants took into account.

Given that the bulk of research in the world happens in ICs, the choice of themes and research approaches are
overwhelmingly Western. This state of affairs is changing slowly as more so-called emerging economies (China, India,
Malaysia, Brazil and so on) are pouring money into science and technology, aiming to develop from imitators into
innovators.

Clark from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University mentions successful coalitions of public and private
stakeholders that together have tackled global problems such as malaria, agricultural productivity and stratospheric
ozone protection. In his view, an international research system for SD could look like this:

Target science and technology on finding solutions to the most pressing problems as prioritised by stakeholders
Integrate appropriate mixes of academic disciplines, expertise and public/private sector in support of such
problem-driven R D
Link expertise and application from local to global, notably including the countries or regions that have the
problem

Institutional Dimension

The binding glue among all of the earlier-mentioned components should ideally be a culture of sustainability. Building it is
not easy, but societies already have mechanisms to moderate the behaviour of their members. The balance between
selfish and altruistic behaviour varies from one culture to another. In highly individualistic cultures, self-serving behaviour
is more successful than co-operation. By contrast, in community-oriented cultures, the ethical norms, expectations and
laws favour the opposite. Like Tim Jackson, we could ask the following questions about the institutions in our society:

Do they promote competition or co-operation?

Do they reward self-serving behaviour or sacrifice for the benefit of others?
What signals do schools, media, and religious and community organisations send out? Which behaviour is
supported/discouraged by public investment and infrastructure?

He answers these questions by saying that these institutions in modern, consumerist society ‘send all the wrong signals’.
They discourage environment-friendly action to the extent that even the most motivated people can only be sustainable
at significant personal cost. Here are some examples:

Energy supply is subsidised and protected, while energy conservation by end-users is often chaotic and expensive;
Private transportation is encouraged through incentives over public transport; motorists are given priority over
pedestrians;
Waste disposal is easy and cheap, while recycling demands time and effort;
Nurses and other caring professions are often poorly paid.

Change requires a supportive social environment. Institutional support is needed in order to encourage and direct the
good intentions of a growing number of people around the world. The solution is in reforming informal and formal
institutions so that they will correct the balance of choice away from the present and in favour of the future. All sections
of society should accept responsibility for change. Governments, businesses and consumers, all have a role to play. The
media, community groups, religious organisations and traditional wisdom of the nations may all make a contribution.

Institutional reform may include, for instance, new arrangements to combine work, leisure and caretaker roles. Many
societies are ageing, so that a shrinking group of working-age people are having to provide for a growing group of elderly.
In order to offer the older generations a respectable quality of life, creative new ideas are needed so each age group can
combine income-generating work, volunteering, or leisure in accordance with their personal circumstances. Also, more
flexible labour contracts may be needed that allow a society to divide the available amount of work among a larger share
of the working population.

In order for companies and research institutes to develop technologies for a sustainable future, governments have to set
a clear direction through environmental norms and targets. In fact, all their policies—including those for science,
innovation and entrepreneurship—should point in the same direction. Specifically, if government policies make the
extraction of fresh resources from nature and the disposal of waste more expensive, this will generate a demand for
innovations that reduce cost by reducing the need for extraction and disposal. Experience in OECD countries has shown
that innovation can also be promoted by public investment in facilities such as competence centres, science parks and
innovation networks. These are all institutional components.

In this chapter, we have examined three major dimensions of SD issues—behavioural, institutional and technological.
Each of these focus areas holds opportunities to solve one sustainability issue without making others worse. They must be
considered together at each level—the individual, the organisation or business, and the community or society. In the next
two chapters, we turn to the major stakeholders to examine how they are involved.
We have seen that unsustainable attitudes are rooted in values that do not sufficiently consider the interests of other
people and the planet. Over long periods of time, such attitudes shape the institutions with which people organise their
society. These, in turn, reinforce the unsustainable practices and give them a sense of normality. Together, the behavioural
and institutional conditions shape tomorrow’s technology.

Now, when we set our eyes on sustainability, how can we participate in the transition? We begin by educating ourselves, as
we saw in Chapter . People who have done this will tell you that the change of attitude helped them see more and more
opportunities in all spheres of life to become more sustainable. If they share their experience, they may inspire many more
people to join the movement for greener lifestyles. However, they also experienced restrictions posed by what technology
can do and by what institutions allow. Sooner or later, the movement for sustainability has to engage institutions in the
transition for a more sustainable world. Therefore, we have to examine a little how decision-making in organisations works
and which role policies play.

This chapter discusses the role of government in co-ordinating institutional change at the state, international and below-
state levels. Moreover, the state also has an important role in overseeing processes carried out under licence by state
companies or private actors, but for which the state has to guard the public interest. The next chapter looks at how private
actors in business and civil society could take part in the sustainability transition.

One of the major challenges facing the world community as it seeks to replace unsustainable development patterns with
environmentally sound and sustainable development is the need to activate a sense of common purpose on behalf of all
sectors of society. The chances of forging such a sense of purpose will depend on the willingness of all sectors to participate
in genuine social partnership and dialogue, while recognizing the independent roles, responsibilities and special capacities
of each. (Agenda , Chapter )

Government in the twenty-first century is quite big, and its impacts on society and the planet are substantial. Some of
these impacts come from the simple fact that modern states need a lot of materials and energy to do their work. Other
impacts stem from the framework conditions that the state sets for public and private actors. A brief explanation of the
state’s public purposes goes a long way to make clear how the government’s decisions impact the natural environment.
Table . provides an overview.

In each of its roles, the government may support society by sustainability standards or keep it away from sustainable
outcomes. For instance, if the government hands out permits for commercial logging at prices way below the full value of
the forest, then it implicitly encourages overexploitation. It also sets the particular interest of the forestry and wood
processing industry over the general interest. On the other hand, if the government purchases sustainable goods for its
own use (green procurement), it gives markets a powerful signal that it pays to supply such goods. When an organisation or
community wants to become sustainable, it already has structures, rules and traditions that are not necessarily in
agreement with SD. To change that, the initiators should work through its official procedures to amend existing rules or
create new ones. It is likely that the change process is deep or comprehensive. Here, the eight-step strategic change
process designed by John Kotter is a great help.
A government agency may have a vision of its own role that is like one of the worldviews we have described in Chapter .
For instance, an environment ministry with a bio-environmentalist worldview has a more activist view of its role than an
economics ministry with a market liberal stance. Also, the way the agency fulfils its official mandate may depend on the
personal worldviews of those in leadership. Organisations make numerous decisions in many areas. In theory, they may
leave every decision to the professional judgment of the management. In practice, they are likely to have an implicit or
explicit policy. This is a set of principles and objectives that define how the organisation will deal with specific issues. For
instance, it may have a working hours policy that states regular work hours, overtime hours, rules in case of sickness and
entitlement to days off.

The local, regional or national government is likely to have policies that agree with the views of the ruling party or coalition.
This implies that the government’s policies have an expiry date around the next elections. What distinguishes a policy from
a set of unrelated decisions is that they are based on principles and not dependent on the whim of the day. A notable
advantage of policy is that it brings predictability to the public sphere, which helps non-state actors to anticipate and plan.
This fact is of great importance for SD. The change required for sustainability takes many years and exceeds the cycles of
political office. Moreover, change in one policy area needs to be complemented by change in others. It is, therefore,
important that successive cabinets do not seek to reinvent the wheel but adhere to a SD framework.

At the level of a single issue, let us now examine a rational decision-making model (modified from Robbins and Judge
). In its simplest form, you may use it to solve your personal or academic issues. A more developed form may serve
your company or NGO. In the public sector version, the policy cycle stages have the following labels:

. Identify the problem and set the agenda: The issue first needs to be described (or ‘framed’), for how this is done
will impact the kind of solution. The political-administrative agenda is always burdened with issues competing for
attention. Strong arguments and evidence are needed to succeed. What steps should be taken: more research,
new measures or better law enforcement?
. Develop a policy goal and choose an effective policy instrument mix: This is the stage where officials work with
research institutes and perhaps stakeholders on assessing the risks for people, planet and prosperity and choosing
policy goals. Who needs to change behaviour and how could they be motivated to do so? The right policy mix will
achieve the policy goals in time and at an acceptable socio-economic cost.
. Enact a law or rule: After the executive has selected its preferred solution, negotiations start with agencies whose
opinion or action may influence the final decision or its implementation. The law-making body adopts the law or
rule and publishes it, which makes it binding on all.
. Implement the policy: The executive may set up a new agency or department to carry out the new policy. Also, it
may issue new instructions, hire new personnel and contact the regulated to work out details of how the law
 should be followed. A monitoring system collects specific, measurable and reliable information on key indicators of
company performance. Its results are input for law enforcement officials who must make sure that the law is
respected and obeyed.
. Evaluate and make changes: Evaluation researchers assess how well the new law or rule is working and advice
lawmakers about changes that might improve the situation.

The model presented previously is called the Rational or Root model of decision-making. The word ‘root’ refers to the
depth of investigating causes and alternative solutions before the decision-maker selects a course of action. It works in
conditions where the problem is clear and unambiguous, the goal well-defined, the policy alternatives and their
consequences known, and the preferences clear and stable. In practice, there is no careful finishing of one stage before
beginning the next. Sometimes, a crisis or new research findings force decision-makers to move back a stage. Herbert
Simon modified the model to include a more restricted view of rationality and a lower ambition regarding the outcome—
not optimising a variable, but satisfying a minimum requirement.

According to Charles Lindblom, however, most organisations work under large uncertainties as well as time and money
constraints. As a result, they cannot afford to go through all stages of the Root model in most situations. Instead, they
move forward in small steps, thus limiting options and risks, and waiting for circumstances to develop (branching off).
Lindblom calls this the Branch model. He says it works well in routine situations, which is why it is so widely used. However,
if an organisation applies the Branch model to a radically new situation, the issue does not get resolved but grows bigger
and deeper over time. A good example is the way many city governments approach the issue of solid waste disposal. At
some point of their history, these cities entered the consumerist era with its fast-growing quantities of per capita waste
and its changed waste composition. However, they try to deal with waste problems in the old way—more waste removal
bins and trucks, and expansion of landfill space; but no prevention and little reuse or recycling. Use of the Root model
would reveal that solid waste in the consumerist era can only be managed by looking at the entire product life cycle.
Measures to prevent and reduce waste amounts should come first, then measures to reuse products and recycle materials,
then waste incineration plus energy generation and, lastly, sending waste to a landfill. More details about the waste
problem will be discussed in our chapter about cities. Here, it is enough for you to see that the critical step in each problem
definition stage is: Are we dealing with a routine issue or with a new problem requiring an in-depth investigation?

During the sustainability transition, cities and countries will encounter issues where sustainability considerations have not
played a role before. In order to spread cost and workload, they will have to plan change projects in different parts of
society over many years. In order to be consistent and fair, there will have to be a strategic development plan that states
principles and binds all projects together in a common framework. The framework takes care of economic, social and
ecological interactions to make sure that each project reinforces the other ones and that enabling conditions (improved
public awareness, policy co-ordination and law enforcement) are in place. This is what it means to activate a sense of
common purpose, as Agenda put it.

Not long ago, in many situations where social or environmental sustainability should have been an issue, it was not taken
into account at all or was way down the priority list. In Chapter , we examined some of the reasons behind that state of
affairs. They included lack of knowledge and awareness, the view that it was somebody else’s business, no incentive to care
for common property (an open-access resource) or the conviction that the problem will ultimately go away by itself.
Historically, things started changing because those negatively affected by business or government agency decisions
organised themselves and appealed for help. New knowledge was gathered in the policy process, and gradually attitudes
changed. Citizens’ groups are often single-issue movements that get their motivation and energy from suffering personal
damage. Whether they achieved anything depended on the quality of their evidence, their abilities to influence the
political-administrative process and the socio-political culture in the country.

Economic interests have the longest experience in making themselves heard, and governments generally pay close
attention to them. Social interests became organised later in time, but by now, many group and general interests have
their channels of influence to the centres of public policy-making. The environmental interest was the last of these three to
become organised. Of course, the incentive for social organisation was stronger where people were affected through
environmental pollution than where only nature suffered from human action. Nature quietly takes in what people do to it,
but the feedback effects hurt people’s quality of life, for instance, through mass animal death or human disease.

Taking a step back, we observe that the social and environmental impacts of production and consumption are rarely
investigated in-depth before these processes begin on a commercial scale. It would be too costly, but countries do require
health impact tests for critical things such as food, beverage and medicine. As a result, pollution must first run its course
before evidence causes businesses, citizens or the government to take action. Since polluting activities have been
established as normal, the affected social or environmental interests have a hard time making their case. So, for instance,
when Rachel Carson published her concerns about harmful, unrestricted pesticide use in , she was violently opposed
by industry, which attacked both the quality of her work and her integrity as a scientist. Over time, environmental laws
have forced more businesses to monitor their own environmental performance and report about it to stakeholders and
government.

Governments are responsible for planning infrastructure and authorising the use of environment and natural resources. In
the exercise of their duties, government agencies routinely initiate or approve projects that have significant impacts on
ecosystems and local communities. Examples include the construction of a road, airport or flood protection system. There
are business projects with significant environmental and health impacts that require a permit from a government agency,
for instance logging and mining concessions or permits to operate a chemical factory. In both cases, individuals and groups
of citizens whose lives are potentially affected by such decisions depend on the officials for collecting relevant information,
and fairly weighing stakeholder interests. For any of the reasons mentioned earlier, things have often turned out negatively
for nature and for groups that are not well funded and organised. A precarious situation might happen if public officials do
not consider alternative solutions, because they already have a preference for a certain project design. As a result, projects
may get the go-ahead without full knowledge of the costs and consequences.

In response to disasters in many parts of the world, new laws and procedures have been developed to ensure that all
relevant information and interests are explicitly taken into account from the earliest stages of decision-making. An example
from Bangladesh shows the importance of participation of stakeholders and consideration of their legitimate interests. In
the late s, the Government of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) worked with international financial institutions to
construct the Kaptai hydropower dam in the eastern hill country. While it was designed to provide electricity for urban
needs, of the Chittagong hill tracts would be driven from their native land by the water that would form a large lake
behind the dam. They would lose their livelihood unless given suitable resettlement conditions. Unfortunately, the
compensation promised was never delivered. The affected, desperate tribes responded in various ways. Some moved twice
for the water, while others fled to neighbouring countries or engaged in armed conflict. Eventually, the cost in terms of
damage, casualties and refugees was much higher than anticipated. Proper consultation and compensation would have
prevented this tragic outcome.

By requiring an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) governments compel their own officials to consider all
relevant information before making a decision on major projects over a certain size. The Box . has an example of the
procedure. National laws will normally describe in which situations an ESIA is required and how it is to be conducted.
International development banks and agencies have similar requirements in their procedure handbooks. The reality is that
they only did so after learning lessons from cases that went terribly wrong in social and/or environmental respect. It is very
important that we and our organisations draw lessons from such cases.

Another example from the same country shows how institutions learn to make better decisions. During project
preparations for the Jamuna Multi-purpose Bridge (opened in ) the relevant development banks hired consultants to
investigate the displacement and resettlement issue. The bridgeheads were expected to narrow the river, thereby forcing
the water flow through a smaller opening and raising water levels in the process. Inhabited islands in the stream would be
flooded and hundreds of families would lose their homes and livelihoods. However, as a result of the generous
compensation package and assistance in moving, opposition against the project was minimal. We may conclude that
investigation of all possible impacts, especially of those negatively affected, is important in making better decisions in a
more sustainable world.

The next step in stakeholder involvement in public decisions is the Aarhus Convention ( ). It was negotiated within the
UNECE, which covers northern Eurasia. Parties to this treaty give their citizens the rights of access to information, public
participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters. The rationale of the treaty is that when
people can hold government agencies accountable in these matters that directly affect their quality of life, there will be
stronger incentives for politicians and civil servants to aim for truly SD. Let us consider how the three rights are connected.
When a public agency is making plans (its own initiative or a licence for private activity) that affect certain communities
then they should first exercise their right to the information. This will enable them to seek help and assess how the decision
will affect them. Similarly, the convention sets minimum standards for meaningful public participation, which includes the
right to inspect information free of charge, the right to attend public meetings and the right to receive word on how the
authorities used the public’s comments in reaching its final decision. The convention’s annex contains a list of projects that
require public participation. Finally, the rights of access to information and of public participation are only effective if the
concerned party can start an administrative procedure or go to court in case its rights are denied. Under the treaty, the
courts must consider such cases brought by individual citizens, NGOs or companies. There must be access to a review
process that is fair, timely and affordable. Final decisions of the judiciary must be in writing and binding on the authorities.
In order to promote the widest possible knowledge of its workings, UNECE and UNEP have produced information guides,
websites and regional information centres.

In the world’s political system, states are still the highest authority—they are sovereign. They may agree with other states
to transfer specific powers to international organisations, such as the European Union. Nevertheless, the legitimacy of that
power is still the sovereignty of the states that founded the organisation. In the last half century, however, the ability of
states to impact political, economic and environmental processes has weakened. Other global actors have similar or bigger
influence than some states, for instance TNCs. These are companies that have their headquarters in one country and
branches (called subsidiaries) in other countries. The subsidiaries take instructions from the head offices and report back to
them. More about their position and influence is described in the next chapter.

International organisations, established and jointly governed by states for specific purposes, may also have important
impacts on the course of development. This can either be favourable or detrimental for social or environmental
sustainability. According to Pamela Chasek in her book Global Environmental Politics, intergovernmental organisations
(IGOs) exert their influence in one or more of the following ways:

It may influence which issues the international community addresses by lobbying among governments for things to be put
on the agenda

It may convene and influence negotiations for an international treaty

It may provide independent and authoritative information on an issue
It may develop norms or ethical codes to guide action of stakeholders
It may affect the implementation of sustainability issues by providing funds

We may put IGOs in lots of different categories. For our purpose, it seems helpful to put them in one of the following
groups:

Established to serve an SD purpose

Successfully integrated sustainability into a broader work area
IGOs that pay lip service to SD but have below average credibility in that sphere

Examples of the Group include the UNEA (formerly UNEP), the GEF and the secretariats of MEA, such as the Montreal
Protocol and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The division of other IGOs into Groups and is arbitrary.
There is consensus that the UN FAO has been fairly consistent in integrating sustainability into all of its work. Other IGOs,
such as the WB, IMF and WTO, are consistently criticised for impacting sustainability in negative ways through decisions
and funding.

More than years after the first Rio Earth Summit, we can see that sustainability thinking has made great strides and is
here to stay. Yet, it still has a long way to go in some sectors and countries.

In this section, we look at each of the stages of the policy cycle in more detail. The emphasis is on three phases that are
frequently underestimated and require particular attention in DC contexts, where governance capacity is more limited and
awareness of environmental issues is low. Thus, a government may fail to define the problem at hand from an SD
perspective if no politician or civil servant has received any training in this. As a result, the chosen solution will soon prove
insufficient, because the problem was ill-diagnosed.

Another stage worth paying attention to is the stage of instrument choice. Traditionally most countries put environmental
effectiveness first and choose rules and regulation—nicknamed command and control—with various degrees of success.
However, in a context of serious resource constraints and competitive world markets, there is a growing need to achieve
policy goals at the lowest possible cost to society—a matter of efficiency. There is a growing body of experience of using EIs
in DC contexts—a choice to be considered.

Finally, a policy stage requiring special attention in this book is monitoring and law enforcement. Where this is poor, the
results of government policies will not be achieved in the short term, and the country may, in fact, attract foreign
businesses that prefer to work under conditions of low environmental quality standards and deficient law enforcement.
S ep Iden if he P oblem and Se he Agenda

Exactly what is the problem? In order to answer that question, involvement of stakeholders may be very useful. The field of
community development has built up an array of useful tools to help groups of people define their problems. One such tool
is the problem tree. The trunk of the tree represents the problem, the branches its consequences and the roots its causes.
During the exercise, the facilitator asks the participants lots of specific questions in order to fill out the tree together. In the
end, the community have a much better understanding of the problem, its uncertainties and unknown factors. In fact,
through the exercise, they may even discover that the problem as they saw it first was not the real problem. An example
from Central Asia might illustrate this. Initially, the villagers stated lack of transport to the city as their main problem.
Through questioning, the facilitators found out that the village children needed treatment for a disease that did not occur
in the village before independence from the Soviet Union. It turned out that economic hardship had so changed people’s
personal hygiene that the weakest community members were getting sick. Evidently, the real problem was the lack of
proper hygiene to prevent sickness!

This example illustrates that effective policy-makers need to have the right information and good investigation skills. As you
start defining your problem, you may find that you need information you do not have. Fortunately, in the age of
information and communication, you can contact peers from governments, businesses or NGOs in other countries to share
their experience. Perhaps you are already member of a professional network on the Internet, where you can ask your
queries and find news and ideas about current environment and development affairs. Moreover, the Internet is a vast
global repository of resources. However, some are reliable and others are of poor quality. It takes time and practice in
finding your way around and avoiding the traps. Your organisation may have relevant information systems, such as a library
or electronic databases. However, these do not always give all the answers if they were designed to answer the questions
that the management had at the time of construction. New problems and perspectives require new types of information,
which take time, money and expertise to collect. In conclusion, you finish the problem definition stage with a preliminary
description of your problem and an inventory of issues for further investigation.

S ep De elop a Polic Goal and In men Mi

The next phase of policy formulation calls for assessing the risks involved and setting the policy goal. Perhaps the most
important decision made at this stage is answering the question: What should be accomplished by government
intervention? If the risk for people and the environment is large or the potential consequences huge, the only reasonable
goal might be an outright ban of a substance or practice. For instance, when the US government accepted Rachel Carson’s
evidence about the dangers of several pesticides in the s, it responded by banning some and restricting others. Where
the threat to society is not so severe or clear-cut, there is room for compromise. Which level of pollution is acceptable, and
what should the norm be? In the case of lead (Pb, a heavy metal), researchers in the USA initially came up with an
acceptable level of lead in the blood of g/dl, which was adjusted downwards twice, to g/dl. Research continued,
and years later the conclusion was that no level of lead in human blood is safe and children are especially at risk. Now, once
the goal is set, policy-makers will try to calculate the costs of the new policy and balance them against the benefits. Due to
difficulties in measuring cost and benefits, officials sometimes have to use an alternative criterion. They prefer ‘hard’
financial information over qualitative benefits, but scientists cannot always give it. Even if they can, it may involve making
judgments that really elected politicians should make. Ultimately, the decision of what risks and costs are acceptable is a
political one.

Which policy instruments should be chosen to achieve a given goal? Your first response might be to make a law that bans
the harmful action or orders a specific technological solution. Indeed, this is what governments traditionally have done.
However, as discussed in Chapter , they noticed over time that the multitude of rules and regulations became quite a
burden. For the state, because it had to create agencies to carry out the regulations and pay the costs through taxes or
special charges. For the businesses involved, because they had too many conflicting rules to comply with and too many
administrative agencies with sometimes contradictory decisions. In response, governments streamlined their laws and tried
other approaches such as EIs and voluntary schemes. Policy instrument strengths and disadvantages are discussed in detail
further.
In Chapter , we asked the question: What incentives or motivations do people have to adopt sustainable habits? The
answer is summarised in Table . —the fear of punishment for law-breaking, the financial disincentive for non-preferred
behaviour (for instance fossil energy use) or the satisfaction for doing the right thing. Now we have come to the point
where motivation matters. When governments, businesses and NGOs want to make effective behavioural rules for their
citizens, employees and members, they should build the right incentives into them.

Each category of policy instrument has a range of tools within it, whose details are beyond the scope of this book.
However, it is important to emphasise here that the categories are not exclusive. This means that instruments from these
groups may actually complement each other in actual situations. Thus, rules and regulations need public information
campaigns to explain to the target audience what is expected and how to comply. Legislation does not depend on voluntary
co-operation to make it work, but voluntary compliance does enormously reduce the law enforcement workload. Similarly,
the introduction of EIs should also be accompanied by public information campaigns in order to explain the rationale for
their use. It is easy to misunderstand them as ‘just another burden on defenceless people’. Finally, many environmental
issues are so diverse that they need several instruments to address different parts of them. For instance, in the case of lead
(Pb), its use was banned in solder for cans, its phase-out in automobile fuel was addressed by a tradable permit scheme for
refineries, and its presence in paint in the water pipes in old homes was addressed by a public information campaign.

Legal Rules and Regulations: The main feature of legal instruments is that they are enforceable in a court of law.
The most foundational law in a country is the constitution. It contains basic rights and obligations of citizens, as
well as a description of government structure and public agency responsibilities. In recent decades many countries
have adopted in their constitutions either the citizens’ right to a healthy living environment or the government’s
duty to provide it. Constitutions are protected against too frequent changes by a procedure that requires two-
thirds majority and often also parliamentary elections before the final adoption of the changes. An environmental
law is any law that protects or regulates the use of the environment, controls pollution and gives rules for the
management of risks such as radiation. Examples include laws on air and water quality, nature protection,
sustainable use of forest and fisheries, mining legislation and rules governing the collection of genetic resources,
liability for damage to the environment, waste management and land use. Laws are made according to
constitutional procedures, and their creation or change (amendment) takes a lot of time. Parliament is the law-
making body, but the initiative to draft a proposal often comes from government, the executive. Parliament itself
sometimes initiates laws, and in some constitutional systems, large groups of citizens may also request debate
about their proposal. Environmental law-making requires not only a deep sense of political realities and feasibility
but also legal and economic expertise. Laws may cause conflict and court cases if they contain inconsistencies
within themselves or with other existing laws. Also, if the expected economic impacts of a new law are not
considered before its adoption, government may come under pressure to change or withdraw laws—a waste of
time, money and credibility. Environmental laws must be practical and enforceable, so lawmakers should maintain
effective communication with their environmental law enforcement agency. Remember that credible monitoring
and enforcement is an important link of the policy chain. Fines and other sanctions must be sufficiently serious to
deter potential law breakers. Finally, laws seldom contain details which could quickly become outdated. While the
law provides the overall approach to solving the issue, details are better left to regulations or decrees written by
public agencies using their best professional judgement. What distinguishes rules and regulations from the other
instrument types is that their requirements (emission limits or a ban) apply uniformly to all those who meet the
conditions listed in the law.
Economic Instruments: The first uses of financial or EIs were charges that users of drinking water, sewage and
public transport paid for these services. In some cases, the user charge was enough to cover the cost, while in
other cases, the service was subsidised. Stricter application of the ‘user pays principle’ has led to charge increases
for libraries and public transport in some countries. The cost of paying the administrative cost of implementing air
and water quality laws is also covered by charges per unit of emission (of gas) or effluent (of waste water). The
second motivation for using financial charges is to raise revenue from taxing environmentally harmful activities for
investment in environmental protection. Such labelled or ‘earmarked’ revenue may run via the normal state
budget or be channelled through a special fund. Several transition countries in Central and Eastern Europe have
such practice. Earmarking may make the introduction of pollution charges more politically acceptable, since a
portion of the revenue will be used for subsidies on environmental improvements in the same sphere. The third
motivation for applying financial or EIs was added as it was discovered over time—to change the incentive
structure from favouring harmful to supporting sustainable actions. When companies cause pollution that harms
nature and other people, it really enjoys the benefits of resource use without paying all the costs. Economists say
that some costs are outside the company’s decision-making, so those effects are called externalities. In actual fact,
that cost is put on society in the form of health or livelihood damage until the government decides to correct this
 error. In other words, by applying charges based on the PPP, governments can shift the burden back to where it
belongs and so internalise the cost. The company will start looking for the most cost-effective way to reduce or
eliminate the pollution.
A good example is the total cost of packaging waste. Of course, the producer calculates the cost of obtaining
packaging material in the product price, but the cost of treating the packaging after product use is left for others.
Increasing amounts of wrappers, blisters and plastic bags end up littering our streets, fields and waterways.
Removing this waste involves cost that local governments are unwilling or unable to bear. Actually, it is important
to recognise that current incentives favour abundant use of packaging material that quickly becomes waste. There
is a growing consensus that all costs caused by use and disposal of a product should be part of the product price
(the PPP). When prices reflect the full cost of products, users can make more rational decisions and reduce their
overconsumption. Some developed countries are making good progress in charging the cost from those who cause
it, for instance by declaring producer responsibility for waste processing regarding certain product categories. The
intention is to give producers an incentive to design their products in such a way that repair and recycling become
easier. Worldwide, there is still a long way to go.
There are some practical issues, however, in applying this principle in a context of high income inequality. If the
charges affect basic goods and services, they will be felt more by the poor than by the wealthy. An adjustment of
social support policies should accompany the new charge to compensate for this effect. For example, when Curitiba
introduced its new waste management system, the city rewarded people from poor neighbourhoods with bus
tickets for bringing in recyclables. On the business side, there is the issue of how higher production cost will affect
the companies’ market prices and competitive position. Here, the charge could be gradually phased in or be
accompanied by a temporary subsidy to facilitate the introduction of an environmental technology. If charges are
set too low, they will not have any incentive effect. However, if they’re too high, both economic development and
environmental improvement might suffer.
EIs are not suitable for situations that pose high risks to human health and the environment, such as hazardous
waste management. EIs essentially do not prohibit but discourage the item or process they apply to. So in these
situations, strictly stated and enforced standards are better.
Voluntary Programmes (information and persuasion): ‘Public information campaigns’ are a collection of messages
by governments of NGOs aimed at changing the public’s attitude towards an issue and encouraging a behavioural
change. An example of a campaign aimed at raising environmental awareness was the campaign ‘A Better
Environment Begins with You!’ in the Netherlands ( s). Its logo was an image of Earth held and protected by
human hands. The campaign ran for several years and was combined with specific campaigns for environmental
solutions, such as separate waste collection for recycling. Note that in such cases, the campaign complemented
ordinary regulation. To ensure effectiveness, each campaign was preceded by field research into public attitudes,
and key campaign messages and visuals were tested out on a panel of representative people. To go ahead without
such research and testing has a high risk of wasting public funds on ill-targeted campaigns. Afterwards, the
campaigns were evaluated to see if they had the intended effect.
Another type of information and persuasion instrument is aimed at greening businesses cost-effectively. Voluntary
programmes have the potential to produce environmental benefits beyond the demands of the law. By
participating, companies can show their stakeholders (clients, suppliers and investors) signs of responsible
stewardship. They may do this in order to obtain loyalty from customers, obtain room to add value and raise prices
or market share, or to avoid charges and prohibitive standards. In fact, investors perceive lower risk of costly
problems and, therefore, higher value to shareholders. Chapter has more on voluntary programmes for business.
They may be voluntary, but they are not necessarily weak or ineffective. For instance, certification for sustainable
tourism in Costa Rica improved the environmental performance of the country’s entire tourism industry.
A third type of voluntary programme is the award scheme, which seeks to promote environment-friendly
inventions or exceptional sustainability leadership. Examples include the UNEP-Sasakawa Prize for environmental
leadership. The media attention highlights their example for the general public and policy-makers, and it motivates
people with leadership potential to take steps to realise their sustainability dream. Moreover, the prize money
enables the winner to achieve more for the sustainable cause.

S ep Enac a R le o La and Implemen i

Depending on a country’s legal structures and political culture, the negotiation process is with different branches of
government only or with strategic stakeholders in society also. Support among stakeholders generally favours the
acceptance and implementation of new rules or laws. To turn the letter of the law into action, several things are needed:
an agency tasked with the responsibility to instruct and oversee, qualified people for the new tasks, mechanisms to collect
systematic data on indicators of success and budgets to pay for these things. Once the law-making body adopts the law or
rule and publishes it in a journal or rule book, it becomes binding on all.

S ep Moni o and Enfo ce he R le o La

Environmental law enforcement is an important sphere, because the policy cycle chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Law enforcement is about using the full force of the state to make those under the law do what the law says, even if they
are unwilling. The most important characteristics of the entities that must comply with environmental laws are their
number, size and geographical spread.

Let’s begin with number. If a pollutant is only released from a handful of companies in the country, these will be
well-known to the Environmental Enforcement Authority (ENFA). By contrast, if there are thousands of small- and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that release it, the ENFA needs to make a realistic plan of how often it can make
on-site visits to check for compliance. They are often ignored for lack of administrative resources, but their
combined pollution may be more important than that of a few big companies.
Size is important because it connects with the company’s capacity to generate tax income and provide
employment. In the real world, the top managers of large companies have good access to the corridors of power to
make their complaints heard. In order to deal with larger companies that may try to avoid compliance, the ENFA
needs to be stronger and have unconditional political backing.
Geographical spread plays a role in the organisation of the ENFA and its relative size compared to the companies it
must check. Most ENFAs have regional offices to deal with the regulated companies in their area. However, if a
company is of national importance, it is better to have the head office deal with it. Businesses located far from
ENFA offices may feel they are unobserved, unless the ENFA’s policies make them feel otherwise.

The goal of enforcement is to achieve the purpose of the environmental law by encouraging constructive co-operation,
assuming respect for the law and the desire to fulfil reasonable requirements. The high level of compliance in the absence
of strict enforcement in some countries has led researchers to investigate. They found the following motives for
compliance by business:

Positive incentives: Satisfaction of doing the right thing; responsibility to share- and stakeholders; eco-innovate to
create business advantages.
Negative incentives: High chance of being caught; sufficiently high fine as a deterrent; avoid negative reactions
from customers and society.

Challenges to fulfilling the ENFA’s role in the public interest may come from outside and from within. Powerful business
interests may resist full application of the law, and they may mobilise support from government or parliament officials. Will
the government support a tough approach to law enforcement if it means hurting a company that provides significant tax
income and employment? How about the general public? An incentive from within could be that the agency leadership
have organisational ambitions that deviate from its public task. Another challenge could be in social pressures upon
individuals to put private interests over public.

S ep E al a e and Make Change

Governing in the twenty-first century is a complex task. No policy or law gets it right the first time round for a variety of
reasons. For instance, policy-makers have to make assumptions about demographic and economic factors or trends that
may turn out differently. Also, several government policies may affect the same household or business activity, dampening
or reinforcing the intended effect. Therefore, it is important that each policy defines indicators, whose development over
time serves as an indicator of success or the need for more change. Of course, to set up an organisation and pay people to
conduct such policy evaluations can be costly. However, to spend public money in ways that are not checked for
effectiveness could be even more costly. For this reason, Mexico decided (in the year CE) to introduce compulsory
evaluation for programmes that gave subsidies for social and economic purposes. Such programmes included support for
poor farmers (seeds and so on), migrant workers (child minding and so on), the urban poor (job training and electrification)
and so on. Initially, problems existed in establishing a responsibility centre in a ministry that had no direct task in
implementing the social programmes, and in finding qualified people to carry out the evaluations. Later, the challenge
shifted to proper timing (as part of the state budget cycle) and building trust between the evaluators and the evaluated
organisations. Gradually, the evaluated became more co-operative, the evaluators more competent and the evaluations
more meaningful. One lesson learnt was that knowledge of the issue area is important to help evaluators ask the right
questions. Language can be an issue when evaluators do not speak minority languages of the benefit recipients. Another
lesson learnt was that the process worked best when both evaluator and evaluated have a common interest in making the
policy programme work better.

Bio en i onmen ali Emphasise that all human systems can and should develop within the natural limits of the
biosphere. At the moment, the size of human systems compared to the biosphere has grown so big that we are
overshooting our boundaries in some respects. Bio-environmentalists want strict and enforceable limits on economic and
population growth. They say that government policy should focus on maximising human well-being and not on
continuously enlarging the totality of production in money terms. To help policy-makers see how this might work, people
like Herman Daly have developed alternative measurements of a country’s well-being, such as the Indicator of Sustainable
Economic Wellbeing (ISEW). The new ethic of sustainability strives for a ‘steady-state economy’. This is an economy that
continues to improve the ways people’s needs are met, but without material expansion.

The more extreme views among bio-environmentalists such as Paul Ehrlich pleaded for population control with a measure
of coercion. However, bad experience with such programmes has led this group to soften their views on the matter to
include more persuasion. Please note that bio-environmentalists are also pretty radical on the matter of overconsumption,
favouring global restraints on production, trade and TNCs. It is obvious that the only authority legitimised and strong
enough to put this advice into practice is the state. Well, according to some, we should have a supranational authority to
constrain powerful market forces. Also, we need new attitudes, norms and policies that internalise the value of all life on
earth. Both the economic and population policies of bio-environmentalists rely on education, which for this purpose must
be drastically reformed to include sustainability. As a result of wrong worldviews and attitudes towards the natural
environment, the environment is viewed as disconnected things rather than as a network of living systems. The renewed
education system must teach people to live within ecological limits. People need to break free from the idea that they are
only consumers who mindlessly follow the trends that commercial forces map out for them.

In i ionali Agree with market liberals that free markets, trade and investment, and globalisation are desirable for
achieving SD. Yet, they also hold that the forces of globalisation must be guided and directed by stronger multilateral
environmental agreements (MEAs). They are concerned that many of the currently over treaties are not strong enough
to keep global economy and society within ecological and social limits. In particular, institutionalists have noticed that
MEAs have a tendency to start off weak and grow stronger over time under the pressures of scandals (waste dumping and
poaching) and new scientific studies into the ecology or implementation of the treaty issue. As a result, studies and projects
increasingly focus on treaty implementation, compliance and enforcement. Institutionalists see a role for voluntary
greening of industry and transfer of technology to DCs. Yet, their strongest hopes are on building more capacity for
environmental management and leadership at the country level and strengthening the environmental function in the UN
system. While some have proposed to reform and strengthen the UNEP, others advocate a new body with executive
powers that could be called the World Environment Organisation. It would play a major role in implementing the
precautionary principle and redefining priority between MEAs and other international agreements, such as WTO.

Recent history suggests that those living i n wealthier countries do not intend to consume and waste less. Given that the
other of the planet’s people seek to emulate those consumption habits, the only hope for sustainability is to change
forms of consumption. To do so, we must innovate. (WBCSD )

Ma ke libe al Hold on to the endless growth paradigm, and imagine that eventually the political will and funds for SD will
come from people who have their needs met. Since sustainability is in the long-term interest of business, they say,
companies should be encouraged to pursue eco-friendly innovation through voluntary programmes. Examples include the
UN Global Compact and International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) standards. Governments should invest more in
high-quality education and in R D programmes. Market liberals argue that the need for rules and regulation will diminish
over time, and improvements could even take place in the absence of good governance. TNCs, in their view, are an ideal
channel for sharing sustainable technologies with their subsidiaries and suppliers in DCs. States should minimise their use
of bans, controls and tariff barriers, and instead use market-based instruments.

Social g een Want a new global ethic to create more inclusive and environment-friendly societies. They clearly reject
globalisation as a source of problems rather than solutions. The moderates propose to downgrade global economic
institutions and put them under new oversight. For instance, they would put the WTO under a new global agreement on
sustainable trade. The more radical thinkers argue that the WTO, WB and IMF should be abolished completely. They
advocate a return to more localised economies, where now marginalised groups are re-empowered to take up roles in
sustainable management of resources. These are indigenous groups, women and ethnic minorities. There is some room,
though, for forms of fair trade where raw material producers get fair wages for their labour. Moreover, social greens want
to cancel DC debts and mobilise citizen action to promote justice and peace. Obviously, this kind of radical thought and
action may only become mainstream if politicians cease to listen to the best organised and funded interests in economy
and society.

In this chapter, we have reviewed the roles of government in directing stakeholders to become more sustainable—making
the rules of the game and walking the talk. We have emphasised that it is so important for leaders to lead by example, and
the government has numerous opportunities to do this. We presented the policy cycle here in order to help you think in
ways that organisations think so you might know how to initiate institutional change. When the proposed change is
unusual or uncertain, it had better start small. For small changes to happen, you do not need many people, but for a major
transition to take off in a business or community, you do. Only then, small-scale successes are scaled up, connected and
fitted into the larger systems of society. The change becomes visible, even to staff who are not yet aware or convinced. At
that moment, more perspectives and interests will be involved, so it will take more talking and compromising before work
can begin. Not even proponents of SD may all have the same ideas and preferences. For instance, an energy official may
stress secure energy provision over environment, while a climate change official may accept higher risk to energy security
in return for emission reduction. For change to succeed, key decision-makers must commit to a common course. After the
strategy has been established, opposition to the change should not be allowed to block or delay progress.

In , Forum for the Future, an association of sustainability minded companies, called for more proactive and integrated
types of leadership by public sector agencies. The report, entitled Stepping Up. A Framework for Public Sector Leadership
on Sustainability, distinguishes five stages of SD leadership, from uninvolved to fully integrated. Table . summarises the
main ideas.

In developed countries, few organisations fall in the first and last categories. Sustainability has become inescapable, and
public pressure to comply is significant. On the other end, very few, if any agencies have attained the ideal of full
integration. However, in other parts of the world, the situation may be very different. The lack of enabling conditions
hinders the scale and speed of the sustainability transition in DCs. The bottlenecks and proposed solutions are summarised
in Table . .

Let us examine how these problems could be dealt with. Each solution matches the corresponding problem from the list.
Some solutions address more than one problem.
Make ESD a Top P io i

The first two solutions are both forms of ESD, a broad range of awareness-raising forms of education, training and public
communication. Together they will create a broad sense that society is entering a new era of collective endeavour.
Societies that have a fair degree of trust will be able to move faster, while those who lack trust invest in building it on the
way. Literally, for lack of trust entails higher cost of doing business and government, but it is a long-term invaluable
investment.

Make a Ne S a in F aming I e

Select a few key issues and use those to gain experience in a more participatory mode of decision-making suitable for SD
problems. Obviously, the government will not have the capacity or resources to do this on a wide scale, so it makes sense
to select one or more pressing local or national issues, such as the food-water-energy nexus (for arid countries) or urban
development (for fast-growing megacities). Support for such an approach may be found among IGOs, such as UNDP or the
global city network International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). They offer an opportunity for sharing
the growing body of useful SD experience that is available worldwide. Moreover, UN organisations and others are
increasingly promoting exchange of experience and co-operation among countries that are similar in development level
and circumstances, for instance in South–South Cooperation.

Rein en En i onmen al La Enfo cemen

In many transition and DCs, law enforcement is a weak link. The result is that even good-quality environmental laws do not
achieve their goals, because large-scale law breaking (or non-compliance) is possible without serious consequences. This
erodes the general respect for the law and weakens the authority of government. Widespread corruption, which deeply
affects law-enforcement agencies, reduces the chances of policy success even further. The OECD conducted a consultation
process among enforcement experts from its own IC members and transition countries in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus
and Central Asia. In , the group published Guiding Principles for Reform of Environmental Enforcement Authorities.
The document discusses principles that deal with the ENFA’s legal status, budget, employment conditions and work
routine. Selected guiding principles are paraphrased below and ordered according to their purpose:

P omo e Ac i e Compliance Ra he Than P ni i e Sanc ion

In securing compliance, prevention is better than cure; ENFAs should maximise the deterrent effect of their
activities and work with companies to improve their self-monitoring, reporting and voluntary compliance with the
law.
ENFAs should treat the regulated companies fairly; enforcement actions should have solid evidence and treat
similar cases in the same way; a system of public disclosure could promote transparency and acceptance.
Environmental regulations should set technically and economically feasible objectives for companies; new
requirements should be phased in over a transition period; evaluation reports should be shared with lawmakers in
order to improve legislative quality.

Reinfo ce Independence and C edibili

ENFAs should be established as autonomous organisations with clear legal responsibilities and sufficient powers to
achieve their objectives.
The ENFA’s professional ethics should prohibit theft, fraud, bribery, abuse and misconduct of any kind.
Accountability of ENFA managers and other staff—their willingness to explain decisions that required best
professional judgement—will promote integrity.
ENFAs should effectively communicate with the general public and provide opportunities for citizens to contribute
to more effective environmental enforcement; also, they should exchange with peers in other countries to learn
from and add to international experience.

Mo i a e ENFA Emplo ee o Wo k fo he P blic In e e

ENFAs should have an effective system of personnel management that takes care of adequate salaries, social
protection and professional development in order to attract well-educated employees of good character (integrity
and courage).
ENFAs should identify the human, material and financial resources required to carry out their responsibilities, and
submit a well-founded proposal through the budget process.
 ENFAs should apply rigorous budget and financial management procedures; the ENFA should not be allowed to
receive financial penalties directly from violators and spend them on its activities, for this provides an incentive to
maximise revenue rather than compliance; it should also not be allowed to provide services to regulated
companies for monetary reward, for this produces a conflict of interest.

S a egic SD Con en

Governments frequently create new ministries in order to deal with their expanding public purposes—mostly a matter
of division of tasks and specialisation. This is good and normal, provided key trade-offs are made at the top. However,
many countries are in a situation where environmental and social matters are assigned to a small ministry or agency,
whereas economic matters are defended by several heavy-weight ministries (economic affairs, agriculture, fisheries
and transport). It is no surprise than that the sheer number and status of economic interests usually wins out against
environmental and social interests. In the absence of a unifying development framework, the hard-core economic
ministries may ignore sustainability ‘because it is somebody else’s job’.

A similar story is heard from business, where environmental matters were assigned to a special department or co-
ordinator. However, this person or unit had little budget and influence compared to those defending business-as-usual
interests. There is really only one solution: make the proper balancing of economic, social and environmental aspects
an explicit responsibility of the top decision-making body. Then the trade-off has to be made explicit, and the prime
minister, mayor, or CEO will have to defend their choices. This works even better if there is a strategic plan, reflecting
the nation’s or organisation’s consensus, against which progress could be measured.

Here’s an illustration of how this could work. When the Netherlands’ government received the Brundtland Report Our
Common Future and the results of its own state of the environment report Concern for Tomorrow, it realised that it
had to completely reset the national development agenda. The ultimate outcome was the first National Environmental
Policy Plan (NEPP), The Environment: Choose It or Lose It, published in . Unique to the plan was that four
government ministries prepared and signed the NEPP—housing, spatial planning and environment; economic affairs
(includes energy and trade); agriculture, nature management and fisheries; and transportation, public works and water
management. All these government ministries have authority over policies that impact the environment, so their active
co-operation was vital. They made sure their own sector plans were consistent with the goals of NEPP. Implementation
decisions are prepared by a consultative council of the earlier-mentioned ministries plus the finance ministry and the
prime minister’s office. The cabinet gets advice from the National Environment Commission composed of high-level
civil servants from most ministries. The NEPP also gave high priority to co-operation between government and other
sectors of society, such as branches of industry and NGOs. These are called target groups, since the plan contains
specific measures for these groups, and their active participation was important for the plan’s success. Co-operation
with the Netherlands’ government gives businesses a voice in setting long-term goals. Essentially, they agreed to more
vigorous environmental protection in exchange for a guarantee of consistent, long-term policies and the freedom to
devise their own strategies for meeting national targets. Fifteen industrial sectors that together caused over of
pollution were identified as target groups. Each group was represented by a single business association. Scientists then
set -year environmental goals for each group, and the target group had to come up with credible strategies to
achieve them. Environmental NGOs in the Netherlands have a century-long tradition. They began as groups of
concerned citizens pooling their time and money to achieve common goals. By , they had a combined membership
of around two million (on a population of million), which gave them a lot of credibility. The government valued their
perspective on issues and strategies, since they were in regular touch with their support base. It gave them financial
support in the order of seven million Euros per year for quality research, without infringing on their independence. The
government invited the largest environmental NGOs to participate in its consultative and advisory bodies.

Finally, the local government and the education sector were also involved in the NEPP. Local authorities are important
partners in implementing environmental and other policies. Moreover, their own local policies have significant
environmental impacts. The role of the education sector was obviously to prepare the next generation for continuous
hard work in making the world more sustainable. The government’s Institute for Public Health and Environment would
publish regular updates on the state of the environment and of the country’s environmental performance record.
These reports would keep the social and parliamentary debate on sustainability alive and lead to an adjustment of the
next strategic policy plan.

Table . wraps up our discussion of the public sector role. It is partially the same as Table . , but the right-hand
column has greening strategies, not problems. The public sector has to green the way it fulfils the public purposes, and
co-ordinate the rest of the society to play its part.
In the previous chapter, we discussed the role of government agencies in setting the overall direction of society towards
SD. Under such an overarching strategy, the government co-ordinates public and private sector action and/or sets
conditions for such action. We have also learnt that sustainability is a goal that requires the creativity and co-operation of
all in society. Since the Brundtland Report, general appreciation for the role of non-state actors has increased. They
bring innovation, focus and empathy to the job, and they do not represent a public authority. They also bring their own
resources, or co-finance with government or international organisations. Thus, their involvement may enlarge the scale of
what could be achieved. This chapter highlights two major non-state categories—business and NGOs.

Business meets current needs by producing goods and services, and employing people for wages. Thus, it is a generator of
wealth in society, turning natural resources (natural capital into products with the use of people (labour and knowledge
and machines (man-made capital . Some resources are renewable within limits (human strength, trees and fish stocks ,
while others are not renewable and will deplete even though they may initially seem endless (fossil fuels and clean air .
On the output side, business activities cause waste products in the form of gases (emissions , fluids (effluent and solid
waste materials. Under favourable conditions, some of these could be turned into useful and marketable products. They
would either have to add on a new production process themselves or find a company to take the unwanted items.
Industrial ecology is the art of co-locating businesses in groups so that one can use another’s by-products as input.
However, business people may overlook opportunities, and market conditions may render reuse and recycling
(temporarily unprofitable. Also, the government may fail to stimulate the search for sustainable practices, and society
may fail to express displeasure with depletion and pollution. Ultimately, as we learnt in Chapter , lack of sustainability is
rooted in behaviour, institutions and technology. These are found in all parts of society, including business and non-
governmental sectors.

Let us first specify the general definition of SD for the business sphere:

For the business enterprise, sustainable development means adopting business strategies and activities that meet the
needs of the enterprise and its stakeholders today while protecting, sustaining and enhancing the human and natural
resources that will be needed in the future. (IISD

Protecting one’s capital or resource base is part of accepted business thinking. To extend the idea to the world’s natural
and human resources is to take a long-term view of business risk and security. For some, this may seem far-fetched, but it
could deliver better economic, social and environmental outcomes than the current model of short-term thinking that is
focused on shareholder value and share price fluctuations. Doppelt in ‘Leading Change toward Sustainability’ ( ,
observes that many branches of industry are engaged in a race to the bottom. Increased competition for raw materials
pushes global commodity prices up, and companies must cut costs to stay in business. The higher cost countries lose jobs
and income, so they buy less. The low-wage countries gain jobs and income, but not enough to buy the products they
make. Often, the governments in the new host countries offer lower tax and social security rates in order to attract FDI.
As a result, the new arrival does not initially contribute a fair share towards public sector expenditure. Doppelt argues
that sustainability goals lead companies to reverse this model in the following ways:

The principle to pay living wages and offer decent working conditions has positive spin-offs in the developing host
countries.
Sustainability shifts cost cutting from labour to material inputs by reducing the use of toxic materials and wastage
of resources, while increasing energy and material efficiency.
Eco-friendly innovation may lead to new products and services, or even to whole new industries that make stable
long-term income and jobs.
Globalisation has facilitated ever-more complex supply chains that span the world. Common products such as cars or
electronics have thousands of components and raw materials from all over the globe. While this has enabled companies
to benefit from countries’ competitive advantages, it has also made their networks vulnerable to risks. Many places that
are part of such networks are vulnerable to social unrest or ecological disasters that may disrupt supplies. This realisation
has already led some companies to review their logistics in order to reduce and better manage such risks. Solutions
include more local inputs, diversification of sources and less reliance on centralised systems that have a high risk of
breakdown.

While (forward logistics deals with moving items through the supply chain towards the end-user, reverse logistics is
about moving goods from the final distribution or user stage in the opposite direction. The purpose is to capture value
from repairing and/or re-using the product, re-manufacturing parts into new products or recycling materials into entirely
new items. Companies have great potential using their knowledge of the materials and the product for improving eco-
efficiency. In the process, the supply chain gets redesigned in progressive stages, beginning with pollution prevention and
life-cycle thinking, and ending with zero-waste and bio-based production.

Making business more sustainable is not simply a strategy to survive in volatile world markets. A growing number of
pioneer sustainable businessmen testify to the fact that it is an opportunity to satisfy more stakeholders than just the
owners or shareholders. They include customers, employees, suppliers and communities affected by a company’s
activities. Sustainable businesses put the long-term interests of their stakeholders at the core, and they call it ‘doing well
by doing good’. We will discuss this more in the following sections of this chapter.

The Sustainable Development Goals provide a focus for the world’s efforts to meet global challenges including climate
change…The opportunity clearly exists for the private sector to create and commercialise sustainable solutions at scale.
(Stuart Gulliver, Group Chief Executive Officer, HSBC Holdings plc

The adoption by world leaders of the SDGs in has also provided a fresh focus for business and NGOs. They point to
growing business opportunities that may redirect public and private investment flows. They are also an indicator of risk,
as for instance governments become more rigorous at applying the PPP. Maintaining relations with multiple stakeholders
is a strength in uncertain business environments. Finally, business cannot succeed in societies that fail. Therefore, if
companies invest in the SDGs, they invest in a stronger foundation for long-term business success. All goals are relevant
for business, but SDG contains the core—the world is aiming for sustainable consumption and production patterns.
The following objectives give us an idea of the goal’s scope:

Sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.

Halve global food waste at retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses in production and supply chains
(from field to market .
Substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reuse and recycling.
Review public sector purchasing policies to give priority to sustainable goods and services.
Ensure that by , people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for SD and lifestyles in
harmony with nature.

UN Global Compact—a voluntary sustainability programme for business—and global consultancy firm KPMG have
produced a brochure entitled ‘SDG Industry Matrix’ in which they make links between the SDGs and specific objectives for
selected industrial sectors, namely, financial services, transportation, manufacturing, health care services, food and
beverage, and energy, natural resources and chemicals. The most applicable SDGs are No. , access to affordable energy
for all; No. , responsible consumption and production; No. , climate action; and No. , multi-stakeholder
partnerships. For instance, the food, beverage and consumer goods sector may contribute by sourcing its inputs from
suppliers that do not cause deforestation. They may also reduce energy and water wastage, and reduce solid waste from
packaging, all through the production chain. These activities require a shift in thinking from short- to long-term and from
only profit to a wider set of decision-making criteria. In order to attain such goals, businesses will have to undertake
partnerships with a wider group of stakeholders than they have in the past.

Change comes as an innovation opportunity to people with a pioneering mentality, but as a threat to those who focus on
what they might lose. Some change is inevitable and normal, and embracing it may enable us to make the most of life.
This, for instance, is the message of an inspiring little book called Who Moved My Cheese by Spencer Johnson, a medical
doctor. The book is an allegory of how two types of creatures respond to a change in food availability. Of course, the story
makes the reader reflect on his or her own attitude to change. Yet, there are also limits to the social acceptance of change
when the advantages consistently go to one group and the disadvantages to another. Among the non-innovators, there
are some who green the marketing message but do not reduce their environmental impacts. This act is called green-
washing. They seek the higher price eco-conscious consumers are willing to pay for a responsible product, but without the
cost of making it greener. Their claims are exaggerated, misleading and untrue. Some products will never become
sustainable, no matter how many ‘green’ features you might add. Most countries have laws that forbid false claims in
advertising, but their law enforcement is not always good enough to get rid of green-washing. So it is important that
countries have an active civil society and mass-media that investigate claims and complaints.

NGOs are organisations that in origin are autonomous from governments and are generally non-profit (Clapp and
Dauvergne , . The website https://ngos.org adds that although some NGOs may receive operational or project
funds from a government, there is no representation or oversight on the NGOs decision-making. Non-profit means that
any financial surplus from business activities is used to pay for its public goals, not shared with the founders. Today, over
, NGOs operate internationally, while there are millions more at the local and national levels. They are active in
almost any sphere of society—for instance, community health, literacy and education, environment, gender issues,
disaster relief and so on. The UN distinguishes the following nine sub-groups: business and industry NGOs, environmental
NGOs, trade union NGOs, indigenous peoples’ NGOs, local government and municipal authorities, research-oriented and
independent organisations, faith-based NGOs, gender-based NGOs and youth NGOs. Some have gained UN accreditation
through the Economic and Social Council, but others are let in as observers (Clapp and Dauvergne , .

NGOs differ in the scope of their goals, the methods by which they seek to attain them, the way they make decisions,
their sources of finance and structure of accountability.

Goals: For example, an employers’ association may set up joint projects or facilities for members, and it may
lobby government to get favourable laws; environment or development groups often speak out in favour of
things that benefit society as a whole.
Methods: There is an enormous variety of methods, and NGOs choose which approach best suits their goals and
style; if the goal is to raise public awareness for a forgotten cause, the method may be a spectacular
demonstration of protest or aggressive publicity campaign; on the other hand, if the goal is to be taken seriously
by government agencies, then the approach is more likely in the sphere of presenting research, documenting
evidence in a film or report, or writing a draft law or treaty.
Decisions: Two common forms for NGOs are public funds and associations; in a public fund, the founders appoint
and oversee a governing board, headed by a director; an association, by contrast, has members, and the annual
members’ meeting is the source of legitimacy; since big meetings are never very effective, they usually delegate
responsibilities to a director, who heads an executive committee and the office staff.
Finance: Some environmental and health NGOs have significant income from membership fees, and in return,
they give members rights to attend meetings, obtain promotional gadgets, or other privileges; in case of business
associations, membership fees are much higher and may be used to produce research or opinion reports in line
with industry views; since the s it has become popular for governments to commission research or specific
projects to NGOs; of course, the users of the research and the NGOs themselves have to guard against undue
influence that might come with the money.
Accountability: Significant money resources may be involved, and so it is important to set up a system of
quarterly or annual reports for members, trustees and tax authorities. An important point of scrutiny here is the
percentage of the budget that the NGO spends on its own office cost. A share in the range of to is
considered acceptable. A related point is the salaries given to executive officers. One IC NGO, for instance,
involved in cancer research, had become so large that their executive felt he ought to earn on a par with business.
However, the generous public felt differently and withdrew their support. Independent auditing for instance by a
council for financial transparency is a way to maintain the public’s trust.

In many countries, NGOs are valued co-workers in the transition to sustainability, if and when

. They bring expert knowledge and innovative thinking to the task.

. Their goals transcend the narrow sector or national interests that play out in politics.
. Many are rooted in a substantial membership base that numbers in the hundreds of thousands.

What appears from this first section, then, is that NGOs have strengths that allow them to try out what government and
the commercial sector could not do. They can reach out to local communities, however remote, and experiment with new
approaches to public services, such as water and energy. However, they do not have the financial and managerial capacity
to scale up good practices and take them to the masses. On the other hand, NGOs often do not have strong feedback
mechanisms that allow donors or society to trace failure or misuse of funds.
By contrast, it is the nature of business to be interested in making a profit from mass producing goods and services.
Smaller niche segments are only interesting if they are low-risk and high-margin. Distant and/or poor communities or
ethnic minorities do not fall into that category. Feedback from market signals, however, is quick and effective—goods and
services that sell well must be meeting a need more effectively than possible alternatives. Market forces forge a discipline
that looks out for growth opportunities and seeks to minimise cost to the business. Unfortunately, if there is nothing to
stop them, companies may shift costs or risks to neighbouring communities or to society as a whole. Business is not
driven by altruism, but when sustainability becomes a core business matter progress may go pretty fast.

This chapter investigates what opportunities companies have to act sustainably on their own or in groups, where they
might benefit from liaisons with NGOs and government agencies, and where they need the active support and facilitation
by government in the form of new legislation or a review of subsidy and taxation practice.

In the mid-twentieth century, sustainability was not a business issue. There was one bottom line—the financial one. This
began to change in the s when concerns about pollution spread to a wide audience in the developed countries.
Governments had to intervene in various types of crisis. The debate was particularly hot over the question who should
bear the cost of pollution prevention and control. The PPP states that polluters must pay that cost. The rationale behind
this is not merely a legal one. Economists argue that markets can only do a proper job at allocating scarce resources in
society if prices for producers and consumers reflect the full cost involved. In practice, unfortunately, this is rarely the
case. Shifting cost back to polluters enables the market mechanism to generate better outcomes. If the producers pass it
on to their clients, these may review their purchase decisions. Alternatively, if producers change products or processes to
meet customer needs in different ways, there is a win-win case. The PPP is a matter of justice. The sad fact is that too
often burdens of pollution are born by individuals and communities unrelated to the producers and consumers of the
products or services involved. It is all perfectly legal, but not fair from a general welfare perspective. So, the PPP is meant
to correct inappropriate situations. Of course, when it is rigidly applied without consideration of special circumstances
and/or without transitional provisions, the measure might cost business and jobs. The art of successful change to
sustainable business is to find a workable combination of principle and flexibility in the transition process.

Businessmen often perceive environmental and social facilities as a financial burden. In many countries, however, this
feeling changed under the combined pressure of public concern, shifting consumer preferences and increasingly strict
legislation. Groups of environmentally conscious entrepreneurs shared experience of proactive approaches, such as P. A
whole range of environmental management systems have been developed to enable companies to measure, organise
and plan material input and output flows. Knowing how company actions affect the environment creates awareness and
is the first step to making continual improvements. Proactive strategic planning in step with investment cycles allows for a
flexible transition to more sustainable business. The most widespread use of environmental management is in
manufacturing and service companies. However, governmental and intergovernmental agencies, and NGOs use them too.
The greatest obstacles to their introduction are managers’ unwillingness to innovate, lack of time and resources for the
initial investment, and absence of policies to support their proper functioning. The government may promote the
movement towards sustainable business by applying environmental management instruments itself and by adopting
policies that support their introduction in business.

We noted in Chapter that air and water pollution used to be framed as limited issues with technological solutions.
Within business, environmental and social matters were delegated to a special officer or department. However, this
solution led employees to assume that this officer or department takes care of the issue and everybody else need not
bother. Since such officers or departments had little budget and influence they could not generate any real change. M
came up with an alternative approach by inviting staff to submit proposals for all kinds of improvements that would
reduce pollution and save cost. After the rise of SD as a concept, the environmental interest became more integrated at
the board of directors level. By the early twenty-first century, many companies have made sustainability part of their core
business out of necessity or out of a sense of social and environmental responsibility.

During the s, business schools began responding to the need to prepare business managers and leaders for the wider
role expected by the public—education for sustainable business development. A lot of research was needed to find out
what was going on in practice and what lessons could be learned from that. By , the World Resources Institute began
rating business schools for the degree to which they succeeded in this. The idea was that socially and environmentally
conscious students needed to know where best to go to be trained for social and environmental stewardship. The rating
was conducted regularly for over a decade in ‘Beyond Grey Pinstripes’ report. It ultimately included over countries, but
still had a strong developed-country bias. Nevertheless, its very existence demonstrated that the support for a wider
responsibility for social and environmental impact was growing fast among business leaders. In the first decade of the
twenty-first century, the percentage of business schools that required their students to study social and environmental
impact issues went up from to . However, it also found that sustainability was not integrated in all relevant topic
fields. Thus, students are still getting mixed messages—endless pursuit of growth and minimising negative impacts. They
concluded that it was time for business schools to revise courses across the curriculum for inclusion of sustainability.

The movement for corporate social responsibility (CSR started within large businesses in the ICs. Society felt that
because of their size, they should not only have privileges but also wider responsibilities. To practise CSR means that the
business manages its economic, social and environmental impacts on all stakeholders for its own long-term continuity
and for society. Issues generally include product safety (for customers ; occupational health and safety, gender equality,
and education and training (for its workers ; and environmental protection (for the planet . In some countries, public
opinion associates CSR with philanthropy, but this is only one end of a much wider spectrum that to a growing extent
affects a company’s core business.

As the list of motivations demonstrates, business is not powered by altruism. Even a CSR business has to make a net profit
in order to survive—the financial bottom line. Additionally, they need to expand the view of their best long-term interests
as preferences and policies of stakeholders are changing. There is a growing consensus that modern businesses should
make a contribution to their society’s social and environmental challenges, or at least not make them worse. Thus, many
international businesses now have a triple bottom line—economic, social and environmental. According to the WBCSD, a
coalition of concerned business leaders established in , they have the following motivations to engage in CSR:

. Reduce overall business risks

. Protect their brand and reputation
. Improve the efficiency of production and distribution
. Recruit and retain talented, dedicated employees
. Protect the resource base of its raw materials
. Satisfy financial markets’ interest in SD impacts
. Identify new markets, products and services

The SDG Industry Matrix, made by Global Compact LEAD and KPMG International, distinguishes three progressive levels of
involvement:

Getting one’s core business in order: Maximise the positives (innovation, jobs and living wages and minimise
negatives (worker health and safety risks, paying proper taxes, environmental impacts in sourcing, manufacturing,
user and waste stages of the product chain .
Social investment: Provide money, employee time or in-kind contributions of products or services for purposes
that do not generate short-term returns. This could be used to experiment with new business activities that have
lower returns or longer pay-back periods.
Public advocacy and policy dialogue: Influence awareness and attitudes towards sustainability, and promote
systemic change; this activity ideally reinforces social investment and core business initiatives, and should be
consistent with traditional lobbying positions.

Here is a short list of practical tools that companies may use to put their CSR ideas into practice (based on Clapp and
Dauvergne , :

Codes of conduct are sets of principles of how a company expects its staff to handle particular situations and
dilemmas. These could be in the economic sphere—which gifts and invitations from business partners may be
accepted without compromising integrity? They could be social—which actions are in agreement with local ideas
of fairness and good manners? They could be environmental—which actions regarding resource use or waste
flows contradict the company’s commitment to sustainability? Codes of conducts especially help international
staff operate correctly in a new cultural environment. The code may be imposed from the top or written in
consultation with staff as a team-building activity. Training for new-comers, regular reminders and credible action
following a breach all contribute to respect for the code and its intentions.
Reporting and disclosure schemes are tools to help businesses communicate with internal and external
stakeholders about the economic, social and environmental impact of its daily operations. In the beginning, there
was little standardisation among sustainability reports, but academic and public debate have caused a move
towards more meaningful and transparent reports. This, in turn, promotes greater trust in the companies
concerned.
 Environmental management standards are carefully defined sets of procedures that companies follow in their
management of sustainability matters. The best known are the ISO standards, designed by the ISO in
Geneva. Although ISO standards are voluntary, over time, many are cited in national laws. Companies seek ISO
certification in order to inspire trust among its stakeholders. Prakash and Potoski noted that the adoption of ISO
standards by DC subsidiaries is more likely if their parent company in a developed country is also ISO certified.
Market-based mechanisms, such as eco-certification of products is an instrument that helps consumers make
more informed decisions and stimulates producers to adopt the certification in return for environment-friendly
changes to its production process. An independent organisation has to establish criteria and assess products for
eligibility. Consumers must be able to trust that the certificate is a guarantee of minimum standards.

These tools could develop entirely within individual companies or groups of businesses. However, governments could
step in, require their use and perhaps lay down harmonised standards. This turns them into voluntary instruments to
speed up the degree of commitment and/or the speed of implementation. Where government rules and enforcement are
strict, there is little incentive for companies to participate in voluntary programmes, because they offer little room to
distinguish themselves. However, countries with lax standards and enforcement offer opportunities to make gains
through voluntary programmes. So, while in developed countries company participation in voluntary programmes is a
way to keep government from imposing regulation, in DCs it is rather an avenue for greater sustainability ambitions.
Table . compares and contrasts legislation (command and control with voluntary programmes on a number of aspects.

Historically, business and the NGO sector have been extremely distrustful of each other. Business has often rejected the
need to change, so the environmental movement took the role of forcing it by public awareness, lobby and/or boycott
campaigns. It focused on environmental and health damage and had little interest in business and market dynamics.
Business, on the other hand, utilised its knowledge and resources largely in defensive ways. However, as environmental
and social legislation became more accepted and society changed its view of business responsibilities, the attitudes of
business and NGOs towards each other have grown more favourable.

The Brundtland Report and the Earth Summit documents assigned important roles to both business and NGOs. Since the
early s, therefore, both groups have become increasingly active at global conferences on specific issues and on SD in
general. In her book Global Environmental Politics, Pamela Chasek explains how corporate interests influence the global
agenda. Despite their rhetoric, some slow down and weaken environmental treaties, while others push initiatives for the
common good. The growing business activity in international debates underlines their perception of how political SD
agreements might affect them. Peter Dauvergne warns us that when businessmen speak about ‘sustainability’, they
usually mean of business, not of the planet. They redefine SD in business terms. NGO views may serve to counter-balance
this bias. Business delegations make fewer public statements but lobby quietly among government representatives. Here
is how big business engages:

The framing of the issues

Funding and distribution of targeted research
Advertising campaigns
Lobby individual governments
Lobby delegations at international conferences

When the MDGs were launched in the year CE, business was not represented. Major international efforts were
launched over years to alleviate poverty and hunger. While there was significant success in some parts of the world,
there was little progress in others. The SDGs ( apply to both developed countries and DCs. Moreover, the UN
decided that they should be agreed in a multi-stakeholder process—government, business and civil society. This time,
business had to be involved. The process has stimulated a lot of creative thinking to use the strengths of business for
realisation of SDGs.
NGOs are an important vehicle for citizens to work together for sustainability, and so achieve much more than they ever
could on their own. There are many fields which bear relevance to SD, such as health–environment interactions, rural
livelihoods, labour conditions, consumer safety or environmental protection. NGOs are independent from government,
but they may work with public and private actors on joint initiatives.

Some of the earliest NGOs go back to the nineteenth century, when the growth of cities and industry threatened to
destroy valuable ecosystems. For instance, around CE, the city of Amsterdam was planning to drain Lake Naarden
and turn it into a landfill. A citizens’ group then established the Nature Monuments Foundation, which pooled knowledge,
time and money for the common cause. Next, they bought the lake and turned it into a publicly accessible nature zone. A
century later, this foundation was the largest NGO of the Netherlands with a million fee-paying members. They manage
nature conservation areas, which is a quarter of the total nature area in the country. A wide membership gives NGOs
a strong credibility and resource base to attain their ideals.

Western environmentalism was initially about protecting species of plant or animal, and/or historic landscapes against
old-style ‘development’, so that current and future generations could enjoy them. Over time the focus became broader as
it was impossible to limit industrial pollution and habitat destruction to certain areas. Gradually, more people began to
recognise that the cumulative impacts of local problems on the planet could be disastrous. So, campaigns to save whales,
seals and orang-utans were succeeded by campaigns to save their habitat—the oceans and the forest. In the meantime,
another family of NGOs was mainly concerned about the lives and resources of people, especially the poor and
marginalised. The Brundtland Commission and the Earth Summit facilitated the globalisation of Western
environmentalism, and brought the environment and development workers together. Knowing each other’s concerns and
insights opened their eyes to new ways of co-operation that would benefit both humans and environment.

In DCs, many NGOs have been established since the s in order to promote rural income generating activities. During
the s, attention shifted to empowering people, for instance, by teaching them to read and write (literacy . It was also
the time of grassroots action against large-scale forest clearing under the guise of development. Africa, Asia and Latin
America all had their own version of this. In India, the Chipko Movement resisted deforestation in the Himalayas and took
direct action to protect forest resources by and for poor indigenous groups. A little later, Brazil had similar movements
protesting against clearing of the Amazon rainforest to establish cattle farms. The rubber tappers wanted to keep the
rainforest both as their traditional habitat and as their source of income. Finally, in Kenya, a movement not only
protested against logging, but trained rural women to grow it back by community tree planting. Chapter has the detail
on the person and work of Wangari Maathai, the driving character behind the Greenbelt Movement of Kenya. The s
emphasis was on gender equality, based on the realisation that rural women were doing a lot of work in agriculture and
their own household. After the Brundtland Commission brought the term SD to global recognition, this became the new
focus for development NGOs, both local ones and those from the Global North assisting them with donor funds.

In the run-up to the Earth Summit, the UN decided to hold a separate NGO side-event in Rio de Janeiro. That
sparked off intense preparations in the NGO world as for many this was an entirely new dimension to their work. With
help from a few governments and IGOs, the NGO community quickly learned how international policy-making processes
work. Moreover, Northern NGOs with their donors hurried to the support of their Southern counterparts to make sure
they would be well represented at Rio too. They paid not only for their training and consultations, but also for their cost
of travel to and accommodation in Rio. The Earth Summit was an important learning experience that motivated many
NGOs to keep training and do better the next time. At the World Summit on SD in Johannesburg, they were even
more in the spotlight as the organisers put heavy emphasis on implementing the Rio principles and Agenda through
partnerships between regional or local governments, businesses and civil society.

NGOs and other civil society groups are not only stakeholders in governance, but also a driving force behind greater
international co-operation through the active mobilization of public support for international agreements. (Gemmill and
Bamidele-Izu

The UN’s Agenda recognised the importance of non-governmental actors in the pursuit of SD. This became the starting
point for some governments to take a more co-operative attitude towards NGOs. An example is China, whose strict
political system allows NGO activities within narrow boundaries regarding membership, finance and oversight.
Nevertheless, the country has recognised the need to develop with more consideration to environmental factors and
public health. The environment agency has started working with NGOs in the area of environmental risk assessment.
Some NGOs have achieved considerable success in the spheres of biodiversity, ecosystem conservation and energy
efficiency. Obviously, in the Chinese political context, an NGO approach that emphasises partnership in solving especially
local issues has turned out fruitful. Yet, also in freer political contexts, the trend in environment and development NGOs is
away from being a protest movement towards becoming a participant in finding specific pathways to sustainability and
teaching those to the public.

Agenda explicitly urged organisations of the UN system to invite NGOs to share their perspective on the design,
implementation and evaluation of their policies and programmes. After this, NGOs obtained accreditation at several
intergovernmental conferences, where they organised briefings or face-to-face meetings with delegates, and sometimes
addressed the plenary group. Some conferences, such as the Habitat meetings on urban settlements, had NGOs even
participate in the groups that drafted conference texts. As mentioned before, the UNECE worked with NGOs in the
preparations for the Aarhus Convention, where the actual practice of public participation could not be more appropriate.
NGO participation, according to some, has made international environmental governance truly global, since even NGOs
from countries not so friendly to civil society input may be heard there.

The Rio conference was prepared by a large-scale consultation process called Stakeholder Forum. There are few
international organisations, which do not somehow interact with NGOs for the sake of improving the quality and
acceptance of decision-making and implementation. Gemmell and Bamidele-Izu distinguish five areas in which NGOs have
demonstrated particularly useful services to international environmental governance:

Information collection and dissemination

Consultation on developing new policies
Policy implementation
Assessment and monitoring
Advocacy for environmental justice

They give several examples of how NGOs have improved or enabled effective treaty implementation through their dense,
international networks. The case of the NGO Traffic is particularly helpful for our purpose. It was established in by
the WWF and the IUCN. Both organisations monitor ecosystem and species conditions worldwide, so their network covers
all world regions. Their purpose largely overlaps with the goal of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species. There are many factors influencing the population numbers and health of animal and plant species,
and international trade is only one of them. The treaty seeks to protect species by restricting or banning international
trade in them in order to eliminate the incentive to collect or kill for money. It covers over , species in over
countries from medicinal herbs to exotic pets. NGO Traffic’s role in data collection and research, on the ground
investigation and publicity have been invaluable. No public organisation could have done this job so quickly, effectively
and affordably.

International policy making on SD is affecting everyone, and it is evidenced in the lobbying efforts directed at the global
level. For instance, both business and NGOs take active part in the debates around annual climate conferences with
sometimes opposite positions. For years, states sought to formulate a new treaty under the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC . Concerned that world leaders might accelerate the end of fossil fuels, the industry lobbied
intensely. On the other hand, NGOs have been very critical about too close co-operation between government
delegations and business representatives. At the summit in Warsaw, they even staged a mass walk-out to express their
disappointment over the lack of progress towards an agreement—in their eyes the result of the business lobby.
Nevertheless, the climate conference in Paris did produce a landmark climate protection treaty.

We live in a day and age where sustainability has become an obvious necessity for business and society. Consumers
demand products whose production did not cause social ills or environmental pollution. People increasingly network, for
instance through social media, to find what they want and share opinions. The media amplify calls for green products and
services, as well as investigate business claims of a green reputation. Financial institutions change their lending conditions
to avoid the risk of being implicated in unsustainable practices. Influential players in global supply chains change their
purchasing policies and are ready to assist suppliers to meet them. Governments gradually raise norms to meet public
expectations or international commitments. Last but not least, proactive business leaders see CSR no longer a cost but as
an investment. Sustainable technologies and practices improve image, protect brands and also save money.

Research shows that there are significant differences between companies of various sizes to green themselves and their
supply chain. Large and multinational enterprises have sufficient resources and skill to conduct research and experiments,
set up co-operative projects and persuade suppliers to come along. Their global impacts are limited by the diversity in
markets that each require their own approach. By contrast, SMEs form the bulk of businesses in most countries. The
organisation Green Eco-net has found that only of SMEs are really green and only have no green intentions at all.
The vast majority, then, would like to operate in greener way but are experiencing obstacles, such as:

Lack of knowledge and skill

Insufficient access to finance
Perceived high risk when competitors do not change

This section examines the potential of business models for the transition to sustainability. It also discusses instruments
devised to compare one company or branch to another. These are tools to help us establish how much progress we are
making in relation to our long-term goals.

Apart from for-profit companies, business-like organisations with hybrid goals and legal forms are becoming more
popular and relevant for SD. For instance, co-operatives in agricultural production and trade have brought change to the
coffee, tea, cocoa and some other cash crop sectors. Originally, small farmers would sell their produce to intermediaries,
who would take it to distant cities and sell it to local factories or exporters. Those middlemen are in a position to keep
prices for farmers low and take a bigger margin for themselves. Importers add a margin for transportation, processing and
profit. Ultimately, the goods are sold to end users. The prices that consumers pay are much higher than what the farmer
gets. When DCs that were dependent on one or a few such commodities had trouble paying back their debts, they would
produce more of their export crops. However, when several countries chose the same strategy prices dropped and
pressure on the land increased even further. Often it meant that traditional ways of growing cash crops alternated with
other crops or trees were abandoned. The result was nutrient deficits in the soil or soil erosion. Farmers became poorer,
switched crops, or left for the cities.

This problem was first addressed with help from development NGOs about years ago. They came up with the fair trade
co-operative. This farmer co-operative directly deals with importers, so that dependence on intermediaries and their
market power is reduced. As a result, more added value could go to the farmers. Consumers of Fair Trade products are
willing to pay higher prices in return for guarantees that farmers get a better reward for their labour, use sustainable
agriculture practices, and that the co-operative invests in education and health care. Since trust between all sections of
the supply chain is essential, the fair trade initiative set up a system of monitoring and certification under Fairtrade
Labelling Organisations (FLO International. This system has enabled the development of a wider range of products and
expansion into mainstream retailing. Several decades ago, Fair-trade products could only be bought in special volunteer-
run outlets, but now they are also available in supermarkets. In the producer countries, some co-operatives decided to
produce for a special niche market, for example the organic coffee, tea or cocoa market. They had to follow stricter rules
for cultivation, but received even higher premium prices. Some co-operatives invested in domestic processing, handicraft
production by local women, or running a chain of cafes in big cities nearby. Fair trade started in food business (coffee, tea,
cocoa and bananas . Lately, new initiatives have sprung up in textiles, clothing and other products. Fair trade has caused
hundreds of thousands of farmers and workers to have a more economically secure life. They have access to better
training, low-interest loans and technical assistance. They collectively own communications and transport facilities, health
and dental clinics. The co-operative is a fast-growing business model, which already has almost one billion participants
worldwide. The UN called the International Year of Cooperatives in order to highlight and promote its potential for
SD.

Another popular business innovation is the social enterprise. It is an organisation that works like a business but whose
primary purpose is to fulfil social objectives. A well-known advocate of the social enterprise is Nobel Peace Prize winner
Mohamed Yunus. His Grameen Bank Bangladesh was a successful model from the developing world. It has set up an
innovative way to lend small amounts of money to rural residents who wanted to start their own business. They do not
have access to commercial loans, because they do not own anything that could be given as collateral—an item to be sold
in case they failed to pay back. Through a system of group responsibility, the achieved pay-back rates turn out very high
compared to the international average. It was here that the concept of micro-credit was invented. With the help of IGOs
and/or NGOs, it has spread to other parts of the world, including ICs. Yet, the concept of social enterprise is wider than
micro-credit. The surplus income that social enterprises generate, is reinvested for its broad social purpose(s . Social
enterprises have great potential to work for wealth creation, social equity and environmental sustainability at the same
time.

If you apply sustainability thinking to products and production processes, then why not apply it to your company’s
income-generating model. That is the way it makes money from the products or services it provides. For most items, we
find it normal to buy them, use them and then discard them. However, this has several important disadvantages. One is
that we cannot return the item when we’re dissatisfied with its services. At best, we could sell it at a financial loss, and
this requires effort and skill. Moreover, we ourselves are responsible to repair the item when it’s broken. This too, may
require significant effort and cost. Finally, when the item is at the end of its useful life we have to discard it in a
responsible manner. More effort and perhaps cost. There are, however, items whose use we conveniently share, for
instance computers in an Internet cafe. This has led some companies to change their business models from selling an item
to renting it out. An interesting example is in floor coverings for company offices and public buildings, such as carpets.
During the whole process, the carpet business remains responsible for cleaning, repairs or replacement. At the end of the
carpet’s useful lifetime, the company takes it out and reprocesses its components. This is both cost saving and
environment-friendly, for they send less carpet to landfill.

So far, we have mainly spoken about making existing businesses more sustainable. However, the sustainable business
philosophy is also a great avenue for creative green business start-ups. The free online Handbook for Sustainable
Entrepreneurship challenges people with entrepreneurial values and approaches to create business solutions to social
and environmental problems. So when you are on a personal mission to make the world a better place and you have an
enterprising spirit, then perhaps this is for you. For instance, to enable energy users to become renewable energy
producers as well you need a mechanism or platform that calculates, administers and gives instant insight. Current ICT
can do that. Thus, virtual platforms in all spheres of life enable people to solve issues cost-effectively and reduce
dependence on expensive supply systems. Well-known examples include car-sharing tools, accommodation for rent and
so on. There are companies whose sole purpose is to solve social or environmental issues through starting-up innovative
green companies. One such engine of start-ups is Enviu from the Netherlands. Their recent initiative—Three Wheels
United of India—is introduced in Box . .

What does it mean for a process or company to become a little less dirty or inefficient? Should it be considered enough
effort or not in the context of the relevant industry or country? How could different companies be compared to each
other? That question is impossible to answer without a common reference point. In the beginning, every company came
up with its own goals and indicators. In subsequent reports it could only be compared to its own performance in previous
years. Now, reporting standards have brought more depth and meaning to sustainability reports. In , a special
organisation was established to create an international standard for reporting in these areas, so that reports would be
more insightful and comparable. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI develops core guidelines for all companies and sector
supplements for specific industries. More than a thousand firms use these guidelines. Companies that are concerned
about the credibility of their CSR policy may invite independent third-party verification of their claims.

Another matter is, whether the problem is in a sector’s core activity or in the way it does the job. For instance, are the
mining and the automobile industries always ‘dirty’ or might they attain a fairly ‘clean’ state? Now, some companies in a
not-so-clean sector might do much better than their peers in the same branch of industry. Companies and academics
have for some time been calculating average energy and water efficiencies as indicators for individual business sectors
worldwide. These are called industry benchmarks. They provide an incentive for companies to become better than the
average in their industry. Should relative industry performance count? It should, but how does it compare with best
achievable result given existing technology? These and other questions are debated by those who wish to give
shareholders, investors, government regulators and the public concrete information for opinion and decision-making.

There are several green business rankings that use different approaches. One list is the Global of the World’s Most
Sustainable Corporations worth over US billion. The selection takes place in stages. First, candidates’ public reporting
and communications are analysed on the basis of four criteria—transparency, financial health, product category and
possible cases of sanctions filed against the company. Second, the short-listed companies are scored in comparison with
industry peers for twelve sustainability indicators, such as energy and water productivity, innovation capacity, percentage
tax paid and leadership diversity.

Ultimately, no matter how accurate rankings become, a key question is whether they promote the process towards ever
greater sustainability in business fast enough for the world to stay within its ecological boundaries. Many commentators
point out that a slow process of incremental changes is not going to achieve that goal. We have to learn progressively
faster—a steep learning curve. They also maintain that a long series of baby steps to lower environmental impacts, while
increasing economic and social benefits, is not a great motivator for our creative, young generations. More and more
innovators, therefore, seek breakthroughs by setting radical long-term goals. John Elkington calls this ‘breaking the
sustainability barrier’. The barrier is a technological limitation that keeps us from realising our desirable goal. They take a
goal, like zero-impact or zero-waste, and start measuring over time how far-off they still are.

In the early stages of business–NGO collaboration they would work on community development or environmental
conservation projects of a philanthropic nature. In other words, it was about the NGO lending its expertise to wisely
spend a company’s CSR money. More recently, co-operation has evolved to include strategic projects intended to speed
up the greening of an entire industry. Thus, the WWF worked with forestry and wood processing companies to certify
wood products as having originated in sustainably managed forests. They jointly created the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC for that purpose. They also engaged with consumers to raise awareness and trust in this label. The key to success is
that the companies and NGOs involved have shared values and no rigid agendas. While some partnerships may enable
business and NGOs to move things forward, there is always the risk of unhelpful compromise and loss of credibility.
Successful partnerships are usually based on good personal relationships between the individuals who represent their
organisations.

Commercial companies can also be founders of NGOs that are designed to serve a joint interest. While these
organisations may be non-profit, they still serve a fairly narrow business interest. Such purposes may include a focused
form of education or training, joint recycling services, or a research and awareness-raising organisation. An example of
the last category is the WBCSD, which serves the dual purpose of supporting change for sustainability in business and
advertising business sustainability efforts among policy-makers and the public. Our next example shows that even when
an NGO’s name sounds neutral, the organisation’s purpose could be to promote a particular business version of the truth.
On close examination, the Climate Coalition turns out to be a platform for the American coal and energy-intensive
industries, which try to persuade the public that climate change is not a real, serious, or human-caused problem. They do
so by sponsoring their own research and spreading disinformation through television and Internet. Obviously, such
organisations have the right to make their views known, but they do so in ways that obscure their real identity and
intentions. Therefore, we have to be really cautious to investigate the people, financial sponsors and assumptions behind
the documents that we would like to use for forming our opinion about a certain issue of environment and development.

In some countries and cultures, there is a keen social and environmental awareness and a tradition of the people’s self-
organisation for joint purposes. There the step to participation of NGOs in stages of public sector decision-making was a
logical one. In other places, this experience started with the Earth Summit and Agenda . In still others awareness
of environment and development issues and self-organisation levels are so low even today that they have barely begun
the dialogue among SD stakeholders. Of course, your country may not exactly fit these categories, but the point here is
that there are very large differences between countries in NGO development and participation. Depending on where your
country is, the tasks ahead will be different. This section shows a few examples of how NGOs may creatively address the
key economic, social and environmental challenges of their society at the same time.

NGOs are good at reaching disadvantaged communities, identifying their needs, promoting their participation and
operating at low cost. The first Barefoot College was founded in Rajasthan state, India, by Sanjit ‘Bunker’ Roy in .
Today, it is a network of colleges all over India and in over least-developed countries (LDCs on three continents. Its
unique feature is that it trains and empowers rural women and men to solve village issues—water, energy and rural
jobs—with low-cost sustainable solutions. Its principles of simplicity and equality go back to the teachings of Mahatma
Gandhi. Their work shows how well economic, social and environmental aspects can go together. For instance, Rajasthan
is a dry region, so rainwater harvesting, using sustainable methods to make safe drinking water and saving water have
become standard practices. A well-known initiative is their solar energy programme, which trains mostly illiterate women
to become solar engineers. In fact, they often select grandmothers because they have deep roots in the village and are
committed to improving community well-being. During their training they become not only competent but also much
more self-confident. Through the Barefoot network simple solar technologies spread quickly to remote villages that
would otherwise have little chance to become electrified soon. Moreover, the Barefoot approach kick-starts a
development process whereby poor communities are active participants in their own development, aware of their own
resources. Barefoot College’s website indicates how their programmes serve to attain the recently agreed SDGs, and offer
business, development agencies and civil society opportunities for partnership, funding and volunteering.

The trade in endangered species is the third most profitable criminal activity in the world. In the mid- s, million
animals were poached in Brazil, and of those were trafficked from Brazil. The transport conditions of the animals are
so bad that one out of ten animals survives the journey. This trade represents of the international trade in
endangered species, so it was a significant problem. Yet, this was not an issue in the country’s public or political opinion.
Renctas is a Brazilian NGO that was founded to save endangered animals from going extinct. Given that many special
creatures from Brazil’s mega-diverse rainforests are caught illegally and trafficked abroad, Renctas’ first activities were
aimed at stopping the trade. For that purpose, they collected intelligence about the trafficking routes and passed it on to
the law enforcement agencies. Also, they raised support for their work via awareness-raising mass media campaigns.
Later, Renctas also lobbied for stricter regulation to prevent rare animal trafficking, and assisted the law enforcement
agents with their expertise. During raids on illegal markets they would catch animals that sometimes could not return to
the wild immediately. Thus, they also started a centre where they could recover. Long-term, the educational work is
important for creating a climate where trafficking endangered animals becomes unacceptable. So, Renctas has become
more active in lectures, expositions, films and documentaries. For instance, it is strategically important to raise awareness
among international travellers at airports to stay away from illegal animal trade. Renctas has been awarded for its work in
the Americas, and their founder Dener Giovanni received the prestigious UNEP Sasakawa Prize in . This recognition
highlights the fact that good legislation will not achieve its goals without effective law enforcement. Today, almost two
decades after Renctas’ founding, awareness has grown and law enforcement has improved significantly.

The case of Waste Concern NGO in Bangladesh offers an opportunity to illustrate the synergy of public-private
partnership (Rahman . In , urban planners Iftekhar and Maqsood created the research-based NGO Waste
Concern at a time when the authorities and business were not interested in waste innovations. They wanted to try out a
new model for urban waste management because the existing model of Dhaka was so overstretched that the hygienic
situation had become hazardous. They first examined the composition of the waste, which turned out to be organic.
They conducted experiments with different low-cost composting methods to find out what worked. They secured free use
of land and started a pilot project. Participation of the local community was important in several ways. First of all, it had
to allow the waste facility in their area, which is generally a problem as locals associate waste with nuisance. Second, they
have to pay for waste collection, and provide staff for collection and composting. This increases acceptance and local
benefit, and also keeps cost low. The final product—compost—is a soil improver and organic fertiliser. Its use reduces the
need for chemical inputs, and is especially interesting for farmers who want to grow by organic methods. To sell the
compost beyond the community Waste Concern had to find a company interested in distribution. Based on their initial
success, Iftekhar and Maqsood managed to attract attention from government and the development community. These
recognised that the decentralised community-based composting model was suitable for many low-income cities in DCs.
So, they provided assistance and funds to scale up the projects to other cities in Bangladesh and beyond. Waste Concern’s
achievements earned them national and international awards.

This case illustrates the strength of NGOs to reach disadvantaged communities, identify their needs, promote their
participation and operate at low cost. For this reason they are now sought after by international development banks to
carry out projects and programmes. Of course, some NGOs have weaknesses in their resource base, knowledge and skills,
or access to relevant stakeholders. Also, many young NGOs lack expertise, for instance in natural or social sciences, or in
management skills. Capacity building and project support by governments could redress this. When NGOs lean too heavily
on donor funding, their agenda may be guided more by donors than by ideals. As a result, their position is called into
question by the host country society and government. For instance, when donor funding is strong and aimed at advocacy
for social emancipation this may lead to suspicions that the NGO is not really independent.

Some NGOs that are critical of the slow-moving and bureaucratic nature of state-based agreements have begun to
support voluntary initiatives, especially those involving multiple stakeholders (Clapp and Dauvergne , . Thus, for
instance, when world leaders failed to take action to protect global forests at the Earth Summit, the WWF initiated a
business-NGO coalition that resulted in the FSC. The FSC produced a label that ensures customers the wood has come
from sustainably managed forests. Similarly, when international co-operation could not prevent the collapse of cod
fisheries in the North Atlantic, WWF and large seafood distributer Unilever met to discuss the potential of a market-based
scheme. In , they established the independent Marine Stewardship Council (MSC , an organisation that certifies fish
products from sustainable sources. The logo on MSC-certified product is a sign to customers that their purchase does not
lead to fish depletion. After a few years of growth, one supermarket chain after another announced that they would only
sell MSC-certified seafood. MSC run a donor-funded programme to assist DC fisheries to become certified. As more
consumers buy MSC products the demand for them goes up, and more fisheries companies choose to adapt their
practices. MSC calls this the virtuous cycle.

The transition to more sustainable consumption and production is not a story of linear progress. There are many
obstacles, and occasionally stakeholders make steps in the wrong direction. The institutions to guide market changes are
far from perfect, and the worldviews and forces that pull things in the unsustainable direction are still strong. There are
reasons for concern, which at the same time are challenges to a new generation of leaders to choose careers with
positive impact.

All our worldviews have a unique take on issues, and so each adds perspectives that the others neglect or underexpose.
The differences come out very clearly in what our worldviews consider as the essence of business.
Bi e i e a i Goal number one is to develop economy and society within ecological limits. Given the current
overshoot of several such limits, they are convinced that strict global ecological norms have to be developed and adhered
to. For this to happen, a fundamental shift in human values away from consumerism is needed. Thus, they develop and
promote theories on sufficiency, which widens human well-being to include harmonious relationships, sense of purpose,
connection with nature apart from material needs. Moreover, through their campaigns and volunteer networks they
advertise simple lifestyles, which offer affordable, practical solutions for daily living.

These theories connect with new calculation measures of sustainable economic welfare, which are proposed to policy-
makers. Some of them focus on adjusting GDP, while others supplement it with environmental indicators such as the
living planet index (by WWF or the ecological footprint. Since they value various changes in the economy differently from
conventional methods these new methods also invite governments to move their priorities away from stimulating
numerical growth to meeting their people’s needs. This has important implications for production and trade.

NGOs of this persuasion are active in collecting on-the-ground facts about ecological conditions to raise the alarm where
necessary. Also, they are increasingly facilitating and improving sustainable resource governance in co-operation with
local businesses, the government and communities. Thus, WWF initiated co-operation with business to establish green
labels in wood products (FSC and seafood (MSC .

I i i a i Call for broad reforms to global economic and environmental institutions to turn them into instruments
that promote rather than slow down the transition to a sustainable future. For instance, Eric Neumayer argues that the
WTO should adopt the precautionary principle into its charter and clarify the relationship between MEAs and trade rules.
Others advocate a strong environment organisation in the UN system to balance the power of economic interests in the
system.

Institutionalist policy-makers frequently call business and NGOs key partners in the quest for sustainability. They hold that
the purpose of business is to satisfy the triple bottom line—profit, people and planet. In doing so they need to engage in
various forms of consultation and partnership with relevant stakeholders, including clients, government agencies and
NGOs. The concepts of GE (UN, OECD and circular economy (EU are built on dialogue and partnership—hallmarks of the
Institutionalists. They might be overly optimistic about the extent to which commercial and public interest overlap.
Nevertheless, they realise that sustainability must become serious business in order to make a difference at the global
level. They agree with market liberals that free markets, technology transfers and voluntary corporate greening are
helpful in promoting environmental and social sustainability.

Ma e ibe a Generally see making a profit as the essence of business. The narrower view that companies should
maximise shareholder value became popular among this group in the s. Nevertheless, they will concede in principle
that sustainability is in the natural interest of business. The WBCSD argues that it makes companies more competitive,
resilient to shocks, more likely to attract customers and quality employees, and able to meet the expectations of financial
markets. A better business climate should generate more funds for SD, according to market liberal thinking. Therefore,
they advocate stable intellectual and physical property rights, reliable contracts enforced by the rule of law, transparent
government standards and a minimum of trade-distorting rules, tariffs and subsidies. Market liberals prefer fostering eco-
efficiency, voluntary greening and technological innovation as part of CSR policies, ISO or UN Global Compact.
According to Clapp and Dauvergne, advocates actually see CSR as a way for transnational companies to raise
environmental standards worldwide. However, to avoid (the threat of regulation may be a strong motivation to engage
in CSR.

Also, market liberals emphasise that new technologies that drastically improve our material and energy efficiency are
needed to make space for rising consumption in emerging economies. The WBCSD, for instance, concludes from recent
history that wealthy countries and regions of the world do not intend to consume and waste less. Thus, they put all their
cards on technology, neglecting the behavioural factor, while their institutional proposals are limited to creating a
business-friendly climate. Since they do not believe there is a global environmental and social crisis, they can only agree
to marginal adjustments to the current economic system.

S cia g ee Want social and environmental justice for all. They also address the culture of overconsumption, because
ecological damage threatens us all, especially the most vulnerable. They wish to dismantle or downgrade global economic
institutions, and refocus regional and local economies on meeting their own needs.

According to Clapp and Dauvergne, the more radical social greens are represented by the IFG. This group would like to
eliminate the WTO and replace it with a General Agreement on Sustainable Trade (GAST . The new organisation would
enable states to give preferential status to goods and services whose producers respect human rights, treat workers fairly
and protect the environment. More moderate groups like Greenpeace want WTO to incorporate the precautionary
principle into its charter and rules. Many among radicals and reformists want SAPs abandoned and the IMF and the WB
abolished. A new organisation could be charged with financial advice to obtain debt relief and local sustainability, perhaps
funded by a small tax on global financial transactions. Obviously, these proposals constitute a serious break away from
current trends.

Social greens want new global principles and rules for TNCs which should be enforced by a new IGO. Greenpeace, for
instance, has proposed the ‘Bhopal Principles on Corporate Accountability’ in order to ensure TNCs apply the highest
standards regardless of location. Also, corporations would be obliged to ‘site here to sell here’—a slogan that highlights
social greens’ priority to reinforce local and regional economies. In the meantime, Social greens are active in social
enterprise and co-operatives. Also, NGOs are an excellent instrument to re-empower marginalised groups and, thus,
assist in social transformation.

On particular issues you may find representatives of these views join coalitions, but not always the same ones. In general,
institutionalists and market liberals agree on many things. Their general approach is to constantly improve
implementation of SD principles. On the other hand, bio-environmentalists and social greens agree that they want a
brand new political economy based on principles of fairness and ecological boundaries. Clapp and Dauvergne notice that
virtually all agree on the fact that sustainable growth is the best way, certainly for DCs, and that taxes should be shifted
from labour to resource use.

This section reflects on the interactions of business and NGOs with each other and with government and IGOs for the
attainment of the world’s SDGs. We will now reflect on the following three elements: private investment, various forms of
communication and co-operation between public and private stakeholders, and overall government leadership.

P i a eI e e

We have learned that sustainability is indispensible for global businesses and increasingly so for locally oriented
companies. Depending on the personal and public awareness and businessmen’s risk-attitudes companies may choose
their level of involvement from negligence to total integration. Some may feel constrained by the attitudes and (lack of
action in their global supply chain. Perhaps partnerships with NGOs and IGOs may overcome the obstacle(s . The re-
orienting of business is a process of reducing the company’s social and environmental negatives and enlarging the
positives for its stakeholders and society as a whole. Steps may be incremental and continuous, but also large and bold.
Small steps require little change in approaches and procedures, while bold steps require a deep change process of the
type that John Kotter laid out. These steps focus on such organisational actions as forming a guiding coalition or writing a
vision and strategy.

However, Doppelt ( points to the fact that essentially a change of company culture is needed. He says that we must
first change the mindset that created the current system or very little change will happen. This could begin as a bottom-
up movement in the company, but also as a personal change in the top leaders. He tells the story of the late Ray
Anderson for who the reading of Paul Hawken’s influential book Ecology of Commerce ( was the start of a new
approach to doing business. Instead of leading a company that was happy to merely comply with the law, he transformed
his company Interface into a truly sustainable business. That meant a transition from the ‘take–make–waste’ model to
the ‘borrow–use–return’ model. He subsequently transformed Interface into a company that rents out floor covering
services rather than selling carpets.

The initial impulse may also come from a crisis, such as in the case of global furniture-maker IKEA. The leadership adopted
sustainability after a series of labour and environmental scandals in Denmark. Doppelt records that the issue attracted a
lot of media attention and caused serious reputation damage to the company. One major investigation identified the root
cause in the use of certain glues and additives, which were then replaced in the whole European furniture industry. We
conclude that the cause was addressed for the benefit of all stakeholders, not just IKEA.

S a eh de Pa e hi

The sustainability mindset says that it is better to communicate with your internal and external stakeholders than to find
them opposed because your company or NGO created a done deal. The new SDGs themselves were the outcome of a
consultation process with numerous stakeholders. This is why there are many publications on the topic, for instance
Brouwer and Woodhill’s ‘The MSP Guide. How to Design and Facilitate Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships’. The makers have
created the portal www.mspguide.org for those who need to explore the topic. Most organisations in a globalised world
realise that they cannot fully achieve their aspirations on their own. In fact, opposing stakeholders may often block or
reduce their effectiveness. For instance, a business wishing to meet customer demand for sustainable food or body care
products containing palm oil has to assure them that their purchase does not cause deforestation, pollution or child
labour. The book lists the following goals that stakeholder communication may have: consultation; learning and idea
generation; joint problem solving; conflict resolution; and collective action. The purposes have to be clearly stated in
advance, and the structure of meetings has to match the purposes.

The challenge to all people and organisations is to become part of the sustainable solution instead of being part of the
problem. All can do certain things on their own, they can do more co-operatively with other stakeholders, and achieve the
most if government creates enabling conditions. Normally, the process towards sustainability begins with growing
awareness that (a certain kind of pollution is no longer acceptable. This may be related to rising income and education
levels, causing a shift in society’s preferences. Consumers demand products that have been manufactured in
environment-friendly ways. Investors treat a dodgy environmental company record as a risk and apply pressure or
redirect their funds. As the momentum builds, government is able to take a tougher stance in legislation and law
enforcement.

G e e Leade hi a d S

At the end of this chapter about business and NGOs we reflect a little on their interaction with government. As elaborated
on in the previous chapter, government’s main roles in the sustainability transition are co-ordination and
implementation. For business, NGOs, families and communities to do their part effectively, government and parliament
have to articulate the urgency that should unite society for the greater good. They should also make some strategic
choices in key trade-offs, for instance the future shape of the energy system. For the sake of acceptance and active co-
operation it is important that the national sustainability vision is widely shared. Since awareness of sustainability issues is
generally poor in low- and middle-income countries ESD (the subject of Chapter has to be a top priority. Moreover, the
process of creating a national consensus on the SD strategy is an opportunity for awareness-building and for practising
responsible citizenship. It involves working through differences of perspective and interest through talking rather than
conflict and confrontation—a process with large long-term benefits.

Promoting social and environmental responsibility in business is an excellent idea for government, given that globalisation
has reduced alternative ways to influence the social and environmental outcomes of the economic process. However,
more CSR in a country cannot replace government’s political role in promoting social and environmental quality. Rather,
governments may entice business to make a contribution to the country’s economic, social and environmental policy
goals. The following examples are illustrations of this opportunity:

In the economic dimension, a beverage producer in Uganda and Zambia decided to use sorghum from small, local
farmers instead of imported barley when the government offered reduced excise duties on the final product. The
policy served both local income generation and import substitution goals.
In the social dimension, a particular business or branch of industry could improve conditions for its employees,
either at its own initiative or in response to government policy or the threat thereof. Thus, the government of
Vietnam is working with its chamber of commerce and textile industry to establish a national reputation for good
labour practices. They hope that this will not only improve the quality of life for textile workers, but also increase
the sector’s competitiveness in global markets.
In the environmental dimension, entrepreneurs considering new products or markets may be induced by
Colombia’s ‘Mercados Verdes’ programme to choose an environmentally friendly option.

Yet, sometimes, the government should choose regulation to edit out unsustainable choices for consumers. Thus, for
instance, many countries have phased out the inefficient incandescent bulb in order to accelerate the switch to more
efficient alternatives. In the case of the plastic bag, states tend to choose between a (partial ban or a tax on plastic bags
in order to discourage their use. While consumers exert significant influence through their purchases, it is sometimes too
much to ask from consumers to switch if it means they pay significantly more for the green choice. However, if the
unsustainable alternative is taxed or banned the green choice will be produced in bulk and become available at a much
lower additional price.

Last but not least, governments fulfil a key role in mobilising and facilitating international assistance for sustainability
from IGOs. DC businesses and NGOs may need international assistance and support to integrate sustainability into their
work. Fortunately, there are numerous public and private networks, databases and programmes that meet these needs.
International organisations such as the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO and the UNEP run
projects that assist countries in this sphere. UNIDO’s cleaner production centres help DCs overcome barriers to
sustainability:

Share knowledge to perceive environmental threats and opportunities and skills training in how to deal with
them.
Setting up industry-support institutions (public or private .
Improving access to finance through better risk assessment.
Reform government policies that weaken business incentives, for instance energy or water subsidies.

Small changes are helping to mitigate particular environmental impacts of particular forms of consumption, in part thanks
to responsible business and NGOs. Yet, according to Peter Dauvergne, changes to reduce the impacts (and ‘long
shadows’ of global consumption on the earth’s natural environment so far have been too slow and incremental to avoid
irreparable damage that will affect us all. We must do a whole lot better in every corner of society to attain the future we
want.
This chapter comes at the end of Part II to wrap it all up before we explore visions of sustainability for concrete spheres, such
as energy and cities.

The time that environmental impacts of human action were largely local is far behind us. The number and scale of
international environmental and social problems have increased dramatically during the decades of economic and population
growth. These issues have triggered a lot of research, which has led to a much better understanding of human–environment
interaction. Based on that knowledge, governments have taken action to protect specific parts of the natural world against
human pollution, often with technical measures. Where environmental impacts crossed borders, states had to collaborate in
order to effectively tackle issues.

The first truly global issue was ozone depletion—serious damage to the atmospheric layer that protects life on earth against
harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. The first scientific article linking human emissions of chloride to the thinning of the
earth’s ozone shield is dated . It took another years to prove that chemical gases called CFCs released by humans on
the earth’s surface could travel up and eat away at the ozone layer. Particularly, satellite images showing a large hole in the
ozone layer over Antarctica convinced political leaders that action was imperative. World leaders, under the inspiring
leadership of UNEP Chief Mustafa Tolba, agreed to the Montreal Protocol in . Looking back over years of ozone layer
protection, we can see that this issue is being dealt with effectively by political, scientific and industry action. A few facts really
helped to get us there:

The market for ozone depleting substances ODS was controlled by relatively few companies
Promising, cost-effective alternatives were available at the time that the urgency to tackle the problem was felt
Industrialised countries supported DC measures by offering them delayed implementation by years and an
international fund to pay transition costs

ICs banned ODS under the Montreal Protocol years before DCs had to. During that decade, ODS could be legally used in ICs
for older equipment, but registered supplies of ODS were becoming expensive. Illegally imported ODS were cheaper for the
user and more profitable for the trader. That situation invited smuggling. Today, there are still lots of implementation issues
left, such as how to retrieve ODS from old refrigeration equipment that is repaired or discarded. There’s a role here for
governments to regulate and enforce, for businesses to hire and instruct qualified staff and for consumers to discard
equipment in a responsible manner. The prospects for full recovery of the ozone layer are good, but only if governments,
businesses and households, all do their part to implement agreed international protection measures. If left alone, the ozone
shield could be fully restored by the s. From this issue, we learn that:

Humans were getting a strong warning about their potential to harm life on earth in a place where the damage was
not immediately catastrophic.
A problem that took only days to create in a chemical lab in cost decades of research and almost a century of
international action to eliminate.
International co-operation was effective as it resulted in clear commitments and compensation measures.

There are many issues on the international policy agenda. In this chapter, we focus on two that could keep us from achieving
SD—persistent poverty and climate change. Poverty alleviation has been part of the development agenda since the late s,
and it’s again part of the SDGs of . Climate change was first discussed as an international policy issue at a UN conference
in , hosted by the World Meteorological Organisation WMO . At the Rio Earth Summit in , there was overwhelming
political support from world leaders to name it a global issue that required concerted international action. Yet, for the next
years, we saw little more than token policies and failed promises. Both poverty and climate change are often called wicked
problems. This term was first used in connection with urban planning in the s. The ‘wicked’ part is not referring to evil,
but to the fact that this type of policy problem seems to defy solution. Characteristics of wicked problems include, but are not
limited to:
 Wicked problems are big and have many causes and dimensions.
Interactions between this and other issues are complex, in technical and social ways.
Knowledge on the issue is incomplete, perhaps contradictory, and constantly evolving.
Stakeholders have widely different views on the problem and preferred solutions; there may be conflicting goals for
those involved.
Wicked problems go beyond the authority and resources of one level of government.
Attempts to address them may lead to unforeseen outcomes that complicate matters.

Authors warn us that wicked problems stay around for a long time. Perhaps they are never solved in the way this is normally
understood—namely, that implementation of legal and technical measures makes the problem go away. Instead, we may
learn to handle the problem better over time. Let us now examine why persistent poverty and climate change may qualify as
wicked problems and how this affects the way we deal with them.

P e a a W c ed P b e

Every land and every age have had poor people, who could not live the dignified life they wanted. The reasons may be found
in a complex of conditions related to the poor person and his or her socio-economic environment. Personal factors may be a
physical handicap or the lack of knowledge and skills. However, it is the interaction with local economic and social factors that
keeps these people from reaching a state of well-being. Robert Chambers simplifies the state of well-being to five dimensions:
security, physical well-being, enough for a good life, good social relations, and freedom of choice and action. Figure .
contrasts the positive state of well-being with its negative counterpart ill-being, the deprivation of those desirable things.

The five dimensions are interrelated, for instance, bad health turns a strong body from an asset to earn income into a liability
that needs money to buy medicine. Insecurity of housing or job may affect a person’s physical condition and his or her social
relations, and so on. Chambers emphasises that poverty models including this one are products from the perspective of
development professionals who themselves are not in need. Some WB researchers have turned to the poor to give them
voice. One result was that ‘What is poverty?’ is really the wrong question. A better one addresses policy-makers as follows:

What can you do to reduce our bad experiences of life and living, and to enable us to achieve more of the good things in life to
which we aspire?

To make policy for this, it is not enough to simply aim for economic growth. For one, as we have seen, to improve well-being
takes more than just growing income. Furthermore, growth of a country’s overall income says very little about who benefits
from this growth. If it provides few jobs and little income to the community, then that growth does not reduce poverty. Access
to public services, especially utilities, public transport, health care and education, are key factors enabling poor people to
attain their aspirations for a good life. Whether people get this access or not is not just a matter of government budgets but
also of political choices. Deeply entrenched socio-cultural conditions may have an impact to deny poor people the resources to
fulfil needs and participate meaningfully in community life. Last but not least, indebted DCs have in the past been pressured by
IMF and WB to cut spending even in areas critical for inclusive development.

Societies have always known poverty, but we do not have more than anecdotal evidence about the existence of poverty in
earlier times. Only for the last years we have material to suggest that the percentage of poor in the world is lower than
ever. Nevertheless, the absolute number of poor people is very large and so is their percentage in some world regions. Despite
the fact that global poverty has been an international policy issue for years, poverty alleviation is still part of the new global
goals for . This leads Martin Mulligan to conclude that persistent poverty is a wicked problem. While in his view poverty
will unlikely be eliminated, he pleads for societies to be caring and inclusive. This means that ‘they pay constant attention to
the emergence and/or continuation of poverty “traps.” At all levels from the local to the global, poverty is a perennial threat
that calls for unlimited compassion and endless vigilance’ Mulligan , . A poverty trap is a situation where people
remain poor despite their best efforts to get out. This may be caused by population growth and land degradation resulting
from increased pressure on natural resources. Another cause, more common in middle- and high-income countries, is that
people who get a better-paying job end up in the same financial condition because their tax rate increases and/or they lose
social benefits.

C a eC a e a a W c ed P b e

Climate science is large, diverse and complex. No single person can be an expert in everything, so there has to be a lot of co-
operation to get the big picture. For this reason, when the UN became concerned about the global climate in the s, they
established an investigation group the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, see historical section to assess
and describe what science knows about causes, effects and measures, and how certain are we about these things. Each
update reported more certainty about the role of human activity in explaining observed climate change, but also raised new
questions. Uncertainties remain about the appropriate long-term emission path, the impacts of climate change on ecosystems,
the cost of future emission reductions, and the role of behaviour, technology and institutions in this process. Knowledge about
the issue is still evolving, and although the majority of scientists agree on the need to limit climate change, there are also
strong dissenting voices.

GHGs change the climate no matter where they originate, as they mix evenly in the atmosphere. Some stay there for a short
time methane and others for a long time carbon dioxide . Over the last years, of accumulated GHGs have been
emitted by ICs. However, current emission trends suggest that DCs will overtake them within a decade, unless policies change
dramatically. The impacts of climate change are likely to be bigger in DCs due to geographical factors and their lower capacity
to adapt. For instance, sea-level rise and more frequent extreme weather events are life-threatening for lower income DCs,
while their emissions per person are negligible. They are dependent on climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture, and they
have very limited means to shift to more suitable crops. As a result, there is a strong ethical component to the climate
problem. Broad international participation is needed for effectiveness and fairness. We must avoid the situation that, by
staying out, countries could get a free ride at the expense of others. They would get the benefits of a stable climate while not
paying towards the costs of attaining this result. As such, the climate problem resembles the well-known game-theory concept
of prisoners’ dilemma—without international co-operation, individual countries have a stronger incentive to stay out than to
join an international climate policy coalition.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC, laid down the long-term goal and main principles of
climate protection. The expectation was that states would gradually agree to stricter quantitative targets and timetables
involving more countries in order to bring global emissions down drastically over the course of to years. However,
scientific knowledge gaps were eliminated only slowly. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the incentive for states to take a free
ride was strong. As a result, several climate summits failed. After , the overall approach to international negotiations had
to be changed. All countries were now encouraged to set development goals and targets and indicate how these could be
achieved in climate-friendly ways. If countries could get support from an international climate fund, the reasoning went, they
might set higher ambitions. In December , at the Paris Climate Summit world leaders agreed on this approach. Time will
tell if the Paris Agreement treaty was indeed the first step away from dangerous climate interference.

Re d W c ed P b e A D ffe e K d f Leade

Mulligan says that the long-term sustainable response to these wicked problems will reduce a host of other problems, such as
resource degradation loss of forest and soil fertility , unresolved conflicts, and increasing flows of refugees and asylum
seekers. Chris Riedy, in a article , highlights the need for a different kind of policy response to wicked problems and,
therefore, a different kind of leadership style. In his view, strategies to wicked problems should, among others:

. Use holistic, long-term, big-picture thinking

. Develop through action, experimentation and evaluation
. Engage stakeholders in understanding the problem and identifying responses

We might add that leaders should deeply understand negotiation processes and ways to structure them so that states have
maximum incentives to participate. So leaders should work collaboratively across traditional boundaries. They should
understand human behaviour and ways to change it. Their core skills and competencies should include systems thinking
switching between levels , communication, and teamwork.

This section puts our global wicked problems in historical perspective. This will give us a sense of the urgency of strategic
action and trigger our imagination of where our lifestyle and career choices come into the picture.

Poverty has been around for centuries, but as an international development policy issue, it is about years old. In the
beginning, income was virtually the only factor considered, and the proposed policy solution was growth of DCs’ national
income through modernisation. The ways to attain this were industrialisation and increase of human productivity. Yet, after
two decades of such policies, there was still a lot of poverty left, both in urban slums and in the countryside. Wealth had not
trickled down to the extent policy-makers expected, so academics and development practitioners studied the matter more in-
depth. New insights were brought to bear. The s were the era of basic human needs. The overemphasis on income was
criticised. After all, rich and poor humans alike have many more needs apart from food which will not wait until physical needs
are fully met. People everywhere are social creatures who have the roles of parents, spouses, employees and/or citizens.
Moreover, they are dependent on collectively provided facilities, such as clean water and energy. So several such basic needs
and collective items were included in the needs package. For rural residents, access to land and tools were also on the list. This
meant that government policies affecting the position of the poor were now also in focus. A more developed approach
centred on livelihood, and on adequate stocks and flows of food and cash to meet basic needs. This concept is worked out
more in Chapter . For a while, then, the basic needs concept played an influential role in national development plans
fostered by the UN.

The WCED spoke of strong connections between the economic, social and environmental crises in the world at that time. It
mentioned poverty as a major cause and effect of global environmental problems, such as deforestation and desertification.
Environmental degradation is causing more and more people to move away from their homes, either within their country or
abroad. Those that remain are increasingly living in marginal conditions where they have no choice but to exploit the land
further for their survival. The commission emphasised that any attempt to deal with the environmental issue apart from the
broader context of global poverty and inequality would be futile. The commission laments the situation, particularly severe in
the s when it wrote its report that many poor countries were having to exploit their environment intensely in order to
pay back their national debt to external creditors. A similar criticism would later be launched against the IMF and WB for the
conditions attached to their loans since . The so-called SAPs were intended to achieve financial-economic stability and
structural changes to enable access to world markets. Specific objectives were usually privatisation, wage control, reduction of
trade restrictions and public spending cuts. There are many difficulties in measuring the effects of these programmes, and so
there are widely varying assessments of them. Some acknowledge that short-term suffering was needed to obtain long-term
gains. However, the view that they undermined social and environmental development goals is strong. Thus, the international
economic system may impact lower level efforts to empower the poor and reduce persistent poverty.

The MDGs contained several explicit targets that affected the plight of the poor. For instance, the target of reducing extreme
poverty by half, and achieving universal primary education. Goals like these need to be measurable, and so the MDG authors
chose the international poverty line as defined by the WB. It used to be US per person per day, and was later adjusted to
US . . Based on this very low figure, policy successes have been claimed by the UN and respective governments. However,
critics point out that this one measure does not give insight into the numerous causes of poverty and disadvantage, such as
lack of adequate food and clean water, and little or no access to health care, education and commercial loans.

Last but not least, many authors emphasise that the questions and answers about poverty and its alleviation differ depending
on whom you ask. In recent decades, the community development approach has gained popularity. It is a development model
in which the precise issues and goals are worked out co-operatively between project staff and local communities. The idea
behind it is that the people themselves have the best understanding of the various barriers to greater inclusion in their society.
The solutions could include the use of micro-credit and business initiatives that are based on the realities of poor
communities. Companies accept low margins in order to serve more people or they charge people for the use of equipment
rather than for purchasing it.

Poverty, then, is a complex phenomenon whose causes may lie deep in the past, but which through a host of factors continues
into the present. Some are related to personal decisions of the poor and others to community problems, while global
phenomena and policies may also have an impact. One such external factor is climate change, which aggravates several
existing development issues, such as water scarcity or damage from extreme weather events. On the other hand, some
poverty-reduction strategies may enhance the climate problem while others mitigate it. For instance, improving access to coal-
generated electricity may sound good, but in the context of a climate-constrained world, taking renewable energy to the poor
is superior. Let us now explore the climate problem in depth.

A historical overview on climate change may help us see the relevant issues in proper perspective. The Earth’s atmosphere is
only a thin layer km of gases around our planet, but without it, life would be impossible. First, it filters out some of the
sun’s radiation that would harm life, namely, ultra-violet rays. Next, it allows the air at the earth surface to be warmed up first,
which is suitable for living organisms too. Land warms and cools faster than water bodies, and so the nearness of seas
moderates the local climate in coastal areas. Climates are classified as follows: A–tropical, B–arid steppe and desert , C–
maritime, D–continental and E–polar. The climate in each place is measured as a -year average of important variables, such
as temperature, wind, precipitation rain and snow and humidity. These naturally vary around certain values over the
centuries, due to volcanic eruptions or changes in solar activity. Our atmosphere keeps surface temperature within the limits
suitable for plant, animal and human life. It does so, thanks to gases that have the capacity to trap heat. This is the natural
greenhouse effect. The effect responds to changes in the concentration of GHGs, which are due to changes in emissions
and/or in GHG uptake by forests and oceans. At present, emissions are much bigger than uptake, so concentrations are going
up.

For centuries the global average temperature in the atmosphere was stable, with concentrations of carbon dioxide CO
around parts per million ppm . However, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, both have been going up faster
and faster, as industrial activities increased the use of fossil fuels with corresponding emissions of GHGs, especially CO . Such
observations led atmospheric scientists to investigate the possible impact of human activity on the Earth’s climate. It took
many decades for the answers to come, as it needed investment in measuring equipment and more research money to
interpret the results. In the s, atmospheric chemists in Hawaii found evidence of a worldwide average warming trend that
matched the rise in CO levels. Meanwhile, vast networks of climate stations entered their records into computer databases
and made historical comparisons over large areas of the globe. Moreover, new information technology enabled scientists to
build computer models simulating weather patterns. Of course, they wanted to know how those patterns could be explained.
The World Climate Conference established an international climate research programme.

In , the WMO and the UNEP decided it was time to assess the large, complex and ambiguous evidence for policy-making
purposes. So they created the IPCC, a group of about distinguished scientists from around the world under the
chairmanship of Bert Bolin Sweden . IPCC which has become much bigger since then has three working groups, and these
have a mandate to

Assess the scientific information related to various components of the climate issue,
Assess the environmental and socio-economic consequences of climate change, and
Formulate realistic response strategies.

IPCC updates its reports about every years, taking into account recent insights from national and international research
programmes. On the IPCC website, each working group includes information about the process by which its assessment report
was made. For instance, Working Group I wrote that its report called AR was written by lead authors, and
reviewed by , experts and governments from all over the world. The lead authors and their assistants worked through
over , scientific publications and processed over , comments—a truly amazing job.

The first IPCC Assessment Report played a key role in the formulation of the UNFCCC. In , they were a little bolder
by saying that the balance of evidence pointed in the direction of a human impact on the climate. In its report, IPCC
stated that ‘most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid twentieth century is very likely due to
the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG gas concentrations’. It means they were certain. Observations of actual
weather records support this: the warmest years on record since have occurred since , with being the
warmest. People are indeed changing climate patterns.

Despite the questions that some individuals keep raising over the soundness of the climate science, the consensus among the
vast majority of scientists with a reputation in relevant fields is significant. In , the IPCC and Al Gore were jointly awarded
the Nobel Peace Prize for their contribution to protection of the atmosphere. Former US Vice-president Gore had done a lot to
visualise the climate problem and bring it home to decision-makers and the general public. The Nobel Committee’s decision
reflects the belief that climate change may so impact human health and livelihoods that it causes a lot more conflict within
and between nations over access to affected resources. Therefore, promoting clear climate science and political leadership to
solve the problem should be seen as efforts to promote peace.

Climate zones are shifting, as many places record higher average temperatures across decades. What are the impacts of
climate change and how are they spread across the globe? First, plants can grow where they could not before, and animals
move along if natural or manmade barriers do not contain them. Often such a move is good for biodiversity, but sometimes it
is problematic. This has led for instance to the spruce beetle moving to Alaska and killing vast spruce forests there. Second,
glaciers in mountainous countries and near the poles have become much shorter or disappeared in the last century. The seas
near the Arctic have much less sea ice in summer, a life-threatening problem for the polar bear. The massive melting of land-
based glaciers and rise in ocean temperature leads to the third impact—sea levels are rising by cm to cm per decade.
Fourth, extreme weather events such as storms, heat-waves and floods are stronger and happen more frequently. Other
possible impacts include the spread of diseases such as malaria to places where it did not occur before, and the extinction of
plants or animals that cannot keep pace with the changing conditions. Wet countries tend to become wetter and dry ones
drier. Rain and snow will fall in shorter and heavier showers, which may cause landslides in mountain regions. Night frost that
kills fruit blossom may also occur more frequently. Note that these changes reflect the fact that changes in climate are not
linear, but happen shock-wise and in unpredictable ways. Therefore, it is dangerous for humans to suggest that they could
engineer climate change to their wishes.

Table . shows the major GHGs and their contribution to the problem. Global warming potential GWP is a measure for the
ability of a gas to trap heat. The potential of the most important GHG, CO , was set at and all others are measured against
that.

Comparing the contributions and GWPs of different gases brings out that industrial chemicals are the most powerful, but their
overall contribution is only . The share of CFCs has diminished as they are phased out under the Montreal Protocol for the
protection of the ozone layer, but their replacements HFCs and PFCs have a powerful climate effect. Despite awareness that
problems should not be shifted from one issue to another, a solution is still underway. Carbon dioxide is emitted in such huge
quantities that its total contribution to the problem is around half. For this reason, its GWP was set at and taken as a
measure to compare GHGs. Just imagine, all this carbon that was stored in the Earth’s interior for centuries is now released in
a short time.

GHG emission sources fall into three main categories: a fossil fuel production, distribution and use, b agriculture, cattle
breeding and forestry, and c industrial chemicals. Figure . gives the sources in greater detail and with their respective
share. The big picture shows that pretty much all activity in a fossil-fuel-dependent society affects the climate. This means that
there are a great number of stakeholders that are responsible and affected in various ways. Climate protection would shift
costs and benefits ideally to where they belong, but such changes are very complex.

In order to mitigate or reduce GHG emissions, there are many possible measures. Looking at the pie diagram, we may see that
the biggest contribution would come from an energy transition away from fossil fuel and towards renewable sources. Such a
transition is described in more detail in Chapter . Here, we draw attention to the variety of measures that are needed:

More households and businesses become producers of their own renewable energy.
New building designs have low energy needs for heating and cooling, and energy-efficient lighting.
Industry reuses and recycles previously discarded waste flows, and redesigns products and processes.
 Vehicles become more efficient and more often use renewable technologies; cities invest in strong transit systems,
and safe cycling and walking in order to entice people to leave cars at home.
Landfill gas from decaying waste is used to generate power; where waste is burnt in industrial-style furnaces, the
heat is used productively; increased material recycling saves both energy and non-renewable materials.
Improved crop and pasture management could increase carbon uptake; rice cultivation and livestock breeding take
measures to reduce methane emissions; improved nitrogen fertiliser application reduces nitrous oxide emissions.
Tree planting, forest protection, and improved forest management all reduce carbon emissions and increase natural
uptake.

Please note that many of the measures are about technologies and infrastructure, but to implement them correctly,
complementary changes in behaviour and institutions are required as well. This takes us straight to the drivers of climate
change. They are behind changes in the emission sources listed, and reflect the interplay between world market trends, rising
incomes in emerging economies, lifestyle choices, social movements, technological innovations and government policies.
None of these are natural phenomena beyond the reach of rational choice. Climate change could be characterised as the
highest scale problem caused by a human society that is out of harmony with nature. So in a way, we are all drivers of climate
change.

Obviously, one individual cannot make a difference, but local or large virtual communities can. Also, innovative businesses can
start sustainable trends that spread quickly in a globalised world. Last but not least, governments control the policies that
enable or discourage the rest of society to make sustainable lifestyle choices in all areas of life—housing, food and beverage,
transportation, leisure and so on. Yet politicians will hesitate unless the public have a sense of urgency and support policy
action. The long time-horizon goes beyond the -year election cycle of politicians, which makes it an unpopular issue to tackle.

The measures listed make sense for a variety of reasons apart from climate protection, including higher food security, reduced
dependence on fuel imports, lower traffic congestion, better air quality for all and a transport system that is fair and
affordable for all income groups. Thus, their cost should not solely be ascribed to the climate argument. SD must logically
include climate protection in ways that are suitable in each social-economic context. The following sections have more about
what this could mean in practice.

SD is not a goal that can be attained with a few quick fixes so that we can return to normality. Rather, the whole idea of
normality needs to change in a gradual but consistent way. In an unsustainable society, GHG reductions only occur during an
economic downturn, such as the one that followed the collapse of state socialism in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. The
International Energy Agency IEA announced that global CO emissions were flat in while the economy grew by . If a
wide consensus on SD exists in a community or country, then top-down and bottom-up efforts will come together to raise
well-being while reducing human impacts on the climate and the earth in general.
South Asia features prominently in the lists of world regions with both a high percentage of poor and a large share of people
vulnerable to climate change impacts. According UNEA the new name for UNEP , the region has more than million poor as
well as million near-poor. The same unsustainable kind of economic growth that has lifted millions out of poverty since
the year is in danger of hampering further progress in achieving urgent development goals. In addition, climate change is
severely affecting the subcontinent and aggravating the pressures on overstretched natural ecosystems. For instance, Nepal’s
glaciers have receded by since , and might lose up to by . Climate change is, thus, impacting water resources,
especially in the Himalayas, with flood and drought events expected to become more frequent and intense. Moreover, more
frequent and prolonged heat waves with temperatures over degrees cause extreme heat stress in the Indus and Ganges
valleys. Erratic monsoons are wreaking havoc in parts of Northwest, East and South India. The number of people at risk from
annual floods increased from million to million . Also, those living in areas affected by cyclones went up from
million to million , according to United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
UN ESCAP, .

The Human Development Report records that global poverty—those living on less than US . per day—has been more
than halved between and . The largest gains have been achieved in just three countries: Brazil from . to . ,
China from . to . and India from . to . . These successes are the outcome of high overall economic growth
and targeted poverty alleviation efforts. Nevertheless, large numbers of poor remain in those countries and in Africa.

Geoffrey Gertz and Laurence Chandy signal two global poverty trends that necessitate a shift in poverty alleviation policy.
Through the growth of several large DCs and their promotion to the middle-income group, poverty in a middle-income context
is a new phenomenon. There, lack of access to credit is not so acute as in low-income countries but poor governance is. Poverty
persists alongside a growing middle-class and often in countries with fragile state and social structures Congo, Nigeria and
Pakistan .

Terry O’Brien writes that we should define the bottom billion not in terms of poorest individuals but poorest countries.
In his view, the numbers would be one billion wealthy citizens, four billion in fast-growing middle-income countries and one
billion in poor countries on a world population of six billion. The four billion in middle-income countries are in a relatively
favourable position, he argues. However, the almost one billion people in the poorest states often find themselves in conflict
situations, land-locked with bad neighbours and suffering from poor governance. These countries are increasingly falling behind
the other groups.

The issues facing the poor require fresh political will to be solved as they are connected to unequal distribution of assets e.g.
land and participation in markets. This is a huge challenge since the underprivileged themselves have no voice in the political
process. Gertz and Chandy, therefore, conclude that prevailing poverty alleviation strategies designed for stable, low-income
situations apply to only of the global poor.

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the twenty-
first century will lead to high–very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally. IPCC

The UNFCCC is at the core of the world’s climate protection system. It was opened for signature at the Rio Earth Summit in June
, and entered into force after states had ratified it under their national laws. By December , the convention had
member states, so near-universal membership. State parties have met every year since in the so-called Conference of
Parties COP . A major one was COP in Paris, where a far-reaching global agreement was adopted. The UNFCCC’s main goal is
to stabilise concentrations of GHGs at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the climate system. The time
frame for that should be sufficient for ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not
threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. Current GHG concentrations in the
atmosphere are estimated at ppm. This is close to the critical mark that the Climate Convention states is safe— ppm—
but recently scientists favour the lower limit of ppm.

GHG-emitting activities are not spread evenly across the world, but the gases do mix evenly in the atmosphere. As a result,
emissions from anywhere in the world affect the climate for everybody. This brings us to the point of country emissions and
responsibility for the problem. Historically, the countries that first industrialised have emitted the most GHGs , and their
emissions per capita are the highest see Table . and Figure . . DCs started much later, but are catching up fast. Their energy
efficiency is much lower and their preferred cheap fuel is often the most climate-unfriendly one—coal. Already, China’s annual
CO emissions surpass those of the USA, even though its per capita emissions are only a fifth of the American level, but differ
widely between regions. Other emerging economies are also growing fast, while ICs have so far not demonstrated ability to
reduce their emissions significantly. For instance, the EU emission reduction of between and was mainly due to
economic crises former socialist countries in the s; most members since , a switch to less carbon-intensive fuels and
growth in the share of renewable sources. At the same time, the EU’s GDP grew by , which suggests that economic growth
need not come with similar GHG increases. International transportation emissions, however, keep growing.

In the UNFCCC, ICs accepted historical responsibility for climate change by adopting an emission stabilisation objective as a first
step towards drastic long-term reductions. They accepted that DCs would not have quantitative objectives at first, and created
the GEF to pay for agreed additional costs of adapting development programmes and systems to the reality of a changing
climate. However, a few years after country-parties agreed to add a protocol with reduction commitment to the convention at
Kyoto in , major GHG-emitting countries Australia and the USA declined, quoting scientific uncertainties. Canada joined
this group in by withdrawing from ‘Kyoto’ after a government change. The protocol, covering the period up to ,
nevertheless entered into force in , and activities to combat climate change and promote adaptation went ahead.

According to DCs, the historical responsibility of ICs meant that ICs would start reducing their emissions while they themselves
would not have any targets for a long time. This seemed acceptable to ICs in the early s when the UN Climate Convention
was agreed, but it was increasingly disputed after some major DCs experienced strong economic and emission growth
throughout the s and s. Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa became middle-income countries
and were often referred to as emerging economies. As their position in world markets grew stronger, the competitive pressures
were felt in the climate negotiations arena.

Flexibility was a key term under the Kyoto Protocol and three Kyoto mechanisms expressed this: Joint Implementation
emissions trading project co-operation among ICs , the Clean Development Mechanism CDM; the same but between ICs and
DCs , and International Emission Trading countries that remained within their quota could sell to those that did not . Despite
obvious tension with the principle of equity, there are important reasons for allowing states flexibility in implementing reduction
commitments. One is the fact that for effectiveness it does not matter where in the world a ton of GHGs is reduced. The other
is that the costs per ton reduced vary enormously across the globe, from a few dollars per ton for energy-saving projects in DCs
to over a hundred per ton for technologically advanced projects in ICs. Flexibility, then, means that countries with reduction
obligations may choose where to reduce—at home or abroad. Of course, official procedures are needed to make sure that
reductions are real and that the host country government agrees that the project fits in with its SD priorities. Now, negotiations
cost time and money, which makes big projects more worthwhile than smaller ones. Finally, a system to monitor and report
about the real activities and emissions would be needed. Under the CDM, the following sort of emission reduction projects are
carried out:

Energy efficiency and renewable sources

Capture and use of landfill gas sort of methane
Replacement of chemicals with a GWP

The Kyoto mechanisms have been heavily criticised, because their emission reductions may not always have been real, their
development contribution minimal or their geographical distribution unfair. Some say that they take too much pressure off the
ICs to make serious reductions at home. The emission records of the last two decades seem to suggest that this is true for some
countries. Nevertheless, the Kyoto mechanisms provided an excellent opportunity for ICs and DCs to work together for the
common good—a stable climate.

Until the Paris Agreement, many CoPs on climate achieved only partial results but not the big global deal that would take
climate protection further towards the long-term goal. Such partial results included a limit for global average temperature
increase degrees , rules on how to take deforestation into account, technology transfer, a climate fund, and capacity building
for adaptation and mitigation. Countries’ approaches to overall progress have always been very different. Many DCs did not
accept a rigid emission limit, arguing that this would restrict their development opportunities. They saw the drive to change
energy systems without sufficient support for managing the cost of such a transition as extremely risky. After the failure to reach
agreement in Copenhagen the Kyoto Protocol was extended with the Doha Amendment . For years, the COPs
played out the pattern of a humorous video made by the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo
CICERO of Norway, entitled ‘The History of Climate Change Negotiations in Seconds’.

In the following years, a number of factors changed. More industrialised and DCs became aware of the negative ways in which
climate change affected them. Also, the cost of renewable energy sources came down dramatically and investment in them
soared all over the world. Indeed, some DCs became major production centres of renewable energy technology. As mentioned
earlier, the overall approach shifted from setting quantitative limits to encouraging countries to pledge national goals and review
them internationally. ICs geared up domestic action and were more forthcoming with climate finance. The Green Climate Fund
became operational in , only weeks before the start of the Paris summit. To many, this meeting of world leaders was the
last opportunity to prevent dangerous human meddling with the climate. All through and , there was intense
diplomatic activity to get major players to raise the stakes. China and the USA, the biggest GHG emitters, declared ambitious
goals and called on other countries to follow. One country after another submitted intended nationally determined
contributions INDCs , which reflected their pledge to limit domestic emissions, adapt to climate changes, and accept or give
international support for such action. UNEP added them all up to see if total GHG reductions would keep global temperature
rise within the critical limit. Their emission gap report concluded that much more was needed. So the updated INDCs that are
now required every years should gradually become more ambitious as countries improve learning. Also, in August, the UN
General Assembly adopted new SDGs to succeed the MDGs. More about these are given in the next section. Clearly, the
momentum was building and expectations were increasing. Fortunately, the French hosts turned out to be good at building
confidence and creating a process that encouraged delegates to compromise. The Paris Summit ended with hope.

Core elements of the Paris Agreement include:

A collective commitment to limit average global temperature increase to well below C above pre-industrial levels and
to pursue . C.
The goal to balance the amount of carbon that the global economy adds to and takes from the atmosphere within this
century.
Every country must update and strengthen its pledged contribution to climate change mitigation every years,
beginning in .
Developed countries collectively pledged to raise at least US billion per year by to help DCs reduce their
emissions compared to business as usual and adapt to climate change.

The differences between schools of thought come out strong in their assessment of the global challenges described in this
chapter. While some hold on to the basic soundness of the world’s economic system at all cost, others point to its very
foundations as the cause for what they call a global social and ecological crisis.

However, this does not mean that we find action for sustainability only in some schools of thought and not in others. In more
and more parts of the world, there is a public expectation that all should accept sustainability goals and do their part to achieve
them. As a result, even those that see sustainability as a minor issue, use its language to legitimise their activity. It is up to the
rest of us to investigate if they are true to the spirit of sustainability or if they are pretending.

The bio-environmentalist vision puts a strong emphasis on the grave threats of unsustainable development for the global
environment. In their view, the human-caused changes to climate systems are very alarming, and must be counteracted fast to
prevent large-scale disasters. Some organisations that are of this persuasion research relevant processes in order to know under
which conditions their preferred future is feasible. For instance, in Chapter , we discuss the report that the WWF has made to
urge world leaders to hasten the transition to renewable energy. The bio-environmentalist vision puts environment first for the
sake of all the Earth’s inhabitants, arguing that not doing so will make all of us worse off. Some extra effort and insecurity now
is the price we have to pay for preventing future disaster. This view has traditionally been a driving force behind the many
international environmental treaties, concluded since the mid- s. In the international climate negotiations, however, this
urgency did not lead to agreement. Therefore, after the failed Copenhagen climate summit, attention shifted to development
first. Bio-environmentalists do not seem to have an overall vision on the causes and solutions for poverty. They do, however,
recognise that the poor themselves should be empowered to manage the Earth’s resources better on the marginal lands that
they occupy. Also, bio-environmentalists are happy to co-operate with business and development agencies in taking renewable
energy sources to the world’s poor and creating green labels for fish and forestry products.

Institutionalists can be equally passionate about reducing poverty and environmental problems. Their strength is in identifying
where inadequate rules and organisations, or poor implementation are among the causes for these ills. In poverty alleviation,
they emphasise the need for poor people to gain clear legal rights of access or property to resources such as forests. Also, they
seek to design legal or financial arrangements to enable the poor to obtain solar home systems or gain access to renewable
energy services, for example. Small business development is also a favoured way to empower poor people to overcome their
situation. Such market-based solutions to development problems are popular these days. Their standard practice is to integrate
economic, social and environmental aspects of development, for instance, in low-carbon development or in climate-resilient
agriculture. Institutionalists accept the IPCC work as evidence for the reality of climate change and the need to achieve strong
global agreement to combat the problem. They accepted the environment-first approach as having the best chance of success,
but were flexible enough to switch to development-first when the former did not work.

Market liberal thinkers put the economy first, believing that all other things start from a strong global economy. By doing this,
they implicitly accept significant risk to the global climate and the world’s poor. In essence, they put burdens on future
generations and the natural environment, and on people without access to political influence. In order to prevent state
intervention, they have acquired the language of sustainability, but they often mean something else from the common use of
that word. They emphasise that citizens and businesses need maximum freedom to do what they do best, create wealth by
pursuing their self-interest. In today’s global markets, that means making sure that companies do not lose ground in global
competition. When international agreements are debated, they prefer solutions that work through economic incentives and
voluntary programmes. It is probably in their ranks that we find most sceptics of climate change among those that stand to lose
from an accelerated transition to a sustainable society.

Social greens, on the other hand, put social justice first. They seem to say that many of humanity’s problems will sort themselves
out once there is equality, justice and peace for all. They hold the same forces that cause widespread poverty responsible for
causing climate change and other environmental problems. Their preferred solution is dramatic restructuring of the global
economic order. They put more trust in government than in markets, but admit that governance has to improve significantly in
many countries. While that seems a distant option, they work on forms of local sustainability in economic, social and
environmental ways.

G d e a A e f G ba C a e

So what does this all mean for young people in higher education today? Chapter reminded us that college and university
graduates become leaders of tomorrow’s families, businesses communities. In that capacity, they will be responsible for
decisions that enable or discourage the rest of society to live sustainably. For instance, the extent to which the rise in income
during their careers will impact society and the environment will depend on lifestyle choices. Now, for most young people these
are based on upbringing, social aspirations and financial opportunities. Is there more to it than this?

The good life: What is commendable in an age when the world makes a concerted effort to eliminate widespread poverty and
protect the global climate? Should expectations of the good life be based upon the achievements of other countries in the past
or upon what’s good for the future of our countries and communities?

Careers with a difference: What would you like to achieve in your career? The chance is that you settle for money or prestige,
but an increasing number of young people desire to do work that is meaningful for themselves and for the communities in which
they live. In The Future Makers, Wolfgang and Joanna Hafenmayer describe their journey to meet people on all continents, who
have switched careers in order to fulfil their dream and make a lasting positive impact. Their stories inspire the reader to dream
of their potential impact and consider ways to overcome barriers. If we want to make a positive contribution to society with our
profession, we should really reflect on the effects that our future job may have, and prepare for turning them around. The
authors use a model of sustainable well-being to guide their readers on the path to personal fulfilment. We will take up this
theme again in our section on the sustainability transition.

The SDGs are the result of elaborate consultations with public and private stakeholders and months of negotiations between
UN member states. The SDGs were adopted in August , and they aim for . A multitude of shapes and sizes help to
make the SDGs and their coloured icons recognisable, as shown in Figure . from the UN’s SDG Hub. The new international
agenda covers more areas and has a greater ambition than the previous one. It is worth noting that the SDGs apply to all
countries regardless of their income level. This reflects an important principle that underlies the new agenda, namely, that
transformation is needed in all countries in order to share wealth more equitably within the earth’s ecological limits.

The two wicked problems discussed in this chapter are among the SDGs. They are an ambitious agenda and yet provide more
focus than Agenda did before. There are many actions aimed at one SDG that will benefit others at the same time. For
example, if we use renewable energy sources to take electricity to the countryside, then we also make a contribution to energy
security, public health, and biodiversity. However, governments will also have to make difficult choices, for instance the choice
between cultivating more food or fuel crops serves either food security or energy goals.

In this chapter, we have reflected on two of the biggest challenges in our world—persistent poverty and climate change. They
are economic, social and environmental symptoms of our unsustainable societies. They manifest themselves at different
levels—individual, community and state. At the individual level, we observe personal or family conditions and choices, such as
health, skills and access to land. At the community level, there are access to public utilities and education, which have an
impact on the individual. Next, at the state level, there may be national policies and programmes that enable or discourage
communities and families to work themselves out of poverty. The problem is persistent, partly because it has all these cross-
connections. Change at one level causes responses at the others. The dynamic context of fast population growth and/or
urbanisation further adds to the difficulty. Similar things can be said about climate change. We called these problems wicked,
because they are likely to stay with us for a long time, defying easy solutions. We may get better at reducing them, but may
not entirely eliminate them this century. We applied the label ‘wicked’ to signal the need for a different approach and a new
kind of leadership in these matters.

The purpose of this book is to engage college and university students in learning about the big challenges of their age and in
reflecting on ways they could participate in their solutions. The sheer size of the sustainability task is so big that people could
easily be discouraged. Innovations in technology, economics and social organisation will have to be huge. Learning will have to
be progressive. On the other hand, many people are not inspired by the task to make a product or production process just a
little better. Instead, they thrive when they envision making dramatic improvements. These are the kinds of people that
Wolfgang and Joanna Hafenmayer call future makers, inspired by a series of meetings with entrepreneurial people all over the
world. They do not just take their own future into their hands, but also seek to have positive impact on the future of
disadvantaged groups.

We must become the change we want to see in the world. Mahatma Gandhi

As we saw in Chapter , there is a vast amount of learning going on in the educational world. Educators realise more than
anyone that common modes of learning have produced graduates that are aggravating the global and local problems we have.
Therefore, we need new kinds of learning for transformation, that is new ways of acquiring knowledge, attitudes and skills
that enable us to work more effectively for the sustainability transition. The models that come out of this fresh field of
transformative learning all emphasise the centrality of our worldview and values. They invite us to investigate what we hold
dear and how we could invest our careers and indeed our lives to achieve positive impact. Martin Mulligan’s An Introduction
to Sustainability has a complete chapter on ‘Personal Dimensions’, where he discusses theories of social action. He quotes
Stuart Hill as saying that no personal action should be dismissed as insignificant as long as it is part of a broader plan. Personal
action is only meaningful if it can be sustained over time and grow through co-operation.

You could begin investigating your values and aligning them with your worldview today. Next, if you are a student, you could
make connections between major field of study and sustainability, for instance, in the topics you choose for assignments and
presentations. Also, you may choose to pursue a minor in sustainable development or a master’s to broaden or deepen your
understanding. Even if you are already a working professional, the ideas could help you turn your career around and make it
work for a more sustainable society.

According to Wolfgang and Joanna Hafenmayer in their book The Future Makers a job or activity is positive if it led to
something that was ecologically sensible, socially responsible and, at best, financially stable. The last part means that you earn
a living wage rather than get rich. To make this more operational they use the concept of sustainable well-being as a measure
for the impacts that a job may have. An activity that influences at least one of the components below positively and none
negatively, could be seen as positive.

Material foundations for a good life

Good health in clean environment
Personal safety and security from disasters
Good social relations, respect and cohesion
Freedom of choice and action

Now, how do we consider the impacts of our work? First of all, they give an example of a job in pharmaceutical research. Who
is affected by your work? Are you working on medical treatment that improve life a bit more for those who are already well-
off? Or are you helping in the combat against serious diseases that kill scores of people?

Next, they add the environmental dimension, arguing that depletion of resources has dramatically increased and the
foundation of life is threatened for many people. A system is sustainable if it works in a way that does not destroy the natural
foundations of life if everyone made use of them. So the Hafenmayers are suggesting that we should always consider whether
improvements to our own well-being would also be possible if more or even all human beings lived like us. The same holds for
companies you support with your work and money: Do they offer products and services that increase well-being according to
the given model, or do they produce benefits for the few at the cost of reducing the well-being of many others? These are
challenging questions indeed!

Next, they describe five paths leading to an occupation with positive impact that they found among the many people they
interviewed. Each has its own core question which you should consider regularly until you sense in heart, mind and stomach
that the end of your search is near.

Path of concern: What is the problem that I am most concerned with?

Path of talent: What special abilities do I have?
Path of effect: What improves things to the greatest extent?
Path of values: What values are/used to be important to me?
Path of passion: What is my greatest passion?
 CHAPTER
9
Energy for Sustainable Development
Learning Objectives
 Recognise energy use choices as a function of technological options and
personal preferences within an institutional framework of government rules and tariff
systems.
 Describe how energy demand could be managed through a mix of
programmes that raise sustainability awareness, offer technical and financial options
for energy saving and influence energy use across the days and seasons.
 Present energy supply as a mix of supply options that constantly evolve in the
long term under the influence of technological, market and regulatory changes.
 Explain why the fossil fuel system should transition to a renewable system
within several decades for economic, social and environmental reasons before fossil
fuel actually runs out.
 Highlight the essential requirements for the sustainable energy transition in
terms of leadership, vision, sustainability awareness, tariff and subsidy reform, and
energy access for all programmes.

INTRODUCTION
Energy is essential to human development and therefore a key to our quality of life. We need
energy for every function of life, such as growing and cooking our food, keeping ourselves
warm or cool and moving people or goods from one place to another. Sunlight is the original
energy source for all life on Earth. It provides more energy to our planet than we will ever
need, but it takes a lot of ingenuity to harness it. Plants and microorganisms have the ability
to turn solar radiation into biomass. The food we eat provides energy to our bodies, which we
use to work, move around, learn and play. Throughout history people have used a great
variety of energy sources. Ultimately, however, what we want from these are not the
resources themselves, but the energy services they provide to us. Sources that are convenient
and affordable have the best chance to win.
Like other natural resources, energy comes in two basic categories—renewable and non-
renewable. Renewable energy resources are endless natural energy flows that humans can
turn into usable forms, such as electricity or heat. Examples of renewables include:
 Biomass: Wood chips or crop leftovers (burnt in stove); animal manure
(biogas digester)
 Geothermal: The heat of the earth used by leading water pipes through hot
layers
 Hydro: The force of falling water used to generate electricity; reservoir or
flow of river
 Solar: solar radiation is either turned into electricity or heats up water in pipes
  Tidal wave: The movement of waves may be turned into electricity
 Wind energy: Windmills turn the movement of rotors into electricity
Firewood is only renewable if it is a waste material from a sustainably managed forest or if
the wood removed from nature is replaced by new trees. The new harvest will take up the
carbon dioxide that is released in burning. While renewables are not depleted, they are
nevertheless available in their natural cycles. Solar energy is only collected during the day,
and it needs to be stored for night-time use. Windmills only turn when there is wind, so
stored energy or an alternative source should be available when there’s no wind. Renewables
can be used on a relatively small scale, which makes them suitable for remote, isolated
communities. They also need to be more carefully selected for the specific purpose and
conditions of the energy user.
Non-renewable energy resources are the end-products of centuries of natural processes
inside the earth in the form of solids (coal, uranium), liquids (oil) and natural gas. Through
developments described in the historical section, people today use them a million times faster
than the pace of their formation. For all practical purposes, then, fossil fuels are finite. At
projected rates of use, there is coal enough for 128 years, gas enough for 54 and oil enough
for 41 years (World Energy Council [WEC] 2010). Even though we still have reserves for
decades to come, the emissions associated with their use cause problems on every scale, from
local to global.
Non-renewable resources have a characteristic bubble pattern of resource use. Once
society discovers the usefulness of a resource, its exploitation tends to follow an exponential
curve—it gets steeper as more applications are used by a growing number of people.
However, one day supply falls below demand as high-grade resources (best properties, low
production cost) run out. Prices go up and society responds in two ways: intensifies efforts to
obtain more of the resource and seeks to improve efficiencies so that reserves last longer.
New reserves are lower grade and more inputs are required to process them, which is only
profitable at high prices. They also cause more waste and pollution. After having passed its
peak, resource production declines exponentially. At this point, a new resource needs to be
available for a smooth transition.
Electricity is a convenient, versatile and increasingly popular energy carrier. It can be
made out of various energy sources. While it is clean and safe in the user stage, its overall
economic, social and environmental impacts depend on the way it was produced—with
renewable or non-renewable resources. It can be generated on a small scale by solar cells on a
calculator or a micro-hydro device, but it may also be produced on a massive scale for the
national grid by fossil fuel power stations.
SD in energy production and use requires that we examine the economic, social and
environmental aspects of energy:
 Economic: Energy enables job and wealth creation. Uneven geographical
distribution leads to economic imbalance between countries and regions.
 Social: Access to affordable energy services is unavailable for over three
billion people, while the negative impacts of fossil fuel pollution disproportionately
hit the poor.1
 Environmental: The production, distribution and use of fossil fuels cause local
air pollution (smog), acid rain and global climate change.
Economic: Generally, we observe a direct and positive relationship between energy and
wealth—the availability of affordable energy enables growth of economic activity, and each
person tends to use more energy with rising income. Up to the 1970s, there was about 1% of
energy increase for every per cent of GDP growth. The energy crises changed all that, for
they taught governments that targeted investment in energy saving could reduce the energy
growth significantly. It turned out that the two factors could be decoupled to some extent.
 However, the geographical distribution of fossil fuel reserves across countries is very
unequal. The countries with the largest reserves (the Middle East, Russia) are far away from
the countries that have high total and per capita energy use (Europe, Japan). Thus, a lot of
energy is needed to get the energy sources to their destinations, which means additional cost
and pollution. Energy trade makes some countries rich and influential, while it leaves others
dependent. Also, most refining capacity is in wealthy countries. Possession of energy
resources is often used by exporting states to put pressure on client states in the case of a
political disagreement. Thus, the fossil fuel economy has aggravated existing relations and
created new dependency relations between the haves and the have-nots of these resources.
Today, as fast-growing economies (China, India) joined the search for affordable energy
sources, energy security has become a major political issue. This may lead governments to
put uninterrupted availability over all other aspects of energy policy and public well-being,
ignoring some of the social and environmental impacts that are very important for SD.
Social: About 1.3 billion people in the world do not have access to modern energy
services and 2.8 billion lack access to safe cooking facilities. As a result, they (often the
women) have to walk far for fuel-wood or use expensive and unsafe energy sources, such as
kerosene. Unsafe, because their in-door use is a health hazard for women and children, as
they spend much of their time indoors. Also, frequent accidents cause burns. Access to
electricity would reduce health risks and costs. There is also an environmental benefit, if this
electricity were generated with renewable sources such as hydropower. Obviously, this is a
solution for urban dwellers, who live close to the national grid, which connects power
stations with electricity users. Solar, wind and biomass energy are more suitable for the
conditions of the rural poor. Technological improvements and large-scale application have
brought the cost of renewables down to a competitive level. Therefore, development agencies
and national governments with assistance from NGOs are taking renewables to the
countryside. As a result, renewable energy is making a contribution to reducing poverty.
Access to energy brings about a dramatic change in the lives of the poor. It lengthens the time
that adults can work and their children can study, so they can bring in more income and their
children may get better-paying jobs in the future.
Environmental: The impacts of energy production, distribution and use on public health and
the environment have become major political issues in the world today. The energy in coal,
oil and gas is released by burning them inside engines, a process called internal combustion.
The downsides of fossil fuels are that they eventually run out (depletion); there are
spills during the transportation; and the combustion gases are harmful for human health and
the natural environment (pollution). For a long time they seemed bearable. Now, over the
course of the last two centuries, most cheap fossil fuel reserves have been depleted and their
combustion gases have accumulated in the atmosphere, causing smog, acid rain and climate
change. While the end of fossil fuel reserves is a sustainability issue, the more urgent
problem is that the atmosphere cannot safely absorb the waste gases from their combustion
any more.
Overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels, in particular, threatens to alter the Earth’s climate to an extent that
could have grave consequences for the integrity of vital human and natural systems. (The World Academy
of Sciences, 2008)

Climate change, a shift in long-term weather patterns, is the result of heat-trapping gases
accumulating in the atmosphere. These are in very large part generated by energy production,
distribution and use. For details about the problem and its impacts, refer to Chapter 8. Here,
we emphasise the obvious link with energy. The countries that first industrialised have
relatively high energy efficiency, that is, high useful output per unit of fuel input. However,
they also have a stable and high per-capita contribution to the problem. The issue is perhaps
more one of lifestyle and institutions than of technology. DCs’ share in global GHG
emissions is growing fast, but their per capita emissions are low, and so is their efficiency.
Given their large numbers of people without access to modern energy services, their energy
transition goals will have to be different. The cost and impact of climate protection measures
affect energy sectors and countries in various ways. Fuel-importing countries, for example,
benefit from lower import bills, if they shift to renewable sources. These require upfront
investment but in the longer term pay themselves back. Fuel-exporting countries, on the other
hand, have built affluent lifestyles on the corresponding income flow. Climate protection
measures that put a price on carbon will discourage their export. They affect coal the most for
it has the highest carbon content; oil and natural gas have lower carbon contents. Fuel-
exporting countries are likely to lose income, so they resist carbon restrictions. Some have
even suggested they might be paid for leaving oil in the ground.
Given the earlier observations about the world’s energy sector, it is obvious that major
changes are needed to make it more sustainable. Table 9.1 gives a summary of the basic
challenges. As we learnt in Chapters 2 and 3, the roots of (un)sustainable decisions are in
people’s behaviour, in the institutions that order our society and in the technologies that have
developed within those frameworks. Thus, businesses, governments and households should
address all three in their sustainable energy strategies if they wish to make a lasting
contribution to the energy transition.

Table 9.1 Sustainability Challenges for Energy Policy

Source: Author

Governments are deeply involved in their energy sectors and so they have a key
responsibility to secure long-term economic, social and environmental sustainability. They
assumed a lead role, because energy plays a crucial role in stability and development. Fossil
fuel resources are obtained from under the land or the sea by means of capital-intensive
installations. This requires either state enterprise or a public licence system regulating private
energy business for the public good. An institutional framework contains rules for
exploration, exploitation and distribution of energy. As owner, the state has a right to
dividends, and as regulator, it gets a share of the surplus through taxes or fees. So in various
ways governments benefit from fossil energy sources found on their territory.
Unfortunately, governments make serious mistakes in fulfilling their sustainability task.
For instance, by not making sure that the entire population shares in the national wealth. If
people in the energy-producing region get all the pollution but little employment and public
services, the result is social unrest (example Niger Delta). If energy export earnings are so
large that they lead to an appreciation of the currency, the country’s other exports (for
instance manufacturing) become too expensive. As a result, those sectors will decline or
move elsewhere. So the economic structure becomes one-sided, which poses a risk when the
non-renewable resources run out. Also, export earnings may be wasted on misguided prestige
projects and domestic energy subsidies. The latter have very negative long-term effects, as
the people get addicted to artificially cheap energy and wasteful consumption patterns.
Energy-intensive companies are attracted by cheap energy. Government may not impose
broad-based taxes and, therefore, may sense only weak accountability over public
expenditure. If energy income is put in a sovereign wealth fund and used to build capacity for
future income generation it would be more economically sustainable.
Another common governance problem is the failure to consistently apply the PPP to the
energy sector. It states that polluters should pay for all economic, social and environmental
damage that their operations incur. Unfortunately, we observe that some cost is borne by
nature and other people, not oil companies and energy users. For instance, in exploitation of
large oil reserves, companies are allowed to flare (burn) natural gas. This adds a burden to the
atmosphere in terms of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides. Also, emissions from fossil fuel
burning cause a host of health and environmental problems that we have hardly begun to deal
with.
So why do energy prices still not reflect the full economic, social and environmental
cost to provide the energy? Research by Norman Myers and international organisations
concludes that governments give energy companies numerous direct and indirect
privileges,2 which enable them to sell at lower prices. Furthermore, in many countries,
governments directly subsidise the market price of energy. The IEA estimated global fossil
fuel subsidies at US$325 billion in 2015. The biggest subsidies are given by energy-exporting
countries. If the stated goal was to assist the poor, the IEA says, then subsidies are an
inefficient instrument—only 8% of the total amount went to the poorest 20%. The middle and
upper classes have much higher energy use, and the energy cost is a small part of their total
income. As a result, low prices encourage wastage. Perhaps cheap energy is part of an
unwritten social contract between elite and population for cheap utilities in exchange for
support and stability.3 While there is short-term benefit, there are high long-term
environmental and economic costs. Energy use at the subsidised price is higher than it would
otherwise be, and so are the associated pollution and depletion effects. Citizens have less
incentive to save and businesses have less incentive to become competitive through energy
efficiency. Energy subsidies are difficult to reform or abolish, because people have a hard
time giving up privileges. In 2005, for example, when the Indonesian government could no
longer afford to subsidise energy, the resulting price increases provoked angry street protests.
In international circles, most governments have admitted that energy subsidies have
undesirable effects and should be reformed or eliminated. A period of low world market
prices offers the most favourable conditions for reform.
To a large extent, then, governments have made energy markets what they are today. They
are also responsible to redefine the rules of the game in the best interest of their peoples and
the planet. They would do well involving academic, business and civil society stakeholders,
for strategic energy policy is too important to be left to government experts alone.
Transparency is needed to show engaged citizens what the options and implications are. The
challenge is to minimise problems of depletion and pollution at all stages of the production
chain while maintaining economic resilience and social protection.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
History can teach us a lot about how humans have met their energy needs depending on their
technology, living standards and natural circumstances in the land. There have been several
major periods characterised by one or more dominant energy sources. Thus, we had the age
of firewood and peat, the age of water power, the age of coal and steam, and the age of oil.
The idea of an energy transition implies that one energy resource gradually becomes replaced
by another dominant energy resource or mix. In the past, energy transitions have taken from a
few decades to more than a century. In this section, we study energy transitions in order to
learn more about the transition that is currently underway—the shift to a sustainable energy
system. Which trends are happening in global energy markets, government policies and
public preferences that affect the direction and pace of the transition?
Early civilisations learned to supplement human energy with the energy of animals (to pull
carts and ploughs), the wind (sailing ships, windmills) and the water (waterwheels). Mankind
also learned how to make fire to keep himself warm and cook. Up to about 1750 CE, the
world met its energy needs almost entirely with what we now call traditional biomass—
firewood, peat, crop residues and dried dung. By the fifth century CE, waterwheels were
increasingly used for a variety of jobs—for instance crushing grain, tanning leather and
sawing wood. People’s dependence on animal muscle power gradually declined, and
locations with water-power potential developed more quickly. However, water-power
resources were always bound to specific locations. As forests were increasingly cleared
(without replanting), wood was getting scarce and expensive in some countries. Table
9.2 shows how each subsequent energy system had higher infrastructure requirements. As a
consequence, an energy transition is more time-consuming and costly today than ever before.
Energy use was fairly stable for centuries, but, it has been going up exponentially since the
beginning of the Industrial Age. People had found a way to exploit resources with
concentrated energy locked up inside them. The discovery of coal and steam dramatically
increased human capacity to do work. Coal had more energy content per kilo, but it was
heavy and also caused more air pollution. For those reasons it was not preferred in early
industrialising countries until wood was scarce and coal technology more mature. Coal
finally took over as the dominant fuel in the late nineteenth century due to the invention of
the steam engine and turbine. Close interaction between coal mines, the iron industry and
steam power promoted technological improvements that made steam power attractive for
other branches of industry, such as textiles. Steam also did not have natural limitations on
water use such as drought or ice, and has a maximum capacity to power business in a
particular location. So when steam grew at the expense of water power, this had tremendous
impact on the way factories could be built. The steam turbine made coal the favourite fuel in
electricity generation. With efficiency improvements in the turbine and in long-distance
power transmission, the cost of electricity fell. This price drop along with the invention of a
range of electrical appliances (light bulb, telephone and film) changed the face of energy use
in one country after another.

Table 9.2 Growing Infrastructure Needs for Energy Carriers

Source: Author

Oil (petroleum) was first used as a fuel for home lighting, replacing whale oil which had
become scarce and expensive. Ongoing technological development produced the internal
combustion engine (petrol and diesel), a great new market for oil products. So when car
ownership took off around 1950 CE, oil absorbed most of the growth in energy needs. This
did not lead to price rises in oil, as huge new oil reserves were discovered in the Middle East.
As soon as 1964, oil became the world’s favourite energy resource. World market prices
remained stable under US$5 per barrel (159 litres) until the oil crises of the 1970s. In two big
jumps, prices went up to over US$32 (nominal or US$80 in constant 2011 dollars) following
decisions by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The importing
countries, in turn, made policies to curb energy use and spur the search for alternative
sources. Measures included rationing, speed limits, car-free Sundays, home insulation, energy
efficiency standards for buildings and appliances, research into efficiency improvement and
alternative resources (the term in those days for renewables), and so on. The Brazilian
government started a subsidised programme to mix ethanol with petrol for automobile fuel—
a move that sets the country apart to this day. France and Japan built up a large nuclear power
industry. Other strategic choices were Japan’s decision to shift from energy-intensive
industries to electronics and fuel-efficient cars—a very successful move. From the mid-
1970s, some ICs managed to achieve energy efficiency improvements of 1%–2% per year.4
Figure 9.1 shows the large differences in efficiency between countries by the historical
development of the total final energy consumption per unit of GDP of selected countries.
This is an indication of how much energy they need to produce a unit of wealth. Obviously,
energy use had not been so price inelastic as many had assumed. Users responded to large
price increases perceived as lasting. From this time on, the growth of energy use in OECD
member countries was lower than their production and income growth—a trend known as de-
materialisation or de-coupling. The aftermath of the energy crises has shown what can be
achieved with consistent conservation policies and appropriate incentives. It is now widely
accepted that sustainable energy strategies should contain measures to increase energy
efficiency and conservation.

Figure 9.1 Total Energy Use per Unit of GDP

Source: IEA
 Demand-side management (DSM) refers to investment and public information
programmes for households, public agencies and business, whose purposes are the rational
use and conservation of energy, and optimal use of the power generation system. Energy
saving is preferred to any supply option, because a unit of energy not generated
has zero impact on nature and society. DSM is based on the realisation that energy demand is
not a natural phenomenon, but it is the outcome of millions of individual and group decisions
added up. People take them in the context of local laws, tariff systems and policies—
institutional conditions. Altering these parameters and advertising the opportunities with
mass-media campaigns can save so much energy that plans to build more supply capacity
could be delayed or abandoned. DSM programmes may be initiated by government or energy
companies and take the form of technical advice (free audits), financial arrangements
(wholesale purchase of energy-efficient lamps, payment in instalments via the regular energy
bill, interest-free loans for home insulation or renewables), introduction of energy labels on
electric goods and targeted information campaigns. This has been particularly attractive to
countries in a situation of fast economic growth, such as Thailand in the 1990s.
The economic crisis and energy-saving policies of the early 1980s curbed oil demand.
Furthermore, the high oil price during the 1970s and 1980s had stimulated intense exploration
in OECD countries. Indeed, oil and gas was found, for instance, under the North Sea shelves
of Britain, Norway and the Netherlands. Soon, more discoveries in the USA (Alaska),
Canada and the USSR (Caspian Sea region, Siberia) followed. As a result, world oil prices
came tumbling down again to around US$38 in 1986. This time, the dramatic price change
caused hardship in populous DCs, whose economies were heavily dependent on this export
item, notably Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela.
This era also saw serious nuclear accidents that ruined nuclear power’s chances of
becoming the next dominant energy source. In 1979, the Three Mile Island reactor in the
eastern USA had a partial meltdown. Seven years later, nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl
disaster in Ukraine (then part of the USSR) was spread by prevailing winds across large parts
of Europe. No new nuclear capacity was planned or built for years. The 2011 earthquake and
tsunami in Japan knocked out the Fukushima nuclear power station, releasing radio-active
material into the sea. This disaster rekindled worldwide debates about the risks of nuclear
power. These are the risks of disasters at power stations, the unresolved issue of long-lasting
nuclear wastes and of the spread of nuclear technologies and materials to criminal entities and
rogue states. The German and Japanese governments have pledged to phase out nuclear
resource use, so they are facing the huge challenge to build alternative systems within limited
time frames. Other nations, however, continue to expand their nuclear sectors.
The late 1980s and early 1990s were a time of political optimism and international co-
operation as the world came out of economic and political crisis. The state socialist regimes
of Eastern Europe and the former USSR collapsed and the Latin American debt crisis waned.
At the same time, concern about the growing scale and seriousness of environmental
problems rose due to the UN-sponsored Brundtland Report Our Common Future. Many of
these are connected to fossil energy production, distribution and use. In rising order of
impact, they are indoor air pollution, urban smog, acidification and climate change. In fact,
environmental problems became the main reason for concerned people to consider a world
beyond fossil fuels. In order to find a response, the UN set up preparatory meetings leading
up to the Rio Earth Summit (1992). Several international treaties were signed, among others
being the UNFCCC.
The prospect of policies to curb GHGs and save energy prompted the global coal and oil
sectors to launch aggressive mass-media campaigns. They demand better scientific evidence
for the climate change problem before any legal action is taken. They hire climate-sceptic
academics to exaggerate the benefits of a warmer world. Moreover, they argue that
restrictions on fossil energy use negatively affect employment and tax income. In open and
secret ways, the coal and oil sectors spend big money to get their points across. However,
observed climatic changes around the world have convinced many people that climate change
is real. Also, confidence in the global scientific consensus, as expressed in the IPCC
Assessment Reports, is growing. Nevertheless, sceptics continue to cast doubt on the
reliability of climate science, the need for action or both. Therefore, when we find
information on the Internet, we should check who the senders are, what they base their
statements on and who paid them for their work. If the source is not transparent the
organisation may hide this to cover up its bias.
In the early twenty-first century, oil is still the leading energy resource (35%), but it is
complemented by a growing mix of other fossil fuels and renewable energy sources. This
development reflects three underlying currents. First, over half of new installed
capacity around the world is in renewables, as shown in Figure 9.2. Second, some countries
have intensified the search for new fossil supplies and domestic resources on land, notably
shale oil and gas, and tar sands. Third, states want to exploit new off-shore oil and gas
reserves in order to reduce reliance on domestic coal and imported oil. Let us now look at
each in more detail.
Global investment in renewable energy sources has taken off and is now over half of
newly installed capacity, generating jobs and income. R&D has led to great advances in
renewable energy technology, applications and cost reduction. Also, some governments
actively support expansion of renewables. Renewables were nearly 59% of global capacity
added in 2014. China was leading the world in renewables capacity installed, with Brazil,
India and South Africa following. A growing number of DCs are becoming manufacturers
and installers of renewable energy technologies. As a result, renewables now produce almost
23% of electricity worldwide. They are cost-effective options for powering mini-grids in
remote communities on islands, in mountain and desert regions. Moreover, their introduction
is accompanied by jobs in installation, maintenance and finance as shown in Figure 9.3.
Therefore, they are fast becoming a preferred instrument in poverty alleviation programmes
of governments, development agencies and NGOs. There are advantages in using renewables
in combination with energy efficiency measures, especially in buildings, transportation and
industry. In electricity production, wind, solar and hydro power are (without subsidy) broadly
competitive with fossil fuels in many countries, according to the policy and research network
REN21. However, further growth of renewables is slowed down by the subsidies that
governments give to fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Figure 9.2 Global Renewable Energy Investment 2006–2016

Source: GSR (2017)

 The rise of non-conventional fuels: As a result of relentless high growth in

China, India and some other countries oil prices were high from the early 2000s till
2014. This, coupled with security concerns, spurred a fresh hunt for new oil and gas
resources. High oil prices and new drilling technologies enabled Canada and the USA
to open new production fields of shale oil and gas, and tar sands. These so-called non-
conventional fuels require more capital investment and energy input to get them out of
the Earth and turn them into usable products. Therefore, their exploitation is only
profitable at high oil prices. While there are still concerns over the new methods’
impacts on groundwater, air quality and climate change, production has taken off at
break-neck speed. In fact, the USA and Canada are close to becoming self-sufficient
in fossil fuels only a decade after meeting a quarter of their energy needs with
imports.
 New reserves under the deep sea: High oil prices and new technologies have
also led to major new oil finds under the sea bed near Southern Brazil, West Africa
and Mexico. Ironically, Arctic reserves have become more accessible because of
climate change, which caused more sea-ice melting. Of course, burning these fossil
fuels will lead to more climate change. Now, some of these finds are in areas where
there are no clear and agreed marine boundaries, notably the South and East China
Seas, and the Arctic Ocean. Therefore, the new oil and gas rush is causing
international tension. This phenomenon is at least in part related to growing
dependency of major countries and blocs on energy imports. It has happened despite
the record growth of renewables installed capacity. A dependency graph in the 2012
World Energy Outlook shows that the EU, China, India and Japan have seen their
dependency on imports grow. Finally, this discussion of dependency would not be
complete without mention of 38 out of 47 poorest countries, which are net importers
of oil (25 import all of their oil). Big jumps in oil prices appear frequently and cause
serious hardship for their populations depending on kerosene and liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG). About 1.3 billion people still lack access to electricity, and fossil fuel
subsidies went up to US$490 billion in 2014. Improving access to energy services is
seen as a critical component for improving the quality of life in DCs.

Figure 9.3 Jobs in Renewable Energy Worldwide

Source: GSR (2017)

The World Academy of Sciences (Ahuja and Tatsutani 2008, 11) lists four broad historical
trends that conveniently summarise this section:
1. Rising overall consumption as societies industrialise, gain wealth and switch
from traditional sources of energy (wood, dung and charcoal) to commercial forms of
energy (mostly fossil fuels).
2. Steady improvements in both the power and efficiency of energy-producing
and energy-using technologies.
3. Diversification of fuels used, especially for the production of electricity, and
switch to low-carbon sources that are cleaner and easier to use.
4. Reduction in pollutants such as soot, sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides.
TWAS notes that these trends and their interactions will determine the nature and magnitude
of the sustainability challenge in the decades ahead. If the first trend absorbs or outweighs all
progress made in the other trends, then environmental degradation will continue.
Acceleration of the latter group compared to historical patterns is needed to keep the
transition to sustainable energy systems going. This point is continued in the final section of
this chapter. We now turn to an assessment of the current state of the world’s energy system.

CURRENT STATE OF THE ISSUE

Modern energy systems are massive and complex, which makes it hard to steer them in a new
direction—a little bit like redirecting an oil supertanker. There is no global vision and power
that can turn the entire global energy system around. In Chapter 3, we summarised Kotter’s
eight steps to attain success in leading one organisation through deep change. In the energy
system, we are dealing with many organisations, some of them big and powerful, that
somehow—enthusiastically or reluctantly—all need to become part of a sustainable global
energy system. That multiplies the difficulties. In this section, we examine stakeholders,
system dynamics and the drivers of change in order to develop our insight and skill to make
out where the global energy system is headed.
 Energy systems consist of physical infrastructures, a wide variety of organisations and a
large body of regulations. Its stakeholders fall into one of three categories: energy companies
(public and/or private), state agencies and NGOs. They play various roles in the sector’s daily
operations, regulatory processes and planning for its future. Thus, they have vested interests
and will want to be part of any development that changes the face of world energy. Their
different worldviews and expert opinions render it hard for governments to make changes to
the system. A simplified version of an energy system could look like Figure 9.4.

Figure 9.4 Schematic View of an Energy System

Let us now look in more detail at major stakeholder groups. First, there are energy
companies. Within a country, energy resources and services may be traded by public or
private sector companies. They may either produce the energy themselves or import it from
other countries. Among large industrial energy users (aluminium, chemicals, cement, pulp
and paper, and steel) some produce their own energy, while others get it from energy
suppliers. They often have formal or informal deals to get their power at subsidised prices for
social or political reasons, but this obviously reduces their incentive to economise. It is
common for governments to exempt their internationally competing energy-intensive
industries from energy taxes. The only incentives for improving their efficiency might come
from improvements in the unofficial industry standards (also known as benchmarks). Those
that are more efficient than the average enjoy a cost advantage.
If there is domestic production, the country must also have an industry that produces or
trades equipment used in energy production and distribution, as well as expertise to maintain
and repair it. These people need to be trained, so there are educational centres of expertise.
Large money flows are involved, which means that financial institutions have a role to play
too. In oil markets, prices change on a daily basis, so there is quite a bit of risk involved in
deciding when to buy or sell. Here too, financial institutions offer ways to reduce this risk. In
natural gas and electricity markets, on the other hand, contracts are concluded for a year or
so. Energy companies have their strategic departments to analyse market trends in order to
adjust to demand changes and make timely investment decisions. They have special liaison
offices to connect with public sector officials.
Government agencies have numerous reasons to be involved in the energy sector:
 To ensure energy security and energy access for all.
 To regulate natural or legal monopolies and/or maintain equal access of
private companies to the national distribution networks.
 To predict how energy developments affect government expenditure and
income.
 To monitor price fluctuations and see if there is a need for intervention, for
example, in the form of temporary support to business or social protection for the
poor.
 To set and enforce limits on environmental pollution from energy production,
distribution and use through general rules or specific conditions in company permits.
 To oversee social and environmental impact assessments on planned power
stations, high-voltage transmission lines, oil or gas pipelines and so on.
 To ensure there is enough in-country expertise to properly manage the
country’s resources.
  To develop the infrastructure that supports the country’s leading industries.
 To facilitate conclusion of energy contracts with other states.
There are also a host of NGOs involved in various parts of the energy system. International
environment and development think tanks such as the Worldwatch Institute conduct surveys
of issues and areas that may need new government policies, such as the food versus biofuels
debate. Other research and consulting organisations provide analytical services to companies
and government agencies, for instance in the sphere of energy efficiency and renewable
resources. Examples include the Rocky Mountains Institute (USA) and the Wuppertal
Institute for Climate, Environment & Energy (Germany). An increasing number of
development NGOs and international agencies help reduce the number of people without
access to electricity by building renewables into their projects. Examples include Practical
Action and Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN). Moreover, vocational colleges and
technical universities (public and private) offer education and research in energy
technologies, economics and trade. Examples include TERI School of Advanced Studies
(India) and the Asian Institute of Technology (Thailand).
Moreover, there is a wide range of IGOs involved in policy analysis, policy advice and
sustainable energy development initiatives. Examples include the WEC, the IEA, and various
organisations in the UN System. They differ in their focus, goals, membership and decision-
making structures. Others, like the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), are interest
groups seeking to improve co-ordination among gas producers and collective dialogue with
importing countries.
Last but not least, all individual households, businesses and other
organisations (governmental and NGO) are key stakeholders. They may not feel powerful
when considering their energy options, but the added-up choices of millions of them have
profound impacts. In some situations, individual entities follow general trends, while in
others they become trendsetters by putting their money where their values are. For instance,
in Germany, the energy transition policy has motivated many communities to start their own
locally managed energy production from renewable sources. However, lack of public
acceptance of clean energy technologies, such as windmills, may slow down the transition in
a sector or country.
Box 9.1
Hybrid and All-electric Cars

Electric cars have one or more electro-motors instead of an internal combustion engine. The
power comes from a battery that needs to be recharged regularly, for example from a
household socket. The electricity that powers the vehicle must be stored in a battery. In order
to give electric cars a reasonable driving range the battery should be fairly big. Thanks to
government promotion of electric driving, there is a lot of research into making batteries
lighter and cheaper. The heavier a car is, the more energy the engine spends to move both the
car and the passengers. While an electric car is clean and silent in city traffic, it is not the
whole story about its environmental footprint. How clean it is overall depends on the energy
carrier from which the electricity was produced.
Hybrid cars have both an electro-motor and a small combustion engine. Since the latter
performs best on long distances it is used on the motorway. In city traffic, however, it would
run inefficiently, because of all the stopping and pulling up. The electro-motor, by contrast,
does not use any energy when standing still. Moreover, it has the capacity to store the energy
released in braking, so that it can run efficiently even in busy city traffic. Hybrid cars do not
need recharging from the electricity grid, and their fuel tank content goes a long way.
 Let us now consider the energy system’s dynamics in exiting outdated infrastructure and
investing in new supply capacity. It will not be hard to imagine that these stakeholders have
some overlapping but overall very different interests. Also, their perception of and attitude to
risks vary. Some organisations will have many staff members aware of sustainability issues,
while others have virtually none. Some stakeholders may count sustainability part of their
core activity (green energy co-operative), but others may prefer business as usual. Thus, they
may respond very differently to the current challenges of energy security, social equity and
limited environmental impacts.
Large energy facilities, such as power stations and transmission lines, have significant
impacts on public health and environment. Therefore, government requires planning and
building permission, which is a long and complicated process. In the past, however, some
decisions of this size would be made on rather limited information about impacts and
alternatives. Fortunately, many countries now have a law that requires social and
environmental impact assessment from initiators of large investment projects. In this process,
several alternatives have to be described and analysed for their effects on humans and the
environment. Ideally, this should improve the quality of decision-making. Society has to
remain vigilant, for at times authorities need to be reminded of their own rules.

Table 9.3 Planning and Operation Terms for Selected Power Stations

Source: Author

Now, power stations and transmission lines last for decades, so the system has long
investment cycles. Table 9.3 shows a selection of operational spans and planning cycles for
energy systems. The energy system is inert, that is inflexible and slow to change. If we make
the wrong decision today, it will lock us into its unsustainable consequences for decades.
Also, remember that the most cost-effective measures to reduce environmental impact are
taken at the design stage. Once installations are built, they will not be changed or shut down
easily, for too much money would be lost. At any point in time, the world’s energy systems
have parts that are written-off and up for replacement, while others still have value on the
books. To be economical, therefore, we have to take every opportunity to green our energy
systems in step with investment cycles.

World energy demand grows in all WEO scenarios, but government policies play a powerful role
indicating the pace of the growth and the degree to which greenhouse-gas emissions follow the same path.
(International Energy Agency, 2015)

In reality, the global energy system is not a unified block. Rather, it consists of many sub-
systems that mutually influence each other. Each system has a particular set of demand
conditions that cannot be met by all energy resources. Thus, the transportation sector largely
works on petrol because other sources are too bulky. Sub-sectors working on liquefied natural
gas (LNG or LPG), hydrogen or electricity have remained small. In the home heating sector,
we see a whole range of solutions, including natural gas, biomass (wood stoves), coal,
electrical floor heating and geo-thermal heat pumps. Also, passive solar architecture designs,
with various sorts of heat insulation, can so use natural solar radiation that very little
additional energy is needed. In industry, yet another sub-sector, large heat and energy needs
have sector- and location-specific conditions. Sometimes, sustainability thinking leads
entrepreneurs to seek a beneficial use for heat that used to be wasted. Thus, greenhouses may
use waste heat from nearby industry. In all sectors, we can see signs of change, in some cases
substantial. So when may we call this an energy transition? Will we perhaps only know, in a
decade or two, when we look back in amazement over what has been achieved?
The strongest drivers of growing energy use are technology, price, lifestyle and public
policy. These drivers influence each other in various complex ways. Within a given
institutional framework, energy use follows the rise of new technologies and lifestyle.
Energy-saving innovations restrain the growth of energy use, while new electronic gadgets
increase energy demand. If energy prices are stable or decreasing in relation to income,
energy cost and energy saving will become less important to people. As a result, energy
demand will go up. When people move up the income ladder, as millions in emerging
economies do, then their lifestyle will become more energy-intensive. They can afford a
bigger house, multiple household devices, a car and perhaps a holiday abroad. Finally, public
policy may affect energy use in various ways. At the moment, the biggest factor affecting the
pace of change towards a sustainable energy system is climate protection policy. Since the
problem is global, the solution also has to be global. The Paris Climate Agreement (2015)
demonstrates that there is now a global urgency to drive the energy transition.
Box 9.2
Success Stories of Renewable Energy Investment in Developing Countries

Rural:
 Until recently, many villages in China had no access to electricity.
Agricultural wastes such as crop residues and animal manure were left to decay,
releasing methane. Villagers required coal for cooking and heating. With a US$33
million loan from the Asian Development Bank (ABD), China built several large
biogas digesters supplying gas to hundreds of households. In other places, families
built a smaller digester into the ground, a greenhouse on top of it, and completed the
circular system with a pig farm. Animal manure becomes biogas and a natural
fertiliser. The latter goes onto the soil to produce a richer harvest of crops for pigs and
humans. This solution improved the quality of life and reduced GHG emissions.
 Sri Lanka is a tropical island in the Indian Ocean. Three quarters of its
population live in rural areas, and half do not have access to electricity. However,
water flows down its mountains year round. Katepola micro-hydro, set up in 1995
with the help the Janasaviya Trust Fund and the villagers themselves, provides power
to 116 households. Based on its success, the WB decided to support Sri Lanka’s
Energy Services Delivery project, supplying 2800 households from 56 micro-hydro
power stations.
 The Malavalli Biomass Plant in the South Indian province of Karnataka turns
140 tonnes of sugar cane waste to energy every single day. Before, the agricultural
residue would generate carbon dioxide when burnt and, additionally, 27,000 tonnes of
that GHG would be emitted in generating electricity from coal. The biomass plant
provides more reliable energy to local households and businesses, and also offers jobs
to 400 workers. They chop up the sugar cane stalks and mix in some slow burning
 eucalyptus for smooth functioning. Finally, the alkaline-rich residue is turned into
organic fertiliser through composting.
 Sunlabob Renewable Energy Ltd. provides energy from rechargeable solar
lanterns to rural communities in Laos. The clients do not own the lanterns, but they
pay for a service—the recharging. This way poor households can buy a few hours of
solar lighting at a time. Members of the serviced communities are partners in this
scheme: village energy committees provide local management and technicians operate
the charging stations as small businesses.
Urban:
 Cities, too, have gained experience introducing renewables where before fossil
fuel options would have been chosen without thinking. Thus, several cities and towns
in India—including Rajkot, Jind and Agartala—installed renewable energy systems
for their own use to further their targets to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
 A string of cities worldwide are making solar water heaters mandatory, in
general or in multi-storey commercial buildings only. Examples include Surat and
Kolkata (India), Cape Town and Johannesburg (South Africa), and Beijing (China).
 Traditional buildings consume 40% of the total fossil fuel energy in the EU
and USA, so they are an important source of pollution associated with fossil energy
use. Fortunately, buildings could meet their heating, cooling and other energy needs
using energy-efficient, renewable sources. If a building produces as much energy as it
consumes, it is called a zero-net energy or carbon-neutral building. India’s first such
building is in Bhopal. It produces all its electricity and cooling needs on-site with
solar panels that are integrated with energy storage and management systems. Other
examples are in Hong Kong, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur.
 Geothermal energy is on the rise in the Philippines. The city of Kidapawan is
building its third plant for use in heat and power production.
Obviously, there are trade-offs to be made. Sustainability is always about paying a higher
cost in the short term in order to obtain a longer term benefit, for instance, investing more in
energy efficiency and importing natural gas now in order to reduce dependence on coal.
Cutting support for the domestic fossil fuel industry may free up budget resources to improve
energy access to the poor through renewables. Another trade-off is related to the people’s
acceptance of a new technology or the scale of application. In some mountainous countries,
hydro-power capacity can be built without flooding large areas of fertile land and displacing
thousands of people (Kyrgyzstan), while in other places the sacrifice and resistance are bigger
(Mekong delta). Some sparsely populated countries have grown large wind farms (Denmark,
Scotland), while new windmill plans evoke protests in other wind-rich places (the
Netherlands). Yet these options have the obvious advantage of avoiding the pollution that
comes with fossil fuels. Each country faces a unique set of trade-offs, and so each country has
to find political ways to balance those.
When selecting renewable technologies to speed up the transition to a low-carbon energy
system, it is important to keep an eye on the carbon involved in producing and installing such
renewable energy systems. A frequently used tool to measure this is the carbon (or energy)
pay-back time. It is defined as the time that the new system has to operate to produce the
amount of carbon (or energy) needed in all stages of its own production. To calculate this, the
method considers all emissions and natural resources involved in a life-cycle assessment
(from mine till end-use). The carbon (or energy) pay-back time may then be compared to the
technical lifetime of the technology. For instance, the number is in the order of 2–4 years for
rooftop solar panels, while their lifetime is over 25 years. This means that they produce many
times more electricity than the amount needed for their own production. Do keep in mind that
this outcome depends on the assumptions that are made in specific conditions and location,
for instance, the lifetime and quality of the product, the solar energy productivity and the
typical energy mix in that location.

SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
In the myriad of energy technology options, economic—social considerations and political
interests it is hard for anyone to see the big picture. Every researcher, activist, policy-maker
or business professional needs to rely on expert knowledge and insights that she/he cannot
fully fathom. To reduce the complexity for decision-makers, media and civil society, energy
scenarios are published. Scenarios are visual representations of how relevant factors develop
over time under a specified set of assumptions. They tell the user how much and how fast
decision-makers might shape the future energy system, given what we know about energy
technology, markets and policies. We use them in this section, because they are not only an
important tool in decision-making but also an illustration of how our four worldviews see the
future of energy.
Energy researchers in academia, government and IGO agencies, and energy business or
consulting reduce the complexity of energy market developments to straightforward pictures
of demand or supply. All energy scenarios have to outline their starting point, data sources
and assumptions about the relations between various factors. Scenario users need to know
this in order to make meaningful comparisons. Each scenario has a particular message that
the maker wants to convey. For example, one scenario’s message could be that we cannot
avoid dangerous climate change without nuclear energy or carbon storage underground. We
should ask, for instance, whether its assumptions about demand growth are realistic. By
contrast, another scenario builder’s message could be that we can easily have a green and
inclusive energy system by mid-century. Here, we should ask whether the potential for
energy efficiency is really that big or whether the distribution system can really handle the
changes. A difficulty is that past experience may not be good guidance for planning a
sustainable future, because nobody has built a sustainable energy system before. It is up to
critical users to make themselves familiar with the model’s assumptions before using the
material in debates.

[...] the two-fold energy challenge that confronts developing and emerging economies: expanding access
to energy while simultaneously participating in a global transition to clean, low-carbon energy systems.
(The World Academy of Sciences 2008, 12)

Every energy scenario set has a baseline or reference scenario, which shows how demand or
supply are expected to develop if everything continues as today. Next, the makers explore
major economic, political and technological trends with their uncertainties and interactions.
At this point, they may choose different paths.
 Certain scenario builders paint the picture that they see as the likely future.
This is risky, because the energy system has entered a time of great uncertainty and
change.
 Another group of designers have an end goal in mind and wish to use a
computer model to calculate if this goal is attainable and, if so, what demand or
supply looks like between now and the target year.
 A third group derives from the most uncertain trends of several scenarios,
which are all equally likely. Each scenario comes with a credible narrative and with
indicators that tell the user which critical issue could trigger a surprise outcome.
Looking at scenarios from a distance, they have a lot in common. All assume that 50–100
years from now the energy system will be very different from that of today. Thus, they accept
that there will be a transition, but have various views of how fast it will unfold and who or
what will drive it. The institutionalist and market liberal worldviews are conservative, so
they emphasise the current blessings of the energy sector and past experience
of gradual technological change. The system is capable of change but only on a generational
scale. The market liberals stop at this, for they believe that market forces should choose
supply options and technologies under a minimum of government intervention. However, the
institutionalists go further in envisioning new rules, organisations and contractual
arrangements to accelerate the energy system transition. They do accept a guiding role of
government for the common good.
By contrast, the bio-environmentalist and social green perspectives are strongly focused on
achieving the end goal of a sustainable energy system in time to prevent dangerous climate
change. The goal of their scenarios is to show that systemic change is not only attractive but
also feasible, if directed by strong international agreement and national leadership. Of course,
the political will and social acceptance of such a great energy transition are extremely hard to
model.

Figure 9.5 WWF/Ecofys Scenario of 95% Renewables by 2050

Source: WWF and Ecofys (2050)

Bio-environmentalists and social greens: These groups have similar interests but slightly
different emphases—The former on the environment and the latter on social justice. The
clearest energy views from this perspective come from the WWF Energy 2050 Report,
published in 2011 and depicted in Figure 9.5. The research part of the study was done by the
energy consulting firm Ecofys and the architecture firm OMA. As a nature conservation
organisation, WWF’s goal is to demonstrate that an energy system meeting human needs
within ecological limits is possible by mid-century. The biggest threats to biodiversity and
climate come from human energy use and resulting emissions. Taking into account growth of
population and living standards in DCs, it aims for 15% lower energy use in 2050 compared
to 2010. The remaining energy needs could be met for nearly 100% by renewables. The
report calculates that this could be achieved by ambitious materials recycling and energy
conservation in industry, a shift to more collective transport and systematic upgrading of
buildings to lower their energy needs. Renewable energy sources are suitable for electricity
and heat generation, which are fed into smart grids. The authors would rather do without
biofuels, but claim they will be needed for transportation. However, their production and
trade must have safeguards against displacing food crops and forest as well as for fair trade.
Take note that by prioritising renewables, the scenario builders effectively met all energy
needs by 2050 without needing nuclear energy. The authors state that a sustainable energy
future must be a fair one, so their plan includes promotion of efficient cooking stoves, micro-
hydro (in mountainous countries) and geo-thermal. Last but not least, WWF also tackles
behavioural issues, such as food waste, moderation of meat consumption and personal choice
of transportation modes. According to the authors, the required massive investment will pay
itself back by 2040.
Market liberal and institutionalist: these perspectives have traditionally been strong in
energy forecasting. Their prime concern is preserving economies to generate future wealth.
They assume that supply follows developments in global energy demand. Powerful drivers
such as industrial expansion and urbanisation push up energy demand and supply tends to
follow. Efficiency improvements are seen as autonomous, coming from interaction between
markets and technology. We have taken the WBCSD’s Pathways to 2050 as an illustration.
This report emphasises that past energy transitions have taken a generation to materialise.
Key renewable technologies should over-perform, they say, in order to achieve the GHG
reductions that keep global average temperature rise below two degrees. Governments around
the world should do better in designing consistent policies that do not change abruptly.
Moreover, they should co-ordinate policies to increase the global price on carbon, for vastly
different policies by country would create competition issues for business. This outcome
would be unusual, because a serious price on carbon is politically difficult in many countries.
Also, we have not seen the kind of international co-operation to fulfil this condition for a long
time. Compared to the scenarios discussed earlier, the market liberal view is much more
rooted in the present. Continuity seems to be more important than the need for a clean break
with the fossil fuel era. They do not expect the environment to impose serious cost in
response to endless growth in energy demand and supply. These worldviews want to keep all
supply options open, even coal and nuclear. Figure 9.6 depicts expected changes over time in
the energy mix.
The language of their scenarios is crafted to reinforce the maker’s message. Thus, we have to
learn to read scenario narratives carefully and critically to make sure we understand not only
what they want us to hear but also what they’re not saying. What sort of energy future that
people or organisations can imagine is obviously influenced by their worldview and interests
as much as by their knowledge of relevant facts and processes. We should keep this in mind
when interpreting the statements of the stakeholders.

RELATIONSHIP TO SUSTAINABILITY TRANSITION

Global reserves of coal, oil and gas are big enough to last for many decades, but their
recovery becomes increasingly difficult and expensive as reserves are located in extreme
places, such as under the deep sea and in the Arctic. Moreover, the long-term price trend is
upwards with growing scarcity as major developing economies grow. So a shift to alternative
energy sources has always been unavoidable. Climate protection and the SDGs have added
urgency to the transition.

Figure 9.6 Pathways to 2050 Energy Mix

Source: WBCSD (2012)

In 2012, the WEC summarised relevant goals under the following three dimensions in its
report ‘Time to Get Real—The Case for Sustainable Energy Policy’:
Energy security: The effective management of primary energy supply from domestic and
external sources, the reliability of energy infrastructure and the ability of participating energy
companies to meet current and future demand.
Social equity: The system’s ability to provide access to energy at affordable rates to all
sections of the population, including the rural and urban poor, while preserving incentives to
use energy sparingly.
Environmental impact mitigation: Improvement of supply and demand-side efficiency, and
the development and integration of renewable and other low-carbon sources into the system.
The Paris Agreement limits global mean temperature to 2°C. According to the IEA and
IRENA (International Renewable Energy Association), this requires ‘an energy transition of
exceptional scope, depth and speed’ (IEA and IRENA 2017). Figure 9.7 shows the great gap
between known new climate policies and the climate reductions needed to achieve the Paris
Agreement’s goal. New policies reflect the implications for the energy sector from countries’
Nationally Determined Commitments, submitted under the Paris Agreement. Energy-related
CO2 emissions should peak as early as 2020 and fall over the subsequent three decades to
30% of current levels. In the process, the share of fossil fuels would halve. Fortunately, the
transition has many benefits outside the immediate energy sphere. They include a net gain of
six million jobs (more evenly spread across and within countries), better public health
through lower urban air pollution and improved quality of life for all through lower
operational energy cost.

Figure 9.7 Gap between New Policies and 2°C Climate Protection Scenarios
Source: IEA and IRENA (2017)

There is no single energy mix that would be ideal everywhere, so the best target mix varies
by country and region. The actual transition that a country goes through depends not only on
its own choices and preferences, but also on a number of other factors, especially the
outcome of climate negotiations, geopolitical conditions and technological breakthroughs.
While large countries may have notable impacts beyond their borders, most other countries
accept these factors as given.
Governments may have influence on their country’s energy transitions through technology
(technical standards, R&D), price (tariffs, taxes and subsidies) and public policy (on health,
safety and environment). The energy transition requires a long-term strategic plan to
gradually change these parameters in a concerted manner, irrespective of who is in
government. We will first discuss the major issues for the transition plan and then turn to the
form the process might take.

If we don’t change the direction we are going, we will end up where we are headed (Old Chinese proverb)

Contents
Every country has its own energy system, that has grown under specific conditions of
geography (size and relief), climate, settlement pattern, available natural resources and public
policy. It is also the product of a particular set of framework conditions—
people’s attitudes on energy matters (certain technologies, prices),
characteristic institutions (agencies, tariff systems) and physical infrastructures (gas pipe
network, high-voltage power lines) or technology. In the old days, these parameters were not
shaped by sustainability thinking. Some actually discourage sustainable choices, for instance,
long-lasting subsidies that make energy artificially cheap and its conservation unattractive.
Each national energy transition strategy should include the coherent changes that are needed
in behavioural attitudes, institutions and technology. There is a unique transition, then, for
each country, yet a few things apply in a more general sense. Countries with high per capita
energy use and GHG emissions need a transition to lower use and low-carbon patterns.
Countries with low per capita energy and carbon levels as well as widespread energy poverty
need a transition that primarily delivers clean energy access for all. All countries in the world,
however, should include the goal of efficiency improvement in their transition plan. The
potential is vast, as we shall see further.
It will take new government approaches to reach the SDG of clean and affordable energy
for all by 2030. Past expansion of fossil fuel-powered electricity grid has not reached large
sections of the population in low- and even in middle-income countries. Now that renewable
energy technologies have become competitive, these open up new avenues for electrifying
remote communities. In its Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2014, the NGO Practical Action
details the necessary actions for five key areas: lighting, cooking (including water heating),
space heating and cooling, and information and communication. Instead of one goal—
expansion of power stations—there should be a range of goals for different energy uses.
Instead of targeting few, established energy companies, governments should facilitate the
expansion of the decentralised energy service sector.
Energy efficiency is the ratio of useful output per unit of fuel input. Efficiency plays a role
in all stages of the energy system from mining the resource through producing and
distributing the carrier (in a power station or refinery) to storing and converting it in an end-
user device (engine, consumer appliance). Last but not least, there are also important energy-
saving effects from increased re-use and recycling in an economy, since the production of
commodities from primary materials is much more energy-intensive than from secondary
(used) materials. According to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO), there is a large potential for efficiency improvement in all countries (around 25%),
but especially in DCs (30%–35%). Other studies show that in new and existing buildings,
global final energy use for heating and cooling could be reduced by almost half in 40 years.
Businesses would have to make the best use of energy-efficient technologies and also
introduce better procedures and instructions. Energy efficiency has the potential to improve a
country’s competitive position and co-finance its social, economic and environmental
development.
In its 2008 report Energy Efficiency Policies around the World: Review and Evaluation,
the WEC proposes three key elements:
1. Consistent national policies and laws that set standards and targets
2. Backed up by programmes offering technical support and financial incentives
3. 3. Public education and information campaigns to build awareness
The WEC recommends that the national government create a specialised agency for energy
efficiency or DSM and introduce a law on energy efficiency. Regularly updated national
targets signal to society the long-term trend in energy markets. The trend becomes more
visible when national and local governments first plan or retrofit their own buildings
accordingly.
Financial incentives are essential (to make polluters pay the full cost) and do not need to
be costly. Thailand imposed a small surcharge on the electricity bill to fill its fund that
financed research, demonstration and measures that improve efficiency. Direct subsidies can
be effective if they are applied as a temporary measure to mobilise consumers, to prepare for
new regulations or to promote energy-efficient technologies by creating a larger market.
According to WEC, the lack of information for consumers about what they can do is still a
barrier to higher energy efficiency in DCs. To solve the problem, there are various ways that
can produce more effect if conducted simultaneously. These include public awareness
campaigns in the mass media, labelling of appliances (colour and letter coded), free audits,
urban information centres, educational initiatives and comparative information on websites.
Note that these measures are aimed at behavioural attitudes (save on costly modern energy
services, choose efficient appliances), while the special agency and the financial incentives
are institutional.
The WEC report evaluated the following policy measures as effective:
 Mandatory energy audits: require home owners or companies to review the
energy properties of their buildings and make recommended improvements to meet
regularly updated building standards; the building gets an energy certificate that plays
an important role in appraising its value and selling it in the market;
 Energy Service Companies (ESCOs): establish businesses that develop, install
and arrange financing for projects designed to improve the energy efficiency of
homes, firms and offices over a long term (7–20 years). ESCOs get paid according to
verified energy amounts saved.
  Efficiency incentives for cars: select one or more from a carbon/energy tax on
fuel (EU) to schemes that exert payment for road use (Singapore); mandatory fuel-
economy standards are suitable for countries with domestic car production, while
fuel-economy labels enable customers to make an informed choice; a variable road
tax that goes up with the car’s weight benefits light-weight, fuel-efficient cars;
 Energy efficiency obligations for utilities: seek to improve efficiency in the
conversion link;
 Solar water heaters: promote them by a mix of financial incentives (tax
credits, subsidies) and confidence-building measures (technical standards and quality
labels).
Even in the medium to long term, renewables will probably not entirely replace fossil fuels.
Since several renewable sources are intermittent (especially wind and solar), they need back-
up capacity to provide electricity when there is no wind or sunshine. At other times, there is
excess energy compared to the needs of the moment. This requires a system with the capacity
to save and regulate to match demand and supply. Fortunately, ICT enables us to fulfil those
functions. A related question is which fossil fuel has the best properties to be a transition fuel
for the country. This will largely depend on local conditions, such as availability and
acceptance.
Three more issues that link the energy sector to another sphere of government policy
should be included in the energy transition strategy:
 The food-water-energy nexus is a term that highlights the growing connection
between decisions in each of these areas. If all the land suitable for cultivation is
already in use, the decision to grow biofuel crops has to be traded off against lower
domestic food production. Energy is needed to pump water to agriculture, business
and households. More and more water is needed in the production of fossil fuels and
electricity, while some uses make the water unsuitable for others. Given that the
world needs 30% more water, 40% more energy and 50% more food over the next
two decades, some tough choices will have to be made, especially in dry regions of
the world. It is rational to make planning decisions in energy, food and water spheres
only while taking into account their interactions.
 Waste-to-energy refers to an industrial technology that burns waste in order to
generate electricity and/or heat. Some countries that have built these installations now
have to import waste from neighbouring countries in order to produce enough power.
 Industrial ecology is a discipline that connects different companies, where one
company can use its neighbour’s waste product(s) as an input. This is modelled on
nature, where one organism uses the waste products of another to survive. In nature
nothing is wasted, and so it is a great inspiration for people to imitate.

About the Transition Process

In line with Kotter’s eight steps to successful organisational change (Chapter 3), each
country’s energy transition needs a powerful guiding coalition with a credible vision and
strategy, acting on a widely shared urgency. Market forces are not going to deliver a
sustainable system as long as the majority have vested interests in the fossil fuel economy.
Steady government leadership may bring some of them on board, especially if they already
see short-term benefits. It is telling that several energy companies have (re)entered renewable
energy markets after global leaders adopted the Paris Agreement on Climate Protection in
December 2015.
In 2010, Germany officially adopted the national goal of an energy transition to an
affordable, reliable and environmentally sound system. This is to be achieved within 40 years
by extensive use of DSM (efficiency improvement), renewables (especially wind, solar and
hydro), and phase-out of nuclear (by 2022) and coal. The country wants to achieve 80%–95%
reduction in GHGs by 2050. Important characteristics that give this ambition a high
likelihood of success include: broad public and political support, strong financial and legal
basis (e.g., 1.5 billion Euro per year spent on energy research), widespread local initiatives
and domestic industrial capacity. The latter has positive spin-offs for other countries wishing
to follow Germany’s example.
Green finance is essential to pay for investments that need to be made now in order to
secure long-term pay-offs. This process involves risks and these are often perceived as large
for items that have no long track record. Therefore, some form of public sector involvement
is needed to reduce the risks until investing in renewables and efficiency improvement has
become the new normal. As agreed under the United Nations Climate Convention, DCs are
entitled to investment support from the Green Climate Fund. As experience grows, here too,
more and more financial institutions will open up to green investment as it will no longer be
perceived as risky.
Public acceptance is both a critical success factor and a target variable. Lack of it may
slow down or halt expansion of certain renewable sources (for instance, windmills or large
hydro). On the other hand, some forms of opposition to changes in the energy supply may be
overcome by careful public awareness-building of a country’s energy options in the global
context before more practical planning issues come to the table. Last but not least,
international experience has shown that prior involvement and compensation of negatively
affected citizens greatly facilitate acceptance.
The IEA, in its 2015 World Energy Outlook, sees signs of structural change. It writes: ‘An
energy sector transition is underway in many parts of the world.’ The reason for this
statement is a range of government plans, especially in China and the USA, that support a
shift to renewables. As a result of such policies, renewables are now the second-largest
resource for electricity production worldwide. They could overtake coal in the next 15 years.
This is all the more significant, because a 70% rise in global electricity consumption is
expected by 2040. Energy efficiency policies in the public and private sector have also had
noticeable results—growth in final energy demand grew by a third of what it otherwise would
have been. The IEA sees a lot more potential, but at the time of writing, low oil prices were
discouraging more ambitious energy saving. Under these conditions, analysts conclude, it is
essential that governments agree internationally to keep the transition to an inclusive and
green energy system going. All the more because cheap oil is running out and unconventional
fossil fuels cannot bring back the days of plenty. The urgency for the energy transition to
renewables has never been greater.
Yet, as we have seen in the previous section, there is no global consensus on what the
future energy system looks like and how fast we should get there. According to some, a
sustainable energy system is characterised by renewables and hydrogen with perhaps a
transition role for natural gas. Others praise the low-carbon property of nuclear energy,
confident that the safety and nuclear waste issues will one day be solved. Capturing carbon
from large installations and storing it in underground cavities is an option currently used on
pilot scale to limit climate change. Again, according to some, it is indispensable to achieve
climate stabilisation, but according to others its use will only delay the transition to
renewables. One thing we know for sure, despite the upsurge in non-conventional fuels, the
fossil age will come to an end. For the earth, it should end before all known fossil resources
have been burnt. Once resources are close to depletion, fossil fuel prices will go up steeply
with negative economic and social consequences. Then everyone will know for sure that it is
time for an alternative energy system, but time to adapt will be so limited that we may not
have an orderly transition. Indeed, there are writers and film-makers who claim that only a
deep crisis can break the current deadlock of inaction. Others, however, are more optimistic
about the human ability to steer clear of disaster in the face of mounting evidence and
pressure.
A growing movement of grassroots action might make a difference. Numerous
entrepreneurial individuals, groups and organisations are taking their cleaner energy needs
into their own hands. They put their money where their values are; they co-operate with like-
minded folks and are willing to take risks. New technologies and innovative funding
strategies help them realise their dreams. They hope that governments will eventually follow
their lead. Crowd-funding is a fairly new instrument that facilitates the advance of renewable
energy. One or more initiators may establish a small company that develops a wind-park,
biogas installation or solar project. Next, instead of going to a bank to get the start-up capital,
the initiators invite people through an online platform to invest in a project. In return, they
share in the profit from the energy sales. It is attractive because it gives principled people
more control over where their money is invested. Obviously, this institution should be
enabled by legislation, because accountability is essential to establish and maintain trust.
Another grassroots initiative is people or companies establishing a co-operative that owns
and manages renewable energy sources. The owners are also the users of the energy. This
works very well for local groups, who already know and trust each other, for instance
mountain or island communities. There is a global movement of islands aiming to become
fully self-reliant through renewable energy. They do need to operate under an energy law that
enables decentralised energy generation. If the co-operative’s power network also has a
connection to the grid, there should also be co-ordination with the national power grid about
delivery and conditions. Guaranteed feed-in tariffs for decentralised power can be a strong
incentive to set up such local initiatives.
It is encouraging to note the creativity and co-operation that spur a lot of renewables
development, but what are traditional energy businesses doing? Well, in the 1990s and early
2000s, several big oil companies experimented with renewables themselves or invested in
start-ups that did. However, with very few exceptions they have all withdrawn from this
profitable activity. Why? Renewable energy analysts suggest two reasons. One is that big oil
companies are facing challenging times in exploring and exploiting oil and gas in new
environments: shale, deep-sea and the Arctic. The other is that the oil and gas bosses have
more affinity with chemistry than with electronics. Renewables really does not feel like their
core business. As long as big coal, oil and gas are profitable, they will do their best to lead in
their core business. Unfortunately, this implies that the sustainable energy transition has
powerful opponents. In the light of this opposition, drivers of sustainability have other
avenues to promote the transition, for instance, by re-routing some of the investment flows
that support fossil fuels today. There are investment analysts and action groups, who advise
companies and institutional investors (like pension funds) to withdraw their funds from fossil
fuel projects and invest them in renewable energy development. They argue that fossil fuel
companies are overvalued in the light of the immanent energy transition. As soon as
international climate protection takes off, investment in fossil fuel companies may quickly
lose value.
So in conclusion we ask: How will the energy transition come about? By strong leadership
from the top or by a groundswell of support from companies, communities and public
leaders? Time will tell. Initiators ultimately need politicians to create a basis for
dissemination of the technologies and institutions that work. Top leaders, on the other hand,
need to know that the majority of citizens and companies are convinced of the urgency and
ready to follow their energy transition policies. If the guiding coalition continually send the
message and walk the talk, then they inspire the rest of us to do our part. Are you hearing the
eight steps of deep change ringing in your ears? Indeed, most of us need political and
business leaders to enable us to change. Together they can overcome the teething problems
that are bound to accompany new developments. Many of us need short-term benefits to
motivate us to keep going. In the end, energy sustainability will become so normal and
natural that it will find its way into society’s foundations.
Conclusion

Energy is a master resource. So making energy supply and use more inclusive and sustainable
provides a major contribution to the future we want. Fossil fuels have been helpful in
unlocking vast amounts of energy to power unprecedented economic growth. However, we
now know that this type of development was unsustainable because of its economic, social
and environmental side effects. Thanks to R&D over many decades, prices for renewable
energy sources have become competitive and RE investment is soaring worldwide. Yet much
still has to change in order to make energy supply by renewables the main stay, both stable
and reliable. Increasingly, governments are considering which fuel makes for a good
candidate as transition fuel in their context—natural gas or another. The exact timing of the
energy transition is still open, but most scenarios for 2050 contain a serious shift away from
fossil fuels towards renewables.

REVIEW AND REFLECTION QUESTIONS

These questions are additional to the learning points at the beginning of every chapter. They
are given to help you review the material and reflect on it in the context of your own country.
1. Which aspects of fossil fuel production and use make them environmentally
unsustainable? How much time does the world have to replace them?
2. Mention three government policies that support and three which hinder
sustainable development?
3. How do demand-side management and energy conservation programmes help
energy users overcome barriers to sustainable investments?
4. Electricity seems a great, clean energy carrier. Why is this only half the story?
1
See http://policy.practicalaction.org/policy-themes/energy/poor-peoples-energy-outlook/poor-peoples-
energy-outlook-2014 (accessed on 30 November 2017).
2
Examples include below market rate licences, loan guarantees and tax exemptions. If infrastructure is
financed from general tax income low electricity tariffs are in effect subsidised.
3
BBC News (2012), which builds on classical social contract theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
4
According to the WCED, 1987.
 10
CHAPTER

Making Cities More Sustainable

Learning Objectives

 Appreciate how cities have contributed to meeting urban needs using the land around
them and having impacts beyond their geographical limits.
 Investigate and map the main areas of urban environmental and social impacts:
energy, transport, food, water and waste.
 Examine promising examples of urban impact reduction for each of these areas and in
their mutual connectedness.
 Determine the transition challenges for developing and developed country cities and
the potential for mutual assistance.
 Acknowledge the role of government, local businesses and civil society in planning
and developing a more sustainable urban future.

INTRODUCTION
Over half of our world’s seven billion people live in cities—ranging from 30% in DCs to
80% in ICs. According to the UN, due to urbanisation and rapid population growth, the
number of city dwellers will continue to increase to five billion in 2030 (UNDESA 2007, 27).
Living conditions for many urban poor in DCs are bad as they have no access to good-quality
housing, health and sanitation, and safe drinking water. While in 2005, one in every three city
dwellers lived in slum conditions, this number is likely to double by 2030. Many of these will
live in one of the world’s megacities of over 10 million people. There were only two
megacities in 1950, but there are expected to be 37 by 2025 (Table 10.1 has a list of
megacities in 2015). So in places where public services are already overstretched, millions
more will seek work, housing, health care and education. Occupying only 2% of the Earth’s
surface, cities are using around 75% of the world’s resources. Is this a sustainable situation?
If not, how could cities become part of a more equitable, prosperous and sustainable world?
According to the UN,

[A] sustainable city […] is a city where achievements in social, economic, and physical development are
made to last. A sustainable city has a lasting supply of the natural resources on which its development
depends (using them only at a level of sustainable yield). A sustainable city maintains a lasting security
from environmental hazards which may threaten development achievements (allowing only for acceptable
risk).

Table 10.1 The World’s Biggest Cities in 2015

Source: UNDESA (2014)

An exploration of a city’s environmental impacts could start from the question of which
functions the city has for its inhabitants. In other words, what sorts of activities do people
need the city for? Answers include living (maintaining a home), working (paid employment
and volunteering), taking education or training (full time, seminar and other), getting supplies
(market garden and shopping), enjoying a rest (recreation and active leisure), getting medical
treatment, meeting other people (homes, parks and squares) and moving around from A to B
(transportation).
For simplicity, we will confine ourselves to the following five resource areas that cause the
bulk of a city’s environmental impact, while also touching on important social and economic
issues:

1. Energy and Housing (including public buildings)

2. Transport and public space
3. Food
4. Water
5. Waste

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Cities are concentrations of people, living and working together in a largely man-made
environment, yet interacting with their wider environment in important ways. Although cities
take up relatively little space, they need a substantial area around them to provide them with
goods and services, such as food, water, energy carriers, building materials, timber, paper
and perhaps temporary workers. Moreover, they need surrounding area to absorb their waste
products, such as wastewater (from households and businesses), emissions (dust, soot and
gases) and solid waste (often buried in landfills). These flows of inputs and waste products
must be managed well, or a loss in well-being will result. In the pre-industrial era, cities
were overall dense, that is, they had a relatively large number of people per square kilometre.
Streets were narrow, and major functions were located nearby—market gardens, orchards,
arable and grazing land, local water sources and woods. As a result, distances in the city
could easily be covered on foot or horseback. Food was grown in or near the city, and
biodegradable waste products were composted to enhance the fertility and soil structure of
the land. In general, reuse and recycling rates were high, so the system was fairly sustainable.
The Industrial Revolution with its fossil-fuel-powered inventions changed all that.
Machines enabled agriculture to produce more with lower inputs of labour, so more people
needed work elsewhere. At the same time, the cities turned their small-scale workshops into
larger factories that could absorb excess labourers from the countryside. Motorised transport
enabled people to cover larger distances fast and so the cities expanded with lower density.
Raw materials and food came in from an ever bigger area around, and industrial products
were sent off to ever more distant markets. Globalising markets have rearranged production
patterns again, with raw materials, food crops and labour-intensive components often
originating in DCs, while assembly, quality control and luxury goods are produced in ICs.
There are few complex products, such as a computer or a car, whose components come from
many different countries. To move all these materials and goods from country to country,
enormous flows of ships, trucks and aeroplanes constantly make their way around the globe.
Historically, cities have been centres of innovative activity, work and wealth creation.
Since they accommodate more people and value-adding activity than their surroundings, they
tend to get more attention and priority from the authorities. As cities expanded, they typically
acquired more room for growth by incorporating neighbouring villages or merging with a
neighbouring town. In this process, they turned agricultural lands or woodlands into urban
landscapes. While cities in ICs grew fast in the early twentieth century, DC cities have been
growing fast since the 1950s. How big cities could get and still remain functioning is
probably a function of technology, people’s mentality and institutions within a given
geographical context. In DC cities, income inequality is typically huge with, for instance, the
top 20% earning half of the total income, while the bottom 20% live in poverty and earn less
than a tenth. Urbanisation is itself part of the development process. The challenge is to
manage the process so as to avoid a severe deterioration in the quality of life. The
development of smaller urban centres could reduce pressures in large cities. The Brundtland
Commission wrote in its 1987 report that there is a clear opportunity to invest in sustainable
infrastructure and in social development before social inequities become unsustainable.
Efforts by the authorities could be supplemented with self-help efforts in housing and urban
services by and for the poor. In modernising public management in cities, perhaps an
approach to include rather than replace the informal sector could produce short-term gains.
Our case studies in the ‘Current State’ section, especially in waste collection and processing,
serve to illustrate this.
People move to the city for a variety of reasons. Some of them are the attractive sides of
city life that pull country folk to the city, such as the prospect of an exciting job or of a top
education—these are ‘pull factors’. On the other hand, many people who love country life
move to the city long term, because their rural livelihood does not provide enough income to
maintain the family. In some places, rural realities push people out to the cities. Poor
education, few jobs and low incomes are ‘push factors’. If conditions for rural development
could become more favourable, then the pace of urbanisation might slow down.
Very fast urbanisation causes big strains on the quality of life in both the countryside and
the city. Rural settlements are left with incomplete families (only women, children and
elderly) or a breakdown of services as skilled labourers move away. On the other hand, in
some countries, the inflow of people into the cities is so big that local governments cannot
keep up with expanding housing and infrastructures, such as roads, electricity, sewage,
running water, schools, hospitals and so on. In countries with severe winters (e.g., Armenia
and Kyrgyzstan) the newcomers resort to crowding in cramped apartments or move as guest
workers to other countries. In (sub)tropical and arid regions (e.g., Brazil, India and South
Africa) large shanty towns have sprung up around megacities, housing up to half of a city’s
population. Where city expansion happens fast, it is nearly impossible to have it proceed in
an orderly manner. Newcomers occupy unused land near roads and railways, near waterways
or on the hills around the edges. Homes are built of makeshift materials, streets are narrow
and unpaved, sewers are open sources of bad smell and disease, and waste is dumped in
waterways or burnt on the edges. People are often exposed to industrial and natural hazards,
such as air and water pollution, and landslides. Jobs are scarce and far away, so people need
to travel long distances on congested roads for low wages. Clearly, slums contain an
accumulation of negative social, economic and environmental factors. These are connected in
many ways, and so they need to be dealt with in an integrated fashion, using the insights and
ambitions of the urban poor themselves. Although people in shanty towns are definitely
disadvantaged and caught in a poverty trap, they are often also resourceful and hard working.
Agenda 21, one of the final documents of the 1992 Rio World Summit, recognised that
over two-thirds of its objectives and actions could not be delivered without the commitment
and co-operation of local government and active civil society. Since then, more and more
local authorities have recognised the need to move beyond simply fulfilling day-to-day duties
in such areas as housing, transport and waste disposal. A more co-ordinated approach to
environment and development problems is going to get them better results. This has already
been the experience of such cities as Curitiba (Brazil), Freiburg (Germany), Bangalore (India)
and Shenzhou (China), which have established a league of eco-cities and meet at a
conference every 4 years to exchange experience and draw in new participants. The ICLEI
was instrumental in drafting Chapter 28 of Agenda 21. This agency assists local authorities
around the world in building capacity (skills, programmes and systems) for local action.
In 1996, the UN Conference on Human Settlements (now UN-HABITAT) adopted the
Habitat Agenda at its Istanbul meeting. The document stated that local government should
deal with its social, economic and environmental challenges from one integrated vision.
Issues should no longer be tackled in isolation from each other within departments that do not
talk to each other. At the first session of the World Urban Forum in Nairobi in May 2002, an
in-depth discussion was held on urbanisation in the context of SD. The issue of making cities
more sustainable kept coming up in subsequent UN conferences, such as the Johannesburg
Summit (August 2002) and the Rio+20 Conference in June 2012. The issue of governance
was considered so important in the pursuit of SD that it was added as a fourth pillar alongside
the social, economic and environmental pillars (Chapter 6 and Table 10.2).
Connecting the four pillars generates greater benefits (synergies). In the next section, we
cover five clusters of items from the pillar diagram in Table 10.2, but behind those are most
of the others:

 Energy and Buildings: Renewables, efficiency, technology and innovation, decent

employment, air quality and climate change mitigation.
 Public Transportation: Reduction of inequities, regional links, air quality, decent
employment and climate change mitigation.
 Food and Nutrition: Education and health, reduction of food waste, decent
employment and regional links with farming communities.
 Water and Sanitation: Education and health, recreation areas and community support,
technology and innovation, and forest and soil management (protection of watershed).
 Waste Management: Decent employment, green productive growth, reduction of
inequities and climate change mitigation.

Table 10.2 Pillars for Achieving Sustainability in Cities

Source: Adapted from UN (2013, 62)

CURRENT STATE OF THE ISSUE

The cities of our world are so diverse in their local circumstances (geographical, social and
economic) that it is impossible to design a single strategy for sustainable urban development.
It is essential, however, that any strategy takes an integrated view of all relevant urban
activities and stakeholders. Let us now look closely at the major urban activities that make up
its environmental footprint, and examine the case study examples of cities that are practising
innovative solutions.

Energy and Housing

Powering urban development and growth provides great challenges and opportunities for city
planners, both in energy demand and supply. About 70% of energy demand in cities is related
to buildings for their heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting. Sustainable technology think
tanks say that there is potential to save 30%–50% on energy bills through insulation, energy-
efficient technology and architectural adaptations in new and existing buildings. How quickly
a building gains or loses energy depends on the materials that it is made of, the thickness of
walls, the size and orientation of windows and so on. The biggest energy saving could be
planned in the design stage, so it is important to involve architects, builders and city planners
in sustainability thinking about new housing estates. Cities that are growing fast have a lot to
gain from this. However, even older buildings can be upgraded by energy-saving renovation.
This process, called retrofitting, has been successfully applied in many high-income cities.
Some projects have won prestigious prizes for this. On the supply side, recent developments
in renewable energy technologies and ICT enable us to build decentralised power-
generation units in new housing estates—either connected to the grid or autonomous.
Moreover, buildings could generate more of their own energy needs from geothermal sources
or solar energy devices (panels and water heaters). Thus, needs can be moderated in technical
(energy-saving devices), behavioural (awareness campaigns) and institutional (tariff reform)
ways.

Cases
Retrofitting municipal buildings in Bishkek: Kyrgyzstan is a small mountainous country in
Central Asia with a continental climate—hot summers and cold winters. Much of its housing
stock and energy systems in the capital Bishkek date back to the time when the country was
part of the USSR. Heavily subsidised energy tariffs provided no incentive for energy-efficient
construction, and Soviet buildings now rank among the least efficient in the world. High
energy bills keep schools and hospitals from allocating more money to their core activities.
Under the Municipal Energy Efficiency Plan (MEEP) project, Norwegian ENSI worked with
local counterparts on building expertise in energy audits of buildings and negotiated with the
authorities for the necessary changes in regulation. The MEEP was approved in 2007, and
with money from the city of Bishkek and outside sponsors, a fund was formed from which
energy-efficiency investments were made. Such investments in insulation of walls, floors,
ceilings and windows would typically be in the order of US$10–20,000. They earned
themselves back in 4 years, and it was agreed that these savings would be paid back to the
fund. This way, the fund became a revolving fund, so it could continue to fund energy-saving
investments in other schools and hospitals.
Greening of social housing in South Africa: After the transition to multi-racial democracy
in the mid-1990s, South Africa had a huge demand for affordable housing for its millions of
poor. One response was the creation in 2002 of social housing institutions (SHI), semi-public
associations modelled on counterparts in Europe. These SHI build and manage large amounts
of housing made available to low-income families at below-market rents. Since the SHI work
on a large scale they are in a position to make good deals in architectural design, construction
materials and so on. In their first decade of operation, they emphasised quantity, because
millions of new homes were needed. However, housing quality was low, and over time,
tenants pulled out because of high energy and service bills. From 1998, several projects were
launched to design and build more energy-efficient homes for the poor. Various
implementation problems kept the SHI from applying this experience on a larger scale. Yet,
with their focus on quality, maintenance and long-term price analysis, the SHI are a suitable
organisation to promote sustainable housing. Therefore, with international assistance, they
are now building a vision for the ‘greening of social housing’. This effort includes training of
their staff and adaptation of operational procedures. Moreover, their nationwide association
NASHO (National Association of Social Housing Organisations) is working with government
to create more facilitating laws. The housing associations will need to invest more capital
upfront, and they are also interested in developing renewable energy production for their
tenants. The South African government seems open to this as it recently declared a green
building policy.1
Rizhao ‘China’s solar city’: In Chinese, Rizhao means ‘the first to see the sun’. This refers
to the fact that this city of 2.8 million located on Shandong Province’s eastern coast faces the
rising sun. The area has 260 sunny days a year. Most buildings in central Rizhao and 30% of
households in the suburbs have solar panels and solar water heaters. Moreover, small solar
panels power street lighting and traffic signals. This feature is the result of the provincial
government’s R&D subsidies to the solar industry in the region. Technological breakthroughs
brought the cost of a solar water heater down to $190, the cost of an electric one. However,
the solar heater saves 1,000 yuan or $120 operational cost every year. The average annual
income is around $6,000. By means of public awareness campaigns (open seminars and TV
advertising), Rizhao City convinced many households to adopt the new product. Furthermore,
from 2003, the city required real estate developers to install solar panels on all new buildings.
As a result, air quality in Rizhao has been relatively good, and the city has consistently been
in China’s top 10 of clean air cities. The city’s solar reputation is paying off in terms of
increased interest of foreign investors, who choose the city for its quality of life and attitude
to innovation.

Transport and Public Space

Urban transportation is an aspect of city life that may be enjoyably convenient or frustratingly
inefficient. Most world cities have serious problems with congestion, and noise and air
pollution. Now what is the real problem? If city authorities decide it is road capacity, then
they will try to build more and more facilities for smooth automobile traffic, such as wider
roads, overhead freeways and free parking facilities. However, this solution is costly not just
to the municipal budget but also to public health (from air pollution and noise) and available
space for other urban functions, and is detrimental to fairness. In actual fact, a minority of
city dwellers own a car, and in most places, a sizeable share of the full cost of car use is
indirectly paid by non-car owners. This subsidy draws in more car users. Some cities
described in this book are changing that, and their citizens show by their road use and voting
that they approve. It was once thought that cars were an indispensable part of progress, but
after a few decades it turned out that subsidised roads and fuels lead to overuse of cars with
all kinds of undesirable effects. Transportation demand is not a natural phenomenon; it is the
result of millions of individual decisions within a framework of conditions determined by
governments and markets. In other words, as the framework is changed by a fresh vision and
consistent policies, transportation supply and demand will change too.
The way that urban functions such as housing and work are spread across a city generates a
certain transportation need. How this need is met depends on the city’s average income,
vehicle and fuel prices, culture and status considerations. Fortunately, these cultural aspects
change in two directions. When cars become accessible to the masses and the PPP is not yet
fully applied, people tend to shift to more or even excessive car use. However, in many cities,
we see the opposite, namely, that young urban professionals stay in or come back to cities
that improve their urban quality. Planners responded by redesigning streets and squares
to invite people to stay there and move around by bicycle, on foot or by public transport.
After all, cities are places where people of all ages and walks of life meet for work, leisure
and social activities. Where public spaces are attractive, they will invite people and deter
neglect and crime. On the other hand, places with anonymous buildings, lack of greenery,
noisy freeways and many parked cars do not make good places to linger around. A growing
movement of urban planners and dwellers believes that cities should be developed for people,
not cars.2 Of course, people should be able to go where they want in ways that are fast,
comfortable and affordable. Therefore, a strong public transport system and sufficient
facilities for safe cycling and walking are essential for a sustainable city. A great public
transport system from Latin America that is spreading rapidly these days is bus rapid transit
(BRT). It started over 40 years ago in Curitiba (Brazil) and 15 years ago in Bogota
(Colombia), but with support from international development banks, it is now spreading
across Asia like wildfire.

Cases
Bus rapid transit in Curitiba: Curitiba grew from a city of 400,000 to over two million
inhabitants in the last 50 years. It pioneered an urban master plan that integrated all aspects of
city growth, which made sustainable transportation a clear priority. A key element of this
innovative system was BRT. It has many useful add-ons, but its essential characteristics
include (a) extended buses with a capacity of 250 passengers, (b) buses run frequently (every
3–5 minutes), (c) dedicated bus lanes (no other traffic allowed), (d) stopping at elevated bus
stops where passengers have pre-paid their ticket, (e) crossing the city fast on a handful of
arteries, (f) the system is complemented by neighbourhood buses that bring people in to
transfer stations, and fast circular connections between the arteries in outlying areas, making
the network look like a spider web and, (g) finally, the system needs unified ticketing that
allows passengers to change lines without having to buy another ticket. In Curitiba’s case,
public and private bus drivers work together in the system, which pays each driver a fee for
every kilometre driven. This way, there is no incentive to overload buses with passengers,
which would reduce comfort and (un)boarding speed. Even though the city has a high rate of
car ownership, 70% of Curitibans use the BRT to give it a two-million-a-day ridership. The
system is relatively flexible and cheap compared to a metro system underground—around
10% of the cost per kilometre. BRT in Curitiba is supported by various municipal policies
that impact its success. One is the urban zoning rule that building height in the city centre is
limited, while tall buildings are promoted along the five BRT arteries. As a result, the historic
centre has kept its character and mixed use (pedestrian streets were added), while the BRT
axes have developed into a type of linear centre zone. Another supporting policy is that the
social affairs office hands out bus tickets as part of its income supplement policies, and the
waste management office does so to reduce littering in low-income neighbourhoods. A third
policy promoting public transport is the layout of a main road network that reduces
congestion and takes pressure off the BRT arteries. The so-called trinary road system works
as follows: (a) Lanes on both sides of the dedicated bus lanes are destined for traffic with
local neighbourhood destinations, as there are many homes, offices and shops along the BRT
arteries. (b) At 100 metres on either side are parallel one-way streets that allow cars to cross
the city fast without being hindered by upcoming and turning vehicles. Testimony to the
BRT’s success is that dozens of cities in Latin America and Asia are copying (parts of) the
concept. The most successful examples are Bogota (Colombia), Ahmedabad (India) and
Guangzhou (China).3
Cycling promotion policies (China, EU): Research demonstrates that around 30% of car
trips cover distances under 3 km (European Commission 1999). It also ranks modes of
transportation according to their efficiency in moving people across a 3.5 m line during one
hour. Trams win, followed by walking, cycling and buses. Cars come last as they typically
carry only one or two persons per vehicle. At short distances, bicycles have a great
competitive advantage. Therefore, in Denmark and the Netherlands, over half of all trips
under 5 km are made by bike. Here too, the car became a dominant mode of transport in the
1960s and the 1970s, but unacceptably high levels of congestion and air pollution have
reversed the trend. In China, bikes were the main form of transport even 30 years ago, but the
car became the status symbol of China’s economic success after 1990. However, today many
cities are so fed up with congestion and air pollution that they switched priorities to public
transport and cycling. It makes a lot of sense really, because the advantages are numerous.
Cleaner air means lower health care cost, more physical exercise, less heart and vessel
disease, fewer sick days and lower associated costs. Less space for driving and parking leads
to more space for attractive public spaces and green zones where inhabitants and tourists can
meet and recreate. Also, less congestion causes less delay for business transport, which
translates into lower cost. Last but not least, lower fuel use means lower GHG emissions, so a
healthier city has a better impact on the world around. For countries importing their
transportation fuels, it also means a reduction of dependence on expensive fuel imports and
potential supply disruptions. So what are the risks and preferred conditions for cycling?
Cyclists move at speeds (15–20 km/h) significantly different from pedestrians (5 km/h),
mopeds (40–50 km/h) and cars (50–70 km/h). They are somewhat less visible, need to keep
their balance and may change direction more quickly. Traffic safety is an important condition
for bike promotion. Having bikes and pedestrians share the same space does not solve the risk
problem as their speeds are too different. Separate bike lanes may not work well either if they
are poorly understood and implemented. Cyclists may easily share the road with other road
users, provided both sides keep a minimum of safety rules and make themselves well visible,
especially in the dark. Also, in order to prevent bikes from being stolen, facilities for safe
storage are an essential element of bike promotion policies. Overseeing half a century of
biking policies in Europe, we may say that they are best served by consistent political
backing, input from relevant stakeholders and gradual continuous improvements. Both the
options and the diversity shown by model cities are enormous. Curitiba and Bogota made
designated bike lanes, connecting them to enable cyclists to conveniently move from suburbs
and slums to the city centre and back. Former Bogota mayor Enrique Peñalosa did this from
the position that the bike is the most popular and democratic vehicle. Bike networks, and
better sidewalks and parks have turned his city into one of the most competitive and liveable
cities in Latin America. Guangzhou added a bike-share component to its successful BRT
system in order to enable passengers to quickly continue their journey by a suitable short-
distance travel mode. Members can use public bikes for a low fee to cover the last stretch
home. Thus, more people use public transport and fewer take a motor vehicle.4
Electric rickshaws in Kathmandu: The tempo used to be a popular mode of transport in
Nepal’s capital. Since the introduction of its electric counterpart ‘safa tempo,’ it now carries
the adjective vikram, which means dirty. Indeed, the thousands of three-wheel vehicles
caused perhaps more than half of Kathmandu’s air polluting emissions. International
organisations worked together to produce an alternative electric vehicle. Despite its higher
purchase price, it quickly became popular with drivers and passengers. It is obviously less
noisy and smelly, and it is also cheaper to operate. Thus, the higher investment earns itself
back. After a trial period, the Nepali government decided to ban the old polluting ‘tempo’.
Similar processes are going on all over the Indian subcontinent and South-East Asia.
Advantages of rickshaws compared to private cars is that they are lighter in weight and
engine, and they transport on average more people, so their emissions per person kilometre
are lower. They can perform even better by planning so as to avoid unnecessary trips.
Technology, city regulations, and new business models may help to speed up the transition to
sustainable urban transportation.

Food and Drink

We live in a world where 870 million go hungry and 500 million are obese, according to the
UN FAO (2012). How healthy we are, depends not only on the quantity but also on the right
qualities. Important though diets are, people do not automatically choose a healthy diet given
enough options. Diets with sufficient variety, fresh produce, and minimal on oil and fats are
believed to be best, according to governmental food advice in Europe and
America.5 Furthermore, animals and food products are traded between countries on a large
scale. Consequently, food production and trade have important economic and ethical aspects.
Finally, in our whole world, the environmental impacts of food can no longer be ignored in
debates over food security and resource management. There are three aspects of food that
make its total environmental impacts: (a) production method, (b) packaging and (c) place
(distance to market).
Food with minimal use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides has a smaller environmental
footprint. According to some, it is healthier too. Meat and seafood’s relatively big ecological
footprint also needs attention. Next, the more the food is processed or sold in fast turnover
outlets, the more it tends to be packaged in order to preserve and attract. More and more of
that packaging is plastic that does not break down and ends up littering streets and waterways
or filling up landfills. Finally, the distance to market is a relevant environmental factor as
long as our transportation sector runs on fossil fuels. In this respect, locally produced, fresh
foods are preferred to those that have travelled halfway around the world. The normal thing
was to import fruits, vegetables and other foods from afar in order to have more choice at all
times. However, sustainability should lead us to prefer seasonal crops. In response to this new
trend, farmers’ markets have sprung up in many cities. Also, eco-NGOs have created the idea
of a vegetable box subscription, where each week brings a new choice of unexpected fresh
vegetable delight. Another innovation that serves economic, social and environmental
purposes is the phenomenon of urban agriculture. New to some countries, this is the practice
of growing, processing and distributing food in or near towns and cities. It may be people’s
private plots, but there are also increasingly communal plots made available by municipalities
to groups of citizens for food purposes. Working the plots in community groups builds good
neighbourly relations, while also reducing the need for cash to buy food. Moreover, the food
crops will turn barren soil into attractive cityscape and give the people a sense of pride about
their area.

Cases
Dakar: Thousands of farmers are earning a living growing fruits and vegetables in the
Niayes, a strip of fertile land running north along Senegal’s western coastline from the
outskirts of the capital, Dakar. But land speculation threatens the future of this market
gardening.
Istanbul: For centuries, a network of market gardens throughout Istanbul provisioned the
city with fresh vegetables. These bostans and their gardeners held a respected place in
Istanbul life, contributing to the city’s food and employment needs. Today, only fragments
remain.

Water and Sanitation

Water is essential for personal hygiene, cooking and drinking, and also for flushing toilets,
watering gardens, washing cars and filling up swimming pools. Like with energy, the use of
water per person goes up with income and ease of access. Figure 10.1 illustrates the wide
range in daily water use between countries at different income levels. On the one hand, there
are millions who receive piped water in their homes around the clock. This convenience
makes one forget how the water got into the system and what efforts and cost were needed to
purify and distribute it. Lack of education on water and lack of incentive to use it sparingly
(payment independent of use) led many people to believe that water simply falls from the sky
for free and should be cheap. In reality, more and more world cities have great difficulty
getting enough water to their citizens. Often, conflicts between different user groups exist,
such as farmers, households and businesses. Farmers and households often get preferential
rates, but businesses pay much more for the same water. Moreover, the distribution of who
gets it and who does not often seems unfair. More than one billion people have no access to
safe drinking water and sanitation. These include the millions that dwell in megacity slums.
As a result, they are more vulnerable to disease and less able to study or work.

Figure 10.1 Average Daily Water Use Per Person for Selected Countries
Source: Human Development Report 2016, UNDP

Figure 10.2 Projected Global Water Scarcity, 2025

Source: International Water Management Institute

Forty per cent of the world’s population live in water-stressed areas, where demand is
higher than long-term sustainable supply. This share is growing as needs go up and climate
change causes shifts in rainfall patterns. Figure 10.2 shows that many developing countries
are expected to experience (near) physical or economic water scarcity by 2025. Usually,
surface water goes to agriculture for irrigating food and cash crops, while the cities take for
their needs from underground aquifers. Unfortunately, the speed at which they extract this
groundwater is many times faster than the speed at which nature replenishes it. Therefore,
many water-stressed cities are having to get their water from further and further away. For
instance, Beijing is building a 1,600 km canal to bring in water from Southern China as the
Yellow River runs very low part of every year. Some Persian Gulf countries are importing
water from Africa, while others use much energy to desalinate sea water.
Since water is such an essential ingredient for life, governments find it difficult to allow
realistic full-cost pricing for water. Yet, they also find that where water is offered at a flat,
low rate, water use just keeps going up. This cannot last. Water saving is possible in various
ways: (a) by technical means (water-saving shower heads), (b) by incentive-based pricing
(basic price for core needs; a higher fee for luxury needs) and (c) by behavioural adaptation
as a result of educational and mass-media awareness campaigns, perhaps reinforced by apps
that help people track and rate their use. Apart from water quantity, there is the aspect of
quality. Water pollution puts serious restrictions on water use for drinking and productive
purposes, such as brewing beverages. Expensive purification is needed, and so a large part of
the population ends up paying for a minority’s unwillingness to purify its waste water before
it is released. Moreover, where people do not trust the quality of their tap water, they tend to
buy bottled water, causing vast amounts of plastic waste (unless the bottles are reused and/or
recycled).

Cases
The Orangi Pilot Project (OPP) in Karachi (Pakistan): The project was started by a social
scientist to help the Orangi community (1.2 million people) gain access to sanitation. The
existing system of bucket latrines, soak pits and open sewage in the streets caused a high
incidence of disease and infant mortality. The OPP team first investigated the facts and
explored the scope for community-based organisation (CBO). Next, it organised residents
into area groups and held meetings to overcome psychological and economic barriers. For
each group, a plan was made to build underground sewage, which was entirely financed by
the residents themselves. As a result, conditions in Orangi improved dramatically, especially
expressed in the 73% drop in infant mortality. Orangi’s advantage had been that residents
owned their land and that it had a slope to facility the waste water removal. However, later
replications elsewhere in Pakistan under different conditions showed that these issues can be
overcome. The residents’ self-organisation bore even more fruit in the establishment of
schools, health clinics, women’s work centres and a credit organisation to finance further
projects. Orangi’s success was also copied in other countries of South Asia.
Curitiba’s water and parks policy: Situated on a coastal plain, Curitiba is dissected by
various rivers that flow east to the Atlantic Ocean. Every year in the wet season, there was a
risk of flooding, which would destroy low-income houses and livelihoods near the river
banks. Standard policy in those days would be to construct levies and canals in order to drain
the water as quickly as possible. Fortunately, Curitiba did not have that kind of budget, so
they had to come up with something else. As part of the city’s master plan, the administration
decided to follow an innovative approach, turning the river zones into beautiful parks. The
idea was first of all that the river needed natural space to keep more water until it could be
naturally drained. Parks with large ponds and meandering rivers would do just that.
Moreover, they would also increase the quality of life for Curitibans (more greenery per
inhabitant) and the value of homes situated on the edge of the new green zones. In fact, the
higher property taxes that the city received as homes increased in value largely paid for the
parks’ land purchase and construction. Maintenance costs were reduced by having sheep keep
the grass short. So what happened to the urban poor who used to live there? They received a
reasonable price for their homes and the right to a better quality home elsewhere in the city.
Now flooding is a thing of the past, and most Curitibans would not want to live anywhere
else!
ABC water strategy in Singapore: This industrious city-state on an island near the Malakka
Straits is drawing attention in the way it uses water resources. At independence in 1959, the
city found itself totally dependent on water imports from neighbouring countries. This
situation caused the government to focus efforts on saving fresh water, reducing water
pollution and minimising flood risks. While its initial approach was technological, Singapore
later embraced the ideas of eco-efficiency and SD. The ABC water strategy (which stands for
active, beautiful and clean) was adopted in 2006 and produced over 100 projects for the next
10 to 15 years. These are aimed at catching and storing more rainwater, keeping it in various
places instead of draining it to surface water quickly and integrating green zones with water
management infrastructure. This approach was more holistic rather than fragmented. The
government wanted citizens to value and enjoy its surface water for beauty and recreation,
and also treat water with more respect and use it economically. Water is now integrated as
part of the planning and design of the city.

Municipal Solid Waste

Growing quantities and hazards of municipal solid waste (MSW) are a problem in all major
cities of the world. So is urban waste water, but within the limited scope of this book, we
chose to leave it aside. The quantity of solid waste generated per person per day ranges from
less than 0.5 kg in low-income countries to around 2.1 kg per person per day in high-income
countries (World Bank 2012, 10). When all MSW was biodegradable, it was composted in
gardens or collected for animal fodder. Modern consumer society has totally changed the
quantity and composition of waste. Today, in ICs, less than 30% of MSW is biodegradable.
This figure is 54%–59% for middle-income countries and 65% for low-income countries. The
rest is paper, plastics, glass, metal and other fractions.
Worldwide, the most widespread method of waste disposal is land-filling at official and
wild dumpsites with little or no environmental and health measures. Moreover, scores of
waste-pickers risk their health and safety by sorting through the rubbish looking for valuable
things to sell. In many megacities, thousands of poor people collect waste at the source and
sort and sell useful items, thereby saving the municipal authorities a lot of time and
money. Sanitary landfills are official dump sites where the waste is weighed and registered,
perhaps sorted and compacted, then covered with protective layers, and also where
wastewater and landfill gas are captured and processed. Although better than uncontrolled
land-filling, this is still undesirable from a sustainability point of view: economically, because
too many resources get wasted; socially, because many citizens live and work in appalling
conditions; and environmentally, because land-filling is the least preferred option at the
bottom of the waste management hierarchy. Prevention, minimisation, reuse and recycling,
and incineration (with energy recovery), all go before.
High-income countries have modelled their MSW disposal to varying degrees on the waste
management hierarchy (Figure 10.3). It was not like that only three decades ago. Generating
the biggest per capita quantities of waste, they were the first who had to do something to
manage the volume, keep the cost down and avoid having to allocate more valuable land to
keeping waste. Many middle- and low-income countries are in a very different situation.
Collection does not service large sections of the urban population (especially the slums), for
instance, because the streets are too narrow or too steep. Also, collection often runs behind
schedule, and waste may get burnt in the bins or in the street. Hazardous fractions (chemical
leftovers, batteries, e-waste and hospital waste) that require special treatment often get
dumped with other waste. While unsorted MSW contains recyclable fractions of 75%–85%,
many of those materials get spoiled when mixed with food and garden waste (high in
moisture). Therefore, the first priority in reducing the amount sent to landfill is pre-sorting by
households and offices. The biodegradable fraction may be composted or processed in
anaerobic (without oxygen) biogas digesters (see chapter on energy). The remaining fraction
needs further hand-sorting and cutting or compacting before being sold for processing. More
and more world cities are getting help from international development banks in restructuring
their waste management system. MSW restructuring projects must carry out social and
environmental impact assessments.

Figure 10.3 The Waste Management Hierarchy

Source: Construction Resource Initiatives Council, Ottawa, Canada

Cases
Hong Kong adopts waste management hierarchy: In 2004, Hong Kong generated 15.5
tons of MSW per day, 2.25 kg per person per day. At that time, 60% were disposed at
landfills, which were fast approaching their limits. The authorities held stakeholder meetings,
and a year later, launched their first SD strategy. Starting from the waste management
hierarchy, they announced new policies promoting waste reduction, reuse and recycling, and
innovative processing methods. The goals were to (a) reduce waste generation 1% per year,
(b) increase the recovery rate to 50% by 2014 and (c) reduce the amount disposed at landfills
to less than 25% by 2014. The government recognised that households and businesses had no
financial incentives to minimise waste, since most of the waste management cost was paid
from general taxes. So the first priority was to strictly apply the PPP. Producer responsibility
schemes should make businesses redesign their products and packaging, and improve
possibilities for recycling. Household waste should be separated into several fractions to be
recycled or composted. Finally, environmental education campaigns and mass-media public
awareness campaigns were launched to support all other efforts.6
Waste to compost in Dhaka (Bangladesh): This megacity situated in the huge river delta of
Ganges and Brahmaputra generates 3,500 metric tons of MSW every day. Since there are no
adequate facilities for treatment and disposal, most of this waste ends up in uncontrolled
waste dumps. Eighty per cent of the waste is organic; it generates methane when buried in a
landfill, but it could also make a sellable product—compost. Waste Concern began in 1995 as
a non-governmental research organisation aimed at turning waste into resources. Later, it
grew into a social business enterprise group with broader SDGs. In co-operation with the
national government and with support from UNDP, Waste Concern set up a facility for
composting biodegradable waste from vegetable markets and households in 1998. It collects
the organic waste at a fee, checks for quality, separates if necessary and, after composting,
sells the final product to farmers in the area. Since the start, Waste Concern has served
30,000 people in Dhaka and 100,000 in various other towns. People have jobs, a resource is
not wasted and, with income from user fee and sales (75%) and certified emission reductions
(CER, 25%) of methane, the venture breaks even. CER are an instrument under the Kyoto
Protocol whereby investors can buy ‘emission reductions’ in another country. Their
investment sum enables the project to take place but, of course, reductions have to be
monitored and independently verified.7
Reduce, Reuse and Recycle in Curitiba: This city’s innovative planners also had ideas
about dealing with waste in their fast-growing city. They invited people in low-income areas
(favelas) to hand in non-biodegradable rubbish in return for public transport tickets. This
way, these people became involved in cleaning up their own neighbourhoods that were
inaccessible to waste trucks. Now, the next step was to further separate this waste, compact or
package it, and send it off to processing factories. Thus, the city needed a recycling station.
Given its constant linking of social, economic and environmental goals, it will be no surprise
that the city wanted to give former alcohol and drug addicts, and other ‘people under care’ a
chance to start a new life at the station. They learn and work alongside ordinary staff. The
recycling station was more than a sorting hall; it also had an education and training centre, a
playground, a museum and a collection of objects made out of discarded materials. Car tyres
are cut into pieces, which are processed in a nearby factory, where staff also get a chance to
educate themselves and do physical exercise in order to build healthy lifestyles. So Curitiba’s
recycling programme helped the city to reduce the amounts sent to landfill, to sell recyclables
and use the money for social programmes, and to create jobs for low-skilled people.

SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
There are many passionate and influential schools of thought on urban development.
However, in line with our writing on other sustainability themes, we would like to associate
these schools with the worldview categories as Clapp and Dauvergne (2011) describe them in
their book Paths to a Green World. This is very much a work in progress, and so we are open
to any feedback from users of this text.
Bio-environmentalists and social greens: These groups plan and practise sustainable
communities in towns and villages around the world that are aiming to become as self-
sufficient as possible. The movement of transition towns is a good example. Established in
2005, they want to be resilient in the face of climate change and the end of cheap fossil fuels.
At the same time, they build trust, community and support for needy groups. They promote
skills training and entrepreneurship to increase job chances for those who had become
redundant. They also stimulate the local economy, since they look for ways to better connect
local needs and local businesses.
Institutionalists: Aim for stronger types of planning that combine mixed-income housing
with environmental principles of strong public transport and promotion of safe cycling and
walking. These developments provide for a higher shared quality of life across socio-
economic categories. This group has characteristics of New Urbanism (Americas and Europe)
and the Eco-cities/Cities for People movements (Latin America, Europe and Asia).
 Market Liberals: Are generally quite happy with market forces and are shaping urban
development with no particular interest in reducing its environmental footprint. Dubai can be
seen as an example of this view; critics note that the city is physically and socio-culturally
segregated into isolated urban projects that do not organically fit into a whole.

RELATIONSHIP TO SUSTAINABILITY TRANSITION

Cities are a relatively compact level where economic, social and environmental interests need
to be balanced and integrated within sight of each other. If this is done poorly, the results
become evident in neglect, substance abuse, crime, congestion, littering and poor health. If it
is done well from a strong overall SD vision, problems become manageable and the vast
majority of the population are happy to be there.
From the stories of how some world cities have done well, we can learn that their
opportunities for improvement are indeed in three broad areas:

 Technology (hardware and infrastructures),

 Behaviour (awareness and engaging citizens for action), and
 Institutions (new or amended rules and regulations, and producing the right
incentives).

It is uniquely city authorities, often in co-operation with national governments, that have the
powers to impact design and renovation of buildings, and to set requirements for land-use,
road layout, and parks and public waterways. These infrastructures have relatively long time
spans, for instance, 50 to 100 years for buildings, sewage systems and railways.
Consequently, if their design is sustainable, their impact will generate long-term benefits, but
if it is not, city dwellers will be locked into higher energy and materials use for decades.
Given that many low- and middle-income cities are building a lot of infrastructure, this
decade is a crucial time for urban sustainability. In order to seize the opportunity, a city needs
a strong vision and strategy that will outlast changes in mayors and local councils. If the
leadership brings together all stakeholders, it may build a shared vision that facilitates
implementation and tracks synergies (the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that
their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects) with the interests of
other stakeholders. Curitiba (Brazil) is a great example that has been practising sustainable
urban development since 1970, under the inspiring leadership of Mayor Jaime Lerner and
others. Their efforts received a lot of publicity and prizes from all over the world.
Box 10.1
UNEP Leading by Example

Cutting down on travel can make a big difference to the carbon footprint of the UNIDO.
That’s why its directors, leading from the top, agreed to commit themselves to cutting their
own travel by as much as 30% in 2009. Even the former director general, Dr Kandeh K.
Yumkella, included himself in this collective pledge.
The inconvenient truth is that travel is essential to UNIDO’s work, but it represents 61% of
its total GHG emissions. This has made it a key issue in the UNIDO climate team’s search for
ways of reducing the carbon footprint of the organisation, without adversely affecting its
performance. The directors’ pledge was an early success. Other initiatives from the climate
team have focused on how staff travel is authorised.
Changes to the travel authorisation form now mean that every time anyone travels, they are
informed of their travel-related GHG emissions over the last 12 months. Even before they
travel, staff must look into alternatives such as teleconferencing and videoconferencing, and
the videoconferencing facilities at UNIDO headquarters in Vienna have been upgraded to
make e-communications more attractive.

Source: www.greeningtheblue.org

At this point, it is good to emphasise that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach for urban
sustainability. Each city has its own starting point, resource constraints, culture and priorities.
The examples of cities described in this chapter show that many worthwhile and lasting
improvements were the fruit of co-operation between all stakeholders. It seems, then, that it
matters not only what you do but also the way that you do it. When developing new
construction standards, the government’s expertise is in exploring the politically feasible and
in assuring quality laws and implementation. On the other hand, the private sector, academia
and NGOs may help ensure that solutions are not only functional but also economically
feasible.
The experience of successful cities shows that making a city more sustainable is not a
matter of getting it right first time. Since acting sustainably is still unusual, there is not a lot
of experience to draw on. As a result, alternative strategies cannot be compared knowing all
the details. Much depends on how all kinds of actors in and around the city will respond to
the new strategy. Sustainability leaders should be ready to take chances and adjust as they go.
Thus, there were no pedestrian zones in Brazil when Curitiba planned its first one.
Nevertheless, the city went ahead and turned a major centre street into a pedestrian zone.
While local businessmen were initially against this, they soon learned that the people were
enjoying it and their businesses were doing better. Soon, those further along the street
requested that their street also be turned into a pedestrian zone! Similarly, when Curitiba
began a programme to encourage waste separation into organic and inorganic fractions, they
did not have all the successive steps lined up. However, thanks to the flexibility and ingenuity
of the city planners and their staff, they managed to turn each problem into an opportunity
that created low-skilled jobs, citizen co-operation and environmental gains.
Box 10.2
Large Public Events

Cities regularly organise large-scale events, such as cultural festivals, sports tournaments,
trade fairs, and scientific or policy conferences. It has become common practice for the
Olympic Games host to invest not only in sports facilities, but also better housing, waste
management and public transport. In fact, over the last two decades, cities have been trying to
win the bidding process by making their proposal as green as possible. Thus, after the Sydney
Olympics were considered a green success, Beijing (2008) and London (2012) made every
effort to organise even more sustainable events. This is more than just a fashion. Large public
events bring together hundreds or thousands of people from the whole nation, continent or
world. Within a short period of time, these people seek fulfilment for such daily needs as
food, accommodation and transportation. Moreover, the construction of new buildings and
facilities has an environmental footprint that largely depends on choices made in the design
stage. Innovative planning for the reduction of these effects brings large benefits to the
organisers and participants, but also has a great model role for the world. New environment-
friendly items may spread more quickly as large public events receive massive media
attention.8
A sustainable event balances environmental, social and economic responsibilities:
Environmental responsibilities: Low-emission transport and mobility, waste reduction,
reuse and recycling, water and energy efficiency, exclusion of dangerous and hazardous
substances and material, climate targets and so on.
Economic responsibilities: Savings through increased efficiency, avoidance of corruption,
sensible and transparent public procurement, quality of goods, boosting innovation, job
creation, profitability, responsible accounting, sustainable growth and so on.
Social responsibilities: Fair use of human resources and a healthy and safe workplace for all
involved, respecting human rights, complying with international labour rights standards,
inclusion of minorities, respecting diversity, attention to equal opportunities, sensitivity to
cultural or religious groups, encouraging involvement of the local community, ensuring
accessibility to the event, tracking product supply chains to ensure ethical production and fair
trade agreements, sourcing goods and services locally and employing local people, and so on.

Source: UNEP (2012; Adapted from the Triple Bottom Line Approach, Green Meeting Industry Council [GMIC])

Conclusion

The greening of cities is among the most important contributions to the sustainability
transition. Cities already use 75% of the world’s resources, and the potential for synergies is
enormous. Moreover, out of the three billion additional Earth dwellers until 2050, two-thirds
will end up in cities too. Their needs require more energy-efficient housing, sustainable urban
transportation and many other facilities. Our learning curve has to be steep in order to make
the world more liveable. Apart from managing the ongoing urbanisation in DCs, the world
will also have to use the urban renewal of existing cities to green them through retrofitting.
Also, large public events regularly taking place in cities, such as cultural festivals, football
cups and Olympic Games, offer great opportunities for greening both the city (in the run-up)
and the public event.
As mentioned earlier, cities and their hinterland are communicating vessels. If public
policies consistently favour cities at the cost of the countryside, then rural dwellers will be
forced to leave the villages and move to the cities. If the cities do not take care of land-use
and forest cover in nearby watersheds, they may suffer regular flooding and high costs for
purifying drinking water.

REVIEW AND REFLECTION QUESTIONS

These questions are additional to the learning points at the beginning of every chapter. They
are given to help you review the material and reflect on it in the context of your own country.

1. Energy use in cities is mostly connected to buildings and transport. How do fast-
growing cities have opportunities to green their development?
2. Curitiba in Brazil has become world famous for its fast, convenient and affordable
public transport system, the Bus Rapid Transit. What characteristics make it work so
well?
3. Fresh water supply and waste water are big problems for many world cities. Which
solutions from this chapter should be studied very carefully by cities in hot, arid
climate zones?
4. Solid waste is one of those variables that will not peak and fall with rising income of
the population. Why is this so, and what could city authorities do about it?

1
See http://www.nasho.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/AFD-NASHO-Greening-of-SH-Starter-Guide-
2013-LR.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2017).
2
See http://thecityfix.com/blog/people-oriented-cities-demystifying-transit-oriented-development-robin-king-
luis-zamorano/ (accessed on 30 November 2017).
3
See www.brtdata.org; http://www.chinabrt.org/defaulten.aspx (accessed on 30 November 2017).
4
See www.itdp.org–Institute for Transportation and Development Policy; www.ibike.org–International
Bicycle Fund; www.dutchcycling.nl–Dutch Cycling Embassy
5
Such
as www.choosemyplate.gov; http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/Healthyeating.aspx (accessed on
30 November 2017).
6
See http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/msw/htm_en/content.htm (accessed on 30 November 2017).
7
See http://www.wasteconcern.org/rtc.html (accessed on 30 November 2017).
8
Example: 2011 Shanghai Fashion Week Closing Event Sustainability Report,
MCI, http://www.slideshare.net/gbigwood/shanghai-fashion-showsustainabilityreport (accessed on 30
November 2017).
 11
CHAPTER

Sustainable Food and Agriculture

Learning Objectives
• Appreciate the contribution that farmers make to providing food for millions in society under challenging
conditions.
• Describe the three types of agriculture, as defined by the Brundtland Commission, that developed during the
twentieth century.
• Define the terms food system and food security, and describe the main factors of insecurity for DCs in the
twenty-first century.
• List three drivers of global food demand until 2050.
• Explain what sustainable agriculture is and list a few behavioural, technological and institutional measures
to speed up the sustainability transition in agriculture.
• Define the term food waste, indicate its global share of food produced and list the main reasons behind it in
ICs and DCs.

INTRODUCTION
A food system is the total of stages of production, distribution, consumption and disposal of
food products, including inputs, infrastructure and outputs at each stage. Production includes
the growing and harvesting of crops, the rearing of animals and their processing into
consumer products. Distribution is about marketing, packaging and transporting to sales
outlets. A food system is a specific manifestation of what economists call a value chain. This
term emphasises that each stage of the chain adds value to the product.
The UN FAO states in a text on post-2015 goals:

Food is life. It is the fundamental connection between people and the planet. The fruits of the earth
have long sustained us, but there are increasing signs that our way of working the land and ensuring all
are nourished will have to be revisited.

According to the literature, the existing global food system has numerous strengths and
weaknesses. We have arranged them by their economic, social and environmental
dimensions:

Economic dimension: Agriculture (farming, cattle breeding, forestry and fisheries) is the
biggest economic sector in the world. It is the basis for a lot of other economic activity,
and a source of work and income for over 2.5 billion people. Agriculture’s contribution to
GDP is 50% for most of Africa and 30% for South Asia, and under 10% for Latin
America. Everywhere, however, the problems of agriculture, forestry and fisheries affect
all of society and other forms of life. For example, deforestation in mountainous areas
invariably causes flooding in downstream populated regions. Also, conversion of land to
fuel or industrial crops may lead to higher imports and greater vulnerability to global price
fluctuations.
 Since total food production is sufficient to feed everyone, this must mean that prices are
too high for those who need food. Higher prices for fuel crops provide an incentive for
farmers to prioritise this type of demand. Next, about 60% of worldwide child labour is
found in agriculture, and the food system fails to realise the potential of women and other
smallholder farmers. Lack of access to inputs and services keeps their productivity down.
The number of species and breeds used for agriculture, livestock breeding and fisheries is
small and declining. This makes the food sector very vulnerable to disease and collapse of
species. Finally, a third of food produced is lost or wasted, and all resources invested in
them are wasted too. These are big risks to long-term economic security.
Social dimension: The planet has the physical potential to feed all people adequately. This
is remarkable given the fast population growth we have seen in the last 50 years. However,
the food system feeds the world in uneven ways. About 800 million people or 11% are
hungry, mainly in DCs. This could have been much worse because of population growth,
but targeted policies have reduced their number by 167 million in the last decade. Food
insecurity reduces people’s health, strength and development chances. Yet the universal
right to food goes beyond a moral obligation; it is enshrined in international law. We
should also note that two billion people suffer from a micronutrient deficiency, which the
FAO nicknames ‘hidden hunger’. This demonstrates that there is more to sufficient food
than quantity. Malnutrition is the single largest contributor to disease in the world, leading
to a health bill the size of 5% of global income. The FAO estimates that 161 million
children (27%) under age 5 are stunted (too short for their age) due to chronic under-
nutrition, and 6.3 million die each year. It is not uncommon that under-nutrition and
(extreme) overweight exist side by side in one country, household or even individual. It is
important to note that degrading ecosystems, the combined result of unsustainable resource
handling and climate change affect the poor more than other social groups. Governments
and international development agencies have underinvested in agriculture since the 1980s,
which could indicate a bias towards urban-industrial needs.
Environmental dimension: The FAO recognises that our ‘enormous gains in agricultural
production and productivity were often accompanied by negative effects on agriculture’s
natural resource base, so serious that they jeopardise its productive potential in the future’
(FAO 2011). A healthy soil is a key ingredient of long-term productive agriculture. Yet a
quarter of global soils is now unusable due to erosion, build-up of salt or chemical
pollution, and another 44% slightly to moderately degraded. Useful varieties of crop (75%)
and breeds of livestock (22%) are disappearing, while pests build up resistance against
ways to combat them. Agriculture is a big user of water, especially in irrigated regions; it
gets 70%–95% of withdrawals, with the remainder going to households and industry. In
many places, irrigation was done from over-extraction of ground water. Due to the
expected growth in population and wealth in several large DCs, the demand for irrigation
water could go up by more than half. Between 2,000 and 5,000 litres are needed to produce
the food consumed by one person in a day. By 2025, two thirds of the world population
could be living in countries with severe water shortages or restrictions, if current use
continues. The food system makes heavy use of fossil fuels and products made out of
them, such as fertilisers. As a result, GHGs from agriculture doubled in the last half
century. Resources invested in lost or wasted food nevertheless add pressure on the natural
environment.

Figure 11.1 shows that global food prices have been higher in recent years than in the
previous three decades. If current patterns of allocating food, animal feed and fuel crops
continue, production will have to increase by 60% to feed the world. It is hard to see how this
could be done without difficult trade-offs or extensive damage to the natural environment.
The growing area of land allocated to bio-energy production (fuel crops) creates tension with
the goal of food security. Food security is still only available to a minority in the world, while
billions are vulnerable to large price swings in global food markets. The challenge to move
towards an inclusive, sustainable food system by the middle of the century is enormous, even
if there were no restrictions.
The SD paradigm offers a fresh perspective for food and agriculture that holds promise for
nature and people. It looks particularly to the different elements in the food system and the
material and energy flows between them. Natural systems work in cycles, and any guiding
role for humans in agriculture ultimately has to fit in with natural cycles. Jules Pretty (2008)
defines sustainable agriculture as land-based activities that ‘provide an adequate food, fibre,
and fuel supply for today’s population without jeopardising the capacity to provide the same
services to future generations’. Therefore, sustainable agriculture centres on technologies and
practises that

 are accessible to and effective for farmers in terms of food productivity,

 do not have an adverse effect on the environment, a necessary ingredient for success,
 and/or lead to positive side effects on the ecological condition of soil, water and so
on.

The next sections have more details on what this means. Now, all ideas and strategies for
more sustainability in agriculture have to be seen in the light of these key challenges:

 Population growth and urbanisation in DCs

 Growth of the urban middle class and subsequent lifestyle changes
 Adaptation to the consequences of climate change

Let us examine these challenges in more detail. For the food system, population
growth implies that more mouths need to be fed. According to the UN, almost three quarters
of this growth is expected to take place in DC megacities (over 10 million in size). More
people will have to buy their food for cash as opposed to growing it themselves. Cities will
expand at the edges and convert fertile land to urban uses, thus, reducing the area under
crops. Unfortunately, urbanisation is not just happening only because preferences have
changed or because people are following lucrative urban job offers. Many are leaving rural
regions despite their love for natural beauty and other qualities. They simply cannot make a
living there in the current social and economic conditions. Yet jobs in the megacities are not
abundant, and life is hard for the urban poor as well (see Chapter 10). We’ve already noticed
that just more food supply is not enough to tackle the world’s malnutrition.

Figure 11.1 Average Prices for Energy and Food (in constant year 2000 dollars)
Source: World Bank Commodity Price Data
 Growth of the urban middle class is already translating into shifting patterns of
consumption. As people in Europe grew wealthier, their meat consumption increased till an
average of 74 kg a year. China, for instance, grew its per capita meat consumption from 20kg
in 1980 to 52 kg in 2008. These numbers cannot tell us what is (not so) helpful for public
health and the planet, but they do bring home to us that dramatic changes can happen over
just a few decades. Moreover, they swiftly change what is acceptable and expected. A luxury
to one generation becomes ‘normal’ to the next and ‘essential’ to the one after. Is lifestyle
only formed by what is possible and affordable, or do impacts on the wider world also play a
role? A study of the economic, social and environmental changes that accompany this shift
may reveal more about the potential hidden costs of modern lifestyle changes. The next
sections offer detail on this.
Rising temperatures and changed rainfall patterns caused by climate change may reduce
agricultural production by as much as 2% each decade (IPCC). Some crops thrive under the
new conditions, while others are negatively affected. One variety of coffee, for example,
grows better than another. Coffee producers respond to longer periods of dry weather, the
increased erosion risk, and new pests and diseases by exchanging information about new,
sustainable practices. Given that the risk of crop failure has gone up, there is an added
problem in the narrow range of crop species preferred by modern agriculture. If those species
are hit by disease, the impacts on food security may be severe. The best insurance against
such risks is higher species diversity.
Box 11.1
The PALM Project

The GEF was created to fund environmental investment in DCs as a contribution to solving
global environmental problems, while also addressing underlying social and economic issues.
GEF’s strategies include protecting biodiversity, addressing land degradation, and managing
climate change (both reducing human impacts on the climate and adapting livelihoods to the
changing climate). The Pamir Alai Land Management (PALM) Program was initiated and
sponsored by the GEF and the United Nations University (UNU) in Bonn. It ran 165 village-
level projects in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan from 2010 till 2012. Figure 11.2 gives an
impression of the Pamir Alai landscape.
PALM projects were designed to improve livelihoods in target areas through more
sustainable land use. They included restoration activities, small-scale protected areas and
introducing alternative income sources, such as poultry, beekeeping and new crop types.
Village communities received training in sustainable land management topics, such as
cultivation of fodder crops, fertilisation and irrigation techniques, and alternative energy
technologies. Training guidelines and materials were produced for each training topic.
Selecting and implementing the micro-projects involved the following steps:

 Pre-proposal training at various locations on how to prepare a proposal for the GEF
funds
 Proposal development by organised groups of families, called jamaats
 Selection by first local government and next the UNU selection committee which
included local policy-makers, national experts and international technical advisors

Figure 11.2 Innovative Crops in the Pamir Alai

Source: http://unu.edu/publications/articles/innovative-crops-of-alai-valley.html (accessed on 30 November 2017)

 Project implementation—the ‘jamaats’ received between US$1,800 and US$8,300

from GEF and themselves contributed between US$2,300 and US$8,400
 Additional trainings on selected topics by the PALM field office or other service
providers

The people in these remote mountain areas were grateful to receive training, advice and
financial assistance to improve their livelihoods, something they had not experienced for a
long time.1 Learning to write grant proposals or business plans was a new activity for them,
and doing so in a competitive process was even more unusual. PALM raised awareness
among the inhabitants of the Pamir Alai region about the importance of ecosystem
conservation and protection of natural resources in the course of conducting their life and
development activities.
The PALM evaluation asked villagers (both ‘jamaat’ members and non-participants)
questions about their welfare, their sources of income and the main economic problems. High
fuel prices, lack of stable work and lack of soft loans for business development ranked high
among reported problems. Asked who should be the main responsible for tackling these
problems, the vast majority of non-participants pointed to various levels of government,
while few said that people themselves should take measures to overcome difficulties. Among
‘jamaat’ members, the outcome was very different. Almost half of them place the primary
responsibility for solving issues on themselves, a third on the rural district head and less than
a fifth on the state. Over 80% of these respondents turned out to have at least one source of
income alongside farming or cattle breeding.
1
Impression from the Sociological Assessment Report, section 2 (p.12 of the English translation).

SD thinking frames the issue of sustainability in agriculture in a way that helps identify
lasting solutions. It is a systems approach that takes into account the links between rural sub-
systems (agriculture, industry and services) as well as between rural and urban influences. It
investigates outcomes and trade-offs, both short- and long-term. It inquires if certain costs are
born by related producers and consumers or by non-related communities and nature, near or
far. In the social dimension, it has particular attention to the division of costs and benefits
between different social groups. It asks if there are structural reasons why some groups
(women, ethnic or religious minorities) are consistently excluded. In the environmental
dimension, sustainability thinking seeks to keep ecological impacts within the boundaries that
ecosystems can handle. So it looks for possible hidden effects of a proposed solution in other
places.
This section sets out the challenges to the global food system from the perspective of SD.
Next, the historical section shows us how the trend to industrialise agriculture has led to a
split between large-scale, high-input, productive farms on the one hand and smallholder
farmers on the other. The schools of thought section helps us see that there are deep-rooted
and passionate worldviews about the future of the food system. Finally, the transition section
wraps up the chapter and draws some conclusions as to the state of change towards
sustainability in global food chains. We now turn to the major historical developments that
have made our food system what it is today.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Down the ages, human populations were small and the Earth seemed immense by
comparison. People felt deeply impressed by such forces of nature as the ocean waves,
tornadoes and storms, and volcanic activity. As technological capabilities increased, people
ventured deeper and deeper into ‘the wild’ to explore, conquer and exploit. This attitude to
nature is sometimes called the frontier mentality. Settling people and exploiting resources
were often seen as victories over the forces of nature. Animals that were a threat to humans or
their flocks and crops were driven to extinction. Yet, it rarely occurred to people that their
impacts might fundamentally change life on Earth. However, during the twentieth century the
number of people, their wealth, and their impacts on the planet have risen exponentially.
Chapters 1 and 2 provide more details in this respect. The line between the wild and the
cultured has shifted so far out that today human impacts reach even the remotest wilderness.
Invisible traces of chemicals and heavy metals, spread by wind and water, have been found in
animal tissue thousands of kilometres from human populations. Tons of plastics are
collecting like a big soup in the oceans as a testimony to society’s wastefulness.
Agriculture and animal rearing are the main economic activities in rural areas. The way
they are practised in a particular place depends largely on soil type and climate, as well as
culture and welfare of the population. The WCED (1987) distinguished the following three
types:

 Resource-poor agriculture
 Industrial-type agriculture
 Green Revolution agriculture

The oldest type of agriculture developed over thousands of years since people first organised
the process of farming. It is called resource-poor agriculture, because of its contrast with
newer types. Farm plots are generally small (under 2 hectares [ha]) and produce for family
survival (subsistence) only, not for the market. Farmers often use traditional wild varieties of
crops, while inputs and outputs are low. Today, it is practised by over two billion people in
Africa and South Asia. According to Jennifer Elliot, subsistence farmers tend to be
concentrated on the most fragile land, which is at risk from flooding or erosion. For some, the
soil barely produces enough food to survive and pay back debts. Such farmers may also be
marginal in the political sense. They lack the information and skills to take part in political
processes that affect their quality of life.
 Box 11.2
Slash-and-Burn Agriculture

Slash-and-burn agriculture is the cycle of cutting down vegetation, drying and burning the
remaining foliage, and planting food crops, using the ashes as nutrients to the soil. The land
yields crops for one or two seasons, and is then left alone to recover. This takes 5 years for
bamboo forest and 10 years for tree forest. This labour-intensive, low-input method is
practised by 200–500 million people in parts of Central Africa, South America, and South-
East Asia. Steep slopes and dense vegetation leave few other options to make a living.

Figure 11.3 Mizoram, Northeast India, Where Jhum Cultivation is Changing

Source: Author

In the hills of Northeast India and adjacent lands, this phenomenon is

called jhum cultivation. In fact, jhum is not just an approach to agriculture, it is a way of life
that is woven into the tribal cultures. For centuries, the system, controlled by village councils,
was refined and integrated with the rest of the economy and society. Many different crops for
village needs were grown on small plots and the surplus sold in nearby markets. As long as
the cycle was 10 years or more, the advantages of this system outweighed the disadvantages.
Yet, cultivated and fallow soils are more exposed to wind and heavy tropical rains. Nutrients
are washed out and the soil erodes. The forest that grows back is not as biodiverse as the
forest that was cut and burnt. Last but not least, the wood burning releases GHGs that add to
the problem of climate change.
Now, during the twentieth century, this system has come under increasing pressures that
we have seen at work in other contexts. Population growth and migration, for instance, means
that there are more mouths to feed in a particular area. Also, the popularity of cash crops,
such as rubber or coffee, and mining activities have increased demand for land. The total
surface available for jhum is reduced, with shorter cycles up to 3 years as a result. Since the
land gets less time to recover, fertility in subsequent cycles drops. In extreme situations, the
land becomes desolate, while water resources run low and silted. Thus, the combination of
slash-and-burn agriculture and other social and economic pressures increasingly leads to
deforestation, erosion and loss of biodiversity.
So should slash-and-burn agriculture be terminated? The answer is not as easy as it seems.
Efforts to abolish the system have made way to programmes to modify it. Eckman and Ralte
have compared a few areas in Mizoram in the 2010s with the same areas investigated by
Singh in 1996. They found that fallow periods had gone back up to around 7 years in bamboo
forest. Also, farmers had moved away from an entirely jhum-based production system. They
now maintain a larger garden close to home where they grow two or three high-value crops
for market, such as avocado, citrus, turmeric, squash and pineapple. Other income-generating
activities include poultry and vermin-culture compost production. This combination of trees
and crops, agro-forestry, is motivated by economic opportunities, lower labour requirement
and/or changing water regimes—not shortage of land or forest resources. Agro-forestry is
also partially or entirely replacing jhum in Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nagaland, and other areas
of the Eastern Himalayas.
Source: Eckman and Ralte (2016)
The invention of chemical fertilisers and pesticides in the mid-twentieth century dramatically
changed the face of agriculture in the ICs. Mechanisation, and a switch to high inputs to
obtain high output has led to an industrial-type agriculture. This system is supported by an
extensive network of research institutes, training and consulting services. Large areas are
planted or sown with only one crop—monocultures. The crop’s growth is promoted with
chemical fertilisers, and natural enemies are killed by pesticides. In the beginning, the
pesticides were sprayed onto the fields by machines or airplanes, until it was found that it was
ineffective and harmful. The most hazardous pesticides were banned or restricted in Western
countries during the 1960s after Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, but some are still used
in DCs. The multinational companies that provide seeds, fertilisers and pesticides
aggressively market their products all over the world. The high input–high output business
model has become an influential idea in global agriculture and development circles. Some
believe this is the hallmark of modernity and progress.
In the 1950s and the 1960s, development banks and international organisations saw the
industrial-type agriculture as the main solution to expand food production in DCs. Research
institutes developed new high-yielding plant varieties. The amount of produce per ha almost
tripled during this half century, which came to be called the Green Revolution. The new
crops did require a lot of water, fertiliser and pesticides. So aid programmes were set up to
provide grants or loans for building irrigation systems and distribution systems for chemical
fertiliser and pesticides. As a result, world fertiliser use climbed from 14 million tons in 1950
to 134 million tons in 2000. The amount of irrigated land went up from 90 million ha in 1950
to about 264 million ha in 2000. Since this type of agriculture needs technological inputs and
proximity to markets, it has taken off in parts of Asia and Latin America, but not in Africa.
Agriculture’s connection with science and technology has grown ever more intimate over
the past half century. UNIDO describes the growth and concentration of agro-chemical
companies in its 2006 study of Global Value Chains in the Agrifood Sector (Humphrey and
Memedovic 2006). The search for hybrid crops in the 1960s and the 1970s first had chemical
and food companies interested in seeds. The rise of biotechnology and genetic engineering
led agro-technology companies to join the seed sector. Examples include DuPont, ICI, Elf-
Aquitaine, Monsanto, Rohm & Haas, and Unilever. These companies saw the potential of
combining changes in seeds with changes in other agricultural inputs, notably herbicides and
fertiliser. In the 1990s, biotechnology companies such as Monsanto and Novartis combined
their interests in seeds with agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals. They expanded on the waves
of increasing protection of intellectual property rights to plant varieties and growing
international trade—the age of globalisation. Researcher Lang investigated the concentration
in the agrochemical sector. He observed that around 1990, the bulk of global sales was shared
by 20 companies, but by 2002, the number was down to only seven. This level of market
concentration in such an essential sector as food production is a source of concern to many
citizens and development professionals.
Box 11.3
The Problem of Pesticides

Pesticides are chemicals that intend to protect crops from insects and pests that harm crop
quality and yields. They are hazardous to many forms of life, not just the ones they are
supposed to kill. Particularly chlorinated compounds tend to persist in the environment and
can spread over a large area. People may be exposed by inhaling or skin contact during
spraying, by eating contaminated food or by drinking contaminated water. The NGO Pure
Earth (formerly the Blacksmith Institute) estimates that 2.2 million people worldwide are at
risk. In economically disadvantaged regions of the world, safety regulations tend to be absent
or poorly enforced. This allows farm workers, unaware of the dangers, to store and use the
hazardous chemicals in unsafe ways. They wish to save money on protective masks, suits and
gloves, and they do not always keep the pesticides out of reach of children and animals.
Since 2004, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) has been
working to phase out the production and use of POPs, including chlorinated organic
pesticides. DDT, lindane, endosulfan and chlordane are so disruptive that many countries
have banned their use and have classified them as highly hazardous. Yet, in low and middle-
income countries, some forms of these may still be used. Also, large stocks of pesticides built
up in DCs since the 1960s have now become outdated. They pose a threat to animal and
public health and must be destroyed. The largest stocks are in Africa, Latin America and in
the former Soviet Union.
Source: PURE EARTH Blacksmith Institute (www.pureearth.org)
In recent decades, agriculture has also become more connected to the processes and
regulations of the global trade system. Self-contained farms and regions still exist, but more
farmers are now part of global production, processing and distribution systems. While this
has enabled some people to earn more income from production for distant markets, it also
means that global economic fluctuations have more direct impacts on local agricultural
performance. Many DCs were extremely dependent on export earnings from one or a few
crops. During the 1970s and the 1980s, commodity markets were depressed and income was
so low that several countries went into debt. The price decline was severe for coffee, cocoa,
tea, cane sugar, spices and nuts, and more moderate for fruit, vegetables, flowers and seafood.
Some DCs managed to take advantage of these trends by shifting production and trade.
Horticultural crops can be grown on a small scale mixed with other plants or a fish pond.
Production is labour-intensive, so this provides jobs often for family and neighbours. In
growth markets, horticultural and fish products can be sold at relatively high prices and
incomes per hectare.
In the last two decades, agricultural value chains have increasingly become global value
chains. Supermarkets and other lead businesses, initially from ICs, have expanded their reach
to major emerging markets. Concentration in the 1990s and the 2000s led to changed
relations between links in the value chain. Large buyers are no longer just resellers of things
supplied by food and beverage industries. Supermarkets have intensely studied their
customers and with the help of marketing tools now decide which products they wish to sell
to which customers. UNIDO observes that supermarkets now play a role in product
development, branding, supplier selection and distribution. Their competitive advantage may
come from the way they respond to consumer trends and organise their supply chains. Note
that consumers are increasingly concerned about how their buying choices affect the world
around them. We have also signalled this trend in the chapter about private sector roles.
This kind of ethical buying is practiced by individuals and organisations. There is a large
and growing market in high-income countries for fair-trade products (guaranteed fair price
for raw material producers and farmers), and products whose production and distribution did
not have significant adverse environmental effects. For instance, when assessing the
environmental footprint (impacts) of vegetables or fruit from tropical countries, we should
compare the emissions of transporting the goods to the market with those of growing them in
greenhouses nearer the consumer market.
Supermarkets, then, are powerful drivers of quality standards, especially food safety
standards for products exported to developed country markets. Agricultural products are only
accepted if they meet requirements for minimum quantities, packaging, fast and reliable
delivery, and guarantees of product safety. Development organisations are riding this wave
by facilitating and/or connecting different stages of the value chain for luxury products, for
instance stages in producer countries with stages in consumer countries. Their objectives are
to offer social and economic growth opportunities to underprivileged regions in DCs.
This approach connecting DC farmers to global markets has had positive outcomes, but it
is not without problems. The Kenyan flower industry is the third source of export income
(7%) after tourism and tea. It earns US$141 million a year, mainly from customers in Britain,
Germany and the Netherlands. Since the 1990s, the area around Lake Naivasha in Western
Kenya has become the prime flower-growing region. Yet the lake also has international status
as a Ramsar Convention protected site. Growing water pollution and a drop in the lake’s
water level led to calls for an investigation into the causes. After all, the production of cut-
flowers involves significant use of water, chemical fertilisers and pesticides. It would
obviously be unsustainable to overuse Kenyan water supplies and cause chemical pollution
for the short-lasting pleasures of wealthy markets far away. UNESCO-IHE Institute for
Water Education in Delft, Netherlands, studied the problem in 2010. A complicating factor
was that the lake naturally fluctuates quite a bit. Responsibility for the drop in water levels
was shared between the commercial horticulture farms, household water use in the towns and
a geo-thermal power plant in the area. The report said that water management in the lake
region should be co-ordinated on the water basin scale, the whole area that drains into the
lake. It recommended that allocation of water be based on the productivity of that water in
terms of generated market value. Cultivation in greenhouses could be made more efficient by
harvesting rainwater from its roofs, thereby replacing irrigation water. The use of lake water
for water-intensive crops such as beans and low-value products (grass and animal feed)
should be discouraged. In this way, production of export crops could take place without
endangering environmental conditions for local people and wildlife. In the meantime, the
question of how to put this good advice into practice has not been answered. Higher water
prices or emission charges seem unacceptable to growers, who are operating in a very
competitive global industry. The report’s authors have hopes of a system involving
consumers and flower traders, where guarantees of minimal ecological standards would be
exchanged for a higher price. Moreover, there’s quite another objection that flowers from afar
are environmentally harmful because of high air transport emissions. The Kenyans respond
that the GHGs from air transport are still lower than those from heating greenhouses in
consumer countries. Now, that shows the importance of perspective.
Unfortunately, some countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, have missed opportunities to
become more self-sufficient in food or earn enough on export crops to work themselves out
of poverty. The LDCs stand out as a world region that scored low on several indicators of
development. Many actually increased their dependence on traditional export crops. As a
result of oversupply in world markets and a resulting dramatic price fall, their export earnings
ended 40% lower, according to FAO. They have, in fact, become net importers of agricultural
products.
The environmental costs, until recently, went largely unnoticed by agricultural
development policy-makers. Researchers have increasingly been describing and measuring
the effects and consequences on natural systems and the people who depend on them. Slowly,
the mood is changing and is leading people to question the conventional wisdom of the high-
input model. The challenge of finding more sustainable agro-ecosystems will be to eliminate
negative environmental impacts in exchange for a somewhat lower crop yield but not too
much. Where possible, nutrient losses should be reduced, for instance, by more precise
application to crop roots, so that less leaks away to the soil and water.

CURRENT STATE OF THE ISSUE

Rather than providing a comprehensive vision of a sustainable rural region, we focus in this
section on one issue that links the countryside to our cities—food security. This is an issue
that is often unhelpfully reduced to food quantities and prices. SD thinking takes a much
broader view that includes consumption patterns, production systems, markets, ecological
issues, and the social distribution of costs and benefits.
Food security expert Saturnino Borras (The Hague Institute of Social Studies and
Rotterdam Erasmus University, Netherlands) reduces the complexity of the issue to the
following dimensions:

Access to food: Matter of price and income/jobs, but also better nutrition
Use of available food: Look critically at what is set aside for biofuel and animal fodder;
improve distribution and storage
Production systems: There is a place for small-scale, low-input, mixed crop and animal
farms; adapting agriculture to changed climates is smart

Access to Food
To combat poverty and hunger, governments and the development community for a long time
put emphasis on more supplies through higher productivity. Dramatic rises in food prices in
the early 2000s have drawn attention to other factors that limit the intake of sufficient,
nutritious food. In 2008, the WB wrote that global food quantities were more than enough to
feed everyone, yet almost 850 million people were food insecure. World food prices had risen
due to a combination of a hike in energy prices, growth in the demand for fuel crops, and
dietary changes. More meat consumption in middle-income countries is leading to higher
demand for animal feed. Last but not least, poor harvests due to erratic weather limited global
supplies. Access to food was/is severely restricted for the poor in DCs—a distributional issue.
Frequent, large changes in food prices matter to the poor, because they spend a large portion
of their income on food. In response to price rises, poor people tend to buy lower quality, not-
so-nutritious foods. As a result, their children have the typical development problems
associated with malnutrition, such as stunting and low weight. Structural lack of work and
living wages for large groups may also lead to higher food insecurity. Over time, they may
sell possessions for food instead of investments in education, which lowers their potential for
long-term growth out of poverty. Thus, government policies to reduce hunger and
malnutrition also serve long-term SDGs.
 So what are the options? This depends a lot on the local situation, the import and export of
food, and the degree to which international prices translate to local prices. Food subsidies are
meant to support the poor, but research suggests that they are often not well targeted. As a
result, the not-so-poor benefit more, while farmers experience reduced incentives to produce
(World Bank 2008, 96−116). Less common but potentially more effective instruments
include food-for-work programmes (Bangladesh and India), school meals for children (27
countries), and cash income transfers (Brazil and Mexico). The UN’s World Food Program
gives food, vouchers or cash transfers in return for participation in such activities as repairing
irrigation systems or conserving soils and landscapes. Longer term, the emphasis should shift
to creating more productive farms, stimulating off-farm employment (such as the PALM
programme mentioned earlier), and improving access to markets (roads, information and
communication facilities, and refrigeration).

Use of Available Food

SD thinking looks at the whole food chain in order to assess how well the system fulfils its
role in providing sufficient quantities of nutritious food for all. This includes use of food
crops for animal fodder and biofuels, but also distribution, storage and consumption of food.
In the energy chapter, we mentioned that growing demand for biofuels in ICs has led to
growing areas under fuel crops in DCs. While this provided income to those countries, it also
had side effects, including a shift from food to fuel crops and a change in land use from forest
to agriculture. The former contributed to higher food prices, and the latter to GHG emissions
and smoke pollution from burning the forest, and loss of biodiversity. Another example of
negative ecological side effects of growing markets has been the popularity of palm oil for
food and healthcare products. In order to meet demand, there has been substantial
deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as pollution from the processing stage. This
has forced those countries to introduce EIs for pollution control, but they are still struggling
with large-scale illegal logging and burning of rain forest. What are the responsibilities of
other stakeholders in the production and consumption chain?
Furthermore, in recent decades, a substantial share of the animal fodder needed to provide
wealthy countries with meat has come from DCs. Again, the demand for it has generated
much needed income for those countries, but it has also contributed to deforestation. This
means destruction of long-term potential for short-term satisfaction. Moreover, those who
benefit and those who suffer the damage are not the same. In the coming decades, global
meat consumption is expected to rise steeply, and so is the demand for feed for all the animals
that need to grow fat for this purpose. Inevitably, this will cause more challenges to
sustainability. Of course, no one can deny meat to those who could not afford meat. Rather,
the sustainability perspective urges us to ask people of all nations the following questions:

 Are people eating healthy quantities of meat in relation to their age, gender and
weight?
 In general, are people’s diets healthy and balanced in other ways according to
evidence-based medical opinion?
 Are the quantities of food going to waste at any stage of the production chain
acceptable or excessive?

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), about 39% of adults over 18 years old,
which is almost two billion people, were overweight. Of these, about 600 million people
are obese. This means that they have such a large amount of body fat that there is a serious
risk of chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease. The overweight condition is
measured by body mass index (BMI), which is the person’s weight (in kg) divided by the
square of his or her height (in metres). A BMI between 20 and 25 is considered normal,
between 25 and 30 is overweight, and over 30 is obese. WHO warns that two out of three
overweight people now live in low- and middle-income countries, and the problem is
growing, mostly in emerging and transition economies. WHO say that it is caused by changes
in food habits and physical activity that accompany social and economic development. For
instance, as a result of income growth, more people can afford meat and fatty foods. When
they are especially prized in the culture, it is easy to overeat. Some popular fast food is also
high on sugar or fat. Imbalanced diets often lack sufficient vegetables and fruit. On the other
hand, people have little physical exercise as many work in office jobs, while their preferred
mode of transportation is mass transit or private car. As a result, people take in much more
energy then they use on a daily basis. Commercial advertising encourages consumption of all
kinds and cannot guide people into healthier lifestyles. The government could do its part
through general health education, for instance by providing dietary advice on websites and
through family doctors. Civil society and the media could also rephrase the message of
balanced healthy eating and sufficient physical exercise for their audiences.
According to UNEP, about a third of all food produced worldwide for human consumption
gets lost or wasted every year. The total quantity is an incredible 1.3 billion tonnes. While not
all of this wastage is preventable, this statistic nevertheless puts the global food security
debate in an entirely different perspective. What does this waste mean in terms of equity,
given that almost two billion people are overweight and almost one billion undernourished?
What does it mean in terms of ecology, given that the pressures on land could lead to more
deforestation and erosion? The United Nations calls food loss and wastage a ‘major
squandering of resources’. Simply imagine all the water, land, energy, and labour that went
into producing this wasted food! Research has shown that the causes are found in different
stages of the food chain. In low-income countries, food loss and waste occurs as a result of
poor harvesting techniques, low-quality storage facilities (little or no refrigeration), and poor
roads so that crops spoil or get damaged before they arrive at the market. By contrast, the
behaviour of supermarkets, restaurants and consumers is an important cause of food waste in
middle- and high-income countries. Much food gets thrown away for lack of planning, the
passing of expiration dates, and people’s unwillingness to use leftovers for new dishes.
In response to the food waste problem, some governments have developed explicit policies
on what they call sustainable management of food. Thus, for instance, the USA’s
Environmental Protection Agency presents the inverted pyramid depicted in Figure 11.4. It is
meant as a tool to visualise the systematic actions that stakeholders in all stages of the food
chain could take.
Obviously, the top priority is preventing food from becoming waste in the first place by
better planning of purchases and meals. Next, food that supermarkets can no longer sell
because the best-before date has nearly expired could still be donated to food banks that serve
meals to the homeless and marginalised that same day. Also, food that is no longer fit for
human consumption could still be given to animals without a problem, but of course that
process needs to be well organised on the local scale. Even if the food is composted to
become soil improver or thrown in a biogas digester to become renewable energy, there is a
benefit from the resources that were used to produce it. However, if it is simply left to decay
the food will generate methane emissions and so have a negative impact on the climate.

Figure 11.4 Food Recovery Hierarchy of USA’s Environmental Protection Agency

Source: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-hierarchy (accessed 15 January 2018)

Food Production
The biggest global issues discussed in Chapter 8 were persistent poverty and climate change.
This section argues that a wider variety of solutions should be considered beyond improving
seeds and increasing chemical inputs. Moreover, agriculture is suffering from changing
climates already, so increasing effort should be focused on adapting to drier, wetter or simply
more erratic weather. While agriculture is the most vulnerable sector to climate change, it is
also a cause of 14% of global GHGs emissions (see Figure 11.5).
Recent research by the FAO shows that 98% of farms in the world are run by families.
They produce 56% of global agricultural production. More than 80% are smaller than 2 ha
and, thus, qualify as smallholder farms. According to some, the development ideal is still to
enlarge farm size in order to facilitate a change to mechanised, high-input agriculture.
Intensive, high-yield monocultures do account for a large share of production and
international trade. However, in recent decades, there have been many efforts to improve
smallholder farming and set up demonstration projects in environment-friendly types of
cultivation. These go by names, such as agro-ecological or permaculture systems. What they
have in common is a focus on farming that is more closely and harmoniously connected to
the local landscape and ecology. The farms are located in hill or mountain landscapes and
display a biodiverse patchwork of land uses. The environment in many places is changing
under the influence of human activity (expanding cities for instance) or climate change.
Higher biodiversity is an advantage in such conditions.
The 2011 State of the World report was dedicated to initiatives and strategies to truly
nourish the world’s people. It discusses a growing number of studies that describe and
analyse agro-ecological initiatives. In a study published in 1999, researcher Jules Pretty
compared almost 300 projects in 57 DCs. This is over 3% of the total cultivated area (1.136
mha) in DCs. He found that these approaches had increased crop yield by 79%. These studies
suggest that agro-ecological approaches could feed a large portion of the world in ways that
also reduce health problems, livelihood insecurity and environmental degradation.

Figure 11.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture

Source: IPCC (2007)

In the introduction, we defined sustainable agriculture as: ‘provide an adequate food,

fibre, and fuel supply for today’s population without jeopardising the capacity to provide the
same services to future generations’ (Pretty 2008). Additional objectives concern affordable
food prices, reasonable farmers’ incomes, and maintaining the natural resource base of farm
systems (soil quality etc). Pretty does not rule out any technologies or practices on
ideological grounds. In his view, there are sustainability benefits as long as productivity goes
up without undue harm to the environment.
From the goal description, Pretty derives four key principles for sustainability in
agriculture:

 Integrate biological processes into food production, for instance. nitrogen fixation by
plants instead of chemical fertilisers or predation by natural enemies instead of
pesticides
 Minimise the use of non-renewable inputs that cause harm to humans and nature
 Use farmers’ individual and collective knowledge and skills to replace expensive
inputs where possible; together they can solve common problems with pests or water
management

We may conclude that sustainable agriculture uses a wider variety of nature’s services and
more human co-operation potential than industrial-type agriculture. This implies that more
study and human interaction is needed to adapt and fine-tune techniques for each new locality
and establish trust and good working relations. Of course, all kinds of benefits will flow from
this. New organisations and partnerships may form in order to mobilise resources and keep
the learning going. In the beginning of the transition to sustainable agriculture, farmers
inevitably experiment more. Moreover, the new techniques and processes, such as the ones
listed in Table 11.1, take time to become the new normal. Obviously, the cost comes upfront
and the benefits are spread out over a longer period of time. Nevertheless, Pretty has evidence
that most pre-industrial and modernised farms in DCs could make the transition to more eco-
friendly and productive farming fairly quickly. In fact, in the process of transition farmers
typically find out that they could reduce many purchased inputs without losing profit.

Table 11.1 Agricultural Technologies with High Potential Sustainability

Source: Modified from Conway (1997) in Elliot (1998)

In all debate about technological options, it is easy to overlook institutional and cultural
reasons for underperformance in agriculture. This is part of social sustainability. Nearly half
of the world’s farmers are women, and they also play major roles in processing and selling
agricultural produce. However, according to gender researchers, their vital contributions do
not seem to be recognised. The reason they make this bold statement is the observation that
working women are often denied access to the services that could make them a lot more
effective. For instance, entering professional education can be tough. Also, financial
institutions and research or training agencies often refuse to serve female farmers. The UN
FAO stated that women could increase food production by up to 30% if they had the same
access to land, credit, knowledge and skills training as men do. Imagine how many millions
of people would be able to work themselves out of poverty.
Climate change leads to higher average temperatures, more heat waves and night frosts,
greater variability (floods) and unpredictability. These are already affecting global
agricultural production, and more severe impacts are expected. At the same time, agriculture
is a source of GHGs. Figure 11.5 shows a breakdown of the agriculture’s share of global
GHG emissions.
Enough reasons, then, for agriculture to make changes to limit both its impact on the
climate and the negative climate change impacts on crops and livestock. This is smart, or
rather climate-smart agriculture. A list of climate-smart practises in agriculture could include:

 Switch to crops that are more drought resistant.

 Improve climate and weather information systems for farmers.
 Diversify risk by combining animal husbandry with crops and trees for soil fertility.
 Apply techniques that reduce nitrous oxide emissions from fertiliser, and methane
emissions from rice cultivation.
 Build rainwater harvesting systems and/or drip irrigation systems to collect more
rainwater and reduce losses.
Examining the list, we immediately see an overlap with the measures presented under agro-
ecological methods. This reinforces the case for such methods as they have multiple benefits.
More details are available from the Climate Change, Agriculture & Food Security website of
CGIAR, a global research network.

SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
Agriculture is one of the most regulated and subsidised economic sectors in the world.
Reasons for state involvement include public purposes such as food security and safety,
export earning potential and stable rural development. Visions on the future development of
agriculture are closely connected to the visions that our typical worldviews have on the role
of the state in the economy.
Since 1945, visions of rural development have also been the starting point for projects or
policies that governments, development agencies, and international organisations initiate.
Around them exists a cloud of non-governmental aid organisations, grassroots movements
and business lobby groups that all have something to gain from the outcomes of vision and
strategy setting. It is no surprise then that past strategies clearly reflect the power balance of
different visions on the role of the state in the development of economy and society.
According to Charles Benbrook, ‘the lack of consensus and clarity on the surest path towards
greater food and economic security, and deep-set mistrust among stakeholders and intended
beneficiaries, cries out for transparent and independent assessment of the impacts of
development projects and strategies’ (Benbrook 2011).
Box 11.4
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

The typical characteristics of plants, animals and humans are stored in their genes. Modern
biotechnology has developed the capacity to introduce genes from one species into those of
another. This is also known as genetic engineering. The result are genetically modified
organisms or GMOs. The reasons that company-based scientists do this is to improve the
yields or properties of these organisms, and/or increase their resistance to heat, drought or
disease. Since they require costly investment in research, the GMO seeds and other products
are relatively expensive. The claimed advantages are not preserved (well) in the seeds that
GMO plants produce. In fact, when clients purchase GMO seeds, they accept a legal ban on
saving seed from the harvest for planting the next season. The most widespread GMO crops
are soy, maize, cotton and canola. Most of the area under GMO crops is located in North and
South America, but there is a push to expand to other continents. They are marketed by just
five global companies based in the industrialised North. They own the patents, which are
official documents granting them protection of their intellectual property rights to the
products. In theory, this protection allows them to earn back their investment. Some
scientists, businessmen and development officials support the view that GMOs could help
reduce world hunger and malnutrition.
However, there are concerns among other scientists, social activists and politicians that
GMOs might be a risk to public health, the environment and food security. For instance, there
is a concern of gene transfer to other crops that could be beneficial (added bonus) or negative
(a super weed). GMOs could negatively impact genetic diversity and pest resistance. GMO
crops are used in combination with prescribed fertilisers or herbicides, whose effects on
human health and the environment are still debated. Scientific and market developments are
going very fast, while research into the long-term risks takes a lot of time. Last but not least,
the traditional practice of selecting the best seeds from a harvest for the next planting season
is incompatible with the intellectual property rights that biotech companies have obtained. As
a consequence, the farmers that choose to buy these GMO seeds become long-term dependent
on the transnational company for seeds and other inputs. To many, this is an undesirable form
of dependency.
The global debate on GMOs, which has been going on since the mid-1990s, is extremely
polarised. There are significant social, ethical and environmental issues involved, but the
multi-billion dollar commercial interest that pushes its own science makes a clear and factual
exchange difficult.
From the 1980s, the market liberal narrative became more and more influential, also in the
debates and practice of international development. As a result, international financial
institutions imposed conditions on poor country lenders to minimise regulation, reduce trade
barriers and government spending. Technical and market advisory services, and affordable
credit provision to farmers had to be privatised. International support for the agricultural
sector in DCs fell from 17% in 1990 to 3% in 2005. Although the institutionalist position is
more nuanced, it by and large agrees with the basic ideas of the market liberal school of
thought.
In the early 2000s, several assessments began to cast doubt on this approach. First, the MA
2005 produced evidence that agriculture was a major cause of land degradation, water
pollution by pesticides, and GHGs. In 2008, the International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development announced that global agriculture was
at a crossroads. Now, this report was written and reviewed by over 400 scientists after a
lengthy consultation process. Several UN organisations sponsored the process and endorsed
the report. The consensus stated that strong focus on constant productivity increases per farm
had led to a production system that exhausted soil, polluted the water with pesticide leftovers.
In other words, it has increased its own financial result by putting burdens on other people
and the natural environment. The authors conclude that this innovation model is no longer
viable in the light of twenty-first century challenges. They did not say that there’s no more
room for industrial-type agriculture. However, they did propose a shift of government support
and finance towards ecological forms of agriculture. This requires a very different approach
from the current handing down of standardised solutions. Much improvement must come
from knowledge generation and exchange at local level in co-operation with concerned
farmers.

Farmers are business people, educators, and stewards of the land.

Bio-environmentalists and social greens are well represented among the proponents of
smallholder agriculture. Not many argue that smallholders and sustainable communities
could feed the world, but at least these schools of thought hold that governments must plead
the case of the weak rather than the interests of TNCs. In line with their strong preference for
social justice and local economies, they emphasise:

 Fair trade over free trade (Friends of the Earth NGO);

 The case of landless labourers and smallholder farmers against large-scale foreign
land investors in DCs, whose plans are to grow industrial crops for export only; since
they consider these land deals in violation of legal or traditional user rights, they call
them ‘land grabs’;
 Biological farming (little or no chemicals), with special care for bees etc;
 Growing food close to the final users (e.g., urban agriculture on roofs, in gardens and
community plots);
 Minimising or eliminating meat consumption (vegetarian, vegan alternatives); and
  Keeping genetically modified food off the shelves until the long-term impacts on
people and the planet are known.

Both industrial-type agriculture and smallholder farms will keep developing new insights and
lobbying for influence and public funds.

RELATION TO THE SUSTAINABILITY TRANSITION

In this chapter, we distinguished three types of agriculture in the world, namely the industrial
type, the Green Revolution type, and the resource-poor type. The sustainability challenges are
different for each of these. Hunger and poverty with their associated problems of marginal
lands are the main issue of the third type. Yet it has historically been the most
environmentally sustainable of all types. The other two are good at producing large quantities
of staple crops at low cost. Yet, they cause loss of top soil and fertility as well as effects of
pesticide residues on farm workers’ health, ecosystems, and food safety. Moreover, since
emphasis was on increasing production of staple crops, high-yield varieties of rice often
displaced local fruits, vegetables and legumes. As a result, people started to suffer from
deficiencies in minerals and vitamins. Finally, we observe that there is much concern about
biotechnology developments aimed at further increasing production. They might worsen
resource problems (especially water) and they would create more dependence on expensive
inputs that can only be obtained from a few sources (multinational companies). Table
11.2 summarises the strengths and side effects of the different approaches to nourishing the
planet.

Table 11.2 Contrasting Smallholder and Industrial-type Farming

Source: Author

Directions for sustainability are diverse, and there are no single solutions or quick fixes.
However, the overall task is the same for all: meeting more needs in equitable ways while
lowering the environmental pressures under conditions of population and income growth, and
climate change. The options discussed in this chapter can be categorised in various ways. In
line with Part I of this book, we distinguish technological, behavioural and institutional
categories. Options need to be applied in suitable combinations to match local circumstances.
Box 11.5
Bio-cotton from Kyrgyzstan
Cotton is a global industry with a big environmental footprint. The Soviet Union’s efforts to
become self-sufficient in cotton came with a very high cost to human health and the
environment. Now, a growing number of farmers are making a different choice—grow cotton
the organic way. Their desire is to make a good living and hand over clean and fertile land to
their children.
In the early 2000s, a few dozen farmers in the Jalalabad region of Kyrgyzstan joined a
donor-funded bio-cotton project carried out by the Swiss development agency Helvetas. The
soil in their area used to be very fertile, but decades of bad practice had seriously degraded
the land. Lots of inorganic fertiliser and pesticides were used in conventional cotton growing.
These have turned out very bad for the long-term health of the land and water and also of the
farmers and their workers.
Helvetas trained them in the organic cotton growing, helped them through the certification
process and connected them to the Swiss organic cotton market. There the Kyrgyzstan
Organic fetches a 20% premium over conventional cotton. Customers in Western Europe are
willing to pay the higher price because they do not want to harm the environment with their
purchases. Moreover, the bio-cotton is hypo-allergenic so does not arouse sensitive skins.
The requirements for certification are strict and so is the monitoring. They check the
certificate holders five times per year to ensure that farmers stick to the agreement not to use
inorganic fertilisers, treated seeds, pesticides or GMOs. In 2004, a third of participants in the
project did not comply, and so they left the project. For those who stayed the switch has paid
off.

Behavioural Methods
This category of methods is aimed at influencing the routine behaviours that people have
within the boundaries of current institutions and technology. They usually take the form of
education, training and mass-media campaigns:

 Raise countrywide urgency about water scarcity and (gradually) introduce full-cost
pricing in water-stressed areas, especially for luxury uses.
 Train farmers and agricultural consultants to search for sustainable energy solutions
using previously discarded or burnt resources, such as wood chips (forestry) or crop
waste (reed, sugar cane stalks and leaves).
 Raise awareness about the unsustainable lifestyles of the middle and upper classes.

Often behavioural approaches have only limited success, since lack of awareness is not the
only barrier to sustainable solutions. The more appropriate technology may be unfamiliar, the
technical or business risks may be too high or the needed upfront investment funds may be
unavailable or too expensive. In those situations, outside actors are needed to overcome the
barriers. Such actors could be government (local, regional or national), businesses, an
international organisation or a coalition of these, established for the purpose.

Technological Methods
Simply changing a piece of equipment or production technique falls in the technological
category:

 Switch to land-use methods (preferably indigenous) that regenerate worn-out soils and
increase productivity of water, nutrients and so on.
  Promote inter-planting rows of beans (for nitrogen) and pumpkin (anti-weeds) to
reduce the need for fertilisers and pesticides.
 Use zero- or minimal tillage methods that reduce soil erosion and nutrient depletion,
such as trip farming and contour ploughing; terracing; plant/sow cover crops to not
leave the land exposed to wind and water erosion.
 Rely essentially on home-grown fertility as a good way to increase the share of crop
income that stays on the farm.

Institutional Methods
Any change that requires new agencies or rules or the change of existing ones is part of the
institutional category. Stakeholders need to be brought together in order to establish direction
or gain public support for proposed solutions.

 Apply institutional and business models that emphasise trust and co-operation.
 Consider food–water–energy impacts in their mutual relations (giving priority to
water).
 Establish water-user associations that manage assigned water amounts economically
within ecological limits, such as the South African case described in Chapter 5.
 Introduce payment for ecosystem services, such as the Bolivian project (see the
Current State section of Chapter 5), where downstream water users pay upstream
farmers for their maintenance of the watershed forest by means of bee boxes.
 Support the development or application of water-saving technologies, such as drip
irrigation.
 Assess the full value of remaining forest and grasslands in order to make well-
founded decisions about the (change in) use of these resources.
 Create a programme that promotes eco-agriculture.
 Improve access to micro-credit for entrepreneurial people.

These cases share the following success factors:

 The use of locally adapted resource-conserving technologies.

 Co-ordinated actions of various local stakeholders.
 Supportive external institutions.

Table 11.3 contrasts conventional wisdom with sustainable approaches for a number of
issues.
Box 11.6
Zero Hunger

Brazil’s constitution guarantees every citizen’s Right to Food. This spurs the country’s Zero
Hunger initiatives. Cash transfers, reaching a quarter of Brazilians, are given on the condition
that people keep their kids in school. In cities, 100 public ‘people’s restaurants’ serve cheap
nutritious meals to thousands each day, using food from local farmers. The Landless Workers
Movement has resettled 370,000 families on roughly 20 million acres. It launched Brazil’s
first organic seed line and offers training and support in ecological agriculture. Plus, during
the 2000s, jobs with benefits grew three times faster than informal jobs, and the buying
power of the minimum wage nearly doubled. So, inequality in Brazil—long known as among
the world’s worst—is now lower than it’s been in more than 30 years.
 Table 11.3 Contrasting Conventional and Sustainability Wisdom on Rural Issues

Source: Author

A movement for sustainable agriculture began in the 1980s with experimentation by

individuals or groups of farmers in various countries. Technologies and social processes for
the local scale are now well tested and established, according to Pretty. During the 1990s and
the 2000s, more and more development agencies and NGOs took up the cause of making
agriculture more sustainable. There was a lot of learning then about the various social and
institutional conditions that enabled the sustainability movement to grow. The urgency of
tackling poverty and climate change have made the movement stronger. Yet, more consistent
and large-scale support from governments is needed to overcome barriers, such as reform
agricultural subsidies (water and pesticides), secure land tenure and water rights, and promote
integrated policy approaches across sectors emphasising ecosystems.
Pretty estimates that most countries pay only lip service to the idea of agricultural
sustainability. They have not integrated sustainability in national visions and well-funded
strategies to start the transition to sustainable agriculture. Only three countries get a
distinction for doing just that: Bhutan, Cuba and Switzerland. Some countries have set up
demonstration programmes in their regions (China) or have integrated ecological approaches
in soil and water conservation (Burkina Faso, Kenya).
A separate chapter in UNEP’s Green Economy Report (2011) testifies to the importance of
agriculture for SD. The report recommends many agro-ecological technologies and practices
discussed in this book. However, it reserves a place for non-ecological technologies as long
as they are not harmful and are applied in very precise and efficient manner. The agricultural
chapter’s transition section has some interesting advice regarding the enabling conditions for
the transition:
Box 11.7
Eco-Tourism

Eco-tourism is a popular term and a promising new branch of tourism for previously
unexplored regions. However, since the concept is insufficiently clear, there is a risk of
greenwashing by those who want the higher profit margin that eco-tourism generates but
without being true to the original idea. The UN nature conservation agency IUCN defines
eco-tourism as follows:

Environmentally responsible travel to natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and
accompanying cultural features, both past and present) that promote conservation, have a low visitor
impact and provide for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local peoples.

Eco-tourism activities should demonstrate the following characteristics:

 Minimise visitor impact, for instance by limiting group size, offering basic
accommodation, and practising reduce–reuse–recycle.
 Show sensitivity for local cultures and vulnerable ecosystems, for instance, by
minimising noise and nuisance from transport.
 Provide financial or in-kind benefits for conservation, for instance, by volunteer
labour.
 Involves local communities sharing their knowledge of nature and culture; since they
benefit from eco-tourism, they become guardians of local ecosystems.
 There is an educational component, both for the tourists and for the local
communities, as they increase their learning of and respect for nature.

 Reduction and removal of developed country subsidies to agriculture that make unfair
competition for DC farmers.
 Reduction and removal of tariff barriers must go hand-in-hand with trade measures to
enable DC farmers to benefit from such policies; otherwise, the existing market power
imbalance will lead to lower rewards for the farmer and higher margins for TNCs.
 States should require certification and reporting from producers with sustainability
claims but also from polluting industries; it says this could be done through labelling
schemes which show the quantities of agro-chemical inputs used in the production
and processing of a product, and whether the product contains GMOs or not.

Read more about the concept and history of GE in Chapter 12. That chapter brings together
most of the required structural changes into a coherent framework.
Conclusion

The past century of agricultural development has left us with a system split between large
industrial-type estates and millions of smallholder farms. The first type is high-input and
output, and is fossil-fuel dependent; it has problems associated with soil degradation
and water pollution. The second is low-input and output, while there is room for techniques
to improve output and sustainability. Providing nine billion people with nutritious diets is our
global goal for 2050. Moreover, demand for bio-inputs for energy and other products is going
up, so competition for already scarce fertile lands is increasing. In the past, people thought
that the future was for large-scale modern farms, but the expectation is shifting. The
sustainability perspective takes a broad view and looks at a variety of issues that impact the
economic, social and environmental sustainability of the food and agriculture sector. These
include, among others, nutritious diets, impacts of meat production and consumption, food
security, biodiversity, soil fertility, food waste, resilience against shocks and so forth.

REVIEW AND REFLECTION QUESTIONS

These questions are additional to the learning points at the beginning of every chapter. They
are given to help you review the material and reflect on it in the context of your own country.

1. What is the problem with old stocks of outdated pesticides in developing countries?
2. Developing country regions are increasingly integrated into global value chains, for
example the Naivasha region of Kenya exports flowers to Northwestern Europe. What
are the economic, social and environmental aspects (positive and negative) of this
trend?
3. From the sustainable development perspective, supplying the world with healthy,
nutritious food is more than a matter of increasing food production. Explain why this
is so.
4. In the context of the growing urban middle class, meat consumption is going up.
While this may be a good thing for health and nutrition, the cattle farms often expand
at the cost of forests. What is the balanced sustainability view on this matter?
 12
CHAPTER

Green Economy in the Context of Sustainable

Development
Learning Objectives
• Interpret GE as the most proactive and comprehensive way to kick-start a SD path.
• List the expected benefits of GE policies and illustrate them with examples.
• Explain how certain development policies carry the risk of lock-in, thereby limiting future choices.
• Make connections between GE policies and matters of social and economic justice in the world.
• Discern the contours of worldviews in the positions that prominent individuals and organisations take on
matters of GE.

INTRODUCTION
In this book, we have attempted to provide an overview and discussion of the most relevant
terms and topics for the development of our planet and its people. We began by looking at the
state of our economic, social and environmental conditions at the start of the twenty-first
century. We found that the world’s current economic system has made significant
achievements, but at the cost of frequent downturns, great social inequality within and
between countries, and large-scale environmental degradation. One might think that those
facts can only be interpreted to mean that humanity has a fundamental problem in its
relationship with other humans and the natural world. However, a brief discussion of
environmental worldviews showed that there is a wide range of views which may be grouped
together into four broad categories—market liberal, institutionalist, bio-environmentalist and
social-green. Their analyses of what’s the matter with our planet vary from saying that the
current system merely needs corrections to claiming that the system needs a complete
overhaul to bring it back in line with the cyclical workings of planet Earth. While this book
does not make a fundamental choice between these perspectives, it does state that the roots of
unsustainability run deep into society’s attitudes and behaviour (with values and worldviews
underneath), which find expression in its institutions and technology. Therefore, it is in all
those areas that serious changes must be made. In fact, these changes are so far-reaching that
we should speak of a social transformation rather than a simple reform process. We called
this the transition to SD.
We considered that in this process the challenges of ICs and DCs are very different. ICs
should turn from growth-oriented policies to responsible consumption and shrinking
environmental footprints. By contrast, DCs are expected to fulfil the unmet needs of large
sections of their populations, while improving their efficiencies and limiting environmental
impacts. Yet, even within IC and DC groups, the diversity of country situations is huge and
so is the diversity of SD strategies. This is why this chapter is entitled ‘Green Economy in the
Context of Sustainable Development’.
GE is a concept that is essentially about making a series of co-ordinated policy changes
that reinforce the general country strategy for SD. They focus on key development
parameters, which guide public and private entities in their strategic decision-making.
Energy and water-tariff systems and taxes are examples of such parameters. By contrast,
brown economy (BE) is the term used in GE publications to talk about the current
unsustainable economy and its standard policies, which are oriented at short-term gains. The
BE relies on fossil fuels with little or no regard for the negative side effects on the
environment. Like SD, GE is not a unique model where one size fits all. It has to be designed
to fit the national conditions and preferences of the country concerned. Nevertheless,
different GE processes and strategies have certain elements in common.
Figure 12.1 is a graphic representation of the ultimate goal of GE strategies. The horizontal
dimension is quality of life as measured by the human development index (HDI), whereby
1.0 is the maximum. The vertical dimension is the environmental footprint as measured in
global hectares per capita. There are three more lines in the graph—two horizontal ones
labelled World Average Bio-capacity (1961 and 2006) and a vertical one labelled UNDP
threshold for high human development. In 2006, the small box in the bottom right-hand
corner represented high human development within the Earth’s ecological limits. Sadly, we
see that almost no country is within that box. A large group of countries are below the 2006
line for bio-capacity, so they are living within ecological limits. However, they have a large
number of people living in poverty with unmet needs. On the other hand, there is a large
group of countries with HDI over 0.8, which are way above the ecological limit. Therefore,
the former group move right without crossing the bio-capacity line or at least not far and for
long. The latter group should significantly reduce its environmental footprint, yet, without
reducing HDI or at least not far and for long.

Figure 12.1 Ecological Footprint Per Person and Human Development Index (HDI)
of Countries by World Regions (2013)

Source: Global Footprint Network

 Both IC and DC country groups need to go through a steep learning curve over the next 40
years as they put their sustainability vision into practice. Obviously, where awareness of
environmental problems and their connections with economic and social issues is low, ESD
should be a primary task in transition plans. ESD in its many forms lays the foundation for a
new relationship of society to the environment. Thus, it also serves to support the changes in
attitudes and behaviour that complement changes in technologies and institutions. A
multitude of stakeholders in every corner of society should be drawn into the sustainability
drive—some as leading agents and others as followers. In previous chapters, we discussed the
different roles that major groups in government, business or civil society may take. The one
they assume may depend on the particular national context (constitutional structures and
political culture) and the matter at hand. Nevertheless, a strong leadership role by the
government can make the difference between a snail’s pace and a sustainability train.
The section ‘Current State’ details what GE processes and strategies may look like, and
which conditions have enabling functions with respect to SD. It also briefly discusses
national and international programmes to gain GE experience, exchange mechanisms and
disseminate success stories. Next, we reflect on the impact of our four worldviews on the GE
debate. Finally, we draw conclusions regarding GE’s contribution to the sustainability
transition. We now turn to a brief history of the GE concept so that we might see how it
builds on and links in with other SD ideas.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
In the previous chapters, we have considered a general pattern that many countries have
followed on their way from total ignorance of environmental interests to comprehensive
consideration. This section discusses the latest step of that journey. The pattern started when
local, relatively isolated problems developed around water, soil or air pollution. In many
cases, they were first denied for a while until it was no longer tenable. Then laws were
developed to deal with each issue separately through pollution control measures. Thus, the
approach was cleaning up, not preventing pollution. Over time, more issues, laws and
structures were added that did not always take into account the scientific linkages between
the issues. Sometimes policies reduced one issue while aggravating another. For instance,
many pollution-control measures to clean up the air or water lead to growing quantities of
hazardous waste. Moreover, all these regulations put administrative and cost burdens on
society that needed to be reduced. For many countries, the economic austerity of the 1980s
provided the right incentive to tackle this problem. They integrated many issues into a
common framework and simplified the implementation procedures and agencies. The
publication of the Brundtland Commission’s Our Common Future (1987) kicked off the third
phase of integration, where environmental policies were now also brought into harmony with
other relevant policy areas, notably agriculture, water management, transportation and
economic affairs. Moreover, environmental problems were squarely put in the context of a
world with poignant poverty, inequality and injustice. These connections were formally
acknowledged by world leaders in the Rio principles and Agenda 21 (see Box 12.1), an
action agenda for the sustainability era. Notably, the right to develop and the principle of
common but differentiated responsibility were adopted. Agenda 21 basically instructs
governments to do the following:

1. All countries should base their development on SD principles and methods.

2. Developed countries should take the lead in changing production and consumption
patterns, notably through changes in the global economic system.
 3. Developed countries should also enable and support DCs in moving to a SD path
through additional financial, institutional and technological resources.

The consensus reached at the Rio Earth Summit was a special event that raised high hopes of
a new global partnership to solve the world’s problems.
Box 12.1
Long-Term Views from Agenda 21

Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of

disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and
illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our
well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater
attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all,
better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can
achieve this on its own; but together we can—in a global partnership for SD (Article 1.1).
[Governments shall] promote an open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading
system that will enable all countries—in particular, the DCs—to improve their economic
structures and improve the standard of living of their populations through sustained economic
development (Article 2.9a).
Poverty and environmental degradation are closely interrelated. While poverty results in
certain kinds of environmental stress, the major cause of the continued deterioration of the
global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly
in ICs, which is a matter of grave concern, aggravating poverty and imbalances (Article 4.3).
Special attention should be paid to the demand for natural resources generated by
unsustainable consumption and to the efficient use of those resources consistent with the goal
of minimising depletion and reducing pollution. Although consumption patterns are very high
in certain parts of the world, the basic consumer needs of a large section of humanity are not
being met. This results in excessive demands and unsustainable lifestyles among the richer
segments, which place immense stress on the environment. The poorer segments, meanwhile,
are unable to meet food, health care, shelter and educational needs. Changing consumption
patterns will require a multipronged strategy focusing on demand, meeting the basic needs of
the poor, and reducing wastage and the use of finite resources in the production process
(Article 4.5).
Economic growth, social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding
priorities in DCs and are themselves essential to meeting national and global sustainability
objectives. In light of the global benefits to be realised by the implementation of Agenda 21
as a whole, the provision to DCs of effective means, inter alia, financial resources and
technology, without which it will be difficult for them to fully implement their commitments,
will serve the common interests of developed and DCs and of humankind in general,
including future generations (Article 33.3).
However, throughout the 1990s, there was a strong growth of international trade and of many
major economies. As a result, the environmental policy gains in some areas (acidification in
Europe and North America) were offset by setbacks in others. The waste problem kept
growing, new hotspots for air pollution and acidification appeared in Asia, and climate
change became a more unsettling reality in some world regions. At the same time, social
inequality both within and between countries kept growing in most regions of the world.
Despite the obvious stresses on society and the environment, these interests were time and
again moved to the back burner because of short-term political priorities, such as immigration
and terrorism. Finally, the 2008 financial crisis sparked off an almost worldwide economic
slump.
States quickly set up programmes to rescue their banks and stimulate their economies. In
some cases, in deviation from previous economic crises, governments directed stimulation
packages towards projects and sectors that supposedly had a beneficial effect on jobs and
environmental conditions. UNEP seized the moment to argue that the crisis was the result
of structural shortcomings in the world’s economic system, whose correction could lay the
foundation for sustained and indeed SD. It revived the term GE that had been coined over a
decade earlier by British authors advising their government about ‘the implications of
sustainable development for the measurement of economic progress and the appraisal of
projects and policies’. Realising that this new sustainability offensive needed policy analysis
and support for investment in so-called green sectors and for greening of environmentally
unfriendly sectors, UNEP launched its Green Economy Initiative in October 2008. The first
result was a short report entitled Global Green New Deal, whereby the ‘new deal’ part refers
to the policy that pulled the US economy out of the 1930s’ crisis. Since this UNEP document
identified poverty eradication as a goal alongside economic recovery and reduced impacts on
the environment, the GE concept was accepted by the UN General Assembly as one of two
themes central at the planned Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development (2012). This
choice led to a lot of study and public attention for the idea by UN organisations, but also by
governments, businesses and NGOs. Last but not least, UNEP released its own detailed
study Toward a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty
Eradication (2011).
It lists the following expected benefits of GE:

 Reduction in environmental pollution and ecosystem degradation.

 Gradual recovery of ecosystems and their services to humans.
 Growth in the number and quality of jobs in sustainable businesses.
 Increase in numbers of people using renewable energy services.
 More energy- and water-efficient infrastructure and buildings in expanding cities.
 Better access to food from sustainable agriculture for the poor in DCs.

According to the UN website for SD, there were at least eight separate definitions of GE by
February 2014. There is still no internationally agreed wording, but UNEP’s definition tends
to be quoted most. UNEP says that the GE is ‘one that results in improved human well-being
and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities.
It is low-carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive’ (UNEP 2011). Note that this
definition so highlights intended outcomes that it barely explains how GE actually gets there.
The rest of the 600+ page report does this in great detail for a variety of sectors. The
following enumeration gives an impression of the wide range of spheres affected by the
transition:
Investing in Natural Capital: Agriculture, fisheries, water and forests.
Investing in Energy and Resource Efficiency: Renewable energy, manufacturing, waste,
buildings, transport, tourism and cities.
Supporting the Transition to a Global GE: Models for GE investment, enabling
conditions and financing.
Box 12.2
Why ‘Grow Dirty and Clean Up Later’ is Misleading
The once-popular idea of ‘grow now, clean up later’ has a growing burden of evidence
against it. The reasoning was that the natural environment is a so-called superior good—
people prefer more of it as their income goes up. It seemed to get support from long-term
research on developed countries, which showed increasing public and political support for
environmental policies with rising GDP. However, since then our growing insight into
connections between the economy, social issues and the environment reinforces arguments
against ‘grow now, clean up later’. The WB’s study Inclusive Green Growth lists five reasons
why ignoring environmental quality in the short term is costly:

 While low-income families might not want a park if they have to pay higher taxes to
finance it, they would still want it if the park prevents regular flooding of their homes
or businesses.
 The absence of an expressed preference for parks by the poor might simply indicate
that they have no voice in public matters.
 Individual preferences may not be a good guide for establishing the true demand for
environmental collective goods, such as forests or clean air.
 People may not express a preference for parks if they are unaware of the links
between the ecosystem services that parks provide and something they highly value,
such as health.
 While some environmental quality problems are significantly reduced when income
grows, other issues such as MSW and GHG emissions tend to keep growing; the links
with important things is more indirect in space and time, and they can, therefore, be
ignored longer.

Source: World Bank (2010, 16)

Rather than discussing every report on GE, we believe that three initiatives are worth
mentioning in a book like this. All three work at the grassroots level with governments,
businesses and civil society to gain practical experience. One of them is the Green Economy
Coalition (GEC), a broad international group of environment and development NGOs, trade
union groups and others that simultaneously do, monitor and discuss GE initiatives. They
define GE as ‘a resilient economy that provides a better quality of life for all within the
ecological limits of the planet’. The second is the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), an
IGO founded in 2010 in order to support the design and implementation of green growth
strategies. It helps pioneer countries on all continents create overall plans, work out detailed
policy options and set-up relevant institutions. We consider green growth as essentially the
same idea as GE, except that it is advertised as a special kind of growth to countries that
believe growth is absolutely necessary to solve their problems. Therefore, wherever in this
book GE is used, green growth is also included. Finally, four UN organisations—the
environment programme UNEP, the industrial development organisation UNIDO, the ILO
and the research and training agency UNITAR—have decided to co-ordinate their resources
at the level of states for the purpose of building green economies. This is called the
Partnership for Action on the Green Economy or UN PAGE.

CURRENT STATE OF THE ISSUE

The focus of this chapter is on the transition to SD itself, and especially the latest expression
of it in the GE or green growth concept. A strong point of the GE concept is that it highlights
the importance of making co-ordinated changes in development parameters. These are the
rules of the game, which influence the options that individuals and businesses have in
planning their future. The signals are confusing if only some parameters point in sustainable
directions, but if most parameters are consistent with SD, their effects reinforce each other. If
the price of energy including taxes is sufficiently high and expected to go up, society has a
powerful incentive to invest in energy conservation. If governments wish to build such
incentives into their energy tariff system, then they should also offer facilities to help people
reduce their energy bills, for example, through free energy audits and/or subsidised home
insulation. Of course, if energy distribution companies charge different prices for daytime
and night-time use to lower peak use, they have to install meters that keep track of those
types of use separately. Yet, even though the net financial result of such investment is
positive, poor countries need outside support to create special investment funds. If any of
these measures were taken in isolation or at the wrong time, their social or environmental
impacts might be limited or negative. As a result, the whole idea of a SD path would become
discredited in public opinion. Now, many of the needed changes are quite big, so they have to
be phased in over a period of a decade or so. Society needs time to include the changed
conditions in its planning, and to spread out the cost and inconvenience over several years.
On the positive side, stakeholders already involved in environment-friendly activities such as
renewable energy, will experience an incentive to expand. They will hire more staff, have
more income and pay more taxes. By contrast, others face a choice between innovation and
decline. It is exactly this force field of interest groups that makes the transition process
complicated. We have described in Chapters 4 and 6 that individual and group attitudes to
change matter a lot in the way stakeholders respond to the SD transition. Under certain
conditions, those attitudes can be shifted to support gradual change for the better. However,
this requires careful policy initiatives to increase awareness of the issue, understanding of its
urgency and acceptance of the overall direction. Last but not least, we saw that deep change
requires leaders that lead by example.

Table 12.1 Green Economy/Growth Framework

Source: Adapted from World Bank (2012) and OECD (2012)

So where could countries, regions or cities begin? The WB presents a sub-division into
three types of measures that is helpful for our purpose. We have simplified and added
examples for convenience in Table 12.1. Lock-in means that a choice made today continues
to influence decision-making long into the future despite changed circumstances. An example
of this is that when a city builds inefficient homes and offices during its rapid expansion, all
those buildings will require high resource use during their entire technical lifetime. It may be
25 years or more until the next renovation. Retrofitting existing buildings with resource-
saving technologies is technically possible, but options are more limited and expensive than
at the design stage. Similarly, land-use policies that favour low-density, poorly planned urban
expansion make it harder to change the density or transportation options later on. Thus,
today’s decisions with a risk of lock-in limit our future options for SD.
Each of the measures in Table 12.1 has economic, social and environmental benefits, and
each of them will require long and hard political negotiations to take them to reality.
Moreover, many measures affect the work areas of more than one level of government and
several policy areas. This requires research, co-ordination and bargaining, which takes time
and effort. This leads us to highlight the need for conditions that enable the transition to GE
and SD. UNEP and others, therefore, call them enabling conditions. They typically include:

 SD as long-term investment goal of public and private sector.

 Effective policy co-ordination between government agencies (levels and policy areas).
 Public awareness of environment and development issues, which accepts GE/SD
policy rationales.
 Customers and citizens willing to accept sustainable options, for instance improved
public transport, even if it does not result in immediate improvements in personal
well-being or quality of life.
 Interests opposing the challenge to their business and short-term profitability unable
to block GE.
 Improved monitoring and law enforcement.

Table 12.2 Guiding Principles for Establishing Green Growth Policies

Source: World Bank (2012, 17)

Obviously, the absence of these conditions will complicate and slow down the transition
train. In such situations, their improvement will have to go hand in hand with GE measures
that build on them. Some countries already have a culture of consultation between
government and business or civil society, and GE goals simply take this system to a new
level. However, many of the countries that may gain a lot from GE policies lack the enabling
conditions to get the process going quickly. So what are they to do?
Table 12.2 summarises the World Bank’s advice, which is to focus on policies that have
immediate, high local benefits (the right-hand column) and policies that avoid much bigger
future problems (the bottom line). High benefits help diminish political and social resistance.
Among the urgent issues the ones with higher immediate gains, such as public transport
development, are easier to address than the ones without. Nevertheless, reversing
deforestation may be impossible once the forest cover is (nearly) gone. Similarly, if poor
energy standards for buildings are not tightened in the early stages of fast urbanisation, then
correcting the problem later will be very costly.
Emily Benson et al. (2014) in a discussion paper for the GEC signal three major
developments in the global debate and practice of GE. First, the ‘project of GE’ is gaining
political support, attracting new investment and involving new players. Second, they observe
that the matter of fairness and inclusion has come to the heart of economic and political
discussion on GE. Finally, they express concern that the current GE institutions (this includes
organisations, rules, definitions and so on) might not be able to produce all the social and
environmental outcomes that are expected of it. Figure 12.2 maps the main GE players by
category of activity.
For GE to succeed as a development paradigm, several actions have to be worked out in
parallel:

1. Find pioneer countries in high-, middle-, and low- income country groups that are
willing to try out the new concept at a government-wide level.
2. Co-ordinate policies and resources from international donors (development banks
such as ADB and EBRD) to find strength and avoid contradictions.
3. Set up dialogues with stakeholder groups in order to explore common interests and
strengths, and inform new government priorities.
4. Mobilise and exchange knowledge on technology, systems thinking and governance
in order to improve planning, measure progress and avoid mistakes that could derail
the GE venture.

Figure 12.2 Key International Players on the ‘Global Green Economy Stage’

Source: IIED (2014)

 5. Gather and analyse statistical and qualitative information about GE initiatives to
promote fast learning.

Let us look at each of these areas in turn:

Pioneer countries: Denmark and South Korea are high-income countries that have
made an economy-wide strategy; South Africa and Kazakhstan are middle-income group
pioneers; Cambodia and Vietnam are low-income group examples. Several other
countries are researching or have declared green sector policies, for instance for energy
or housing.1
Donor co-ordination: Examples of this include the earlier-mentioned UN PAGE
initiative and the work of the GGGI with its pioneer countries.
Stakeholder dialogue: This is as varied as the stakeholders that take an interest in
development. Thus, on the one hand, there are government-sponsored dialogues in some
of the pioneer countries, while on the other hand, there are dialogues organised by
NGOs and held far from the centres of power. The latter are widely represented in the
GEC work and supported by the International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED).
Knowledge exchange: UNEP, the WB, GGGI and the OECD have created a project to
collect, interpret and exchange ideas and experience on GE, and especially on sector
transformation. This Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP) provides regular
overviews of the GE academic literature, research and practical experience expressed in
reports.
Policy analysis: This aspect is covered by Green Growth Best Practice, another inter-
agency initiative with wide participation from UN organisations, the WB, the OECD,
the GGGI and development NGOs. A team of 75 authors representing all regions of the
world, levels of government and diverse stakeholder groups assessed GE
implementation around the world (2012–2014). The goal is to find out what works under
which circumstances. The results are published on http://www.ggbp.org/

The GE discussion at the Rio+20 Summit in June 2012 was long and hard. Summarising the
conference results in the February 2013 issue of UNEP Perspectives, the UN’s main GE
proponent writes:

Ironically, the lukewarm acceptance of a GE and the lack of global agreements served one essential
transition ingredient well. We did not want one top-down imposed GE but many, growing from the
ground up, sensitive to their own environmental and cultural contexts, empowering a new economic
inclusion and ownership, countries and communities empowered to look after their own natural assets
and see their positive future inextricably linked to using and caring for them wisely. So Rio+20 was a
stepping stone, not a turning point.

SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
The necessary transformation of our economic systems represents a fundamentally different challenge
for a host of actors, economic sectors and regions of the world. This is also reflected in the debate on
the concept of the Green Economy: There is a struggle, on the one hand, for ideological hegemony
with regard to conflicting concepts (green growth vs. de-growth), and on the other hand, for the
remaining natural resources and growth opportunities. (Netzer and Althaus 2012)
We have seen that the GE is about making a co-ordinated series of decisions about key
development parameters. These are intended to cause shifts in the ways society meets its
material and energy needs, so they also imply shifts in costs and benefits across society. From
time immemorial, these have generated battles for visions and interests at all levels, from
local to nationwide. So even though the GE theme is still young, we expect to see the same
worldviews play out that we have discussed throughout this book.
Netzer and Althaus (2012) distinguish three groups, which differ to the extent that they
seek radical change of the global economic system. The first group, GE/Green Growth, fails
to question the present system’s responsibility for environmental degradation and social
injustice, and, therefore, requires only marginal change from eternal growth. It wants to
merely green the existing economy, leaving justice matters to others. This corresponds with
the market liberal position. The second group, Green Development, has a stronger social
focus, which among others comes out in their plea for new concepts and measures of social
welfare. It also wants to do justice to the very different circumstances in which countries and
regions find themselves. This corresponds with the institutionalist position. Finally, the third
group, SD, puts the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities first and, thus,
lays heavier burdens on the developed countries to lead. The social green and bio-
environmentalist groups are strongest on the equity and environment side.
Benson et al. (2014) have grouped them roughly according to the degree of emphasis on
equity and social inclusion on the one hand, and the degree of emphasis on environmentally-
friendly strategies on the other. Although it is not stated, the social justice dimension may be
very similar to what Netzer and Althaus call the need to question the workings and outcomes
of the global economic system. The ‘greenest’ GE authors are those that stress ecological
limits and the ‘moderates’ those that mostly seek resource efficiency. Obviously,
environmental NGOs take a very green position on the environmental dimension and an
intermediate on the social scale. GGGI and global consulting firms like McKinsey put a
heavy emphasis on GDP growth, while also advocating resource efficiency. Yet, they also see
severe income disparity as a risk to stability and wealth creation. Finally, the GEC and social
NGOs rank social goals first and choose an intermediate position on the environmental
dimension. All obviously recognise the undeniable interconnections between the social,
economic and environmental dimensions. To sum up, the differences seem largely due to the
mission and vision of the different organisations, and perhaps the deeper worldviews
connected to them. Figure 12.3 from the GE Barometer 2014 maps several GE players on the
dimensions of economic growth emphasis and social justice emphasis.

Figure 12.3 Positioning of Key GE Players

Source: IIED (2014)

Among those that rank social goals over environmental ones is the South Centre, a global
think tank that especially represents the perspective of DCs. For the purpose of this book, it is
useful to summarise its views as worded by Martin Khor’s in Risks and Uses of the Green
Economy Concept in the Context of Sustainable Development, Poverty & Equity (2011). He
writes that the context of SD agreed in the Rio principles and Agenda 21 is essential for
attaining equitable and inclusive outcomes from GE strategies. In the experience of many, the
1992 Rio Earth Summit was ‘a watershed event that raised hopes of people around the world
of the emergence of a new global partnership’ (Khor 2011, 1). Years of preparation in high-
level negotiations had made the summit one of the most productive in human history. It
mattered a lot to DCs that world leaders agreed they had common but differentiated
responsibilities for global environment and development problems. Specifically, the Rio
principles and Agenda 21 spelled this out in terms of the institutional changes that were
needed in the global economic model, the need for governments to adopt SD methods in all
their strategies and the pledge of ICs to enable and support DCs. This support was to take the
form of additional transfer of financial and technology resources. In Khor’s view this implies
that ICs should support DC’s ability to adopt, adapt and innovate on environmental goods
and services. It is not enough that ICs, which traditionally spend billions of dollars on
environmental technology research every year, would simply promote the sales of these
technologies. DCs’ ability to absorb and innovate should be enhanced. Appropriate
intellectual property rules must ensure incentives for innovation, while providing DC access
at affordable cost.
To sum up, the bio-environmentalist is the most radical regarding wealth creation. They
wish to abandon the economic growth goal in favour of a sustainable economic welfare
standard. This position is taken by the environmental NGOs mentioned earlier. The GEC
emphasises the search for locally appropriate arrangements worked out by stakeholder
consultations—the institutionalist perspective. McKinsey is an exponent of the market liberal
adage of growth is always good; it will produce the resources to finance the greening of the
economy. Social greens like Martin Khor have a lot of distrust for the solutions proposed by
the institutionalists. Their question is always: whose GE? In other words, if we undertook
greening the world economy like this, then who would benefit?
Based on their analysis of the global GE discussion, Benson et al. (2014) signal the
following gaps:

 New forms of inter-agency co-ordination have appeared in pilot countries, where

economics and finance ministries now take environmental goals seriously. However,
this time, the social welfare ministries stand by while strategies with important social
implications are crafted. Strategies announce expected welfare gains, but implicitly
see those delivered through GDP growth. References to vulnerable groups, informal
sectors and rural focus are few.
 A second gap is that GGGI, UNEP, OECD and the WB are now working together on
developing green growth indicators including income inequality and access issues (of
the poor to resources). These new indicators, however, are hard to relate to measures
for which statistics at local and national level already exist.
 The third gap is in the way stakeholders are invited to participate. OECD and UNEP
have promised to invite as diverse as possible participants in their consultations.
Others, such as GGGI, seem to be more selective, allowing better access for articulate
businesses and consulting firms.

RELATION TO THE SUSTAINABILITY TRANSITION

The final question we are facing in this chapter and indeed this book is how the GE idea
relates to our core idea of the sustainability transition. Will GE replace SD as a political focal
point for development, or will it be the next stepping stone to get to SD? How far are we
removed from GE, and could any country claim to have a GE any time soon?
We have seen that a major component of any sustainability drive, the transition to a
sustainable energy system, is likely to take several decades. Therefore, we could distinguish
at least three to four different stages of a decade each to get there. Emily Benson and others
consider green growth as the first step, because of its high emphasis on resource efficiency
and carbon reduction, as well as its low emphasis on equity. UNEP’s GE studies seek more
results in improved human well-being and equity, and reduced environmental risks and
scarcities. Nevertheless, the desired results seem quite dependent on technocratic plans, and
they largely ignore the need for legislative changes that could create conditions for more
equitable outcomes.
Box 12.3
Green Economy Promise for the Maldives

The Maldives rose to the global stage in the 1990s as a voice for SIDS, a group of small
island developing states in the Caribbean, Pacific and Indian Oceans severely threatened by
the impacts of climate change. SIDS has 52 members with a total population of 50 million.
The group’s carbon emissions are less than 1% of the global total, but sea-level rise may
swipe the most low-lying islands entirely off the map.
The Maldives, an archipelago of barely half a million people in the Indian Ocean, lies on
top of coral reefs less than a metre above sea level. The islands’ climate and geography are
popular with tourists, increasingly the very rich from near and far. At the same time, many
residents are in a daily struggle for survival. Drinking water supply and agriculture
production are suffering from salt intrusion by the rising sea into its groundwater resources.
The ocean is turning increasingly acidic, which impacts both coral reefs (it bleaches them)
and fisheries—major sources of income for ordinary people. Yet, threats to the country’s
environment and development come not only from outside factors such as climate change,
but also from home-grown ones. For instance, tourism is a major consumer of energy and
water, and its activities may affect fragile ecosystems too much. The profitable farming of sea
cucumbers, a small marine animal with a leathery skin, is having an ever bigger impact on
Maldivian lagoons.
The UNEA (formerly UNEP) supports SIDS with a climate change adaptation programme.
Its goals are to research the impacts of and how climate change interacts with other causes, as
well as to identify and implement adaptation measures. Energy prices in many SIDS member
countries are high, because fossil fuels have to be brought in from afar. Developing local
renewables, such as biofuels (on degraded land), mini-hydro and agricultural waste to energy,
serve multiple goals. The problem is often that renewable sources require an upfront
investment before they pay off in the long term. Solar in the Maldives is already available at
25% of the cost of fossil energy, but who will make the investment? UNEA assists the
authorities to reset its investment priorities and revise legislation and regulation in order to
provide incentives that drive society towards a sustainable future. The biggest enemy of such
a public choice is the lack of awareness and apathy. Yet, some of the best examples
worldwide of GE strategies come from small islands.
In the GEC view, SD is the final stage, because its explicit purpose is to improve human and
ecosystem well-being in tandem. They raise the question whether such an elevated stage
might need a true ‘social contract’, that is, a comprehensive agreement between a people and
its government about the goals and objectives of the community’s development. Even if an
inclusive GE will be the ‘end stage’ of the transition process, ongoing development of a
sustainable nature will and should occur. The big difference with the existing situation is that
‘green framework conditions’ discourage or close off unsustainable directions, while
rewarding long-term sustainable choices. Under these conditions, ‘green generations’ of
people will grow up in a world where doing the right thing by people and the planet is more
self-evident than it is today. Perhaps major new initiatives to save species, ecosystems or the
global commons will no longer be needed. Nevertheless, sustainable resource management
will have to be learnt by each new generation. Guarantees that new green traditions are
preserved forever cannot be given. Much will depend on the values that future generations
will have. Will their circle of concern go back to self and next of kin, or will it include all of
life on Earth and indeed the whole of creation?
Conclusion

More than 25 years have passed since the landmark Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Much
has been achieved, but social and environmental issues continue to grow bigger. SD may be
on the lips of many leaders in politics and business, but this has not yet translated into a
systemic change. Many believe that GE is the kind of coherent strategy that could kick-start
the transformation of the economy and society. Some sectors and countries are taking the
lead, but the evidence is too scarce for definite conclusions. However, it is encouraging that
these sectors and communities are debating the issues that matter for a more inclusive and
sustainable society.

REVIEW AND REFLECTION QUESTIONS

These questions are additional to the learning points at the beginning of every chapter. They
are given to help you review the material and reflect on it in the context of your own country.
 1. Although the idea of a green economy (GE) was older, it was launched onto the
global stage during the 2008 financial crisis. What was UNEP’s thinking when it did
that?
2. What do GE publications mean by the term ‘avoid lock-in’ when speaking about the
fast growth of cities in the developing world?
3. Most GE reports mention the existence of enabling conditions, such as public
awareness and good governance. Explain how the absence of these might thwart GE
goals.
4. The Green Economy Coalition suggests that a social contract might be needed to
achieve a truly inclusive, sustainable development. Why is this so, and what might
this look like in the context of your country? Are there any precedents for such an
institution?

1
For details, check www.greengrowthknowledge.org