|
Sustainable Development Update Issue 2, Volume 5, 2005 The Sustainable Development Update (SDU) focuses on the links between ecology, society and the economy. It is produced by Albaeco, an independent non-profit organisation. SDU is produced with support from Sida, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Environment Policy Division. Dr. Fredrik Moberg, Editor Click the miniature below to download in pdf-format: 
To read the PDF you need Acrobat reader, download for free here: http://www.adobe.com 
 | ||||||
| Editorial | ||||||
|
A severe case of the emperor's new clothes This year Hans Christian Andersen, the famous Danish fairy tale author, would have turned 200. In his brilliant fairy tale, The Emperor's New Clothes, a king has been duped into believing that he is actually wearing a beautiful costume. Only a young boy has the guts to state the obvious: The emperor is not wearing anything at all - he is naked. When writing or talking about the linkages between ecological issues and socio-economic development I sometimes feel as if I am that young boy in the tale. This is because my main message is in essence so simple: we still need nature. In fact, we who live in the rich part of the world, in our highly urbanised high-tech world, use much more nature than we did in our old agrarian societies of the past. And much more nature than the average person of the poor countries of the South. Even though we have distanced ourselves from nature, we totally rely on the goods and services it delivers. We must get out of this risky illusion that ignores the enormous role of nature for our own well-being. The UN-sponsored study Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) recently presented its results. It reveals that approximately 60 percent of the ecosystem services that support life on Earth – such as fish production, regulation of natural hazards and water cleansing – are being degraded or used unsustainably. And one of the main reasons is that our economic system seems to be struck with the same blindness as the emperor. While the economic value of most of nature's goods can be calculated quite easily, many of its services do not appear on conventional balance sheets, even though they are crucial for our own and modern economies' survival. The real worth of this natural capital is often appreciated only when it is lost. The unique thing about the MA is that it states the obvious in ways that make the emperors of the world listen. We cannot uphold our high standards of living, let alone alleviate poverty, if we don't take care of the life supporting ecosystems. Whether we like it or not we are naked apes: part of and dependent on nature (it doesn't mean we have to behave like animals). No wonder then that I come to think about the old tale, or really, an old song. While reading the MA-study I have had the refrain of a fifteen-year-old song by Irish singer Sinéad O'Connor in the back of my head: "Everyone can see what's going on… maybe it sounds mean/but I really don't think so/ you asked for the truth and I told you … they've got a severe case of/the emperor's new clothes." | ||||||
| SDU - Feature | ||||||
|
"Healthy ecosystems key to poverty alleviation"
The UN-initiated study, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), released its Synthesis Report on the 30th of March. It is the first in a series of seven reports that assess the state of global ecosystems and their role for human well-being. Ecosystems provide food, wood, textiles and medicines; they are a source of aesthetic, spiritual, cultural, and recreational values; they support crop pollination, maintenance of water quality and soil fertility, and regulate regional climate, natural hazards and pests, to name a few. The MA-report's focus on the interactions between social and ecological systems and its findings, should incite decision-makers to incorporate ecological issues in all sectors. – The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment brings ecosystems back to the heart of development decision-making by documenting how much we gain from nature every day in the form of ecosystem goods and services. They are literally the foundation for the livelihoods of millions of the poorest, said Achim Steiner, director general of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), one of the report's signatories. The UN launched the MA in order to better understand the consequences of current changes to ecosystems and to evaluate scenarios for the future. The study, spanning the local to the global scale and carried out by 1,360 experts in 95 nations, delivers a stark message to policymakers in developing as well as developed countries.  Intact and healthy ecosystems are often worth more to society than ecosystems optimised for production of one or a few goods or services. The private benefits are, however, often greater from the converted ecosystem. Photos: Jakob Lundberg and Nils Kautsky. 
Time to act now MA shows how humans have, over the past 50 years, changed ecosystems faster and over larger scales than ever before. This has, for the most part, been done to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel, the report says. These changes have helped to improve the lives of billions, but have at the same time weakened ecosystems' capacity to deliver other crucial services. Today, about 60 percent of the ecosystem services that support life on Earth are being degraded or used unsustainably, the report says. Scientists behind the MA warn that, if nothing happens now, the detrimental consequences of this degradation could become significantly worse in the next 50 years. These consequences affect also the wealthy. This is "fortunate" as these are the social groups and nations that need to make the largest and most immediate changes. Given the scale of human action and impact, it is no longer possible to deal with these issues at a local or national scale. International agreements are essential, and their impacts need to be improved by, for example, co-ordinating between environmental agreements and other international economic and social agreements as well as subsequent enforcement.
The poor worst off One of the main messages of the report is that the international community needs to make environmental conservation a top priority if it wants to meet the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). "Any progress achieved in addressing the goals of poverty and hunger eradication, improved health, and environmental protection is unlikely to be sustained if most of the ecosystem services on which humanity relies continue to be degraded," the report states. Despite the progress achieved in increasing the production and use of some ecosystem services, levels of poverty remain high, inequities are growing, and many people still do not have a sufficient supply of or access to essential ecosystem services. The poor are generally those most vulnerable to the deterioration of natural systems. The regions facing the worst problems of ecosystem degradation – sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, some regions in Latin America, and parts of South and Southeast Asia – are also those having the greatest difficulties in achieving the MDGs. For example, the number of poor people in Sub-Saharan Africa is predicted to rise from 315 million in 1999 to 404 million by 2015.The conversion of land to agriculture, for example, is unavoidable as the world faces a growing population. The impacts of this conversion will, however, depend on how it is carried out. – Only by understanding the environment and how it works, can we make the necessary decisions to protect it. Only by valuing all our precious natural and human resources can we hope to build a sustainable future," said UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a message when launching the MA reports. All four future scenarios explored by the MA predict progress in eliminating hunger, but at too slow a rate to halve the number of people suffering from hunger by 2015. The improvements are slowest in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, where the problems are biggest. Environmental conditions, in particular climate change, soil degradation, and water availability, influences this goal through its effect on crop yields and effects on the availability of wild food sources. Moreover, the MA warns that changes in ecosystems such as deforestation is going to influence the abundance of human pathogens like malaria and cholera, as well as the risk of emergence of new diseases. Malaria accounts for more than 10 percent of the disease burden in Africa. Had it been eliminated 35 years ago, the continent's gross domestic product would have been $100 billion larger today. Including nature's capital on the balance sheet A striking result of the MA-study is that ecosystems and the services they provide are economically far more significant than many realise. To damage them is in the long run more or less synonymous to economic suicide. – I am not one of those who believe everything in this world should be boiled down to dollars and cents. But these estimated values are a good start and are a useful and additional reason to care for and respect natural capital alongside financial and human capital," said Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) when attending the launch of the report in Beijing, China. The report says the costs of degraded ecosystems can be high, and that it is cheaper to conserve them rather than pollute and clean up afterwards. Intact and healthy ecosystems are often worth more than altered ecosystems optimised for production of one or a few goods or services. The private (market) benefits are, however, often greater from the converted ecosystem as the individual's impacts on the ecosystem are rarely accounted for (see this issue's Sustainability School) – this is the heart of the problem. The report shows how an intact wetland can be worth $6,000 per hectare whereas one cleared for intensive agriculture is worth only around $2,000 per hectare. Similarly, a mangrove forests in Thailand is worth at least $1,000 per hectare versus about $200 per hectare when cleared for shrimp aquaculture. The future can be bright The media coverage of the MA has tended to emphasise its dark side, that the planet's ecosystems are under a lot of stress, and that if things don't change, we're heading for disaster. But read again: if things don't change. The study, is also positive and includes a chapter on scenarios for the coming fifty years. In fact, of the four scenarios, only one could be called really pessimistic. Notably, no scenario represents business as usual. Big changes in consumption, better education, new technology and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems could reverse the degradation of many ecosystem services over the next 50 years. One of the main incentives for this to occur is to make world leaders recognise that nature's services have a value, as protection of ecosystem services is unlikely to be a priority for those who see them as free and limitless. So, things are indeed bad, but not so bad that there's nothing that we can do about it. /Fredrik Moberg & Miriam Huitric More at: http://www.greenfacts.org/ecosystems/index.htm http://www.millenniumassessment.org/ | ||||||
| Sustainability School | ||||||
|
Externalities occur when an individual's actions affect the well being of another in ways that need not be paid for according to existing rules. In recent years the study of externalities by economists has become extensive - not least because of concerns about the link between the economy and the environment. Ecological externalities are those that impact the environment. Externalities are positive when they benefit society at large and negative when they incur costs. The presence of externalities means that firms and consumers, motivated by their own private costs and benefits, ignore the negative impacts of their pollution on others, leading to excessive levels of pollution. For example, the full cost of asthma and bronchitis due to air pollution or the costs of climate change do not appear in the price of gasoline or on people's electricity bills. Because the market price of the action does not include a portion of its costs/ benefits, normal market incentives lead to positive externalities being under produced and negative externalities being overproduced from society's point of view. Ecological externalities often occur because property rights have not been clearly defined or effectively enforced. Other measures used to internalise these costs are government regulations and tax policies. For many environmental problems the individuals and corporations polluting do not have to bare the costs. Taxes, permits or other policies can internalise these costs so the real polluters have to pay the costs they inflict on others. /Miriam Huitric More at: http://www.sectionz.info/Issue_1/hidden_costs.html | ||||||
| SDU - Interview | ||||||
|
"A more sustainable and equitable world is a more secure world"
We felt that world events justified this focus, and that it is essential to understand underlying reasons for insecurity, instead of merely being preoccupied with symptoms. What is meant by "security" in this context? We feel that traditional, military-focused definitions of security are inappropriate to the challenges at hand. Weapons do not necessarily provide security and may actually generate the opposite outcome. Security needs to be global, rather than national. Security needs to encompass the security (safety and well-being) of individuals and communities, rather than just the security of a state from foreign attack. And closely related to this point, non-military dimensions of security are very important. What are the greatest specific threats to global security and the security of nations? Environmental degradation heightens already existing conditions of water scarcity and worsens food insecurity. Infectious diseases (particularly HIV/AIDS in southern Africa) are weakening farm economies, devastating education systems, and ultimately undermine social and political stability. Climate change sharpens a range of environmental problems and may trigger large-scale population displacements (due to severe and more frequent droughts, storms, and sea-level rise).
There is a danger of losing meaning if the focus is simply on generating a long list of conditions important to security. The crucial task is to generate a better understanding of how different social, economic, and environmental interact to bring about potentially destabilizing dynamics. How should policy makers respond to the 21st century's security challenges? Policy makers need to address the major underlying factors of instability (endemic poverty, infectious disease, large-scale population shifts, ecosystem breakdown, and rising competition over natural resources). This means, among other things, a re-prioritization of national budgets-a shift away from military spending. Should these issues be handled at the national level, or at the international or regional level? We need action at all of these levels, and we need far better coordination of what is done at these different levels. Do we need new multi-lateral security structures or bodies to meet the new threats? Rather than reinventing the wheel, we need to make the existing international institutions, including prominently the UN, far more effective. But we need to understand that international organizations can only be as effective as national governments allow them to be. That's not to say that bureaucratic ways of operating or possible corruption should not be of concern. But more often, the greatest obstacles are found in the impediments imposed by powerful national governments. What should the role of the UN, EU, NATO and other bodies be? The UN, as a truly global organization, should play a very important role. Other organizations, such as regional bodies, can play complementary roles, but it is important to recognize their potential shortcomings (representing limited membership ). On a national level, what are the implications for state structures? The implications for foreign and defense policy? If security policy is not something that is limited to armed forces and defense departments, then it follows that there is a strong need for better integration of policies of a range of government ministries, including development assistance, environment, and others. Defense and foreign departments are of course typically much better endowed than other government agencies, and so inevitably, there is a question as to who should be in the lead? Strengthening non-military agencies will take major political capital to accomplish. What are some of the implications for state budgets and international aid? Governments have given lip-service to the need to increase aid (such as the Monterrey conference on financing sustainable development), but with the exception of Scandinavian governments, they have failed to actually boost their aid budgets. There is no question that aid needs to go up substantially. What motivations do states have for changing their interpretation of "security"? The motivation to change the interpretation of security can only come from a growing realization that arguments about the impact of poverty, disease, and environmental degradation are not just academic constructs, but real-life occurrences that will only become more widespread, more frequent, and more severe in coming years and decades. The illustrations and examples certainly are there, but governments (like other human institutions) are often very reluctant to accept new realities, and therefore this will likely be a difficult, drawn-out process. What role does changing demographics play for security, and why is so much attention paid to gender issues in this context? Population growth puts enormous pressure on both natural and human systems. Steadily larger human numbers (particularly if paired with growing material consumption) put a great strain on resources such as water and arable land. They also mean that there is a growing mismatch between job seekers and available jobs. These problems contribute to conflicts and to insecurity. Addressing population growth requires that societies deal with the underlying reasons, and in part this means that the rights and status of women need to improve. There is strong evidence that empowering women (providing greater educational opportunities, etc.) is a powerful factor in reducing fertility rates, and bringing about the "demographic transition" from high-birth/high-death rates to low-birth/low-death rates. Are all or most nations similarly at risk from the new security threats? Without any doubt, poorer nations are at greater risk because their scope of action is more limited and a large portion of their populations are more vulnerable to underlying factors of instability. But it would be a mistake to assume that any nation can insulate itself from these pressures. /Eric Paglia More at: Read more about Worldwatch's view on security and purchase the State of the World 2005 at: http://www.worldwatch.org/features/security/ Eric Paglia is host of the radio show "Think Globally". On the 6th of March they had a special episode on redefining global security (listen at: http://www.rocket.fm/thinkglobally/thinkglobally.php#archive) | ||||||
| In Brief | ||||||
|
Permanent genetic changes threaten future of fish New research findings show that fishing pressure drives natural selection for smaller fish that grow more slowly. These changes are genetic and therefore hard to reverse. This is hindering the renewal of declining fish stocks.  Fishing pressure is causing fish to evolve to smaller sizes. Being genetic these changes are hard to reverse, hindering the recovery of depleted stocks. This was revealed at the annual meeting of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), earlier this year. A number of prominent marine scientists highlighted the latest advances in genetics, biology, and evolutionary science and called on managers to incorporate this new understanding into fishing plans. – By selectively harvesting the largest fish, we end up changing the whole biology – not only growth rates, but egg size, fecundity, feeding behavior... even the number of vertebrae, said David Conover, professor of marine science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Conover's studies show fishing pressures can significantly change the genetic composition of fish populations in as little as 20 to 50 years. In the long run, sparing the big fish makes more sense than sparing the small ones. In experiments with Atlantic silversides, size- selective fishing altered production by a factor of two in just four generations of fish. – The scary part is that when we stopped size-selective harvest, the biology didn't change back…it was permanent. In other words, even if we lower the fishing pressure or quit fishing completely the stocks might not be able to recover as the genetic variation needed for recovery simply no longer exist. The big, old females not only produce exponentially more eggs than younger, smaller females, but their hearty larvae have a far greater chance of survival. Keeping these big fish in the water increases the chances of strong population numbers in the next generation – which is paramount to the recovery of overfished stocks. Genes for larger fish must be protected There is no quick and easy way to integrate all the complexity of fish population dynamics into management, but one thing is for sure: we need to provide refuges from fishing so that the genes for larger, faster-growing fish can be protected. Some areas might be totally protected, some closed seasonally, some open to commercial fishing, some only open for recreational fishing and so on. So far, the scientists do not know if the new studies are widely applicable to other species. If this is the case, then it isn't a question of doing a better job in managing fisheries, it is a question of doing a different job. – The longer we ignore these fine-scale processes, the longer it will take for that recovery. And it's not a simple linear relationship - you can cause massive damage in a very short period of time and it can take them much longer to recover, said Andy Rosenberg, of the University of New Hampshire. – We have been ingenious enough to figure out how to overexploit a very big ocean. We must now be ingenious enough to figure out how to deal with the complexity and regain our lost resources, Rosenberg continued. /Fredrik Moberg More at: http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4281171.stm "Food production is a water challenge" Food production requires large quantities of water. We need to improve the way we manage water in food production or twice the world's current water consumption will be needed by 2050 to feed the global population, claims a recent report launched by leading scientists at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.
This issue is raised in a report by scientists from the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), World Conservation Union (IUCN) and International Water Management Institute (IWMI). The report, Let It Reign: The New Water Paradigm for Global Food Security, was produced for the 13th meeting for the Commission for Sustainable Development. – Irrigation can only partly satisfy the thirst for expanded future food production, and agricultural land is shrinking. Global food security in the future requires a new water management approach today", says Prof. Jan Lundqvist of Linköping University (Sweden), one of the authors behind the new report. Rainfed agriculture the solution? Other measures have to be taken and the most promising solutions come from rain-fed agriculture. The idea is to use rain more efficiently. Storage of rainwater is a way to mitigate dry spells. Improvement of the soil is also a way to increase water use efficiency. A more effective use of precipitation in combination with land care has already led to a doubling of agricultural production in large parts of Africa. A balanced diet of 3000 kcal, (a FAO estimate for 2050) per day requires some 3500 litres of water for its production. The FAO calculation is based on 80 % vegetable and 20 % animal. If this proportion is changed the water requirements will change substantially as it takes 550 litres of water to produce one loaf of bread and roughly 1500 litres to produce 100 grams of grainfed beef. This means that food consumption trends are very important as they drive the food production trends, and thereby the water demands of the food sector. Our everyday choices in the supermarket are not only choices for a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle, but also have profound impacts on the lives of poor communities and on their environment far away, according to the report. /Louise Hård af Segerstad More at: http://www.siwi.org Traditional management needs updating and governments need to get in touch with their roots Traditional management systems work but need updating to be effective in the increasingly complex world they are set in. Studies from southern India and Sri Lanka show that two key steps are legitimisation and nesting traditional management into the larger institutional setting. How can local communities develop rules to manage their local fisheries and reduce their vulnerability to outside effects? Kenton Lobes and Fikret Berkes at the Centre for Community- Based Resource Management (1) have studied this issue in traditional fishery management systems in southern India and Sri Lanka (2). Each fishery organisation has well articulated rules to provide for equity, social responsibility and conflict manage- ment among its members. But the lack of legal recognition and cross-scale co-ordination remains a problem at the regional level and may eventually result in an unsustainable fishery. There are clearly many benefits for fishers from forming a fishing organisation and from governments' point of view, self- enforcing management systems reduce their monitoring and enforcement costs.  Shrimps drying in the sun. Photo: FAO High-value shrimp mean new challenges The authors warn that while these traditional systems have dealt with the complexity of their fisheries at the local scale and been very resilient over time, they are now set in a much more com- plex world. This is especially true of high value and tradable resources like shrimp, which attract many users. If these sys- tems do not adapt to this reality, they are very vulnerable to its larger-scale processes working beyond local grounds. "There is pressure on the fishery from non-locals, and conflict has increased steadily since the boom in shrimp markets in the 1970s." Lobe and Berkes identified two factors that allow organisations to deal with these issues: Legitimisation empowers organisa- tions to enforce their rules both on members and intruders, without this their grounds are legally open to other users. The second factor is nestedness. As the complexity of users increases, so too does the complexity of the issues that arise: conflicts between local organisations, and with other user groups and the government. These issues are often impractical or too complex for local organisations to deal with. Umbrella groups among local organisations were crucial for dealing with these larger scale processes. Lobes and Berkes demonstrate that all three levels: local organisations, umbrella groups and the government are needed to deal with regional scale processes, which are pretty much the norm in today's globalised world. Communities around the world have shown great knowledge and ingenuity in confronting resource use issues. Authorities need to show the same adaptability. Neither a top-down nor a local-level approach alone will work. /Miriam Huitric (1) http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/ nri_cbrm.html (2) Lobe & Berkes. 2003. The padu system of communitybased fisheries management: change and local institutional innovation in south India. Marine Policy 28: 171-281.
|
