/7190

IHDP

UPDATE

N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L H U M A N D I M E N S I O N S P R O G R A M M E O N G LO B A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L C H A N G E

01/2003 FO CUS:

FROM CHAOS TO CONVERGENCE In Industrial Transformation Research | BY

P IER V ELLINGA

AND

INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION

A NNA J. W IECZOREK

C

O N T E N T S

1

From Chaos to Convergence in Industrial Transformation Research | P. Vellinga, A. Wieczorek

2

Editorial

4

Industrial Transformation in East Asia | D.P. Angel, M.T. Rock

7

Making Sustainability a New Culture | Interview with C. Fussler

8

Transitions in an Island Society | S. Jit Singh

10 A Sustainable Future? | R. Gerlagh, E. Papyrakis 12 Biomass Trade – An Option for the Future? | J.R. Moreira 15 The Economics of Sustainable Water Use | J.M. Dalhuisen 16 Environmental Impacts of Food Production | Xueqin Zhu 17 Earth System Science for Sustainable Development 19 Core Projects:

Photo: IT Science Plan

Southern Africa Vulnerability Initiative | M. Brklacich, K. O’Brien, M. Woodrow Masthead 20 Joint Projects: ➤ Over the last few decades research in the natural sciences has unveiled a number of specific complex relations between human activity and environmental change on a global scale. Scientific assessments such as by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Millennium Assessment confirm that global life support systems, such as climate, biodiversity and water resources, are significantly affected by human activities.

As much is at stake, societies face the need to develop creative response strategies.

Most effective would be a reconsideration of the ways and means by which we meet our primary human needs in the field of energy, food, water, shelter, transport, etc., as these activities are responsible for much of the global environmental change we are witnessing. But this is easier said than done. A major part of the world’s population is struggling with fulfilling even basic needs, while the more wealthy part is hesitant, not to say reluctant, to reconsider the systems of production and consumption that brought them prosperity. ➤ continued on page 2

The Global Carbon Project Comes of Age | O.R. Young 21 National Committees: Austria: Promoting Young Human Dimensions Researchers | M. Payer, K. Steininger Switzerland: Water Use – A Social Science Issue | T. Scheurer, K. Pieren 22 2002 Berlin Conference on the HD of Global Environmental Change | F. Biermann, S. Campe ISSC 50th Anniversary Conference | E. Dyck 23 Meeting Calendar, Publications 24 Contact Addresses

W W W. I H D P. O R G I H D P U p d a t e i s p u b l i s h e d b y t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l H u m a n D i m e n s i o n s P r o g r a m m e o n G l o b a l E n v i r o m e n t a l C h a n g e ( I H D P ) , Wa l t e r - F l e x - S t r. 3 , 5 3 1 1 3 B o n n , G e r m a n y, V. i . S . d. P. : E l i s a b e t h D y c k

industrial transformation FROM CHAOS TO CONVERGENCE

EDITORIAL The theme of this issue of IHDP’s quarterly newsletter UPDATE is “Industrial Transformation”, the research focus of one of IHDP’s four core science projects. The idea of devoting an issue of UPDATE to the work of the Industrial Transformation Project (IT) originated from our IT research group, and we appreciate this initiative.

At the last meeting of the IHDP Officers and Project Leaders it was agreed that this opportunity should be extended to our other projects as well. Therefore, in future, one issue each year will focus on the research of a particular IHDP Project.

Led by Pier Vellinga of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the IT Project’s overarching goal is to explore pathways towards decoupling economic growth from the related degradation of the environment. A number of key scientists in the IT field agreed to write contributions to this issue of UPDATE. We would like to thank Anna Wieczorek from the IT International Project Office, who has been most helpful in identifying excellent authors.

Their contributions cover the research foci of the Industrial Transformation Project: Energy and Material Flow, Food, Cities with a focus on Transportation and Water, Information and Communication, and Governance and Transformation Processes. One of IT’s objectives is to undertake research on ways to facilitate transformation of the industrial system towards sustainability. Such a transformation, however, requires cooperation with industry and business. As Claude Fussler from the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) points out in an interview, co-operation would be welcome. We hope that in the near future IHDP will be able to establish closer and mutually beneficial links with the WBCSD. UPDATE 1/2003 also includes news from the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP), which comprises IHDP and our GEC partner programmes IGBP, WCRP and DIVERSITAS. The Workshop on Sustainable Development – The Role of International Science (Paris, February 2002) clearly showed that the scientific community has vastly increased its role in supporting sustainable development. It also highlighted new challenges for ESSP that are outlined in the article.

In March 2003 the IHDP Scientific Committee (SC) will hold its 10th meeting in Bonn. It will be the first meeting to be chaired by Coleen Vogel of South Africa. We also look forward to welcoming three new members to the SC – Tatiana Kluvankova-Oravska (Slovak Republic), Roberto Sanchez-Rodriguez (USA) and Paul Vlek (Germany). Following Kurt Pawlik’s retirement as President of the ISSC, Lourdes Arizpe (Mexico) will represent our sponsor as an ex officio SC member. The meeting agenda is comprehensive; I trust that the insights and guidance of the SC will help us to chart the course for IHDP’s future work. ➤

B ARBARA G ÖBEL IHDP Executive Director 2 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

What can the research community do to break such a deadlock? This question triggered the IHDP Project on Industrial Transformation initiated in 1997/1998. The main goal of the project is to explore development trajectories that would have a significantly smaller burden on the environment. The project recognized that ‘end-of-pipe’ solutions and efficiency improvements alone will not be able to deliver such a future. More far-reaching long-term changes will be required when the aim is to decouple global economic growth from a parallel growth of the global environmental burden.

‘Systems change’ became the key word in the research plan that emerged – systems being defined as the socio-economic and technical chains of production, distribution, consumption and disposal activities. After a series of regional workshops and a final global conference in 1999, it was decided to focus on energy, food, water and transport systems. The vision is that social and technical innovation in the redesign of these systems should go hand in hand. Now three years after the start we can take stock.

It is only fair to say that the Science Plan, as presented in early 2000, triggered a multitude and a very diverse set of research ideas and proposals. It became clear that there are many views on what would represent a more sustainable pattern of development. In terms of research methodology it has become apparent that there are many views on what constitutes interesting and useful industrial transformation research. Let us start by highlighting and discussing a number of different approaches to transformation research that were presented in the course of the last few years.

The research groups focussing on innovation theories based in Twente and Maastricht, the Netherlands, developed a “multilevel perspective on transitions” to help us understand dynamics of transformations. The researchers distinguish three levels: niche, regime and landscape (Elzen, 2001; Kemp et al 2001; and Geels 2001): Niche – denoting a space where individuals, based on existing knowledge and capabilities, develop new technologies or concepts that are geared towards problems of existing regimes. Niches provide space for learning processes and development of social networks, which support innovations.

Innovations generated at this level are usually radical (Geels, 2001).

Socio-technical regime – accounting for stability of existing technological development. Regimes refer to rules that enable and constrain activities within communities. If innovations are generated at regime level, they are mainly incremental (Geels, 2001).

Socio-technical landscape – encompassing the wider context of a regime in the form of socio-cultural and normative values, and economic and broad political processes.

The context of the landscape is very difficult to change and, if it does change, it is a much longer process than in the case of regimes (Geels, 2001).

Critics of the theory and taxonomy described above indicate that indeed traditional innovation may be explained in terms of niche innovation. However, changes required to reverse the trend of growing global environmental pressures are likely to be triggered only by institutional changes at the

industrial transformation FROM CHAOS TO CONVERGENCE

level of “regimes” or “landscapes”. It is claimed that addressing energy, food and transportation systems and their effects on the global environment requires changes in the existing international incentive structure for these activities. Such changes should include some kind of internalisation of the external cost of environmental resource use, e.g., through taxes and/or through the allocation of resource use quota systems and the introduction of tradable resource use rights.

Niche innovation can only come about after relevant changes have been made in the international “level playing field”, the critics argue. In terms of transformation management, stimulation of niche innovation is only worthwhile when incentives at a global scale are adjusted simultaneously (assuming the systems addressed are embedded in global markets).

Berkhout (2002) based at SPRU in the United Kingdom proposes a taxonomy listing four different types of transitions: path dependent, reorientation of trajectories, emergent transitions, and purposive transitions, each with its own pace and features. Berkhout argues that the normatively driven purposive transformations (such as those triggered by the desire to avoid irreversible damage to life support systems like climate, biodiversity and the water cycle) do not fit the typical model as described by Geels and the others mentioned above.

Research on transformations towards sustainability, initiated by German researchers, puts emphasis on the interaction of innovation (production), consumption and governance (institution and incentive structures). The specific challenges and research needs as listed by Vos (2002) are: ➤ understand the dynamics of structural change in sociotechno-ecological systems and anticipate future transformation paths (knowledge of system dynamics); ➤ assess and evaluate the impacts of specific paths of transformation (knowledge of sustainability goals); and ➤ develop visions, strategies and collective action capacities to shape transformation processes (knowledge of transformation strategies).

The Human Ecology Group at the University of Vienna (Fischer-Kowalski, 2001) is undertaking pioneering work in the field of analysing the historic and ongoing changes in the interaction between socio-economic activities and the natural environment in terms of mass-flow analysis. A typical example of the research carried out by this group is presented in this issue of UPDATE (see p 7).

A growing body of research on technological change can be found in mainstream economic research. Recently new concepts and models have been developed that strengthen the economic basis for transformation and transformation research. Most of these concepts and models are based upon key insights in the so-called ‘endogenous growth theory’, namely that knowledge accumulation leads to increased returns. The role of knowledge accumulation in processes of technological change has been explored in terms of learning processes (learning by doing and learning by using) and investment in R&D, in combination with spillover effects.

The latter means that knowledge ‘leaks’ from one firm or sector to another. Economic models of technological change have acquired a number of key characteristics of innovation and diffusion. Moreover, economic models have been developed to study several obstacles to technological change, such as vested interests and uncertainty with respect to the performance of a new technology or future government policies.

It is encouraging to see that mainstream economic research is increasingly interested in transformation research, and that new results are emerging, which can help to understand and support system transformations.

The review of research carried out since the launching of our Science Plan in 2000 illustrates that much work is underway, and so far the field seems to be rather chaotic.

This is mainly due to many different disciplinary and interdisciplinary schools of research and normative and nonnormative aspects of research. Still there is convergence as well. Over the last few years, our IT Project has continuously tried to bring together the various schools of thought. A good example is the Workshop on “Endogenous

INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION Energy and Material Flows

Food

Cities (Focus on Transportation and Water)

Information and Communication

Governance and Transformation Processes

Macrosystems and Incentive Structure Research fields covered in transformation studies

Production System

Consumption System

Fig. 1. Research Foci of the IHDP Industrial Transformation Project IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003 | 3

industrial transformation IT IN EAST ASIA

However, we are making progress! Our foci on transitions of the energy, food, water and transport systems and our special focus on governance and transformation processes are right on target. The focus on information technology has not yet been developed.

This issue illustrates some of the progress in implementing the Science Plan, but it is only a beginning. To assist in retrieving the relevant literature we are developing a literature reference manager on transformation research. A special scientific report on the various approaches to transformation research is in preparation.

The launching of the Science Plan has helped to initiate a whole range of scientific activities. The work of the IT Scientific Steering Committee and the International Project Office in Amsterdam contributes to creating a dialogue, cooperation and convergence in the understanding and use of research and research methodologies. This should add to a globally shared understanding of the development pathways that can combine economic growth with a sustainable use of natural resources. ➤

P IER V ELLINGA is Chair of the Scientific Steering Committee of the IHDP Industrial Transformation Project; pier.vellinga@falw.vu.nl ➤

Technological Change”, held in Amsterdam in 2000. Another more recent example is the Twente Workshop on “Transitions Towards Sustainability Through Systems Innovation”, held in July 2002 (proceedings in print). Other workshops were held in Bonn and Berlin in 2002. Currently we are preparing for meetings in New Delhi and Oslo, an international conference in Montreal in October (the Open Meeting of the International Human Dimensions Research Community) and the 2003 Berlin Conference in Germany, which this year will be devoted entirely to research on transformations.

In addition to research on a better understanding of Industrial Transformation and how it can be stimulated, the IT Project has supported, endorsed and promoted a series of ‘sectoral’ research projects on transformations in the production and use of energies, food and water. Some of them are described in this issue of UPDATE. Detailed information about these projects and literature references can be found on the IT website: http://130.37.129.100/IVM/ research/ihdp-it.

In summary, research initiatives promoted by the Industrial Transformation project seek to understand the conditions under which substantial changes in society-environment interaction can be achieved. The IT Project recognizes the validity and complementarity of the various research approaches and theories. We encourage a dialogue between the different schools of thought and among different groups with diverse research priorities. We recognize that the scientific understanding of the dynamics of societynature interaction on a global scale is still in its infancy.

A NNA J. W IECZOREK is Executive Officer at the IT International Project Office, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; anna.j.wieczorek@ivm.vu.nl; www.vu.nl/ivm/research/ihdp-it/ or http://130.37.129.100/IVM/research/ihdp-it/

INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION IN EAST ASIA Assessing policy approaches to improving the environmental performance of industry within rapidly industrialising economies | BY DAVID P. A NGEL

AND

➤ In the rapidly industrialising countries of East Asia, urban-industrial growth has been accompanied by lowincome inequality, increases in per capita income and significant declines in poverty and child mortality. This growth has also been accompanied by substantial increases in air and water pollution, resource degradation, escalating energy use, and attendant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Most analysts agree that declining environmental quality within the region is closely tied to failures of policy and weakness of institutions. Where environmental regulatory institutions have been strengthened and well resourced, as, for example, in Singapore, Malaysia and Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), the result has been a reduction in industrial pollution, land degradation and other environmentally damaging processes.

However, especially within the lower income economies in the region, incremental improvements in environmental regulatory policy typically have been over-ridden by the scale effects of increased production, consumption and resource use. In response to these challenges, countries have begun to 4 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

M ICHAEL T. R OCK

explore additional approaches to improving the environmental performance of industry, including the direct integration of economic and environmental policy within a framework of what has been labelled ‘policy integration.’

In this article we report on research that seeks to document achievements in one particular form of policy integration, i.e., the integration of environmental concerns into the mandate of economic development agencies within the region.

Nowhere in the world is the challenge of industrial transformation of greater significance than in the rapidly industrialising and urbanising economies of developing Asia. The share of industrial output in Asia increased from approximately 10% of global output in 1950 to 30% in 1995; its share is expected to reach 55% to 60% by 2025. Unless there are technological and other changes that reduce the energy, materials, water and pollution intensities of industrial production, these absolute increases in industrial output will presage equally large increases in resource use and pollution.

industrial transformation IT IN EAST ASIA

Fig. 1. PM 10 in Chinese Taipei

Micrograms per cubic meter

Energy use in developing Asia, including India and China, is predicted to increase from 84.5 quadrillion BTU in 2000 to 177.9 quadrillion BTU in 2020. GHG emissions in Asia are expected to more than double over the next 20 years. Sometime between 2015 and 2020, Asia will likely overtake the OECD countries as the largest source worldwide of GHG emissions. Understanding the factors that determine the rate of adoption by industry of technologies that are less energy, materials and pollution intensive is thus a critical policy priority for East Asia and the other rapidly industrialising economies of Asia. Due to its openness to trade and investment and the pace of economic change, East Asia has emerged as a test case for putting in place policies and institutional frameworks that harness contemporary processes of economic globalisation with the twin goals of environmental improvement and poverty reduction.

As within the OECD economies, the foundation of the policy approach towards improving the environmental performance of industry within East Asia is environmental regulation. During the 1970s and 1980s, many of the developing economies of Asia established an institutional framework of environmental laws and associated institutions of environmental monitoring and regulation. The resources available to these institutions, and the effectiveness of monitoring and enforcement of environmental laws, vary widely within the region. In many of the higher income countries strong institutions of environmental protection are in place. Traditional command and control regulatory policies have increasingly been supplemented by market-based policy instruments and by so-called third generation policy approaches based upon performance measurement and information disclosure. In an effort to improve the environmental performance of industry, several countries in the region have also turned to institutions that traditionally have not played a large role in environmental protection, including agencies of economic and industrial development. Policy makers are now attempting to internalise environmental considerations within the basic economic decision making of firms and industries, and within the policies of the economic and industrial development agencies that bear primary responsibility for promoting industrial and urban growth.

Interest in linking economic and environmental performance within agencies of economic development has a number of roots. First, agencies of economic development in many cases work closely with firms and industries in efforts to improve technological and managerial capability. Second, economic development agencies have access to a wider range

of resources and policy tools that can be brought to bear on improving economic and environmental performance, including policies related to investment approval, market access, facility licensing or land-use planning. Third, in contrast to the relatively weak position of many freestanding environmental regulatory agencies within developing Asia, economic and industrial development agencies typically are well resourced and have important positions of influence with respect to industrial and development planning in industrialising economies. Stated another way, economic and industrial development agencies are embedded in the economic process – in the fundamentals of investment, technology development and trade – in ways that nascent environmental agencies typically are not. However, many observers suggest that the economic priorities of economic and industrial development agencies are in fundamental conflict with environmental improvement, and that efforts to integrate environmental goals into the mandate of these agencies is destined to fail.

Some of the earliest examples of policy integration are seen in the first-tier East Asian newly industrialised economies of Singapore and Chinese Taipei. Economic development agencies in both of these economies were heavily involved in strengthening industrial capacity, promoting technology upgrading and developing firm-based capacities for innovation and improvement. These economies took a similar approach to improving the environmental performance of firms and industries in the region. In Singapore and Chinese Taipei, policy makers recognized that environmental success depended on linking new environmental agencies with decision-makers in more powerful economic development and industrial promotion agencies. Close relations with those agencies proved critical in gaining support for environmental improvement in government and business and identifying cost effective abatement options as well as opportunities for lowering the energy, water and material intensities of production. Singapore gave its Ministry of the Environment (MOE) an important seat at the industrial polIHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003 | 5

industrial transformation IT IN EAST ASIA

Taipei used approximately 100 tons of water in the production of 1 ton of paper.

Today most paper mills use 10 to 15 tons of water per ton of paper, and IDB is working with industry to reduce water use to below 10 tons.

One of the most significant efforts to integrate economic and environmental policy in East Asia is the Model City programme in China. Building upon an earlier urban environmental indicators programme, the State Environmental Protection Agency in China has launched a programme that commits cities to achieving specific near term goals for up to 27 environmental parameters, ranging from ambient air quality to treatment of hazardous waste. The key operational element of the Model City programme is the coordination of activities across the full range of economic and industrial development agencies within the city, under the direction of the mayor. In the coastal city of Quingdao, a key priority for the programme is the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions from coal-fired boilers. Over the past three years the city has eliminated more than 2200 coal-fired boilers through a combination of factory closures, fuel switching, and tax and financing incentives.

Given the rate of urban-industrial growth in developing Asia, improvements in environmental quality depend on securing dramatic improvements in the energy, resource and pollution intensity of economic activity – on Industrial Transformation. In seeking to improve the environmental performance of industry, economies in the region are experimenting with a variety of alternative policy approaches that go well beyond traditional environmental regulation. These policy experiments offer the prospect that industrialising economies in Asia can take a different path to improving environmental performance from that pursued by OECD economies over the past several decades. We are currently engaged in ongoing research that seeks to document the approach taken in these policy initiatives, as well as the results achieved in several East Asian economies.

Percent of days

Fig. 2. Percentage of days – PSI > 100 in Chinese Taipei

R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm ➤

6 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

➤

icy table by linking the promotional decisions of its investment promotion agency, the Economic Development Board, and the infrastructure decisions of its premier infrastructure agency, the Jurong Town Corporation, to a requirement that firms receiving support meet the environmental requirements of the MOE. In Chinese Taipei, the Industrial Development Board (IDB) provided tax incentives to firms for the purchase of pollution control equipment. IDB also provided assistance to firms to engage in a global scan of best available technologies and encouraged firms to meet international industry best practice standards in environmental performance. It invested in the creation of a state-of-the-art research programme on the energy, water, materials and pollution intensities of Taiwanese industries in the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), the premier science and technology institute in Chinese Taipei.

Figures 1 and 2 show two measures of air quality in Chinese Taipei for the period 1985-2001. The first indicator, small particulate matter (PM10), decreased from 96.62 micrograms per cubic meter in 1985 to 57.87 micrograms in 2001. The pollution standards index (PSI), which measures the percentage of days in which air quality rises above a PSI of 100, decreased from 13.72% of days in 1985 to 3.42% in 2001. Many factors contributed to this improvement, including a restructuring of the sectoral composition of industry, the movement of some high polluting industries out of the country, fuel switching, and tighter regulation of mobile sources of air pollution. A major contributor to the reduction in industrial emissions was the work of the IDB and ITRI in promoting the adoption of pollution control technology and subsequently a shift toward clean production.

IDB funded detailed economic and engineering studies within key industrial sectors, such as cement, steel and textiles, seeking to benchmark international best practice to identify cost effective technologies that would reduce resource and pollution intensities. One example of these policies is the improvement in water efficiencies in the paper industry in Chinese Taipei. Twenty years ago paper mills in Chinese

DAVID P. A NGEL is Professor of Geography and Laskoff Professor of Economics, Technology and the Environment at Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA; dangel@clarku.edu M ICHAEL T. R OCK is Professor of Economics and Chair of the Department of Economics and Management at Hood College, Frederick, MD, USA; rock@hood.edu

interview

CLAUDE FUSSLER

➤ The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is a coalition of international companies united by a shared commitment to the three pillars of sustainable development: economic growth, ecological balance and social progress.

Claude Fussler is Director for Stakeholder Relations at the WBCSD in Geneva, Switzerland. In this role Mr. Fussler works with UN agencies, OECD, the European Commission and major environmental organisations to improve the business sectors’ contribution to sustainable development.

He is Vice President of Dow Europe, seconded to the WBCSD and a board member of the Stockholm Environment Institute.

Q: Mr. Fussler, how do you see the role of business in decoupling economic growth from the environmental burden?

Decoupling is a very important theme for business. The World Business Council on Sustainable Development is a think tank that works with 160 companies, representing mainly advanced business. The group is also addressing the issue of decoupling – we call it ‘eco-efficiency’. It is essential to achieve more quality of life with less environmental impact. Decoupling has two dimensions: first, decoupling of industrial sites so that people produce more with less water, less waste and less energy. Here decoupling is possible from an engineering and design point of view. The second dimension, decoupling of consumption, is more tricky. How can we decouple products from population and consumption growth? It is technically possible, but business will not be able to do it alone. For example, 3-liter cars are available on the market, and so are low energy lamps, but the price signals are not inducing change at the right pace. The market needs to provide incentives for saving energy. Over the next 25 years we will need massive decoupling, particularly in the consumption sector. We will therefore also need a market reform that stimulates consumers in the direction of eco-efficiency.

Q: What in your opinion is the role of science in achieving sustainability?

Everything we do has to be science-grounded as we develop new technologies that use less energy and produce less waste. For example, advancements in nano-technology and information technology are scientifically based. Science is needed to better understand the carrying capacity of the earth, i.e., how much material flow the earth can take.

Decoupling has not yet moved far enough; the process is rather slow. Science is needed both in technology and in environmental change. The social and human sciences too will help us to understand better how to get people to change their collective actions, how to make sustainability a new culture. Research is needed to develop and establish this new culture, and here human and social sciences play an important role.

Q: How can business co-operate with the scientific community?

A lot of co-operation is already going on and this is important for business. The member companies of the

WBCSD, in particular all technology companies, employ many scientists, and scientists are also involved at the government and European Commission levels. Many scientific institutions undertake pre-competitive projects, where researchers and business work together. For example, to develop sustainable production systems, business, institutions and academia get together in workshops and projects to define strategies for moving towards a sustainable development. This co-operation in the form of joint projects and conferences is very important.

Q: In which areas of the IHDP Industrial Transformation (IT) research agenda can business make the largest contributions, and what is your opinion about the research foci and framework selected by IT? Business is best at production and consumption systems.

The key is how we produce and consume goods, and business can have tremendous impact here, provided macroeconomic systems and an incentive structure are in synergy. Business needs to be involved as a partner, as it is a key player in production and consumption systems. If business is not acting in the right way, production and consumption will not be right either.

Concerning the research undertaken by the Industrial Transformation Project of IHDP, business, as I just mentioned, is a prime actor in the research fields of production and consumption systems. In research on macroeconomic systems and incentive structure, business is a partner but society makes its choices. The research focus on governance and transformation processes, in combination with macrosystems and incentive structure, provides the framework. Implementation, however, has to happen in the other four research foci (energy and material flows, food, cities, and information and communications) and in both production and consumption systems.

Q: How can the human dimensions research community and, in particular, the Industrial Transformation research community strengthen co-operation with the WBCSD? The World Business Council is certainly interested in strengthening co-operation. We are a Council, a think tank that is advising business. I see our function as a bridge to macrosystems, governance and transformation structure.

There is a strong interest on our part in governance and incentive systems. We already have had some preliminary discussions with senior researchers of the IT project and will be glad to develop these links further. The best way would be to involve both business representatives and researchers in workshops, conferences and joint projects.

I NTERVIEW B Y E LISABETH DYCK IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003 | 7

Photo:T. Ribolowski

MAKING SUSTAINABILITY A NEW CULTURE

industrial transformation TRINKET ISLAND

TRANSITIONS IN AN ISLAND SOCIETY A Biophysical Reading of Society-Nature Interactions | BY S IMRON J IT S INGH ➤ It has often been argued that society’s environmental relations and related processes of environmental degradation changed dramatically when society moved from a predominantly agrarian mode of production to an industrial one [1,2]. This “great transformation” [3] in the area of production and social relations occurred first in Northern and Central Europe as an endogenously driven process. To a degree unknown before, this transformation has caused changes in environmental relations, natural resource utilisation and the use of ecosystems services [2,4,5].

The process of industrialisation has not yet come to a standstill. A large part of the world’s population is living in an agricultural environment. These societies are now moving towards the “new” industrial mode of production. Whatever similarities to the past that we might find, the current processes of extending industrial systems and including agricultural regions are primarily externally driven. Hence the processes of change might differ considerably from the first transition in Europe. Nevertheless, the potential for environmental exploitation might be rather similar.

In 1947 the Nicobar Islands became part of the new Indian Republic. India’s policy for these islands assumed both a “protectionist” and a “civilising” approach. The former was enforced by special legislation in 1956, the Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation, and the latter by a series of welfare programmes, such as education, health, improved horticulture and breeding, telecommunications, copra pricesupport schemes and subsidised market products. Much of these recent processes contributed to the emergence of a new, modern identity among the Nicobarese, an important driving factor in adopting a more consumer-oriented lifestyle, comparable to that of mainland India. Owing to this process of acculturation, the islanders’ needs cannot be met without changes in technology and the existing metaphysical and social values. This article addresses the ongoing biophysical changes in the Trinket society and its natural environment as a result of a shift from a subsistence to a trade-dependent economy.

CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS

TRANSITION ON THE ISLAND OF TRINKET

Photo: S.J. Singh

One such example of an externally driven transition is the island of Trinket in the Nicobar Archipelago in the Bengal Sea. Traditionally living from hunting, gathering, fishing and pig rearing, the inhabitants of Trinket are now largely horticulturalists and have engaged in copra production for export for more than 50 years. In exchange they import commodities such as rice, sugar, cloth and kerosene, which they obtain for subsidised prices in the Indian government’s welfare programme. Historically the Nicobar Islands were never completely isolated. Their geographical location on an important sea route to Southeast Asia brought them in close contact with merchants and occasional travellers who anchored off the coast to load food and water during their long sea voyages.

Copra production on the island of Trinket, India.

8 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

Society’s physical interaction with the natural environment, coined “social metabolism”, has been described in the scientific literature [6,7,8,9]. As societies create, reproduce and maintain their material or biophysical components (including the human population), they harmonise – similar to organisms – material and energy flows with their natural environment. They extract primary resources and use them for food, machines, buildings, infrastructure, heating and other products and finally return them to the environment in the form of waste and emissions.

A society’s material and energy demand varies quantitatively and qualitatively, depending on the mode of production, distribution and consumption. This can be accounted for empirically by applying Material Flow Accounting (MFA) and Energy Flow Accounting (EFA) [10,11,6,12,13,14]. The characteristic metabolic profile of a society is based on the amount of material and energy throughput required for production and subsistence [6]. Both MFA and EFA have been widely applied in national economies such as in the USA, Germany, Austria, the UK, the Netherlands and Japan [11,15] and have gained strong political support [16]. The approach provides an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of environmental relations between a local society and its natural environment.

In accounting for material and energy flows, the indicators are Direct Material Input (DMI) and Direct Energy Input (DEI), and both are the sums of imported and domestically extracted material/energy. Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) and Domestic Energy Consumption (DEC) are consumption indicators; these are the actual amounts of material/energy consumed by the society after subtracting exports from the DMI and DEI. If a society is based on an extractive, export-oriented economy, the DMI and DMC might differ considerably. The units used are

industrial transformation TRINKET ISLAND

Fig. 1. Trinket Island: Systems Boundary and Material Flows

metric tons (for materials) and joules (for energy) per capita per year.

MATERIAL AND ENERGY FLOWS FOR TRINKET

Let us consider the biophysical exchanges (material and energy flow) taking place in Trinket’s society, its domestic environment and other societies by way of trade.

Quantitative data show a DMI of 6.2 tons/capita/year.

However, imports are far below the domestic extraction.

Major imports include minerals in the form of construction material, biomass (mainly rice and sugar) and fossil fuels.

Each year a substantial amount of cement and steel is brought to the island for construction of buildings, such as schools, health centres, wells, etc., under tribal welfare schemes. Rice, now a staple diet, has gradually replaced pandanus as the main source of carbohydrate. Fossil fuels have been introduced recently and are needed to run motorboats transporting materials to and from the island.

Most of the biomass requirements (2.3 tons) for Trinket’s socio-economic system is met domestically from the harvest of fuel-wood, coconuts, tubers, fish, and minor forest produce. However, as Fig. 1 indicates, minerals (sand and gravel) account for the majority of materials extracted from the domestic environment. These minerals are partly used on the island as building materials but most of the sand is exported to neighbouring islands for construction of government headquarters. The DMC – or the actual consumption after subtracting exports from DMI – for Trinket was 3.8 tons/capita/year.

In terms of energy flow, 23% of the energy inputs are imported; biomass comes from domestic extraction. The DEI – the sum of imports and domestic extraction – was 39

GJ/capita/year, with 31 GJ biomass energy and only 7.8 GJ fossil fuel. In industrial economies this is reversed.

Subtracting exported energy in the form of copra, the DEC was 35 GJ. When interpreting energy flow data, several points are of interest: (1) the highly inefficient system of animal husbandry (pigs and chickens), which amounts to less than 1% compared to an average of 10% in rural animal husbandry; (2) fossil fuels are the dominant energy carrier (6.4 GJ), compared to fuel-wood (3 GJ) and solar energy (0.009 GJ); (3) of the total fuel-wood consumption (3 GJ), more than half is used in the production of copra (1.6 GJ), while the rest (1.4 GJ) is used for domestic cooking; and (4) the export of biomass energy far exceeds imports, resulting in a one way nutrient flow.

CONCLUSIONS

Trinket follows the pattern of an externally driven transition and transformation, which is representative for the global South. This is due to Trinket’s extractive economy, a growing dependency on trade and a strive for materialism. At the same time the island is exposed to the inherent inequality of the global division of labour [17,18].

MFA and EFA data explicitly show a society that depends on both domestic resources and trade relations.

This is not a recent phenomenon on Trinket. The islands of the Nicobar Archipelago have a long tradition of barter trade due to their geographical location on an important sea route. Now this former barter trade is permanently replaced by a system depending on an “all-purpose” currency as the central exchange value, and on capitalism and the world market. Trinket provides a revealing example of IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003 | 9

industrial transformation IT ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE

“encompassing” a sub-system in an overarching world system [19].

Development programmes are directed at changing the characteristics of the local economy, lifestyle and consumption patterns. However, the traditional economy is embedded in other aspects of social life, and resource exploitation is adjusted to seasonal cycles and availability of resources.

Due to local natural resource constraints, traditional economies are fairly sustainable. Government interventions attempt to lift these constraints by providing frameworks for trade and aid, thus leading to differentiation in the society; the economics are no longer an integral part of the socio-cultural realm, but a separate entity [3]. This inevitably has effects on the social structure and its corresponding environmental relations. New quantities and qualities of industrially processed materials are introduced, markets are created, needs and wants are made to surface, and new values are adopted by society. The three dimensions of environmental

relations – material, socio-structural, and cognitive – are transformed, and together they make up a new set of interactions with nature.

A longer version of this article was published in Singh et al., 2001 [20]. References are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm.

S IMRON J IT S INGH is a Researcher and Lecturer in the Department of Social Ecology, Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Vienna, Austria; simron.singh@univie.ac.at; www.iff.ac.at/socec

The author is grateful to the Government of India (Department of HRD, Ministry of HRD) for financial support of the fieldwork; to the Andaman and Nicobar Administration for logistical support on the islands; and to INTACH, New Delhi, for institutional support of the project.

A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE? An economic perspective on industrial transformation | BY R EYER G ERLAGH ➤ Maintaining economic growth has been a major concern of economists ever since Ricardo and Marx. The subject gained public interest through the early reports to the Club of Rome, which successfully convinced the public that the earth has a limited capacity to supply resources for production and, even though it provides an environment that absorbs our waste, it cannot support a permanent exponential growth of supply and demand for any commodity. Over the last decades several countries experienced a decoupling between economic growth and local environmental pressure, resulting in increasing income and decreasing emissions of local pollutants. However, many global environmental problems, such as climate change, loss of rain forests, soil erosion and loss of biodiversity, do not show such a decoupling, and they are getting worse. The global economy is not on a sustainable track and, unless we give priority to environmental resource conservation, it seems unavoidable that economic welfare will cease to improve.

SUSTAINABILITY – AN OBVIOUS TARGET?

Sustainable development requires that the members of the present generation meet their needs – and too often it is forgotten that this includes the poor – without endangering the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This well-known definition, given in the Brundtland report [1, p.43], can be traced back as far as Aristotle who emphasised the need for successive generations not to constrain future generations in the fulfilment of their preferences. [2, p.69].

Climate change is one of the global environmental problems that has attracted much attention among scientists, including economists, and they have provided policy makers with many contrasting recommendations. Fossil fuel com10 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

AND

E LISSAIOS PAPYRAKIS

bustion for energy generation is still increasing. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mainly carbon dioxide, but also nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, etc.) results in global warming. Common scenarios foresee a doubling of CO2 emissions before the end of the 21st century, and this is expected to lead to an increase in the average global surface temperature by 1 to 6 degrees Celsius [3]. Continued population growth and increased material wealth worldwide make this scenario not unrealistic.

When calculating the cost of climate change, the current scientific understanding is grossly insufficient to provide an overall estimation of the costs of the many complex damages associated with climate change. These complex damages include loss of coastal zones due to sea level rise, loss of biodiversity, spread of vector-borne diseases and the occurrence of extreme climate events. Nonetheless most economic studies assume climate change costs will not exceed 10% of global income for the coming centuries. This implies that, over the next century, welfare increase through economic growth will more than compensate for any welfare loss due to climate change. Concerns for decreasing welfare levels are thus unwarranted.

Many scientists outside the economics discipline strongly disagree with the optimistic conclusion of sustained welfare growth under unconstrained climate change. This optimistic perspective is based on the fundamental assumption of perfect long-term substitutability between man-made and natural capital, which states that, irrespective of future wealth levels, there always exists a compensation for environmental losses in terms of an additional amount of man-made goods.

Although non-economists may consider the assumption highly disputable, its rejection does not lead to an easy con-

industrial transformation IT ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE

nsi

t

s

T

ra

t io n C o s

Fig. 1 shows the development from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Each technology system has its own increasing returns to scale, and specialisation on one system produces the highest level of wealth. A transition from one system to the other will temporarily reduce the benefits of the increasing returns, leading to a decline in wealth.

After the economy has moved to the other system, growth will continue.

clusion. Without perfect substitutability, environmental resources eventually may become too costly to preserve, a phenomenon known to economists as Baumol’s disease [4].

There is an obvious need to improve our understanding of the welfare implications of economic development in a degrading environment. Yet, keeping in mind our lack of knowledge of future preferences, Aristotle’s suggestion for sustainability gives good reason to attempt combining economic growth and environmental protection, and we turn to the question of the costs of sustainability.

SUSTAINABILITY – A COSTLY TARGET?

The majority of economic studies on climate change advocate the adoption of non-aggressive carbon dioxide mitigation regulations that do not prevent climate change [5].

The reason is that the costs of abatement measures are calculated to amount to billions of euros, considered to be too costly a price. But are the costs truly prohibitive? Considering another angle, they may not be. Stabilising the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 close to their current level (about 370 ppm) may cost about 3% of global income by 2100. On a century’s time scale, these costs have a negligible impact on the overall pattern of economic growth and are equal to not more than a few years’ delay in a hundred years’ projection of continued income growth [6,7]. A sustainable development pattern preventing climate change, from this perspective does not appear to be too costly.

Resource conservation remains a burden on economic growth, although the magnitude of the burden is subject to discussions. Some people fear that the costs of resource conservation are progressively increasing for future generations.

To understand the time profile of emission abatement costs, we have to consider the foundations of economic growth.

The output and wealth generated by the economy depend on the set of technologies in use for production, which is only a small subset of all potential technologies available. Through research we slowly advance the set of available technologies, often referred to as our ‘knowledge stock’. Some technologies are environment friendly, compared with others that cause

pollution. In the past most research efforts have been spent, and with success, on developing or selecting technologies that save labour costs, and thus increase labour productivity.

For a sustainable future we will have to search for technologies that increase resource productivity as well, i.e., that decrease the resource intensity of production. When we successfully direct technological change, the cost of decoupling economic growth from resource use can remain within bounds and need not progressively increase. Using climate change as an illustration, calculations with an economic model confirm the hypothesis that directed technological change lowers substantially the cost of stabilising atmospheric greenhouse gases [8].

INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION

An optimistic scenario of increasing wealth and decreasing environmental pressure can be realised when relatively clean technologies start to dominate the market. A move towards resource-extensive technologies, however, is complicated by increasing returns to scale and path dependence.

What are the mechanisms at play? As a technology becomes more widely used by firms and increases its market share, over time learning-by-doing effects decrease the unit cost of production for the specific technology and make it more attractive (cheaper) to firms. In turn, lower costs of the technology further enhance its use. There is a positive feedback from the use of a technology to learning and to its use. This feedback allows the production factors to be increasingly productive over time so that output levels (the ‘returns’ on input) increase faster than inputs; this feature is known as ‘increasing returns to scale’. These returns result in pathdependence, i.e., the course the market will take in the future depends on the path taken in the past. In practice this means that if one technology dominates over another, and the production of this technology accumulates, it will become relatively cheaper and acquire a larger market share. The technology’s dominance will be further reinforced.

Learning-by-doing is one source of increasing returns to scale and path dependence; infrastructural dependence is a IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003 | 11

industrial transformation BIOMASS TRADE

second one. Technology clusters, such as the fossil fuel energy system, have their own infrastructure with substantial setup costs. These infrastructural costs also act as a feedback in favour of technologies that share the same infrastructure.

R&D activities are a third source of increasing returns and path dependence. Innovations that improve dominant technologies with a substantial market share generate substantial profit flows. Such innovations are extremely valuable, while innovations of technologies with minor market shares are of little value. Research centres therefore tend to invest in dominant technologies. In summary, the positive feedback mechanisms strengthen the position of existing dominant technology clusters and reduce the competitiveness of alternative new technologies.

This has two implications. First, once the technology basis of production has been transformed so that it is less dependent on resources such as fossil fuels, a new stable and possibly sustainable development path is reached. Sustainable development need not be a continuing burden on economic growth. Second, the transformation towards such an alternative development path requires substantial effort. At the same time there is much uncertainty as to future developments of technologies. For energy, there are various competing options. Fossil fuels compete with solar energy, wind energy, hydrogen as an energy carrier, and other energy systems. Due to increasing returns, it is impossible to foretell the outcome of the technology competition. Fossil fuels also provide increasing returns to scale and, without action, fossil fuels may remain dominant in the next century. A preference

for sustainable resource use requires a switch towards alternative technologies. Initially these new technologies need some backing to accumulate sufficient knowledge to obtain a market share that enables the exploitation of increasing returns to scale. A stimulus is needed on either the demand side or the technology supply side to set in motion a transition to resource extensive technologies. Tax exemptions and subsidies for non-polluting technologies, financial support and incentives for newly-established technologies to cover set-up costs, and a change of consumer preferences towards goods produced in an environment friendly manner are a few examples of stimuli supporting such a transition.

Whatever the measures adopted may be, it should be clear that part of the uncertainty about future developments in technology and sustainability of economic growth can be resolved by taking a definite position. In a global economy, a global effort to stimulate sustainable development is needed more than ever.

R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm R EYER G ERLAGH is an Associate Professor at the Institute for Environmental Studies, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; reyer.gerlagh@ivm.vu.nl; www.vu.nl/ivm E LISSAIOS PAPYRAKIS is a PhD student at the same institute; elissaios.papyrakis@ivm.vu.nl

BIOMASS TRADE – AN OPTION FOR THE FUTURE? Agricultural land in tropical countries could significantly improve the biomass contribution to energy supply | BY J OSÉ R. M OREIRA ➤ Biomass fuels have good prospects of becoming a tradable good. However, further research is necessary to investigate the sustainability of such a trade. Current knowledge about the potential of actual biomass production for providing energy on a regional scale is rather limited. It depends on a very complex set of physiological, technical, socio-economic, political and cultural factors. Key issues include the extent to which agriculture can be modernised, and which ecological and economic criteria will be set for large-scale use of bio-energy. Some criteria, such as safe food production and protecting pristine areas and forests, may be key constraints to bio-energy. The IHDP Industrial Transformation Project is considering to launch a major programme that aims to investigate these issues.

GLOBAL BIOMASS YIELDS

Biomass energy yields from several plant sources with promising photosynthetic efficiencies are compared in Fig. 1.

In a temperate climate, such as the USA, biomass varieties, 12 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

including wood, maize and Alama switchgrass, show much lower yields than plants (eucalyptus and sugarcane) produced in a tropical climate, e.g., in Brazil and Zambia. The major conclusion is that primary energy production can be performed more efficiently on water abundant tropical soils than on temperate ones. Yields are 3 to 6 times higher on tropical soils.

BIOFUEL

It is important to quantify the amount of secondary renewable energy since the use of renewable sources may involve conversion efficiencies from primary to secondary energy that differ from conventional energy sources.

Compared with fossil fuel, conversion efficiencies of renewables are often reported to be very low, due to large amounts of energy wasted in the transformation process. For example, the conversion of maize to ethanol, and rapeseed to biodiesel are good examples of secondary energy sources in temperate countries with low conversion efficiencies. Several

industrial transformation BIOMASS TRADE

Fig. 1. Biomass Energy Yields From Several Plants 1400

1330

EUCALYPTUS ARACRUZ, BRAZIL

Biomass Yield (GJ/ha/yr)

1200

1010

1000

SUGARCANE (Total above ground biomass)

800

MAIZE, USA (grain + stover)

600

400

WOOD FROM COMMERCIAL FORESTS, USA

630

ALAMO SWITCHGRASS USA 425

430

450

250

225

200 40

80

0 Low Estimate High Estimate Average yield 1985–87

Record yield Global average Average yield Average yield, Average yield, Iowa, USA, yield, 1987 Zambia 5 experimental years 2–6, 1994 (10,000 ha) plots, Texas, experimental 1993–94 plots, Alabama

Average commercial yield (80,000 ha) 1986–91

Maximum yield 1986–91

Source: Climate Change 1995. IPCC Second Assessment Report

evaluations concluded that ethanol production derived from maize requires the use of 70 to 100% of the final energy content of ethanol in the form of fossil fuels. A recent review study prepared by CONCAWE (www.concawe.be) for the Europe Union concludes: 1. Comparing the energy required for producing biofuel to the energy content of substituted gasoline or diesel, Rapeseed Methyl Ester (RME) represents on average a saving of 37% of the energy contained in the fuel. Ethanol from beets or wheat leads on average to no energy saving, since the energy used for production is virtually equal to the energy in the ethanol produced.

2. In reality the savings are somewhat larger, since the production of gasoline or diesel also consumes energy, which is saved if a biofuel is substituted. On this basis, the energy saving for RME is 47% and for ethanol 17% on average.

The greenhouse gas (GHG) balance can be calculated in the same way by comparing the net GHG emissions from producing biofuel with the emissions from producing and burning fossil fuel with the same energy content. The CO2 emitted during combustion of biofuel does not enter into the balance because it is absorbed from the atmosphere by crops.

Effective use of by-products can improve the energy and GHG balances. The ethanol production process includes protein-rich by-products, which may replace crops grown specifically for animal feed. The RME production also yields animal feed and glycerine. Table 1 shows figures with and without animal feed credits. From these figures we conclude that introducing 5% of biofuel (on an energy basis) on the European Union market would at best replace about 1.6% of gasoline and 2.8% of diesel by ethanol and RME, respective-

ly. In theory additional credits can be achieved by using waste biomass to provide fuel for the production process. This is, however, not the general practice and the exact credit figures and economic benefits are rather uncertain at this time.

CONVERSION EFFICIENCIES

Contrary to the poor secondary energy transformation in temperate countries, sugarcane, a common crop in tropical countries, has a much better conversion efficiency, even when simple technologies are used. In Brazil sugarcane juice is converted to fuel ethanol by simple but efficient technologies. New legislation motivates sugar mills to produce surplus electricity, which is sold to the electricity grid. The primary sugarcane energy value is stored in three different forms of biomass – juice, sugarcane bagasse and sugarcane residues, each one representing one third of the total amount. The residues are often burned before harvesting, and the bagasse is burned in the mills to produce the energy required for juice extraction and conversion to sugar or ethanol. Due to this self-sufficient energy production, the industrial processing of sugarcane to ethanol does not require any fossil fuel. However, crop planting, fertilising, harvesting and transportation require the use of fossil fuel.

Several energy balance evaluations conclude that about 16% of the total alcohol energy content is due to fossil fuel consumed in the agricultural and industrial phases. This means that one unit of energy (alcohol) requires 0.16 units of fossil fuel plus almost another unit of biomass stored in the sugarcane bagasse. The current practice in Brazil consumes 90% of the sugarcane bagasse energy to provide heat and power to the mills. The 10% surplus energy is often sold to other agroindustries.

IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003 | 13

industrial transformation BIOMASS TRADE

% Savings Animal feed credit

Ethanol

RME

Without

With

Without

With

Energy savings

17

31

47

56

GHG savings

26

37

53/7*

58/21*

Source: www.concawe.be

As far as energy efficiency is concerned, 1.06 units of energy are consumed for the production of one unit of secondary energy in the form of alcohol. Thus the conversion efficiency is 48.5%, i.e., each unit of sugarcane energy transported to the mill replaces only 0.48 units of energy from gasoline. This is a better result than in temperate countries, but it is still low.

ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION

14 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

* Including IPCC N2O emissions evaluation

planted forests would be able to supply only 13.2% of the total secondary energy demand.

If agricultural land in tropical countries instead of temperate ones were used, this would improve significantly the biomass contribution to energy supply. Planting sugarcane crops over an area of 1.43 million km2 can yield 100 EJ/yr of secondary energy (alcohol fuel and electricity). Since most of the unused agricultural land is available in South/Central America and Africa, it is possible to extract around 500 EJ/yr from an area of 7 million km2 on these continents. This represents 50% of the total secondary energy demand by 2100 under the most energy intensive scenario of the IPCC. TRADING BIOMASS FUEL

Comparing biomass energy yields from tropical and temperate soils, it is easy to justify a preference for the former. If this can be realised, it could lead to an intensive trade of biomass fuels between the North and the South.

The transport infrastructure of oil and oil derivatives could be used for transporting liquid biofuel at about the same cost.

The situation is more complex for electricity. The current production of electricity (80 kWh/tonne of cane) from sugarcane grown on an area of 1.43 million km2 (which yields 100 tonnes of cane per year and per ha) is 1,144 TWh/yr; this is higher than the current electricity consumption in South/Central America (951 TWh/yr in 2001). The region could probably absorb this amount of electricity by the year 2050, replacing fossil fuel based plants. Biomass gasification and combined cycle gas turbines using sugarcane bagasse and residues could become a common technology in the next decade, delivering 400 kWh/tonne of cane. As higher sugarcane yields can be expected in the future, the electricity resulting from 1.43 million km2 would exceed 7,000 TWh/yr (the current world consumption is almost 14,000 TWh/yr).

As such amounts of electricity cannot be consumed in South/Central America or Africa by 2050, installing electricity intensive industries in those regions would be worth considering. Another alternative is to use the surplus electricity to produce hydrogen, which could then be traded and transported by sea. ➤

More promising results are achieved by a technology for ‘energy co-production’ that is used in about 10% of all mills in Brazil. When burning sugarcane bagasse in medium-pressure boilers, surplus electricity can be produced and then sold to the grid. The most efficient unit sells 80 kWh per tonne of cane processed. This amount of electricity equals 288 MJ. Each tonne of processed cane results in 80 litres of ethanol, i.e., an energy value of 1,700 MJ per tonne of cane.

Thus electricity co-production represents an increase in the secondary energy content of alcohol by 17%. This changes our earlier conversion efficiency figure. The new figure is 57%, roughly double the value that can be achieved in temperate countries (see Table 1).

A higher primary productivity (3 to 6-fold) and better secondary energy efficiencies (2-fold) in tropical areas indicate that about 6 to 12 times more land would be required in temperate countries to produce usable energy from biomass.

Such figures are very important, as large areas of land must be dedicated to biomass if we expect a significant contribution of this renewable energy source to mitigate climate change.

The IPCC Third Assessment Report concludes that by using 12.8 million km2 of the available 25 million km2 of agricultural land on the globe, it is possible to produce 440 EJ/yr of primary biomass energy. This figure assumes 300 GJ/ha/yr from an average productivity of a forest plantation.

Using wood as the primary form of biomass, it is possible to obtain electricity at a conversion efficiency of 30%. Thus from the 440 EJ/yr of primary energy it will be possible to produce 132 EJ/yr of secondary energy as electricity. The same IPCC document foresees a global primary energy demand in the range of 550 to 2700 EJ/yr by the year 2100.

The associated amount of secondary energy can be calculated based on the present and future conversion efficiencies; between 200 and 1000 EJ/yr will be required. Assuming the higher value, the main conclusion is that, using all the surplus agricultural land expected by 2050 (12.8 million km2),

Table 1.

Energy and GHG Savings for Different Varieties of Biomass-Derived Fuels

J OSÉ R OBERTO M OREIRA is President of the Council of the National Reference Center on Biomass (CENBIO), Sao Paulo, Brazil; bun2@tsp.com.br

young scientist research S U S TA I N A B L E WAT E R U S E

THE ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABLE WATER USE Comparisons and lessons from urban areas | BY JASPER M. DALHUISEN supply, conflicts of interest between the various types of users may occur.

As a result of different economic and social developments, urbanisation patterns differ across Europe. In Southern and Eastern Europe, cities experienced rural-tourban migration combined with high birth rates, causing a rapid population growth throughout the 1960s and the 1970s. In contrast, population growth declined in Western Europe in cities; this was followed by a spatial expansion of cities leading to sub-urbanisation and ultimately ‘de-urbanisation’. These differences in population growth and urbanisation patterns call for varying policy instruments and approaches to fulfil the inhabitants’ needs for urban services.

A main task is to bring urban development into equilibrium with the capacity of the ecosystem, to provide life-supporting functions, and to minimise pressures on the local, regional and global environment. This concept is described in the framework of the IHDP IT Project as the decoupling of human activities, which sustain life in cities, from the hydrological cycle. Thus an appropriate management of scarce amounts of freshwater should be addressed in combination with other urban planning issues.

In my own research, I focussed on a theoretical framework of water demand models, the theory of water policy and an evaluation of the effectiveness of price instruments.

By means of a meta-analysis of water provision in the urban areas of Amsterdam, Athens, London, Seville and Tel Aviv, and existing studies that describe the economic instruments and measurements in water management, the effects of these instruments and measurements are described with respect to more efficient use of water. When network performance is used as an indicator, privatisation of water provision does not result in a more efficient use of water. However, integrated water management may decrease the transaction costs of water provision, but price instruments provide the most significant means to bring water use on a more sustainable path. Wise usage of tariff systems and more attention to economics will be valuable for sustainable water policies. ➤

This article is based on “The Economics of Sustainable Water Use, Comparisons and Lessons from Urban Areas”, by Jasper M. Dalhuisen. Thela thesis (see www.thelathesis.nl). ➤

➤ For many years the allocation of water resources has been the subject of disputes between countries or among various user groups. Water disputes or water scarcity are a problem in many developing countries. However, huge efforts are also necessary in developed countries to satisfy the demand for an adequate supply of water, as a rapid population growth increases the need for a more efficient use of water for both consumption and production of goods and services. Securing a balanced water supply poses numerous problems, which call for investments in infrastructure that enable us to store and regulate water.

Traditionally, public policy has had considerable influence on the water sector, particularly on the provision of drinking water, as governments in most countries have played and still play an important role in providing an adequate water supply. Nevertheless, we also observe changes, since in some countries governments gradually withdraw from water management.

In the past, water management has been dominated by technical sciences. Meeting an increasing demand for water was often solved by capital-intensive supply measures, such as building an extra dam or a purification installation. Today, the capital intensity of the water sector is growing. In the Netherlands, for example, 80% of expenses in this sector are non-salary costs. As technical measures alone have failed to manage adequately the various functions of water, a more economic approach is required. The problems of the last decades can be characterised as those of water scarcity, which is at the core of economics.

The increasing attention to scarcity of water and a more sustainable use of water resources calls for a balance between water demand- and supply-oriented measures. Economic measurements and instruments provide, to a certain extent, the right means for this purpose. A central question is the effectiveness of economic policy measures and instruments in urban areas and ways to apply them in achieving a more sustainable use of water.

For several reasons water issues are of interest in an urban context. A significant demand for water is due to the high concentration of people living in cities. In developed countries, about 70 percent of the population live in urban areas (with more than 25,000 inhabitants) and this number is still rising. During 1950-1990, the urban population increased considerably, and an adequate supply of clean water is an important precondition for a successful development.

Appropriate management systems need to be established to cope with the increased stress resulting from a growing population. However, an appropriate water management system cannot consider the urban area in isolation. In highly populated areas, the water resources necessary to supply drinking water tend to be located far away from the city borders.

When water is extracted from the immediate surroundings of cities, which may play a vital role in recreation and food

JASPER M. DALHUSIEN is with the Department of Nature Management, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries (LNV), The Hague, The Netherlands; J.M.Dalhuisen@N.agro.nl;

IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003 | 15

young scientist research PROFETAS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FOOD PRODUCTION A comparison of pork and Novel Protein Foods chains | BY X UEQIN Z HU ➤ The current manner in which food is produced and consumed has considerable impacts on the environment.

Growing populations of humans and livestock demand an increased production of food and feed crops and a competitive use of the limited available cropland. Due to the growing environmental impact and the competition between food and feed crops, the protein production and consumption chain offers good possibilities to optimise sustainability.

The IHDP IT endorsed research programme PROFETAS (Protein Foods, Environment, Technology And Society), a Dutch multidisciplinary research programme (www. profetas.nl), studies protein chains and the prospect of replacing meat in the western diet with plant protein products, so-called ‘Novel Protein Foods’ (NPFs). PROFETAS is based on the hypothesis that a shift in the Western diet from animal to plant proteins is environmentally more sustainable than the present situation, technologically feasible, and socially desirable. The ultimate goal of PROFETAS is to provide a toolbox, which will facilitate solving future problems related to food production and consumption.

Our study is part of this research programme, investigating the production and consumption chains of pork and NPFs, and assessing their environmental impacts in the search for alternative development pathways that have a significantly smaller burden on the environment. A systematic description of the chains, a life cycle assessment (LCA) and the development of environmental indicators are the major methodologies.

The pork chain includes a large variety of processes (see Fig. 1). The NPFs chain (Fig. 2) includes fewer processes, since it does not comprise animal production. In evaluating the environmental impacts of both chains, we have to consider all relevant processes. Using LCA, an inventory of all inputs and outputs along the chains was made. These inputs and outputs were linked to resource use and environmental emissions. Animal production requires large quantities of water to grow feed crops and, to a lesser extent, animal consumption, which impacts on water resources. The use of energy contributes to global warming due to CO2 emissions, acidification due to SO2 and NOx emissions, and depletion of scarce energy resources. The land for crops is directly related to soil erosion because of the reduced fertility and produc-

Crops

Feed Industry

Pig Farming

tivity of the soil. The use of agro-chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) is related to eutrophication, as minerals (N and P) enter the soil and water system. It is also related to eco-toxicity and human toxicity because minerals (N and P) and heavy metals (Zn, Cu) are deposited in the eco-system and human body. Animal production causes emissions of a large number of pollutants, such as NH3, CH4 and N2O. Emissions of NH3 may lead to acidification and eventually eutrophication, while emitted CH4 and N2O contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Environmental indicators can provide valuable information on complex issues. To identify the environmental problems caused by the inputs and outputs along the chains, we developed two types of environmental pressure indicators: emission indicators and resource use indicators. The emissions contributing to the same environmental impact can be aggregated into one indicator. For the protein chains we focused on three emission indicators: CO2 equivalents, NH3 equivalents and N equivalents, and three resource use indicators: water use, land use and pesticide use for assessing environmental impacts.

The results of the study show that the pork chain contributes to global warming about 3 times, and to acidification 24 times more than the NPFs chain. As for the eutrophication in soil and water systems, the pork chain contributes 2.7 times more than the NPFs chain. The pork chain also needs 1.9 times more water and at least 1.5 times more land than the NPFs chain. As for pesticide use, however, the NPFs chain needs 1.2 times more pesticide than the pork chain, because feed crops in the pork chain, like tapioca, require almost no pesticides for production.

The study indicates that the NPFs chain is more environment friendly. Replacing animal protein food with plant protein food is a promising approach to reduce environmental pressures. It decreases the pressure on land for feed crops.

From an economic perspective, this approach also provides an opportunity to grow other economic crops on the available land. Changing some inputs in the chains (e.g., animal diets) may result in less environmental pressures. Modifying the protein production and consumption chain offers good possibilities to reduce environmental impact and enhance sustainability.

Meat Processing

Slaughtering

Distribution

Consumer

Fig. 1. Pork production and consumption chain ➤

Peas

NPFs Processing

Distribution

Consumer

Fig. 2. NPFs production and consumption chain 16 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

X UEQIN Z HU, from Wuxi University of Light Industry, P.R. China, is a PhD researcher in the Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands; Xueqin.zhu@wur.nl; www.sls.wau.nl/enr/

essp

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ➤ The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg (26 August – 4 September 2002), and the process leading up to it, caught the attention and engagement of governments, and a multitude of other actors. The purpose of the Summit was to review progress on implementing the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992), and readjust the focus for the years ahead. Despite the media hype that condemned the Summit as a failure, there were good results in many areas. Ambitious time-bound targets were agreed upon, for example, in areas of poverty reduction, access to water and sanitation, biodiversity loss, fishery stocks, and chemicals [1].

In the action plan Agenda 21, adopted by the Rio conference, scientists are identified as one of the Major Groups.

Other groups include women, children and youth, indigenous peoples, NGOs, local authorities, workers and trade unions, business and industry, and farmers, each one with their own Chapter outlining their specific role for sustainable development [2]. The WSSD process included the official participation of representatives of all these groups to levels not seen before in UN conferences. They were included, for example, in Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues with governments, invited to submit reports and take part in Round Table discussions with Heads of State. The International Council for Science (ICSU) together with the World Federation of Engineering Organisations was asked by the UN to facilitate the input from the scientific and technological community.

WHY IS SCIENCE ESSENTIAL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?

Sustainable development at local, regional and global scales represents perhaps the most daunting challenge that humanity has ever faced. Central to all of the many approaches aimed at both identifying unsustainable practices and achieving sustainability are scientific knowledge, access to that knowledge and its application. The great sustainability problems of the 21st century – e.g., poverty alleviation, sustainable food production, clean and accessible water resources, the health of ecosystems and maintenance of biodiversity – all require, as one critical component of their solution, usable scientific knowledge. Thus, whatever the cultural, geographical, economic or environmental setting, a partnership between science and society is a fundamental prerequisite for sustainable development.

HOW CAN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IMPROVE ITS CONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?

In the decade since the adoption of Agenda 21, the scientific community has vastly increased its potential for contributing to sustainable development. Improved understanding of climate variability through time and the ability to make some predictions is, among other things, providing

better warnings of natural phenomena such as El Niño and improving agricultural production. For example, the causes of the ozone hole are understood and an effective societal response has been developed; and understanding of terrestrial carbon dynamics is enabling policy makers to establish CO2 mitigation measures aimed at limiting climate change and its consequences.

Nevertheless, the challenges of the next decade and beyond will require significant changes to the scientific enterprise to improve further its capability to contribute to sustainable development. Accordingly, IHDP, together with its partners IGBP and WCRP, organised a workshop (“Sustainable Development – The Role of International Science”, Paris, February 2002) to which representatives from core projects of the programmes as well as from other ICSU environment-related bodies were invited. The objective of the workshop was to review past achievements and to provide some insights on how science and scientists in the ICSU family may better contribute to sustainable development.

Following the Global Change Open Science Conference in Amsterdam (July 2001) concrete steps are being made to develop a science, which is more relevant for sustainable development. The discussions at the Paris workshop were intense and productive. Participants agreed that in the decade since the drafting of Agenda 21, the scientific community has vastly increased its role in supporting sustainable development but highlighted a new set of challenges, particularly the need for: ➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

More and better science. Research must move beyond a disciplinary focus to address sustainability issues in the framework of complex dynamic systems.

Long-term perspectives. Archives from the past – ice cores, tree rings, archaeological and historical records – must be studied more vigorously to provide trajectories of change, baseline conditions, insights into past societal resilience or fragility and perspectives on projections of future change.

Broad-based, participatory approaches to research.

Traditional divides in the scientific enterprise – among disciplines; between science and policy, business and civil society; between contemporary and traditional approaches – must be bridged from the outset of work to its final applications.

Capacity building and communication. Science for sustainability must be undertaken globally; the scientific community in the North must better engage and support colleagues in the South.

Education and communication. The wider need for education in sustainability issues implies increased engagement by scientists in primary education, teacher training and public communication of scientific results. The value and results of science in meeting the sustainability challenge in all parts of the globe must be communicated effectively.

IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003 | 17

essp

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MERGING AGENDAS

The results of the Paris workshop discussions were summarised in a short document [3] that was sent to ICSU as input to the report they were preparing for the fourth and last preparatory meeting of the WSSD in Bali in June 2002.

ICSU incorporated a significant part of the suggestions from the workshop [4]. The major outcome of the WSSD is the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. It is a 54-page document [5] and in the area of science the Plan puts emphasis on: ➤ ➤

➤ ➤

capacity building in developing countries; improving decision-making through improved collaboration between natural and social sciences, and scientists and policy makers; local and indigenous knowledge; making more use of integrated and international scientific assessments.

The discussions from our research community and from the global policy community are thus clearly converging around shared priorities. A major challenge to the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP, which comprises IGBP, IHDP, WCRP and DIVERSITAS) is then how we move ahead to

carbon, food systems and water. There are also some thoughts on working on global scale indicators for sustainable development. In an effort to increase the direct dialogue between our programmes and the global policy-making community, IGBP, IHDP and WCRP were invited to the 17th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Delhi in October 2002. The above ESSP programmes provided statements to the plenary, as well as actively contributed to the discussions in an official question-and-answer side event. SBSTA particularly had in mind to collect inputs on the content for the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Science has already achieved much in support of sustainable development. To ensure sustainable development for all of the planet’s people and for the Earth as a whole, now and into the future, the Earth System Science community should commit to helping to build an improved, integrative, participatory and usable science that is applicable from local to global scales.

ICSU, at its 27th General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro in September 2002, adopted several resolutions aimed at raising the attention of the scientific community to such fundamental commitments. ICSU has just launched a “Priority Area Assessment of Environment in Relation to Sustainable Development”. The review will include participation from all four ESSP programmes and will be finalised in June 2003.

Furthermore, ICSU in consultation with other partners, is setting up an ad hoc planning committee for developing a science plan for sustainable development [6].

There is thus a larger context within which the ESSP activities in this area are taking place. For comments and input on the results of the Paris workshop and ideas for future action please contact Sylvia Karlsson at the IHDP Secretariat (karlsson. ihdp@uni-bonn.de).

REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm

(1) broaden the engagement from our scientists and projects in discussing how we can improve the relevance of our science for sustainable development and (2) set priorities and implement them in the coming ten to fifteen years.

Can we unite around a common vision and together develop ‘our own Agenda 21’? As a first step to support this, a longer report from the Paris workshop is being prepared as a discussion document for the Scientific Committee meetings of the four ESSP programmes in 2003. Initiatives already undertaken by the ESSP include the three joint projects on

18 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

This article is based on the ESSP statement to ICSU, which was a summary of the conclusions from the workshop “Sustainable Development – The Role of International Science”, 4-6 February 2002, Paris [3]. It has been updated by Sylvia Karlsson (IHDP Secretariat) and João Morais (IGBP Secretariat).

core projects GECHS

SOUTHERN AFRICA VULNERABILITY INITIATIVE | B Y M IKE B RKLACICH , K AREN O’B RIEN

AND

M AUREEN WOODROW

who is vulnerable and why, and what can be done about it.

This regional initiative will be closely linked to policy perspectives, as vulnerability is an issue that lies at the interface of science and policy. Indeed, there is a great need and interest among decision-makers to better understand the implications of different policies for vulnerability.

SAVI’s objectives include: ➤ consolidate different facets of vulnerability research and develop an integrated framework for understanding vulnerability within the context of Southern Africa; ➤ develop a proposal for a self-sustaining, longer-term project which integrates vulnerability research with policy formulation; ➤ build a coalition amongst ICSU and other scientists in the region to implement a vulnerability research programme.

Preparatory work for SAVI is now underway. A series of papers aimed at understanding vulnerabilities to environmental and societal change in the region will be commissioned during the first half of 2003, and an inaugural workshop will be held in Southern Africa in June 2003.

Additional information about SAVI will be posted on the GECHS website (www.gechs.org) and is available from gechs@carleton.ca. ➤

M IKE B RKLACICH is Chair of the Scientific Steering Committee of the IHDP Project on Global Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS); mbrklac@ccs.carleton.ca; ➤

K AREN O’B RIEN is a Senior Research Fellow at CICERO in Oslo, Norway, and a member of the GECHS SSC; karen.obrien@cicero.uio.no; ➤

➤ The International Council for Science (ICSU) is supporting a project led by the IHDP Project on Global Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS), which will focus on the vulnerability of Southern Africa to global environmental change (GEC). Nowhere is the need for an integrated vulnerability research initiative more evident today than in Southern Africa. Many of the 195 million people in the region are highly vulnerable to present-day climate variability, as evidenced by frequent droughts and floods. Southern Africa is also considered to be vulnerable to environmental change, particularly long-term climate change. Adaptive capacity in Africa as a whole is considered to be low due to a lack of economic resources and technology. Nevertheless, an array of coping strategies has been developed across the region to reduce vulnerability to variable environmental conditions. Whether these coping strategies can effectively reduce vulnerability to long-term GEC is unclear.

The Southern Africa Vulnerability Initiative (SAVI) will set GEC issues in the broader context of economic and sociopolitical changes, which will undoubtedly continue to be major factors shaping the region’s future. The consequences of multiple processes including economic globalisation, high rates of HIV/AIDS and other health problems, economic malaise, political unrest and rapid urbanisation will have a strong influence on the capacity of individual countries as well as the region as a whole to cope with GEC. The consequences of these changes are expected to vary across the region and have differential implications for vulnerability to GEC, with some areas or social groups becoming less vulnerable to environmental changes and others becoming increasingly vulnerable.

SAVI will bring together diverse research communities to develop a long-term research programme on vulnerability and GEC in Southern Africa. The challenge is to develop and implement a comprehensive framework for understanding the factors that shape vulnerability within Southern Africa, including the dynamics across spatial and temporal scales, linkages between strategies for coping with environmental variability and adaptation to long-term environmental changes, and the impacts of multiple stressors on vulnerability. Furthermore, it is important to identify how different policies can contribute to reducing vulnerability to GEC. This requires an innovative, integrated approach involving different research groups and perspectives on vulnerability.

The project addresses the need for innovative science to promote sustainable development of the global society.

Vulnerability is an emerging issue across a variety of themes and policy agendas, as evidenced by efforts by UNDP, FAO and other international institutions to develop indicators and map vulnerability to different phenomena. Development of a network of researchers who can apply different perspectives to one regional initiative will foster a more holistic understanding of vulnerability, addressing the questions of

M AUREEN WOODROW is Executive Officer, International Project Office of the IHDP GECHS Project; mwoodrow@ccs.carleton.ca; www.gechs.org ➤ The IHDP UPDATE newsletter features the activities of the

International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and its research community.

UPDATE is published by the IHDP Secretariat Walter-Flex-Strasse 3 53113 Bonn, Germany.

EDITOR: Elisabeth Dyck, IHDP; elisabeth.dyck@chello.at LAYOUT AND PRINT: Köllen Druck+Verlag GmbH, Bonn, Germany UPDATE is published four times per year. Sections of UPDATE may be reproduced with acknowledgement to IHDP. Please send a copy of any reproduced material to the IHDP Secretariat.

The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of IHDP or its sponsoring organisations.

IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003 | 19

joint projects GCP

THE GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT COMES OF AGE | B Y O RAN R. YOUNG ➤ The Global Carbon Project (GCP), a joint venture of the three international global change research programmes (IGBP, IHDP and WCRP), is coming of age. Meeting in Tsukuba, Japan in November 2002, the GCP’s Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) engaged in a lively debate about ways to approach the carbon cycle as a coupled human-natural system and made substantial progress toward completing the GCP’s Implementation Plan. In the process the SSC became a forum for vigorous and productive interactions between those whose expertise centres on the physical and biological elements of the carbon cycle and those who are more knowledgeable about the human dimensions of this global system.

Building on the GCP’s prospectus – The Carbon Challenge: An IGBP-IHDP-WCRP Joint Project – published in 2001, the Implementation Plan will lay out a concrete programme of research activities and deliverables addressing the project’s three foci: (1) Patterns and Variability, (2) Mechanisms and Interactions, and (3) Future Dynamics.

This structure features the integration of observational knowledge (Focus 1) and process understanding (Focus 2) in order to contribute to the effective management (Focus 3) of the carbon cycle. Although scientific in character, GCP research is intended to yield results that are policy relevant.

The hallmark of the Implementation Plan is a sustained effort to harmonise research on the biophysical and anthropogenic components of the carbon cycle and find ways to understand how these components interact with each other to drive the carbon cycle as a dynamic system.

We know, for example, that human actions in the last 200300 years have produced concentrations of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere well above anything that occured in the last 420,000 years. However, we are in need of standardised measures of carbon stocks and fluxes in the land, oceans,

VIRGINIA WALSH

†

20 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

➤

Virginia Walsh died on January 24, 2003 after fighting a courageous battle with cancer. At the time of her death, she was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Rutgers University, Newark Campus, USA. Virginia played a pivotal role in launching the IHDP Project on the Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC), serving as the Executive Officer of the International Project Office during 1999-2000. Her research focused on the links between institutions and the production of knowledge. After resuming her duties at Rutgers, Virginia continued her association with IDGEC as a Research Fellow, developing a partnership between the RutgersNewark Center for Global Change and Governance and IDGEC. Virginia will be sorely missed by the IDGEC community.

atmosphere and anthroposphere. A particular concern in this realm is the development of comprehensive national, regional and sectoral carbon budgets that will allow intensive analyses of carbon stocks, changes in stocks and fluxes on a regional scale, together with the integration of human actions affecting the carbon cycle at appropriate scales.

Standardised observations constitute an essential first step. However, the success of the GCP will depend critically on our ability to improve understanding of the mechanisms that control the dynamics of the carbon cycle. The GCP’s Implementation Plan stresses two sets of activities in this realm that are of particular interest to the human dimensions community. One focuses on regional development pathways and seeks to illuminate the carbon consequences of interrelated changes in social, economic and political systems. The other involves efforts to model the coupled carbon-climate-human system including feedback loops driven by human reactions to changes in the Earth’s climate system.

The goal is to identify emergent properties of this coupled system, including surprises, non-linear events and unforeseen homeostatic processes.

Focus 3 emphasises the idea of science for policy management. Embracing the proposition that science should be policy relevant, this component of the GCP is of particular interest to the human dimensions community. An innovative activity in this realm centres on the identification of control points or places in the carbon cycle at which human intervention is likely to prove most effective. To illustrate, there is more scope for intervention when countries are in the process of making long-term investment decisions regarding energy production than during the operating life of the resultant systems. Equally important is the final GCP activity, which focuses on the uses of scientific knowledge to improve the design and implementation of carbon management systems. A central concern is to bring our understanding of institutional arrangements to bear on designing and implementing mitigation and adaptation strategies capable of regulating the carbon cycle without degrading other ecosystem functions and services.

The GCP team is currently completing the Implementation Plan, which will be available for distribution both electronically and in hard copy in early 2003. In the meantime the project’s infrastructure is developing rapidly.

The Canberra office is already functioning. The Japanese government has authorised the establishment of a major GCP office to be located at the National Institute of Environmental Studies in Tsukuba; the project’s leaders are in the process of hiring an executive director to lead the work of this office.

Plans are underway to establish smaller offices in Europe and the United States.

To follow the growth and development of the GCP, or to learn about opportunities to become involved in the activities of the project, consult the project’s website at www.globalcarbonproject.org.

O RAN R. YOUNG is Professor of Environmental Science and Management at the University of California at Santa Barbara and Co-chair of the Global Carbon Project’s Scientific Steering Committee; young@bren.ucsb.ed

national committees AUSTRIA / SWITZERLAND

An Austrian Initiative |

BY

M ARTIN PAYER

AND

K ARL S TEININGER

Past IHDP Executive Director Jill Jäger presents the prize to M. Schmidt (middle) and K. Erb (right).

M ARTIN PAYER (hdp-a@uni-graz.at) and K ARL W. S TEININGER (Chair, karl.steininger@kfunigraz.ac.at) are with the Human Dimensions Programme Austria. Further information on the prize is available at www.hdp-a.at

WATER USE – A SOCIAL SCIENCE ISSUE | B Y T HOMAS S CHEURER

AND

K ATHRIN P IEREN

➤ What are the most vital areas of trans-disciplinary water research? In a two-tiered process, social and natural scientists have identified the three key areas: institutional reform, decision-making processes and integrated water management.

In 2001 the Interacademic Commission for Alpine Studies (ICAS) and the Swiss National HD Committee held a convention in Lucerne on the socio-economic aspects of water use in alpine regions [1]. Although the essential hydrological facts are known, there is still a serious lack of integrative knowledge about correlations between society and water use.

The same conclusion was also made in a report by the Swiss Hydrological Society [2]. Based on the results of the Lucerne conference, a follow-up event in Bern [3] identified current issues in trans-disciplinary water research. The report on both conferences is available from Kathrin Pieren.

Experts have identified sustainable management of water resources as a joint trans-disciplinary research goal. Three vital problem areas have been identified: (1) Switzerland lacks a uniform water policy, owing to conflicting responsibilities and competing directives; (2) truly sustainable use of resources requires institutional reforms more attuned to social and ecological aspects; (3) increasing demands and divergent assessments of public commodities lead to conflicts requiring transparent decision-making and problem-solving processes.

To do so, more research is required in a number of fields.

Various methods and theoretical concepts are available, but not yet established and recognised by the scientific community. Within the social sciences, the necessary co-operation is still lacking. At an international level, the Global Water Systems Project of IGBP, IHDP, WCRP and DIVERSITAS is a point of contact, while the 6th Framework Programme of the EU provides another one. Possible Swiss projects could be the National Research Programmes and Centres of Competence in Research, or the Swiss Water Foundation proposed by the Swiss Hydrological Society. ➤

Photo: E. Dyck

➤ Increasing awareness of the human dimensions of global environmental change (HDGEC) and directing young researchers towards creative research in this field is one of the objectives of the Austrian Human Dimensions Programme (HDP-A). As young scientists decide on their future career paths, dissertations provide an excellent opportunity to create interest and involvement in human dimensions research, thus enlarging IHDP’s international research network.

With this in mind, HDP-A initiated a “Prize for Dissertation Concepts in Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change”. The Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture generously agreed to sponsor this award. Young researchers with innovative ideas for dissertation concepts, or dissertation projects in their initial stage, were eligible to apply. Applicants had to submit a concept and indicate how their planned or ongoing research was related to HDGEC research, e.g., to research questions included in the IHDP science plans. This requirement contributed to increasing awareness about research undertaken

by IHDP’s projects. An international jury with expertise in the various disciplines of HDGEC research evaluated the concepts submitted. The choice was not easy, but finally the expert committee decided to award prizes (each at € 2002) to two young scholars for their outstanding projects: Markus R. Schmidt received the prize for a dissertation concept on “Loss of agro-biodiversity in Vavilov centres, with a special focus on the risks of genetically modified organisms”. The other recipient was Karlheinz Erb, whose dissertation project focuses on “Methods for calculating the ecological footprint of nations in historic time series: Austria 1926–1995”.

In a festive award ceremony held at the University of Graz, Austria, in November 2002, jury member Jill Jäger presented the dissertation concept prizes and gave the keynote address. The event also included a lecture by Dr. Gerhard Berz of Munich Re on impacts of global change on the insurance industry and addresses by representatives from academia and local and national government officials, who stressed the importance of HDGEC research.

We hope that other National Committees will consider similar initiatives, as it not only supports young researchers, but also contributes to strengthening the HDGEC research community. ➤

PROMOTING YOUNG HUMAN DIMENSIONS RESEARCHERS

T HOMAS S CHEURER is Executive Director of the Interacademic Commission for Alpine Studies, Berne; K ATHRIN P IEREN is Scientific Secretary for the Swiss National HD Committee, Berne, Switzerland; pieren@sagw.unibe.ch; (References at www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm) IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003 | 21

conference reports BERLIN / VIENNA

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY TRANSITION

ISSC 50 TH ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE

The IHDP-endorsed 2002 Berlin Conference on

International Conference on Social Science and

the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental

Social Policy in the 21st Century – Vienna,

Change |

Austria, 9-11 December 2002

BY

F RANK B IERMANN

AND

S ABINE C AMPE

Photo: E. Dyck

➤ Do we need new kinds of knowledge or new ways to generate knowledge for the sustainability transition? How does knowledge affect decision-making for sustainability, and how do societal systems influence the ways sustainability knowledge is generated? How can social and scientific institutions be designed, and possibly reformed, to generate better sustainability relevant knowledge and increase its use for decision-makers? These themes were at the centre of the 2002 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, held from 6-7 December 2002 in Berlin, Germany. The conference was endorsed by two IHDP core projects, Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC) and Industrial Transformation (IT). Organised on behalf of the German Political Science Association by the Global Governance Project of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Environmental Policy Research Unit of the Free University of Berlin and Oldenburg University, the conference was also endorsed by the Federation of German Scientists and the German From left: C. Vogel (IHDP) Association for the United Nations, and R. Pachauri (IPCC) Berlin-Brandenburg Chapter.

About 220 scientists from 29 countries participated in the meeting, which included a total of 111 plenary and panel presentations. All papers, including the proceedings volume, will be made available at www.glogov.org and www. environmental-policy.de. Key note speakers included the chairs of four major research and assessment programmes – Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC), Coleen Vogel (IHDP), Oran Young (IHDP/IDGEC) and John Schellnhuber (IGBP/ GAIM) – as well as two leading decision-makers and practitioners in this field, Christian Patermann, Director of the Environment and Sustainable Development Programme of the European Union’s Directorate-General for Research, and Hansvolker Ziegler, Chair of the International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research.

The upcoming 2003 Berlin Conference (5-6 December), to be chaired by Dr. Klaus Jacob of the Environmental Policy Research Unit of the Free University of Berlin, will address the theme “Governance for Industrial Transformation”.

F RANK B IERMANN (Conference Chair) and S ABINE C AMPE (Conference Manager) are with the Global Governance Project of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (glogov@glogov.org) and the Free University of Berlin.

22 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

➤ In December 2002 the International Social Science Council (ISSC), one of IHDP’s two scientific sponsors, celebrated its 50th anniversary by convening an international conference. It brought together 260 international participants from 48 countries who met for three days at the Vienna International Centre in plenary and special sessions, addressing numerous aspects of social science research. The Conference participants adopted the “Vienna Declaration on Social Sciences”: The Social Sciences and Public Policy in the 21st Century – Towards a New Agenda (see www.unesco. org/ngo/issc).

A special session, organised by IHDP, focussed on the “Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Research and the Global Science-Policy Interface”. The objective of the IHDP session was to foster a dialogue between ‘producers of knowledge’ (the social scientists in IHDP projects) and ‘users of knowledge’ (policy-makers) at the global level, and explore ways to improve an exchange of information between these two groups. In presentations and discussions, key members of the IHDP network and representatives from the policy-making community gave many examples of how users in the global science-policy interface acknowledge the work of the social science community, which, in turn, is indeed interested in conveying knowledge. Yet the interaction between the two communities is only modest, as international scientific advisory processes on global environmental change issues tend to involve mainly natural scientists.

Suggestions to improve the dialogue and strengthen the global science-policy interface were many and included, among others: (1) forming strategic partnerships on thematic issues with international agencies and establishing links to ongoing work in UN bodies; (2) ensuring that the research carried out has an audience; (3) training scientists in communicating with policy makers and presenting scientific results in understandable and useful language; (4) involving social science programmes, such as IHDP, in existing scientific advisory processes, etc. At the end of the day, panelists and participants agreed that the many points raised in the session would be further explored by both ‘producers’ and ‘users’ of science in the global environmental arena.

ISSC News: During the ISSC General Assembly meeting, which followed the Vienna Conference, Lourdes Arizpe from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) was elected as the next ISSC President, and Ali Kazancigil, former Director of UNESCO’s MOST Programme, was appointed Secretary General of the ISSC. They are replacing Kurt Pawlik and Leszek Koszinski, respectively, who both retired at the end of 2002.

E LISABETH DYCK

calendar/publications MEETINGS / NEW BOOKS

MEETING CALENDAR

PUBLICATIONS | NEW BOOKS

➤➤➤ 16-23 March 2003 – Kyoto, Shiga and Osaka, Japan

Transitions in a Globalising World

Third World Water Forum The IGU Commission for Water Sustainability is organising sessions on “Managing Human Impacts on Water Resources and the Water Environment” Contact: www.worldwaterforum.org

By P. Martens and J. Rotmans (eds), Swets & Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse, 2002; 134 pages; ISBN 9026519214

➤➤➤ 24-27 March, 2003 – Gdansk, Poland European Conference on Coastal Zone Research: an ELOISE Approach Conference on the EU Project Cluster on European LandOcean Interaction Studies (ELOISE); held at the Technical University Gdansk Contact: eloise@nilu.no www.nilu.no/projects/eloise ➤➤➤16-18 April 2003 – Utrecht, The Netherlands International Conference on Framing Land Use Dynamics: Integrating knowledge on spatial dynamics in socio-economic and environmental systems for spatial planning in western urbanised countries Endorsed by the IGBP/IHDP LUCC Project Contact: http://networks.geog.uu.nl/conference

➤ The Earth System may be the most complex entity that ever emerged in our galaxy, and the contemporary process of “globalisation” may be the most intricate dynamics that will ever pervade that entity: it is the interactive co-evolution of millions of technological, cultural, economical, social and environmental trends at all conceivable spatio-temporal scales that brings about the present fundamental transformation of humanity’s way of life. The authors of this book address the complexity of modern planetary development by the intellectual concept of “transition”.

The basic idea is that the global changes unfolding now can be perceived as an entangled family of transitions between qualitatively distinct mega-states of crucial compartments of the Earth System. In this book the transition concept is used for examining current and future tensions between welfare, well-being and the environment at a global scale. Four major issues are addressed that are of global importance: developments related to two of our key natural resources, water and biodiversity; the health of human populations; and the developments related to global tourism.

Protecting the Ozone Layer: Science and Strategy

by Edward A. Parson Oxford University Press, 2003.

ISBN 0195155491

➤➤➤ 19-25 June – Banff, Canada

➤ This volume tells the story of international efforts to protect the ozone layer, the greatest success to date in managing any global environmental issue. By examining parallel developments of science, technology, industry strategy, politics, and negotiations, it shows how these interacted to shape the issue’s development and contribute to its successful management. Its insights into these interactions are theoretically important and novel – and also hold valuable practical lessons for solving other seemingly intractable problems of global cooperation. http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195155491.html

3rd IGBP Congress held at the Banff Conference Centre Contact: IGBP Secretariat, sec@igbp.kva.se

Privatization of electricity distribution: the Orissa experience

➤➤➤ 4-22 August – Boulder, Colorado, USA

by K. Ramanathan and Shahid Hasan Published by TERI, New Delhi, India; 2002 ISBN 8179930076

➤➤➤12-14 June – Stockholm, Sweden Rights and Duties in the Coastal Zone: Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Sustainable Coastal Zone Management Contact: www.beijer.kva.se/conference.htm

Institute on Urbanization, Emissions, and the Global Carbon Cycle START Global Change Institute, hosted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, USA Contact: afreise@agu.org www.start.org/Calendar/calendar.html ➤➤➤ 16-18 October – Montreal, Canada 2003 Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Research Community Co-sponsored by IHDP Contact: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/openmeeting ➤➤➤16-19 November – Trieste, Italy Young Scientists’ Global Change Conference Contact: Kristy Ross, Climatology Research Group University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa kristy@crg.bpb.wits.ac.za

➤ Orissa was the first state in India and also in South Asia to introduce comprehensive reforms in its state-owned electricity industry, including privatization of the distribution business. The reform exercise was expected to turn around the ailing power sector of the state and also serve as a model for other states to follow. However, the results have belied many expectations and raised a number of issues. These have been debated widely in various forums, including the Orissa Legislative Assembly during early 2001. This book gives a comprehensive but concise account of these, with special focus on the distribution privatization experience in Orissa. Starting with the reform context, it goes through the process and strategy for privatization to the postprivatization experience.

Material Use in the European Union 1980-2000: Indicators and analysis 2002 Edition published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002 ISBN 9289437898

IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003 | 23

addresses

CONTACT ADDRESSES IHDP SECRETARIAT • IHDP Secretariat: Barbara Göbel, Executive Director Walter-Flex-Str. 3 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49-228-739050 Fax: +49-228-739054 ihdp@uni-bonn.de www.ihdp.org

IHDP CORE PROJECTS GECHS • Global Environmental Change and Human Security

➤

c/o Maureen Woodrow Executive Officer GECHS International Project Office Dept. of Geography & Environmental Studies, Carleton University 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada gechs@carleton.ca www.gechs.org

IDGEC • Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change

➤

c/o Syma Ebbin, Executive Officer IDGEC International Project Office 4526 Bren Hall, Bren School of Env. Science and Management University of California at Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5131, USA IDGEC@bren.ucsb.edu www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~idgec

IT • Industrial Transformation

➤

c/o Anna J. Wieczorek, Executive Officer IT International Project Office Institute of Environmental Studies De Boelelaan 1087 1081 HV Amsterdam The Netherlands Anna.J.Wieczorek@ivm.vu.nl www.vu.nl/ivm/research/ihdp-it/

JOINT PROJECTS

• Gilberto C. Gallopin

GECAFS • Global Environmental Change and Food Systems

Economic Commission for Latin America & the Caribbean (ECLAC) Santiago, Chile ggallopin@eclac.cl

➤

c/o John Ingram, Executive Officer GECAFS International Project Office, NERC-Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford OX 10 8BB, UK jsii@ceh.ac.uk www.gecafs.org

GCP • Global Carbon Project

➤

c/o Pep Canadell Executive Officer GCP International Project Office, CSIRO Canberra, Australia Pep.Canadell@csiro.au www.globalcarbonproject.org

GWSP • Global Water Systems Project

➤

LUCC • Land-Use and Land-Cover Change

Printed on recycled paper

c/o Helmut Geist, Executive Officer LUCC International Project Office University of Louvain Place L. Pasteur 3 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium lucc.ipo@geog.ucl.ac.be www.geo.ucl.ac.be/LUCC

SUBSCRIPTION ➤ For a free subscription to

this newsletter, write to the IHDP Secretariat at the above address; or send an e-mail to: staff.ihdp@uni-bonn.de

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Potsdam, Germany carlo.jaeger@pik-potsdam.de

• Tatiana Kluvankova-Oravska Institute for Forecasting Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava, Slovak Republic tatiana@progeko.savba.sk

• Elinor Ostrom Center for the Study of Institutions, Population & Environmental Change Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA ostrom@indiana.edu

• Xizhe Peng

IHDP SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (SC)

• P.S. Ramakrishnan

Chair • Coleen Heather Vogel

➤

Dept. of Geography & Env. Studies University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, South Africa vogelc@geoarc.wits.ac.za

Vice Chair • M.A. Mohamed Salih

➤

Institute of Social Studies The Hague, The Netherlands salih@iss.nl

Past-Chair • Arild Underdal

Rector, University of Oslo Oslo, Norway arild.underdal@stv.uio.no

Members • William C. Clark

➤

JFK School of Government Harvard University Cambridge, MA, USA william_clark@harvard.edu

• Carl Folke CNM, Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden calle@system.ecology.su.se

24 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2003

École Normale Superieure Laboratoire d'Écologie Paris, France loreau@ens.fr

IGBP • Guy Brasseur

➤

Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology Hamburg, Germany brasseur@dkrz.de

START (alternating) • Sulochana Gadgil ➤

Indian Institute of Science & Oceanic Sciences Bangalore, India sulo@caos.iisc.ernet.in

• Graeme I. Pearman CSIRO Atmospheric Research Aspendale, Australia graeme.pearman@dar.csiro.au

WCRP • Peter Lemke

➤

c/o Sylvia Karlsson IHDP Liaison Officer IHDP Secretariat Bonn, Germany karlsson.ihdp@uni-bonn.de

➤ ➤

• Carlo J. Jaeger

DIVERSITAS • Michel Loreau

➤

Institute of Population Research Fudan University Shanghai, P.R. China xzpeng@fudan.edu.cn

Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi, India psrama2001@yahoo.com

Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine Research Bremerhaven, Germany plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de

GECHS • Michael Brklacich

➤

Carleton University Ottawa, Canada mbrklac@ccs.carleton.ca

• Roberto Sanchez-Rodriguez University of California Santa Cruz, CA, USA rsanchez@weber.ucsd.edu

• Paul L.G. Vlek Center for Development Research (ZEF) Bonn, Germany p.vlek@uni-bonn.de

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS IHDP SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ICSU • Gordon McBean ➤

Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada gmcbean@fes.engga.uwo.ca ➤

ISSC

• Lourdes Arizpe Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) Cuernavaca, Mexico larzipe@correo.crim.unam.mx

IDGEC • Oran R. Young

➤

Bren School of Environmental Science and Management University of California at Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA, USA young@bren.ucsb.edu

IT • Pier Vellinga

➤

Dean, Faculty of Life and Earth Sciences Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam The Netherlands Pier.Vellinga@falw.vu.nl

LUCC • Eric Lambin

➤

Dept. of Geography University of Louvain Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium lambin@geog.ucl.ac.be

SOCIAL SCIENCE LIAISON OFFICER • João M. Morais IGBP Secretariat The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 50 005 10405 Stockholm, Sweden morais@igbp.kva.se