Wallström Brains Trust, 2001

The Wallström Brains Trust

Background paper to the

6th Environmental Action Programme based on a discussion on stakeholder and citizen involvement convened by Commissioner Margot Wallström

"As consumer and decision-maker, everyone shapes and influences the nature and extent of the pressures on the environment –

– how do we involve 360 million people in reaching the environmental goals of the EU?" Report compiled by Global Action Plan (GAP) International Malmö, Sweden, June 2001

Report compiled by Global Action Plan (GAP) International and presented at the Conference on Sustainable Development – Forum for Partnership MalmÜ, Sweden, June 2001

2

It began with a letter…

In June 2000, Commissioner Wallström invited a small group from around Europe to meet in Brussels to discuss outreach. In the invitation she wrote: "A key element of the new EU 6th Environmental Action Programme will be the mobilisation and involvement of stake-holders and citizens.

"As consumers and decision-makers (at all levels, from CEO of a company to the humblest employee), people shape and influence the nature and extent of the pressures on the environment. An effective environment policy needs the commitment and acceptance of a wider public to help ensure proper implementation.

"The questions are: • What are the obstacles to people behaving in a more environmentally friendly way?

• What can be done to commit people and give them the chance to change behaviour?

• What can policy do, and at what level?

• What pragmatic, concrete actions could be stimulated by EU initiatives?"

On 26 June 2000, a half-dozen invitees met a similar number of EU employees.

The discussion continued with a larger group on a private web site provided by Global Action Plan. This report is a compilation of the results, with bridging text and commentary. We hope you find it useful, and that the discussion will continue in many forms and different fora.

Marilyn Mehlmann General Secretary, Global Action Plan (GAP) International

gapinter@ett.se, www.globalactionplan.com

3

Contributors AHe AHu EC EY GH HL JD JM LM NM MB MH MKo MKr MM PC PH PW SL TG VS

Aisling Heraughty aheraughty@drurycom.com Drury Communications, +353(1)260 5000, fax +353-(1) 260 5066 Alan Huyton alan.huyton@cec.eu.int EU Environment Directorate, tel +31(2)296 4681, fax +31-(2)298 1899 Ewa Charkiewicz echsvb@euronet.nl Tools for Transition, tel & fax + 31(70)352 0289 (Netherlands) and tel & fax + 48(22)622 7429 (Poland) Erin Yost newdream5@newdream.org, www.newdream.org Center for a New American Dream, Md, tel +1(301)891 3683, fax (301)891 3684 Gary Hills gary@theatrefactory.com Helen Lynn health@wen.org.uk The Women's Environmental Network, tel +44 20 7481 9004 Jon Dee jondee@planetark.org, www.planetark.org Planet Ark, tel +61 (2) 9956 5500, fax +61 (2) 9956 5515 John Manoochehri jm@unep.ch United Nations Environment Program, Geneva, tel +41 (22)917 8114 Laurie Michaelis laurie.michaelis@mansf.ox.ac.uk Nadia McLaren nadia@uia.be, www.uia.org Union of International Associations, tel +32 (2)643 6197, fax +32 (2)643 6199 Maureen Butter M.E.Butter@biol.rug.nl Monitoring Network Health and Environment, tel +31 595 571367 Mark Hathaway www.gpiatlantic.org Marten Koen marten.koen@minvrom.nl Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Netherlands Marie Kranendonk wecf@wecf.org Women in Europe for a Common Future, tel +31(30)231 0300, fax (30)234 0878 Marilyn Mehlmann gapinter@ett.se, www.globalactionplan.com Global Action Plan (GAP) International, tel +46 (8)612 1440, fax (8)612 1441 Paul Craig ppcraig@ucdavis.edu, ppcraig@earthlink.net Paul Hofseth ph@md.dep.no Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, tel +47-2224 9090, fax +47-2234 9560 Patrick Worms Patrick.Worms@ogilvy.be Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, tel +32 (2)545 6609, fax +32 (2)545 6610 Stig Larssaether stig.larssather@indecol.ntnu.no, www.bygg.ntnu.no/indecol NTNU's programme for industrial ecology, Trondheim, Norway Tomas Grรถnberg tomas.gronberg@cec.eu.int EU Directorate for the Environment Viki Sonntag v.sonntag@merit.unimaas.nl

4

The Wallstrรถm Brains Trust on stakeholder and citizen involvement 1.

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Obstacles A closer look at the question Subsidiarity: a dimension of sustainability?

Attitudes and values Dreams and identity

2.

2.1 2.2 2.3

Behaviour change Choice and learned behaviour The idea of sustainable consumption Getting results

3.

3.1 3.2 3.3

Policy Widen the focus Qualitative economic development Explore the use of empowerment

4.

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

EU actions Stimulate local activities Pricing mechanisms Closer alignment between policy and implementation Building social capital

5.

5.1 5.2

Measurements A Genuine Progress Indicator Ecological footprint

6.

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Media Internet sites Local radio stations Advertising sustainable products Environmental journalists interviewed

7.

7.1 7.2 7.3

Environment and health Concern for health One man's meat is another man's poison Understanding the implications of lifestyle and health

8.

Research vs action?

A. References B. Consumer vs Citizen C. Cultural Creatives Compiled by Global Action Plan (GAP) International www.globalactionplan.com, www.winwin.se

5

1. Obstacles 1.1 A closer look at the question Commissioner Wallström's initial question: "What are the obstacles to people behaving in a more environmentally friendly way?" can be divided into several questions: a. What do people believe are the obstacles to changing their own behaviour? – a question which can be at least partly answered by market research. b. What might be the underlying psychosocial mechanisms? – a universal question to which we at GAP have been developing some answers over the past ten years. c. What are the technical and socio-eonomic external obstacles? – the specific answer to which varies very widely, though some general classes seem widespread. a. Market research What do people view as the obstacles to changing their own behaviour?

Surveys show that most people in the affluent countries * believe questions of the environment and sustainable development are important * feel they 'should' be doing more/changing their behaviour * don't believe it will really make a difference if they do change their behaviour * don't know where to start/how to prioritize * believe these are questions best handled by experts/professionals b. Underlying behavioural mechanisms Why do we people behave the way we do?

We have identified two big issues: * the inertia of habitual behaviour * the split between the consumer and the good citizen (see Annexe B) c. External obstacles Market research also shows obstacles experienced in the form of infrastructural deficiency (eg no cycle paths), non-availability of desired eco-labelled or otherwise environmentally good products, and silly pricing (eg if we save water, the price per liter goes up).

The discussion The discussion moved successively closer to home: from structural considerations (subsidiarity) to personal attitudes and beliefs, and even closer to questions of personal identity.

6

1.2 Subsidiarity: a dimension of sustainability?

Sparked by the contention that habitual inertia is a powerful factor, some discussion centred on the social structures which cause us to live less and less locally – we travel, our food and other goods travel globally.

The discussion gives rise to the thought that the EU concept of subsidiarity, extended to apply not only to decision-making but also to human activities, could be a powerful tool for sustainable development – though not entirely unproblematical.

Living locally I agree on the point on habitual inertia. It is linked surely to how society is organised and how we live our daily lives, ie in cities especially masses of people travel distances to other places to work, school, shops and for leisure. Transport infrastructure is usually inadequate to meet these needs, or to give security. It is too disruptive or difficult or too expensive to change habits.

Perhaps Internet can help us to live in smaller communities, while benefitting from distant services.

Oh yes, another point - notice how everyone (at least here in Brussels and probably in UK as well) is now back in the car again. I observe no difference despite the allegedly high oil price. Perhaps amongst the very poor, who have to sacrifice other things to compensate.

An anecdote from the Guardian newspaper —in the oil blockades, a rural town ran out of milk supplies. A visit to a dairy farmer reveals he is so industrialised that he is unable to sell milk to local people. So live local and buy local.

AHu Increasing transports: dying locally It really worries me that facilitating the global marketplace (or the European open market) is done without much regard to local socio-economic effects. Do we have to experience the equivalent of the Common Agricultural Policy to understand that diversity and small scale are valuable and very difficult to restore once eliminated?

Giving the efficient market place first priority is a one-way street —to a place we may later regret being but from which we cannot return.

We used to be trapped by local constraints, but now we are increasingly trapped by contextual and global constraints beyond our individual control, and that of our collectives and governments. People’s options are closing in (and) we have built societies dependent on the car. For most, there is no real transport alternative.

7

Use of private cars surged in the EU 1970–1996 Avg no. km / person / yr + >100%.

-the increase was greatest in Greece, Spain and Portugal The Irish and Danes drive most: 12,000 km / person / yr The Austrians drive least: 8,000 km / person / yr Every Belgian makes on average 3 car trips per day, • 37 km / 58 minutes 1/5 trips covers > 1 km, 1/4 last < 5 minutes 28 percent of journeys are for shopping and 22 for commuting Heavy toll in deaths and injuries Each year (1997 estimate) there are in the EU: 45,000 traffic deaths 150,000 people are permanently handicapped 1.5 —3 million are injured If trends remain unchecked, road accidents will reduce the life of 1/ 80 EU citizens by avg 40 years result in 1/3 going to hospital Costs (police, ambulance, hospital, etc) ca. 150 billion ECUs. The costs of road injuries are approximately equivalent to the contribution of the European motor vehicle industry to GDP. How economically efficient is that?

Ecological footprint Every 23 kilometres of a four-lane road uses 100 hectares of land, so that the cost of a five-minute drive is the loss of about three farms and several tonnes of annual produce, or alternatively, a woodland of a thousand trees.

Cars currently consume half the world’s oil and create nearly one fifth of its greenhouse gases. How economically efficient is that?

NM The dilemma of Subsidiarity vs Open Marketplace A fundamental environmental dilemma is that the EU must come to terms with the tensions between localization and globalization, or to put it in EU-speak "subsidiarity" and "open market". We cannot, on the one hand, work towards taking decision-making to the lowest appropriate level (subsidiarity) when at the same time hindering/denying effective action-taking at the lowest level.

Two current examples are the case of the Danish municipality forbidden to specify it wants Danish cheese for its school canteens (the children liker it) and a Swedish municipality forbidden to specify it requires only a non-nuclear electricity supply to power its tram services (the citizens want it), but there are many others...

This is disenfranchisement wrapped up in "emperor’s clothes". We can continue to put it off (disassociate these policy areas), but at the risk of a greater crunch when the people’s interests and those of the common/global market eventually collide.

Europeans can surely see beyond these simplifications. (I say this as a somewhat modest European —an Australian having lived in Europe for over ten years). The policy challenge is surely that empowerment at the local level is a totally different

8

process from empowerment on a global scale. How can these be harmonized — truly harmonized, not just contradictions removed?

NM

1.3 Attitudes Market research shows a high degree of concern for the environment and for socio-economic sustainability. This concern does not however always translate into action: our behaviour is much less "responsible" than our opinions.

This can be interpreted either negatively or positively. On the negative side it could be a product of hypocrisy: our concern is not genuine. On the positive side it could indicate a huge potential for improvement. Many studies show that two thirds of the population of countries as diverse as the USA, Scandinavia and Russia all subscribe to values connected to sustainable development – but only half of those (one third) believe that "other people" feel the same.

The difference – one third of the population – could be highly motivated to make behavioural changes if only their perceived obstacles can be overcome: currently, they * don't believe it will really make a difference if they do change * don't know where to start/how to prioritize The discussion focusses on whether people really are selfish/egoistic/hypocritical, and what conclusions if any can be drawn for an action programme.

Increasing selfishness & remoteness of isssues Young people in the West are becoming more selfish than their age group has traditionally been. This trend is, sadly, positively correlated to educational level, and is widespread across the West. The richer you are, the less you care, to caricature.

And, course, the richer you are, the less you suffer from environmental damage.

The issues that really matter are either impossibly remote (desertification), or will have consequences that will not make a significant difference to the life of rich people for decades (biodviersity loss), or will only generate a comparatively minor inconvenience to most of the rich for the next few decades at least (global warming). In the meantime, the groups that we depend on to get the message out are chasing easy media hits with scare campaigns whose damaging consequences they have not properly grasped (eg Greenpeace and GMOs).

The millions who suffer increasingly from environmental disruptions are poor, nonwhite, and off the news. Until the damage is big enough to seriously affect the lifestyle of Joe Sixpack, I am pessimistic that we can make a meaningful difference to public opinion. Hence the need to focus our efforts on policymakers.

PW Not only selfish I don’t think it’s that simple. Social change has been described as a process whereby at any one time the mainstream culture is accompanied by a number of counterpoint cultures; at some point in time one of the counterpoints becomes the mainstream, with resulting upheaval and claims that there are no longer any ethical or moral standards etc.

Today something new seems to be happening. If there is a mainstream, it’s relatively weak, and the counterpoint cultures (several of them) are stronger than in

9

many other historical periods. This is facilitated by the "network society" - it’s much easier than before to choose to associate mostly with people who share my opinions and values, so I can feel part of a movement even if all the people in my physical vicinity have different views.

The "young people in the West [who] are becoming more selfish" are just one of the current counterpoints - not insignificant but certainly not the only one. We’re probably, as Lidewij Edelkoort points out, entering an era of cultural diversity.

This points to a crucial factor in Commissioner Wallstr m’s original question. If "we" - those of us who believe humankind is worth "saving" for a sustainable future —are to reach several hundred million people, we can’t expect it can be done in only one way. The responses need to be as diverse as the cultures —and I don’t mean national or regional cultures.

Which are the most important sub- or counterpoint cultures to approach, what are the best strategies to approach them? These could be key questions.

MM Working wth the selfish impulse I would like to distinguish between behaviour patterns which are imprinted by belonging to a cultural tribe and those that reflect the expression of lower impulses.

One way of looking at society is as a construct designed to channel the destructive aspects of our nature in a "useful" direction or at least keep them at bay. As this authoritative role of society is increasingly being questioned, and this regulating role is taken over by a multitude of small, weak, "pick yer own rules" cultural tribes, selfish impulses can more easily be overtly expressed.

I would take issue with the belief that the number of cultural tribes is growing compared to the historical norm (indeed, I would argue that new tribes have less of an impact on the number of people changing behaviour than was historically the case). First, the number of tribes is to my mind not growing at an historically exceptional rate. Although many small tribes are springing up in western societies, they have always done so, and as always the vast majority of them are characterised by shallow roots and quick turnover. Rare are those that establish themselves to become multigenerational - some latter-day religions come to mind, as do groups such as the Rainbow Family (on this criteria, the 18th and 19th centuries were far more successful at generating new, long lasting cultural tribes than we are - witness all the non-denominational churches, communism etc.). The majority of tribes are not unlike the majority of communes - here today, gone tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the tribes of conformism, whose differentiators are based merely in their allegiance to seemingly different consumerist patterns, are growing. Business studies is by far the most popular undergraduate subject in English univeristies these days. The monetary value of brands is higher than they have ever been. The behaviour of a growing cohort of young people is driven entirely by careerism. As a corollary, the number of those who have a nobler or more thoughtful vision of the role of the individual in society seems to be shrinking.

10

To me, the reason for this increasingly selfish society is rooted in two relatively recent developments. The first is the growing invasion of an economics-based discourse in the social sphere. Not for nothing is it known as "the dismal science": its reliance on the selfish impulse to explain human relationships is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As arguments not based on this impulse are increasingly dismissed as "irrational", those who hold them can begin to doubt the validity of their essentially altruistic view of the world.

The second development is the disappearance of a society-wide consensus on values. Together, these factors corrode much of what previous generations took for granted —the right to asylum, a social guarantee of assistance in times of trouble etc. In this environment, selfishness is not seen as a sin anymore, but as common sense, and is displayed in many mass behaviour patterns. People increasingly fall back upon the private sphere (in Belgium it’s called "cocooning") and focus their energies on their own prosperity.

It is dangerous to ignore this development. In the long term, the altruistic discourse has to be made attractive again. In the short term, however, the coral reefs are dying, there’s open water at the north pole, and the fifth extinction is in full swing.

We must work with the selfish impulse to get policy and behaviour changes adopted quickly.

Communications management skills are essential here, because the aim is ultimately to gain share of voice in an environment overloaded with messages paid for by those who, unlike us, have a large pool of money to buy media space with and a corporate structure to enforce common vision and values.

Let us learn to develop language that resonates with the many consumerist demographics composing today’s society. One or another of them will eventually adopt the behaviour shifts that we need to spread across the whole of society to have a chance to stop the rot.

PW Appealing to enlightened self-interest The first paragraph of the previous entry builds on a view of human nature which is widespread but (as you note) not unchallenged: the image of the human as dominated by lower impulses and destructive tendencies, which are curbed by the beneficent influence of civilization, i˚e societal rules, norms and sanctions. You might call it an ’original sin’ scenario.

A more or less opposite but unfashionable view is often linked with Rousseau, that of the ’noble savage’: the human as basically nice and good, but warped when exposed to the socialization process.

As with many other conflicts in psychology and sociology, I believe the best explanation is probably not one or the other but something more rich in nuance. My own experience is that the people I meet seem to have a highly positive and even moral core, whether because or in spite of civilization and socialization. This observation is borne out by numerous surveys; there is a particularly interesting one in Norwegian, published as Det gode Norge.

11

So the interesting question for those of us involved in communication about sustainable development is not how to convey the ’right’ values to people —thank goodness. But rather to find out why so many people behave in such contradiction to their own dearly-held beliefs and values. And in the best case to help them (us!) move closer to alignment between action and belief.

I don’t know whether Lidewij Edelkoort claims there are more cultural tribes now than previously. She does however say that the tribes are more equal in size or importance; previously there tended to be one obvious mainstream tribe.

The claims that people are more selfish is sometimes supported by pointing to reductions in the membership of most large organizations, whether radical like Greenpeace or mainstream like WWF. In fact many perhaps more detailed studies seem to indicate that the level of involvement, including volunteer work, has been largely unchanged over the past few decades. What has changed is the horizon: people are less likely to sign up for life-long membership of a global-issues organization, more likely to get involved in very local, time-limited projects. In particular young adults put time and effort into matters involving their children.

I certainly agree that we need to learn to ’work with the selfish impulse’, though I would prefer to call it self-interest. If we are truly concerned about sustainability, it doesn’t make sense to offer solutions that depend upon people voluntarily wearing hair shirts for the rest of their lives. And I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. It even sounds like fun —and that’s my self-interest speaking!

MM We have a name!

Re my comment on mainstream and counterpoint cultures, I find there’s a name for us: we’re Cultural Creatives! And there are more of us than even I thought. Excerpt from a research report attached as Annexe C. If the authors are right, there are tremendous implications here for our work - are there not?

MM

1.4 Dreams and identity Who am I? would seem to be a question with as much relevance to Commissioner Wallström's departure point as other, more obviously environmental questions. Why? Because if my primary identity is with the role of consumer, my behaviour will be different than if it is with the role of citizen; this is the tenor of a section of the discussion.

Another way of viewing it is that each of us has multiple identities (or sub-personalities), generally including both the consumer and the good citizen; and that different identities are triggered within us by different situations. There is however a constant experience of an "I" – we each experience ourselves as being the same person although we move from one identity to another.

The interesting questions for sustainable development from this perspective become: * How can we create situations which tend to trigger sustainably-inclined identities rather than the others? * And beyond that, how can more people be helped to become aware of their different identities and consciously choose which and when to put in the driving seat?

12

One of the tentative conclusions we have reached within GAP is that an environmental message addressed to people as consumers is more likely to trigger favourable action than one addressed to them as "good citizens"; see Annexe B. Identification with the marketplace From Jeremy Rifkin: As long a most peoples’ primary identity is with the marketplace, the values of expanded production and unlimited consumption will continue to influence personal behaviour. On the other hand, it is likely that the more time people spend in the third sector, both as paid employees and volunteers, the less consumeroriented they become —not because they consciously think about their obligations to the planet but, rather, because personal relationships and community bonds replace shopping as a life-fulfilling experience.

NM Yes - and no It is certainly borne out by our experience that people who develop looser bonds with the marketplace tend to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle, yes.

But is it true that the cause of such a shift is increasing involvement in the third sector? I believe we’re closer to a causal relationship if we look at processes of empowerment, no matter where they take place —in a business workplace, in the community or wherever. Empowered people are simply not so dependent on consumption for either status or time-filling.

I would guess (based on our experience with GAP and other empowering organizations) that increasing involvement in the third sector could well be one of the effects of increased empowerment.

MM Centre for a New American Dream - a model?

Extracted from The Scale and Sustainability Forum The economy is so central to our culture that we are not seen as people, by producers and politicians, but as consumers. When consumer attitudes begin to change and [we] begin to demand organic produce, clean energy and products produced in socially responsible ways, producers will listen. And policy makers will also have to respond to the demand that corporations and businesses be held accountable for what they produce and sell and how they market those products.

The challenge lies in convincing people (consumers) that changing consumption is necessary. The Center for a New American Dream is an NGO attempting to build a movement of people who have come to the conclusion that something must change in the way we live our lives and say enough is enough.

As you can imagine this is no easy task We even have large corporations like Coke and Pepsi making deals with schools in order to be allowed to advertise and capture exclusive markets within those schools to which they donate money and products! So it comes down to not only convincing consumers that their overconsumption is hurting the environment and people, but also getting them to put pressure on big business and the government to address those demands.

NM

13

2.

Behaviour change

Much of the material in this section is excerpted from another Internet discussion that was going on at the same time: The Scale and Sustainability Forum, which was monitored for the Brains Trust by Nadia McLaren. The material hinges on questions of scope of choice, the kind of changes we mean when we talk about sustainable consumption, and empowerment as a tool to produce behaviour change.

2.1 Choice and learned behaviour

Questions taken from The Scale and Sustainability Forum Despite the fact that we have some freedom to choose different goods and services to meet our consumption needs, what are we considering cutting?

Delinking is limited and reduces the degrees of freedom we have in the search for solutions to the problem of reducing scale.

The current worldview of Western society constrains our thinking. How much choice do we really have as individuals and as social organizations to adopt different behaviours?

Does learned behaviour influence our choices? How can we choose something else if we have no experience of it?

NM

Evidence that delinking is possible 1. One analysis of the mechanics of delinking can be found at http://www.ssb.no/emner/01/sa_nrm/nrm2000. The essence is that there is a very strong delinking of GNP and (some) environmental impacts as measured in Norway.

From 1980 to 1996 and for six leading indicators of air pollution, population increase and growth in per capita GDP would have resulted in a 59% increase if no other factors were active. The largest rise however (CO2) is +26% and the two most decreasing components were lead with -99% and SO2 with -76%.

The changes are mainly due to shifts in technology: in the case of lead and sulphur, driven by legal requirements as well as differential taxation.

This source does not examine the net pollution effect of the Norwegian balance of trade. With a continuous high level of energy intensive exports over the period studied, it is unlikely that the indirect "import" of major air-pollutants has "moved" our pollution footprint abroad.

In the future it seems that increasing demand for transportation will drive emissions and land use up unless quite strong measures are taken to change transport mode and final demand.

2. Reference is occasionally made to individual consumption / wealth causing higher environmental impacts. It is not only individual, instantaneous choice that matters. The infrastructure as well as "cultural" priorities may be equally important.

14

It would be useful to examine differences between compact, transport efficient societies like Switzerland and less efficient but equally rich countries.

PH

2.2 The idea of sustainable consumption

Extracted from The Scale and Sustainability Forum From Laurie Michaelis, UK What do we want to change? What do we think is good about our lifestyles, and what is bad? What do we want to maintain or increase, and what do we want to reduce?

For businesses and perhaps governments, the principal good derived from increasing consumption is the growth of markets and economic output. For most of us as individuals and community members, economic growth is not a good in itself, especially as it includes the growth in defensive expenditures such as for health and pollution cleanup. On the other hand, some people clearly believe that maintaining employment and economic stability depends on continuing growth.

Sustainable development is often said to be about meeting needs, but what are human needs? Are they fundamental rights, desires, or the "capabilities" which are the normal requirements to function in a given community? And how does the consumption of goods and services contribute to these various kinds of needs?

Regardless of whether we see human needs as innate or socially defined, we can probably agree that the satisfiers (including, but not exclusively, goods and services) we choose to fulfill them are variable from person to person, and community to community. Hence, presumably we have some freedom to choose different satisfiers.

Our conclusion should be that goods and services are not good in themselves, but are the means to various ends... I believe that it is more helpful to focus on concepts of the good life or human flourishing, and requirements for achieving it, rather than on "human needs".

We may think that consuming goods and services is in itself bad, because it tends to substitute impersonal market relations for personal relationships within a community. In this case we may see cutting consumption as a means to improving the community and enhancing reciprocality and trust.

On the other hand, we may just be concerned about the environmental impacts of consuming specific goods and services. In this case the discussion about resource efficiency becomes relevant. Can we improve resource and environmental (say eco-) efficiency faster than consumption is growing? If we do so in one sector, will resource use and environmental damage by another sector grow to compensate?

On this question, I think it would be helpful to look for historical experiences of efficiency improvement and resource substitution. When we really want to, we can stop using resources. Industrialised countries have hugely reduced their use of oil in the industrial sector, because it became too expensive and higher quality 15

alternatives (electricity and gas) were available. They previously stopped using wood and then, in some cases, coal and horses.

The heart of this question, I think, is whether we care enough to stop using nonrenewable resources in general. If so, alternatives are available. There are quite substantial renewable energy sources available at only two to three times the current cost of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels only take up about a twentieth of world GDP. No doubt the substitution is possible and could provide a boost to industry and employment in countries manufacturing the renewable technologies. On the other hand, if we cared enough to invest in the alternatives, perhaps we would also be willing to cut consumption.

Aspirations adapt to situations Extracted from The Scale and Sustainability Forum My starting point is personal. What kind of a life do I want to live. I see too many people finding that "more stuff" does not lead to happier lives. Where does one draw the line? I draw it by saying: "I now have enough".

Thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a large literature on "does money buy happiness". The answer seems to be that people tend to compare themselves with others. Absolute levels donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t play such a large role.

The best hope I see for systemic change is a change in individuals, leading to a change in society. Not likely, but not inconceivable either. The change in American views about the Viet Nam war is an important US example.

PC

2.3

Getting results

If we are satisfied that behaviour change is necessary and ask ourselves how it can be planned and "delivered" â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and sustained over time, we need to look at groups and organizations that have been doing it and getting results.

Some examples are the Weightwatchers and Alcoholics Anonymous. At the base of their programmes is the concept of personal empowerment. Within GAP we have been applying this concept to the aim of "delivering" increasingly sustainable lifestyles. The results so far are modest but incontrovertible: it works. Participants in the various GAP programmes for households * make a significant number of behaviour changes * sustain the new behaviours over time * produce concrete, documented, environmentally positive results We have since 1990 accumulated a wealth of material and experience in a) awakening interest b) converting interest into concrete action and developed training and support for groups who themselves want to design empowering programmes. Research is being conducted at a number of universities, primarily in the Netherlands but also in Switzerland and Sweden. We are more than happy to share our experience, analysis and methods.

MM

16

3.

Policy

We opened the debate by proposing a number of potentially interesting topic areas: – Take action to support and stimulate local (very local) activities (all levels) – Review pricing mechanisms (EU and national, in some cases municipal) – Widen the focus to integrate sustainable ecological and socio-economic development (all policy levels) – Improve feedback to ensure implementation reflects policy (EU) – Explore the use of empowerment as a policy tool The first two suggestions attracted no contributions but the other three did, and most particularly the one about widening focus… Related points are found in section 4.

3.1

Widen the focus

The Dutch policy approach to sustainable consumption Extracted from the Scale and Sustainability Forum

Does sustainable consumption mean "consuming less"?

The concept of sustainability has its ecological, economic and social components. Arguing below from an ecological viewpoint I want shortly mention the other components. The social component is focused on fair trade, combatting child labour and improving working conditions. The economic component is focused macro-economically on low inflation and stable monetary relations and microeconomically on reasonable earnings and continuity.

Communicating in society about sustainability makes no sense when one half of the discussants only refer to the ecological aspects and the other half to the socioeconomic aspects. So in the implementation of sustainable consumption by the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) together with market parties socio-economic aspects of sustainability are not neglected. Where some actors are front-runners in socio-economic aspects and others in the ecological aspects, actors can learn a lot from each other and come together to integrated implementation of sustainable consumption.

I think that it is self-evident that "consuming less" in western society will contribute to sustainable consumption. However both terms have not to be confused. In fact the pursuit for "quality" in consuming and replacing of products by services may be part of the solution. For this there are two reasons: 1. Quality products (and services) will lead to a higher level of satisfaction, by which the life of the product will be extended.

2. Quality products usually will be more expensive; by buying them less money remains to be squandered to possibly unsustainable objectives.

Quality The term quality of products and services has many aspects: convenience, health, aesthetics as well as environmental and social sustainability of the production/consumption chain. In the Netherlands the starting point for policy strategy is the consumer and his/her motives to act. The question is Are there more sustainable ways to meet the need of the consumer for health, experience, emotion, status, mental and physical satisfaction?

17

Such aspects have to be seen in a social context, where the social environment is an important determinant for consumer behaviour. When the consumer’s needs and the driving forces are known it is the question how the market shall offer perspectives to the consumer to act sustainably. As a matter of fact the answer lies in developing "sustainable supply" and "sustainable demand".

Herewith the strategy is focussed on a chain approach. Besides developing an integrated product policy and stimulating producing and consuming of sustainable products and product-service combinations, the government is facilitating a negotiation process between all the relevant market parties in different domains of consumption (food, housing, clothing, recreation, personal care). Investigations of the most relevant environmental aspects in each of these domains result in a draft agenda for a policy programme to be implemented by all relevant market parties.

Both supply and demand have to move in a more sustainable direction.

The strategic process The process is summarised in the following scheme. * * * *

investigation consumption domain draft policy agenda consultation of relevant actors for supply and demand in the consumption domain policy agenda & implementation plan

The approach in the clothing domain may serve as an example. VROM has brought together relevant actors for supply and demand, i.e. textile industry, clothing industry, retailers, dry cleaners and laundries, consumer and environmental NGOs. Their assignment is to consolidate the draft policy agenda and to implement the agenda in the coming 5 to 10 years.

On the shortlist to be implemented are among other things the following actions: – Implementing product-oriented environmental management — Developing a positive (preferential) list of compounds to be used — Using sustainable fibres — Integrating policy on ecological effects and working conditions in cotton culture — Developing new clothing concepts that will be more sustainable — Procurement of sustainable products by retailers by setting voluntarily ecological and social conditions on all links of the chain — Incorporating environmental aspects in professional education — Optimising / innovating laundry and dry cleaning processes — Improving facilities for reusing clothes — Informing consumers about opportunities for sustainable consumption Most actions have a voluntary character and fit in the strategy of producing and retailing companies for sustainable / socially responsible entrepreneurship. As such, business and trade have their own responsibility in implementing relevant parts of the policy agenda.

18

Different roles More details will be given on two of above-mentioned actions, namely procurement by retailers and informing consumers.

In sustainable consumption retailers play a significant role as an intermediary between supply and demand. In this position retailers with the ambition for socially responsible entrepreneurship may play a significant role in the evolving of a sustainable product range.

VROM is considering subsidising an institution that will amass and disperse information and know-how on the sustainability of products, to support purchasers.

The goals of this action have to be fixed by government and market parties together.

NGOs, i.e. consumer and environmental organisations, play an important role in the production-consumption chain. In this context their functions are to increase public awareness of the necessity for a more sustainable consumption, to alert consumers to concrete sustainable arrangements for consumption and to keep alert business and trade. However, addressed as a market party the NGOs often lack sustainable funding. Therefore VROM provides some funds to support actions at the demand side by NGOs as far as these actions are fitting in the policy agenda.

MKo

Integrating sustainable ecological and socio-economic development

Extracted from The Scale and Sustainability Forum The author, John Manoochehri, is preparing a book-length treatment of this topic entitled Quality: From Sustainable Consumers to Sustainable Citizens.

I think the time is drawing near (what will we have to show at Rio +10?!) when we give up trying to rejig the market/consumer interface —economic consumption — directly. It was not designed for anything but maximum efficiency of transactions, and has yet to yield usefully to any other desirable parameter. As part of this, we may need to relegate some of the more ’fragmentary’ research programmes (which just generate more questions). In their place, we can usher in, let us all hope and pray, strong sustainable consumption, using robust, quantifiable and practical tools such as the resource transformation cycle, citizenship mobilisation packages, non-consumption Quality of Life programmes, and similar.

Whether or not these suggestions are valid, I would make the point that if I’m right in thinking not only has the post-Rio Sustainable Consumption policy debate faltered (though boosted by for example the Oxford Commission and UNEP’s work), indeed has regressed in its political clarity and receptivity, then we’ve spent 8 unproductive years since the Agenda 21 Chapter 4 mandate (’Changing Consumption Patterns’) was established.

My view is that some reform of this policy/research/advocacy package is overdue, given that we’ve got only five more 8-year periods to ’solve’ the consumption problem.

I suggest that using a resource cycle tool, identifying major agent responsibilities (beyond the ’consumer’), actively engaging and supporting citizens, and promoting

19

non-consumption QL are all very strong starting points for a realistic (i.e. workable inside 40 years) programme of strong Sustainable Consumption, that is sociallyactivated systemic resource sustainability.

JM

Unsolved problems and wicked issues

A paper published by the UK Local Government Association is called Discussing Sustainable Solutions —guided by the UK government’s "Sustainable Development Strategy".

It rather frankly discusses what it calls "wicked social problems" that still baffle government and offers some sustainable solutions "learning from the past for better decisions in the future". Some extracts are given below.

Sustainable solutions are about: – Improving quality of life — Understanding how economic, social and environmental issues are linked together — Recognising the long term implications of proposed decidsions, including their effect on future generations — Protecting the long term health of the planet, and reducing the global impacts of what we do — Working in partnership to create agreed and shared solutions — Making decisions in transparent process which helps everyone take responsibility for their own actions Better decision making should: – Take time to get things right first time.

— Ensure properly researched decisions (while avoiding research beyond what is needed).

— Avoid wheels being reinvented (and punctures revisited!). An effective collecting point of organizational knowledge is needed.

— Be free from a "blame" culture. This stifles innovation and risk taking.

— Be free from professional and departmental rivalries that undermine partnership working and "joined up" thinking.

Unsolved problems and wicked issues – and some solutions Participation – Lack of consultation and inter-agency participation has led to poorly planned projects, short sighted decisions and unforseen consequences; also feelings of mistrust and not being listened to.

— The "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) principle means every difficult decision can turn into a fight between residents and the council.

— Diminishing turnout at local elections.

— Experiments in citizen participation partially successful but not engaging "hard to reach" groups.

— Consultation can be costly. What provides Best Value and leads to real participation?

20

Land use planning – Constant demand for more "greenfield" land for housing, business and services (population, commerical and lifestyle demands).

— Lack of redevelopment of "brownfield" sites (economic, technical and image difficulties).

— Development control a rather blunt tool for improving people’s quality of life.

— Planning often seems a process all on its own; could be used more proactively to more positively address people’s concerns and improve understanding, eg through good design for higher density development, creating local area plans with braoder based spatial planning strategies.

Local environment – Destruction of habitats, species and green space; destroying the very attractiveness of the environment for wildlife, human living, tourism etc.

— Not much in the way of new ideas (beyond better protection and regeneration).

— Voluntary groups and public protest currently seem to be the strongest constraint against further loss of open space. How to better harness the public interest in all things wild and green?

Housing – Modern (postwar) slums characterised by "multiple deprivation" (poor families with poor access to services, high crime rates and anti-social behaviour). Is the problem just lack of money?

— Tenant participation, community development work, neighbourhood renewal.

— Recognising that the housing problem is a structural problem within regional economic policy.

Transport – How can public transport compete with the feeling of the majority of people who want a car for status, personal freedom, convenience and personal safety?

— How can politicians hope to attack the car dependant society and not lose their seat?

— We have reached the point where doing nothing is condemning our children to major health problems and environmental catastrophe.

— Nothing very new by way of solutions. Intractable issues.

Education and employment – Education and employment gaps in society getting wider.

— One fifth of children live in households with no earned income.

— Vandalism, youth unemployment and under-employment, school exclusions and growth of violence suggests there are still many things wrong with the education system and the world of work.

— Large number of children are now driven long distances to school and recreation, causing more pollution.

— Possible solutions?: flexible curricula, programmes for "drop-outs", training for work in community regeneration and community development iniatiatives (my note: but how can this be expected when the school curricula do not include "community studies", "personal relationships", "human values", "stewardship" etc?)

21

Local economy – Global drive for economic growth is cranking up the pressure on the planetary life support system.

— Global economy removing local control of economic security.

— Old skills and traditional industries left economically isolated.

— Solutions: technology transfer, revitalization of local economics, community entrepreneurship; but how many of the so-called solutions are delivering outcomes that works sustainably?

Green housekeeping – Lifestyles producing more waste and using more energy and resources.

— Solutions : resource efficiency, tighter pollution controls, home working, environmental management systems, green purchasing, training. Are these successful?

NM

Shifting frames of reference: economic good vs social good From The Scale and Sustainability Forum

I would argue that the great challenge is to redefine the dominant problem definitions, from a technological to a cultural frame of reference... The challenges we are facing with growing resource consumption are mainly a product of human aspirations, shaped by cultural processes There is a collective consensus that we must have growth, "what does not grow is dead" in the minds of many mainstream thinkers today. This will then define which questions can be asked, and which degrees of freedom you have in the search for solutions. Just take a look at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) website where the concept of sustainable development is described: Sustainable development involves the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity.

The conclusion is quite clear, if continued economic prosperity conflicts with the other goals, the development is not sustainable in the eyes of WBCSD. I presented a paper on these issues at the Business Strategy and Environment Conference in Leeds (September 2000), and would be happy to forward it to anyone interested.

SL

22

3.2

Qualitative economic development

From The Scale and Sustainability Forum Abstract from a coming paper analyzing the policy implications of the interrelation between the evolution in product markets and production technology development ...

Once we reach the conclusion that making the transition to sustainability requires that the affluent countries cut quantitative consumption, this leaves us to consider qualitative economic development, that is, socioeconomic progress resulting from the more effective use of a constant or decreasing level of resources, as the viable alternative for maintaining economic stability (Daly, 1996). Yet, a shift to qualitative development will require a substantial change in how we make products and organize production.

Rapid change and unpredictability characterize today’s markets. To compete in this environment, firms must develop the capability to manufacture a large mix of products quickly. Speed figures critically in product differentiation strategies by keeping the costs of manufacturing a wider variety of products relatively low. The increase in speed is usually paid for by increasing throughput rates. Consequently, the use of speed pushes firms in the direction of expanding output.

Moreover, the largest market shares for a new product go to the firm that is the first to make its market introduction. On the demand side, faster product replacement and increasing individualized consumption in consumer markets (for example, a phone for every member of the family) reflect the growing dominance of faster product introductions and increased product differentiation as competitive strategies.

The pace and scale of consumption are then intricately linked to advances in production technologies and the drive towards competitiveness. To move away from the current unsustainable patterns in consumption and production, we need to consider whether the strategic uses of advanced manufacturing technologies can be used to create technological momentum, not only in the direction of greater competitiveness, but also greater sustainability. ...

[I would argue that] the transition to sustainability must involve supporting new directions in the strategic use of advanced manufacturing technologies — essentially, the reorganization of production to decrease quantitative output while maintaining economic stability. This conclusion, however, has not always been well understood or even recognized. Until recently, policy discussions on the significance of technology diffusion with respect to industrial transformation have focussed almost exclusively on the competitive implications of technology use. In these discussions, the expanding use of advanced manufacturing technologies is mainly treated as a matter of individual firms’ decisions on how to compete.

The mirror image of this position occurs in policy discussions concerning sustainability in which the goal of sustainable consumption is presented as a function of individual consumers’ decisions on what to consume. In a coevolutionary world, the truth must lie somewhere in between.

VS 23

3.3

Explore the use of empowerment

In 1999 the Swedish EPA (Naturvårdsverket) requested GAP Sweden to write a memorandum on the use of empowerment as a policy instrument. The memorandum notes that few governments have even experimented with this instrument. Notable exceptions are the Netherlands and Norway, where highly interesting results are being reported.

The memorandum drew upon earlier reports prepared with and for the Dutch government and the OECD. Some excerpts and conclusions below.

Background Environmental problems are increasingly global, while solutions are of necessity local. Governments are at the cross-roads between problems and solutions.

The classic instruments at the disposal of government —market incentives, regulation and control, public education and information —are proving inadequate to meet the sustainable development targets which, since the UNCED meeting in Rio de Janeiro, are increasingly understood to be necessary.

Empowerment is emerging as an instrument which can both complement classical instruments and improve their efficacy. It is being used, mostly on a small scale, within numerous different policy areas which together potentially create a new platform for sustainable development.

Different policy areas Environment & Development/Agenda 21 policy Chapter 4 of the Agenda 21 document stresses the importance of mobilizing large sectors of the population in support of global change. This is not a traditional area of public activity and is by many thoughtful decision makers regarded as the most difficult part of Agenda 21.

Empowerment programmes have already established a record of success in producing lifestyle changes. These lifestyle changes have been shown by research in the Netherlands (Staats et al) to be sustained and indeed enhanced over time.

Consumer policy A major concern of consumer protection agencies is empowering consumers to make educated and, where appropriate, concerted choices in their own best interests. This may include influencing producers and purveyors of goods to improve the environ-mental and/or social profile of goods available on the market.

Housing policy An empowerment programme has been demonstrated to * lead to reduced costs for both householders and property owners * accelerate the demand for ecologically sound housing * create greater understanding of how to gain maximum environmental benefits from new design, technology and materials Economic policy In countries and communities where a reduction in the use of natural resources (e˚g reduced energy use) is seen as a matter of economic policy, empowerment 24

programmes offer a demonstrably effective instrument for influencing households.

An indirect effect for many households is a reduction in the amount of money needed to sustain an acceptable lifestyle. This can have wide implications for economic policy, as yet unexplored.

Social policy It can be argued that one of the most devastating of current global problems is the spread of apathy, feelings of powerlessness and resulting frustration and aggression at all levels of society. An empowerment programme can counteract such effects, giving rise to a number of possible uses within the sphere of social policy 窶馬ot least as a vehicle for social integration and for establishing or enhancing local, grass-roots democratic processes.

Institutional factors A prerequisite for using such an instrument is that it is perceived as legitimate. The level of government involved (local, regional, national or international) must be seen to have a legitimate mandate to communicate with the population at the chosen level.

In the Netherlands this has been achieved inter alia through national government support for an existing national NGO and for research; in Norway by the creation of a new, primarily government-funded NGO to act as an umbrella for existing NGOs interested in working domestically for sustainable development.

A precedent within the EU is the funding (by the Consumer Directorate) of TV slots conveying information directly to consumers.

MM

25

4.

EU actions

4.1

Stimulate local activities

Some ideas: – Focus should be on funding which is sufficiently long-term to build a development platform (several years), yet clearly designed to be self-sufficient after that — Identify and make available methods and tools which improve the possibility of getting long-term, sustained results — Support networking between local initiatives — Make funds available for and publicize results of local sustainable development initiatives —not only (or even primarily) those funded by the EU; annual award?

MM

4.2

Pricing mechanisms

Distorted prices

The prices of many goods and services today are distorted in that environmental costs are included to varying degrees, but seldom fully.

– The EU can encourage national governments to legislate eg on metering citizen use of public and private infrastructure with a high environmental impact (garbage, water, energy, transport etc.)

— The appropriate level of government (national, regional, local) can also be encouraged to set a balance between fixed and consumption costs which offers consumers some financial motivation to save resources.

MM

Worldwatch Institute re fuel taxes At a moment when the debate in Europe is particularly inflamed, Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute has published a paper commenting on the connections between fossil fuel prices, taxes, global warming —and the price of wheat! Excerpts below.

MM OPEC has world over a barrel again On Thursday, September 7, 2000, oil prices on the spot market climbed to $35.39 per barrel, their highest since November 1990, just before the Gulf War. This price escalation not only threatens a worldwide recession, it also marks another adverse shift in the international terms of trade for the United States, one that will widen further the already huge trade deficit.

From 1950 through 1972, both wheat and oil prices were remarkably stable... At any time during this 22-year span, a bushel of wheat could be traded for a barrel of oil on the world market. [But] by 1982 the wheat/oil ratio had climbed to 8 to 1.

This steep rise in the purchasing power of oil led to one of the greatest international transfers of wealth ever recorded. Today, the wheat/oil ratio has shifted to an estimated 10 to 1

26

The world is beginning to move beyond oil and coal toward energy sources that do not disrupt climate. 1990—99, worldwide, wind power generation grew by 24 percent per year, solar cell production by 17 percent, and geothermal power by 4 percent. By contrast, world oil use expanded at 1 percent a year and coal use declined by nearly 1 percent.

British Petroleum is now the world’s leading manufacturer of solar cells. Shell is pioneering the new hydrogen economy. All the major automobile companies are working on fuel cell engines for which the fuel of choice is hydrogen. The Japanese have developed a photovoltaic roofing material that allows the rooftop to become the power plant for the building.

The generation of electricity from wind is exciting because money spent for this electricity typically stays in the community, whereas money spent for electricity generated by oil may end up in the Middle East. Moreover, with cheap windgenerated electricity, hydrogen, the preferred fuel for fuel cell engines, can be produced during the night when electricity demand is low.

As these examples indicate, the transition to a new energy economy has begun, but it is not moving fast enough. The time has come to restructure the tax system both to reduce the threat of soaring oil prices and to stabilize climate. We can restructure our tax system by lowering the personal and corporate income tax and offsetting it with an increase in a tax on gasoline. OPEC members know that the cost of producing oil in Saudi Arabia is roughly $2 a barrel. They also know that if they push the price of oil too high, they will trigger a global recession. This is not in their interest.

If there is a world price for petroleum products beyond which a further rise would be disruptive, then the issue is who gets the difference between the low production cost of oil and this much higher market price. If importing countries push prices of gasoline, fuel oil, jet fuel, and other oil products close to that limit by imposing stiff taxes, then the potential for raising prices by OPEC is lessened.

If we take the initiative and raise gasoline taxes while lowering income taxes, the increase in the gasoline tax will end up in our treasury and individuals will benefit from lower income taxes. But if we don’t restructure and let OPEC countries keep increasing the price of oil, and hence of gasoline, the equivalent of the gasoline tax increase will end up in OPEC treasuries. We will eventually pay the same higher price for gasoline, but not get the income tax reduction.

27

4.3

Closer alignment between policy and implementation

Encourage cross-sectoral work

Many funds etc. are open primarily to projects focusing on one sector —one aspect of sustainability. In our experience (with a broad focus) we are often handed from one department to another, each believing it should be someone else’s responsibility to take the broader view.

Policy statements are clearly supportive of cross-sectoral work, but implementation channels find this hard to handle. Priority could explicitly be given to projects and proposals covering more than one aspect of sustainability.

MM

Have the dog wag the tail

It’s not unusual to hear that ’your programme is exactly what our funds were earmarked to support, but because of the bureaucratic rules set up around the funds we are unable to offer you a contract or grant, or if we do it will have to be on conditions that are impossible to meet for any but a large, wealthy institution’. It does seem that the EU tail frequently wags the dog.

From the perspective of a modest NGO, it would be very helpful if the EU could – Set up a channel whereby proposals and applications can be reviewed from a policy perspective.

— Investigate whether some funds can be channelled through appropriate (international) NGOs, or networks of NGOs, as is often the case at the national level.

— Investigate whether a fast track could be established for funding the use of ’approved’ tools for sustainable development.

MM

4.4

Building social capital

Some thoughts digested by Nadia McLaren from Jeremy Rifkin Society is a three-legged stool made up of the market sector, government sector and civil sector. The first leg creates market capital, the second leg creates public capital and the third leg creates social capital. Of the three legs, the oldest and most important, but least acknowledged, is the third sector. It is also the most environmentally benign form of capital; the primary resource that makes up social capital is human energy extended to others to create a social good.

In the old scheme of things, finding the proper balance between the market and government dominated political discussion. In the new scheme, finding a balance between the market, government and civil sector becomes paramount.

Focusing on the creation of social capital rather than the continued expenditure of public capital puts the challenge and responsibility for community development directly in the hands of the groups affected. The creation and expenditure of social capital builds self-determination and sustainability.

NM

28

5.

Measurements

It is axiomatic that measurements are a key component of behaviour change. Without knowledge of current status, there is no motivation to change. Without feedback on the impact of changes, there is no motivation to continue or extend new behaviours.

The key questions are usually – what to measure – how to measure – how to collect and analyze results – how to disseminate results The discussion was thin on these points. There seems to be a general consensus that the more common current measurements – from GNP to energy use to unemployment – do not satisfactorily measure sustainable development. Several cities, notably Seattle, have developed indicators of sustainability. But the interesting question is whether we can invent a set of indicators that are – sufficiently broad to give an idea of whether we are moving forwards or backwards – sufficiently universal to allow comparisons between people, communities and countries – sufficiently simple to be easily understood On the subject of what to measure, two candidates were put forward: a Genuine Progress Indicator currently in use in Nova Scotia, and the more narrowly ecological but easily graspable Ecological Footprint. The other topics were not raised.

The entry on Understanding the implications of lifestyle and health (section 7.3) shows that the current debate on the relevance of conventional measurements is by no means confined to economic or environmental issues.

5.1

A Genuine Progress Indicator

From the paper Rethinking Oikonomia: Ecological Perspectives on Economics.

Moving beyond the traditional economics of quantitative, GDP-measured growth requires that we adopt a qualitative approach. Traditional ideas of profit, efficiency and productivity must be questioned and re-defined.

Do we need growth? Certainly. We need growth in knowledge and wisdom, growth in access to basic necessities for all, growth in human dignity. We also need to foster beauty, preserve the diversity of life, and nurture the health of ecosystems.

We do not need growth in superfluous consumption. Nor do we need growth that destroys life simply to produce capital accumulation.

A Genuine Progress Indicator based on the above principles is being applied in Nova Scotia, see References for web site.

MH

5.2

Ecological footprint

We are working to develop the Ecological Footprint concept to a level where it can easily be used at the household level, for example to guide purchases of household equipment. This is the only unified measure we have found which seems to be easy to relate to —tons of carbon dioxide are (to put it mildly) difficult to grasp.

29

At present we have calculators available for individuals and households (see References) which enable a limited amount of simulation, that is testing a change in behaviour to see how the ecological footprint is impacted.

There are other versions being developed, for example by the Hall Institute in the Netherlands. They are probably more accurate but are much too detailed for our purposes: we want a quick and easy tool for interested, not necessarily welleducated, individuals of all ages.

Our experience using a first, paper-based version of this tool with school children aged about 15â&#x20AC;&#x201D;17 was positive â&#x20AC;&#x201D;much more so than we had anticipated.

MM

30

6.

Media

This section has the most concrete suggestions for action, for example by the EU; and also some of the most tantalizing open questions, like how to attract visitors to web sites, how to encourage business to advertise ecologically sound products, and how to induce newspaper and other media editors to publish more sustainability news.

6.1

Internet sites

Creating an internet site is a relatively cheap way of reaching a wide audience, particularly young adults. The site would need to be jargon-free and fully interactive.

Keywords: funky, artistic, colourful, graphically powerful (think of Colours magazine). Links to ’cool’ sites and so on. For the sake of expediency, I won’t go on, but the possibilities are almost limitless.

GH

Marketing is key

Web sites don’t work unless they are properly marketed - the old dream (well, OK, so it’s only three years old but still) of the Internet being a liberating forum for anyone to reach everyone has been dead a long time. Because the marginal distribution costs of the Internet are zero, the early bird doesn’t just catch the worm, but starves all the other birds too. CNN, Yahoo, Amazon, eBay - each has a nearmonopoly position in their own field. The web has tens of thousands of great, well designed sites, but none get any visitors. Getting eyeballs is the key, and that demands brilliant marketing (not to mention lots of cash).

PW

Good questions!

Yes it’s something we’re experimenting with in several countries. Our basic questions are: 1. Can one design a web site in such an empowering way that it leads to long-term, conscious behaviour change? (Initial results are promising but not conclusive.)

2. How to get the eyeballs —Patrick’s question!

It does seem as though the EU, with its extensive connections with communities, schools, business, NGOs etc., could provide leverage —if we can find the right mechanism. Pity their own sites are not better maintained MM

31

6.2

Local radio stations

It would be relatively easy to design attractive programmes for local radio stations, which week after week would provide entertainment while encouraging both families and providers of goods and services to change behaviour.

I recently came across information about an international radio script syndicate (on a different topic) â&#x20AC;&#x201D;see References. How could such an enterprise, on the topic of sustainable consumption, be established and promoted in Europe?

MM

Use of local radio in Ireland

The Irish government has initiated a creative use of local radio to reach a wide audience with a "green" message. The description below is from the company, Drury Communications, whom they have engaged to work with the local radio campaign.

MM ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS CAMPAIGN IRELAND A focus on local radio is the central element of the Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Easy to Make a Difference environmental awareness campaign. [This is a] campaign to make people aware of simple changes they can make in their lives to benefit the environment Local radio is the perfect medium: the local radio stations are seen as the voice of the community in their respective districts and relied on for all kinds of information about what is going on in the locality.

Local radio also represents good value for money and it affords a flexibility that is not given by other media While the theme of the ads varies from water quality issues to recycling, all are consistently branded and retain a distinctive style that marks them out as part of the campaign.

The Department [of the Environment] therefore approached the representative body for all local stations in 1999 with a view to negotiating a favourable package on local radio. Given the commitment the government was willing to make and taking into account the guaranteed advertising revenue, we were able to leverage a number of added value elements from the radio stations.

Added Value: Info-commercials We currently have a package whereby we carry advertising all year round with all local radio stations. In return for these guaranteed revenues, we have been able to secure free airtime for a number of other elements. First among these are "infocommercials". Changing theme each month (in tandem with the advertising), these pieces are designed to complement the regular advertising by developing the theme in further detail. For example when running advertising on recycling we will probably run a series of info-commercials on home composting. Most stations run three info-commercials a day.

Added Value: Environment Weeks The stations have also committed to hosting an "environment week" each year. The purpose is to highlight different things people can do in their immediate locality to 32

make a difference to the environment â&#x20AC;&#x201D;and to show what other people in the area are doing. [The tone is] simple, light-hearted and positive.

The week is usually based on the station s morning and afternoon talk shows and features local people talking about various environmental initiatives and activities that they are involved with. The station backs up with environmental tips, quizzes and competitions across all their shows throughout the week.

Possible guests and features are identified through the environmental awareness officer from the local authority who is also heavily involved in the week. This is primarily to build a sustainable relationship between the station and their local authority so that when the station is looking for environmental material they have a local contact point. In some cases this has led to a regular slot for discussing environmental issues being given to the environmental officer.

Initial scepticism While stations were initially quite sceptical about the environment week concept the local input has fitted well with their local broadcasting ethos. Many had completely underestimated people s interest in environmental issues and their fears of people turning off have proven completely unfounded due to the focus on easy to do actions. The uniformly positive response from listeners to the advertising and editorial took the stations by surprise.

AHe

6.3

Advertising sustainable products

From the Scale and Sustainability Forum, Eva Charkiewicz I wonder what businesses can do about cultural obstacles (peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s aspirations and lifestyles) in moving to sustainable production-consumption? They can certainly target some niche markets. But it may be a problem for them how to create and sustain such markets.

Some clothing producers and retailers do not advertise their sustainable product lines, for instance clothes from biological cotton. The reason is that such advertising would have created competition with their own conventional product lines. If sustainable product advertising is not an option, what other marketing strategies are available to businesses to generate and sustain the demand?

Is it also true for other sectors, for instance automobile industry or tourism?

How far can businesses go with their "quiet shift"?

EC

33

6.4

Environmental journalists interviewed

This is a summary of a European study where environmental journalists were intereviewed. The study was carried out by a Catalan centre (see References) for the European Environment Agency and reported by John Dee of Planet Ark. A new model of environmental communication for Europe The report looks at the supply and demand of environmental information.

The study analyses media content and practices and reports on a survey of European environmental journalists, together with data from the European Environment Agency. It reveals that we need to look at different ways of communicating complex environmental events so that decision-making can be better orientated towards sustainability.

The study looks at how environmental issues are transmitted in the media, including a questionnaire to about 100 environmental journalists. 25 answers were obtained from Spain (11), Denmark (4), and one each from 10 other countries.

Compared to other types of information such as sports, economics or politics, the environment still represents a very small percentage of the total amount of information offered by the media. A daily study of Spanish newspapers between October 1997 and June 1998 showed that the average space devoted to environmental issues was 2.3%.

This figure, with a slight increasing trend, was only surpassed in specific moments, such as the Climate Summit in Kyoto and the impact of waste-water spills in the National Park of Do ana.

Among environmental journalists there is no unanimity with respect to the motives that cause environmental information to be scarce.

– 18% of those polled believe it is because environmental information is hard to understand by the population.

— 14% consider it is principally because the information tends to be depressing.

— 14% think it is because media companies are more concerned not to lose readers and audiences than to improve quality.

— For 13% the problem is that, though people consider environmental information of much interest, they find themselves unable to do anything in this regard.

— 11% believe that many editors know too little about the topics, and this generates general ignorance among the population on what they are able to do in relation to the environment.

JD

Need to persuade editors is paramount

I’d love to have data that is country-specific for this! We really need to understand how editors at major publications are persuaded to publish environmental stuff.

The recent disappearance of the "nature" section on cnn.com is not encouraging (MSNBC now has what may be the best major news channel environment section).

PW

34

7.

Environment and health

7.1

Concern for health

The results of a European opinion poll show that health is a major concern for people, but the link environmentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;health is not clear to most.

It is typical however that women are more concerned than men that for example chemicals, air quality and the quality of food products could affect their health. This is very interesting for it means that women would make different and more strict choices regarding for example exposure rates.

TG Relevance of Precautionary Principle So far there are thousands of chemicals on the market whose health impact is either uncertain or completely unknown. Only when terrible health damage has been caused can a process of banning dangerous chemicals be initiated.

Applying the precautionary principle, no chemical would be allowed on the market before sufficient proof exists that the chemical is not dangerous to human health.

The argument of industry, which is that this halts innovation and thus reduces economic growth, is weak in as much as the costs of cleaning up damage can be many times higher that the loss of market share and economic growth. Human health has to be of a higher priority for policymaking than economic interests.

MK

7.2

One man's meat is another man's poison

There is a huge gender disparity in fundamental research underlying all risk assessments and standards setting. The great majority of animal research is by male models. In human research the gender gap is smaller, but is still there. In toxicology the standard human is a male, healthy, 30 years old and 60 kilograms.

Standards are based on the standard human and lowered by a safety factor of 100, to account for population variation. Research on POPs for example, has shown that this factor 100 is greatly insufficient to protect a developing human foetus.

MB Of particular concern is the adverse impact of persistent organic pollutants and other endocrine disruptors on human reproductive health over the entire life span, pre- and postnatal development and on young children s health. As environmental impact on women/men in puberty can affect the foetus, and obviously affects the woman/man one has to take into consideration the impact of POP s on the entire human reproductive health life span. Otherwise it may lead to the thinking that men and women outside those reproducing may not be at risk which is just not true.

HL

35

7.3

Understanding the implications of lifestyle and health

Understanding the implications of lifestyle and health (eg cultural diseases) is a key policy issue.

Just as with the simplistic view of wilderness and species conservation, we run the risk of simplifying the notion of healthy lifestyles to counting calories, blood pressure and cholesterol, rather than appreciating the social, emotional and psychological factors that are essential for good health On the role of environmental and social poverty, it is worrying that healthy life expectancy in some African countries is dropping back to levels not seen in advanced countries since Mediaeval times according the the new way of measuring lifetimes by disability-adjusted life expectancy —DALE. This emphasizes the relationship between planetary health and human health. It is no coincidence that damage to planetary health seems to go hand in hand with failing human health; also social health and community health. People in the healthiest regions lose some 9 percent of their lives to disability, versus 14 percent in the worst-off countries.

DALE is estimated to equal or exceed 70 years in 24 countries, and 60 years in over half the Member States of WHO. At the other extreme are 32 countries where disability-adjusted life expectancy is estimated to be less than 40 years.

Unexpectedly DALE places the USA at 24th place, behind most other advanced countries. The reasons? Aside from ethnicity and AIDS, the main reasons were exceptionally high incidences of cancers, heart disease and homicides, i˚e environmental pollution, stress and social insecurity.

The top 9 DALE nations are Japan, 74.5 yrs Sweden, 73.0 Australia, 73.2 Spain, 72.8 France, 73.1 Italy, 72.7

Greece, 72.5 Switzerland, 72.5 Monaco, 72.4

All of the bottom countries are in sub-Saharan Africa Sierra Leona, 25.9 years of healthy life for babies born in 1999 Niger, 29.1 Botswana, 32.3 Zimbabwe, 32.9 Malawi, 29.4 Uganda, 32.7 Mali, 33.1 Zambia, 30.3 Rwanda, 32.8 Ethiopia, 33.5 With 20% of the world’s population, China ranks fairly well at 62.3 years (only 8 years behind the USA). Unlike Western notions of health and medicine, Chinese (and some other holistic health systems’) understandings of human health are directly transferable to understanding social and environmental health.

NM

36

8.

Research vs action?

We seemed at one point in the discussion to be seeing a polarization between the need for more research and the need to take action. The comment sparked an exchange between Nadia McLaren and myself which we later posted on the web site.

MM: We’re getting the usual polarization between the "we need more research" and the "let’s get on with it" parties, aren’t we? I suppose it’s inevitable. But I do think, given the context, that we should place as much emphasis as possible on the "let’s get on with it". The last thing we want is to support the idea that no-one really knows yet what should be done, let alone how to do it. Certainly we need more research, but in the meantime there’s plenty to get on with.

NM: Intellectually, I remain suspicious of answers to problems that have not been adequately explored (suspicious even of my own answers). Even more am I suspicious of "solutions" to unarticulated (or grossly generalized or misrepresented) problems.

M: Well yes... on the other hand, there are quite a few completely uncontroversial things people (we) can do to alleviate a bunch of known (if insufficiently explored) problems, like reducing car travel, buying less meat, getting the toxins out of our bathrooms, kitchens and cleaning materials, and planting trees. And I do believe that the very fact of doing something active is itself empowering and helps the person doing it to find other uncontroversial actions which may be local as opposed to global. Like planting things to stem soil erosion in Iceland or Spain, saving water in lots of places, being more careful what you flush down the toilet almost everywhere.

N: The problem part of the problem-solution cycle may have become overstated in the research world M: I’d say that almost NO research is done on solutions other than technical fixes.

That’s the imbalance. The "we can’t do anything till we have more data" is typical talk by politicians staving off uncomfortable demands for action from others.

The context is of course important. I wouldn’t necessarily characterize a desire and willingness to take action as a quick fix. I’d rather say that the more we can do now to alleviate the symptoms and possibly rein in deterioration, the greater the range of options that will be open to us as we learn enough to be more systematic about our solutions.

N: I think one reason for the imbalance is that we are increasingly reluctant to work with problems, really deeply. There are obstacles to admitting that the problem exists (shame, blame etc)

37

M: Yes! And perhaps even more important, disempowerment: the belief that nothing I can do makes a difference, so I can’t afford to take in the news that the problems are there...

N:

and, after admitting, there is a reluctance to take responsibility

M: The very word "admitting" is to my mind disempowering. It’s more a question of allowing myself to know and the best basis for that is to come to know (preferably through experience) that I can actually take meaningful action. If you want to take it to a spiritual level, "Everything is forgiven in the moment it occurs", so I don’t need to admit, just to allow understanding.

N: and few precedents (breakdown in socio-cultural forms, such as ethical frameworks).

M: I suspect there are actually some quite good precedents, like the growth of labour organizations which challenged the whole array of assumptions (including ethical frameworks) of society at that time. It wasn’t just the owners who believed in the divine right of capital, most of the workers did too. Or like the spread of bible circles and other self-study groups in the Nordic countries, challenging the dearlyheld assumption that most areas of study a) could only take place with a teacher who knew the answers, b) were not the proper province of anyone except those born to them. I think the current shake-down in ethical frameworks is a regular occurence, most probably cyclical.

N: Perhaps it IS now mostly so complicated that we no longer have the means to do the job in the old way. Then there is still a research challenge to develop new methods.

M: Well put. It is however not what the research bits of the current discussion are mostly about though there are exceptions. The "community development" scene is coming up with some interesting stuff.

A lot hinges on world-view, though. If you believe in original sin, you can’t really believe in empowerment as a tool for improvement, I guess. Maybe this is also a question for research: do our elected leaders believe that empowering people is likely to lead to positive results, or not?

38

A. References Sherry Ruth Anderson and Paul H. Ray, 2000, The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People Are Changing the World, New York: Harmony Books: see Appendix C, read more on http://www.culturalcreatives.org.

Lester R. Brown, Worldwatch Institute http://www.worldwatch.org/alerts/indexia.html, http://www.worldwatch.org/chairman/issue/000829.html Gerald T. Gardner & Paul C. Stern, 1996. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior, Allyn & Bacon Dag Hareide, 1991. Det gode Norge, P vei mot et medmenneskelig samfunn?, Gyldendal Mark Hathaway. Rethinking Oikonomia: Ecological Perspectives on Economics Part I: Unmasking a Pathological System. http://www.gpiatlantic.org/ R. Ingelhart and J. Rabier, 1986. Aspirations Adapt to Situations —But Why Are the Belgians so much Happier than the French? In Research on the Quality of Life, ed.

F. Andrews. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Peter van Luttervelt, 1996. The EcoTeam Programme: a new policy instrument in perspective, paper to GAP—ICLEI conference on Agenda 21 methods and tools, Lisbon Nadia McLaren, 1998. Citizens' Initiatives on Sustainable Consumption, ECE Workshop paper, Wien Marilyn Mehlmann, 1999. "Empowerment": ett policyinstrument för hållbar utveckling —lokalt, nationellt, internationellt. Memorandum to Naturv rdsverket William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel, 1996. Our Ecological Footprint, New Society Publishers. http://www.lead.org/leadnet/footprint/, http://www.winwin.se.

H J Staats & P Harland, 1995. The EcoTeam Programme in the Netherlands. Study 4: A longitudinal study on the effects of the EcoTeam Programme on environmental behaviour and its psychological backgrounds. Centre for Energy and Environmental Research, Leiden University Centre d'Estudis d'Informació Ambiental Institut Català de Tecnologia, http://www.ictnet.es/terrabit. Study of environmental journalism in Europe.

Centre for Alternative Technology. http://www.cat.org.uk "A very practical resource centre, with a good web site. It offers details of the most economical and green washing machines, how to get rid of garden slugs without chemicals, how to install photovoltaic power in your home. There’s an open ’question’ service as well." —AHu 39

Context Institute, http://www.context.org/ Since 1979 Context Institute, a nonprofit research organization, has been exploring and clarifying just what is involved in a humane sustainable culture - and how we can get there.

Findhorn Foundation, http://www.rmi.org/ "The Findhorn Foundation has many aspects to its work, all motivated by the conviction that the future of humanity and the sustainability of our planet will require changes in the way that we as humans relate to ourselves, other people, the natural environment and the spiritual dimension of life." 窶年M International Institute for the Urban Environment, 1997. The Ecological Footprint of Cities. Delft, Netherlands Local Government Association, UK. Discussing Sustainable Solutions, http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/socialaffairs/solutions.pdf Metrofarm. http://www.metrofarm.com An electronic magazine and radio show/discussion group about metropolitan agriculture.

Ministryof VROM, Netherlands, 1996. Trendanalyse Consumptie en Milieu.

Rocky Mountain Institute. http://www.rmi.org "RMI is an entrepreneurial, nonprofit organization that fosters the efficient and restorative use of resources to create a more secure, prosperous, and lifesustaining world." 窶年M WHO Press Release 4 June 2000, http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-life.html.)

World Busines Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), http://www.wbcsd.ch

40

B. Consumer vs Citizen Excerpts from a paper by Peter van Luttervelt.

Society at a deadlock Within the scope of the environmental issue many parties are active: the authorities, the citizen/consumer, the business community. The roles traditionally played by these parties are indicated below. business community authorities consumer citizen market forces The individual fills many roles in society. Two universal examples are the role of citizen towards the authorities, and that of consumer towards the business community. Environmental issues arise to a considerable extent from the interaction between the business community and the consumer. In the face of subsequent problems, the consumer adopts the role of citizen and expects the authorities to intervene.

The policy of the government is traditionally geared towards intervention on the supply side (industry, agriculture, the energy sector etc.). In effect, the power of the demand side is ignored.

This conclusion is for example drawn in the trend analysis of consumption and environment commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of VROM. The government stimulates the development of technology for renewable energy, and makes it attractive for consumers by means of subsidies. Through subsidies the agricultural sector is urged to produce organically, but farmers find there is too little demand. In the financial world incentives are provided for green investments; but investment funds are over-full and viable projects too few.

The business community responds mostly re-actively to government intervention. In his/her behaviour the re-active citizen is motivated by the risk of being caught breaking the law.

Generally speaking a situation has arisen in which the parties who are potentially the most influential, particularly consumers and business, tend to await events and let their sense of responsibility depend on others.

The significant role of the consumer Consumer behaviour is a significant source of environmental problems and, potentially, solutions. Current increases in pollution are mainly caused by an absolute increase in consumption. The consumer impinges on the environment predominantly through the domestic functions of heating, transport, nutrition and electricity use. Technical innovation and energy efficiency improvements have not been able to counteract this development. To reverse the trend behavioural changes are imperative.

This is in line with the increasing role of the consumer.â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lidewij Edelkoort, trendwatcher for the Dutch government, phrases it this way: 'The consumer is the new power and now the customer is indeed always right'.

Programmes of behaviour change which address individuals in their role as citizens have less chance to succeed than programmes which address them in their role as consumer.

41

C. Cultural Creatives Excerpt from a new book by Ray and Anderson They point out that although their research has been done in the USA it appears to hold good for Europe too. They believe there may be as many as 90 million Cultural Creatives in Europe…

One in four Americans, 50 million adults, have changed their values, lifestyles and world views (literally, what they think is real) and it’s going to make a big impact on all our lives. In many ways, it already is, but few of the new developments are treated as news by the conventional media.

So, who are the Cultural Creatives?

The Cultural Creatives are 50 million Americans who care deeply about ecology and saving the planet, about relationships, peace, social justice, and about authenticity, self actualization, spirituality and self-expression. Surprisingly, they are both inner-directed and socially concerned, they’re activists, volunteers and contributors to good causes more than other Americans.

However, because they’ve been so invisible in American life, Cultural Creatives themselves are astonished to find out how many share both their values and their way of life If you ask them, "how many people share your values, what you see as most important in life?" they will tell you that it’s just them and a few of their friends.

Press them on this point and they’ll say, "Oh maybe 1% or 5% of Americans" Once they realize their numbers, their impact on American life promises to be enormous, shaping a new agenda for the twenty-first century.

60% of Cultural Creatives are women, and in the Core, it's two to one women.

This is about women’s values and concerns coming into the public sphere. If you name something women care deeply about, you’ll find it has been changed by Cultural Creatives values over the last years: – Is there going to be a world worth living in for our children and grandchildren?

The big business destruction of the environment affects our kids, and so does the lousy quality of our public schools.

— Wanting to work locally in our communities to make things better where we can see them, and have some direct impact on them.

— Wanting better quality relationships at home and work, including a more egalitarian and cooperative style — Wanting children around the world to be properly cared for: hunger, health, concern for stopping violence, at home and around the world There’s a well-known gender gap between what men and women care about, spend their time on, and who they’ll vote for in the elections. Guess what, it’s not there for the Cultural Creatives. The men and women care about the same things, and use the same language to talk about what they want to do.

We’re living at a special time in history. Modernism is ending, and we’re going into a whole new era, one that we don’t know very much about. Our biggest challenges 42

are to preserve life on the planet and to find a way past the overwhelming spiritual and psychological emptiness of modern life.

And this is what makes the Cultural Creatives so important at this time. This is a tipping point time, a time of change where there is enormous leverage for a creative minority to really make a difference. In the next few years, the concerns of the Cultural Creatives will be ever more important, as we come to rethink and reinvent practically every institution of American life.

43

http://www.winwn.se/doc http://www.globalactionplan.com

The Wallstrรถm Brains Trust