Upload
louise-smith
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
http://www.ihdp.unu.edu/file/get/7190
Citation preview
FO CUS:
INDUSTRIALTRANSFORMATION
N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L H U M A N D I M E N S I O N S P R O G R A M M E O N G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H A N G EUPDATEIH
DP
01/2003
W W W . I H D P . O R GI H D P U p d a t e i s p u b l i s h e d b y t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l H u m a n D i m e n s i o n s P r o g r a m m e o n G l o b a l E n v i r o m e n t a l C h a n g e ( I H D P ) , Wa l t e r - F l e x - S t r. 3 , 5 3 1 1 3 B o n n , G e r m a n y, V. i . S . d . P. : E l i s a b e t h D y c k
1 From Chaos to Convergence inIndustrial TransformationResearch | P. Vellinga, A. Wieczorek
2 Editorial
4 Industrial Transformation in EastAsia | D.P. Angel, M.T. Rock
7 Making Sustainability a NewCulture | Interview with C. Fussler
8 Transitions in an Island Society |S. Jit Singh
10 A Sustainable Future? | R. Gerlagh, E. Papyrakis
12 Biomass Trade – An Option forthe Future? | J.R. Moreira
15 The Economics of SustainableWater Use | J.M. Dalhuisen
16 Environmental Impacts of FoodProduction | Xueqin Zhu
17 Earth System Science forSustainable Development
19 Core Projects:
Southern Africa VulnerabilityInitiative | M. Brklacich,K. O’Brien, M. Woodrow
Masthead
20 Joint Projects:
The Global Carbon ProjectComes of Age | O.R. Young
21 National Committees:
Austria: Promoting Young Human Dimensions Researchers |M. Payer, K. Steininger
Switzerland: Water Use – A SocialScience Issue | T. Scheurer,K. Pieren
22 2002 Berlin Conference on theHD of Global EnvironmentalChange | F. Biermann, S. Campe
ISSC 50th Anniversary Conference| E. Dyck
23 Meeting Calendar, Publications
24 Contact Addresses
C O N T E N T S
➤ Over the last few decades research in the natural sciences has unveiled a numberof specific complex relations between human activity and environmental change on a
global scale. Scientific assessments such as by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and the Millennium Assessment confirm that global life support systems,
such as climate, biodiversity and water resources, are significantly affected by human
activities.
As much is at stake, societies face the need to develop creative response strategies.
Most effective would be a reconsideration of the ways and means by which we meet
our primary human needs in the field of energy, food, water, shelter, transport, etc., as
these activities are responsible for much of the global environmental change we are
witnessing. But this is easier said than done. A major part of the world’s population is
struggling with fulfilling even basic needs, while the more wealthy part is hesitant, not
to say reluctant, to reconsider the systems of production and consumption that
brought them prosperity.
➤ continued on page 2
FROM CHAOS TO CONVERGENCE In Industrial Transformation Research |
BY PIER VELLINGA AND ANNA J. WIECZOREK
Phot
o:IT
Scie
nce
Plan
industrial transformation
2 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
What can the research community do to break such a
deadlock? This question triggered the IHDP Project on
Industrial Transformation initiated in 1997/1998. The main
goal of the project is to explore development trajectories that
would have a significantly smaller burden on the environ-
ment. The project recognized that ‘end-of-pipe’ solutions
and efficiency improvements alone will not be able to deliv-
er such a future. More far-reaching long-term changes will be
required when the aim is to decouple global economic
growth from a parallel growth of the global environmental
burden.
‘Systems change’ became the key word in the research
plan that emerged – systems being defined as the socio-eco-
nomic and technical chains of production, distribution, con-
sumption and disposal activities. After a series of regional
workshops and a final global conference in 1999, it was
decided to focus on energy, food, water and transport sys-
tems. The vision is that social and technical innovation in the
redesign of these systems should go hand in hand. Now three
years after the start we can take stock.
It is only fair to say that the Science Plan, as presented in
early 2000, triggered a multitude and a very diverse set of
research ideas and proposals. It became clear that there are
many views on what would represent a more sustainable pat-
tern of development. In terms of research methodology it has
become apparent that there are many views on what consti-
tutes interesting and useful industrial transformation
research. Let us start by highlighting and discussing a num-
ber of different approaches to transformation research that
were presented in the course of the last few years.
The research groups focussing on innovation theories
based in Twente and Maastricht, the Netherlands, developed
a “multilevel perspective on transitions” to help us under-
stand dynamics of transformations. The researchers distin-
guish three levels: niche, regime and landscape (Elzen, 2001;
Kemp et al 2001; and Geels 2001):
Niche – denoting a space where individuals, based on
existing knowledge and capabilities, develop new technolo-
gies or concepts that are geared towards problems of existing
regimes. Niches provide space for learning processes and
development of social networks, which support innovations.
Innovations generated at this level are usually radical (Geels,
2001).
Socio-technical regime – accounting for stability of exist-
ing technological development. Regimes refer to rules that
enable and constrain activities within communities. If inno-
vations are generated at regime level, they are mainly incre-
mental (Geels, 2001).
Socio-technical landscape – encompassing the wider
context of a regime in the form of socio-cultural and nor-
mative values, and economic and broad political processes.
The context of the landscape is very difficult to change and,
if it does change, it is a much longer process than in the case
of regimes (Geels, 2001).
Critics of the theory and taxonomy described above indi-
cate that indeed traditional innovation may be explained in
terms of niche innovation. However, changes required to
reverse the trend of growing global environmental pressures
are likely to be triggered only by institutional changes at the
E D I T O R I A LThe theme of this issue of IHDP’s quarterly newsletter
UPDATE is “Industrial Transformation”, the research
focus of one of IHDP’s four core science projects. The
idea of devoting an issue of UPDATE to the work of the
Industrial Transformation Project (IT) originated from
our IT research group, and we appreciate this initiative.
At the last meeting of the IHDP Officers and Project
Leaders it was agreed that this opportunity should be
extended to our other projects as well. Therefore, in
future, one issue each year will focus on the research of
a particular IHDP Project.
Led by Pier Vellinga of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,
the IT Project’s overarching goal is to explore pathways
towards decoupling economic growth from the related
degradation of the environment. A number of key
scientists in the IT field agreed to write contributions to
this issue of UPDATE. We would like to thank Anna
Wieczorek from the IT International Project Office, who
has been most helpful in identifying excellent authors.
Their contributions cover the research foci of the
Industrial Transformation Project: Energy and Material
Flow, Food, Cities with a focus on Transportation and
Water, Information and Communication, and
Governance and Transformation Processes. One of IT’s
objectives is to undertake research on ways to facilitate
transformation of the industrial system towards sustain-
ability. Such a transformation, however, requires co-
operation with industry and business. As Claude Fussler
from the World Business Council on Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) points out in an interview,
co-operation would be welcome. We hope that in the
near future IHDP will be able to establish closer and
mutually beneficial links with the WBCSD.
UPDATE 1/2003 also includes news from the Earth System
Science Partnership (ESSP), which comprises IHDP and
our GEC partner programmes IGBP, WCRP and
DIVERSITAS. The Workshop on Sustainable
Development – The Role of International Science (Paris,
February 2002) clearly showed that the scientific com-
munity has vastly increased its role in supporting sus-
tainable development. It also highlighted new challenges
for ESSP that are outlined in the article.
In March 2003 the IHDP Scientific Committee (SC) will
hold its 10th meeting in Bonn. It will be the first meeting
to be chaired by Coleen Vogel of South Africa. We also
look forward to welcoming three new members to the
SC – Tatiana Kluvankova-Oravska (Slovak Republic),
Roberto Sanchez-Rodriguez (USA) and Paul Vlek
(Germany). Following Kurt Pawlik’s retirement as
President of the ISSC, Lourdes Arizpe (Mexico) will rep-
resent our sponsor as an ex officio SC member. The
meeting agenda is comprehensive; I trust that the
insights and guidance of the SC will help us to chart the
course for IHDP’s future work.
BARBARA GÖBEL
IHDP Executive Director
➤
F R O M C H A O S T O C O N V E R G E N C E
I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 3
industrial transformation
level of “regimes” or “landscapes”. It is claimed that address-
ing energy, food and transportation systems and their effects
on the global environment requires changes in the existing
international incentive structure for these activities. Such
changes should include some kind of internalisation of the
external cost of environmental resource use, e.g., through
taxes and/or through the allocation of resource use quota
systems and the introduction of tradable resource use rights.
Niche innovation can only come about after relevant changes
have been made in the international “level playing field”, the
critics argue. In terms of transformation management, stim-
ulation of niche innovation is only worthwhile when incen-
tives at a global scale are adjusted simultaneously (assuming
the systems addressed are embedded in global markets).
Berkhout (2002) based at SPRU in the United Kingdom
proposes a taxonomy listing four different types of transi-
tions: path dependent, reorientation of trajectories, emer-
gent transitions, and purposive transitions, each with its own
pace and features. Berkhout argues that the normatively
driven purposive transformations (such as those triggered by
the desire to avoid irreversible damage to life support sys-
tems like climate, biodiversity and the water cycle) do not fit
the typical model as described by Geels and the others men-
tioned above.
Research on transformations towards sustainability,
initiated by German researchers, puts emphasis on the in-
teraction of innovation (production), consumption and
governance (institution and incentive structures). The
specific challenges and research needs as listed by Vos
(2002) are:
➤ understand the dynamics of structural change in socio-
techno-ecological systems and anticipate future transfor-
mation paths (knowledge of system dynamics);
➤ assess and evaluate the impacts of specific paths of trans-
formation (knowledge of sustainability goals); and
➤ develop visions, strategies and collective action capacities
to shape transformation processes (knowledge of trans-
formation strategies).
The Human Ecology Group at the University of Vienna
(Fischer-Kowalski, 2001) is undertaking pioneering work in
the field of analysing the historic and ongoing changes in the
interaction between socio-economic activities and the natu-
ral environment in terms of mass-flow analysis. A typical
example of the research carried out by this group is present-
ed in this issue of UPDATE (see p 7).
A growing body of research on technological change can
be found in mainstream economic research. Recently new
concepts and models have been developed that strengthen
the economic basis for transformation and transformation
research. Most of these concepts and models are based upon
key insights in the so-called ‘endogenous growth theory’,
namely that knowledge accumulation leads to increased
returns. The role of knowledge accumulation in processes of
technological change has been explored in terms of learning
processes (learning by doing and learning by using) and
investment in R&D, in combination with spillover effects.
The latter means that knowledge ‘leaks’ from one firm or sec-
tor to another. Economic models of technological change
have acquired a number of key characteristics of innovation
and diffusion. Moreover, economic models have been devel-
oped to study several obstacles to technological change, such
as vested interests and uncertainty with respect to the per-
formance of a new technology or future government policies.
It is encouraging to see that mainstream economic research
is increasingly interested in transformation research, and
that new results are emerging, which can help to understand
and support system transformations.
The review of research carried out since the launching of
our Science Plan in 2000 illustrates that much work is
underway, and so far the field seems to be rather chaotic.
This is mainly due to many different disciplinary and inter-
disciplinary schools of research and normative and non-
normative aspects of research. Still there is convergence as
well. Over the last few years, our IT Project has continuous-
ly tried to bring together the various schools of thought. A
good example is the Workshop on “Endogenous
F R O M C H A O S T O C O N V E R G E N C E
Fig. 1. Research Foci of the IHDP Industrial Transformation Project
INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION
Food
Consumption System
ProductionSystem
Macrosystems and Incentive
Structure
Research fields covered in
transformation studies
Energy and
Material Flows
Cities (Focus on
Transportation and Water)
Information and
Communication
Governance and
Transformation Processes
4 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
industrial transformation
Technological Change”, held in Amsterdam in 2000. Another
more recent example is the Twente Workshop on
“Transitions Towards Sustainability Through Systems
Innovation”, held in July 2002 (proceedings in print). Other
workshops were held in Bonn and Berlin in 2002. Currently
we are preparing for meetings in New Delhi and Oslo, an
international conference in Montreal in October (the Open
Meeting of the International Human Dimensions Research
Community) and the 2003 Berlin Conference in Germany,
which this year will be devoted entirely to research on trans-
formations.
In addition to research on a better understanding of
Industrial Transformation and how it can be stimulated, the
IT Project has supported, endorsed and promoted a series
of ‘sectoral’ research projects on transformations in the
production and use of energies, food and water. Some of
them are described in this issue of UPDATE. Detailed infor-
mation about these projects and literature references can be
found on the IT website: http://130.37.129.100/IVM/research/ihdp-it.
In summary, research initiatives promoted by the
Industrial Transformation project seek to understand the
conditions under which substantial changes in society-envi-
ronment interaction can be achieved. The IT Project recog-
nizes the validity and complementarity of the various
research approaches and theories. We encourage a dialogue
between the different schools of thought and among differ-
ent groups with diverse research priorities. We recognize that
the scientific understanding of the dynamics of society-
nature interaction on a global scale is still in its infancy.
However, we are making progress! Our foci on transitions of
the energy, food, water and transport systems and our special
focus on governance and transformation processes are right
on target. The focus on information technology has not yet
been developed.
This issue illustrates some of the progress in implement-
ing the Science Plan, but it is only a beginning. To assist in
retrieving the relevant literature we are developing a litera-
ture reference manager on transformation research. A special
scientific report on the various approaches to transformation
research is in preparation.
The launching of the Science Plan has helped to initiate a
whole range of scientific activities. The work of the IT
Scientific Steering Committee and the International Project
Office in Amsterdam contributes to creating a dialogue,
cooperation and convergence in the understanding and use
of research and research methodologies. This should add to
a globally shared understanding of the development path-
ways that can combine economic growth with a sustainable
use of natural resources.
PIER VELLINGA is Chair of the Scientific Steering
Committee of the IHDP Industrial Transformation Project;
ANNA J. WIECZOREK is Executive Officer at the IT
International Project Office, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
[email protected];www.vu.nl/ivm/research/ihdp-it/ or
http://130.37.129.100/IVM/research/ihdp-it/
I T I N E A S T A S I A
➤
➤
INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION IN EAST ASIA Assessing policy approaches to improving the environmental performance of industry within rapidly
industrialising economies | BY DAVID P. ANGEL AND MICHAEL T. ROCK
➤ In the rapidly industrialising countries of East Asia,urban-industrial growth has been accompanied by low-
income inequality, increases in per capita income and signif-
icant declines in poverty and child mortality. This growth has
also been accompanied by substantial increases in air and
water pollution, resource degradation, escalating energy use,
and attendant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Most ana-
lysts agree that declining environmental quality within the
region is closely tied to failures of policy and weakness of
institutions. Where environmental regulatory institutions
have been strengthened and well resourced, as, for example,
in Singapore, Malaysia and Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), the
result has been a reduction in industrial pollution, land
degradation and other environmentally damaging processes.
However, especially within the lower income economies in
the region, incremental improvements in environmental reg-
ulatory policy typically have been over-ridden by the scale
effects of increased production, consumption and resource
use. In response to these challenges, countries have begun to
explore additional approaches to improving the environ-
mental performance of industry, including the direct
integration of economic and environmental policy within
a framework of what has been labelled ‘policy integration.’
In this article we report on research that seeks to docu-
ment achievements in one particular form of policy inte-
gration, i.e., the integration of environmental concerns
into the mandate of economic development agencies within
the region.
Nowhere in the world is the challenge of industrial trans-
formation of greater significance than in the rapidly indus-
trialising and urbanising economies of developing Asia. The
share of industrial output in Asia increased from approxi-
mately 10% of global output in 1950 to 30% in 1995; its
share is expected to reach 55% to 60% by 2025. Unless there
are technological and other changes that reduce the energy,
materials, water and pollution intensities of industrial pro-
duction, these absolute increases in industrial output will
presage equally large increases in resource use and pollution.
I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 5
industrial transformationI T I N E A S T A S I A
Energy use in developing
Asia, including India and
China, is predicted to
increase from 84.5
quadrillion BTU in 2000 to
177.9 quadrillion BTU in
2020. GHG emissions in
Asia are expected to more
than double over the next 20
years. Sometime between
2015 and 2020, Asia will
likely overtake the OECD
countries as the largest
source worldwide of GHG
emissions. Understanding
the factors that determine
the rate of adoption by
industry of technologies
that are less energy, materi-
als and pollution intensive is
thus a critical policy priority
for East Asia and the other rapidly industrialising economies
of Asia. Due to its openness to trade and investment and the
pace of economic change, East Asia has emerged as a test case
for putting in place policies and institutional frameworks
that harness contemporary processes of economic globalisa-
tion with the twin goals of environmental improvement and
poverty reduction.
As within the OECD economies, the foundation of the
policy approach towards improving the environmental per-
formance of industry within East Asia is environmental reg-
ulation. During the 1970s and 1980s, many of the developing
economies of Asia established an institutional framework of
environmental laws and associated institutions of environ-
mental monitoring and regulation. The resources available to
these institutions, and the effectiveness of monitoring and
enforcement of environmental laws, vary widely within the
region. In many of the higher income countries strong insti-
tutions of environmental protection are in place. Traditional
command and control regulatory policies have increasingly
been supplemented by market-based policy instruments and
by so-called third generation policy approaches based upon
performance measurement and information disclosure. In
an effort to improve the environmental performance of
industry, several countries in the region have also turned to
institutions that traditionally have not played a large role in
environmental protection, including agencies of economic
and industrial development. Policy makers are now attempt-
ing to internalise environmental considerations within the
basic economic decision making of firms and industries, and
within the policies of the economic and industrial develop-
ment agencies that bear primary responsibility for promot-
ing industrial and urban growth.
Interest in linking economic and environmental perform-
ance within agencies of economic development has a num-
ber of roots. First, agencies of economic development in
many cases work closely with firms and industries in efforts
to improve technological and managerial capability. Second,
economic development agencies have access to a wider range
of resources and policy tools that can be brought to bear on
improving economic and environmental performance,
including policies related to investment approval, market
access, facility licensing or land-use planning. Third, in con-
trast to the relatively weak position of many freestanding
environmental regulatory agencies within developing Asia,
economic and industrial development agencies typically are
well resourced and have important positions of influence
with respect to industrial and development planning in
industrialising economies. Stated another way, economic and
industrial development agencies are embedded in the eco-
nomic process – in the fundamentals of investment, technol-
ogy development and trade – in ways that nascent environ-
mental agencies typically are not. However, many observers
suggest that the economic priorities of economic and indus-
trial development agencies are in fundamental conflict with
environmental improvement, and that efforts to integrate
environmental goals into the mandate of these agencies is
destined to fail.
Some of the earliest examples of policy integration are
seen in the first-tier East Asian newly industrialised
economies of Singapore and Chinese Taipei. Economic
development agencies in both of these economies were heav-
ily involved in strengthening industrial capacity, promoting
technology upgrading and developing firm-based capacities
for innovation and improvement. These economies took a
similar approach to improving the environmental perform-
ance of firms and industries in the region. In Singapore and
Chinese Taipei, policy makers recognized that environmental
success depended on linking new environmental agencies
with decision-makers in more powerful economic develop-
ment and industrial promotion agencies. Close relations
with those agencies proved critical in gaining support for
environmental improvement in government and business
and identifying cost effective abatement options as well as
opportunities for lowering the energy, water and material
intensities of production. Singapore gave its Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) an important seat at the industrial pol-
Fig. 1. PM 10 in Chinese Taipei
Mic
rogr
ams
per
cubi
c m
eter
6 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
industrial transformation
icy table by linking the promotional decisions of its invest-
ment promotion agency, the Economic Development Board,
and the infrastructure decisions of its premier infrastructure
agency, the Jurong Town Corporation, to a requirement that
firms receiving support meet the environmental require-
ments of the MOE. In Chinese Taipei, the Industrial
Development Board (IDB) provided tax incentives to firms
for the purchase of pollution control equipment. IDB also
provided assistance to firms to engage in a global scan of best
available technologies and encouraged firms to meet interna-
tional industry best practice standards in environmental per-
formance. It invested in the creation of a state-of-the-art
research programme on the energy, water, materials and pol-
lution intensities of Taiwanese industries in the Industrial
Technology Research Institute (ITRI), the premier science
and technology institute in Chinese Taipei.
Figures 1 and 2 show two measures of air quality in
Chinese Taipei for the period 1985-2001. The first indicator,
small particulate matter (PM10), decreased from 96.62
micrograms per cubic meter in 1985 to 57.87 micrograms in
2001. The pollution standards index (PSI), which measures
the percentage of days in which air quality rises above a PSI
of 100, decreased from 13.72% of days in 1985 to 3.42% in
2001. Many factors contributed to this improvement, includ-
ing a restructuring of the sectoral composition of industry,
the movement of some high polluting industries out of the
country, fuel switching, and tighter regulation of mobile
sources of air pollution. A major contributor to the reduc-
tion in industrial emissions was the work of the IDB and
ITRI in promoting the adoption of pollution control tech-
nology and subsequently a shift toward clean production.
IDB funded detailed economic and engineering studies with-
in key industrial sectors, such as cement, steel and textiles,
seeking to benchmark international best practice to identify
cost effective technologies that would reduce resource and
pollution intensities. One example of these policies is the
improvement in water efficiencies in the paper industry in
Chinese Taipei. Twenty years ago paper mills in Chinese
Taipei used approximately
100 tons of water in the pro-
duction of 1 ton of paper.
Today most paper mills use 10
to 15 tons of water per ton of
paper, and IDB is working
with industry to reduce water
use to below 10 tons.
One of the most signifi-
cant efforts to integrate eco-
nomic and environmental
policy in East Asia is the
Model City programme in
China. Building upon an ear-
lier urban environmental
indicators programme, the
State Environmental
Protection Agency in China
has launched a programme
that commits cities to achiev-
ing specific near term goals
for up to 27 environmental parameters, ranging from ambi-
ent air quality to treatment of hazardous waste. The key
operational element of the Model City programme is the
coordination of activities across the full range of economic
and industrial development agencies within the city, under
the direction of the mayor. In the coastal city of Quingdao, a
key priority for the programme is the reduction of sulphur
dioxide emissions from coal-fired boilers. Over the past three
years the city has eliminated more than 2200 coal-fired boil-
ers through a combination of factory closures, fuel switch-
ing, and tax and financing incentives.
Given the rate of urban-industrial growth in developing
Asia, improvements in environmental quality depend on
securing dramatic improvements in the energy, resource and
pollution intensity of economic activity – on Industrial
Transformation. In seeking to improve the environmental
performance of industry, economies in the region are exper-
imenting with a variety of alternative policy approaches that
go well beyond traditional environmental regulation. These
policy experiments offer the prospect that industrialising
economies in Asia can take a different path to improving
environmental performance from that pursued by OECD
economies over the past several decades. We are currently
engaged in ongoing research that seeks to document the
approach taken in these policy initiatives, as well as the
results achieved in several East Asian economies.
REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP
website at www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm
DAVID P. ANGEL is Professor of Geography and Laskoff
Professor of Economics, Technology and the Environment
at Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA;
MICHAEL T. ROCK is Professor of Economics and Chair of
the Department of Economics and Management at Hood
College, Frederick, MD, USA; [email protected]
I T I N E A S T A S I A
➤
➤
Fig. 2. Percentage of days – PSI > 100 in Chinese Taipei
Per
cen
t of
days
I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 7
interviewC L A U D E F U S S L E R
➤ The World Business Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD) is a coalition of international companies unitedby a shared commitment to the three pillars of sustainabledevelopment: economic growth, ecological balance andsocial progress.
Claude Fussler is Director for Stakeholder Relations atthe WBCSD in Geneva, Switzerland. In this role Mr. Fusslerworks with UN agencies, OECD, the European Commissionand major environmental organisations to improve thebusiness sectors’ contribution to sustainable development.He is Vice President of Dow Europe, seconded to theWBCSD and a board member of the StockholmEnvironment Institute.
Q: Mr. Fussler, how do you see the role of business in decou-pling economic growth from the environmental burden?
Decoupling is a very important theme for business. The
World Business Council on Sustainable Development is a
think tank that works with 160 companies, representing
mainly advanced business. The group is also addressing the
issue of decoupling – we call it ‘eco-efficiency’. It is essential
to achieve more quality of life with less environmental
impact. Decoupling has two dimensions: first, decoupling of
industrial sites so that people produce more with less water,
less waste and less energy. Here decoupling is possible from
an engineering and design point of view. The second dimen-
sion, decoupling of consumption, is more tricky. How can we
decouple products from population and consumption
growth? It is technically possible, but business will not be able
to do it alone. For example, 3-liter cars are available on the
market, and so are low energy lamps, but the price signals are
not inducing change at the right pace. The market needs to
provide incentives for saving energy. Over the next 25 years
we will need massive decoupling, particularly in the con-
sumption sector. We will therefore also need a market reform
that stimulates consumers in the direction of eco-efficiency.
Q: What in your opinion is the role of science in achievingsustainability?
Everything we do has to be science-grounded as we devel-
op new technologies that use less energy and produce less
waste. For example, advancements in nano-technology and
information technology are scientifically based. Science is
needed to better understand the carrying capacity of the
earth, i.e., how much material flow the earth can take.
Decoupling has not yet moved far enough; the process is
rather slow. Science is needed both in technology and in envi-
ronmental change. The social and human sciences too will
help us to understand better how to get people to change
their collective actions, how to make sustainability a new cul-
ture. Research is needed to develop and establish this new
culture, and here human and social sciences play an impor-
tant role.
Q: How can business co-operate with the scientific community?
A lot of co-operation is already going on and this is
important for business. The member companies of the
WBCSD, in particular all tech-
nology companies, employ
many scientists, and scientists
are also involved at the gov-
ernment and European
Commission levels. Many
scientific institutions under-
take pre-competitive projects,
where researchers and business
work together. For example, to
develop sustainable production
systems, business, institutions
and academia get together in
workshops and projects to
define strategies for moving towards a sustainable develop-
ment. This co-operation in the form of joint projects and
conferences is very important.
Q: In which areas of the IHDP Industrial Transformation(IT) research agenda can business make the largest contribu-tions, and what is your opinion about the research foci andframework selected by IT?
Business is best at production and consumption systems.
The key is how we produce and consume goods, and business
can have tremendous impact here, provided macroeconomic
systems and an incentive structure are in synergy. Business
needs to be involved as a partner, as it is a key player in pro-
duction and consumption systems. If business is not acting
in the right way, production and consumption will not be
right either.
Concerning the research undertaken by the Industrial
Transformation Project of IHDP, business, as I just men-
tioned, is a prime actor in the research fields of production
and consumption systems. In research on macroeconomic
systems and incentive structure, business is a partner but
society makes its choices. The research focus on governance
and transformation processes, in combination with
macrosystems and incentive structure, provides the frame-
work. Implementation, however, has to happen in the other
four research foci (energy and material flows, food, cities,
and information and communications) and in both produc-
tion and consumption systems.
Q: How can the human dimensions research communityand, in particular, the Industrial Transformation researchcommunity strengthen co-operation with the WBCSD?
The World Business Council is certainly interested in
strengthening co-operation. We are a Council, a think tank
that is advising business. I see our function as a bridge to
macrosystems, governance and transformation structure.
There is a strong interest on our part in governance and
incentive systems. We already have had some preliminary
discussions with senior researchers of the IT project and will
be glad to develop these links further. The best way would be
to involve both business representatives and researchers in
workshops, conferences and joint projects.
INTERVIEW BY ELISABETH DYCK
MAKING SUSTAINABILITY A NEW CULTURE
Phot
o:T.
Ribo
low
ski
8 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
industrial transformationT R I N K E T I S L A N D
In 1947 the Nicobar Islands became part of the new
Indian Republic. India’s policy for these islands assumed
both a “protectionist” and a “civilising” approach. The for-
mer was enforced by special legislation in 1956, the Protection
of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation, and the latter by a series of
welfare programmes, such as education, health, improved
horticulture and breeding, telecommunications, copra price-
support schemes and subsidised market products. Much of
these recent processes contributed to the emergence of a new,
modern identity among the Nicobarese, an important driv-
ing factor in adopting a more consumer-oriented lifestyle,
comparable to that of mainland India. Owing to this process
of acculturation, the islanders’ needs cannot be met without
changes in technology and the existing metaphysical and
social values. This article addresses the ongoing biophysical
changes in the Trinket society and its natural environment as
a result of a shift from a subsistence to a trade-dependent
economy.
CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS
Society’s physical interaction with the natural environ-
ment, coined “social metabolism”, has been described in the
scientific literature [6,7,8,9]. As societies create, reproduce
and maintain their material or biophysical components
(including the human population), they harmonise – similar
to organisms – material and energy flows with their natural
environment. They extract primary resources and use them
for food, machines, buildings, infrastructure, heating and
other products and finally return them to the environment in
the form of waste and emissions.
A society’s material and energy demand varies quantita-
tively and qualitatively, depending on the mode of produc-
tion, distribution and consumption. This can be accounted
for empirically by applying Material Flow Accounting (MFA)
and Energy Flow Accounting (EFA) [10,11,6,12,13,14]. The
characteristic metabolic profile of a society is based on the
amount of material and energy throughput required for pro-
duction and subsistence [6]. Both MFA and EFA have been
widely applied in national economies such as in the USA,
Germany, Austria, the UK, the Netherlands and Japan
[11,15] and have gained strong political support [16]. The
approach provides an in-depth understanding of the dynam-
ics of environmental relations between a local society and its
natural environment.
In accounting for material and energy flows, the indica-
tors are Direct Material Input (DMI) and Direct Energy
Input (DEI), and both are the sums of imported and
domestically extracted material/energy. Domestic Material
Consumption (DMC) and Domestic Energy Consumption
(DEC) are consumption indicators; these are the actual
amounts of material/energy consumed by the society after
subtracting exports from the DMI and DEI. If a society is
based on an extractive, export-oriented economy, the DMI
and DMC might differ considerably. The units used are
TRANSITIONS IN AN ISLAND SOCIETY A Biophysical Reading of Society-Nature Interactions | BY SIMRON JIT SINGH
➤ It has often been argued that society’s environmentalrelations and related processes of environmental degradation
changed dramatically when society moved from a predomi-
nantly agrarian mode of production to an industrial one
[1,2]. This “great transformation” [3] in the area of produc-
tion and social relations occurred first in Northern and
Central Europe as an endogenously driven process. To a
degree unknown before, this transformation has caused
changes in environmental relations, natural resource utilisa-
tion and the use of ecosystems services [2,4,5].
The process of industrialisation has not yet come to a
standstill. A large part of the world’s population is living in
an agricultural environment. These societies are now moving
towards the “new” industrial mode of production. Whatever
similarities to the past that we might find, the current
processes of extending industrial systems and including agri-
cultural regions are primarily externally driven. Hence the
processes of change might differ considerably from the first
transition in Europe. Nevertheless, the potential for environ-
mental exploitation might be rather similar.
TRANSITION ON THE ISLAND OF TRINKET
One such example of an externally driven transition is the
island of Trinket in the Nicobar Archipelago in the Bengal
Sea. Traditionally living from hunting, gathering, fishing and
pig rearing, the inhabitants of Trinket are now largely horti-
culturalists and have engaged in copra production for export
for more than 50 years. In exchange they import commodities
such as rice, sugar, cloth and kerosene, which they obtain for
subsidised prices in the Indian government’s welfare
programme. Historically the Nicobar Islands were never com-
pletely isolated. Their geographical location on an important
sea route to Southeast Asia brought them in close contact
with merchants and occasional travellers who anchored off
the coast to load food and water during their long sea voyages.
Phot
o:S.
J.Si
ngh
Copra production on the island of Trinket, India.
I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 9
industrial transformation
metric tons (for materials) and joules (for energy) per
capita per year.
MATERIAL AND ENERGY FLOWS FOR TRINKET
Let us consider the biophysical exchanges (material and
energy flow) taking place in Trinket’s society, its domestic
environment and other societies by way of trade.
Quantitative data show a DMI of 6.2 tons/capita/year.
However, imports are far below the domestic extraction.
Major imports include minerals in the form of construction
material, biomass (mainly rice and sugar) and fossil fuels.
Each year a substantial amount of cement and steel is
brought to the island for construction of buildings, such as
schools, health centres, wells, etc., under tribal welfare
schemes. Rice, now a staple diet, has gradually replaced pan-
danus as the main source of carbohydrate. Fossil fuels have
been introduced recently and are needed to run motorboats
transporting materials to and from the island.
Most of the biomass requirements (2.3 tons) for Trinket’s
socio-economic system is met domestically from the harvest
of fuel-wood, coconuts, tubers, fish, and minor forest pro-
duce. However, as Fig. 1 indicates, minerals (sand and grav-
el) account for the majority of materials extracted from the
domestic environment. These minerals are partly used on the
island as building materials but most of the sand is exported
to neighbouring islands for construction of government
headquarters. The DMC – or the actual consumption after
subtracting exports from DMI – for Trinket was 3.8
tons/capita/year.
In terms of energy flow, 23% of the energy inputs are
imported; biomass comes from domestic extraction. The
DEI – the sum of imports and domestic extraction – was 39
GJ/capita/year, with 31 GJ biomass energy and only 7.8 GJ
fossil fuel. In industrial economies this is reversed.
Subtracting exported energy in the form of copra, the DEC
was 35 GJ.
When interpreting energy flow data, several points are of
interest: (1) the highly inefficient system of animal hus-
bandry (pigs and chickens), which amounts to less than 1%
compared to an average of 10% in rural animal husbandry;
(2) fossil fuels are the dominant energy carrier (6.4 GJ), com-
pared to fuel-wood (3 GJ) and solar energy (0.009 GJ); (3)
of the total fuel-wood consumption (3 GJ), more than half is
used in the production of copra (1.6 GJ), while the rest (1.4
GJ) is used for domestic cooking; and (4) the export of bio-
mass energy far exceeds imports, resulting in a one way
nutrient flow.
CONCLUSIONS
Trinket follows the pattern of an externally driven transi-
tion and transformation, which is representative for the
global South. This is due to Trinket’s extractive economy, a
growing dependency on trade and a strive for materialism. At
the same time the island is exposed to the inherent inequali-
ty of the global division of labour [17,18].
MFA and EFA data explicitly show a society that
depends on both domestic resources and trade relations.
This is not a recent phenomenon on Trinket. The islands
of the Nicobar Archipelago have a long tradition of barter
trade due to their geographical location on an important
sea route. Now this former barter trade is permanently
replaced by a system depending on an “all-purpose” cur-
rency as the central exchange value, and on capitalism and
the world market. Trinket provides a revealing example of
T R I N K E T I S L A N D
Fig. 1. Trinket Island: Systems Boundary and Material Flows
1 0 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
industrial transformation
➤ Maintaining economic growth has been a major concernof economists ever since Ricardo and Marx. The subject
gained public interest through the early reports to the Club
of Rome, which successfully convinced the public that the
earth has a limited capacity to supply resources for produc-
tion and, even though it provides an environment that
absorbs our waste, it cannot support a permanent exponen-
tial growth of supply and demand for any commodity. Over
the last decades several countries experienced a decoupling
between economic growth and local environmental pressure,
resulting in increasing income and decreasing emissions of
local pollutants. However, many global environmental prob-
lems, such as climate change, loss of rain forests, soil erosion
and loss of biodiversity, do not show such a decoupling, and
they are getting worse. The global economy is not on a sus-
tainable track and, unless we give priority to environmental
resource conservation, it seems unavoidable that economic
welfare will cease to improve.
SUSTAINABILITY – AN OBVIOUS TARGET?
Sustainable development requires that the members of the
present generation meet their needs – and too often it is for-
gotten that this includes the poor – without endangering the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This
well-known definition, given in the Brundtland report [1,
p.43], can be traced back as far as Aristotle who emphasised
the need for successive generations not to constrain future
generations in the fulfilment of their preferences. [2, p.69].
Climate change is one of the global environmental prob-
lems that has attracted much attention among scientists,
including economists, and they have provided policy makers
with many contrasting recommendations. Fossil fuel com-
“encompassing” a sub-system in an overarching world
system [19].
Development programmes are directed at changing the
characteristics of the local economy, lifestyle and consump-
tion patterns. However, the traditional economy is embed-
ded in other aspects of social life, and resource exploitation
is adjusted to seasonal cycles and availability of resources.
Due to local natural resource constraints, traditional
economies are fairly sustainable. Government interventions
attempt to lift these constraints by providing frameworks for
trade and aid, thus leading to differentiation in the society;
the economics are no longer an integral part of the socio-cul-
tural realm, but a separate entity [3]. This inevitably has
effects on the social structure and its corresponding environ-
mental relations. New quantities and qualities of industrially
processed materials are introduced, markets are created,
needs and wants are made to surface, and new values are
adopted by society. The three dimensions of environmental
relations – material, socio-structural, and cognitive – are
transformed, and together they make up a new set of inter-
actions with nature.
A longer version of this article was published in Singh et al.,
2001 [20]. References are included on the IHDP website at
www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm.
SIMRON JIT SINGH is a Researcher and Lecturer in the
Department of Social Ecology, Institute for Interdisciplinary
Studies, University of Vienna, Austria;
[email protected]; www.iff.ac.at/socec
bustion for energy generation is still increasing. The concen-
tration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mainly car-
bon dioxide, but also nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluoro-
carbons, etc.) results in global warming. Common scenarios
foresee a doubling of CO2 emissions before the end of the 21st
century, and this is expected to lead to an increase in the
average global surface temperature by 1 to 6 degrees Celsius
[3]. Continued population growth and increased material
wealth worldwide make this scenario not unrealistic.
When calculating the cost of climate change, the current
scientific understanding is grossly insufficient to provide an
overall estimation of the costs of the many complex damages
associated with climate change. These complex damages
include loss of coastal zones due to sea level rise, loss of bio-
diversity, spread of vector-borne diseases and the occurrence
of extreme climate events. Nonetheless most economic stud-
ies assume climate change costs will not exceed 10% of glob-
al income for the coming centuries. This implies that, over
the next century, welfare increase through economic growth
will more than compensate for any welfare loss due to cli-
mate change. Concerns for decreasing welfare levels are thus
unwarranted.
Many scientists outside the economics discipline strongly
disagree with the optimistic conclusion of sustained welfare
growth under unconstrained climate change. This optimistic
perspective is based on the fundamental assumption of per-
fect long-term substitutability between man-made and natu-
ral capital, which states that, irrespective of future wealth lev-
els, there always exists a compensation for environmental
losses in terms of an additional amount of man-made goods.
Although non-economists may consider the assumption
highly disputable, its rejection does not lead to an easy con-
I T E C O N O M I C P E R S P E C T I V E
A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE?An economic perspective on industrial transformation | BY REYER GERLAGH AND ELISSAIOS PAPYRAKIS
The author is grateful to the Government of India (Department of HRD,Ministry of HRD) for financial support of the fieldwork; to the Andaman andNicobar Administration for logistical support on the islands; and to INTACH,New Delhi, for institutional support of the project.
I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 1 1
industrial transformationI T E C O N O M I C P E R S P E C T I V E
clusion. Without perfect substitutability, environmental
resources eventually may become too costly to preserve, a
phenomenon known to economists as Baumol’s disease [4].
There is an obvious need to improve our understanding of
the welfare implications of economic development in a
degrading environment. Yet, keeping in mind our lack of
knowledge of future preferences, Aristotle’s suggestion for
sustainability gives good reason to attempt combining eco-
nomic growth and environmental protection, and we turn to
the question of the costs of sustainability.
SUSTAINABILITY – A COSTLY TARGET?
The majority of economic studies on climate change
advocate the adoption of non-aggressive carbon dioxide mit-
igation regulations that do not prevent climate change [5].
The reason is that the costs of abatement measures are calcu-
lated to amount to billions of euros, considered to be too
costly a price. But are the costs truly prohibitive? Considering
another angle, they may not be. Stabilising the atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 close to their current level (about 370
ppm) may cost about 3% of global income by 2100. On a
century’s time scale, these costs have a negligible impact on
the overall pattern of economic growth and are equal to not
more than a few years’ delay in a hundred years’ projection of
continued income growth [6,7]. A sustainable development
pattern preventing climate change, from this perspective
does not appear to be too costly.
Resource conservation remains a burden on economic
growth, although the magnitude of the burden is subject to
discussions. Some people fear that the costs of resource con-
servation are progressively increasing for future generations.
To understand the time profile of emission abatement costs,
we have to consider the foundations of economic growth.
The output and wealth generated by the economy depend on
the set of technologies in use for production, which is only a
small subset of all potential technologies available. Through
research we slowly advance the set of available technologies,
often referred to as our ‘knowledge stock’. Some technologies
are environment friendly, compared with others that cause
pollution. In the past most research efforts have been spent,
and with success, on developing or selecting technologies
that save labour costs, and thus increase labour productivity.
For a sustainable future we will have to search for technolo-
gies that increase resource productivity as well, i.e., that
decrease the resource intensity of production. When we suc-
cessfully direct technological change, the cost of decoupling
economic growth from resource use can remain within
bounds and need not progressively increase. Using climate
change as an illustration, calculations with an economic
model confirm the hypothesis that directed technological
change lowers substantially the cost of stabilising atmospher-
ic greenhouse gases [8].
INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION
An optimistic scenario of increasing wealth and decreas-
ing environmental pressure can be realised when relatively
clean technologies start to dominate the market. A move
towards resource-extensive technologies, however, is compli-
cated by increasing returns to scale and path dependence.
What are the mechanisms at play? As a technology becomes
more widely used by firms and increases its market share,
over time learning-by-doing effects decrease the unit cost of
production for the specific technology and make it more
attractive (cheaper) to firms. In turn, lower costs of the tech-
nology further enhance its use. There is a positive feedback
from the use of a technology to learning and to its use. This
feedback allows the production factors to be increasingly
productive over time so that output levels (the ‘returns’ on
input) increase faster than inputs; this feature is known as
‘increasing returns to scale’. These returns result in path-
dependence, i.e., the course the market will take in the future
depends on the path taken in the past. In practice this means
that if one technology dominates over another, and the pro-
duction of this technology accumulates, it will become rela-
tively cheaper and acquire a larger market share. The tech-
nology’s dominance will be further reinforced.
Learning-by-doing is one source of increasing returns to
scale and path dependence; infrastructural dependence is a
Fig. 1 shows the development from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Each technology system has its own increasingreturns to scale, and specialisation on one system produces the highest level of wealth. A transition from one
system to the other will temporarily reduce the benefits of the increasing returns, leading to a decline in wealth.After the economy has moved to the other system, growth will continue.
Transition Costs
➤ Biomass fuels have good prospects of becoming a tradable good. However, further research is necessary to
investigate the sustainability of such a trade. Current knowl-
edge about the potential of actual biomass production for
providing energy on a regional scale is rather limited. It
depends on a very complex set of physiological, technical,
socio-economic, political and cultural factors. Key issues
include the extent to which agriculture can be modernised,
and which ecological and economic criteria will be set for
large-scale use of bio-energy. Some criteria, such as safe food
production and protecting pristine areas and forests, may be
key constraints to bio-energy. The IHDP Industrial
Transformation Project is considering to launch a major pro-
gramme that aims to investigate these issues.
GLOBAL BIOMASS YIELDS
Biomass energy yields from several plant sources with
promising photosynthetic efficiencies are compared in Fig. 1.
In a temperate climate, such as the USA, biomass varieties,
1 2 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
industrial transformationB I O M A S S T R A D E
BIOMASS TRADE – AN OPTION FOR THE FUTURE?Agricultural land in tropical countries could significantly improve the biomass contribution to energy
supply | BY JOSÉ R. MOREIRA
second one. Technology clusters, such as the fossil fuel ener-
gy system, have their own infrastructure with substantial set-
up costs. These infrastructural costs also act as a feedback in
favour of technologies that share the same infrastructure.
R&D activities are a third source of increasing returns and
path dependence. Innovations that improve dominant tech-
nologies with a substantial market share generate substantial
profit flows. Such innovations are extremely valuable, while
innovations of technologies with minor market shares are of
little value. Research centres therefore tend to invest in dom-
inant technologies. In summary, the positive feedback mech-
anisms strengthen the position of existing dominant tech-
nology clusters and reduce the competitiveness of alternative
new technologies.
This has two implications. First, once the technology basis
of production has been transformed so that it is less depend-
ent on resources such as fossil fuels, a new stable and possi-
bly sustainable development path is reached. Sustainable
development need not be a continuing burden on economic
growth. Second, the transformation towards such an alterna-
tive development path requires substantial effort. At the
same time there is much uncertainty as to future develop-
ments of technologies. For energy, there are various compet-
ing options. Fossil fuels compete with solar energy, wind
energy, hydrogen as an energy carrier, and other energy sys-
tems. Due to increasing returns, it is impossible to foretell
the outcome of the technology competition. Fossil fuels also
provide increasing returns to scale and, without action, fossil
fuels may remain dominant in the next century. A preference
for sustainable resource use requires a switch towards alter-
native technologies. Initially these new technologies need
some backing to accumulate sufficient knowledge to obtain a
market share that enables the exploitation of increasing
returns to scale. A stimulus is needed on either the demand
side or the technology supply side to set in motion a transi-
tion to resource extensive technologies. Tax exemptions and
subsidies for non-polluting technologies, financial support
and incentives for newly-established technologies to cover
set-up costs, and a change of consumer preferences towards
goods produced in an environment friendly manner are a
few examples of stimuli supporting such a transition.
Whatever the measures adopted may be, it should be clear
that part of the uncertainty about future developments in
technology and sustainability of economic growth can be
resolved by taking a definite position. In a global economy, a
global effort to stimulate sustainable development is needed
more than ever.
REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP web-
site at www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm
REYER GERLAGH is an Associate Professor at the Institute
for Environmental Studies, Faculty of Earth and Life
Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
[email protected]; www.vu.nl/ivm
ELISSAIOS PAPYRAKIS is a PhD student at the same institute;
including wood, maize and Alama switchgrass, show much
lower yields than plants (eucalyptus and sugarcane) pro-
duced in a tropical climate, e.g., in Brazil and Zambia. The
major conclusion is that primary energy production can be
performed more efficiently on water abundant tropical soils
than on temperate ones. Yields are 3 to 6 times higher on
tropical soils.
BIOFUEL
It is important to quantify the amount of secondary
renewable energy since the use of renewable sources may
involve conversion efficiencies from primary to secondary
energy that differ from conventional energy sources.
Compared with fossil fuel, conversion efficiencies of renew-
ables are often reported to be very low, due to large amounts
of energy wasted in the transformation process. For example,
the conversion of maize to ethanol, and rapeseed to bio-
diesel are good examples of secondary energy sources in tem-
perate countries with low conversion efficiencies. Several
I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 1 3
industrial transformationB I O M A S S T R A D E
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
WOOD FROM COMMERCIAL FORESTS, USA
MAIZE, USA (grain + stover)
SUGARCANE (Total above ground
biomass)
ALAMO SWITCHGRASS
USA
EUCALYPTUS ARACRUZ, BRAZIL
Low Estimate High Estimate Average yield, 5 experimental
plots, Texas, 1993–94
Average yield Zambia
(10,000 ha)
Global average yield, 1987
Record yield Iowa, USA,
1994
Average yield 1985–87
Average yield, years 2–6,
experimental plots, Alabama
Average commercial yield (80,000ha) 1986–91
Maximum yield
1986–91
40
1010
450425
250
1330
630
430
225
80
evaluations concluded that ethanol production derived from
maize requires the use of 70 to 100% of the final energy con-
tent of ethanol in the form of fossil fuels. A recent review
study prepared by CONCAWE (www.concawe.be) for the
Europe Union concludes:
1. Comparing the energy required for producing biofuel to
the energy content of substituted gasoline or diesel,
Rapeseed Methyl Ester (RME) represents on average a
saving of 37% of the energy contained in the fuel. Ethanol
from beets or wheat leads on average to no energy saving,
since the energy used for production is virtually equal to
the energy in the ethanol produced.
2. In reality the savings are somewhat larger, since the pro-
duction of gasoline or diesel also consumes energy, which
is saved if a biofuel is substituted. On this basis, the ener-
gy saving for RME is 47% and for ethanol 17% on average.
The greenhouse gas (GHG) balance can be calculated in
the same way by comparing the net GHG emissions from
producing biofuel with the emissions from producing and
burning fossil fuel with the same energy content. The CO2
emitted during combustion of biofuel does not enter into the
balance because it is absorbed from the atmosphere by crops.
Effective use of by-products can improve the energy and
GHG balances. The ethanol production process includes
protein-rich by-products, which may replace crops grown
specifically for animal feed. The RME production also yields
animal feed and glycerine. Table 1 shows figures with and
without animal feed credits. From these figures we conclude
that introducing 5% of biofuel (on an energy basis) on the
European Union market would at best replace about 1.6% of
gasoline and 2.8% of diesel by ethanol and RME, respective-
ly. In theory additional credits can be achieved by using waste
biomass to provide fuel for the production process. This is,
however, not the general practice and the exact credit figures
and economic benefits are rather uncertain at this time.
CONVERSION EFFICIENCIES
Contrary to the poor secondary energy transformation in
temperate countries, sugarcane, a common crop in tropical
countries, has a much better conversion efficiency, even
when simple technologies are used. In Brazil sugarcane juice
is converted to fuel ethanol by simple but efficient technolo-
gies. New legislation motivates sugar mills to produce sur-
plus electricity, which is sold to the electricity grid. The pri-
mary sugarcane energy value is stored in three different
forms of biomass – juice, sugarcane bagasse and sugarcane
residues, each one representing one third of the total
amount. The residues are often burned before harvesting,
and the bagasse is burned in the mills to produce the energy
required for juice extraction and conversion to sugar or
ethanol. Due to this self-sufficient energy production, the
industrial processing of sugarcane to ethanol does not
require any fossil fuel. However, crop planting, fertilising,
harvesting and transportation require the use of fossil fuel.
Several energy balance evaluations conclude that about 16%
of the total alcohol energy content is due to fossil fuel con-
sumed in the agricultural and industrial phases. This means
that one unit of energy (alcohol) requires 0.16 units of fossil
fuel plus almost another unit of biomass stored in the sugar-
cane bagasse. The current practice in Brazil consumes 90% of
the sugarcane bagasse energy to provide heat and power to
the mills. The 10% surplus energy is often sold to other agro-
industries.
Fig. 1. Biomass Energy Yields From Several Plants
Bio
mas
s Y
ield
(G
J/ha
/yr)
Source: Climate Change 1995. IPCC Second Assessment Report
1 4 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
industrial transformationB I O M A S S T R A D E
% Savings Ethanol RME
Animal feed credit Without With Without With
Energy savings 17 31 47 56
GHG savings 26 37 53/7* 58/21*
Source: www.concawe.be * Including IPCC N2O emissions evaluation
Table 1.Energy and GHG Savings for DifferentVarieties ofBiomass-Derived Fuels
As far as energy efficiency is concerned, 1.06 units of
energy are consumed for the production of one unit of sec-
ondary energy in the form of alcohol. Thus the conversion
efficiency is 48.5%, i.e., each unit of sugarcane energy trans-
ported to the mill replaces only 0.48 units of energy from
gasoline. This is a better result than in temperate countries,
but it is still low.
ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION
More promising results are achieved by a technology for
‘energy co-production’ that is used in about 10% of all mills
in Brazil. When burning sugarcane bagasse in medium-pres-
sure boilers, surplus electricity can be produced and then
sold to the grid. The most efficient unit sells 80 kWh per
tonne of cane processed. This amount of electricity equals
288 MJ. Each tonne of processed cane results in 80 litres of
ethanol, i.e., an energy value of 1,700 MJ per tonne of cane.
Thus electricity co-production represents an increase in the
secondary energy content of alcohol by 17%. This changes
our earlier conversion efficiency figure. The new figure is
57%, roughly double the value that can be achieved in tem-
perate countries (see Table 1).
A higher primary productivity (3 to 6-fold) and better
secondary energy efficiencies (2-fold) in tropical areas indi-
cate that about 6 to 12 times more land would be required in
temperate countries to produce usable energy from biomass.
Such figures are very important, as large areas of land must
be dedicated to biomass if we expect a significant contribu-
tion of this renewable energy source to mitigate climate
change.
The IPCC Third Assessment Report concludes that by
using 12.8 million km2 of the available 25 million km2 of
agricultural land on the globe, it is possible to produce 440
EJ/yr of primary biomass energy. This figure assumes 300
GJ/ha/yr from an average productivity of a forest plantation.
Using wood as the primary form of biomass, it is possible to
obtain electricity at a conversion efficiency of 30%. Thus
from the 440 EJ/yr of primary energy it will be possible to
produce 132 EJ/yr of secondary energy as electricity. The
same IPCC document foresees a global primary energy
demand in the range of 550 to 2700 EJ/yr by the year 2100.
The associated amount of secondary energy can be calculat-
ed based on the present and future conversion efficiencies;
between 200 and 1000 EJ/yr will be required. Assuming the
higher value, the main conclusion is that, using all the sur-
plus agricultural land expected by 2050 (12.8 million km2),
planted forests would be able to supply only 13.2% of the
total secondary energy demand.
If agricultural land in tropical countries instead of
temperate ones were used, this would improve significantly
the biomass contribution to energy supply. Planting sugar-
cane crops over an area of 1.43 million km2 can yield 100
EJ/yr of secondary energy (alcohol fuel and electricity). Since
most of the unused agricultural land is available in
South/Central America and Africa, it is possible to extract
around 500 EJ/yr from an area of 7 million km2 on these con-
tinents. This represents 50% of the total secondary energy
demand by 2100 under the most energy intensive scenario of
the IPCC.
TRADING BIOMASS FUEL
Comparing biomass energy yields from tropical and
temperate soils, it is easy to justify a preference for the for-
mer. If this can be realised, it could lead to an intensive
trade of biomass fuels between the North and the South.
The transport infrastructure of oil and oil derivatives
could be used for transporting liquid biofuel at about the
same cost.
The situation is more complex for electricity. The current
production of electricity (80 kWh/tonne of cane) from sug-
arcane grown on an area of 1.43 million km2 (which yields
100 tonnes of cane per year and per ha) is 1,144 TWh/yr; this
is higher than the current electricity consumption in
South/Central America (951 TWh/yr in 2001). The region
could probably absorb this amount of electricity by the year
2050, replacing fossil fuel based plants. Biomass gasification
and combined cycle gas turbines using sugarcane bagasse
and residues could become a common technology in the next
decade, delivering 400 kWh/tonne of cane. As higher sugar-
cane yields can be expected in the future, the electricity
resulting from 1.43 million km2 would exceed 7,000 TWh/yr
(the current world consumption is almost 14,000 TWh/yr).
As such amounts of electricity cannot be consumed in
South/Central America or Africa by 2050, installing electric-
ity intensive industries in those regions would be worth con-
sidering. Another alternative is to use the surplus electricity
to produce hydrogen, which could then be traded and trans-
ported by sea.
JOSÉ ROBERTO MOREIRA is President of the Council of the
National Reference Center on Biomass (CENBIO), Sao
Paulo, Brazil; [email protected]
➤
I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 1 5
young scientist research
➤ For many years the allocation of water resources hasbeen the subject of disputes between countries or among
various user groups. Water disputes or water scarcity are a
problem in many developing countries. However, huge
efforts are also necessary in developed countries to satisfy the
demand for an adequate supply of water, as a rapid popula-
tion growth increases the need for a more efficient use of
water for both consumption and production of goods and
services. Securing a balanced water supply poses numerous
problems, which call for investments in infrastructure that
enable us to store and regulate water.
Traditionally, public policy has had considerable influ-
ence on the water sector, particularly on the provision of
drinking water, as governments in most countries have
played and still play an important role in providing an ade-
quate water supply. Nevertheless, we also observe changes,
since in some countries governments gradually withdraw
from water management.
In the past, water management has been dominated by
technical sciences. Meeting an increasing demand for water
was often solved by capital-intensive supply measures, such
as building an extra dam or a purification installation. Today,
the capital intensity of the water sector is growing. In the
Netherlands, for example, 80% of expenses in this sector are
non-salary costs. As technical measures alone have failed to
manage adequately the various functions of water, a more
economic approach is required. The problems of the last
decades can be characterised as those of water scarcity, which
is at the core of economics.
The increasing attention to scarcity of water and a more
sustainable use of water resources calls for a balance between
water demand- and supply-oriented measures. Economic
measurements and instruments provide, to a certain extent,
the right means for this purpose. A central question is the
effectiveness of economic policy measures and instruments
in urban areas and ways to apply them in achieving a more
sustainable use of water.
For several reasons water issues are of interest in an urban
context. A significant demand for water is due to the high
concentration of people living in cities. In developed coun-
tries, about 70 percent of the population live in urban areas
(with more than 25,000 inhabitants) and this number is still
rising. During 1950-1990, the urban population increased
considerably, and an adequate supply of clean water is an
important precondition for a successful development.
Appropriate management systems need to be established to
cope with the increased stress resulting from a growing pop-
ulation. However, an appropriate water management system
cannot consider the urban area in isolation. In highly popu-
lated areas, the water resources necessary to supply drinking
water tend to be located far away from the city borders.
When water is extracted from the immediate surroundings
of cities, which may play a vital role in recreation and food
supply, conflicts of interest between the various types of
users may occur.
As a result of different economic and social develop-
ments, urbanisation patterns differ across Europe. In
Southern and Eastern Europe, cities experienced rural-to-
urban migration combined with high birth rates, causing a
rapid population growth throughout the 1960s and the
1970s. In contrast, population growth declined in Western
Europe in cities; this was followed by a spatial expansion of
cities leading to sub-urbanisation and ultimately ‘de-urbani-
sation’. These differences in population growth and urbani-
sation patterns call for varying policy instruments and
approaches to fulfil the inhabitants’ needs for urban services.
A main task is to bring urban development into equilibri-
um with the capacity of the ecosystem, to provide life-sup-
porting functions, and to minimise pressures on the local,
regional and global environment. This concept is described
in the framework of the IHDP IT Project as the decoupling
of human activities, which sustain life in cities, from the
hydrological cycle. Thus an appropriate management of
scarce amounts of freshwater should be addressed in combi-
nation with other urban planning issues.
In my own research, I focussed on a theoretical frame-
work of water demand models, the theory of water policy
and an evaluation of the effectiveness of price instruments.
By means of a meta-analysis of water provision in the urban
areas of Amsterdam, Athens, London, Seville and Tel Aviv,
and existing studies that describe the economic instruments
and measurements in water management, the effects of these
instruments and measurements are described with respect to
more efficient use of water. When network performance is
used as an indicator, privatisation of water provision does
not result in a more efficient use of water. However, integrat-
ed water management may decrease the transaction costs of
water provision, but price instruments provide the most sig-
nificant means to bring water use on a more sustainable
path. Wise usage of tariff systems and more attention to eco-
nomics will be valuable for sustainable water policies.
This article is based on “The Economics of Sustainable Water
Use, Comparisons and Lessons from Urban Areas”, by Jasper
M. Dalhuisen. Thela thesis (see www.thelathesis.nl).
JASPER M. DALHUSIEN is with the Department of Nature
Management, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management
and Fisheries (LNV), The Hague, The Netherlands;
S U S T A I N A B L E W A T E R U S E
THE ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABLE WATER USEComparisons and lessons from urban areas | BY JASPER M. DALHUISEN
➤
➤
1 6 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
young scientist research
➤ The current manner in which food is produced and consumed has considerable impacts on the environment.
Growing populations of humans and livestock demand an
increased production of food and feed crops and a competi-
tive use of the limited available cropland. Due to the growing
environmental impact and the competition between food
and feed crops, the protein production and consumption
chain offers good possibilities to optimise sustainability.
The IHDP IT endorsed research programme PROFETAS
(Protein Foods, Environment, Technology And Society),
a Dutch multidisciplinary research programme (www.profetas.nl), studies protein chains and the prospect of
replacing meat in the western diet with plant protein prod-
ucts, so-called ‘Novel Protein Foods’ (NPFs). PROFETAS is
based on the hypothesis that a shift in the Western diet from
animal to plant proteins is environmentally more sustainable
than the present situation, technologically feasible, and
socially desirable. The ultimate goal of PROFETAS is to pro-
vide a toolbox, which will facilitate solving future problems
related to food production and consumption.
Our study is part of this research programme, investigat-
ing the production and consumption chains of pork and
NPFs, and assessing their environmental impacts in the
search for alternative development pathways that have a sig-
nificantly smaller burden on the environment. A systematic
description of the chains, a life cycle assessment (LCA) and
the development of environmental indicators are the major
methodologies.
The pork chain includes a large variety of processes (see
Fig. 1). The NPFs chain (Fig. 2) includes fewer processes,
since it does not comprise animal production. In evaluating
the environmental impacts of both chains, we have to con-
sider all relevant processes. Using LCA, an inventory of all
inputs and outputs along the chains was made. These inputs
and outputs were linked to resource use and environmental
emissions. Animal production requires large quantities of
water to grow feed crops and, to a lesser extent, animal con-
sumption, which impacts on water resources. The use of
energy contributes to global warming due to CO2 emissions,
acidification due to SO2 and NOx emissions, and depletion of
scarce energy resources. The land for crops is directly related
to soil erosion because of the reduced fertility and produc-
tivity of the soil. The use of agro-chemicals (fertilizers and
pesticides) is related to eutrophication, as minerals (N and P)
enter the soil and water system. It is also related to eco-toxic-
ity and human toxicity because minerals (N and P) and heavy
metals (Zn, Cu) are deposited in the eco-system and human
body. Animal production causes emissions of a large number
of pollutants, such as NH3, CH4 and N2O. Emissions of NH3
may lead to acidification and eventually eutrophication,
while emitted CH4 and N2O contribute to the greenhouse
effect.
Environmental indicators can provide valuable informa-
tion on complex issues. To identify the environmental prob-
lems caused by the inputs and outputs along the chains, we
developed two types of environmental pressure indicators:
emission indicators and resource use indicators. The emissions
contributing to the same environmental impact can be aggre-
gated into one indicator. For the protein chains we focused
on three emission indicators: CO2 equivalents, NH3 equiva-
lents and N equivalents, and three resource use indicators:
water use, land use and pesticide use for assessing environ-
mental impacts.
The results of the study show that the pork chain con-
tributes to global warming about 3 times, and to acidification
24 times more than the NPFs chain. As for the eutrophication
in soil and water systems, the pork chain contributes 2.7
times more than the NPFs chain. The pork chain also needs
1.9 times more water and at least 1.5 times more land than
the NPFs chain. As for pesticide use, however, the NPFs chain
needs 1.2 times more pesticide than the pork chain, because
feed crops in the pork chain, like tapioca, require almost no
pesticides for production.
The study indicates that the NPFs chain is more environ-
ment friendly. Replacing animal protein food with plant pro-
tein food is a promising approach to reduce environmental
pressures. It decreases the pressure on land for feed crops.
From an economic perspective, this approach also provides
an opportunity to grow other economic crops on the avail-
able land. Changing some inputs in the chains (e.g., animal
diets) may result in less environmental pressures. Modifying
the protein production and consumption chain offers good
possibilities to reduce environmental impact and enhance
sustainability.
P R O F E T A S
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FOOD PRODUCTIONA comparison of pork and Novel Protein Foods chains | BY XUEQIN ZHU
CropsFeed
IndustryPig
FarmingSlaughtering
MeatProcessing
Distribution Consumer
PeasNPFs
ProcessingDistribution Consumer
Fig. 2. NPFs production and consumption chain
Fig. 1. Pork production and consumption chain
XUEQIN ZHU, from Wuxi University of Light Industry, P.R.
China, is a PhD researcher in the Environmental Economics
and Natural Resources Group, Wageningen University, The
Netherlands; [email protected]; www.sls.wau.nl/enr/
➤
I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 1 7
essp
➤ The World Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD) in Johannesburg (26 August – 4 September 2002),
and the process leading up to it, caught the attention
and engagement of governments, and a multitude of other
actors. The purpose of the Summit was to review progress on
implementing the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 from the
United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992), and readjust the
focus for the years ahead. Despite the media hype that con-
demned the Summit as a failure, there were good results in
many areas. Ambitious time-bound targets were agreed
upon, for example, in areas of poverty reduction, access to
water and sanitation, biodiversity loss, fishery stocks, and
chemicals [1].
In the action plan Agenda 21, adopted by the Rio confer-
ence, scientists are identified as one of the Major Groups.
Other groups include women, children and youth, indige-
nous peoples, NGOs, local authorities, workers and trade
unions, business and industry, and farmers, each one with
their own Chapter outlining their specific role for sustain-
able development [2]. The WSSD process included the offi-
cial participation of representatives of all these groups to lev-
els not seen before in UN conferences. They were included,
for example, in Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues with govern-
ments, invited to submit reports and take part in Round
Table discussions with Heads of State. The International
Council for Science (ICSU) together with the World
Federation of Engineering Organisations was asked by the
UN to facilitate the input from the scientific and technolog-
ical community.
WHY IS SCIENCE ESSENTIAL FOR SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT?
Sustainable development at local, regional and global
scales represents perhaps the most daunting challenge that
humanity has ever faced. Central to all of the many
approaches aimed at both identifying unsustainable prac-
tices and achieving sustainability are scientific knowledge,
access to that knowledge and its application. The great sus-
tainability problems of the 21st century – e.g., poverty allevi-
ation, sustainable food production, clean and accessible
water resources, the health of ecosystems and maintenance of
biodiversity – all require, as one critical component of their
solution, usable scientific knowledge. Thus, whatever the cul-
tural, geographical, economic or environmental setting, a
partnership between science and society is a fundamental
prerequisite for sustainable development.
HOW CAN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IMPROVE ITSCONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
In the decade since the adoption of Agenda 21, the scien-
tific community has vastly increased its potential for con-
tributing to sustainable development. Improved understand-
ing of climate variability through time and the ability to
make some predictions is, among other things, providing
better warnings of natural phenomena such as El Niño and
improving agricultural production. For example, the causes
of the ozone hole are understood and an effective societal
response has been developed; and understanding of terrestri-
al carbon dynamics is enabling policy makers to establish
CO2 mitigation measures aimed at limiting climate change
and its consequences.
Nevertheless, the challenges of the next decade and
beyond will require significant changes to the scientific
enterprise to improve further its capability to contribute to
sustainable development. Accordingly, IHDP, together with
its partners IGBP and WCRP, organised a workshop
(“Sustainable Development – The Role of International
Science”, Paris, February 2002) to which representatives from
core projects of the programmes as well as from other ICSU
environment-related bodies were invited. The objective of
the workshop was to review past achievements and to pro-
vide some insights on how science and scientists in the ICSU
family may better contribute to sustainable development.
Following the Global Change Open Science Conference in
Amsterdam (July 2001) concrete steps are being made to
develop a science, which is more relevant for sustainable
development. The discussions at the Paris workshop were
intense and productive. Participants agreed that in the
decade since the drafting of Agenda 21, the scientific com-
munity has vastly increased its role in supporting sustainable
development but highlighted a new set of challenges, partic-
ularly the need for:
➤ More and better science. Research must move beyond a
disciplinary focus to address sustainability issues in the
framework of complex dynamic systems.
➤ Long-term perspectives. Archives from the past – ice
cores, tree rings, archaeological and historical records –
must be studied more vigorously to provide trajectories of
change, baseline conditions, insights into past societal
resilience or fragility and perspectives on projections of
future change.
➤ Broad-based, participatory approaches to research.Traditional divides in the scientific enterprise – among
disciplines; between science and policy, business and civil
society; between contemporary and traditional approach-
es – must be bridged from the outset of work to its final
applications.
➤ Capacity building and communication. Science for sus-
tainability must be undertaken globally; the scientific
community in the North must better engage and support
colleagues in the South.
➤ Education and communication. The wider need for edu-
cation in sustainability issues implies increased engage-
ment by scientists in primary education, teacher training
and public communication of scientific results. The value
and results of science in meeting the sustainability chal-
lenge in all parts of the globe must be communicated
effectively.
S U S T A I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T
EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
1 8 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
essp
MERGING AGENDAS
The results of the Paris workshop discussions were sum-
marised in a short document [3] that was sent to ICSU as
input to the report they were preparing for the fourth and
last preparatory meeting of the WSSD in Bali in June 2002.
ICSU incorporated a significant part of the suggestions
from the workshop [4]. The major outcome of the WSSD is
the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. It is a 54-page
document [5] and in the area of science the Plan puts
emphasis on:
➤ capacity building in developing countries;
➤ improving decision-making through improved collabora-
tion between natural and social sciences, and scientists
and policy makers;
➤ local and indigenous knowledge;
➤ making more use of integrated and international scientif-
ic assessments.
The discussions from our research community and
from the global policy community are thus clearly converg-
ing around shared priorities. A major challenge to the
Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP, which comprises
IGBP, IHDP, WCRP and DIVERSITAS) is then how we move
ahead to
(1) broaden the engagement from our scientists and proj-
ects in discussing how we can improve the relevance of
our science for sustainable development and
(2) set priorities and implement them in the coming ten to
fifteen years.
Can we unite around a common vision and together
develop ‘our own Agenda 21’? As a first step to support this,
a longer report from the Paris workshop is being prepared as
a discussion document for the Scientific Committee meet-
ings of the four ESSP programmes in 2003. Initiatives already
undertaken by the ESSP include the three joint projects on
carbon, food systems and water. There are also some
thoughts on working on global scale indicators for sustain-
able development. In an effort to increase the direct dialogue
between our programmes and the global policy-making
community, IGBP, IHDP and WCRP were invited to the 17th
meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and
Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in
Delhi in October 2002. The above ESSP programmes provid-
ed statements to the plenary, as well as actively contributed
to the discussions in an official question-and-answer side
event. SBSTA particularly had in mind to collect inputs on
the content for the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Science has already achieved much in support of sustain-
able development. To ensure sustainable development for all
of the planet’s people and for the Earth as a whole, now and
into the future, the Earth System Science community should
commit to helping to build an improved,
integrative, participatory and usable sci-
ence that is applicable from local to global
scales.
ICSU, at its 27th General Assembly in Rio
de Janeiro in September 2002, adopted sever-
al resolutions aimed at raising the attention
of the scientific community to such funda-
mental commitments. ICSU has just
launched a “Priority Area Assessment of
Environment in Relation to Sustainable
Development”. The review will include par-
ticipation from all four ESSP programmes
and will be finalised in June 2003.
Furthermore, ICSU in consultation with
other partners, is setting up an ad hoc plan-
ning committee for developing a science
plan for sustainable development [6].
There is thus a larger context within
which the ESSP activities in this area are
taking place. For comments and input on
the results of the Paris workshop and ideas
for future action please contact Sylvia Karlsson at the IHDP
Secretariat (karlsson. [email protected]).
REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at
www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm
S U S T A I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T
This article is based on the ESSP statement to ICSU,
which was a summary of the conclusions from the
workshop “Sustainable Development – The Role of
International Science”, 4-6 February 2002, Paris [3]. It
has been updated by Sylvia Karlsson (IHDP
Secretariat) and João Morais (IGBP Secretariat).
I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 1 9
core projects
➤ The International Council for Science (ICSU) is supporting a project led by the IHDP Project on Global
Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS),
which will focus on the vulnerability of Southern Africa to
global environmental change (GEC). Nowhere is the need
for an integrated vulnerability research initiative more evi-
dent today than in Southern Africa. Many of the 195 million
people in the region are highly vulnerable to present-day cli-
mate variability, as evidenced by frequent droughts and
floods. Southern Africa is also considered to be vulnerable to
environmental change, particularly long-term climate
change. Adaptive capacity in Africa as a whole is considered
to be low due to a lack of economic resources and technolo-
gy. Nevertheless, an array of coping strategies has been devel-
oped across the region to reduce vulnerability to variable
environmental conditions. Whether these coping strategies
can effectively reduce vulnerability to long-term GEC is
unclear.
The Southern Africa Vulnerability Initiative (SAVI) will
set GEC issues in the broader context of economic and socio-
political changes, which will undoubtedly continue to be
major factors shaping the region’s future. The consequences
of multiple processes including economic globalisation, high
rates of HIV/AIDS and other health problems, economic
malaise, political unrest and rapid urbanisation will have a
strong influence on the capacity of individual countries as
well as the region as a whole to cope with GEC. The conse-
quences of these changes are expected to vary across the
region and have differential implications for vulnerability to
GEC, with some areas or social groups becoming less vulner-
able to environmental changes and others becoming increas-
ingly vulnerable.
SAVI will bring together diverse research communities to
develop a long-term research programme on vulnerability
and GEC in Southern Africa. The challenge is to develop and
implement a comprehensive framework for understanding
the factors that shape vulnerability within Southern Africa,
including the dynamics across spatial and temporal scales,
linkages between strategies for coping with environmental
variability and adaptation to long-term environmental
changes, and the impacts of multiple stressors on vulnerabil-
ity. Furthermore, it is important to identify how different
policies can contribute to reducing vulnerability to GEC.
This requires an innovative, integrated approach involving
different research groups and perspectives on vulnerability.
The project addresses the need for innovative science to
promote sustainable development of the global society.
Vulnerability is an emerging issue across a variety of themes
and policy agendas, as evidenced by efforts by UNDP, FAO
and other international institutions to develop indicators
and map vulnerability to different phenomena. Development
of a network of researchers who can apply different perspec-
tives to one regional initiative will foster a more holistic
understanding of vulnerability, addressing the questions of
who is vulnerable and why, and what can be done about it.
This regional initiative will be closely linked to policy per-
spectives, as vulnerability is an issue that lies at the interface
of science and policy. Indeed, there is a great need and inter-
est among decision-makers to better understand the implica-
tions of different policies for vulnerability.
SAVI’s objectives include:
➤ consolidate different facets of vulnerability research and
develop an integrated framework for understanding vul-
nerability within the context of Southern Africa;
➤ develop a proposal for a self-sustaining, longer-term proj-
ect which integrates vulnerability research with policy
formulation;
➤ build a coalition amongst ICSU and other scientists in the
region to implement a vulnerability research programme.
Preparatory work for SAVI is now underway. A series of
papers aimed at understanding vulnerabilities to environ-
mental and societal change in the region will be commis-
sioned during the first half of 2003, and an inaugural work-
shop will be held in Southern Africa in June 2003.
Additional information about SAVI will be posted on the
GECHS website (www.gechs.org) and is available from
MIKE BRKLACICH is Chair of the Scientific Steering
Committee of the IHDP Project on Global Environmental
Change and Human Security (GECHS);
KAREN O’BRIEN is a Senior Research Fellow at CICERO in
Oslo, Norway, and a member of the GECHS SSC;
MAUREEN WOODROW is Executive Officer, International
Project Office of the IHDP GECHS Project;
[email protected]; www.gechs.org
G E C H S
SOUTHERN AFRICA VULNERABILITY INITIATIVE| BY MIKE BRKLACICH, KAREN O’BRIEN AND MAUREEN WOODROW
➤ The IHDP UPDATE newsletter features the activities of theInternational Human Dimensions Programme on GlobalEnvironmental Change and its research community.
UPDATE is published by the IHDP Secretariat Walter-Flex-Strasse 3 53113 Bonn, Germany.
EDITOR: Elisabeth Dyck, IHDP; [email protected]
LAYOUT AND PRINT: Köllen Druck+Verlag GmbH, Bonn,Germany
UPDATE is published four times per year. Sections of UPDATE
may be reproduced with acknowledgement to IHDP. Pleasesend a copy of any reproduced material to the IHDPSecretariat.
The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarilyrepresent the position of IHDP or its sponsoringorganisations.
➤
➤
➤
2 0 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
joint projects
➤ The Global Carbon Project (GCP), a joint venture of thethree international global change research programmes
(IGBP, IHDP and WCRP), is coming of age. Meeting in
Tsukuba, Japan in November 2002, the GCP’s Scientific
Steering Committee (SSC) engaged in a lively debate about
ways to approach the carbon cycle as a coupled human-nat-
ural system and made substantial progress toward complet-
ing the GCP’s Implementation Plan. In the process the SSC
became a forum for vigorous and productive interactions
between those whose expertise centres on the physical and
biological elements of the carbon cycle and those who are
more knowledgeable about the human dimensions of this
global system.
Building on the GCP’s prospectus – The Carbon
Challenge: An IGBP-IHDP-WCRP Joint Project – published in
2001, the Implementation Plan will lay out a concrete pro-
gramme of research activities and deliverables addressing the
project’s three foci: (1) Patterns and Variability, (2)
Mechanisms and Interactions, and (3) Future Dynamics.
This structure features the integration of observational
knowledge (Focus 1) and process understanding (Focus 2) in
order to contribute to the effective management (Focus 3) of
the carbon cycle. Although scientific in character, GCP
research is intended to yield results that are policy relevant.
The hallmark of the Implementation Plan is a sustained
effort to harmonise research on the biophysical and anthro-
pogenic components of the carbon cycle and find ways to
understand how these components interact with each other
to drive the carbon cycle as a dynamic system.
We know, for example, that human actions in the last 200-
300 years have produced concentrations of carbon dioxide in
the Earth’s atmosphere well above anything that occured in
the last 420,000 years. However, we are in need of standard-
ised measures of carbon stocks and fluxes in the land, oceans,
atmosphere and anthroposphere. A particular concern in this
realm is the development of comprehensive national, region-
al and sectoral carbon budgets that will allow intensive
analyses of carbon stocks, changes in stocks and fluxes on a
regional scale, together with the integration of human
actions affecting the carbon cycle at appropriate scales.
Standardised observations constitute an essential first
step. However, the success of the GCP will depend critically
on our ability to improve understanding of the mechanisms
that control the dynamics of the carbon cycle. The GCP’s
Implementation Plan stresses two sets of activities in this
realm that are of particular interest to the human dimen-
sions community. One focuses on regional development
pathways and seeks to illuminate the carbon consequences of
interrelated changes in social, economic and political sys-
tems. The other involves efforts to model the coupled car-
bon-climate-human system including feedback loops driven
by human reactions to changes in the Earth’s climate system.
The goal is to identify emergent properties of this coupled
system, including surprises, non-linear events and unfore-
seen homeostatic processes.
Focus 3 emphasises the idea of science for policy manage-
ment. Embracing the proposition that science should be pol-
icy relevant, this component of the GCP is of particular
interest to the human dimensions community. An innovative
activity in this realm centres on the identification of control
points or places in the carbon cycle at which human inter-
vention is likely to prove most effective. To illustrate, there is
more scope for intervention when countries are in the
process of making long-term investment decisions regarding
energy production than during the operating life of the
resultant systems. Equally important is the final GCP activi-
ty, which focuses on the uses of scientific knowledge to
improve the design and implementation of carbon manage-
ment systems. A central concern is to bring our understand-
ing of institutional arrangements to bear on designing and
implementing mitigation and adaptation strategies capable
of regulating the carbon cycle without degrading other
ecosystem functions and services.
The GCP team is currently completing the
Implementation Plan, which will be available for distribution
both electronically and in hard copy in early 2003. In the
meantime the project’s infrastructure is developing rapidly.
The Canberra office is already functioning. The Japanese gov-
ernment has authorised the establishment of a major GCP
office to be located at the National Institute of Environmental
Studies in Tsukuba; the project’s leaders are in the process of
hiring an executive director to lead the work of this office.
Plans are underway to establish smaller offices in Europe and
the United States.
To follow the growth and development of the GCP, or to
learn about opportunities to become involved in the activi-
ties of the project, consult the project’s website at
www.globalcarbonproject.org.
ORAN R. YOUNG is Professor of Environmental Science and
Management at the University of California at Santa
Barbara and Co-chair of the Global Carbon Project’s
Scientific Steering Committee; [email protected]
G C P
THE GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT COMES OF AGE | BY ORAN R. YOUNG
VIRGINIA WALSH †Virginia Walsh died on January 24, 2003 after
fighting a courageous battle with cancer. At the
time of her death, she was an Assistant Professor
in the Department of Political Science at Rutgers
University, Newark Campus, USA. Virginia played
a pivotal role in launching the IHDP Project on the Institutional
Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC), serving as
the Executive Officer of the International Project Office during
1999-2000. Her research focused on the links between institutions
and the production of knowledge. After resuming her duties at
Rutgers, Virginia continued her association with IDGEC as a
Research Fellow, developing a partnership between the Rutgers-
Newark Center for Global Change and Governance and IDGEC.
Virginia will be sorely missed by the IDGEC community.
➤
I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 2 1
national committees
PROMOTING YOUNGHUMAN DIMENSIONSRESEARCHERS An Austrian Initiative
| BY MARTIN PAYER AND KARL STEININGER
➤ Increasing awareness of the human dimensions of globalenvironmental change (HDGEC) and directing young
researchers towards creative research in this field is one of the
objectives of the Austrian Human Dimensions Programme
(HDP-A). As young scientists decide on their future career
paths, dissertations provide an excellent opportunity to cre-
ate interest and involvement in human dimensions research,
thus enlarging IHDP’s international research network.
With this in mind, HDP-A initiated a “Prize for
Dissertation Concepts in Human Dimensions of Global
Environmental Change”. The Austrian Federal Ministry for
Education, Science and Culture generously agreed to sponsor
this award. Young researchers with innovative ideas for dis-
sertation concepts, or dissertation projects in their initial
stage, were eligible to apply. Applicants had to submit a con-
cept and indicate how their planned or ongoing research was
related to HDGEC research, e.g., to research questions
included in the IHDP science plans. This requirement con-
tributed to increasing awareness about research undertaken
by IHDP’s projects. An international jury with expertise in
the various disciplines of HDGEC research evaluated the
concepts submitted. The choice was not easy, but finally the
expert committee decided to award prizes (each at € 2002) to
two young scholars for their outstanding projects: Markus R.Schmidt received the prize for a dissertation concept on
“Loss of agro-biodiversity in Vavilov centres, with a special
focus on the risks of genetically modified organisms”. The other
recipient was Karlheinz Erb, whose dissertation project
focuses on “Methods for calculating the ecological footprint of
nations in historic time series: Austria 1926–1995”.
In a festive award ceremony held at the University of
Graz, Austria, in November 2002, jury member Jill Jäger pre-
sented the dissertation concept prizes and gave the keynote
address. The event also included a lecture by Dr. Gerhard
Berz of Munich Re on impacts of global change on the insur-
ance industry and addresses by representatives from acade-
mia and local and national government officials, who
stressed the importance of HDGEC research.
WATER USE – A SOCIALSCIENCE ISSUE| BY THOMAS SCHEURER AND KATHRIN PIEREN
➤ What are the most vital areas of trans-disciplinarywater research? In a two-tiered process, social and natural sci-
entists have identified the three key areas: institutional reform,
decision-making processes and integrated water management.
In 2001 the Interacademic Commission for Alpine Studies
(ICAS) and the Swiss National HD Committee held a con-
vention in Lucerne on the socio-economic aspects of water
use in alpine regions [1]. Although the essential hydrological
facts are known, there is still a serious lack of integrative
knowledge about correlations between society and water use.
The same conclusion was also made in a report by the Swiss
Hydrological Society [2]. Based on the results of the Lucerne
conference, a follow-up event in Bern [3] identified current
issues in trans-disciplinary water research. The report on
both conferences is available from Kathrin Pieren.
Experts have identified sustainable management of water
resources as a joint trans-disciplinary research goal. Three
vital problem areas have been identified: (1) Switzerland lacks
a uniform water policy, owing to conflicting responsibilities
and competing directives; (2) truly sustainable use of resources
requires institutional reforms more attuned to social and eco-
logical aspects; (3) increasing demands and divergent assess-
ments of public commodities lead to conflicts requiring
transparent decision-making and problem-solving processes.
To do so, more research is required in a number of fields.
Various methods and theoretical concepts are available, but
not yet established and recognised by the scientific commu-
nity. Within the social sciences, the necessary co-operation is
still lacking. At an international level, the Global Water
Systems Project of IGBP, IHDP, WCRP and DIVERSITAS is a
point of contact, while the 6th Framework Programme of the
EU provides another one. Possible Swiss projects could be the
National Research Programmes and Centres of Competence
in Research, or the Swiss Water Foundation proposed by the
Swiss Hydrological Society.
THOMAS SCHEURER is Executive Director of the Interaca-
demic Commission for Alpine Studies, Berne; KATHRIN
PIEREN is Scientific Secretary for the Swiss National HD
Committee, Berne, Switzerland; [email protected];
(References at www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm)
A U S T R I A / S W I T Z E R L A N D
We hope that other National Committees will consider
similar initiatives, as it not only supports young researchers,
but also contributes to strengthening the HDGEC research
community.
MARTIN PAYER ([email protected]) and KARL W.STEININGER (Chair, [email protected]) are
with the Human Dimensions Programme Austria. Further
information on the prize is available at www.hdp-a.at
Past IHDPExecutive DirectorJill Jäger presentsthe prize to M.Schmidt (middle)and K. Erb (right).Ph
oto:
E.Dy
ck
➤
➤
2 2 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
conference reports
ISSC 50TH ANNIVERSARYCONFERENCEInternational Conference on Social Science and
Social Policy in the 21st Century – Vienna,
Austria, 9-11 December 2002
➤ In December 2002 the International Social Science Council
(ISSC), one of IHDP’s two scientific sponsors, celebrated its 50th
anniversary by convening an international conference. It
brought together 260 international participants from 48 coun-
tries who met for three days at the Vienna International Centre
in plenary and special sessions, addressing numerous aspects of
social science research. The Conference participants adopted
the “Vienna Declaration on Social Sciences”: The Social Sciences
and Public Policy in the 21st Century – Towards a New Agenda
(see www.unesco. org/ngo/issc).
A special session, organised by IHDP, focussed on the
“Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change
Research and the Global Science-Policy Interface”. The objec-
tive of the IHDP session was to foster a dialogue between
‘producers of knowledge’ (the social scientists in IHDP proj-
ects) and ‘users of knowledge’ (policy-makers) at the global
level, and explore ways to improve an exchange of informa-
tion between these two groups. In presentations and discus-
sions, key members of the IHDP network and representatives
from the policy-making community gave many examples of
how users in the global science-policy interface acknowledge
the work of the social science community, which, in turn, is
indeed interested in conveying knowledge. Yet the interac-
tion between the two communities is only modest, as inter-
national scientific advisory processes on global environmen-
tal change issues tend to involve mainly natural scientists.
Suggestions to improve the dialogue and strengthen the
global science-policy interface were many and included,
among others: (1) forming strategic partnerships on themat-
ic issues with international agencies and establishing links to
ongoing work in UN bodies; (2) ensuring that the research
carried out has an audience; (3) training scientists in com-
municating with policy makers and presenting scientific
results in understandable and useful language; (4) involving
social science programmes, such as IHDP, in existing scien-
tific advisory processes, etc. At the end of the day, panelists
and participants agreed that the many points raised in the
session would be further explored by both ‘producers’ and
‘users’ of science in the global environmental arena.
ISSC News: During the ISSC General Assembly meeting,
which followed the Vienna Conference, Lourdes Arizpe from
the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)
was elected as the next ISSC President, and Ali Kazancigil,
former Director of UNESCO’s MOST Programme, was
appointed Secretary General of the ISSC. They are replacing
Kurt Pawlik and Leszek Koszinski, respectively, who both
retired at the end of 2002.
ELISABETH DYCK
B E R L I N / V I E N N A
KNOWLEDGE FOR THE SUS-TAINABILITY TRANSITION The IHDP-endorsed 2002 Berlin Conference on
the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental
Change | BY FRANK BIERMANN AND SABINE CAMPE
➤ Do we need new kinds of knowledge or new ways to generate knowledge for the sustainability transition? How
does knowledge affect decision-making for sustainability, and
how do societal systems influence the ways sustainability
knowledge is generated? How can social and scientific institu-
tions be designed, and possibly reformed, to generate better
sustainability relevant knowledge and increase its use for
decision-makers? These themes were at the centre of the 2002
Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global
Environmental Change, held from 6-7 December 2002 in
Berlin, Germany. The conference was endorsed by two IHDP
core projects, Institutional Dimensions of Global
Environmental Change (IDGEC) and Industrial
Transformation (IT). Organised on
behalf of the German Political
Science Association by the Global
Governance Project of the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact
Research, the Environmental Policy
Research Unit of the Free
University of Berlin and Oldenburg
University, the conference was also
endorsed by the Federation of
German Scientists and the German
Association for the United Nations,
Berlin-Brandenburg Chapter.
About 220 scientists from 29 countries participated in the
meeting, which included a total of 111 plenary and panel
presentations. All papers, including the proceedings volume,
will be made available at www.glogov.org and www.environmental-policy.de. Key note speakers included the
chairs of four major research and assessment programmes –
Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC), Coleen Vogel (IHDP), Oran
Young (IHDP/IDGEC) and John Schellnhuber (IGBP/
GAIM) – as well as two leading decision-makers and practi-
tioners in this field, Christian Patermann, Director of the
Environment and Sustainable Development Programme of
the European Union’s Directorate-General for Research, and
Hansvolker Ziegler, Chair of the International Group of
Funding Agencies for Global Change Research.
The upcoming 2003 Berlin Conference (5-6 December),
to be chaired by Dr. Klaus Jacob of the Environmental Policy
Research Unit of the Free University of Berlin, will address
the theme “Governance for Industrial Transformation”.
FRANK BIERMANN (Conference Chair) and SABINE CAMPE
(Conference Manager) are with the Global Governance
Project of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research ([email protected]) and the Free University of
Berlin.
From left: C. Vogel (IHDP) and R. Pachauri (IPCC)
Phot
o:E.
Dyck
Transitions in a Globalising WorldBy P. Martens and J. Rotmans (eds), Swets & Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse,2002; 134 pages;ISBN 9026519214
➤ The Earth System may be the most complex entity that everemerged in our galaxy, and the contemporary process of “global-isation” may be the most intricate dynamics that will ever per-vade that entity: it is the interactive co-evolution of millions oftechnological, cultural, economical, social and environmentaltrends at all conceivable spatio-temporal scales that brings aboutthe present fundamental transformation of humanity’s way oflife. The authors of this book address the complexity of modernplanetary development by the intellectual concept of “transition”.The basic idea is that the global changes unfolding now can beperceived as an entangled family of transitions between qualita-tively distinct mega-states of crucial compartments of the EarthSystem. In this book the transition concept is used for examin-ing current and future tensions between welfare, well-being andthe environment at a global scale. Four major issues are addressedthat are of global importance: developments related to two of ourkey natural resources, water and biodiversity; the health ofhuman populations; and the developments related to globaltourism.
Protecting the Ozone Layer:Science and Strategyby Edward A. ParsonOxford University Press, 2003.ISBN 0195155491
➤ This volume tells the story of international efforts to protectthe ozone layer, the greatest success to date in managing any glob-al environmental issue. By examining parallel developments ofscience, technology, industry strategy, politics, and negotiations,it shows how these interacted to shape the issue’s developmentand contribute to its successful management. Its insights intothese interactions are theoretically important and novel – andalso hold valuable practical lessons for solving other seeminglyintractable problems of global cooperation.http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195155491.html
Privatization of electricity distribution:the Orissa experienceby K. Ramanathan and Shahid HasanPublished by TERI, New Delhi, India; 2002ISBN 8179930076
➤ Orissa was the first state in India and also in South Asia tointroduce comprehensive reforms in its state-owned electricityindustry, including privatization of the distribution business. Thereform exercise was expected to turn around the ailing power sec-tor of the state and also serve as a model for other states to fol-low. However, the results have belied many expectations andraised a number of issues. These have been debated widely in var-ious forums, including the Orissa Legislative Assembly duringearly 2001. This book gives a comprehensive but concise accountof these, with special focus on the distribution privatizationexperience in Orissa. Starting with the reform context, it goesthrough the process and strategy for privatization to the post-privatization experience.
Material Use in the European Union1980-2000: Indicators and analysis2002 Edition
published by the Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg, 2002ISBN 9289437898
PUBLICATIONS | NEW BOOKS
I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 2 3
calendar/publications
MEETING CALENDAR
➤➤➤ 16-23 March 2003 – Kyoto, Shiga and Osaka, Japan
Third World Water Forum The IGU Commission for Water Sustainability is organising
sessions on “Managing Human Impacts on Water Resources
and the Water Environment”
Contact: www.worldwaterforum.org
➤➤➤ 24-27 March, 2003 – Gdansk, Poland
European Conference on Coastal Zone Research:an ELOISE ApproachConference on the EU Project Cluster on European Land-
Ocean Interaction Studies (ELOISE);
held at the Technical University Gdansk
Contact: [email protected]/projects/eloise
➤➤➤16-18 April 2003 – Utrecht, The Netherlands
International Conference on Framing Land UseDynamics:Integrating knowledge on spatial dynamics in socio-economic and environmental systems for spatial planning in western urbanised countriesEndorsed by the IGBP/IHDP LUCC Project
Contact: http://networks.geog.uu.nl/conference
➤➤➤12-14 June – Stockholm, Sweden
Rights and Duties in the Coastal Zone:Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on SustainableCoastal Zone ManagementContact: www.beijer.kva.se/conference.htm
➤➤➤ 19-25 June – Banff, Canada
3rd IGBP Congressheld at the Banff Conference Centre
Contact: IGBP Secretariat, [email protected]
➤➤➤ 4-22 August – Boulder, Colorado, USA
Institute on Urbanization, Emissions, and the GlobalCarbon CycleSTART Global Change Institute, hosted by the National
Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, USA
Contact: [email protected]/Calendar/calendar.html
➤➤➤ 16-18 October – Montreal, Canada
2003 Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions ofGlobal Environmental Change Research Community Co-sponsored by IHDP
Contact: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/openmeeting
➤➤➤16-19 November – Trieste, Italy
Young Scientists’ Global Change ConferenceContact: Kristy Ross, Climatology Research Group
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
M E E T I N G S / N E W B O O K S
C O N T A C T A D D R E S S E Saddresses
Pri
nte
d o
n r
ecyc
led
pap
er
2 4 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3
IHDP SECRETARIAT
• IHDP Secretariat:Barbara Göbel, Executive DirectorWalter-Flex-Str. 3 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49-228-739050Fax: [email protected]
IHDP CORE PROJECTS
➤ GECHS
• Global EnvironmentalChange and Human Security c/o Maureen WoodrowExecutive OfficerGECHS International Project OfficeDept. of Geography &Environmental Studies,Carleton University1125 Colonel By DriveOttawa, ON K1S 5B6, [email protected] www.gechs.org
➤ IDGEC
• Institutional Dimensions ofGlobal Environmental Change c/o Syma Ebbin, Executive OfficerIDGEC International Project Office4526 Bren Hall, Bren School ofEnv. Science and ManagementUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara, CA 93106-5131, [email protected]/~idgec
➤ IT• Industrial Transformation c/o Anna J. Wieczorek,Executive OfficerIT International Project OfficeInstitute of Environmental Studies De Boelelaan 10871081 HV AmsterdamThe [email protected]/ivm/research/ihdp-it/
➤ LUCC
• Land-Use and Land-CoverChange c/o Helmut Geist, Executive Officer LUCC International Project Office University of LouvainPlace L. Pasteur 3 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, [email protected]/LUCC
JOINT PROJECTS
➤ GECAFS
• Global EnvironmentalChange and Food Systems c/o John Ingram, Executive OfficerGECAFS International ProjectOffice, NERC-Centre for Ecology &Hydrology, Wallingford OX 10 8BB, UK
www.gecafs.org
➤ GCP
• Global Carbon Projectc/o Pep Canadell
Executive Officer
GCP International Project
Office, CSIRO
Canberra, Australia
www.globalcarbonproject.org
➤ GWSP
• Global Water Systems Projectc/o Sylvia Karlsson
IHDP Liaison Officer
IHDP Secretariat
Bonn, Germany
IHDP SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (SC)
➤ Chair
• Coleen Heather VogelDept. of Geography & Env. Studies
University of the Witwatersrand
Johannesburg, South Africa
➤ Vice Chair
• M.A. Mohamed SalihInstitute of Social Studies
The Hague, The Netherlands
➤ Past-Chair
• Arild Underdal Rector, University of Oslo
Oslo, Norway
➤ Members
• William C. ClarkJFK School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA, USA
• Carl FolkeCNM, Stockholm University
Stockholm, Sweden
• Gilberto C. GallopinEconomic Commission for Latin
America & the Caribbean (ECLAC)
Santiago, Chile
• Carlo J. JaegerPotsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research (PIK)
Potsdam, Germany
• Tatiana Kluvankova-OravskaInstitute for Forecasting
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Bratislava, Slovak Republic
• Elinor OstromCenter for the Study of
Institutions, Population &
Environmental Change
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN, USA
• Xizhe PengInstitute of Population Research
Fudan University
Shanghai, P.R. China
• P.S. RamakrishnanJawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi, India
• Roberto Sanchez-RodriguezUniversity of California
Santa Cruz, CA, USA
• Paul L.G. VlekCenter for Development
Research (ZEF)
Bonn, Germany
EX OFFICIO MEMBERSIHDP SCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE
➤ ICSU
• Gordon McBean Institute for Catastrophic Loss
Reduction, University of Western
Ontario, London, ON, Canada
➤ I S S C• Lourdes Arizpe Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México (UNAM)
Cuernavaca, Mexico
➤ DIVERSITAS
• Michel LoreauÉcole Normale Superieure
Laboratoire d'Écologie
Paris, France
➤ IGBP
• Guy Brasseur Max-Planck-Institute for
Meteorology
Hamburg, Germany
➤ START (alternating)
• Sulochana GadgilIndian Institute of Science
& Oceanic Sciences
Bangalore, India
• Graeme I. PearmanCSIRO Atmospheric Research
Aspendale, Australia
➤ WCRP
• Peter LemkeAlfred-Wegener-Institute
for Polar and Marine Research
Bremerhaven, Germany
➤ GECHS
• Michael Brklacich Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
➤ IDGEC
• Oran R. Young Bren School of Environmental
Science and Management
University of California at
Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA, USA
➤ IT
• Pier Vellinga Dean, Faculty of Life and Earth
Sciences
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
The Netherlands
➤ LUCC
• Eric Lambin Dept. of Geography
University of Louvain
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
SOCIAL SCIENCE LIAISON OFFICER
• João M. MoraisIGBP Secretariat
The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences, P.O. Box 50 005
10405 Stockholm, Sweden
S U B S C R I P T I O N
➤ For a free subscription to
this newsletter, write to the
IHDP Secretariat at the
above address;
or send an e-mail to: