Futures,Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 559–567, 1998Pergamon 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0016–3287/98 $19.00+ 0.00

PII: S0016–3287(98)00059-7

ESSAY

The ecological footprint of New Zealand as astep towards sustainability

Alan Fricker

Three studies have derived ecological footprints for New Zealand. Two were done inNZ and are based on land area only. The third is part of an international study whichincludes marine resources. Absolute comparisons in physical parameters are difficult asthey do not all have the same baseline. Relative comparisons, as a proportion of carryingcapacity exclusive of marine resources, are comparable, viz. 86, 60 and 70%. Pre-caution and the maintenance of biodiversity imply that we should live well within ourcarrying capacity. New Zealand therefore could be considered as already over popu-lated at our present life style and relative to the global carrying capacity. The inter-national study of 52 nations (80% of the world’s population) derives an average globalfootprint (2.8 ha/cap), inclusive of marine resources, that is greater than the globalecological capacity (2.1 ha/cap). NZ has a very large footprint at 7.6 ha/cap whilst beingthe most bounteous of all with an ecological capacity of 20.4 ha/cap. However themarine ecological capacity for NZ is proportionately very large (50% of our totalcapacity) but uncertain and so should be disregarded. Exclusive of the marine compo-nent, the NZ footprint and capacity are 7.4 and 10.5 ha/cap respectively—the 70%reported above. A significant minority in New Zealand would not feel they are enjoyingthe bounty expressed by these figures. There are several reasons—we undervalue natu-re’s wealth; quantitative growth is unsustainable; we are losing control of our resources;our economic system is flawed. Even so, achieving greater equity within NZ andbetween nations within the global capacity will not in itself lead to sustainability—tobiophysical sustainability perhaps, but that is only survival. Sustainability pertains tothe interior, subjective dimensions in life which have no location and are not quantifi-able but which provide purpose and meaning in life. Indeed we may even be unableto achieve biophysical sustainability without engaging in the evolution of human con-sciousness at a collective level. 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

The ecological footprint

The ecological footprint is a measure of theresources we consume expressed in terms of

Alan Fricker is at the Sustainable Futures Trust, 30Akatea Rd, Petone, New Zealand (Tel: 04 589 1575;Fax: 04 589 0447; e-mail: frickera@actrix.gen.n3).

559

the equivalent productive land area needed toproduce them and adsorb the consequentwastes. Footprints were first determined for cit-ies but have since been extended to nations,and are expressed either in proportionateterms relative to the physical area of the cityor nation, or as hectares of productive land percapita. At least three categories of land are dis-

Essay: A Fricker

tinguished: arable land, pasture, and forest.The more exhaustive investigations includebuilt-up land, fossil energy land, and seaspace. Sea space is also an areal measuresince the productivity of the ocean is a func-tion of area rather than volume. Fossil energyland is the forest land we should plant for theadsorption of CO2 from the fossil fuels we con-sume. Some studies use physical parametersand land equivalents only whilst others workon a monetary base which is then convertedto land areas. Some consider only the terres-trial land whilst others include the ExclusiveEconomic Zone, ie. the ocean areas. There istherefore some inconsistency between basesused by researchers both within and betweencountries.

New Zealand’s ecological footprint

At least three estimates have been made ofNew Zealand’s ecological footprint. The firsttwo are of New Zealand only, although somecomparisons to other nations are made in thesecond. The third is an international study of52 nations and provides the backbone forthis discourse.

As a starting point, just in simple physicalterms, the land area of New Zealand is 27million hectares, 78% of which are productivethus giving an available productive landcapacity of 5.8 ha/capita for our population of3.6 million (MfE 1997). The productive landcomprises 2% arable, 50% pasture (inc. 12%potentially arable) and 22% forests.

Ministry for the Environment

The Ministry have derived an estimate usinginformation from the World Resources Insti-tute.1 It is based solely on physical parametersof the land itself. They derive a footprint of5 ha/cap, ie. 86% of the available capacity.

Lincoln University

Bicknell et al2 have conducted a detailed studyusing monetary parameters to measure pro-duction, consumption, imports and exports,according to established methodologies,which are then converted to weight consump-tions and thus to land yields using averageproductivities. They derive a footprint of3.3 ha/cap, which is 60% of the availablecapacity.

560

Earth Council, Costa Rica

The State of the Environment Report1 alsodraws from a recent report on the ecologicalfootprints of nations.3 Being international ithas a standard methodology and thereby is amuch more useful investigation. Furthermoreit is based on physical quantities rather thanmonetary values, and is comprehensiveincluding sea space, land for CO2 and wasteadsorption. The study quantifies, nation bynation, the biologically productive areasnecessary to continuously provide resourcesupplies and absorb wastes, using prevailingtechnology. The study calculates how muchnature there is in each nation (the availableecological capacity), and how much naturewe use (the ecological footprint). The calcu-lations are based on published statistics fromthe United Nations.

The global available ecological capacityis the summation of the component categoryareas for each nation, and is 2.1 ha/cap basedon the present world population of 5.9 billion.A yield factor is used to account for the rela-tive productivities of land categories in eachnation. The footprint is a complex compu-tation, simply expressed here as productionplus imports less exports in terms of equivalentproductive land area. Both capacity and foot-print however are expressed on a per capitabasis such that nations, whether large or small,can be compared. Allowances are made forwater-deficient nations, industrial contami-nation, and acid rainfall. The proportion setaside for biodiversity protection is 12% as rec-ommended by the World Commission onEnvironment and Development—an amountmany consider to be far too small. Table 1contains a selection of the 52 nations surveyedthat together account for 80% of the worldpopulation.

The global ecological footprint at2.8 ha/cap is 33% greater than the availableglobal ecological capacity of 2.1 ha/cap.Clearly humanity treads too heavily on theearth. Furthermore we are becoming evenclumsier, despite the rhetoric, for in 1992 thedeficit was 25%. Only 12 of the 52 nations(65% of the population) have footprints lessthan the global available ecological capacity.Only three of these however retain someresidual available capacity. They are thereforeneither over-consumptive nor over-populated.They are Colombia, Indonesia, and Peru. Halfof the 20 developed countries that have foot-prints greater than twice the global capacity

Essay: A Fricker

TABLE 1. SELECTION OF ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS FROM THE 52 NATIONS SURVEYED.

Available EcologicalEcological Footprint as %Popltn in 1997 ecological deficit (iffootprint of available× 106 capacity negative)(ha/cap) capacity(ha/cap) (ha/cap)

WORLD 5892.0 2.8 2.1 −0.7 130Argentina 35.4 3.9 4.6 0.7 85Australia 18.6 9.0 14.0 5.0 64Bangladesh 126.0 0.5 0.3 −0.2 170Brazil 167.0 3.1 6.7 3.6 46Canada 30.1 7.7 9.6 1.9 80Chile 14.7 2.5 3.2 0.7 78China 1247.0 1.2 0.8 −0.4 150Colombia 36.2 2.0 4.1 2.1 51Denmark 5.2 5.9 5.2 −0.7 110Finland 5.1 6.0 8.6 2.6 70France 58.4 4.1 4.2 0.1 98Germany 81.8 5.3 1.9 −3.4 280Hong Kong 5.9 5.1 0.0 −5.1India 970.0 0.8 0.5 −0.3 160Indonesia 204.0 1.4 2.6 1.2 54Ireland 3.6 5.9 6.5 0.6 91Japan 126.0 4.3 0.9 −3.4 480Malaysia 21.0 3.3 3.7 0.4 89Netherlands 15.7 5.3 1.7 −3.6 310New Zealand 3.6 7.6 20.4 12.8 37Pakistan 149.0 0.8 0.5 −0.3 160Peru 24.5 1.6 7.7 6.1 21Russian Fedn 146.0 6.0 3.7 −2.3 160Singapore 2.9 6.9 0.1 −6.8South Africa 43.3 3.2 1.3 −1.9 250Sweden 8.9 5.9 7.0 1.1 84UK 58.6 5.2 1.7 −3.5 310USA 268.0 10.3 6.7 −3.6 150

(Nov 97 update of the table in Wackernagel et al3)

are in ecological deficit. The most populousare Germany, Japan, Netherlands, RussianFederation, UK and the USA.

Only Australia (9.0 ha/cap), Canada (7.7)and the USA (10.3) have footprints larger thanNZ (7.6). Our available capacity is a very heal-thy 20.4 ha/cap for it includes the productivity(not the whole area) of our sea space. Ourfootprint is 37% of the available capacity. Weare by far the most endowed nation on a percapita basis.

Our sea space capacity is computed fromthe Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 450million hectares, 17 times our land area. Solarge is this area that it totally dominates ourother ecological capacity. Australia’s EEZ is60% of its land area and of course some coun-tries have no sea space. The Earth Councilstudy considers only 20% of the EEZs in their

561

computations, ie. 160 million hectares for NZ,and uses a productivity factor of 5% for eachcountry’s reduced sea space. In other wordsmarine ecological capacity is essentiallyunknown at this stage. An estimate based onthe continental shelf area may be a sounderbasis. In the meantime such estimates forsmall, remote island countries like NZ and Ice-land are best omitted.

The Earth Council provides a breakdownof NZ’s ecological capacity. There are pro-ductivity factors, eg. efficient farming prac-tices, which ‘swell’ the capacity of the physi-cal areas. (Table 2)

If the sea component is excluded our foot-print becomes 7.4 ha/cap and our ecologicalcapacity 10.5 ha/cap. The land based footprintis then 70% of the capacity, which is compa-rable to the other two NZ land based studies.

Essay: A Fricker

TABLE 2. NEW ZEALAND’S ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND CAPACITY (HA/CAP)

Category Physical Area Footprint Capacity

fossil energy 2.4CO2 absorption landbuilt-up area 0.05 0.3 0.28arable land 0.70 0.8 3.77pasture 3.87 3.0 4.59forest 2.12 0.9 4.62sea 45.57 0.2 9.90less 12% for −2.80biodiversityTOTAL 52.3 7.6 20.4exclusive of sea space 6.74 7.4 10.5

We in NZ at least should all be enjoyinga comfortable living.

New Zealand’s carrying capacity

Clearly the bases on which such estimates aremade can lead to quite variable footprints andcapacities. Relative figures however, such ascarrying capacity in terms of footprint as a per-centage of available capacity, should be moreconsistent. The three estimates for our carryingcapacity at our current life style on a land basisonly are 86, 60 and 70%. We could perhapstherefore increase our population to around 5million whilst still enjoying the same life style.Any further increase may have to beaccompanied by a less consumptive life style.But 5 million would be a limiting population,rather than an optimum population.

An optimum population allows some fatin the system to allow for bad years. Indeednatural ecosystems of which we are part arehealthier when wasteful, ie. where speciesleave a substantial part of their ‘kill’ for otherspecies.4 Hunter-gatherer societies seeminglymaintained their populations at around 25%of the available food sources.5 This was parti-cularly important to the Australian aboriginewho had the unpredictable and sometimesprolonged effects of El Nino to contend with.We are still in effect hunter-gatherer societies.Our sophistication has extended the pro-ductivity, but not necessarily the sustainability,of the land.

The population of Australia is 64% of itscarrying capacity (based on the survey ofnations), suggesting a maximum population of30 million at its present lifestyle. Elsewhere,5

562

the maximum and optimum populations areput at around 40 and 9 million respectively.On a ‘safe’ basis therefore Australia mayalready be overpopulated, by a factor of two.Back in 1911 the geographer Griffith Taylorpostulated a very limited human carryingcapacity for Australia. He contended the geo-logically old and leached soils and climaticconditions could not support a large popu-lation. He even put a figure on it (40 million)and suggested the population might reach 19million by the end of the millennium. Thenationalistic jingoism of the time, and evennow, entertained several hundred million.

Direct studies based on the optimumpopulation of NZ have not been made. Fortyyears ago some concerned soil scientistswithin the DSIR estimated a sustainable popu-lation of 5 to 6 million. The El Nino phenom-enon affects NZ too (the summer of 1997/8 inparticular) and is becoming more frequent. Aless generous safety factor of 50% would sug-gest that NZ is already overpopulated if wewish to maintain our present lifestyle.

Thus far we have conveniently ignoredmatters of global equity. If we wish a peacefultransition to a sustainable world we need toat least stabilise our population and live morefrugal lives. As the global population is likelyto at least double, reducing our populationcould be a desirable global objective too.Cereals and legumes are likely to be the pre-ferred produce of the land in the future. NZ islikely to remain a pastoral nation as our crop-ping soils are limited, and becoming evenmore limited as we build upon them. Althoughour standard of living may have to diminishour quality of life need not and may well beenhanced.

Essay: A Fricker

Standard of living versus quality of life

Science through technology has brought muchdignity to modernity. It has improved substan-tially both our standard of living and our qual-ity of life. There have been adverse effects too,and these are becoming more evident thegreater the technological development. Thesolution and management of these revengeeffects require social and political rather thantechnical intervention.6 Undoubtedly therewill be technical developments that have thepotential to make further increases in pro-ductivity and efficiency. Efficiencies in distri-bution have so far eluded us. These potentialsmay enable us to increase the available eco-logical capacity whilst the global populationincreases and still enjoy consumptive lifes-tyles. On the other hand they may not, parti-cularly if we do not manage the direction andapplication of technological development in ameaningful and equitable manner.

Further technological development islikely to contribute more to our standard of liv-ing than our quality of life. The standard ofliving is not an absolute state. It is determinedby the developments that are made and thefinancial resources at our disposal. But howmuch is enough? Quality of life on the otherhand is more of an absolute state. Improve-ments in such parameters as longevity, infantmortality, literacy, equity, etc can only go sofar. Many are subjective where technologyand materialism have no role. Once anadequate standard of living has been obtained,the focus of further improvements in thehuman condition should be on the quality oflife.

This adequate standard may be far lessthan we might think. In the over-populatedand impoverished nation of India, at least toWestern eyes, there is a State which has aquality of life comparable to New Zealand andother developed countries where the standardof living, expressed as income, is one tenththat of New Zealand.7,8 It is Kerala, and itshines like a beacon but the developed worldignores it. Understandably so, but can weafford to? It is a non-growth sustainable econ-omy with a high quality of life. Indeed the onlyother examples we have of sustainable econ-omies with high quality of life all have simi-larly low per capita incomes-Cuba may wellbecome one,9 and the Amish and Mennonitecommunities in North America.

Are the choices for New Zealand so diffi-cult? After all we start from an advantageous

563

position. We could go for broke and hope forthe best; or consciously work towards a higherquality of life, a less consumptive life style andkeep a cap on population. Is growth, in theeconomy and in population, really a desirableobjective? The arguments about achieving a‘critical mass’ are no longer pertinent—ifindeed they ever were. Industry is evolving toa form where large labour forces can be a dis-advantage. Trade is international and flexibleand can move to countries which have thebest aggregate commercial advantages. Coun-tries deter potential aggressors on the basis oftheir military defensive technology rather thantheir weight of numbers.

Concerns about an ageing populationmay be mistaken too. Already New Zealand(like Australia and many industrialisedcountries) has a surplus of labour. Relativelyfew people are required to earn the foreignexchange necessary to support the nation. Asthe population stabilises or reduces the aggre-gate health costs of the ageing may wellincrease temporarily as a proportion of GDP.The health of that ageing population howeveris improving and the individual health carecosts are decreasing. Furthermore theircapacity to continue earning for longerincreases too. A reducing younger populationmeans there are savings to be made in edu-cation, child-care, and health care.

Stabilising or reducing populations toattain an optimum may indeed require somerelative but minor hardships for a generationor two. What generation has not made sacri-fices for future generations. Isn’t that part ofthe human condition? Perhaps this is how wetake our turn. A smaller population may meanthere is:

I more ‘fat’ in the system to provide for badtimes

I a satisfactory standard of livingI less need to be rapacious to maintain a high

standard of living through exportsI less urban sprawlI a slower pace of lifeI less use of non-renewable resourcesI less pressure on other species and the

environmentI greater ecological diversityI greater equityI a higher quality of life

But before we explore whether to stabiliseor even reduce the population and pursuequality of life rather than standard of living,

Essay: A Fricker

why is it that a significant minority, in the mostwell-endowed nation ecologically, are notsharing in that bounty?

The sleight of hand?

We now enter the realm of assertion, specu-lation and contention, but that leads to goodhealthy discourse. First of all we shouldn’t puttoo much store on the numbers game itself,particularly when they can’t be rigorously jus-tified. Wackernagel and his colleagues3 are ofthe same view. An earlier land based study byWackernagel and Rees10 produced smallerfootprints—the world (1.8 ha/cap), Canada(4.3), India (0.4), the Netherlands (3.3) and theUSA (5.1). The Netherlands footprint wasreported as being 20 times greater than theavailable land area, whilst in the 52 nationstudy the footprint is only 3.1 times the avail-able ecological capacity. The latter is not thesame as the land area for it contains not onlyproductivity factors greater than unity for theland but also the sea space. Nevertheless thereis almost an order of magnitude difference.

These uncertainties of datum level at leastshould be eliminated in the 52 nation study.3The authors suggested in March 1997 thattheir numbers could be precise within therange of 5% too big and 30% too small. Pre-sumably this relates to the footprints ratherthan the capacities. The November 1997update of the table however has much greaterrevisions. These arise largely from the con-sideration of sea space. The original table useda uniform per capita capacity across all peopleand all nations. The updated table is based on20% of the each nation’s EEZ, but assumes acommon 5% productivity factor. Neverthelessit would require an even bigger shift in pre-cision to displace NZ from its rather dubiousposition. Why is it that in relative, and evenabsolute terms, the standard of living and thequality of life for a large minority of New Zeal-anders appear to have deteriorated over thelast generation or so, despite seemingly livingin the lap of luxury?

The assertion itself could be challenged.Perhaps we have all enjoyed an increase inmany aspects of our standard of living. Therevenge effects of these improvements, such aspollution and congestion and the demise ofpublic transport from the spread of the privatemotor car, impact more on the poorer people.It is they that have to suffer the downsides oftechnological development. The good and bad

564

things are shared unequally. There is not a lotof evidence that the quality of life hasimproved greatly over the last generation. Thegains in longevity are due primarily to publichealth advances rather than medical inter-vention. There is concern about the decline ofsocial capital. Certainly our communities weresafer and perhaps more caring a generationago.

There is no single explanation for NewZealand’s paradox. The reasons are many,interwoven and cumulative. They include:

The resources of nature are undervalued

We measure the health of the nation in monet-ary terms, eg. the GDP, because it is con-venient to reduce everything to a commonparameter. This index was a useful indicatoruntil around 1970 but its deficiencies, eg. theinclusion of undesirable economic activity likepollution control, have become too great toignore. There are now better indices, like theGenuine Progress Indicator (GPI) and theIndex of Sustainable Economic Welfare(ISEW), even though not greatly favoured bymainstream economists. Even so the monetaryvalues still tend to be bestowed on man-madegoods and services, and not on nature’s goodsand services. These are still largely consideredto be free despite the advent of ecological eco-nomics. The effect therefore in terms of eco-logical footprints is to accentuate man’s contri-bution to the production and consumptionpatterns. Rarely do we put any value on wateror minerals in situ or on photosynthesis, buttheir existence is more valuable than anythingwe might do to them. Thus the resources ofnations so blessed, and lightly populated, areappropriated, usually with agreement, byothers not so blessed and upgraded to so-called more valuable products. Thus in monet-ary terms these other nations appear richerwhereas they are in fact poorer in resourceterms. Natural capital of perceived little valueis converted to man-made capital of highvalue. Is it any wonder we are eating up thelarder? Money cannot continue to make theworld go round.

However to be fair to monetary basedstudies, and to Bicknell and his colleagues,2their footprint as a proportion of available pro-ductive land (60%), although lower, is not gre-atly different from the two based on physicalresources.

Essay: A Fricker

Growth is unsustainable

Even though quantitative growth is clearlyunsustainable, and these footprints confirmthat, we seem wedded to the growth model.The modern economy (capitalism) is predi-cated on continuing growth otherwise it willcollapse. It can only operate by creating differ-ence in relative income to stimulate demandfor what it can produce. Capitalism, likesocialism, on which it was dependent, willcollapse too because of its inherent contra-dictons. As real wages and social expectationsrise, and social and environmental costsbecome more and more internalised, capitalwill find fewer and fewer places where it canmake a real profit, particularly as it (and thepopulace) are dismantling the State on whichit depended to create an environment of rela-tive or temporary monopoly in which to makea profit.11

The periods in the industrial developmentof Britain of strong growth were periods ofgreat inequality, relative hardship and per-sonal unsustainability. The periods of slow oreven negative growth were periods of moreequitable income redistribution, social har-mony and personal sustainability.12 Growththerefore is an anathema to sustainability.

The concentration of power and finance

Historically we have functioned in communi-ties and regionally. The glorious artistic andarchitectural expressions of medieval Italy forinstance arose because of the independent citystates, rather than the nation, whose wealth layin trade throughout the Mediterranean. Thecentralisation of national political power is amore recent phenomenon. It has provided themight necessary for protection (and expansion)but it has diminished the flowering of regionaland local expression. This expression is thesocial capital that Putnam13 refers to in hisstudy of modern Italy. Those regional govern-ments which built upon and involved the com-munities created the conditions for successfuleconomic enterprise. Putnam has associatedthe poor economic performance in the USAwith the decline of social capital. Here in NewZealand there is a similar perception and adesire at least to devolve more responsibilityto local government and to voluntary organis-ations to remedy a decline in social capital.

Putnam however has his critics. Socialcapital is very context-dependent and what

565

may be applicable in one situation is not inanother. Heying14 in particular attributes thedecline in the USA to economic restructuring.Social capital is fixed in place whereas finan-cial capital is mobile. Economic restructuringalong free market lines leads to the demise ofthe locally owned businesses, and the concen-tration of finance in national companies andultimately to transnational corporates. Finan-cial capital can be sucked out of a community,locality, or region. People have lost not onlytheir power but their capital.

A similar argument is developed byDouthwaite12,15 and Korten.16 Deregulationand the free market lead to rural depopulation,urban growth and then decay, and the denialto local people to use their capital as theythink fit. Once out of investors’ control theonly interest they can then have is the rate ofreturn—the higher the better, and who cares ifit is in a sweat shop or logging indigenous for-ests. If it is used in community the investorshave other interests to satisfy—jobs for them-selves, their children, their neighbours, theirbasic needs, local facilities and environment.We used to source 90% of our needs locally,now it is 10%. The balance needs to berestored, if only to provide some protectionfrom the probability of global financial col-lapse.

A flawed economic system

The first economic transaction began with asurplus—a rabbit or axe head after we had metour own needs. Somewhere along the lineeconomics became based on scarcity. AdamSmith merely provided the framework for aneconomic law to be dreamt up. The law ofsupply and demand is only applicable underconditions of simple perfect equilibrium com-petition. The players do their best to avoidsuch conditions—the quickest route to bank-ruptcy. There is another party to these trans-actions, the earth—the Great Mother, one ofthe Jungian archetypes. If an archetype is sup-pressed the shadows emerge. We have alreadycreated one shadow, scarcity. The polarshadow therefore becomes greed. This dualityof scarcity and greed will accentuate until wechange our world view.

Since that first transaction was a surplus,we need therefore to develop an economicsbased on abundance—of good will, of labour,and of renewable resources. We need to getbeyond scarcity and greed—the title of a book

Essay: A Fricker

by Bernard Lietaer.17 Lietaer is an economistand has over 20 years of managing inter-national finance. If we are brought up to seescarcity we run the risk of becoming greedy,and scarcity becomes a self-fulfilling proph-ecy. If we are brought up to see abundance wemay achieve abundance. Nothing necessarilymay have changed but our attitude—ourworld view, our cultural framework. Ourrealities are our perceptions.

Sustainability

Sustainability is more than biophysical sus-tainability. This is just survival. What sustainsus is even more intangible and can’t be meas-ured—thank goodness. The word sustain hasan Indo-Aryan etymological origin and meansto hold together with tension—not coercion,but tension. Its meaning is still as pertinenttoday as it was 3000 years ago. Sustainabilityis about finding meaning and purpose in lifeand is found through our relationships withourselves, our families, our neighbours, otherspecies, the environment, and the earth. Thereis in fact a crisis of perception around this con-cept of sustainability.18 Yet we seem preoccu-pied with measuring it. The most commondefinition from the Brundtland report, thatbased on the needs of present and future gen-erations, and other definitions based on eco-logical integrity and biodiversity, all defyobjective definition and operational interpret-ation. More useful are the perceptions of sus-tainability, for they suggest the need for dis-course. A discourse that explores our innersubjective selves and draws on our experi-ences as well as our knowledge, and our aspir-ations and visions for the future and on ourcreativity—where the journey may even be thedestination. Instead of asking how we measuresustainability we should be asking ourselveshow we measure up to sustainability.19

This is a discourse and a journey weshould all take part in. We know the problemswe are facing in broad terms. We can pursueanalysis to paralysis. Indeed much R and D isa surrogate for social action,20 for the solutionsare not technical but social and political.There is a surreal quality about our inertia; anelement of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.We are all watching the spectacle not realisingwe are part of the spectacle. The real chal-lenge is not in defining or measuring the prob-lem, even though we may continue to denyparticular components. Neither is the real

566

challenge in how to live in accord with nature,for we used to and some still do. The real chal-lenge, particularly for the developed nations,is in how to get people to agree on how to livein accord with nature. This wisdom will notbe found in objective rational debate but indeep intersubjective discourse that taps thevery essence of our beings, about meaning andpurpose in life. Governments and communi-ties should push for this discourse through citi-zens’ juries, consensus conferencing,21 searchconferences,22 and public conversations.23

Somehow we need to rise above personalinterest and consider the common good, andseek consensus in social action. But thepsychological hurdles we have to overcome insolving these social and commons dilemmashave to be faced, accepted and transcended.24

Indeed the whole of history, and thereforethe future, is a process of transcendence.25 Itis many millennia since we ceased evolvingbiologically in a Darwinian sense. Now wehave to evolve culturally, through the develop-ment of human consciousness, not only on thepersonal plane but on the social and culturalplanes too. But we need to do so collectively.The process of transcendence is an inclusiveprocess. Problems that appear insoluble at agiven level of consciousness become solubleat higher levels of consciousness, where nodoubt a different suite of problems mayemerge to be transcended by a further evol-ution of consciousness. According to Wilberwe are stuck in flatland, the exterior physicalworld of location, the world of objective nat-ure. Within this world the ego-camp (thosewho see man as apart from and above naturebecause of our moral capacity) do battle withthe eco-camp (those who see man as a part ofnature). Both, according to him, are wrong.They overlook the interior subjective worldwithout location—the world of subjectivemind. We will evolve consciously if we areable to transcend and include objective natureand subjective mind to find Spirit.

The necessary public and community dis-courses will not be philosophical explorationsof this nature but the paths will be the same.We need to seek mutual understanding of thedilemmas grounded in sincerity from whichsolutions will emerge. These discourses canonly be undertaken by all or most of us at thelocal and community level. They can’t be con-ducted entirely by political representatives,whether at the local, regional, national, or glo-bal levels. The developed nations surely have

Essay: A Fricker

generated sufficient wealth to cut back some-what, reflect and engage in this discourse toget themselves onto sustainable trajectories.

Notes and references

1. MfE. State of the Environment Report, Ministryfor the Environment, Wellington, New Zea-land, October 1997.

2. Bicknell, K. B., Ball, R. J., Cullen, R., andBigsby, H. Estimating New Zealand’s ecologi-cal footprint, NZ Agric. Econ. Soc. Blenheimconf, July 1996.

3. Wackernagel, M. et al. Ecological footprints ofnations: how much nature to they use?—howmuch nature do they have?, The Earth Council,San Jose, Costa Rica, March 1997.

4. Hardin, G. Nature and Man’s Fate, Cape, Lon-don, 1960. (see particularly Chap 13, In Praiseof Waste).

5. Flannery, T. Future Eaters: an Ecological His-tory of the Australian Lands and People, Reed,Chatswood, NSW, 1995.

6. Fricker, A. G., Technology that liberates.Futures, 1997, 29(7), 661–666.

7. Alexander, W. M. Female efficiency creatinglife quality within an Indian state: no economicgrowth and no population growth, GAIA, (inpress 1998).

8. Parayil, G., The Kerala model of sustainabledevelopment in the Third World. Third WorldQtly, 1996, 17(5), 941–957.

9. Zunes, S., Will Cuba go Green?. In Context,Spring, 1995, 40, 20–22.

10. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. Our EcologicalFootprint: Reducing Human Impact on theEarth, New Soc. Publ., Gabriola Island BC,1996.

11. Wallerstein, I. Contradictions of World Capi-

567

talism, Interview on Radio New Zealand, 2Nov 1997.

12. Douthwaite, R. The Growth Illusion, GreenBooks, UK,1992.

13. Putnam, R. D. Making Democracy Work: CivicTraditions in Modern Italy, Princetown Univ.Press, NY, 1993.

14. Heying, C. H., Civic elites and corporatedelocalisation. Amer. Behav. Scientist, 1997,40(5), 657–668.

15. Douthwaite, R. Short Circuit, Lilliput, Dub-lin,1996.

16. Korten, D. When Corporations Rule the World,Berrett-Koehler and Kumarian Press, 1995.

17. Lietaer, B. Beyond greed and scarcity, YES! AJ of Positive Futures, Spring, 1997, pp. 34–39.

18. Fricker, A. G. and Sculthorp, B. Sustainability:a crisis of perception, XV World Futures Stud-ies Federation World Conference, Brisbane,Sept 1997.

19. Fricker, A. G. Measuring up to sustainability,Futures, (in press 1998).

20. Sarawitz, D. Frontiers of Illusion: Science,Technology and the Politics of Progress, Tem-ple Univ. Press, Arizona, 1996.

21. Joss, S. and Durant, J. (eds). Public Partici-pation in Science: The Role of Consensus Con-ferences in Europe, British Science Museum,London, 1995.

22. Weisbord, M. R. and Janoff, S. Future Search:An Action Guide to Finding Common Groundin Organisations and Communities, Berrett-Koehler Pubs, through World Future Society,Washington, 1995

23. Becker, C. et al. From stuck debate to new con-versation on controversial issues: a report fromthe Public Conversations Project, JFFT, June,1994.

24. Fricker, A. G. Social dilemmas in the discourseof sustainability, (in press 1998).

25. Wilber, K. A Brief History of Everything,Shambhala, Boston and London, 1996.