Brief history of sustainomics
| Topics: |
Note: The author welcomes comments, which may be sent to mind@mindlanka.org MIND.
Contents
Evolution of the sustainomics approach
This section provides a brief overview of how sustainomics evolved, from an institutional perspective. The Prologue of this book provides a more personal viewpoint. The sustainomics framework draws together two broad streams of thought – i.e., development (focused on human well-being) and sustainability (systems science oriented), as described below.
Development stream (human well-being focused)
Current approaches to sustainable development draw on the experience of several decades of development efforts. Historically, the development of the industrialized world focused on material production as the basis of human well-being. Not surprisingly, most industrialized and developing nations have pursued the economic goal of increasing output and growth during the twentieth century. While the traditional approach to development was strongly associated with economic growth, it had important social dimensions as well.
By the early 1960s the large and growing numbers of poor in the developing world, and the lack of ‘trickle-down’ benefits to them, resulted in greater efforts to improve income distribution directly. The development paradigm shifted towards equitable growth, where social (distributional) objectives, especially poverty alleviation, were recognized as being distinct from and as important as economic efficiency in contributing to well-being.
Protection of the environment has now become the third major objective of sustainable development. By the early 1980s, a large body of evidence had accumulated that environmental degradation was a major barrier to human development and well-being, and new proactive safeguards were introduced (such as the environmental assessments).
Some key milestones relating to the evolution of recent thinking on sustainable development include: the 1972 United Nations Environmental Summit in Stockholm, 1987 Bruntland Commission report, 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen, UN Millennium Summit and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, UN Millennium Development Project approved as a follow-up to MDG in 2005, and UN Decade on Education on Sustainable Development (1995-2014) – see "Fulfilling major global agreements on sustainable development".
Sustainability stream (systems science oriented)
Meanwhile, the scientific community became more interested in exploring the concept of sustainability. During the 1980s a number of relevant international scientific research initiatives dealing with nature emerged, including the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) in 1980, International Geosphere and Biosphere Programme (IGBP) in 1986, and DIVERSITAS (on biodiversity and ecology) in 1990. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was also established in 1988 (by WMO and UNEP), with global scientific expertise to periodically assess information on climate change. However, global sustainability issues like climate change were mainly framed by natural scientists as problems involving biogeophysical systems, largely divorced from their social context [1]. Although the social aspects have received increasing attention in the scientific debate, it was considered an “add-on” rather than a fundamental element.
In the 1990s, it was recognized that human activity was a major factor influencing global changes – e.g., in the work of existing scientific bodies like the IPCC [2], and creation of new bodies like International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP) in 1996. In 1995, the IGBP GAIM (Global Analysis, Integration and Modelling) Task Force was established to integrate the knowledge generated in the various IGBP core projects. Since then, a series of international conferences and initiatives have called for a more integrated approach between the natural and the social sciences, and for linking scientific activities better with sustainable development problems – especially the human dimension. Among the significant outcomes of this trend was the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) launched by United Nations (UN) Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2001, which linked ecosystems, human communities and development.
Emergence of Sustainomics
Amongst these multiple initiatives, the first ideas about sustainomics were outlined from 1990 onwards in several conference presentations by Munasinghe, culminating in a formal paper presented at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, which set out key elements of the framework [3]. Subsequently these ideas were further elaborated for practical application [4]. The aim was a more holistic and practical synthesis that would help to make development more sustainable, by integrating the concerns of the development community (who focused on pressing development issues like poverty, equity, hunger, employment, etc.), and the interests of the scientific community (who emphasized research on sustainability science, environment, etc.). The neologism “sustainomics” was coined to project a more neutral image by focusing attention on sustainable development, and avoiding any disciplinary bias or hegemony. Sustainomics also seeks to balance people-oriented Southern priorities including promotion of development, consumption and growth, poverty alleviation, and equity, with environment-oriented Northern concerns about issues like natural resource depletion, pollution, the unsustainability of growth, and population increase.
Sustainable development is broadly described as “a process for improving the range of opportunities that will enable individual human beings and communities to achieve their aspirations and full potential over a sustained period of time, while maintaining the resilience of economic, social and environmental systems” [5]. Adapting this general concept, a more focused and practical approach towards making development more sustainable sought “continuing improvements in the present quality of life at a lower intensity of resource use, thereby leaving behind for future generations an undiminished stock of productive assets (i.e., manufactured, natural and social capital) that will enhance opportunities for improving their quality of life”.
The sustainomics framework is described in greater detail in Chapter 2 (Brief history of sustainomics). In particular, it encourages decision making based on the balanced and consistent treatment of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and draws on a sound but evolving body of scientific knowledge, including the natural and social sciences, engineering and the humanities. A decade or more of experience in further developing and practically applying the sustainomics framework in the field, was described at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development [6]. Finally, this book seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of sustainomics today.
Summary of basic principles and methods
The sustainomics framework draws on the following basic principles and methods [7] – details in [[Chapter 2 (Brief history of sustainomics)]2].
- Making development more sustainable (MDMS). The step-by-step approach of “making development more sustainable” (MDMS) becomes the prime objective, while sustainable development is defined as a process (rather than an end point). Since the precise definition of sustainable development remains an elusive and perhaps unreachable goal, a less ambitious strategy that merely seeks to make development more sustainable does offer greater promise. Such a gradient-based method is more practical and permits us to address urgent priorities without delay, because many unsustainable activities are easier to recognize and eliminate. Although MDMS is incremental, it does not imply any limitation in scope (e.g., restricted time horizon or geographic area). MDMS also seeks to keep future options open and identify robust strategies which meet multiple contingencies and increase resilience. Thus, while implementing short- and medium-term measures, we also follow a parallel track by continuing efforts to better define and achieve the long-term goal of sustainable development.
- Sustainable development triangle and balanced viewpoint. Sustainable development requires balanced and integrated analysis from three main perspectives: social, economic and environmental. Each view corresponds to a domain (and system) that has its own distinct driving forces and objectives. The economy is geared towards improving human welfare, primarily through increases in the consumption of goods and services. The environmental domain focuses on protection of the integrity and resilience of ecological systems. The social domain emphasizes the enrichment of human relationships and achievement of individual and group aspirations. Interactions among domains are also important.
- Transcending conventional boundaries for better integration. The analysis transcends conventional boundaries imposed by discipline, space, time, stakeholder viewpoints, and operationality. The scope is broadened and extended in all domains, to ensure a comprehensive view. Trans-disciplinary analysis must cover economics, social science and ecology, as well as many other disciplines. Spatial analysis must range from the global to the very local, while the time horizon may extend to decades or centuries. Participation of all stakeholders (including government, private sector and civil society) through inclusion, empowerment and consultation, is important. The analysis needs to encompass the full operational cycle from data gathering to practical policy implementation and monitoring of outcomes.
- Full cycle application of practical and innovative analytical tools. A variety of practical and novel analytical tools facilitate governance over the full cycle from initial data gathering to ultimate policy implementation and feedback.
Two complementary approaches based on “optimality” and “durability” may be used to integrate and synthesize across economic, social and environmental domains, within an integrated assessment modeling framework. An issues-implementation transformation map (IITM) helps to translate issues in the environmental and social domains, into the conventional national economic planning and implementing mechanisms within line ministries and departments.
Restructuring the pattern of development to make economic growth more sustainable is explained through a “policy tunneling” model, especially useful in poor countries, where poverty alleviation will require continued increases in income and consumption. Other practical tools include the Action Impact Matrix (AIM), integrated national economic-environmental accounting (SEEA), sustainable development assessment (SDA), environmental valuation, extended cost-benefit analysis (CBA), multi-criteria analysis (MCA), integrated assessment models (IAMs), and so on. A range of sustainable development indicators help to measure progress and make choices at various levels of aggregation.
The Action Impact Matrix (AIM) process is the key link from initial data gathering to practical policy application and feedback. Critical sustainable development concerns are included in conventional national development strategy and goals in two main ways: an upward link where sustainable development issues are embedded in the macro-strategy of a country via the medium- to long-term development path; and a downward link where such issues are integrated into the national development strategy in the short- to medium-term, by carrying out sustainable development assessments (SDA) of micro-level projects and policies.
Brief review of key ideas
The principle conclusion of this book is that we have made significant progress towards understanding and implementing the concept of sustainable development in the past two decades. The way forward is by taking practical steps towards “making development more sustainable” (MDMS), as set out in the sustainomics framework. Many unsustainable practices are obvious and may be addressed incrementally today, as we progress towards the long term (and less clear) goal of sustainable development. Sufficient examples exist of good (and bad) practices, and the lessons learned permit us to address immediate problems like poverty, hunger, and environmental degradation in a more sustainable manner, while concurrently seeking to better define and attain the ultimate goal of sustainable development.
The core principles underlying the sustainomics framework provide a good starting point for systematic analysis of sustainable development problems: (a) making development more sustainable, (b) sustainable development triangle (economic, social and environmental dimensions) and balanced viewpoint; (c) transcending conventional boundaries (discipline, space, time, stakeholder viewpoint, and operationality) for better integration; and (d) full cycle application of practical and innovative analytical tools (including the AIM).
Furthermore, the case studies in this book (and elsewhere) demonstrate that the approach of making development more sustainable has already yielded encouraging practical results and shows increasing promise for the future. Specific examples described here begin with global problems like climate change and analysis of international and national level policy responses. Next, we learn from the experience of transnational institutions like the World Commission on Dams (WCD), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (MA), and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), that work through multi-stakeholder, multi-level, multi-disciplinary processes involving governments, business, civil society, and scientists. At the national macroeconomic level, a wide range of country applications involving a variety of models are presented, which provide useful insights for practical economy-wide policies.
Within countries, case studies cover sustainable development of key sectors like energy, transport and water, as well as important ecological systems involving forests and agriculture. Resource pricing policy could be used as a practical and flexible tool for making development more sustainable. Finally, the book shows how the sustainomics framework may be applied at the project and local levels, in areas like hydropower, solar energy, water supply, sustainable hazard reduction and disaster management, and urban growth.
We accept that sustainomics is incomplete – there are both gaps in knowledge and problems of implementation. Nevertheless, our hope and expectation is that the important contributions of other potential “sustainomists” will rapidly help to further flesh out the initial framework and applications set out in this volume.
Notes
This is a chapter from Making Development More Sustainable: Sustainomics Framework and Applications (e-book). Previous: Rationale and motivations for sustainomics (Brief history of sustainomics) |Table of Contents (Brief history of sustainomics)|Next: Prospects and status of millennium development goals
