sustainability science exemplary finals

NRES 3000/5000

Sustainability Science: Focus on Rio +10

EXEMPLARY FINAL PAPERS

Question 1: Given Daly's interpretation of sustainable growth, is sustainable development as it is defined and pursued by the United Nations an impossibility?

Question 2: Review the article "Sustainability Science" that was assigned earlier in the semester. Based on the presentation you gave for class, explain:

a. How the one or more of the core questions in the article relate to the issues that you addressed in your presentation

b. Which of the research strategies suggested in the article would be most helpful for addressing the issues that you addressed in your presentation?

Question 3: Explain how, for the issues that you addressed in your presentation, Agenda 21 proposed both local and international action on the issue. In your answer, reflect on what the barriers are to local action on the issues that you addressed in your presentation.

EXAMPLE 1: Final by A.B.

Question 1

The United Nations has been pursuing the notion of sustainable development in response to some troubling trends they have noticed. "We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems" (1.1). In response, they have laid out very clear goals to help move the global community to a more sustainable development pattern. "(I)ntegration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment (sic) of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future" (1.1). Herman Daly proposes that the concept of sustainable growth is impossible, and that the United Nations uses the term 'sustainable development' as "a synonym for the oxymoronic 'sustainable growth'"(Daly, 1993). Despite Daly's arguments, sustainable development as defined and pursued by the United Nations is not an impossibility.

The United Nations' notion of sustainable development is not that far off from Daly's. Daly correctly argues that the ecosystem and economy cannot support infinite, or even exponential growth. He goes as far as saying that sustainable development only works if understood as "development without growth" (Daly, 1993). He goes on to argue that the world could not sustain itself if each person was at the standard of living of those in the United States. Daly's calculations appear to base standard of living on resource consumption alone, which is a bit short sighted. While the UN does emphasize the importance of raising the standard of living in developing nations, it does also emphasize the responsibility that industrialized nations have in making that happen. The help is primarily financial; while the UN doesn't go so far as to call it redistribution of wealth, it is a concept that is consistent throughout Agenda 21. In addition, the UN includes things in standard of living that fall outside of the realm of resource consumption, including the treatment of women, health, and biological diversity. These two items combined would allow a zero net gain in resource consumption while increasing the overall standard of living.

Overall, I think that Daly's definition of sustainable development and the UN's definition are much closer than he would like to admit. Both emphasize the importance of increasing our reliance on renewable energy sources. Both also have similar goals for the purpose of sustainable development (alleviating poverty, hunger, etc.). Finally, both seem to believe that technological developments will play a large role in achieving these goals. Daly offers some excellent suggestions that have not been adopted by the UN, but there may be a clear need (such as taxing pollution, and balancing nonrenewable and renewable resources). Given these similarities in purpose and approach, Daly simply does not make a clear case that the current path towards sustainable development will not work.

While Daly makes an excellent argument that sustainable growth is impossible, he does not make a convincing case that his recommended approach differs from the UN's approach. From the readings in class, I am not convinced that the UN has completely shed the idea of sustainable growth. However, their recommended approaches to solving the problem do not conflict with Daly's definition of sustainable development.

Question 2

The interdisciplinary nature of sustainability science truly sets it apart from science as it is most commonly known. Linking social, economic, natural, and environmental sciences in a comprehensive way is one of the challenges faced by scientists and policy makers alike. Kates et. al., list several core questions which must be addressed when considering something from a sustainability science perspective. In the case of sustainability and business, the question "What systems of incentive structures - including markets, rules, norms, and scientific information - can most effectively improve society capacity to guide interactions between nature and society towards more sustainable trajectories" (Kates, et. al., 2001). The notion of incentive structures is perhaps the best way to influence industry along a more sustainable path.
As discussed in our presentation, profit and revenue primarily drive the actions of businesses. This approach leaves little room to consider the social and environmental impacts of a corporation's actions. Thus, without a wide-reaching change of the standard business cycle (a nearly unreasonable goal), companies must have some sort of incentive, either positive or negative, to influence them to consider social and environmental impacts. Positive incentives would be any structure that rewarded business for 'good behavior' by allowing them to achieve higher profits. Negative incentives would be structures that penalize corporations for 'bad behavior' and not considering social and environmental impacts to their operations.

Positive incentives perhaps offer the greatest potential benefit, and can include several of the items listed by Kates et. al. Market incentives might include a general shift in public awareness and concern over the behavior of corporations. Increased reporting on environmental and social issues by corporations could help consumers make purchasing decisions based on factors besides price and quality. This, of course, would require a general shift in public opinion to where social and environmental behavior of corporations is a concern. If the public truly understood the impacts (as they would with a strong reporting methodology), I believe such a shift is a possibility. This shift in public opinion moves towards Norms as discussed by Kates et. al. Another possible positive incentive could be increased research and awareness to the profitability of conducting sustainable business. As discussed in our presentation, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index of the 236 leading world companies in sustainable business practices has far outpaced the Dow Jones Global 500 and other market indices.

Unfortunately, given today's business climate, negative incentives are sometimes necessary. These can go from something as simple as imposed regulations on pollution levels, to innovative ideas such as pollution taxing. Again, the goal of negative incentives would be to make an unsustainable corporation lose potential profits if they do not transition towards more sustainable practices. It is always important, however, to consider the social consequences that may result from instituting negative incentives, including, among other things, potential loss of jobs as corporations move to areas with less strict regulations.

When considering either positive or negative incentives, science should play a key role. As each incentive is considered, an inverse approach could be used to evaluate its potential effectiveness. An inverse approach is one "that start(s) from outcomes to be avoided and work backwards to identify relatively safe corridors for a sustainability transition" (Kates, et. al, 2001). Since the goals of sustainable development are relatively clear, scientists and researchers should be able to determine which outcomes are undesirable. Scientists from many disciplines must collaborate to determine if a given incentive plan could possibly result in that undesirable outcome, and then devise contingency plans to avoid it. This unique approach differs from the traditional cause and effect analysis, and encourages researchers to analyze the effects and determine possible causes.

Business and industry clearly has a long way to go in the transition to sustainability. Evaluating possible incentive structures using an inverse approach and implementing these structures would be an excellent first step towards a sustainable trajectory. Interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists is required, along with partnerships between governments and industry (Agenda 21, 30.7).

Question 3

Chapter 30 of Agenda 21 discusses in great detail the goals and means of implementation to create a more sustainable business environment. It focuses primarily on promoting cleaner production and increasing entrepreneurship opportunities. It encourages increased reporting on social and environmental measures, and encourages industry to view environmental management "as among the highest corporate priorities and as a key determinant to sustainable development" (30.3). Throughout the chapter, it proposes both local and international action, with a particular emphasis on international action in the areas of reporting and partnerships.

The UN proposes a reporting structure in which companies would report on their environmental performance along with their financial reporting. They say that companies should be encouraged "To report annually on their environmental records, as well as on their use of energy and natural resources" (30.10a). Along these lines would be included the internalization of environmental costs in financial and pricing systems. These recommendations fall under the realm of international action for a number of reasons. The UN has broad-ranging goals, and a few companies here or there reporting on their environmental record simply would not be adequate to achieve the goal of transparency which is evident throughout Agenda 21. The UN appears to be encouraging national governments to provide incentives to companies to participate in these reporting and cost-internalization efforts.

The UN's focus on partnerships is evident throughout Chapter 30, where it describes a number of partnerships on an international scale. They encourage partnerships between industry and trade unions (30.13), industry and government (30.7), industry and international organizations (30.15), and between industries (30.11). These partnerships are to be largely of an international scale. One of the goals of these partnerships is to encourage adequate technology transfer between the North and South. There are a couple of areas that Chapter 30 proposes local action.

Chapter 30 of Agenda 21, while it emphasizes international action, proposes local action as well. The primary area of concern is in entrepreneurship. "Entrepreneurship is one of the most important driving forces for innovations, increasing market efficiencies and responding to challenges and opportunities" (30.17). While encouraging entrepreneurship may not seem at the surface to be a local issue, it truly is. The chapter goes on to discuss how entrepreneurship helps increase off-farm employment and provide "transitional means for improving the livelihoods of women" (30.17). While it does not explicitly state it, entrepreneurship is primarily a local issue. They seem to be getting at the importance of local control. Local small and medium-sized companies, while having a limited national and international influence, can be major contributors to the local economic and social development. The UN understands this, and wants governments to encourage the development of sustainable small and medium sized businesses so that local influence can extend to positive environmental development as well.

There are, unfortunately, many barriers to developing sustainable industry at a local level. First, in this era of globalization, there is often little local control over the behavior of transnational corporations that might choose to open a facility in an area. Since the local people and government is not the primary consumers of the product, it can be difficult to put pressure on these companies to develop more sustainable production. Another hurdle, particularly in the United States, is a general lack of interest in sustainable development. Initially, it can be costly to shift production patterns to more sustainable levels. If there is little demand for products produced in this way, there is little incentive to make this transition. There are also hurdles to encouraging entrepreneurship, particularly of sustainable companies. The UN addresses this, saying "Governments should encourage the establishment of operations of sustainably managed enterprises. The mix would include…streamlining of administrative procedures to assure maximum efficiency in dealing with applications for approval…" (30.19). If it is difficult to start a business in a particular community, entrepreneurs will go elsewhere. Once the administrative procedures are streamlined, local communities can attract sustainable industries to help facilitate social, environmental, and economic development.

While Chapter 30 of Agenda 21 addresses both local and international concerns, its focus is mostly on international issues. By promoting cleaner production, entrepreneurship, reporting structures, and partnerships; the UN has lofty goals towards developing truly sustainable industries.

Works Cited:

"Agenda 21 - Chapter 30: Strengthening the Role of Business and Industry." 1991: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21chapter30.htm.

Daly, Herman E. and Kenneth N. Townsend. "Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics." 1993: http://www.esb.utexas.edu/drnrm/dieofforg/page37.htm.

Kates, Robert W., et. al. "Sustainability Science." Science 292 (2001): 641-642.

EXAMPLE 2: Final by A.H.

Question 1

The UN defines sustainable development as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This seems like a good definition. It considers both current and future generations, so it seems to be all-inclusive. But it includes no mention of methods to achieve, or even if it is possible to achieve, sustainable development.

Daly argues that sustainable growth is impossible. He argues this based on an impossibility theorem. The ecosystem is a finite system. It is a given size, and it cannot expand to a larger size. This is physically impossible. There is no place for the ecosystem to expand. It is limited by the size of the earth, which is not changing.
Within the ecosystem is the economy. The economy is growing, and growing rapidly. However, it cannot grow indefinitely because it is contained within the ecosystem. According to Daly, "as the economic subsystem grows it incorporates an ever greater portion of the total ecosystem into itself and much reach a limit at 100 percent, if not before" (1993). From this perspective, growth is not possible indefinitely, and so it is not sustainable. An economy could be sustainable if it is at a level that fits within the scale of the ecosystem, but growth is not sustainable because it cannot continue indefinitely. As such, "sustainable growth" is impossible, because a growing economy will eventually be stopped by the finite size of the ecosystem. At this point, it will no longer be possible to sustain growth because there will be concrete, physical properties of the earth that prevent it.

However, Daly mentions a difference between growth and development. According to Daly, "when something grows, it gets bigger. When something develops it gets different" (1993). So growth and development are not the same. Often growth and development are used interchangeably in economic and political discussion, as in everyday life. This cannot be the case in terms of sustainable growth or sustainable development. Growth is, by definition, not sustainable because the finite size of the ecosystem will stop growth once the economy has reached a certain size. Development can be sustainable, because it does not imply a size change. An economy can change without growing in physical resource use.

As long as the amount of physical resources used does not grow indefinitely, development can be sustainable. This is because size, and not characteristics, is limited by the finite properties of the ecosystem. The ecosystem is a given size and can only produce a given amount of resources. Society can only get a certain amount of resources from the ecosystem. However, we can use these resources in an infinite number of ways. If we come up with new ways to use the same amount of resources, we can continue to develop without growing.

While growth is limited, development is not. This allows the improvement in quality of life and alleviation of poverty without complete destruction of the ecosystem. We can develop new ways to use the same amount of resources. We can change production processes to use fewer resources per capita, which allows us to improve the lives of more people without consuming more resources. And while poverty is best alleviated by providing basic material needs, we can find ways to fill these needs using more efficient production and fewer resources. This makes sustainable development theoretically possible.

Real world examples seem to suggest that sustainable development is possible, at least to some degree. Look at the case of 3M. 3M instituted an environmental policy and looked at ways to improve its environmental performance. Between 1900 and 2000, they achieved the following results, according to the 3M Environment website:

o88% reduction in volatile organic air emissions
o82% reduction in releases to water
o24% reduction in solid waste
o35% reduction in the ratio of waste generation

During the time in which these improvements were achieved, 3M grew and prospered. This shows that sustainability is possible. Companies can reduce the pollution they emit and at the same time prosper and gain economically. There may be some dispute as to the scale that is possible. For instance, 3M is still a large polluter, and may not be truly sustainable. However, if such progress has been made in the past, it seems optimistic that in the future, when government and social pressure has increased, sustainability can be achieved.

There must be a distinction made between sustainable growth and sustainable development. Growth is not sustainable because the Earth is of a finite size. Development is sustainable because it does not need to imply growth. This makes sustainable development theoretically possible, and theory is supported, in part, by practice.

Question2

Kates, et. al., discuss the concept of sustainability science. They propose several core questions of sustainability science. Some of these questions relate to the issue of sustainability in business. One question that relates looks at consumption and development trends. Kates, et. al., ask, "How are long-term trends in environment and development, including consumption and population, reshaping nature-society interactions in ways relevant to sustainability?" (2001). This relates particularly well to the roles played by business, as business plays a key role in filling, and to some degree, manipulating demand and consumption.

First, a brief look at the trends is in order. Consumption is increasing worldwide, which will inevitably lead to more stress on the ecosystem. This will hamper efforts at sustainability, because higher consumption guarantees higher resource and energy use. This consumption leads to higher waste. Wernick, et. al., mention that per capita solid waste has increased, and that sewage sludge has almost doubled between 1972 and 1992 (2001, p 201). Another trend is population. Population is rapidly increasing, and although predictions say population growth will grow, there will definitely be many more people in the future than there are now. Factor increasing population with increasing per capita waste, and there will be a large increase in waste worldwide.

However, there is some bright news. Wernick, et. al., report that "there is some evidence of reduction in the weight of input per constant dollar of output" (2001, p 201). This means that there is a reduction in materials used per dollar of goods produced. Basically, a company can produce the same amount of product using fewer raw materials, by weight. This is some progress, but it may not be as good as it seems. There is no discussion of whether the weight reduction has been brought about by reducing use and improving efficiency, or by finding lighter substitutes that may be more energy intensive or destructive. For instance, substituting plastic for steel would reduce the weight of materials used, but may not be any better of environmentally if the costs of oil refining, transport, energy inputs, and disposal are included. Whether decreased material weight is an advantage environmentally is unclear. This relates clearly to business because the business sector is producing the goods. Business must decide if and how to reduce material usage. Business can offer products that require less materials or substitute lighter materials for heavier ones. Consumers can also play a role, by purchasing certain products and rejecting others.

Another question proposed by Kates, et. al., asks, "What kind of incentive structures-including markets, rules, norms, and scientific information-can most effectively improve social capacity to guide interactions between nature and society toward more sustainable trajectories?" (2001). This also relates clearly to business. Bringing about sustainability in business would significantly improve the sustainability of nature-society interactions. There are a number of methods considered for doing this.
Chapter 30 of Agenda 21 states that governments should use a mix of "economic instruments and normative measures such as laws, legislations, and standards" to bring about sustainability. There have been a number of methods proposed that fall into the mix called for by the UN. These include pollution or emission taxes, tradable permits, and stricter regulations. Pollution taxes would require businesses to pay a tax based on the amount they pollute. Tradable permits would require businesses to buy the right to pollute at a higher level. These would be economic incentives to use cleaner production, because the business would save money by doing so. Stricter regulations would be a normative measure that uses government force to require business to find cleaner ways to produce.

The World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) would disagree with part of the UN methodology. The WBCSD suggests a move away from legislative and regulatory controls, and an increased focus on economic measures such as taxes (5-13-02). They also call for more accurate pricing of goods. One method to encourage sustainability would be "a steady, predictable, negotiated move towards full-cost pricing of goods and services" (WBCSD, 5-13-02). This would encourage sustainability by requiring business and consumers to pay the true costs, including economic costs, of the goods and services in the market. As a result, consumers would choose the most sustainable products simply by choosing the cheapest. Businesses that don't adopt sustainable measures will have higher environmental costs, and thus have higher prices and fewer customers.

In order to achieve sustainability, Kates, et. al., suggest a number of research methods. One of these methods involves selecting a negative outcome, and then working backwards to see how it can be avoided. This is highly applicable to business. The negative outcome selected can include both environmental and economic aspects. Business can see what could happen and look for ways to avoid the undesirable outcome. The bleak outlook would provide a clear incentive for business to act, and would probably provide more motivation than mentioning benefits. Business would probably act more quickly to avoid a disaster than to make a moderate gain in the future. Kates, et. al., ask a number of questions about sustainability science. They also propose a number of research strategies. These relate to sustainability in general, but also to sustainable business in particular.

Question 3

Agenda 21 has suggested many activities to encourage sustainability. Chapter 30 of Agenda 21, entitled "Strengthening the Role of Business and Industry," suggests actions that can bring about sustainability in business. These suggested actions could be broken into four categories: Economic methods, business methods, knowledge/research, and partnerships/cooperation. Each of these categories, and the actions proposed within each category, has merits and flaws.

Economic Measures
These are actions, done by governments, which would provide economic incentives for businesses to be sustainable. One suggestion is implementing "an appropriate mix of economic instruments and normative measures such as laws, legislations, and standards…that will promote the use of cleaner production" (United Nations Division for Sustainable Development, 5-13-02). This would both encourage and require business to decrease the environmental impacts of their production facilities. The UN, in Agenda 21 chapter 30, also calls for economic incentives to encourage "the establishment and operations of sustainably managed enterprises." This would encourage new businesses to start out with a focus on sustainability. Other economic measures include making capital available for loans to sustainability-oriented business, and finding methods to internalize environmental costs (United Nations Division for Sustainable Development, 5-13-02).

These methods should be successful in increasing business sustainability. Laws and legislation will guarantee a minimum level of result (the size of "minimum" would be determined by law), while economic incentives would encourage business to improve above and beyond the minimum set by law. This should be effective, as business could save a significant amount of money by improving the sustainability of their processes. However, a serious challenge could arise in attempting to get the above-mentioned laws and legislation in force. Any such proposals would be at the mercy of Congress, and it is unlikely that any radical change would happen soon. Progress would be further hampered by business reports that increased standards would be rather costly to implement, as well as consumer demand for low prices, such as in the case of cheap oil. Economic incentives might stand a better chance of becoming law because there would probably be little resistance from business, but they would reduce taxes received by government which might lead to a tax rate increase, especially in times of budget deficits. This would likely draw resistance from citizens. Any new tax breaks and incentives would somehow need to be balanced with current taxes and government spending.

Another suggested action in Agenda 21 is "the development and implementation of concepts and methodologies for the internalization of environmental costs into accounting and pricing mechanisms" (United Nations Division for Sustainable Development, 5-13-02). This would involve a change in accounting measures to actually include environmental costs into standard cost and profit calculations. This relates to the concept of green accounting. Currently, environmental costs are not considered as part of the profitability of a business or economic strength of a nation. For instance, if natural resources are depleted and sold, a nation's GDP has increased although its well being, both environmentally and economically, has decreased as a result (El Serafy, 2001, p 34). The environmental loss is clear; the economic loss needs some explanation. The use of natural resources is equivalent to spending capital. While you have more money the year you sell your capital, you lose money every year because you no longer earn interest. In the case of natural resources, the interest is based on higher natural resource prices in the future and, in some cases, the inability of the resource to regenerate. Also of concern is the depreciation of land due to environmental degradation. Both lead to a net loss, not gain, economically.
Green accounting tries to account for this. It incorporates environmental costs into accounting, so that the true cost of an action can be calculated. However, it raises some significant challenges. First, according to El Serafy, it is more effective in developing countries, where environmental damage is most significant in terms of resource use, than it is in developed countries, where pollution is of bigger concern. Also, there would be great difficulty in calculating the costs of environmental impacts. While the cost of resources used would be easy to calculate, the costs of the results of resource use, such as erosion, would be extremely difficult to price.

Another issue is one of implementation. Unless all nations and industries adopted green accounting, none would. GDP and assets significantly affect public perceptions of government and investment decisions. The first nations and businesses to adopt green accounting would appear to have lower GDP or assets because they have accounted for all costs. Although they would be no worse off than governments and companies using standard accounting, they would appear worse off because they report environmental costs. As a result, they would have fewer investors and would suffer some damage. Thus it is unlikely that green accounting will be adopted on a large scale unless it is adopted on a national or international scale.

Business Methods
Other actions proposed in chapter 30 of Agenda 21 involve voluntary business actions. These include voluntary implementation of environmental standards and improved efficiency of production. Also encouraged is the establishment of sustainability policies within corporations. These actions are all brought about within and by businesses.

A number of such actions have already been implemented. One case is at the U of M. The University currently has a policy regarding pollution prevention and waste abatement. This policy requires that the U of M will "strive to minimize adverse impact on the air, water and land through excellence in pollution prevention and waste abatement" (Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota, 2-26-02). This policy is considered in the actions of the university to support sustainability and to encourage environmentally benign purchases and policies over more harmful ones. The policy is not mandated by law, but rather was implemented voluntarily by the U of M. On the for-profit business side is the environmental policy of 3M. 3M, as a corporation, needs to be more concerned about profit than the U of M. As such, its environmental policy incorporates economic as well as environmental aspects. Much like the U of M policy, 3M adopted its policy voluntarily.

There are very few challenges to businesses adopting individual sustainability policies. And there are a number of incentives to adopting such policies. 3M reports that its environmental policies have resulted in an 88% reduction in volatile organic air emissions, an 82% reduction in releases to water, a 24% reduction in solid waste, and a 35% reduction in the ratio of waste generation. All this while 3M has remained economically viable. While it is easy to improve sustainability without sacrificing profit, not all companies realize this. This gives rise to a key problem. Businesses that assume sustainability costs more will not implement sustainability policies. So the main barrier to implementation of the UN's voluntary actions suggestion is that not all businesses will implement policies unless they are required to. This is due to the lack of knowledge of the true effects of creating a sustainability policy. Therefore, this will only have a limited effect.

Knowledge/Research
Another area of actions suggested by the UN involves increased knowledge of sustainability in business. Suggestions for action include increased research for environmentally sound technologies, increased education, and reporting, by business, of environmental records and resource use. Two clear problems to the implementation of this idea arise. One is cost. Research and development is expensive, so companies will be reluctant to do research. This reluctance will increase if they are required to share the technology they develop with other companies and nations. Profitability of such R & D endeavors would be questionable, so business involvement would be less than enthusiastic. Another issue relates to copyrights and privacy. Companies would be reluctant to report about environmental performance and methods they use to improve environmental performance because such information might be used by other companies to gain a competitive edge (or reduce the advantage of the company that reports its methods). Business would probably be reluctant to accept these courses of action proposed by the UN, so a serious barrier to implementation exists.

Partnerships/Cooperation
The final category of suggestions involves partnerships and cooperation. These actions involve sharing of technical information to allow more companies to achieve sustainability. For instance, a company in a developed nation would share information on how to decrease environmental impacts with a similar business in a developing nation. This would allow both businesses to make progress toward sustainability. However this would likely meet business resistance for the same reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. Businesses might be unwilling to give what they could in theory sell. Therefore, it is unlikely that such partnerships would form unless mandated by law. In order to become law, such partnerships would need to break through business pressure on government.

Conclusions
Chapter 30 of Agenda 21 proposed a number of actions to bring about sustainability in business. These actions are economic, voluntary, research-based, or cooperative in nature. All of them have several barriers to implementation. Most of the barriers are economic. Many are also based on the power business has in government. One action is prevented simply by the lack of knowledge. These barriers can and must be overcome to achieve sustainability in business.

Works Cited
3M Corporation. Our Environment. [On-line]. URL: http://www.3m.com/about3m/environment/index.jhtml. 2-26-02.

Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota. U of MN Pollution Prevention and Waste Abatement Policy. [On-line]. URL: http://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/administrative/PollutionPrevention.html. 2-26-02.

Daly, Herman, Townsend, Kenneth. "Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem," in J. S. Dryzek and D. Schlosberg, eds., Debating the Earth: The Environmental Politics Reader, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1998: 285-89.

El Serafy, Salah. "Green Accounting and Economic Policy," in N. Goodwin, ed., A Survey of Sustainable Development, Island Press: Washington, 2001: 33 - 36.
Kates, Robert W., Clark, William C., Corell, Robert, Hall, J. Michael, Jaeger, Carlo C., Lowe, Ian, McCarthy, James J., Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim, Bolin, Bert, Dickson, Nancy M., Faucheux, Sylvie, Gallopin, Gilberto C., Grubler, Arnulf, Huntley, Brian, Jager, Jill, Jodha, Narpat S., Kasperson, Roger E., Mabogunje, Akin, Matson, Pamela, Mooney, Harold, Moore III, Berrien, O'Riordan, Timothy, Svedlin, Uno. 2001.Environment and Development: Sustainability Science. Science. 292: 641-642.United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. Agenda 21, Chapter 30. {On-line]. URL: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21chapter30.htm
. 5-13-02.

Wernick, Iddo, Herman, Robert, Govind, Shekar, Ausubel, Jesse. "Materialization and Dematerialization: Measures and Trends," in N. Goodwin, ed., A Survey of Sustainable Development, Island Press: Washington, 2001: 198 - 201.

World Business Council on Sustainable Development. The Business Case for Sustainable
Development. [On-line]. URL: http://www.basd-action.net/docs/documents/business-case.pdf. 5-13-02.

EXAMPLE 3: Final by M.S.

Question 1: Given Daly's interpretation of sustainable growth, is sustainable development as it is defined and pursued by the United Nations an impossibility?

The article Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem, by Daly and Townsend, suggests that although the stated goal of sustainable development is to change current economic practices to make them more efficient and better able to support humanities needs in perpetuity, the true goal is sustainable growth. This continued growth implies an increase in the size of current economies, coupled with an increase in the use of natural resources. Daly and Townsend recognize that the earth is a closed system in which there is only a limited amount of resources available for human exploitation. While many of the resources in this system are renewable they must be consumed at a rate that does not overshoot their ability to regenerate. Daly and Townsend argue that efforts to continue increasing the growth of our global economy will inevitably overshoot these natural limits and that sustainability is therefore impossible. They suggest that an increased emphasis be put on achieving a state of zero growth so that the focus may be put on the development of more efficient uses of natural resources.

Daly and Townsend have made an important observation in identifying the confusion of the theory of sustainable development with increased growth. It is clear that there are limits to growth within the earth's ecosystem and that these limits must be recognized before they are overshot. Ecologists familiar with the pattern of species growth, overshoot of their carrying capacity, followed by a massive die-off would be horrified at the implications this has for a human population of six billion that is expected to reach eleven billion within the next one hundred years. At the same time it is this very issue of the immense size of the human population, and its continued growth, that is the impetus for sustainable development. What Daly and Townsend fail to recognize is the current imperative to develop and in many cases grow a large number of national economies to ensure that coming generations will be provided with the basic necessities of life. Although they are correct in recognizing the mistake that would be made by burdening the earth's resources to such an extreme degree that we irrevocably damage the global ecosystem and cripple our ability to continue supporting a human population, it is, never the less, our inescapable duty to provide for the needs of today's citizens and for their as yet unborn children.

The vision that is required to navigate between the equally disastrous options of either neglecting our current needs in favor of the long distant future, or destroying any hope of a future by overburdening our global ecosystems ability to meet current needs, is one that incorporates the reality of continued development and growth for the present while always keeping an eye on the eventual goal of zero growth. This is the vision of sustainability, of both development and growth, which the U.N. should be striving for. While words of caution like those shared by Daly and Townsend will continue to reign in the rate at which we grow it is currently unrealistic to suggest that growth should stop immediately. It would be better to suggest that growth be slowed to a rate that is capable of keeping pace with or growing populations needs so that we will be better prepared to stop growth in the future.

Reference:

Daly, Herman E., and Townsend, Kenneth N. "VALUING THE EARTH: Economics, Ecology, Ethics. Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem" 1993. Online.
<http://www.esb.utexas.edu/drnrm/dieofforg/page37.htm>

Question 2: Review the article "Sustainability Science" that was assigned earlier in the semester. Based on the presentation you gave for class, explain:

a. How the one or more of the core questions in the article relate to the issues that you addressed in your presentation.

There are two questions posed by Kates et al. that have an especially significant bearing on the issue of sustainable agriculture. They are:
" What determines the vulnerability or resilience of the nature-society system in particular kinds of places and for particular types of ecosystems and human livelihoods?
" Can scientifically meaningful "limits" or "boundaries" be defined that would provide effective warning of conditions beyond which the nature-society systems incur a significantly increased risk of serious degradation?

The question of the resilience or vulnerability of nature-society systems and its relationship to places, ecosystems and livelihoods is critical for the planning of more sustainable agricultural practices. It is reasonable to assume that those geographic places and ecosystems that are the most resilient to human practices as intensive as agriculture would be the best locations to plan for farming. The inverse of this would be the need to identify those regions and ecosystems that are the most vulnerable to disruption by human activity, specifically agriculture, and recognize that farming should not be planned there. There are already many examples of agricultural practices that are being carried out in places or in ecosystems were they should not. A good example of this is the clearing of tropical rainforests in regions such as Brazil, so that cattle ranching may be introduced. Unfortunately, the soils and climate of these regions are not able to support ranching. The result is the desertification of once densely forested land. The implication that this has on human society and livelihood is that our societies must be governed more by environmental factors. An ecosystem that cannot support agriculture demands that the human society of that area be non-agrarian, or at least be a society that practices non-traditional forms of agriculture.

Human livelihood also plays an important role in the relationship of society with nature. Natural systems are often resilient to human impacts but only to a certain degree. Human society must become more effective at recognizing its basic needs and evaluating the potential of the resource base to meet those needs. It is often the extraneous desires of a society to increase its livelihood that overburdens our natural resources. In the case of agriculture it is often possible for societies to eat lower on the food chain (consuming more grains, fruits and vegetables, and less animal products), thereby increasing the ability of the resource base to meet human needs.

One of the best strategies to identify the limits of agricultural impacts on the environment is through the monitoring of soils. Soil is the foundation of agriculture and it has a measurable resilience to use. The fundamental impact that agriculture has on the soil is erosion. Soil erosion can be measured very accurately, and alternate farming practices can be put in place to reduce erosion. The challenge for sustainable agriculture is to identify the rate of soil genesis, the rate the soil is created, and then monitor the rate of soil erosion. As long as these processes are in equilibrium, the agriculture being practiced is essentially sustainable, assuming other negative impacts aren't present.

b. Which of the research strategies suggested in the article would be most helpful for addressing the issues that you addressed in your presentation?

Kates et al. recognize the need for new strategies of scientific research to be able to develop a functional system of sustainability. An important component to sustainable agriculture is "the systematic use of networks for the utilization of expertise and the promotion of social learning" (Kates, et al. 2001). The need to recognize the limitations put on a society and the livelihoods of its citizens, by the resource base, requires that sound knowledge be readily available, and that the population be educated. One of the principle barriers to sustainable agriculture is the lack of education about sustainable practices as well as the lack of understanding as to the consequences of unsustainable activities.

As the limits imposed by the geography and ecosystem of a place are better understood the more adept the local culture will be at planning their economies around those limitations. Furthermore, as the populace becomes better educated about the need to function within these limits the more willing they will be to abide by practices that may seem restrictive of their livelihoods.

Reference:

Kates, Robert W., et al. "Sustainability Science." Science 292 (2001): 641-2

Agenda 21 proposes a number of actions that should be taken a t the international and local level to encourage sustainable agriculture. Internationally there is a need for greater cooperation between the public and private sectors and for an increased exchange of research and development into increasing the genetic diversity of agricultural crops. Local initiatives that are encouraged in Agenda 21 include stopping agricultural practices on marginal land, reduced loss of soil from erosion, reduced loss of food from spoilage, the implementation of agricultural practices that conserve the land (conservation tillage, crop rotation, use of plant nutrients, agroforestry, terracing and mixed cropping), the use of integrated pest management, and the encouragement of peoples' investment in the future of the land by giving them ownership of the land.

There are many barriers to accomplishing these goals and the most serious of these is economic. The majority of these practices demand that farmers invest more time and money into their work. The reduction of soil erosion often demands that soil be left out of production at times, resulting in the loss of all economic benefit from that land. Another practice that reduces soil erosion is conservation tillage; unfortunately this reduced tillage can allow an increase in weed growth that directly competes with crops. The reduction in yield that conservation tillage causes can also reduce profits. A reduction in food spoilage would also be costly as it would require an increase in refrigeration or in food processing, both of which would require a large amount of capital investment. Practices such as crop rotation, agroforestry, terracing and mixed cropping demand that managers invest a larger amount of time into management, reducing the amount of land they can farm, and thus reducing their profits. Integrated pest management is another example of an agricultural practice that requires more time from managers, and it is often not as cost effective as chemical controls. Until consumers are willing to pay more for goods that were grown in a sustainable manner it will be vary difficult for farmers to put these practices into action.
The final recommendation of providing more land ownership to the people who are managing the land also confronts an economic barrier, but the barrier in this case is not simply the issue of the increased cost of sustainable agricultural practices, it is the barrier of the growing economic model of capitalism. What this recommendation is suggesting is the redistribution of wealth, an idea that runs contrary to the major principles of capitalism. While this redistribution of wealth/land could potentially be one of the most successful practices to encourage sustainability, especially if it is coupled with the education of the general populace, it is likely that it would be the most difficult to implement.

Reference:
Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. Online. <http://iisd1.iisd.ca/rio+5/agenda/chp14.htm>

EXAMPLE 4: final by M.K.

Question 1.
In the Brundtland report, the definition of sustainability is meeting the needs of the present without compromising future generations' ability to meet their needs. This is the definition that the United Nations has adopted to use in all their deliberations on the issue of sustainability. According to Daly, this definition of sustainability can be worked in for sustainable development but not for sustainable growth. As Daly argues, there is no such thing as sustainable growth, as the ecosystem in which we operate is a closed, fixed system. We cannot grow our way out of poverty (Daly and Townsend, 1993).

At the 1992 Earth Summit, the United Nations drafted Agenda 21, which was then signed by over 170 nations as a guideline for sustainable development. This document outlines areas that need to be addresses in regards to their sustainability and gives many ways in which nations and governments can work towards sustainability.

My impression from listening to presentations in the class, readings and observations lead me to believe that many of the powers that be are using sustainability as a cover to make themselves look more environmentally friendly. As Daly calls it, "green growth" is simply what we have always done but with a "green" twist (1993). With current levels of public concern and awareness, this seems to be working in that the general public is not pushing for more stringent standards.
I think that the United Nations was attempting to push Agenda 21 and sustainability as sustainable development. They are looking at ways of using today's resources to meet today's needs without detracting from future needs. However, since the UN has little real power or authority, it is up to individual governments to adopt the actions suggested in Agenda 21. Herein lies the problem. Most governments still operate under the illusion that we can grow our way out of poverty and the economy can keep expanding without any negative consequences. As we saw in our study of sustainable agriculture, most nations are not giving this a high priority. Many scientists think that we will be able to come up with better techniques and technology to grow our way out of any food security problems that may arise.
In order for Daly's idea of sustainability to be realized, Agenda 21 needs to be adhered to more closely and the UN's definition of sustainability needs to be adopted by more governments. The philosophy is there and is sound. The actions need to be brought in line with the ideas.

Daly, H.E. and K.N. Townsend. 1993. Valuing the Earth:
Economics, Ecology, Ethics. On-line at http://www.esb.utexas.edu/drnm/dieofforg/page37.htm. Accessed on 2 May 2002.

Question 2.
The two core questions that I think were addressed in the sustainable agriculture presentation were as follows. What systems of incentive structures can most effectively improve social capacity to guide interactions between nature and society toward sustainability? And what determines the vulnerability or resilience of the nature-society system (Kates et al., 2001)? Both of these questions were alluded to in my section of the presentation when looking at societies that were failing or that failed due to unsustainable agricultural practices.

In the Cuba example, the country was forced to change abruptly from large-scale monoculture to sustainable agro-ecosystems/organic farming practices. In this case it was world market demand, or lack thereof, for Cuba's only crop that led to a rapid change in agricultural practice. With no one to but their sugar, they couldn't purchase or trade for food or the supplies for petro-chemical agriculture that the sugar crop was grown under. As such, their economy collapsed and forced them to change to a form of agriculture that worked with the natural systems as opposed to competing with them. Their vulnerability was self-determined in that they chose to continue plantation style agriculture that had been on going for 400 years. Since the markets were still providing necessary supplies and there were no incentives for abandoning this style of farming, they continued. When market forces changed, due to changing political situations, the island nation was forced to either change its ways to being more sustainable or starve. In bringing their practices in line with how natural systems work, they were able to not only feed themselves, but to become almost wholly self-sufficient in their food security. This also has led to improved environmental quality and quality of life.

As far as this is reflected in agricultural practices in the United States, market forces will also be the most likely incentives for changing behavior. There has been increasing demand for organic and locally grown food products and an interest in reducing the impacts of factory farms. If consumers continue to purchase items that are sustainable, the practices will then shift to meet the demand.

I think three of the research strategies would be helpful in addressing sustainability in agriculture. These are spanning the range of spatial scales, deal with the functional complexity and seeing how to make knowledge usable to science and society. The spatial scale of agriculture today needs to be taken into consideration when trying to comprehend the magnitude of the problem. Food today may come from half way around the world before it reaches your table. In order to provide for worldwide food demand, agriculture has moved from a local practice to a corporate one. This system itself is unsustainable in that it requires a large amount of inputs that rely on petro-chemicals.

When we discussed soils as a main issue facing agricultural sustainability we were addressing the complexity of the farming system. Current farming practices take a heavy toll on the soils, which themselves are complex irreplaceable ingredients. There is no way that we could affordably replace the amounts of soils that we are losing every year to unsustainable farming practices and this issue needs to be addressed whether in subsistence or corporate agriculture.

Lastly, Agenda 21 looks at ways of distributing knowledge that will help to bring farming practices into more sustainable ways. In many cases, the knowledge of how to farm better and more in line with natural systems already exists. It is the distribution and assimilation of this knowledge that needs to be accomplished.

Kates et al. 2001. Sustainability Science. Science. 292
(5517): 641-642.

Question 3.
The main issues that we addressed in our presentation dealt with unsustainable farming practices, loss of genetic diversity and soil loss. Agenda 21 addresses these issues in sections 14 C, E and G. These sections look at improving farming techniques, land conservation and rehabilitation and conservation of genetic resources.
In addressing farming techniques, Agenda 21 suggests governments utilize large research organizations and international institutions for new technology and techniques. They also need to provide rural infrastructure and integration of farming and non-farming activities (Agenda 21 14.25-28). Barriers that exist are governments not wanting to implement these ideas. The status quo works and is cost effective. As a result many governments do not want to change.

When looking at genetic diversity, which is important in order to preserve lines that can increase disease and pest resistance (Boyce in Harris et al., 2001), Agenda 21 stresses a need for ex situ collections of plant and animal genes. Governments need to develop strategies to do so before materials disappear (Agenda 21 14.54-60). They also need to work on exchanges and networks for countries to share genetic resources. Barriers to this might be political and social differences as well as the cost of implementing and maintaining an ex situ seed bank.

The last issue deals with soil conservation and is addressed under land conservation by Agenda 21. They recommend mostly a removal of social, political economic and cultural causes of land degradation such as land rights and tenure, appropriate trading systems and pricing structures. Governments should also provide incentives for implementation of conservation programs (Agenda 21 14.44-47). Organizations and governments need to make this issue a priority for without land, there is little hope for agriculture on a scale that can feed the world. Problems with this involve getting governments to change how land is viewed and used by their people. IN many cases, the government needs to focus in its own people instead of a quick fix to grow itself out of poverty while abusing its own resources.

Sustainable agriculture did not receive as much attention as other environmental problems. Agenda 21 has nineteen pages worth of suggestions and areas for improvement for current agricultural practices. If theses are to be implemented, however, nations need to re-evaluate how they view the role of agriculture and its impacts on the nature society relationship.

Agenda 21, Chapter 14. Online at
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21chapter14.htm. Accessed on 11 May 2002.

Harris, Jonathan et al. 2001. A Survey of Sustainable
Development. Social and Economic Dimensions. Island Press, Washington D.C. pg. 235-237.

EXAMPLE 6: final by R.J.

Question 1.

Daly says that sustainable development is key to an improved world economy. However, he believes that many things the United Nations proposes for sustainable development are actually methods of growth. The UN proposal is not impossible, however it must be tailored more towards development than growth.

The United Nations proposes that to have sustainable development, we must first help developing countries to become developed, therefore alleviating the pressures of poverty. We can do this by giving them money and/or by promoting trade that is both accessible and workable for the countries (UN Division for Sustainable Development 2000). In other words, the developing world's economy must first grow before their development can become sustainable. Daly also believes that we must alleviate poverty, but it must be done with out growth, or with very limited growth. This growth however, cannot come by donations and trade alone (as this will dramatically increase overall global growth which will not work according to Daly). It should be done by growth combined with development by improved efficiency. Unfortunately, development will only be able alleviate some poverty, maybe only one half. Yet if this development is efficient, then the need for growth will be less.

According to Daly, we have already exceeded the optimal scale of growth (Daly and Townsend 1993). While we may not have exceeded finite growth completely, we are closing the gap and will not be able to continue to grow as many believe and hope we will do. We can have a health economy with out growth says Daly, but it will have to be centered on development. The UN calls the actions in Agenda 21 sustainable development, but Daly believes it is really just sustainable growth covered up. He believes that the Brundtland Commission's (which helped to develop Agenda 21) proposals for growth are completely unsustainable in our finite environment. We can only hope to harvest 100% of everything (however this is unlikely to happen), therefore how can we continue to grow by conventional terms if there is nothing left to grow from? If we move toward truly sustainable development, we will improve our lifestyle by improving knowledge, technical efficiency and more (Daly and Townsend 2000). This system would stop adding material goods, or energy and would allow the environment to continue to functioning and renewing itself every year (Daly and Townsend 2000). He says: "The nongrowing economy is not static - it is being continually maintained and renewed ad environment."

The UN and Daly both propose that to help move towards sustainable development, we must move from nonrenewable resources to renewable resources. The UN proposes that we do this by implementing renewables in developed countries as soon as possible and increase our funding of renewable research. Daly says almost the same thing, saying that we must gradually replace nonrenewable resources with renewable ones until the renewables are all we are using. The renewable resources also must be financially stable, thus the more we invest from the nonrenewable resources into renewable resources, the more stable they will be (Daly and Townsend 2000).
While the two proposals are closely aligned, Daly takes strong issue with the United Nations proposals. Both are titled "Sustainable Development" and both have many of the same recommendations. Daly, however, believes that UN must move more towards efficient development in their goals than growth, or their proposal will fail.

Works Cited
United Nations Division for Sustainable Development 06/29/2000. Agenda 21.
Accessed on the world wide web May 9, 2002: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/

Daly, Herman E. Kenneth N. Townsend. 1993. Valuing the earth: economics, ecology,
ethics. Sustainable growth: an impossibility theorem. MIT press. P. 267-272.

Question 2.

At least two the questions from the article Sustainability Science by Kates et al. relate to our presentation on Biotechnology and Biodiversity. The questions are:
How are long-term trends in environment and development, including consumption and population, reshaping nature-society interactions in ways relevant to sustainability?
What determines the vulnerability or resilience of the nature-society system in particular kinds of places and for particular types of ecosystems and human livelihoods?

Consumption and population growth are what are driving our (assumed) need for biotechnology (UN 2000). Supporters of biotechnology hope that it will not only improve yields, but that it will increase the farming sustainability in many regions. With biotechnology, the potential to increase yields alone will help feed the growing population with meat, grains and vegetables. It is also assumed that because yields will increase, there will be less land needed to produce the same amount of food. Biotechnology can also help crops to transpire less, leading to less water loss, and therefore less water needed, making growing crops in arid regions more sustainable.
Supporters believe that the use of biotechnology will not only result in less arable land being used, but it will help to increase biodiversity (or at least keep it the same) because the land will be returned to natural ecosystem processes. Those who oppose biodiversity however believe that it will decrease diversity because the lab-produced genes will invade the natural world. The biodiversity of a region helps to determine the health of a region and/or ecosystem. It can also be used to help determine the vulnerability of a region (through assessment of species & their required habitats) or that region's resilience to impacts.

The research strategy most helpful for addressing issues related to biotechnology and biodiversity would be the strategy that deals with "functional complexity such as is evident in recent analyses of environmental degradation resulting from multiple stresses" (Kates et al. 2001). It is important to know all of the stresses (or issues) that affect biotechnology and biodiversity before the damage or benefits of some action can be assessed. Biodiversity is essential to maintaining ecosystem processes and one disruption can mean the end for some ecosystems. Before improvements can be made and problems can be fixed, we have to know everything that is effecting the issue, not just one thing. Before biotechnology can be implemented in certain areas, we must know all of the systems it will invade and how that will affect the function of that ecosystem. We must know how it will affect biodiversity (UN 2000).

Works Cited

Kates, Robert W., Clark, William C., Corell, Robert, Hall, J. Michael, Jaeger, Carlo C.,
Lowe, Ian, McCarthy, James J., Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim, Bolin, Bert, Dickson, Nancy M., Faucheux, Sylvie, Gallopin, Gilberto C., Grubler, Arnulf, Huntley, Brian, Jager, Jill, Jodha, Narpat S., Kasperson, Roger E., Mabogunje, Akin, Matson, Pamela, Mooney, Harold, Moore III, Berrien, O'Riordan, Timothy, Svedlin, Uno. 2001.ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT: Sustainability Science. Science. 292: 641-642.

United Nations Division for Sustainable Development 06/29/2000. Agenda 21.
Chapters 15 & 16 Accessed on the world wide web May 9, 2002: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/

Question 3.

For biodiversity, Agenda 21 proposes that we demand our country's early entry into the Convention of Biological Diversity. They propose that we (as a nation and local community) develop strategies to conserve diversity and combat losses of diversity. We should recognize the role and knowledge of indigenous peoples and women in preserving biodiversity at a local level. We should take action to ensure that country's and peoples maintain their rights to genetic information from organisms within its boarders; in other words, prevent biopiracy. We should ensure that biotechnology is implemented and used safely and with out harm to a regions biodiversity (UN 2000). These are just a few of the proposed activities of Agenda 21, however, I feel they are the most relevant and most easily understood and related to.

For biotechnology, Agenda 21 proposes that we continue to create disease and drought resistant strains. We should ensure that it will only improve the environments and cultures into which it is implemented. It should be evaluated and then reevaluated to make sure that it will not harm the cultures and communities into which it is introduced, especially in developing countries (UN 2000). Again, these are just a few of the recommendations, but I feel as though they are the most relevant.
I can see many problems with implementing these suggestions, especially for biotechnology. The first, and probably largest of which, is that the general public is not overly concerned with these issues, especially here in the United States. As long as no genetically engineered food is entering their mouths, people do not seem to be overly concerned about it. As long as it is happening somewhere else, to someone else, it is out of sight, out of mind for most people. Besides this problem, the issue with respecting indigenous cultures and asking them for advice is huge. In the United States alone, the track record for consulting indigenous peoples before going ahead with a project is low, not to mention governments like Australia, etc. I do not see people getting overly involved on the local level, let alone on the international level.

I believe people are slightly more aware and active when it comes to issues about biodiversity, possibly because it has been around longer. When people hear that something is going to affect the diversity of an area, especially when it is mega fauna or an emotionally important species, they act. When spotted owls were endangered by logging practices (although there is still debate about whether or not they really were), people from all over got together to end logging in the those forests. Most people, however, would not think twice about what kind of impact that new home they are building in the suburbs is going to have on diversity. I can see people here, and elsewhere, acting on issues of biodiversity, but they need to be informed of the issues. That is probably the biggest barrier to both of these issues, education. If and when that barrier is overcome, I believe we will start to see increased action on the local and international scales for both of these issues.

Work Cited

United Nations Division for Sustainable Development 06/29/2000. Agenda 21.
Chapters 15 & 16 Accessed on the world wide web May 9, 2002: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/