FO CUS:

INDUSTRIALTRANSFORMATION

N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L H U M A N D I M E N S I O N S P R O G R A M M E O N G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H A N G EUPDATEIH

DP

01/2003

W W W . I H D P . O R GI H D P U p d a t e i s p u b l i s h e d b y t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l H u m a n D i m e n s i o n s P r o g r a m m e o n G l o b a l E n v i r o m e n t a l C h a n g e ( I H D P ) , Wa l t e r - F l e x - S t r. 3 , 5 3 1 1 3 B o n n , G e r m a n y, V. i . S . d . P. : E l i s a b e t h D y c k

1 From Chaos to Convergence inIndustrial TransformationResearch | P. Vellinga, A. Wieczorek

2 Editorial

4 Industrial Transformation in EastAsia | D.P. Angel, M.T. Rock

7 Making Sustainability a NewCulture | Interview with C. Fussler

8 Transitions in an Island Society |S. Jit Singh

10 A Sustainable Future? | R. Gerlagh, E. Papyrakis

12 Biomass Trade – An Option forthe Future? | J.R. Moreira

15 The Economics of SustainableWater Use | J.M. Dalhuisen

16 Environmental Impacts of FoodProduction | Xueqin Zhu

17 Earth System Science forSustainable Development

19 Core Projects:

Southern Africa VulnerabilityInitiative | M. Brklacich,K. O’Brien, M. Woodrow

Masthead

20 Joint Projects:

The Global Carbon ProjectComes of Age | O.R. Young

21 National Committees:

Austria: Promoting Young Human Dimensions Researchers |M. Payer, K. Steininger

Switzerland: Water Use – A SocialScience Issue | T. Scheurer,K. Pieren

22 2002 Berlin Conference on theHD of Global EnvironmentalChange | F. Biermann, S. Campe

ISSC 50th Anniversary Conference| E. Dyck

23 Meeting Calendar, Publications

24 Contact Addresses

C O N T E N T S

➤ Over the last few decades research in the natural sciences has unveiled a numberof specific complex relations between human activity and environmental change on a

global scale. Scientific assessments such as by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change and the Millennium Assessment confirm that global life support systems,

such as climate, biodiversity and water resources, are significantly affected by human

activities.

As much is at stake, societies face the need to develop creative response strategies.

Most effective would be a reconsideration of the ways and means by which we meet

our primary human needs in the field of energy, food, water, shelter, transport, etc., as

these activities are responsible for much of the global environmental change we are

witnessing. But this is easier said than done. A major part of the world’s population is

struggling with fulfilling even basic needs, while the more wealthy part is hesitant, not

to say reluctant, to reconsider the systems of production and consumption that

brought them prosperity.

➤ continued on page 2

FROM CHAOS TO CONVERGENCE In Industrial Transformation Research |

BY PIER VELLINGA AND ANNA J. WIECZOREK

Phot

o:IT

Scie

nce

Plan

industrial transformation

2 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

What can the research community do to break such a

deadlock? This question triggered the IHDP Project on

Industrial Transformation initiated in 1997/1998. The main

goal of the project is to explore development trajectories that

would have a significantly smaller burden on the environ-

ment. The project recognized that ‘end-of-pipe’ solutions

and efficiency improvements alone will not be able to deliv-

er such a future. More far-reaching long-term changes will be

required when the aim is to decouple global economic

growth from a parallel growth of the global environmental

burden.

‘Systems change’ became the key word in the research

plan that emerged – systems being defined as the socio-eco-

nomic and technical chains of production, distribution, con-

sumption and disposal activities. After a series of regional

workshops and a final global conference in 1999, it was

decided to focus on energy, food, water and transport sys-

tems. The vision is that social and technical innovation in the

redesign of these systems should go hand in hand. Now three

years after the start we can take stock.

It is only fair to say that the Science Plan, as presented in

early 2000, triggered a multitude and a very diverse set of

research ideas and proposals. It became clear that there are

many views on what would represent a more sustainable pat-

tern of development. In terms of research methodology it has

become apparent that there are many views on what consti-

tutes interesting and useful industrial transformation

research. Let us start by highlighting and discussing a num-

ber of different approaches to transformation research that

were presented in the course of the last few years.

The research groups focussing on innovation theories

based in Twente and Maastricht, the Netherlands, developed

a “multilevel perspective on transitions” to help us under-

stand dynamics of transformations. The researchers distin-

guish three levels: niche, regime and landscape (Elzen, 2001;

Kemp et al 2001; and Geels 2001):

Niche – denoting a space where individuals, based on

existing knowledge and capabilities, develop new technolo-

gies or concepts that are geared towards problems of existing

regimes. Niches provide space for learning processes and

development of social networks, which support innovations.

Innovations generated at this level are usually radical (Geels,

2001).

Socio-technical regime – accounting for stability of exist-

ing technological development. Regimes refer to rules that

enable and constrain activities within communities. If inno-

vations are generated at regime level, they are mainly incre-

mental (Geels, 2001).

Socio-technical landscape – encompassing the wider

context of a regime in the form of socio-cultural and nor-

mative values, and economic and broad political processes.

The context of the landscape is very difficult to change and,

if it does change, it is a much longer process than in the case

of regimes (Geels, 2001).

Critics of the theory and taxonomy described above indi-

cate that indeed traditional innovation may be explained in

terms of niche innovation. However, changes required to

reverse the trend of growing global environmental pressures

are likely to be triggered only by institutional changes at the

E D I T O R I A LThe theme of this issue of IHDP’s quarterly newsletter

UPDATE is “Industrial Transformation”, the research

focus of one of IHDP’s four core science projects. The

idea of devoting an issue of UPDATE to the work of the

Industrial Transformation Project (IT) originated from

our IT research group, and we appreciate this initiative.

At the last meeting of the IHDP Officers and Project

Leaders it was agreed that this opportunity should be

extended to our other projects as well. Therefore, in

future, one issue each year will focus on the research of

a particular IHDP Project.

Led by Pier Vellinga of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,

the IT Project’s overarching goal is to explore pathways

towards decoupling economic growth from the related

degradation of the environment. A number of key

scientists in the IT field agreed to write contributions to

this issue of UPDATE. We would like to thank Anna

Wieczorek from the IT International Project Office, who

has been most helpful in identifying excellent authors.

Their contributions cover the research foci of the

Industrial Transformation Project: Energy and Material

Flow, Food, Cities with a focus on Transportation and

Water, Information and Communication, and

Governance and Transformation Processes. One of IT’s

objectives is to undertake research on ways to facilitate

transformation of the industrial system towards sustain-

ability. Such a transformation, however, requires co-

operation with industry and business. As Claude Fussler

from the World Business Council on Sustainable

Development (WBCSD) points out in an interview,

co-operation would be welcome. We hope that in the

near future IHDP will be able to establish closer and

mutually beneficial links with the WBCSD.

UPDATE 1/2003 also includes news from the Earth System

Science Partnership (ESSP), which comprises IHDP and

our GEC partner programmes IGBP, WCRP and

DIVERSITAS. The Workshop on Sustainable

Development – The Role of International Science (Paris,

February 2002) clearly showed that the scientific com-

munity has vastly increased its role in supporting sus-

tainable development. It also highlighted new challenges

for ESSP that are outlined in the article.

In March 2003 the IHDP Scientific Committee (SC) will

hold its 10th meeting in Bonn. It will be the first meeting

to be chaired by Coleen Vogel of South Africa. We also

look forward to welcoming three new members to the

SC – Tatiana Kluvankova-Oravska (Slovak Republic),

Roberto Sanchez-Rodriguez (USA) and Paul Vlek

(Germany). Following Kurt Pawlik’s retirement as

President of the ISSC, Lourdes Arizpe (Mexico) will rep-

resent our sponsor as an ex officio SC member. The

meeting agenda is comprehensive; I trust that the

insights and guidance of the SC will help us to chart the

course for IHDP’s future work.

BARBARA GÖBEL

IHDP Executive Director

➤

F R O M C H A O S T O C O N V E R G E N C E

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 3

industrial transformation

level of “regimes” or “landscapes”. It is claimed that address-

ing energy, food and transportation systems and their effects

on the global environment requires changes in the existing

international incentive structure for these activities. Such

changes should include some kind of internalisation of the

external cost of environmental resource use, e.g., through

taxes and/or through the allocation of resource use quota

systems and the introduction of tradable resource use rights.

Niche innovation can only come about after relevant changes

have been made in the international “level playing field”, the

critics argue. In terms of transformation management, stim-

ulation of niche innovation is only worthwhile when incen-

tives at a global scale are adjusted simultaneously (assuming

the systems addressed are embedded in global markets).

Berkhout (2002) based at SPRU in the United Kingdom

proposes a taxonomy listing four different types of transi-

tions: path dependent, reorientation of trajectories, emer-

gent transitions, and purposive transitions, each with its own

pace and features. Berkhout argues that the normatively

driven purposive transformations (such as those triggered by

the desire to avoid irreversible damage to life support sys-

tems like climate, biodiversity and the water cycle) do not fit

the typical model as described by Geels and the others men-

tioned above.

Research on transformations towards sustainability,

initiated by German researchers, puts emphasis on the in-

teraction of innovation (production), consumption and

governance (institution and incentive structures). The

specific challenges and research needs as listed by Vos

(2002) are:

➤ understand the dynamics of structural change in socio-

techno-ecological systems and anticipate future transfor-

mation paths (knowledge of system dynamics);

➤ assess and evaluate the impacts of specific paths of trans-

formation (knowledge of sustainability goals); and

➤ develop visions, strategies and collective action capacities

to shape transformation processes (knowledge of trans-

formation strategies).

The Human Ecology Group at the University of Vienna

(Fischer-Kowalski, 2001) is undertaking pioneering work in

the field of analysing the historic and ongoing changes in the

interaction between socio-economic activities and the natu-

ral environment in terms of mass-flow analysis. A typical

example of the research carried out by this group is present-

ed in this issue of UPDATE (see p 7).

A growing body of research on technological change can

be found in mainstream economic research. Recently new

concepts and models have been developed that strengthen

the economic basis for transformation and transformation

research. Most of these concepts and models are based upon

key insights in the so-called ‘endogenous growth theory’,

namely that knowledge accumulation leads to increased

returns. The role of knowledge accumulation in processes of

technological change has been explored in terms of learning

processes (learning by doing and learning by using) and

investment in R&D, in combination with spillover effects.

The latter means that knowledge ‘leaks’ from one firm or sec-

tor to another. Economic models of technological change

have acquired a number of key characteristics of innovation

and diffusion. Moreover, economic models have been devel-

oped to study several obstacles to technological change, such

as vested interests and uncertainty with respect to the per-

formance of a new technology or future government policies.

It is encouraging to see that mainstream economic research

is increasingly interested in transformation research, and

that new results are emerging, which can help to understand

and support system transformations.

The review of research carried out since the launching of

our Science Plan in 2000 illustrates that much work is

underway, and so far the field seems to be rather chaotic.

This is mainly due to many different disciplinary and inter-

disciplinary schools of research and normative and non-

normative aspects of research. Still there is convergence as

well. Over the last few years, our IT Project has continuous-

ly tried to bring together the various schools of thought. A

good example is the Workshop on “Endogenous

F R O M C H A O S T O C O N V E R G E N C E

Fig. 1. Research Foci of the IHDP Industrial Transformation Project

INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION

Food

Consumption System

ProductionSystem

Macrosystems and Incentive

Structure

Research fields covered in

transformation studies

Energy and

Material Flows

Cities (Focus on

Transportation and Water)

Information and

Communication

Governance and

Transformation Processes

4 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

industrial transformation

Technological Change”, held in Amsterdam in 2000. Another

more recent example is the Twente Workshop on

“Transitions Towards Sustainability Through Systems

Innovation”, held in July 2002 (proceedings in print). Other

workshops were held in Bonn and Berlin in 2002. Currently

we are preparing for meetings in New Delhi and Oslo, an

international conference in Montreal in October (the Open

Meeting of the International Human Dimensions Research

Community) and the 2003 Berlin Conference in Germany,

which this year will be devoted entirely to research on trans-

formations.

In addition to research on a better understanding of

Industrial Transformation and how it can be stimulated, the

IT Project has supported, endorsed and promoted a series

of ‘sectoral’ research projects on transformations in the

production and use of energies, food and water. Some of

them are described in this issue of UPDATE. Detailed infor-

mation about these projects and literature references can be

found on the IT website: http://130.37.129.100/IVM/research/ihdp-it.

In summary, research initiatives promoted by the

Industrial Transformation project seek to understand the

conditions under which substantial changes in society-envi-

ronment interaction can be achieved. The IT Project recog-

nizes the validity and complementarity of the various

research approaches and theories. We encourage a dialogue

between the different schools of thought and among differ-

ent groups with diverse research priorities. We recognize that

the scientific understanding of the dynamics of society-

nature interaction on a global scale is still in its infancy.

However, we are making progress! Our foci on transitions of

the energy, food, water and transport systems and our special

focus on governance and transformation processes are right

on target. The focus on information technology has not yet

been developed.

This issue illustrates some of the progress in implement-

ing the Science Plan, but it is only a beginning. To assist in

retrieving the relevant literature we are developing a litera-

ture reference manager on transformation research. A special

scientific report on the various approaches to transformation

research is in preparation.

The launching of the Science Plan has helped to initiate a

whole range of scientific activities. The work of the IT

Scientific Steering Committee and the International Project

Office in Amsterdam contributes to creating a dialogue,

cooperation and convergence in the understanding and use

of research and research methodologies. This should add to

a globally shared understanding of the development path-

ways that can combine economic growth with a sustainable

use of natural resources.

PIER VELLINGA is Chair of the Scientific Steering

Committee of the IHDP Industrial Transformation Project;

pier.vellinga@falw.vu.nl

ANNA J. WIECZOREK is Executive Officer at the IT

International Project Office, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;

anna.j.wieczorek@ivm.vu.nl;www.vu.nl/ivm/research/ihdp-it/ or

http://130.37.129.100/IVM/research/ihdp-it/

I T I N E A S T A S I A

➤

➤

INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION IN EAST ASIA Assessing policy approaches to improving the environmental performance of industry within rapidly

industrialising economies | BY DAVID P. ANGEL AND MICHAEL T. ROCK

➤ In the rapidly industrialising countries of East Asia,urban-industrial growth has been accompanied by low-

income inequality, increases in per capita income and signif-

icant declines in poverty and child mortality. This growth has

also been accompanied by substantial increases in air and

water pollution, resource degradation, escalating energy use,

and attendant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Most ana-

lysts agree that declining environmental quality within the

region is closely tied to failures of policy and weakness of

institutions. Where environmental regulatory institutions

have been strengthened and well resourced, as, for example,

in Singapore, Malaysia and Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), the

result has been a reduction in industrial pollution, land

degradation and other environmentally damaging processes.

However, especially within the lower income economies in

the region, incremental improvements in environmental reg-

ulatory policy typically have been over-ridden by the scale

effects of increased production, consumption and resource

use. In response to these challenges, countries have begun to

explore additional approaches to improving the environ-

mental performance of industry, including the direct

integration of economic and environmental policy within

a framework of what has been labelled ‘policy integration.’

In this article we report on research that seeks to docu-

ment achievements in one particular form of policy inte-

gration, i.e., the integration of environmental concerns

into the mandate of economic development agencies within

the region.

Nowhere in the world is the challenge of industrial trans-

formation of greater significance than in the rapidly indus-

trialising and urbanising economies of developing Asia. The

share of industrial output in Asia increased from approxi-

mately 10% of global output in 1950 to 30% in 1995; its

share is expected to reach 55% to 60% by 2025. Unless there

are technological and other changes that reduce the energy,

materials, water and pollution intensities of industrial pro-

duction, these absolute increases in industrial output will

presage equally large increases in resource use and pollution.

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 5

industrial transformationI T I N E A S T A S I A

Energy use in developing

Asia, including India and

China, is predicted to

increase from 84.5

quadrillion BTU in 2000 to

177.9 quadrillion BTU in

2020. GHG emissions in

Asia are expected to more

than double over the next 20

years. Sometime between

2015 and 2020, Asia will

likely overtake the OECD

countries as the largest

source worldwide of GHG

emissions. Understanding

the factors that determine

the rate of adoption by

industry of technologies

that are less energy, materi-

als and pollution intensive is

thus a critical policy priority

for East Asia and the other rapidly industrialising economies

of Asia. Due to its openness to trade and investment and the

pace of economic change, East Asia has emerged as a test case

for putting in place policies and institutional frameworks

that harness contemporary processes of economic globalisa-

tion with the twin goals of environmental improvement and

poverty reduction.

As within the OECD economies, the foundation of the

policy approach towards improving the environmental per-

formance of industry within East Asia is environmental reg-

ulation. During the 1970s and 1980s, many of the developing

economies of Asia established an institutional framework of

environmental laws and associated institutions of environ-

mental monitoring and regulation. The resources available to

these institutions, and the effectiveness of monitoring and

enforcement of environmental laws, vary widely within the

region. In many of the higher income countries strong insti-

tutions of environmental protection are in place. Traditional

command and control regulatory policies have increasingly

been supplemented by market-based policy instruments and

by so-called third generation policy approaches based upon

performance measurement and information disclosure. In

an effort to improve the environmental performance of

industry, several countries in the region have also turned to

institutions that traditionally have not played a large role in

environmental protection, including agencies of economic

and industrial development. Policy makers are now attempt-

ing to internalise environmental considerations within the

basic economic decision making of firms and industries, and

within the policies of the economic and industrial develop-

ment agencies that bear primary responsibility for promot-

ing industrial and urban growth.

Interest in linking economic and environmental perform-

ance within agencies of economic development has a num-

ber of roots. First, agencies of economic development in

many cases work closely with firms and industries in efforts

to improve technological and managerial capability. Second,

economic development agencies have access to a wider range

of resources and policy tools that can be brought to bear on

improving economic and environmental performance,

including policies related to investment approval, market

access, facility licensing or land-use planning. Third, in con-

trast to the relatively weak position of many freestanding

environmental regulatory agencies within developing Asia,

economic and industrial development agencies typically are

well resourced and have important positions of influence

with respect to industrial and development planning in

industrialising economies. Stated another way, economic and

industrial development agencies are embedded in the eco-

nomic process – in the fundamentals of investment, technol-

ogy development and trade – in ways that nascent environ-

mental agencies typically are not. However, many observers

suggest that the economic priorities of economic and indus-

trial development agencies are in fundamental conflict with

environmental improvement, and that efforts to integrate

environmental goals into the mandate of these agencies is

destined to fail.

Some of the earliest examples of policy integration are

seen in the first-tier East Asian newly industrialised

economies of Singapore and Chinese Taipei. Economic

development agencies in both of these economies were heav-

ily involved in strengthening industrial capacity, promoting

technology upgrading and developing firm-based capacities

for innovation and improvement. These economies took a

similar approach to improving the environmental perform-

ance of firms and industries in the region. In Singapore and

Chinese Taipei, policy makers recognized that environmental

success depended on linking new environmental agencies

with decision-makers in more powerful economic develop-

ment and industrial promotion agencies. Close relations

with those agencies proved critical in gaining support for

environmental improvement in government and business

and identifying cost effective abatement options as well as

opportunities for lowering the energy, water and material

intensities of production. Singapore gave its Ministry of the

Environment (MOE) an important seat at the industrial pol-

Fig. 1. PM 10 in Chinese Taipei

Mic

rogr

ams

per

cubi

c m

eter

6 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

industrial transformation

icy table by linking the promotional decisions of its invest-

ment promotion agency, the Economic Development Board,

and the infrastructure decisions of its premier infrastructure

agency, the Jurong Town Corporation, to a requirement that

firms receiving support meet the environmental require-

ments of the MOE. In Chinese Taipei, the Industrial

Development Board (IDB) provided tax incentives to firms

for the purchase of pollution control equipment. IDB also

provided assistance to firms to engage in a global scan of best

available technologies and encouraged firms to meet interna-

tional industry best practice standards in environmental per-

formance. It invested in the creation of a state-of-the-art

research programme on the energy, water, materials and pol-

lution intensities of Taiwanese industries in the Industrial

Technology Research Institute (ITRI), the premier science

and technology institute in Chinese Taipei.

Figures 1 and 2 show two measures of air quality in

Chinese Taipei for the period 1985-2001. The first indicator,

small particulate matter (PM10), decreased from 96.62

micrograms per cubic meter in 1985 to 57.87 micrograms in

2001. The pollution standards index (PSI), which measures

the percentage of days in which air quality rises above a PSI

of 100, decreased from 13.72% of days in 1985 to 3.42% in

2001. Many factors contributed to this improvement, includ-

ing a restructuring of the sectoral composition of industry,

the movement of some high polluting industries out of the

country, fuel switching, and tighter regulation of mobile

sources of air pollution. A major contributor to the reduc-

tion in industrial emissions was the work of the IDB and

ITRI in promoting the adoption of pollution control tech-

nology and subsequently a shift toward clean production.

IDB funded detailed economic and engineering studies with-

in key industrial sectors, such as cement, steel and textiles,

seeking to benchmark international best practice to identify

cost effective technologies that would reduce resource and

pollution intensities. One example of these policies is the

improvement in water efficiencies in the paper industry in

Chinese Taipei. Twenty years ago paper mills in Chinese

Taipei used approximately

100 tons of water in the pro-

duction of 1 ton of paper.

Today most paper mills use 10

to 15 tons of water per ton of

paper, and IDB is working

with industry to reduce water

use to below 10 tons.

One of the most signifi-

cant efforts to integrate eco-

nomic and environmental

policy in East Asia is the

Model City programme in

China. Building upon an ear-

lier urban environmental

indicators programme, the

State Environmental

Protection Agency in China

has launched a programme

that commits cities to achiev-

ing specific near term goals

for up to 27 environmental parameters, ranging from ambi-

ent air quality to treatment of hazardous waste. The key

operational element of the Model City programme is the

coordination of activities across the full range of economic

and industrial development agencies within the city, under

the direction of the mayor. In the coastal city of Quingdao, a

key priority for the programme is the reduction of sulphur

dioxide emissions from coal-fired boilers. Over the past three

years the city has eliminated more than 2200 coal-fired boil-

ers through a combination of factory closures, fuel switch-

ing, and tax and financing incentives.

Given the rate of urban-industrial growth in developing

Asia, improvements in environmental quality depend on

securing dramatic improvements in the energy, resource and

pollution intensity of economic activity – on Industrial

Transformation. In seeking to improve the environmental

performance of industry, economies in the region are exper-

imenting with a variety of alternative policy approaches that

go well beyond traditional environmental regulation. These

policy experiments offer the prospect that industrialising

economies in Asia can take a different path to improving

environmental performance from that pursued by OECD

economies over the past several decades. We are currently

engaged in ongoing research that seeks to document the

approach taken in these policy initiatives, as well as the

results achieved in several East Asian economies.

REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP

website at www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm

DAVID P. ANGEL is Professor of Geography and Laskoff

Professor of Economics, Technology and the Environment

at Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA;

dangel@clarku.edu

MICHAEL T. ROCK is Professor of Economics and Chair of

the Department of Economics and Management at Hood

College, Frederick, MD, USA; rock@hood.edu

I T I N E A S T A S I A

➤

➤

Fig. 2. Percentage of days – PSI > 100 in Chinese Taipei

Per

cen

t of

days

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 7

interviewC L A U D E F U S S L E R

➤ The World Business Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD) is a coalition of international companies unitedby a shared commitment to the three pillars of sustainabledevelopment: economic growth, ecological balance andsocial progress.

Claude Fussler is Director for Stakeholder Relations atthe WBCSD in Geneva, Switzerland. In this role Mr. Fusslerworks with UN agencies, OECD, the European Commissionand major environmental organisations to improve thebusiness sectors’ contribution to sustainable development.He is Vice President of Dow Europe, seconded to theWBCSD and a board member of the StockholmEnvironment Institute.

Q: Mr. Fussler, how do you see the role of business in decou-pling economic growth from the environmental burden?

Decoupling is a very important theme for business. The

World Business Council on Sustainable Development is a

think tank that works with 160 companies, representing

mainly advanced business. The group is also addressing the

issue of decoupling – we call it ‘eco-efficiency’. It is essential

to achieve more quality of life with less environmental

impact. Decoupling has two dimensions: first, decoupling of

industrial sites so that people produce more with less water,

less waste and less energy. Here decoupling is possible from

an engineering and design point of view. The second dimen-

sion, decoupling of consumption, is more tricky. How can we

decouple products from population and consumption

growth? It is technically possible, but business will not be able

to do it alone. For example, 3-liter cars are available on the

market, and so are low energy lamps, but the price signals are

not inducing change at the right pace. The market needs to

provide incentives for saving energy. Over the next 25 years

we will need massive decoupling, particularly in the con-

sumption sector. We will therefore also need a market reform

that stimulates consumers in the direction of eco-efficiency.

Q: What in your opinion is the role of science in achievingsustainability?

Everything we do has to be science-grounded as we devel-

op new technologies that use less energy and produce less

waste. For example, advancements in nano-technology and

information technology are scientifically based. Science is

needed to better understand the carrying capacity of the

earth, i.e., how much material flow the earth can take.

Decoupling has not yet moved far enough; the process is

rather slow. Science is needed both in technology and in envi-

ronmental change. The social and human sciences too will

help us to understand better how to get people to change

their collective actions, how to make sustainability a new cul-

ture. Research is needed to develop and establish this new

culture, and here human and social sciences play an impor-

tant role.

Q: How can business co-operate with the scientific community?

A lot of co-operation is already going on and this is

important for business. The member companies of the

WBCSD, in particular all tech-

nology companies, employ

many scientists, and scientists

are also involved at the gov-

ernment and European

Commission levels. Many

scientific institutions under-

take pre-competitive projects,

where researchers and business

work together. For example, to

develop sustainable production

systems, business, institutions

and academia get together in

workshops and projects to

define strategies for moving towards a sustainable develop-

ment. This co-operation in the form of joint projects and

conferences is very important.

Q: In which areas of the IHDP Industrial Transformation(IT) research agenda can business make the largest contribu-tions, and what is your opinion about the research foci andframework selected by IT?

Business is best at production and consumption systems.

The key is how we produce and consume goods, and business

can have tremendous impact here, provided macroeconomic

systems and an incentive structure are in synergy. Business

needs to be involved as a partner, as it is a key player in pro-

duction and consumption systems. If business is not acting

in the right way, production and consumption will not be

right either.

Concerning the research undertaken by the Industrial

Transformation Project of IHDP, business, as I just men-

tioned, is a prime actor in the research fields of production

and consumption systems. In research on macroeconomic

systems and incentive structure, business is a partner but

society makes its choices. The research focus on governance

and transformation processes, in combination with

macrosystems and incentive structure, provides the frame-

work. Implementation, however, has to happen in the other

four research foci (energy and material flows, food, cities,

and information and communications) and in both produc-

tion and consumption systems.

Q: How can the human dimensions research communityand, in particular, the Industrial Transformation researchcommunity strengthen co-operation with the WBCSD?

The World Business Council is certainly interested in

strengthening co-operation. We are a Council, a think tank

that is advising business. I see our function as a bridge to

macrosystems, governance and transformation structure.

There is a strong interest on our part in governance and

incentive systems. We already have had some preliminary

discussions with senior researchers of the IT project and will

be glad to develop these links further. The best way would be

to involve both business representatives and researchers in

workshops, conferences and joint projects.

INTERVIEW BY ELISABETH DYCK

MAKING SUSTAINABILITY A NEW CULTURE

Phot

o:T.

Ribo

low

ski

8 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

industrial transformationT R I N K E T I S L A N D

In 1947 the Nicobar Islands became part of the new

Indian Republic. India’s policy for these islands assumed

both a “protectionist” and a “civilising” approach. The for-

mer was enforced by special legislation in 1956, the Protection

of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation, and the latter by a series of

welfare programmes, such as education, health, improved

horticulture and breeding, telecommunications, copra price-

support schemes and subsidised market products. Much of

these recent processes contributed to the emergence of a new,

modern identity among the Nicobarese, an important driv-

ing factor in adopting a more consumer-oriented lifestyle,

comparable to that of mainland India. Owing to this process

of acculturation, the islanders’ needs cannot be met without

changes in technology and the existing metaphysical and

social values. This article addresses the ongoing biophysical

changes in the Trinket society and its natural environment as

a result of a shift from a subsistence to a trade-dependent

economy.

CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS

Society’s physical interaction with the natural environ-

ment, coined “social metabolism”, has been described in the

scientific literature [6,7,8,9]. As societies create, reproduce

and maintain their material or biophysical components

(including the human population), they harmonise – similar

to organisms – material and energy flows with their natural

environment. They extract primary resources and use them

for food, machines, buildings, infrastructure, heating and

other products and finally return them to the environment in

the form of waste and emissions.

A society’s material and energy demand varies quantita-

tively and qualitatively, depending on the mode of produc-

tion, distribution and consumption. This can be accounted

for empirically by applying Material Flow Accounting (MFA)

and Energy Flow Accounting (EFA) [10,11,6,12,13,14]. The

characteristic metabolic profile of a society is based on the

amount of material and energy throughput required for pro-

duction and subsistence [6]. Both MFA and EFA have been

widely applied in national economies such as in the USA,

Germany, Austria, the UK, the Netherlands and Japan

[11,15] and have gained strong political support [16]. The

approach provides an in-depth understanding of the dynam-

ics of environmental relations between a local society and its

natural environment.

In accounting for material and energy flows, the indica-

tors are Direct Material Input (DMI) and Direct Energy

Input (DEI), and both are the sums of imported and

domestically extracted material/energy. Domestic Material

Consumption (DMC) and Domestic Energy Consumption

(DEC) are consumption indicators; these are the actual

amounts of material/energy consumed by the society after

subtracting exports from the DMI and DEI. If a society is

based on an extractive, export-oriented economy, the DMI

and DMC might differ considerably. The units used are

TRANSITIONS IN AN ISLAND SOCIETY A Biophysical Reading of Society-Nature Interactions | BY SIMRON JIT SINGH

➤ It has often been argued that society’s environmentalrelations and related processes of environmental degradation

changed dramatically when society moved from a predomi-

nantly agrarian mode of production to an industrial one

[1,2]. This “great transformation” [3] in the area of produc-

tion and social relations occurred first in Northern and

Central Europe as an endogenously driven process. To a

degree unknown before, this transformation has caused

changes in environmental relations, natural resource utilisa-

tion and the use of ecosystems services [2,4,5].

The process of industrialisation has not yet come to a

standstill. A large part of the world’s population is living in

an agricultural environment. These societies are now moving

towards the “new” industrial mode of production. Whatever

similarities to the past that we might find, the current

processes of extending industrial systems and including agri-

cultural regions are primarily externally driven. Hence the

processes of change might differ considerably from the first

transition in Europe. Nevertheless, the potential for environ-

mental exploitation might be rather similar.

TRANSITION ON THE ISLAND OF TRINKET

One such example of an externally driven transition is the

island of Trinket in the Nicobar Archipelago in the Bengal

Sea. Traditionally living from hunting, gathering, fishing and

pig rearing, the inhabitants of Trinket are now largely horti-

culturalists and have engaged in copra production for export

for more than 50 years. In exchange they import commodities

such as rice, sugar, cloth and kerosene, which they obtain for

subsidised prices in the Indian government’s welfare

programme. Historically the Nicobar Islands were never com-

pletely isolated. Their geographical location on an important

sea route to Southeast Asia brought them in close contact

with merchants and occasional travellers who anchored off

the coast to load food and water during their long sea voyages.

Phot

o:S.

J.Si

ngh

Copra production on the island of Trinket, India.

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 9

industrial transformation

metric tons (for materials) and joules (for energy) per

capita per year.

MATERIAL AND ENERGY FLOWS FOR TRINKET

Let us consider the biophysical exchanges (material and

energy flow) taking place in Trinket’s society, its domestic

environment and other societies by way of trade.

Quantitative data show a DMI of 6.2 tons/capita/year.

However, imports are far below the domestic extraction.

Major imports include minerals in the form of construction

material, biomass (mainly rice and sugar) and fossil fuels.

Each year a substantial amount of cement and steel is

brought to the island for construction of buildings, such as

schools, health centres, wells, etc., under tribal welfare

schemes. Rice, now a staple diet, has gradually replaced pan-

danus as the main source of carbohydrate. Fossil fuels have

been introduced recently and are needed to run motorboats

transporting materials to and from the island.

Most of the biomass requirements (2.3 tons) for Trinket’s

socio-economic system is met domestically from the harvest

of fuel-wood, coconuts, tubers, fish, and minor forest pro-

duce. However, as Fig. 1 indicates, minerals (sand and grav-

el) account for the majority of materials extracted from the

domestic environment. These minerals are partly used on the

island as building materials but most of the sand is exported

to neighbouring islands for construction of government

headquarters. The DMC – or the actual consumption after

subtracting exports from DMI – for Trinket was 3.8

tons/capita/year.

In terms of energy flow, 23% of the energy inputs are

imported; biomass comes from domestic extraction. The

DEI – the sum of imports and domestic extraction – was 39

GJ/capita/year, with 31 GJ biomass energy and only 7.8 GJ

fossil fuel. In industrial economies this is reversed.

Subtracting exported energy in the form of copra, the DEC

was 35 GJ.

When interpreting energy flow data, several points are of

interest: (1) the highly inefficient system of animal hus-

bandry (pigs and chickens), which amounts to less than 1%

compared to an average of 10% in rural animal husbandry;

(2) fossil fuels are the dominant energy carrier (6.4 GJ), com-

pared to fuel-wood (3 GJ) and solar energy (0.009 GJ); (3)

of the total fuel-wood consumption (3 GJ), more than half is

used in the production of copra (1.6 GJ), while the rest (1.4

GJ) is used for domestic cooking; and (4) the export of bio-

mass energy far exceeds imports, resulting in a one way

nutrient flow.

CONCLUSIONS

Trinket follows the pattern of an externally driven transi-

tion and transformation, which is representative for the

global South. This is due to Trinket’s extractive economy, a

growing dependency on trade and a strive for materialism. At

the same time the island is exposed to the inherent inequali-

ty of the global division of labour [17,18].

MFA and EFA data explicitly show a society that

depends on both domestic resources and trade relations.

This is not a recent phenomenon on Trinket. The islands

of the Nicobar Archipelago have a long tradition of barter

trade due to their geographical location on an important

sea route. Now this former barter trade is permanently

replaced by a system depending on an “all-purpose” cur-

rency as the central exchange value, and on capitalism and

the world market. Trinket provides a revealing example of

T R I N K E T I S L A N D

Fig. 1. Trinket Island: Systems Boundary and Material Flows

1 0 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

industrial transformation

➤ Maintaining economic growth has been a major concernof economists ever since Ricardo and Marx. The subject

gained public interest through the early reports to the Club

of Rome, which successfully convinced the public that the

earth has a limited capacity to supply resources for produc-

tion and, even though it provides an environment that

absorbs our waste, it cannot support a permanent exponen-

tial growth of supply and demand for any commodity. Over

the last decades several countries experienced a decoupling

between economic growth and local environmental pressure,

resulting in increasing income and decreasing emissions of

local pollutants. However, many global environmental prob-

lems, such as climate change, loss of rain forests, soil erosion

and loss of biodiversity, do not show such a decoupling, and

they are getting worse. The global economy is not on a sus-

tainable track and, unless we give priority to environmental

resource conservation, it seems unavoidable that economic

welfare will cease to improve.

SUSTAINABILITY – AN OBVIOUS TARGET?

Sustainable development requires that the members of the

present generation meet their needs – and too often it is for-

gotten that this includes the poor – without endangering the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This

well-known definition, given in the Brundtland report [1,

p.43], can be traced back as far as Aristotle who emphasised

the need for successive generations not to constrain future

generations in the fulfilment of their preferences. [2, p.69].

Climate change is one of the global environmental prob-

lems that has attracted much attention among scientists,

including economists, and they have provided policy makers

with many contrasting recommendations. Fossil fuel com-

“encompassing” a sub-system in an overarching world

system [19].

Development programmes are directed at changing the

characteristics of the local economy, lifestyle and consump-

tion patterns. However, the traditional economy is embed-

ded in other aspects of social life, and resource exploitation

is adjusted to seasonal cycles and availability of resources.

Due to local natural resource constraints, traditional

economies are fairly sustainable. Government interventions

attempt to lift these constraints by providing frameworks for

trade and aid, thus leading to differentiation in the society;

the economics are no longer an integral part of the socio-cul-

tural realm, but a separate entity [3]. This inevitably has

effects on the social structure and its corresponding environ-

mental relations. New quantities and qualities of industrially

processed materials are introduced, markets are created,

needs and wants are made to surface, and new values are

adopted by society. The three dimensions of environmental

relations – material, socio-structural, and cognitive – are

transformed, and together they make up a new set of inter-

actions with nature.

A longer version of this article was published in Singh et al.,

2001 [20]. References are included on the IHDP website at

www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm.

SIMRON JIT SINGH is a Researcher and Lecturer in the

Department of Social Ecology, Institute for Interdisciplinary

Studies, University of Vienna, Austria;

simron.singh@univie.ac.at; www.iff.ac.at/socec

bustion for energy generation is still increasing. The concen-

tration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mainly car-

bon dioxide, but also nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluoro-

carbons, etc.) results in global warming. Common scenarios

foresee a doubling of CO2 emissions before the end of the 21st

century, and this is expected to lead to an increase in the

average global surface temperature by 1 to 6 degrees Celsius

[3]. Continued population growth and increased material

wealth worldwide make this scenario not unrealistic.

When calculating the cost of climate change, the current

scientific understanding is grossly insufficient to provide an

overall estimation of the costs of the many complex damages

associated with climate change. These complex damages

include loss of coastal zones due to sea level rise, loss of bio-

diversity, spread of vector-borne diseases and the occurrence

of extreme climate events. Nonetheless most economic stud-

ies assume climate change costs will not exceed 10% of glob-

al income for the coming centuries. This implies that, over

the next century, welfare increase through economic growth

will more than compensate for any welfare loss due to cli-

mate change. Concerns for decreasing welfare levels are thus

unwarranted.

Many scientists outside the economics discipline strongly

disagree with the optimistic conclusion of sustained welfare

growth under unconstrained climate change. This optimistic

perspective is based on the fundamental assumption of per-

fect long-term substitutability between man-made and natu-

ral capital, which states that, irrespective of future wealth lev-

els, there always exists a compensation for environmental

losses in terms of an additional amount of man-made goods.

Although non-economists may consider the assumption

highly disputable, its rejection does not lead to an easy con-

I T E C O N O M I C P E R S P E C T I V E

A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE?An economic perspective on industrial transformation | BY REYER GERLAGH AND ELISSAIOS PAPYRAKIS

The author is grateful to the Government of India (Department of HRD,Ministry of HRD) for financial support of the fieldwork; to the Andaman andNicobar Administration for logistical support on the islands; and to INTACH,New Delhi, for institutional support of the project.

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 1 1

industrial transformationI T E C O N O M I C P E R S P E C T I V E

clusion. Without perfect substitutability, environmental

resources eventually may become too costly to preserve, a

phenomenon known to economists as Baumol’s disease [4].

There is an obvious need to improve our understanding of

the welfare implications of economic development in a

degrading environment. Yet, keeping in mind our lack of

knowledge of future preferences, Aristotle’s suggestion for

sustainability gives good reason to attempt combining eco-

nomic growth and environmental protection, and we turn to

the question of the costs of sustainability.

SUSTAINABILITY – A COSTLY TARGET?

The majority of economic studies on climate change

advocate the adoption of non-aggressive carbon dioxide mit-

igation regulations that do not prevent climate change [5].

The reason is that the costs of abatement measures are calcu-

lated to amount to billions of euros, considered to be too

costly a price. But are the costs truly prohibitive? Considering

another angle, they may not be. Stabilising the atmospheric

concentrations of CO2 close to their current level (about 370

ppm) may cost about 3% of global income by 2100. On a

century’s time scale, these costs have a negligible impact on

the overall pattern of economic growth and are equal to not

more than a few years’ delay in a hundred years’ projection of

continued income growth [6,7]. A sustainable development

pattern preventing climate change, from this perspective

does not appear to be too costly.

Resource conservation remains a burden on economic

growth, although the magnitude of the burden is subject to

discussions. Some people fear that the costs of resource con-

servation are progressively increasing for future generations.

To understand the time profile of emission abatement costs,

we have to consider the foundations of economic growth.

The output and wealth generated by the economy depend on

the set of technologies in use for production, which is only a

small subset of all potential technologies available. Through

research we slowly advance the set of available technologies,

often referred to as our ‘knowledge stock’. Some technologies

are environment friendly, compared with others that cause

pollution. In the past most research efforts have been spent,

and with success, on developing or selecting technologies

that save labour costs, and thus increase labour productivity.

For a sustainable future we will have to search for technolo-

gies that increase resource productivity as well, i.e., that

decrease the resource intensity of production. When we suc-

cessfully direct technological change, the cost of decoupling

economic growth from resource use can remain within

bounds and need not progressively increase. Using climate

change as an illustration, calculations with an economic

model confirm the hypothesis that directed technological

change lowers substantially the cost of stabilising atmospher-

ic greenhouse gases [8].

INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION

An optimistic scenario of increasing wealth and decreas-

ing environmental pressure can be realised when relatively

clean technologies start to dominate the market. A move

towards resource-extensive technologies, however, is compli-

cated by increasing returns to scale and path dependence.

What are the mechanisms at play? As a technology becomes

more widely used by firms and increases its market share,

over time learning-by-doing effects decrease the unit cost of

production for the specific technology and make it more

attractive (cheaper) to firms. In turn, lower costs of the tech-

nology further enhance its use. There is a positive feedback

from the use of a technology to learning and to its use. This

feedback allows the production factors to be increasingly

productive over time so that output levels (the ‘returns’ on

input) increase faster than inputs; this feature is known as

‘increasing returns to scale’. These returns result in path-

dependence, i.e., the course the market will take in the future

depends on the path taken in the past. In practice this means

that if one technology dominates over another, and the pro-

duction of this technology accumulates, it will become rela-

tively cheaper and acquire a larger market share. The tech-

nology’s dominance will be further reinforced.

Learning-by-doing is one source of increasing returns to

scale and path dependence; infrastructural dependence is a

Fig. 1 shows the development from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Each technology system has its own increasingreturns to scale, and specialisation on one system produces the highest level of wealth. A transition from one

system to the other will temporarily reduce the benefits of the increasing returns, leading to a decline in wealth.After the economy has moved to the other system, growth will continue.

Transition Costs

➤ Biomass fuels have good prospects of becoming a tradable good. However, further research is necessary to

investigate the sustainability of such a trade. Current knowl-

edge about the potential of actual biomass production for

providing energy on a regional scale is rather limited. It

depends on a very complex set of physiological, technical,

socio-economic, political and cultural factors. Key issues

include the extent to which agriculture can be modernised,

and which ecological and economic criteria will be set for

large-scale use of bio-energy. Some criteria, such as safe food

production and protecting pristine areas and forests, may be

key constraints to bio-energy. The IHDP Industrial

Transformation Project is considering to launch a major pro-

gramme that aims to investigate these issues.

GLOBAL BIOMASS YIELDS

Biomass energy yields from several plant sources with

promising photosynthetic efficiencies are compared in Fig. 1.

In a temperate climate, such as the USA, biomass varieties,

1 2 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

industrial transformationB I O M A S S T R A D E

BIOMASS TRADE – AN OPTION FOR THE FUTURE?Agricultural land in tropical countries could significantly improve the biomass contribution to energy

supply | BY JOSÉ R. MOREIRA

second one. Technology clusters, such as the fossil fuel ener-

gy system, have their own infrastructure with substantial set-

up costs. These infrastructural costs also act as a feedback in

favour of technologies that share the same infrastructure.

R&D activities are a third source of increasing returns and

path dependence. Innovations that improve dominant tech-

nologies with a substantial market share generate substantial

profit flows. Such innovations are extremely valuable, while

innovations of technologies with minor market shares are of

little value. Research centres therefore tend to invest in dom-

inant technologies. In summary, the positive feedback mech-

anisms strengthen the position of existing dominant tech-

nology clusters and reduce the competitiveness of alternative

new technologies.

This has two implications. First, once the technology basis

of production has been transformed so that it is less depend-

ent on resources such as fossil fuels, a new stable and possi-

bly sustainable development path is reached. Sustainable

development need not be a continuing burden on economic

growth. Second, the transformation towards such an alterna-

tive development path requires substantial effort. At the

same time there is much uncertainty as to future develop-

ments of technologies. For energy, there are various compet-

ing options. Fossil fuels compete with solar energy, wind

energy, hydrogen as an energy carrier, and other energy sys-

tems. Due to increasing returns, it is impossible to foretell

the outcome of the technology competition. Fossil fuels also

provide increasing returns to scale and, without action, fossil

fuels may remain dominant in the next century. A preference

for sustainable resource use requires a switch towards alter-

native technologies. Initially these new technologies need

some backing to accumulate sufficient knowledge to obtain a

market share that enables the exploitation of increasing

returns to scale. A stimulus is needed on either the demand

side or the technology supply side to set in motion a transi-

tion to resource extensive technologies. Tax exemptions and

subsidies for non-polluting technologies, financial support

and incentives for newly-established technologies to cover

set-up costs, and a change of consumer preferences towards

goods produced in an environment friendly manner are a

few examples of stimuli supporting such a transition.

Whatever the measures adopted may be, it should be clear

that part of the uncertainty about future developments in

technology and sustainability of economic growth can be

resolved by taking a definite position. In a global economy, a

global effort to stimulate sustainable development is needed

more than ever.

REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP web-

site at www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm

REYER GERLAGH is an Associate Professor at the Institute

for Environmental Studies, Faculty of Earth and Life

Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;

reyer.gerlagh@ivm.vu.nl; www.vu.nl/ivm

ELISSAIOS PAPYRAKIS is a PhD student at the same institute;

elissaios.papyrakis@ivm.vu.nl

including wood, maize and Alama switchgrass, show much

lower yields than plants (eucalyptus and sugarcane) pro-

duced in a tropical climate, e.g., in Brazil and Zambia. The

major conclusion is that primary energy production can be

performed more efficiently on water abundant tropical soils

than on temperate ones. Yields are 3 to 6 times higher on

tropical soils.

BIOFUEL

It is important to quantify the amount of secondary

renewable energy since the use of renewable sources may

involve conversion efficiencies from primary to secondary

energy that differ from conventional energy sources.

Compared with fossil fuel, conversion efficiencies of renew-

ables are often reported to be very low, due to large amounts

of energy wasted in the transformation process. For example,

the conversion of maize to ethanol, and rapeseed to bio-

diesel are good examples of secondary energy sources in tem-

perate countries with low conversion efficiencies. Several

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 1 3

industrial transformationB I O M A S S T R A D E

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

WOOD FROM COMMERCIAL FORESTS, USA

MAIZE, USA (grain + stover)

SUGARCANE (Total above ground

biomass)

ALAMO SWITCHGRASS

USA

EUCALYPTUS ARACRUZ, BRAZIL

Low Estimate High Estimate Average yield, 5 experimental

plots, Texas, 1993–94

Average yield Zambia

(10,000 ha)

Global average yield, 1987

Record yield Iowa, USA,

1994

Average yield 1985–87

Average yield, years 2–6,

experimental plots, Alabama

Average commercial yield (80,000ha) 1986–91

Maximum yield

1986–91

40

1010

450425

250

1330

630

430

225

80

evaluations concluded that ethanol production derived from

maize requires the use of 70 to 100% of the final energy con-

tent of ethanol in the form of fossil fuels. A recent review

study prepared by CONCAWE (www.concawe.be) for the

Europe Union concludes:

1. Comparing the energy required for producing biofuel to

the energy content of substituted gasoline or diesel,

Rapeseed Methyl Ester (RME) represents on average a

saving of 37% of the energy contained in the fuel. Ethanol

from beets or wheat leads on average to no energy saving,

since the energy used for production is virtually equal to

the energy in the ethanol produced.

2. In reality the savings are somewhat larger, since the pro-

duction of gasoline or diesel also consumes energy, which

is saved if a biofuel is substituted. On this basis, the ener-

gy saving for RME is 47% and for ethanol 17% on average.

The greenhouse gas (GHG) balance can be calculated in

the same way by comparing the net GHG emissions from

producing biofuel with the emissions from producing and

burning fossil fuel with the same energy content. The CO2

emitted during combustion of biofuel does not enter into the

balance because it is absorbed from the atmosphere by crops.

Effective use of by-products can improve the energy and

GHG balances. The ethanol production process includes

protein-rich by-products, which may replace crops grown

specifically for animal feed. The RME production also yields

animal feed and glycerine. Table 1 shows figures with and

without animal feed credits. From these figures we conclude

that introducing 5% of biofuel (on an energy basis) on the

European Union market would at best replace about 1.6% of

gasoline and 2.8% of diesel by ethanol and RME, respective-

ly. In theory additional credits can be achieved by using waste

biomass to provide fuel for the production process. This is,

however, not the general practice and the exact credit figures

and economic benefits are rather uncertain at this time.

CONVERSION EFFICIENCIES

Contrary to the poor secondary energy transformation in

temperate countries, sugarcane, a common crop in tropical

countries, has a much better conversion efficiency, even

when simple technologies are used. In Brazil sugarcane juice

is converted to fuel ethanol by simple but efficient technolo-

gies. New legislation motivates sugar mills to produce sur-

plus electricity, which is sold to the electricity grid. The pri-

mary sugarcane energy value is stored in three different

forms of biomass – juice, sugarcane bagasse and sugarcane

residues, each one representing one third of the total

amount. The residues are often burned before harvesting,

and the bagasse is burned in the mills to produce the energy

required for juice extraction and conversion to sugar or

ethanol. Due to this self-sufficient energy production, the

industrial processing of sugarcane to ethanol does not

require any fossil fuel. However, crop planting, fertilising,

harvesting and transportation require the use of fossil fuel.

Several energy balance evaluations conclude that about 16%

of the total alcohol energy content is due to fossil fuel con-

sumed in the agricultural and industrial phases. This means

that one unit of energy (alcohol) requires 0.16 units of fossil

fuel plus almost another unit of biomass stored in the sugar-

cane bagasse. The current practice in Brazil consumes 90% of

the sugarcane bagasse energy to provide heat and power to

the mills. The 10% surplus energy is often sold to other agro-

industries.

Fig. 1. Biomass Energy Yields From Several Plants

Bio

mas

s Y

ield

(G

J/ha

/yr)

Source: Climate Change 1995. IPCC Second Assessment Report

1 4 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

industrial transformationB I O M A S S T R A D E

% Savings Ethanol RME

Animal feed credit Without With Without With

Energy savings 17 31 47 56

GHG savings 26 37 53/7* 58/21*

Source: www.concawe.be * Including IPCC N2O emissions evaluation

Table 1.Energy and GHG Savings for DifferentVarieties ofBiomass-Derived Fuels

As far as energy efficiency is concerned, 1.06 units of

energy are consumed for the production of one unit of sec-

ondary energy in the form of alcohol. Thus the conversion

efficiency is 48.5%, i.e., each unit of sugarcane energy trans-

ported to the mill replaces only 0.48 units of energy from

gasoline. This is a better result than in temperate countries,

but it is still low.

ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION

More promising results are achieved by a technology for

‘energy co-production’ that is used in about 10% of all mills

in Brazil. When burning sugarcane bagasse in medium-pres-

sure boilers, surplus electricity can be produced and then

sold to the grid. The most efficient unit sells 80 kWh per

tonne of cane processed. This amount of electricity equals

288 MJ. Each tonne of processed cane results in 80 litres of

ethanol, i.e., an energy value of 1,700 MJ per tonne of cane.

Thus electricity co-production represents an increase in the

secondary energy content of alcohol by 17%. This changes

our earlier conversion efficiency figure. The new figure is

57%, roughly double the value that can be achieved in tem-

perate countries (see Table 1).

A higher primary productivity (3 to 6-fold) and better

secondary energy efficiencies (2-fold) in tropical areas indi-

cate that about 6 to 12 times more land would be required in

temperate countries to produce usable energy from biomass.

Such figures are very important, as large areas of land must

be dedicated to biomass if we expect a significant contribu-

tion of this renewable energy source to mitigate climate

change.

The IPCC Third Assessment Report concludes that by

using 12.8 million km2 of the available 25 million km2 of

agricultural land on the globe, it is possible to produce 440

EJ/yr of primary biomass energy. This figure assumes 300

GJ/ha/yr from an average productivity of a forest plantation.

Using wood as the primary form of biomass, it is possible to

obtain electricity at a conversion efficiency of 30%. Thus

from the 440 EJ/yr of primary energy it will be possible to

produce 132 EJ/yr of secondary energy as electricity. The

same IPCC document foresees a global primary energy

demand in the range of 550 to 2700 EJ/yr by the year 2100.

The associated amount of secondary energy can be calculat-

ed based on the present and future conversion efficiencies;

between 200 and 1000 EJ/yr will be required. Assuming the

higher value, the main conclusion is that, using all the sur-

plus agricultural land expected by 2050 (12.8 million km2),

planted forests would be able to supply only 13.2% of the

total secondary energy demand.

If agricultural land in tropical countries instead of

temperate ones were used, this would improve significantly

the biomass contribution to energy supply. Planting sugar-

cane crops over an area of 1.43 million km2 can yield 100

EJ/yr of secondary energy (alcohol fuel and electricity). Since

most of the unused agricultural land is available in

South/Central America and Africa, it is possible to extract

around 500 EJ/yr from an area of 7 million km2 on these con-

tinents. This represents 50% of the total secondary energy

demand by 2100 under the most energy intensive scenario of

the IPCC.

TRADING BIOMASS FUEL

Comparing biomass energy yields from tropical and

temperate soils, it is easy to justify a preference for the for-

mer. If this can be realised, it could lead to an intensive

trade of biomass fuels between the North and the South.

The transport infrastructure of oil and oil derivatives

could be used for transporting liquid biofuel at about the

same cost.

The situation is more complex for electricity. The current

production of electricity (80 kWh/tonne of cane) from sug-

arcane grown on an area of 1.43 million km2 (which yields

100 tonnes of cane per year and per ha) is 1,144 TWh/yr; this

is higher than the current electricity consumption in

South/Central America (951 TWh/yr in 2001). The region

could probably absorb this amount of electricity by the year

2050, replacing fossil fuel based plants. Biomass gasification

and combined cycle gas turbines using sugarcane bagasse

and residues could become a common technology in the next

decade, delivering 400 kWh/tonne of cane. As higher sugar-

cane yields can be expected in the future, the electricity

resulting from 1.43 million km2 would exceed 7,000 TWh/yr

(the current world consumption is almost 14,000 TWh/yr).

As such amounts of electricity cannot be consumed in

South/Central America or Africa by 2050, installing electric-

ity intensive industries in those regions would be worth con-

sidering. Another alternative is to use the surplus electricity

to produce hydrogen, which could then be traded and trans-

ported by sea.

JOSÉ ROBERTO MOREIRA is President of the Council of the

National Reference Center on Biomass (CENBIO), Sao

Paulo, Brazil; bun2@tsp.com.br

➤

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 1 5

young scientist research

➤ For many years the allocation of water resources hasbeen the subject of disputes between countries or among

various user groups. Water disputes or water scarcity are a

problem in many developing countries. However, huge

efforts are also necessary in developed countries to satisfy the

demand for an adequate supply of water, as a rapid popula-

tion growth increases the need for a more efficient use of

water for both consumption and production of goods and

services. Securing a balanced water supply poses numerous

problems, which call for investments in infrastructure that

enable us to store and regulate water.

Traditionally, public policy has had considerable influ-

ence on the water sector, particularly on the provision of

drinking water, as governments in most countries have

played and still play an important role in providing an ade-

quate water supply. Nevertheless, we also observe changes,

since in some countries governments gradually withdraw

from water management.

In the past, water management has been dominated by

technical sciences. Meeting an increasing demand for water

was often solved by capital-intensive supply measures, such

as building an extra dam or a purification installation. Today,

the capital intensity of the water sector is growing. In the

Netherlands, for example, 80% of expenses in this sector are

non-salary costs. As technical measures alone have failed to

manage adequately the various functions of water, a more

economic approach is required. The problems of the last

decades can be characterised as those of water scarcity, which

is at the core of economics.

The increasing attention to scarcity of water and a more

sustainable use of water resources calls for a balance between

water demand- and supply-oriented measures. Economic

measurements and instruments provide, to a certain extent,

the right means for this purpose. A central question is the

effectiveness of economic policy measures and instruments

in urban areas and ways to apply them in achieving a more

sustainable use of water.

For several reasons water issues are of interest in an urban

context. A significant demand for water is due to the high

concentration of people living in cities. In developed coun-

tries, about 70 percent of the population live in urban areas

(with more than 25,000 inhabitants) and this number is still

rising. During 1950-1990, the urban population increased

considerably, and an adequate supply of clean water is an

important precondition for a successful development.

Appropriate management systems need to be established to

cope with the increased stress resulting from a growing pop-

ulation. However, an appropriate water management system

cannot consider the urban area in isolation. In highly popu-

lated areas, the water resources necessary to supply drinking

water tend to be located far away from the city borders.

When water is extracted from the immediate surroundings

of cities, which may play a vital role in recreation and food

supply, conflicts of interest between the various types of

users may occur.

As a result of different economic and social develop-

ments, urbanisation patterns differ across Europe. In

Southern and Eastern Europe, cities experienced rural-to-

urban migration combined with high birth rates, causing a

rapid population growth throughout the 1960s and the

1970s. In contrast, population growth declined in Western

Europe in cities; this was followed by a spatial expansion of

cities leading to sub-urbanisation and ultimately ‘de-urbani-

sation’. These differences in population growth and urbani-

sation patterns call for varying policy instruments and

approaches to fulfil the inhabitants’ needs for urban services.

A main task is to bring urban development into equilibri-

um with the capacity of the ecosystem, to provide life-sup-

porting functions, and to minimise pressures on the local,

regional and global environment. This concept is described

in the framework of the IHDP IT Project as the decoupling

of human activities, which sustain life in cities, from the

hydrological cycle. Thus an appropriate management of

scarce amounts of freshwater should be addressed in combi-

nation with other urban planning issues.

In my own research, I focussed on a theoretical frame-

work of water demand models, the theory of water policy

and an evaluation of the effectiveness of price instruments.

By means of a meta-analysis of water provision in the urban

areas of Amsterdam, Athens, London, Seville and Tel Aviv,

and existing studies that describe the economic instruments

and measurements in water management, the effects of these

instruments and measurements are described with respect to

more efficient use of water. When network performance is

used as an indicator, privatisation of water provision does

not result in a more efficient use of water. However, integrat-

ed water management may decrease the transaction costs of

water provision, but price instruments provide the most sig-

nificant means to bring water use on a more sustainable

path. Wise usage of tariff systems and more attention to eco-

nomics will be valuable for sustainable water policies.

This article is based on “The Economics of Sustainable Water

Use, Comparisons and Lessons from Urban Areas”, by Jasper

M. Dalhuisen. Thela thesis (see www.thelathesis.nl).

JASPER M. DALHUSIEN is with the Department of Nature

Management, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management

and Fisheries (LNV), The Hague, The Netherlands;

J.M.Dalhuisen@N.agro.nl;

S U S T A I N A B L E W A T E R U S E

THE ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABLE WATER USEComparisons and lessons from urban areas | BY JASPER M. DALHUISEN

➤

➤

1 6 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

young scientist research

➤ The current manner in which food is produced and consumed has considerable impacts on the environment.

Growing populations of humans and livestock demand an

increased production of food and feed crops and a competi-

tive use of the limited available cropland. Due to the growing

environmental impact and the competition between food

and feed crops, the protein production and consumption

chain offers good possibilities to optimise sustainability.

The IHDP IT endorsed research programme PROFETAS

(Protein Foods, Environment, Technology And Society),

a Dutch multidisciplinary research programme (www.profetas.nl), studies protein chains and the prospect of

replacing meat in the western diet with plant protein prod-

ucts, so-called ‘Novel Protein Foods’ (NPFs). PROFETAS is

based on the hypothesis that a shift in the Western diet from

animal to plant proteins is environmentally more sustainable

than the present situation, technologically feasible, and

socially desirable. The ultimate goal of PROFETAS is to pro-

vide a toolbox, which will facilitate solving future problems

related to food production and consumption.

Our study is part of this research programme, investigat-

ing the production and consumption chains of pork and

NPFs, and assessing their environmental impacts in the

search for alternative development pathways that have a sig-

nificantly smaller burden on the environment. A systematic

description of the chains, a life cycle assessment (LCA) and

the development of environmental indicators are the major

methodologies.

The pork chain includes a large variety of processes (see

Fig. 1). The NPFs chain (Fig. 2) includes fewer processes,

since it does not comprise animal production. In evaluating

the environmental impacts of both chains, we have to con-

sider all relevant processes. Using LCA, an inventory of all

inputs and outputs along the chains was made. These inputs

and outputs were linked to resource use and environmental

emissions. Animal production requires large quantities of

water to grow feed crops and, to a lesser extent, animal con-

sumption, which impacts on water resources. The use of

energy contributes to global warming due to CO2 emissions,

acidification due to SO2 and NOx emissions, and depletion of

scarce energy resources. The land for crops is directly related

to soil erosion because of the reduced fertility and produc-

tivity of the soil. The use of agro-chemicals (fertilizers and

pesticides) is related to eutrophication, as minerals (N and P)

enter the soil and water system. It is also related to eco-toxic-

ity and human toxicity because minerals (N and P) and heavy

metals (Zn, Cu) are deposited in the eco-system and human

body. Animal production causes emissions of a large number

of pollutants, such as NH3, CH4 and N2O. Emissions of NH3

may lead to acidification and eventually eutrophication,

while emitted CH4 and N2O contribute to the greenhouse

effect.

Environmental indicators can provide valuable informa-

tion on complex issues. To identify the environmental prob-

lems caused by the inputs and outputs along the chains, we

developed two types of environmental pressure indicators:

emission indicators and resource use indicators. The emissions

contributing to the same environmental impact can be aggre-

gated into one indicator. For the protein chains we focused

on three emission indicators: CO2 equivalents, NH3 equiva-

lents and N equivalents, and three resource use indicators:

water use, land use and pesticide use for assessing environ-

mental impacts.

The results of the study show that the pork chain con-

tributes to global warming about 3 times, and to acidification

24 times more than the NPFs chain. As for the eutrophication

in soil and water systems, the pork chain contributes 2.7

times more than the NPFs chain. The pork chain also needs

1.9 times more water and at least 1.5 times more land than

the NPFs chain. As for pesticide use, however, the NPFs chain

needs 1.2 times more pesticide than the pork chain, because

feed crops in the pork chain, like tapioca, require almost no

pesticides for production.

The study indicates that the NPFs chain is more environ-

ment friendly. Replacing animal protein food with plant pro-

tein food is a promising approach to reduce environmental

pressures. It decreases the pressure on land for feed crops.

From an economic perspective, this approach also provides

an opportunity to grow other economic crops on the avail-

able land. Changing some inputs in the chains (e.g., animal

diets) may result in less environmental pressures. Modifying

the protein production and consumption chain offers good

possibilities to reduce environmental impact and enhance

sustainability.

P R O F E T A S

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FOOD PRODUCTIONA comparison of pork and Novel Protein Foods chains | BY XUEQIN ZHU

CropsFeed

IndustryPig

FarmingSlaughtering

MeatProcessing

Distribution Consumer

PeasNPFs

ProcessingDistribution Consumer

Fig. 2. NPFs production and consumption chain

Fig. 1. Pork production and consumption chain

XUEQIN ZHU, from Wuxi University of Light Industry, P.R.

China, is a PhD researcher in the Environmental Economics

and Natural Resources Group, Wageningen University, The

Netherlands; Xueqin.zhu@wur.nl; www.sls.wau.nl/enr/

➤

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 1 7

essp

➤ The World Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD) in Johannesburg (26 August – 4 September 2002),

and the process leading up to it, caught the attention

and engagement of governments, and a multitude of other

actors. The purpose of the Summit was to review progress on

implementing the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 from the

United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992), and readjust the

focus for the years ahead. Despite the media hype that con-

demned the Summit as a failure, there were good results in

many areas. Ambitious time-bound targets were agreed

upon, for example, in areas of poverty reduction, access to

water and sanitation, biodiversity loss, fishery stocks, and

chemicals [1].

In the action plan Agenda 21, adopted by the Rio confer-

ence, scientists are identified as one of the Major Groups.

Other groups include women, children and youth, indige-

nous peoples, NGOs, local authorities, workers and trade

unions, business and industry, and farmers, each one with

their own Chapter outlining their specific role for sustain-

able development [2]. The WSSD process included the offi-

cial participation of representatives of all these groups to lev-

els not seen before in UN conferences. They were included,

for example, in Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues with govern-

ments, invited to submit reports and take part in Round

Table discussions with Heads of State. The International

Council for Science (ICSU) together with the World

Federation of Engineering Organisations was asked by the

UN to facilitate the input from the scientific and technolog-

ical community.

WHY IS SCIENCE ESSENTIAL FOR SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT?

Sustainable development at local, regional and global

scales represents perhaps the most daunting challenge that

humanity has ever faced. Central to all of the many

approaches aimed at both identifying unsustainable prac-

tices and achieving sustainability are scientific knowledge,

access to that knowledge and its application. The great sus-

tainability problems of the 21st century – e.g., poverty allevi-

ation, sustainable food production, clean and accessible

water resources, the health of ecosystems and maintenance of

biodiversity – all require, as one critical component of their

solution, usable scientific knowledge. Thus, whatever the cul-

tural, geographical, economic or environmental setting, a

partnership between science and society is a fundamental

prerequisite for sustainable development.

HOW CAN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IMPROVE ITSCONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?

In the decade since the adoption of Agenda 21, the scien-

tific community has vastly increased its potential for con-

tributing to sustainable development. Improved understand-

ing of climate variability through time and the ability to

make some predictions is, among other things, providing

better warnings of natural phenomena such as El Niño and

improving agricultural production. For example, the causes

of the ozone hole are understood and an effective societal

response has been developed; and understanding of terrestri-

al carbon dynamics is enabling policy makers to establish

CO2 mitigation measures aimed at limiting climate change

and its consequences.

Nevertheless, the challenges of the next decade and

beyond will require significant changes to the scientific

enterprise to improve further its capability to contribute to

sustainable development. Accordingly, IHDP, together with

its partners IGBP and WCRP, organised a workshop

(“Sustainable Development – The Role of International

Science”, Paris, February 2002) to which representatives from

core projects of the programmes as well as from other ICSU

environment-related bodies were invited. The objective of

the workshop was to review past achievements and to pro-

vide some insights on how science and scientists in the ICSU

family may better contribute to sustainable development.

Following the Global Change Open Science Conference in

Amsterdam (July 2001) concrete steps are being made to

develop a science, which is more relevant for sustainable

development. The discussions at the Paris workshop were

intense and productive. Participants agreed that in the

decade since the drafting of Agenda 21, the scientific com-

munity has vastly increased its role in supporting sustainable

development but highlighted a new set of challenges, partic-

ularly the need for:

➤ More and better science. Research must move beyond a

disciplinary focus to address sustainability issues in the

framework of complex dynamic systems.

➤ Long-term perspectives. Archives from the past – ice

cores, tree rings, archaeological and historical records –

must be studied more vigorously to provide trajectories of

change, baseline conditions, insights into past societal

resilience or fragility and perspectives on projections of

future change.

➤ Broad-based, participatory approaches to research.Traditional divides in the scientific enterprise – among

disciplines; between science and policy, business and civil

society; between contemporary and traditional approach-

es – must be bridged from the outset of work to its final

applications.

➤ Capacity building and communication. Science for sus-

tainability must be undertaken globally; the scientific

community in the North must better engage and support

colleagues in the South.

➤ Education and communication. The wider need for edu-

cation in sustainability issues implies increased engage-

ment by scientists in primary education, teacher training

and public communication of scientific results. The value

and results of science in meeting the sustainability chal-

lenge in all parts of the globe must be communicated

effectively.

S U S T A I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T

EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

1 8 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

essp

MERGING AGENDAS

The results of the Paris workshop discussions were sum-

marised in a short document [3] that was sent to ICSU as

input to the report they were preparing for the fourth and

last preparatory meeting of the WSSD in Bali in June 2002.

ICSU incorporated a significant part of the suggestions

from the workshop [4]. The major outcome of the WSSD is

the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. It is a 54-page

document [5] and in the area of science the Plan puts

emphasis on:

➤ capacity building in developing countries;

➤ improving decision-making through improved collabora-

tion between natural and social sciences, and scientists

and policy makers;

➤ local and indigenous knowledge;

➤ making more use of integrated and international scientif-

ic assessments.

The discussions from our research community and

from the global policy community are thus clearly converg-

ing around shared priorities. A major challenge to the

Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP, which comprises

IGBP, IHDP, WCRP and DIVERSITAS) is then how we move

ahead to

(1) broaden the engagement from our scientists and proj-

ects in discussing how we can improve the relevance of

our science for sustainable development and

(2) set priorities and implement them in the coming ten to

fifteen years.

Can we unite around a common vision and together

develop ‘our own Agenda 21’? As a first step to support this,

a longer report from the Paris workshop is being prepared as

a discussion document for the Scientific Committee meet-

ings of the four ESSP programmes in 2003. Initiatives already

undertaken by the ESSP include the three joint projects on

carbon, food systems and water. There are also some

thoughts on working on global scale indicators for sustain-

able development. In an effort to increase the direct dialogue

between our programmes and the global policy-making

community, IGBP, IHDP and WCRP were invited to the 17th

meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and

Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in

Delhi in October 2002. The above ESSP programmes provid-

ed statements to the plenary, as well as actively contributed

to the discussions in an official question-and-answer side

event. SBSTA particularly had in mind to collect inputs on

the content for the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Science has already achieved much in support of sustain-

able development. To ensure sustainable development for all

of the planet’s people and for the Earth as a whole, now and

into the future, the Earth System Science community should

commit to helping to build an improved,

integrative, participatory and usable sci-

ence that is applicable from local to global

scales.

ICSU, at its 27th General Assembly in Rio

de Janeiro in September 2002, adopted sever-

al resolutions aimed at raising the attention

of the scientific community to such funda-

mental commitments. ICSU has just

launched a “Priority Area Assessment of

Environment in Relation to Sustainable

Development”. The review will include par-

ticipation from all four ESSP programmes

and will be finalised in June 2003.

Furthermore, ICSU in consultation with

other partners, is setting up an ad hoc plan-

ning committee for developing a science

plan for sustainable development [6].

There is thus a larger context within

which the ESSP activities in this area are

taking place. For comments and input on

the results of the Paris workshop and ideas

for future action please contact Sylvia Karlsson at the IHDP

Secretariat (karlsson. ihdp@uni-bonn.de).

REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at

www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm

S U S T A I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T

This article is based on the ESSP statement to ICSU,

which was a summary of the conclusions from the

workshop “Sustainable Development – The Role of

International Science”, 4-6 February 2002, Paris [3]. It

has been updated by Sylvia Karlsson (IHDP

Secretariat) and João Morais (IGBP Secretariat).

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 1 9

core projects

➤ The International Council for Science (ICSU) is supporting a project led by the IHDP Project on Global

Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS),

which will focus on the vulnerability of Southern Africa to

global environmental change (GEC). Nowhere is the need

for an integrated vulnerability research initiative more evi-

dent today than in Southern Africa. Many of the 195 million

people in the region are highly vulnerable to present-day cli-

mate variability, as evidenced by frequent droughts and

floods. Southern Africa is also considered to be vulnerable to

environmental change, particularly long-term climate

change. Adaptive capacity in Africa as a whole is considered

to be low due to a lack of economic resources and technolo-

gy. Nevertheless, an array of coping strategies has been devel-

oped across the region to reduce vulnerability to variable

environmental conditions. Whether these coping strategies

can effectively reduce vulnerability to long-term GEC is

unclear.

The Southern Africa Vulnerability Initiative (SAVI) will

set GEC issues in the broader context of economic and socio-

political changes, which will undoubtedly continue to be

major factors shaping the region’s future. The consequences

of multiple processes including economic globalisation, high

rates of HIV/AIDS and other health problems, economic

malaise, political unrest and rapid urbanisation will have a

strong influence on the capacity of individual countries as

well as the region as a whole to cope with GEC. The conse-

quences of these changes are expected to vary across the

region and have differential implications for vulnerability to

GEC, with some areas or social groups becoming less vulner-

able to environmental changes and others becoming increas-

ingly vulnerable.

SAVI will bring together diverse research communities to

develop a long-term research programme on vulnerability

and GEC in Southern Africa. The challenge is to develop and

implement a comprehensive framework for understanding

the factors that shape vulnerability within Southern Africa,

including the dynamics across spatial and temporal scales,

linkages between strategies for coping with environmental

variability and adaptation to long-term environmental

changes, and the impacts of multiple stressors on vulnerabil-

ity. Furthermore, it is important to identify how different

policies can contribute to reducing vulnerability to GEC.

This requires an innovative, integrated approach involving

different research groups and perspectives on vulnerability.

The project addresses the need for innovative science to

promote sustainable development of the global society.

Vulnerability is an emerging issue across a variety of themes

and policy agendas, as evidenced by efforts by UNDP, FAO

and other international institutions to develop indicators

and map vulnerability to different phenomena. Development

of a network of researchers who can apply different perspec-

tives to one regional initiative will foster a more holistic

understanding of vulnerability, addressing the questions of

who is vulnerable and why, and what can be done about it.

This regional initiative will be closely linked to policy per-

spectives, as vulnerability is an issue that lies at the interface

of science and policy. Indeed, there is a great need and inter-

est among decision-makers to better understand the implica-

tions of different policies for vulnerability.

SAVI’s objectives include:

➤ consolidate different facets of vulnerability research and

develop an integrated framework for understanding vul-

nerability within the context of Southern Africa;

➤ develop a proposal for a self-sustaining, longer-term proj-

ect which integrates vulnerability research with policy

formulation;

➤ build a coalition amongst ICSU and other scientists in the

region to implement a vulnerability research programme.

Preparatory work for SAVI is now underway. A series of

papers aimed at understanding vulnerabilities to environ-

mental and societal change in the region will be commis-

sioned during the first half of 2003, and an inaugural work-

shop will be held in Southern Africa in June 2003.

Additional information about SAVI will be posted on the

GECHS website (www.gechs.org) and is available from

gechs@carleton.ca.

MIKE BRKLACICH is Chair of the Scientific Steering

Committee of the IHDP Project on Global Environmental

Change and Human Security (GECHS);

mbrklac@ccs.carleton.ca;

KAREN O’BRIEN is a Senior Research Fellow at CICERO in

Oslo, Norway, and a member of the GECHS SSC;

karen.obrien@cicero.uio.no;

MAUREEN WOODROW is Executive Officer, International

Project Office of the IHDP GECHS Project;

mwoodrow@ccs.carleton.ca; www.gechs.org

G E C H S

SOUTHERN AFRICA VULNERABILITY INITIATIVE| BY MIKE BRKLACICH, KAREN O’BRIEN AND MAUREEN WOODROW

➤ The IHDP UPDATE newsletter features the activities of theInternational Human Dimensions Programme on GlobalEnvironmental Change and its research community.

UPDATE is published by the IHDP Secretariat Walter-Flex-Strasse 3 53113 Bonn, Germany.

EDITOR: Elisabeth Dyck, IHDP; elisabeth.dyck@chello.at

LAYOUT AND PRINT: Köllen Druck+Verlag GmbH, Bonn,Germany

UPDATE is published four times per year. Sections of UPDATE

may be reproduced with acknowledgement to IHDP. Pleasesend a copy of any reproduced material to the IHDPSecretariat.

The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarilyrepresent the position of IHDP or its sponsoringorganisations.

➤

➤

➤

2 0 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

joint projects

➤ The Global Carbon Project (GCP), a joint venture of thethree international global change research programmes

(IGBP, IHDP and WCRP), is coming of age. Meeting in

Tsukuba, Japan in November 2002, the GCP’s Scientific

Steering Committee (SSC) engaged in a lively debate about

ways to approach the carbon cycle as a coupled human-nat-

ural system and made substantial progress toward complet-

ing the GCP’s Implementation Plan. In the process the SSC

became a forum for vigorous and productive interactions

between those whose expertise centres on the physical and

biological elements of the carbon cycle and those who are

more knowledgeable about the human dimensions of this

global system.

Building on the GCP’s prospectus – The Carbon

Challenge: An IGBP-IHDP-WCRP Joint Project – published in

2001, the Implementation Plan will lay out a concrete pro-

gramme of research activities and deliverables addressing the

project’s three foci: (1) Patterns and Variability, (2)

Mechanisms and Interactions, and (3) Future Dynamics.

This structure features the integration of observational

knowledge (Focus 1) and process understanding (Focus 2) in

order to contribute to the effective management (Focus 3) of

the carbon cycle. Although scientific in character, GCP

research is intended to yield results that are policy relevant.

The hallmark of the Implementation Plan is a sustained

effort to harmonise research on the biophysical and anthro-

pogenic components of the carbon cycle and find ways to

understand how these components interact with each other

to drive the carbon cycle as a dynamic system.

We know, for example, that human actions in the last 200-

300 years have produced concentrations of carbon dioxide in

the Earth’s atmosphere well above anything that occured in

the last 420,000 years. However, we are in need of standard-

ised measures of carbon stocks and fluxes in the land, oceans,

atmosphere and anthroposphere. A particular concern in this

realm is the development of comprehensive national, region-

al and sectoral carbon budgets that will allow intensive

analyses of carbon stocks, changes in stocks and fluxes on a

regional scale, together with the integration of human

actions affecting the carbon cycle at appropriate scales.

Standardised observations constitute an essential first

step. However, the success of the GCP will depend critically

on our ability to improve understanding of the mechanisms

that control the dynamics of the carbon cycle. The GCP’s

Implementation Plan stresses two sets of activities in this

realm that are of particular interest to the human dimen-

sions community. One focuses on regional development

pathways and seeks to illuminate the carbon consequences of

interrelated changes in social, economic and political sys-

tems. The other involves efforts to model the coupled car-

bon-climate-human system including feedback loops driven

by human reactions to changes in the Earth’s climate system.

The goal is to identify emergent properties of this coupled

system, including surprises, non-linear events and unfore-

seen homeostatic processes.

Focus 3 emphasises the idea of science for policy manage-

ment. Embracing the proposition that science should be pol-

icy relevant, this component of the GCP is of particular

interest to the human dimensions community. An innovative

activity in this realm centres on the identification of control

points or places in the carbon cycle at which human inter-

vention is likely to prove most effective. To illustrate, there is

more scope for intervention when countries are in the

process of making long-term investment decisions regarding

energy production than during the operating life of the

resultant systems. Equally important is the final GCP activi-

ty, which focuses on the uses of scientific knowledge to

improve the design and implementation of carbon manage-

ment systems. A central concern is to bring our understand-

ing of institutional arrangements to bear on designing and

implementing mitigation and adaptation strategies capable

of regulating the carbon cycle without degrading other

ecosystem functions and services.

The GCP team is currently completing the

Implementation Plan, which will be available for distribution

both electronically and in hard copy in early 2003. In the

meantime the project’s infrastructure is developing rapidly.

The Canberra office is already functioning. The Japanese gov-

ernment has authorised the establishment of a major GCP

office to be located at the National Institute of Environmental

Studies in Tsukuba; the project’s leaders are in the process of

hiring an executive director to lead the work of this office.

Plans are underway to establish smaller offices in Europe and

the United States.

To follow the growth and development of the GCP, or to

learn about opportunities to become involved in the activi-

ties of the project, consult the project’s website at

www.globalcarbonproject.org.

ORAN R. YOUNG is Professor of Environmental Science and

Management at the University of California at Santa

Barbara and Co-chair of the Global Carbon Project’s

Scientific Steering Committee; young@bren.ucsb.ed

G C P

THE GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT COMES OF AGE | BY ORAN R. YOUNG

VIRGINIA WALSH †Virginia Walsh died on January 24, 2003 after

fighting a courageous battle with cancer. At the

time of her death, she was an Assistant Professor

in the Department of Political Science at Rutgers

University, Newark Campus, USA. Virginia played

a pivotal role in launching the IHDP Project on the Institutional

Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC), serving as

the Executive Officer of the International Project Office during

1999-2000. Her research focused on the links between institutions

and the production of knowledge. After resuming her duties at

Rutgers, Virginia continued her association with IDGEC as a

Research Fellow, developing a partnership between the Rutgers-

Newark Center for Global Change and Governance and IDGEC.

Virginia will be sorely missed by the IDGEC community.

➤

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 2 1

national committees

PROMOTING YOUNGHUMAN DIMENSIONSRESEARCHERS An Austrian Initiative

| BY MARTIN PAYER AND KARL STEININGER

➤ Increasing awareness of the human dimensions of globalenvironmental change (HDGEC) and directing young

researchers towards creative research in this field is one of the

objectives of the Austrian Human Dimensions Programme

(HDP-A). As young scientists decide on their future career

paths, dissertations provide an excellent opportunity to cre-

ate interest and involvement in human dimensions research,

thus enlarging IHDP’s international research network.

With this in mind, HDP-A initiated a “Prize for

Dissertation Concepts in Human Dimensions of Global

Environmental Change”. The Austrian Federal Ministry for

Education, Science and Culture generously agreed to sponsor

this award. Young researchers with innovative ideas for dis-

sertation concepts, or dissertation projects in their initial

stage, were eligible to apply. Applicants had to submit a con-

cept and indicate how their planned or ongoing research was

related to HDGEC research, e.g., to research questions

included in the IHDP science plans. This requirement con-

tributed to increasing awareness about research undertaken

by IHDP’s projects. An international jury with expertise in

the various disciplines of HDGEC research evaluated the

concepts submitted. The choice was not easy, but finally the

expert committee decided to award prizes (each at € 2002) to

two young scholars for their outstanding projects: Markus R.Schmidt received the prize for a dissertation concept on

“Loss of agro-biodiversity in Vavilov centres, with a special

focus on the risks of genetically modified organisms”. The other

recipient was Karlheinz Erb, whose dissertation project

focuses on “Methods for calculating the ecological footprint of

nations in historic time series: Austria 1926–1995”.

In a festive award ceremony held at the University of

Graz, Austria, in November 2002, jury member Jill Jäger pre-

sented the dissertation concept prizes and gave the keynote

address. The event also included a lecture by Dr. Gerhard

Berz of Munich Re on impacts of global change on the insur-

ance industry and addresses by representatives from acade-

mia and local and national government officials, who

stressed the importance of HDGEC research.

WATER USE – A SOCIALSCIENCE ISSUE| BY THOMAS SCHEURER AND KATHRIN PIEREN

➤ What are the most vital areas of trans-disciplinarywater research? In a two-tiered process, social and natural sci-

entists have identified the three key areas: institutional reform,

decision-making processes and integrated water management.

In 2001 the Interacademic Commission for Alpine Studies

(ICAS) and the Swiss National HD Committee held a con-

vention in Lucerne on the socio-economic aspects of water

use in alpine regions [1]. Although the essential hydrological

facts are known, there is still a serious lack of integrative

knowledge about correlations between society and water use.

The same conclusion was also made in a report by the Swiss

Hydrological Society [2]. Based on the results of the Lucerne

conference, a follow-up event in Bern [3] identified current

issues in trans-disciplinary water research. The report on

both conferences is available from Kathrin Pieren.

Experts have identified sustainable management of water

resources as a joint trans-disciplinary research goal. Three

vital problem areas have been identified: (1) Switzerland lacks

a uniform water policy, owing to conflicting responsibilities

and competing directives; (2) truly sustainable use of resources

requires institutional reforms more attuned to social and eco-

logical aspects; (3) increasing demands and divergent assess-

ments of public commodities lead to conflicts requiring

transparent decision-making and problem-solving processes.

To do so, more research is required in a number of fields.

Various methods and theoretical concepts are available, but

not yet established and recognised by the scientific commu-

nity. Within the social sciences, the necessary co-operation is

still lacking. At an international level, the Global Water

Systems Project of IGBP, IHDP, WCRP and DIVERSITAS is a

point of contact, while the 6th Framework Programme of the

EU provides another one. Possible Swiss projects could be the

National Research Programmes and Centres of Competence

in Research, or the Swiss Water Foundation proposed by the

Swiss Hydrological Society.

THOMAS SCHEURER is Executive Director of the Interaca-

demic Commission for Alpine Studies, Berne; KATHRIN

PIEREN is Scientific Secretary for the Swiss National HD

Committee, Berne, Switzerland; pieren@sagw.unibe.ch;

(References at www.ihdp.org/update0103/references.htm)

A U S T R I A / S W I T Z E R L A N D

We hope that other National Committees will consider

similar initiatives, as it not only supports young researchers,

but also contributes to strengthening the HDGEC research

community.

MARTIN PAYER (hdp-a@uni-graz.at) and KARL W.STEININGER (Chair, karl.steininger@kfunigraz.ac.at) are

with the Human Dimensions Programme Austria. Further

information on the prize is available at www.hdp-a.at

Past IHDPExecutive DirectorJill Jäger presentsthe prize to M.Schmidt (middle)and K. Erb (right).Ph

oto:

E.Dy

ck

➤

➤

2 2 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

conference reports

ISSC 50TH ANNIVERSARYCONFERENCEInternational Conference on Social Science and

Social Policy in the 21st Century – Vienna,

Austria, 9-11 December 2002

➤ In December 2002 the International Social Science Council

(ISSC), one of IHDP’s two scientific sponsors, celebrated its 50th

anniversary by convening an international conference. It

brought together 260 international participants from 48 coun-

tries who met for three days at the Vienna International Centre

in plenary and special sessions, addressing numerous aspects of

social science research. The Conference participants adopted

the “Vienna Declaration on Social Sciences”: The Social Sciences

and Public Policy in the 21st Century – Towards a New Agenda

(see www.unesco. org/ngo/issc).

A special session, organised by IHDP, focussed on the

“Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change

Research and the Global Science-Policy Interface”. The objec-

tive of the IHDP session was to foster a dialogue between

‘producers of knowledge’ (the social scientists in IHDP proj-

ects) and ‘users of knowledge’ (policy-makers) at the global

level, and explore ways to improve an exchange of informa-

tion between these two groups. In presentations and discus-

sions, key members of the IHDP network and representatives

from the policy-making community gave many examples of

how users in the global science-policy interface acknowledge

the work of the social science community, which, in turn, is

indeed interested in conveying knowledge. Yet the interac-

tion between the two communities is only modest, as inter-

national scientific advisory processes on global environmen-

tal change issues tend to involve mainly natural scientists.

Suggestions to improve the dialogue and strengthen the

global science-policy interface were many and included,

among others: (1) forming strategic partnerships on themat-

ic issues with international agencies and establishing links to

ongoing work in UN bodies; (2) ensuring that the research

carried out has an audience; (3) training scientists in com-

municating with policy makers and presenting scientific

results in understandable and useful language; (4) involving

social science programmes, such as IHDP, in existing scien-

tific advisory processes, etc. At the end of the day, panelists

and participants agreed that the many points raised in the

session would be further explored by both ‘producers’ and

‘users’ of science in the global environmental arena.

ISSC News: During the ISSC General Assembly meeting,

which followed the Vienna Conference, Lourdes Arizpe from

the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)

was elected as the next ISSC President, and Ali Kazancigil,

former Director of UNESCO’s MOST Programme, was

appointed Secretary General of the ISSC. They are replacing

Kurt Pawlik and Leszek Koszinski, respectively, who both

retired at the end of 2002.

ELISABETH DYCK

B E R L I N / V I E N N A

KNOWLEDGE FOR THE SUS-TAINABILITY TRANSITION The IHDP-endorsed 2002 Berlin Conference on

the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental

Change | BY FRANK BIERMANN AND SABINE CAMPE

➤ Do we need new kinds of knowledge or new ways to generate knowledge for the sustainability transition? How

does knowledge affect decision-making for sustainability, and

how do societal systems influence the ways sustainability

knowledge is generated? How can social and scientific institu-

tions be designed, and possibly reformed, to generate better

sustainability relevant knowledge and increase its use for

decision-makers? These themes were at the centre of the 2002

Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global

Environmental Change, held from 6-7 December 2002 in

Berlin, Germany. The conference was endorsed by two IHDP

core projects, Institutional Dimensions of Global

Environmental Change (IDGEC) and Industrial

Transformation (IT). Organised on

behalf of the German Political

Science Association by the Global

Governance Project of the Potsdam

Institute for Climate Impact

Research, the Environmental Policy

Research Unit of the Free

University of Berlin and Oldenburg

University, the conference was also

endorsed by the Federation of

German Scientists and the German

Association for the United Nations,

Berlin-Brandenburg Chapter.

About 220 scientists from 29 countries participated in the

meeting, which included a total of 111 plenary and panel

presentations. All papers, including the proceedings volume,

will be made available at www.glogov.org and www.environmental-policy.de. Key note speakers included the

chairs of four major research and assessment programmes –

Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC), Coleen Vogel (IHDP), Oran

Young (IHDP/IDGEC) and John Schellnhuber (IGBP/

GAIM) – as well as two leading decision-makers and practi-

tioners in this field, Christian Patermann, Director of the

Environment and Sustainable Development Programme of

the European Union’s Directorate-General for Research, and

Hansvolker Ziegler, Chair of the International Group of

Funding Agencies for Global Change Research.

The upcoming 2003 Berlin Conference (5-6 December),

to be chaired by Dr. Klaus Jacob of the Environmental Policy

Research Unit of the Free University of Berlin, will address

the theme “Governance for Industrial Transformation”.

FRANK BIERMANN (Conference Chair) and SABINE CAMPE

(Conference Manager) are with the Global Governance

Project of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact

Research (glogov@glogov.org) and the Free University of

Berlin.

From left: C. Vogel (IHDP) and R. Pachauri (IPCC)

Phot

o:E.

Dyck

Transitions in a Globalising WorldBy P. Martens and J. Rotmans (eds), Swets & Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse,2002; 134 pages;ISBN 9026519214

➤ The Earth System may be the most complex entity that everemerged in our galaxy, and the contemporary process of “global-isation” may be the most intricate dynamics that will ever per-vade that entity: it is the interactive co-evolution of millions oftechnological, cultural, economical, social and environmentaltrends at all conceivable spatio-temporal scales that brings aboutthe present fundamental transformation of humanity’s way oflife. The authors of this book address the complexity of modernplanetary development by the intellectual concept of “transition”.The basic idea is that the global changes unfolding now can beperceived as an entangled family of transitions between qualita-tively distinct mega-states of crucial compartments of the EarthSystem. In this book the transition concept is used for examin-ing current and future tensions between welfare, well-being andthe environment at a global scale. Four major issues are addressedthat are of global importance: developments related to two of ourkey natural resources, water and biodiversity; the health ofhuman populations; and the developments related to globaltourism.

Protecting the Ozone Layer:Science and Strategyby Edward A. ParsonOxford University Press, 2003.ISBN 0195155491

➤ This volume tells the story of international efforts to protectthe ozone layer, the greatest success to date in managing any glob-al environmental issue. By examining parallel developments ofscience, technology, industry strategy, politics, and negotiations,it shows how these interacted to shape the issue’s developmentand contribute to its successful management. Its insights intothese interactions are theoretically important and novel – andalso hold valuable practical lessons for solving other seeminglyintractable problems of global cooperation.http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195155491.html

Privatization of electricity distribution:the Orissa experienceby K. Ramanathan and Shahid HasanPublished by TERI, New Delhi, India; 2002ISBN 8179930076

➤ Orissa was the first state in India and also in South Asia tointroduce comprehensive reforms in its state-owned electricityindustry, including privatization of the distribution business. Thereform exercise was expected to turn around the ailing power sec-tor of the state and also serve as a model for other states to fol-low. However, the results have belied many expectations andraised a number of issues. These have been debated widely in var-ious forums, including the Orissa Legislative Assembly duringearly 2001. This book gives a comprehensive but concise accountof these, with special focus on the distribution privatizationexperience in Orissa. Starting with the reform context, it goesthrough the process and strategy for privatization to the post-privatization experience.

Material Use in the European Union1980-2000: Indicators and analysis2002 Edition

published by the Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg, 2002ISBN 9289437898

PUBLICATIONS | NEW BOOKS

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3 | 2 3

calendar/publications

MEETING CALENDAR

➤➤➤ 16-23 March 2003 – Kyoto, Shiga and Osaka, Japan

Third World Water Forum The IGU Commission for Water Sustainability is organising

sessions on “Managing Human Impacts on Water Resources

and the Water Environment”

Contact: www.worldwaterforum.org

➤➤➤ 24-27 March, 2003 – Gdansk, Poland

European Conference on Coastal Zone Research:an ELOISE ApproachConference on the EU Project Cluster on European Land-

Ocean Interaction Studies (ELOISE);

held at the Technical University Gdansk

Contact: eloise@nilu.nowww.nilu.no/projects/eloise

➤➤➤16-18 April 2003 – Utrecht, The Netherlands

International Conference on Framing Land UseDynamics:Integrating knowledge on spatial dynamics in socio-economic and environmental systems for spatial planning in western urbanised countriesEndorsed by the IGBP/IHDP LUCC Project

Contact: http://networks.geog.uu.nl/conference

➤➤➤12-14 June – Stockholm, Sweden

Rights and Duties in the Coastal Zone:Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on SustainableCoastal Zone ManagementContact: www.beijer.kva.se/conference.htm

➤➤➤ 19-25 June – Banff, Canada

3rd IGBP Congressheld at the Banff Conference Centre

Contact: IGBP Secretariat, sec@igbp.kva.se

➤➤➤ 4-22 August – Boulder, Colorado, USA

Institute on Urbanization, Emissions, and the GlobalCarbon CycleSTART Global Change Institute, hosted by the National

Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, USA

Contact: afreise@agu.orgwww.start.org/Calendar/calendar.html

➤➤➤ 16-18 October – Montreal, Canada

2003 Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions ofGlobal Environmental Change Research Community Co-sponsored by IHDP

Contact: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/openmeeting

➤➤➤16-19 November – Trieste, Italy

Young Scientists’ Global Change ConferenceContact: Kristy Ross, Climatology Research Group

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

kristy@crg.bpb.wits.ac.za

M E E T I N G S / N E W B O O K S

C O N T A C T A D D R E S S E Saddresses

Pri

nte

d o

n r

ecyc

led

pap

er

2 4 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 1 / 2 0 0 3

IHDP SECRETARIAT

• IHDP Secretariat:Barbara Göbel, Executive DirectorWalter-Flex-Str. 3 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49-228-739050Fax: +49-228-739054ihdp@uni-bonn.dewww.ihdp.org

IHDP CORE PROJECTS

➤ GECHS

• Global EnvironmentalChange and Human Security c/o Maureen WoodrowExecutive OfficerGECHS International Project OfficeDept. of Geography &Environmental Studies,Carleton University1125 Colonel By DriveOttawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canadagechs@carleton.ca www.gechs.org

➤ IDGEC

• Institutional Dimensions ofGlobal Environmental Change c/o Syma Ebbin, Executive OfficerIDGEC International Project Office4526 Bren Hall, Bren School ofEnv. Science and ManagementUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara, CA 93106-5131, USAIDGEC@bren.ucsb.eduwww2.bren.ucsb.edu/~idgec

➤ IT• Industrial Transformation c/o Anna J. Wieczorek,Executive OfficerIT International Project OfficeInstitute of Environmental Studies De Boelelaan 10871081 HV AmsterdamThe NetherlandsAnna.J.Wieczorek@ivm.vu.nlwww.vu.nl/ivm/research/ihdp-it/

➤ LUCC

• Land-Use and Land-CoverChange c/o Helmut Geist, Executive Officer LUCC International Project Office University of LouvainPlace L. Pasteur 3 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgiumlucc.ipo@geog.ucl.ac.bewww.geo.ucl.ac.be/LUCC

JOINT PROJECTS

➤ GECAFS

• Global EnvironmentalChange and Food Systems c/o John Ingram, Executive OfficerGECAFS International ProjectOffice, NERC-Centre for Ecology &Hydrology, Wallingford OX 10 8BB, UK

jsii@ceh.ac.uk

www.gecafs.org

➤ GCP

• Global Carbon Projectc/o Pep Canadell

Executive Officer

GCP International Project

Office, CSIRO

Canberra, Australia

Pep.Canadell@csiro.au

www.globalcarbonproject.org

➤ GWSP

• Global Water Systems Projectc/o Sylvia Karlsson

IHDP Liaison Officer

IHDP Secretariat

Bonn, Germany

karlsson.ihdp@uni-bonn.de

IHDP SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (SC)

➤ Chair

• Coleen Heather VogelDept. of Geography & Env. Studies

University of the Witwatersrand

Johannesburg, South Africa

vogelc@geoarc.wits.ac.za

➤ Vice Chair

• M.A. Mohamed SalihInstitute of Social Studies

The Hague, The Netherlands

salih@iss.nl

➤ Past-Chair

• Arild Underdal Rector, University of Oslo

Oslo, Norway

arild.underdal@stv.uio.no

➤ Members

• William C. ClarkJFK School of Government

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA, USA

william_clark@harvard.edu

• Carl FolkeCNM, Stockholm University

Stockholm, Sweden

calle@system.ecology.su.se

• Gilberto C. GallopinEconomic Commission for Latin

America & the Caribbean (ECLAC)

Santiago, Chile

ggallopin@eclac.cl

• Carlo J. JaegerPotsdam Institute for Climate

Impact Research (PIK)

Potsdam, Germany

carlo.jaeger@pik-potsdam.de

• Tatiana Kluvankova-OravskaInstitute for Forecasting

Slovak Academy of Sciences

Bratislava, Slovak Republic

tatiana@progeko.savba.sk

• Elinor OstromCenter for the Study of

Institutions, Population &

Environmental Change

Indiana University

Bloomington, IN, USA

ostrom@indiana.edu

• Xizhe PengInstitute of Population Research

Fudan University

Shanghai, P.R. China

xzpeng@fudan.edu.cn

• P.S. RamakrishnanJawaharlal Nehru University

New Delhi, India

psrama2001@yahoo.com

• Roberto Sanchez-RodriguezUniversity of California

Santa Cruz, CA, USA

rsanchez@weber.ucsd.edu

• Paul L.G. VlekCenter for Development

Research (ZEF)

Bonn, Germany

p.vlek@uni-bonn.de

EX OFFICIO MEMBERSIHDP SCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE

➤ ICSU

• Gordon McBean Institute for Catastrophic Loss

Reduction, University of Western

Ontario, London, ON, Canada

gmcbean@fes.engga.uwo.ca

➤ I S S C• Lourdes Arizpe Universidad Nacional Autónoma

de México (UNAM)

Cuernavaca, Mexico

larzipe@correo.crim.unam.mx

➤ DIVERSITAS

• Michel LoreauÉcole Normale Superieure

Laboratoire d'Écologie

Paris, France

loreau@ens.fr

➤ IGBP

• Guy Brasseur Max-Planck-Institute for

Meteorology

Hamburg, Germany

brasseur@dkrz.de

➤ START (alternating)

• Sulochana GadgilIndian Institute of Science

& Oceanic Sciences

Bangalore, India

sulo@caos.iisc.ernet.in

• Graeme I. PearmanCSIRO Atmospheric Research

Aspendale, Australia

graeme.pearman@dar.csiro.au

➤ WCRP

• Peter LemkeAlfred-Wegener-Institute

for Polar and Marine Research

Bremerhaven, Germany

plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de

➤ GECHS

• Michael Brklacich Carleton University

Ottawa, Canada

mbrklac@ccs.carleton.ca

➤ IDGEC

• Oran R. Young Bren School of Environmental

Science and Management

University of California at

Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara, CA, USA

young@bren.ucsb.edu

➤ IT

• Pier Vellinga Dean, Faculty of Life and Earth

Sciences

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

The Netherlands

Pier.Vellinga@falw.vu.nl

➤ LUCC

• Eric Lambin Dept. of Geography

University of Louvain

Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

lambin@geog.ucl.ac.be

SOCIAL SCIENCE LIAISON OFFICER

• João M. MoraisIGBP Secretariat

The Royal Swedish Academy of

Sciences, P.O. Box 50 005

10405 Stockholm, Sweden

morais@igbp.kva.se

S U B S C R I P T I O N

➤ For a free subscription to

this newsletter, write to the

IHDP Secretariat at the

above address;

or send an e-mail to:

staff.ihdp@uni-bonn.de