Blue Planet Synthesis Paper For UNEP

Final Draft – 17-2-2012

Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act

Gro Harlem Brundtland, Paul Ehrlich, Jose Goldemberg, James Hansen, Amory Lovins, Gene
Likens, James Lovelock, Suki Manabe, Bob May, Hal Mooney, Karl-Henrik Robert, Emil Salim,
Gordon Sato, Susan Solomon, Nicholas Stern, MS Swaminathan, Bob Watson, Barefoot College,
Conservation International, International institute of Environment and Development, and
International Union for the Conservation of Nature,

This paper is a synthesis of the key messages from the individual papers written by the Blue
Planet Laureates (Annex I describes the Blue Planet Prize), and discusses the current and
projected state of the global and regional environment, and the implications for environmental,
social and economic sustainability. It addresses the drivers for change, the implications for
inaction, and what is needed to achieve economic development and growth among the poor,
coupled with environmental and social sustainability, and the imperative of action now. The
paper does not claim to comprehensively address all environment and development issues, but a
sub-set that are deemed to be of particular importance.
Key Messages
 We have a dream – a world without poverty – a world that is equitable – a world that
respects human rights – a world with increased and improved ethical behavior regarding
poverty and natural resources - a world that is environmentally, socially and economically
sustainable, where the challenges such as climate change, loss of biodiversity and social
inequity have been successfully addressed. This is an achievable dream, but the current
system is deeply flawed and our current pathway will not realise it.
 Population size and growth and related consumption patterns are critical elements in the
many environmental degradation and social problems we currently face. The population
issue should be urgently addressed by education and empowerment of women, including in
the work-force and in rights, ownership and inheritance; health care of children and the
elderly; and making modern contraception accessible to all.
 There is an urgent need to break the link between production and consumption on the one
hand and environmental destruction on the other. This can allow risking material living
standards for a period that would allow us to overcome world poverty. Indefinite material
growth on a planet with finite and often fragile natural resources will however, eventually be
unsustainable. Unsustainable growth is promoted by environmentally-damaging subsidies in
areas such as energy, transportation and agriculture and should be eliminated; external
environmental and social costs should be internalized; and the market and non-market values
of ecosystem goods and services should be taken into account in decision-making.
 The immense environmental, social and economic risks we face as a world from our current
path will be much harder to manage if we are unable to measure key aspects of the problem.
For example, governments should recognise the serious limitations of GDP as a measure of
economic activity and complement it with measures of the five forms of capital, built,
financial, natural, human and social capital, i.e., a measure of wealth that integrates
economic, environmental and social dimensions. Green taxes and the elimination of
subsidies should ensure that the natural resources needed to directly protect poor people are
available rather than via subsidies that often only benefit the better off.
 The present energy system, which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, underlies many of the
problems we face today: exhaustion of easily accessible physical resources, security of
access to fuels, and degradation of health and environmental conditions. Universal access to
clean energy services is vital for the poor, and a transition to a low carbon economy will
require rapid technological evolution in the efficiency of energy use, environmentally sound
low-carbon renewable energy sources and carbon capture and storage. The longer we wait
to transition to a low carbon economy the more we are locked into a high carbon energy
1
system with consequent environmental damage to ecological and socio-economic systems,

including infrastructure.
 Emissions of GHG emissions are one of the greatest threats to our future prosperity. World
emissions (flows) are currently around 50 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent
(CO2e) per annum and are growing rapidly. As the terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems are
unable to absorb all of the world’s annual emissions, concentrations (stocks) of GHG
emissions in the atmosphere have increased, to around 445ppm of CO 2e today and
increasing at a rate of around 2.5ppm per year. Thus we have a flow-stock problem. Without
strong action to reduce emissions, over the course of this century we would likely add at
least 300 ppm CO2e, taking concentrations to around 750 ppm CO 2e or higher at the end of
the century or early in the next. The world’s current commitments to reduce emissions are
consistent with at least a 3 oC rise (50-50 chance) in temperature: a temperature not seen on
the planet for around 3 million years, with serious risks of 5 oC rise: a temperature not seen
on the planet for around 30 million years. Given there are some uncertainties present in all
steps of the scientific chain (flows to stocks to temperatures to climate change and impacts),
this is a problem of risk management and public action on a great scale.
 Biodiversity has essential social, economic, cultural, spiritual and scientific values and it’s
protection is hugely important for human survival. The rapid loss of biodiversity,
unprecedented in the last 65 million years, is jeopardising the provision of ecosystem
services that underpin human well-being. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded
that 15 of the 24 ecosystem services evaluated were in decline, 4 were improving, and 5
were improving in some regions of the world and in decline in other regions. Measures to
conserve biodiversity and make a sustainable society possible need to be greatly enhanced
and integrated with social, political and economic concerns. There is a need to value
biodiversity and ecosystem services and create markets that can appropriate the value for
these services as a basis for a ‘green’ economy.
 There are serious short-comings in the decision making systems at local, national and global
levels on which we rely in government, business and society. The rules and institutions for
decision making are influenced by vested interests, with each interest having very different
access over how decisions are made. Effective change in governance demands action at
many levels to establish transparent means for holding those in power to account. At the
local level public hearings and social audits can bring the voices of marginalized groups into
the forefront. At national level, parliamentary and press oversight are key. Globally, we must
find better means to agree and implement measures to achieve collective goals. Governance
failures also occur because decisions are being made in sectoral compartments, with
environmental, social and economic dimensions addressed by separate, competing
structures.
 Decision makers should learn from ongoing grass-root actions and knowledge in areas such
as energy, food, water, natural resources, finance and governance. This is key, not the least in
rural communities with a view to their management, control and ownership of these
resources. There is a need to scale-up the grass roots actions by bringing together a
complementary top-down and bottom-up approach to addressing these issues. Global
cooperation can be improved by building on on-going regional cooperation to deal with
common sustainable development issues.
 Effective training programs should be implemented to multiply the number of competent
decision makers in business and government. They must learn how to integrate programmes
and policies within sustainability constraints, to understand the business case thereof, and
acquire the skills to strategically move towards such sustainability goals.
 All of the problems mentioned above demand we increase investments in education,
research and assessments of knowledge.
 If we are to achieve our dream, the time to act is now, given the inertia in the socio-
economic system, and that the adverse effects of climate change and loss of biodiversity
cannot be reversed for centuries or are irreversible (for example, species loss). We know
enough to act, but the current scientific uncertainties, means that we are facing a problem of
2
risk management on an immense scale. Failure to act will impoverish current and future
generations.
The Problem
Introduction
We have a dream – a world without poverty – a world that is equitable – a world that respects
human rights – a world with increased and improved ethical behavior regarding poverty and
natural resources - a world that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable, and
where economic growth is accomplished within the constraints of realising social objectives of
poverty eradication and social equity and within the constraints of life support nature's carrying
capacity, and a world where the challenges such as climate change, loss of biodiversity and social
inequity have been successfully addressed. This is an achievable dream, but the system is broken
and our current pathway will not realise it.
Unfortunately, humanity’s behavior remains utterly inappropriate for dealing with the
potentially lethal fallout from a combination of increasingly rapid technological evolution
matched with very slow ethical-social evolution. The human ability to do has vastly outstripped
the ability to understand. As a result civilization is faced with a perfect storm of problems driven
by overpopulation, overconsumption by the rich, the use of environmentally malign technologies,
and gross inequalities. They include loss of the biodiversity that runs human life-support
systems, climate disruption, global toxification, alteration of critical biogeochemical cycles,
increasing probability of vast epidemics, and the specter of a civilization-destroying nuclear war.
These biophysical problems are interacting tightly with human governance systems, institutions,
and civil societies that are now inadequate to deal with them.
The rapidly deteriorating biophysical situation is more than bad enough, but it is barely
recognized by a global society infected by the irrational belief that physical economies can grow
forever and disregarding the facts that the rich in developed and developing countries get richer
and the poor are left behind. And the perpetual growth myth is enthusiastically embraced by
politicians and economists as an excuse to avoid tough decisions facing humanity. This myth
promotes the impossible idea that indiscriminate economic growth is the cure for all the world's
problems, while it is actually (as currently practiced) the disease that is at the root cause of our
unsustainable global practices.
In the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take
dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization. Either we will change our ways and build an
entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us.
In order to realise our dream of a more sustainable world there is a need to understand the
triple interdependence of economic, social and environmental factors and integrate them into
decision-making in governments and the private sector. One challenge facing many countries is
how to manage natural resources in order to contribute to poverty alleviation while maintaining
the ecological life support system. In economics the main issue deals with what, where and how
much of the natural resources are required to alleviate poverty, while social issues deal with for
whom and how much are resources developed, and environmental issues address how natural
resources can be managed with minimum negative impact on ecosystems. The interaction
between economic, social and environment are enhanced and its coordination made more
effective if their respective goals are translated into quantitative terms within a defined time
scale. What is needed is to realize economic growth within the constraints of social and
environmental sustainability.
Underlying Drivers of Change

The major indirect drivers of change are primarily demographic, economic, socio-political,
technological, and cultural and religious (Figure 1). These affect climate change and biodiversity
3
loss somewhat differently, although the number of people and their ability to purchase and
consume energy and natural resources are common to both issues. Human-induced climate
change is primarily driven by the aggregate consumption and choice of technologies to produce
and use energy, which is influenced by energy subsidies and unaccounted costs, hence the current
over-reliance on burning fossil fuels. The loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystems
and their services are primarily due to the conversion of natural habitats, over-exploitation of
resources, air, land and water pollution, introduction of exotic species and human-induced
climate change.
FIGURE 1
Demographic:
The global population, which has now passed 7 billion people, and the average per capita
energy consumption have both increased sevenfold over the past 150 years, for an overall fifty-
fold increase in the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And both are still
increasing. As a global average, total fertility rates (TFR) are decreasing, as a result of more
females completing primary and secondary education, along with availability of fertility
control. But this global average conceals many local difficulties. In some parts of the world
fertility remains high - and decline in these countries is by no means certain. More than 200
million women in developing countries still have unmet needs for family planning, and increased
investment in reproductive health care and family planning programmes along with education
programmes will be critical. Although the desire and the need are increasing, it is estimated that
funding decreased by 30% between 1995 and 2008, not least as a result of legislative pressure
from the religious right in the USA and elsewhere.
The ageing of populations in many countries around the world is also a relevant sustainable
development issue. The economic, social and environmental implications are as yet unclear - but
this trend will undoubtedly have an impact. Whether it is positive or negative depends to a large
extent on how countries prepare e.g., in evaluating what an ageing population will mean for
4
economic productivity, consumption of goods and services, and in terms of urban planning,
financial, health and social care systems etc.
Both culturally and genetically, human beings have always been small-group animals, evolved
to deal with at most a few hundred other individuals. Humanity is suddenly, in ecological time,
faced with an emergency requiring that it quickly design and implement a governance and
economic system that is both more equitable and suitable for a global population of billions of
people, and sustainable on a finite planet.
Economics:
Uncontrolled economic growth is unsustainable on a finite planet. Governments should
recognise the serious limitations of GDP as a measure of economic growth and complement it
with measures of the five forms of capital, built (produced), natural, human, social and
institutional/financial capital, i.e., a measure of wealth that integrates economic, social and
environmental dimensions and is a better method for determining a country’s productive
potential.
The failure of the economic system to internalize externalities leads to the continuation of
environmentally damaging activities. If externalities are uncorrected then markets fail: they
generate prices that do not reflect the true cost to society of our economic activities. Emissions of
greenhouse gases represent a market failure as the damages caused by emissions from the
burning of fossil fuels are not reflected in prices. The price of fossil fuels should reflect the true
cost to society, resulting in a more level playing field for environmentally-sound renewable
energy technologies and a stimulus to conserve energy. There are a range of economic
instruments for correcting the emissions market failure from taxes and emissions trading
schemes, to standards and other regulations. All are likely to be needed.
There are a number of other relevant market failures that must also be corrected if we are to
manage the risks of climate change: correcting the emissions externality on its own will not be
sufficient. For example, there are market failures around research and development (innovation),
there are imperfections in capital markets that prevent financing for low-carbon infrastructure,
there are network externalities, e.g. around electricity grids and public transport, there are failures
in the provision of information, and there are failures in valuing ecosystems and biodiversity. In
addition, environmentally-damaging subsidies in areas such as energy, transportation and
agriculture, which total about $1 trillion per year, cause further market distortion and are in
general leading to environmental degradation and should be eliminated. We must act strongly
across all these dimensions.
Correcting the biodiversity and ecosystem market failure is particularly urgent and important.
The benefits that we derive from the natural world (biodiversity and ecosystem services) and its
constituent ecosystems are critically important to human well-being and economic prosperity, but
are consistently undervalued in economic analysis and decision making. Contemporary
economic and participatory techniques allow us to take into account the monetary and non-
monetary values of a wide range of ecosystem services. These techniques need to be adopted in
everyday decision-making practice. Failure to include the valuation of non-market values in
decision making results in a less efficient resource allocation, with negative consequences for
social well-being. Recognising the value of ecosystem services would allow the world to move
towards a more sustainable future, in which the benefits of ecosystem services are better realised
and more equitably distributed.
Correcting these market failures is also important if developing countries are to continue to
advance and improve their living standards. The economic emergence of the BRICS (Brazil,
Russia, India, China, and South Africa) over recent decades has been a major success story. Their
combined share of world GDP has increased from 23% to 32% over the last six decades. In
5
contrast, over the same period the OECD share of world GDP has declined from 57% to 41%.
This rapid economic growth has seen great improvements in health, literacy, and income.
However, this rapid growth and development was achieved mostly through the increased use of
fossil fuels (which in 2008 represented 90% of their energy consumption) and through the
unsustainable exploitation of natural resources including oceans and forests. As a consequence of
this energy intensive development, the emergence of the BRICS is associated with a significant
increase in their GHG emissions (particularly CO 2), which have increased from 15% to 35% of
global emissions over the last 60 years. This energy intensive development path is clearly
unsustainable and impacts are already being felt, e.g. rapid increases in desertification in China
and collapsing biodiversity in their oceans. Failure to shift to a low-carbon development path,
which will, among other actions, require correcting market failures and removing harmful energy
subsidies, may result in damaging climate change and environmental damage. This would
jeopardize future growth and put at risk these great advances in development over the past several
decades. There are encouraging signs from BRIC countries. For example, in Brazil deforestation
in the Amazon has been cut by around 80% in the last 7 years and in China their 12 th 5-year plan
(2011-2015) indicates a change in strategy to a more sustainable low-carbon economy. But much
greater action is urgently needed.
Technology:
The over-reliance on fossil fuel energy (coal, oil and gas) and inefficient end-use technologies
has significantly increased the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases. We are currently putting one million years worth of sequestered carbon into
the atmosphere each year. Recent efforts to reduce the carbon intensity (CO 2/GDP) were made in
a large number of countries particularly in China and Russia where the carbon content has
declined significantly in the last 30 years albeit from very high levels (Figure 2). However the
carbon intensities of India, South Africa and Brazil (including deforestation) have not declined
significantly in that period. It is therefore clear that all countries have to take serious measures to
reduce their CO2 emissions in the next few decades. OECD countries alone, despite their efforts
to reduce their carbon intensity (and carbon emissions), will not be able to avoid the world’s
growth of carbon emissions.
FIGURE 2
6
Socio-Political:
There are serious shortcomings in the decision making systems on which we rely in
government, business and society. This is true at local, national and global levels. The rules and
institutions for decision making are influenced by vested interests, yet each interest has very
different access to how decisions are made. Effective change in governance demands action at
many levels to establish transparent means for holding those in power to account. Governance
failures also occur because decisions are being made in sectoral compartments, with
environmental, social and economic dimensions addressed by separate, competing structures.
The shift of many countries, and in particular the United States, towards corporate
plutocracies, with wealth (and thus power) transferred in large quantities from the poor and
middle-classes to the very rich, is clearly doing enormous environmental damage. The successful
campaign of many of the fossil fuel companies to downplay the threat of climate disruption in
order to maintain the profits of their industry is a prominent example.
Cultural:
The importance to reducing inequity in order to increase the chances of solving the human
predicament is obvious just in the differences in access to food and other resources caused by the
giant power gap between the rich and the poor. The lack of funding for issues such as the
provision of family planning services and badly-needed agricultural research contrasts sharply
with the expenditures by the United States and some other rich nations to try to assure that oil
flows to themselves and the rest of the industrialized world are uninterrupted. The central
geopolitical role of oil continues unabated despite the dangerous conflicts oil-seeking already has
generated and the probable catastrophic consequences its continued burning portends for the
climate.
Current and Projected State of the Global and Regional Environment: Implications of
climate change and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services for Environmental,
Economic and Social Sustainability
The Earth's environment is changing on all scales from local to global, in large measure due to
human activities. The stratospheric ozone layer has been depleted, the climate is warming at a
rate faster than at any time during the last 10,000 years, biodiversity is being lost at an
unprecedented rate, fisheries are in decline in most of the world’s oceans, air pollution is an
increasing problem in and around many major cities, large numbers of people live in water
stressed or water scarce areas, and large areas of land are being degraded. Much of this
environmental degradation is due to the unsustainable production and use of energy, water and
food and other biological resources, and is already undermining efforts to alleviate poverty and
stimulate sustainable development, and worse, the future projected changes in the environment
are likely to have even more severe consequences.
Climate Change
There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere and the Earth’s climate have
changed since the industrial revolution predominantly due to human activities, and it is inevitable
that if those activities do not shift markedly, these changes will continue regionally and globally.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by over 30% since the pre-
industrial era primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. Global mean
surface temperature, which had been relatively stable for over 1000 years, has already increased
by about 0.75oC since the pre-industrial era, and an additional 0.5 oC to 1.0oC is inevitable due to
past emissions. It is projected to increase by an additional 1.2-6.4 oC between 2000 and 2100,
with land areas warming significantly more than the oceans and Arctic warming more than the
tropics.
7
Precipitation is likely to increase at high and middle latitudes and in the tropics, but likely to
decrease in the subtropical continents. At the same time, evaporation increases at all latitudes.
Over continents water is likely to be more plentiful in those regions of the world that are already
water-rich, increasing the rate of river discharge and the frequency of floods. On the other hand
water stress will increase in the sub-tropics and other water-poor regions and seasons that are
already relatively dry, increasing the frequency of drought. Therefore, it is quite likely that global
warming magnifies the existing contrast between the water-rich and water-poor regions of the
world. Observations suggest that the frequencies of both floods and droughts have been
increasing as predicted of the climate models.
The Earth’s climate is projected to change at a faster rate than during the past century. This
will likely adversely affect freshwater, food and fiber, natural ecosystems, coastal systems and
low-lying areas, human health and social systems. The impacts of climate change are likely to be
extensive and primarily negative, and to cut across many sectors. For example, throughout the
world, biodiversity at the genetic, species and landscape level is being lost, and ecosystems and
their eservices are being degraded. Although climate change has been a relatively minor cause of
the observed loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems, it is projected to be a major
threat in the coming decades.
There is a limit on the amount of fossil fuel carbon that we can pour into the atmosphere as
carbon dioxide without guaranteeing climatic consequences for future generations and nature that
are tragic and immoral. Given the decadal time scale required to phase out existing fossil fuel
energy infrastructure in favor of carbon-neutral and carbon-negative energies, it is clear that we
will soon pass the limit on carbon emissions. The inertia of the climate system, which delays full
climate response to human-made changes of atmospheric composition, is simultaneously our
friend and foe. The delay allows moderate overshoot of the sustainable carbon load but also
brings the danger of passing a point of no return that sets in motion a series of catastrophic
events. These could include melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets leading to a
sea level rise of many meters; melting of permafrost leading to significant emissions of methane,
a potent greenhouse gas; and disruption of the ocean conveyor belt leading to significant regional
climate changes. These impacts would largely be out of human control.
The risks from unmanaged climate change, as well as loss of biodiversity, are immense and
action is urgent. Global warming due to human-induced increases in carbon dioxide is essentially
irreversible on timescales of at least a thousand years, mainly due to the storage of heat in the
ocean. Hence, decisions about anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions being made today will
determine the climate of the coming millennium. Even if emissions were to stop entirely in the
21st century, sea level would continue to rise. The level of carbon dioxide reached in this
century will determine whether low lying areas are inundated by ice mass losses from Greenland
and Antarctica, even if it occurs slowly over many centuries, because the warming will persist.
The world’s current commitments to reduce emissions are consistent with at least a 3 degree C
rise (50-50 chance) in temperature. Such a rise has not been seen on the planet for around 3
million years, a 15-fold longer than Homo sapiens has existed. There is even a serious risk of a 5
degrees C increase, to an average temperature not seen on the planet for 30 million years. This is
a problem for risk management and public action on a great scale. The fundamental market
failure is the unpriced “externality” of the impact of emissions. Other crucial market failures exist
including those associated with R&D and learning, networks/grids, information, and further
market failures around co-benefits such as valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity
issues. Policy will fail to generate the scale and urgency of the response required if it considers
only the emissions market failure.
The global community’s attempts to address climate change have been hopelessly inadequate.
The costs of climate change, already projected at 5% or more of global GDP, could one day
exceed global economic output if action is not taken. The globe requires bold global leadership in
8
governments, politics, business and civil society to implement the solutions - that have been
scientifically proven and supported by public awareness - to save humanity from climate change
catastrophe.
Biodiversity, Ecosystems and their Services

Biodiversity – the variety of genes, populations, species, communities, ecosystems, and
ecological processes that make up life on Earth – underpins ecosystem services, sustains
humanity, is foundational to the resilience of life on Earth, and is integral to the fabric of all the
world’s cultures. Biodiversity provides a variety of ecosystem services that humankind relies on,
including: provisioning (e.g. food, freshwater, wood and fiber, and fuel); regulating (e.g. of
climate, flood, diseases); cultural (e.g. aesthetic, spiritual, educational, and recreational), and
supporting (e.g. nutrient cycling, soil formation, and primary production). These ecosystem
services contribute to human wellbeing, including our security, health, social relations, and
freedom of choice and action, yet they are fragile and being diminished across the globe.
We are at risk of losing much of biodiversity and the benefits it provides humanity. As
humankind’s footprint has swelled, unsustainable use of land, ocean, and freshwater resources
has produced extraordinary global changes, from habitat loss and invasive species to
anthropogenic pollution and climate change. Threats to terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity are
diverse, persistent, and, in some cases, increasing. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
concluded that 15 of the 24 ecosystem services evaluated were in decline, 4 were improving, and
5 were improving in some regions of the world and in decline in other regions. Action is critical:
without it, current high rates of species loss are projected to continue what is becoming the 6 th
mass extinction event in Earth’s history. It has been estimated that for every 1 oC increase in
global mean surface temperature, up to 5 oC, 10% of species are threatened with extinction. All
species count, but some more than others at any given time. Losing one key species can have
cascading effects on the delivery of ecosystem services.
Ecosystem services are ubiquitous, benefiting people in a variety of socioeconomic

conditions, across virtually every economic sector, and over a range of spatial scales, now and in
the future. The benefits that ecosystems contribute to human well-being have historically been
provided free of charge, and demand for them is increasing. Although the global economic value
of ecosystem services may be difficult to measure, it almost certainly rivals or exceeds aggregate
global gross domestic product, and ecosystem benefits frequently outweigh costs of their
conservation. Yet environmental benefits are seldom considered in conventional economic
decision-making, and costs and benefits often don’t accrue to the same community, or at the same
time or place.
The value of these services is being increasingly appreciated by a very large sector of society -
extending from local stakeholders, the business community, agriculture, conservation, and
governmental policy makers, including development agencies. Its economic value is enormous;
biodiversity is the most fundamental element of green economic development. However, we are
squandering our natural capital for short-term gains. Two thirds of ecosystem services are
currently being degraded and will soon amount to an estimated $500 billion annually in lost
benefits. In order to move forward on the path of green economic development, technology
development and technology transfer to raise value added of biological resources, especially in
developing countries, can help shift from the resource exploitative method of conventional
development to resource enrichment method of sustainable development.
Food security
Total food production has nearly trebled since 1960, per capita production has increased by
30%, and food prices and the percent of undernourished people have fallen, but the benefits have
been uneven and more than one billion people still go to bed hungry each night. Furthermore,
intensive and extensive food production has caused significant environmental degradation. Aside
from the loss of much biodiversity through outright habitat destruction from land clearing, tillage
9
and irrigation methods can lead to salinisation and erosion of soils; fertilizers, rice production and
livestock contribute to greenhouse gas emissions; unwise use of pesticides adds to global
toxification; and fertilizer runoff plays havoc with freshwater and nearshore saltwater habitats.
One of the key challenges facing the world is to increase agricultural productivity, while
reducing its environmental footprint through sustainable intensification, given that the demand
for food will likely double in the next 25-50 years, primarily in developing countries.
Unfortunately, climate change is projected to significantly decrease agricultural productivity
throughout much of the tropics and sub-tropics where hunger and poverty are endemic today.
The Right to Food should become a basic human right; a combination of political will,
farmers’ skill and scientists’ commitment will be needed to achieve this goal.
Water Security
Projections show that by 2025 over half of the world’s population will live in places that are
subject to severe water stress, and by 2040 demand is projected to exceed supply. This is
irrespective of climate change, which will likely exacerbate the situation. Water quality is
declining in many parts of the world, and 50-60% of wetlands have been lost. Human-induced
climate change is projected to decrease water quality and availability in many arid- and semi-arid
regions and increase the threats posed by floods and droughts in most parts of the world. This
will have far-reaching implications, including for agriculture: 70% of all freshwater is currently
used for irrigation. Of all irrigation water use 15-35% of irrigation water use already exceeds
supply and is thus unsustainable.
Freshwater availability is spatially variable and scarce, particularly in many regions of Africa
and Asia. Numerous dry regions, including many of the world’s major “food bowls,” will likely
become much drier even under medium levels of climate change. Glacier melt, which provides
water for many developing countries, will likely decrease over time and exacerbate problems of
water shortage over the long term. Runoff will decrease in many places due to increased
evapotranspiration. In contrast, more precipitation is likely to fall in many of the world’s wetter
regions. Developed regions and countries will also be affected. For example, Southern Europe
in summer is likely to be hotter and drier.
Human Security
Climate change and loss of ecosystem services, coupled with other stresses threatens
human security in many parts of the world, potentially increasing the risk of conflict and
in-country and out-of-country migration (Figure 3).
Climate change risks the spread of conflict by undermining the essentials of life for many
poor people: (i) food shortages could increase where there is hunger and famine today; (ii) water
shortages could become severe in areas where there are already water shortages; (iii) natural
resources could be depleted with loss of ecological goods and services; (iv) tens of millions of
people could be displaced in low-lying deltaic areas and Small Island States; (v) disease could
increase; and (vi) severe weather events could be become more frequent or intense.
Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have millions of people in abject poverty (per-capita
incomes of less than $1 per day), lack access to adequate food, clean water and modern energy
sources, and rely on natural resources for their very existence. In some cases governments lack
good governance and are faced with political instability, with some in conflict and others merging
from conflict. Hence, climate change, coupled with other stresses risks local and regional
conflict and migration depending on the social, economic and political circumstances.
FIGURE 3
10
The Way Forward

Our Vision
The current global development model is unsustainable. We can no longer assume that our
collective actions will not trigger tipping points, as environmental thresholds are breached,
risking irreversible damage to both ecosystems and human communities. Therefore, our vision
must be to eradicate poverty and reduce inequality, make growth more sustainable and inclusive,
production and consumption more sustainable, combating climate change, and respecting other
planetary boundaries. This will require recognizing, understanding and acting on
interconnections between the economy, society and the natural environment.
Sustainable development is fundamentally a question of people’s opportunities to influence

their future, claim their rights and voice their concerns. Effective governance and respect for
human rights are key prerequisites for empowering people to make sustainable choices. A serious
shift towards sustainable development requires gender equality and an end to persistent
discrimination against women. The next major increment of global well-being could well come
from the full empowerment of women.
Since most goods and services sold today fail to bear the full environmental and social costs
of production and consumption, we need to reach consensus on methodologies to price them
properly. Costing environmental externalities could open new opportunities for green growth and
green jobs. Another option proposed in the 1999 book Natural capitalism is a way of doing
business as if nature and people were properly valued, without needing to know or signal that
value. The options are not mutually exclusive, and since the first may take longer than we have
the second provides a useful safety-net.
11
The need to Act

We must act now to limit climate change and loss of biodiversity, and adapt to the inevitable
changes that are already pre-ordained. To transition to a more sustainable future will require
simultaneously redesigning the economic system, a technological revolution, and, above all,
behaviorial change.
To lower the risks of climate change to acceptable levels the world must reduce absolute
emissions levels by at least a factor of 2.5 by 2050, which requires a reduction in emission per
unit of output by around a factor of 8 if the world economy is 3 times larger in 2050 than today.
We clearly need a new industrial revolution. In addition to mitigating climate change we must
also be prepared to adapt since substantial changes in climate are unavoidable. Development,
mitigation and adaptation are intertwined, e.g. irrigation and in urban design.
Now is the time to accelerate action. The world economy risks a prolonged slow-down as a
consequence of the financial and economic crises of the past few years. Low-carbon growth is the
only sound basis for a sustainable recovery. High-carbon growth would gravely imperil
humanity’s future and has no future.
Delay is dangerous and would be a profound mistake. The ratchet effect and technological
lock-in increase the risks of dangerous climate change: delay could make stablisation of
concentrations at acceptable levels very difficult. If we act strongly and science is wrong, then
we will still have new technologies, greater efficiency and more forests. If fail to act and the
science is right, then humanity is in deep trouble and it will be very difficult to extricate
ourselves. Basic decision theory or common sense points to strong action, particularly since the
science is very likely to be right. The Stern Review (2006) sets out the analytical case for early
and strong action. The costs of action increase with delay.
The challenge is to generate substantial benefits simultaneously across multiple economic,

environmental and social objectives. This synergy is advantageous and important, given that
measures which lead to local and national benefits, e.g. improved local and immediate health and
environment conditions, and support the local economy may be more easily adopted than
measures mainly serving global and long-term goals, such as climate protection. An approach that
emphasizes the local benefits of improved end-use efficiency and increased use of renewable
energy would also help address global concerns.
In addition to addressing climate change it is of equal importance to reduce the loss of
biodiversity and rate of deforestation and forest degradation. It is important that the 2020 Aichi
targets to protect and conserve biodiversity are met.
Technology options for a transition to a low-carbon economy

The world’s ~78% reliance on fossil fuels (~90% excluding traditionally scavenged biomass)
on fossil fuels is at the root of many of the world’s toughest problems. Economic, security, health,
and environmental reasons all compel a vigorous transition beyond fossil fuels.
There are many combinations of energy resources, end-use, and supply technologies that can
simultaneously address the multiple sustainability challenges. The different combinations share
two common features: (i) radical improvements in energy end-use efficiency, and (ii) significant
shifts toward energy supply systems with an emphasis on renewable energies and advanced fossil
fuel systems with carbon capture and storage.
The effectiveness of such solutions depends very much on geography and the level of
affluence of different countries. Generally, developing countries located in the tropical areas of
the world can benefit most from solar energy technologies although cost-effectiveness is also
becoming more common at higher latitudes. In industrialized countries with very high energy
consumption per capita, energy efficiency measures can be very effective. Yet also developing
12
countries that have a low energy consumption per capita, economic progress can be achieved by
adopting early in their growth trajectory energy efficient technologies rather than adopting
obsolete technologies that will generate problems that will have to be fixed later. That is, though
rich countries use a great deal of energy and waste much of it, poor people, despite using less
energy, waste and even larger fraction of what they do use, and can ill-afford to.
Efficiency improvement is usually the most cost-effective option, and can generate benefits
across multiple objectives, including alleviation of poverty, reduction in adverse environmental
and health impacts, enhancing energy security, creation of net employment and economic
opportunities, and increasing flexibility in selection of energy supply options.
The rate of decreased global energy intensity of around 3–4%/y needed to stabilize climate
has not been achieved to date in most countries and is several times the global average, although
greatly exceeded in some firms. Most global economic growth is in places like China and India
that are building their infrastructure now, and can more easily build it right than fix it later. Poor
people and countries most need energy efficiency, have the greatest potential for it (they’re poor
partly because their use is so inefficient), and can thereby win the most dramatic development
gains. Universal access to electricity as well as cleaner cooking/heating stoves can be achieved
by 2030; however, this will require innovative institutions and national enabling mechanisms
such as appropriate subsidies and financing. Clean sstoves would substantially reduce indoor air
pollution, which causes millions of premature deaths per year, and should also lead to climate
benefits due to avoidance of products of incomplete combustion.
The share of renewable energy in global primary energy could increase to 30% to 75%, and in
some regions (especially but limited to tropical regions) could exceed 90% by 2050. The main
task is to achieve scale-up, reduce costs and integrate renewables in future energy systems.
Carefully developed, renewable energies can provide multiple benefits, including employment,
energy security, human health, environment, and mitigation of climate change.
Empirical evidence shows that switching from oil and coal to efficient use and diverse,
climate-safe renewable supplies will not be costly but profitable. Saving fuel is almost always
cheaper than buying fuel, and integrative design can often even make big savings cheaper than
small ones (expanding returns). Scores of market failures block efficiency but can be turned into
business opportunities. A number of renewable sources, as their costs plummet, now out-compete
fossil fuels; most of the rest will very soon. Competitive clean energy has added half the world’s
new electric capacity since 2008, reaching a record $260 billion of private investment in 2011
and $1 trillion since 2004, and provides one-fifth of the world’s electricity from one-fourth of its
capacity. Fast-growing distributed resources add valuable resilience, and can bring electricity to
the 1.6 billion people who now lack it.
Most components of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) systems are technically available, but
the main task is to reduce costs and achieve rapid technology improvement. A number of pilot
projects around the world will, we hope, soon demonstrate their viability. Many issues of cost
and siting remain to be resolved, however. Efficiency and renewable energy technologies will be
potent competitors.
These new energy realities should shift the climate conversation from cost, burden, and
sacrifice to profits, jobs, and competitive advantage. Even if one rejects climate science, a
transition to a low-carbon economy makes sense and makes money for many other compelling
reasons. China, for example, is leading the global efficiency and clean-energy revolutions not
because of international treaties and Conventions but to speed her own development and to
improve public health and national security. Climate leadership is thus shifting from international
negotiations to firms, national and subnational governments, and civil society—and from North
to South, where most of the brains are.
13
Adapting to Climate Change

Climate change impacts are already occurring and further impacts are inevitable. While some
of the impacts in certain parts of the world may have short-term benefits, most of the impacts,
particularly in poorer developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America will damage poor
countries, and poor communities.
All countries, both developed as well as developing, will need to adapt to the impacts of
climate change over the next few decades. However, there are limits to how effectively countries
and communities can adapt. Adaptation becomes more difficult if temperatures rise more than 2
degrees, which is of significant concern since the world is on a pathway to becoming 3-5 oC
warmer than pre-industrial.
The good news is that many countries, starting with the least developed countries, have
already begun to take steps to plan adaptation to climate change and to try to mainstream them
into development planning, e.g., Bangladesh which has developed a long-term Climate Change
Strategy and Action Plan and has already begun to implement it.
All countries, both rich as well as poor, will need to develop their own national
adaptation plans. While many adaptation actions will be country and location specific,
nevertheless there are opportunities for learning lessons across countries, south-south as well as
south-north.
The most effective adaptation strategy is mitigation in order to limit the magnitude of climate
change, especially given there are significant physical, financial, technological, and behavioral
limits to adaptation.
Approaches to Conserve and Sustainably Use Biodiversity

The loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem services can be stopped and reversed by
concerted planning based on adequate data, a well-managed protected areas network,
enhancement of the conservation value of agricultural areas supported by the new science of
countryside biogeography, use of InVest and other new tools for mapping and evaluating the
services, and transformational shifts in the public and private sector that value the role of natural
capital in economic development. The CBD is the international umbrella for biodiversity, and its
2020 regional and global targets for protecting biodiversity - particularly targets on protected
areas and preventing extinctions – are critically important.
To stop biodiversity loss and maintain the services humanity depends on, the value of
ecosystem services and natural capital must be incorporated into national accounting and
decision-making processes across all sectors of society, access to ecosystem benefits and costs of
ecosystem conservation must be shared equitably, and biodiversity and ecosystem services must
be seen as the most fundamental component of green economic development. Therefore there is
a need to further develop and use tools such as InVest, as well as the motivation, for nations to
establish a national inclusive wealth accounting system, including accounting for ecosystem
services imported and exported, which could stimulate further approaches to ecosystem service
marketplace development. These tools can assist decision makers on how to balance the
tradeoffs in choosing among ecosystem services in land use decisions at multiple spatial scales
and include both economic and non-economic valuation. We also need to initiate a campaign to
build societal awareness, including building the concept into secondary school education
Biodiversity and natural ecosystems are foundational to solving the climate crisis, as
conservation can slow climate change, increase the adaptive capacity of both people and
ecosystems, save lives and sustain livelihoods in myriad ways as Earth's climate changes.
Tropical forests, coastal marine habitats, and other ecosystems play major roles in global
biochemical cycles, and are thus essential to mitigation. They are also widely available, and via
protection and restoration can be deployed immediately to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas
14
concentrations without waiting for new technology. An effective mechanism for Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) must be implemented and
financed to support countries in either reducing deforestation or, for some countries, maintaining
already low deforestation rates.
A great advantage of ecosystems as a climate solution is that they play many roles at once.
Beyond mitigation, the climate adaptation services provided by healthy, diverse ecosystems will
become ever more important in the face of climate change since they can help us deal with
impacts such as changing freshwater flows, rising sea levels, and shifts in disease-carrying
organisms and other pests. Mangroves, for example, store carbon, support fisheries, harbor
diverse species, and can reduce storm impacts. Ecosystems also support livelihoods by providing
income and food alternatives that will be important where climate change disrupts current
sources. Such diversification is helpful for all, but particularly the most vulnerable communities
and countries, those with the least capacity to cope with climate change.
Climate mitigation and adaptation, for both nature and people, can no longer be thought of as
separate problems, for they will not be solved in isolation. If human adaptation to climate change
compromises forests or other ecosystems, this loss will speed climate change. If mitigation of
climate change is sought for example via reforestation using single-species stands rather than
ensembles of native species this will reduce biodiversity. These losses will increase the need for
adaptation even as our capacity to accommodate it diminishes. An integrated approach makes this
cycle virtuous: by conserving biodiversity, we decelerate climate change while increasing the
adaptive capacity of people and ecosystems alike.
A comprehensive, integrated ecosystem approach is a powerful “tool” for identifying,

analyzing and resolving complicated environmental problems, rather than the piecemeal
approaches to multifaceted environmental problems that don’t work. The inclusiveness of the
ecosystem approach gives a powerful frame for identifying new environmental problems or re-
shaping existing ones and then tackling their complexity, especially when ecosystem processes
are coupled with social and economic considerations.
Food Security
We theoretically could feed the world today with affordable food while providing a viable
income for the farmer, with appropriate distribution of what is harvested. But with business-as-
usual this will not occur in the foreseeable future. Most of today’s hunger problems can be
addressed with the appropriate use of current technologies, particularly appropriate agro-
ecological practices (e.g. no/low till, integrated pest management, and integrated natural resource
management), but these must be coupled with decreased post-harvest losses, and broad-scale
rural development. This will require recognizing the critical role of women and empower them
through education, property rights, access to financing, and access to markets using improved
roads. There is also a need to negotiate and implement global-scale trade policy reforms to
stimulate local production in developing countries.
Emerging issues such as climate change and new plant and animal pests may increase our
future need for higher productivity and may require advanced biotechnologies, where the risks
and benefits need to be carefully evaluated.
To impart the dimension of economic and ecological sustainability in farming requires

promotion of an integrated attention to conservation, cultivation, consumption and commerce. A
country can become a knowledge and innovation super-power only if it pays attention to
nutrition and education for all children, women and men from conception to cremation.
Water Security
Addressing the challenges associated with water scarcity will require: (i) river basin
management (often transnational); multi-sectoral management (e.g. agriculture, industry, and
15
households); and coupled land-and-water management; (ii) comprehensive stakeholder

involvement (e.g. state, private sector, and civil society – especially women) with management
action at the lowest level; and (iii) improved allocation and quality enhancement via incentives
and economic principles. Cost recovery for water, at only 20%, poses a major problem for water
management, hence it is crucial, yet controversial, to get water pricing right as well as reform of
IMF and World Bank policies to ensure access to poor people.
Competence in leadership
Sustainable development implies a major paradigm shift with unprecedented global
implications. It is a trivial statement to say that big and effective international geopolitical
decisions cannot be expected to be made from the blue. When major change is needed, new
institutional and governmental models, with the competence needed for change at the appropriate
scale, will rely on pioneering role models. In paradigm shifts, such demonstrate that the obsolete
paradigm is less attractive, and that the new paradigm is not only more attractive but also
feasible. Pioneering role models pave the way for the needed large-scale policies. Such role
models are already up and running and you will find a number of examples below in this book.
What is now needed is to empower and coach the pioneering role models that are already up and
running to help them scale up enough to empower the policies we need. In that context, science
can do more than to just demonstrate the need for change per se, and/or point at the complexity of
the problems we encounter. On top of this, science can demonstrate ways to think and plan to
exploit the opportunities that follow from the needed paradigm shift, not the least from the
pioneer’s own self-beneficial “enlightened” perspective, and to point at more robust ways of
managing the complexity.
Policies and plans for sustainable development are currently often attempted through
piecemeal ad-hoc driven agendas. To avoid this it is helpful but not enough to attempt a “holistic”
systems perspective per se, recognizing that as more and more essential aspects from the system
get added into models and then are related to all the others, complexity grows and eventually
becomes unmanageable. What is needed is holistic thinking and action, not just holistic
modeling. Each leader wanting to solve a problem typically is confronted with the fact that he or
she has invented another problem elsewhere in the system. E.g. phasing out the irritating gas
ammonic and replacing it with CFC’s, only to run into an even larger problem risking the whole
ozone layer. How can we learn how to design the sustainability problems out of the system?
Would it be possible to find such principles for re-design, rather than running after reality and
“fixing” more and worse problems as they keep surfacing?
We need a robust definition of sustainability that is possible to operationalize for any planning-
topic/sector/region/organization. Such principles can only be derived at the principled level. Such
principles are frequently employed for all kinds of innovation also outside the domain of
sustainable development. This is in particular important when current trends are part of the
problem and the temptation may be large to spend money on “fixing” problems instead of solving
them. Such principles, can then work as constraints, or to employ a more technical term,
“boundary conditions for redesign”. For adequate planning in complex systems, such a set of
boundary conditions or constraints serve as a “lens” between the system and the strategic policies
and plans, and build on an understanding of the basic mechanisms of destruction that underlie all
the myriads of problems. Fixing problems one by one won’t work. To employ such boundary
conditions also for sustainability is mandatory to rationally (i) deal with system boundaries, (ii)
deal with multi-dimensional trade-offs, (iii) make sustainable potentials for various technical
systems calculable and (iv) cooperate between sectors and disciplines. People from different
sectors and disciplines can now bring up problems as well as solutions in relation to the same set
of boundary conditions, compare notes, and then find opportunities for synergies and
cooperation.
A Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) has been developed during a 20
year peer-reviewed consensus process amongst scientists to empower and train leaders and policy
16
makers to plan this way. And to provide them with the FSSD aligned tools and concepts they may
need, e.g. tools for sustainability analyses, setting of goals, product/service development,
modeling, simulation, monitoring etc. A growing network of universities across the globe is
currently designing a joint research program to further this approach. In this, the FSSD is
employed to structure the variety of research projects to help putting them in context of global
sustainability and to enable more efficient interdisciplinary cooperation.
A growing number of executives in business and regions/cities across the globe are currently
learning how to employ the FSSD, and the above mentioned FSSD aligned tools, in every-day
business. They approach the sustainability principles systematically and step-wise while
improving on bottom-line finances – “enlightened self-interest”. They do not only employ
forecasting, i.e. “improving” what they did before. They bridge their gap to sustainability
(backcasting from the boundary conditions). And they empower, rather than discourage, proactive
policy makers in legislation procedures and at international summits. This feeds into the next
section. We need governance models that can empower the pioneering role models. To have
shared mental models of boundary conditions for sustainability, will not suffice unless
infrastructures for bringing people together to co-create solutions are established.
The Importance of Good Governance

There are serious shortcomings in the decision-making systems on which we rely in
government, business, and society more broadly. Building more effective governance and
institutions is central to achieving more sustainable patterns of development – globally,
nationally, and locally. Yet the central importance of governance issues is often neglected. This is
partly due to the differing definitions used of “governance”, and the intangibility of these norms
and structures. An analysis of governance needs to ask: How, where and by whom are decisions
made? Who gets to write the rules by which decisions are made? What gets decided and who gets
what? How are people able to monitor how decisions are made? Governance is more than just a
question of the institutional architecture, and how different elements relate to each other. For each
of these elements, there are issues of credibility and legitimacy concerning the processes by
which rules are made and re-made, interpreted and re-interpreted.
The rules and institutions for decision-making are influenced by vested interests, yet each
interest has very different access to the process. For example, lobbyists spend a large amount of
time and money trying to influence the way that elected representatives vote in many legislatures.
Governance must also be seen in a dynamic fashion, involving an ongoing process of negotiation
between different interests, played out in a series of arenas and institutions, nationally and
globally. The legitimacy of technical evidence marshaled within such negotiations is critical and
often contested, as has been evident in the climate change talks.
Governance involves much more than the ensemble of government frameworks, and includes
multiple and overlapping governance systems, with the private sector, civil society, sub-national
and local levels all engaged in making decisions in relation to their interests. There is a
widespread assumption that governments are the central actors in governance, but a deeper look
shows that government is often an instrument both of its own and others’ interests, rather than
playing the role of objective arbiter. The existence of plural and overlapping systems of
governance can lead to contest between competing structures, and institutional “shopping”.
Transformation of governance systems needs to accommodate a far broader range of interests

(both poor and rich, young and old, those of the future as well as of the present), and ensure
access to better information as regards the likely impacts of different pathways taken.
Subsidiarity, control at the lowest possible level, should be a central principle for sustainable
development governance, to assure that decisions over resource allocation and use are made at
the correct level by the right authority for the resource in question. Shifting power down to lower
levels is vital, to bring in local knowledge, increase accessibility to decision-making, and get a
broader range of voices into the debate. Innovations are needed to ensure that the marginalized
17
have a voice that counts, through for example coalition building, organization and mobilization to
make those voices heard more effectively. Public hearings, social audits, and participatory
budgeting can bring the voices of marginalized groups to the fore.
At national level, effective changes in governance require a transparent means for people to
hold those in power to account. Parliamentary and press oversight are key alongside freedom of
information, but in many countries, these mechanisms remain weak. The accountability challenge
is compounded by alliances cemented between government officials and powerful individuals
and corporations. The international nature of much of the corporate sector involved in natural
resource use means that even the governments of the countries in which they are headquartered
have limited ability to influence their actions and decisions.
Globally, we urgently need better means to agree and implement measures to achieve our
collective goals. Given the large numbers of states and their separate jurisdictions, more effective
and far-reaching international institutions and rules are necessary, yet nation states are unwilling
to submit to collective agreements which constrain their freedom of manoeuvre. Equally, greater
control over international financial and corporate actors is needed, to reduce their ability to
escape fiscal and other responsibilities through freedom of movement between different
jurisdictions. Global efforts to address climate change have resulted in a complex international
governance architecture, which has largely replicated geopolitical and global economic power
relations among nations. There has been little room in these evolving governance arrangements
for the priorities of weaker countries and marginalized people to be heard and addressed.
Growing reliance on the G20 as a forum for sorting out global problems runs the risk of
disempowering the large number of smaller, less economically prominent nations.
Development policymakers and practitioners are increasingly turning to markets as a tool for
addressing sustainability and alleviating poverty. Yet market governance also offers major
challenges. Markets and business have the potential to generate new and decent jobs, and use
natural assets more sustainably. But market signals and incentives must be set in ways that
mobilise businesses and others to support sustainable growth, to create the ‘missing markets’ for
environmental goods and services and to ensure more equitable participation. They also need
government to assure the institutional and regulatory infrastructure that allows markets to operate
effectively, such as support to property rights. Another worry concerns the lack of accountability
of market chains and transnational operations, which can evade national laws and regulatory
frameworks. A third relates to finding the incentives for environmentally sustainable practices
that pertain to the mainstream, as opposed to ‘niche’ sustainable businesses.
Governance failures also occur because decisions are being made in sectoral compartments,
with environmental, social and economic dimensions being addressed by separate competing
structures. At government level, this means moving sustainable development concerns from
beyond Ministries of Environment to focus on Ministries of Agriculture, Energy, Finance,
Planning, Health, and Education as entry points. Cross-ministerial buy-in demands that
sustainability be led by the head of government, and that environmental and social valuations are
brought into decision-making. In business, environment and social issues need to move from
corporate social responsibility (CSR) departments into core business operations, with companies
required to report in terms of the triple bottom line. In society more generally, groups such as
NGOs need to work together to bridge divides, and recognize both common interests, but also
trade-offs between different objectives.
In policies for economic development, anti-corruption measures have received increased

attention. It is now possible to speak of an international “good governance” regime supported
by many national and international aid organizations and their research institutes. The policy
advice from this “regime” has previously to a large extent been geared towards incremental
change by finding institutional solutions that will set in motion a “virtuous circle”. It is very
18
unlikely that small institutional devices can set in motion a process towards establishing good
governance in countries were corruption is systemic. Based on an understanding of
corruption as a “social trap”, it is argued that what is needed to establish a new equilibrium of
social and economic exchange is a “big-bang”, i.e. sufficient financial resources needed to
establish public institutions – schools, hospitals, police, courts etc – that can be characterized
by two qualities: impartiality and competence.
Regional Cooperation
Global cooperation along the conventional path of economic development has failed to
be sustainable because of prevailing nation's self-centered economic interests in a world without
politically viable global institutions for sustainable development. Hence, regional cooperation can
play a key role in the transformation of a more sustainable world. Regional cooperation in
ASEAN has through the years developed trust within it's member-states that has grown into
common vision and interests to pursue together regional developmental issues and created
common interests to pursue together sustainable development.
It is of the utmost importance to forge an effective link between economic policies with their
impacts on poverty eradication and enhancement of life supporting natural ecosystems at the sub-
regional level with measurable indicators as the basis for geo-spatial natural resource
management planning, superimposed on layers of social poverty location mapping and economic
potentials of resource distribution. Indonesia’s search for implementable sustainable development
model has demonstrated that macro-economic policies aimed at raising GDP, may well reach
their economic objectives, while not necessary achieving the social development objective of
reducing poverty nor the environmental goal of sustaining natural resources.
Important lessons can be drawn from regional cooperation where efforts to pursue
sustainable development on issues of common interest in the ASEAN region, like the Coral Reefs
Triangle Cooperation, Forests Cooperation, Joint Efforts in Reducing Emissions of Deforestation
and Degradation of Land, etc. These can grow into global building blocks, in spite of the fact
that global cooperation is not advancing. It may be possible that similar regional cooperative
efforts in East Asia, Africa, Latin America and others can be supported, providing a base that
ultimately can lead toward global cooperation on sustainable development.
Innovation and Grass Root Action

“The Earth has enough for everyman’s need but not for one man’s greed”- Gandhi.
At the outset it must be said since Rio 1992 community based groups in the poorer most
inaccessible rural areas around the world have demonstrated the power of grass root action to
change policy at regional and national levels. In consultation with communities, innovative
methods and approaches have been put into practice and indeed been scaled up to cover
thousands of communities living on less than $1/day.
But sadly they have not been collectively visible enough to catch the eyes of the policy makers
and the movers and shakers who are formulating crucial global policies without engaging with
them at the cutting edge levels.
Without devaluing the tremendous contribution of such grass root action and while showing
them the respect and recognition they deserve there is an urgency now to bring them into
mainstream thinking, convey the belief all is not lost, and the planet can still be saved.
New ideas have been put into practice as a result of collective grass root action that have
lessons we can learn from if only we have the humility and ability to listen. The main lessons
learnt could be summarized:
19
 There is no urban solution to the basically rural problem of poverty. The simple solutions
of how the rural poor have tackled the issues of climate change and water security (Box 1)
already exist but we have yet to put a mechanism in place to learn from them. There are
best practices with potential to scale up that needs to be highlighted.
Box 1
Traditional and peoples practise of collecting rain water for drinking and irrigation needs to be
revived. It has been used tested and proved over hundreds of years. But ever since the academic
engineers turned up on the scene this practise has been devalued and the technology solution of
exploiting (thus abusing) ground water through powerful polluting drilling rigs installing deep well
pumps has seriously depleted groundwater. Thousands of open wells for irrigation and hand pumps
for drinking water have gone dry. What needs to be done on a war footing is to collect water from
the roofs of public buildings (schools, dispensaries etc) into underground tanks and this could be
used for drinking water and sanitation. Small dams need to be constructed to allow for ground
water recharge thus revitalizing the dry open wells and hand pumps, reclaiming collective assets
worth millions of dollars. What is needed is simple practical solutions multiplied over a large scale
all over the world. This does not need much money but the long term impact will be tremendous.
 The answer to addressing the critical issues of poverty and climate change is not primarily
technical but social. The problems of corruption, wastage of funds, poor technology
choices and absent transparency or accountability are social problems for which they are
innovative solutions are emerging from the grass roots. For instance the idea and practice
of Public Hearings and Social Audits came from the people who were fed up with
government inaction in India. Now it has been institutionalized and benefitting nearly
600,000 villages in India.
 Grass root groups have found the value and relevance of a South-South Partnership where
the use and application of traditional knowledge, village skills and practical wisdom
between communities across Continents have resulted in low cost community based
solutions that have had an incredible impact in improving the quality of life. Migration
from rural to the urban areas has decreased. Dependency on urban and technology skills
has decreased.
 The empowerment of women is the ultimate sustainable rural solution. By improving their
capacity and competence to provide basic services in the rural areas (for instance train
them to be solar engineers – Box 2) they could be the new role models that the world is
looking for.
Box 2
Without using the written or spoken word and only through sign language 300 illiterate rural
grandmothers between ages 35 to 50 have been trained as solar engineers. In 6 months they have
solar electrified over 15,000 houses reaching more than 100 villages covering the whole continent
of Africa (28 countries in 5 years) at a total cost of $ 2.5 million. This is what is spent on 1
Millennium Village in Africa. If a grandmother is selected from any part of the developing world
the Government of India pays the air fare and 6 months training costs in India. The funds for the
hardware has been provided by GEF Small Grants Programme, UNWOMEN, UNESCO, Skoll
Foundation, and individual philanthropists.
 The long term answer is not a centralised system but a demystified and decentralized
system where the management, control and ownership of the technology lie in the hands of
the communities themselves and not dependent on paper qualified professionals from
outside the villages.
 Listen and learn how poor communities all over the world see the problems of energy,
water, food and livelihoods as inter-dependent and integrated as part of a living eco system
and not viewed separately.
20
Knowledge Generation and Assessment

Given the importance of credible peer-reviewed knowledge to inform policy formulation and
implementation, there is a need to support research and development, and national and
international assessments.
National and international, coordinated, and interdisciplinary research is a critical

underpinning for informed policy formulation and implementation. There is an urgent need for
strengthening the scientific and technological infrastructure in most developing countries. The
World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), International Geosphere Biosphere Programme
(IGPB), International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP), Diversitas, and the integrated
Earth System Science Programmes (ESSP) of the International Council (ICSU) and International
Social Science Council (ISSC) need to be integrated and expanded to provide the inter-
disciplinary knowledge base needed to provide the scientific knowledge needed for sustainable
development.
While there are uncertainties, knowledge gaps and controversies in our evidence base with
respect to biodiversity and ecosystem services, we have sufficient information to manage our
ecosystems, and the flows of services from them, more sustainably. In order to refine our
understanding of the fundamental ecosystem processes underpinning the delivery of ecosystem
services we need both to extend our observations and experimental manipulations, and also to
improve our models of the key mechanisms. Better holistic ecosystem models offer a potential
way forward for understanding some of the uncertainties and highlighting the sensitivities of
multiple interacting drivers on ecosystems, the processes within them, and the flow of services
and goods.
Quantifying and understanding the inputs and outputs of individual ecosystems are the
functional connection among all ecosystems, constituting the “pulse” of the planet, and when
measured quantitatively have major management relevance for understanding and resolving
environmental problems. Long-term research and monitoring frequently provides new insights
into the understanding of complicated environmental problems. Hence it is important to develop
a global and comprehensive experimental network that probes the nature of diversity and
ecosystem processes and services under present as well as anticipated future environments as
well accelerating our future scenario development capacity.
Improved high spatial resolution regional climate projections are needed to improve the
quantification of extreme weather events and for assessing the impact of climate change on socio-
economic sectors (e.g., food and water), ecological systems and human health.
Governments should support research and testing of new technologies such as low-loss smart
electric grids, electrical vehicles interacting with the power grid, energy storage, improved
nuclear power plant designs (in the view of some), and carbon capture and storage, as well as
education and planning needed to foster and achieve a sustainable human population and
lifestyles.
Independent, global expert assessments that encompass risk assessment and risk management,
have proven to be a critical component of the science-policy interface. Such assessments must be
policy-relevant rather than policy-prescriptive. International assessments such as the
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Assessments, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Assessment of
Agricultural science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) have all contributed to
providing national governments and the international negotiating processes with credible, multi-
disciplinary peer-reviewed knowledge, acknowledging what is known, unknown and
controversial. The development of the proposed Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and
21
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) will provide vital information periodic assessments of the
knowledge needed for ecosystem service delivery and the status of the delivery system.
However, we need a more integrated assessment process that either encompasses all
environmental issues within the construct of sustainable economic growth and poverty
alleviation, i.e., climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem
services, water degradation and air pollution, or the individual thematic assessments are
periodically synthesized.
Conclusion
Climate change and loss of biodiversity undermines sustainable development.
However, there is no dichotomy between economic progress and protecting our
environment by limiting climate change and loss of biodiversity. Indeed, the cost to mitigate
climate change is less than the cost of inaction if one takes the ethical position of not discounting
future generations, and delaying action can significantly increase costs. Efficient resource use
(e.g., energy or water) saves money for businesses and households. Valuing and creating markets
for ecosystem services can provide new economic opportunities. A green economy will be a
source of future employment and innovation. Governments, the private sector, voluntary and
civil society at large all have key roles to play in the transition to a low-carbon economy,
adaptation to climate change and a more sustainable use of ecosystems.
If we are to achieve our dream, the time to act at scale is now, given the inertia in the socio-
economic system, and that the adverse effects of climate change and loss of biodiversity cannot
be reversed for centuries or are irreversible (e.g., species loss). Failure to act will impoverish
current and future generations.
Annex I: About the Blue Planet Prize

In 1992, the year of the Rio Earth Summit, the Asahi Glass Foundation established the Blue
Planet Prize, an award presented to individuals or organizations worldwide in recognition of
outstanding achievements in scientific research and its application that have helped provide
solutions to global environmental problems.
The Prize is offered in the hopes of encouraging efforts to bring about the healing of the
Earth’s fragile environment.
The award’s name was inspired by the remark "the Earth was blue," uttered by the first human
in space, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, upon viewing our planet. The Blue Planet Prize was
so named in the hopes that our blue planet will be a shared asset capable of sustaining human life
far into the future.
2012 is the 20th anniversary of the Blue Planet Prize. The Asahi Glass Foundation wishes to
mark this anniversary with a fresh start in its efforts to help build an environmentally friendly
society.
22
23

Blue Planet Synthesis Paper For UNEP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blue Planet Synthesis Paper For UNEP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blue Planet Synthesis Paper For UNEP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Draft – 17-2-2012

Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act

system with consequent environmental damage to ecological and socio-economic systems,

Underlying Drivers of Change

Biodiversity, Ecosystems and their Services

Ecosystem services are ubiquitous, benefiting people in a variety of socioeconomic

The Way Forward

Sustainable development is fundamentally a question of people’s opportunities to influence

The need to Act

The challenge is to generate substantial benefits simultaneously across multiple economic,

Technology options for a transition to a low-carbon economy

Adapting to Climate Change

Approaches to Conserve and Sustainably Use Biodiversity

A comprehensive, integrated ecosystem approach is a powerful “tool” for identifying,

To impart the dimension of economic and ecological sustainability in farming requires

households); and coupled land-and-water management; (ii) comprehensive stakeholder

The Importance of Good Governance

Transformation of governance systems needs to accommodate a far broader range of interests

In policies for economic development, anti-corruption measures have received increased

Innovation and Grass Root Action

Knowledge Generation and Assessment

National and international, coordinated, and interdisciplinary research is a critical

Annex I: About the Blue Planet Prize

You might also like