Navigating sustainability: measurement, evaluation and action

Navigating sustainability: measurement, evaluation and actionPaper prepared by CSIRO for the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability

Authors: Deborah O’Connell, Andrew Braid, John Raison, Steve Hatfield‑Dodds, Thomas Wiedmann, Annette Cowie, Anna Littleboy, Megan Clark

www.csiro.au

CITATION

O’Connell D, Braid A, Raison J, Hatfield‑Dodds S, Wiedmann T, Cowie A, Littleboy L, Clark M (2013) Navigating sustainability: measurement, evaluation and action. CSIRO, Australia.

AFFILIATIONS

Deborah O’Connell, John Raison, Steve Hatfield‑Dodds, Anna Littleboy, Megan Clark CSIRO, Australia

Thomas Wiedmann School of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia

Andrew Braid RileM Pty Ltd O’Connor, ACT, Australia

Annette Cowie Rural Climate Solutions: University of New England and NSW Department of Primary Industries Armidale, NSW, Australia

COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER

© 2013 CSIRO To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.

COVER

Turtle image created by Solomon Karmel‑Shann. “My school class went on a ten day trip to Cape York, in remote northern Australia. My painting is of a turtle laying eggs on the beach. This was my favourite moment of the trip. I drew a hand holding one of the eggs, but the egg is a world. This is a reflection of sustainability, because looking after the world is so important and is in our hands.”

i

Contents

Foreword ................................................................................................................................ 1

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................2

Key messages ..........................................................................................................................3

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................71.1 The GAC task: measuring sustainability ................................................................................................................8

1.2 Bringing clarity ........................................................................................................................................................8

2 Major initiatives in sustainability theory and practice over the last 20 years .......................112.1 Pre 1992: rising global concerns (Box 1) .............................................................................................................13

2.2 Underpinning science and methods (Box 2) .......................................................................................................13

2.3 The Rio Earth Summit 1992: initiating global goals and partnerships for sustainability (Box 3) ...................15

2.4 The first decade after Rio: sustainability science and concepts (Box 4) and implementation tools and frameworks (Box 5) ..............................................................................................................................16

2.5 The second decade after Rio: next generation sustainability science (Box 6) and emerging tools and frameworks (Box 7) ..............................................................................................................................34

2.6 A brief review of 20 years of UN global partnership (Box 8) ............................................................................44

2.7 Conclusions from the review of the last two decades of sustainability initiatives ..........................................47

3 A generic robust framework for implementing and assessing sustainability across scales .... 513.1 Common elements, or universal building blocks ...............................................................................................51

3.2 Mapping various approaches and initiatives to the generic four element sustainability framework ...........54

4 Sectoral approaches: learning from forestry, bioenergy and mining ....................................594.1 Sustainable forest management ..........................................................................................................................59

4.2 Sustainable bioenergy production ......................................................................................................................63

4.3 Sustainable development and the extractive industry .......................................................................................67

4.4 Summary of examples of sectoral approaches ...................................................................................................72

5 Evaluating and promoting sustainability across sectors, scales and contexts ......................755.1 Challenges and interactions – the food-water-energy nexus ...........................................................................75

5.2 The roles and contributions of measurement and evaluation to achieving sustainability .............................76

5.3 Recognising ‘success’ without ignoring the challenge of sustainability ..........................................................77

6 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 816.1 Unresolved and ongoing challenges ...................................................................................................................81

6.2 Key ‘success’ factors ..............................................................................................................................................82

6.3 Conclusions – the task ahead ..............................................................................................................................83

Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. 84

References ............................................................................................................................87

ii Navigating sustainability: measurement, evaluation and action

Figures

Tables

Figure 2-1 The evolution of sustainability science and concepts, and implementation tools and frameworks .............12

Figure 2-2 Adaptive management and loop learning diagrams .........................................................................................33

Figure 2-3 Steps of inference required to link ecosystems and biodiversity to human well-being using the concept of ecosystem services (adapted from de Groot et al 2010) ...................................................................................37

Figure 3-1 The four elements of a robust sustainability framework (adapted from O’Connell et al 2009) ....................52

Figure 3-2 Feedback mechanisms and interactions across scales in a robust sustainability framework (see text for explanations of A to E) ......................................................................................................................................53

Figure 5-1 Modes of social learning and social choice under uncertainty (Source: Adapted from Lee (1993) in Ast et al (2008), see Hoppe (2005)) ...................................................................................................................................77

Table 2-1 Appropriate approaches in formalised sustainability schemes depending on level of risk of obtaining sustainable outcomes (adapted from O’Connell et al 2009) ...............................................................................................32

Table 3-1 Mapping the major sustainability approaches (reviewed in Section 2) to the four element sustainability framework proposed in this report. The table shows: the scale at which they are implemented; the elements they provide in the four element sustainability framework (Section 3); and the maturity of the approach. Further examples relevant to forestry, bioenergy and mining provided in Section 4. .....................................................55

Table 4-1 Examples relating to Australian forests of the application at different scales of the four elements of the generic sustainability framework ..............................................................................................................................61

Table 4-2 Examples relating to sustainable bioenergy and biofuels through the application at different scales of the four elements of the generic sustainability framework ................................................................................65

Table 4-3 Sustainability initiatives in the extractive sector .................................................................................................69

Interest in sustainability is at an all-time high. This transformation has been brought about by two linked dynamics. First, high-profile challenges have driven home with sharp clarity that failure to achieve sustainability outcomes threatens all policy and business spheres, not merely the environment. The 2008 collapse of financial markets, the contagion of political crises linked to the Arab Spring, high volatility in energy and food markets, the increased impact and frequency of natural disasters, and the emergence of new diseases such as SARS, among other examples, have contributed to a dramatic convergence of views that sustainability is a pervasive challenge. Second, whereas sustainability was initially greeted as a threat to conventional public goals of growth, security and equity, and therefore deliberately shunted to the margins, today it is seen as both integrally supporting and essential to these objectives.

In short, sustainability is a permanent part of the decision-making landscape for communities, for policymakers and for businesses – a defining feature of our age. As a result, more robust, operational approaches to its measurement are called for. Past efforts can provide valuable lessons to guide future metrics, but fundamental change is required. The traditional focal areas of sustainability – environmental degradation, resource scarcity, climate change, biodiversity loss, etc. – have escalated to alarming levels. An effective global strategy for measuring sustainability must not only respond to these environmental challenges but also be able to provide evidence-based guidance to other more-established economic and social agendas in an integrated manner.

We are committed to helping advance such a strategy, and commissioned this report as a key element of our work. In this report CSIRO has documented the evolution in thinking about how to measure sustainability and distilled crucial lessons for moving forward. Among some of the key conclusions we have drawn are the following:

◆ Sustainability metrics must be jointly produced by experts, users, and systems designers, not

in isolation. To embed metrics and decision support capabilities in living, breathing processes we must nurture communities of practice that share this goal and span relevant perspectives. When this is done well, measurement processes engender new, effective waves of participation across broad segments of society.

◆ We care about the healthy functioning of complex systems, and therefore our metrics must characterise systems function. In some cases acting on this insight requires fundamentally new approaches; it is not easy but nothing short will suffice.

◆ One size will not fit all. For example, in some cases, there is plenty of useful information, it just needs to be integrated, organised, transformed, and made usable for a specific context and challenge; while in others, new measurement streams must be developed. Metrics must be designed with a careful eye toward fitness for use.

◆ We live in a post-silo world. All the systems we care about, whether defined by geography, sector, or stakeholder, have major linkages to other systems. No system can manage its risks on its own; therefore sustainability metrics must be embedded in a broader networked ecosystem that permits transparent visualisation of the interlinked risks and supports intelligent decision making and joint management.

We conclude with a final observation: now is the time to think boldly. Technology is opening revolutionary possibilities (eg Big Data, Internet of Things, Mobility). Emerging experiments in institutional forms are showcasing a new range of options for providing public goods effectively and efficiently. We must not be afraid to chart new ground.

Marc A. Levy – Deputy Director, CIESIN, Earth Institute; Chair of GAC Measuring Sustainability

James Cameron – Chairman, Climate Change Capital; Vice-Chair GAC Measuring Sustainability

Juan Carlos Castilla-Rubio – CEO, Planetary Skin Institute; Vice-Chair GAC Measuring Sustainability

Foreword

1

This report was funded by the CSIRO, including the Energy Transformed Flagship, The Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, the Division of Material Science and Engineering, and the Office of the Chief Executive.

Thank you to the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability for providing the impetus and direction for this work. We thank in particular Marc Levy, Juan Carlos Castillo de Rubio, James Cameron, Lindene Patton, Fulai Sheng, Steven Tebbs and Kathy Mason, for their direction and shaping of this report, particularly during a workshop session at the World Economic Forum in Geneva in April 2013. We thank WEF staff Cecilia Serin, Vanessa Lecerf, Brindusa Fedanza, William Hoffman, Jonathon Cini for their support in running the GAC processes, hosting meetings, and delivery of the work.

This work builds on the work of many of our CSIRO colleagues, who have endlessly and generously discussed sustainability theory and practise with us over several years, thus helping to shape the key ideas in this report. We thank Michael Dunlop, Franzi Poldy, Graham Turner, Luis Rodriguez, Nick Abel, Brian Walker, Barney Foran, Doug Cocks, Russell Gorddard, Matt Colloff, Mark Stafford Smith, Dan Walker, Sonia Graham, Heather McGinness, Brian Keating, and the Sustainable Biomass Production team (Michael

Acknowledgements

O’Connor, Debbie Crawford, Tom Jovanovic, Alexander Herr, Damien Farine, Mick Poole, Helen Murphy, Barrie May, Joely Taylor, Thomas Brinsmead, Jenny Hayward, Nat Raisbeck-Brown, Andrew Warden, Peter Campbell) for sharing their deep thinking and insights, and continuing to challenge our own thinking in this area.

We thank our CSIRO reviewers, Alex Smajgl, Mark Stafford Smith who provided incisive commentary and many useful suggestions on an earlier draft of the report. Various sections were also reviewed by Brian Walker, Matt Colloff, Russell Gorddard, Nick Abel and Tom Measham. We also thank Annemaree Lonergan, Tammy Alley, Rebecca McCallum, Linley Davis, Siobhan Duffy and others in the Office of the Chief Executive for their help with graphics, communications and other support tasks. Thankyou to Sonja Chandler for her professional editing.

One of the central tenets of sustainability is ensuring that the choices that we make about meeting the needs of the present to do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In the spirit of this concept, students from Blue Gum Community School in Canberra, Australia have provided the images used in this report, illustrating their interpretations of what sustainability means to them.

2 Navigating sustainability: measurement, evaluation and action

development, the central questions of ‘sustaining what, for whom, where, and for how long?’ remain laden with human values and social choices. These values and choices are very context-specific and therefore differ across time, space, and culture.

The evolution of sustainability science and application, from early days through to contemporary approaches, is reviewed and summarised in this report. Contemporary thinking recognises that socio-ecological systems are complex and highly dynamic, often under increasing interacting pressures, and undergoing increasingly rapid change. This is placing stress on the minimum level of ecosystem function needed to underpin human well-being in the future. In some cases, social and economic capacity to maintain future well-being is also under threat.

Key messages

A short version of this report, entitled Designing for action: principles of effective sustainability measurement, has been published by the World Economic Forum and can be found at <http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC/2013/WEF_GAC_MeasuringSustainability__PrinciplesEffectiveSustainabilityMeasurement_SummaryReport_2013.pdf>.

We provide here a short summary of 5 key messages.

The understanding and practice of sustainability have flourished over the two decades since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Many insights from the first decade have been translated into tools and approaches for policy makers, businesses, and other decision makers. The science of sustainability has continued to develop, often in response to weaknesses or gaps in the earlier concepts and analysis. More recent contributions are recognised by business and policy, but tools and implementation pathways are not yet mature.

Different approaches to assessing and implementing sustainability have different strengths, weaknesses, and applications. The diversity of these approaches can be very confusing.

Sustainable development and sustainability mean different things to different people, and vary across different contexts. This means that creating workable operational tools for assessing and promoting sustainability will always require judgments that are subject to legitimate debate. Even with widely accepted definitions for sustainability and sustainable

Data and measurement are crucial, but are insufficient alone for assessing sustainability and enhancing sustainable outcomes. Improved understanding is needed to motivate and guide changes in practices and behaviour. This implies that measuring sustainability will be most effective when measurement and evaluation are understood as part of a wider iterative process of learning and acting.

1. There are many approaches to assessing sustainability, and the field is evolving rapidly. Consensus is emerging that characterising the functioning of the physical, ecological, and social systems which support human life and understanding the interactions between these systems are fundamental.

2. Sustainability measurement systems are effective when they are embedded firmly in management and decision‑making processes that promote learning.

3Key messages

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC/2013/WEF_GAC_MeasuringSustainability__PrinciplesEffectiveSustainabilityMeasurement_SummaryReport_2013.pdf

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC/2013/WEF_GAC_MeasuringSustainability__PrinciplesEffectiveSustainabilityMeasurement_SummaryReport_2013.pdf

We identify four key building blocks as essential:

Institutional mechanisms: the formal and informal rules that provide the governance, oversight and stability necessary to implement the sustainability framework

Data – specification, collection, analysis and the use of projections: data, which can consist of measurements, modelled interpolations or projections, are used as the basis for evaluation

Evaluation: interpreting the meaning or value of the data in relation to agreed sustainability objectives

Feedbacks: flow of information or action between components of the framework, including catalysing changes that promote sustainability.

To be effective in achieving sustainability, these four elements need to be addressed and linked across a range of scales. Greater availability of data will only be effective for sustainability if it is used within such an approach.

Recognising the four building blocks of sustainability assessment can help identify the strengths and weaknesses of different tools, and ensure that approaches are used in ways that are fit for purpose. No single tool can meet every need across all scales, issues and applications.

Meeting these challenges will require:

◆ specifying and monitoring key system variables and Indicators that are relevant to local sustainability issues – there is a particular challenge for development and application of compound Indicators that are scientifically robust, relevant to the problem and therefore interpretable and useful

◆ developing cost-effective approaches to data collection, assembly and use, and the generation of suitable model-based data and projections across scales

◆ specifying system boundaries in time and space

◆ addressing the absence of clear and explicit theory regarding ecosystem structure, dynamic function, thresholds, and feedbacks in linked social–economic systems, especially when many systems are operating outside of previously known ranges

◆ estimating cumulative impacts of activities and pressures, and a lack of theory for aggregating and disaggregating across scales

◆ developing methods and fora for quantifying and assessing trade-offs between different dimensions of sustainability, scale, time periods, redistribution of benefit and loss

◆ quantifying human values (especially into the future), recognising and integrating various forms of stakeholder knowledge, and methods for the negotiation of trade-offs whilst providing for requisite ecosystem function across scale, time and place

◆ understanding and managing diverse unknowns

◆ questioning the dominance of neo-classical economic approaches assuming partial equilibrium models, acceptance of existing institutions, valuation of ecosystem function, and assuming that incremental changes ‘fine-tune’ the markets to move the system towards more sustainable outcomes. The sweeping economic transformations required to achieve global-scale sustainability will require broader institutional change and global, adaptive governance arrangements

◆ designing and implementing effective adaptive governance arrangements, nested across scales from local through to global.

It is useful to distinguish between supportive, necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving sustainability:

◆ Raising awareness of sustainability issues, engaging decision makers, and improving the information available are typically supportive actions, making it more likely that products and practices will be more sustainable.

3. There are many unresolved challenges relating to achieving sustainability outcomes through a structured sustainability framework.

4. Ultimately, sustainability can only be achieved at global scale, across all sectors, over very long time frames. But it is important to recognize progress towards this ultimate goal.


◆ Building this information into decision processes, strengthening organisational incentives, and addressing barriers to sustainability are likely to be necessary steps towards achieving sustainability, but may not – of themselves – be sufficient to bring about sustainable products and processes.

◆ Establishing zero-harm supply chains, or cradle-to-grave stewardship arrangements that achieve no-net-loss or zero-harm environmental outcomes while also making positive contributions to stakeholder well-being and living standards appear to be sufficient conditions for assessing something as sustainable within its domain. Some stakeholders may have to compromise on high living standards to achieve sustainability.

All supportive actions should be celebrated and rewarded, including those that build momentum and increase the appetite to take harder, necessary steps towards sustainability. But we should be careful not to over-state or over-claim what has been achieved, as this may reduce support for further action.

Meeting sustainability goals is one of the most important and urgent challenges for humanity. Human pressures already exceed the safe coping capacity of the planet in some issues. In some cases, such as greenhouse emissions, we have only one or two decades to achieve a substantial change in trajectory – or risk extreme impacts.

Practical action is required by millions of businesses and billions of people.

Sustainability assessment tools have a crucial role in informing, guiding and motivating this action – and are already making an important contribution. Existing tools are not perfect, and will continue to be refined. New tools and approaches will need to be developed and implemented, addressing gaps and providing new traction and value. Technical, economic and social challenges will need to be addressed and overcome.

Sustainability is like a bridge from past to future (Photo: Jaslyn Allnutt)

A growing number of public and private enterprises will engage in different ways, for different reasons, around different aspects of sustainability. All members of this community of providers and practitioners have a contribution to building momentum, deepening engagement, and improving outcomes.

The GAC on Measuring Sustainability has a central role in promoting improved understanding of the importance and value of measuring sustainability as a means to enable better manage for sustainable and resilient pathways for development, and in helping businesses, governments and communities identify tools and frameworks that meet their specific needs.

The GAC on Measuring Sustainability, CSIRO and partners look forward to continuing collaboration and mutual learning as together we work towards a more sustainable future.

5. The next phase of this project will develop guidance to simplify choosing the right assessment approaches for different purposes, and to make their use more effective in promoting sustainability.

5Key messages

1SUSTAINABILITY CANNOT BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT BUSINESS TAKING A MORE ACTIVE ROLE

Photo: Deborah O’Connell


1 Introduction1More than two decades after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the world is far from being on track to a more sustainable future. Accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, changes to our oceans and climate, declining biodiversity and ecosystem health, and sharp tensions between food, energy and climate security have brought a renewed focus to the need for practical tools and actions to achieve sustainable development.

There is also a growing realisation that improving the sustainability performance of businesses can reduce risk and improve traditional wealth creation. Attention to the triple bottom line improves the financial bottom line. Creating durable global value for stakeholders can also create durable value for shareholders. Perhaps more fundamentally, sustainability cannot be achieved without business taking a more active role.

This paper reviews conceptual developments and implementation initiatives that aim to improve sustainability outcomes at local, national and international scales. It is provided by CSIRO Australia to support discussion by the World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Agenda Council (GAC) on Measuring Sustainability.

17 1 Introduction

1.1 The GAC task: measuring sustainabilityThe current description of the objective of the GAC is1

The complexity of sustainability issues has increased manifold, making policy choices, investment and management decisions very difficult to develop in a rational and integrated way. Most of the data to manage this complexity and the associated risks exists, but it is not readily available or useable. Making sense of the torrent of data is needed for collective problem solving and enablement of decision making. The exception to this may pertain to long-lived civilian operational space earth observation assets which are in decline and for some critical data gaps in the developing world where data is sparse (eg hi-res weather and water data). Data assets are largely inaccessible, unlinked and stored in silos across public, private and academic institutions around the world. Decision-makers urgently need ‘knowledge to act’ at appropriate spatial and temporal scales that are ‘fit for purpose’ for collective problem solving and enablement of critical decisions – thru user friendly user interfaces. They require transparent access to sound, verifiable, readily available and contextually-specific information and knowledge that is possible when data and analytical models are opened up massively and real insights suddenly become available. The Global Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability aims to design and nurture global public good initiative(s) that focus on (‘measuring’ as means to end) to enabling improved resilience and management of sustainable pathways of development. One such initiative is the Environmental Big Open Data Initiative (EBODI).

1 http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-council-measuring-sustainability-2012 (Last accessed 22 Oct 2012), and further modified by Juan Carlos on 25 October in an early draft of this paper.

Separate and complementary discussion papers will be developed by the GAC in parallel2. These will focus on the following topics (amongst others):

◆ technology and interoperability challenges

◆ decision support capabilities best practices

◆ unleashing the power of open data and open models (including open government initiatives)

◆ unleashing the power of open business disclosure data.

While recognising that the GAC scope focuses heavily on data issues, we consider that improved data access and integration is a necessary but insufficient step in assessing sustainability and enhancing sustainable outcomes. Data need to be ‘fit for purpose’, and able to be interpreted in relation to sustainability objectives. Therefore we place emphasis here on the need for a robust generic framework to support the achievement of sustainability goals at a range of scales.

1.2 Bringing clarityThe conceptual and implementation challenges to evaluation of sustainability result in part from attempts to use disparate data (often collected for a different purpose), the need to consider varying scales of application, the need to evaluate sustainability across complex value chains with multiple economic agents, and from conflicting jurisdictional responsibilities. Frequently, these issues are compounded by a lack of clarity or agreement on the purpose of the analysis, as well as a bewildering range of methodological approaches to the assessment of sustainability.

2 As described in the Meeting Minutes from GAC Taskforce phone conference 10 October 2012.

1 http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-council-measuring-sustainability-2012 (Last accessed 22 Oct 2012), and further modified by Juan Carlos on 25 October in an early draft of this paper.

2 As described in the Meeting Minutes from GAC Taskforce phone conference 10 October 2012.


http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-council-measuring-sustainability-2012



Against this background, we focus this paper on:

1. summarising the major approaches to sustainability measurement and evaluation, and their strengths and weaknesses in relation to different objectives

2. explaining the relationships between measurement and analysis of data; including the interpretation of the data for sustainability evaluation, institutional mechanisms, governance and management decisions at a range of scales, and the feedbacks between these

3. developing a generic sustainability framework containing these key elements, and their relationships across scales and sectors of the economy

4. illustrating these ideas and issues within sectors using examples from forestry, bioenergy, and mining, and across multiple sectors illustrated by the water-food-energy nexus

5. identifying gaps and potential contributions to sustainability measurement and evaluation that the WEF GAC may wish to explore further, including developing guidance to simplify choosing the right approaches for different purposes, and making their use more effective in promoting sustainability.

Section 2 of the report provides an overview of how sustainability science and measurement has developed over the last two decades, including a summary of the major approaches to sustainability assessment and their strengths, weaknesses, and distinctive contributions. We find that sustainability science has flourished over recent years. Many insights from the decade after the Rio Earth Summit have been translated into tools and approaches for policy makers, businesses, and other decision makers. The science has continued to develop – often in response to weaknesses or gaps in the earlier thinking – and we identify emergent themes in the more recent literature. These more recent developments have generally not yet been translated into practical assessment tools and implementation frameworks.

It is crucial to recognise that ‘measuring sustainability’ is necessary but not sufficient for achieving sustainability. Improved information and understanding is needed to motivate and guide changes in practices and behaviour. As a result, sustainability assessment will be most effective when measurement and evaluation are understood as part of a wider iterative process of learning and acting.

Section 3 of the report thus identifies four key building blocks of effective sustainability assessment, and proposes a framework that explains and supports their integration, based on our review of a wide range of literature. The four building blocks are (i) institutional mechanisms, (ii) data, (iii) evaluation, and (iv) feedbacks between these. We argue that sustainability assessment will be most effective when all four elements are addressed, and linked across a range of scales and issues. Recognising these four building blocks of sustainability assessment can help identify the strengths and weaknesses of different tools, and ensure that approaches are used in ways that are fit for purpose. No single tool can meet every need across all scales, issues and applications. The section concludes that sustainability can only ultimately be achieved at global scale, across all sectors, over very long time frames – but that it is important to recognise progress towards this ultimate goal.

Section 4 of the report provides detail and commentary on sectoral approaches to sustainability in forestry, bioenergy, and the extractive industries. In Section 5 we explore some of the implications and approaches for cross-sector interactions, as illustrated by the food-water-energy nexus.

In Section 6 we discuss what success looks like, and provide some guidance on key factors for success before concluding with future directions.

9 1 Introduction

2SUSTAINING WHAT,

FOR WHOM, WHERE, AND FOR HOW LONG?


Photo: Jaslyn Allnutt

Many different definitions for sustainability can be found in the literature, along with insightful analyses of their origins3. In this report, we use a widely accepted definition that could be described, in the language of Miller (2013), as a ‘universalist definition’, embracing the central notions of the planet and its people enduring in perpetuity, while maintaining health, prosperity and well-being. This is commonly translated into a concept of three interdependent ‘pillars’ of sustainability, ie maintaining environmental, social and economic health.

Our Common Future (also known as ‘the Brundtland Report’ (1987)) was a significant and influential document which expressed the concept of sustainability in the context of ‘sustainable development’, defining the latter as ‘Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). We use this as our working definition of ‘sustainable development’ for the purpose of framing the scope of this review.

Within these well-accepted and apparently objective definitions for sustainability and sustainable development, the central questions of ‘sustaining what, for whom, where, and for how long?’ remain laden with human values and social choices, which are very context-specific, and therefore the answers differ across time, space, and culture. Addressing these questions requires methods and fora for negotiation, which are lacking. It also relies on

3 Over the years, many attempts have been made to define sustainability. For example, Pezzey (1992) collated a disparate list of published definitions, and subsequently discussed the futility of trying to distil a universally agreed definition from the five thousand or so in circulation (Pezzey 1997). Kajikawa (2008) and Miller (2013) provide more recent reviews and discussion on the definitions of sustainability, and the philosophical or epistemological basis for these. Miller (2013) provides insight into the different ways in which the social, political and normative dimensions of sustainability are manifest in the definitions, concepts, science and global discourse.

knowledge about the future, which is unavoidably uncertain, with many unknown unknowns (eg Smithson 2010). Therefore, translating definitions for sustainability and sustainable development into operational, assessable, and achievable outcomes is deeply challenging, and continues to evolve.

In addressing the challenge of making the concept of sustainability operational, multiple approaches and methods have been developed. The various approaches to sustainability each have different purposes, scales of implementation, ideologies, epistemologies, theoretical constructs, and usage of terms – which make it a complex and oft-bewildering topic. There is a vast literature covering the scientific research, as well as the global and societal dialogue around objectives, problems and solutions, translation to policy objectives, and implementation pathways.

Because there are numerous approaches, many of which overlap in concept and language, effective application of sustainability theory requires critical evaluation and understanding of the distinctive purpose and contribution of each. In this report, we trace the history of the ideas and provide guidance to the reader to navigate the plurality and complexity of the sustainability ‘landscape’.

To aid clarity, our discussion is structured to provide an overview of the evolution and development of scientific concepts, assessment tools and approaches, and United Nations (UN) initiatives (Figure 2-1).

2 Major initiatives in sustainability theory and practice over the last 20 years

223 Over the years, many attempts have been made to define sustainability. For example, Pezzey (1992) collated a disparate list of published definitions,

and subsequently discussed the futility of trying to distil a universally agreed definition from the five thousand or so in circulation (Pezzey 1997). Kajikawa (2008) and Miller (2013) provide more recent reviews and discussion on the definitions of sustainability, and the philosophical or epistemological basis for these. Miller (2013) provides insight into the different ways in which the social, political and normative dimensions of sustainability are manifest in the definitions, concepts, science and global discourse.

11 2 Major initiatives in sustainability theory and practice over the last 20 years

Global concerns around inter-linkages between pollution, poverty, and environmental degradation gathered momentum in the early 1960s, and rose to the top of the UN agenda in the late 1980s (Box 1, Section 2.1). This was partly based on the disciplinary sciences and methods that had been developing through to the 1990s, and has continued to develop and inform sustainability research (Box 2, Section 2.2).

The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 (Box 3, Section 2.3) was a catalyst to renewed focus on science informing sustainability theory and practice. For the purposes of this report, we have loosely divided the science development and implementation into two phases:

◆ the first decade after the Rio Earth Summit. This science had its foundations prior to 1992, but became very well-developed in the years immediately following the Rio Earth Summit

(Box 4, Section 2.4), and has some fairly mature implementation pathways (Box 5, Section 2.4) which can be used by policy makers, economic operators or other decision makers

◆ the second decade after the Rio Earth Summit where the ‘next generation’ sustainability science has emerged. Although many of these approaches also had roots before 1992, they specifically address limitations in the earlier sustainability constructs. However, the science is still maturing (Box 6, Section 2.5), and the implementation pathways are in the early stages (Box 7, Section 2.5).

We conclude with a brief overview of the 20 years of UN initiatives and partnerships since the Rio Earth Summit (Box 8, Section 2.6) and a summary of the review (Section 2.7).

Figure 2‑1 The evolution of sustainability science and concepts, and implementation tools and frameworks


2.1 Pre 1992: rising global concerns (Box 1)The rising environmental consciousness of the 1960s and 1970s has been very well-documented. It centred on the increasing evidence of environmental degradation and pollution, and the call to conserve precious or finite resources.

Many ecological and economic approaches relevant to developing specific theoretical constructs of sustainability preceded the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and form the starting point for this review. For example, as far back as 1931, mathematical approaches were developed for dealing with the long-term economics of exhaustible resources (Hotelling 1931). Approaches such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and adaptive management were all developed through the 1960s and 1970s, and have matured and are applied widely today. They are viewed by many as successful operational applications of sustainability theory (see Sections 2.4.2 to 2.4.8).

In one of the earliest integrative approaches around sustainability concepts, the ‘Club of Rome’ defined a stabilised or sustainable future as a state of global equilibrium which could satisfy the basic material needs of people into the future (Meadows et al 1972). They contended that reaching this state without a sudden and uncontrolled collapse was possible only if significant change in social behaviour and technological progress occurred with sufficient lead time ahead of environmental or resource constraints (Meadows et al 1972). This approach was subsequently criticised and largely ignored, though many of these criticisms were based on ideology or misapplied theory (Howarth and Norgaard 1990, 1992), rather than on careful analysis (see Turner 2012).

2.2 Underpinning science and methods (Box 2)

2.2.1 THE ROLE OF DISCIPLINARY AND INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES IN SUPPORTING SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Prior to 1992, as well as in the 20 years since, there has been a wealth of scientific study which supports sustainability assessment emerging from various approaches:

◆ discipline-based science, including studies from ecology, hydrology, agronomy, the social sciences, economics, etc. These disciplines provide knowledge about human values and behaviour, ecosystem functions and dynamics to parameterise the more integrative approaches of sustainability. Kajikawa (2008) provides a thorough review of literature in a range of sustainability related journals, and characterises the contribution of various domains (eg climate, biodiversity, agriculture, fisheries, forests, energy and resources, water, economic development, health, lifestyle) to more integrative sustainability frameworks. The discipline of economics in particular has a vast literature on developing sound economic methods to support policy and decision making around sustainability (eg Pearce and Warford 1993; Pezzey 1997; Goodstein 2005)

◆ place-based multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research to solve emerging issues at specific locations, eg examining the interaction of ecological, hydrological, socio-cultural and economic factors within particular geographic areasWhat are we leaving for future generations? (Photo: Jaslyn Allnutt)


◆ integrative research around sustainability issues, including:

– problem-based approaches defined by specific challenges or tensions. Examples include ‘food or water or energy security’, ‘climate change vulnerability’, the ‘food-water-energy nexus’

– goal-oriented approaches such as those focused on eradicating poverty

– solution-based approaches that are seen as intrinsically linked to promoting sustainability. Previous examples would include ‘people-centred development’, or ‘participatory governance’, or ‘triple bottom line’ thinking. Current examples include ‘green (economic) growth’, ‘green cities’, ‘green jobs’, ‘a decoupled or de-carbonised economy’ and ‘climate-ready agriculture’.

Within the literature and general discourse on sustainability, there is generally a lack of distinction between terms reflecting problem-based, solution-based, place-based or goal-oriented labels. They are often used loosely and synonymously with the broader notion of sustainability, which adds to the impression that the term ‘sustainability’ is amorphous and intractable.

Evolving new disciplines and fields of study will be critical for addressing the outstanding challenges of sustainability and sustainable development. For example, the methods and constructs described as ‘Integration and Implementation Science’, recognise that the challenges of solving the complex problems facing society require a new set of skills and methods beyond what is offered by individual disciplines (Bammer 2012). Bammer (2012) contends that the type of integrative applied research required to address complex societal problems (including sustainability) will rely not only on multi- and interdisciplinary approaches (ie bringing together experts from multiple disciplines), but will also require the following:

◆ synthesising disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge with stakeholder knowledge – ie pulling together what is known about the problem from both academic research and practical experience (often known as a trans-disciplinary approach)

◆ understanding and managing diverse unknowns or appreciating that everything about a complex problem cannot be known and that remaining unknowns must be taken into account in decision making and action

◆ providing integrated research support for policy and practice change – that is, supplying policy makers and practitioners with a better understanding of the problem (both what is known and what is not known) in a way that supports them in making decisions and taking action.

Examples of the specific types of approaches that can be applied in integration and implementation as relevant to sustainability are illustrated by Pohl (2010) who demonstrates the collaboration between researchers and stakeholders in knowledge coproduction for sustainability; O’Rourke and Crowley (2013) who use philosophical methods to gain insight into the way knowledge is constructed and viewed in different disciplines; and Midgely (2003) who discusses systems thinking and the importance of boundary setting, and key points of intervention in understanding and creating societal change.

All of the approaches discussed here, including disciplinary, inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary science, provide vital concepts, data, methods, results and conclusions to underpin the understanding and assessment of sustainability.

2.2.2 MEASUREMENT AND DATA TO UNDERPIN SUSTAINABILITY

The term ‘measurement’ can be ascribed to the systematic process of assigning a number to a phenomenon, ie something that can be observed (eg heat can be measured and described as temperature) (Hinkel 2011). Therefore measurement is based on comparative and quantitative concepts that can take on different values, and these concepts are named variables (Bernard 2000 cited in Hinkel 2011). The term ‘data’ is a catchall for measurements, including collected information, projected trends, modelled estimates, and estimates of numerical attributes for concepts which cannot be empirically measured.

The term ‘sustainability assessment’ is used widely in the literature and by practitioners but is often poorly defined. The word ‘assessment’ (derived from the Latin assessāre – ‘to determine the amount of a tax’) is most accurately used where it covers the collection of relevant sustainability data as well as the evaluation of these data. Our rationale for a distinction in the terms ‘measurement and analysis’, ‘evaluation’, and ‘assessment’ in this report is as follows. We use the terms ‘measurement’, ‘collection’, ‘analysis’, or ‘projection’ only in relation to data.


We use the term ‘evaluation’ to cover interpretation of these data with respect to defined sustainability goals, and judgement to inform decision making. We use the term ‘assessment’ where elements of data generation and evaluation are included. This terminology is also consistent with that used in the Risk Management Standard in International Standards Organization (ISO) 31000 (ISO 2009).

Because sustainability is multi-faceted and multi-dimensional, operating across temporal and spatial scales, there is no one measure that can be used to describe it. There have been many efforts to produce simplified interpretations of highly complex interactions and data sets. These are often framed as ‘Indicators’, which can range from relatively simple observations of variables (eg temperature), through to moderately complex Indicators still based on measured data (eg metrics which describe forest fragmentation and risks to biodiversity), through to Indicators which are really theoretical concepts which cannot be measured in any empirical sense (eg climate vulnerability, food security, sustainable competitiveness). Such Indicators are also referred to as ‘data’ in the sustainability discourse. However, compound Indicators include elements of evaluation and assessment in their construction, and we therefore refer to them as an evaluation method (rather than ‘data’), and provide further review in Section 2.4.1.

For even the most basic level of data (eg measured observations), there are further complexities relating to scale, the need to interpolate in time or in space, and the problematic issue of understanding future responses of social-ecological systems, which cannot be measured directly. Therefore, even a complete, high-resolution set of measured data (inherently collected in the past) cannot always provide a reliable picture of future changes. Improving the capacity to make sufficiently accurate projections into the future is a critical and challenging task. Because it is of such fundamental importance, there are whole fields of endeavour around creating and understanding the uncertainty of projections of data or Indicators. Although we do further discuss the ways that different sustainability assessment methods deal with uncertainty, the detailed science and mathematics of uncertainty analysis is beyond the scope of this report.

Many of the data sets important to sustainability assessment are difficult, time-consuming and expensive to measure empirically. There has, therefore, been a major international effort

to improve the efficiency and adequacy of observations and measurement of key system variables and/or proxies or surrogates. For example, technologies such as remote sensing and other sensor technologies have provided very powerful measurement capabilities at a range of scales.

Despite the improvements in technology and collection and collation of many large data sets, the view of many (including the World Economic Forum) is that there is a lack of publicly available, high-quality data that would enable organisations or countries to evaluate or assess how they fare in the area of sustainability. There is an argument that availability of high-quality data will enable countries to monitor the rise or decline in prosperity and quality of life for their citizens, and determine appropriate policies (Bilbao-Osorio et al 2012).

With the increase in capacity to observe and measure, however, comes a parallel requirement to increase the capacity for analysing, evaluating, and synthesising to derive meaning from the vast volumes of data collected. We argue in this report that although access to high-quality data is required for sustainability to be assessed, progress in sustainable development requires a robust construct for evaluation and interpretation of the data, in order to support policies and decision-making.

2.3 The Rio Earth Summit 1992: initiating global goals and partnerships for sustainability (Box 3)There is an extraordinary wealth of dialogue, information, proposals, goals and aspirational agreements generated through more than 20 years of global conversation about sustainable development. The global partnerships, goals and agreements are informed by scientific research and knowledge on human/nature interactions, but are largely driven by economics, and political processes and agendas. It is intractable to comprehensively review the international partnerships and dialogue in this report. Instead, we provide a narrow ‘snapshot’ of UN initiatives and processes, starting with the Rio Earth Summit (Box 3 Figure 2-1), and another of the progress to 2012 (Box 8 Figure 2-1).

Early steps were to articulate the problem and the broad aspirational goals. Subsequent stages defined


concrete objectives and finally measurable actions and/or outcome targets, which could be turned into actions and accounted for through member states of the UN, and other partnership arrangements through non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, known as the Rio Earth Summit, built directly on the ideas proposed in the 1987 Brundtland report. The Rio Earth Summit produced five major agreements:

◆ The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which proposed 27 principles of rights and responsibilities of states for achieving sustainable development

◆ Agenda 21, a non-binding, voluntary action plan of the United Nations and national governments and with goals and actions at local, national, and global levels

◆ The Statement of Forest Principles

◆ The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

◆ The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

While all of the principles and statements contained in these documents were aspirational and somewhat vague, they represented the first critical steps towards defining principles and goals, and led to ongoing processes to make them operational. For example, the Statement of Forest Principles led to further agreement on the assessment of sustainability of forests via the Montréal and Helsinki processes. The implementation of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) through these processes has brought international agreement, and spans from individual forest management units and enterprises, through national to international reporting (see Section 4.1).

The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) provided ongoing processes for the implementation of Agenda 21, by monitoring and reporting on implementation at five-yearly intervals. However, although initiatives such as this provided a forum and process for setting goals and targets at a global level there was (and still is) a lack of mechanisms for global governance. Decision making on how to implement the goals was relegated to partner agencies who could make decisions about those parts of the global system over which they had jurisdiction, rather than the whole system.

Other intergovernmental partnerships that influence/contribute to progress on sustainable development include the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as well as various climate change fora, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), etc. In addition, there are non-governmental fora providing guidance on the concepts and implementation of sustainability – for example The Earth Charter Initiative, which is a mechanism of civil society. The Earth Charter was developed by a consultative process (1994 to 2000), and is a declaration of values and principles based around: respect and care for the community of life; ecological integrity; social and economic justice; and democracy, non-violence and peace (Earth Charter 2013).

2.4 The first decade after Rio: sustainability science and concepts (Box 4) and implementation tools and frameworks (Box 5)‘Sustainable development’ concepts drove the development of methodological approaches in the science domain, which then flowed across to decision making in the implementation domain. These concepts included:

◆ the importance of addressing sustainability at a range of scales, critically at the global level, which led to processes for setting international goals and targets

◆ considering inter- and intra-generational equity, with a long-term perspective

◆ taking a broad-based approach to human needs and well-being, including an integrated or multi-factor approach to analysis and decision making

◆ assessing changes in human, natural and manufactured capital over time, or the valuing of contributions from different capital stocks to human well-being

◆ using a ‘Triple Bottom Line’(TBL) approach with three ‘pillars’: environmental, social, and economic (later a fourth, governance, was added in some cases).

A suite of formal sustainability schemes have been developed and implemented by enterprises, corporations and industry sectors worldwide.


These schemes assess and report on the ‘sustainability’ of their activities for stakeholders or customers, underpin certification of sustainable products, and inform continuous improvement of their operations.

These approaches have varying degrees of coherence, maturity, on ground success or ongoing relevance4.

4 The main science constructs, as well as their maturity in implementation are shown in Table 3-1 with reference to the four element sustainability framework presented in Section 3.

and validated to capture key system characteristics and outcomes, they can reflect essential ecosystem functions as well as human values associated with that function. The development and application of Indicators as measures of system variables at a local scale or broader has been relatively successful.

Scientific development

Methods for measuring some Indicators are well-understood and mature. For example, Indicators which reflect the financial viability of an enterprise, or the pollution of soil, can be relatively easily specified and reported. Others, however, are still under development. They may have a high measurement cost or very complex underlying conceptual models – especially when the scale and local context are critical. For example, it is challenging and expensive to survey measures of biodiversity across space, time and at different scales. Because it is difficult to express biodiversity in simple units, various proxies for biodiversity have been developed (eg habitat hectares Parkes et al 2003). Interpretation of biodiversity data is very scale-dependent – an action that results in a poor biodiversity outcome in a small patch of land, as reflected in the metric, may have little overall effect on biodiversity at a broader scale – and it depends on the management of the landscape as a whole and the dynamics of the population under threat. Spatial linkages can also add to or detract from the biodiversity value of a particular area of land.

Progress in implementation

Well-specified and adequately measured, simple Indicators are critical input to almost all forms of sustainability assessment, from key variables/parameters in simulation modelling through to the formal Principle-Criteria-Indicator (PCI) schemes (Section 2.4.4). There is a vast literature on Indicators relevant to various disciplines, including the use of surrogates and proxies and their predictive capacity for the more fundamental, difficult to measure parameters. There is also an extensive literature on the nature of uncertainty and spatio-temporal variation of such parameters and Indicators, which is beyond the scope of this report.

4 The main science constructs, as well as their maturity in implementation are shown in Table 3-1 with reference to the four element sustainability framework presented in Section 3.

The initiatives which are most mature in their implementation can be characterised as relevant to:

◆ single aspects of sustainability, such as greenhouse gas emissions, water quantity and quality, pollutants, and are often split further in terms of specific goals or policy objectives for each of these

◆ individual enterprises, or economic sectors such as forestry or mining

◆ geographic or jurisdictional regions such as farms, catchments, states, countries.

2.4.1 THE USE OF INDICATORS – FROM SIMPLE INDICATORS TO COMPOUND, COMPLEX INDICATORS

We start the review of approaches by discussing the use of Indicators. Even though they do not represent a definitive or intrinsic theoretical construct or methodological base in the same way as many of the other approaches reviewed in this section, Indicators are used ubiquitously and can be applied to many different theories and methods. They range in approach from simple Indicators, which equate with measurements or observations of key variables, through to compound Indicators, which have (almost always unstated and/or untested) assumptions or theoretical constructs included in the way the Indicator is designed. Further development of compound Indicators continued through the decade after Rio right through to the current time.

2.4.1.1 Simple Indicators

The theory

Relatively simple Indicators, based on the observation of singular characteristics (eg pH, soil phosphorus levels) can be defined, which capture key aspects of any social-ecological system. If well-specified


Advantages and limitations

The apparent simplicity of specifying Indicators often appears attractive and tractable to non-technical stakeholder or implementation groups tasked with their development. However, a lack of understanding of the critical characteristics of effective Indicators frequently leads to some very ineffective Indicators being developed (eg some of those for bioenergy sustainability, see Lewandowski and Faaij 2006, and Section 4.2). In many cases these Indicators are not used or useful for any intended purpose (and sometimes the purpose itself is not clearly specified) (eg Hinkel 2011; Moldan et al 2012). There is a tension between scientific accuracy, cost and effort and the need for practical and adoptable Indicators that create a real incentive and empower the users. Developing and measuring Indicators is therefore not as simple as many claim – and the process is ideally developed by experts in consultation with local stakeholders.

2.4.1.2 Compound and complex Indicators which combine measurement and assessment

The theory

There has been a significant effort, starting from before the Rio Earth Summit 1992 through to the present, in developing compound or composite Indicators in an attempt to summarise or condense large amounts of complex information into a tractable form of information for decision making. There is an ever-burgeoning suite of compound Indicators

– for example, climate change vulnerability and adaptation indices (Hinkel 2011), the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) (de Sherbinin et al 2012), the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), or the even more complex sustainability-adjusted GCI (Bilbao-Osorio et al 2012). The justification for, or purpose of such Indicators is varied.

For example, the World Economic Forum is attempting to operationalise the sustainability-adjusted GCI, determining how it can be measured and reported, and used to inform its members’ decisions on balancing economic progress with social inclusion and good environmental stewardship. The rationale for a sustainability–adjusted GCI includes (Bilbao-Osorio et al 2012):

◆ providing cogent signals to policy makers and business leaders in the World Economic Forum

◆ understanding complex relationships between determinants of long-term economic growth and social or environmental sustainability

◆ providing preliminary comparative assessment on where individual economies stand on sustainable competitiveness

◆ calling attention to the lack of high-quality data which would allow countries to fully understand how they fare in these critical areas.

Thus, unlike simple Indicators (Section 2.4.1.1), assessment or evaluation can be an inherent feature of the Indicator itself.


Indicators must be defined and measured at the relevant scale (Photo: Jaslyn Allnutt)


There is a wealth of literature on the development and application of complex Indicators, as well as on typologies or classification schemes for the arrays of Indicators that now exist (eg as reviewed by Singh et al 2009). There are now many sets of compound Indicators developed by different groups for different purposes, and they are deployed in many formal schemes across different levels, sectors and accounting systems (see for example Sections 2.4.4, 2.4.6). There are, however, some serious limitations to the effectiveness of highly synthesised Indicators for sustainability assessment and decision making.

A detailed critique of the Indicators of climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity was published by Hinkel (2011). Hinkel (2011) firstly provided a rigorous conceptual framework when speaking about vulnerability Indicators, and then analysed both the scientific arguments for developing such Indicators, as well as the purpose and application of carrying out vulnerability assessments using such Indicators. The following six purposes were identified: (i) identifying mitigation targets; (ii) identifying vulnerable entities; (iii) raising awareness; (iv) allocating adaptation funds; (v) monitoring adaptation policy; and (vi) conducting scientific research. He concluded that vulnerability Indicators are not an appropriate tool for five of the six purposes, and that they may only be appropriate to identify vulnerable people, regions or sectors at local scales when systems can be narrowly defined and deductive arguments are available for selecting indicating variables, and inductive arguments are available for aggregating. For all the other purposes, either vulnerability is not an adequate concept, or Indicator-based approaches are not an appropriate method.

The logic, analysis and recommendations of Hinkel (2011) are sound, and applicable to any high-level compound Indicators. Employing this rigour more widely in the development of compound Indicators would very likely reduce the burgeoning number of Indicators under development, reduce the confusion and increase the utility of the approach.


Efforts at designing and implementing compound Indicators representing the synthesis of complex ideas, or processes, for implementation at broader scales have generally been less successful than those aimed at singular variables nested within well-founded PCI schemes (eg Montréal Criteria; see Section 4.1).

There are some examples of robust compound Indicators, for example, the energy intensity improvement Indicators proposed by Rogerl et al (2013). This study links integrated assessment and scenario modelling to assess the contribution of renewable energies towards meeting several objectives in the energy sector, and the contribution that this would make towards reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study also appropriately cautions that despite the efficacy of energy Indicators such as energy intensity, they should not be used as the sole yardstick to measure climate action because this could result in unintended or undesirable consequences for climate protection.

Currently the international effort continues into designing and applying compound Indicators, and ‘harmonising’ the many thousands of Indicators that have sprung up in different sectors, for different purposes. There is increasing implementation of Indicators in a systematic and cohesive manner for accounting purposes (eg see Section 2.4.6; and UNEP 2011).


A common problem with Indicator use is that the underlying theory, structure and dynamics of the system, and therefore relevance, of the Indicators are not described. Indicator sets are very often a product of a committee of experts, each member of which has their own favourite Indicator. For reasons of peace and equity, all are included, even though the unexpressed theories and systemic assumptions behind them may be incompatible.

Therefore, for Indicators to be effective, they require the following characteristics (Raison et al 1997):

◆ be relevant to system boundary, and represent key control or response variables in the system

◆ must be firmly linked to sustainability Criteria in PCI schemes, and be relevant to the region and goals of management

◆ be sufficiently sensitive to measure critical change with confidence

◆ have costs appropriate for their benefits (including non-economic costs and benefits)

◆ be feasible and realistic to measure over relevant time frames and spatial scales

◆ have targets or thresholds built in, or be capable of having these applied


◆ contribute directly to specified goals, continuous improvement in management and performance, or adaptive management and governance

◆ taken together, the Indicators must also be sufficient to adequately measure sustainability.

Compound Indicators will only be effective when systems can be narrowly defined at local scales, and deductive arguments are available for selecting indicating variables and inductive arguments for aggregating them to higher scales, ie have a sound scientific or other relevant basis, be understandable and clearly interpretable (Hinkel 2011).

When development of Indicators is intended to inform policy, it is important to evaluate and recognise the needs of the policy system, the key leverage and access points of information, and what types of Indicators are appropriate for proper learning and utilisation (de Sherbinin et al 2012). They should therefore be developed and used judiciously.

2.4.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RELATED APPROACHES

2.4.2.1 EIA and SIA

The theory

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) are approaches to systematically examine (usually in advance) the likely impacts or consequences of a development project. The series of defined steps includes

◆ a structured consultation with affected communities

◆ identification and measurement of pre- and post-development environmental factors and baselines

◆ risk assessment to identify and assess the highest risk impacts of the development and mitigation measures (Section 2.4.7)

◆ a formal process for approval.

The logic underlying the concept is that when a new activity or development is proposed, the potential sustainability aspects and impacts5 are assessed a priori. This requires quantification of the projected difference between the condition of the system with and without the proposed activity or development.

Frequently, approvals for developments are contingent upon a proponent demonstrating a priori estimations of the risk of impacts and/or effects, and strategies to mitigate the major or significant risks. Indicators and targets are usually set for various environmental or socio-economic aspects, and monitoring and reporting programs are required.


EIA and SIA are very mature concepts and methods, which have not had significant further conceptual development over the last two decades. There have, however, been significant advances in more discipline-based or place-based science (Section 2.2.1) to define baselines and effects, to measure and monitor Indicators, and to quantify environmental and socio-economic interactions and future trajectories.


The EIA and SIA processes are commonly used and well-understood by regulatory authorities, industries, and corporations, and are often a key input to decision making on individual project or facility developments. They are often combined with other conceptual approaches (for example, risk assessment (Section 2.4.7), best management practice, and adaptive management (Section 2.4.8).


The EIA and SIA approaches focus on identification and mitigation of undesirable impacts. If applied with good underpinning data sets and robust methods, EIA can help to achieve ‘sustainable development’ at the local level. It does not easily deal with complex trade-offs between different dimensions of

5 The terms ‘sustainability aspects’, ‘impacts’ and ‘effects’ are used somewhat synonymously in much of the scientific and policy literature on impact assessment and sustainability, and this can cause a great deal of confusion. Therefore ISO 14001 defines ‘sustainability aspect’ as the element of activities, products and services of an economic operator that can have social, economic or environmental impacts. The word ‘effect’ is used to denote the deviation from a baseline – for example, the effect of a discharge from a factory to a river on the water quality baseline of the river. In recognition that many individual economic operators (who are in many countries formally responsible for conducting an EIA) do not have the resources to estimate a long-term baseline, the word ‘impact’ was defined in the context of an unknown change compared with a baseline – for example, the operator may report a discharge to a river as an impact, without knowing the its effect on the river compared with its projected condition without the impact. A sustainability impact is defined as any change to sustainability, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partly resulting from a defined activity. Aspects are therefore generic dimensions of sustainability, compared to impacts which are site-specific. The term ‘effect’ is the measured outcome of an impact.

5 The terms ‘sustainability aspects’, ‘impacts’ and ‘effects’ are used somewhat synonymously in much of the scientific and policy literature on impact assessment and sustainability, and this can cause a great deal of confusion. Therefore ISO 14001 defines ‘sustainability aspect’ as the element of activities, products and services of an economic operator that can have social, economic or environmental impacts. The word ‘effect’ is used to denote the deviation from a baseline – for example, the effect of a discharge from a factory to a river on the water quality baseline of the river. In recognition that many individual economic operators (who are in many countries formally responsible for conducting an EIA) do not have the resources to estimate a long-term baseline, the word ‘impact’ was defined in the context of an unknown change compared with a baseline – for example, the operator may report a discharge to a river as an impact, without knowing the its effect on the river compared with its projected condition without the impact. A sustainability impact is defined as any change to sustainability, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partly resulting from a defined activity. Aspects are therefore generic dimensions of sustainability, compared to impacts which are site-specific. The term ‘effect’ is the measured outcome of an impact.


sustainability, and is not useful for decision making at broader scales, eg regional (sub-national) or national.

Defining the time and spatial boundaries of assessment and the scale of influence are critical, but often contentious in sustainability assessment by any method – eg how far down stream or out to sea do impacts go? If the development indirectly stimulates a large local population increase, that uses land and water, is that within scope? How far into the future ought we to look? Can we allow for uncertainties in our science in the design of the project? The issue of defining system boundaries has been levelled at Impact Assessment (especially in Life Cycle Assessment see next Section), but in reality the system boundary problem is relevant to all approaches to sustainability assessment.

2.4.2.2 LCA

The theory

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an approach developed to assess the environmental impacts of processes or products through their entire life cycle, ie cradle to grave. It stems from an impact assessment paradigm, with early efforts and databases based on environmental pollutants and toxicology, and international harmonisation supported through the international Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Impact categories have been expanded to address a wide range of environmental effects, and composite indices have been developed to provide a measure of overall environmental impact. It is often used to compare alternative products or processes. The method and tools, as well as the underpinning data sets and impact functions continue to mature, and this is viewed as a modern method with high relevance and utility.


LCA has received enormous attention in terms of methodological development, and over the last two decades has matured and been tested in many different applications.

While initially developed to assess manufactured products, such as for comparison of alternative packaging materials, LCA has more recently been applied in agricultural and forestry systems, to assess the impacts of production of various food and fibre products. This has raised challenges due to the temporal and spatial variability of biological systems,

and the need for a broader range of methods to capture the issues of importance in these systems. For example, assessment methods are being developed for water use, land use and biodiversity. Traditionally, LCA provides a compilation of the inputs, outputs and effects of a product along the value chain from raw material acquisition, through processing, use and end-of-life, to estimate the direct impact of producing that product. This is known as ‘attributional’ LCA.

An alternative approach, called ‘consequential’ LCA, assesses the effect of a change in the level of output of a product, including impacts that result indirectly such as through displacement of other processes. Consequential LCA is often considered to be more relevant for policy decisions, though others believe it is less robust as it has greater uncertainty.


International standards for LCA have been agreed (ISO 2006a, 2006b) and are diligently followed by the growing community of LCA practitioners. Quality assurance is taken seriously and compliance is assessed though independent peer review.

LCA is widely used for product comparisons at enterprise and sector levels and can be very helpful to purchaser, consumer or other decision maker in making choices about alternative products or processes based on their own set of criteria (eg less GHG emissions or water use). It can also be used at national levels – for example to support policies for reducing GHG emissions (eg EU Renewable Energy Directive). It is also often used to report and claim sustainability credentials by producers. Uncertainty due to unknowable aspects such as length of service life and method of disposal can be handled through scenario approaches applied to use stage and end of life stage (eg CEN 2012).


Like EIA, LCA can be valuable in revealing sustainability issues and informing decisions within a narrow context. It is useful in informing policy makers and consumers, and guiding producers in improving their production processes.

LCA, if comprehensive in scope (ie covering all relevant aspects) is very resource consuming. To reduce the costs and improve consistency, many countries are developing national inventory databases, and industry sectors are preparing ‘product category rules’ that detail the elements to be included,


system boundaries, and appropriate data sources and assumptions for specific product categories.

It is critical that the goal and scope of the study are adequately defined and the system boundary is appropriately drawn to allow valid comparisons (Cherubini et al 2009).

Normalisation approaches, applied in composite indices in LCA, may not be applicable beyond the specific situations for which they were developed, as they reflect the sustainability concerns and environmental constraints of a given location.

2.4.3 MAINTAINING CAPITAL STOCKS AND FLOWS, AND THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE (TBL)

The theory

There was an early focus, in the years after the Rio Earth Summit, on the concepts of ‘maintaining capital’, where the economic concepts and language of capital stocks and flows, and the ‘bottom line’ was used as a unifying concept. Different types of capital are recognised, including economic, human, social, cultural, built, and natural.

The debate around achieving sustainability goals using the concept of stocks and flows focused around two endpoints:

◆ ‘strong’ sustainability – maintaining the capital stock of each type, consuming only the ‘interest’ (or ‘flow’) component (this assumes that there is no substitution between the different types of stocks, ie they cannot be traded off against each other)

◆ ‘weak’ sustainability – maintaining the sum total of all of capital stocks, while allowing any degree of trade-off between the different types (this assumes complete substitutability between different types of stock).

In theory or in reality, both of these extremes have limitations for guiding decisions about sustainable development. The concept of strong sustainability downplays or limits the ‘development’ component of sustainable development, as most human activity will have some negative impact on the environment, at least for some period. This tension is strongest where environmental quality is assessed against an idealised ‘natural’ or ‘pre-human impact’ benchmark, rather than an approach emphasising ecosystem integrity or functionality. To illustrate, a modified agricultural landscape may be highly functional and

resilient, and may even generate greater biomass (eg due to water diversions for irrigated agriculture) than the original landscape. Such a system could be considered sustainable from a functional perspective if managed in a way that maintains soil quality and other key stock indicators, but will always fall short of being ‘natural’. Next, a landscape might be managed in a way that delivers significant and growing food output, but also involves a gradual loss of ecosystem resilience and functions. If this system manages to retain critical functions, the well-being gains from higher food yields may be considered to outweigh the well-being losses from environmental decline. This would satisfy a weak sustainability test if the increase in the value of human capital outweighs the decrease in the value of natural or environmental capital.

An intermediate view draws attention to critical capital, a sub-set of each of the different capital stocks that is not able to be replaced and for which there are no effective substitutes. In practice, most examples of critical capital are natural assets, although a loss of social capital may be impossible to repair or replace on relevant time scales, and some cultural artefacts (built capital) will be irreplaceable (see Hatfield-Dodds and Pearson 2005; Pearce and Warford 1993).

The ubiquitous concept of the three foundational ‘pillars’ of sustainability – environment, social and economic – is a parallel concept to capital stocks and flows. Indicators are measured and reported according to each of the pillars, and used to assess trends or the state of the system, and thus to support decision making by integrating across all three pillars. The use of TBL as an evaluation method to support decision making relies on maintaining the bottom line, ie the additive outcome of trade-offs within and between the three separate pillars (consistent with the concept of weak sustainability above).


The concepts of maintaining capital (and evaluating this through either a strong or weak sustainability lens), as well as the TBL approach have been subject to a great deal of analysis by the scientific domain, in a range of systems at a range of scales. This has resulted in some criticism of the concept.

It has become clear that while the environment can tolerate some level of degradation in order to continue to deliver social or economic values now and into the future, there are multiple and interacting critical ‘thresholds’ which, if crossed,


will change the state of the environment and mean that it is no longer able to deliver important capital flows (ecosystem services, goods, values, etc). This is discussed further in Sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3.

If the evaluation lens to support decision making is to meet a goal of maintaining the total capital, or TBL, infinite trade-offs can theoretically be made between different forms of capital, or of the three pillars of environment, economic and social values. The environmental pillar is explicitly considered to be no more important, and therefore given no precedence, over the other pillars – as long as the bottom line objectives are met, the trade-offs are infinitely negotiable within basic biological, physical, chemical limits constraints, eg roosters can’t lay eggs; mass and energy are conserved.

Substitutes are available for some types of capital stock, although the cost of a technological substitution may be high and it may not constitute replacement. For example, water treatment plants can now substitute for ecosystems in providing clean drinking water, although this may be expensive and will not overcome the impacts of water pollution on other components of the ecosystem and the services they provide (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a). In addition, substitution and offsets can change the distribution of beneficiaries in time and space. Therefore, the distributional impacts of any offset or substitution need to be quantified in order for the trade-off to be fully evaluated, and this is extremely difficult. There may be a social agreement to allow or offset a high level of degradation or even irreversible threshold changes, of some categories of resources (particularly where there is a future substitution for that resource), or in some geographic locations or sites in order to provide agreed socio-economic value. But increasingly, limits to environmental substitutability are recognised, because losses may be irreversible and critical to human survival and well-being (Dietz and Stern 2008).


The TBL approach contributes to sustainable development across all scales from local through to global (across a range of enterprises, corporations, industry sectors and government national accounts). Scientific concerns about the use of a ‘weak’ sustainability TBL to inform decisions apply to the evaluation of outcomes at broad geographic scales, or at the whole-of-system level.

At finer scales (eg enterprise or sector level), where there has been a significant effort to move beyond reporting, evaluating and making decisions on the basis of only financial information, TBL has provided a tangible set of methods and reporting frameworks to support decision making by individual enterprises, sectors, government and non-governmental organisations at sub-national, national and international levels. Much effort has been invested in defining Indicators relevant to economic, environmental and social performance for application within specific TBL reporting schemes (for example, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the forestry C&I schemes, see Section 4.1). Therefore, especially at the scale of enterprises and corporations, the approach of measuring and reporting TBL Indicators has been a significant conceptual and practical step forward. It has led to higher levels of awareness and the consideration of a broader range of factors in decision making.


These approaches suffer from limitations inherent in all of the ‘partial’ approaches – ie making and implementing decisions about part of the system in the absence of clear or explicit theory and system description, in the lack of certainty about the future options and substitutions, and in the absence of a process to ensure that the parts ‘add up’ to a ‘sustainable’ whole. These include:

◆ TBL measures and reports Indicators relevant to each pillar (which are not directly comparable or translatable to each other), which makes it difficult to quantify trade-offs and achieve a stable bottom line

◆ while TBL approaches may be consistent with sustainable development within each part of the system (eg an enterprise, sector, geographic site or region, country), they do not preclude an unsustainable outcome at the whole-of-system level (eg increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).

Despite the limitations of TBL to underpin decision making at higher order scales (national through to global), the use of TBL reporting and decision-support frameworks at enterprise and corporate levels forms a useful (and perhaps necessary) contribution to ‘sustainable development’. In addition, many of the data, reporting mechanisms and models developed and implemented under


a TBL construct will be usable and useful within other, more contemporary constructs (eg scenario analysis or foresighting as discussed in Section 2.5.1, and keeping ‘accounts’ and developing trends and projections as discussed in Section 2.4.6). The stocks and flows construct underpinned the development of more recent approaches, such as environmental services (see Section 2.5.2 for further discussion).

2.4.4 PRINCIPLE-CRITERIA-INDICATOR SCHEMES FOR MEASURING, ASSESSING, REPORTING, AND CERTIFYING SUSTAINABILITY

The theory

There are many formalised schemes which use a hierarchy of Principles (aspirational goals), Criteria (descriptions of the components of sustainability, against which each Indicator will be evaluated) and Indicators (usually measured observations). These schemes are usually referred to as Principle-Criteria-Indicator (PCI) schemes (or C&I, for Criteria and Indicators). While Criteria across different sustainability assessment schemes usually address similar themes, appropriate Indicators vary widely, depending on the sustainability goals, the scale of assessment, available technologies and data, and the application location.

Effective Indicators capture reliable measures of an aspect of each criterion, are repeatable and unambiguous, are practical to measure and report, and are sensitive to change. When developing formalised schemes, Indicators can be relatively easily specified by stakeholders and committees. However, as discussed in Section 2.4.1, this frequently leads to ill-founded Indicators being specified. It is critical to the success of such schemes, however, to include consultation with relevant technical experts as well as local stakeholders to ensure the Indicators are providing information on the key system variables, are tractable for any given system, and ‘fit for purpose’ with knowledge of the underpinning science, technology platforms and statistical methods.


There is little scientific research and analysis per se around PCIs; the science is the same as described for effective Indicators (Section 2.4.1).


Many formalised schemes for sustainability assessment, evaluation, reporting and certification, have been developed and implemented – for example

in forestry, organic agriculture, extractive industries and energy (see Section 4) where they have become a commonly accepted way to track measures of sustainability. In such schemes, individual economic agents or managing authorities report on a number of sound, simple Indicators that can be used to monitor change in aspects of each sustainability criterion (Raison et al 2001).

Many PCI schemes have been linked with certification schemes, where third-party audit and verification enables a given enterprise to demonstrate, report and claim sustainability credentials.


PCI approaches, linked with third-party audit and certification, can be very effective at enterprise scale to show the relative sustainability of different production systems or processes. In some sectors or geographic regions, consumers have higher expectations that enterprises should be able to provide sustainability certification of their product or process. In some cases, enterprises voluntarily obtain sustainability certification either to gain a premium price on their product, or to gain ‘green’ market share. In some areas (for example, forestry and bioenergy, Section 4), sustainability certification may be required in order to gain access to markets, rather than command a price premium.

In many cases (eg forestry Section 4.1), PCI approaches are based on an impact assessment paradigm, and have Indicators appropriate to this theoretical construct. However, with some emerging PCI systems (eg bioenergy, Section 4.2), the Indicators mix many different constructs including management practices, ecosystem services, or complex indicators such as ‘food security’. This may lead to confusion and poor outcomes in implementation.

Effective sustainability frameworks embed C&I within an explicit conceptual understanding of how the system being evaluated functions at specified scales. For successful implementation, the C&I should also be linked to processes for setting goals (sustaining what, for whom, for how long), selecting methods for measurements and calculation of Indicators, and evaluating and reporting. All of these processes will ideally be framed by open and transparent consultation with relevant stakeholders and communities of consent. C&Is are not an end in themselves; the crucial thing is that they are applied, and that management is adapted accordingly.


There are many studies which review the efficacy of certification schemes for improved, demonstrable sustainability outcomes. The effectiveness of this in terms of on-the-ground outcomes for sustainability is strongly linked to the efficacy of governance and compliance structures (eg Cowie et al 2012). These issues are further discussed in Section 4.

2.4.5 (DRIVER)-PRESSURE-STATE-(IMPACT)-RESPONSE (DPSIR OR PSR) APPROACH

The theory

The Pressure-State-Response framework pre-dates the Rio Earth Summit, arising in the 1980s. It was adopted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for environmental reporting and country performance reviews in the early 1990s, and has subsequently been further developed and adapted for many national and international purposes. The OECD framework uses Indicators that reveal direct and indirect environmental pressures (Pressure), environmental condition and trends (State) and societal responses (Response), in what is known as the PSR approach (OECD 2008). Subsequently Indicators of indirect driving forces (Driver) as well as impacts on human systems (Impact) were added, creating the DPSIR framework (Smeets and Weterings 1999).

Progress in the science domain approach

The DPSIR framework provides a structured approach to identifying indicators that reveal not only the health of environmental systems, but also the causes of positive or negative environmental trends, and the societal efforts to manage environmental issues. The concept is well-developed, and the scientific progress overlaps that of other indicator frameworks. Its limitations are also well-understood: the causal relationships are often indirect and assumed, and over-simplified. Recent developments include the addition of resilience assessment. As discussed in Section 2.4.4, inclusions of complex Indicators with very different theoretical constructs may prove to be confusing, and have low utility unless these Indicators are judiciously selected and applied (Section 2.4.1.2).

Progress in implementation domain

The OECD has defined 50 core environmental indicators (OECD 2003) and a smaller set of 10 key indicators (OECD 2008) within the PSR framework, which are used by the 34 member countries for regular reporting to the OECD. The European Environment

Agency expanded the PSR framework by adding the Drivers and Impacts, to provide specific information to guide policy development and assess the effectiveness of policy responses (Smeets and Weterings 1999). UN agencies (UNEP and UNCSD) have also applied the DPSIR or closely related frameworks (Pinter et al 2005)

The DPSIR approach is also applied in State of the Environment (SoE) reporting at national and sub-national scale in many countries. For example, it is used in national and state level SoE reporting in Australia, and has been applied to specific industries such as in assessment of sustainability of agriculture and forestry (Commonwealth of Australia 1998; Smith and McDonald 1998; SCARM 1998; ANZECC State of the Environment Reporting Taskforce 2000).

Advantages and constraints

Because the DPSIR approach requires quantification of pressures and responses in addition to environmental condition, it is valuable for interpreting causes of observed Indicators of state and impact, and therefore for devising appropriate policy responses. It can be used to inform or generate changes in policy and management practices if it is applied within an adaptive management approach.

A further strength of this approach is an established, internationally agreed (OECD) set of environmental Indicators that are re-calculated and updated at regular intervals and are thus valuable for quantifying trends. The OECD’s set of 10 key Indicators aims to reduce complexity in informing governments and the community of trends in major environmental issues, although it is limited to the 34 OECD countries so does not provide a global assessment.

Consideration of the links between the DPSIR elements can be enlightening: the relationship between Drivers and Pressures is a function of the eco-efficiency of the technology in use (ie the extent to which an increase in driving force can be absorbed without increasing the pressure); the relationship between the Impacts and the State reflects the dose/response relationship and thresholds for these systems; similarly, the link between Pressure and State reflects pathways and routes of dispersion of the potentially damaging substance; societies’ Response to Impacts depends on perceived significance, and may be informed by risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis; the impact of the Response on the Driver reflects the effectiveness of the Response (Smeets and Weterings 1999; Agu 2007).


The DPSIR framework has been criticised for overlooking natural variability (Bowen and Riley 2003), for encouraging a linear consideration of causal relationships and thereby overlooking the complexity of human-environment interactions (Ness et al 2010). Practical concerns are raised because there are multiple pressures for most states, and multiple states arising from single pressures, thus creating difficulties in identifying the most appropriate indicators (Pintér et al 2005).

Carr et al (2007) have criticised the DPSIR approach for downplaying the significance of traditional knowledge, and implying that it is only national governments, supra-national organisations, and international organisations that have the capacity to effect change. DPSIR does not readily capture the impacts of aggregated informal responses. The authors claim that the DPSIR framework entrenches current hierarchies and thus constrains innovation in sustainable development. As with many critiques levelled at particular methods of sustainability assessment, this valid set of concerns is relevant to most approaches.

2.4.6 ACCOUNTING SYSTEM APPROACHES

Following the introduction of the concept of sustainable development in 1987 (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987), countries started to recognise and assess the value of their natural capital. Over the past 25 years there has been an enormous effort in developing systems for the accounting of natural resources and pollution, both

in the science and implementation domains. These efforts culminated in the introduction of the System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) by the UN (United Nations 1993; United Nations 2003; Lange 2007; EC et al 2012). Such an integration of national-level, official statistics strongly supports the implementation of broader facets of sustainability.

More recently, accounting for resource use and pollution from a consumption – rather than production or territorial – perspective has emerged. Consumption-Based Accounting (CBA) is a new approach, offering additional insights into the driving forces of environmental impacts. In the following we briefly introduce and discuss the SEEA and CBA approaches.

2.4.6.1 System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA)

The theory

The SEEA contains the internationally agreed standard concepts, definitions, classifications, accounting rules and tables for producing internationally comparable statistics on the environment and its relationship with the economy. The SEEA is a system for the compilation of economic and environmental data in a standardised, national framework.

The SEEA is much more than just an addition to traditional economic accounting or an adjustment to macroeconomic Indicators (Lange 2007). It is a much larger system that includes detailed statistics about the stocks of various natural resources, use of materials and energy, the generation of pollution, taxes and subsidies related to the environment, and expenditures incurred to protect the environment and manage natural resources. Subsystems of the SEEA framework elaborate on specific resources or sectors, including energy, water, fisheries, land and ecosystems, and agriculture.

The revised Central Framework of the SEEA encompasses three main domains:

◆ physical flows from the environment to the economy are described as natural inputs (divided into natural resource inputs, inputs of energy from renewable sources, and other natural inputs from soil and air)

◆ environmental activities and related transactions include two economic activities: environmental protection and resource management

◆ environmental assets comprise naturally occurring mineral and energy resources, land, soil


Effective policy and governance is critical for sustainability outcomes (Photo: Jaslyn Allnutt)

resources, timber resources, aquatic resources, other biological resources (excluding timber and aquatic resources), and water resources. Inclusion of these assets was motivated by the concern that current patterns of economic activity are depleting and degrading the available environmental assets more quickly than they can regenerate.


The SEEA has been developed over the past 25 years. Building upon its predecessors from 1993 and 2003 (United Nations 1993; United Nations 2003), the thoroughly revised SEEA Central Framework was adopted in 2012 by the United Nations Statistical Commission as the first international standard for environmental-economic accounting (EC et al 2012). The revision process was managed and supervised by the United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA).

Work on two additional parts of the SEEA, the Experimental Ecosystem Accounts and Applications and Extensions, is ongoing. These two areas are in the experimental stage and do not have the status of an international statistical standard yet:

◆ SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting provides a complementary perspective to the Central Framework and deals with the principles of measuring physical assets, classification, boundaries, data quality, etc, as well as approaches to valuation for ecosystem services and assets, and accounting for ecosystems in monetary terms

◆ SEEA Applications and Extensions describes different types of environmental-economic analyses and analytical techniques such as Environmentally Extended Input-Output Analysis (EE-IOA).

Whilst a large number of research issues were resolved during the preparation of the SEEA Central Framework, a few specific areas for further research were identified by the UNCEEA (EC et al 2012):

◆ development of classifications

◆ development of consistent valuation techniques beyond the System of National Accounts in the absence of market prices

◆ definition of resource management

◆ accounts and statistics relating to the minimisation of natural hazards and the effects of climate change

◆ depletion of natural biological resources

◆ accounting for soil resources

◆ valuation of water resource

◆ approaches to the measurement of adapted goods.

While economic valuation remains controversial, the issue is not whether to monetise the accounts, but rather, how and to what degree of accuracy (Lange 2007).


The SEEA is the first international statistical standard for environmental-economic accounting and is now widely used by national statistical offices around the world. In 2012 the SEEA Central Framework was adopted as an international standard by the United Nations Statistical Commission at its forty-third session (EC et al 2012). It is supported by the European Commission, the FAO, IMF, OECD, UN and the World Bank.

The SEEA brings statistics on the environment and its relationship to the economy into the core of official statistics. The revised SEEA Central Framework is an outcome of much path-breaking work on extending and refining concepts for the measurement of the interaction between the economy and the environment (EC et al 2012). It is expected that regular compilation of environmental-economic accounts in national statistical offices will foster international statistical comparability and provide policy-relevant information at national, regional and international levels.

Given its multi-disciplinary scope, the SEEA Central Framework was designed to be coherent and complementary with other international standards, recommendations and classifications. The SEEA does not propose any single headline Indicator. Rather it is a multi-purpose system that generates a wide range of statistics and Indicators with many different potential analytical applications. It is a flexible system in that its implementation can be adapted to countries’ priorities and policy needs while at the same time providing a common framework and common concepts, terms and definitions.

The standard does not stipulate a degree of implementation but leaves it up to countries to choose which part(s) to implement, depending on the specific environmental issues arising in the country. Even if a country desires eventually to implement the full system, it may decide to focus its initial efforts on those accounts that are most relevant to current issues (EC et al 2012).



The SEEA Central Framework offers an integrated, internally consistent series of environmental accounts. Its biggest advantage is arguably the compatibility and close integration with economic accounts making linkages and interdependencies between environment and economy transparent. It enables the derivation of coherent Indicators and descriptive statistics to monitor not only the state of the environment but also the interactions between the economy and the environment to better inform decision making.

The SEEA is useful for economic modellers examining the use of environmental resources as often great effort is required to make environmental statistics consistent with the input-output tables at the core of their models (Lange 2007; Wiedmann et al 2011). Data contained in the SEEA can for example be used to assess the national and international economic and environmental effects of different policy scenarios within a country, between countries and at a global level (United Nations 2003; EC et al 2012). However, the framework assumes a linear relationship between economic and resource parameters which might not always be the case, especially over longer periods of time. Relaxing this assumption requires the linking of dynamic economic models to dynamic biophysical models which is beyond the scope of a static accounting framework such as SEEA.

Specific policy areas where the SEEA is useful include energy and water resource management; patterns of consumption and production and their effect on the environment; and the so-called ‘green economy’ and economic activity related to the adoption of environmental policies. At the same time, more work is needed on research and implementation as indicated above. It also remains to be seen how many countries adopt the framework in routine statistical practice and which parts are most widely implemented and most useful for decision making.

2.4.6.2 Consumption‑based accounting (CBA)

The theory

CBA of environmental pressures or impacts establishes a link between consumption levels and patterns of nations, sectors, populations or individuals and the associated environmental pressures or impacts, regardless of where these might occur. Conceptually, consumption-based inventories of nations can be thought of as being derived from production-based

inventories adjusted for the pressures/impacts associated with international trade (Consumption = Production – Exports + Imports). CBA is most frequently used to provide additional information to greenhouse gas (carbon footprint) accounting for nations (Peters 2008a; Davis and Caldeira 2010) and in relation to international trade (Peters and Hertwich 2008a; Peters et al 2011). However, CBA is increasingly being applied to other pressures, such as water, land or resource use or impacts, such as potential biodiversity impacts. A specific and early variant of CBA is ecological footprint accounting which combines resource consumption and CO2 emissions into one land-based index.

It has been recognised that the adoption of such a consumption-based perspective — in addition to the traditional approach of territorial emissions accounting — opens up the possibility of extending the range of policy and research applications considerably to cover sectoral, country and product analysis (Wiedmann 2009). One opportunity is to re-address the problem of GHG emission ‘leakage’ and to reveal the extent to which a relocation of production and associated shift of embodied emissions has occurred (Peters 2008b).


Increasing spatial separation of production and consumption in global supply chains leads to a shift of resource use and associated environmental pressures between countries. This has long been recognised in the scientific literature and empirical evidence has been provided, for example, for the displacement of greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, raw material use and even for threats to species (for literature references see Wiedmann et al 2013). The ‘carbon footprint’ Indicator has been used to quantify and monitor carbon leakage between countries (Peters 2010).

Commonly used methods for CBA are EE-IOA, LCA or a combination of the two. Methods have been shown to be robust enough to measure progress on climate change and develop and inform mitigation policy. An important aspect of policy-relevant applications is the reliability and robustness of data sets (Wiedmann and Barrett 2013) and much effort has been put into the development of global multi-region input-output models to improve the underlying data and processes (Kanemoto et al 2012; Lenzen et al 2012b; Tukker and Dietzenbacher 2013). Barrett et al (2013) summarise


the ongoing research requirements to improve the policy application of consumption-based emissions as:

◆ harmonisation of methods to ensure robustness and consistency between country estimates

◆ policy-orientated research to inform demand-side strategies

◆ consumption-based scenarios for emissions and resource use, using dynamic models to inform policy assessments

◆ economic assessments of consumption-based policies and strategies (eg evaluation of cost-effectiveness).


It has been shown that there is a need to include consumption-based emissions as a complementary Indicator to the current approach of measuring territorial greenhouse gas emissions. The wider implications on climate policy that emerge from the possibility of using a consumption-based approach have been widely presented (eg see Barrett et al 2013).

In 2011 the UK Government adopted consumption-based accounts as a headline Indicator of its sustainable Indicators program and committed to publishing results for the following five years (Barrett et al 2013). Also in 2011, the UK Energy and Climate Change Committee launched an inquiry to investigate the case for consumption-based GHG emissions accounting in the UK (Wiedmann and Barrett 2013). The committee examined the case for adopting consumption-based reporting in the UK, whether it would be feasible to do this in practice, whether emissions reduction targets might be adopted on a consumption basis, and what the implications for international negotiations on climate change might be if the UK and others took this approach.

Apart from the UK example there is no general implementation of carbon (or other environmental) footprint accounting in government statistics. As well as the political issues that surround the acceptance and application of a consumption-based emissions system, the translation of consumption-side strategies into clear policy instruments is still in its infancy.


The strength of CBA is the perspective on pressures and impacts from the viewpoint of consumption which may be seen as the ultimate driving force of economic activity. In climate change negotiations,

CBA has been used to identify the ‘responsibility’ for greenhouse gas emissions as it quantifies the economic and environmental trade linkages between countries, and to address the problem of carbon leakage and the extent to which relocation of production and associated shift in embodied emissions has occurred. Consumption-based inventories are not a replacement for, but an addition to production-based inventories that provide a better understanding of the common but differentiated responsibility between countries. Policies based on one approach alone are not sufficient to address the complex impacts of globalisation on sustainability.

Methodological challenges that remain after the introduction of several global multi-region input-output (MRIO) models (Wiedmann et al 2011; Tukker and Dietzenbacher 2013) include the harmonisation of data sets and model compilation. Uncertainty enters the MRIO system through: variations in the source data; the methods for aligning data from different countries; the assumptions made in constructing trade data matrices; and through methods employed to balance the transactions table (Owen et al 2013). Consequently, the different source data and construction methods chosen by the developers of the global MRIO models have led to different model outcomes thus potentially limiting the wider adoption and implementation of CBA in policy making.

2.4.7 RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT TO DEAL WITH UNCERTAINTY

The theory

The concept of risk assessment and management preceded the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Risk and risk assessment includes variants of well-understood and widely applied concepts across a number of disciplines and sectors; indeed there is a whole discipline around risk assessment and management. Risk assessment is used at all scales in socio-economic systems (from an individual person or organisation, through to governments and international bodies). Its application goes far beyond the topic of sustainability.

There are differences in the way risk is identified, quantified or qualified, and managed for different purposes, but risk is usually expressed as a function of the likelihood of a particular event occurring, combined with the magnitude or importance of the consequences. Robust methods have been developed, tested and applied for identifying hazards or threats, estimating the likelihood or probability of their


occurrence, understanding the nature and magnitude of the consequence, designing controls or mitigations to lower the risk, and then assessing the ‘residual’ risk which remains after application of the controls.

During the first decade after Rio, the methodology for and implementation of risk assessment matured (eg through the development of ISO 31000 standard).


Although the process of risk assessment is robust, and widely accepted and implemented, the ability to quantify the probability and timing of future events in specific locations is the subject of a great deal of scientific research in various disciplines. Likewise, there is a great deal of research around quantifying the magnitude of consequences, and designing controls or mitigations (managing exposure), responses for identified risks, and the responses when the risks are realised (eg natural disasters), and appropriate medium to longer term valuation of risk under increasingly variable and uncertain conditions.


Risk assessment and management is at the core of most approaches to assessing sustainability (eg impact assessment Section 2.4.2, many PCI and certification schemes Section 2.4.4, management approaches Section 2.4.8). The approach can be implemented within a research project, when running a corporation or community activity, as well as through a multitude of formalised schemes (eg ISO 31000 series), which can be independently audited, verified and certified.

There is very sophisticated implementation of risk assessment and management within many sectors such as including finance and investment, insurance, natural disasters, public health, medicine, project management, defence and national security, environmental management. For example, the insurance industry has a high degree of exposure to risks, risk management and valuation and legal implications associated with climate change, and is in the process of responding to the challenges (eg Mills 2005; IPCC 2007).

Application of the ‘precautionary principle’ is an important approach to dealing with risk to the environment. It was defined as Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration: ‘In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,

lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation’(UNCED 1992). Despite the ubiquitous recognition of this principle, we could not find any examples where it has been applied to significant decisions about sustainability.


Depending on the scope, nature and scale of the risks being assessed, the degree of effectiveness of the approach ranges from very low to very high. In general for those systems (social, economic, environmental, or any combination of these) which are well-understood, and where the governance or agency of risk mitigation is effective, the approach is highly effective. While the risk assessment component can be conducted across a range of scales and systems, the ‘management’ component of the approach becomes less tractable at aggregate scales. This is because not only do the uncertainties of the system compound, but the agency for decision making and implementation of those decisions becomes more complex, dispersed and therefore less effective.

2.4.8 MANAGEMENT APPROACHES: ADHERENCE TO PRESCRIBED APPROACHES AND THE USE OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

2.4.8.1 Adherence to prescribed approaches

The theory

Prescribed approaches include a variety of systems, eg Best Management Practice (BMP) systems or a Code of Practice (CoP). In theory, the application of the best currently known and available inputs and processes will lead to the best outcomes in product quality or minimising environmental impact.

For example, in a manufacturing process such as making vehicles, an input-based approach assumes that if the inputs and processes met a certain standard (eg individual components of the vehicle were sound, the machinery for assembly was working correctly, and the people working in the factory were being well-managed), then the vehicles would be of the required standard without ever testing the performance of those vehicles. While this may be a sufficiently robust approach in some manufacturing processes, it is problematic especially when the consequence of failure is high, or (as in most natural systems) where the relationships between inputs and outcomes are not always stable or well-understood.



The validity of this approach depends upon the quality of the knowledge input in the development of the prescribed approach, which is based on prior learning and the regular revision of the information to include new knowledge. Many industries use benchmarking against others in their sector, a process that embraces learning from right across the sector, to improve the available knowledge. However, the development of prescribed approaches for new areas of focus, eg new technologies or environmental challenges, must rely on knowledge acquired from similar areas which may not turn out to be appropriate. The application of prescribed approaches to the management of complex, multi-dimensional issues may not be effective as it may not be possible to identify and manage all the issues with the knowledge currently available. In terms of managing for sustainability, this approach will be most effective when the uncertainty and risk of the impact of the activities, and the environmental response is low (see Section 2.4.8.2)


This approach is used in the production of organic foods and fibre, eg BMP cotton and sustainable forest management (SFM) for certified forest products, and may underpin certification schemes or regulatory requirements (see Section 4.1). The approaches are entwined, for example SFM includes PCI as well as BMP and CoP – ie the BMP and CoP are implemented within a PCI scheme, which also requires reporting against other types of Indicators.

While not strictly a ‘prescribed approach’, environmental management systems (EMSs) aim to achieve continuous improvement through a ‘plan, do, check, improve’ cycle that can include BMPs and CoPs. An EMS provides a structured approach to help businesses (eg farms) assess and improve their environmental performance. The business identifies environmental impacts and legal responsibilities, then implements and reviews changes and improvements in a structured way. An EMS can be self-audited (first-party audit) or externally audited (second or third-party audit) and may be certified to the international ISO 14001 standard or to specific customer or industry requirements.


BMPs and CoPs can be developed relatively quickly to address issues identified in industry or in environmental management using current

knowledge, without the delay of waiting for the results of further research. In terms of progressing management practices, they can underpin the process by providing either a base-line or a target for management to measure progress against, and if regularly revised can lead to positive change. However, as discussed in the next section, they can be limited in their effectiveness when management needs to address unknowns or uncertain areas of activity.

2.4.8.2 Dealing with risk, effort and uncertainty when using input‑based and outcome‑based Indicators

Some of the conceptual approaches to sustainability reviewed in this report, particularly those which are research-oriented rather than applied, take sophisticated approaches to understanding and quantifying risk and uncertainty (eg simulation modelling using Monte Carlo analysis).

However, in many formalised schemes to demonstrate the sustainability credentials of enterprises or industries (eg forestry or bioenergy using PCIs), the approach to risk and uncertainty is unclear and inadequate. Such schemes, as discussed in Section 2.4.4, and Section 4.1, rely on hierarchical PCIs, with Indicators that can be categorised as either:

◆ input-based approaches, which assume that certain activities or management processes or mitigating measures taken provide sustainable outcomes. These may be flawed (or at least untested) assumptions. Most input-based best practice methods assume intended or typical outcomes, without actually measuring or monitoring these; or

◆ outcome-based approaches, which use monitoring of key system variables to enable analysis of system condition and trends, and comparisons with defined sustainability objectives and targets (O’Connell et al 2009).

In many of the emerging formalised schemes for sustainability reporting or accreditation in bioenergy for example there is a very high reliance on Indicators that are ‘mitigation measures taken’ or, in the parlance used in Table 2-1, ‘input-based’ Indicators (Lewandowski and Faaij 2006; van Dam et al 2008; O’Connell et al 2009).

In Table 2-1, we propose that input-based approaches (such as specifying processes without monitoring the outcomes) may be appropriate


where the risk (ie likelihood and consequence) is low, or where the systems are predictable and well-defined. In situations where the risk is high (or uncertain) these approaches do not provide a high likelihood of ensuring sustainable outcomes.

In natural systems where relatively less is known about system response over the long term, and where widespread loss of ecosystem function would have major consequences, an outcomes-based approach is critical. Ideally therefore, key system variables should be defined and they (or surrogates) should be monitored over the long term in order to understand system condition and trends. However, it is a major task to identify which variables allow for a meaningful representation of sustainability in terms of the defined purpose of any given scheme or analysis.

Most of the existing sustainability standards or approaches clearly recognise that the process of specifying methods and Indicators, as well as the evaluation of impact and other broader sustainability considerations related to a particular enterprise or sector, must be embedded in effective learning and adaptation processes with feedback mechanisms to allow improvement of the sustainability measurement and evaluation approach itself, as well as the resources being managed. This provides a sound basis for continuous improvement in management decisions and resource use, and transition towards sustainable management of social-ecological systems.

Outcome-based approaches are considered more robust in terms of ensuring sustainability, but involve more effort and resources to implement properly. As they provide an opportunity for learning, they are desirable in situations where there is a high degree of stakeholder concern, when the sector poses a potentially high (or uncertain) level of risk of damage to social-ecological systems or other values.

Input-based (or ‘mitigation measures taken’) approaches can be improved over time, based on ongoing research (eg BMPs, see Section 2.4.8.1); a more comprehensive DPSIR approach, which combines impact and outcome-based Indicators (see Section 2.4.5) is more helpful, even if simplified, and a formal Strategic or Active Adaptive Management approach can be even more successful (see Section 2.4.8.3).

2.4.8.3 Adaptive management

The theory

The use of adaptive management is well-recognised as a way of dealing with uncertainty (McCook et al 2010; Kenward et al 2011), and provides a clear and well-tested approach to progressively improving sustainability outcomes. Adaptive management (“learning by doing”, Walters and Holling 1990), is based on the opportunity to learn from the outcome of an action (eg where the monitored outcome identifies a failure to meet a sustainability goal), and to use this to formulate an effective response or adaptation of that action (Figure 2-2).

Table 2‑1 Appropriate approaches in formalised sustainability schemes depending on level of risk of obtaining sustainable outcomes (adapted from O’Connell et al 2009)

APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY DATA AND EVALUATION

IF THE SUSTAINABILITY RISK OF THE ACTIVITY, ENTERPRISE OR SECTOR IS…

EFFORT REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT SUSTAINABILITY DATA AND EVALUATION

LIKELIHOOD OF ACHIEVING MORE SUSTAINABLE OUTCOMES

APPROPRIATENESS OF APPROACH

Input-based Low Low Medium-High Low investment

High (or uncertain) Low-Medium Low An under-investment of effort

Outcome-based Low High Medium-High An over-investment of effort

High (or uncertain) High Medium-High High investment


An organisation is more likely to provide optimal responses to addressing issues within complex systems when higher forms of learning, referred to as double-loop or triple-loop learning approaches, are used in this process (Figure 2-2). In its basic form, adaptive management uses the single-loop learning process to only directly address the changes necessary to meet the specified goal within the current context, assumption and rules of an organisation. Much of the time this reaction will lead to an appropriate adaptation and a satisfactory outcome. However, as discussed below, active adaptive management and adaptive governance embrace both double-loop learning where the underlying assumptions and rules are also considered and may be changed, and triple-loop learning which includes the consideration of a diversity of issues (context) using decentralised governance mechanisms, or a ground-up approach, for broader learning outcomes that can lead to transformative change (eg Chapin et al 2009).

of a range of complex ecosystems has seen the inclusion of new terms such as ‘active’ and ‘strategic’ applied to modifications of the basic process.

‘Active’ adaptive management adds an active research component whereby data derived from monitoring is used to build and calibrate response models to provide information on long-term responses to management practices (Walters and Holling 1990). Wintle and Lindenmayer (2008) in addressing wildlife conservation and sustainable forest management, have proposed the addition of risk analysis to this active adaptive process through the use of several competing models that reflect different hypotheses as to how forest systems will respond. The testing of the models and their associated management proposals through regular up-dating of data and the comparison of model predictions with outcomes, will demonstrate which hypotheses/models are credible, allowing confidence in moving towards the implementation of improved forest management practices (Wintle and Lindenmayer 2008).

‘Strategic’ adaptive management advocates a two-tiered approach with a sub-set of identified high-risk management issues subject to a more rigorous process such as a combination of those proposed by Walters and Holling (1990) and Wintle and Lindenmayer (2008). This strategic approach has been successfully implemented in South Africa (eg see Kingsford et al 2011).

Figure 2‑2 Adaptive management and loop learning diagrams


Adaptive management has been advocated for sustainable forest management (Raison et al 2001), wildlife conservation (Nichols 2006; Brainerd 2007), and management of fisheries and marine parks (Grafton and Kompas 2005; McCook et al 2010). The recognition of adaptive management as a way of dealing with uncertainty in the management



While the benefits of adaptive management appear obvious, the implementation is often difficult. Identifying and facing uncertainties, replacing risk-averse fixed management practices with learning-by-doing adaptive management and then implementing the identified changes in management requires strong leadership, while the whole process of monitoring, reporting, evaluating and modelling requires additional on-ground and desktop resources. Stankey et al (2003) set out the reasons for failure of the implementation of adaptive management despite its adoption by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team and the allocation of 10 Adaptive Management Areas in the USA Northwest Forest Plan (Stankey et al 2003). Others have had more success eg in the Kruger National Park, where strategic adaptive management has been applied.

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority applied research-based adaptive management options across its network of marine reserves that have demonstrated benefits in marine ecosystem health, resilience of targeted no-take areas as well as a net economic benefit, and the potential for applying such management practices to other marine ecosystems (McCook et al 2010).


Adaptive management is useful where actions can close the loop, and provide evidence of satisfactory outcomes or the need to adapt. It is resource demanding, particularly at the goal setting and monitoring steps. Because adaptive management processes are complex, they should only be applied where knowledge is limited and an activity poses high risks and consequences (see Table 2-1). It is not efficient for simpler problems.

As with all approaches, the scale at which it is applied has a profound effect on implementation. In the examples above, the Northwest Forest Plan covered USA federal lands over three states and in part, the failure of its implementation was due to statutory and regulatory barriers. While some success within the Great Barrier Reef was claimed, and attributed to the single Marine Park Authority supporting the management practices required to apply research across the Great Barrier Reef in Australia (see Olsson et al 2008), the condition of the Great Barrier Reef has continued to deteriorate. Adaptive management at a single enterprise scale will still require leadership

and resource allocation but should be considerably easier to implement under enterprise management than at the national or international scale where change is more difficult to enact under national legislation and politics, or international agreements.

2.5 The second decade after Rio: next generation sustainability science (Box 6) and emerging tools and frameworks (Box 7)By the end of the first decade after the Rio Earth Summit, the vast majority of studies tracking the progress of sustainability or ‘sustainable development’ concluded that while there had been significant progress in many of the sustainable development initiatives, there had been much more focus on those aspects related to human development, and this took place at the expense of the environment. For example, Our common journey (NRC 1999) reviewed progress on sustainable development to 1999, and concluded that in the area of human needs, ie development, there were a multitude of internationally agreed targets. In comparison, the quantitative targets for preserving life-supporting systems were fewer, more modest, and more contested.

Around this time, the concept of ‘sustainability science’ emerged and gained traction. Many authors have focused on both the fundamental character of interactions between nature and society and on society’s capacity to guide those interactions along more sustainable trajectories (Kates et al 2001). In this section review contemporary approaches, many of which have the foundations before the Rio Earth Summit or the first decade of development thereafter. However, they have gained momentum and emerged during the latter period and are therefore included in this section.

2.5.1 SCENARIO ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT

The theory

Scenario analysis (sometimes also referred to as ‘foresighting’, or ‘futures analysis’) is a well-developed and widely used approach to exploring possible or plausible future trends, and their potential outcomes and implications. Scenario analysis was pioneered by Shell in 1965, and typically uses stories or narratives to explore contrasting (and often mutually exclusive)


alternative pathways. The aim is to participants lift out of near-term thinking and “to break the habit, ingrained in most corporate planning, that the future will look like the present” (Wilkinson and Kupers 2013). The emphasis on exploring multiple scenarios also helps provide a safe space for exploring possibilities, and can be combined with collaborative or problem-solving workshops to build a shared understanding of system perspectives across diverse stakeholders.

Here we focus on scenario analysis that uses various forms of quantitative modelling to explore alternative futures, including to assess the relative implications of different possible trends or events. In the context of sustainability analysis, this requires computer models or other analytical frameworks that match the scale of concern, accurately reflect known system properties, and integrate causal processes across relevant aspects of the triple bottom line scenarios (Raupach et al 2012). Analysis may be based on a relatively simple qualitative understanding of the key system interactions, or on various types of (often very complex) Integrated Assessment (IA) models. Importantly, scenario analysis uses these quantitative models to explore possible scenarios rather than predict likely futures (Bankes 1993; Wilkinson and Kupers 2013), even though most computer models are implicitly determinist for any one set of scenario assumptions.

While scenario analysis has been practiced over many years, and is not considered new, we included it in this section because of dramatic improvements in the quality and accessibility of the modelling capacity required to explore complex sustainability issues (including large numbers of scenarios in ensemble analysis, and nexus studies across multiple domains). This has greatly increased the practical capacity to explore future scenarios, and the nature of the different choices and pathways required to achieve sustainability.


Scenario analysis first gained traction in business strategy, particularly in sectors with large investments in long-lived assets and relatively high uncertainties (including national and global political developments, or global macroeconomic trends), such as oil or minerals extraction. Modelling explored scenarios defined overwhelmingly in economic terms, with little or no integration across triple bottom line domains (Wilkinson and Kupers 2013).

Integrated assessments gained attention from the early 1970s, notably through the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth (Meadows et al 1972), using system dynamics modelling. The OPEC oil shock in 1974 both drew attention to the potential impacts of resource limits on economic activity, and catalysed the development of new type of economic model, computable general equilibrium (CGE) modelling, that could represent and explore shocks of this kind. Scenario analysis using integrated assessment remained rare, however.

The machinery of IA can involve a range of approaches including sophisticated simulation modelling of processes (such as van Vuuren et al 2011; Stern and Great Britain 2007), stocks and flows of material and energy in the physical economy (such as Schandl et al 2011; Turner 2008), various combinations of whole of economy CGE models (such as Nordhaus 2010) or input-output analysis (such as Wiedmann et al 2013). The cutting-edge research focuses on linking multiple types of models in a coherent analytical framework.

Examples of model-based scenario analysis include the Club of Rome Limits to Growth (Meadows et al 1972; Turner 2008), through to recent climate analysis (van Vuuren et al 2011; Rogelj et al 2013) and wider integrated assessments of development trajectories, resource use and environmental pressures in the Mekong region (Smajgl and Ward 2013), marine fisheries and ecosystems (Fulton et al 2011; Fulton 2010), and the first CSIRO National Outlook for Australia (Hatfield Dodds et al forthcoming).


Recent decades have seen a significant increase in the quality and quantity and quality of IA-based scenario analysis, driven primarily by the expansion of global-scale assessment of potential climate futures (Stern 2008; van Vuuren et al 2011). These modelling efforts include physical climate processes (accumulation of greenhouse gases and temperature responses), aspects of global land use (focused uptake and release of carbon and CO2), and detailed representation of energy demand and supply (including costs, generation mix, and emissions) using sector-based and CGE approaches. Rogelj et al (2013), for example, uses an ensemble of over 500 scenarios to assess the relative impacts of five major physical and socio-economic uncertainties (see Hatfield-Dodds 2013). Scenario analysis of mitigation trajectories often does not include climate


feedbacks, or the impacts of climate change on economic activity, due to a range of uncertainties and complexities in representing impacts (which are not considered likely to be large before 2050) (see Clark and Weyant 2009; Carraro and Grubb 2006).

In parallel, there has been a steady advance in more detailed assessment of triple bottom line interactions involved with resource and ecosystem management. These assessments are typically regional in scale (rather than global), and take multiple climate scenarios as inputs. They also frequently involve deep stakeholder engagement, including involvement in designing and implementing the models used, as well as in defining the scenarios and interpreting the modelling results (see Smajgl et al 2012). Examples include collaborative modelling of ecosystem-based management of fisheries (Fulton et al 2011; Fulton 2010), and exploration of multiple impacts of development options for water and energy in the Mekong (Smagjl and Ward 2012; Dore and Lebel 2010).

The sophisticated modelling and analytic approaches underpinning scenario analysis are a good example of how this can be employed across scales, jurisdictions, sectors and issue domains to build understanding and engagement, quantify risk and uncertainty, identify triple bottom line connections and implications, and inform decision making across a variety of stakeholders at all levels.


There are many powerful advantages to the approach of scenario analysis and integrated assessment, particularly when there are sufficient data to parameterise models, the models are robust, and they are embedded in learning and institutional processes with feedbacks.

The key limitations of this approach include poor data and a lack of well-quantified thresholds, especially where there are multiple interacting thresholds across scales and we are operating outside of previously known ranges. There are risks that scenario projections may be treated as predictions, rather than as explorations of potential trajectories or outcomes, and challenges in implementing effective evaluation methods that include robust social processes for the negotiation of key outcomes across and between jurisdictions.

Sophisticated implementation requires inter- and trans-disciplinary teams and access to appropriate modelling capacity, and can be very resource intensive. Even if all the technical challenges around disciplinary science, measurement and modelling are met (as demonstrated by some of the examples provided in this section), there are still some limitations to effectiveness in sustainability outcomes, which are related to the lack of integrated decision making and implementation pathways at global or whole-of-system level.

2.5.2 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

The theory

The concept of ecosystem services had foundations in the seventies but gained traction more widely in the 1990s (eg de Groot 1992; Costanza et al 1997; Daily 1997; Daily and Matson 2008). Ecological economists and ecologists built on the concept of ‘capital stocks and flows’ (Section 2.4.3) to develop the idea of ecosystems providing a ‘fixed stock of capital’ to provide a flow of ‘services’ for human well-being (Norgaard 2010). It was a completely anthropocentric approach – the value of ecosystems was entirely ascribed to the services provided to humans. While this was anathema to those who placed intrinsic value on nature or saw ecosystems as highly complex adaptive systems with non-linear dynamics, it was also seen by many as a way to embed the metaphor of the importance of nature and ecosystem health into local, national and global market economies (Norgaard 2010).

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) took the metaphor and developed it into a scientific framework (Norgaard 2010). The MA used ecosystem services as the basis for reporting, analysing and understanding the effects of environmental change on ecosystems and human well-being (Carpenter et al 2009). The ecosystem services were categorised as follows:

◆ supporting services: those underpinning the production of other ecosystem services, eg nutrient cycling, seed dispersal

◆ regulating services: benefits from the regulation of ecosystem processes, eg climate regulation, water and air purification, pollination

◆ provisioning services: benefits in the form of products obtained from ecosystems that we use only directly, eg food, water, fibre, genetic resources, minerals, energy, industrial products


◆ cultural services: the non-material benefits people obtained through ecosystems, eg spiritual, educational, recreational and aesthetic experiences, scientific discovery.

The approach provided a comprehensive and internally consistent logic to include all of the essential components of the system, defined the relationships between the components, gave defined weight to those components, and dealt with cutting across spatial scales (from local to global) and temporal dimensions (from the recent past to projections into the next century) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a).


The MA was conducted during 2001–2005 and found that during the previous 50 years, humans had changed the planet’s ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history. The changes made to ecosystems contributed to significant net gains in human well-being and economic development, but these gains were achieved at growing costs in

the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks of non-linear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005b).

The process of conducting the MA exposed the lack of data needed to quantify reference systems and provide a basic understanding of the fundamental dynamics of social-ecological systems, the valuation of those services, and the trade-offs between bundles of services and human well-being (Carpenter et al 2009). Therefore, despite enthusiasm in policy and practice in many parts of the world (particularly Europe), this approach does not yet provide a sound basis for decision making because of the paucity of data and the range of untested assumptions.

A clear diagrammatic representation of the framework for linking ecosystems to human well-being was provided by de Groot et al (2010) and is presented in Figure 2-3. This helps to clarify the steps of inference that need to be made, each underpinned by clear quantification of the relationships and key Indicators (some of which are also reviewed by these authors).

Figure 2‑3 Steps of inference required to link ecosystems and biodiversity to human well‑being using the concept of ecosystem services (adapted from de Groot et al 2010)


A great deal of discipline-based and/or place-based research, under the auspices of ecology and related fields, has been and continues to be conducted in the first box, which links Biophysical Structure or Process, to Function. As depicted in Figure 2-3, de Groot (1992) saw ‘structure and process’ and ‘function’ as separate entities; with ‘functions’ basically synonymous with supporting, regulating and provisioning services (in his 1992 typology there is no cultural services category). Many ecosystems ecologists would view processes and functions as the same (but different from ecosystem structure), and the distinctions proposed by de Groot as meaningless and unhelpful. The basic ecological research required to understand and quantify these relationships does not rely on the ecosystem services concept, and may be heavily reliant on other approaches such as simulation modelling (as described in Section 2.5.1). Indeed, Norgaard (2010) in his robust critique, views the theoretical construct of stocks and flows which underpins the concept of ecosystem services as a critical limitation to the approach. He considers that the construct of stocks and flows does not utilise the strengths of the many other theoretical constructs, methods and tools that are very effectively used by ecologists to understand relationships between by physical structures, processes and ecological function.

Likewise, the field of ecological economics has conducted vast amounts of research on evaluation of use, non-use and options values related to the box on the right labelled Human well-being. The recent

literature on ecosystem services demonstrates a colonisation by economists, with a very heavy emphasis on different methods of valuation (eg Groot et al 2007; Christie et al 2008), through to development of markets to enable payments for ecosystem services (eg Jack et al 2008; Bateman et al 2011). The concept of ecosystem services was used to link these two more traditional disciplinary areas of research, but does not necessarily address limitations and challenges found in each of them separately.

De Groot et al (2010) provided a comprehensive listing of outstanding research questions to be resolved in order to effectively use ecosystem services at landscape planning and decision making levels. The five generic categories of questions and some examples of the underlying research questions themselves are shown:

1. understanding and quantifying how ecosystems provide services

– How can the relationship between landscape and ecosystem characteristics and their associated functions and services be quantified?

– What are the main indicators and benchmark values for measuring the capacity of an ecosystem to provide services, and what are the maximum sustainable use levels?

– How can the relationships between ecosystem and landscape character and services, and a relevant dynamic interactions be modelled?

2. valuing ecosystem services

– What are the most appropriate economic and social evaluation methods for ecosystem services, including the role and perceptions of stakeholders?

– What is the influence of scaling issues on the economic value of ecosystem services to society?

– How can standardised indicators and benchmark values helped to determine the value of ecosystem services and how can aggregation steps be dealt with?

3. use of ecosystem services in trade-off analysis and decision-making

– How can all the costs and benefits of changes in ecosystem services and values of all stakeholders in time and space be taken into account properly?

– How can analytical and participatory methods be combined to enable effective participatory policy and decision making dialogues?


Measuring biodiversity takes time, effort, money and a lot of skill (Photo: Jaslyn Allnutt)

4. use of ecosystem services for planning and management

– What are the main bottlenecks in data availability and reliability with regard to ecosystem services and management, and how can they be overcome?

5. financing sustainable use of ecosystem services

– What is the adequacy of current financing methods for investing in ecosystem services, how can they be improved and linked to valuation outcomes?

Although the statement of these categories of questions, as well as the more specific details underlying them was focused on the challenges to deploying the ecosystem services concept, they are indeed relevant to all emerging theoretical constructs.


The MA itself represented a significant development and implementation of the ecosystem services concept. It provided a snapshot of the state of ecosystem health and services, as well as raised a multitude of unresolved challenges which then led into a new round of scientific development. Implementation initiatives with demonstrated outcomes are, however, somewhat patchy.

The most significant national-scale initiative is the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA) (http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/). The UK NEA was carried out between mid-2009 and early 2011, and involved over 500 natural scientists, economists, social scientists and other stakeholders from government, academic, NGO and private sector institutions. The UK NEA also incorporated post-MA advances, especially for the economic valuation of ecosystem services and ‘final’ ecosystem services developed to avoid issues of double counting of services. The UK NEA quantified the monetary (market and non-market) and non-monetary values of ecosystem service flows to individuals and collectively to society, and included additional well-being measures as health and shared social values (UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011; Bateman et al 2013).

This study explored the influence of societal changes on demand for different services and the ability of ecosystems to deliver them, as well as the various response options available. It also developed a series of for future management of ecosystems and the services they provide.

There are some good examples of implementation at smaller scales – for example at the enterprise level or for local environmental assets. One useful example of this is provided by Colloff et al (2013), who quantified the value of pest control services provided to farmers in citrus orchards with different types of ground cover. The farmers used this as a basis to alter their practices to gain the benefits of ecosystem services, once they realised the monetary value of those services.


The ecosystem services concept is useful as a communication tool to connect people to environment, especially where they have a direct stake and some control and ownership of the benefits that the environment provides.

The scale at which ecosystem service concept might be successfully implemented is an important consideration. The ecosystem services approach has provided a unifying policy concept, but implementation is patchy. It has been influential in engaging policy makers to consider the broad suite of public benefits that landscapes generate, and distinguishing them from the private benefits more commonly valued in the economy. The concept may find higher utility in aiding decision making around synergies and dependencies in managing production or natural ecosystems at a local scale.

Multiple studies conducted since the completion of the MA have been addressing some of the outstanding challenges in the basic science needed to assess, project and manage flows of ecosystem services, but the ability to draw general conclusions remains limited (Carpenter et al 2009). Norgaard (2010) draws particular attention to the limitations imposed by use of a linear stocks and flows construct to underpin the ecosystem services concept. He considers that this does not draw on the full richness of the different analytical constructs within ecological science, and ‘blinds’ us to the complexity of managing ecosystems as if there were linear, predictable relationships – when much is already known about the non-linear dynamics of ecosystems (discussed further in Section 2.5.3).

There are also concerns that the ecosystem services concept has been somewhat hijacked by neo-classical economics, and used as a basis for valuation and commodification of natural resources to feed into cost-benefit analyses for decision making by centralised planning agencies about trade-offs around


http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/

resource use and development. Norgaard (2010) provides a strong critique of the dominant literature of valuation of ecosystem services in the tradition of project analysis, assuming a partial equilibrium model, ie setting the boundaries of the analysis of the project, and conducting analysis of ecosystem services project by project assuming that the economy as a whole is not affected by the projects themselves. He considers that at the project level, holding other things equal implies that there is an acceptance of existing institutions6, and that the concept of ecosystem services could ‘fine-tune’ the markets to move the system towards more sustainable outcomes. However, he proposes that the sweeping economic transformations required to achieve global-scale sustainability will require broader institutional change and global governance arrangements. Marginal adjustments in the economy based on environmental services will not achieve this. Not only does this approach ignore the complexity of ecosystem behaviour, but it also has the potential to entrench multiple levels of social inequity – for example in the design of rules over payments for ecosystem service stewardship in developing countries, and in the potential for stealth substitution of environmental impact assessment and community consultation and stakeholder engagement (eg Corbera et al 2007). While such critiques, calling for transformational shifts in economies and institutional design, as well as meaningful stakeholder engagement, have been directed at the ecosystem services approach, many of these limitations are more generally applicable to all of the sustainability approaches reviewed in this report.

2.5.3 RESILIENCE THINKING, THRESHOLDS AND PLANETARY BOUNDARIES

The theory

The idea of ecological ‘resilience’ grew out of early work on the influence of leaf area on predator-prey relationships in insects in forests (Holling 1973). Early studies on relationships between leaf area and predator-prey relationships between insects showed that at a certain leaf area, the forest system flipped into a different state. Subsequent research looking at the diversity of function and form of different grassland species, and the consequences of sequentially removing different species showed

6 This echoes Carr’s concerns of DPSIR, section 2.4.5

that a loss of diversity might lead to increased resource efficiency, but also lead to a decreased ability of the system to recover from perturbation or shock. These ideas in the 1970s and 1980s laid the foundations for resilience theory – but we include it in the latter decade of ‘emerging’ science theories because the theory is still developing and maturing through further analysis across a wide range of linked social-ecological systems in the 2000s.

Resilience is formally defined as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganise so as to retain essentially the same function, structure, and feedbacks – to have the same identity” or “the ability to cope with shocks and keep functioning in much the same kind of way” (Walker and Salt 2012). Resilience is considered to be a property of all living systems and has three defining characteristics:

◆ the amount of change the system can undergo and still retain the same functions and structure – in other words, remain within the same stability domain, or ‘regime’

◆ the degree to which the system is capable of self-organisation

◆ the ability to build and increase the capacity for learning and adaptation.

The basic concepts underpinning a resilience approach to policy and management are: thresholds on a relatively small number of controlling variables that mark the boundaries between a current regime and an alternative one; a tendency to show recurring cycles of growth, conservatism, ‘collapse’ and reorganisation; multiple scales and cross-scale effects (also known as ‘panarchy’); adaptability within the current regime; and transformability to an alternative regime (eg Gunderson and Holling 2001; Walker and Salt 2006, 2012). Each of these terms is a defined, cohesive concept within the resilience literature, and a full description is beyond the scope of this report (see website, and related literature http://www.resalliance.org).

Nine important things to know about resilience:

1. it is about complex, linked social-ecological systems, not ‘social, economic and environmental systems’

6 This echoes Carr’s concerns of DPSIR, section 2.4.5


http://www.resalliance.org)

2. it is about how they self-organise in response to shocks/disturbances – their resilience determines the limits to that capacity

3. it is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ – some unwanted regimes, such as a degraded soil, can be very resilient

4. making a system very resilient in one way can cause it to lose resilience in other ways – there are trade-offs in applying resilience

5. there is a distinction between ‘specified’ and ‘general’ resilience:

– specified resilience describes the resilience of some specified part of the system to a particular kind of disturbance

– general resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbances of many kinds, including novel and unforeseen ones

6. any given system cannot be understood or managed at a single scale – all systems function at multiple (embedded) scales, and interactions across scales affect resilience at any particular scale

7. most losses in resilience are unintended consequences of narrowly focused optimisation and ‘efficiency’ drives that expend currently ‘unused’ reserves, remove ‘redundant’ functional capacities, lower operating costs and drive the system harder and thus closer to the thresholds that mark a regime shift

8. resilience is NOT about not changing: trying to prevent disturbance and keep a system constant reduces its resilience; variation is necessary for maintaining and building resilience

9. transformability is the capacity to shift to a potentially more desirable regime if the current one is unsustainable or undesirable. There are three determinants:

– getting beyond the state of denial

– innovation for creating new options

– support (help to change vs not to change).


There has been a wealth of scientific development applying resilience theory across a very broad range of linked social-ecological systems, at a range of scales, including lakes (eg Carpenter and Cottingham 1997); marine systems (eg Acheson et al 1998); semi-arid rangelands used for livestock production; irrigated agricultural systems (eg Walker et al 2009); forests (eg Bodin et al 2006); agriculture based on

mixed systems of livestock and cultivation; urban systems; and ancient and historical systems. A selection of case studies appears, for example, in Walker et al (2006), as well as on the Resilience Alliance website (http://www.resalliance.org).

There has also been a concerted effort to develop unifying theory from the results and generalisable principles from case study approaches. A variety of methods and approaches are being used to tackle this research agenda. They fall broadly into the following activities (http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/research):

◆ formal models

◆ participatory approaches to stakeholder-driven analysis of particular regions (case studies), using informal group analyses, development of agent-based models, Bayesian belief networks, use of historical profile analysis, scenario development

◆ comparative analysis of case studies

◆ controlled experiments in the laboratory and the field on interactions between individuals, institutions, and their common resources.

Applying a resilience approach at the global level led to the concept of ‘planetary boundaries’ (Rockström et al 2009a), which defined the ‘safe operating space for humanity’ with respect to the Earth system. This concept is based on the knowledge that the Earth’s subsystems react in non-linear and often abrupt ways, and are particularly sensitive around threshold levels of certain key variables (Rockström et al 2009a). The nine identified boundaries relate to critical transition points in the state of the climate, atmospheric chemistry, marine and terrestrial chemistry (nutrient states in cycles and acidity) and rates of biodiversity loss. The study concluded that:

◆ safe operating limits had been exceeded for three of these nine boundaries (the rate of biodiversity loss, nitrogen inputs into the biosphere and oceans, and climate change)

◆ the limits were being approached for two other boundaries (stratospheric ozone depletion and ocean acidification)

◆ there was a need to take urgent action on three other boundaries (phosphorus cycles, change in land use, and fresh water use)

◆ insufficient information exists to assess the other two boundaries (atmospheric aerosol loading and chemical pollution).


There are many uncertainties in the estimation of the actual levels, and several are not thresholds in the sense that might be used within the resilience literature per se (Walker and Salt 2012). It can be seen as an applied concept of resilience science and complex system dynamics rather than a framework for implementation (eg Rockström et al 2009a; Rockström et al 2009b, Hughes et al 2013).


The resilience approach can be described as a way of thinking, which can be applied in many different ways. Practical guidelines and methods for the practice of resilience were recently provided by Walker and Salt (2012) based on a succession of workshops assessing resilience in a range of agro-ecological regions. The practical approach involves a three stage process:

Stage 1: Describing the system

This is an initial, important phase which involves bringing together the crucial set of stakeholders in a given system, and working together to determine what components make up the system. Five key considerations include:

◆ scales (bounding the system)

◆ people and governance (the players, power, and rules)

◆ the resilience of what (values and issues)

◆ the resilience to what (disturbances)

◆ drivers and trends (history and futures).

These steps can be dealt with in an iterative fashion. Good resilience practice is not about producing the single best system description, but creating a process where the system description is constantly reiterated, updated and fed into adaptive management, and used to underpin a common understanding of the system amongst the key stakeholders.

Stage 2: Assessing resilience

The next step is to analyse the relationships between the system components in a way that gives insight into the dynamics over time, and to assess the resilience of the system. This assessment entails understanding both the specified and general resilience, as well as the system’s capacity for transformational change (transformability). Critical issues to consider include identifying known thresholds on controlling variables, thresholds of potential concern, changing

patterns in time and space, diversity, feedbacks, different forms of capital. The assessment of resilience can be done in a number of ways and with varying degrees of scientific analysis, ranging from conceptual or mental models through to detailed simulation modelling (eg see Section 2.5.1).

Stage 3: Managing resilience

The resilience approach to management involves developing adaptive management, and an adaptive policy/governance program in which the interventions are considered experiments to test the assumptions that gave rise to them. Walker and Salt (2012) provide a number of tools and options for management, advice on adaptive cycles, sequencing of interventions, examples of adaptive management and adaptive governance. They consider that all kinds of possible interventions, including management, financial, governance, education, etc may be useful, and provide guidelines around the sorts of questions that could be asked in order to develop this approach:

◆ Where should resilience be enhanced, and where is transformational change called for?


Thresholds are like jumping off a cliff, without knowing where you are going to land (Photo: Jaslyn Allnutt)

◆ What kinds and scales of interventions might be useful?

– policy and institutions (governance, rules, -- )

– financial (assistance/taxes/penalties)

– management

◆ How should the interventions be sequenced?

Addressing these questions can underpin the development of an adaptive management program. Resilience thinking has been adopted by catchment management authorities (CMAs) across New South Wales, is being applied by some CMAs in South Australia and Victoria, and is in the process of being taken up by CMAs across Queensland. A major constraint on its effectiveness is the contradiction between the formalised and hierarchical bureaucratic planning system within which the CMAs are located, with centrally specified targets and reporting requirements, and the flexibility and variation required by a CMA trying to implement a resilience-based management strategy.

Although these approaches have been clearly outlined, the application of the resilience thinking is still in the early days and has not progressed to any formalised method or tools. Perhaps this is appropriate: if it is viewed as a way of thinking, there may be a contradiction between the concept of resilience, which is about flexibility and variation, and the over-specification of how to do it.

Walker and Salt (2012) discuss some highly innovative applications of this approach as applied to problems as diverse as psycho-social resilience, identity and coherence (psychological response to traumatic situations), disaster relief and crisis management, health, and law.


The resilience approach directly addresses many of the limitations of impact assessment, stocks and flows or ecosystem service constructs which were discussed in earlier sections. Resilience theory explicitly incorporates complexity, dynamics and non-linearity of systems; self organising capacity; the interactive dynamics of linked social, economic and biophysical domains; and adaptive cycles in time across multiple spatial/ organizational scales. It builds on the strengths of biophysical and social sciences, complex systems, adaptive management and governance. The emphases on purposeful management of transformational change or

adaptation pathways, and adaptive governance under conditions of dynamic change and uncertainty are central to the resilience approach. They are critical approaches that deserve attention in their own right, and a further discussed in Section 2.5.4.

2.5.4 ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE

The theory

‘Adaptive governance’ focuses on societal processes for dealing with uncertainty and change, and promoting effective and sustainable natural resource management (Folke et al 2005; Hatfield-Dodds 2006).

Adaptive governance centres on the dynamics of how institutions change over time – including the norms, rules, and enforcement practices that frame the behaviour of individuals, households and firms. This contrasts with adaptive management (see Section 2.4.8), which focuses on the processes for making decisions and taking actions within a specified set of rules, while acknowledging evolving (and imperfect) information and understanding (see Hatfield-Dodds et al 2007). This literature portrays governance as a dynamic multi-scale process, and often explores the interplay between “hierarchical and well institutionalised forms of governance” and more distributed and informal or organic modes of governance (Rijke et al 2012:74; Olsson et al 2006). In this context ‘adaptive’ refers to a systematic decentralised response to competitive pressures that improve the effectiveness of social arrangements, so that they “enhance the satisfaction of the underlying needs and preferences of the people on which the institutions [and] governance arrangements rely for their operation and legitimacy” (Hatfield-Dodds et al 2007).

There are two main streams of adaptive governance literature:

◆ a resilience or complex systems perspective: describes highly decentralised governance mechanisms, resulting in attention to the crucial roles of networks, social capital, social learning, and response flexibility (Folke et al 2005; Olsson et al 2006; Lebel et al 2006)

◆ a more formal institutional perspective: focuses on how ideas and practices evolve within largely centralised or federated bureaucracies and management systems, and the role of ‘fruitful conflict’ (Ansell 2011) – and explicitly applies notions of adaptive governance to issues such


as health care funding, community policing, counter-terrorism, and technology standards as well as to natural resource management (Brunner and Steelman 2005; Ansell 2011).


The majority of the literature focuses on applying insights from adaptive governance to explain the success or failure of observed governance processes, rather than explicitly applying these insights within governance processes. There is evidence that recognising the dynamic and often contested or negotiated nature of governance assists in achieving desirable outcomes (Ansell 2011; Brunner and Lynch 2010; Brunner and Steelman 2005), but these insights are not necessarily unique to the adaptive governance literature, and there is some debate around definitions and boundaries across different approaches to governance (see Quack 2012; Ansell 2012).


Both streams argue that different types of knowledge and disciplinary perspectives can add value to governance and decision making through providing more diverse perspectives on system processes, reducing the risk of poor management outcomes (Lebel et al 2006), although the process of knowledge synthesis and negotiation may involve higher transaction costs.

A related insight is that contested or negotiated governance (including overlapping regulatory scale and mandates) can have benefits as well as costs – particularly through encouraging more diverse perspectives on system processes, and more attention to crafting approaches that satisfy multiple consistencies, with heterogeneous values and interests – contrasting with the view that ‘streamlined’ unambiguous management and governance arrangements are always desirable, or even achievable (Brunner and Steelman 2005; Scholz and Stiftel 2005; Ansell 2011).

Both streams also favour greater attention to bottom-up governance arrangements involving devolution of rights, responsibilities and resources to heterogeneous local management bodies, promoting innovation and experimental learning. Other potential advantages of decentralised management include improved access to local understanding of resource function and variability, stronger internal enforcement through mutual observation and social incentives, and

improved higher scale risk management through local redundancy (see Ostrom 2005; Brunckhorst 2002) – but each of these must be weighed against potential advantages of intelligent centralised or coordinated governance arrangements for different purposes.

2.6 A brief review of 20 years of UN global partnership (Box 8) We provided a brief introduction (Section 2.3) to the UN-brokered initiatives and partnerships at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The Summit provided renewed impetus for the disciplinary and interdisciplinary sciences underpinning sustainability science (Section 2.2), as well as renewed focus on the integrative aspects of sustainability theory and practice (Sections 2.4 and 2.5).

This section briefly reviews the twenty years since the Summit, in terms of the interactions between science development, implementation, and the initiatives at the global level as brokered through the UN CSD. There has been an enormous breadth of initiatives and activities, which are beyond the scope of this report. We focus on a small subset of UN initiatives and partnerships in sustainable development that were directly relevant to the key messages of this report.

2.6.1 LESSONS FROM THE UN COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (UNCSD)

The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) provided ongoing mechanisms for the implementation of Agenda 21, by monitoring and reporting on implementation at five-yearly intervals. It provided a forum and process for setting goals and targets at a global level. Decisions on how to implement the goals was left to national governments, and to UN agencies within their jurisdictions.

The UNCSD ended in 2013. The role is now conducted by a high-level political forum established at Rio +20. The UN (2013a) reviewed the effectiveness of the UNCSD over its 20 years of operation, and concluded that the Commission made important contributions in a number of areas and was innovative in engaging major groups. But it also highlighted several critical shortcomings which reinforce the key messages in this report. Specifically, it concluded that:

◆ measuring, monitoring and reviewing of progress on implementation of Agenda 21 was successful in some areas (e.g. chemicals, energy, oceans, forests),


especially during the first 10 years when the UNCSD recommendations resulted in concrete actions in these areas (see section 4.1 for the progress in the forestry sector, which flowed directly from the Rio Earth Summit Statement of Forest Principles). However, in some cases, guidelines for reporting were too loose for reports to be useful, and there was little support to build capacity for measurement and reporting in developing countries. Most importantly, although the reports were useful for illustrative purposes in UN Secretary General reports, they actually had very little impact on discussions and outcomes at the global level.

◆ Agenda 21 called on countries and the international community to develop Indicators for sustainable development - these were originally prepared in 1996, and revised and endorsed in 2001. To some extent this effort was successful as some countries now compile data on these Indicators and use these data in decision-making processes (e.g. see section 2.4.6). However, there is a lack of systematic monitoring and integration between national and international levels, which has meant that Agenda 21 Indicators have had little utility in implementation of agreements on sustainable development.

◆ member states and UN system organisations thought that the link between the UNCSD and the operational parts of the UN system was not strong enough, because the governing bodies and secretariats did not seek guidance from the UNCSD. Policy decisions were not sufficiently based on scientific findings because there was little interaction between scientists and policy makers

◆ The major shortcoming of the UNCSD was its inability to integrate the three pillars of sustainable development. The UNCSD, particularly in the latter 10 years, became largely viewed as a forum for the environment ministries, supplemented by agriculture ministries. The ministries of finance, planning and development declined to participate, therefore although the UNCSD decisions considered the three dimensions, they lacked legitimacy because the core ministries were not involved in the discussions and the formation and adoption of policies.

Many of the issues discussed in detail through Sections 2.4 and 2.5 are identified in this review of the contributions and shortcomings of the UN CSD. These challenges need to be squarely met if we are truly to make progress in sustainable development.

2.6.2 TOWARDS GLOBAL GOALS: THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS (MDGS) AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDGS)

The Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000 produced the Millennium Declaration, which (among other things) called for specification of Millennium Development Goals. The 189 UN member states and 23 international organisations agreed to achieve the goals by 2015. The 8 goals and targets focused on:

1. eradicating extreme poverty and hunger

2. achieving universal primary education

3. promoting gender equality and empowering women

4. reducing child mortality rates

5. improving maternal health

6. combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

7. ensuring environmental sustainability

8. developing a global partnership for development.

These goals provided a framework of time-bound targets, and included 21 targets and 60 Indicators to measure and report progress.

The UN (2012a) Millennium Development Goals Report reviewed progress towards these goals, three years before the 2015 deadline. There was significant progress for some of the goals, for example, extreme poverty was found to be falling in every developing region; the poverty target reduction was met; the target of halving the proportion of people without access to improved sources of water was met; and there were improvements in the lives of 200 million slum dwellers, which exceeded the target. Several of the education and health targets were either on track, or showing improvement. However, there was uneven progress between countries, with some failing to meet any target. Hunger remains a global challenge and the number of people living in slums continues to grow. A critical lack of success in meeting the goals is in the area of environment.

As shown in Sections 2.4 and 2.5, it is clear that the capacity of ecosystems to sustain human development is eroding and reaching critical thresholds. The goals and targets in the MDGs relating to ecosystem function are extremely limited and superficial. Goal 7 is the only goal directly addressing the environment: ‘ensure environmental sustainability’. The relevant targets are very general (‘integrate the principles of


sustainable development into country policies and programs, and reverse the loss of environmental resources’ and ‘reduce biodiversity loss, achieving by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss’). The other targets within the goal relate to human development, considering access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and the proportion of the urban population living in slums. It is clear that the limited and unspecific goals and targets related to the environment have contributed to the lack of progress. UNEP (2011d) showed global deterioration of the environment using a range of Indicators. UN (2012a) showed a lack of significant progress for forests, biodiversity loss, and marine fisheries; with some limited (0.4%) and temporary decrease in GHG emissions due to the global financial crisis.

The Rio +20 Summit was held in June 2012, and the document summarising the outcomes, ‘The Future We Want’, proposed a new development agenda for post-2015, with a practical focus on poverty, hunger, water, sanitation, education and health care (UN 2012b). It was clearly recognised in this document that shifting from unsustainable to more sustainable patterns of consumption and production, while protecting and managing the natural resource base, is essential.

The process to develop new SDGs is underway, and the UN (2013b) has proposed that the SDGs must go beyond the MDGs, which (among other shortcomings) did not focus enough on reaching the very poorest and most marginalised people, or deal with the effects of conflict and violence on development; did not address the importance of good governance and institutions; and did not adequately integrate the social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainable development envisaged in the Millennium Declaration. UN (2013b) recognised that one factor – the magnitude of climate change – would determine whether or not the ambitions for sustainable development could ever be achieved.

Thus far, attempts to set clear quantitative targets for reducing GHG emissions at a global scale have not been successful, in part due to the lack of adequate governance structures required to negotiate and agree at a global level.

2.6.3 CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY REFLECTED IN GLOBAL CONVERSATIONS

In the discussion and negotiation of the post-2015 development agenda there is increasing use of the more contemporary concepts (and language) of sustainability theory, such as resilience thinking and planetary boundaries, and adaptive governance (as discussed in Section 2.5). This demonstrates that contemporary science approaches are being heard, understood and translated into aspirational goals.

For example, the set of briefs provided by the UN CSD Secretariat leading up to Rio (known as the Rio 2012 issues briefs) variously discuss green jobs and social inclusion (Issues Brief No 7); disaster risk reduction resilience building (Issues Brief No 8); stronger, more vertically integrated linkages between regional, national and local level governance (Issues Brief No 10). The report ‘Resilient People, Resilient Planet’ (UN 2012c) recognised that in order to deal with the global food security crisis, and remain within the ‘safe operating zone’, these goals must be fully integrated, rather than pursued separately. The UN (2012c) also makes recommendations about reaching agreement on the methods for costing environmental externalities, and addressing social exclusion and widening social inequity, including measuring, costing and taking responsibility for these issues. They propose to strengthen international governance for sustainable development, and increase the resources allocated to adaptation and disaster risk, education, and resilience planning by incorporating these topics into development budgets and strategy.

The absence of specific quantitative environmental MDGs and targets for the environment mean that they read more like recommendations (UNEP 2011d). There is clear evidence that when goals incorporate numerical targets, what is to be achieved is more clearly defined and potentially obtainable (UNEP 2011d). The history of environmental target setting shows that it works best for well-defined issues, and that it is critical to have the relevant baseline information to allow progress towards targets to be tracked and assessed (UNEP 2011d). However, the most recent report of the High-Level Panel Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda (which replaced the UNCSD) proposed an illustrative set of goals and targets for the Sustainable Development Goals. Of the 12 goals, only one (number 9) is focused on managing natural resource assets sustainably,


with the other 11 being focused on development goals. Therefore, despite widespread recognition that a minimum level of ecosystem function is required in order to support ongoing development, this is not reflected in the revised set of global goals and targets for sustainable development.

It is heartening that recent global initiatives have recognised the limitations of earlier approaches and are adopting more contemporary concepts, language and more integrated approaches to sustainable development. However, it remains a critical challenge to operationalise these advanced approaches along with requisite data collection, to address the aspirational international goals, given the lack of existing implementation pathways and necessary adaptive governance mechanisms across spatial scales.

2.7 Conclusions from the review of the last two decades of sustainability initiativesThis review has presented some of the key initiatives and applications in sustainability frameworks, theories and analytical approaches, with particular emphasis on the last 20 years. The review is of sufficient depth to provide some direction and focus for the World Economic Forum, as well as other readers interested in sustainability assessment.

2.7.1 SUMMARY OF KEY LEARNINGS

The understanding and practice of sustainability have flourished over the two decades since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Sustainable development and sustainability mean different things to different people, and vary across different contexts. This means that creating workable operational tools for assessing and promoting sustainability will always require judgments that are subject to legitimate debate. Even with widely accepted definitions for sustainability and sustainable development, the central questions of ‘sustaining what, for whom, where, and for how long?’ remain laden with human values and social choices. These values and choices are very context-specific and therefore differ across time, space, and culture.

Different approaches to assessing and implementing sustainability have different strengths, weaknesses, and applications. The language, theoretical constructs,

methods and applications of these diverse approaches can be very confusing. Many approaches are complementary and can be used together as multiple lines of evidence or in a blended approach (eg Indicators, risk assessment and adaptive management are critical elements in several other approaches). While all approaches have some limitations, it is clear that some approaches are somewhat outdated and have been superseded by more robust approaches (the key features of which are further summarized in Section 2.7.2). The selection of an approach should be guided by an understanding of theoretical construct, implementation pathway, and matching the approach to the purpose of the sustainability assessment.

Many insights from the first decade have been translated into tools and approaches for policy makers, businesses, and other decision makers. The science of sustainability has continued to develop, often in response to weaknesses or gaps in the earlier concepts and analysis (Section 2.4). Disciplinary and interdisciplinary sciences are critically important to underpin sustainability science. More recent advances in sustainability science (Section 2.5) are recognised by business and global policy (Section 2.6), but tools and implementation pathways are not yet mature.

Data underpin all types of sustainability assessment across many complex dimensions, and spatial and temporal scales. Indicators are often used as surrogates for components of highly complex natural systems and socio-economic situations, and are essential in most approaches to sustainability assessment. There are common problems with development of Indicators in that the underlying theory, structure and dynamics of the system are not well described or understood, and therefore many Indicators are based on unstated and untested assumptions. They therefore are not robust and have low utility (section 2.4.1). Indicators, especially compound Indicators, should therefore be developed and used judiciously.

Data and measurement are crucial, but are insufficient alone for assessing sustainability and enhancing sustainable outcomes. Improved understanding is needed to motivate and guide changes in practices and behaviour. This implies that measuring sustainability will be most effective when measurement and evaluation are understood as part of a wider iterative process of setting goals, learning and acting. To deal with the uncertainty


of responses in complex social-ecological systems requires an outcomes-based approach to sustainability assessment. When combined with the application of double or triple loop learning and adaptive management and governance to understand the system and to guide actions, this approach should lead to desired sustainability outcomes.

Successful implemented tools and schemes for sustainability assessment have a clear purpose articulated, and an underlying framework and method which is fit for purpose; (often) use Criteria and Indicators within appropriate conceptual frameworks; capture key drivers and responses; and are embedded within robust processes for social engagement, goal setting, and adaptive management. New initiatives, when designing and implementing sustainability frameworks, should build on existing relevant activities and processes in order to prevent reinventing the wheel, and possibly coming up to square one! It is important that newly proposed approaches are, as far as possible, compatible with other systems to assist mutual recognition, and thus facilitate international trade.

The UN global initiatives and partnerships have set Millennium Development Goals for sustainable development, and aim to achieve these by 2015. There is some laudable progress towards these goals in the ‘development for human needs’ sphere. But the environmental goals and targets are weakly specified, and the progress towards them is poor (Section 2.6). This re-iterates the findings from a multitude of studies showing that the ecosystem functions underpinning sustainable development are continuing to decline.

The UN is therefore moving towards a new set of Sustainable Development Goals. The global conversation around the development of these goals reflects the clear imperative to maintain a level of environmental function to support human development goals; and reflects many of the concepts and the language of contemporary approaches (for example resilience thinking and planetary boundaries). Early proposals for these goals show, however, a continued higher weight on the ‘development to meet human need’ aspect of sustainable development (11 out of 12 proposed goals). Only one illustrative goal focuses on maintaining adequate ecosystem function.

There is widespread recognition that the magnitude of the response (across local to global scales) that is required to meet the challenge of climate change – only one of the many dimensions of sustainability – will determine whether or not the ambitions for sustainable development can ever be achieved. Thus far, effective strategies for limiting global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have yet to be agreed, despite that this is one of the less complex dimensions of sustainability as GHG emission is a simple, globally relevant metric and the science behind the targets, though uncertain, is at least better understood than for many other dimensions of sustainability.

2.7.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE

There has been a significant shift in the last ten years, based on the recognition that a solid scientific foundation is necessary in order to define the pre-requisite levels of ecosystem function to meet long-term social or economic goals. Contemporary approaches incorporate the following key characteristics:

◆ recognise the need for methods and fora for dialogue, and for understanding human values and choices at different scales, locations, and times (including current and future generations)

◆ consider that systems are dynamic – the desired goal is not necessarily an equilibrium state, and there is explicit recognition of thresholds (rapid, non-linear changes of state or condition), which may be irreversible if transgressed

◆ acknowledge that a level of minimum ecosystem function is a prerequisite for the continued delivery of benefits to humans into the future; variously termed ‘planetary boundaries’, or ‘safe operating zones’

◆ deal with uncertainty and unknowns in a sophisticated and more realistic way – recognising that there may be many future shocks, some of which may be predictable and others which are not. These may include natural disasters, economic shocks, and social shocks. Therefore the linked social-ecological system will benefit from building resilience (‘resilience thinking’) and actively managing alternative pathways to transition to desired futures


◆ recognise that if an assessment covers a shorter time period than the time scale of important processes, it will not adequately capture the associated variability, eg for long-term cycles such as climatic or economic trends

◆ recognise that many environmental problems originate from the mismatch between the scale at which ecological processes occur and the scale at which decisions are made. Outcomes at any given scale can be determined by interactions of ecological, socio-economic, and political factors from other scales; therefore contemporary approaches accommodate nested scales from local to global scale (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005c)

◆ provide a basis for decision making according to multiple integrated goals.

Many of the more contemporary approaches to sustainability are predicated, to a greater or lesser degree, taking these characteristics into account. Several of the main approaches and constructs are not mutually exclusive and may be used in a complementary fashion to work in concert, or provide ‘multiple lines of evidence’ in assessing sustainability outcomes.

2.7.3 OUTSTANDING CHALLENGES

There are many unresolved challenges relating to achieving sustainability goals through a structured sustainability framework. Many of these were raised in the review as specific criticisms or challenges for a particular approach, but here we compile a list of those that span across all approaches. They include:

◆ specifying and monitoring key system variables and Indicators that are relevant to local sustainability issues. There is a particular challenge for the development and application of compound Indicators that are scientifically robust, relevant to the problem and therefore interpretable and useful (discussed in Section 2.4.1)

◆ developing cost-effective approaches to data collection, assembly, and use and the generation of suitable model-based data and projections across scales (discussed in Section 2.4.1)

◆ specifying system boundaries in time and space (eg discussed in Section 2.4.2)

◆ addressing the absence of clear and explicit theory regarding ecosystem structure, dynamic function, thresholds, feedbacks in linked social, economic systems, especially when many systems are operating outside of previously known ranges (discussed in Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3)

◆ estimating cumulative impacts of activities and pressures, and a lack of theory for aggregating and disaggregating across scales (discussed in Sections 2.4.1, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3)

◆ developing methods and fora for quantifying and assessing trade-offs between different dimensions of sustainability, scale, time periods, redistribution of benefit and loss (discussed in Sections 2.4.3, 2.5.1, 2.5.2)

◆ quantifying human values (especially into the future), recognising integrating various forms of stakeholder knowledge, and methods for the negotiation of trade-offs whilst providing for requisite ecosystem function across scale, time and place (discussed in Sections 2.4.3, 2.4.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.3, 2.5)

◆ understanding and managing diverse unknowns (discussed in Section 2.2.1)

◆ questioning the dominance of neo-classical economic approaches assuming partial equilibrium models, acceptance of existing institutions, valuation of ecosystem function, and assuming that incremental changes ‘fine-tune’ the markets to move the system towards more sustainable outcomes. The sweeping economic transformations required to achieve global-scale sustainability will require broader institutional change and global, adaptive governance arrangements (discussed in Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4)

◆ designing and implementing effective governance arrangements, nested across scales from local through to global (Sections 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.6).

We have provided some discussion about specific approaches, and attempted to distil some of the key elements or building blocks that apply in many or all approaches. In the following section we propose a generic robust sustainability framework with discrete elements that appear universally applicable.


3LINKING ACROSS SCALES:

INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS, DATA, EVALUATION, FEEDBACKS



3 A generic robust framework for implementing and assessing sustainability across scales

3.1 Common elements, or universal building blocksOstrom (2005) articulated, within the context of social interactions and institutional economics, the need to identify universal building blocks with which to construct useful theories of human behaviour in a diverse range of situations. We apply this thinking to our review of the diverse approaches to sustainability. Ostrom (2005) proposed the term ‘framework’ to identify the elements (and the relationships among the elements) which could be used to organise diagnostic and prescriptive enquiry. Thus, frameworks would provide the most general set of variables that should be used to analyse all types of settings, and identify universal component elements that any relevant theory needs to include. She proposed that the development and use of ‘theories’ would enable specification within parts of the framework, allowing an analyst to make specific assumptions to diagnose phenomena, explain processes, or predict outcomes. Further, she proposed that the development and use of ‘models’ would take a further step towards making precise assumptions about a limited set of parameters and variables, ie a more specific set of relations.

We propose the term ‘sustainability framework’ (Figure 3-1) to refer to a robust four-part structure made up of the combination of the following universal building blocks:

◆ Institutional mechanisms: the formal and informal rules that provide the governance, oversight and stability necessary to implement the sustainability framework. The critical elements of stakeholder consultation, goal setting, review, adaptation and compliance are included in the institutional mechanisms.

33 ◆ Data: specification, collection and analysis and the use of projections: data, which can consist of measurements, modelled interpolations or projections, are used as the basis for evaluation. Data can be analysed to understand and report the key system variables, functions, trends and projections within the context of the given purpose.

◆ Evaluation: interpreting the meaning or value of the data in relation to agreed sustainability objectives. This includes methods that may be applied to contextualise and analyse, to quantify and judge the various trade-offs between delivered outcomes at various scales, and between different sectors

◆ Feedback: flow of information or action between components of the framework. In a well-functioning framework, robust data should be used to judge the success of policy, legislation or operational guidelines in achieving goals and targets, themselves embedded in evolving social and economic contexts. Institutional mechanisms can in turn modify policy, targets or guidelines and/or specify changed sustainability evaluation methods, or data to be used.

This framework is nested within the concepts of adaptive management and governance, as well as single, double and triple loop learning; these concepts are crucial to promoting sustainability in complex and uncertain real world situations. Application of adaptive management within prescribed and static governance structures is important, but unlikely to be the most effective approach over the long term. This suggests there will be advantages in acknowledging and planning for opportunities and processes for adaptive governance, actively allowing for review and adjustment of the rules and institutions which frame and guide specific management strategies and actions. Such a triple loop learning approach that links together consideration of the diversity of

51 3 A generic robust framework for implementing and assessing sustainability across scales

issues embedded in the context and assumptions that underlie the sustainability of complex systems, together with the available actions, will provide improved outcomes in understanding systems and selecting the optimal adaptations. Specifying these processes and time frames is sometimes criticised as reducing certainty for entities subject to management arrangements, but we consider that explicit provision for review and adjustment improves clarity, and is likely to enhance confidence by reducing the risk of more arbitrary processes (such as more radical changes imposed after a crisis or visible management failure). Active review provisions are also likely to support a culture of continuous learning and improvement, and give licence to refine arrangements without implying that previous decisions were incorrect.

Figure 3‑1 The four elements of a robust sustainability framework (adapted from O’Connell et al 2009)

solutions will be devised and applied in individual enterprises, sectors and nations and should be evaluated against the appropriate goal or Criteria for that scale.

Some goals clearly extend beyond the local or even national scales. Linked activities in each of the four elements (Institutional mechanisms, Evaluation methods, Data and Feedback) thus need to be integrated across different scales. Individual enterprises, and each sector of a national economy, and each country can aim for sustainability in relation to local goals, and contribute to sustainability at the next scale up or down (eg regionally, nationally, globally). Improving sustainability of the whole system may sometimes involve a transformation, loss or addition of individual enterprises, or even complete industry sectors, in order to adjust the whole towards a more sustainable outcome. Further discussion on what comprises ‘success’ of sustainability initiatives as provided in Section 5.3.

Effective sustainability actions in each element, at each scale, and effective links across scales are required in order to achieve global sustainable outcomes. Addressing sustainability in any one element can make a partial contribution towards global sustainability outcomes.

Sustainability measurement and evaluation must be highly cognisant of scale. The elements of the framework (Figure 3-1) are generic building blocks, but play out very differently at enterprise, national and international scales.

An enterprise may be considered sustainable even though the resource-use patterns of the economy it operates within are not currently sustainable. Sustainable


business plans and operational guidelines may need to be changed (B in Figure 3-2).

Data collated, analysed and evaluated at the national level would be required, together with data from other countries and other systems data for international sustainability reporting and evaluation (C in Figure 3-2) eg Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

The outcome of an international evaluation may influence national goals, targets, plans etc. This response could occur directly (D in Figure 3-2) through a nation’s evaluation of the international data or indirectly (E in Figure 3-2) through the international data leading to changes in international agreements which flow through to national changes. The linking of the elements across scales must be agreed, and this has important consequences for negotiating ownership of the process, as well as the collection, management and ownership of data at all levels. The implications of cross-scale monitoring for ownership of processes has been studied and described with respect to managing desertification (eg Verstraete et al 2009).

Figure 3‑2 Feedback mechanisms and interactions across scales in a robust sustainability framework (see text for explanations of A to E)

Figure 3-2 depicts the feedback mechanisms and interactions between the three illustrative scales. There are also feedback mechanisms within each scale of application whereby data are collated and analysed, and interpretations made to evaluate sustainability. The results are evaluated using a fit-for-purpose method, and linked to the Institutional mechanisms.

For example in Australian forestry there are agreed C&I that are used to report on enterprises at the local scale (Forest Management Unit level.) These data may feed into one of several sustainability certification schemes, as well as into business and operational plans. Some of the data are aggregated and reported at the state and national scales (A in Figure 3-2), and internationally. Data from other sectors and resources will be required for a full national evaluation of sustainability of aggregate or cumulative impacts of the forestry sector in the context of other sectors, the whole economy and broader land use.

Feedback from national-scale sustainability evaluation could lead to changes in national plans, targets, regulation and legislation that impact on individual enterprises, or institutional,


3.2 Mapping various approaches and initiatives to the generic four element sustainability frameworkIn this section, we use the proposed generic framework to provide a context for the various approaches and initiatives described in Section 2. We provide an indication of which elements of the four element sustainability framework are addressed in each approach (ie institutions, evaluation, data, feedback); the relevant scale or scales (enterprise/local through to global); and the relative implementation maturity of the approach with some examples and references (see Table 3-1).

This provides an entry point to readers who may know which scale of operation, or elements may be applicable to their purpose, and guides them to which type of theoretical approach or formalised/intermittent scheme may be relevant.


Leaving lighter footprints (Photo: Jaslyn Allnutt)

Tab

le 3

‑1 M

app

ing

th

e m

ajo

r su

stai

nab

ilit

y ap

pro

ach

es (r

evie

wed

in S

ecti

on

2)

to t

he

fou

r el

emen

t su

stai

nab

ilit

y fr

amew

ork

pro

po

sed

in t

his

rep

ort

. Th

e ta

ble

sh

ow

s: t

he

scal

e at

wh

ich

th

ey a

re im

ple

men

ted;

th

e el

emen

ts t

hey

pro

vid

e in

th

e fo

ur

elem

ent

sust

ain

abil

ity

fram

ewo

rk (

Sect

ion

3);

an

d t

he

mat

uri

ty o

f th

e ap

pro

ach

. Fu

rth

er e

xam

ple

s re

leva

nt

to f

ore

stry

, bio

ener

gy

and

min

ing

pro

vid

ed in

Sec

tio

n 4

.

TY

PE

OF

AP

PR

OA

CH

NA

ME

OF

AP

PR

OA

CH

SCA

LE A

T W

HIC

H

IMP

LEM

ENT

EDEL

EMEN

T O

F FR

AM

EW

OR

KM

AT

UR

ITY

IN

IM

PLE

MEN

TAT

ION

EX

AM

PLE

(S)

OF

IMP

LEM

ENTA

TIO

NR

EFER

ENC

E

Use

of

Ind

icat

ors

(2.4

.1)

Sim

ple

Ind

icat

ors

(2.4

.1.1

)

Ente

rpri

se

Nat

iona

l

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Dat

a M

atu

reV

ery

wid

ely

imp

lem

ente

d an

d m

ult

iple

sec

tors

an

d ap

plic

atio

ns.

A s

imp

le e

g: A

ustr

alia

’s S

usta

inab

le

Fore

st M

anag

emen

t Fr

amew

ork

.

eg In

dic

ato

r 1.

1.a

- Are

a o

f fo

rest

by

fore

st t

ype

and

tenu

re.

Fore

sts

Aus

tral

ia (2

009)

Co

mp

ou

nd

and

com

ple

x In

dic

ato

rs

(2.4

.1.2

)

Nat

iona

l

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Dat

aEa

rly

– m

id s

tag

eM

any

exam

ple

s p

rovi

ded

in S

ecti

on

2.4.

1.2.

eg

Wo

rld

Eco

no

mic

Fo

rum

’s

(WEF

) Su

stai

nab

ly-a

djus

ted

Glo

bal

C

om

pet

iven

ess

Ind

ex.

http

://w

ww

.wef

oru

m.o

rg/c

ont

ent/

pag

es/s

usta

inab

le-c

om

pet

itiv

enes

s

Imp

act

Ass

essm

ent

and

Rela

ted

Ap

pro

ach

es

(2.4

.2)

Envi

ron

men

tal

Imp

act

Ass

essm

ent

(EIA

), So

cial

Imp

act

Ass

essm

ent

(SIA

)

(2.4

.2.1

)

Ente

rpri

seIn

stit

uti

on

Dat

a

Eval

uati

on

Feed

bac

k

Mat

ure

Wid

ely

imp

lem

ente

d, s

tan

dard

p

ract

ice

in m

any

cou

ntri

es f

or

new

dev

elo

pm

ents

eg

. Sh

oal

have

n St

arch

es (M

anild

ra G

rou

p)

Envi

ronm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent

Repo

rt fo

r Pr

opos

ed E

than

ol P

rodu

ctio

n U

pgra

de.

http

://w

ww

.man

ildra

.co

m.a

u/

com

mu

nity

/ea_

etha

no

l/00

_EA

-Et

han

ol_

Up

grad

e-8t

hA

ug

08.p

df

Life

Cyc

le A

sses

smen

t (L

CA

)

(2.4

.2.2

)

Pro

duct

or

serv

ice

Ente

rpri

se

Nat

iona

l

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Dat

aM

atu

reW

idel

y im

ple

men

ted

in p

rodu

ct

com

par

iso

ns, g

uid

ed b

y in

tern

atio

nal

stan

dard

s fo

r LC

A (I

SO 2

006a

an

d b)

. A

pp

lied

in c

arb

on

foo

tpri

ntin

g fo

r p

rodu

cts

and

serv

ices

, su

ch

as f

or

lab

ellin

g (P

AS

2050

, BSI

20

11).

Car

bo

n fo

otp

rint

tec

hni

cal

spec

ific

atio

n av

aila

ble

to

gu

ide

bus

ines

s to

bus

ines

s an

d b

usin

ess

to

cons

um

er c

om

mu

nica

tio

n (IS

O 2

013)

.

Ada

pte

d fo

r G

HG

est

imat

ion

for

bio

ener

gy e

.g. b

y Ro

un

dta

ble

on

Sust

aina

ble

Bio

mat

eria

ls’ R

SB G

HG

C

alcu

lati

on

Met

ho

do

logy

(RSB

-ST

D-0

1-00

3-01

).

ISO

200

6a

ISO

200

6b

BSI 2

011

PAS

2050

:201

1 Sp

ecif

icat

ion

for

the

asse

ssm

ent

of

the

life

cycl

e gr

een

ho

use

gas

emis

sio

ns o

f g

oo

ds

and

serv

ices

.

http

://s

ho

p.bs

igro

up.

com

/en

/Br

ow

se-B

y-Su

bjec

t/En

viro

nm

enta

l-M

anag

emen

t-an

d-S

usta

inab

ility

/PA

S-20

50/

ISO

201

3 IS

O/T

S 14

067

Gre

enh

ous

e ga

ses

-- C

arb

on

foo

tpri

nt o

f p

rodu

cts

-- R

equ

irem

ents

an

d gu

idel

ines

fo

r qu

anti

fica

tio

n an

d co

mm

uni

cati

on

http

://w

ww

.iso

.org

/iso

/cat

alo

gue_

det

ail?

csnu

mb

er=5

9521

RSB

201

1 R

SB G

HG

Cal

cula

tio

n M

eth

od

olo

gyht

tp:/

/rsb

.org

/pd

fs/

stan

dard

s/G

HG

-Met

ho

do

logy

/11-

07-0

1-R

SB-S

TD-0

1-00

3-01

-RSB

-GH

G-

Cal

cula

tio

n-M

eth

od

olo

gy.p

df


http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/sustainable-competitiveness

http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/sustainable-competitiveness

http://www.manildra.com.au/community/ea_ethanol/00_EA-Ethanol_Upgrade-8thAug08.pdf



http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=59521

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=59521

http://rsb.org/pdfs/11-05-20-RSB-STD-01-003-02-Fossil-Fuel-Baseline-GHG-Calculation-Methodology.pdf

http://rsb.org/pdfs/standards/GHG-Methodology/11-07-01-RSB-STD-01-003-01-RSB-GHG-Calculation-Methodology.pdf




TY

PE

OF

AP

PR

OA

CH

NA

ME

OF

AP

PR

OA

CH

SCA

LE A

T W

HIC

H

IMP

LEM

ENT

EDEL

EMEN

T O

F FR

AM

EW

OR

KM

AT

UR

ITY

IN

IM

PLE

MEN

TAT

ION

EX

AM

PLE

(S)

OF

IMP

LEM

ENTA

TIO

NR

EFER

ENC

E

Mai

ntai

nin

g C

apit

al S

tock

s an

d Fl

ow

s

(2.4

.3)

Trip

le B

ott

om

Lin

e (T

BL)

Sust

aina

bili

ty

Ass

essm

ent

(2.4

.3)

Ente

rpri

se

Nat

iona

l

Dat

a

(so

met

imes

o

nly

rep

ort

ing

bu

t m

ay

incl

ud

e)

Eval

uati

on

Mat

ure

Wid

esp

read

imp

lem

enta

tio

n, m

any

exam

ple

s, e

g A

ustr

alia

n G

ove

rnm

ent

DSE

WP&

C ‘E

nvir

on

men

tal

per

form

ance

rep

ort

ing

’.

Glo

bal

Rep

ort

ing

Init

iati

ve.

http

://w

ww

.env

iro

nm

ent.

go

v.au

/ab

ou

t/en

viro

nm

ent-

rep

ort

s/

http

s://

ww

w.g

lob

alre

po

rtin

g.o

rg/

info

rmat

ion

/sus

tain

abili

ty-r

epo

rtin

g/

Pag

es/d

efau

lt.a

spx

Sch

emes

fo

r M

easu

rin

g,

Ass

essi

ng

, Re

po

rtin

g an

d C

erti

fyin

g su

stai

nab

ility

(2.4

.4)

Prin

cip

le-

Cri

teri

a-In

dic

ato

r, C

erti

fica

tio

n o

f Su

stai

nab

le

Pro

duct

ion

(2.4

.4)

Ente

rpri

se

Nat

iona

l

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Inst

itu

tio

n

Dat

a

Eval

uati

on

Mat

ure

Wid

esp

read

imp

lem

enta

tio

n in

fo

rest

ry e

g M

ont

real

Pro

cess

Cri

teri

a an

d In

dic

ato

rs o

f Su

stai

nab

le F

ore

st

Man

agem

ent.

Fore

st S

tew

ards

hip

Co

un

cil f

ore

st

pro

duct

s ce

rtif

icat

ion

.

The

Car

bo

n D

iscl

osu

re P

roje

ct.

The

Inte

rnat

iona

l Tra

de

Cen

tre

Stan

dard

s M

ap e

nab

les

com

par

iso

n o

f 12

0 st

anda

rds

in o

ver

200

cou

ntri

es; a

nd

cert

ifyi

ng

pro

duct

s an

d se

rvic

es in

mo

re t

han

80

eco

no

mic

sec

tors

.

http

://w

ww

.mo

ntre

alp

roce

ss.o

rg/

Reso

urc

es/C

rite

ria_

and

_In

dic

ato

rs/

ind

ex.s

htm

l

Fore

st S

tew

ards

hip

Co

un

cil (

2012

)

http

://c

arb

on

dis

clo

sure

pro

ject

.net

/

http

://w

ww

.sta

nda

rdsm

ap.o

rg/

(Dri

ver-

Imp

act)

Pr

essu

re-S

tate

-Re

spo

nse

(DPS

IR)

(2.4

.5)

Pres

sure

-Sta

te-

Resp

ons

e (P

SR)

(2.4

.5)

Nat

iona

lD

ata

Eval

uati

on

Mat

ure

Aus

tral

ian

Go

vern

men

t D

SEW

P&C

Stat

e of

the

Env

iron

men

t Re

port

201

1.

OEC

D E

nvir

on

men

tal I

nd

icat

ors

200

8.

http

://w

ww

.env

iro

nm

ent.

go

v.au

/so

e/20

11/

http

://w

ww

.oec

d.o

rg/e

nvir

on

men

t/in

dic

ato

rs-m

od

ellin

g-o

utl

oo

ks/d

ata-

and

-in

dic

ato

rs.h

tm

Acc

ou

ntin

g Sy

stem

A

pp

roac

hes

(2.4

.6)

Syst

em o

f In

tegr

ated

En

viro

nm

enta

l an

d Ec

on

om

ic A

cco

unt

ing

(SEE

A)

(2.4

.6.1

)

Nat

iona

lD

ata

Mid

sta

ge

In 2

012

the

SEEA

Cen

tral

Fra

mew

ork

w

as a

do

pte

d as

an

inte

rnat

iona

l st

anda

rd b

y th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns

Stat

isti

cal C

om

mis

sio

n, s

up

po

rted

by

the

Euro

pea

n C

om

mis

sio

n, t

he

FAO

, IM

F, O

ECD

, UN

an

d th

e W

orl

d Ba

nk.

http

://u

nsta

ts.u

n.o

rg/u

nsd/

enva

cco

unt

ing

/see

a.as

p

EC e

t al

201

2

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n-b

ased

A

cco

unt

ing

(CBA

)

(2.4

.6.2

)

Ente

rpri

se

Nat

iona

l

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Eval

uati

on

Mid

sta

ge

Uni

ted

Kin

gd

om

201

1-20

13 -

Dep

artm

ent

for

Ener

gy a

nd

Clim

ate

Cha

ng

e (D

ECC

) w

ith

the

Uni

vers

ity

of

Leed

s d

evel

op

ing

a C

BA In

dic

ato

r fo

r G

HG

em

issi

ons

.

Barr

ett

et a

l 201

3

Wie

dman

n an

d Ba

rret

t 20

13


http://www.environment.gov.au/about/environment-reports/

http://www.environment.gov.au/about/environment-reports/

https://www.globalreporting.org/information/sustainability-reporting/Pages/default.aspx



http://www.montrealprocess.org/Resources/Criteria_and_Indicators/index.shtml



http://carbondisclosureproject.net/

http://www.standardsmap.org/

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2011/

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2011/

http://www.oecd.org/environment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/data-and-indicators.htm



http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seea.asp

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seea.asp

TY

PE

OF

AP

PR

OA

CH

NA

ME

OF

AP

PR

OA

CH

SCA

LE A

T W

HIC

H

IMP

LEM

ENT

EDEL

EMEN

T O

F FR

AM

EW

OR

KM

AT

UR

ITY

IN

IM

PLE

MEN

TAT

ION

EX

AM

PLE

(S)

OF

IMP

LEM

ENTA

TIO

NR

EFER

ENC

E

Risk

Ass

essm

ent

and

Man

agem

ent

to D

eal w

ith

Un

cert

aint

y

(2.4

.7)

Risk

Ass

essm

ent

and

Man

agem

ent

(2.4

.7)

Ente

rpri

se

Nat

iona

l

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Inst

itu

tio

n

Eval

uati

on

Mat

ure

ISO

310

00 –

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t.

Aus

tral

ian

and

New

Zea

lan

d St

anda

rd

AS/

NZS

310

00:2

009

Risk

Man

agem

ent

– Pr

inci

ples

and

Gui

delin

es.

http

://w

ww

.iso

.org

/iso

/ho

me/

stan

dard

s/is

o310

00.h

tm

http

://s

her

q.o

rg/3

1000

.pd

f

Man

agem

ent

Ap

pro

ach

es:

Adh

eren

ce

to P

resc

rib

ed

Ap

pro

ach

es

(2.4

.8)

Best

Man

agem

ent

Prac

tice

s (B

MP)

, C

od

es o

f Pr

acti

ce,

Envi

ron

men

tal

Man

agem

ent

Syst

ems

(EM

S)

(2.4

.8.1

)

Ente

rpri

seIn

stit

uti

on

Eval

uati

on

Feed

bac

k (E

MS

on

ly)

Mat

ure

Wid

esp

read

imp

lem

enta

tio

n eg

ISO

14

000

EMS

seri

es.

Mo

re c

ons

trai

ned

ap

pro

ach

es, e

g V

icto

rian

Dep

artm

ent

of

Prim

ary

Indu

stri

es a

nd

Agr

icu

ltu

re, A

ustr

alia

–

Envi

ron

men

tal M

anag

emen

t Sy

stem

s in

Vic

tori

an A

gric

ult

ure

.

http

://w

ww

.iso

.org

/iso

/iso

_ca

talo

gue/

man

agem

ent_

stan

dard

s/is

o_9

000_

iso

_140

00/i

so14

000

http

://w

ww

.dp

i.vic

.go

v.au

/ag

ricu

ltu

re/f

arm

ing

-man

agem

ent/

bus

ines

s-m

anag

emen

t/em

s-in

-vi

cto

rian

-agr

icu

ltu

re

Ada

pti

ve

man

agem

ent

(2.4

.8.3

)

Ente

rpri

seIn

stit

uti

on

Feed

bac

k

Mid

sta

ge

Can

adia

n En

viro

nm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent

Ag

ency

– O

per

atio

nal P

olic

y St

atem

ent:

Ada

pti

ve M

anag

emen

t M

easu

res

un

der

th

e Ca

nadi

an

Envi

ronm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent

Act

.

http

://w

ww

.cea

a-ac

ee.g

c.ca

/def

ault

.as

p?la

ng

=En&

n=5

0139

251-

1

Emer

gin

g Su

stai

nab

ility

Sc

ien

ce

Ap

pro

ach

es

(2.5

)

Scen

ario

Ana

lysi

s an

d In

tegr

ated

A

sses

smen

t

(2.5

.1)

Inte

rnat

iona

lD

ata

Eval

uati

on

Earl

y st

age

Inte

rgo

vern

men

tal P

anel

on

Clim

ate

Cha

ng

e (IP

CC)

– 5t

h A

sses

smen

t Re

po

rt (A

R5)

.

http

://w

ww

.ipcc

.ch

/act

ivit

ies/

acti

viti

es.s

htm

l - .U

jueq

b-B

IzU

Mill

enni

um

Ec

osy

stem

A

sses

smen

t (M

A)

or

Eco

syst

em S

ervi

ces

Ap

pro

ach

(2.5

.2)

Nat

iona

l an

d In

tern

atio

nal

Dat

a

Eval

uati

on

Earl

y st

age

Mill

enni

um

Eco

syst

em A

sses

smen

t.

UK

Nat

iona

l Eco

syst

em A

sses

smen

t 20

11.

http

://w

ww

.un

ep.o

rg/m

aweb

/en

/in

dex

.asp

x

http

://u

knea

.un

ep-w

cmc.

org

/Ho

me/

tab

id/3

8/D

efau

lt.a

spx

Resi

lien

ce T

hin

kin

g,

Thre

sho

lds

and

Plan

etar

y Bo

un

dari

es

(2.5

.3)

Nat

iona

l

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Inst

itu

tio

n

Eval

uati

on

No

t im

ple

men

ted

The

app

licat

ion

of

resi

lien

ce t

heo

ry

to r

eal-

wo

rld

situ

atio

ns is

exp

lore

d in

Res

ilien

ce P

ract

ice:

Eng

agin

g th

e So

urce

s of

our

Sus

tain

abili

ty, B

rian

W

alke

r an

d D

avid

Sal

t (2

012)

.

Wal

ker

and

Salt

(201

2)

Ada

pti

ve G

ove

rnan

ce

(2.5

.4)

Nat

iona

l

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Inst

itu

tio

n

Feed

bac

k

No

t im

ple

men

ted

Ada

ptiv

e go

vern

ance

and

clim

ate

chan

ge, R

ona

ld D

. Bru

nn

er, A

man

da

H L

ynch

(201

0) a

rgu

es f

or

de-

cent

ralis

ed a

dap

tive

go

vern

ance

to

p

rovi

de

a d

iver

sity

an

d in

no

vati

on

in

addr

essi

ng

clim

ate

chan

ge.

Bru

nn

er a

nd

Lyn

ch (2

010)


http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso31000.htm

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso31000.htm

http://sherq.org/31000.pdf

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000/iso14000



http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farming-management/business-management/ems-in-victorian-agriculture




http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=50139251-1

http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=50139251-1

http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml#.Ujueqb-BIzU

http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml#.Ujueqb-BIzU

http://www.unep.org/maweb/en/index.aspx

http://www.unep.org/maweb/en/index.aspx

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Home/tabid/38/Default.aspx

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Home/tabid/38/Default.aspx

4SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY RELIES ON MEASUREMENT, EVALUATION, FEEDBACKS AND GOVERNANCE


Photo: CSIRO

4 Sectoral approaches: learning from forestry, bioenergy and mining

Many sectors have implemented formal schemes for sustainability measurement, evaluation and certification. Forestry is a well-established industry that, for many years, has focused on sustainable management and the establishment of a sustainability framework for the industry (Section 4.1). We contrast this against the emerging approaches for a relatively new industry, bioenergy, in Section 4.2 and extractive industries in Section 4.3. There is a very vast web of activities and mechanisms across scales ranging from enterprise to international. Therefore we cannot be comprehensive, but instead provide some examples and commentary across scales in these three sectors. The aim is to illustrate application of the four element sustainability framework, by mapping out existing activities and linkages at each scale in relation to a particular purpose. This allows identification of important gaps and the role of new activities.

4.1 Sustainable forest managementEvery year at the global scale, a very large area of land is deforested or degraded (reducing capacity to provide goods and ecosystem services into the future) (FAO 2010). There is a vast literature discussing global forest deforestation and degradation, compliance with forest law and governance. The drivers and agents of deforestation and degradation are usually different. Deforestation is caused predominantly by the large-scale commercial conversion of forest for agriculture; the expansion of urban areas and infrastructure development; some of which is sanctioned by government and some of which is not (Blaser 2010). Degradation usually results from extraction of forest products at unsustainable levels by local populations as part of their rural livelihoods. It is estimated that 850 million ha

44are degraded in this way, with a further 120 M ha degraded in humid tropical forests due to commercial selective logging (Blaser 2010, citing others).

4.1.1 MAPPING FOREST SUSTAINABILITY TO THE FOUR ELEMENT SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK

4.1.1.1 Institutional mechanisms

The control of forest management lies within national-scale forest policies and regulation. These form part of the institutional systems of a national-scale sustainable forest framework. Such frameworks must consider and deal with pressures outside the forest domain, in particular the push to expand agriculture and food production and the need to expand urban areas and infrastructure as populations grow. There are global attempts to resolve key underlying issues of (from Blaser 2010):

◆ uncertainty regarding land use and land use change, forest tenure and use rights

◆ poor forest policy and legal frameworks

◆ weak forest law enforcement

◆ insufficient information on forest resources, coupled with increasing demand for forest products

◆ corruption and lack of transparency.

In Australia, for example, the institutional systems in place for sustainable forest management are generally strong (eg Nambiar 1999; O’Connell et al 2009; Smethurst et al 2012). These governance and other institutional mechanisms are briefly described below to illustrate their comprehensiveness and linkages or nesting across scales. Despite this, there are still some unresolved concerns and issues of coherence, compliance and effectiveness

59 4 Sectoral approaches: learning from forestry, bioenergy and mining

of feedbacks (eg Smethurst et al 2012). Similar approaches exist in many countries, with varying degrees of coherence and governance.

Many of Australia’s native forests are managed under Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) that are based on strong foundations of international, national and state policies and legislation. For example, the Victorian Statewide Assessment of Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2008)7 is nested within 16 international treaties, conventions and initiatives; 11 separate pieces of Australian Government legislation; 13 Australian Government policies; 28 pieces of Victorian Government legislation; and 5 Victorian Government policies (O’Connell et al 2009).

In addition, there are legislated forestry Codes of Practice in most jurisdictions. These generally apply to native and plantation forests on both public and private land. Compliance with these codes of practice is generally monitored, and breaches can be pursued through legal action by state authorities. Information used to underpin both State reports and the Australian State of the Forests report is collected by the managers of public and private forests using a framework based on the Montreal Process criteria and indicators. Individual enterprises have been certified under the standards developed by the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

Though there is some variation between Australian states and territories, overall there are comprehensive institutional arrangements across a range of scales (international, national, state and enterprise) which seek to achieve sustainable forest management in Australia. These are underpinned by a sound sustainability assessment system and adaptive forest management processes which, over time, will enable judgement of the success of the institutional arrangements in achieving sustainability objectives.

7 Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry 2008, Comprehensive Regional Assessment: Victorian Statewide Assessment of Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management, Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Foretry, Australian Government, accessed 20th August 2009. http://www.daff.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0014/50450/vic_cent_esfm.pdf

Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for sustainable forest management. Following this, the Montreal and Helsinki Processes developed the C&I for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests, and the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO) has undertaken a similar process for tropical forests (International Tropical Timber Organisation 2012). Under the three major C&I schemes (the Montreal Process C&I for temperate and arboreal forests, the Pan-European Forest Process and the ITTO), 117 countries have signed onto the process, representing 90% of the world’s temperate and boreal forests and 80% of tropical forests. Under the FSC and the PEFC, 32 countries have national certification schemes.

The sustainability Criteria for forestry cover the properties and processes occurring in various parts of forest ecosystems, socio-economic systems, and the legal and institutional systems that support sustainable forest management. For example, the Montreal Criteria cover biodiversity, productive capacity, ecosystem health, soil and water, carbon stocks, socio-economics, and legal and institutional frameworks. Sets of Indicators have been developed for each of these Criteria at an international level, and for many countries, adapted to meet more local needs (eg Forests Australia 2009). The Indicators aim to be surrogates for important ecosystem properties and processes. They are designed to be sufficiently sensitive so as to be able to detect change and inexpensive to measure, so that they can be used to track temporal change in ecosystem condition and output (Raison et al 1997).

These C&I can be used to support a range of processes, and several specific reporting and management purposes at local through to international levels. They are often measured and monitored at enterprise scale, but feed up through the reporting process to be aggregated at state, national and international scales through State of the Forest reporting, and feedback into policy setting or enterprise management. They can form the basis for third-party independent audits of the sustainability of forest management eg Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 2002; Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC 2012)

7 Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry 2008, Comprehensive Regional Assessment: Victorian Statewide Assessment of Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management, Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Foretry, Australian Government, accessed 20th August 2009. http://www.daff.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0014/50450/vic_cent_esfm.pdf

4.1.2 DATA, EVALUATION, AND FEEDBACKS

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development adopted the Rio Forest Principles and the concept of using


which use different (but somewhat consistent) sets of C&I. C&I can also be used by forest managers to support forest planning and management, to report progress against the goals and conditions specified in local codes of forest practice, and to address the growing community expectation that they should demonstrate sustainable forest management. Essential to achieving this is consultation with stakeholders

as to what Indicators are valid, appropriate targets, and how monitoring and review will be done (Raison et al 2001). Monitoring of outcomes provides the foundation for ongoing review and improvement, which is essential for ‘adaptive’ forest management. This will lead to sustainable forest management if the stakeholder goals are consistent with the needs of future generations.

Table 4‑1 Examples relating to Australian forests of the application at different scales of the four elements of the generic sustainability framework

INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS

DATA MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION EVALUATIONMETHODS FEEDBACKS

ENTERPRISE SCALE

An enterprise includes:

◆ a single entity operating under a set of rules such as a company (Australian Bluegum Plantations Pty Ltd 2012)

◆ a group of entities operating under common guidelines such as an industry association (Australian Forest Products Association 2012)

◆ a government enterprise eg Forests NSW (Forests NSW 2012)

Government policies/legislation – financial, social (eg labour), or environmental – applied across all enterprises within the jurisdiction

Legislated or voluntary industry codes of practice; enterprise/stakeholder- developed goals, policies, management plans

Inputs: at regular intervals, assess compliance with codes of practice, management plans and guidelines (NSW Department of Primary Industries 2005)

Outputs: enterprises may also monitor outputs, eg by reporting on Indicators of sustainable management within a Criteria and Indicators framework (Forests Australia 2009)

Data or projections evaluated against:

◆ management goals

◆ goals of external stakeholders

◆ in the case of a formal certification system, evaluation against a Standard, ie the Criteria thresholds or targets set by the certifying organisation (Forest Stewardship Council 2002)

Institutional mechanisms might specify:

◆ periodic review and reporting of data (input and output) required for sustainability evaluation

◆ the implementation of adaptive management responses reflected in revised goals, plans or management practices which would contribute to on-going improvement in sustainability management

NATIONAL SCALE

National scale entities include all government jurisdictions within a nation – ie national, state, and local

National or state regulation and legislation, eg in Australia, Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs), Codes of Practice) etc

National governments act within agreed multinational or international agreements eg UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol

National inventories based on accumulated enterprise, state and local government scale data, including certification data (eg forest statistics reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics)

International measurement and assessment of sustainability Indicators at national scale (OECD Environment Directorate 2008)

Designated national assessment projects eg triple bottom line assessments (Foran et al 2005) the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2012)

Nation-wide reports eg Australia’s State of the Forest Report (Montreal Process Implementation Group for Australia 2008)

Evaluation and advice from an independent statutory authority eg the National Water Commission (2012)

Evaluation of compliance with codes of forest practice and environmental outcomes (Smethurst et al 2012)

Accumulation of national data into report form for evaluation eg ‘State of the Forest Report, Australia’ report to the UNFCCC

National data from international sources eg the OECD

Feedback from those agencies charged with national evaluation processes eg consultation for stakeholder comment and actions, or

Changed sustainability measurement and evaluation methods or on-ground sustainability actions at the national scale may be strongly affected by political processes


INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS

DATA MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION EVALUATIONMETHODS FEEDBACKS

INTERNATIONAL SCALE

International scale entities include intergovernmental organisations and intergovernmental agreements

Intergovernmental agreements through Montréal, Helsinki and ITTO processes.

Related intergovernmental agreements, eg UNFCCC, ILO, WTO, RAMSAR. (RAMSAR 2012; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2012a).

Deforestation and forest degradation recognised under international climate chanfe frameworks. A proposed mechanism to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) has been proposed under the UNFCCC8. This will provide incentives and investments to flow to reverse the main drivers of deforestation and degradation, thus protecting the forests.

Pressure-State-Response systems used by the OECD to set and assess agreed environmental Indicators.

Internationally agreed C&I sustainability assessment systems for forestry – Montreal, Helsinki, ITTO.

The Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being approaches used in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; Stocks and Flows modelling.

The OECD reports key environmental Indicators (eg CO2 emissions from fuel combustion) annually by country, with the evaluation of national trends and any national response undertaken by the participating OECD countries.

The UNFCCC evaluates national reports on GHG emissions. Some nations have signed onto a binding target under the Kyoto Protocol (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2012b).

The data from international-scale sustainability measurements and assessments feeds back to the national scale for evaluation and national response.

Within international mechanisms there are opportunities for negotiated national input into the goals and methodologies of international sustainability measurement and assessment schemes eg the IPCC periodically reports on the status and drivers of climate change, and this flows into international negotiations on climate change policy within the framework of the UNFCCC.

4.1.3 SUMMARY

A number of approaches can be used to capture what has been learnt and achieved from the evolving forestry sustainability activities:

◆ synthesis of stakeholder feedback at the enterprise level for a range of individual forests

◆ at higher scales, the uptake of the C&I-based forest sustainability framework at enterprise through to national scale, and the amount of forest certified as sustainably managed

◆ the effects of the framework on deforestation and forest degradation and in improving sustainable forest management.

There are many studies which have reviewed the efficacy of forest certification as a tool for achieving sustainable forest management (Peña-Claros et al 2009, Karmann and Smith 2009). Karmann and Smith (2009) recently reviewed the outcomes and impacts of FSC certification, drawing on a range of previous studies. They acknowledged the lack of

systematic research design in evaluating 180 papers, but concluded that there was reliable evidence that FSC certification has improved the conservation status and enhanced biodiversity levels in certified forests. They report that the certification process can catalyse changes to forest management, encouraging a more participatory forest policy with demonstrable employment, health and other benefits.

While there are still outstanding concerns about the efficacy of certification per se (eg see FSC-watch website)9, the bigger issue is that only a small proportion of the world’s forests are certified, and that most of the ones that are exist in countries where there are already regulatory and other mechanisms to promote sustainable forest management. In 2007 certified forests covered 306.3 million ha, constituting about 7.9% of the 3.9 billion ha of global forests. More than 84% of the certified forests were in North America and Europe and only 7% in developing countries (Purbawiyatna and Simula 2008)10. By 2012, the total area of certified

8 http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_13/application/pdf/cp_redd.pdf

9 www.fsc-watch.org/

10 Purbawiyatna and Simula 2008, op. cit., p. 18


forest was approximately 408 million ha, just 10.5% of the 3.9 billion hectares of world forest (Forest Stewardship Council 2012; Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification 2012).

Despite the continued debate of the relative merits and effectiveness of different forestry certification schemes, for countries that undertake international sustainability reporting (eg Montréal process or Helsinki) AND have adequate governance to ensure compliance, or where robust certification schemes are widely applied, there is evidence for improved on-ground sustainability outcomes (eg Freer-Smith and Carnus 2008). However, where there is inadequate governance, and/or lack of effective mechanisms for measurement, monitoring, reporting and compliance, the reverse is true (Cowie et al 2012). Unfortunately, a large proportion of the world’s forests are in the latter category, and deforestation and degradation continues. This case demonstrates the critical importance of linked activities of all four elements of the sustainability framework, and their effective application across scales.

4.2 Sustainable bioenergy productionBioenergy provides an example of many of the challenges of assessing sustainability because it is an emerging industry, crossing new and existing value chains, and because there is a very high expectation for the sector to demonstrate third-party accredited sustainability credentials.

Bioenergy has traditionally been widely used throughout the world for cooking and heat. Modern technologies have provided a renewed impetus for using biomass and large potentials and benefits have been claimed. However, many of these claims rely on untested assumptions and may breach biophysical limits (eg Smeets et al 2009; Pearman 2013) or create further sustainability challenges. Sustainability is therefore a critical issue for the bioenergy industry internationally. Quantitative, robust and independently verified sustainability credentials are recognised as vital in order for the bioenergy industry to expand globally. This recognition is already translating to government policies in some countries which can limit market access and government support to only those biofuels which meet specified sustainability criteria (O’Connell et al 2009).

The sustainability issues from bioenergy and biofuels have been well-documented (for example UN-E 2007; Fehrenbach 2008; van Dam 2008; O’Connell et al 2005; O’Connell et al 2009). They arise at each stage of the supply chain, as well as across the whole chain. Sustainability issues arising directly from the bioenergy/biofuel value chain (called direct effects) are, in general reasonably well-defined (O’Connell et al 2009), although many aspects require further R&D to gain deeper understanding of the risks and how to mitigate them. Significant and rapid expansion of the industry has also created a different set of sustainability issues, such as competition causing indirect effects on land use change and market substitution, as well as aggregate landscape scale impacts on water, biodiversity and social values (for example Fargione 2008; Searchinger 2008). The social, economic and biophysical impacts are cumulative, and in many cases, non-linear. They are difficult to address by the bioenergy industry or local jurisdiction alone, because the impacts, by definition, occur elsewhere and frequently have multiple causal factors. Such impacts are complex, difficult to analyse and the subject of on-going debate. Arguments can be driven by unstated sets of values and can be poorly supported by science or adequate social processes for making decisions (O’Connell et al 2009).

4.2.1 MAPPING BIOENERGY SUSTAINABILITY TO THE FOUR ELEMENT SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK


Many countries which have promoted bioenergy (via regulations, targets, mandates, incentives, tax rules) are now moving to balance this with institutional systems specifying sustainability standards. The bioenergy supply chain spans biomass production through conversion to distribution (potentially including export and import markets), and therefore a broad range of other policies apply along the chain. These include policies for water, biodiversity, climate change, agriculture, forestry, waste management, transport and regional development. Emerging bioenergy and biofuel supply chains must comply with this array of policies, legislation and regulations from different levels of government, and with the advent of international trade, with intergovernmental agreements such as Free Trade Agreement (O’Connell et al 2009).


Many governments and market segments consider that quantitative, robust and independently verified (or certified) sustainability credentials are vital in order for the bioenergy industry to expand globally. In the international arena, there is active progress towards testing and verification of the sustainability of bioenergy products including the Roundtable for Sustainable Bioproducts (RSB), the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and the International Standards Organisation (ISO). This is already translating to government policies in some countries which will limit market access and government support to only those biofuels which meet specified sustainability Criteria or standards.

4.2.1.2 Data, evaluation, feedbacks

Those countries or organisations that are in the process of developing sustainability assessment schemes are using C&I approaches that reflect economic, environmental and social sustainability principles. C&I approaches for bioenergy need to go beyond those which have been developed, tested and implemented for forestry (O’Connell et al 2009). They must address GHG emission reductions for the whole supply chain or life cycle, including indirect land use change; indirect socio-economic effects due to substitution of products (eg using grain to produce fuel rather than using it as food) and indirect land use change effects (eg clearing of rainforest to accommodate displaced agriculture) as well as impacts of land use change on biodiversity (Fehrenbach, 2008).

There are many different sustainability assessment systems for bioenergy under development internationally. Lewandowski and Faaij (2006), Van Dam et al. (2008) and Fehrenbach (2008) have all provided excellent summaries of principles, objectives, and C&I used to assess sustainability across a range of reviewed certification and reporting systems of relevance to biomass.

Many sustainability frameworks under development identify the indirect effect of land use change on GHG emissions, biodiversity and food as a very significant risk to sustainability, mainly because of the high degree of uncertainty in the assessment and global control of these effects. Some strongly recommend a slowing in the development of bioenergy until methods for dealing with the indirect effects have been established. Others

assign default values based on life cycle assessments factoring in a GHG emissions burden assuming some level of indirect land use change.

There is general agreement that it is important to base new systems for assessing sustainability on existing processes and relevant certification systems (such as the FSC) wherever possible; that compliance costs should be minimised; and that schemes should be designed that lend themselves to mutual recognition to facilitate international trade in biomass, bioenergy and biofuels. Many sustainability schemes will probably retain a significant voluntary element until important issues relating to the effects of discrimination based on the sustainability of production of biomass and biofuels for international trade have been tested and agreed upon under WTO rules (O’Connell et al 2009).

The International Standards Organisation (ISO) is currently in the process of developing a standard for Sustainability Criteria for Bioenergy (TC 2482). The ISO process was proposed as a New Work Item in 2007, but due to the complexity of the topic as well as the differing agendas and interests of participating countries, progress has been slow and there is a risk that consensus may not be reached. A key feature of the ISO standard PC 248 is that it will focus only on a standard for data collection and reporting, and will not assess or evaluate the sustainability (or otherwise) of any given economic operator or their product. This standard is therefore focused on only the data component of the four element sustainability framework. The intention is that the standard will provide a common set of C&I to facilitate comparison between different bioenergy production processes. There are no thresholds or evaluation methods included. It will ensure that a minimum set of data is reported in a standard fashion, to facilitate a purchasing party or regulator to make their own decisions about whether it achieves their sustainability requirements.

In order to achieve a certification standard meaningful to achieving ‘sustainable production’ (rather than ‘sustainability reporting’), the ISO standard (even if successfully developed), still requires further complementary mechanisms to be developed. Therefore, if there is a demand for certification of sustainable production, separate mechanisms will need to be developed for institutions, evaluation and


feedbacks (for example, thresholds or expectations against which Indicators may be evaluated), as well as third-party audit, verification and certification.

Operational certification schemes such as the Roundtable for Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) incorporate elements of data, evaluation, institutional mechanisms and feedbacks into the one scheme, which can be applied at enterprise scale. Although this is a voluntary scheme, it can be used in conjunction with policy mechanisms, for example, there is a direct mapping of the RSB certification

scheme to the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) which operates at a European Union scale.

The Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) is an intergovernmental group developing C & I relevant to the national scale. Therefore indicators should be able to cope with aggregate and cumulative impacts, because this is the relevant scale at which such issues can be quantified – it is not relevant for individual economic operators to be able to report such Indicators.

Table 4‑2 Examples relating to sustainable bioenergy and biofuels through the application at different scales of the four elements of the generic sustainability framework

INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMSDATA MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION EVALUATION METHODS FEEDBACKS

ENTERPRISE SCALE


◆ a single entity operating under a set of rules such as a company

◆ a group of entities operating under common guidelines such as an industry association or a grain-grower co-operative

◆ a government enterprise

Corporate governance, enterprise/stakeholder- developed goals, policies, management plans, codes of conduct; industry Codes of practice eg The Manildra Group, producers of fuel ethanol in Australia. http://www.manildra.com.au/community/article/environmentally_responsible/

Government policies and legislation applied across all enterprises within the jurisdiction eg NSW Government Biofuels Act 2007 sustainability standard applied to ethanol production in NSW. http://www.biofuels.nsw.gov.au/sustainability_standard

Inputs: compliance with codes of practice, management plans and guidelines.

Outputs: enterprises may also monitor outputs, eg by reporting on Indicators of sustainable management within a Criteria and Indicators framework eg The Manildra Group’s environmental monitoring. http://www.manildra.com.au/community/article/environmental_monitoring/

Management goals, goals of external stakeholders, or in the case of a formal certification system, evaluation against a standard, ie the Criteria thresholds or targets set by the certifying organisation eg The Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials certification scheme. http://rsb.org/sustainability/rsb-certification/

Periodic review and reporting of data (input and output) required for sustainability evaluation eg GrainCorp (who supply grain to the Manildra Group) environment and energy monitoring. http://www.graincorp.com.au/about-graincorp/sustainability-and-environment/sustainability-and-safety


http://www.manildra.com.au/community/article/environmentally_responsible/



http://www.biofuels.nsw.gov.au/sustainability_standard

http://www.biofuels.nsw.gov.au/sustainability_standard

http://www.manildra.com.au/community/article/environmental_monitoring/



http://rsb.org/sustainability/rsb-certification/

http://rsb.org/sustainability/rsb-certification/

http://www.graincorp.com.au/about-graincorp/sustainability-and-environment/sustainability-and-safety






NATIONAL SCALE


A range of policies and programs, legislation and regulations eg NSW Government’s Biofuel Act 2007 (see above) or Australia’s Renewable Energy Target. http://climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-target/renewable-energy-target-scheme-legislation

National governments act within agreed multinational or international agreements eg the EU RED. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/targets_en.htm

National bioenergy inventories based on accumulated enterprise, state and local government scale data, including certification data, and/or national government departments’ statistical accumulation eg UK Department of Transport’s Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) statistics. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/renewable-transport-fuel-obligation-statistics-period-5-2012-13-report-4

eg the UK Department of Transport evaluation of RTFO statistics against the UK RTFO targets and the requirements of the EU RED. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226036/rtfo-2012-13-year-5-report-4.pdf

Accumulation of national data into report form for evaluation - see UK Department of Transport (previous column) and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s reporting requirements. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/reporting/index.htm

Adaptation of national policies based on feedback from the agencies charged with national evaluation is generally a political process, and as such may be fraught with political issues.

INTERNATIONAL SCALE


Mechanisms based on signed intergovernmental agreements and intergovernmental organisations that influence the activities within an international sustainability framework for bioenergy eg the global bioenergy partnership (GBEP).

International Standards Organisation (ISO) Technical Committee – ISO/PC 248 – Sustainability criteria for bioenergy. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards_development/list_of_iso_technical_committees/iso_technical_committee.htm?commid=598379

Internationally, there are a few specific methods being applied for measuring bioenergy sustainability. One example is the specified carbon accounting rules for bioenergy from the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2012a).

The UN Statistics Division’s Energy Yearbook provides selected statistics on bioenergy from renewables and waste, but does not provide any measure of sustainability of use. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/energy/yearbook/default.htm

Global bioenergy sustainability assessment systems such as the C&I systems developed by RSB and ISO (see previous column) are internationally applied at enterprise scale, but aggregated at national scale. A different set of C and I relevant to capturing national scale impacts eg aggregate, cumulative, and indirect effects is being developed by GBEP.

In Europe, the Renewable Energy Directive (RED)(European Parliament 2009) requires member states to implement specified national bioenergy sustainability actions and report the outcome back to the EU Council. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/targets_en.htm

There is a reporting requirement, therefore potentially a feedback loop between the European Union (a multinational organisation) and its member states on the use of sustainable biofuels under the EU RED scheme (see previous column).

Within international mechanisms there are opportunities for negotiated national input into the goals and methodologies of international sustainability measurement and assessment schemes eg the IPCC periodically reports on the status and drivers of climate change, and this flows into international negotiations on climate change policy within the framework of the UNFCCC.


http://climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-target/renewable-energy-target-scheme-legislation





http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/targets_en.htm



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/renewable-transport-fuel-obligation-statistics-period-5-2012-13-report-4





https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226036/rtfo-2012-13-year-5-report-4.pdf






http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/reporting/index.htm



http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards_development/list_of_iso_technical_committees/iso_technical_committee.htm?commid=598379






https://unstats.un.org/unsd/energy/yearbook/default.htm

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/energy/yearbook/default.htm



4.2.2 SUMMARY

All countries are struggling with how to implement schemes on the ground, including the scale at which they are applied (national-level targets, rules or guidelines versus project-scale implementation). It is still too early to be able to evaluate the practicality and effectiveness of any individual approach.

Unlike forestry, the bioenergy supply chain is often embedded within the supply chains of the agriculture and waste domains from which the biomass is sourced. Although forestry has relatively well-established schemes for demonstrating sustainably produced biomass (Section 4.1), there are few such schemes in place for the agriculture or waste industries, or novel biomass production systems such as agroforestry or algae. In order for the bioenergy industry to demonstrate and claim sustainability credentials, it will need to be able to do so for upstream components from which biomass is sourced (ie agriculture, waste, algae), and this will prove challenging.

This emerging bioenergy sector carries a high burden of proof for sustainability, yet has to do be economically competitive with other renewables, as well as the incumbent fossil-based energy sector, which are generally not expected to demonstrate sustainability credentials (O’Connell et al 2009).

4.3 Sustainable development and the extractive industryThe extractive sector provides a fascinating perspective on the challenges of sustainable development. As a mature industry, this globalised industry has sophisticated systems for the measurement and reporting of parameters relating to sustainability. The extractive sector encompasses a chain of value creation which involves finding, extracting, processing and delivering a valuable product to a market. It is a primary resource producer and therefore tends to be viewed through an economic lens as a source of wealth creation. However, it has significant impacts and benefits for environmental and social capitals and, as such, has a long association with the concept of sustainable development.

In 2002, the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) initiative published its main findings in Breaking New Ground (MMSD 2002). The report proposed a range of steps that could be taken to support sustainable development in the minerals sector, drawing on research and consultation undertaken in Australia, North America, South America and Southern Africa. This work has provided a benchmark for a range of sustainable development practices and principles that have emerged since then through voluntary initiatives and industry associations typified by the Minerals Council of Australia’s Enduring value framework (MCA 2004a, 2004b).

4.3.1 SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES FOR THE MINERAL SECTOR

A significant step was the introduction after the MMSD initiative of the International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM), which developed a set of sustainable development framework principles. These have been taken up and adopted by the sector around the globe and were benchmarked against leading international standards, including the Rio Declaration, the Global Reporting Initiative, the Global Compact, OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises, World Bank Operational Guidelines, OECD Convention on Combating Bribery, ILO Conventions 98, 169, 176, and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.


Sustainable mining balances wealth creation, social and environmental responsibility (Photo: CSIRO)

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm

http://www.globalreporting.org/

http://www.globalreporting.org/

http://www.unglobalcompact.org/

http://www.oecd.org/department/0,2688,en_2649_34889_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

http://www.oecd.org/department/0,2688,en_2649_34889_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

http://www.worldbank.org/

http://www.worldbank.org/

http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,2340,en_2649_34859_2017813_1_1_1_1,00.html

http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,2340,en_2649_34859_2017813_1_1_1_1,00.html

http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/convdisp1.htm

http://www.voluntaryprinciples.org/principles/index.php

The ten sustainability principles are:

1. Implement and maintain ethical business practices and sound systems of corporate governance.

2. Integrate sustainable development considerations within the corporate decision-making process.

3. Uphold fundamental human rights and respect cultures, customs and values in dealings with employees and others who are affected by our activities.

4. Implement risk management strategies based on valid data and sound science.

5. Seek continual improvement of our health and safety performance.

6. Seek continual improvement of our environmental performance.

7. Contribute to conservation of biodiversity and integrated approaches to land use planning.

8. Facilitate and encourage responsible product design, use, re-use, recycling and disposal of our products.

9. Contribute to the social, economic and institutional development of the communities in which we operate.

10. Implement effective and transparent engagement, communication and independently verified reporting arrangements with our stakeholders.

Practice, policy and regulation have also evolved to keep pace with the principles of sustainable development. For example, in Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia used the ICMM principles in developing their policy platform, Enduring Value – the Australian Mineral Industry Framework for Sustainable Development, which is an attempt at convergence to address the proliferation of codes, practices and guidelines that emerged in the early 2000s as a result of MMSD (MCA 2004a).

Practice in the industry is paralleled by developments in policy and regulation. The Australian Government has produced a range of leading practice handbooks for sustainable development, which are now being translated into multiple languages.

However, there remains a sense that the extractive industries are unsustainable (Whitrow 2006). The globalisation of major mining companies has led to a centralisation of decision making and an increased emphasis on shareholder value and commodity prices (Maher 2006; Heiler et al 2000). Corporate agendas around sustainable development can mask the enormous complexity of a minerals operation (Trebeck 2004). The specific nature of mining activities (eg commodities fixed by geology, insulated from end consumers) has made it challenging to evolve the ‘business’ of minerals to one with a greater sense of associated sustainability in the way other major corporations have (eg chemicals to ‘life sciences’; oil to ‘alternative energy’) (Phillips 2001; MacDonald and Gibson 2006).

So whilst the extractive sector is generally considered to be an advanced industry in its knowledge and recognition of sustainable development, when looked at through the framework of sustainability science offered here, some gaps about our ability as a society to govern its cross-sectoral and cross-scale impacts emerge. Although a plethora of sustainable development frameworks, principles and best practice advice exists for the extractive sectors, some frameworks encompass multiple facets of sustainability and some only address one dimension of sustainable development.

4.3.2 MAPPING THE AUSTRALIAN EXTRACTIVE SECTOR TO THE FOUR ELEMENT FRAMEWORK

Table 4.3 summarises practices in the extractive sector against the sustainability framework proposed in Section 3, practices have been considered in terms of how well the extractive sector fits the model.


Table 4‑3 Sustainability initiatives in the extractive sector


ENTERPRISE SCALE


◆ a single entity operating under a set of rules such as a company

◆ a group of entities operating under common guidelines such as an industry association or a grain-grower co-operative

◆ a government enterprise

Companies

Major companies (eg Rio and BHPB) have strong centrally coordinated reporting frameworks coupled with operational resources committed to social and environmental sustainability.

Most companies have reporting policies against a range of clearly defined performance metrics.

Many voluntary initiatives are also developed at the enterprise level to conform with best practice in sustainable development, global reporting and corporate social responsibility.

Industry bodies

Industry bodies all advocate the need for members to commit to principles for sustainable development, often principles which stem from the work of the International Council of Mining and Metals after the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development initiative of the early 200Os.

State jurisdictions

In Australia, state governments have a role to play in approving and regulating resource developments across all enterprises on an application-by-application basis. Whilst approval and regulatory requirements vary between differing jurisdictions, they all require some form of environmental and social impact assessment. The strength and rigour of these requirements can vary quite significantly. Compliance monitoring and enforcement is undertaken through the courts.

Companies collect high volumes of data on the inputs to an operation (energy, water, manpower), the outputs of an operation (worked water, waste heat, tailings leachate, dust and emissions) and the consequences of an operation (biodiversity changes, groundwater quality, local employment, health changes).

These data are assessed for compliance which may be set out in codes of conduct, approval conditions or regulatory limits.

In developed countries, the larger operators gather the data necessary to voluntarily track and report performance against sophisticated sustainable development Indicators.

This data is often reported into the Global Reporting Initiative – an intergovernmental not-for-profit organisation providing a benchmark for sustainability reporting.

Primarily, data and reporting against sustainability indicators is to monitor performance and hence target investment to improve performance.

Performance is generally considered on an operation by operation basis to improve operational efficiencies.

Additionally, data will be aggregated at the corporate level and evaluated for policy improvement.

Feedback loops exist within companies between operations and the corporate centre as they seek to optimise operations.

Additionally, feedback occurs within regulatory jurisdictions as regulaters learn from experience and modify approval conditions accordingly.



NATIONAL SCALE


Government jurisdictions

Establish policy frameworks, taxation and regulatory systems. Typically these three functions are institutionally separate.

National governments act within agreed multinational or international agreements,(e g Kyoto Protocol, human rights agenda) and can also voluntarily act under other multinational schemes (Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative).

Some nations are particularly active in driving sustainability principles (eg. the Canadian Government’s support for Corporate Social Responsibility in the Extractive Sector).

At the national level there is relatively little systematic collection of data pertaining to sustainability unless a specific initiative is introduced.

In most developed countries, government bureaus will collect data annually on economic parameters and demographics and may also conduct regular population census.

Governments

National evaluations occur both annually with the development of annual statistical reports (for example ABS reports against specific sectors and SEOs) and also on a one off basis to support policy evolution (for example the Henry report which has led to tax reforms.

Industry Bodies

Industry bodes also undertake national level evaluations of sustainability data to identify potential bottlenecks and risks for their industry and hence look to influence policy (for example the Minerals Council of Australia submissions to Government.

Other national evaluations tend to be the purview of research organisations.

Feedback loops occur within Government departments as they continually evolve policy and inform a new Governments.

Occasionally inter departmental forums will be set up to promote these feedback loops and also their cross-sectoral impact.

INTERNATIONAL SCALE


There are some institutional mechanisms in place which are based on signed multinational agreements such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Further, there are many intergovernmental organisations (OECD, UNEP, WEF, World Bank, IMF, IIED) and NGOs who develop international dialogue around responsible minerals development – a notable example of which was the MMSD initiative in the early 2000s.

At an international level there exist several frameworks looking to benchmark nations against developmental Indicators (for example the UNDP human development index, the World Bank social development indicters, the UNEP frameworks such as the UN’s human development Indicators).

More specifically, the Millennium Development Goals have specific Indicators for environmental sustainability and global partnerships for development.

However, the function of all these frameworks is to catalyse action and provide thoughtful leadership rather than to govern, so they use the data available for their assessments which can be mixed and patchy.

At the international level there are some evaluations of progress towards sustainability goals inherent in various foresighting studies (such as the WEF Global Risk Report).

There are global thinktanks which undertake periodic evaluations (the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the International Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations Environment Programme) but generally resources are not a major focus of these evaluations.


A quick examination of this table identifies the following issues when considering the measurement of sustainability for the extractive sectors:


Through the efforts of peak bodies to align principles with practice, the larger minerals operators have sophisticated institutional systems in place that are well-connected to international mechanisms. At a national level, Institutional mechanisms are primarily regulatory and legislative (compliance monitoring) in nature and can be split between state and federal jurisdictions.

In attempts to offset increasingly burdensome regulatory control (Crowson 2004), significant discretionary effort is made by large enterprises to enable a coherent demonstration of adherence to sustainable development principles, often with implicit self-certification mechanisms underpinning this approach. Third-party certification schemes have emerged or are in development for some commodities (diamonds, gold) and issues (cyanide, health and safety) (Solomon et al 2006) and voluntary public reporting on environmental, social and/or sustainability performance has become common, often as a means to gain social acceptance for mining operations (Yongvanich and Guthrie 2004).

As a result, the Institutional mechanisms for supporting sustainable development are significant but can be incoherent and cumbersome with unclear relationships between mechanisms at operational, national and international scales.

4.3.2.2 Data measurement and reporting

Within this complex institutional landscape, sustainable development definitions adopted in the minerals sector tend to converge on the 1987 Bruntland definition of sustainable development, but interpretations and implementation can be highly diverse. Industry initiatives have driven significant data collection and reporting at the enterprise level, which also enables responses to the increasingly influential demands of the Global Reporting Initiative and the human rights agenda as well as specific stakeholders such as international organisations, financial institutions, NGOs and native title claimants (Brereton 2003).

However, the emerging debate around ‘cumulative impacts’ (Estevez et al 2012) and strategic assessment is indicative of a gap in this myriad of compiled environmental and social data. Collection and collation at an operational level does not strongly support the collation of regional data about the multiple and aggregated effects of a number of operations in a resource rich region. Although significant data exist, it is not always collated in a manner that permits regional assessments of cumulative impacts (Measham et al 2013)

4.3.2.3 Evaluation

Several general-advice-based references around sustainable development have been prepared (MCMPR 2005; Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program 2006) and there is increasing emphasis on evaluating sustainability in terms of the life of a mining project, from exploration through to closure, with impacts on environment and community emerging as an increasingly important strategic consideration (Kemp 2004; Reeson et al 2012). Tools such as life cycle assessment (Eckelman et al 2013; Northey et al 2013), techno-economics and social impact assessment are the most commonly used methods for assessing and mitigating impacts associated with mine development and are often carried out by consultants (Joyce and Macfarlane 2002).

Evaluation is therefore sophisticated for monitoring compliance purposes but there are fewer examples of truly cross-sectoral evaluations at the enterprise level. Technology assessment and its implementations in the form of Parliamentary Technology Assessment hold some promise for enabling such integrative evaluations but they are not yet well-recognised mechanisms in the extractive sector (Lacey and Moffatt 2011). At the national and international levels the extractive sector is primarily viewed through an economic lens and often segregated in public debate from national dialogues regarding water resources management, energy security and economic diversification.

There is significant enterprise-level appreciation of integrated supply chains as they are significant for developing optimal productivity. However, the business driver towards economies of scale in a global market place can work against the national driver for domestic suppliers to work into the extractive sector.


Competitiveness becomes a key asset for domestic suppliers working into global supply chains, and hence a key driver of sustainable development through economic diversification. (Littleboy et al 2010)

4.3.2.4 Feedback

Feedback loops appear to operate informally in the extractive sector (Whitmore 2006). Indeed, many companies are forming relationships directly with their local communities and international stakeholders, unmediated by government. This can lead to a lack of clarity over the power and influence of the stakeholders involved which are not conducive for effective feedback and evolution (Cheney et al 2002).

4.3.3 SUMMARY

The extractive sector has embraced the concept of sustainable development and the need for institutional mechanisms, data collection, reporting and evaluation. However, implementation tends to be focused on compliance monitoring of operations which means that feedback loops, cross-sectoral evaluations and integrated assessment of cumulative effects are less well-represented in practice and policy around this industry. In the past, the sector has tended towards a demonstration of adherence to sustainable development principles often through self-assessment. More recently the sector is moving towards full public reporting and being open to scrutiny by third parties.

4.4 Summary of examples of sectoral approachesIn all three examples above, demonstration of sustainable outcomes is a considerable and on-going challenge. This is because of the spatial and temporal complexity of biophysical systems and their interactions across scales, widely varying stakeholder expectations, and changing needs related to population growth, climate change, and the increasing need for renewable energy. Forestry has progressively developed systems over several decades, mining is now receiving increased attention, whilst sustainability assessment for bioenergy which is possibly the most complex sector is still at an early stage.

Cumulative, aggregate and indirect effects in each of these industry sectors can only be dealt with at regional or higher scales, but may rely on data collection, evaluation and reporting at enterprise scales. Therefore, the linkages and feedbacks and evaluation methods need to be very clearly developed. The brief review in this chapter shows that there are many areas where these are well captured for particular elements of the framework at particular scales , but there are also many gaps, particularly in the linkages and in the international governance arena.

It is clear that demonstrable sustainability outcomes rely on collecting key datathat has been agreed amongst stakeholders; data analysis, aggregation and evaluation appropriate to scale and purpose; feedbacks and robust institutional mechanisms (for example governance, compliance and feedback to policy settings).

The generic sustainability framework proposed in this report provides a blueprint against which existing initiatives can be checked, as well as a mechanism for systematically explaining and negotiating the complexities of sustainability measurement and assessment; thus potentially being able to provide some steppingstones to improve the prospects of achieving desired outcomes. Before any new initiative on sustainability is conducted, for example, this approach could be used to analyse the existing relevant mechanisms for each element at each scale scale, as well as the required linkages. This could help the practitioner to better target their initiative, and ensure that it is linked to other relevant initiatives across scales.




5THE CHALLENGES OF THE FOOD – WATER – ENERGY NEXUS

Photo: Deborah O’Connell


5 Evaluating and promoting sustainability across sectors, scales and contexts

studies have explored inter-linkages between water and energy supply in the USA and EU (see Hussey and Pittock 2012), and there is a substantial literature on water-food linkages and food-biofuel trade-offs (see Section 3.2). A recent review for the World Bank found that existing assessment tools and quantitative models do not deal well with nexus issues, and “are not able to provide a sound basis for national energy and water policy and investments” (Smajgl et al 2012:32). Energy models typically examine changes in energy supply options without taking stock of accompanying water requirements and challenges; while water planning is often based on simple projections based on water demand as a function of population and income growth. There is only a limited body of tools and analysis available to inform decision makers about the combined effects of population growth, economic trends, climate change and other environmental feedbacks, and their implications for the price and supply of food, energy and water – and even fewer options for providing well-based analysis of potential interactions, tensions and synergies across these dimensions of the nexus (see Smajgl et al 2012; Bazilian et al 2011). In addition, many nations face significant data gaps in relation to underlying water resources, soil capacity and relevant ecosystem services.

The three-fold nexus of energy, food and water provides a tractable but still extremely challenging entry point for considering sustainability, and naturally draws in the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Smajgl et al (2012:35–36) illustrate the scope of this three-fold nexus, and its relevance to real-world decisions:

◆ Decisions about water pricing, allocation and entitlements (including tradable water rights), and supply priorities and related investments will impact on the level of food production, on the

55Recent years have seen growing attention to the interactions across energy, water and food systems in the context of climate change, and the implications for the security of supply and access to these basic needs, as well as flow-on effects for land use, natural resources, and ecosystems.

5.1 Challenges and interactions – the food‑water‑energy nexus It is clear that the next few decades will see an intensification of multiple challenges at the nexus of energy, water and food. Demands for each of these will increase with population growth, economic development, and rising incomes – with demand for fresh water considered likely to increase at least twice as fast as population (Waughray 2011). Overall food demand is projected to double over the next two to three decades, exacerbating existing issues of access and food poverty (Waughray 2011). Global electricity demand is projected to increase by two thirds by 2035, and a third of current generating assets will need to be replaced over this period (IEA 2012). Expanding energy production will contribute to increased water demands, including for hydroelectricity, cooling (particularly for coal-fired and nuclear power generation), and for production of biomass for bioenergy. These trends will add to pressures on water resources and food production. Under current policies energy emissions are projected to continue increasing, implying the world is on track to average temperature increases of 3.6°C or more (IEA 2012) – compounding other pressures on food, water and energy systems.

Despite growing attention and concerns, decision makers typically remain ill-informed, and robust assessments that account for and integrate across the different dimensions of the nexus are scarce. Several

75 5 Evaluating and promoting sustainability across sectors, scales and contexts

mix of crops and shares delivered to domestic and international markets, and on domestic food access, nutrition outcomes, and food security – in addition to the indirect effects of water policies and investments on energy demand.

◆ Decisions about energy supply options will impact on food and water availability through water use and potential competition for arable land due to the production of energy crops (including biofuels) and carbon plantings (biosequestration), indirect impacts on fish stocks from hydro infrastructure and thermal pollution (from power generation), and trade-offs between irrigation and hydropower generation benefits in the timing of delivery of water releases.

◆ Decisions about food production will impact on water and energy demand (including water quality requirements, and seasonal water availability), such as for use in the production and use of fertilisers and agricultural chemicals, and in food production, processing and distribution.

Analysis of the energy-water-food nexus in the context of climate change can also be comfortably located with the longer list of nine planetary boundaries identified by Rockstrom et al (2009a, 2009b). The scope of specific analyses within this framework can and should be tailored to the specific issues that are most material to the decisions under consideration (see Smajgl and Ward 2013).

5.2 The roles and contributions of measurement and evaluation to achieving sustainabilityFully integrated multi-scale multi-domain analysis and assessment at a global scale may never be fully achieved, although it is now possible for some smaller systems, like ‘islands’ in some nations. Regardless of whether it is fully successful in achieving sustainability outcomes at a whole-of-system scale, the goal of effective sustainability assessment is to clarify (near term) choices and (long term) consequences, assisting risk management and management decisions. In this context, it is useful to note that formal assessment and decision support processes – and science more generally – have both a ‘technical’ and a ‘social’ role and contribution.

Most discussions of decision support focus on its contribution to resolving technical issues within a well-defined decision context. This typically presumes a clear decision mandate (with specified goals or Criteria and an identified decision-making group) or a shared framework of objectives and ideas (or world views). An example would be a situation where these is consensus about the costs and environmental impacts of different generation technologies, and the task is to identify the lowest cost sequence of investments to meet a specified demand schedule within agreed environmental standards.

Many sustainability-related debates and decisions do not occur in such a well-structured decision context however. The generic sustainability framework proposed in this paper, as well as some of the other approaches reviewed in Section 2, as well as other decision support approaches can assist the processes of defining ‘the problem’ and building a shared understanding, or working consensus, on the range of potential future outlooks and pathways (such as for a nation, or a major river basin). This can help identify the key factors likely to impact on things of value to the group involved (such as future resource availability, livelihoods and security, or other aspects of living standards). One aspect of this process involves exploring the range of potential drivers that should be considered and accounted for. These form the context of energy, water and food decisions, such as the potential combined effects of population growth and climate change on water security, or judging whether water extraction trends risk undermining ecosystem services that are important to local livelihoods. A second aspect is to explore the range of impact pathways, assessing the consequences of different potential strategies or shocks in the context of wider interacting trends. This can help establish a shared language for discussing the nature and magnitude of potential impacts on different groups.

These different potential roles are shown visually in Figure 5-1. The use of decision support within an agreed problem structure and goals is described as computation (in quadrant A). Where these preconditions are not met, these processes can help move from ‘deadlock’ and disagreement in quadrant D to different types of resolution through settling (to allow judgement about means), social learning (allowing bargaining over goals), or a pragmatic focus on agreed actions (rather than goals or mechanisms).


5.3 Recognising ‘success’ without ignoring the challenge of sustainabilityAssessing progress towards – or the achievement of – sustainability or sustainable development is deeply complex.

A first well-understood issue is that the precise definition of sustainability is intrinsically contestable, like related notions of progress, well-being, justice, development, and so on. In particular, sustainability assessment will almost always need to assign some form of weights to different elements of the triple bottom line (or other descriptions of values, benefits as determined by the chosen analytical approach), to judge whether reductions or adverse impacts in some domains are outweighed by increases or improvements in others.

A second, more difficult, issue is the minimum legitimate scale and scope for assessing sustainability.

It is a truism that ‘there cannot be a sustainable part of an unsustainable whole’. It is also true that ‘the longest journey must begin with a single step’. This is a central issue for the use of measurement and evaluation systems to promote sustainability. To be tractable and useful, all measurement systems must have boundaries. For example, an assessment system may deal with energy use and emissions, but not all aspects of climate change. Another system may deal with environmental impacts, food security, and labour standards – but for a defined region or jurisdiction, or for the supply chain of a specific company.

In practice, however, these issues are already substantively addressed in many measurement and evaluation frameworks, which typically are careful to define both the issue or product being assessed and the criteria used for this assessment. This implies that the central issue may be the use and treatment of the results of the assessment, along with the wider contribution of measurement and evaluation in achieving sustainability.

Figure 5‑1 Modes of social learning and social choice under uncertainty (Source: Adapted from Lee (1993) in Ast et al (2008), see Hoppe (2005))


We suggest this issue can be largely addressed by distinguishing between supportive, necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving sustainability:

◆ raising awareness of sustainability issues, engaging decision makers, and improving the triple bottom line information available (for example) are all typically supportive actions, making it more likely that products and practices will be more sustainable or less unsustainable

◆ building this information into decision processes, strengthening organisational incentives, and addressing barriers to sustainability are all likely to be necessary steps towards achieving sustainability, but may not – of themselves – be sufficient to bring about sustainable products and processes

◆ establishing zero-harm supply chains or cradle-to-grave stewardship arrangements that achieve low or zero-harm environmental outcomes while also making positive contributions to stakeholder well-being and living standards appear to be sufficient conditions for assessing something as sustainable within its domain.

All supportive actions should be celebrated and rewarded, including those that build momentum and increase appetite to take harder necessary steps towards sustainability. But we should be careful not to over-state or over-claim what has been achieved, as this may reduce support for further action.

Ultimately, sustainability criteria need to be met at global scale over very long time frames. This draws attention to ‘outward’ and ‘inward’ threats to sustainability. An outward pressure occurs when products and practices result in risks or pressures at other scales or in other issue domains. An inward pressure occurs when the sustainability of a product or process is threatened by something that occurs outside the system boundary for the management and assessment framework (requiring some reflection on whether this boundary is appropriate). In general, these threats and pressures should be physically dealt with as close to the source as possible, but this may be best achieved through establishing incentives and institutions that may be quite distant from the direct physical causes.




6HUMANS MUST SUPPORT ECOSYSTEMS ON WHICH THEY ARE ULTIMATELY DEPENDENT



6 Conclusions

for development and application of compound Indicators that are scientifically robust, relevant to the problem and therefore interpretable and useful

◆ developing cost-effective approaches to data collection, assembly and use, and the generation of suitable model-based data and projections across scales

◆ specifying system boundaries in time and space

◆ addressing the absence of clear and explicit theory of ecosystem structure, dynamic function, thresholds, feedbacks in linked social–economic systems, especially when many systems are operating outside of previously known ranges

◆ estimating cumulative impacts of activities and pressures, and a lack of theory for aggregating and disaggregating across scales

◆ developing methods and fora for quantifying and assessing trade-offs between different dimensions of sustainability, scales, time periods, redistribution of benefit and loss

◆ quantifying human values (especially into the future), recognising integrating various forms of stakeholder knowledge, and methods for the negotiation of trade-offs whilst providing for requisite ecosystem function across scale, time and place

◆ understanding and managing diverse unknowns

◆ questioning the dominance of neo-classical economic approaches assuming partial equilibrium models, acceptance of existing institutions, valuation of ecosystem function, and assuming that incremental changes ‘fine-tune’ the markets to move the system towards more sustainable outcomes. The sweeping economic transformations required to achieve global scale sustainability will require broader institutional change and global, adaptive governance arrangements

◆ designing and implementing effective adaptive governance arrangements, nested across scales from local through to global.

66 This paper has provided a review of the major approaches to sustainability measurement and evaluation, and their strengths and weaknesses in relation to different objectives.

We have used the review of the broad range of approaches to propose a generic ‘sustainability framework’ comprising four elements:

◆ data

◆ evaluation

◆ institutional mechanisms

◆ feedbacks between these.

Further, we propose that if whole-of-system sustainability is to be achieved, that all four of these elements would need to be linked and operate effectively across a range of scales, nations, and sectors of the economy. A more nuanced view of what constitutes success in terms of sustainability and sustainable development, and the key factors for such success is provided in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 below.

We have illustrated these ideas and issues using examples from forestry, bioenergy, mining and the energy-water-food nexus, and identified gaps and potential contributions to sustainability measurement and evaluation that the WEF GAC may wish to explore further.

6.1 Unresolved and ongoing challengesThere are many unresolved challenges relating to achieving sustainability outcomes through a structured sustainability framework. Many of these were raised in the review as specific criticisms or challenges for a particular approach, but here we compile a list of those that span across all approaches. They include:

◆ specifying and monitoring key system variables and Indicators that are relevant to local sustainability issues. There is a particular challenge

81 6 Conclusions

6.2 Key ‘success’ factorsNotwithstanding the challenges described in Section 6.1, and building on the ethos put forward in Section 5.3, we propose the following tractable, practical guidance to key success factors for an effective, robust and flexible system:

1. Application of the overall sustainability framework should:

a. be clear about purpose, and therefore which of the four generic elements are in scope, which scale(s) and domains(s) are relevant, and which evaluation methods and data are fit for purpose will

b. be comprehensive within its mandate, and cover material risks and impacts (costs and benefits) across the range of social, economic and environmental values and concerns of stakeholders and the community of consent

c. explicitly deal with issues of scale of application of data, including Criteria and Indicators (C&I), scale dependency, non-linearity, irreversibility, cumulative impacts and lag effects, as well as processes to adapt C&I and data collection methods to local circumstances

d. specify system boundaries to take account of the full range of impacts across a range of relevant issues, and include the range of effects arising from individual enterprises through to the cumulative (often non-additive) effects of scaling-up to form large industries

e. contain feedback mechanisms between the elements of Data, Evaluation and Institutional mechanisms, as well as feedback for continuous improvement of the framework application itself, using the principles of adaptive management and governance and single, double, and triple loop learning

f. include processes to facilitate the engagement of stakeholders and communities of consent during the development, implementation and improvement of the assessment system.

2. The Institutional mechanisms should:

a. include clear linkages to relevant policy and legal frameworks – eg be compatible with international agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention on Biodiversity), World Trade Organization (WTO) rules – to assist mutual recognition and thus facilitate international trade

b. be embedded within adaptive management and governance approaches, and use single, double and triple loop learning processes where appropriate

c. allow for negotiation of ownership of processes, data etc across domains and scales

d. identify mechanisms for independent audit and certification, and for reporting the outcomes where appropriate

e. deliver net benefits through their application (these can be assessed and demonstrated through cost–benefit and risk analysis at the appropriate scale, particularly in relation to the cost of certification)

f. identify clear processes and incentives for the review and improvement of the sustainability assessment system itself.

3. The Data element should use robust science to specify, measure, collect, analyse or project appropriate data on which to base any analysis. For Indicators to be useful they should have the following characteristics:

a. in Principle-Criteria-Indicator (PCI) schemes, Indicators must be firmly linked to sustainability Criteria, and be relevant to the region and goals of management

b. in the case of compound Indicators, these may only be effective when systems can be narrowly defined at local scales, and deductive arguments are available for selecting indicating variables and inductive arguments for aggregating them to higher scales – ie have a sound scientific or other relevant basis, be understandable and clearly interpretable

c. be sensitive and able to measure critical change with confidence


d. have costs appropriate for their benefits (including non-economic costs and benefits)

e. be feasible and realistic to measure over relevant time frames and spatial scales

f. have targets for thresholds built in, or be capable of having these applied

g. contribute directly to specified goals, continuous improvement in management and performance, or adaptive management and governance

h. taken together, Indicators must also be sufficient to adequately measure relevant sustainability outcomes.

4. The Evaluation element should:

a. identify targets (informed by the best available science) to maintain ecosystem functions and other targets for delivery of values that society cares about

b. use robust evaluation methods which are appropriate to the purpose and scale, supported by the available data, and relevant to the stakeholders

c. employ methods to assess, and evaluate the feedback mechanisms for indirect effects that may occur in different locations or industries

d. consider scientific and social processes for evaluation, trade-off and negotiation of the balance of sustainability outcomes according to the specific purpose and situation. Very few industries or projects have positive sustainability benefits across every single dimension of sustainability, and a means of negotiating the balance of positive and negative aspects is necessary.

6.3 Conclusions – the task ahead Meeting sustainability goals is one of the most important and urgent challenges for humanity. Human pressures already exceed the safe coping capacity of the planet in some issues. In some cases, such as greenhouse emissions, we have only one or two decades to achieve a substantial change in trajectory – or risk extreme impacts.

Practical action is required by millions of businesses and billions of people.

Sustainability assessment tools have a crucial role in informing, guiding and motivating this action – and are already making an important contribution. Existing tools are not perfect, and will continue to be refined. New tools and approaches will need to be developed and implemented, addressing gaps and providing new traction and value. Technical, economic and social challenges will need to be addressed and overcome. A growing number of public and private enterprises will engage in different ways, for different reasons, around different aspects of sustainability. All members of this community of providers and practitioners have a contribution to building momentum, deepening engagement, and improving outcomes.

The GAC on Measuring Sustainability has a central role in promoting improved understanding of the importance and value of measuring sustainability as a means to enable better manage for sustainable and resilient pathways for development, and in helping businesses, governments and communities identify tools and frameworks that meet their specific needs.

The GAC on Measuring Sustainability, CSIRO and partners look forward to continuing collaboration and mutual learning as together we work towards a more sustainable future.

83 6 Conclusions

AFS Australian Forestry Standard

BMP Best Management Practice

C&I Criteria and Indicators

CBA Consumption Based Accounting

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CGE Computable General Equilibrium

CMA Catchment Management Authority

CoP Code of Practice

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

DPSIR (Driver-Impact)-Pressure-State-Response

DSEWP&C Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

EBODI Environmental Big Open Data Initiative

EE-IOA Environmentally Extended Input-Output Analysis

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMS Environmental Management System

EPI Environmental Performance Index

EU RED European Union Renewable Energy Directive

Acronyms

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FSC Forest Stewardship Council

GAC Global Agenda Council

GCI Global Competitiveness Index

GHG Greenhouse gas

GRI Global Reporting Initiative

IA Integrated Assessment

ICMM International Council of Mining and Metals

IEA International Energy Agency

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development

IMF International Monetary Fund

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISO International Standards Organization

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MMSD Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development


MRIO Multi-regional input-output

NGO Non-governmental organisation

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PCI Principle-Criteria-Indicator

PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification

PSR Pressure-State-Response

RFA Regional Forest Agreement

RSB Roundtable for Sustainable Biomaterials

RSPO Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil

RTFO Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation

SEEA System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting

SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

SFM Sustainable Forest Management

SIA Social Impact Assessment

SoE State of the Environment

TBL Triple Bottom Line

UK NEA UK National Ecosystem Assessment

UN United Nations

UNCEEA United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting

UNCSD United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WEF World Economic Forum

WTO World Trade Organization

85Acronyms



Abel, N., Ive, J., Langston, A., Tatnell, B., Tongway, D., Walker, B. and Walker, P. 2000, ‘Resilience of NSW rangelands: a framework for analysing a complex adaptive ecosystem’, pp. 58–70, in P. Hale, A. Petrie, D. Moloney, and P. Sattler (eds.), Management for sustainable ecosystems, Center for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Acheson, J.M., Wilson, J.A. and Steneck, R.S. 1998, ‘Managing chaotic fisheries’, pp. 390–413, in F. Berkes and C. Folke (eds.), Linking social and ecological systems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Agu, G. 2007, ‘The DPSIR framework used by the EEA EEA Integrated Assessment Portal’, http://root-devel.ew.eea.europa.eu/ia2dec/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182

Ahlner, E. 2011, ‘Consumption-based accounting – implications for policy’, Expert workshop on consumption-based accounting, Imperial College, London, UK, presentation by Eva Ahlner, Policy Development Department, Swedish EPA.

Andrew, R.M., et al. 2013, ‘Climate policy and dependence on traded carbon’, Environmental Research Letters, 8(3): 034011.

Ansell, C.K. 2011, Pragmatist democracy: evolutionary learning as public philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ansell, C. 2012, ‘The intellectual journey of a pragmatist. Discussion Forum on Christopher Ansell’s Pragmatist deomcracy (2011)’, Socio-Economic Review, 10: 600–604.

ANZECC State of the Environment Reporting Taskforce 2000, Core environmental indicators for reporting on the state of the environment, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Canberra.

Ast, J.A., Rosa, M.P., Santbergen, L.L.P.A. 2008, ‘Developments in participation within integrated water management’, pp. 343–354, in P. Meire, M. Coenen, C. Lombardo, M. Robba and R. Sacile (eds.), Integrated water management, Springer, The Netherlands

Australian Bluegum Plantations Pty Ltd 2012, ‘Company policies‘, retrieved 2 November 2012 from http://www.austgum.com.au/australian-plantations-woodchips/policies.html

Australian Forest Products Association 2012, ‘Policy areas: a renewable future - policy roadmap for the forest, wood and timber products industry‘, retrieved 2 November 2012 from http://www.ausfpa.com.au/site/key_policy_areas.php

Bammer, G. 2012, Disciplining interdisciplinarity: integration and implementation’ sciences for researching complex real-world problems, vol. 47, pp. 365, ANU E Press, Canberra.

Bankes, S. 1993, ‘Exploratory modeling for policy analysis’, Operations Research, 41(3): 435–449.

Barrett, J. et al 2013, ‘Consumption-based GHG emission accounting: a UK case study‘, Climate Policy, 13(4): 451–470.

Bazilian, M. et al 2011, ‘Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integrated modelling approach‘, Energy Policy, 39(12): 7896–7906.

Bateman, I.J., Mace, G.M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G. and Turner, K. 2011, ‘Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(2): 177–218. ISSN 0924-6460.

Bateman, I.J. et al 2013, ‘Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom’, Science, 341(6141): 45–50. DOI: 10.1126/science.1234379.

Bilbao-Osorio, B., Blanke, J., Crotti, R., Hanouz, M. D., Fidanza, B., Geiger, T., and Serin, C. 2012, ‘Assessing the sustainable competitiveness of nations’, The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013.

Blaser J. 2010 Forest law compliance and governance in tropical countries: a region by region assessment of the status of forest law compliance and governance in the tropics, and recommendations for improvement. FAO and ITTO, 2010

References

87References

http://root-devel.ew.eea.europa.eu/ia2dec/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182

http://root-devel.ew.eea.europa.eu/ia2dec/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182

http://www.austgum.com.au/australian-plantations-woodchips/policies.html

http://www.austgum.com.au/australian-plantations-woodchips/policies.html

http://www.ausfpa.com.au/site/key_policy_areas.php

http://www.ausfpa.com.au/site/key_policy_areas.php

Bodin, Ö., Tengö, M., Norman, A., Lundberg, J. and Elmqvist, T. 2006, ‘The value of small size: loss of forest patches and threshold effects on ecosystem services in southern Madagascar’ Ecological Applications, 16(2): 440–451.

Bowen, R.E. and Riley, C. 2003, ‘Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal management’, Ocean and Coastal Management, 46: 299–312.

Brainerd, S. 2007, European charter on hunting and biodiversity, Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Council of Europe.

Brereton, D. 2003, ‘Self-regulation of environmental and social performance in the Australian minerals industry’, Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 20(1): 1–14.

Bruckner, M. et al 2012, ‘Materials embodied in international trade – global material extraction and consumption between 1995 and 2005’, Global Environmental Change, 22(3): 568–576.

Brunckhorst, D.J. 2002, ‘Institutions to sustain ecological and social systems’, Ecological Management and Restoration, 3: 109–116.

Brunner, R.D. and Steelman, T.A. 2005, ‘Towards adaptive governance’ in R.D. Brunner, T.A. Steelman, L. Coe-Juell, C.M. Cromley, C.M. Edwards and D.W. Tucker (eds.), Adaptive governance: integrating science, policy and decision making, Columbia University Press, New York.

Brunner, R.D. and Lynch, A.H. 2010, Adaptive governance and climate change, American Meteorological Society, Boston.

Carpenter, S.R. and Cottingham, K.L. 1997, ‘Resilience and restoration of lakes’, Conservation Ecology [online] http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art2

Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard. J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R.S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H.M., Perrings, C., Reid, W.V., Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R.J. and Whyte, A. 2009, ‘Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(5): 1305–1312.

Carr, E., Wingard, P., Yorty, S., Thompson, M., Jensen, N. and Roberson, J. 2007, ‘Applying DPSIR to sustainable development’, Int J Sus Development & World Ecology, 14: 543–555.

Carraro, C. and Grubb, M. 2006, ‘Technological change for atmospheric stabilization: introductory overview to the innovation modeling comparison project’, The Energy Journal, SI2006(1): 1–16.

CEN 2012, EN 15804:2012 ‘Sustainability of construction works - environmental product declarations - core rules for the product category of construction products’, European Committee for Standardization.

Chapin, F.S. III, Kofinas, G.P. and Folke, C. (eds.) 2009, Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Cheney, H., Lovel, R. and Solomon, F. 2002, People, power and participation: a study ofmining-community relationships, MMSD Australia Research Paper, Melbourne.

Cherubini, F., Bird, N., Cowie, A., Jungmeier, G., Schlamadinger, B. and Woess-Gallasch, S. 2009, ‘Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges and recommendations’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53: 434–447.

Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., Deri, A., Hughes, L., Bush, G., Brander, L., Nahman, A., de Lange, W. and Reyers, B. 2008, An evaluation of economic and non-economic techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity to people in developing countries, Defra, London.

Clarke, L. and Weyant, J. 2009, ‘Introduction to the EMF 22 special issue on climate change control scenarios’. Energy Economics, 31(2): 63.

Corbera, E., Kosoyc, N. and Martínez Tunad, M. 2007, ‘Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America’. Global Environmental Change, 17: 365–380

Colloff, M.J., Lindsay, E.A. and Cook, D.C. 2013, ‘Natural pest control in citrus as an ecosystem service: Integrating ecology, economics and management at the farm scale’, Biological Control, 67: 170–177.


javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$m$g_86eff261_4bdb_4749_9a16_1e54a1b48b98$ctl00$gvResult','Details$5')

Commonwealth of Australia 1998, A framework of regional (sub-national) level criteria and indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Australia, MIG Secretariat, Forests Division, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997, ‘The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital’, Nature, 387: 253–260.

Cowie, A.L., Downie, A.E., George, B.H., Singh, B-P., Van Zwieten, L. and O’Connell, D. 2012, ‘Is sustainability certification for biochar the answer to environmental risks?’, Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 47(5): 637–648.

CP/RAC 2008, A consumption-based approach to greenhouse gas emissions in a global economy – a pilot experiment in the Mediterranean, Case study: Spain, Barcelona, Regional Activity Centre for Cleaner Production (CP/RAC), Mediterranean Action Plan, United Nations Environment Programme.

Crowson, P. 2004, Astride mining: issues and policies for the minerals industry, Mining Journal Books, London.

Daily, G.C. (ed.) 1997, Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems, Island Press, Washington DC, 392 pp.

Daily, G.C. and Matson, P.A. 2008, ‘Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105: 9455–9456.

Davis, S.J. and Caldeira, K. 2010, ‘Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(12): 5687–5692.

De Groot, R.S. 1992, Functions of nature, evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making, Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, The Netherlands.

De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen, L. 2010, ‘Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making’, Ecological Complexity, 7: 260–272.

De Sherbinin, A., Rubin, A., Levy, M. and Johnson, L. 2012, Indicate use in practice: how Indicators are being used in policy and management contexts. Palisades, and why and New Haven, CT: C I ES I N, Columbia University and YCELP

Dietz, S. and Stern, N. 2008, ‘Why economic analysis supports strong action on climate change: a response to the Stern review’s critics’, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(1): 94–113.

Dittrich, M. and Bringezu, S. 2010, ‘The physical dimension of international trade, part 1: direct global flows between 1962 and 2005’, Ecological Economics, 69(9): 1838–1847.

Dittrich, M. et al 2012a, ‘The physical dimension of international trade, part 2: indirect global resource flows between 1962 and 2005’, Ecological Economics, 79: 32–43.

Dittrich, M. et al 2012b, Green economies around the world? Implications of resource use for development and the environment, Monika Dittrich and Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI).

Dore, J. and Lebel, L. 2010, ‘Deliberation and scale in Mekong region water governance’, Environmental Management, 46(1): 60–80.

Earth Charter 2013, http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/

EC et al 2012, System of environmental-economic accounting – central framework (white cover publication, pre-edited text subject to official editing), European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations, World Bank.

Eckelman, M., Mudd, G. and Norgate, T. 2013, ‘Metals production and energy use’, in Environmental Risks and Challenges of Anthropogenic Metals Flows and Cycles, A Report of the Working Group on the Global Metal Flows to the International Resource Panel. van der Voet, E.; Salminen, R.; Eckelman, M.; Mudd, G.; Norgate, T.; Hischier, R. pp. 75–94 (Chapter 4).

Erickson, P. et al 2012, ‘A consumption-based GHG inventory for the US state of Oregon’, Environmental Science & Technology, 46(7): 3679–3686.

89References

http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/

http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/

Esteves, A.M., Franks, D. and Vanclay, F. 2012, ‘Social impact assessment: the state of the art’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1): 34–42.

European Parliament 2009, ‘Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources amending and susequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC’, from http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st03/st03736.en08.pdf

FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment, 2010, http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/en/ Last accessed 31 October 2013

Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Hawthorne, P. 2008, ‘Land clearing and biofuel carbon debt’, Science, 319: 1235–1238.

Fehrenbach, H., Gierich, J., Reinhardt, G., Schmitz, J., Sayer, U., Gretz, M., Seizinger, E. and Lanje, K. 2008, Criteria for a sustainable use of bioenergy on a global scale, Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), Dessau-Roblau.

Feng, K. et al 2011, ‘Comparison of bottom-up and top-down approaches to calculating the water footprints of nations’, Economic Systems Research, 23(4): 371–385.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. 2005, ‘Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30: 441–473.

Foran, B., Lenzen, M. and Dey, C. 2005, Balancing act. a triple bottom line analysis of the Australian economy, volume 1, Canberra, Australia.

Forest Stewardship Council 2002, FSC principles and criteria for forest stewardship: FSC-STD-01-001 (version 4-0) EN, Bonn, Germany.

Forest Stewardship Council 2012, ‘Forest Stewardship Council International Centre’, retrieved 7 November 2012 from http://ic.fsc.org

Forests Australia 2009, Australia’s sustainable forest management framework of criteria and indicators 2008, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australian Government, Canberra.

Forests NSW 2012, ‘Forest management’, retrieved 2 November 2012 from http://www.forests.nsw.gov.au/management

Freer-Smith, P. and Carnus, J.M., 2008, The sustainable management and protection of forests: analysis of the current position globally. AMBIO 2008 37 (4) 254-262

FSC WATCH. FSC-WATCH [home page]. Available at: <http://www.fsc-watch.org/>. Accessed on: 28 may 2012.

Fulton, E.A. 2010, ‘Approaches to end-to-end ecosystem models’, Journal of Marine Systems, 81(1): 171–183.

Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D.M., Smith, D.C., Link, J.S., Kaplan, I.C., Savina-Rolland, M., Johnson, P., Ainsworth, C., Horne, P., Gorton, R. and Gamble, R.J. 2011, ‘Lessons in modelling and management of marine ecosystems: the Atlantis experience’,Fish and Fisheries, 12(2): 171–188.

Galli, A. et al 2012, ‘Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet’, Ecological Indicators, 16: 100–112.

Gavran, M. 2012, Australian plantation statistics 2012 update, ABARES Technical Report, ABARES Canberra.

Gavrilova, O. and Vilu, R. 2012, ‘Production-based and consumption-based national greenhouse gas inventories: an implication for Estonia’, Ecological Economics, 75: 161–173.

Giljum, S. et al 2013, State of play of national consumption-based indicators – a review and evaluation of available methods and data to calculate footprint-type (consumption-based) indicators for materials, water, land and carbon, Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI), Vienna, Austria.

GLOBAL BIOENERGY PARTNERSHIP. GBEP task force on sustainability. Available at: <http://www.globalbioenergy.org/>. Accessed on: 30 May 2012.

Goodstein, E.S. 2005, Economics and the environment, Wiley.

Grafton, R.Q. and Kompas, T. 2005, ‘Uncertainty and the active adaptive management of marine reserves’, Marine Policy, 29(5): 471–479.

Griggs, D., Noble, I., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockstrom, J., Ohman, M., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G. and Kanie, N. 2013, ‘Sustainable development goals for people and planet’, Nature, 495(7441): 305–307.


http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st03/st03736.en08.pdf

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st03/st03736.en08.pdf

http://ic.fsc.org

http://www.forests.nsw.gov.au/management

http://www.forests.nsw.gov.au/management

Groot, J.C.J., Rossing, W.A.H., Jellema, A., Stobbelaar, D.J., Renting, H. and Van Ittersum, M.K. 2007, ‘Exploring multi-scale trade-offs between nature conservation, agricultural profits and landscape quality—a methodology to support discussions on land-use perspectives’, Agric Ecosyst Environ 120: 58–69.

Gunderson, L. and Holling, C. 2001, Panarchy. Understanding transformations in human and natural systems, Island Press.

Harris, P.G. and Symons, J. 2013, ‘Norm conflict in climate governance: greenhouse gas accounting and the problem of consumption’, Global Environmental Politics, 13(1): 9–29.

Hatfield-Dodds, S. 2006, ‘The catchment care principle: a new equity principle for environmental policy, with advantages for efficiency and adaptive governance’, Ecological Economics, 56(3): 373–385.

Hatfield-Dodds, S. 2013, ‘Climate change: all in the timing’, Nature, 493(7430): 35–36.

Hatfield-Dodds, S. et al (in review), Australian national outlook 2014: living standards, resource use, environmental performance, and economic structure, 1970-2050, CSIRO, Canberra, www.csiro.au/nationaloutlook

Hatfield-Dodds, S. and Pearson, L. 2005, ‘The role of social capital in sustainable development assessment frameworks’, International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment, 1(3–4): 383–399.

Hatfield-Dodds, S., Nelson, R. and Cook, D.C. 2007, ‘Adaptive governance: an introduction, and implications for public policy’, paper presented to the ANZSEE (Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics) Conference, Noosa, Australia, July 2007.

Heiler, K., Pickgill, R. and Briggs, C. 2000, Working time arrangements in the Australian mining industry, report of International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland.

Hertwich, E.G. and Peters, G.P. 2009, ‘Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis’, Environmental Science & Technology, 43(16): 6414–6420.

Hinkel, J. 2011, ‘Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: towards a clarification of the science–policy interface’, Global Environmental Change, 21(1): 198–208.

Holling, C.S. 1973, ‘Resilience and stability of ecological systems’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4: 1–23.

Hoppe, R. 2005, ‘Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilisation and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements’, Poiesis Prax, 3: 199–215.

Hotelling, H. 1931, ‘The economics of exhaustible resources’, J. Polit. Econ., 89: 137–175.

Howarth, R.B. and Norgaard, R.B. 1990, ‘Intergenerational resource rights, efficiency, and social optimality’, Land Economics, 66(1): 1.

Howarth, R. and Norgaard, R. 1992, ‘Environmental valuation under sustainable development’,American Economic Review, 82(2): 473–477.

Hughes, T.P, Carpenter, S., Rockström,J., Scheffer,M., Walker, B. 2013, ‘Multiscale regime shifts and planetary boundaries’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(7): 389–395.

Hussey, K. and Pittock, J. 2012, ‘The energy–water nexus: managing the links between energy and water for a sustainable future’, Ecology and Society 17(1). 31.

IEA 2012, World energy outlook 2012, International Energy Agency, Paris.

International Tropical Timber Organisation 2012, ‘ITTO: sustaining tropical forests’, retrieved 25 October 2012 from http://www.itto.int

IPCC 2007, 4th assessment report Working Group II impacts adaptation and vulnerability Chapter 7. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html

ISO 2006a, ISO 14040:2006: environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework, International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland.

ISO 2006b, ISO 14044:2006: environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines, International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland.

91References

http://www.csiro.au/nationaloutlook

http://www.itto.int

http://www.cambridge.org/features/earth_environmental/climatechange/wg2.htm

http://www.cambridge.org/features/earth_environmental/climatechange/wg2.htm

ISO 2009, ISO 31000:2009: Risk management – principles and guidelines, International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland.

Jack, B.K., Kousky, C. and Sims, K.R.E. 2008, ‘Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentives-based mechanisms’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105: 9465–9470.

Joyce, S. and Macfarlane, M. 2002, Social impact assessment in the mining industry: current situation and future directions.

Kajikawa, Y. 2008, ‘Research core and framework of sustainability science’, Sustainability Science, 3: 215–239.

Karmann, M.; Smith, A. 2009, FSC reflected in scientific and professional literature: literature study on the outcomes and impacts of FSC certification, [S.l.], Forest Stewardship Council, pp. 244.

Kanemoto, K. et al 2012, ‘Frameworks for comparing emissions associated with production, consumption, and international trade’, Environmental Science & Technology, 46(1): 172–179.

Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M. et al 2001, ‘Sustainability science’, Science, 292(5517): 641–642.

Kemp, D. 2004, ‘The emerging field of community relations: profiling the practitioner perspective’, paper presented at the MCA Inaugural Conference on Sustainability, November 2004, Melbourne, published by the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM), Brisbane, Australia.

Kenward, R.E., Whittingham, M.J., Arampatzis, S., Manos, B.D., Hahn, T., Terry, A., Simoncini, R., Alcorn, J., Bastian, O., Donald, M., Elowe, K., Karacsoni, Z., Larsson, M., Manou, D., Navodaru, i., Papadopoulou, O., Papathanasiou J., von Raggamby, A., Sharp, R.J.A., Soderqvist, T., Soutulorva, A., Vavrova, L., Aebischer, N. J., Leader-Williamd, N. and Rutz, C. 2011, ‘Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability and biodiversity’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(13): 5308–5312.

Kingsford, R.T., Biggs, H.C., and Pollard, S.R. 2011, ‘Strategic adaptive management in freshwater protected areas and their rivers’, Biological Conservation, 144: 1194–1203.

Kovanda, J. and Weinzettel, J. 2013, ‘The importance of raw material equivalents in economy-wide material flow accounting and its policy dimension’, Environmental Science & Policy, 29(0): 71–80.

Krausmann, F. et al 2009, ‘Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century’, Ecological Economics, 68(10): 2696–2705.

Lacey, J. and Moffat, K. 2013: A New Application for TA: Assessing Technologies in the Australian Mining and Minerals Industry in Technology Assessment and Policy Areas of Great Transitions, Prague, Czech Republic, 13-15 March 2013. PACITA Project, European Union. 7

Lacey, J. and Moffat, K. 2012, ‘A framework for integrated technology assessment within the Minerals Down Under Flagships: integrating life cycle assessment and social analysis of mining technologies, CSIRO Australia.

Lange, G.M. 2007, ‘Environmental accounting: introducing the SEEA-2003’, Ecological Economics, 61(4): 589–591.Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program for the Mining Industry 2006, Community Engagement and Development, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Lebel, L, Anderies, J.M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield Dodds, S., Hughes, T.P. and Wilson, J. 2006, ‘Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological system’, Ecology and Society, 11(1) 19 [online].

Lenzen, M. et al. 2012a, ‘International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations’, Nature, 486(7401): 109–112.

Lenzen, M. et al 2012b, ‘Mapping the structure of the world economy’, Environmental Science & Technology, 46(15): 8374–8381.

Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Bhaduri, A., Kanemoto, K., Bekchanov, M., Geschke, A., Foran, B., 2013, ‘International trade of scarce water’, Ecological Economics, vol 94 78-85.


https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/pub?list=SEA&pid=csiro:EP132433&sb=RECENT&expert=false&n=4&rpp=25&page=1&tr=13&q=justine lacey&dr=all



Lewandowski, I. and Faaij, A.P.C. 2006, ‘Steps towards the development of a certification system for sustainable bio-energy trade’, Biomass and Bioenergy, 30: 83–104.

Lininger, C. 2013, ‘Consumption-based approaches in international climate policy: an analytical evaluation of the implications for cost-effectiveness, carbon leakage, and the international income distribution’, IDEAS. http://ideas.repec.org/p/grz/wpaper/2013-03.html Last accessed 1 November 2013.

Littleboy A, Moran C, Drummond C, and Wing N. 2011, Resourceful supply: the role of innovation in winning work for domestic suppliers in a global supply chain, report to the Resource Sector Supplier Advocacy Forum, CSIRO Australia.

MacDonald, A. and Gibson, G. 2006, ‘Rise of sustainability: changing public concerns and governance approaches towards exploration’, SEG Special Publication 12, Chapter 7, 127–148.

Maher, T. 2006, ‘Cooperation is vital’, Proceedings of NSW Minerals Industry Occupational Health and Safety Conference, 18-21 June 2006, Sydney.

MCA 2004a, Enduring value – the Australian minerals industry framework for sustainable development: summary booklet, Minerals Council of Australia, Canberra.

MCA 2004b, Enduring value – the Australian minerals industry framework for sustainable development: implementation guidance, Minerals Council of Australia, Canberra.

McCook, L.J. et al 2010, ‘Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: a globally significant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(43): 18278–18285.

MCMPR 2005, Principles for engagement with communities and stakeholders, Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. III 1972, Limits to growth, New American Library, New York.

Measham, T.G. Haslam McKenzie, F., Moffat, K. and Franks, D. 2013, ‘An expanded role for the mining sector in Australian society?’ Rural Society, 22(2) pp. 184–194.

Midgley, G. 2003, ‘Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and complexity for this philosophy of science’, Systemic Practice and Action Research, 16(2): 77–97.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a, Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment: introduction and conceptual framework, retrieved on 19 Oct 2013 from http://millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.299.aspx.pdf

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005b, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC. Retrieved on 19 Oct 2013 from http://millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005c, Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment: ecosystems and their services, retrieved on 19 Oct 2013 from http://millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.300.aspx.pdf

Miller T.R. 2013, ‘Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories’, Sustainability Science, 8: 279–293.

Mills, E. 2005, ‘Insurance in a climate of change’, Science, 309 (5737): 1040–1044. [DOI:10.1126/science.1112121]

MMSD 2002, Breaking new ground: mining, minerals and sustainable development: the report of the mmsd project, Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development, Earthscan for IIED and WBCSD, London.

Moldan, B., Janoušková, S. and Hák, T. 2012, ‘How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets’, Ecological Indicators, 17(0): 4–13.

Montreal Process Implementation Group for Australia 2008, Australia’s state of the forest report 2008, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Muñoz, P. et al 2009, ‘The raw material equivalents of international trade’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(6): 881–897.

93References

http://millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.299.aspx.pdf






Muñoz, P. and Steininger, K.W. 2010, ‘Austria’s CO2 responsibility and the carbon content of its international trade’, Ecological Economics, 69(10): 2003–2019.

Nambiar, E.K. 1999, ‘Pursuit of sustainable plantation forestry’, The Southern African Forestry Journal, 184(1): 45–62.

National Water Commission 2012, National Water Commission: role and functions [online] available: http://nwc.gov.au/organisation/role [accessed 2 November 2012].

Ness, B., Anderberg, S. and Olsson, L. 2010, ‘Structuring problems in sustainability science: the multi-level DPSIR framework’, Geoforum, 41: 479–488.

Nichols, J.D. and Williams, B.K. 2006, ‘Monitoring for conservation’, TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 21(12): 668–673.

Nordhaus, W.D. 2010, ‘Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(26): 11721–11726.

Norgaard, R. 2010, ‘Ecosystem services: eye opening metaphor to complexity blinder’, Ecological Economics, 69: 1219 – 1227.

Northey, S., Haque, N. and Mudd, G. 2013, ‘Energy, greenhouse gas emission and water footprint of copper production: review of sustainability reports’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 40: 118–128.

NRC 1999, Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability, The National Academies Press, Washington DC.

NSW Department of Primary Industries 2005, Forest practices code - part 1: timber harvesting in Forests NSW Plantations, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Sydney.

O’Connell, D., Keating, B., Glover, M. 2005, Sustainability guide for bioenergy: a scoping study, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, Australia.

O’Connell, D., Braid, A., Raison, J., Handberg, K., Cowie, A., Rodrigeuz, L. and George, B. 2009, Sustainable production of bioenergy: a review of global bioenergy sustainability frameworks and assessment systems, RIRDC Publication No 09/167, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

OECD 2003, OECD environmental indicators: development, measurement and use, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.

OECD 2011, Towards green growth: monitoring progress (OECD indicators), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.

OECD 2012, Green growth indicators, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.

OECD Environment Directorate 2008, OECD key environmental indicators, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.Olsson, P. et al 2006, ‘Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems’, Ecology and Society, 11(1): 18–18.

Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Hughes, T.P. 2008, ‘Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based managment of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105: 9489–9494.

O’Rourke, M. and Crowley, S. 2013, ‘Philosophical intervention and cross disciplinary science: story of the Toolbox project’, Synthese, 190: 1937–1954.

Ostrom, E. 2005, Understanding institutional diversity, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Owen, A. et al 2013, ‘A structural decomposition approach to MRIO comparison’, 21st International Input-Output Conference of the International Input-Output Association (IIOA), Kitakyushu, Japan.

Parkes, D., Newell, G. and Cheal, D. 2003, ‘Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the “habitat hectares” approach’, Ecological Management & Restoration, 4: 1442–8903.

Pearce, D. and Warford, J. 1993, World without end: economics, environment and sustainable development, Oxtord University Press, New York.


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10295925.1999.9631212

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10295925.1999.9631212

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tsfs18/184/1

http://nwc.gov.au/organisation/role

http://nwc.gov.au/organisation/role

Pearman, G. 2013, ‘Limits to the potential of biofuels and bio sequestration of carbon’, Energy Policy, 59: 523–535.

Peña-Claros, M., Blommerde, S. and Bongers, F. 2009, ‘Assessing the progress made: an evaluation of forest management certification in the tropics’, (Tropical resource management papers, 95), Wageningen University, Wageningen.

Peters, G. 2008a, ‘From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories’, Ecological Economics, 65(1): 13–23.

Peters, G. 2008b, ‘Reassessing carbon leakage’, 11th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis – Future of Global Economy, Helsinki, Finland.

Peters, G.P. 2010, ‘Policy update: managing carbon leakage’, Carbon Management, 1(1): 35–37.

Peters, G.P. and Hertwich, E.G. 2008a, ‘CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy’, Environmental Science & Technology, 42(5): 1401–1407.

Peters, G.P. and Hertwich, E.G. 2008b, ‘Post-Kyoto greenhouse gas inventories: production versus consumption’, Climatic Change, 86: 51–66.

Peters, G.P. et al 2011, ‘Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(21): 8903–8908.

Pezzey J. 1992, Sustainable development concepts: an economic analysis, World Bank Environment Paper Number 2, The World Bank, Washington DC, 92pp.

Pezzey J.C.V. 1997, ‘Sustainability constraints versus “optimality” versus intertemporal concern, and axioms versus data’, Land Economics, 73(4): 448–466.

Phillips, R. 2001, ‘Engagement or confrontation’, in G. Evans, J. Goodman and N. Lansbury (eds.) Moving mountains: communities confront mining and globalisation, Otford Press and Mineral Policy Institute, Sydney.

Pintér, L, Hardi, P. and Bartelmus, P. 2005, Indicators of sustainable development: proposals for a way forward, International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G., Schneider, F., Speranza, C., Kiteme, B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., Hirsch Hadorn, G. and Wiesmann, U. 2010, ‘Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal’, Science and Public Policy, 37(4): 267–281. doi:10.3152/030234210X496628

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification 2012, ‘PEFC caring for our forests globally’, retrieved on 27 October 2012 from http://www.pefc.org

Purbawiyatna, A. and Simula, M.2008, ‘Developing forest certification: towards increasing the comparability ad acceptance of forest certification systems’ (ITTO Technical series, 29), International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama, 126p.

Quack, S. 2012, ‘Pragmatist institutionalism? Evolutionary learning and the limits of face to face deliberation. Discussion forum on Christopher Ansell’s Pragmatist democracy (2011)’, Socio-Economic Review, 10: 589–594

Raison, J.R., Flinn, D.W. and Brown, A.G. 2001, ‘Application of criteria and indicators to support sustainable forest management: some key issues’, pp. 5–18, in J.R. Raison, D.W. Flinn and A.G. Brown (eds.), Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.

Raison, J.R., McCormack, R.J., Cork, S.J., Ryan, P.J. and McKenzie, N.J. 1997, ‘Scientific issues in the assessment of ecologically sustainable forest management, with special reference to the use of Indicators’, 4th Joint Conference of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and the New Zealand Institute of Forestry.

RAMSAR 2012, ‘The Ramsar convention on wetlands’, retrieved 2 November 2012 from http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-home/main/ramsar/1_4000_0__

Raupach, M.R., McMichael, A.J., Finnigan, J.J., Manderson, L. and Walker, B.H. (eds.) 2012, Negotiating our future: living scenarios for Australia to 2050, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra.

Reeson, A.F., Measham T.G. and Hosking K. 2012, ‘Mining activity, income inequality and gender in Australia’, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 56(2): 302–313.

95References

http://www.pefc.org

http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-home/main/ramsar/1_4000_0__

http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-home/main/ramsar/1_4000_0__

Rijke, J. et al 2012, ‘Fit-for-purpose governance: a framework to make adaptive governance operational’, Environmental Science & Policy, 22: 73–84.

Rockström, J. et al 2009a, ‘A safe operating space for humanity’, Nature, 461: 472–475.

Rockström, J. et al 2009b, ‘Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity’, Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32 [online]

Rogelj, J., McCollum, D.L., Reisinger, A., Meinshausen, M. and Riahi, K. 2013, ‘Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation’, Nature, 493(7430): 79–83.

SCARM 1998, Sustainable agriculture: assessing Australia’s recent performance: a report to SCARM of the National Collaborative Project on Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture, CSIRO, Melbourne.

Schandl, H., Poldy, F., Turner, G.M., Measham, T G., Walker, D. and Eisenmenger, N. 2008, ‘Australia’s resource use trajectories’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(5): 669–685.

Scholz, J.T. and Stiftel, B. 2005, ‘Introduction: the challenges of adaptive governance’, in J.T. Scholz, and B. Stiftel (eds.), Adaptive governance and water conflict: new institutions for collaborative planning, Resources for the Future Press, Washington DC.

Searchinger, T.D., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D. and Yu, T. 2008, ‘Use of US cropland for biofuels increases greenhouse gasses through emissions from land-use change’, Science, 319(5867): 1238–1240.

Singh R.K., Murty H.R., Gupta S.K. and Dikshit A.K. 2009, ‘An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies’, Ecological Indicators, 9: 189–212.

Smajgl, A. and Ward, J. (eds.) 2013, The water-food-energy plexus in the Mekong Region, Singapore Institute for Southeast Asian Studies/Springer, New York & Berlin.

Smajgl, A., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Connor, J., Young, M., Newth, M., Kirby, M. and Banerjee, O. 2012, ‘Energy-water nexus for green growth: towards a better basis for policy and investment decisions’, discussion paper prepared for the World Bank, Energy Transformed Flagship and Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.

Smeets, E. and Weterings, R. 1999, Environmental indicators: typology and overview, European Environment Agency Technical Report No 25.

Smeets et al 2009, ‘A review and harmonisation of biomass resource assessments’, Proceedings 17th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition - From Research to Industry and Markets, 29 June–3 July 2009, Hamburg, Germany.

Smethurst, P.J., Sadanandan Nambiar, E.K., Raison, R.J. and Moggridge, B. 2012, Assessment of codes of practice for plantation forestry: Australian national overview, Australian Government, Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Smith, C. and McDonald, T. 1998, ‘Assessing the suitability of agriculture at the planning stage’, Journal of Environmental Management, 52(1): 15–37.

Smithson, M. 2010, ‘Ignorance and uncertainty’, pp. 84–97, in V.A. Brown, J. Russell, and J. Harris (eds.), Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination, Earthscan, London.

Solomon, F., Schiavi, P., Horowitz, L., Rouse, A. and Rae, M. 2006, The mining certification evaluation project final report, WWF Australia, Melbourne.

Stankey, G.H., Bormann, B.T., Ryan, C., Shindler, B., Sturtevant, V., Clark, R.N. and Philpot, C. 2003, ‘Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: rhetoric and reality’, Journal of Forestry, January/February: 40–46.

Steen-Olsen, K. et al 2012, ‘Carbon, land, and water footprint accounts for the European Union: consumption, production, and displacements through international trade’, Environmental Science & Technology, 46(20): 10883–10891.

Steger, S. and Bleischwitz, R. 2011, ‘Drivers for the use of materials across countries’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8): 816–826.

Steinberger, J.K. et al 2010, ‘Global patterns of materials use: a socioeconomic and geophysical analysis’, Ecological Economics, 69(5): 1148–1158.

Stern, N.H. and Great Britain 2007, The economics of climate change: the Stern review, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.


Stern, N. 2008, ‘The economics of climate change’, The American Economic Review, 98(2): 1–37.

Trebeck, K. 2004, ‘Companies, complexity and csr: community engagement in the mining industry’, Australian Chief Executive, April 2004: 48–49.

Turner, G.M. 2008, ‘A comparison of the limits to growth with 30 years of reality’, Global Environmental Change, 18(3): 397–411.

Turner, G.M. 2012, ‘On the cusp of global collapse? Updated comparison of the limits to growth with historical data’, GAiA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 21(2): 116–124.

Tukker, A. and Dietzenbacher, E. 2013, ‘Global multiregional input-output frameworks: an introduction and outlook’, Economic Systems Research, 25(1): 1–19.

UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2012, available at: http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org [Accessed 25th October 2012]

UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011, The UK national ecosystem assessment: technical report, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

UN 2012a, ‘The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012.’ (United Nations: New York.) (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2012/English2012.pdf)

UN 2012b, ‘The Future We Want: outcome document from Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.’ (United Nations: New York.) (http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/)

UN 2012c, UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability 2012. Resilience people resilient planet: a future worth choosing. New York: United Nations.

UN 2013a, Lessons learned from the Commission on Sustainable Development. Report of the Secretary-General. 67th session of United Nations General Assembly item 20(a). http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1676SG%20report%20on%20CSD%20lessons%20learned_advance%20unedited%20copy_26%20Feb%2013.pdf Last accessed 1 November 2013

UN 2013b, A new global partnership: eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development (The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda), pp. 81. (United Nations Publications: New York.) (http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/UN-Report.pdf)

UNCED 1992, The Rio declaration, available from http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163

UNCSD Secretariat 2012, The Rio Issues Briefs, available from http://www.uncsd2012.org/7issues.html Last accessed 1 November 2013. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.

UN-E 2007, ‘Sustainable bioenergy: a framework for decision makers’, from http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/susdev.Biofuels.FAO.pdf

UNEP 2011a, Resource efficiency: economics and outlook for asia-pacific (REEO), United Nations Environment Programme, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.

UNEP 2011b, Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

UNEP 2011c, Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication - a synthesis for policy makers, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

UNEP 2011d, Keeping track of a changing environment: from Rio to Rio +20 (1992 - 2012). United Nations Environment Program. Nairobi, Kenya.

UN-ESCAP et al 2012, Green growth, resources and resilience - environmental sustainability in Asia and the Pacific, United Nations and Asian Development Bank, Bangkok, Thailand.

United Nations 1993, Handbook of national accounting: integrated environment and economic accounting, Series: F, vol. 61, New York, USA.

United Nations 2003, Handbook of national accounting: integrated environmental and economic accounting 2003, United Nations; European Commission; International Monetary Fund; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; World Bank.

97References

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2012/English2012.pdf



http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1676SG report on CSD lessons learned_advance unedited copy_26 Feb 13.pdf





http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/UN-Report.pdf

http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/UN-Report.pdf

http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/susdev.Biofuels.FAO.pdf

http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/susdev.Biofuels.FAO.pdf

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2012a, retrieved 2 November 2012 from http://unfccc.int/2860.php

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2012b,’Kyoto protocol’, retrieved 2 November 2012 from http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

van Dam, J., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Jurgens, I., Best, G. and Fritsche, U. 2008, ‘Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification’, Biomass and Bioenergy, 32: 749–780.

van Vuuren, D.P., Hof, A., Kitous, A., Kram, T., Mechler, R., Scrieciu, S., Isaac, M., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Arnell, N., Barker, T., Criqui, P., Berkhout, F., Hilderink, H. and Hinkel, J. 2011, ‘The use of scenarios as the basis for combined assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation’, Global Environmental Change, 21(2): 575–591.

Verstraete, M.M., Hutchinson, C.F., Grainger, A., Stafford Smith, M., Scholes, R.J., Reynolds, J.F., Barbosa, P., Léon, A. and Mbow, C. 2011, ‘Towards a global drylands observing system: observational requirements and institutional solutions’, Land Degradation & Development, 22: 198–213.

Verstraete, M.M., Scholes, R.J. and Stafford Smith, M. 2009, ‘Climate and desertification: looking at an old problem through new lenses’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7: 421–428.

Vetőné Mózner, Z. 2013, ‘A consumption-based approach to carbon emission accounting – sectoral differences and environmental benefits’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 42(0): 83–95.

Walker, B.H., Abel, N., Anderies, J.M. and Ryan, P. 2009, ‘Resilience, adaptability, and transformability in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia’, Ecology and Society, 14(1): 12. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art12/

Walker, B.H., Kinzig, A.P., Anderies, J.M. and Ryan, P. 2006, ‘Exploring resilience in social-ecological systems through comparative studies and theory development’, special issue Ecology and Society, 11(1): 12.

Walker, B. and Salt, D. 2006, Resilience thinking. Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world, Island Press.

Walker, B. and Salt, D. 2012, Resilience practice. Building capacity to absorb disturbance and maintain function, Island Press.

Walters, C.J. and Holling, C.S. 1990, ‘Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing’, Ecology, 71(6): 2060–2068.

Walters, C.J. 1986, Adaptive management of renewable resources, Macmillan Publishing, New York.

Waughray, D. 2011, Water security: the water-food-energy-climate nexus, The World Economic Forum water initiative, Island Press, Washington DC. [electronic resource http://dx.doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-026-2]

Weber, C.L. and Peters, G.P. 2009, ‘Climate change policy and international trade: policy considerations in the US’, Energy Policy, 37(2): 432–440.

Weinzettel, J. et al 2013, ‘Affluence drives the global displacement of land use’, Global Environmental Change, 23(2): 433–438.

Weinzettel, J. and Kovanda, J. 2011, ‘Structural decomposition analysis of raw material consumption - the case of the Czech Republic’, Journal of Industrial Ecology. 15(6): 893–907.

Wiebe, K.S. et al 2012, ‘Carbon and materials embodied in the international trade of emerging economies’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(4): 636–646.

Wiedmann, T. 2009, ‘A review of recent multi-region input-output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting’, Ecological Economics, 69(2): 211–222.

Wiedmann, T. and Barrett, J. 2013, ‘Policy-relevant applications of environmentally extended MRIO databases – experiences from the UK’, Economic Systems Research, 25(1): 143–156.

Wiedmann, T. et al 2011, ‘Quo vadis MRIO? Methodological, data and institutional requirements for multi-region input-output analysis’, Ecological Economics, 70(11): 1937–1945.

Wiedmann, T. et al 2010, ‘A carbon footprint time series of the UK – results from a multi-region input-output model’, Economic Systems Research, 22(1): 19–42.


http://unfccc.int/2860.php

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

Wiedmann, T.O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J. and Kanemoto, K. 2013, ‘The material footprint of nations’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1220362110

Wilkinson, A. and Kupers, R. 2013, ‘Living in the future’, Harvard Business Review, 91(5), Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Watertown.

Wintle, B.A. and Lindenmayer, D.B. 2008, ‘Adaptive risk management for certifiably sustainable forestry’, Forest Ecology and Management, 256: 1311–1319.

World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: our common future, UN Documents.

Yongvanich, K. and Guthrie, J. 2004, The Australian mining industry’s sustainability reporting: an examination of legitimation strategies, Working Papers in Management, Macquarie Graduate School of Management, NSW.

Yu, Y., Feng, K. and Hubacek, K. 2013, ‘Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use’, Global Environmental Change, vol 23:5 1178-1186].

99References

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1220362110

FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCSIRO Material and Engineering SciencesDeborah O’Connell t +61 429 814989 e Deborah.O’[email protected] w www.csiro.au

CONTACT USt 1300 363 400 +61 3 9545 2176 e [email protected] w www.csiro.au

YOUR CSIROAustralia is founding its future on science and innovation. Its national science agency, CSIRO, is a powerhouse of ideas, technologies and skills for building prosperity, growth, health and sustainability. It serves governments, industries, business and communities across the nation.

CS

AC

T 20

13 •

13-

00

496

_CM

SE_W

EFR

epo

rt.in

dd