Perspectives on the Role of Science and Technology in Sustainable

Perspectives on the Role of Science andTechnology in Sustainable Development

September 1994

OTA-ENV-609NTIS order #PB95-109674

GPO stock #052-003-01396-7

Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Perspectives on the Role of Science and Technology in Sustainable Development, OTA-ENV-609(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1994).

I.t)l WIC h) IIw L’ S (h)ltrntmnt 1’1 ln[lng ( M IILLLSIIPCI llllCldC~lt (II [)t)CU~)lt!lll\, fil.iIl SIop: SSOP. \\ ddllll@Ml, [)(’ ?(l~()~-912X

ISBN O-1 6-045318-6

.

Foreword

R esource degradation and depletion, exponential population growth, widen-ing econoimc gaps between and Within industrial and developing countries,and resource-driven conflicts all have contributed to the growing concernabout sustainability of our societies, nations, and the Earth. Discussions

about integrating environment and developrnent now include issues of intergenera-tional equity, resource substitution, and irreversibility of impacts. In this setting,sustainability has emerged as a central goal for international development. Yet,many development models exist, each with slightly different imperatives and un-derlying assumptions about the meaning of the term sustainable development.

This report examines an array of sustainublc development definitions and dis-cusses their common elements. Current agriculture, energy, and industry technolo-gies are described as well as the strides being made in education, communication,and information technologies that could support sustainable development. Accessto these technologies, however, remains a challenge for many in developing andindustrial countries alike. Several central issues are discussed that have clear policyimplications. First, sustainable international development involves multiplethemes that cross U.S. foreign and domestic policy boundaries (e.g., energy effi-ciency, sustainable agriculture, and resource conservation); thus, coordinatingthese policies will be fundamental. Second, eliminating institutional, social, eco-nomic, and political barriers to sustainable development is 1 likely to be a key chal-lenge. Finally, developing and disseminating technologies that can advance sus-tainability will require significant collaboration and investment on the parts ofindustrial and developing countries.

The following congressional committees requested the Office of TechnologyAssessment (OTA) to review its technology assessments of the past 20 years anddistill the key science and technology areas underpinning sustainable develop-ment: the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Senate Committee on ForeignRelations, and the House Committee on Natural Resources.

OTA greatly appreciates the contributions of the working group participants andcontractors. We are especially grateful for the time and effort donated by numerouscontributors who seined as reviewers and as liaisons with the many groups and or-ganizations involved in these issues. The information and assistance provided bythose individuals proved invaluable to the completion of this assessment. As withall OTA studies, the content of this report is the sole responsibility of OTA.

ROGER C. HERDMANDirector

.,,III

Project Staff

Clyde BehneyAssistant Director. OTA

Walter E. ParhamProgram DirectorFood and Renewable Resources

ProgramUntil February 1994

Robert N. NiblockProgram DirectorEnvironment ProgramFrom March 1994

PATRICIA J. DURANAProject Director

Catherine M. TorresResearch Analyst

David J. LoweContractor

John G. StovallContractor

Jessica WolinContractor

Elise M. BillingsIntern

Susan J. WunderContract Editor

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

N. Ellis LewisOffice AdministratorUntil February 1994

Kathleen BeilOffice AdministratorFrom March 1994

Nellie HammondAdministrative Secretary

Kimberly HolmlundAdministrative SecretaryFrom March 1994

Sharon KnarvikSecretaryFrom March 1994

Carolyn SwarmPC SpecialistUntil February 1994

iv

c ontents

Perspectives on the Role of Scienceand Technology in SustainableDevelopment 1Introduction 1Sustainable Development 2Global Trends and Consumption Patterns 11Technology and Sustainable Development 27U.S. International Assistance Policy 39Congressional Policy Options 44Conclusion 57References 57

APPENDICES

A Working Group Participants 65

B OTA Reports Related to ResourceManagement and DevelopingCountries 66

C List of Abbreviations 98

D Principal Reviewers 99

v

Perspectives on theRole of Science

and Technologyin SustainableDevelopment

s ustainable development (SD) has emerged as a new goalfor international development in the wake of a host ofchanging environmental, social, and economic condi-tions. Some of these are global environmental problems

arising from industrial development patterns, resource degrada-tion and depletion, widening economic gaps between and withinindustrial and developing countries, and resource-driven con-flicts. Evolved from past foreign development paradigms that fo-cus on economic aspects of development, SD expands on thesocial, environmental, and institutional components. Yet, SD ismost notable in taking a world-view that seeks to promote equityamong and within nations and generations. The role of scienceand technology in SD is viewed in a new way as well, with an em-phasis on technologies for empowerment (e.g., education, in-formation, communication) and environmental sustainability(e.g., sustainable agriculture, renewable energy. improved re-source efficiency) and a focus on whole systems.

INTRODUCTIONThe end of the Cold War left U.S. foreign aid without its main ra-tionale, and Congress and the past two Administrations have beenunable to agree on a new one. All parties seem to agree that theforeign aid program is plagued with many conflicting purposesbut there is less agreement as to the few essential purposes onwhich scarce aid dollars should focus (47,1 07).

The Clinton Administration has attempted a major effort to re-define and clarify post-Cold War development assistance policyand strategy. The Wharton Report, representing the first initia-tive, articulated a rationale and purpose and objectives of foreignassistance (123). The Administrator of the U.S. Agency for Inter- 11

2 I Perspectives on the Role of Science and Technology in Sustainable Development

national Development (US AID) developed strate-gy papers for sustainable development and draftedproposed foreign assistance legislation with SD asone of its major purposes (The Peace, Prosperity,and Democracy Act of 1994) (99). Although theproposed initiative would go further than any pre-vious attempt to define SD and make it the center-piece of development assistance, key questionsremain about the meaning of SD and how pro-grams and projects would change under this newSD paradigm (85).

SD has been embraced by a wide spectrum offoreign-aid interests who have traditionally beenat odds over purposes and goals of aid. This maybean indication that there is agreement about oneof the main purposes of development assistance,or simply that disagreements are masked by thediffering interpretations of SD. If the latter is true,then the public policy task remains of finding anew post-Cold War rationale for aid that theAmerican people will support (84,85).

This report draws from the literature and fromdiscussions with development experts to describea range of “sustainable development” definitionsand examine an array of associated issues (box 1).Over the last two decades, the Office of Technolo-gy Assessment (OTA) has conducted numerousstudies on science and technology issues with ap-plication to developing countries and the renew-able resource base (see appendix B). Thetechnologies discussed in these reports are ex-amined in the context of their potential contribu-tion to sustaining the resource base indevelopment efforts. Although developing coun-tries are the focus of this report, past and presentdevelopment patterns in industrial countries pro-

foundly influence the potential for promoting SDin foreign aid. Thus, certain domestic issues areidentified that are likely to be vital in furtheringsustainable international development (e.g., pro-moting energy efficiency).

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTThe central idea of SD is one of the oldest in eco-nomics—that to live beyond the moment, onemust consume income rather than drain capital orthe ability to produce future income (61 ,13,67).Equity ] for existing populations and future gen-erations also is a common theme in many defini-tions of SD. However, a universally accepteddefinition of SD has yet to emerge (box 2).2 Someconsider SD a goal (64), others prefer to view it asan organizing principle and a process (107). Thedefinition cited most often comes from the Brund-tland Commission: “development that meets theneeds of the present without compromising theability of future generations to meet their needs”(129). This is a concept that most people can relateto and accept. However, it leaves many questionsunanswered. For example, ‘*development” hasseveral meanings 3 and the “needs of current andfuture generations“ is subject to differing inter-pretations (84, 107). Discussions of SD, thus, en-compass a large number of movements withwidely disparate reform agendas (80); a continu-um of development paradigms exist under the SDlabel. Foci range from economic imperatives tonature conservation imperatives (table 1 ) (1 1).However, two models stand out for their sharplycontrasting interpretations of sustainable de-velopment: the Conventional Economic Growth

1 The term equity is also subject to differing interpretations. In terms of sustainable development, the equity issue deals with “fairness” to: I )future generations whose interests are not represented by standard economic analyses or by market forces that discount the future, and 2) current

populations that do not have equal access to natural resources or to social and economic goods ( 132, 74).2 Some of the key elements of SD are the need to provide intergenerational equity, the finite nature of resources, enhancing environmental

quality, and meeting human needs. It is the specifics of these elements that give rise to disagreements (84).3 Building productive capacity is the essence of what is traditionally meant by development(61 ). Yet, development is not necessarily syn-

onymous with growth, where growth is defined as accretion or accumulation ( 107).

Perspectives on the Role of Science and Technology in Sustainable Development 13

Improving the quality of life for poor populations in developing countries relies on availability of re-

sources to meet basic human needs and the economic, political institutional and technical capacity to

produce and provide equitable access to these resources●

■

■

■

■

m

●

■

●

●

●

i(CEG)

Current environmental trends are toward degradation of resource systems The “business as usual with

a treatment plant at the end” approach has mediated, but not reversed, the problems generated by a

highly consumptive Industrial engine

Technology can be a positive force for sustainable development by providing new “tools” or expanding

the use of existing tools but should be understood as involving a social process with costs and benefits

Demographic momentum means that global population will continue to grow even with successful family

plannlng programs Current projections suggest a global population of 85 billion by 2025 and nearly 90

percent of this growth IS projected to occur In developing countries

Many question the long-term capability of the Earth to support current or Increased population or the

ability of technology to Intervene and expand the Earths carrying capacity sufficiently to meet the de-

mand over the long term

Poverty and environmental degradation are intertwined, most notably in developing countries Rapid

population growth existing inequalities in land tenure, conversion of farm land to nonagricultural pur-

poses, unsustainable production practices used by commercial and subsistence farmers, and inequita-

ble food distribution policies all contribute to this manifestation of poverty

The link between environment and development began to emerge clearly in the literature in the late 1960s

and the basic tenets of sustainable development were prominently discussed by the mid-l 1970s

In practice, aid allocation IS often determined by practical considerations such as foreign policy objec-

tives and commercial needs, which may not necessarily be consistent with the principles of sustainable

development

Development IS not necessarily synonymous with growth In Industrial countries, sustainable develop-

ment may mean a shift from quantative and material growth to qualitative and nonmaterial growth, in

most developing countries it will mean a coordinated measure of both types of growth

Equity, whether defined in terms of development benefits, income, consumption levels, or overall eco-

nomic Indicators, IS a consistent (although not always apparent) underpinning of sustainable develop-

ment

The concept of a “sustainable society” challenges many aspects of existing social reality, power relations,

economics and marketing

Appropriate measurement methods for evaluating efforts for sustainable development will need to be

broad-based and at a minimum should account for human development factors, quantity and quality of

natural capital, social satisfaction, and self -reliance factors

model and the Environmentally Sustain- many development professionals would describeable Lifestyles (ESL) model .4 Advocates of each their own position as a mixture of the two (84).of these models are not clearly differentiated and


Many definitions of sustainable development have been offered, some general and some more pre-

cise, The following definitions Illustrate the variety of foci evident in discussions of SD

■

■

■

■

●

●

■

●

●

,, is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the abiIlty of future genera-

tions to meet their own needs “ The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common

Future (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 4,"(! requires meeting the basic needs of all people and extending opportunities for economic and social

advancement Finally, the term also implies the capacity of development projects to endure organization-

ally and financially A development initiative IS considered sustainable if, in addition to protecting the envi-

ronment and creating opportunity, it is able to carry out activities and generate its own financial resources

after donor contributions have run out “ Bread for the World, Background Paper A/o. 129, Washington,

DC, March 1993,

“[Improves] the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosys-

tems “ International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (lUCN), World Con-

servation Union, United NatIons Environment Programme (UNEP), and World Wide Fund for Nature

(WWF), Caring for the Earth (Gland, Switzerland IUCN, UNEP, WWF, 1991), p 10,

“[uses] natural renewable resources ln a manner that does not eliminate or degrade them otherwise

diminish their renewable usefulness for future generations while maintaining effectively constant or non-

declining stocks of natural resources such as soil, groundwater, and biomass “ World Resources Insti-

tute, “Dimensions of Sustainable Development, ” World Resources 1992-93. A Guide to the Global Envi-

ronment (New York Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 2

‘([maximizes] ., the net benefits of economic development, subject to maintaining the services and

quality of natural resources “ R Goodland and G Ledec, “Neoclassical Economics and Principles of

Sustainable Development, ” Ecological Modeling 38:36, 1987

“[IS based on the premise that] current decisions should not impair the prospects for maintaining or

improving future living standards This Implies that our economic systems should be managed so

that we live off the dividend of our resources, maintaining and improving the asset base “ R Repetto,

World Enough and Tine (New Haven, CT Yale University Press, 1986), pp. 15-16,,, is taken to mean a positive rate of change in the quality of life of people, based on a system that per-

mits this positive rate of change to be maintained Indefinitely. ” L,M Eisgruber, “Sustainable Develop-

ment, Ethics, and the Endangered Species Act, ” Choices, Third Quarter 1993, pp. 4-8,{( is development without growth-a physically steady-state economy that may continue to develop

greater capacity to satisfy human wants by Increasing the efficiency of resource use, but not by increas-

ing resource throughput “ H E Daly, “Steady State Economics Concepts, Questions, and Policies, ” Eco-

Iog\cal Economics 6333-338, 1992(,

IS the search and the carrying out of rational strategies that allow society to manage, in equilibrium

and perpetuity, its Interaction with the natural system (biotic/abiotic) such that society, as a whole, bene-

fits and the natural system keeps a level that permits its recuperation “ E. Gutierrez-Espeleta, “lndica-

dores de Sostenibilidad: Instruments Para La Evaluacion de Ias Politicas Nacionales, ” unpublished pa-

per presented at 50th Anniversary Conference of the Economic Sciences Faculty sponsored by the

University of Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica, Nov. 19, 1993

Human naturerelationship

Dominant threats

Main themes

Paradigm dimension Frontier economic—— —— .

Dominant imperative “Progress” as Infiniteeconomic growth andprosperity

Very stronganthropocentnic

Hunger, poverty,disease, and naturaldisasters

Open access/freegoods, explotation ofinfinite naturalresources

Prevalent property Prlvatlzationregimes (neoclassical) or

nationalization(Marxist) of allproperty

Who Pays? Property ownersindividuals or state

Responsibility for Property ownersdevelopment and individuals or statemanagement

Environmentalprotection

“Tradeoffs” as inecology versuseconomic growth

Strong anthropocentnc

Health impacts ofpollution, endangeredspecies

Remedial/defenswe,“legalize” ecology aseconomic externality

Privatlzation dominantsome public parks set

Taxpayers (publiclarge)

Fragmentationdevelopmentdecentralized,managementcentralized

— —

at

—

Resourcemanagement

“Sustalnablllty” asnecessary constraintfor “green growth”

Modifiedanthropocentnc

Resource degradation,poverty, populationgrowth

Global efficiency,economize ecology,interdependence

Global commons law forconservation ofoceans, atmosphere,climate, biodiverslty

Polluter pays(producers andconsumers) poor

Toward integratlonacross multiple levelsof government

—

Eco-development

Codeveloping humansand nature, redefine“security”

Ecocentric

Ecological uncertainty,global change

Generativerestructuring,“ecologlze socialsystems, ”sophisticatedsymbiosis

Global commons lawand local commonand private propertyregimes for inter-g e n e r a t l o n a lequity andstewardship

Pollution preventionpays. lncome-indexenvironmental taxes

Private/publicInstitutionalInnovations andredefiniton of roles

Deep ecology— .“Eco-topla “ anti-gro~~,

constrained harmonywith nature

Biocentric

Ecosystem collapse,“unnatural” disasters

Back to nature,biospecles equality,simple synbiosis

Private plus commonproperty set aside forpreservation

Avoid costs byforegoingdevelopment

Largely decentralizedbut Integrated indesign andmanagement

(continued)—.. .—

- .3

—u l

Paradigm dimension

Environmentalmanagementtechnologies andstrategies

Analytic, modeling, andplanningmethodologies

Fundamental flaws

Frontier economic

Industrial agriculturehigh inputs of energy,bioclde, and water;monoculture,mechanizedproduction; fossilenergy; pollutiondispersal: unregulatedwaste disposal; highpopulation growth;free markets

Neoclassical or Marxistclosed economicsystems; reversibleequilibria, productionlimited byhumanmade factors,natural factors notaccounted for; netpresent valuemaxlmlzatlon;cost-benefit analysisof tangible goods andservices

Creative butmechanistic, noawareness of rellanceon ecological balance

Environmentalprotection

End-of-the-pipecleanup, commandand control marketregulation: someprohibition or limits,repair and set asides;focus on protection ofhuman health, “landdoctoring”environmental impactstatements

Neoclassical plus:environmental impactassessment afterdesign; optimumpollution levelsequation of willingnessto pay andcompensationprinciples

Defined by frontiereconomics in reactionto deep ecology, lacksvision of abundance

Resourcemanagement

Impact assessment andrisk management,pollution reduction,energy efficiency,renewable resourceconservationstrategies, restorationecology, populationstabilization andtechnology-enhancedcarrying capacity,some structuraladjustment

Neoclassical plus:include natural capital;true (Hicksian) incomemaximization in UNsystem of nationalaccounts; increasedfreer trade ecosystemand social healthmonitoring, linkagesbetween population,poverty, andenvironment

Downplays socialfactors, subtlymechanistic, doesn’thandle uncertainty

Eco-development

Uncertainty (resilience)management,Industrial ecology/ecotechnologles(renewable energy,waste recycling, scalereduction,agroforestry, low-inputagriculture, extractiveforest reserves),populationstabilization andenhanced carryingcapacity

Ecological economics.biophysical-economicopen systemsdynamics;sociotechnical andecosystem processdesign; integration ofsocial, economic, andecological criteria fortechnology; trade andcapital flow regulationbased on communitygoals andmanagement; landtenure and incomeredistribution

May generate falsesecurity magnitude ofchanges require newconsciousness

Deep ecology

Stability management,reduced scale ofmarket economy(including trade); lowtechnology; simplematerial needs;nondominatingscience; indigenoustechnology systems;“intrinsic values;”population reduction

Grassroots bioregionalplanning; multiplecultural systems;conservation ofcultural and biologicaldiversity; autonomy

Defined in reaction tofrontier economics,organic but notcreative how toreduce populatlon

og-.mzCD

-.3

SOURCE M E Colby, “Environmental Management and Development, ” World Bank Discussion papers, February 1990


1 Conventional Economic Growth ModelThe CEG model resembles the traditional modelof economic growth but places additional em-phases on the costs of environmentally degradingactivities, and on the allocation of natural re-sources among generations. It also considers alonger time horizon. Under this model, SD repre-sents an opportunist y to integrate development ap-proaches to achieve sustained growth to meethuman needs, improve living standards, and pro-vidc the basis for environmental protection.

The CEG model seeks a higher standard of liv-ing for industrial as well as developing countriesby making the economic pie larger through: tech-nological innovations to improve productivity ofresources. reduced barriers to international trade,and increased investments in human capacity. Ef-ficiently functioning markets are the key to re-source allocation. The government is needed tocreate the proper environment for markets, pro-vide institutions to support a market economy, andmake investments in infrastructure and human ca-pacity building. Education, information aboutfamily planning and informed personal choiceabout family size arc seen as keys to stabilizingworld population at levels consistent with an im-proved standard of living. The CEG model as-sumes no 1imits to physical or capital growth (84).

I Environmentally SustainableLifestyles Model

The starting point for the ESL model is the finitenature of global resources and the necessity ofadopting less resource-intensive lifestyles. Advo-

cates of this model attribute much of the environ-mental degradation in poor countries to industrialcountry exports of ecological deficits throughtrade and investment as well as to inappropriatebilateral and multilateral aid. Industrial countriesarc called upon to curb resource consumption andpopulation growth, adjust international trade rulesto give equity to poor countries. provide access toinformation and technology, and require industryto internalize the full costs of production (i.e.,environmental costs of consuming scarce naturalresources or polluting the environment).

T’ “ ‘-’

)

1Renewable energy sources, such as wind offer an alternateto traditional fuels and reduce the Impact of energy use on theenvironment Opportunities to enhance the productlvity ofthese types of energy resources could Improve theirdlsseminatlon and use in development.

Stabilizing or reducing world population isviewed as critical to social and ecological well-be-ing, and family planning efforts would be a keycomponent of aid programs under the ESL model.Other components of an ESL development strate-gy focus on meeting basic human needs, expand-ing opportunities for the poor. protecting theenvironment, and promoting participation at thelocal or grass-roots level.

The ESL model of development has roots in theinternational environmental movement and isconsistent with most of the recommendationscoming out of the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED). Tomany ESL advocates, SD as a development strate-gy is synonymous with environmental sustain-ability. For example, the Rio Declaration onEnvironment and Development (at UNCED) pro-claimed that environmental protection shallconstitute an integral part of the developmentprocess and cannot be considered in isolationfrom it(91 ). This concept of SD is expected to in-fluence the scientific and public policy debateabout development (84).

Similarities exist between the CEG and ESLdevelopment models. In common with almost alldefinitions of SD, both models embrace the notionof maintaining, enhancing. or preserving the envi-ronment and natural resource base for future gen -


erations. In addition, SD is viewed as heavilydependent on industrial country policies andgoals; in fact, many feel that achieving SD rests onindustrial world commitment (107).

The models diverge with respect to the socialand economic dimensions of SD. ESL proponentspoint out that most benefits of past economicgrowth have gone to the wealthy with little im-provement in quality of life for the vast majorityof people. CEG model proponents cite the bene-fits made possible by technological advancementfueled by resource use and the potential for similaradvances in the future. Nevertheless, the conceptof a sustainable society challenges many aspectsof existing social reality, power relations, eco-nomics and marketing (17,82).

~ Challenges in Sustainable DevelopmentConceptual problems may pose serious barriers tothe adoption of SD. The Brundtland concept con-tains elements that are open to debate. Lack ofconsensus over the meaning of “intergenerationalequity, “ ● ’substitution of resources, ” and “irre-versibility of actions” could impede efforts to op-erationalize SD (84).

Intergenerational EquityInherent in most definitions of SD is an obligationof the present generation to preserve the stock ofnatural resources for future generations. This im-plies the need for some measure of equity amonggenerations. Operationally and analytically, how-ever, intergenerational equity can present a dilem-ma in determining appropriate use of resources(80). What level of resource use, particularly non-renewable resource use, constitutes equity forpresent and future generations? According to eco-nomic theory, market forces will allocate the bestuse of a resource over time and over generations.The critical policy issue is the extent to whichmarket forces should guide use of natural re-

sources and the extent to which resource use andconsumption should be regulated (84).

Substitution of ResourcesA simple but powerful concept in economics is in-put substitution in the production of goods or ser-vices and product substitution in satisfyingconsumer wants. Firms change the mix of inputsalong a ‘*production possibility curve” in responseto shifts in prices or changes in technology. A clas-sic case of input substitution occurred in agricul-ture where the substitution of capital inputs forlabor and land over a period of several decades re-sulted in dramatic structural adjustments.

The theory of wide substitution is the subject ofconsiderable debate, however. Neoclassical eco-nomics espouses that as each generation uses upsome of the total capital,s it should add to the so-cial capital in equivalent measure. According tothis school of thought, “A sustainable path for theeconomy . . . is not necessarily y one that conservesevery single thing or any single thing. It is one thatreplaces whatever it takes from its inherited... en-dowment” (83). Arriving at a true valuation of re-sources is crucial to this approach. Possiblemechanisms for valuation of natural resourceshave been identified, but not yet developed ade-quately (83).

Environmentalists argue that the substitutabil-ity concept can promote exploitation of finite re-sources by present generations. However, becauserenewable and humanmade resources can substi-tute in some degree for finite natural resources,some economists argue that SD criteria are met ifthe productivity of the system as a whole is pre-served for future generations. For example, inNorth America much of the land that was formerlyforested has been cleared and is now used for foodcrops. Although the forest resource has not beensustained, the overall capacity of’ the system tofeed and shelter people has been increased (80).The broader environmental impact of this sub-

5 tofal capital is the combination of all the various forms of capital. including natural capital (renewable and nonrenewable resources),human capital. cultural capital, institutional capital, and physical capita] (67, 83,6 l).


stitution, however, is not commonly incorporatedin traditional economic analyses (84).

Proponents of the ESL model are skepticalabout the ability to create substitutes for the finiteglobal stock of natural capital. “Sustainable de-velopment is development without growth—aphysically steady-state economy that may contin-ue to develop greater capacity to satisfy humanwants by increasing the efficiency of resource usebut not by increasing resource throughput,” ac-cording to Daly (18). Goodland echoes thistheme: “the imperative is to maintain the size ofthe global economy to within the capacity of theecosystem and to sustain it” (figure 1) (31). Thisview of sustainable development considers theeconomic system a subset of the larger global eco-system (19,3 1,61 ) and calls for equitable access tothe benefits generated by careful stewardship ofthese resources (box 3).

Knowledge about the range of substitution isincomplete at present, making confident projec-tions about future substitution impossible. Never-theless, science and technology will have animportant role to play in broadening the potentialfor substitution among natural resources, and be-tween natural and human-made resources. Muchof the progress that has been made in improvingthe standard of living in industrial as well as de-veloping countries is a result of new discoveriesand new technologies that can extend this poten-tial.

Uncertainty and IrreversibilityClosely related to the substitution issue is the con-cern about the irreversibility of certain alterationsto the Earth’s ecology and imperfect understand-ing of the complex links among ecosystem com-ponents. The ultimate impact of biodiversity loss,for example, is an unknown.

Graham-Tomasi distinguishes between "tech-nical optimists” and “technical pessimists” (33).Much traditional economic development theoryrests on “technological optimism, ” while moreextreme sustainability critiques might be charac-terized as “technological pessimism” (84). Defi-nitions of SD based solely on maintaining an

“Empty World”

Sun—

Economy

“Full World”

/’ L Recycle -

M— - —. M

M = MatterE = Energy

O = Natural capital

U = Humanmade capital

The scale of the human economic subsystem relative to theglobal ecosystem has increased over time from a near/y“Empty World” to a “Full World “In the “Full World” figure, theactivities of the economic subsystem are at such a sea/e thatthey can interfere with the complex /Irks and interactions ofthe global ecosystem

SOURCE R Goodland, The Only True Definition of Environmental Sus-

tainability!’ paper presented at The Environmental and Natural Re-

sources Policy and Training Project discussion Sept. 15 1993, EPAT/MUCIA, U S Agency for International Development Environmental Fo-

rum, Rosslyn, VA


“In a very real sense the land does not lie; it bears a record of what men write on it. In a larger

sense a nation writes its record on the land, and a civilization writes its record on the land-a

record that is easy to read by those who understand the simple language of the land. ”

—Dr. W.C, Lowdermilk 1953, former Assistant Chief, U S Soil Conservation Service

The world’s population, which reached 25 billion in 1950 by the time Lowdermilk wrote these words,

is 55 billion today and is projected to reach about 11 billion by 2050 Currently, world population in-

creases by nearly 250,000 each day, with the majority of this growth occurring in the poor countries in

the tropics.

The continuous demands of expanding populations and unsustainable land-use practices have a

severe adverse impact on the land’s Natural Capital: destroying vegetation, making surface water sup-

plies undependable; and causing watertables to fall, wildlife habitats to disappear, and soil losses to

Increase Eventually, agriculture fails and land is abandoned. Damaged, degraded and abandoned

lands have been linked to all periods of history and exist in all countries In many places, the land has

not recovered even where humans have Imposed little demand on itfor hundreds and even thousands

of years.

In view of this, many international assistance institutions are trying to assure that their efforts are

compatible with sustainable development, Many define SD as use of resources to provide for the needs

of current populations without reducing their availability for future generations (1 32),

Many of the world’s damaged, degraded, and abandoned lands could be made productive once

again by focusing science, technology, and human experience on this problem bringing degraded

lands back into productivity offers a unique opportunity for sustainable development activities Potential

benefits Include growth of the renewable resource base, growth in economic opportunities through ap-

plying sustainable land-use practices, and growth in output of goods and services from previously un-

usable land

economy’s natural capital, however, may obscurejudgments about the significance of the resources.If nonrenewable inputs are essential to an econ-omy, then inadequate technical progress and openaccess to environmental resources may lead to un-sustainability. Alternatively, if renewable re-sources are essential to an economy, then anythingthat threatens their renewability threatens sustain-ability (e.g., population growth, unsustainableland-use practices) (16,68,73). Most economiesdepend on renewable and nonrenewable re-sources; thus, creating a proper policy frameworkto sustain renewable resources and find alterna-tives to nonrenewable resources becomes key(68)0

Theories of substitution notwithstanding, asystem that is economically and ecologically sus-tainable must be based on a set of sustainable con-sumption and production objectives (13,67). In

the final analysis, public policy officials will haveto make some decisions with less than perfectknowledge. Policy could focus on decisions thatallow us to live within the ecosystems’ means cur-rently as determined by the productive, regenera-tive, and absorptive capacities of the resource baseand by the technological means within which re-sources are transformed into needed goods andservices (19,87). As these boundaries are expand-ed through science and technology, policies maybe adjusted appropriately.

1 Mechanisms To Measure SustainableDevelopment ProgressMeasuring development progress often proves

difficult and is the subject of considerable discus-sion. Various indicators are used to measureconditions and rates of development improve-

Perspectives on the Role of Science and Technology in Sustainable Development I 11

ments in developing countries. Traditionally, eco-nomic indicators such as gross national product(GNP) or gross domestic product (GDP) havebeen the primary method for such measurements.b

This method has the advantage of being reproduc-ible and useful for international comparisons.However, economic indicators may be misleadingas a sole measure for development.

Alternative methods for rating development in-corporate economic and noneconomic indicators.The United Nations Development ProgrammersHuman Development Index (HDI) is designed toreflect the quality of 1 life more accurately than pos-sible by using GNP alone. Three key componentsare included in the HDI: 1 ) longevity—measuredby life expectancy at birth; 2) knowledge-mea-sured by adult literacy and mean years of school-ing; and 3) income-adjusted to reflect income’sdiminishing returns for human development asthe difference increases between the median in-come and the poverty line. Thus, industrializedcountries do not necessarily have HDI ranksabove developing countries, although only indus-trialized countries are ranked at the top 19 posi-tions and only developing countries arerepresented in the lowest half of the index (92)(table 2).

These methods for measuring development,however, may still beg the question of sustainabil-ity. Use of an expanded array of indicators tomeasure progress is likely to be more appropriate,given the broad objectives of SD ( 107). The inex-tricable link among quality of life, populationpressure, and environment argue for a method that

weighs economic and noneconomic indicators(such as the HDI), measures the quantity and qual-ity of a country’s natural capital (e.g., forest, soil,water), and assesses population pressure relativeto resource abundance. Key measurement indica-tors would need to be identified to avoid creatingtoo cumbersome a measurement method. At aminimum, these indicators could capture educa-tion, longevity and health, personal wealth, percapita resource abundance and quality, and theextent to which national productivity reflects self-reliance 7 and avoidance of “exporting” environ-mental problems. Efforts are now being made torefine sustainability indicators and improve de-velopment measurements (e.g.. the University ofCosta Rica’s Theoretical Sustainability Index(TSI); UN refinement of the HDI) (36. 92).

GLOBAL TRENDS ANDCONSUMPTION PATTERNS8

Renewable resource concerns have increasedsignificantly in recent years, along with evidenceof adverse effects from pollution and resourceoverexploitation, and mismanagement. Some im-pacts are of global proportions (e.g., climatechange, fishery depletion, biodiversity loss). Yet.resource trends vary broadly around the globe,with some systems showing positive signs of re-covery and others showing disturbing signs ofdepletion. Thus, it is extremely difficult to predictfuture trends in environmental indicators or toproject accurately the consequences of thosetrends on sustainable food and fiber systems andthe populations they support.

6 GNP is a measure of the total dollar value of all the goods and services produced within the nation, including foreign investments, over aspecified period of time (usually one year). GDP is a similar measure but excludes foreign investment.

7 Self-reliance as it is used in this report is defined as the ability of a nation to rely on its own capabilities, judgment. or resources. This allows

for trade or exchange of goods, ideas, or resources, but suggests that the exchange occurs among partner\, each with similar bargaining powerand none wholly dependent on another. It is important to note that many other factors operate internationallly that make true ~elf-reliance diffi-

cult, if not impossible, to achieve. Yet the concept may have merit as a target toward which developmentt efforts could be directed.8 For expanded discussion and graphic representation of the trends discussed in this section, see the OTA charbbook on Global Trend\,

expected date of publication January 1995.


C 9 u ) - c o .(0- CO CDCNr = m c o r = u )0 0 0 0 0

x c2Ex

a)3$1

S C v q m a l mC N m u - 1 c ’ . l - u )C 1 3 c o a l ( x ) a ) m0 0 0 0 0 0

C 9 e c o c c ) u ) me m ’ m u ) s c oq m c n m u ) m0 0 0 0 0 0

C D C W I - 0 9 C Nf = h f = f = m r =q m c n a ) c n c n0 0 0 0 0 0

7

g u u u u u u - co

O y - o o o o c

--c9cncf)cNa)e c n o c c l w r = m cC - 9 q m c v m - l - -r

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

r = o c v s c f ) r = m J QN m m m m e m ( cY - - - T - - -

C n = t - c n m a ) o bC D - - o c n m h mq q m m w l - - oO o o o o o o c i


I Population and EnvironmentSustaining natural capital 9on a global scale is fun-damental to the concept of SD. Under this para-digm, resource withdrawals cannot exceed theirregenerative capacity; use of nonrenewable re-sources occurs in relationship to research and de-velopment efforts to identify appropriatesubstitutes; and waste production cannot exceedthe environmental absorptive capacity (figure 2)(1 8,31 .61). Developing countries are faced withthe considerable challenge of providing for basichuman needs, stabilizing populations, and alle-viating poverty, as well as sustaining the naturalresource base that underlies their capacity forlong-term sustainability and development.

Population GrowthRapid population growth is seen by many as oneof the most critical issues facing the world today(23,34,59,78). Many developing countries arethose with the greatest growth rates and theconstraint that this puts on economic developmentand quality of life improvements can be massive.The rate of global human population growth, ex-pressed as a percentage of the existing population,has declined since the 1970s, but the number ofnew births each year still is increasing because ofdemographic momentum (21 ,22,70). The worldpopulation nearly doubled between 1950 to 1985,from a total population of 2.5 billion people atmid-century to 4.85 billion in 1985. During thisrecent 35- year period, more surviving human off-spring were created than during the previous twoand a half centuries (21 ) (figure 3). In just the past12 months, population growth exceeded that ofthe entire first half of last century. The planet nowsupports 5.5 billion people (70).

Distribution of this growth, however, is heavilyweighted toward developing countries. China, therest of Asia, and Europe have held the largest

GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM

Solarenergy

Materials

(and fossil

fuelsLow-grade

energy

\ ~andc:ta’)l% /— –.\ / Heat

—Renewable resources should not be harvested faster than

they can regenerateNonrenewable resources should not be consumed faster

than a renewable substitute can be developed for themPolllution and waste should not be emitted faster than they

can be absorbed, transformed, digested, or otherwiserendered harmless to natural systems

SOURCE D Meadows, “A Systems View o f Susta!nable Developmentcontractor report prepared for the Off Ice of Technology AssessmentFebruary 1994

share of human population for centuries (figure 4)and are the most densely inhabited lands today.Today, Asia and Africa are the fastest growingpopulations, and are of the greatest concern tomany demographers (8). In Africa, concern cen-ters on the inability of productive systems, such asagriculture, and of the economy to keep pace withthe rapid population growth. Increases in rates ofagricultural and economic growth often turn out to

v Natural capital means the planetary sources from which the economy takes materials and energy and the planetary skins to which theeconomy emits pollution and waste. The sources include forests, nutrients in soils, groundwater, wildlife Population, and mineral and fossilfuel deposits in the earth. Sink\ include the bacteria in streams that degrade organic waste, the capacities of landfills, the process that regulategreenhouse gases in the atmosphere or form the ozone layer in the stratosphere (6 I ).


1 0 0 ~ - — ....–93.6 mill ion

653 million/ in one year

8 yrs =81.6 million/yr

80 2,338 million/%a) 35 yrs =

;66.8

3a)c~ 40Inco.— 865 miiiion/=.—2 50 yrs =

20 693 miiiion/ 17.3 mii{ion/yr278 miliion/ 100 yrs =

100 yrs = 6.9 miiiion/yr2.8 miiiion/yr

o I 1 I I

million

1700-1800 1800-1900 1900-1950 1950-1985 1985-1993 1992-1993

Despite declining fertdity rates, world population continues to grow. World population growth since1950 exceeds all the growth of the previous 250 years by 63 percent

SOURCES Data pnor to 1990 P Demeny, in Turner, B L et al ‘“The Earth Transformed by Human Act Ion, ” Global andRegional Changes/n the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years (Cambridge Cambridge Universitiy press with Clark Uni-

versity 1990), p 44 1993data Population Reference Bureau, Inc. 1993 World Popu/at/on Data Sheet (Washington, DC1993) (1 993 data)

be declining rates when calculated on a per capitabasis.

Population size and demographic structure pro-foundly influence population increase. For exam-ple, 33 percent of Asia’s population is under age15, and has not completed the childbearing years(70). While the percentage of Asian youth is equalto or less than the worldwide average (46 percentof Africa’s population is under 15 years old), thenumber of people in this age bracket ensures thatAsia’s population will grow substantially forsome time.

Fertility anti Family PlanningLife-extending and sustaining technologies typi-cally are adopted more quickly than correspond-ing technologies for family planning. The result islowered mortality rates unmatched by lowered

birth rates. In most countries, lower fertility ratesdo not emerge until infant mortality rates declineto 150 per 1.000 live births or less (133). There isalso a close inverse correlation between contra-ceptive use and under-five mortality (figure 5).Contraceptives have become much less contro-versial than they used to be, but use still lags indeveloping countries, especially in Africa (figure6). Health and fertility rates are also closely linkedto education. As adult female literacy rises, infantmortality and fertility rates decline steadily (13 1,132).

Fertility rates have been declining worldwideover the past several decades, falling faster andfrom higher starting points in developing regionsthan in industrial countries (figure 7). Meanwhile,life expectancy has been rising dramatically in alldeveloping countries (figure 8). Fertility rates of

Perspectives on the Role of Science and Technology in Sustainable Development I 15

2500

I

/- ‘..~ 2000 - ‘ - - - -- - - ‘ .

/ - = . y ,.

\

/ ’ - .0 -.= A .“,-.— ‘ . ‘ .g ,500 , ‘ ‘ / ,.. “ ‘ . . YNY

k

‘ =

.,-

1

1950 w

l;!

1

i’ Annual rate of,:.,. ,!, ill natural increase, 1993~ I (in parentheses)

~ Rest of Asia/Pacific (2.10/0)~china ( 1 . 2 7 . )

F Europe and USSR (O.2-O.8”1O)

YAfrica (2.9%)

Latin America (1 .9°/0)

Asia leads in population and numbers of new births in spite of higher percentage growth rates in Africaand comparable rates m Latin Amer/ca

SOURCES Dafa points prior to 1990 P Demeny In Turner, B L et al “The Earth Transformed by Human Act Ion, ” Global

and Regional Changes in the Biosphere Over the Past 300 Years (Cambridge Cambridge University Press with ClarkUniversity 1990) p. 44 For7993popu/at/on data and annual rate of natural increase population Reference Bureau Inc.,1993 World Population Data Sheet (Washington DC 1993)

Asia and Central America have declined most no-tably, while Africa has changed only slightly. De-spite this, net population gains are greatest inAsia, followed by Africa. and then Latin America.Annual population growth rates, like fertility, arehighest in Africa (97,13 1,1 32,133).

Among poorer populations, children are seen,in part, as a form of social security: a labor sourcefor the farmer and an income source in old age.Very few residents of low-income and somemiddle-income countries are covered by social in-surance: India (5 percent covered), DominicanRepublic (6 percent). Ecuador (9 percent), Kenya(10 percent), and Indonesia (13 percent) (1 28).

At the first-ever summit of the world’s scientif-ic academies held in 1993 in Delhi, India, 56 insti-tutions endorsed a call for “zero populationgrowth within the 1ifctime of our children. ” How-ever, the African Academy of Sciences (AAS) re-fused to sign the agreement. The AAS identifiedpopulation as a key resource for developing thecontinent’s natural resources (46). Development,

rather than population growth, was stated as themost important issue now facing Africa.

Although the current U.S. budget for interna-tional family planning programs has been in-creased significantly ($462 million) (98), expertssuggest it may still be inadequate given the magni-tude of the problem. Increased support for familyplanning would clearly identify population issues(including growth rates, health, education) as acritical underpinning for SD (48,107).

Population DensityAreas with high population densities of-ten experi-ence the greatest population pressures. Nationalpopulation figures do not reveal the uneven dis-tribution of settlements within a country. nor theability of the land to support the inhabitants. Manydensely populated nations effectively extend their“land base” with food and natural resource supple-ments extracted from the sea and imported fromother nations (6).


1

40

oko 10

n = 93 countriesrz = 0.74❑ . country with more

than $9,000 GNPper capita in 1989

I I I I 120 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percent of parents using contraception

In nations with high levels of contraceptive use, infant survivalgenerally is more favorable than in nations where access to oracceptance of contraceptives IS low.

SOURCES Analysis based on data from World Resources Institute,World Resources 1992-93 A Guide to the Global Environment, DataBase Diskette (Washington, DC 1992), tables 15102, 16302, and16601

Developing countries contain 77 percent of thehuman race but just over one-half of the Earth’s ar-able land, leaving the remaining 23 percent of theworld’s population with 47 percent of the Earth’sarable land. People of Asia have the greatest chal-lenge; although they make up nearly 60 percent ofthe planet’s human inhabitants, Asians survive onjust over 30 percent of its arable land (1 32,1 33).

Africans make up 12 percent of the world’spopulation, a small number compared with otherparts of the world, particularly if measuredrelative to the continent land mass. The propor-tion of arable land, however, is small due to a gen-eral water deficit on the continent (box 4). This

Migration to urban areas can result in overcrowding thatoverwhelms existing infrastructure, employment, housing, andfood availabililty

leaves it with a rather dense population relative toits arable land mass. At 3.7 people per hectare ofarable land, Africa is near the world average (3.8),and well below that of Asia (7.2) and developingcountries as a block (5.5). In contrast, industrial-ized nations taken all together carry an average of1.8 people per hectare of arable land (132,133).

Many developing countries are already experi-encing demographic transition as did the indus-trial world, 10 however, two differences will affectthe outcome. First, the reduction in mortality indeveloping countries has been rapid largely be-cause of imported public health technologies andimproved nutrition. Secondly, the pretransitionpopulation growth rates of developing countrieswere typically higher than those in industrialcountries at the beginning of transition. The dem-ographic momentum inherent in the systemmeans that developing country population willcontinue to grow even with family planning pro-grams that succeed in slowing the growth rate(22).

The links between population growth and theenvironment are critical in anticipating the poten-tial impact of projected population growth fig-

10 Demographic transition describes the change from high to low mortality and lower fertility. This occurred in industrial countries without

any specific policy.


a)C#

I

90

80 / East Asia II

70

60t

50

401

3 0

20 t

10 I

Latin America

All developing nations

South Asia and Oceania

Africa

1960-65 1980-81 1983 1987 1990

Some reglor?s have responded more rap/d/y than others m adopting tarnOy-p/armmg techr?o/og/es TheL/n/ted Nat/ens estimates that contraceptwe prevalence must reach 66 percent of atl couples m Atncaand 79 percent in East As/a by 2025 m order to produce a deswab/e dechne m fertMy

SOURCE United Nations Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, Leve/s and Trends of ConVacep?we Use as Assessed in 1988, Population Studies No 110 (New York, NY 1989), table 5 p 26 and table 7, p 33

ures. Resource degradation and populationdisplacements are the most evident of these links.Conversion of farmland to nonagricultural pur-poses, use of unsustainable practices by commer-cial and subsistence farmers, farming of marginallands, and inequitable food distribution policiesall have fostered displacement of rural popula-tions (48,1 07). Results include resource loss,widespread malnutrition and famine, and urban-ization leading to overwhelmed social and physi-cal infrastructure.

Despite the significant impact that populationgrowth has had on the global environment,today’s environmental crises are also a result ofthe demands created by this increase and thetechnologies used to satisfy these demands. Con-sumption patterns, particularly in Northern coun-tries, and dependence on certain ecologicallyunsound technologies play major roles in existingenvironmental problems (23,24, 107).

I Food ProductionTwo major issues arise in discussions of meetingincreasing demand for food: 1 ) deteriorating pro-duction factors (e.g., soil erosion and water avail-ability), and 2) opportunities to increaseproduction, adjust consumption patterns, and im-prove distribution systems. Total global food pro-duction per capita maintained a slow but steadyincrease until the mid- 1980s when it began to lev-el off ( 133). It is not yet clear whether growth willresume. World protein shortages seem likely asworldwide per capita production of meat, soy-beans, and fish all level out (9,1 22).

In the past, growth in food output was sustainedby agricultural expansion to new areas. Now,cropland expansion seems to be slowing down asthe best quality farming land has already beenconverted (8,1 32). Per capita cropland has de-clined in all regions and, based on current popula-tion projections, the world average IS expected todecline from 0.28 to 0.17 hectares by 2025 (1 33).The “Green Revolution” introduced technologi-


&=’’——————— 9 Africa

0--- \

World averageI 1 1 > Yentra’Ame’ca

: nxIi

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

<I

Industrialcountryaverage

Declining fertility rates in most regions of the world area notable development success story On aregional basis at least, declining fertility correlates with economic development as evidenced by rapidchanges in Asia and Central America, and relative stagnation in Africa.

SOURCE World Resources Instltufe, kVor/d Resources 1992-93 A Gude (O the G/oba/ .Erwvomnenr, Data Base DIs-ketle (Washington, DC 1992), table 16203

cal interventions, such as genetically improvedcrops, enabling agricultural intensification andyield increases. This saved the conversion of vastareas of natural landscape to cropland and helpedto feed growing populations (3,126). Critics nowcharacterize the “Green Revolution” technologiesand cropping systems as unsustainable and social-ly inequitable because they require costly, energy-intensive, and often unobtainable agriculturalinputs. Proponents can claim success, however, interms of total grain output at the global, regional,and even national levels. Some question whetherthese yields can be sustained.

Agriculture accounts for two-thirds of currentglobal freshwater use. Regional variations in foodproduction reflect water distribution to a great ex-tent. Global food security rests in part on suffi-cient water supplies, especially in areas thatcannot produce food without irrigation, such asmuch of the Middle East, the Aral Sea basin in theformer Soviet Union, and vast grain-producingareas of China, India, and the U.S. Great Plains

(72). On the other hand, some lands receive sub-stantial, often disastrous, levels of precipitation(e.g., midwest America in 1993 and Bangladeshnearly every monsoon season) that also may com-plicate agricultural production.

c(n

Over the past two decades, irrigated area hasexpanded steadily around the world Shown here, afield in Kenya dependent on irrigation for productivity

—.— —


80 r-– – – - - — — —

I Industrial countries (female)I

,. —-— —–—-–- ~.r- —-–– —+

I ~ ’-

70j~Industrial countries (male) — ——-, .+— ._–--–~—–– -

alm(u Worldwide (female)c

$ 60z Worldwide (male)

Developing countries (male)

40‘: 11955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

—

/reproved health care technologies and delivery systems have lengthened human survival in all regionsof the world Life expectancy is one of the components of the Human Development Index (HDI)developed as an indicator by the United Nations Development Programme This socially positive trendhas resource management implications, however, as resulting population growth places increasingdemands on Infrastructure and resource supply systems

SOURCE World Resources Institute World Resources 1992-93 A Guide to the Global Environment Data Base Dis-kette (Washington DC 1992), tables 16207 and 16208

Over the past two decades, irrigated area hasexpanded steadily around the world (figure 9),however, expansion rate and existing coverage ofirrigation are greater in developing regions than inindustrial countries (table 3) (72). Rapid expan-sion was funded by increasing worldwide eco-nomic growth, and motivated by the promise ofnew, high-yield grain varieties.

The world’s current irrigated land area (237million hectares in 1990) covers only 16 percentof total cropland, but produces more than one-third of the global harvest, Increasing demand forfood production is likely to increase the pressureson available water reserves (8,71). However, in-creasing water-use efficiency in agriculture couldallow larger areas to be irrigated. For example, in-creasing efficiency by 10 percent in Pakistancould provide water to irrigate two million addi-tional hectares (72). Companion needs includeattention to crop water-use efficiency, more effi-

cient water management systems, and technolo-gies and policy structures promoting efficiency.

In general, food production increases will de-pend on the ability to mobilize resources to thatend, but of equal concern is whether the resourcebase can support or sustain the needed increases inthe long term (15). Most agricultural productionuses environmentally unsustainable practices.Although modest efforts toward sustainable agri-culture are evident in industrial countries, popula-tion growth and poverty in developing countriesundermine efforts to introduce and expand sus-tainable production practices (132). Limiting cap-ital elements in food production include:■ Energy. Energy availability for fertilizers, ir-

rigation, and mechanization is likely to beconstrained increasingly by supply, costs, andenvironmental impacts associated with discov-ery, extraction, and use of certain fuel types(e.g., fossil fuels): renewable energy sources


The Gambia, a small Impoverished country on the fringe of the Sahel in West Africa, has long faced

a myriad of problems familiar to countries in sub-Saharan Africa the need to Increase food production

to feed a growing population (now at 1 million); the challenge of stimulating economic growth to in-

increase per capita income (currently $235/year), and a deteriorating environment and natural resource

base, which threatens to diminish productivity and Increase the food-population gap In 1978, the Gov-

ernment of the Gambia, USAID, and the German Technical Assistance Agency launched a long-term

effort to reverse these trends. The resulting Gambia Soil and Water Management (SWMU) project was

aimed at halting and reversing environmental deterioration associated with some traditonal cultivation

practices, Increasing the production of food, forage, and wood, and reducing susceptibility to drought

The project Included strong Institution-building, participatory, and technology components

An evaluation team reported in 1988 that farmers who participated in conservation activities had

resounding praise for the easy applicability of the methods and their effectiveness not only in conserv-

ing soiI and water but in increasing agricultural production beyond expectations (1 00, 102) An end-of-

project review reported that a majority of the 78 villages participating in the project area doubled overall

food production, and two villages reported a four-fold increase in land under cultivation (1 01, 120) The

returns seem to provide sufficient Incentive for villages to continue or expand conservation practices

and for the government to support the SWMU. However, the project area represented no more than 2

percent of the people and land area in a very small country.

Implications for public policy from the SWMU experience include. interventions with a greater “multi-

plier effect” wiII have to be found if significant overall progress iS to be made in Africa; the internal rate

of return was insufficient to attract international capital, suggesting that concessional aid remains criti-

cal; and the SWMP addressed a rather narrow set of economic and environmental problems, whereas if

sustainable development iS to be achieved, many other problems will need attention simultaneously

The challenge iS always to learn from success and failure and the Gambia sO il and Water Manage-

ment Project is rich in lessons for new undertakings Some useful lessons include:

● Investment in human capital offered the highest payoff in terms of agricultural productivity

gains and natural resource base preservation.

■ The payoff from investments in human capital requires time and patience There are seldom

shortcuts or quick fixes.

● The U S science and education system has much to contribute toward achieving sustain-

able development, especially in solving food and environmental problems in Africa

● “All development is local, ” to borrow from apolitical adage, and the village level m rural Africa

holds the key to development.

SOURCE J G Stovall, “Sustainable Development In Practice Does It Work?” contractor report for the Off Ice of Technology Assess-ment, Aprd 1994

—

will be critical to meeting long-term energy (capital, social, environmental), productionneeds. costs (e.g., irrigation), degradation rates, or the

■ Land and water resources. About one-half of potential effects of climate change.the estimated land area potentially suitable for ■ Genetic materials. These will be critical to sus-crop production is currently under production. taining agriculture through breeding new vari-However, this estimate fails to account for is- eties able to withstand increasing pressuressues of distribution, competition for other uses from pests, disease, and changing climatic(e.g., forest conservation), conversion costs conditions; gene pool protection is deemed ad-


ua)760-lLL

— 80Industrialized countries 1

~–~-~~.~+—+.–+

4 0 -A

1 I

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988

Irrigation can help increase crop production by extending the growing season, bringing new lands under cultivation, or boostingyields from existing fields in areas of low precipitation Limited water resources, energy for pumping, and soil conditions mayimpede the use of irrigation technologies, but high/y efficient rnicro-irrigation systems can extend the benefits of exlsting waterresources

SOURCE World Resources Institute World Resources 1992-93 A Guide to the Global Environment, Data Base Diskette (Washington, DC: 1992),table 18203

equate, if support continues to keep it in its cur-rent state of health.

■ Knowledge. Expanding the knowledge base todeal with the changing global food demand sce-nario will be fundamental; although improvedpractices have accounted for a 2.5-to 3-fold in-crease in global agricultural production sinceWorld War II, there is no guarantee that such apace will continue (15).

1 Energy in DevelopmentIndustrial country development has been madepossible largely through the use of high-qualityfuels. Quality is determined by a fuel concentra-tion, flexibility, need for processing, and end-useefficiency (i.e., petroleum is higher quality thancoal which is higher quality than wood). Energy,substituting for labor, powered the large produc-tivity increases of previous centuries (37,38).Today, however, burgeoning world population

growth may have created the need for the reversesubstitution.

Developing countries continue to need energyto raise productivity and improve living stan-dards. Traditionally, industrial and developingcountries have met their energy needs by expand-ing the supply base without regard for use effi-ciency, Today the focus has clearly becomeefficiency. Commercial energy consumption isprojected to triple during the next 30 years, drivenby population growth and economic development(associated structural and social changes includeurbanization, infrastructure development, in-creased use of commercial fuels, and increased de-mand for consumer goods) (11 1). The investmentrequired to meet the expanding need will besignificant. Investment in capital-intensive elec-tricity-generating stations and petroleum refiner-ies—already a large part of all public investmentbudgets in developing countries—will have to


Country

ChinaIndia

Former Soviet Union

United StatesPakistan

Indonesia

Iran

Mexico

Thailand

Romania

SpainItaly

JapanBangladesh

Brazil

AfghanistanEgyptIraq

Turkey

Sudan

OtherWorld

Netirrigated

area

45,34945,03921,06420,16216,220

7,5505,7505,1504,2303,450

3,3603,100

2,868

2,738

2,700

2,6602,585

2,550212201,890

36,664

235,299

Share ofcropland thatis irrigated

47

25

911

78

36

392119

33

1726

62

29

3

3310047

815

7

16

SOURCE S Postel Last Oa.ws Facing Waler Scarcity (NewYork, NY W W Norton &Co 1992)

double. Further, energy sectors in developingcountries experience a wide range of operationalproblems—from crumbling infrastructure to mas-sive training needs. Thus, even if finances wereavailable it is questionable as to whether supplycould be expanded rapidly.

The concerns surrounding energy needs anduse focus on the forms of energy used, the relativesupply, and associated environmental impacts.Much of the planned expansion in developingcountries will be supplied by coal and hydropowerfollowed by gas, nuclear, oil, and geothermal en-ergy resources, Gas turbines may be the most

Energy, whatever the source, IS a prerequisite fordevelopment Here, camel power provides the energy to drawwater from a local well for use in crop Irrigation

promising for the developing world, yet gas cur-rently is not widely used in developing countries(1 11). Environmental problems linked to fossilfuel use (e.g., global warming) by and large arearesult of Northern industrialization patterns; how-ever, similar problems are evident from industrial-ization in the South (figure 10). For example,developing countries now account for 52 percentof the total energy-related carbon monoxide emis-sions, largely as a result of increased use of fossilfuels for transportation and energy (95,121 ). Re-newable forms of energy are more likely to con-tribute to long-term sustainability, but theycurrently seem less economically competitivethan traditional energy sources.

1 Developing Countries andthe World Economy

Economic and institutional development in as-sisted countries and integration of developingcountry economies into the world economy havebeen consistent themes of international develop-ment efforts. Trade, translational corporations,commercial lending, and aid are the dominantrealms of current international economic relations(55). Welfare gains generally are associated withinternational trade; however, trade-induced com-petition may lower costs by increasing efficiency

—— —-.—.—

Perspectives on the Role of Science and Technology in

300 r- ‘ - ‘ -

‘ -- 1‘ ~ Non-OECD nations

* 5 0 _ OECD nations— ,

200

(na r-1

J100

50

0

I II

—1950 1960 1970 1980 1989

. —

Fossil fuel consumption has grown steadily worldwide with anincreasing share of consumption coming from the developingworld Collectively developing countries now emit more C02

(the primary effluent of fossil fuel combustion and the mostprevalent greenhouse gas) than the industrial nations

OECD - Organlsallon of Economic Cooperation and Development

SOURCES United Nallons Energy Stam[lcs Yearbook (New York

United NatIons Statlstlcal Off Ice 1982 and 198gJ

or lowering standards (20). The former is consis-tent with SD as it reduces throughput. while po-tential for the latter is a major source of concernfor many environmentalists. Indeed, one of the is-sues in recent General Agreement on Tariffs andTrade (GATT) negotiations concerned the poten-tial for lowering of environmental standards as at-tempts are made to “harmonize” standards acrosstrading partners ( 105). Economic growth withoutthe proper policy framework is 1ikely to contributelittle to SD.

Trade LiberalizationThe basis for liberalizing trade is to increasewealth in industrial and developing countries byconcentrating resources in the most productiveand competitive sectors to enable countries tomaximize their comparative advantage. In 1ight ofthe mobility of labor and capital in the world econ-

omy, liberalization

Sustainable Development

can favor countries with

123

lowwages and minimal social or environmental regu-lations (20). Nevertheless, the trend is toward lib-eralization, and the current challenge seems to beto craft trade policies that can be consistent withSD. Debate centers largely on how trade expan-sion should occur and what safeguards should bein place to assure equitable access to expandedmarkets (5, 124).

Many view greater market access in developingand industrial countries as a vital component ofeconomic development (81,92,94). Internationalassistance efforts often promote export-led eco-nomic growth to integrate developing countriesinto the world economy. Outward-oriented devel-opment strategies emphasize greater reliance onmarket signals, reductions of import barriers, andremoval of distortions that cause internal relativeprices to deviate markedly from world prices.Economic diversification, lowering of trade barri-ers, and promotion of foreign direct investmentwere central to the current economic success ofMalaysia, Chile, Thailand, and Indonesia. In1965, for example, 89 percent of Malaysian ex-ports were primary products as compared withonly 28 percent in 1993 (69). Little access to high-er-value markets in industrial countries has beenidentified as one constraint to developing countryexpansion beyond primary commodity exports(81 ). For example, tariff structures imposed by theUnited States and other major importing nationstend to escalate as products move through theprocessing chain, making imports less competi-tive (1 1 O).

Trade protectionism in industrial countries hasbeen estimated to cost developing countries near-ly $150 billion in lost potential revenues fromagricultural and textile production ($100 billionand $50 billion respectively) (92,94). The per-centage of industrial country imports subject tonontariff barriers has increased rather significant-ly since 1966-a highly debated 40 percent in-crease was estimated by the World Bank in 1988(53). Policies established in some developingcountries to protect infant industries and supportdomestic production also have been criticized forisolating these industries from competition and


Trade has long been an economic strategy particularly forareas where phy.weal resources are limited, Hong Kong,shown here, has a small per capita land area, yet IS one of thelargest trade centers in the world

innovation, making them less able to move intothe international marketplace (81 ,94). For certaincountries (e.g., Zambia, Uganda), dependence onsingle commodity export places even greaterconstraints on economic development and stabil-ity.

Yet, some analysis suggests that a global policyshift toward greater outward orientation couldworsen the terms of trade for some developingcountries (5), particularly those heavily depen-dent on primary commodities. Since 1980, com-modity prices have dropped by at least one-half inreal terms, representing an annual loss to develop-ing countries of almost $100 billion in 1993 (69).

World trade in commodities has grown muchmore slowly than trade in manufactured goodsand services; a surge in commodity productionand export could spur the decline in internationalcommodity prices (69). Although liberalizationcould stimulate production in developing coun-tries and benefit food exporters, food-importingcountries would likely be hurt (132). Lifting ofnontariff agricultural barriers by industrial coun-tries could increase developing country exportearnings from fruits and vegetables by almost 25percent. However, the impact of liberalization oncoffee, cocoa, and tea could result in lowering theinternational trade value of these important tropi-cal agricultural commodities by promoting in-creased production (1 32). Free-trade proponentsacknowledge that the gains from trade may be un-evenly distributed among countries, implying thatthere will be some winners and some losers(55,124).

The latest round of GATT seeks to liberalizefour areas of economic activity previously thedomain of national legislation: trade in services,intellectual-property rights, international invest-ment flows, and agriculture. The projected benefi-cial effects of GATT are debated, however.Although analysts project a gross world product(GWP) increase in the trade sector of 4 to 5 percentabove the comparable level as a result of trade lib-eralization, only an estimated one-third of the in-come effect will benefit developing countries.11

The agricultural component has been criticized asinequitable to developing countries, which tend tobe agrarian-based. Although export subsidieswould be reduced, some observers believe that thereduction is too small to halt dumping of cheapagricultural products on developing country mar-kets. Other problematic clauses in GATT from thedeveloping country perspective are the ability ofcountries to limit the required 3 to 5 percent in-crease in agricultural market openings to certainproducts, and the inability to dispute the regula-

I I ch]n~ would account for at lea5t one-half of (his amount followed by the rest of Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. Some poor

countries are likely to run net losses (27, 124).

— —— .—.——


Informal markets characterize much of the rural developingworld and are important in local economies Opportunities toenhance markets could offer one avenue for localdevelopment

tions for the next six years (10,27,124). Disagree-ment is by no means limited to developingcountries; in the United States, debate continuesover how to meet the projected shortfall in tariffrevenue (a projected $13 billion shortfall over fiveyears) (90).

Environmentalists suggest that GATT shouldaddress the needs to eliminate trade barriers thatadversely affect the environment and develop-ment, and to allow intervention in trade to protectprimary interests (e.g., tropical forests, biodivers-ity, food security, climate, etc. )( 124). Opportuni-

ties for integrating environmental protectionpolicies and international trade also have been dis-cussed in the context of other trade agreements(e.g., North American Free Trade Agreement,NAFTA). Although the economic and nationalbenefits of such agreements have been ques-tioned, some analysts suggest that, at a minimum,these agreements provide the first legal frame-work for enforcing environmental standards inproduction. 12

Encouraging trade and investment in the devel-oping world is likely to depend on governmentstability, sound macroeconomic policy. transpar-ent financial policy, investment in education andtraining, and ability to rely on domestic savings tofinance investments (81 ). Policies that focus onexport orientation to the exclusion of other com-panion priorities (e.g., environmental sustainabil-ity, human development) are unlikely to fit withina SD paradigm.

Multinational Enterprises and DevelopmentMultinational enterprises (MNEs) control a sub-stantial part of the global economy today, perhapsas much as one-quarter of all economic activity intheir host countries. These economic units cantake many different forms such as resource-based,export-oriented, regional, translational, global,and distributed (108). Translational corporations(TNC) may control as much as 70 percent of worldtrade and can provide a source of capital for devel-oping countries, accelerate technology transfer,and develop human resources (94).

The large role played by TNCs evokes a widerange of concerns from national governments, ri-val firms, and strategic partners. Some TNCs maybe less concerned with advancing national goalsthan with pursuing organization interests—large-ly growth, profits, proprietary technology, strate-gic alliances, return on investment, and marketpower. Foreign TNCs may make few national in-

} z in ~hc ~r~t ~rgani~ationa] ~eetlng of the en~lronmental ministers of NAFTA, the need for rapid implementation of the COmnliSSIOn ‘or

Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was highlighted (65). CEC is charged with ensuring that participating members adhere to their nationalenvironmental regulations. l%e language, however, is not strong and only provides for intervention in the case of persistent failure to enforceenvironmental laws (29).


vestments; drive local firms from the market-place; import complex parts for assembly; fail toprovide commensurate pay, benefits, or trainingfor workers; or extract subsidies from state and lo-cal resources. Corporations that operate this waycan hardly be viewed as national assets. Similarly,firms that move abroad to take advantage of lowwages and lax environmental regulation are notacting in a nation’s interest ( 108) nor in the interestof SD.

Nevertheless, broad opportunities exist forTNCs to promote development through technolo-gy transfer and direct investment. Foreign directinvestment (FDI) in developing countries grewsubstantially in the 1980s, reaching $32 billion in1990. However, the percentage of total FDI thesecountries attracted declined over the same periodof time. Further, these FDI flows were not evenlydistributed. 13 Investment outflows from many ofthe newly industrialized countries (NICs) grew aswell during the 1980s, reflecting efforts to pene-trate new markets and access new technology orprovide for other corporation needs. In fact, in1990, outflows exceeded inflows in the Republicof Korea and the Taiwan Province of China (94).

The mobility of capital and labor throughTNCs could offer potential for enhancing technol-ogy transfer among developing and industrialcountries and promoting education, training, andinformation exchange. Yet, the pattern of invest-ment does not favor the least developed coun-tries—those most in need of development aid.Further, the potential for organizational interest tooverride the national interest argue for careful ex-amination of TNC/FDI as a mechanism for devel-opment. There are indications that German andJapanese policies result in greater domestic socialbenefits derived from multinational activities thanis evident in the United States ( 108). These poli-cies might provide a template for developing

country governments to ensure that FDI does notderail national efforts toward SD.

Economic StabilitySound macroeconomic policies are a vital under-pinning of SD and it has long been established thateconomic and environmental goals can be com-plementary and mutually supportive. There aremany examples of good economic policies thatare also good for the environment and human de-velopment (e.g., removal of energy subsidies topromote energy-use efficiency or clarification ofproperty rights to promote sustainable land-usepractices and provide landowners with a sense ofsecurity and continuity). The USAID economicstrategy states that leadership on macroeconomicreforms will be largely the purview of the WorldBank, multilateral development banks, and the In-ternational Monetary Fund (IMF) (99).

The structural adjustment programs of the IMFand the World Bank are intended to create macro-economic stability and fiscal-monetary disci-pline. Structural adjustment activities typicallyinclude economic stabilization and other meas-ures (e.g., budget deficit reductions, devaluationof currency, price and subsidy reforms, and privat-ization or reform of public enterprise). The abilityof developing country institutions to undertakesome program components may affect signifi-cantly the potential for successful transition tomacroeconomic stability. For example, the rush toprivatization may be inappropriate in a settingwhere institutional and technological problemsremain major constraints and where the privatesector and financial markets are weak. Identifyingthe appropriate public sector institutional devel-opment needs vis-a-vis private sector capabilitiesis vital in many developing countries. Central do-nor questions are: 1 ) what is the desirable ratio of

Is In 1990, tie Majorl(y of inflows to &Ve]Opjn~ countries was concentrated in Asia (61 percent) and Latin America and the Caribbean (32

percent). Very little 1990 FDI went to Africa (7 percent) or the least developed countries (0.7 percent) (69, 94). High rates of domestic growth,

low production costs, and increasing consumer purchasing power are cited as the attractions for the heavy FDI in Asia and the Pacific (94).


public/private sector development to support sec-tor growth, and 2) how can these sectors be sup-ported/strengthened properly to achieve a yetundetermined desirable size and shape (56).

Critics point out that the typical measures un-dertaken in structural adjustment may have a dis-proportionate adverse effect on middle and lowereconomic brackets (66, 107) at least in the near andmiddle term (box 5). Although spending cuts maynot be disproportionate across sectors, the lowereconomic sectors may be less able to absorb addi-tional burdens generated by spending cuts or mon-etary control measures (e.g., devaluation).Alternatively, the argument can be made that gov-ernments willing to undertake structural adjust-ment tend to be in such fiscal trouble thatwide-reaching budget cuts would be likely with orwithout structural adjustment measures ( 16). Ineither case, the challenge to the lending institu-tions becomes one of addressing institutional fac-tors that will affect the success of a structuraladjustment program and identifying appropriateavenues for capacity building. Further, the issuesof corruption and governance, although perhapsbeyond the control of IMF or the World Bankinstitutional authority, may profoundly influencethe outcome of structural adjustment activities(75).

The interface of structural adjustment and otherinstitutional development programs also maycreate problems in satisfying loan conditionali-ties. On the one hand, World Bank lending can in-fluence public sector spending and may generatea need for large bureaucracies to implement proj-ects. For example, World Bank-financed projectsin Kenya accounted for at least one-half of the de-velopment expenditures of the Ministry of Agri-culture during 1977 to 1982 (56). On the otherhand, structural adjustment focuses on reducingbudget deficits, government employment, andoverall size of public sector. Clearly, satisfyingboth criteria would be difficult at best and depend

in large part on a well-established and capable pri-vate sector.

The IMF and the World Bank share a weaknessin creating macroeconomic strategy plans/pro-grams in concert with national governments andidentified beneficiaries (14,66). The World Banknotes that the commitment of borrowers to fundedoperations (i.e., ownership) has received littleattention in the past, but also acknowledges thathost-country participation and commitment to op-erations are essential to success (66,127). TheWorld Bank’s new “Action Plan” identifies theneed to address the issues of participation, projectownership, nongovernmental organization in-volvement, and project monitoring (127). Thechallenge will be for the World Bank to create ef-fective and appropriate conditionalities for itsloans that will reflect equally the needs of thelender and the borrower.

TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT14

Technology can affect sustainability in a positiveway by reducing throughput and waste and by in-creasing efficiency and finding alternatives toscarce resources. Environmental benefits are notthe sole measure of a technology’s contribution toSD. Appropriateness of scale, use of local re-sources, and equity are important considerationsas well. For example, raising efficiency in com-mercial energy use in developing countries couldgenerate large benefits for the global environ-ment, yet may have little bearing on the poor, ruralmajority (figure 11). This group perhaps wouldbenefit more from widespread availability ofmore efficient biomass stoves and technologies toproduce fast-growing trees.

Great strides have been made in the past decadein pollution prevention and creating cleanertechnologies for industrial production. These ef-forts encompass production processes as well as

1 ~ See ~ppndix B for a more detailed description of the OTA reports summarized here.


By the late 1970s and early 1980s many developing countries had created significant debt loads

through a variety of external loans, including development-oriented lending programs. The ensuing

global debt crisis gave rise to the development of structural adjustment programs Structural adjust-

ment programs include economic reforms to expand exports to earn foreign exchange with which to

repay creditors. At the same time, debtor nations become more attractive to foreign investors and there-

by shift foreign borrowing into foreign equity investment. Growth has accompanied these reforms in

many cases, but observers also note that much of the basis of national economies has passed to for-

eign ownership and natural resource extraction for export has Increased (51).

Costa Rica has been described as the most recent of casualties in the structural adjustment arena.

Despite Costa Rica’s political stability and relatively high Iiving standard, economic distress became

evident in 1980 largely due to dependence on export agriculture and attendant price declines in coffee,

increased demand for imports, and high levels of government spending on social programs leading to

a balance of payments deficit Costa Rica undertook structural adjustment under the guidance of the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) with U.S. Agency for International Develop-

ment (USAID) funding. The program contained mechanisms to curb inflation, increase the private sec-

tor role, increase exports, and reduce government deficits.

Indications are that Costa Rica is in poorer condition currently than it was when it entered into its first

structural adjustment in 1980 Costa Rica’s trade deficit has increased, fiscal deficit and inflatlon contin-

ue at high levels, and the increased orientation toward an export economy has exacerbated rural pov-

erty, environmental degradation, and economic instability. Further, gross domestic product has in-

increased while real wages have decreased, indicating inequitable distribution of benefits. Infant mortality

rates have begun to rise as has the Incidence of disease, which many link to the declining government

budgets for health, nutrition, and sanitation under the structural adjustment program.

On the other hand, narrow commercial interests have benefited in Costa Rica. For example, export

incentive bonds are available to exporters of nontraditional agricultural products and can be used to

offset taxes or sold for cash Eighty to ninety percent of these bonds (equivalent to 43 percent of the

fiscal deficit in 1991) are held by five translational corporations Import duties have been decreased

and tax concessions and other subsidies drain resources from the government, The impact on small

producers is large prohibitive costs prevent their entrance into the nontraditional export production and

price supports, credits and protection from imports have been slashed for traditional crops (domestic

consumption). Costa Rica now imports nearly one-half of its food supply, as opposed to being nearly

self-sufficient, as it was in the early 1980s (39)

Success or failure? In the case of Costa Rica, it would seem that structural adjustment has failed

with respect to the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainable development, On

the other hand, some adjusters such as Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and Indonesia appear to have been

successful (2) Careful examination of the factors contributing to success or failure of these efforts could

yield Important information for developing countries

material inputs. Some new and emerging technol- been generated primarily to reduce waste. Othersogies such as recycling, renewable energy, and exist to reduce extraction and increase throughputlow-input agricultural production systems have efficiency. For example, designing products to be

——————


cnn – —- –-duu 7

400

300

200

100

0 I 1iAsia

~- Rural

_ Urban

n Low potential land

~ High potential land

1

Sub-Saharan Latin AmericaAfrica

-–——— –—–— T

i ‘--

780

It I

0 200 400

D Rural

_ Urban

U Low potential land

_ High potential land—- — – — - –600 800 1000

Of the nearly 780 million Impoverished m the developing world, the majority live m rural areas (83 percent), nearly 79 percent ofthe poor of the developing world Iive m Asia

SOURCE H J Leonard, ‘ Overview, ’ Environment and the Poor Development Strategies for a Common Agenda (Washington, DC U S GovernmentPrinting Off Ice August 1993)

durable, ’5 repairable, and recyclable could in-crease maintenance efficiency, and reduce systemthroughput, depletion, and pollution (1 12). De-signing living patterns that reduce the need forcertain commodities also can contribute to in-creased maintenance efficiency (18,3 1,107).Areas in need of technology development includefood and fiber production, energy production, in-dustrial processes, and waste management. U.S.executive agency efforts have been moving in thisdirection (e.g., the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture’s Low Input Sustainable Agriculture Pro-gram and the U.S. Department of Energy’sRenewable Energy Program), and legislative ini-tiatives have been explored to speed progress(e.g., Environmental Technology Act of 1994).

Identifying and promoting technology that ismost suitable to the socioeconomic, environmen-tal, and political conditions of a specific develop-ment site has been one of the greatest challengesfor assistance organizations (box 6). Introducing

costly advanced technology into developing na-tions can create as many social and economicproblems as the technology was intended to solve.Rather, building on traditional methods andtechnologies to increase productivity or efficiencymay be more likely to fit the local site conditions.Appropriateness of scale is a fundamental featureof successful technology implementation. Im-proved or low-impact technologies might includerenewable energy technologies, small-scale lightindustries, and solid-state communications foreducation and/or health care (125,40, 119). Abilityto promote appropriate technology has been ham-pered by lack of familiarity with traditional sys-tems, aid program designs based on donorcommercial interests (e.g., tied aid, mixed cred-its), and bureaucratic needs to “move money”through the programs (62,40).

Leapfrogging describes a development ap-proach that blends appropriate technology andSD. The goal of leapfrogging is for developing

15 1t is impfiant t. note [hat durability can a]~o be a disadvantage, particularly if it implies continued use of poorly designed, Inefficient,

polluting technologies. In such cases, regulatory measures might become a predominant form of working toward SD.


The Importance of rice in Indonesia can hardly be overstated It IS the major component of diet; it iS

the country’s principal wage good, and it provides the main source of employment for about 50 million

farmers and farm workers. Research in the early 1980s showed that Infestations of the highly destruc-

tive brown planthopper was a result of Indiscriminate insecticide applications that suppressed natural

predators of the planthopper This key finding led to the beginning of one of the most aggressive inte-

grated pest management (1PM) programs ever undertaken

With the help of the USAID and other donors, the Government of Indonesia enlisted the Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) m a massive training program to educate farmers about the benefits of

1PM and how it could work at the farm level, Launched in 1986, the goal was to train 1,000 pest observ-

ers, 2,000 field extension workers, and 100,000 farmers in three years (41, 42)

Far exceeding original project goals, approximately 2,000 IPM specialists and at least 5,000 exten-

sion workers have received intensive field training in 1PM and 250,000 farmers have graduated from

season-long Farmer Field Schools The impact of this training has been great, catching the attention of

international organizations and governments of other countries where traditional rice culture depends

on massive amounts of chemical pesticides Some of the program results included: a 60 percent de-

crease in pesticide use from pre-lPM years, cessation of pestlclde-induced pest outbreaks in 1PM

areas, dramatic yield and economic return Increases in 1PM areas as compared to non-l PM areas, a

$120 million annual savings from declining pesticide subsidies, and reduced environmental damage

and health risks from pesticide use, and spreading grass-roots support for 1PM (42)

Clearly, the 1PM Program IS a small step in the overall context of sustainable development There are

many other threats to a sustainable environment in Indonesia and 1PM alone cannot provide the produc-

tivity Increases necessary to feed the growing Indonesian population Nevertheless, the Indonesian

Rice IPM Program Incorporates many elements essential to success in sustainable development efforts

■

■

■

■

■

SOURCE

The Indigenous people were fully involved in and “took ownership” of the problem-solving

effort

The central, regional, and local governmental bodies were committed to the program.

The program was an “Indonesian Program, ” not a donor program To USAID’s credit, support

was through a grant, Ieaving the key decisionmaking to the Indonesians.

The “Improved practices” (l PM) were economically viable and their adoption was in the eco-

nomic self-interest of farmers.

The involvement of an International organization—in this case the FAO—provided experi-

ence from other countries and disseminated the lessons learned globally,

J G Stovall, “Sustainable Development m Practice Does It Work?” contractor report for the Office of Technology Assess-ment, April 1994

countries to bypass the environmental and social dard of living comparable to that in the industrialills (e.g., pollution, overconsumption) resultingfrom the development pattern of the industrialcountries of the North. However, there is muchdisagreement over the potential for leapfrogging.Lack or inadequacy of environmentally sustain-able technologies (e.g., renewable energy) is citedby some critics. Others doubt that followinganother development pattern would yield a stan-

countries. A large part of this challenge might bemet through intensive, collaborative research anddevelopment efforts in sustainable technologiesin conjunction with widespread education and in-formation activities to demonstrate the benefits ofa SD path in industrial and developing countries.

OTA has conducted many assessments oftechnologies with potential application in devel-


opment efforts (see appendix B). The informationtaken from OTA’s reports covers a wide range oftechnologies and resource concerns, related re-search needs, and institutional roles in develop-ment assistance. Although many of the OTAreports reviewed do not address the concept ofsustainable development directly, they nonethe-less contain highly relevant material.

Agricultural TechnologiesThe goal of agricultural research and technologydevelopment generally has been to improve pro-ductivity and soil and water conservation, andmaintain reasonable costs of food and fiber. Otherinterests include improving human nutrition, foodquality, and safety; improving the internationaltrade balance; and contributing to the economy asa whole. Recent1 y, more concern has been directedto reducing agriculture’s adverse environmentalimpacts using a systems approach. Agriculturalpolicy issues with respect to sustainable develop-ment include: research and development priori-ties; regulations and programs concerning trade,food prices, land ownership, and environmentalquality; and food security and employment. Inmany developing countries these needs still arenot met, sustainably or otherwise.

OTA’s examination of the needs of industrialand developing country agriculture spans manysignificant developments: the emergence of ap-propriate technology and sustainability para-digms, technological advances with potential toimprove agricultural efficiency and productivity,and the rise of commercial agricultural bio-technology. OTA has provided Congress with op-tions for strengthening the cost-effectiveness ofU.S. participation in international agricultural re-search, technology development, and assistanceas well as specific considerations and options on

Terracing, a traditional agricultural technology, allows foodproduction on sIoping lands while reducing loss of soil andfertility to erosion forces

technologies and policy initiatives to improvefood production in developing countries.

OTA finds that in developing countries much ofthe land available to small farmers is only margin-ally suitable for most forms of agricultural pro-duction, and often progressively deteriorates.Poor soils, characteristic of many moist tropicalforest regions, quickly lose their nutrient content,and exposure to wind and rain, often on steepslopes, leads to rapid soil erosion. In arid andsemi-arid regions, low soil productivity also pre-vails and is accompanied by a short growing sea-son, low and erratic rainfall, and possibility ofdrought. Production practices, such as shiftingcultivation, 16 can accelerate the degradation proc-ess as well. Given these conditions, erratic, de-clining yields are common, and generallyexpanded cultivation or off-farm employment areused to make up for these losses. Catastrophiccrop losses, in a climate of chronic food insecuri-t y, can prompt large-scale civil conflict and migra-

1 ~ Shi f[ing Cu]tivatlon inko]~es cutting and burning forest, pro~llcin~ crops for a couple of years, abandmin~ the lm~ for ~ “f~llo~’” Wriod,and then, at \ome time later, repeating the c} cle. Shifting cultivation has increased in man> areas during the M few decades: many people havemigrtited from e~tablished farming areas into forest areas, often along logging roads, and they generally are using shorter fallow periods than inearlier years ( 1 I 0. 1 I 4, 11 7).


tion, as has occurred in parts of Africa over thepast two decades.

OTA has concluded in several reports thatgreater U.S. contributions to domestic, bilateral,and multilateral agricultural assistance will benecessary to increase agricultural productionworldwide. For production increases to be sus-tainable, however, farmers need technologieswith potential in the following areas(1 10,115,1 17):

improving the use of local natural resources, in-cluding indigenous plants and animals,improving soil fertility,improving water availability and efficiency ofuse,fostering genetic improvement in plants andanimals appropriate to local conditions,improving integration of animal and croppingsystems,reducing food losses, andenabling farmers to modernize as this becomesfeasible to them.

Energy TechnologiesEnergy efficiencies vary in the developing worldbut, on average, appear to be much lower than inthe industrialized countries. Low technical effi-ciencies with which energy is produced, con-verted, and used in developing countries could beimproved through adoption of proven technolo-gies. On the demand side, these include efficientlights, cookstoves and refrigerators, cars andtrucks, industrial boilers, electric motors, and avariety of new manufacturing processes for ener-gy-intensive industries such as steel and cement.Moreover, numerous technologies at variousstages of development and commercializationcould enhance the efficiency of delivering energyservices.

Technologies to provide and improve energyservices for developing world populations mightinclude, more efficient biomass stoves to reducefuel use and reduce the hazardous smokeemissions, simple motor-driven systems forpumping water or grinding grain to reduce the bur-den of these physically demanding tasks on

Alternatives to fossil fuels may offer a more sustainablesource of energy for developing communities. Here awindmill provides energy to generate electricity and pumpwater from a local well.

women, and energy-efficient pumps, fertilizers,and mechanical traction to improve agriculturalproductivity. Technology also could boost effi-ciency, quality, and productivity of traditionalsmall-scale industry, which accounts for one-halfto three-quarters of manufacturing employment inmany developing countries and is an importantsource of income for rural and urban poor.

New energy supply technologies have providedbenefits in several areas. Characteristics that makesome technologies more suited than others to de-veloping country needs include:

● Modular, small scale, and short lead times.Energy supply technologies that are small,modular, and rapidly implemented can match


m

■

9

■

■

demand growth and prevent large amounts ofcapital from being tied up over long periods oftime.Reliability and performance. In developingcountries, frequent blackouts, brownouts, andsharp power surges result in lost operating po-tential, lost production, and more waste forcommercial, residential, and industrial con-sumers. Technologies that improve operatingand maintenance procedures can improve plantreliability and performance.Rural access. Smaller scale technologies(modern biomass and decentralized renewable)can bring high-quality energy sources to ruralareas and, thus, promote rural development andemployment.Environmental benefits. Increased emphasison natural gas and other alternative fuel sources(e.g., biomass systems, renewable energy)could reduce adverse environmental impactscompared with conventional sources, andavoid some of the problems of large hydro-electric and nuclear projects.Foreign exchange savings. New technologiesthat develop local energy resources can reduceenergy imports—which currently account forat least 50 percent of export earnings in severalof the poorest developing countries.Employment. Decentralized renewable energysources could stimulate employment. Eventhough developing countries would, at leastinitially, import much of the technology, re-newable sources need installation and servic-ing that could create local jobs.

Widespread adoption of improved technolo-gies could achieve substantial energy savings,while providing the energy services needed for de-velopment. Capturing these energy savings couldhelp environmental quality and ease the burden ofhigh energy import bills. However, adoption ofnew energy technologies depends on not only theintrinsic superiority of the technology itself butalso on whether financial and institutional factorsfavor adoption. The policy environment that de-termines patterns of incentives and disincentives

to energy efficiency is crucial to thenew technologies (11 1).

Environmental Technologies

adoption of

OTA recently looked at environmental protectionissues in terms of the economic and industrial op-portunities they may present (106, 109) Environ-mental awareness, liberalization of trade, and thepresence of multinational firms is leading, insome developing countries, to more environmen-tal technology imports. Transfer of environmentaltechnologies can reduce day-to-day operating in-efficiencies, emissions of environmental contami-nants, worker exposure to hazardous materials,and risks of technological disasters.

For many developing countries, provision ofbasic water, sewer, and refuse disposal servicesare major environmental priorities. These are theareas where spending on environmental technolo-gies is concentrated. While such expenditures canstrain scarce fiscal resources, lack of such servicesleads to disease problems. Developing countriesneed more sanitary services systems serving ruraland urban areas. Opportunities exist to addresssome of these community service needs with ap-propriate technology (11 9).

Electric power, chemical, petroleum refining,steel, pulp and paper, food, textile, and other proc-ess industries are potential major buyers of envi-ronmental technology. Technologies that lead tomore efficient and cleaner uses of energy and ma-terials can be applied to many industries. withlong-term economic and environmental benefits.Technologies such as forest management and im-proved agricultural practices are primary environ-mental needs in some countries (1 10,1 17).

Pollution prevention and cleaner productiontechnologies are often more cost effective thanend-of-pipe waste treatment technologies. Sever-al OTA reports have discussed the potential of in-dustrial pollution prevention (106,1 12). As notedin Development Assistance, Export Promotion,and Environmental Technologies ( 1993), pollu-tion prevention would be a logical candidate for


Preventive health care has contributed significantly to infantmortality reductions in many parts of the developing world.

more attention from bilateral and multilateral aidagencies.

Tropical Disease-RelatedBiomedical Technologies

The broadest measurements of human health haveshown improvement in all developing regionsover the past few decades (e.g., life expectancy atbirth, mortality of children age 5 and below). Nev-ertheless, of total deaths in 1985, 84 percent werein developing countries and of these nearly one-half were caused by infectious and parasitic dis-eases. Of these, 37 percent were children under 5(versus 3 percent in industrial countries). Causeswere respiratory infections, neonatal and perinatalcomplications, and diarrhea (132).

Vectorborne, tropical diseases remain perva-sive problems in the developing world:

1. Malaria is on an upward trend due to insecti-cide-resistant mosquitoes and resistance of the

2,

3.

4.

parasite to antimalarial drugs; a 7 percent in-crease was noted between 1985 and 1990.Schistosomiasis is endemic in 76 countries;200,000 people die of this each year; 200 mil-lion are infected and 600 million are at risk.Filariasis affects 76 countries; 90 millionpeople are infected and 900 million are at risk.Onchocerciasis is endemic in 26 African, twoeastern Mediterranean, and six Latin Americancountries; 17.6 million to 17.8 million peopleare infected and 85 million to 90 million are atrisk (132).

Two OTA documents about tropical diseaseemerged in response to congressional uncertaintyover whether to continue funding the Gorgas Me-morial Laboratory in the Republic of Panama:Quality and Relevance of Research and RelatedActivities at the Gorgas Memorial Laboratory(1983) and Status of Biomedical Research and Re-lated Technology for Tropical Diseases (1985).

U.S.-supported tropical medicine research iscarried out by several multinational programs,government agencies, universities, and private re-search foundations and corporations, but OTAidentified the now-defunct Gorgas Memorial Lab-oratory as one of the few high-quality, broadlyrelevant, tropical research institutions located in atropical country. OTA suggested such institutionswere needed in the Tropics to provide field in-formation on the occurrence, natural history, andtransmission of diseases, and to test research re-suits-e. g., drugs, vaccines, vector control pro-grams—where diseases occur. It was also pointedout that research institutions in developing coun-tries can serve as training facilities and can helpdeveloping countries retain health science andother science professionals who otherwise wouldlikely seek positions in industrialized countries.

International health research centers along thelines of the International Agricultural ResearchCenters (IARCs) could make a large contributionto improving the health care/maintenance systemsin developing countries. Such centers could iden-tify and analyze the sources of health problems aswell as conduct local research on design and deliv-ery of health maintenance systems (79). Public


Shistosomiasis, continues to be a problem in the developingworld, particularly as new areas are accessed fordevelopment bringing vector and host closer together Here, astream IS being sprayed to kill the worms that cause thedisease

expenditure on health in developing countriesgrew from 1.0 percent of GNP in 1960 to 3.7 per-cent in 1988 to 1990; during the same time period,public health expenditures in industrial countriesrose to 4.2 percent of GNP (92).

Developments in basic and applied biomedicalresearch also hold promise for more specific dis-ease control measures (11 6). In Status of Biomedi-cal Research and Related Technology for TropicalDiseases ( 1985), OTA provided an overview ofthe major U.S. tropical research and developmentsupporters (e.g., National Institutes of Health,Center for Disease Control, U.S. Department ofDefense, and US AID) as well as policies concern-ing medical technology development, researchfunding, and congressional oversight. OTA alsoassessed biomedical laboratory research and somefield research pertaining to selected tropical dis-eases.

Many developing countries are still at a stagewhere increased investment in sanitation andclean water would have tremendous benefits forcontrolling tropical diseases. Small and regionalwastewater, drinking water, and municipal solidwaste systems used in U.S. rural areas, whichmight be applicable in developing country set-tings, are discussed along with metropolitan pub-lic works in Delivering the Goods: Public Works

Technologies, Management, and Finance (1991).Most options available for addressing publicworks problems in the United States would re-quire considerable support to be duplicated in de-veloping countries.

Technologies for Local DevelopmentOTA assessed the potential for reducing the costsof community services using appropriate technol-ogy in An Assessment of Technologies for LocalDevelopment (1981). Case studies were con-ducted of community-based projects for resource-efficient residential architecture, solar green-houses, small farm systems, farmers markets, re-source recovery from municipal solid waste,wastewater treatment, energy generation, andhealth care systems. Critical to all the projectswere public interest; availability of technical in-formation and expertise; material, capital, and fi-nancial resources; and various types of financing(e.g., grants, cost-sharing, contracts, subsidies,conventional financing).

Appropriate technology projects are developedaccording to special conditions and available re-sources at the community level, thus transfer toother settings can be problematic. This is alreadyan observed problem for local-level developmentprojects overseas, although often for other rea-

Environmental priorities in many urban settings are provisionof basic water sewer, and refuse disposal services Here, ashanty town in Indonesia Illustrates the problems that mayarose when population exceeds infrastructure capacity.


Participatory development is one avenue to promote local“ownership” of development interventions and ensure thatinterventions match the existing environmental, social,political, and economic setting.

sons. Local development and transfer of appropri-ate technologies in foreign projects is facilitatedmost by provision of reliable information on thedesign, cost, and performance of the technologiesthemselves. Provided these needs have been met,the remaining barriers are otherwise institutional:opposition from commercial interests, reluctanceof donors to accept innovative project designs, in-sensitivity to social or cultural factors, and insen-sitivity to regulations at various levels ofgovernment or bilateral agreements ( 119).

| Technological Underpinnings forSustainable DevelopmentInformation, education, and communication

technologies are seen as fundamental to the pur-suit of sustainable international development(107). Attention to these areas will facilitate disse-

mination and application of previously discussedtechnologies.

Expanding opportunities for developing coun-tries to determine their own SD path will dependin large part on the free exchange of informationamong the industrial and developing nations.Such exchange could be useful domestically aswell, as many local and regional governmentsstrive toward SD objectives. It may be possible tochoose demonstration sites, for example, placeswithin the industrial and developing world that arealready on the way to a sustainable solution to aproblem. The state of Maine and the city of Seattlehave sustainability projects, for example. Fund-ing for information and idea exchange could helpmultiply similar activities.

Information SharingSharing of information and appropriate technolo-gies has been an underpinning of foreign assist-ance under the rubric of technology transfer. Thequestion is how best to transfer information andtechnology broadly for SD (box 7). The trend istoward privatization, in the form of intellectual-property rights, which can slow the movement ofrelevant research into the public domain. How-ever, without such protection, technology devel-opers may be disinclined to invest in research anddevelopment. The challenge will be to find ave-nues to fund the cost of producing knowledge ina way that facilitates distribution. One opportuni-ty might be the creation of international centers forSD that would be cooperatively funded and focuson collaborative research and technology devel-opment.

U.S. academic institutions could take the leadin sharing information with sister institutions indeveloping countries. Alternatively, governmentscould consider subsidies to private organizationsas incentives for information exchange. Other in-centives might include a change in the universitysystem to link personal gain and prestige withconducting developing country research. Tenyears ago, for example, U.S. scientists were work-ing on agricultural technologies for developingcountries, and built careers on this. Now the em-


1. Technology should fit the local biophysical and socioeconomic environment of the adopters and

should have proven successful elsewhere under similar conditions, at least on a pilot scale

2. Technology IS transferred most effectively by direct people-to-people actions involving individuals

with experience in applying the technology. Media presentations (e. g., pamphlets, books, radio)

may assist, but personal Interactions are necessary.

3. Technology transfer agents must be well-qualified and experienced in applying the technology and

able to communicate effectively to potential adopters. Development of expertise in local organiza-

tions IS necessary to continue technology transfer beyond the bounds of development assistance

projects and time frames.

4. Even capable adopters may need assistance from facilitators or middlemen in addition to transfer

agents to make the transition from established resource-use methods to new technologies

5. Adopters and transfer agents should be involved in choosing, planning, and Implementing technol-

ogy transfer so that it wiII meet actual needs and IS appropriate to the setting in which be wiII be

Implemented

6. Interests of all parties involved in technology transfer should be identified and addressed in the

technology transfer effort, each must see how the technology wiII benefit them.

7. Early definition of participant roles is needed so that each is aware of the subsequent steps in the

transfer process and the relationship between their actions and those steps

8. Demonstrations of the technology should take place under environmental, economic, and sociocul-

tural conditions similar to those where it wiII ultimately be Implemented.

9. Commitment of financial resources should be sufficient to carry out the technology transfer until it IS

self-supporting

10, The transfer process must Include mechanisms through which all participants can contribute effec-

tively to Interim evaluations and adaptations.

SOURCE Derwed from a Technology Transfer Workshop held for the Off Ice of Technology Assessment sludyof Techno/og/es to Sus-fawi Trop/ca/ Forest Resources, OTA-F-214 (Washington, DC U S Government Prlnt!ng Off Ice March 1984)

phasis increasingly is on high-tech discoveriesthat are hard to apply and transfer to developingcountries. Research institutions in many develop-ing countries have collapsed, and few facilities ex-ist for U.S. scientists to work there (107).

Other mechanisms for getting more knowledgeinto the public domain might include creating na-tional institutes/centers where governments couldmonitor technology development and have somerights of eminent domain to buy promisingtechnologies at a fair price and make them avail-able. Collaborative Research Support Programs(CRSPs) could provide a model for foreign coop-eration in research and development, and partiallycircumvent the information monopolizationtrend.

EducationEducation is one mechanism through which manySD objectives might be realized. Needs rangefrom education at the local level for self- and qual-ity-of-life improvements to education at the deci -sionmaking level to foster wise planning andpolicy choices. For example, access to primaryeducation for females has shown clear benefits inreducing fertility, improving nutrition, and de-creasing infant mortality (31,1 32).

Achieving SD will rest largely on broad under-standing of the interdependence of the Earth’s so-cial, economic, and environmental resources andthe costs and benefits of adopting sustainablepractices. Educational programs at all levels that


Education has been shown to be a powerful tool forempowering women and promoting fare@ planning. Here, aPVO sponsors an educational film on family planning for localwomen,

effectively teach the interrelationship among pov-erty, population growth, unsustainable productionand consumption patterns, and environmentaldegradation will be needed.

Numerous educational technologies exist thatpromote quick understanding of complex issues.For example, computer simulation technologiesthat present a problem and a variety of possiblesolution pathways allow individuals to observethe results of their choices and increase theirawareness of the downstream impacts of deci-sions (e.g., Plato, SimEarth). Such tools could bedeveloped to promote informed decisionmakingon complex SD issues such as the desired ratio ofbirths to immigrants. Educational tools that wouldallow decisionmakers to examine the myriadcomponents of such issues could promote wiseplanning.

Communication TechnologyCommunication and information technologies areplaying an increasingly important role in busi-ness, trade, health, and education. If current trendscontinue, the gap between industrial and develop-ing countries in the use of communicationtechnologies will continue to widen. Unlessmeans are found to include developing countriesin the global information networks now being de-

veloped (e.g., the Internet), they may fall furtherbehind.

Computer-based information systems andmodem communications are high-tech, high-costenterprises. Large investments and considerabletechnological resources are needed to supportthese enterprises. Currently, well-financed, high-tech, multinational corporations are actively com-peting to position themselves to benefit from theneed for worldwide communication. Many of thesystems being designed will be capable of deliver-ing immense amounts of information to remoteareas worldwide. Systems such as satellite-basedpersonal communication systems (PCS) can linkremote areas without expensive fiber optic cables.However, wireless technology also is extremelycostly and technically sophisticated. Domesticproviders of telecommunication services in theUnited States tend to avoid low-density, widelydispersed rural areas for information and networkservices in favor of urban, high-density, business-intensive areas. Similarly, international serviceproviders may favor industrial over developingcountries.

Several organizations are working toward vari-ous aspects of improving communications net-works and information availability. The UnitedNations Sustainable Development Network(SDN) is one example of how modem informationtechnology can be used to assist developing coun-tries maintain and apply data for domestic devel-opment activities. The SDN goal is to provideglobal access to data on development activities.Similarly, USAID is improving its ManagementInformation System (MIS) as a programmatictracking mechanism. The Peace Corps is placingcomputer Internet connections in its in-countryoffices to promote access to a variety of interna-tional information sources. Other environmentaldata sources are supported through the United Na-tions Environment Programme, the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, and the Consortiumfor International Earth Science Information Net-work (CIESIN).

These are just a few examples of how informa-tion and communication can be linked and


/formation and communication are key underpinnings forsustainable international development Here, local educatorsand extension officers are being shown new techniques viainternational telecommunications

deployed to assist resource professionals and de-cisionmakers and to promote education. The po-tential payoff for application of this advancedtechnology is enormous, and clearly a vital needfor achieving development goals. Coordination ofthese and other efforts could generate greaterbenefits.

U.S. INTERNATIONALASSISTANCE POLICYThe United States is experiencing changes in itsdevelopment assistance approach. In the past dec-ade, underlying concerns centered on the need toidentify and provide solutions that were socially,culturally, economically, and environmentallysuitable to the development site. The 1990s ush-ered in increased concern about the proper roleand responsibility of the industrial nations in solv-ing developing country problems. Social, envi-ronmental, economic, and political conditionssuggest that new U.S. foreign assistance legisla-tion will be adopted that specifically identifiessustainable development as a goal. A number ofcountries (e.g., Netherlands, Norway, Japan) al-ready have embraced the SD concept to variousdegrees (44,45), and the Administrator of the U.S.Agency for International Development has identi-fied SD as a fundamental goal for international de-velopment:

. . . we have an abiding interest in joining withother industrial powers in promoting sustainabledevelopment. This does not require—and is notconsistent with—an international welfare pro-gram; this does not require—and is not consis-tent with—investments in societies whosegovernments do not take the steps necessary tohelp themselves. Rather we recognize that SD ismost likely to take place within relatively stablepolitical systems and sound economic policystructures (99).

| USAID’s Post Cold-War Rationale forForeign Assistance

Increasing global environmental concerns, geo-political restructuring, and revisions in nationalsecurity interests have led to a new vision for U.S.bilateral assistance. The new USAID Administra-tor has taken steps to reorganize the agency to im-prove its ability to address:

poverty and unsustainable patterns of economicgrowth,hunger, malnutrition, and lack of food security,population growth and rapid urbanization,new diseases and endemic ailments,environmental degradation which may ulti-mately be manifested on a global scale, andpersistent autocracy, oppression, and humanrights abuses (99).

These threats are similar to those identified atthe creation of the U.S. bilateral assistanceagency; however, their order of magnitude has in-creased as population has nearly doubled duringthe past 30 years. Today, US AID plans to addressthese threats with four strategic elements: 1) en-couraging broad-based economic growth; 2) pro-tecting the environment; 3) stabilizing worldpopulation growth and protecting human health;and 4) building democracy. As this suggests, thetraditional development approach will be adjustedto include dimensions of SD.

Foreign policy, commercial, and assistance in-terests all tend to affect the allocation of U.S. aidin practice and, thus, attempts to operationalizeSD. For example, tying assistance to trade andprocurement requirements with the donor coun-


Development aid can be used to encourage donor country exports. Whereas tied aid opens export

opportunities more directly, untied aid may also serve this purpose. Although the precise export promo-

tion effect IS hard to determine, such practices are widely used by many major donors, many of which

also provide substantial non-aid-related export promotion for manufacture goods. In principle, it might

be preferable for all donors to agree to forego tying of aid and let development priorities and the market

determine where aid money IS spent. However, such an agreement is not likely to be achieved in the

near term; for the United States to forego use of such practices could mean that U.S. exports would

suffer in time.

Some contend that the use of aid for export promotion can compromise environmental and develop-

mental goals. Increased costs for purchases restricted to bidding only among donor country firms can

Increase the cost of capital projects and reduce the amount of real aid A capital-projects orientation

could diminish direct aid for basic human needs, although some capital projects may be needed to

assure safe drinking water or treat waste. However, overemphasis on export promotion could bias proj-

ects toward overly expensive Infrastructure, with more sophisticated technology than is needed to meet

basic human needs or IS economically sustainable in the target site. Use of such technology can drain

resources from more pressing problems and create dependency on industrial countries. If projects are

paid for with soft loans, they can aggravate developing country debt burdens or balance of payments

problems. Difficulties such as these can reduce a country’s capacity to buy environmental goods or

services without aid and can encourage mismanagement of the environment.

Export promotion could create a stronger development constituency in donor countries, making con-

tinuation of aid more likely. But from a practical standpoint, the efficacy of using aid projects to promote

exports IS ultimately Iimited by aid budgets. The U.S. official development assistance budget has de-

clined as a percentage of gross national product over time and iS now well below the OECD’s Develop-

ment Assistance Committee average. Nevertheless, avenues exist to prevent or mitigate the potential

for the use of development assistance to promote exports to hinder environmental or developmental

goals, including

try-tied aid—”iS used to support donor commer-cial interests in concert with providingdevelopment assistance. Yet, problems may re-sult. For example, recipient countries may struc-ture development to match what the commercialsector of the donor country supplies, rather than tomeet their own social, cultural, or ecologicalneeds (62, 63, 81, 109). When the recipient coun-try has a wide choice of what goods or services itmay purchase with tied aid, it often will be able tospend the aid on items that it would have pur-chased from the donor anyway. This is true forU.S. commodity aid, and may be true for some aidoffered by other donors (109) (box 8; figure 12).

| SD Issues for New ForeignAssistance Legislation

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amendedis the legislative authority for U.S. internationalassistance activities. There is almost unanimousagreement that the Foreign Assistance Act of1961 is in need of a complete overhaul (47,85).Numerous studies, task forces, and commissionshave called for reforms, citing dramatic changesin the world with implications for foreign aid. Ex-amples include the end of the Cold War era, thebreakup of the former Soviet Union, the transitionto democracy in many countries, and fundamental


1

2

3

4

Environmental studies to identify real needs and priorities, Donors Increasingly fund developing

country environmental studies, environmental profiles, and conservation strategies. DAC has noted

the need for coordination and use of “good practices” in these assessments, USAID has increased

the use of host country organizations to undertake these studies in its [goal] for capacity building.

Additional measures could be taken to assure opportunity for public review and input from NGOs

Use of guidelines in project reviews. Conscientious efforts by donors to ensure that appropriate

guidelines are applied could reduce the potential for transfer of inappropriate technology. Sustain-

able terms of reference for proposed development activities, most notably infrastructure, could be

developed to support this effort To some extent this is already done by some donors and multilateral

Institutions, yet these ongoing efforts might be broadened to Incorporate additional themes embodied

in a sustainable development paradigm.

Evaluation of technologies, Potential technologies could be evaluated for their suitability to the ldenti-

fled need and target site in the recipient country. Evaluation teams comprised of donor- and host-

country counterparts could contribute to building recipient country expertise in evaluating alterna-

tives Developing countries may find in many cases that locally available technology IS more suitable

to the identified need, or that exogenous technology can be adapted to fit local conditions.

Provision for operation and maintenance, Projects could be screened to assure that adequate provi-

sion iS made for their operation and maintenance requirements once construction IS completed

Education and training IS a critical need, but is often overlooked or Inadequately addressed Similarly,

costs for spare parts or routine maintenance materials need to be reviewed for their compatibility with

the economic conditions of the Implementation site.

SOURCE U S Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Development Asslsfance, Exporf Promorlon, and Erwlronmenfa/Technology, OTA-BP-ITE-107 (Washington, DC U S Government Prmtmg Off Ice, August 1993)

changes in the global economy. These changes Efforts are ongoing in the 103d Congress tohave called into question some of the basic as-sumptions and objectives of assistance to devel-oping countries.

Despite repeated calls for reform and several at-tempts to rewrite the act, Congress has not rewrit-ten the basic law guiding foreign aid since 1961,and has not revised economic aid strategies since1973, when the “New Directions” legislation refo-cused development on basic human needs (104).However, amendments have been added to it eachyear for some 30 years. A recent congressional re-view (“Hamilton Task Force”) concluded thatconflicts among some of the act’s 33 objectives,unfocused policy directives, excessive earmark-ing, and obsolete provisions undermine effectiveimplementation of the program (103).

craft a revised Foreign Assistance authority andconditions appear to be more favorable for the re-write of the act for several reasons. First, the Clin-ton Administration has given priority toredefining the purposes of foreign aid, restructur-ing USAID, and proposing a new foreign assist-ance bill. Second, with the White House andCongress controlled by the same party, there is abetter chance that the legislative and executivebranch will work together to pass a revised act—amissing element in past efforts at revision. Third,with the end of the Cold War, there is a closer con-sensus about the basic goals and objectives of for-eign aid. The major interest groups supportingdevelopment assistance (private voluntary orga-nizations), universities, environmental organiza-


1989 1990

Us. Japan France Germany U.K. Us . Japan France Germany—

SOURCE U S Congress, Offlceof Technology Assessment, Deve/opmentAssistance, Expori Promotion, andEnvwonmenta/ Technology (Washin-gton, DC U S Government Printing Office, August 1993)

tions, and development professionals) seem toagree on SD as a new overarching theme (85). 17

If Congress chooses to define, clarify, andenunciate a new policy and strategy for SD, it willlikely need to resolve a number of related issues.For example:

How and in what detail should sustainable de-velopment be defined?

A policy that embraces SD might best be under-stood and supported by the public if its meaningevolves out of the legislative debate and is articu-lated in understandable language. There are nu-merous definitions of SD, some more precise thanothers, some conflicting. Still to be resolved ishow much detail is appropriate for authorizinglegislation; how much should be spelled out in ap-propriation language; how much should be left toexecutive branch strategy and policy documents;and what guidance Congress should give the Ad-ministration in designing and implementing SDprograms.

Given the conflicting notions of SD, there maybe a need to spell out its meaning more carefullythan policy documents ordinarily would. The im-plementing agency would need to go further andspell out in detail not only what it expects to ac-complish under the rubric of SD, but also how itis to be accomplished and what the indicators ofprogress will be and how we will know when it hasbeen accomplished. The Clinton Administrationhas made a start on defining SD but still has yet tofully articulate answers to these questions (85).

How much should foreign assistance programsfocus on sustainable development?

There are several purposes that foreign assist-ance programs have served historically. Some ofthese programs may fit well with SD, but othersmay not. Public policy, in the form of authorizingand appropriating legislation, could spell out whatother purposes and programs still are viable andthe resources to be devoted to each. If SD is to bethe centerpiece, how many other purposes can be

17 Agreement on SD as he over arching ~eme would only remove some of the barriers to passage of a foreign assistance act since it covers a

number of programs, including military assistance. But, agreement on SD would certainly be a significant step.

—-


accomplished without diluting or countermand-ing these efforts? The Administration legislativeproposal spells out five objectives besides SD: 1)building democracy, 2) promoting peace, 3) pro-viding humanitarian assistance, 4) fostering tradeand investment, and 5) advancing diplomacy. It isnot clear what the priorities are among objectives,the level of resources required to achieve objec-tives and where responsibility will rest for the pro-grams authorized under each objective—inUSAID, the Department of State, or elsewhere.There is also ambiguity as to how those programswith development implications will relate to SD.These are questions that Congress will have achance to address in a new foreign assistance act(85).

How much of the sustainable development pro-gram should focus on science and technology?

A number of experts have stressed the inade-quacy of the knowledge base to implement SDprograms and have pointed to science and technol-ogy as the means through which the knowledgebase could be increased. Some have suggestedthat since so little is known about how to meet theneeds of future generations in environmentallysustainable ways, public policy should investheavily in a research agenda for SD (44,79). In-vestment in science and technology, then could bethe best means of ensuring that the needs for thenext generation are met. The research agendawould seek to develop substitutes for critical natu-ral resources and increase the productivity of allresources. With a shrinking budget for foreign aid,the question is how much to invest in science andtechnology with a payoff in the distant future, andhow much to devote to solutions for more im-mediate problems.

Most development experts agree that researchis most likely to be relevant and put to use if it isthe product of collaborative efforts among scien-tists and institutions in industrial and developingcountries. SD is not likely to be achieved by con-ducting research in industrialized countries andapplying it in developing countries. Rather, it isthe actions of people who live in those countriesthat will matter. If developing country scientists or

Developing countries have only 6 to 7 percent of the world'sactive scientists and engineers (RSL/NAS, 1992) Thechallenge is as enormous for these professionals as It IS forbilateral and multilateral assistance organizations active ininternational development

institutions need strengthening to address thechallenge of SD, then development assistancecould be used to help improve these conditions(85).

What institutional capacity is necessary to ad-vance sustainable development programs?

Designing and implementing SD programs ismuch more difficult, many would argue, thantraditional development projects. SD involvescomplex interactions between the ecosystem anddevelopment interventions, more sophisticatedapproaches, and improved monitoring and evalu-ation systems. Consequently different kinds ofskills and knowledge are required. Many SD ad-vocates question whether USAID has the institu-tional capacity to administer such programssuccessfully and whether it has the mix of staffwith the requisite skills and experiences.

Several studies and task forces have lamentedthe declining technical staff capacity in US AID asthe agency has absorbed operating budget cuts andgiven priority to generalists and “process manag-ers” in staffing decisions. Although much of thetechnical expertise needed for SD can be obtainedthrough contractual arrangements, a solid core of


professionals who have advanced training andfirst-hand knowledge about the ecological, hu-man, and economic variables involved in devel-opment is needed. In defining SD public policy,Congress may want to consider the steps USAIDhas taken or will need to take to strengthen its hu-man resource capacity to design and implementSD programs.

Regardless of how different issues are resolved,it is clear that SD has changed the nature of the de-bate about what our development assistance pro-gram should be all about. It has brought disparateinterest groups together to talk about how devel-opment can make life better for future generationsand reverse environmental degradation. The evi-dence suggests that SD is the development con-cept of the 1990s, if not for the next century (84,85).

CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OPTIONSSustainable development embodies multiple,complementary themes that cross U.S. foreignand domestic policy boundaries. Issues such asfamily planning, energy efficiency, sustainableagriculture, and resource conservation clearly arerelevant to SD in the industrial and developingworld. Working toward SD will involve more thansimply retreading an existing foreign assistancesystem. The options discussed below relate to op-portunities for Congress to support or advance SDand are presented under the following policythemes: 1 8

■ coordinating U.S. foreign and domestic poli-cies so that they are mutually reinforcing,

● eliminating barriers to SD, and■ developing and disseminating technologies for

SD.

| Coordinating U.S. Foreign andDomestic Policies

An integrated approach to creating SD policywould involve domestic and foreign policy. In

fact, many experts agree that the United Statesmust adopt a SD approach domestically if it is tosucceed with the approach internationally. InUSAID Administrator’s Brian J. Atwood’swords:

[The development agenda is] not radicallydifferent from the agenda we face here at home.We must empower people in South Central LosAngeles as well as Somalia; we must create thekind of infrastructure and training and economicpolicy that will create jobs in Rhode Island aswell as Russia; we must build the kind of respectand human understanding that brings peace toDetroit as well as to Bosnia . . . . It is hard tosolve our problems here; it is even more difficultto solve them abroad. But both must be ad-dressed because they are interrelated (l).

Similar concern for applying SD domesticallyexists in other countries (44). Japan, for example,has drafted a plan to promote sustainable domesticlifestyles, development of environment-relatedtechnologies, and technology transfer to develop-ing countries (45). Differences in the goals of for-eign and domestic policies could contribute to anuncoordinated approach toward SD. Numerousorganizations are examining various internationaland domestic aspects of furthering SD (54, 130).Integrating these findings and achieving comple-mentarily between foreign and domestic policyrelevant to SD is likely to be critical for success inboth arenas.

Congressional Coordination ofDomestic anti Foreign PolicyThe movement toward SD has gained momentumin recent years and, given existing global environ-mental, social, and economic concerns, this effortis likely to intensify. Numerous reports have beenand are being prepared that identify possible fu-ture scenarios and related needs for sustainability(e.g., Global 2000 Report to the President, Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, ThePresident’s Council on Sustainable Development

[~ Spcific ~pllons ~e]a[ed t. sector issues, such as energy or agriculture, that are discussed in appendix B CarI k found in tie referenced

OTA report.


(PCS D), the 2050 Project). The work ranges fromregional to global in scope (e.g., SustainableSeattle versus the 2050 Project) and the potentialfor information overload for policy makers maybegreat. Despite uncertainties, policymakers in-creasingly will be called on to make decisions re-garding directions for future scientific researchand development. This is already apparent in ef-forts catalyzed by concern over global climatechange.

Definitional and conceptual differences amongthe numerous supporters of SD could mean thatefforts will be fragmented and lack commondirection. Opportunities to resolve these differ-ences and build consensus may come from ongo-ing research efforts, 9 although experience tells usthat such efforts do not always result in over-whelming support. The results of ongoing studies,such as the PCSD and the 2050 Project, may gen-erate the needed information and suggest sensiblepolicy actions to achieve sustainability in theUnited States. The information and policy sugges-tions that will arise from these efforts is likely tobe substantial. If the United States is to take an in-tegrated approach to SD, policy decisions must bemade in a coordinated fashion. Currently, nosingle congressional committee exists to deal withall of the related aspects of SD. As the range of SDissues and potential actions increases, policy deci-sions may become fragmented without a congres-sional coordinating mechanism. For Congress tooversee the network of diverse activities and ef-forts under way in executive branch agencies deal-ing with SD, mechanisms to facilitatecongressional oversight are likely needed.

O p t i o n : Congress could create a special Joint

Committee on Sustainable Development charged withjurisdiction for and oversight of U.S. SD efforts.

Creating a joint, congressional committee de-signed to deal specifically with the many issuessurrounding SD could expedite congressional ac-tions on opportunities to work toward SD. U.S.executive agencies would have a focal pointwhere integrated approaches to SD could be han-dled easily and effectively. Similarly, congressio-nal oversight of executive agency SD programsand activities could be facilitated, providing agreater opportunity for a coordinated approach.

On the other hand, creating a new committeecould be costly. At a time when Congress is tryingto reduce the number of committees and subcom-mittees, creating anew committee could be politi-cally untenable. Interest in deficit reductionscould override concerns for establishing a singlehome for SD. Furthermore, joint committees canbe hamstrung by political polarities that mightcreate a bottleneck as opposed to streamlining de-cisionmaking. In addition, the range of issues as-sociated with SD is so broad that it could bedifficult for a single committee to address them alladequately.

OPTION: Congress could establish Subcommittees

for Sustainable Development in the House Foreign Af-

fairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees.

Sustainable development subcommittees inthese two major committees with jurisdiction overforeign assistance could promote coordination ofthe broad range of activities that will emerge un-der the rubric of SD in international affairs. At onetime, these committees contained Subcommitteesfor Development Assistance for similar reasonsbut subcommittee structure has since adopted aprimarily geographic orientation (versus strategicor functional). Congressional oversight of devel-opment will be increasingly important to promot-

19 me ~e~lden[.~ Council on Sujtalnab]e Development (PCSI)J is a 25 member council charged with developing approaches ‘ntcgrate

economic, social. and cnvlronmcntal policies to put the United States on a sustainable path by the } car 2050. The final product of the PCSD willinclude rccommerdations for a sustainable development strategy and needed policy changes (54). The 2050 Project expands on thi~ thcme to

provide guidance to Po]ic} mtiherj worldwide to achieve a sustainable global system ( 130).


ing SD, particularly given the movement towardmore objective-driven legislative initiatives (e.g.,the proposed Peace Prosperity and DemocracyAct) (58), and the understanding that continuousearmarking, and so forth can fragment develop-ment efforts. However, these sustainable develop-ment subcommittees would have jurisdiction onlyover the foreign assistance aspect of SD. Manyfeel that the domestic SD needs are the most criti-cal in pursuing SD.

Coordination of InternationalAssistance ActivitiesSD is a broad-based goal and the impact of one do-nor is likely to be small. Many bilateral and multi-lateral groups are adopting an SD paradigm fortheir development activities. Coordination of thenumerous organizations involved in developmentposes a difficult problem, yet it could yield largebenefits in achieving comprehensive SD goals.Further, many factors other than development as-sistance may contribute to successful develop-ment outcomes. For example, looking atagricultural development in Africa, one expertnoted it is “difficult to find much connection be-tween where donor assistance went and wheregrowth occurred.” In this instance, donor coor-dination was identified as a significant need. Al-though the increase in donor agencies has meantmore assistance funds, it has been accompaniedby inconsistent aid policies among donors, largeadministrative burdens being placed on inade-quately prepared recipient institutions, lack of de-fined priorities and goals, and lack of a cohesiveand integrated agricultural development strategyfor Africa (56).

Lack of donor coordination can result in dupli-cative or counterproductive efforts. Developmentfunds may be spent on similar projects without in-corporation of “lessons learned.” Similarly, lackof coordination can result in lost opportunities toconcentrate resources on solving mutually identi-fied problems. Such lost opportunities may havehigh costs in terms of overall donor funding.

OPTION: Congress could appropriate funding for an

Interagency Development Coordinating Council(IDCC) with an express goal of supporting SD,

A coordinating council was formed during theCarter Administration to provide an avenue to im-prove communications among the array of U.S.agencies and organizations involved in various as-pects of development (58,85). However, this bodyhas been dormant since the late 1970s. Congresscould reactivate this organization to promotecoordination of all of the U.S. agencies with re-sponsibilities in international development to en-sure that activities promote SD. Although thebody would be a bilateral coordinating effort, itcould ensure uniformity among U.S.-supportedactivities.

Further, an IDCC could foster the exchange ofideas among U.S. assistance organizations. Broadexchange of ideas on issues such as participatorydevelopment, technology transfer, and institu-tion-building could generate benefits for all par-ticipating agencies as they refine their sustainabledevelopment activities. For example, the Inter-American Foundation has developed significantexpertise in grass-roots development over the last25 years and could offer important insights intoparticipatory development approaches.

On the other hand, an inadequate committee isoften worse than no committee at all, and many or-ganizations already perceive themselves as “over-coordinated.” The additional bureaucraticrequirements could divert valuable staff time fromother action. Careful identification of the IDCCauthority and goals would be key to addressingsuch potential problems. Congress could designthe IDCC mandate based on the SD goals identi-fied in the revised foreign assistance authority. Inaddition, for the council to be an effective coordi-nating mechanism it may be necessary to endowit with Cabinet-level authority and the appropriatefinancial resources (4). This may be difficult in thecontext of current concerns about government ex-pansion and the budget deficit.


| Eliminating Barriers toSustainable Development

A variety of barriers exist in the industrial and de-veloping world that may hinder efforts to advanceSD. The most prominent is the lack of broad-based public awareness and a constituency forsustainable development. Addressing the popularperception that sustainable lifestyles will mean in-creased personal hardship and lower quality of lifeis likely to be a key need in pursuing SD any-where. Other barriers include slow developmentof needed technologies to support SD, large devel-oping country debt load and economic instability,lack of developing country partnerships for devel-opment, short-term assistance cycles, and inade-quate mechanisms to measure developmentprogress.

Creating a Constituency forSustainable DevelopmentCreating and implementing SD will depend notonly on technological ability but also on interna-tional, national, regional, local, and individualcommitment (box 9). Building public support forSD will be critical to success of policy actions de-signed to reduce consumption and advance sus-tainable living. Widely distributed information onSD could contribute to public interest in opportu-nities for adopting less resource intensive life-styles.

OPTION: Congress could create a special grant to

promote development of educational materials on sus-tainable Iivelihoods/lifestyles for the public and nationaldecisionmakers.

Educational materials that provide opportuni-ties for the public and decisionmakers to explorevarious SD options and potential consequences ofcertain actions could elevate public awareness ofSD issues. Educational materials have been pre-pared for some years for USAID through the Fu-tures Group, while the RAPID project has beenproviding Cabinet briefings internationally sincethe mid- to late- 1980s on a variety of similar is-sues (4). Specific focus on SD could be incorpo-rated into these efforts.

A variety of interactive software packages havebeen developed around certain policy issues. Forexample, one simulation sponsored by the Smith-sonian Institution demonstrated the potentialproblems and opportunities for accommodatinghuman populations while protecting rain forest re-sources. Other packages have addressed issuessuch as city planning, population planning, andhealth care reform (e.g., Plato, SimCity, Sim-Health). Similar materials could be designed to in-crease understanding of sustainable lifestyles formany educational levels (e.g., primary, secondary,advanced, adult). Other materials could be pre-pared to assist decisionmakers in understandingpolicy choices and the impacts of decisions on ad-vancing SD. Educational materials would beneeded that could promote systems analysis anddemystify sustainable livelihoods (e.g., Nether-lands Green Plan).

However, the time lag before completion couldbe lengthy and information and technology diffu-sion often can be slow. Nevertheless, benefitsfrom investing in this information could be signif-icant. Materials could be developed cooperativelywith developing country counterparts to generatemore immediate benefits and perhaps facilitatedissemination of the information on completion.Further, grant costs would likely be smallcompared with a full government program for in-formation development and could encourage par-ticipation of the U.S. and international academiccommunity. Associated requirements for distribu-tion and display of some types of educational ma-terials (e.g., computer networks or workstations)could be a problem in some instances. However,with the increasing emphasis on internationalcommunications and computer networking, thesedifficulties may be overcome (e.g., GLOBE pro-gram, Peace Corps) by the time materials areready for dissemination.

Creating a constituency for development mayalso be hindered by the mixing of developmentand other foreign policy goals. Development ispopularly perceived as taking money from poorpeople in rich countries and giving it to richpeople in poor countries. In some respects thisperception is driven by the significant level of cap-


1, Fragmentation of efforts. The sheer numbers of U.S. actors and agencies involved in development

militates for a strong coordinating mechanism within the U.S. government.

2. Bureaucratic behavior and turf battles. Power structures, turf battles, and normal bureaucratic be-

havior within the Department of State and other governmental departments pose barriers to ap-

propriate support for sustainable development,

3. Misconceptions about what sustainability means. The popular perception that undertaking a sus-

tainable development path will result in revisiting problems overcome in the past hinders support for

sustainable development domestically and internationally.

4. Internationally integrated and controlled markets and economies. The role of national governments

in managing the economy is difficult because of the movement toward global markets. international-

ly integrated economies may be thought of as an obstacle to sustainable development or as a new

condition that carries opportunities, for example, for bilateral development programs to work with

and help national governments operate in the world economy.

5. Loss of community. Community development is fundamental to creating the commitment needed for

sustainable development. Foreign assistance has had mixed results in strengthening communities.

6. Corrupt use and misuse of development assistance funds, Inadequate attention has been directed

to the impact of corruption on how capital is organized in development assistance; in many cases,

assistance transfers not capital, but foreign exchange. Yet nonfungible capital transfers have been

criticized as well (e.g., tied aid, mixed credits).

7. Lack of a sustainable development role model. Domestic inexperience at developing and promoting

sustainable opportunities hinders U.S. ability to do the same in international assistance.

8. Failure to follow up on successes. USAID has a tendency to recognize success but do nothing to

spread the example; developing demonstration sites from successful activities could expand aware-

ness of sustainable opportunities,

9. Privatization versus sharing of knowledge. The trend to monopolize or privatize knowledge in the

form of intellectual-property rights precludes the broad Information exchange that is needed in sus-

tainable development.

10. State of research and development institutions. Much U.S. research is irrelevant to ’’real world” prob-

lems largely because of a failure to reward problem-oriented research,

SOURCE U.S Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Approaching Sustainable Development, working group held In Wash-ington DC, December 7, 1993

ital transfers under military and security assist- objectives and commercial needs that can be atance efforts. These transfers have been subject towidespread public scrutiny and various degrees ofdissatisfaction, leading some to distrust foreignassistance in its totality.

OPTION: Congress could formally separate thebudget and responsibility for administrating securityand military assistance from the foreign operations ac-count and @ace it with the Department of Defense.

Aid allocation in practice often is determinedby practical considerations such as foreign policy

odds with pursuing SD. The underlying preceptsfor assistance identified by USAID and Congress(e.g., economic growth, democracy, populationand the environment) might be able to promoteSD better if they were unfettered by other politicalmotivations (e.g., national security, military as-sistance, etc.). Separating the foreign policy anddevelopment agendas by explicitly separating as-sociated budgets and responsibilities might be oneopportunity to work toward this goal. Formallyseparating security assistance from foreign aid


programs in the legislative process could helpCongress weigh the costs and benefits of each tothe United States.

Internalizing the Costs of ProductionLack of internalizing the environmental costs(e.g., resource consumption, waste production) ofmany industrial production practices has beensuggested as a major constraint to the develop-ment of more environmentally friendly industries.However, little quantitative research has beenconducted to determine to what extent externaliz-ing production costs may hinder development ofenvironmentally sound industries (28). Environ-mentalists and many others have been calling forindustry to internalize the total costs of productionfor at least a decade. While legislation has soughtto discourage environmentally damaging indus-trial practices through “polluter pays” efforts,many see the need for greater, more comprehen-sive actions. Taxing consumptive industries toforce internalization of externalities may slowgrowth in these sectors, but could be accompaniedby growth in non-consumptive (e.g., service), re-cycling, and research and development (e.g., effi-ciency improvements) sectors.

OPTION: Congress could direct the Congressional/Budget Office (CBO) to conduct a study of the opportu-nities for revising U.S. tax laws to encourage industry tointernalize the full costs of production using criteria thatare consistent with SD.

Rather than a series of specific fines and regula-tions for industry relative to the overall consump-tive and polluting effects of production, Congresscould examine alternative opportunities to pro-mote positive efforts. Tax law revision, for exam-ple, could reduce the tax liability of industries thattake steps to reduce their environmental/resourcebase impact. Incentives could be based on cleanerproduction processes, use of recycled productionmaterials, conservation activities, and so forth.

A CBO study could identify a range of possibleoptions and the potential associated environmen-tal, social, and economic impacts. Although a‘“polluter pays” approach collects revenue, it does

not necessarily reduce contaminating activities.The CBO effort could identify mechanisms toshift industry/production toward sustainable prac-tices simultaneously with internalizing costs. Thestudy could include analyses of revenue needs atthe transition end and potential opportunities formeeting these needs.

Developing Country Debt loadsEconomic situations in assisted countries dramat-ically influence the effectiveness of developmentactivities. Heavy debt loads can reduce nationaleconomic support for important developmentwork and can result in redirection of economic re-sources to repay existing loans. For example,some countries’ bilateral debt to the United Statesalone far outstrips their annual gross nationalproducts (e.g., Bolivia, Peru). This situation canlead to debt servicing that hinders national gov-ernment investment in development activities.

The issue of developing country debt has beenhighlighted since the great debt crises in the1980s. Although efforts have been made to reducethe debt burden through such vehicles as debt-for-nature swaps, developing country indebtednessremains a constraint to development efforts. Infact, developing country indebtedness is consid-ered by many to be one of the largest constraintsto promoting SD, as is the ease with which debtcan be created and recreated through lendingmechanisms (66, 107). Reduction of overwhelm-ing foreign debt and excessive new borrowing isseen as fundamental to fostering effective nationaldevelopment strategies. Debt forgiveness may bean essential part of this approach, but it must bedone in a framework that precludes immediatelyrecreating debt. Development grants could offeran opportunity to slow debt buildup. USAID ap-pears to have had success with its grant aid effortin the Philippines; an endowment for resourceprotection was created and is administered byhost-country professionals, who in turn work withlocal organizations and communities (52).

OPTION: Congress could create a Debt-for-Devel-

opment swap tailored to the participating assistedcountries’ priority development needs (as identified by


an interdisciplinary council) to promote national prog-ress.

Debt swaps created specifically to meet priorityneeds of assisted countries would recognize theheterogeneity of developing countries and be de-signed to promote progress on a case-by-case ba-sis. Different “swaps” would be appropriate fordifferent participants. For example, if the priorityneed for an assisted country was secondary schooleducation, the program could be created as a Debt-for-Education trust with appropriate criteria in-cluded. It was proposed at a recent United NationsEducational, Science, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) conference in Nairobi, Kenya (93)that debt swaps could be used to finance scienceand education training partnerships with indus-tries.

However, debt swaps alone will be insufficientto promote SD without adequate investment insupporting policies and technologies. Since thesepolicies and technologies remain uncharted inmany respects, it could be difficult to identifyappropriate conditions for successful swaps. En-hanced abilities on the parts of national govern-ments to monitor and evaluate actions would be acritical component for success.

Building Development PartnershipsThe importance of participatory approaches in de-velopment has received widespread attention andhas been expressly identified in existing U.S. for-eign assistance legislation. A World Bank internalstudy showed strong correlation between partici-patory development and project success (66, 127).For example, the success of the USAID-spon-sored Indonesian Rice Integrated Pest Manage-ment Program was largely attributed to broadparticipatory efforts (41 ,42,86). Nevertheless,local participation in project development andplanning is not consistently part of assistance ef-forts, perhaps for reasons internal to USAID ordue to resistance on the part of the host countrygovernment. Yet, increasing the local role in de-velopment activities could contribute to capacity-building in assisted countries as well as increasethe likelihood of investing in activities that are

suited to the local scale of need and the sociocul-tural, economic, and environment setting. The re-gional development foundations (RDFs) have agood record in promoting grassroots developmentand could offer an opportunity for increasing par-ticipatory development activities.

OPTION: Congress could increase the role of the

U.S. regional development foundations (e.g., PeaceCorps, InterAmerican Foundation, African Develop-ment Foundation, Appropriate Technology Intemation-a/) in order to promote participatory development.

USAID is reducing the number of its missionsand simultaneously expanding its area of applica-tion with the dissolution of the former SovietUnion. In some developing areas, other assistanceorganizations may be the largest developmentpresence. Giving an increased role to the U.S.RDFs could address the need for grass-roots de-velopment efforts and further catalyze policy andinstitutional change in assisted countries. Respon-sibility for the small project functions currentlyundertaken by USAID could be placed with theappropriate RDF (figure 13). The funding neededfor foundation systems generally is smallcompared to current assistance expenditures be-cause their activities tend to be small-scale at thegrass-roots level. Foundations tend to be moreflexible in their operations, have greater success inparticipatory project planning and development,have greater ability to mobilize local human andinstitutional resources, and be less susceptible toproblems associated with large-scale projects(e.g., bribery, corruption, bureaucratic processes).

However, the existing U.S. RDFs tend to besmall in terms of personnel and budget, and rapidexpansion could be detrimental to their successfuloperating structure. In addition, some assistedcountries are not covered by RDFs. A decisionwould have to made on whether to create a newRDF, leave responsibility with USAID, or expandregional foci. Alternatively, the RDFs could takeon strategic as opposed to regional foci and re-structure their operating areas. In any case, a pacedtransition to expand RDF responsibilities and in-crease staffing and managerial capacity would be


needed. The transfer of responsibility y and fundingfrom USAID to specific RDFs could take placeover several years, perhaps based on strategicpriorities as identified in U.S. foreign assistancelegislation. This transition period could promoteinformation and idea exchange among the U.S. as-sistance organizations and foster more formalcoordination either through an IDCC or some oth-er body.

Length of CommitmentThe long-term nature of SD is likely to require arevised approach to donor interventions, includ-ing lengthening project cycles and opportunitiesfor gradual discontinuance of aid. Long-term ef-forts will be necessary to promote developmentand adoption of sustainable options as well as toprovide necessary support during transitionalstages. Nevertheless, short-term project cycles arestandard in U.S. development activities, due inpart, to financial management requirements.

In some cases, assistance is discontinued tooearly in the development transition or there is fail-ure to make a gradual but steady transition fromUSAID-based to host country-based managementover the course of a project (88). Thus, when thetransition occurs it may be difficult for insuffi-ciently prepared nationals to continue the activitywithout assistance.

OPTION: Congress could expressly identify “noyear” funding status for USAID development projects toremove the current constraints associated with fiscalyear spending and short-term project deadlines.

Risks to natural resource systems and develop-ment assistance recipients may be reduced if proj-ects have: 1 ) an extended technical planningphase, 2) a gradual phase-in period for adaptationof technology to the site’s ecological and socialconditions, and 3) a sufficient time frame toachieve results despite likely mid-term project re-alignment. However, internal organization impe-tus to keep funds moving and to achievemeasurable results quickly operate against theseapproaches. Short project duration makes it diffi-

D EE!E!!YU s .

Congress

< ‘r&

L -1Assistance Agency

-3?

0“RegionalDevelopmentFoundations

(RDFs) <

v——

=7Host-countryLocalityK government

>Community

I

Formal coordination

Informal coordination

Expanding the role of regional development foundationsto undertake the small-project activities of U Sintemational assistance efforts could offer an opportunityto increase participatory development at the local level.Communicatlon and coordination among all of theinvolved agencies would remain a critical condition forsuccessful activities

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1994

cult to introduce technologies or implement proj-ects gradually, and presents a serious obstacle tomaking mid-term corrections in response to moni-toring and evaluations. Similarly. contractors andaid organization staff are keenly aware of the ur-gency for each project to produce substantial,quantifiable results by the end of its period. Pro-duction targets stated at the beginning of three- tofive-year projects often necessitate rapid imple-mentation of technology interventions and, there-fore, major project realignments may be viewed ascounterproductive. Further, managers of shortprojects cannot easily accommodate major unex-pected changes in their projects. Instead of today’scommon three- to five-year USAID projects, aduration of 10 to 20 years maybe more appropri-


ate, particularly in light of the long-term nature ofSD goals (40).

Congress normally requires USAID funds to bespent within one fiscal year. However, other ap-proaches have been tried. For example, Congressacted to make funds “available until expended”for the Sahel Development Program. Reportedly,the experiment was only somewhat successful.Some agency personnel still believe that, eventhough unspent funds from the current year willnot be “lost,” the next year’s funding is likely tobe reduced by at least the unspent amount (40).

However, extending project budget cycles byinvoking “no year” project funding might pro-mote inefficiency. Strong mechanisms for moni-toring and evaluation would be necessary toeliminate or reduce this possibility. Alternatively,Congress could allow USAID the authority todeobligate and recommit funds if projects are notworking (4). Much of the motivation to “move themoney” is generated by bureaucratic pressure toexpend each year’s budget as support for futureyear requests.

OPTION: Congress could direct USAID to investi-

gate opportunities to develop sustainable develop-ment demonstration sites for countries moving towardSD,

USAID could identify opportunities to contin-ue a certain level of support for assisted countriesdemonstrating successful transitions toward sus-tainability. One opportunity to continue supportafter initial development successes would be toidentify and support sustainable developmentdemonstration sites (107). Sites could be selectedfrom those development cases demonstrating suc-cess in efforts toward sustainable development.Such demonstration sites could help to clarify thebenefits and costs of adopting sustainable life-styles. Another option might be to create a catego-ry of “partnership status” with the United Statesthat could promote information and technologyexchange.

However, budget concerns may argue for end-ing support as soon as possible after certain devel-opment goals are met. Lower-cost alternative

methods of assistance could be identified in the in-vestigative effort. For example, support might bemaintained through joint donor funding with oth-er countries adopting a SD approach to interna-tional assistance. In addition, internationalenterprises might be appropriate partners in cer-tain cases.

Measuring SustainableDevelopment ProgressReliance on GNP as an indicator of developmentprogress or quality of life may mask real changesin human welfare. The individual factors that con-tribute to GNP fluctuations are not easily apparentbecause they are incorporated under a single indi-cator. Disaggregating the reporting of GNP couldmake transparent what specific factors are chang-ing and improve ability to direct efforts more ap-propriately. For example, a country’s GNP couldincrease due to increasing costs of health care, butthis does not necessarily translate into benefitsthat accrue to the population on a broad scale. Thelack of a direct correlation between GNP and im-provement of the human condition argues for abroader approach to measuring development(107). “Green” accounting efforts are being madeby the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to de-vise a method of including the environmentalcosts of economic growth in economic statistics(12, 35).

OPTION: Congress could direct the Secretary of the

Treasury to disaggregate the reporting of GNP into itsconstituent pieces to reflect more accurately the qualityof life in the United States.

A sharp distinction exists between standard ofliving and quality of life. They may be comple-mentary, but they are not proxies for one another.Nations with high standards of living do not nec-essarily have similar ratings in terms of quality oflife or human development. Disaggregating thereporting of GNP would assist in identifying whatfactors are responsible for fluctuations in the indi-cator and improve ability to determine if thesefluctuations beneficially or adversely affect quali-ty of life.


Similar benefits could be derived from improv-ing assisted country reporting systems. Such re-porting could also be used to identify appropriateareas/sectors for development efforts, as well asindicate success/failure of activities. Creating thiscapacity in assisted countries would promote theirability to choose desirable development paths aswell.

However, even disaggregated, economic indi-cators alone are ill-suited to measuring sustain-ability. Existing indicators are unable to reflectsustainability or changes in quality of life as theydo not distinguish the difference between qualityof life and standard of living. The United NationsDevelopment Programme has gone a long way inimproving the process by incorporating noneco-nomic indicators to increase the accuracy of theoutput vis a vis actual improvements in quality oflife. Nevertheless, these indicators still can be im-proved (as UNDP notes in its Human Develop-ment Report 1993) since some of the themes of SDare unaccounted for.

OPTION: Congress could create a cooperative taskforce composed of representatives from the U.S. De-partment of Health and Human Services, U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior and the U.S. Department of theTreasury to develop a Sustainable Development Index(SDI) designed to reflect the sustainability of the UnitedStates more accurately than GNP or the UN Human De-velopment Index (HDI).

In addition to the indicators incorporated in theHDI,20 an SDI would at a minimum include:

■

■

quantity and quality of natural capital (renew-able and nonrenewable resources);internal migrations (reflecting contentment ofpopulations, etc.);tensions/conflict (more sensitive than just mea-suring conflicts like those in Bosnia or Somaliabut also local level tensions leading to crime,

etc.; this indicator would also pick up suchthings as human rights abuses); and

● self-reliance factors (measurements of im-ported/exported resources, use of local re-sources versus imported resources, etc.).

Measuring development progress impliesavailability of functioning national informationsystems capable of compiling and generatingneeded data. Many assisted countries lack nation-al data/information systems. Yet, information willbe critical in developing capacity for assistedcountries to identify and weigh their developmentand sustainability options. Further, developmentefforts that focus on providing the tools for devel-oping countries to make their own decisions may,themselves, be adopted and sustainable.

OPTION: Congress could direct the Secretary of theTreasury to direct the U.S. Executive Directors of themultilateral development banks to make national in-formation/data system development a priorly in as-sisted countries.

Extending options for creating or measuringsustainability of policy decisions will require thatheads of state be equipped with adequate informa-tion on existing conditions. The increasing focusof development activities on information andcommunication could support the development ofnational accounting systems. Cooperative effortsamong assisted and donor countries to identifycritical data points could be a first step. An incre-mental approach that would allow for gradualbuilding of national information systems mightgenerate immediate benefits. Initial data areasmight focus on productive or human resource sec-tors (e.g., natural resource information, health andeducation data) that could assist in national deci-sionmaking, and ultimately move toward broaderdata sets.

zone HDI indica[~rs include: longevi(~-measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge—measured by adult literacy and mean years of

schooling (weighted 2/3 to literacy and l/3 to mean years of school); and income—adjusted to reflect income’s diminishing returns for human

development as the disparity between median income and poverty line increases (92).


New cultivars developed through crop breeding efforts overthe last decades have improved plant characteristics andyields. Here, a Mexican farmer explains the qualities of amaize variety to a geneticist interested in conserving cropgenetic resources for future crop Improvements.

Developing national information systems is along-term undertaking and would likely requiresignificant national and international investmentin terms of funding and personnel resources. Insome developing countries, other developmentaspects would be greater priorities.

| Technologies for SustainableDevelopment

Improving the United States’ ability to promoteSD will depend largely on availability of ap-propriate technologies and opportunities. Partner-ships among industrial and developing countriescould promote mutual problem identification andlikely lead to development of acceptable and inno-vative solutions to problems. Guidelines thatidentify sustainable solutions to developmentproblems could help assisted country policy mak-

ers make development choicesof improving partnerships and

A critical aspectsustainable solu-

tions is increasing the availability and accessibil-ity of information. Communications developmentcould generate large benefits in this realm and cur-rently is a large part of certain development ap-proaches.

Industrial-Developing CountryResearch PartnershipsSustainable development has been clearly articu-lated as a global goal for industrial and developingcountries. Successful development efforts havebeen highly correlated with participatory or col-laborative approaches to problem solving. How-ever, the lack of reward systems in existing U.S.academic structure has reduced international re-search efforts. While ten years ago U.S. scientistswere working on agricultural technologies for de-veloping countries, and built careers on this, todaysuch activity does not attract the same level of in-terest. The emphasis now is on high-tech discov-eries that are hard to apply and transfer todeveloping countries.

OPTION: Congress could provide funding to USAID

to create International Institutes for Sustainability Re-search (IISRs).

Partnership arrangements may be the best wayto encourage SD in assisted countries and theUnited States and other industrial nations. TheU.S. could learn from Costa Rica’s successfulschool systems, for example. In addition, futurework could be conducted under a partnership um-brella. The IISRs could be modeled after the In-ternational Agricultural Research Centers(IARCs) and would represent partnerships be-tween the industrial and developing worlds. IISRscould have three functions: 1 ) collaborative re-search on sustainability problems of mutual inter-est to the United States, other industrial nations,and developing-country scientists; 2) grants tostrengthen institutions; and 3) education grantsfor developing country and U.S. students to studySD issues. Such arrangements would facilitate in-formation sharing, institution/capacity building,


and communications among industrial and devel-oping nations. The strategic focus of the institu-tions could be to assure access to environmentallyand socially beneficial technologies, particularlyas they pertain to creation of domestic employ-ment and meeting basic population needs. Stresscould be placed on appropriate and effectivetechnology transfer activities designed for perma-nence.

The costs for creating IISRs, however, wouldbe large. Opportunities may exist for enhancingexisting research centers that are strategically lo-cated to entice collaborative research efforts (e.g.,on regional bases in areas of greatest need). Alter-natively, existing international research institu-tions (e.g., International Agricultural ResearchCenters) increasingly may adopt sustainabilityagendas and these resources could support or ob-viate the need for IISRs. Effective incentive mech-anisms to influence such organizations might spurthis kind of activity, but also would likely involveadditional expenditures.

OPTION: Congress could create an Endowment for

Sustainable Development (ESD) to promote develop-ment and dissemination of information and technolo-gies for SD.

The ESD’S initial activity would include defin-ing sustainability and creating an agenda for ac-tion. Information generated by the variousongoing sustainability projects could provide astarting point for ESD action. The ESD would bean authoritative institution charged with raisingthe fundamental paradigm issues and taking thelong-term development view. The endowmentshould be independent of the Department of State,have flexibility, and integrate disciplines. It couldprovide incentives for appropriate technology de-velopment, directing monies to successful modelsand ideas. Existing foreign debts could be trans-ferred into the endowment as a funding kickoff.

Expanding opportunities for developing coun-tries to determine their own SD path will dependin large part on the free exchange of informationamong the industrial and developing world. Thetrend toward privatization or proprietary knowl-

edge can work to the disadvantage of developmentgoals by slowing the movement of effective dis-coveries into practice and the public domain.However, without such protection, innovatorsmay be disinclined to invest in research and devel-opment. The challenge will be to find alternativeavenues to fund the cost of producing knowledgein order to facilitate distribution. One opportunitydiscussed previously might be the creation of in-ternational centers for SD that would be coopera-tively funded and focus on collaborative researchand technology development.

OPTION: Congress could create an Electronic

Peace Corps (EPC) designed to facilitate the flow of in-formation to developing country institutions.

The role of the existing Peace Corps could beexpanded to incorporate an EPC or it could be ini-tiated under a new independent agency along thelines of the development foundations or Volun-teers in Technical Assistance. The agency couldhave a strategic focus of information exchangeand implanting communication technologies.Key functions could include training in informa-tion and communication technologies. Volunteerscould be drawn from U.S. institutions, academia,and the public and private sectors. Because tele-communications allows remote location, manyvolunteers would be able to continue their regularemployment and donate after-hours time. Publicsector employees might be made availablethrough Participating Agency Service Agree-ments (PASAs) or similar exchange programs.Field volunteers would bean essential componentas well, with expertise in communications ap-plications, maintenance, and repair (76, 77). ThePeace Corps is currently expanding its interna-tional communications capability with the instal-lation of Internet connections in certain fieldposts. Additional funding could be made availableto speed this process if it is demonstrated to be ef-fective. Alternatively, many networks currentlyexist among academic and nongovernmental or-ganization circles and these might be encouragedto undertake such an information delivery role ifsupport were available. A coordinating mecha-


nism would be a central need to assure that expan-sion occurred in a desired fashion andcommensurate with SD goals.

Guidelines for Planning andImplementing SD ActivitiesApplication of systems analysis (e.g., analysis ofan entire system, including all components andlinks among components) in the planning and de-sign phases for SD projects could increase the useof “lessons learned.” Guidelines that assist offi-cials and development agency personnel identifyoptimal, sustainable solutions to developmentneeds also could reduce capital and environmentalcosts. For example, officials in Bangkok, Thai-land, were in the process of committing signifi-cant fiscal resources to build a dam to relieve ashortage in the city’s water supply. In a systems re-view of the potential project, it was discoveredthat the water shortage was a distribution ratherthan a supply problem—freshwater was being lostthrough leaks in the existing system. Repairingthe faulty distribution system was a far less costlyoperation (one-tenth the amount of building a newdam), and simultaneously increased water avail-ability, reduced water loss, and eliminated theneed for a large infrastructure project. Thus, sys-tems analysis of the project led to a more practicaland efficient answer for Bangkok (60).

OPTIONS: Congress could direct USAID to promotedevelopment of Sustainable Terms of Reference(STOR) for development projects.

Sustainability would be the guiding principlefor STOR development with end goals of mini-mizing consumption, throughput, and waste con-current with meeting the needs to be addressed bythe activity. STOR guidelines for internationallenders and local, regional, and national officialscould improve their ability to select SD paths forinfrastructure projects. Separate sets of guidelinescould be developed for priority systems such asagriculture, transportation, water, energy, andwaste systems (i.e., those that most often are asso-ciated with high capital and environmental costs).These guidelines could be further combined with

one another to provide information on integrateddevelopment of these separate systems.

STORs would: 1) identify key questions for of-ficials to use as they investigate and select amongvarious technological options and 2) outline spe-cific design aspects that would enhance systemsustainability. The final product could be preparedas a booklet; written in terms suitable for nonex-pert understanding, yet amenable to incorporationin more formal contract or agreement language;and made available in the users’ language. In addi-tion to the STORs, information could be includedthat would identify technical experts with qualifi-cations in design and planning of sustainable sys-tems. Alternatively, technical resources could beorganized into a larger information database madeavailable through computer networks. OnceSTORs were available, all U.S.-supported in-ternational activities could incorporate theseguidelines in project planning and development.STORs also could be distributed internationallyas a decisionmaking resource to promote sustain-able infrastructure projects.

The Center for Development Information andEvaluation (CDIE) in USAID has extensive in-formation on lessons learned in development proj-ects, but these reference materials are notcommonly worked into new ventures. Neverthe-less, information contained in this literature couldprovide a resource for STORs across a variety ofdevelopment scenarios. CDIE could work closelywith appropriate USAID agency offices to devel-op pragmatic STOR guidelines. Outside technicalexperts could be drawn into the process as neededand as appropriate to the specific task.

OPTION: Congress could direct the U.S. Ambassa-dor to the United Nations to support creation of a data-base on technical resources qualified in design andplanning of sustainable projects to be made availablethrough its Sustainable Development Network (SDN).

The STORs could be installed in an interpretivedatabase and updated as new technologies or in-formation become available. In addition to theguidelines, the database could contain informa-tion on technical experts who could provide assis-


tance/consultation to project managers, anddeveloping country decisionmakers on specificaspects of identified projects. Under the UN um-brella, this information would be broadly accessi-ble to the full range of assistance organizationsand developing country decisionmakers.

CONCLUSIONThe economic profiles and development paths ofdeveloping countries have become more varied.Assisting developing countries that are regressingeconomically, and the still poor majority in coun-tries that have made moderate economic gains, re-quires a different set of motives, expectations, andgoals than assisting rapidly industrializing coun-tries. If even a conservative interpretation of sus-tainable development is adopted as a U.S. foreignpolicy objective, it is likely to require Congress tothink about and question U.S. interests and ac-tions in considerably broader terms.

One step could be consistent monitoring andanalysis of the impacts of U.S. policies on devel-oping countries and their potential contribution to

SD. Technology and policy issues specific to de-veloping countries have not been consistentlyanalyzed in past OTA reports, however, increas-ingly this is changing. Nevertheless, in manyinstances developing countries are viewed only inthe context of being potential markets, resourceproviders. or strategic partners without sufficientattention to the potential impact that might be de-livered on their national development. Althoughhuman resources are as vital to developing coun-try economic progress and quality of life astechnology. OTA has not assessed human re-source needs to the same extent as other areas. Tomove toward sustainable development, policy-makers could consider not only domestic econom-ic concerns, but also the major scientific andtechnological challenges affecting all countries.

REFERENCES1. Atwood, B. J., “Opening Statement of Brian

J. Atwood, U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment,” Administrator-Designate,before the U.S. Congress, Senate, Commit-tee on Foreign Relations, Apr. 29, 1993.

2. Baird, M., Director of Development Policy,Office of Vice President and Chief Econo-mist, The World Bank, Washington, DC.personal communication. May 1994.

3. Bertram, R., IARC Advisor, U.S. Agency forInternational Development. USAID/Glob-al/Agr, Washington, DC, personal commu-nication, December 1993.

4. Bissell, R., Visiting Fellow, Overseas Devel-opment Council, Washington, DC, personalcommunication, June 1994.

5. Bleaney, M., “Liberalisation and the Termsof Trade of Developing Countries: A Causefor Concern?” World Economy, 16:453-466,July 1993.

6. Bergstrom, G., Too Many; A Study of Earth’sBiological Limitations (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1969).

7. Bread for the World, Background Paper No.129, Washington, DC, March 1993.

8. Brown. L., et al., State of the World 1994(New York: W.W. Norton& Co., 1994).

9. Brown, L., et al., Vital Signs 1993 (Washing-ton, DC: Worldwatch Institute, 1993).

10. “Cakes and Caviar? The Dunkel Draft andThird World Agriculture,” The Ecologist23(6):219-222, November-December 1993

11. Colby, M. E., “Environmental Managementin Development: The Evolution of Para-digms,” World Bank Discussion Paper No.80 (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1990).

12. “Commerce Department Now MeasuresEconomy’s Impact on the Environment,”Wall Street Journal, p. A2, May 11, 1994.

13, Common, M.. and Perrings, C.. “Towards anEcological Economics of Sustainability,”Ecological Economics 6;7-34, 1992,


14. Cooper, R. N., “External Adjustment: TheProper Role for the IMF,” Challenge, May-June 1993, pp. 53-56

15. Crosson, P., “Sustainable Agriculture: AGlobal Perspective,” Choices, Second Quar-ter 1993, pp. 38-42.

16. Crosswell, M., Senior Economist, U.S.Agency for International Development,USAID/PPC/SP, Washington, DC, personalcommunication, June 1994.

17. Dahle, K., “Environment, Development, andBelief Systems,” Futures, December 1993,pp. 1070-1074.

18. Daly, H. E., “Steady State Economics: Con-cepts, Questions, and Policies,” EcologicalEconomics 6:333-338, 1992.

19. Daly, H. E., “Toward a New Economic Mod-el,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April1986, pp. 42-44.

20. Daly, H. E., and Goodland, R., “An Ecologi-cal-Economic Assessment of Deregulationof International Commerce Under GATT,”International Journal of Sustainable Devel-opment 1(4):53-82, 1993.

21. Demeny, P., “Population,” The Earth Trans-formed by Human Action, Global and Re-gional Changes in the Biosphere Over thePast 300 Years, B.L Turner, et al. (eds.)(Cambridge: Cambridge University Presswith Clark University 1990), pp. 41-54.

22. Donaldson, P.J., President, Population Ref-erence Bureau, Washington, DC, personalcommunication, May 1994.

23. Ehrlich, P. R., and Ehrlich, A. H., “Why Isn’tEveryone as Scared as We Are?” Valuing theEarth, H.E. Daly and K.N. Townsend (eds.)(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993), pp.55-67.

24. Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H., and Holdren,J. P., “Availability, Entropy, and the Laws ofThermodynamics,” Valuing the Earth, H.E.Daly and K.N. Townsend (eds.) (Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993), pp. 69-73.

25. Eisgruber, L. M., “Sustainable Develop-ment, Ethics, and the Endangered SpeciesAct,” Choices, Third Quarter 1993, pp. 4-8.

26. “Empty Promises,” The Economist, May 7,1994, p. 11.

27. Engels, B., “From Havana to Marrakesh:Progress for the Third World?” Development& Cooperation 2:8-11, 1994.

28. Ervin, D., Professor, Agricultural Econom-ics, Oregon State University, Portland, OR,personal communication, June 1994.

29. Executive Office of the President of theUnited States, NAFTA Supplemental Agree-ments (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1993), final draft.

30. “Foreign Aid: The Kindness of Strangers,”The Economist, May 7, 1994, pp. 19-22.

31. Goodland, R., “The Only True Definition ofEnvironmental Sustainability,” paper pre-sented at The Environmental and NaturalResources Policy and Training Project dis-cussion, U.S. Agency for International De-velopment, Rosslyn, VA, Sept. 15, 1993.

32. Goodland, R., and Ledec, G. “NeoclassicalEconomics and Principles of SustainableDevelopment,” Ecological Modeling 38:36,1987.

33. Graham-Tomasi, T., “Sustainability: Con-cepts and Implications for Agricultural Re-search Policy,” Agricultural ResearchPolicy: International Quantitative Perspec-tives (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1991), pp. 81-102, In: Stovall, J.,1994a.

34. Grant, L., “The Timid Crusade,” The Nega-tive Population Growth Forum (newsletter),p. 2, January 1994.

35. “Green Statistics,” New Scientist, Apr. 30,1994, p. 11.

36. Gutierrez-Espeleta, E. E., “Indicadores deSostenibilidad: Instruments Para La Eva-luation de las Politicas Nacionales,” unpub-lished paper presented at 50th AnniversaryConference of the Economic Sciences Facul-ty, sponsored by the University of CostaRica, San Jose, Costa Rica, Nov. 19, 1993.

37. Hall, C. A. S., “Economic Development orDeveloping Economics: What Are OurPriorities?” M.K. Wali (cd.), Ecosystem Re-


habilitation, vol. 1 Policy Issues (TheHague, Netherlands: Academic Publishing,1992), pp. 101-126.

38. Hall, C. A. S., Cleveland, C.J., and Kauf-mann. R., Energy and Resource Quality:The Ecology of the Economic Process (Ni-wot, CO: University Press of Colorado,1992).

39. Hansen-Kuhn, K., “Sapping the Economy:Structural Adjustment Policies in CostaRica,” The Ecologist 23(5): 179-184, Sep-tember-October 1993.

40. Hess, A. L., Ross-Sheriff, B,, and Durana, P.,Aid to Developing Countries: The Technolo -gy/Ecology Fit-Staff Paper, staff paper pre-pared by the Food and Renewable ResourcesProgram (Washington, DC: Office ofTechnology Assessment, U.S. Congress,June 1987).

41. The Indonesia National Program, “The Im-pact of 1PM Training on Farmer’s Behav-ior,” 1PM National Program Monitoring andEvaluation Team, Jakarta, Indonesia, Au-gust 1993, In: Stovall, J., 1994c,

42. The Indonesia National 1PM Program,“Farmers as Experts,” J1. Ki Mangunsarko-ro no. 5, Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia, no date,In: Stovall 1994c.

43. International Union for the Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources (IUCN),United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP), and World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF), Caring for the Earth (Gland, Swit-zerland: IUCN, UNEP, WWF, 1991).

44. Jansen, J. L. A., and Vergragt Ph. J., “Sustain-able Development: A Challenge to Technol-ogy!” Proposal for the InterdepartmentalResearch Programme on Sustainable Tech-nological Development, Leidshendam,Netherlands, June 10, 1992.

45. “Japan to Back ‘Green’ Living,” Wall StreetJournal, p. A19, Nov. 17, 1993.

46. Jayaraman, K. S., "Science Academies Callfor Global Goal of Zero PopulationGrowth,” Nature 366:3, Nov. 4, 1993.

47. Kirschten, D., “Overhaul Overdue,” Nation-al Journal 20: 1165-1168, May 15, 1993.

48. Korten, D., President, People-Centered De-velopment Forum, New York, NY, personalcommunication, December 1993.

49. Korten, D., “Environmentally SustainableDevelopment,” World Policy Journal, 1992.

50. Korten, D., Getting to the 21st Century: Vol-untary Action and the Global Agenda (Hart-ford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1990).

51. Korten, D., “Growth for Whom? RethinkingForeign Aid, Development, and the Mean-ing of Human Progress,” World BusinessAcademy Perspectives 7(3):7-18, 1993.

52. Korten, F., “The High Costs of Environmen-tal Loans,” Asia Pacific Issues, No.7 (Hono-lulu, HI: East-West Center, September1993).

53. Laird, S., and Yeats, A., “Trends in NontariffBarriers of Developed Countries: 1966 to1986,” World Bank Working Paper No. 137,Washington, DC, December 1988.

54. Lash, J., President, World Resources Insti-tute, Washington, DC, personal commu-nication, March 1994.

55. Lele, S. M., “Sustainable Development: ACritical Review,” World Development19(6):607-621, 1991

56. Lele, U. (cd.), Aid to African Agriculture:Lessons from Two Decades of Donor’s Expe -rience (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Universi-ty Press, 1991).

57. Leonard, H.J., “Overview,” Environmentand the Poor: Development Strategies for aCommon Agenda (Washington, DC: Over-seas Development Council, 1989).

58. Lester, R., Assistant General Counsel forLegislation and Policy, U.S. Agency for In-ternational Development, USAID/PPC/GC,Washington, DC, personal communication,June 1994.

59. McNamara, R., “A Global Population Policyto Advance Human Development in the 21stCentury,” United Nations, New York, Dec.10, 1991.


60. Meadows, D., Adjunct Professor, Environ-mental Studies, Dartmouth College, Han-over, NH, personal communication, June1994.

61. Meadows, D., “A Systems View of Sustain-able Development,” contractor report pre-pared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, February 1994.

62. Morrissey, O., “The Mixing of Aid and TradePolicies,” World Economy 16:69-84, Janu-ary 1993.

63. Muldoon, P., “The International Law of Eco-development: Emerging Norms for Devel-opment Assistance Agencies,” TexasInternational Law Journal 22; 1-52, winter1987.

64. Munn, R. E., “Toward Sustainable Develop-ment,” Atmospheric Environment26A(15): 1992, In: Stovall, J., 1994a.

65. “NAFTA Ministers Lay Groundwork for En-vironmental Secretariat,” World Environ-ment Report 20(7):58-59, Mar. 30, 1994.

66. Overseas Development Institute, “Does theIMF Really Help Developing Countries?”ODI Briefing Paper, Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, London, April 1993.

67. Pearce, D. W., and Atkinson, G. D., “CapitalTheory and the Measurement of SustainableDevelopment: An Indicator of ‘Weak’ Sus-tainability,” Ecological Economics8:103-108, 1993.

68. Pezzey, J., “Sustainable Development Con-cepts: An Economic Analysis,” World BankEnvironment Paper No. 2 (Washington, DC:World Bank, 1992).

69. “Poor Relations,” The Economist, Apr. 16,1994, p. 76.

70. Population Reference Bureau, 1993 WorldPopulation Data Sheet, Washington, DC,April 1993.

71. Postel, S., “Carrying Capacity: Earth’s Bot-tom Line,” State of the World (New York:W.W. Norton & Co., 1994) pp. 3-21.

72. Postel, S., Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity(New York, NY: WW. Norton& Co., 1992).

73. Powell, M., Environmental Advisor, U.S.Agency for International Development,USAID/PPC/SP, Washington, DC, personalcommunication, June 1994.

74. Repetto, R., World Enough and Time (NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986),pp. 15-16.

75. Rothbaum, D. L., “Development: AidingGrowth or Abetting Exploitation?” HarvardInternational Review, pp. 48-50, spring1991.

76. Rothman, D. H., “Building an ElectronicPeace Corps,” International Health News,p. 4, November 1987.

77. Rothman, D. H., personal communication,April 1994 [internet address: [email protected]]

78. Royal Society of London and NationalAcademy of Sciences, National ResearchCouncil, Population Growth, ResourceConsumption, and a Sustainable World(London: National Research Council,1992).

79. Ruttan, V.W. (cd.), Agriculture, Environ-ment, and Health (St. Paul, MN: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1994).

80. Ruttan, V. W., “Sustainable Growth in Agri-cultural Production: Poetry, Policy and Sci-ence,” Staff Paper P91-47, Department ofAgricultural and Applies Economics, Uni-versity of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, Febru-ary 1993.

81. Schmidheiny, S., Changing Course: A Glob-al Business Perspective on Developmentand the Environment (Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 1992).

82. Slaughter, R. A., “Looking for the Real Me-gatrends,” Futures, October 1993, pp.827-849.

83. Solow, R., “An Almost Practical Step To-ward Sustainability” (lecture) (Washington,DC: Resources for the Future, Oct. 8, 1992).

84. Stovall, J., “Sustainable Development: ANew Buzzword or a New Paradigm? PublicPolicy Implications,” contractor report pre-


85,

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92<

93.

94.

pared for the Office of Technology Assess-ment, April 1994a.Stovall, J., “The Foreign Assistance Act andProposed Reforms: Sustainable Develop-ment Issues and Public Policy Implica-tions,” contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, 1994b.Stovall, J., “Sustainable Development inPractice: Does It Work?” contractor reportprepared for the Office of Technology As-sessment, April 1994c.The Swedish Institute, “The Natural Step-A Social Invention for the Environment,”Current Sweden, No. 401, December 1993.Thompson-Dorman, R., “CDIE’s Assess-ment of AID’s In-Country Presence,” AIDEvaluation News 4(4): 1-5, 1992.Turner, B. L., et al. (eds.), The Earth Trans-formed by Human Action, Global and Re-gional Changes in the Biosphere over thePast 300 Years (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press with Clark University,1 990).

“Unexpected Obstacles are Threatening toDelay or Derail Congressional Approval ofGATT Pact,” Wall Street Journal, p. A16,Apr. 8, 1994.United Nations Conference on Environmentand Development, “Agenda 21: Programs ofAction for Sustainable Development,” RioDeclarations on Environment and Develop-ment, Statement of Forest Principles. FinalText of Agreement by Governments at theUN Conference on Environment and Devel-opment (UNCED), June 3-14, 1992, Rio deJaneiro, Brazil, In: Stovall, 1994b.United Nations Development Programme,Human Development Report 1993 (NewYork, NY: United Nations, 1993).United Nations Educational, Scientific, andCultural Organization, proposal presented atthe symposium on Science and Technologyin Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, Feb. 14-15, 1994.United Nations, World Investment Report1992: Transnational Corporations as En-

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101,

102,

103.

104.

105.

gines of Growth (New York, NY: United Na-tions, 1992).United Nations, Energy Statistics Yearbook(New York. United Nations Statistical Of-fice, 1989).United Nations. Energy Statistics Yearbook(New York, United Nations Statistical Of-fice, 1982).United Nations, Department of InternationalEconomic and Social Affairs, Levels andTrends off Contraceptive Use as Assessed in1988, Population Studies No. 110 (NewYork: United Nations, 1989), pp. 26, 33.U.S. Agency for International Development.USAID FY 1994 Operating Year Budget,Washington, DC, 1994.U.S. Agency for International Development.USAID Strategy Papers, draft, Washington.DC, Oct. 5, 1993.U.S. Agency for International Development,“End of Project Evaluation. Gambia Soiland Water Management Project,” No635-0202. October 1991, In: Stovall, J.,1994C.

U.S. Agency for International Development,“Evaluation: Gambia Soil and Water Man-agement,” Project No. 635-0202, preparedby Winfield Collins, REDSO/WCA, Janu-ary 1988, In: Stovall. J., 1994c.U.S. Agency for International Development,“’Self-Help Sparks Conservation in Gam-bia,” Front Lines, August 1988, In: Stovall,J.. 1994cU.S. Congress, House of Representatives,Committee on Foreign Affairs, H.R. 3765Discussion Draft, Washington, DC, Mar. 17,1989, In: Stovall, J., 1994b.

U.S. Congress. Congressional Research Ser-vice, Foreign Assistance. CongressionalInitiatives to Reform U.S. Foreign Aid in1989, 90-236-F (Washington, DC: May 10,1990), In: Stovall, J.. 1994b.

U.S. Congress. Congressional Research Ser-vice, Trade and Environment: GATT and


NAFTA, 94-165-ENR (Washington, DC:Apr. 4, 1994).

106. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Industry, Technology, and the En-vironment: Competitive Challenges andBusiness Opportunities, OTA-ITE-586(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, January 1994).

107. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, “Approaching Sustainable De-velopment,” working group held inWashington, DC on Dec. 7, 1993.

108. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Multinationals and the NationalInterest: Playing by Different Rules, OTA-ITE-569 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, September 1993).

109. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Development Assistance, ExportPromotion, and Environmental Technolo -gy-Background paper, background paperfor OTA’s project on American Industry andthe Environment, OTA-BP-ITE- 107 (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, August 1993).

110. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Alternative Coca Reduction Strat-egies in the Andean Region, OTA-F-556(Washington DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, July 1993).

111. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Fueling Development: EnergyTechnologies for Developing Countries,OTA-E-516 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, April 1992).

112. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Green Products by Design:Choices for a Cleaner Environment,OTA-E-541 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, September 1992).

113. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Delivering the Goods: PublicWorks Technologies, Management, and Fi-nance, OTA-SET-477 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, April1991).

114. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Changing by Degrees: Steps ToReduce Greenhouse Gases, OTA-O-482(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, February 1991).

115. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Enhancing Agriculture in Africa:A Role for U.S. Development Assistance,OTA-F-356 (Washington DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, September 1988).

116. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Status of Biomedical Researchand Related Technology for Tropical Dis-eases, OTA-H-258 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, September1985).

117. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Technologies to Sustain TropicalForest Resources, OTA-F-214 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,March 1984).

118. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Quality and Relevance of Re-search and Related Activities at the GorgasMemorial Laboratory-Technical Memo-randum, OTA-TM-H-18 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, August1983).

119. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, An Assessment of Technologiesfor Local Development, OTA-R-129 (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, January 1981).

120. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con-servation Service, The Gambia Soil and Wa-ter Management Unit, Activity Review(Washington, DC: May 1991).

121. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy In-formation Administration, Carbon Emis-sions Report (Washington, DC: April 1994).

122. Weber, P., “Safeguarding Oceans,” State ofthe World (New York: W.W. Norton & Co.,1994), pp.41-60.

123. Wharton, C. , U.S. AID and Foreign Aid Re-form, Statement before U.S. Congress, Sen-ate, Subcommittee on International


Economic Policy, Trade, Oceans, and Envi-ronment of the Committee on Foreign Rela-tions, Washington, DC, July 14, 1993, U.S.Department of State Dispatch 4:526-531,July 26, 1993.

124. Windfuhr, M., “Who Are the GATT Winnersand Losers?” Development & Cooperation2:8-14, 1994.

125. Windle, P., et al., Science and Technology forDevelopment-Sta ff Paper, staff paper pre-pared by the Food and Renewable ResourcesProgram (Washington, DC: Office ofTechnology Assessment, U.S. Congress,February 1989).

126. Winkelmann, D. L., Director General, In-ternational Maize and Wheat ImprovementCenter (CIMMYT), personal communica-tion, April 1994.

127. The World Bank, “Getting Results: TheWorld Bank’s Agenda for Improving Devel-opment Effectiveness,” The InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC, Septem-ber 1993.

128. The World Bank, World Development Re-port (Washington, DC: The World Bank,1993).

129. The World Commission on Environmentand Development, Our Common Future(New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).

130. World Resources Institute, Brookings Insti-tution, and Santa Fe Institute, The 2050Project in Brief Transition to Sustainability1(1 ): 1-7, winter 1994.

131. World Resources Institute, World Resources1994-1 995: A Guide to the Global Environ -ment (New York: Oxford University Press,1 994).

132. World Resources Institute, “Dimensions ofSustainable Development,” World Re-sources 1992-93: A Guide to the Global En-vironment (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1992).

133. World Resources Institute, World Resources1992-93: A Guide to the Global Environ-ment, database diskette (Stanford, CT: DSCData Service, Inc., 1992).

—....—.——

Appendix A:Working Group

Participants A

Richard BissellOverseas Development CouncilWashington, DC

Herman DalyUniversity of MarylandSchool of Public AffairsCollege Park, MD

Paul R. EhrlichDepartment of Biological SciencesStanford UniversityStanford, CA

David C. KortenPeople Centered Development ForumNew York, NY

Donella MeadowsDartmouth CollegePlainfield, NH

Sandra NicholsSandra Nichols Productions, Ltd.Oakland, CA

Bruce RossChemonics, InternationalWashington, DC

165

Appendix B:OTA ReportsRelated toResource Management

B and Developing Countries

The accumulation of knowledge, the discoveries of science, the products of technology, our ideas, ourart, our social structures, all the achievements of mankind have value only to the extent that they preserveand improve the quality of life.— Charles Lindbergh

Although discussion of sustainable develop-ment commonly evokes divergent views, onepoint upon which many agree is that scientific andtechnological advances could offer the means toresolve some critical development-related naturalresource problems. Conserving natural capital(renewable and nonrenewable resources) is funda-mental to the concept of sustainable development.Thus, renewable resource withdrawals would notexceed regenerative capacity; use of nonrenew-able resources would occur in relationship toresearch and development efforts to identify ap-propriate substitutes; and waste production wouldnot exceed the environmental absorptive capacity.Technology can support sustainability of naturalcapital by: 1 ) reducing waste, 2) raising efficiencystandards, or 3) finding substitutes, hence reduc-ing extraction or consumption of resources or useof toxic substances and other hazardous materials.Of the various dimensions of sustainable develop-ment (i.e., economic, political, environmental,and technological), technology seems to be themost eagerly explored.

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)has examined issues, technologies, and policytrends of importance to foreign assistance and en-vironmental sustainability for Congress since

1976 (Technology Assessment Act of 1972, P.L.92-484). Many OTA assessments from the pasttwo decades contain information of director indi-rect relevance to sustainable natural resource useand management in developing countries. (Seetable B-1 for a list of OTA reports covered in thisoverview.) OTA has analyzed a wide range oftechnologies and resource concerns, related re-search needs, and the roles of governments andprivate and public sector national and internation-al institutions in development assistance. ManyOTA reports did not address the concept of sus-tainable development directly but nonethelesscontained highly relevant material.

This overview of OTA’s work on developingcountries and technologies to support sustainabledevelopment also examines:

■ factors that affect technology transfer to devel-oping countries;

■ global environmental concerns as they relate todeveloping countries; and

■ the principle areas in which scientific and tech-nological effort can support sustainable devel-opment: agriculture, energy, industry, localdevelopment, and human resource develop-ment.

66 |

——. —.——-

Appendix B OTA Reports Related to Resource Management and Developing Countries 167

THE TECHNOLOGY CONTEXTThe gap between the technology development op-tions of industrial and developing countries has,in many cases, grown considerably in the 20thcentury (60). This view, also expressed in interna-tional development 1iterature, foresees the poorestdeveloping countries steadily losing access to thepotential benefits of technology.

At the same time, industrial and developingcountries increasingly share common problems.The United States, like many developing coun-tries, has a large debt burden and areas with ruralpoverty. Most countries share concerns aboutglobal Climate change, spread of infectious dis -eeases, ocean pollution, and education of theirworkforce (60). As greater recognition is given tothe global environmental costs of industrial devel -opment, economic growth, and populationgrowth, the question of sustainability has beenraised with increasing frequency in domestic andforeign policy circles.

How science and technology are used for devel-opment—which technologies are selected, howthey are applied, and for what purposes-will de-termine, in part, the effectiveness and sustainabil-ity of the development process. The process bywhich such choices could be made by Congresswhen it sets and implements a science andtechnology agenda for development were ex-plored broadly in Science and Technology for De-velopment (1989).

The sociocultural, political, economic, andecological setting for development constitutes theframework for development assistance efforts.Each of these factors will affect the sustainabilityof the development project. Regardless of thecause of resource degradation or damage, devel-oping countries generally cannot afford even atemporary decline in food or foreign exchangederived from their natural resources, and com-monly they lack sufficient economic resources toimplement reclamation or restoration activities.Thus. selection of ecologically appropriatetechnologies becomes imperative (2). Aid to De-veloping Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit(1987) explored the concept of ecologically ap-

propriate technologies and identified organiza-tional factors that contribute to inappropriatetechnology choices, as well as approaches to makedevelopment assistance activities more ecologi-cally sound (figure B-1 ).

Development assistance organizations arc fre-quently faced with difficult choices. For example,raising the efficiency of commercial energy use indeveloping countries urban areas could stronglybenefit the global environment, yet it may offerlittle to the poor majority in the rural areas. On theother hand, regional, community, and household-specific technologies like power generators moreefficient wood stoves, or assistance to producefast-growing trees could benefit rural sectors. Bal -ancing different needs in assistance does not nec-essarily minimize the potential for adverseenvironmental impacts from development assist-ance projects (2). These can occur from the failureto consider such relevant questions as:

■

■

■

■

Are the eventual practitioners likely to havecultural aversions to the technology?Is the technology within the means of thesepractitioners?Will governmental or other institutions providethe necessary support to ensure continued op-eration of the technology in a manner appropri-ate to local conditions?Identifying and promoting “appropriate tech-nology” for different settings can be difficult.Inappropriate choices often result from a lackof familiarity with more suitable practices(e.g., improving traditional systems); inade-quate technical and management training forlong-term project operation and maintenance(i.e., human resource development); aid pro-grams that are motivated by donor commercialinterests (e.g., tied aid, mixed credits); and bu-reaucratic needs to “move money” through theprograms (2).

Scale and cost are significant factors in deter-mining appropriate technology for specific sitesor development settings. Technologies designedfor implementation in industrial country settingscan be too costly for developing countries, or in-


Food and Renewable Resources Program

Alternative Coca Reduction Strategies in the Andean Region, OTA-F-556 (July 1993)

A New Technological Era for American Agriculture, OTA-F-474 (August 1992)

Combined Summaries: Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest Resources and Biological Diversity OTA-F-515 (May1992)

New Opportunities for U.S. Universities in Development Assistance: Agriculture, Natural Resources, andEnvironment—Background Paper, OTA-BP-F-71 (September 1991)

A P/ague ofLocusts—Special Report, OTA-F-450 (July 1990)

Science and Technology for Development—Staff Paper (February 1989)Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role for U.S. Development Assistance, OTA-F-356 (September 1988)

Grassroots Development: The African Development Foundation, OTA-F-378 (June 1988)Aid to Developing Countries,’ The Technology/Ecology Fit—Staff Paper (July 1987)

Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas, OTA-F-325 (June 1987)Technologies To Maintain Biological Diversity OTA-F-330 (March 1987)

Continuing the Commitment: Agricultural Development in the Sahe/—Speclal Report, OTA-F-308 (August 1986)Innovative Blological Technologles for Developing Countries—Workshop Proceedings, OTA-BP-F-29 (July 1985)

Africa Tomorrow: Issues in Technology Agriculture, and U.S. Foreign A/d—Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-F-31(December 1984)

Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest Resources, OTA-F-214 (March 1984)Plants: The Potentials for Extracting Protein, Medicines, and Other Useful Chemicals—Workshop Proceedings,

OTA-BP-F-23 (September 1983)Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign

Experience—Background Paper, OTA-BP-F-20 (May 1983)

An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agricultural Research System, OTA-F-155 (December 1981)Pest Management Strategies in Crop Protection—Volume 1, OTA-F-98 (October 1979)

Nutrition Research Alternatives, OTA-F-74 (September 1978)

Food /formation Systems: Summary and Analysis, OTA-F-35 (August 1976)

Industry Technology and Employment Program

Industry Technology, and the Environment: Competitive Challenges and Business Opportunities, OTA-ITE-586(January 1994)

Multinationals and the National Interest, OTA-ITE-569 (September 1993)

Development Assistance, Export Promotion, and Environmental Technology—Background Paper, OTA-BP-ITE-107(August 1993)

U.S,-Mexico Trade: Pulling Together or Pulling Apart? OTA-ITE-545 (October 1992)

Trade and the Environment: Conflicts and Opportunities—Background Paper, OTA-BP-ITE-94 (May 1992)

Making Things Better: Competing in Manufacturing, OTA-ITE-443 (March 1990)

Energy and Materials Program

Fueling Development: Energy Technologies for Developing Countries, OTA-E-516 (April 1992)

Energy Technology Choices: Shaping Our Future, OTA-E-493 (July 1991)

Copper: Technology and Competitiveness, OTA-E-367 (1988)Nuclear Power in the Age of Uncertainty OTA-E-216 (February 1984)

World Petroleum Availability 1980-2000-Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-E-5 (October 1980)

Alternative Energy Futures-–Part 1, The Future of Liquid Natural Gas Imports, OTA-E-110 (March 1980)


International Security and Commerce Program

The Future of Remote Sensing from Space Civilian Safe//de Systems and Applications, OTA-ISC-558 (July 1993)

Global Arms Trade, OTA-ISC-480 (June 1991)

Energy Technology Transfer to Ch/na—Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-ISC-30 (September 1985)

International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities, OTA-ISC-239 (July 1985)

Technology Transfer to the Middle East, OTA-ISC-173 (September 1984)

Remote Sensing and the Private Sector, Issues for Discussion—Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-ISC-20 (March1984)

Oceans and Environment Program

An Analysis of the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer—Staff Paper (February 1988)

Changing by Degrees. Steps To Reduce Greenhouse Gases, OTA-O-482 (February 1991)Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA-O-334 (April 1987)

Health Program

Status of Biomedical Research and Related Technology for Tropical Diseases, OTA-H-258 (September 1985)Quality and Relevance of Research and Related Activities at the Gorgas Memorial .Laboratory-Technical

Memorandum, OTA-TM-H-18 (August 1983)

Telecommunications and Computing Technologies Program

The 1992 World Administration Radio Conference Technology and Policy Implications, OTA-TCT-549 (May 1993)

The 1992 World Administration Radio Conference: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy—BackgroundPaper, OTA-BP-TCT-76 (November 1991)

Rural America at the Crossroads Networking for the Future, OTA-TCT-471 (April 1991)

Biological and Behavioral Sciences Program

Biotechnology in the Global Economy OTA-BA-494 (October 1991)

Commercial Biotechnology. An International Analysis, OTA-BA-218 (January 1984)World Population and Fertility Planning Technologies: The Next Twenty Years, OTA-HR-157 (February 1982)

Science, Education, and Transportation Program

Delivering the Goods. Public Works Technologies, Management, and Finance, OTA-SET-477 (April 1991)An Assessment of Technologies for Local Development, OTA-R-129 (January 1981 )

Exploratory Program

U S Disaster Assistance to Developing Countries: Lessons Applicable to U.S. Domestic DisasterPrograms—Background Paper, OTA-BP-X-1 (January 1980)

adequate to satisfy companion developmentneeds (e.g., employment). These incompatibili-ties can sometimes be avoided by building on in-digenous methods and technologies. However,some argue that site-appropriate technology is“second rate” and unable to satisfy the long-termneeds and aspirations of developing countries(2,52).

“Leapfrogging” describes a development ap-proach that blends appropriate technology with

ging is to allow developing countries to bypass theenvironmental and social ills associated with de-velopment in the industrial countries of the North.However, there is considerable disagreement overthe potential for leapfrogging. Some think that toofew sustainable technologies exist for use indevelopment programs. Others question whetherleapfrogging would provide a satisfactory qualityof life in developing nations. Intensive researchand development efforts in science and technolo-

sustainable development. The goal of leapfrog-


Sustainable resource development

Development PROJECT Institution Policyassistance INTERVENTION building assistance

rIdentification of IDENTIFICATION AND Monitoring ofProject Evaluation of

site-specific –> ASSESSMENT OF –> impacts and project --> project resultsdetermination needs PROJECT ALTERNATIVES modification

Technologydetermination

Assessment oftechnology fit

I

I

L Identification of ASSESSMENT OF Technology-– z Technologyrelevant - - > TECHNOLOGY – - > choice

technologies FITNESStransfer

~—

ECOLOGICAL

_J

SOURCE A L Hess, B Ross-Sheriff, and P Durana, Ad to Deve/opmg CounWes The Techno/ogy/Eco/ogy Flt—S?atf Paper, staff paper preparedby the Food and Renewable Resources Program (Washington, DC Office of Technology Assessment, U S Congress, June 1987)

gy are needed, in conjunction with widespreadeducation and information activities, to demon-strate the benefits of a sustainable developmentpath in industrial and developing countries. Thequestion of how best to transfer information andtechnology broadly for sustainable developmentremains to be answered.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMSTransboundary problems like global warming,pollution of international waters, destruction ofbiologically diverse resources, and depletion ofthe stratospheric ozone layer illustrate the extentof environmental impacts from human populationgrowth and activity, and provide adequate reason

for concern over impacts of industrialization andeconomic growth.

Most developing countries continue to experi-ence much higher population growth rates than in-dustrialized countries, such that the vast majorityof new people added to the world in recent years(at least 90 percent in 1991) live in developingcountries. Developing countries currently make afar smaller per capita contribution to global envi-ronmental problems than industrialized countries.However, developing countries’ per capita and netcontributions to global environmental problemscould potentially experience significant increases.

OTA has analyzed each of the global environ-mental priorities identified by the Global Envi-

. ————


ronmental Facility l—global warming, ozonedepletion, biodiversity loss, and international wa-ters—as well as population growth and tropicalforest management.

| Population GrowthPopulation growth may be the most important andmost difficult issue confronting policy makerstoday. It is a key factor limiting the ability of na-tions to manage their resources sustainably. WorldPopulation and Fertility Planning Technologies:The Next Twenty Years (1982) included analysisof population growth projections; determinants offertility change: then-current reproductive re-search and contraceptive research and develop-ment; factors that influence the acceptance,distribution, and use of fertility planning technol-ogies in developing countries; and past and cur-rent U.S. funding arrangements in support ofpopulation assistance requests from developingcountries. Significant fertility declines most oftenare associated with indirect measures (e.g., gov-ernment encouragement and promotion of equalstatus and opportunities for women, higher age atmarriage, and more equitable distribution ofwealth and education opportunities). U.S. govern-ment options to directly assist developing countrypopulation programs include federal support ofcontraceptive research and development (R&D),export of non-Federal Drug Administration ap-proved drugs, improved levels of funding for in-ternational population assistance, and distributionof population assistance funds.

| Global WarmingDocumented scientific interest in the impact of at-mospheric carbon dioxide on the planet’s surfacetemperature dates back to the 1820s. Current pub-lic and policy interest in global warming stemsfrom widespread agreement that warming has re-

sulted primarily from human activity and. thus,could be addressed by government policy (4).OTA’s Changing by Degrees: Steps To ReduceGreenhouse Gases (199 1 ) examined technologiesto reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasemissions in the United States and overseas. ac-tors and initiatives needed to implement such re-ductions, and the economic cost and time frame.OTA’s discussion of developing countries in 1991centered on tropical deforestation and its con-tribution to global warming. Developing coun-tries recently overtook industrial countries ingenerating carbon emissions, however, producingan estimated 52 percent of the global total in 1993(59). As predicted by OTA and others, this transi-tion occurred due to increasing combustion of fos-sil fuels in association with developing countryurbanization and industrialization (27,59). Ac-cording to OTA, increasing the efficiency of ener-gy-consuming technologies, changing energy-usepatterns, and shifting to fuels and energy sourcesthat emit less carbon dioxide (CO2) are among theenergy-based options for reducing greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions. OTA noted that because muchof the energy infrastructure in developing coun-tries is yet to be built, energy-related improve-ments in reduction of GHG emissions may becheaper and relatively greater there. Such im-provements would require significant technologytransfer, and technical and financial assistance fornew construction and retrofitting (1,59). Agricul-ture-related options for reducing greenhouse gasemissions target methane production in ruminantsand C02 emissions from rice cultivation. Anotheroption for offsetting COZ emissions discussed byOTA is tree planting to increase global carbonstorage capacity.

| Ozone DepletionUnlike global warming, stratospheric ozonedepletion was not clearly understood nor clearly

‘ The Global Environmental Facility was established in November 1990 to help developing countries to contribute toward solving globalenvironmental problems. Under the supervision of the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Pro~ramme, and the United Natim\ f)c-velopment Pro~ramme, it pro~ ides grants for investment programs, technical assistance, and research aimed at protecting the global cnt iron-mcnt tind tran~ferring envlronmentallj benign technologies.


linked with human activity until the latter half ofthis century (4). Yet, by 1987, international au-thors of the Montreal Protocol were prescribing aglobal phaseout of production, consumption, andtrade of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and of bro-mine-containing compounds (halons). An Analy -sis of the Montreal Protocol on Substances ThatDeplete the Ozone Layer (OTA, 1988) examinedthe conditions for the agreement’s ratification andenforcement; different limits placed on sub-stances; differing transition periods allowed low-CFC-consuming countries versus high-CFCcountries; and the Protocol’s projected effective-ness at reaching its stated goals under various sce-narios. Developing countries, as 1ow-CFCconsumers, were permitted by the Protocol to in-crease CFC production and consumption, withinlimits, for 10 years, after which they were to re-duce production and consumption of some CFCsand cease production and consumption of others.Following discovery of the annual ozone holeover Antarctica and ozone-thinning over the Arc-tic, the Montreal Protocol was renegotiated andstrengthened in 1990 and 1992 to speed the phase-out process and give greater technical and finan-cial assistance to developing countries through aMultilateral Fund (1 ,59).

| Biodiversity Loss andTropical Deforestation

The Earth’s biological diversity—its assortmentof ecosystems, species, and genetic material—isbeing reduced significantly. This suggests, at thevery least, the l0SS of resources that might other-wise improve the quality of human life. In a worst-case scenario, disruption of the basic ecologicalprocesses on which civilization is based could re-sult. Maintaining biological diversity will in-creasingly depend on development and use ofspecific conservation measures, particularly inareas with highly diverse ecosystems and largenumbers of unique species, such as tropical rain-forests. How to help foreign assistance agenciesrespond to tropical forest and biodiversity lossesbecame a key issue in the 1980s. OTA respondedwith Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest Re-

sources (1984) and Technologies To Maintain Bi-ological Diversity (1987). Congressional concernbrought funding increases to the U.S. Agency forInternational Development’s (USAID’s) pro-grams in these areas. Subsequently, multilateralinstitutions, other countries’ bilateral assistanceagencies, some developing countries, and manynongovernmental organizations also became in-volved in efforts to preserve biologically diverseecosystems as well as specific species.

Conserving biological diversity can be accom-plished through “onsite maintenance” of ecosys-tems, such as national parks and preserves, and“offsite maintenance” facilities such as zoos, bo-tanical gardens, and seed banks. While the latterapproach is more economical and especially effi-cient for preserving plant varieties for agriculturalpurposes, the former, the more challenging ap-proach, is considered the best means of maintain-ing a broad range of biological diversity (35). Acombination of these approaches is likely to beneeded as pressure on the planet remaining natu-ral areas-about 3.2 percent of world land area—increases. Sustaining tropical forests is ofparticular importance because they contain thegreatest diversity of plant and animal life. Re-sources from tropical forests are important to agri-culture, commerce, and industry in all nations.Technologies that support and contribute to onsitebiological conservation include farming systemsthat combine trees with crops or livestock (agrofo-restry), improved charcoal production, betterwood stoves, genetic improvement of trees, ap-proaches to park design and management, and avariety of forest management systems (35).

Despite conservation efforts, the social, cultur-al, economic, and political conditions perpetuat-ing destruction of tropical forests and biologicaldiversity have, in most cases, intensified. Al-though there has been substantial progress in insti-tutional commitments and policies, little progresshas been made in the realm of development andextension of technical solutions, suggesting thatcontinued leadership from Congress is needed tosustain the momentum of earlier achievements(17). Specific areas for which OTA provided op-

— — .

Appendix B

tions for congressionaltechnology development,planning (17).

OTA Reports Related to Resource Management and Developing Countries 173

action were research,education, and resource

| Degradation of Marine EnvironmentsThe extent of marine and coastal pollution prob-lems facing developing countries has grown,while the institutional capacity and financial re-sources to address these problems have not. Al-though developing countries were not citedfrequently in OTA’s Wastes in Marine Environ-ments (1987), this report suggested that, like in-dustrial countries, developing countries need todirect more research toward understanding theirmarine environments, the specific problems theyface, and the relationships between those prob-lems and various land-based activities (33,34).Also needed is the capacity to translate that under-standing into policies and actions to correct ma-rine pollution problems.

Development assistance relevant to these needshas taken two broad forms: 1 ) promotion of devel-oping country government policies that increaseresearch, education, and sound management ofmarine resources, and 2) programs in coastal man-agement and data collection to improve technicalcapacity in developing countries (34). Althoughtechnologies are available to treat wastewater andimprove waste management, their use in develop-ing countries is limited and worldwide increasesin settlement of coastal areas already outpace gov-ernment planning and waste management efforts.As a consequence, “deforestation” of estuariesand coastal wetlands, overfishing, coral harvest-ing, contamination from agrochemical runoff anderosion, and direct ocean disposal of untreated andpartially treated municipal and industrial wastescontinue in many areas (3,33,34).

| Measuring GlobalEnvironmental Changes

Environmental monitoring continues to improvescientists understanding of current and emergingpatterns of global environmental change. Satelliteremote sensing systems provide the vantage point

and coverage necessary to study the Earth as an in-tegrated, interactive, physical and biological sys-tem ( 13). Data from satellite systems can assist inpredicting weather patterns and managing land re-sources; raise awareness of environmental prob-lems; and improve the institutional infrastructureof developing countries (43). For instance, U. S.-supported regional and national centers capable ofcollecting, processing. and interpreting Landsatdata and combining them with other data can beused by developing country governments to planand monitor forest stands, transportation net-works, agricultural production, and hydrology(43). Some developing countries are making ef-forts to institutionalize management and use ofspace- and telecommunications-related data andinformation (table B-2: 43).

Policy discussion regarding distribution of sat-ellite remote sensing data has led to considerationof numerous other issues, including allocation ofspectrum resources, sale of sensed data to thirdparties, commercialization, and general dispari-ties between industrial and developing countrytelecommunication resources. The 1992 WorldAdministration Radio Conference: Issues for U.S.International Spectrum Policy (1992) and The1992 World Administration Radio Conference:Technology and Policy [replications (1993) ex-plore the interest of the United Nation’s Interna-tional Telecommunications Union in makingtelecommunications development and technicalassistance to developing countries a more integralpart of its mission. Close monitoring of this effortcould help U.S. policy makers determine a nation-al policy framework for making telecommunica-tions a more universal resource (20).

| Agricultural Technologies andPolicies To Support Sustainability

Improving and sustaining agricultural productiv-ity in developing countries has been a long-stand-ing foreign assistance objective. The small-farmagricultural sector of a developing country is oftenresponsible for providing food, fiber, and work toa large part of its population. In addition to meet-


Agriculture Environmental Management

Crop Inventory Water quality assessment and planning

Irrigated crop Inventory Environmental and pollution analysis

NOXIOUS weeds assessment Coastal zone management

Crop yield prediction Surface mine inventory and monitoring

Grove surveys Wetlands mapping

Assessment of flood damage Lake water quality

Disease/drought monitoring Shoreline delineation

Oil and gas lease sales

Forestry and rangeland Resource inventory

Productivity assessment Dredge and fill permits

Identification of crops timber, and range Marsh salinization

Forest habitat assessment

Wildlife range assessment Water resources

Fire potential/damage assessment Planning and management

Surface water inventory

Defense Flood control and damage assessment

Mapping, charting, and geodesy Snow/ice cover monitoring

Terrain analysis Irrigation demand estimates

Limited reconnaissance Monitor runoff and pollution

Land cover analysis Water circulation, turbidilty, and sediment

Lake eutrophication survey

Land resource management Soil salinity

Land cover Inventory Groundwater location

Comprehensive planning

Corridor analysis Geological mapping

Facility siting Lineament mapping

Flood plain delineation Mapping/identification of rock types

Lake shore management Mineral surveys

Siting/surveying for public/private facilities

Fish and wildlife Radioactive waste storage

Wildlife habitat InventoryWetlands Iocation, monitoring, and analysis Land use and planning

Vegetation classiflcation Growth trends and analysis

Precipitation/snow pack monitoring Land-use planning

Salt exposure CartographyLand-capacity assessment

Solid waste management—

SOURCE U S Congress Office of Technology Assessment, The Future of Remote Sensing from Space Cndlan Sate//J/e Systems andApp/ica-

t{ons, OTA-ISC-558 (Washmgtorl DC U S Government Printing Off Ice, July 1993)

ing farm families’ subsistence needs, small-farmproduction feeds urban populations and contrib-utes to regional and sometimes internationaltrade. According to the Consultative Group on In-ternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR),meeting the food needs of the world’s projectedpeak population at current per capita consumptionrates will require more than doubling of current

staple food crop yields. Yields will have to in-crease even further to make progress in overcom-ing malnutrition and poverty in Africa andSoutheast Asia (7).

In developing countries, environmental degra-dation from expanding cultivation seriously un-dermines potential for sustainable agriculture anddevelopment generally. Moreover. staple crop


yields already may be leveling off in areas such assub- Saharan Africa, and may begin to do the samein Asia (6). Much of the land available to smallfarmers in developing countries is only marginal-ly suitable for most forms of agricultural produc-tion to begin with, and often progressivelydeteriorates. Poor soils characteristic of manymoist tropical forest regions quickly lose their nu-trient content, and exposure to wind and rain,often on steep slopes, leads to rapid soil erosion.In arid and semiarid regions, low soil productivityalso prevails, and is accompanied by a short grow-ing season, low and erratic rainfall, and higherpossibility of drought. Shifting cultivation in-volves cutting and burning forest, producingcrops for a couple of years, abandoning the landfor a “fallow” period, and then, at some time later,repeating the cycle. Shifting cultivation has in-creased in many areas of the world during the lastfew decades, often penetrating forest areas alonglogging roads; practitioners generally are usingshorter fallow periods than in earlier years (27).Erratic and eventually declining yields are com-mon, and generally are made up for with expandedcultivation or off-farm employment. Catastrophiccrop losses, in a climate of chronic food insecuri-ty, has prompted large-scale civil conflict andmigration, in parts of Africa over the past two de-cades.

By some estimates, the equivalent of approxi-mately 15 million hectares of new agriculturallands are needed each year to keep up with popula-tion growth and the flagging productivity of cur-rently cultivated lands (6). Urban and rural-areapopulation sprawl competes with agriculture forthis land. Although crop production continues tosupersede ranching and forestry as a land-usepriority, it is increasingly at risk from encroachingurban and industrial development. Pressure on re-maining agricultural lands, along with increasedcultivation of marginal lands, could spawn nu-merous unsustainable land-use practices and in-tensify the fuel wood crisis (6).

Technologies to promote intensification of pro-duction on land already in use could help slowagricultural land expansion, thereby reducing de-forestation, as well as increasing food production.

Potential food production gains from mechaniza-tion and intensification of agriculture in develop-ing countries (where most farming is still humanpowered) is great, but sustainable production andmanagement practices are needed, along with res-toration of degraded lands, proper prices for agri-cultural goods, and long-range landuse planning.

| Agricultural TechnologiesThe goal of agricultural research and technologydevelopment generally has been to improve pro-ductivity while maintaining reasonable costs offood and fiber. Other interests include soil and wa-ter conservation, human nutrition, food qualityand safety, and the role of agriculture in interna-tional trade and in the economy as a whole. Re-cently, more concern has been directed to reducingagriculture’s adverse environmental impacts us-ing a systems approach. Opportunities to improveagricultural production in the developing world,primarily Africa, have been the focus of a largenumber of OTA reports.

OTA has examined the status and needs of de-veloping country agriculture; the emergence ofappropriate technology and sustainability para-digms; technological advances with potential toimprove agricultural efficiency and productivityin industrial countries; and the rise of commercialagricultural biotechnology. OTA has providedCongress with options for strengthening the cost-effectiveness of U.S. participation in internationalagricultural research, technology development,and assistance. OTA’s collected works in theseareas address many specific technologies andpolicy initiatives that could substantially improvefood production in developing countries (tableB-3).

OTA has concluded in several reports thatgreater U.S. contributions to domestic, bilateral.and multilateral agricultural assistance will benecessary to increase agricultural productionworldwide. Besides monetary assistance, there isa need for a clear plan and renewed effort to: 1)promote U.S. expertise and participation in agri-cultural research for the benefit of poor popula-tions, and 2) assist developing countries with


Recognition of links between long-term agriculturalproductivity and environmental quality led to proposaland discussion of sustainability in agricultural develop-ment circles well before it gained a following else-where Recently, a special CGIAR Committee on Sus-tainable Agriculture established four key themes onwhich to base sustainability research in the CGIARsystem

Main challenges to agricultural research1

2

3

Increasing and maintaining global yields to theirtechnical and economic potentialImproving productivity in the less-favored areas thathave become the last frontier of agricultural expan-sion (e g , rainforests).Making the production technology gains needed tomaintain soiI fertility and other vital resources onwhich production depends.

Key themes on which to base sustainabilityresearch1 Protection of the genetic base of agriculture,2 Preservation of the natural resource base,3 Research in less favorable environments.4 Sustainable agriculture and external inputs,

—

SOURCE D L Plucknett, international Agricultural Research for theNext Century “ BloSclence 43(7) 432-440, 1993

agriculture-related institutional and technologydevelopment. For sustainable production in-creases, farmers need technologies that (31 ):

●

m

m

●

m

m8

improve the use of local natural resources, in-cluding indigenous plants and animals;improve soil fertility;improve water availability and efficiency ofuse;foster genetic improvement in plants and ani-mals appropriate to local conditions;improve integration of animal and croppingsystems;reduce food losses; andenable farmers to modernize as this becomesfeasible to them.

Poor farmers need technologies that are lowrisk, resource conserving, small scale, adaptable

to local conditions, and economically affordable.Technologies should also be suited to traditionalagriculture methods. Appropriate technologiesare those best able to function effectively accord-ing to the users’ special circumstances. Lack ofappropriate technologies and the failure of re-search systems to develop sustainable technolo-gies that match the perceptions and resources ofsmall-holder African farmers are two of the rea-sons yields of staple crops have been static inmany sub-Saharan countries for the past 10 ormore years (6).

Congressional concern over Africa’s chronicfood problems led to a number of OTA reports onimproving agriculture and development assist-ance in Africa: A Plague of Locusts (1990); En-hancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role for U.S.Development Assistance (1988); Grassroots De-velopment: The African Development Foundation(1988); Continuing the Commitment: Agricultur-al Development in the Sahel (1986); and AfricaTomorrow: Issues in Technology, Agriculture, andU.S. Foreign Aid (1984). Another report with a re-gional, but non-Africa, focus was AlternativeCoca Reduction Strategies in the Andean Region(1993), which discussed the potential for agricul-ture and other renewable resource sectors to dis-place coca production in the Andes. These reports,in addition to examining specific food and devel-opment problems in selected regions, addressedissues central to the role and limits of U.S. assist-ance more generally.

Other OTA reports deal with generic agricultur-al issues and technologies. Concern about pesti-cide-related soil and water contamination, safetyof farmers and wildlife, and increased incidence ofresistance in target pest populations generated in-terest in alternative pest-management technolo-gies such as integrated pest management (1PM)(56). For many farmers in developing countries,alternatives to chemical pesticides and fertilizersare a matter of economic necessity as much as en-vironmental awareness. Most 1PM research hasfocused on U.S. farming conditions and practices.OTA suggested that greater agricultural assistance

. ——————


for specific developing country research needsand challenges was critical to promoting 1PM in-ternationally (56).2

Many factors affecting food supply, such asproductivity of soils and chemical fertilizer needs,can be influenced by biological technologies (bio-technologies). New developments in plant andanimal genetics were analyzed in OTA’s Commer-cial Biotechnology: An International Analysis(1984), Biotechnology in the Global Economy(199 1), and A New Technological Era for Ameri-can Agriculture ( 1992). In its examination of bio-technology industry research and development,OTA has identified several areas of potential im-portance to developing countries, including:

■

●

■

■

genetic manipulation of plants to improve agri-cultural production in tropical and arid/semi-arid climates (e.g., improvement of nutrientuptake, nitrogen fixation, pest resistance,drought resistance, etc.);genetic manipulation of plants to improvenutrition and health benefits (e.g., reduction ofthe cyanide content in cassava; improvement ofprotein content of corn);human and livestock vaccines engineered to benon-cold chain dependent (see also Human Re-source Development); andincreased production of biomass crops for con-version at local-level factories to help solve theproblem of costly petroleum imports (see alsoEnergy Development).

As is the case with 1PM, however, most cutting-edge biotechnology research is conducted in in-dustrialized countries and does not necessarilyaddress developing country needs. Agriculturaltechnologies that are more likely to be accessibleand useful to developing country farmers werediscussed in Innovative Biological Technologiesfor Developing Countries (1985). These include:

underexploited native plant and animal species;■ multiple-cropping and intercropping systems;

■

■

■

green fertilizers;zeolite minerals, whose benefits include ex-tending fertilizer efficiency, maintaining soilnitrogen levels, supplementing animal feed-stocks, and decontaminating feedlot wastes;andbeneficial microorganisms such as mycorrhi-zae, which significantly increase the root’s sur-face area and, therefore, the plant’s ability toassimilate soil nutrients.

Information exchange among countries can bevaluable to all parties. Water-Related Technolo-gies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/SemiaridLands: Selected Foreign Experience (1993) re-ported on developing country approaches to effi-cient use of scarce water supplies. This paperprovides a useful model for exploring developingcountry technology relevant to industrial countryinterests, and demonstrates the potential for moremutually beneficial working and learning ex-changes between the United States and develop-ing countries.

Potential mutual benefit also can be gainedfrom U.S. cooperative research on the natural andcultural resources of many developing countries.At least 95 percent of U.S. crops have their originand centers of genetic diversity outside the UnitedStates (56). Thus, opportunities exist for researchexchanges and partnerships. Crops, technologies,and farming systems that are indigenous to somedeveloping regions and have demonstrated poten-tial to be practiced sustainably present especiallypromising areas for cooperative research. InPlants: The Potentials for Extracting Protein,Medicines, and other Useful Chemicals (1983),OTA discussed of potential economic uses for in-digenous plants. Special consideration was givento the potential for developing countries to gener-ate income, food, or other benefits from theseplants.

Some technologies to support agriculturalresearch and food security are found in commu-


nications and data processing systems. Food In-formation Systems (1976) evaluated theinformation systems of the U.S. Department ofAgriculture and the United Nations Food andAgriculture Organisation. Remote Sensing andthe Private Sector (1984), International Coopera-tion and Competition in Civilian Space Activities(1985), and The Future of Remote Sensing fromSpace: Civilian Satellite Systems and Applica-tions (1993), while not exclusively concernedwith agricultural uses of satellite systems, in-cluded updated discussions of these uses with re-spect to developing countries. Reports that giveearly warning of adverse weather, pest infesta-tions, natural disasters, and other events that mayaffect crop availability and demands are a particu-larly important service.

Critical to the effectiveness of food informa-tion, however, is open information sharing withinand between countries (58). Inadequate disse-mination; neglect of rural and small-holder popu-lations; government resistance to revealingpolitically, economically, or socially sensitive in-formation; and the inability of many developingcountries to gather, receive, and process data posemajor constraints to the information flow.

OTA analyzed energy-related agricultural pro-duction needs in Fueling Development: EnergyTechnologies for Developing Countries (1992).Agriculture was determined to be responsible foronly about 5 to 8 percent of commercial energyuse in developing countries, but use of agricultur-al machinery in developing countries is expectedto increase. OTA identified several opportunitiesfor improving the efficiency of commercial ener-gy services in agriculture, particularly for irriga-tion (e.g., improved pumps, piping, and waterdelivery systems such as drip irrigation) and trac-tion (e.g., improved nutrition and harness designfor draft animals, and more efficient motors fortractors). Other promising energy-efficient meas-ures and technologies can improve:

■ industrial energy use to produce farm imple-ments, fertilizers, and chemicals;

■ application and plant use of agrichemical;

● postharvest drying and storage;● conversion of crop residues to energy feed-

stocks; and■ transport of produce to markets.

Finally, nonagricultural technologies can indi-rectly improve food production potential by re-ducing time consumed in collection of firewoodand water (e.g., higher-efficiency stoves).

| Institutional and Policy MechanismsThe OTA reports featured in AgriculturalTechnologies also examined agricultural aid poli-cies and institutional roles; mechanisms by whichresearch and technology are developed and sharedwith developing countries; and monetary and non-monetary options for improving the effectivenessof assistance at the institutional level. Agriculturalassistance issues were addressed in other reportsas well: An Assessment of the U.S. Food and Agri -cultural Research System (1981), Grassroots De-velopment: The African Development Foundation(1988), New Opportunities for U.S. Universitiesin Development Assistance: Agriculture, NaturalResources, and Environment (1991), Science andTechnology for Development (1989), Aid to De-veloping Countries: The Technology/Ecology Fit(1987).

These reports discussed agriculture-relatedpolicy and institutional activity pertaining to:

● research (data collection and management) andtechnology generation,

■ extension and technology transfer,■ education and training, and■ institution- and capacity-building (22).

| ResearchBy most estimates, benefits that accrue from

agricultural research greatly out weigh the costs tosociety, and returns are high relative to many othersocial investments (16). Research, technology,and extension activities, and appropriate institu-tional development are major factors contributingto production increases at home and abroad. Re-search on problems relevant to small-farm pro-


ducers can help identify opportunities for andconstraints to developing country agriculturalproduction.

Information and research activities that couldcontribute to planning and implementing devel-oping country agricultural strategies include:

country- or region-specific, geological, biolog-ical, and agroecological surveys;participatory identification of social, econom-ic, and political opportunities and constraintsthat could affect project outcomes and identifi-cation of project-level and national expecta-tions and goals; andsurvey of local infrastructure and humanresources (e.g., institutional support, roads,water, agricultural experience, and labor demo-graphics ) and information on local crops andfarming systems.

Extension and Technology TransferTwo important conditions for successful transferof technology, or extension, identified by OTAare:

1.

2.

to

Personal contact, e.g., direct instruction in atechnology from the extension agent to thefarmer and involvement of parties in technolo-

gy choice, planning, and implementation; andAdaptation of the technology to the user’s localbiophysical and socioeconomic conditions.This requires a two-way information transfersuch that farmers can inform agents of theirneeds, problems, and the technologies they use(41 .44).

OTA has suggested lengthening project cyclesallow more time for technology introduction,

project monitoring, and mid-project adjustmentsto deal with problems (2). Such steps could helpfoster technology adoption and diffusion, and en-sure that technologies are ecologically sustainablein specific settings.

| Education and TrainingDeveloping countries agricultural research capac-ity could be improved if U.S. development institu-tions were to:

1.

2.

3.

4.

operate graduate training programs for scien-tists in their home countries or comparablelocations, rather than the United States, to en-sure that scientists learned to do research inrealistic settings, were able to help solve localproblems, and could continue their research af-ter completion of their degrees;provide practical short-term training, by localand foreign experts, for agriculturalists whoworked directly with farmers in an advisory ca-pacity;provide literature or grants for preparation andpublication of books and bulletins by local sci-entists to improve access to up-to-date infor-mation in countries with inadequate librariesand information resources (22); andsponsor demonstration projects.

The goal of such efforts is to promote the scien-tific, technical, and management expertise devel-oping countries need to carry on work beyond thelife span of individual aid projects, and to ensurethat research at the local level can be cooperative,accessible, and relevant. Structures for fundingand facilitating coordination and involvement bydonors, universities, developing country institu-tions, and producers in international agriculturalwork was given extensive analysis in New Oppor-tunities for U.S. Universities in Development As-sistance: Agriculture, Natural Resources, andEnvironment (199 1).

| Energy Technologies and PoliciesTo Support Sustainable Development

Rapid population growth and structural changesinherent in the development process (e.g., urban-ization; building of the commercial, industrial,and transportation infrastructure: substitution ofcommercial for traditional fuels; and the rise in thedemand for consumer goods) are projected totriple developing country commercial energy con-sumption over the next 30 years (19). Significantfinancial, operational, and environmental con-straints will thwart efforts to increase energy sup-plies on this scale.

The environmental impacts of rapid expansionof energy supply could be substantial. Production


and use of commercial and traditional fuels con-tribute to the accelerating rates of environmentaldegradation within many developing countries.Energy trends in developing countries are also ofglobal environmental concern. Although their percapita energy use is far below that of industrial-ized countries, developing countries are increas-ingly important contributors to greenhouse gasemissions from fossil fuels use. They now accountfor slightly more than one-half of annual globalenergy-sector carbon dioxide emissions, producea growing amount of other greenhouse gases, suchas methane and nitrogen oxides, and continue toreduce the Earth’s carbon storage capacitythrough deforestation.

While energy production, conversion, and usegenerally contribute to environmental degrada-tion, energy wisely used can potentially provideseveral important environmental benefits in de-veloping countries (e.g., higher fuel efficiency,less energy-related air pollution, less need forfuelwood). OTA recently concluded that energyefficiency improvements in developing countriescould promote economic development with mini-mal environmental impact (19).

OTA energy-related studies commonly includeinformation about developing countries, but thereasons for this vary. 3 In both World PetroleumAvailability 1980-2000 (1980) and AlternativeEnergy Futures (1980), OTA looked at the energyresources and supplies of developing countries aspotential fuel sources for the United States. Thereports recognized, however, that any increase indeveloping country energy supplies would likelybe offset by growth in local demand and, thus,projected continuing U.S. dependence on the Or-ganization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.OTA determined, however, that changes in U.S.industrial productivity, improved, integrated util-ity management schemes, and energy efficiencycould lower domestic energy use growth rates.

Energy-related technology transfer to develop-ing countries was highlighted in TechnologyTransfer to the Middle East (1984) and EnergyTechnology Transfer to China (1985). In theMiddle East report, OTA concluded that the avail-ability of hydrocarbons for power production andthe small size of electricity grids limited prospectsfor transfer of nuclear power technologies in theregion. In the China memorandum, OTA alsogave special emphasis to nuclear energy technolo-gies because of an impending nuclear cooperationagreement between the two countries that was ex-pected to yield export opportunities for the U.S.nuclear industry. In both studies, OTA observedthat U.S. and foreign expectations and interests re-garding technology transfers sometimes diverge,with obvious strategic and commercial implica-tions. In the case of nuclear energy in particular,commercial and international security interestshave come into conflict. The potential role of nu-clear power in nuclear weapons proliferation hasbeen a main point of concern. Nuclear Power inthe Age of Uncertainty (1984) assessed ways toimprove the outlook of the nuclear power industryin the United States, and examined demandgrowth, costs, regulations, and public acceptanceoverseas. Human and environmental safety con-cerns in nuclear powerplants and questions of howto dispose of and prevent accidental release of tox-ic and radioactive nuclear materials permanently,received attention in Energy Technology Choices:Shaping Our Future (1991 ), and Fueling Devel-opment: Energy Technologies for DevelopingCountries (1 992).

Energy efficiencies vary in the developingworld but, on average, appear to be much lowerthan in the industrialized countries. In reasonablystandardized operations, such as cooking, steel-making, and electricity generation, dramatic im-provements in technical efficiencies are possible.However, the policy environment that determines

3 OTA recent]y produced an Ovewiew of past energy reports, and present and future congressional technology and POI icy interests regard-

ing domestic energy policy, entitled Energj Technology Choice.$; Shaping Our Future ( 1991 ).


patterns of incentives and disincentives to energyefficiency is crucial to the adoption of newtechnologies. In Fueling Development, O T Alooked” at:

■ ways to provide energy services for develop-ment through improvements in efficiency;

established technologies that save energy, di-minish adverse environmental impacts, reduceproduct Iifc-cycle costs to consumers, and low-er systemwide capital costs; and

■ the institutional and policy mechanisms that de-termine their rate of adoption.

| Energy TechnologiesLow technical efficiencies with respect to energyproduction. conversion, and use in developingcountries could be improved through adoption ofproven technologies. On the demand side, theseinclude efficient 1ights, stoves, refrigerators, carsand trucks, industrial boilers, electric motors, anda variety of new manufacturing processes for ener-U)’- intensive industries such as steel and cement.*Energy-efficient pumps, fertilizers, and mechani-cal traction can improve agricultural productivity.Technology also could boost efficiency, quality,and productivity of traditional small-scale indus-try. which accounts for one-half to three-quartersof manufacturing employment in many develop-ing countries and is an important source of incomefor rural and urban poor. Numerous technologiesat various stages of development and commercial-ization also could enhance the efficiency of deliv-ering energy services ( 1 9).

Widespread adoption of improved energy useand delivery technologies could save substantialenergy in the course of development. Capturingenergy savings could benefit the environment andease the import burden for many developing coun-tries.

Various opportunities and constraints existwith regard to improving the efficiency of devel-oping coal, oil, gas, and biomass resources. Alter-native, non-combustion-based energy supplyprojects, such as hydro, solar, nuclear, and windalso carry a number of financial, technical, and en-vironmental 1imitations (table B-4). However, im-

portant benefits have been provided by newenergy supply technologies in several areas. Char-acteristics identified by OTA that made thesetechnologies suitable to developing country needsincluded:

Modular, small scale, and short lead times.Energy supply technologies that are small andmodular can match demand growth more close -

ly than conventional ones. Shorter lead timesand small projects lower costs and reduce risk.Reliability and performance. Technologiesthat improve plant reliability and performancereduce problems related to blackouts. brown-outs, and sharp power surges, which oftenplague developing country systems. Many con-sumers are obliged to invest in back-up equip-ment in order to minimize the impact ofdisrupted supplies.Rural Access. Most populations of dc~’elopingcountries live in rural areas, the great majorityin poverty and without access to the servicesthat could improve their standard of 1iving.Smaller scale technologies (modern biomassenergy and decentralized renewable) that canbring high-quality energy sources to rural areashelp promote rural development and employ -ment.Environmental benefits. OTA’s analysis sug-gested that among fossil fueled systems. natu-ral gas generally has the fewest adverseenvironmental impacts. Increased emphasis onnatural gas could reduce the negative impactsand human health hazards associated with coal,and avoid some of the problems of’ large hydro-and nuclear power. Modern biomass systemsalso would reduce environmental impacts com-pared with coal or other conventional fuels. Fi-nally, decentralized renewable resources werefound to generate less air pollution and otherenvironmental problems associated with large-scale energy projects.Foreign exchange savings. New technologiesthat develop local energy resources can reduceenergy imports—which currently account forat least 50 percent of export earnings in severalof the poorest countries.

Energyresource Advantages Disadvantages

Biomass Used widely—in Africa IS two-thirds of total, in Asia one-third, and LatinAmerica one-fourth Some developing countries are wholly depen-dent on it.

Current use IS Important to traditional rural economies and employmentfor poor

Potential resource base is extensive, Countries with sufficient land re-sources could save foreign exchange dollars for reinvestment.

Produced Indigenously, could reduce energy import dependence andstimulate rural development.

If produced sustainably, would not add to net greenhouse gas (GHG)emss.ions, if substituted for fossil fuels, could actually decrease GHGemissions, also could improve local environments by reducing sulfurdioxide and nitrogen oxides (acid rain precursors) emissions

Of different sources

Agricultural and industrial (e.g., forest products industry) residues Couldbe used more extensively and efficiently than they are presently (e.g.,dung could be processed in a biogas digester); densified residueshave high energy content per volume, reducing transport costs,

Natural forest-derived wood and charcoal, Used widely—meet 90 per-cent of energy needs in Ethiopia, Nepal, and Bangladesh—m house-holds and businesses Careful management and use could provideadditional energy supplies, many subsistence populations depend onthem for their livelihood, are integral to ecosystem maintenance andglobal environmental quality, e g , for carbon storage, numerous tech-niques exist to minimize damage from wood collection but are under-mined by agricultural expansion, immigratlon, and Iivestock ratherthan by fuelwood gatherers Efficiency of charcoal kilns and fuelwoodstoves continues to improve and technologies continue to be mademore widely available, as do tree-planting programs (Field, 1993)

High-yleld field crops Research and development have greatly improvedfeasibility

Woody biomass Able to be bred for fast growth, high density (heat valueper unit of volume), robustness, nitrogen fixing, and coppicing poten-tial

Requires significant amounts of land, and significant amounts of energyfor planning, harvesting, drying, and-if done-conversion.

Not Iikely to be supplied at competitive price on a sustainable basis

Requires well-developed transportation Infrastructure to be relied onregionally,

In many developing countries, energy plantations might compete withfood crops,

Any diversion of land could adversely affect the poor, by denying accessto food and previously “free” fuel, fodder, fiber, and fertilizer,

Long-term environmental Impacts of sylvan monoculture and high-yieldcrops are unknown, but could involve risks to soil and water qualityand availability,

Most current research and development does not reflect developingcountry needs and conditions,

Of different sources:

Agricultural and industrial residues: Raises issue of “determining when awaste IS really a waste, ” e.g., current biomass IS already heavily usedand may have Important uses other than fuel, e g , livestock feed,fiber, and fertilizer, is also plowed under to fertilize fields, needs care-ful management so as not to result in soil degradation and erosion

Natural forest-derived firewood and charcoal High demand and subse-quent high prices Iikely would leave fuelwood needs of many unmet,aggravating shortages (Field, 1993) Techniques to minimize damagefrom wood collection are undermined by agriculture expansion, im-migration, and livestock (Hosier, 1993)

High-yield field crops. Species very site-speclflc—not a suitable charac-teristic for developing countries, require long-term sustained efforts,I.e. , could not occur independent of larger development context.

Woody biomass Forest management notoriously difficult Monocultureshort rotation forests are susceptible to devastating effects from poorsoil, harsh microclimates, pests, fires, weeds, and diseases

(continued)

g-.CDsCD

Energyresource A d v a n t a g e s

coal Largest single source of fossil fuels in developing countriesveloped and used mostly in China and India

Cheaper per unit of heat value than 011 and, usually, gas

Is a Iong-established technology

Mining capital costs are low

Geothermal Uses Indigenous resources

Low land requirement

Depending on the technology used (binary vs. direct steamor dual-flash) can have a short construction lead time

Disadvantages

though de- Difficult to handle and transport

Less versatile than 011

Frequently of poor quality

Underground mining Involves hazardous work conditions

Disturbs surface lands and waters

May contaminate underground or surface waters if excavated material IS

not properly managed

Surface mining causes significant land loss

Dust and emissions from mining and preparation can contribute to localair polIution, e g adds suIfur dioxide (S02) suspended particuIates,carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon dioxide(C0 2) emissions Ieading to acid rain, urban smog, respiratory infec-tions and, potentially, global warming

Has highest per unit energy C02 content –25 kilograms of carbon perGigajoule (GJ, or 204 million Btu)

Produces large amounts of solid waste

Resources can only be quantified using expensive drilling (e g , by oneestimate, geothermal drilling costs in Kenya are roughly $250,’ foot)

single-flash Resource extraction requires technical expertise and can be costly

Depending on the technology used (see Advantages), can cause emis-

Site-speclf!c environmental problems (see Disadvantages) can be con- sions of C02 and hydrogen sulfide and can require large amounts of

trolled water Small binary plants however, can use air-cooled condensers

Site-specific environmental problems Include subsidence of land overly-ing wells contamination of water supplies by saline (and sometimestoxic) geothermal fluids and reinjected water and the generation ofsurplus high-temperature Iiquid effluent containing metals and dis-solved solids

(continued)

m

g—

Natural gas Many (i.e. , at least 52) developing countries—including several poor,

sub-Saharan African countries— have significant reserves, and moreare being discovered.

Releases fewer GHGs and produces less localized pollution than otherfossil fuels.

Has lowest per unit energy C02 content—produces 13.6 kilograms ofcarbon per gigajoule (compare with coal and 011, under Disadvan-tages)

High quality, “modern” Iiquid and gas fuels offer many benefits—reducedtime, labor, and reduced air pollution (compared with crude biomassfuels) in provision of residential and commercial energy services(e g , cooking, water heating)

Mainstay of most developing country commercial energy supplies (two-thirds of total)

Easy to transport

Easily used m all sectors at all scales of operation.

Developing countries with reserves could potentially attract small fielddevelopment, though Investment incentives traditionally are biased infavor of large, low-cost rather than small, higher-cost fields amongmajor (foreign) 011 companies, to this end, multilateral developmentbanks are now assisting countries with investment challenges.

Is most common substitute for wood-based fuels (firewood and charcoal)(Field, 1993)

Oil

There iS Iittle exploration for gas—reserves discoveries often are a by-product of oil exploration

Markets are not developed and local (developing country) markets wiIInot generate adequate foreign exchange to repatriate profits to for-eign Investors

Production and transport can lead to land disturbance and water con-tamination

Combustion contributes to air pollution, e g , adds S02, suspended par-ticulates, CO, NOX, and C02 emissions, Ieading to acid rain, urbansmog, respiratory infections, and, potentially, global warming, thoughless so than coal or oil.

Not found in large amounts or under good production conditions in mostdeveloping countries-current reserves in most developing countrieswiII exhaust sooner than worldwide reserves/production ratio

Domestic 011 resource development in developing countries projected tostabilize or decline and import dependence is expected to increase

Imports already consume a significant part of developing country foreignexchange budgets.

Production and transport can lead to land disturbance and water con-tamination

Combustion contributes to air pollution, e g , adds S02, suspended par-ticulates, CO, NOX, and C02 emissions Ieading to acid rain, urbansmog, respiratory infections, and, potentially, global warming Has 19kilograms of carbon per gigajoule.

At user -level, kerosene iS more expensive and supply IS often unreliable(continued)

sCD

o

Large-scale Uses Indigenous resourceshydro Proponents say most environmental costs can be prevented, particularly

as adverse environmental Impacts become a more routine consider-ation in project designs (Goodland, et al , 1992)

Small-scale Less likely than larger projects to flood large tracts of land, uproothydro people, cause significant loss of forests and wildlife habitat, disrupt

the natural flow of rivers, or contribute to the Increased incidence ofdebilitating diseases such as schistosomiasis

Less likely than larger projects to emit significant amounts of GHGs(Rudd, et. al , 1993)

If matched to and operated according to local community needs, andconstructed using local materials and labor, can achieve consider-able savings over designs based on large projects. However, central-ized organization still Iikely to be needed to provide effective mainte-nance and repair services (Foley, 1992)

Water turbines. Have been successfully substituted for traditional watermills for milling gram also have been equipped with generators toprovide lighting (Foley, 1992)

Nuclear Releases Iittle air pollution

Proponents say small, modular, safer units under development couldoffer high performance and safety at reasonable costs However, dataon costs and performance are not yet available, and risk averse po-tential nuclear power users with Iimited capital may choose to waituntil these are operated commercially and have demonstrated theseclaims

Has become increasingly controversial as concern about its adversesocial and environmental impacts has come to the fore

Very capital-lntenswe and construction time can be long, consulting amajor drain on developing country economies

Can flood large tracts of land, uprooting people and leading to loss offorests and wildlife habitat, can disrupt the natural flow of rivers andcontribute to the increased incidence of debilitating diseases such asschistosomiasis

Depending on the extent of flooding, type of landscape flooded (e.g. ,physical, chemical, and biological features), and mode of power gen-eration, can emit significant amounts of GHGs (Rudd, et al , 1993)

Study in India found small hydro to be nine times more expensive, perkilowatt hour than larger projects

Small projects based on large project designs tend to suffer from diseco-nomy of scale large overhead for construction, access roads, andsite establishment.

Hydro projects generally face significant technical, financial, and mana-gerial problems (e.g , lack of water, site instability) (Foley, 1992).

Has potential to release toxic and radioactive materials wastes requirecareful handling and long-term disposal strategies

High capital costs are Iikely to Iimit potential for development in develop-ing countries, historically nuclear power systems have cost more andoperated at lower capacity factors than anticipated

Nuclear technology requires technically skilled personnel Developingcountries, at least Initially, would be dependent on other countries forequipment and operation of powerplants

Poses problems of weapons proliferation(cent/nuedj

—.—

—

Energyresource Advantages Disadvantages

Solar Small photovoltaics kits. Used to power water pumps suitable for drinkingsupplies, and electricity generation for solar refrigerators, Iighting,and small electronic equipment (e.g., radios, cassette players, smallTVs). Useful for decentralized applications, as in remote areas (Foley,1992)

Flat-plate solar collectors: Sold commercially in the United States. Mainpotential in developing countries IS in urban areas (Foley, 1992).

Wind Has proven competitive with traditional electricity generation technolo-gies in some applications in the United States.

A 1987 World Bank report identified 16 developing countries that wouldbe appropriate for grid-connected wind turbines (i.e., exhibiting asufficient wind resource within 50 kilometers of an existing electricitygrid),

Small photovoltaics kits, Historically plagued by failures of solar cells andancillary equipment in harsh developing country operating condi-tions, shortage of spare parts and suitably skilled technicians hasconstrained life span in some countries. Appears to require consider-able subsidizing—voluntary or spontaneous adoption and dissemina-tion has been negligible. Power output is not suitable for operation ofmany domestic appliances (e. g., irons, sewing machines, hot plates,much less commercial enterprises), thus potential for expanded elec-tricity use IS hindered (Foley, 1992).

Centralized power stations: Extremely unreliable and expensive to main-tain-dependent upon services of expert technicians from manufac-turing companies in donor countries for repairs (Foley, 1992).

F/at-p/are solar collectors: Cost and technical complexity preclude use inremote areas (Foley, 1992).

Solar dryers and solar cookers, Have proved expensive, awkward, andgenerally impractical (Foley, 1992).

Major constraints to wind turbines are wind resource limits and backuprequirements.

Land requirements for wind turbines can be large, however, crop produc-tion and cattle raising can still be done on this land.

Design and manufacture of wind turbines is somewhat complex and maynot be readily done in many developing countries, although somemanufacturing and most assembly of components can be done withinthe user country,

SOURCES U S Congress, Ofhce of Technology Assessment, Fueling Development Energy Technologlesfor Developing Countries, OTA-E-516 (Washington, DC U S Government PrlntlngOff Ice, April 1992), unless otherwse mdlcated Also T Field, “Wood -Starved and Footsore, ” American Forests, 99(July-August) 49-52, 1993, G Foley, “Renewable Energy m Third WorldDevelopmentAsslstance Learning from Experience” Energy Pollcy20(Apnl) 355-364,1992, R Goodland, A Juras, and R Pachaun, “Can Hydroreservolrs mTroptcal Moist Forests Be MadeEnvironmentally Acceptable~” Energy Pollcy20(June) 507-515, 1992, R H Hosler, “Charcoal ProductIon and Enwronmental Degradation. Environmental History Selechve Harveshng, andPost-Harvest Management, ” Energy Policy 21 (May) 491-509, 1993, J W M Rudd, et al , “Are Hydroelectric Reservoirs Slgniftcant Sources of Greenhouse Gases?” AMBI022(4) 246-248,

1993

o

-.3


Employment. Decentralized renewable needinstallation and servicing that could create lo-cal jobs. Production of biomass energy can alsocreate rural employment.

However, adoption of new energy technologiesdepends on not only the intrinsic superiority of thetechnology itself but also on whether financial andinstitutional factors favor adoption. Finally, littleexperience with large-scale use of decentralizedtechnologies exists to serve as a basis for firm de-cisionmaking ( 19).

| Institutional and Policy MechanismsInstitutional and procedural impediments exist toenergy efficiency in developing countries. Exam-ples from the energy supply sector include: offi-cial interference in day-to-day management ofutilities, overstaffing, inadequately trained staffand management, poor system integration andplanning, poor maintenance, deficient financialmonitoring, lack of standardization of equipment,distorted pricing structures, corruption, shortagesof foreign exchange to buy spare parts, and regula-tory frameworks that discourage competition.These problems raise questions about the poten-tial for energy supplies to expand rapidly even iffinancial resources were available.

OTA found that when all costs are accountedfor, energy-efficient equipment usually can pro-vide energy services at a lower installed capitalcost than less efficient equipment. In the electricsector, for example, capital could be saved be-cause higher initial costs of efficient end-useequipment usually are outweighed by savingsrealized from building fewer powerplants. Oppor-tunities to install energy-efficient equipment areparticularly important in developing countries be-cause of the rapid growth in stocks of energy-us-ing equipment and the high share of totalinvestment budgets devoted to increasing energysupplies.

To achieve substantial capital savings throughenergy efficiency, institutional changes areneeded to enable decisionmaking on a system-wide basis, and to focus financial resources onadoption of efficient end-use equipment. A pow-

erful tool for achieving such a systems approachis Integrated Resource Planning, in which energy-efficiency investments are explicitly included asan alternative to capacity expansion (box B-1).

Utilities in developing countries also mustbuild up and maintain competent technical staffs.This will require a long-term institutional com-mitment to training in support of environmentalplanning and regulatory functions (19).

Technical transfer policies that could help over-come constraints to adoption of energy -efficienttechnologies include:

■

■

a

m

■

●

increased attention to technology adaptation;increased training in energy-efficient end use orimproved supply technologies;energy pricing policies that reflect the full costsof supplying energy:taxation of consumers;financial incentives (e.g., tax relief or low-costloans) to encourage production or purchase ofenergy efficient equipment: andefficiency standards.

Developing countries seeking alternative waysto meet the demand for energy are giving in-creased attention to politically sensitive questionssuch as energy price reform, improved manage-ment, and operations’ efficiency in state-ownedenergy supply industries. Several developingcountries have taken steps to encourage private in-vestment, and many countries have developed ca-pable resource and policy institutions. Progressalso has been made in energy-related environmen-tal protection.

Bilateral and multilateral donor institutionsalso are beginning to incorporate environmentalplanning and energy conservation into their proj-ects and to encourage a larger role for the privatesector. Congress has directed USAID to encour-age energy pricing reform, end-use energy effi-ciency, integrated resource planning (termed leastcost planning), and renewable energy; and to in-crease the number and expertise of personnel de-voted to these areas. USAID has also beendirected to include global warming considerationsin its energy assistance activities. In particular,Congress requested USAID to identify those de-


Conceptually, Integrated resource planning2 (IRP) is straightforward. Planners rank by cost all the

different energy supply and energy end-use technologies that might be used to provide an energy ser-

vice, and implement them beginning with the lowest cost opportunities. Thus, various electricity supply

technologies such as conventional coal plants, steam-injected gas turbines, and combined-cycle

plants are compared with each other and with end-use technologies such as compact fluorescent

Iights, adjustable--speed electronic drives for motors, and increased insulation in buildings to reduce

air-conditioning loads. Of all the different possibilities, the lowest cost options are chosen for invest-

ment

The manner in which energy institutions are organized, however, has not encouraged the imple-

mentation of Integrated resource planning Under the traditional regulatory framework found in most

countries, utilities are in the business of selling energy supplies, not energy services Each kilowatt-

hour sold by an electric utility increases gross earnings, no matter how much it costs to generate; con-

versely, each kilowatt-hour saved by using an energy-efficient technology decreases earnings, no mat-

ter how little it costs to Implement 3 Similarly, displacing utility-generated power with purchases of pow-

er from nonutility sources such as industrial cogeneration usually reduces utility earnings These con-

siderations often hold even where electricity costs are heavily subsidized—the state simply replenishes

utility funds while utility managers and workers are rewarded in terms of job security, increased salaries

or staffs, and so forth for the amount of electricity generated, irrespective of its cost and usefulness.

in contrast, Integrated Resource Planning changes the regulatory framework in order to encourage

utilities and other to Implement the least-cost demand and supply options. Among other changes, reg-

ulators allow utilities to earn income based on the net benefits from investments m energy-efficiency

Improvements This focuses the financial, managerial, and technical skills of the utility on some of the

market failures on the demand side and helps realize some of the most important policy responses,

especially the capital cost-related ones

Factors that should be considered in IRP programs include: providing appropriate financial rewards

for utilities to support efficiency Improvements as well as supply-decoupling utility profits from the

number of kilowatt-hours sold—m order to minimize the overall cost of supplying energy services, en-

suring that the startup costs of the IRP program and the administrative complexity and overheads are

kept to a minimum, developing adequate methods for “measuring” savings (also known as scorekeep-

ing), and avoiding the “free-rider” problem.

‘ Sources and further reading David Moskowtz, ‘ Profits and Progress Through Least-Cost Planning, ” National Assoclatton ofRegulatory Utlllty Commissioners, Washington, DC, November, 1989, Jonathan Koomey, Arthur H Rosenfeld, and Ashok Gadgll,

“Conservation Screening Curves To Compare Efficiency Investments to Power Plants, ” Energy Po/icy, October 1990, pp 774-782,Thomas B Johansson, Blrglt Bodlund, and Robert H Williams, E/ecWcity Efficient End-Use and New Generation Techno/oglesand

Thefr P/annmg hnphcations (Lund, Sweden Lund Unwersity Press, 1989), Howard S Geller, Effrclent Hectrlcty Use A Deve/opmen?

Strategy for flrazd, contractor report for the Off Ice of Technology Assessment (Washington, DC American Council for an Energy EffI-clent Economy, 1991), Proceedings 5(PI Natlorra/ Demand -Sfde Management Conference, Electric Power Research Inshtute, PaloAlto, CA, report CU-7394, 1991, P Herman, et al , “End-UseTechnlcalA ssessment Guide, volume4 Fundamentals and Methods, ”

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI CU-7222, VOI 4, April 1991, Palo Alto, CA; Linda Berry and Er{c Hlrst, “The U.S DOE Least-

Cost Uhltty Planning Program, ” Energy 15(12) 1107-1117, 1990, Glenn Zorpette, “UtMles Get Serious About Efficiency, ” /EEESpec-

trum, May 1991, pp 42-432 Other names associated with integrated resource planning include/east costp/annmg and demand sfde management Least

Cost Planmng has sometimes been taken to mean only comparisons of energy supply options, with no comparisons with end use

options, with no comparisons with energy supply options3 Adapted from David Moskowtz, Op Clt , footnote 1

●

—.-


veloping countries where changes in energy andforestry policies might significant y reduce green-house gas emissions.

Given the relatively small scale of U.S. bilater-al assistance for energy development,4 aid atten-tion should focus on:

promoting technical assistance and institutionbuilding for technology transfer and diffusion;introducing energy efficiency and related envi-ronmental considerations into broader interna-tional policy discussions where the U.S. voicecarries considerable weight;bringing influence to bear on the activities ofthe multilateral development banks whose ex-penditures represent a major force in develop-ing country energy decisionmaking; anddeveloping cooperative approaches with otherbilateral donors and lending agencies, and theprivate sectors in the United States and devel-oping countries.

Regulatory and Trade PoliciesTo Support Sustainable Development

Discussions of developing country industrializa-tion needs have become more common as issuessuch as international trade agreements, multina-tional enterprises, “aid for trade,” and “greener”production have entered the domestic and interna-tional policy dialog. Helping developing coun-tries reduce the adverse environmental impacts ofurbanization and industrial growth can, in someinstances, help U.S. producers of environmentaltechnologies.

However, U.S. manufacturers have long ex-pressed concern about the cost of complying withU.S. environmental regulations. In most develop-ing countries, compliance costs are lower and, insome cases, negligible. OTA generally has foundthat environmental regulation has little overall ef-fect on U.S. trade performance. Market access,wages, and labor standards are much more impor-

tant to siting facilities differences. Environmentalregulation and enforcement have greater impact inU.S. sectors with higher compliance costs andregulatory burdens than their foreign competitors(29). Various domestic and foreign policy re-sponses to unequal levels of environmental regu-lation are possible, such as negotiations with othercountries for higher standards, changes in the U.S.regulatory system, and incentives to U.S. indus-tries to adopt pollution prevention and other inno-vative, more cost-effective environmentalapproaches. Environmental agreements with oth-er countries could be combined with U.S. techni-cal assistance to help countries develop andimplement appropriate environmental standards.U.S. policy efforts aimed at making business else-where adhere to industrialized country standardswould be controversial, but could yield long-termbenefits for the environment and for public recep-tiveness to trade liberalization in the UnitedStates. However, developing country officialsmay fear losing multinational investments if theirenvironmental standards are raised above those ofneighboring countries.

The issue of unequal environmental standardswas addressed in Copper: Technology and Com-petitiveness ( 1988). U.S. copper producersclaimed that extensive environmental regulationssignificantly added to the costs of domestic pro-duction and adversely affected their competitive-ness. In developing countries, environmentalregulations on copper producers had considerablyless impact. OTA suggested that the United Statescould apply pressure for environmental controlthrough its participation in international financingof foreign copper projects (World Bank), orthrough taxes on imported copper. Pressure onMexico and Canada, in particular, could be tied totreaties related to border issues. In the end, how-ever, the U.S. copper industry’s concerns aboutenvironmental regulations, labor costs, and orequality were offset by their advantages with re-

4 According to OTA c$timate~ of 1991 aid, total U.S. bilateral assi~tance for environmental technologies. including energy, is second onlyto Japan (OTA, 1993).


spect to transportation costs, technology, support-ing infrastructure, and workforce capabilities.

OTA described potential conflicts between en-vironmental protection and trade in Trade and En-vironment: Conflicts and Opportunities (1992).Options for addressing these conflicts in for theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)and North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) negotiations were offered in Industry,Technology, and the Environment: CompetitiveChallenges and Business Opportunities (1994).

In U.S. -Mexico Trade: Pulling Together orPulling Apart? (1992), OTA evaluated the effectsof one trade agreement, the NAFTA with Mexico,on U.S. jobs and economic opportunities. Al-though analysis centered on U.S. industries (auto-mobiles and parts, electronics, apparel, andagriculture), discussion of potential repercussionson both sides of the border was offered. F o rinstance, open trade could increase prosperity andraise standards of living in both countries, or itcould drive down wages and living standards inthe United States without accelerating develop-ment in Mexico. Mexico’s environmental laws,though comprehensive, do not appear to be wellenforced and funding for pollution control, clean-up, and inspection is scarce. In OTA’s estimation,the agreement Integrated Plan for the Mexican-U.S. Border Area was only a small step towardimproving the border environment. It was fearedthat the plan lacked concrete goals and financialcommitments, and called for more informationexchanges and studies than actions. Nevertheless,programs are now underway to improve Mexico’seconomic opportunities and workplace health andsafety standards, and to institute social and envi-ronmental improvements, including:

●

●

●

product standards, e.g., environmental healthand safety standards for exported goods;sanitary and phytosanitary measures, e.g., spe-cific pesticide residue limits for agriculturaland food products;restrictions on trade, e.g., prohibition of prod-ucts containing or generating CFCs;

dispute settlement, e.g., opening up the processto public involvement, in contrast to GATT’s“closed forum” process; andestablishment of the North American Develop-ment Bank.

Environmental and IndustrialTechnologies To Support Sustainability

In accordance with growing environmentalawareness worldwide, OTA recently looked at en-vironmental protection issues in terms of the eco-nomic and industrial opportunities they maypresent (9, 11). Environmental awareness, liberal-ization of trade, and the presence of multinationalfirms is leading to more environmental technolo-gy imports in some developing countries.

Developing countries are not equally advancedin their economic and regulatory capacities or en-vironmental equipment needs. For most develop-ing countries, provision of basic water, sewer, andrefuse disposal services are major environmentalpriorities and the areas where most spending onenvironmental technologies occurs. Technologiessuch as improved cookstoves, forest manage-ment, and agricultural practices are the primaryneeds in some countries. Potential buyers of envi-ronmental equipment in developing countries arethe electric power, chemical, petroleum refining,steel, pulp and paper, food, textile, and other proc-ess industries.

Provision of even basic environmental publicworks involves heavy capital expenditures, longlead times in planning and construction, and highfixed costs. Developing countries will need moresystems suited to rural areas, as well as systemsthat reach the urban poor. A few of the environ-mental public works technologies discussed inDelivering the Goods: Public Works Technolo-gies, Management, and Finance (1991) are ap-propriate for rural and low-income users (52).

Multilateral institutions and bilateral donorswill play the principal role in building environ-mental infrastructure in developing countries.Thus, environmental product and service provid-


ers look to foreign aid and private and public in-vestment as major clients. Linking developmentassistance with promotion of environmental ex-ports may benefit business as well as bring neededenvironmental technology to developing coun-tries. Some fear this could result in transfer oftechnologies that do not meet the recipient’s de-velopmental or environmental needs. Potentialfor transfer of inappropriate technologies could bereduced through safeguards to keep export promo-tion efforts consistent with developmental and en-vironmental objectives (9).

The industrial sector consumes 40 to 60 percentof total commercial fossil energy used in develop-ing countries and also uses biomass fuels heavily.Lack of efficient conversion technologies and reli-able supplies contributes to the overall inefficien-cy of energy use and promotes adverse economicand environmental impacts. Certain technologiesthat lead to more efficient use of energy and mate-rials can be applied to many industries. In rapidlyindustrializing countries where very large invest-ments in new production systems are occurring,the application of cleaner production and energy-efficient technologies can provide long-term envi-ronmental and economic benefits.

Approaches to industrial development that pre-vent pollution often are more cost-effective thanend-of-pipe water treatment technologies, SeveralOTA reports, beginning with Serious Reduction ofHazardous Waste and culminating most recentlyin Industry, Technology, and the Environment(1994), have discussed the potential for industrialpollution prevention. As noted in DevelopmentAssistance, Export Promotion, and Environmen -tal Technologies ( 1993), pollution preventionwould be a logical candidate for more attentionfrom bilateral and multilateral aid agencies.

Primary barriers to improve industrial efficien-cy in developing countries are: typical small scaleneeded (i.e., inability to take advantage of econ-omy of scale), inadequate infrastructure. use oflow quality or obsolete technology, and the highinitial costs for installing improved technologiesor constructing new facilities with improvedtechnologies (52).

OTA suggested the following options with po-tential direct benefits to developing countries andthe United States:

■

m

■

m

■

provide developing countries with informationand technical advice on environmental prod-ucts. approaches, and available technologies;make cleaner production and pollution preven-tion priorities in multilateral aid;fund USAID-Department of Energy programsfor transfer of innovative energy and environ-mental technologies to developing countries;increase the U.S. Trade and DevelopmentAgency’s funding for capital project feasibilitystudies; andencourage U.S. firms to emphasize training inequipment and service contracts in their in-ternational activities.

The role of U.S. development assistance instrengthening developing country economies re-mains controversial. On the one hand, U.S. assist-ance programs are to promote sound economicdevelopment and policy choices, and improve de-veloping countries’ conditions for private invest-ment and foreign exchange earnings. On the otherhand, these activities are not to create competitionfor U.S. industry nor export U.S. jobs. A discus-sion of the pros and cons of using development as-sistance to promote trade and U.S. economicgrowth is provided in OTA’s Development Assist-ance, Export Promotion and the Environment(1993).

| Human Resources To SupportSustainability

Aid for development at the project level oftenaims to meet a given need within a host popula-tion, and to improve that population’s potential toidentify and address its own institutional and tech-nical needs after direct assistance has ended. Thelatter requires attention to human capital and insti-tutional support. Within many developing coun-tries, the institutions needed for sustainabledevelopment are not broadly available outside ofmajor urban areas, or to the poor in general.


Several OTA reports focus on issues of humanresource development in recipient nations and do-mestic communities, including assessments of in-ternational telecommunications policy, tropicaldisease research, and local development.

| Communications andInformation Technologies

Facilitating communication among industrial anddeveloping countries will be fundamental to manyaspects of sustainable development. The expan-sion of personal computer networks and associ-ated communication applications (e.g., Internet,Telnet) seems to portend a communication explo-sion. However, widespread investment will beneeded to increase availability and accessibility ofeven the most basic communications technologiesin developing countries. First, the basic telecom-munications infrastructure must be expanded andupgraded. Secondary objectives are:

■ Improve availability and accessibility to cel-lular radio technology. Remote areas in de-veloping countries have been particularlymarginalized in terms of access to information.Cellular technology, although expensive, couldbe appropriate in these areas where environ-mental constraints mitigate against traditionalcommunications infrastructure.

■ Promote availability and use of computerizedapplications. Increasing access to a wide vari-ety of electronic information could assist pro-fessionals and decisionmakers to address avariety of problems from diagnosing diseases,determining what crops to plant based on in-ternational markets, or identifying potentialtechnical experts for specific sustainable devel-opment projects. Making such information eas-ily available in developing countries wheremany facilities are constrained by small bud-gets could significantly improve their operabil-ity.

● Improve and expand international commu-nications. A variety of electronic technologies(e.g., Internet, electronic mail, and facsimile)have revolutionized information exchange.The expansion of electronic mail and facsimile

has been dramatic and allows easy communica-tion around much of the world, irrespective oftime-zone differences that can make telephoneaccess problematic. One- to two-day turn-arounds on information is possible. Althoughcosts vary, they seem to be decreasing, makinginternational electronic communication moreaccessible. For example, many nongovern-mental organizations in developing countriesuse computer-based communication systemsto gather and disseminate information interna-tionally.

Several organizations are working toward im-proved global communications. The United Na-tions Sustainable Development Network isassisting less developed countries develop andmaintain data on domestic development activitieswith an ultimate goal of compiling a global net-work. Similarly, US AID is improving its Manage-ment Information System as a programmatictracking mechanism. Both of these sources couldcontain valuable information for developingcountry professionals and decisionmakers. Coor-dination of information suppliers could generategreater benefits.

Unfortunately, developing countries are signif-icantly disadvantaged in international telecom-munications. Most developing countries lackeven basic infrastructure such as sound (audio)satellite and TV broadcasting and cellular data.Sound satellite services, capable of deliveringeducational, health information, disaster warning,news, and entertainment services, currently reachonly 30 percent of Africa’s territories (5). Ninetypercent of the allocated radio spectrum already isutilized by industrial countries, and many of theservices sought by developing countries use partsof the spectrum desired or already occupied by in-dustrialized countries. Furthermore, the develop-ing country representatives responsible forchoosing and lobbying for services and technolo-gies often must do so without adequate resourcesor understanding of technical issues, and at tre-mendous economic risk. Developing countrieshave, therefore, had little choice but to attempt topool their resources and develop a unified position


in international negotiations. Identification ofcommon, regional interests and problems regard-ing spectrum access and use can overcome somefinancial and human resource constraints, but in-dustrial country cooperation is necessary.

Agreement and support from the United Statesis necessary if spectrum resource inequities are tobe reduced. Technical and financial assistance andcooperation from the United States could help de-veloping countries make informed technologychoices in support of development (5).

| Tropical Disease-RelatedBiomedical Technologies

In broadest measurements, human health has im-proved in all developing regions over the past fewdecades (e.g., life expectancy at birth, mortality ofchildren age 5 and below). Nevertheless, of totaldeaths in 1985 in developing countries, nearlyone-half were caused by infectious and parasiticdiseases. Of these, 37 percent were children under5 (versus 3 percent in developed countries) (61).

Vectorborne, tropical diseases remain perva-sive problems in the developing world:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Malaria is on an upward trend due to insecti-cide-resistant mosquitoes and resistance of theparasite to antimalarial drugs; a 7-percent in-crease was noted between 1985 and 1990.Schistosomiasis is endemic in 76 countries;200,000 people die of this each year; 200 mil-lion are infected and 600 million are at risk.Filariasis affects 76 countries; 90 millionpeople are infected and 900 million are at risk.Onchocerciasis is endemic in 26 African, twoeastern Mediterranean, and six Latin Americancountries: 17.6 million to 17.8 million peopleare infected and 85 million to 90 million are atrisk (61 ).

U.S.-supported tropical medicine research iscarried out by several multinational programs,government agencies, universities, and private re-search foundations and corporations, Two OTAdocuments about tropical disease emerged in re-sponse to congressional uncertainty over whetherto continue funding the Gorgas Memorial Labora-

tory in the Republic of Panama: Quality and Rele-vance of Research and Related Activities at theGorgas Memorial Laboratory (1983) and Statusof Biomedical Research and Related Technologyfor Tropical Diseases (1985). OTA identified thenow-defunct Gorgas Memorial Laboratory as oneof the few high-quality, broadly relevant, tropicalresearch institutions located in a tropical country.OTA suggested such institutions were needed inthe Tropics to: 1 ) provide field information on theoccurrence, natural history, and transmission ofdiseases; and 2) test research results+. g., drugs,vaccines, vector control programs—where dis-eases occur. It was also pointed out that researchinstitutions in developing countries can serve astraining facilities and can help developing coun-tries retain professionals who otherwise wouldlikely seek positions in industrialized countries.

International health research centers along thelines of the international agricultural research cen-ters could make a large contribution to improvingthe health care/maintenance systems in develop-ing countries. Such centers could identify and ana-lyze the sources of health problems as well asconduct local research on design and delivery ofhealth maintenance systems. Developments in ba-sic and applied biomedical research hold promisefor more specific disease control measures (38).Status of Biomedical Research and RelatedTechnology for Tropical Diseases {1985), in-cluded an overview of the major U.S. tropicalR&D supporters (e.g., National Institutes ofHealth, Center for Disease Control, U.S. Depart-ment of Defense, and U.S. Agency for Interna-tional Development); policies concerningmedical technology development, research fund-ing, and congressional oversight; and assessmentof biomedical laboratory research. Some field re-search pertaining to selected tropical diseases alsowas discussed.

| Local DevelopmentMany developing countries are still at a stagewhere increased investment in sanitation andclean water would bring tremendous benefits.Small and regional wastewater, drinking water,


and municipal solid waste systems used in U.S.rural areas, which might have uses in developingcountries, were discussed along with metropoli-tan public works in Delivering the Goods: PublicWorks Technologies, Management, and Finance(1991).

Construction, operation, and maintenance ofpublic service facilities (e.g., environmental pub-lic works and transportation) in developing coun-tries, particularly their rural areas, impose highcosts. Without these services, however, neglectedpopulations in rural and urban areas suffer higherincidence of infectious diseases, and may beforced to invest considerable time and energy insecuring water; furthermore, rural economic de-velopment options are severely limited.

An Assessment of Technologies for Local De-velopment (198 1 ) assessed the potential for reduc-ing the costs of community services usingappropriate technology. Case studies were con-ducted of community-based projects for: re-source-efficient residential architecture, solargreenhouses, small farm systems, farmers mar-kets, resource recovery from municipal solidwaste, wastewater treatment, energy generation,and health- care- systems. Critical to all the proj-ects was public interest; availability of technicalinformation and expertise; material, capital, andfinancial resources; and various types of financing(e.g., grants, cost-sharing, contracts, subsidies,conventional financing).

Appropriate technology may not be readilytransferable. Because appropriate technology istailored to special conditions and available re-sources at the community level, a similar outcomeis not guaranteed elsewhere. Transfer of appropri-ate technologies in overseas projects depends onreliable information on the design, cost, and per-formance of the technologies themselves; and onremoval of institutional barriers (e.g., oppositionfrom commercial interests and reluctance of do-nors to accept innovative project designs).

Improved human capital is a precondition totransfer of technical and productive knowledge,and eventual production of new knowledge. Prac-ticing sustainable development will depend onbroad understanding of the interdependence of the

Earth’s social, economic, and environmental re-sources and the costs and benefits of adopting sus-tainable practices.

APPENDIX B REFERENCES1. Bierbaum, R., Sundt, N., and Friedman, R.,

An Analysis of the Montreal Protocol on Sub-stances that Deplete the Ozone Layer--StaffPaper, staff paper prepared by the Oceans andEnvironment Program (Washington, DC: Of-fice of Technology Assessment, U.S. Con-gress, February 1988).

2. Hess, A. L., Ross-Sheriff, B., and Durana, P.,Aid to Developing Countries: The Technolo -gy/Ecology Fit-Staff Paper, staff paper pre-pared by the Food and Renewable ResourcesProgram (Washington, DC: Office ofTechnology Assessment, U.S. Congress,June 1987).

3. Hinrichsen, D., “Coasts Under Pressure,”People and the Planet 3(1): 19-21, 1994.

4. Kowalok, M. E., “Common Threads: Re-search Lessons from Acid Rain, OzoneDepletion, and Global Warming,” Environ-ment 35(6): 13-38, 1993.

5. Norguera, F., "WARC ’92: Implications andStakes for Developing Countries,” Carib-bean Affairs 5(June):96-101, 1992.

6. Norse, D., “A New Strategy for Feeding aCrowded Planet,” Environment 34(5):6-11,32-39, 1992.

7. Plucknett, D. L., “International AgriculturalResearch for the Next Century,” Bioscience43(7): 432-440, 1993.

8. Technology Assessment Act of 1972, PublicLaw 92-484 (86 Stat. 797), 92d Congress,H.R. 10243, Oct. 13, 1972.

9. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Industry, Technology, and the Environ-ment: Competitive Challenges and BusinessOpportunities, OTA-ITE-586 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Janu-ary 1 994).

10. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Multinationals and the National Inter-est, OTA-ITE-569 (Washington, DC: U.S.


Government Printing Office, September1993).

11. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Development Assistance, ExportPromotion, and Environmental Technology-Background Paper, OTA-BP-ITE- 107(Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, August 1993).

12. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Alternative Coca Reduction Strategiesin the Andean Region, OTA-F-556 (Washing-ton DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,July 1993).

13. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, The Future of Remote Sensing fromSpace: Civilian Satellite Systems and Ap-plications, OTA-ISC-558 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993).

14. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, The 1992 World Administration RadioConference: Technology and Policy Implica-tions, OTA-TCT-549 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, May 1993).

15. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, U.S.-Mexico Trade: Pulling Togetheror Pulling Apart? OTA-ITE-545 (Washing-ton. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,October 1992).

16. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, A New Technological Era for AmericanAgriculture, OTA-F-474 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, August1992).

17. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Combined Summaries: TechnologiesTo Sustain Tropical Forest Resources and Bi-ological Diversity, OTA-F-515 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May1992).

18. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment. Trade and the Environment: Conflictsand Opportunities-Background Paper,OTA-BP-ITE-94 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, May 1992).

19. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Fueling Development: Energy Technol-ogies for Developing Countries, OTA-E-516

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, April 1992).

20. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, The 1992 World Administration RadioConference: Issues for U.S. InternationalSpectrum Policy-Background Paper, OTA -BP-TCT-76 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, November 1991 ).

21. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Biotechnology in the Global Economy,OTA-BA-494 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, October 199 1).

22. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, New Opportunities for U.S. Universi-ties in Development Assistance: Agriculture,Natural Resources, and Environment—Back-ground Paper, OTA-BP-F-71 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Sep-tember 199 1).

23. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Energy Technology Choices: ShapingOur Future, OTA-E-493 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1991 ).

24. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Global Arms Trade, OTA-ISC-480(Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, June 1991).

25. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Delivering the Goods: Public WorksTechnologies, Management, and Finance,OTA-SET-477 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, April 199 1).

26. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Rural America at the Crossroads: Net-working for the Future, OTA-TCT-471(Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, April, 1991 ).

27. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Changing by Degrees: Steps To ReduceGreenhouse Gases, OTA-O-482 (Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,February 1991).

28. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, A Plague of Locusts-Special Report,OTA-F-450 (Washington DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, July 1990).


29. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Making Things Better: Competing inManufacturing, OTA-ITE-443 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March1990).

30. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Copper: Technology and Competitive-ness, OTA-E-367 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, September1988).

31. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: ARole for U.S. Development Assistance,OTA-F-356 (Washington DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, September 1988).

32. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Grassroots Development: The AfricanDevelopment Foundation, OTA-F-378(Washington DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, June 1988).

33. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Integrated Renewable Resource Man-agement for U.S. Insular Areas, OTA-F-325(Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, June 1987).

34. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Wastes in Marine Environments,OTA-O-334 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, April 1987).

35. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Technologies To Maintain BiologicalDiversity, OTA-F-330 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, March1987).

36. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Continuing the Commitment: Agricul-tural Development in the Sahel-SpecialReport, OTA-F-308 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, August 1986).

37. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Energy Technology Transfer to Chi-na-Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-ISC-30 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, September, 1985).

38. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Status of Biomedical Research and Re-lated Technology for Tropical Diseases,

OTA-H-258 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, September 1985).

39. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Innovative Biological Technologies forDeveloping Countries—Workshop Proceed-ings, OTA-BP-F-29 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, July 1985).

40. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, International Cooperation and Com-petition in Civilian Space Activities,OTA-ISC-239 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, July 1985).

41. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Africa Tomorrow: Issues in Technolo-gy, Agriculture, and U.S. Foreign Aid-Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-F-31(Washington DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, December 1984).

42. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Technology Transfer to the MiddleEast, OTA-ISC-173 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, September1984).

43. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Remote Sensing and the Private Sector,Issues for Discussion-Technical Memoran-dum, OTA-TM-ISC-20 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, March1984).

44. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Technologies To Sustain Tropical For-est Resources, OTA-F-214 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, March1984).

45. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Nuclear Power in the Age of Uncertain-ty, OTA-E-216 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, February 1984).

46. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Commercial Biotechnology: AnInternational Analysis, OTA-BA-218 (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, January 1984).

47. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Plants: The Potentials for ExtractingProtein, Medicines, and other Useful Chemi-cals-Workshop Proceedings, OTA-BP-F-23


(Washington, DC: U.S. Government printingOffice, September 1983).

48. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment. Quality and Relevance of Research andRelated Activities at the Gorgas MemorialLaboratory-Technical Memorandum, OTA -TM-H-18 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, August 1983).

49. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Water-Related Technologies for Sus-tainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands:Selected Foreign Experience—BackgroundPaper, OTA-BP-F-20 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, May 1983).

50. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment. World Population and Fertility Plan-ning Technologies, the Next Twenty Years,OTA-HR-157 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, February 1982).

51. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment. An Assessment of the U.S. Food andAgricultural Research System, OTA-F-155(Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, December 1981 ).

52. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment. An Assessment of Technologies for Lo-cal Development, OTA-R-129 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Janu-ary 198 1).

53. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment. World Petroleum Availability 1980-2000-Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-E-5 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, October 1980).

54. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Alternative Energy Futures-Part 1,The Future of Liquid Natural Gas Imports,

OTA-E-110 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, March 1980).

55. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, U.S. Disaster Assistance to DevelopingCountries: Lessons Applicable to U.S. Do-mestic Disaster Programs—Background Pa -per, OTA-BP-X-1 (Washington DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, January 1980).

56. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Pest Management Strategies in CropProtection-Volume 1, OTA-F-98 (Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,October 1979).

57. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Nutrition Research Alternatives,OTA-F-74 (Washington. DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, September 1978).

58. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Food Information Systems, Summaryand Analysis, OTA-F-35 (Washington. DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, August1976).

59. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa-tion Administration, Carbon Emissions Re-port (Washington, DC: April 1994).

60. Windle, P., et al., Science and Technology forDevelopment-Staff Paper, staff paper pre-pared by the Food and Renewable ResourcesProgram (Washington. DC: Office of Tech-nology Assessment, U.S. Congress, February1989).

61. World Resources Institute, “Dimensions ofSustainable Development,” World Resources1992-93: A Guide to the Global Environment(New York, NY: Oxford University Press,1992).

Listof

c Abbreviations

ADFATICDIE

CGIAR

DAC

DFA

EDFEUFAO

GEF

IAFIARC

IDBIIED

IMFNGONICODA

ODAODI

98 |

African Development FoundationAppropriate Technology, InternationalCenter for Development Informationand Evaluation (USAID)Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural ResearchDevelopment Assistance Committee(OECD)Development Fund for Africa, U.S.Agency for International DevelopmentEuropean Development Fund (EU)European UnionFood and Agricultural Organization ofthe United NationsGlobal Environment Fund (WorldBank)InterAmerican FoundationInternational Agricultural ResearchCentreInterAmerican Development BankInternational Institute for Environmentand DevelopmentInternational Monetary FundNongovernmental organizationNewly Industrialized CountryOverseas Development Administration(Great Britain)official development assistanceOverseas Development Institute(London. UK)

OECD

PL-480

PVOSDSDISDN

STORUNUNCTAD

UNDP

UNEP

UNESCO

UNIDO

USAID

WB

WCS

Organisation for EconomicCooperation and DevelopmentAgricultural Adjustment Act of 1954as Amended, ● ’Food aid”Private voluntary organizationSustainable Developmentsustainable development indexSustainable Development Network.UNDPsustainable terms of referenceUnited NationsUnited Nations Conference on Tradeand DevelopmentUnited Nations DevelopmentProgrammeUnited Nations EnvironmentProgrammeUnited Nations Educational, Scientific,and Cultural OrganizationUnited Nations Organization forIndustrial DevelopmentU.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopmentWorld Bank (the International Bank forReconstruction and Development, theInternational Development Agency,and the International FinanceCorporation comprise the World Bank)World Conservation Strategy

James AdrianceInterAmerican FoundationArlington, VA

Nancy AlexanderBread for the WorldSilver Spring, MD

Mark BairdWorld BankWashington, DC

David BathrickChemonics, InternationalWashington, DC

Joseph D. Ben-DakTechnology GroupUnited Nations Development ProgrammeNew York, NY

Richard BissellOverseas Development CouncilWashington, DC

Appendix D:Principal

Reviewers DVary CoatesOffice of Technology AssessmentTelecommunications and Computing Technologies

Program

Robert CoppockThe 2050 ProjectWashington, DC

Kathy CoxOffice of Technology AssessmentEnvironment Program

Mike CrosswellU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC

Diana CrowleyEnvironment and Natural Resources Policy and

Training ProjectArlington, VA

Peter DonaldsonPopulation Reference BureauWashington, DC

I 99


Kevin DopartOffice of Technology AssessmentEnergy, Transportation, and Infrastructure Program

Joy DunkerlyOffice of Technology AssessmentEnergy, Transportation, and Infrastructure Program

Laura EffrosU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC

Frank FenderU.S. Department of AgricultureOffice of International Cooperation and

DevelopmentWashington, DC

Donald FergusonU.S. Department of AgricultureOffice of International Cooperation and

DevelopmentWashington, DC

Wendell FletcherOffice of Technology AssessmentIndustry, Trade, and Employment Program

Linda GarciaOffice of Technology AssessmentTelecommunications and Computing Technologies

Program

Hellen GelbandOffice of Technology AssessmentHealth Program

Robert GoodlandWorld BankWashington, DC

Julie GorteOffice of Technology AssessmentIndustry, Trade, and Employment Program

Hans GregersonUniversity of MinnesotaCollege of Natural ResourcesSt. Paul, MN

Charles HallState University of New YorkCollege of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuse, NY

Jim HesterU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC

John E. lkerdUniversity of MissouriCenter for Sustainable Agriculture SystemsColumbia, MO

Gary JahnOffice of Technology AssessmentEnvironment Program

David JensenOffice of Technology AssessmentEnergy, Transportation, and Infrastructure Program

Inge KaulHuman Development Report OfficeUnited Nations Development ProgrammeNew York, NY

David C. KortenPCDForumNew York, NY

Robert LesterUS. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC

Appendix D: Principal Reviewers 1101

David LewisCornell UniversityCity and Regional Planning DepartmentIthaca, NY

Arnold LowensteinCharles River & AssociatesBoston, MA

George MahaffeyEnvironment ProgramsU.S. Peace CorpsWashington, DC

Sandra NicholsNichols Productions, Inc.Oakland, CA

Walter ParhamChina Tropical Lands ProjectVienna. VA

Ross PomfreyU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC

Mark PowellU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC

Vernon RuttanDepartment of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsUniversity of MinnesotaSt. Paul. MN

Rodney SobinOffice of Technology AssessmentIndustry, Trade, and Employment Program

William StewartGlobal Environment ProgramPacific InstituteOakland, CA

John StovallHubert Humphrey Institute of Public AffairsUniversity of MinnesotaAlexandria, VA

Ann ThruppWorld Resources InstituteCenter for International Development and

EnvironmentWashington, DC

Phyllis WindleOffice of Technology AssessmentEnvironment Program

Documents

Perspectives on the Role of Science and Technology in Sustainable