Interregional sustainability: governance and policy in an ecologically interdependent world

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Interregional sustainability: governance and policy in an ecologically interdependent world§ Meidad Kissinger a,*, William E. Rees b, Vanessa Timmer b a b

Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel University of British Columbia, Canada

abstract article info This paper develops a theoretical interregional approach to sustainability in an interconPublished on line 24 June 2011

nected world. We make the case that achieving sustainability – living equitably within the

Keywords:

interconnectedness across regions and the resultant need for supra-regional policy to shape

Sustainability

local resilience and global sustainability. Approaching sustainability conscious of interre-

limits of living systems – requires the recognition of our ecological interdependence and

Regional

gional connections reveals that: (1) virtually every significant human population or country

Ecology

lives, in part, on energy/material flows to and from distant places elsewhere around the

Globalization

world, (2) production, consumption and policy decisions in any given locale have the

Cross-scale

potential to create unseen unsustainable burdens on connected productive ecosystems

Resilience

in distant locales, (3) ecological change in one region has the potential to jeopardize the

Policy

sustainability of other regions, and (4) society in almost any region has interests in

Socio-ecological systems

sustaining the vitality of ecosystems in other regions. We highlight a range of supra-regional

Complexity

ecological linkages and discuss the types of interregional feedback and policy responses needed. We highlight how such an quasi-global focus not only provides further insight into the social and ecological challenges global society is facing, but also reveals places for positive human intervention and leadership in the name of sustainability and resilience. # 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Throughout human history, people have depended mostly on local ecosystems for resources and waste assimilation. In the past two centuries, the expansion of the human enterprise has resulted in a historically unprecedented extension and thickening of the web of inter-regional connections. Billions of people have become dependent on resource supplies from all over the world for their well-being, and even survival (Princen, 1997, 1999; French, 2000; Rees, 1994, 2010a,b; WTO, 2006). Moreover, people consume more than in the past, both in total and on a per capita basis (French, 2000; Meadows et al., §

2004; MEA, 2005; Brown, 2006; FAOSTAT, 2010). These trends have elevated mutual interdependence, ecological impacts and permanent change to the global scale (Daly, 1996; Clark, 2000; Costanza et al., 2007; Haberl et al., 2007; Rockstro¨m et al., 2009). In this highly interconnected dynamic global system, cumulative or sudden ecological failure in one region can threaten human sustainability in other regions and the entire global system. The idea that we are living in an interdependent world is hardly new. Various studies highlight how economic, political and social changes in one part of the world influence other parts of the world. Consider that financial markets at home respond to trends in financial markets half a world away; how

This paper is an expanded version of a presentation to the 2010 conference of the Global Ecological Integrity Group that will appear in the conference proceedings. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Kissinger). 1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.05.007

966

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

diplomatic efforts by one group of nations can prevent violence in others; how short-term famine in country ‘A’ inspires humanitarian aid from countries ‘B’ to ‘Z’; how an epidemic in one region becomes a preoccupation of governments and health authorities virtually everywhere else. Despite such increasing global connectedness, most environmental policies still apply to a single spatial scale – local or national – and focus on limited dimensions of human wellbeing and ecosystems integrity. The main emphases are on the local pollution impacts of local production activities. Only a few studies focus on the cross-boundary effects of local waste discharge on other countries. Even issues acknowledged to be global (e.g., climate change) are framed so that corrective action is essentially voluntary and fragmented among individual states. However, we argue here that in an ecologically full world, one approaching or beyond biophysical limits (Daly, 1991; Meadows et al., 2004); a world in which activity in any one region can generate environmental impact on other regions and even the entire ecosphere (Rees, 2010a,b; Kissinger and Rees, 2010); a world in which resource scarcity and the consequences of ecological changes are becoming major security issues (Pirages, 2005; Homer-Dixon, 1999; Renner, 1996), disjointed single-scale approaches to assessing, quantifying and acting toward sustainability are futile. It has become essential to incorporate trans-regional across-scale dimension in both national and global policies for sustainability. Various researchers have emphasized the need to examine cross-scale linkages among nested and complex socialecological systems (e.g., Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Young, 2002; MEA, 2005; Cash et al., 2006; Kissinger and Rees, 2010). This paper starts from the premise that the sustainability of any given region may well depend on the continued productivity and sustainability of other regions. We develop a classification of interregional impacts central to sustainability. We then make the case that achieving sustainability – living equitably within the limits of supportive ecosystems – requires the formal recognition of ecological connectedness and interdependence across regions and the development of corresponding supra-regional to global policies that enhance both local resilience and global sustainability. Ecosystem degradation and environmental change are complex processes with multiple causes (MEA, 2005). While local degradation often results solely from local activities (e.g., population growth, noxious industrial processes, inadequate domestic governance/environmental policy, corruption etc.), it can also be caused directly or indirectly by actions or activities in or by other regions (e.g., Schleicher, 1992; Rees, 1994; French, 2000; Mason, 2005; Kissinger, 2008; Kissinger and Rees, 2010). Moreover, local environmental change, whether driven by local or international activities, can affect processes of ecological change in other distant regions and compromise those regions’ economic, social, and ecological sustainability. Researchers have also recognized that the vulnerability of any region to ecological change wherever it originates, depends on that regions’ sensitivity and resilience (Turner et al., 2003). The purpose of the paper is to advance a theoretical interregional or supra-regional approach to sustainability in today’s interconnected world and to discuss its implications for local and global policy. We outline four strands of interregional thinking, and discuss types of interregional

feedback and policy needed to address mismatches between global change and ‘management’ responses. The analysis shows how the interregional perspective not only provides novel insight into the social and ecological challenges facing the global community, but also reveals loci for positive human intervention to enhance resilience and sustainability. By ‘interregional’ or ‘supra-regional’ we refer to the ecological relationships and linkages among geographical entities that are widespread, often international but generally less than global. Thus regions can refer to administrative units such as the European Union, nation-states, municipalities, and metropolitan regions; to economic regions within or shared between countries; and to bioregions such as a drainage basins or ecotypes. Approaching sustainability conscious of interregional connections reveals that: (1) virtually every significant human population or country lives, in part, on energy/material flows to and from distant locales elsewhere around the world; (2) ecological change in one region may jeopardize the sustainability of other regions; (3) production, consumption and related policy decisions in any geographic locale have the potential to create unseen unsustainable burdens on productive ecosystems in other regions and; (4) people in most countries or regions today have direct and indirect interests in sustaining the vitality of ecosystems in other regions. Recent years have provided several illustrations of the interregional entanglement of human ecological relationships thus highlighting the emergent complexity of global sustainability. Two recent examples are the British Petroleum’s massive oil-well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, and the 2010 unprecedented heat wave in Russia. While there is little doubt that BP’s blowout will influence the gulf region’s eco-systems for years to come, it also affects ecosystems and human wellbeing elsewhere. Consider the direct impact of oil- and dispersant-polluted water that made its way to distant ecosystems in the Caribbean and Atlantic coast. Moreover, since the Gulf of Mexico is the spawning and feeding ground for a variety of fish species, including North Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, the oil spill may have an indirect impact on several fisheries along the North American Atlantic coast, affecting the well-being of communities that rely on fishing for their livelihoods. Because the Gulf is one of the U.S.’s major seafood producing regions, the blowout significantly reduced production from the gulf, and increased seafood prices. However, this has not significantly reduced U.S or global demand so exploitation of marine ecosystems in other (already ecological sensitive) regions of the world such as eastern Canada increased. The summer 2010 drought and high temperature in large parts of Russia greatly lowered the quality of life of millions of Russians. Indeed, death rates increased rapidly with spreading forest fires and polluted air. However, the impacts of Russia’s extreme weather are also being felt world-wide. Consider the CO2 released to the atmosphere from the fires and now contributing to accelerating global climate change (in a positive feed-back loop – climate change likely contributed to the extreme drought in the first place). Consider also the loss of a third of Russia’s grain crop and its impact on millions of people elsewhere in the world who depend, in part, on that country’s bounty. To assure domestic supplies, the Russian

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

government temporarily banned grain exports, a decision that contributed to rising global grain prices and to decreasing poorer populations’ access to a basic staple. Note also that the loss of Russian output has increased the demand on other grain producing regions, some of which are already suffering from environmental constraints (e.g., flooding in the Canadian prairies and drought in Australia and Argentina). The cumulative effects of all such ecological change should be of concern to people and governments everywhere.

2.

Analyzing interregional sustainability

We distinguish among four strands of thinking about relevant interregional biophysical relationships: interregional pollution, the supra-regional extension of ecological footprints, supra-regional impacts of local ecological change, and policydriven systemic displacement of activities or impacts among regions. The academic literature explores these strands to varying degrees. This paper contributes by describing existing work, by highlighting the range of interregional ecological linkages, and by advancing thinking about an underdeveloped dimension of sustainability policy at the sub-global scale. These strands do not represent an exhaustive list, however, each illustrates a different dimension of the supra-regional linkages relevant to sustainability highlighted here. In particular, they highlight often overlooked variables that span regions and establish ecological interdependence: Waste emissions and pollution; consumption drivers; Local ecological change; and local and national environmental policies that lead to unintended ecological impacts in other regions. Together, they illustrate the complexity of trans-regional linkages and the necessity of addressing these linkages in policy making and governance across scales. It is important to note that the four strands operate in complex, dynamic and interconnected ways and can be present simultaneously within a region and among regions.

2.1.

The interregional pollution strand

The interregional pollution strand focuses on the impacts of unintended cross-boundary waste emissions and on the deliberate transfer of waste from one region to be processed and/or disposed of in another region. It recognizes that economic production in one location of the world imposes assimilation burdens on ecosystems and communities in distant locales. In short, modes of production, sources of energy, material use, and trans-boundary wastes flows in region ‘A’ can negatively affect the sustainability (the health of ecosystems and communities) in distant regions ‘B’. . .‘Z’. Consider transfrontier pollution, long-range transboundary pollution, and global pollution (Schleicher, 1992; Okowa, 2000; Kasperson and Kasperson, 2001; Mason, 2005). Transfrontier pollution (i.e., air or water pollution transferred from one country to its neighbor(s)) has long been recognized as a factor that impairs relations between neighboring countries and has thus received considerable attention from authorities and researchers (Okowa, 2000). There are two subcategories (Kasperson and Kasperson, 2001): near-border impact risks and point source transboundary risks which are

967

not necessarily located close to the border. In many cases both border impacts and inland point-source pollution can be identified and directly connected to a specific activity or factory which discharges waste or contaminants into an international stream or water body. Long-range transboundary pollution from one or several countries (e.g. acid rain) can cause specific damages in other, not necessarily neighboring, countries (Kasperson and Kasperson, 2001). This kind of interregional pollution usually involves industrial activities or transportation but also includes impacts resulting from the shipment of hazardous waste between regions. Consider, for example, the rise in ewaste traffic from North America to China. Global pollution refers to discharges associated with human activities in one or many regions that negatively affect global-scale life-support systems so that the damages are essentially universal. This type of supra-regional pollution degrades both national assets and the global commons (Pearce, 1995). As noted, problems associated with transboundary interregional pollution are well recognized (Kasperson and Kasperson, 2001; Mason, 2005). Their impacts have led to both bilateral and more widespread international environmental agreements (e.g., Montreal accord on ozone depletion) which aim to minimize both polluting activities and their impacts (Barrett, 2003; Mason, 2005).

2.2.

The interregional ecological footprint strand

The interregional ecological footprint strand reveals that consumption driven demand for imported goods and materials imposes significant and often unrecognized (by importers) burdens on productive ecosystems in exporting regions. In particular, densely populated high-income countries are extending their ‘ecological footprints’ into the global commons and other countries all over the world (Rees, 2006; WWF, 2008). As globalization and international trade intensify and incomes in emerging economies increase, such interregional pressure can only increase. Ecological footprint analysis forces recognition that the sustainability of people living in importdependent regions is increasingly tied to the continued productivity and sustainability of ecosystems in supporting regions wherever on earth the latter may be located. Thus, both irresponsible consumption and lax production methods can jeopardize the sustainability of both consuming (importing) and producing (exporting) regions (Kissinger, 2008; Kissinger and Rees, 2010; Rees, 2010a,b). Globalization and trade are generally understood as positive factors that shrink the world (Friedman, 2002; Rees, 2010a,b). However, in a globalizing world, commodity chains actually grow longer, more complex, and more deeply transnational – globalization increases the distance between cause and effect. Importing populations are, therefore, effectively blind to the distant negative ecological effects of resource exploitation and production created by their resource demands – out of sight, out of mind (Rees, 1994, 2010a,b; Princen, 1997; Conca, 2002; Dauvergne, 2008; Kissinger, 2008; Kissinger and Rees, 2009). By blocking consumers’ knowledge of production impacts, globalization likely fosters overconsumption (Princen, 1997; Conca, 2002). Consumers lack

968

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

the information and direct negative feedback that might otherwise induce them to behave more ‘sustainably’ (Rees, 1994; Princen, 1997; Conca, 2002). Formal recognition of this dimension of supra-regional sustainability goes back several decades. Consider Borgstrom’s (1972) concept of Ghost Acreage, the ‘invisible’ agricultural acreage that an importing country requires to supplement its domestic cropland. Borgstrom recognized that many countries depend on more land than is contained within their boundaries to feed themselves. In a similar vein, Rees (1992) suggested that, in eco-functional terms, ‘urban’ land is not just the area within a city’s political limits, but should also include the hinterland ecosystems area necessary to support the city’s population of human consumers. Kissinger and Rees (2010) have recently reviewed the literature on interregional transfers of biocapacity using such tools as material flow analysis (MFA), Life cycle Assessment (LCA), Input output analysis (IOA) and Ecological footprint analysis (EFA). Despite its considerable history, this issue has only recently begun to attract serious policy attention stimulated by a recent sharp increase in formal acquisitions by rich countries of ‘surplus’ land in poor countries (e.g., Kotula et al., 2009).

2.3.

Local ecological change

Local ecological change can also have supra-regional effects when local production and consumption results in on-site ecological degradation that also risks the sustainability of distant regions. Such ecological change can result from both indirect and direct drivers (MEA, 2005). Direct drivers include land use and cover change; species introduction and removal; technology adaptation; physical inputs (e.g., chemicals); and local resource consumption. Indirect drivers include demographic; economic; sociopolitical; technological; and cultural/ religious factors that impact the direct drivers. Some drivers are influenced by international and global processes while others are linked to local circumstances. Most research attention has focused on production-related damage stimulated by poverty, institutional failure, or expanding global markets but in an interconnected world, even when the extraction of resources is mainly for domestic circumstances, ‘local’ ecological changes (e.g., soil erosion, falling water tables, significant pollution event, species extirpations, habitat losses, etc.) can contribute to the loss of human wellbeing elsewhere. We can explore the ‘supraregional interest’ in maintaining the ecological sustainability and reliability of distant ‘producer’ regions on three levels: (i) if region ‘A’ depends on region ‘B’ for certain food staples it is in ‘A’s interest, and a requirement for its own sustainability, that region ‘B’ is managed so as to be able to continue supplying those products. For example, consider the effect of recent U.S. biofuels policy (subsidies to encourage the use of maize to produce fuel ethanol) on its capacity to supply export markets for maize and other grains. In 2007, food maize in Mexico became relatively scarce as US growers redirected their produce to ethanol production. Mexican prices rose steeply causing food riots and underscoring Mexico’s direct interest in U.S agricultural and trade policy. Similarly, as discussed above, the 2010 heat wave in

Russia severely reduced grain production inducing the government to ban exports. The ban has destabilized global markets; rising grain prices and instantly increasing the numbers of people ‘elsewhere’ unable to purchase food. Think of the potential interregional impacts of water mismanagement and increasing local demand for water in the U.S. Southwest and in California. Combined with climate change, these factors now threaten the viability of California’s cropland the major source of North America’s table vegetables. (ii) Local ecological degradation can reduce the supply of globally significant ecosystem ‘services’ (e.g., the carbon sink function, biodiversity preservation) or of critical natural capital (e.g., ozone layer, productive soils). For example, forest fires (notably in Brazil, Indonesia Canada and Russia) contribute to greenhouse gas accumulations, global climate change and biodiversity loss; deforestation for any economic purposes anywhere also contributes to biodiversity loss which is ultimately a global issue; the local use of toxic chemicals can lead to dangerous accumulations in distant food chains, putting predatory birds and mammals, including humans, at risk (e.g., toxic pesticide and industrial residues from ‘the South,’ particularly Asia, impair the ‘country food’ diets of Canadian Inuit). Slowing global ecological change anywhere is rapidly becoming an interest of people almost everywhere. (iii) In an increasingly interconnected world, large populations rely on political stability (social capital) in both distant producer regions and other places where conflict might interfere with customary supply lines. In short, large-scale conflict may disrupt either the production or shipment of key supplies to dependent regions. All trade-dependent regions and countries have a growing interest in maintaining geopolitical stability. The same concerns arise if natural disaster affects the flow of vital resources or trade goods whose production is concentrated in the affected region. The production of automobiles and consumer electronics in several parts of the world declined when the source of vital parts were destroyed by the Japanese earthquake and tsunami of March 2011.

2.4. Policy-driven systemic interregional impact displacement Policy-driven systemic interregional impact displacement considers linkages between human economic policies and activities in one region and large-scale ecological change in other regions. Anticipating such effects requires adopting a whole systems perspective. Sometimes negative impacts can be the unintended consequences of what appear to be ecologically sound decisions. For example: (1) Schutz et al. (2004:36) showed that the introduction of catalytic converters to the western European auto fleet in the mid 1980s had the desirable effect of decreasing transportation source air emissions and improving health in European cities but it also increased toxic emissions in Siberia where one of the major components of the catalyst (the metal palladium) is extracted. Some of those emissions extend as far as Alaska and Canada. (2) Mayer et al. (2005) showed how forest conservation policies in China and Finland have contributed to increased rates of wood imports from Russia resulting in increasing deforestation in that country. (3) Barker

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

969

Table 1 – Summary of the interregional strands and their linkages to sustainability. Strand Interregional pollution

Key variable Waste and emissions

Focus

Relation to sustainability

Production

Trans-boundary pollution + Global emissions

Pressures on the function of ecosystems in other regions

Modes of production, sources of energy, material use, and trans-boundary waste flows in region ‘A’ can negatively affect the sustainability (the health of ecosystems and communities) in distant regions ‘B’. . .‘Z’.

Risk to the sustainability of affected regions The interregional extension of ecological footprints

Consumption drivers

Consumption driving

International Trade

Pressure on the structure and function of ecosystems in producing/exporting regions

Risk to the ecological sustainability of exporting countries

Risk to the sustainability of importing countries Interregional impacts of local ecological change

Local ecological change

Increasing domestic production and consumption (following population and/or economic growth) Or Declining domestic standards of living

Pressure on the structure and function of ecosystems in producing/exporting regions

Risk to the sustainability of other countries that rely on ecological goods and services Policy-driven systemic displacement of activities or impacts among regions

Environmental Policies

Local/Domestic Environmental Policy

Shifting economic activity to other regions

Pressure on the structure and function of ecosystems in producing/exporting regions

Consumption driven demand for imported materials in one part of the world imposes burdens on productive ecosystems in exporting locales. It recognizes that the sustainability of human society in any given locale/region is dependent on the productivity and sustainability of supporting regions, wherever on earth the latter may be located. Thus, irresponsible consumption anywhere can jeopardize the sustainability of supporting regions and ultimately of the consuming region as well. Local production and consumption anywhere that leads to local ecological degradation may risk the sustainability of distant regions as well. That is, in an ecologically interconnected world, changes in local ecological productivity may jeopardize the sustainability of countries that rely on imports from that region. Moreover, ecological degradation in one region (e.g. deforestation) may lead to changes in other regions (e.g. climate change).

Local or domestic environmental policy aiming to improve local environment (e.g., reduce air pollution, protect biodiversity), and improve sustainability, may end up shifting economic activity to other regions, jeopardizing those regions’ ecological sustainability and, in turn, the long-term sustainability of the region in which the policy was implemented.

Risk to the ecological sustainability of affected countries

Risk to the sustainability of the country implementing the policy

et al. (2007) and Reinaud (2008) discuss ‘carbon leakage’, the increase in carbon dioxide emissions in one country as the result of an emissions reduction by a second country with stricter climate policy. More broadly, consider how the migration of ‘dirty’ industrial enterprises from Europe and

North America to developing countries with low wages and lax environmental policies has redistributed global emissions of many pollutants. For example, a third of China’s carbon emissions can be attributed to manufacturing for export to the same high-income consumer countries that abandoned so

970

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

much of their domestic manufacturing sectors. (4) As oil prices increased in 2006–2007, the U.S. boosted domestic ethanol output which required increased maize production at the expense of other crops such as soy (U.S. soy production dropped from 87 million tonnes in 2006 to 73 million tonnes in 2007). However, since global demand for soy and its products continued to increase unabated, Brazil filled the supply gap by increasing soybean cultivation from 52 million tonnes in 2006 to 58 million tonnes in 2007 (FAOSTAT, 2010). This accelerated deforestation in the Amazon, increases Brazil’s carbon emissions and contributed to the country’s loss of biodiversity. While such linkages are not obvious at first, thinking in terms of interregional displacement brings greater understanding of the complexity of ecological change and the linkages between action in one part of the world and impacts on another. To take yet another example, is doubtful that Canadian conservationists who successfully fought for policies to preserve the Great Bear Rain Forest in British Columbia (one of the largest remaining tracts of temperate rain forest) contemplated the potentially greater loss of biodiversity that might result from the displacement of demand for forest products to tropical forests in Brazil or elsewhere (Table 1).

3.

Policy responses

Countries have long worked together to reduce cross boundary and global pollution. Consider such bilateral and multilateral pollution prevention agreements as between the US and Canada to limit acid rain; the China–Russia agreement to limit pollution of the Amur-Heilong River; and the UN Economic Commission for Europe Water Convention. Consider, too, global treaties such as the Montreal accord on ozone – depleting chemicals; the Basel Convention on Hazardous Wastes; and the (albeit frail) agreements around climate change in the last two decades. All acknowledge to some degree the complexity of cross boundary and global issues and recognize that solutions (policy instruments that apply beyond domestic boundaries) necessarily require intensive international cooperation. There is a significant academic and practitioner dialogue as to the structure and effectiveness of existing global environmental governance due to its fragmentation, lack of accountability and lack of authority (JIU, 2008; Biermann and Zondervan, 2010). The debate as to the appropriate architecture for addressing worsening ecological trends is contested as to whether it requires strengthening existing international institutions and convention secretariats, decentralizing authority to the (bio)regional and national level, or creating a World Environment Organization. At a more fundamental level, it is worthwhile considering whether the roots of our inability to reverse these trends lies in a deep-seated cognitive dissonance that stems from both innate biological drivers as well as socially constructed beliefs that survival is tied to economic globalization, expanding trade and perpetual material growth (Rees, 2010a, 2010b). Acknowledging these biological and social drivers ensures a fuller understanding of the sustainability conundrum and supports effective responses. The fact remains that the international community has been slow to acknowledge and respond to many

interregional dimensions of sustainability. Below, we describe some of the broader reasons for this institutional and policy gap which apply to all four of the interregional sustainability strands described above before outlining specific responses and linking these to the four strands: (1) Popular attitudes and international law have not caught up to global reality: In general, the international community still sees most ‘environmental’ trends as relatively small-scale problems that are mainly of concern to local or, at best, national governments (MacNeill et al., 1991; Speth, 2004). Traditionally, governments have responsibility for only those environmental and sustainability issues that unfold within their own boundaries and even international treaties are ultimately tied to their implementation in national contexts. Thus, even as cumulative global change accelerates, the sustainability policy focus of most countries and international organizations is at the local/ national level (UN, 1992; Vitalis, 2003). The fact that national sovereignty remains a core principle of international politics – every country has the right to exploit its domestic natural resources as long as that exploitation does not directly impact other nations – complicates matters (Litfin, 1998; UN, 1992). On the legal side, the International Law Commission has been working for decades on separate draft articles on State responsibility for wrongful acts and State liability for arguably wrongful acts against the ecosphere or non-national populations not yet prohibited by international law. As yet, however, the question of State responsibility/liability for negligent trans-boundary damage to persons, property, communities or the global commons remains unresolved and mired in controversy (Rees and Westra, 2003). (2) Ignoring the role of (over) consumption: Much environmental degradation can be traced directly to consumers (e.g., the careless disposal of garbage or the unnecessary use of cars) or indirectly to consumers through production activities undertaken to satisfy their demands (Rees, 1995; Daly, 1996; Duchin, 1998). Consumption invariably generates waste and pollution, but over-consumption leads also to the depletion of even self-producing (renewable) resources. The cumulative impacts are increasingly global in scope. While consumption has been acknowledged as a driver of global change, and changing consumer habits is a key to sustainability (Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992; UN Agenda 21), most environmental policy focuses on production, particularly attendant pollution (Princen, 1999; Cohen and Murphy, 2001; Princen et al., 2002). Emphasis is on improving efficiency – producing more from less – while minimizing the negative environmental consequences (Von Weizsa¨cker et al., 1997; Princen, 2005). Almost no attention is paid to consumers’ responsibilities (particularly those of the over-consuming wealthy) and there is little agreement on effective and politically acceptable ways to induce changes in consumer demand (Barber, 2003). (3) No alarm or action without negative feedback: Modern societies obtain their biophysical needs from both local and distant ecosystems. If ecological conditions at one

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

source deteriorate, buyers simply shift to other suppliers who still have access to healthy productive ecosystems; consumers are generally not even aware of the change. In our globalizing world, ecosystem degradation thus mainly affects local communities that make their living from the damaged ecosystems; distant consumers are largely untouched. The problem is that consumers who lack incentives to act more sustainably continue living as if the world were still empty when it is actually ecologically full (Daly, 1996). In the absence of negative feedback, neither governments nor private consumers take ecosystem degradation into account on the path to sustainability. (4) Mainstream economics is blind to the problem: Neoliberal environmental economics is concerned almost exclusively with waste management, particularly damage costs of pollution (negative externalities) and the subsequent pollution control costs. The focus of the discipline is primarily on the design of regulatory instruments – e.g., pollution charges, tradable emissions permits – to efficiently internalize these externalities. The depletion of natural capital as a result of careless consumption is almost never at issue. One reason is that faith that market signals will indicate resource scarcity through rising prices and that this, in turn, will both induce conservation and stimulate the search for substitute goods/services. This belief has attained near doctrinaire status (the ‘principle of near-perfect substitution’) and relieves mainstream economists of concern for ecosystem degradation, resource depletion or limits to growth (Simon, 1981, 1999; Beckerman, 1995).

3.1.

Existing and proposed policy directions

At present any country has the right to exploit its natural resources for its own economic and social wellbeing. As long as that domestic activity does not generate cross boundary pollution or jeopardize international agreements, other nations’ ability to intervene in maintaining ecological sustainability is constrained. This historical approach to the management of natural capital is no longer adequate in the context of deepening ecological interdependence. Addressing these fundamental disconnects requires an understanding of complex social-ecological systems and underscores the need for institutional responses that embrace this complexity through approaches such as integrated and forward looking analysis, engaging multiple stakeholders, and monitoring performance for learning and adaptation (Swanson and Bhadwal, 2009). The following sections illustrate a serious of existing and proposed policy responses to systemic interregional connections. Broadly, these policy directions can be characterized as those which involve one self-interested region striving for sustainability either knowingly or unknowingly at the expense of other regions, and those which explicitly acknowledge interregional dependence and involves cooperative engagement among regions in the development of governance institutions that formalize their interdependence and express their mutual interest in sustaining the relationship. Each policy direction on its own or, more likely, a combination of a few policy directions can contribute to implementing the interregional approach to sustainability.

3.1.1.

971

Military power

At the extreme end of the policy spectrum is one country’s use of military force to occupy another nation’s territory. A country with a large interregional ecological footprint may in the future feel forced to take such violent measures to ensure a continuing flow of vital resources. Human history is a sorry litany of invasions by one country to another in part to satisfy the needs and wants of the conquering power.

3.1.2.

Economic land grab

In the 21st century, some nations are achieving through commerce what used to require territorial occupation (Rees, 2010a,b). Economic occupation is replacing physical conquest. As a means to gain food and energy security as well as financial profit, the governments and corporations of wealthier, food-insecure nations have begun outsourcing natural resource exploitation by acquiring large tracts of foreign land in mostly poor, developing countries (Daniel and Mittal, 2009). The initiation of this ‘‘global land grab’’ phenomenon has been attributed to domestic land and water scarcity, natural resource scarcity, and export restrictions resulting from high food prices, i.e., concerns about food security coupled with a loss of confidence in normal markets (IFPRI, 2009; UN, 2010). The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) claims that foreign investors sought or secured between 37 million to 49 million acres (15–20 million ha) of farmland in developing countries between 2006 and mid-2009 (The Economist 2009). Some examples include the following:  Kotula et al. (2009) documented a total of 6,156,930 acres (2,492,630 ha) of approved land acquisitions from 2004 to early 2009 in just five African countries, Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Mali and Sudan.  Under a proposed agreement with Kiev, Libya hopes to lease 247,000 acres (100,000 ha) of Ukraine’s rich black cropland to grow wheat, thus providing Libya with a more secure supply of food in the face current trends and predictions of grain shortages. Ukraine, in turn, would acquire Libyan oil, reducing its energy dependence on Russia.  China has acquired the rights to 6.9 million acres (2.8 million ha) of Congo to grow palm oil for biofuel and is negotiating for almost five million acres (2 million ha) in Zambia (where it already has extensive land investments). China, also farms land in Australia and is buying or leasing farmland in the Philippines, Laos, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, and Cameroon.  South Korea’s Daewoo Logistics announced in November 2008 that it had signed a 99-year lease on 3.2 million acres (931,200 ha) of land in Madagascar, to produce corn and palm oil to ship back home for food and bio-fuel production. The risk to both sides associated with such arrangements was illustrated in April 2009 when the Madagascar government fell to a military-backed popular uprising against the land-lease. The new leadership cancelled the agreement. Nevertheless, such quasi-permanent contracts are in effect or being negotiated as overpopulated (land-poor) countries seek to enhance their viability in a world of accelerating change. Both military and economic takeovers can appear to enhance the short-term sustainability of the aggressor populations. However, these strategies are shortsighted and

972

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

3.1.4.

Sustainable knowledge transfer

even the legal arrangements ignore major ethical and practical circumstances. Tensions can only increase, particularly in times of stress (e.g., climate change, water scarcity) if one country has the right to exploit another’s natural capital, and thus prevent host populations from using domestic resources for their own well-being. And how are future generations likely to feel if their development ambitions or personal security are compromised by the direct foreign control of domestic assets? Such arrangements also ignore the possibility that with immediate shortages alleviated (negative feedback removed) the population of or per capita demand by the dependent country may continue to grow until a new stress point is reached. Nothing will have been gained, but now the population’s dependence of on foreign sources has solidified, possibly irreversibly. This can only increase tension between parties to the agreement, particularly as domestic demand in the leasing country increases or climate change negatively affects local or global productivity. These concerns highlight the fact that ‘land-grab’ agreements implicitly assume that if needed, additional such arrangements can be made without limit and that the future will be a smoothly reversible extension of the past. Neither assumption is remotely valid.

Another form of mutual resource management could be the transfer of knowledge and technology from an importing to an exporting country to minimize the ecological consequences of certain cropping or manufacturing activities(s). Again, if region ‘A’ requires resources or products from region ‘B’, then ‘A’ has an interest in ensuring that ‘B’ is operating sustainably. Such knowledge transfers could be part of a formal sustainable trade accord, but in an ecologically full world they should not necessarily be limited to agreements between trading partners. It is in everyone’s long-term interests to share sustainable agricultural technologies, including traditional ecological knowledge, or to engage in industrial technology transfers that use less energy and resources and inject fewer dangerous emissions into the global commons. We should note that prevailing licensing and patent arrangements to protect ‘intellectual property rights’ are an impediment to the free-flow of knowledge and this is a possible unintended negative effect of this particular policy response. It may be necessary for the international community to establish a resource pool to provide reasonable compensation to license/ patent holders for knowledge transfers undertaken for the common good.

3.1.3.

3.1.5.

Formal sustainable trade agreements

At the moment trade is determined by market forces and the fluctuating price of commodities. An alternative might be a long term sustainable trade treaty in which the producer/ exporter regions would be guaranteed a long term market for a certain volume of a commodity in exchange for adequate price support to help maintain the sustainability of its natural capital (e.g., soil, water). Consumers/importing regions would also have the right to require sustainable modes of production and the right to monitor the condition of the relevant productive natural capital to ensure that management practices (involving chemical use or soil management, for example) satisfy their long-term needs. Such arrangements would serve the same security function as land acquisition but avoid the tensions associated with the pseudo-occupation of the exporter’s territory by the dependent partner. They would not be a barrier to the risk of exogenous factors such as climate change, but could contain safeguards such prescribed limits to export quantities that might encourage the importer country to engage in a program of population control, for example. Several steps toward interregional sustainability have been taken in recent years. While none attain the long-term treaty approach described above, they do acknowledge the basic problem and the potential solution in novel push-pull cooperative strategies. Consider, for example, the increasing development of trade in sustainability-certified products such as forest products that require producers to adopt improved long-term management strategies (in exchange for higher prices as necessary), and fair trade in various agricultural commodities to ensure that an adequate share of the consumer price goes to the primary producers, often peasant farmers. Another example is the EU regulation around pesticides residues in imported food products (EU 2005). This is intended to ensure that the amount and kinds of pesticides used in exporting regions conform to EU concerns about food safety (consumer health).

Compensation payments

An emerging form of ‘mutual resource management’ is compensation payments, usually by governments on behalf of the wider community, to individuals who agree to maintain privately owned natural capital assets for their life-support functions instead of ‘developing’ them for their marketable commodities. So far, these agreements involve payments to private landowners, mostly in the tropics, to maintain their land in its natural state (Miranda et al., 2006; Russo and Candela, 2006). The ecological benefits are self-evident but such compensation is clearly also economically justified if the public good provided by a stand of forest, for example (e.g., carbon assimilation, water purification, runoff and floodcontrol), exceeds the private gain that would be realized if the forest were harvested. Although still small in scale, such agreements acknowledge the value of ecological services produced by distant ecosystems and show that once people are sufficiently informed, society is willing to pay to preserve the relevant ecosystems. Precedents in this realm include historical ‘debt-for-nature’ swaps. The Ecuadorian president has announced a plan by which his country would receive compensation from the global community for leaving 20% of the country’s oil reserves in the ground – the surest form of carbon sequestration – to help mitigate climate change. It is important to acknowledge that such compensation payments have the danger of becoming barriers to development for countries.

3.1.6.

Economic/market mechanism

Unaccounted ecological externalities are a major symptom of unsustainable markets. The ecological costs of production should be included in the price of both domestic and trade goods both in the interest of market efficiency and to generate the producer surpluses necessary for resource managers to maintain the health of natural capital stocks. But how can we ensure full-cost pricing of traded commodities and manufac-

973

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

tured goods? How can costs be assigned so that all parties dependent on the sustainable management of essential resources pay their fair share for that management? Global market forces increasingly assert their influence in every corner of the world, yet increasing competition creates an incentive to externalize all non-market costs so that prevailing prices do not reflect accelerating ecosystems degradation. In the absence of either direct biophysical or economic feedback neither the corporate sector, governments nor individual consumers, have an incentive to develop more sustainable modes of production, implement corrective tax policies or reduce personal consumption. In short, the prevailing system of costs, prices, and market incentives fails absolutely to measure critical ecological scarcity, determine the appropriate levels of natural capital or induce sustainable patterns of production and consumption – the world community is suffering from an extreme form of market failure (Rees, 1995; Daly, 1999; Norgaard and Xuemei, 2007). There are ways to correct for this failure. Given the ‘common pool’ nature of the global sustainability problem new international regulatory institutions and mechanisms will be required to oversee the process. These international agencies are necessary to ‘internalize’ previously ignored external costs and to supervise the implementation of new international commercial regulations. A critical factor is data on the interregional ecological analyses needed to determine the state of critical ecosystems and identify the economic processes and products most responsible for negative ecological change. It might subsequently be necessary to place an absolute cap on exploitation of critical resources. This would insure the sustainable harvest of renewable resources and the controlled extraction of non renewable resources in a way that matches the pace at which substitutions can be made. The allowable harvest/extraction could then be auctioned by governments or designated international agencies to private sector processing and manufacturing firms in the form, for example, of marketable transferable quotas. Revenues so generated would provide the basis for such regulatory activities as monitoring exploitation rates and for ecosystem restoration. Other instruments for sustainability management would also be aided by interregional ecological analysis including nationally imposed resource depletion taxes, pollu-

tion charges and export taxes. In these cases too, revenues generated would be available for monitoring/enforcement and damage repair. The resultant higher costs would be passed on to consumers, thus providing needed negative feedback on unnecessary consumption. Such ‘true cost pricing’ would stimulate both conservation and, by improving the relative position of competing products or processes, stimulate the development of alternative more sustainable products and technologies. Each of the above policy directions can serve as a response to one or more of the supra-regional dimensions of sustainability. While the list covers a range of policy directions and potential responses, it is important to emphasize that each is part of much wider policy envelop that should be developed to address ecological challenges across scales. As illustrated in Table 2 each policy direction can influence more than one strand of interregional sustainability, and there may be merit in combining policy areas. Some policy directions are more sustainable than others. For example, a country might choose to extend its ecological footprint by asserting military power or through an economic ‘land grab’, either of which will allow the country with the external footprint to continue relying (at least in the short run) on resources from other countries. On the other hand, the resource dependent country might choose to negotiate sustainable trade agreements or other bilateral conventions including technology and knowledge transfer that might help it reduce the impacts of its extended footprint or perhaps even reduce it in absolute terms. The interregional pollution strand aligns with responses that include asserting military power, establishing bilateral or multilateral agreements to address waste emissions and pollution, full cost accounting to embed pollution costs into production and consumption processes, and technology and knowledge transfer or financial support to support cleaner and closed-loop production methods. Productive responses to the interregional impacts of local ecological change strand emerge from local populations adopting an approach to both direct and indirect impacts on their ecosystems that take into account the ecosystems goods and services which this local ecosystem provides within the global ecology. Full cost pricing, financial support, compensation payments, knowledge and technology transfer assist local populations in adopting sustainable local

Table 2 – Linking potential policy responses to the interregional sustainability strands. Identified policy responses

Interregional pollution

Interregional extension of ecological footprints

Military power Economic land grab Bilateral and multilateral conventions Technology transfer Sustainable trade agreements Compensation payments Environmental taxes International financial support Knowledge transfer Full cost accounting

U

U U U

U U

U U

Policy-driven systemic displacement of activities or impacts among regions

U U U

U

U U U

U U

U U

U U U

Interregional impacts of local ecological change

U

U

974

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

environmental management practices. Finally, the policy-driven systemic displacement of activities or impacts among regions strand calls our attention to the need for a system-wide perspective that outlines the extent of the human enterprise and the safe operating boundaries for continued human survival (Rockstro¨m et al., 2009). Policy responses include incorporating this systemic perspective in conventions, trade agreements, taxes and pricing, and monitoring and adapting over time.

4.

Conclusions

We have argued that sustainability and human security require rigorous analyses of the growing interregional ecological interdependence among nations. As illustrated by the 2010 Russian heat wave and resultant crop losses, ecological failure in one region can have a cascading effect on people in other regions, including economic, political, social and public health consequences. By articulating the multiple ways in which countries and regions on a crowded planet are linked through production and consumption, subsequent ecological change, and the unintended consequences of environmental policy responses, we devise a novel framework to understand complex systems failures and to shape more effective responses. In the context of accelerating global change, there is an urgent need for the world community to adopt a wholeEarth systems or at least supra-regional perspective better to reflect countries’ mutual interests in developing new transnational institutions for developmental policy- and decisionmaking across scales. Nature’s bottom line is simple: humanity has no choice but to learn to live more equitably within limits imposed by the ecosphere’s regenerative capacity. Operating sustainably within such limits requires a long-term perspective and an adaptive, whole systems approach. In particular, both regional and global development planning must take into account biophysical limits and de facto interregional ecological interdependence. Indeed, responding to the various kinds of dependent interregional relationships identified in this paper must become a core element in efforts to achieve global sustainability.

Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for supporting this research through grant to William Rees and Meidad Kissinger.

references

Barber, J., 2003. Production, consumption and the world summit on sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability 5, 63–93. Barker, T., Junankar, S., Pollitt, H., Summerton, P., 2007. Carbon leakage from unilateral tax reforms in Europe 1995–2005. Energy Policy 35 (12), 6281–6292. Barrett, S., 2003. Environment and Statecraft. Oxford University press, Oxford.

Beckerman, W., 1995. Small is Stupid: Blowing the Whistle on the Greens. Gerald Duckworth and company, London. Biermann, F., Zondervan, R., 2010. Special issue on: earth system governance. International environmental agreements: politics. Law and Economics 10 (4), 273–276. Borgstrom, G., 1972. The Hungry Planet – The Modern World at the Edge of Famine. The Macmillan Company, New York. Brown, L., 2006. Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. W.W. Norton & Co, New York. Cash, D.W., Adger, W., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., Young, O., 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11 (2), 8 Available at: http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/ (accessed April 2011). Clark, W.C., 2000. Environmental globalization. In: Nye, J., Donahue, J.D. (Eds.), Governance in a Globalizing World. Brookings Press, Washington. Cohen, M.J., Murphy, J. (Eds.), 2001. Exploring Sustainable Consumption – Environmental Policy and the Social Sciences. Pergamon, Amsterdam. Conca, K., 2002. Consumption and environment in a global economy. In: Princen, T., Maniates, M., Conca, K. (Eds.), Confronting Consumption. MIT press, Cambridge. Costanza, R., Graumlich, L., Steffen, W., Crumley, C., Dearing, J., Hibbard, K., Leemans, R., Redman, C., Schimel, D., 2007. Sustainability or collapse: what can we learn from integrating the history of humans and the rest of nature? Ambio 36, 522–527. Kotula, L., Vermeulen, S., Leonard, R., Keeley, J., 2009. Land Grab or Development Opportunity? Agricultural Investment and International Land Deals in Africa. IIED/FAO/IFAD, London/ Rome, ISBN: 978-1-84369-741-1. Daly, H.E., 1991. From empty-world economics to full-world economics, recognizing the historical turning point in economic development. In: Goodland, R., Daly, H.E., El Sarafy, S., VonDroste, B. (Eds.), Environmentally Sustainable Economic Development: Building on Brundtland. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris. Daly, H.E., 1996. Beyond Growth – The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon press, Boston. Daly, H.E., 1999. Uneconomic Growth in Theory and in Fact. The First Annual Feasta Lecture Trinity College, Dublin (26th April, 1999). Available at: http://www.feasta.org/documents/ feastareview/daly.htm (accessed April 2011). Daniel, S., Mittal, A., 2009. The Great Land Grab. Rush for World’s Farmland Threatens Food Security for the Poor. The Oakland Institute, Oakland, USA. Dauvergne, P., 2008. The Shadows of Consumption – Consequences for the Global Environment. MIT press. Duchin, F., 1998. Structural Economics: Measuring Changes in Technology, Lifestyles and the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC. FAOSTAT, 2010. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx. French, H., 2000. Vanishing Borders – Protecting the Planet in the Age of Globalization. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. Friedman, T., 2002. Technologic in state of discord. A debate between Thomas Friedman and Robert Kaplan. Foreign Policy 129, 64–70. Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (Eds.), 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington. Haberl, H., Erb, K.H., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Bondeau, A., Plutzar, C., Gingrich, S., Lucht, W., Fischer-Kowalski, M., 2007. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Available

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

at: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/31/12942.full (accessed April 2011). Homer-Dixon, T.F., 1999. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ/Oxford. IFPRI, 2009. ‘‘Land grabbing’’ by Foreign Investors in Developing Countries: Risks and Opportunities. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington. JIU, 2008. JIU Management Review on International Environmental Governance in the United Nations System. , JIU/REP/2008/3, p. iii. Kasperson, R.E., Kasperson, J.X. (Eds.), 2001. Global Environmental Risk. Earthscan, London. Kissinger, M., 2008. Interregional Ecology: Resource Flows and Sustainability in a Globalizing World. Dissertation, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Kissinger, M., Rees, W.E., 2009. Footprints on the prairies: degradation and sustainability of Canadian agricultural land in a globalizing world. Ecological Economics 68 (8–9), 2309–2315. Kissinger, M., Rees, W.E., 2010. Importing terrestrial biocapacity: the U.S. case and global implications. Land Use Policy 27, 589–599. Litfin, K.T. (Ed.), 1998. The Greening of Sovereignty in world politics. The MIT press, Cambridge. MacNeill, J.R., Winsemius, P., Yakushiji, T., 1991. Beyond Interdependence – The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology. Oxford University Press, New York. Mason, M., 2005. The New Accountability – Environmental Responsibility Across Borders. Earthscan, London. Mayer, A.L., Kauppi, P.E., Angelstam, P.K., Zhang, Y., Tikka, P.M., 2005. Importing timber, exporting ecological impact. Science 308, 359–360. Meadows, D., Randers, J., Meadows, D., 2004. Limits to Growth – The 30 Year Update. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont. MEA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington Available at: http://www.maweb.org/documents/ document.356.aspx.pdf (accessed April 2011). Miranda, M., Dieperink, C., Glasbergen, P., 2006. Voluntary agreements in water-shed protection experiences from Costa Rica. Environment Development and Sustainability 9 (1), 1–19. Norgaard, B.R., Xuemei, L., 2007. Market governance failure. Ecological Economics 60, 634–641. Okowa, P., 2000. State Responsibility for Transboundary Air Pollution in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pearce, D., 1995. Blueprint 4 – Capturing Global Environmental Value. Earthscan, London. Pirages, D., 2005. From Limits to growth to ecological security. In: Pirages, D., Cousins, K. (Eds.), From Resource Scarcity to Ecological Security – Exploring New Limits to Growth. The MIT press, Cambridge, MA. Princen, T., 1997. The shading and distancing of commerce: when internalization is not enough. Ecological Economics 20 (3), 235–253. Princen, T., 1999. Consumption and environment: some conceptual issues. Ecological Economics 31, 347–363. Princen, T., 2005. The Logic of Sufficiency. MIT press, MA. Princen, T., Maniates, M., Conca, K., 2002. Confronting Consumption. MIT press, Cambridge. Rees, W.E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization 4 (2), 121–130. Rees, W.E., 1994. Pressing global limits: trade as the appropriation of carrying capacity. In: Schrecker, T., Dalgleish, J. (Eds.), Growth, Trade and Environmental Values. Westminster Institute for Ethics and Human Values, London.

975

Rees, W.E., 1995. Achieving sustainability: reform or transformation? Journal of Planning Literature 9 (4), 343–361. Rees, W.E., 2006. Ecological footprints and bio-capacity: essential elements in sustainability assessment. In: Jo Dewulf, Van Langenhove, H. (Eds.), Renewables Based Technology: Sustainability Assessment. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Rees, W.E., 2010a. Globalization and extended eco-footprints: neo-colonialism and (un)sustainability. In: Engel, J.R., Westra, L., Bosselmann, K. (Eds.), Democracy, Ecological Integrity and International Law. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle (Chapter 24). Rees, W.E., 2010b. What’s blocking sustainability: human nature, cognition and denial. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy Fall 6 (2) Available at: http:// sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol6iss2/1001-012.rees.html (accessed April 2011). Rees, W.E., Westra, L., 2003. When consumption does violence: can there be sustainability and environmental justice in a resource-limited world? In: Aygeman, J., Bullard, R., Evans, B. (Eds.), Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. Columbia University Press/Earthscan, New York/ London. Reinaud, J., 2008. Climate Policy and Carbon Leakage – Impacts of the European Emissions Trading Scheme on Aluminium. IEA Information Paper. International Energy Agency, Paris. Renner, M., 1996. Fighting for Survival: Environmental Decline, Social Conflict, and the New Age of Insecurity. Environmental Alert Series. W.W. Norton, New York. Rockstro¨m, J., et al., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461 (7263), 472–475 Available at: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/461472a (accessed April 2011). Russo, R.O., Candela, G., 2006. Payment of environmental services in Costa Rica: evaluating impact and possibilities. Tierra Tropical 2 (1), 1–13. Schleicher, K. (Ed.), 1992. Pollution Knows No Frontiers. Paragon House, New York. Schutz, H., Moll, S., Bringezu, S., 2004. Globalization and Shifting Environmental Burden. Wuppertal Institute, Germany. Simon, J., 1981. The Ultimate Resource. Princeton University press, New Jersey. Simon, J., 1999. Hoodwinking the Nation. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, USA. Speth, J.G., 2004. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. Yale University Press, New Haven. Swanson, D., Bhadwal, S., 2009. Creating Adaptive Policies: A Guide for Policy-Making in an Uncertain World. Sage Publications/IDRC, London/Ottawa. Turner, B.L., et al., 2003. Science and Technology for Sustainable Development. Special Feature: A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science. pp. 8074–8079. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/100/ 14/8074.full.pdf+html (accessed April 2011). United Nations, 1992. Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York. United Nations, 2010. Foreign land purchases for agriculture: what impact on sustainable development? In: Sustainable Development Innovation Briefs, Issue 8, United Nations, New York Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/ resources/res_pdfs/publications/ib/no8.pdf (accessed April 2011). Vitalis, V., 2003. Sustainable development: identifying the core and measuring trans-boundary effects. In: Paper Presented in OECD Round Table on Sustainable Development, . Von Weizsa¨cker, E., Lovins, A., Lovins, H., 1997. Factor Four – Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use, the New Report to the Club of Rome. Earthscan, London. WTO, 2006. International Trade Statistics 2005. World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

976

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 965–976

WWF, 2008. Living Planet Report. World Wild Fund for Nature. Gland, Switzerland. Young, O.R., 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Meidad Kissinger is an assistant professor at the Geography and Environmental Development department at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev. His research involves analyzing the implications of global environmental trends to local and international policy.

William Rees is an ecological economist and Professor in UBC’s School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP) in Vancouver, Canada. He is the originator and co-developer of ecological footprint analysis. Vanessa Timmer was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of British Columbia from 2009 to 2010. She is the Executive Director of the One Earth Initiative Society focused on advancing sustainable consumption and production patterns in North America and around the world.