Technical ReportPDF Available

Abstract

The fundamental debate regarding sustainable development is whether we choose to adopt a strong or a weak conception of sustainability. Weak sustainability postulates the full substitutability of natural capital whereas the strong conception demonstrates that this substitutability should be severely seriously limited due to the existence of critical elements that natural capital provides for human existence and well-being. The following science digest provides an overview of scientific findings to support informed debate among decision-makers regarding the need to adopt a strong sustainability position for the discussion and implementation of the post-2015 sustainable development policies.
1
*The views expressed in this brief are the authors’ and not those of the United Nations. Online publication
or dissemination does not imply endorsement by the United Nations.
Brief for GSDR 2015
Weak Sustainability versus Strong Sustainability
Jérôme Pelenc, Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS) and Free University of Brussels (ULB), Belgium
Jérôme Ballet, University of Bordeaux, GRETHA research unit, France
Tom Dedeurwaerdere, Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS) and Catholic University of Louvain
(UCL), Belgium*
The fundamental debate regarding
sustainable development is whether we
choose to adopt a strong or a weak
conception of sustainability. Weak
sustainability postulates the full
substitutability of natural capital whereas the
strong conception demonstrates that this
substitutability should be severely seriously
limited due to the existence of critical
elements that natural capital provides for
human existence and well-being. The
following science digest provides an overview
of scientific findings to support informed
debate among decision-makers regarding the
need to adopt a strong sustainability position
for the discussion and implementation of the
post-2015 sustainable development policies.
Introduction
Weak sustainability assumes that
natural capital and manufactured capital are
essentially substitutable and considers that
there are no essential differences between
the kinds of well-being they generate (Ekins et
al., 2003; Neumayer, 2003; Neumayer, 2012).
The only thing that matters is the total value
of the aggregate stock of capital, which should
be at least maintained or ideally increased for
the sake of future generations (Solow, 1993).
In such a perspective: it does not matter
whether the current generation uses up non-
renewable resources or dumps CO
2
in the
atmosphere as long as enough machineries,
roads and ports are built in compensation
(Neumayer, 2003, p1). Such a position leads to
maximising monetary compensations for
environmental degradations. In addition, from
a weak sustainability perspective,
technological progress is assumed to
continually generate technical solutions to the
environmental problems caused by the
increased production of goods and services
(Ekins et al., 2003).
Authors writing on strong
sustainability demonstrate that natural capital
cannot be viewed as a mere stock of
resources. Rather natural capital is a set of
complex systems consisting of evolving biotic
and abiotic elements that interact in ways that
determine the ecosystem’s capacity to
provide human society directly and/or
indirectly with a wide array of functions and
services (Noël and O’Connor, 1998; Ekins et al.,
2003; De Groot et al., 2003; Brand, 2009). The
proponents of strong sustainability invoke
several reasons to demonstrate the non-
substitutability of natural capital.
Firstly, there is a qualitative difference
between manufactured capital and natural
capital. Manufactured capital is reproducible
and its destruction is rarely irreversible,
whereas the consumption of natural capital is
usually irreversible (for instance species
extinction is irreversible, whereas the
destruction of material goods or
infrastructures is not) (Ekins et al., 2003). In
addition, due to our lack of knowledge about
the functioning of natural systems we cannot
be sure of the effects on human well-being of
destroying natural capital (Dietz and
Neumayer, 2007). Acknowledging
irreversibility and uncertainties should lead us
to implementing a precautionary principle
regarding the use of natural capital.
Secondly, since manufactured capital
requires natural capital for its production, it
can never be a complete substitute for the
biophysical structures of natural capital (Ekins
et al.). In addition, the contribution of natural
capital through the delivery of services to
human well-being is multidimensional. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
captures these multiple linkages through the
2
*The views expressed in this brief are the authors’ and not those of the United Nations. Online publication
or dissemination does not imply endorsement by the United Nations.
identification of four types of contributions
that ecosystem services make to human well-
being: security, basic materials for a good life,
health, and good social relations. Therefore,
ecosystem services provided by natural capital
play an important role in determining the
freedom of choice and action for human
beings (ibid.). In this view, natural capital is
instead seen as being complementary to
manufactured capital and other forms of
capital (human and social capital, etc.) in
producing human well-being (Brand, 2009)
and so manufactured capital cannot be a
complete substitute for it.
Thirdly, an increase of future
consumption is not an appropriate substitute
for losses of natural capital (see among others
see Toman, 1992; Dedeurwaerdere, 2013).
The following exemple helps to grasp our
point: Today’s generation cannot ask future
generations to breathe polluted air in
exchange for a greater capacity to produce
goods and services. That would restrict the
freedom of future generations to choose clean
air over more goods and services (UNDP,
2011, p.17). This raises the key issue of
conserving natural capital for the sake of
future generation, i.e., intergenerational
justice issue.
Thus strong sustainability holds that
certain elements of natural capital are
« critical » due to their unique contribution to
human well-being (Ekins et al., 2003;
Dedeurwaerdere, 2013). These potentially
“critical” elements for human existence and
well-being can be conceptualised as
ecosystem services provided by natural capital
(Brand, 2009). This leads us to defining the
notion of critical natural capital. Critical
natural capital highlights the need to maintain
the ecological functioning of natural systems
above certain thresholds of degradation in
order to conserve the capacity of natural
capital to provide the services which are
critical for human existence and well-being
(Noël and O’Connor, 1998; Ekins et al., 2003;
Chiesura and de Groot, 2003, de Groot et al.,
2003; Dietz and Neumayer, 2007; Brand,
2009). Therefore critical natural capital
corresponds to the particular configuration of
natural capital that provides a particular set of
critical ecosystem services.
Nevertheless, strong sustainability
does not state that all ecosystem services
everywhere have to be sustained exactly as
they are. Some assessments must be made of
those services that play a particularly
important role in supporting life and
generating human well-being. And so, policies
for sustainability must be geared accordingly
(Ekins et al. 2003). However, strong
sustainability proponents recognize that the
uncertain state of knowledge about
ecosystems and ecosystem services, makes
very difficult to judge which services are
critical and which are not.
Scientific debate
Brand (2009) identifies six domains in
which natural capital and so ecosystem
services can potentially be critical: socio-
cultural, ecological, sustainability, ethical,
economic and human survival. This intrinsic
multidimensionality makes it very difficult to
assess the level of criticality and
substitutability of natural capital. Indeed,
acknowledging that natural capital and human
well-being are both complex and
multidimensional, implies having to deal with
multiple meanings, and with measurements
that are not necessarily either comparable or
commensurable (Scheidel, 2013). Moreover, it
has to be noted that in addition to the
“objective” ecological criteria (safe minimum
standards, minimum ecosystem size,
maximum sustainable yield, ecological
footprint, etc.), societal values and
perceptions, ethics and attitude to risk, also
play important roles in the determination of
what aspects of natural capital can be
considered “critical” (Ekins et al., 2003; De
Groot et al., 2003; Chiesura and De Groot,
2003; Brand, 2009; Dedeurwaerdere, 2013).
Hence, the definition of critical natural capital
relies not only on our capacity to provide
factual knowledge about socio-ecological
systems but also implies discussing the
normative values that underline our use of the
natural capital (Dedeurwaerdere, 2013).
Therefore, the definition of what constitutes
an intolerable loss, and so what is critical and
3
*The views expressed in this brief are the authors’ and not those of the United Nations. Online publication
or dissemination does not imply endorsement by the United Nations.
for whom, requires both relevant factual
knowledge about the interactions between
natural capital and human well-being and a
normative basis to assess the sustainability of
these interactions. Consequently, there is a
need to move beyond the technical and
expert-based calculation of critical thresholds
of natural capital only (ibid.). As long as there
are multiple value involved in the definition of
critical natural capital and given the
irreducible uncertainties that characterise
complex socio-ecological systems, public
deliberation and stakeholders participation
(Van den Hove, 2000) seem to be required for
the definition of criticality of natural capital
(De Groot et al., 2003; Dedeurwaerdere,
2013).
In sum, implementing strong sustainability
requires a trans-disciplinary approach for
identifying and conserving critical natural
capital. The knowledge provided by natural
science constitutes crucial contributions for
identifying ecological thresholds and planetary
boundaries but they are not sufficient on their
own. Natural science research needs to be
combined with social sciences and their
interactions need to be embedded in a broad
societal debate about (i) levels of risk
acceptable to all populations (especially the
most vulnerable populations) and (ii) values
that underlie human development.
Issues for further consideration
In terms of scientific methodology,
strong sustainability is to be greatly preferred
as the a priori position of full substitutability
of natural capital which appears improbable
for the aforementioned reasons.
Improve multidimensional and
integrated assessment of the interactions
between the natural environment and human
well-being (e.g. improve the integrated
assessment of ecosystem services).
Advance the construction of a
normative basis to assess the sustainability of
these interactions in a strong perspective.
Main differences between weak and strong
sustainability
Strong
sustainability
Weak
sustainability
Key idea The
substitutability of
natural capital by
other types of
capital is severely
limited
Natural capital and
other types of
capitals
(manufactured etc.)
are perfectly
substitutable
Consequences
Certain human
actions can entail
irreversible
consequences
Technological
innovation and
monetary
compensation for
environmental
degradation
Sustainability
issue
Conserving the
irreplaceable
« stocks » of
critical natural
capital for the
sake of future
generation
the aggregate stock
of capital should be
at least maintained
or ideally increased
for future
generation
Key concept Critical natural
capital
Optimal allocation
of scarce resources
Definition of
thresholds
and
environmenta
l norms
Scientific
knowledge as
input for public
deliberation
(procedural
rationality)
Technic/scientific
approach for
determining
thresholds and
norms
(instrumental
rationality)
Source: Adapted from Mancebo, 2013
4
*The views expressed in this brief are the authors’ and not those of the United Nations. Online publication
or dissemination does not imply endorsement by the United Nations.
References
Brand, F. (2009). Critical natural capital
revisited: Ecological resilience and
sustainable development. Ecological
Economics, 68, 605–612.
Chiesura, A., De Groot, R. (2003). Critical
natural capital: a socio-cultural
perspective. Ecological Economics, 44,
219–231.
Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2014). Sustainability
Science for Strong Sustainability.
Edward Elgar, Northampton.
De Groot, R., Van der Perk, J., Chiesura, A.,
van Vliet, A. (2003). Importance and
threat as determining factors for
criticality of natural capital’, Ecological
Economics, 44, 187–204.
Dietz, S., Neumayer, E. (2007). Weak and
strong sustainability in the SEEA:
Concepts and measurement. Ecological
Economics, 61, 617–626.
Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., De
Groot, R., 2003. A framework for the
practical application of the concepts of
critical natural capital and strong
sustainability. Ecological Economics, 44,
165–185.
Mancebo, F. (2013). Développement durable.
Arman Colin, 2
ème
édition, Paris.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005).
Ecosystem and Human Well-being: A
Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong
sustainability: exploring the limits
of
two opposing paradigms. Edward
Elgar, Northampton.
Neumayer, E. (2012). Human
development and sustainability.
Journal of Human Development and
Capabilities, 13(4), 561–579.
Noël, J-F., O’connor, M. (1998). Strong
Sustainability and Critical Natural
Capital. In : Faucheux, S., O'Connor,
M., (Eds.), Valuation for Sustainable
Development: Methods and Policy
Indicators. Edward Elgar Publisher,
Cheltenham, pp. 75–99.
Scheidel, A. (2013). Flows, funds and the
complexity of deprivation: Using
concepts from ecological economics
for the study of poverty. Ecological
Economics, 86, 28–36.
Toman, M.A. (1992). The Difficulty in
defining Sustainability. In :
Darmstadter J. (Ed.), Global
Development and the Environment:
Perspectives on Sustainability.
Resources for the future,
Washington D.C.
UNDP. (2011). Human development
report 2011: Sustainability and
equity: A better future for all,
Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke,
[http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR
_2011_EN_Complete.pdf], accessed
25 April 2012.
Van den Hove, S. (2000). Participatory
approaches to environmental policy-
making: the European Commission
Climate Policy Process as a case
study. Ecological Economics, 33, 457
–472.
... These innovative ideas, which aim to serve as environmental goals, can boost managing plastic waste and improve environmental sustainability in developing countries. Sustainable innovation can be classified into weak and strong sustainability [46][47][48], depending on the environmental impact level [49]. The environmental impact level improves and minimizes ecological damage and promotes business [45]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Addressing the plastic problem requires rigorous attention and practical education for sustainability. Due to the common effective waste management practices in some parts of the world, the plastics’ menace is generally well recognized and controlled worldwide. However, some developing countries do not have acceptable waste management practices, resulting in significant environmental, social, and health cross-cutting issues. Plastic is a significant threat to the environment in Ghana, specifically the urban environment and oceans. The new paradigm shift of virtually using non-biodegradable plastics in all daily products sold increases plastic waste in the environment, which creates problems, such as choked drainage system and breeding places for insects. The scale of these issues requires innovative and practical ideas to help solve this problem. The paper shows how plastic waste is innovatively and creatively converted to artifacts and pavement blocks in Ghana. These innovative ideas have contributed to reduce the volume of plastic waste and enhance environmental sustainability in Africa. The community’s benefits involving friendly environmental activities are identified and represent learning cases from Ghana to the world, particularly to Africa.
... Similar to calling for political risk epistemic cultures to embrace hybrid knowledge, sustainability researchers call for more nuanced views of sustainability that bring together insights from a variety of perspectives (for example, see Seager 2008;Angus-Leppan et al. 2010;Bjorn et al. 2017;Coleman et al. 2018;Gibbons 2020). A growing body of literature focuses on how companies communicate their sustainability activities, what kind of sustainability companies mean in practice and whether they are 'walking the talk' or merely claiming their sustainability initiatives are effective (Whiteman et al. 2013;Pelenc et al. 2015;Bjorn et al. 2017;Landrum 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
This exploratory study aims to understand why, and propose remedies for, the treatment of political risk and sustainability as siloed risk areas in risk analyses. I employ an interdisciplinary theoretical approach that focuses on the roles of values and worldviews, stages of sustainability and hybrid knowledge to understand this siloing. The large-N interpretive method used here combines content frequency counts with discourse analysis to examine over 400 corporate communication documents from 37 companies. The study also explores how, through corporate communication, companies that provide political risk analysis convey what is at risk and what counts as sustainability. I argue that the broad shared ‘cultural’ tones of what it means to be in the political risk field pose challenges for integrating political risk and sustainability. The study concludes with several recommendations on how to overcome the current barriers in order to integrate political risk and sustainability in risk analyses.
Chapter
The purpose of the chapter is to present the definition, historical background, and core elements of the concept related to sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and the triple bottom line. Common relationships and the differences between these concepts were indicated on the basis of the gathered information scattered in the scientific literature. The empirical part of the chapter allows the assessment of whether the enterprises really refer to the concepts known in the literature. It also presents an assessment of the stage of business today, referring to the business sustainability typology by using research methods such as case survey and TOPSIS.
Article
Full-text available
The ongoing social and ecological crises create urgency in academia and elsewhere to devise actionable problem‐solving knowledge to tackle sustainability challenges. Transdisciplinary research (TDR) represents a problem‐solving methodology for sustainability problems. TDR requires researchers to get out in the real world and engage with other societal actors to jointly produce such problem‐solving knowledge for research to have a societal impact. This radical process of doing “science with society” instead of “science for society” is becoming more urgent and relevant. However, a transdisciplinary (TD) researcher faces challenges: often, institutions have limited readiness for facilitating TDR, a researcher has to juggle the roles of an academic and changemaker simultaneously and needs new ways of doing science. The research process requires enough manoeuvring space to incorporate reflexivity, adaptiveness, and emergence based on the research context. The research uses case studies, interviews, reflections, and document analysis from two finished and one ongoing TDR PhDs in sustainability science and connects them with the TD literature. Based on previous and ongoing TDR by early‐stage researchers (ESRs), this article identifies and discusses six TDR challenges ESRs in sustainability sciences might face.
Chapter
The concept of sustainability has been implicitly present in different historical milestones, mainly through economic thought, which expressed its concerns regarding the availability of resources, their use and distribution, understood at every moment by economic thinkers.
Chapter
In the twenty-first century, coastal countries have begun to consider the ocean a source of jobs, innovation, and competitive advantage. Nonetheless, the ocean's value is reduced by numerous environmental pressures. There are calls for the ocean's economic activities to be in balance with the long-term carrying capacity of the ocean ecosystems. This chapter will first introduce the concept of the blue economy and blue growth. Following this, the chapter will discuss the blue economy in the context of sustainable development. Finally, the chapter will review actions to guide the development of the blue economy.
Chapter
This chapter maps the genealogy and meaning of the concept of sustainable consumption and production (SCP). It examines the complexity related to its definitional exactitude, policy measurability, targets and indicators, and the gap between intent and outcomes. It delineates the development–environment conundrum and the important steps taken by the international community to reconcile the two, leading to the adoption of the framework of sustainable development. It argues that ethical and moral motivations can bring about behavioural changes towards responsible consumption and production practices. This entails foregrounding ethics of sustainability in addition to invoking the harm principle which applies to both the concerns of environment and development, and promises to contribute to building robust pathways for achieving SCP.
Article
Full-text available
Sustainable development is a concern and a challenge of modern societies, either in developing and developed countries. Good governance is crucial to managing efficiently all kind of resources, including natural resources, for the well-being of current and future generations. Digital transformation can be a key driver of changes in governments if they want to enhance transparency, accountability and efficiency. E-government facilitates integrated policies and public services to promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth, social development and environmental protection. E-government contributes to efficient resource management, and so can help to improve namely natural resource usage in the present to avoid damage to their usage in the future. The aim of this study is to analyse the impact of e-government on sustainable development. Using a logit model, for a sample of 103 countries in the period 2003–2018, the results suggest that e-government development is a positive determinant for a country to attain sustainable development, proxied by adjusted net savings, that embraces a country’s economic, social and environmental development. This study provides evidence that e-government increases the probability to attain sustainable development mostly in developing and transition economies. The results also suggest that economic growth and gross national income per capita are significant positive influences in sustainable development in the whole sample and that countries with lower age dependency and natural resource rents are more likely to have sustainable development. Developing e-government allows promoting sustainable development, particularly in developing and in transition economies.
Article
Full-text available
The legislative process before the adoption of the revised European Union renewable energy directive mobilised various actors around the forest biomass issue in Europe. Which storylines do actors use to discuss and define the sustainability of forest biomass, how are the differences between the existing storylines explained, and can distinct ‘discourse coalitions’ of actors be observed as following each storyline? These questions are addressed through a discourse analysis to critically evaluate the debate around the utilisation of forest biomass for European renewable energy to identify persistent storylines adopted by discourse coalitions as they communicate their understanding of the issue, and compete to influence the policymaking and public perception. The hypotheses are that there are more than the hypothetical binary arrangement of pro versus anti storylines, and that some actors follow multiple storylines. Locating the methodological approach on the two dimensions; text versus context and critical versus constructivist, this study pays closer attention to context rather than on individual linguistic elements of texts. Regarding the second dimension, this study builds upon constructivist epistemology, being concerned with understanding which truths these storylines produce for their speakers, and their external influences upon alternative storylines and actors. The three storylines presented here represent three competing discourses regarding forest biomass usage in European renewable energy: forestry prioritised, climate focussed and critical. Each of these are promoted by actors aiming to gain discursive hegemony on the issue, both in terms of the impact of their discourse upon EU policy making and in the eyes of the public. Despite the discursive differences created by these deeply held opposing views of what sustainability and nature are and what this means for forest biomass, there were several points where narrative elements overlapped. These can provide insight for developing a more constructive debate on the sustainability of forest biomass.
Article
Full-text available
Este texto analisa o papel atribuído aos espaços verdes urbanos na reformulação dos Planos Diretores Municipais (PDMs) que decorreu até Julho de 2020 em Portugal. Tendo em conta os serviços de ecossistemas destes espaços para a sustentabilidade nas cidades, questionou-se até que ponto os municípios portugueses aproveitaram esta reformulação para potencializar tais contributos. Metodologicamente, a pesquisa centrou-se em dois estudos de caso, comparando as duas Áreas Metropolitanas (AMs) portuguesas, através de uma análise aos documentos revistos dos PDMs dos municípios que as constituem. O artigo conclui que o valor socioecológico dos espaços verdes é ainda amplamente negligenciado, bem como o planeamento urbano sustentável ao nível das AMs. Palavras-chave: PDM, espaços verdes urbanos, serviços dos ecossistemas, planeamento urbano sustentável. Em Homenagem a Gonçalo Ribeiro Telles (1922-2020)
Book
Full-text available
The dynamism of science has been catalytic for human prosperity in recent history. Conventional perspectives of the ivory tower model of modern science are, however, rivalled by the failure of humanity to tackle global crises of an economic, environmental and social nature. Operational solutions to these pressures have grown and exposed the pitfalls of modern science to date. Research institutions globally are eschewing traditional practice, converging around ideas of transdisciplinary sustainability science. New practice based on science-society research partnerships, experiential learning in higher education and iterative and participatory modelling has become manifest. Sustainability Science for Strong Sustainability investigates the core concepts, tools and institutional strategies of this evolving field. Prominent research programs within heterodox economics, the environmental sciences and transition theory are explored through diverse case studies, revealing challenges and advancements for transdisciplinary research. The need for reform of modern science is facilitated by consideration of action points to overcome the institutional barriers of putting sustainability science into practice.
Article
Full-text available
Critical natural capital (CNC) is commonly defined as that part of the natural environment, which performs important and irreplaceable functions. So far, the challenge to determine the criticality of natural capital (NC) has mainly been taken up by the natural sciences, and the critical functions of nature mainly associated with its life-support and ecological services. Little attention has been paid to the socio-cultural functions of NC and to their values for the health and well being of human societies. The aim of this paper is to encourage a more complete accounting of the critical functions of NC and its associated values, by highlighting the importance of the information functions (health, recreation, amenity, education, heritage, etc.) for the quality and sustainability of human life. It is argued that, despite their immaterial and often intangible nature, these functions provide many, socio–economic benefits, which might be assessed through both qualitative and quantitative valuation methodologies. Integration of ecology, sociology and economics is essential to operationalize the concept of CNC as a tool for more balanced environmental planning and decision making.
Article
Poverty has been increasingly conceptualized as being multidimensional, involving deprivation in many dimensions of life. This paper discusses issues and implications of multidimensional poverty by adopting concepts commonly used in ecological economics. In particular, poverty is approached as an irreducible, complex phenomenon for which many legitimate, but non-equivalent descriptions exist. Issues of social and technical incommensurability are illustrated for different meanings and measurement types of poverty. Georgescu-Roegen's flow/fund framework is interpreted, informed by the capability approach of Amartya Sen. The paper argues that a predominant focus on flows as a proxy to analyze poverty represents rather a short-term perspective on access to satisfiers to fulfill particular needs. Contrary to that, focusing on valued funds may provide useful information for the analysis of capabilities that persons and societies might pursue in the long term. Furthermore, it is argued that strong poverty alleviation needs to adopt analytical tools that can deal with non-trade-off cases: improvements in one poverty dimension cannot always compensate for the deterioration of other poverties. This implies to rethink the usefulness of aggregate multidimensional poverty indices, as well as the predominant use of income measures.
Article
For ecologists [open quotes]sustainability[close quotes] connotes preservation of the status and function of ecological systems; for economists, the maintenance and improvement of human living standards. Disagreements about the salient elements of the concept hamper determination of appropriate responses for achieving sustainability. Key topics about which disagreement arises include intergenerational fairness, the substitutability of natural and other resources, and the carrying capacity of natural ecosystems. Disparate perspectives on these topics might be bridged through the concept of the safe minimum standard, which posits a socially determined demarcation between moral imperatives to preserve and enhance natural resource systems and the free play of resource tradeoffs.
Article
The paper investigates the relevance of participatory approaches to environmental policy-making when sustainable development is taken as the encompassing normative basis for environmental governance. In the first section, we illustrate the frequent references to participatory approaches in environmental decision-making. We then look at environmental issue attributes as determinants of the problem-solving requirements for environmental decision-making. We conclude the section by investigating whether and how participatory approaches could answer some of these requirements. In the second section, an illustration is proposed with the presentation of a participatory process that took place in 1997, during the last phase of the international negotiations that led to the Kyoto Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in 1998 in the preparation of the post-Kyoto phase. The process, organised by the European Commission, consisted of a series of workshops whose objective was to furnish timely inputs responding to the European Commission's information needs for climate policy formation in the pre- and post-Kyoto periods. This was to be achieved through the establishment of interfaces between: (i) the research community; (ii) the EC Climate negotiation team and through it the EU Member States representatives; (iii) other Commission interests (the ‘inside stakeholders’); (iv) a range of ‘outside’ stakeholders including industry, finance and commerce, employment, environment, consumer and citizen interests. We reflect on the participatory nature of the process and show how the process met some of the decision-making requirements identified in the first section.
Article
An important issue in the debate about the use and conservation of natural ecosystems is the degree to which these ecosystems and their functions should be considered ‘critical’. This paper presents some guidelines to determine the criticality of natural capital, based on two main criteria. The first criterion is the ‘importance’ of natural ecosystems (ecological, socio-cultural and economic) and the second is the degree of ‘threat’ based on the quantity and quality of the (remaining) natural areas in a given region. It is argued that the two criteria are complementary and need to be taken into account simultaneously when determining the criticality of natural capital. Finally, the paper presents and discusses some possibilities for the development of a (critical) natural capital index for Europe.
Article
The maintenance of critical natural capital is an important objective of sustainable development. Critical natural capital represents a multidimensional concept, as it mirrors the different frameworks of various scientific disciplines and social groups in valuing nature. This article revisits the concept of critical natural capital and examines its relation to the concept of ecological resilience. I propose that ecological resilience can help a great deal in specifying the ‘ecological criticality’ of specific renewable parts of the natural capital. More specifically, I suggest that the degree of ecological resilience is inversely related to the degree of threat ecosystems are prone to. The concept of ecological resilience may complement other measures, such as integrity or vulnerability, in estimating the degree of threat specific ecosystems are exposed to. The empirical estimates of ecological resilience add a further criterion in order to build a comprehensive and clear conception of critical natural capital.