Animals and soil sustainability

Domestic livestock animals and soils must be considered together as part of an agroecosystem which includes plants. Soil sustainability may be simply defined as the maintenance of soil productivity for future generations. There are both positive and negative aspects concerning the role of animals in soil sustainability. In a positive sense, agroecosystems which include ruminant animals often also include hay forage-or pasture-based crops in the humid regions. Such crops stabilize the soil by decreasing erosion, improving soil structure and usually require fewer chemical inputs. Monogastric animal culture is based on an agroecosystem consisting of mainly grain crops. These crops can result in the soil being exposed to water and wind erosion although soil conservation practices that significantly reduce soil losses may be followed. The management of animal manures is not always compatible with soil conservation practices. Careful management of the nutrients in manure is absolutely necessary to avoid nitrate contamination of ground water or phosphorus loading of streams and lakes. In a negative sense, increases in animal livestock populations in association with human population growth are promoting desertification in the arid and semi-arid regions of the world. The key component for a fully compatible and acceptable association between domestic animals and soil productivity is proper management. Careful management of the components of an animal-based agroecosystem is required if soil productivity and environmental quality are to be maintained. Although we have much to learn, technologies are available to move a considerable way towards this ideal state.     

Standards, technology and sustainability

There are many examples in the developing countries (DCs) of environmental standards being set at high levels that cannot possibly be met in the prevailing economic conditions. Such standards are counter-productive; responsible operators who would work towards reasonable standards are turned off and evade the standards. This situation arises because the selected standards tend to be copies of existing standards from industrialized countries where most of the work of developing standards has taken place. The standards they copy are the current high standards that are affordable in the West, but are not affordable in the DCs. A similar situation exists with respect to technology. Designs that work well in the West tend to be copied but do not function well in the DCs because the level of expertise needed to ensure proper performance does not exist, and cannot be recruited and retained at the low wage levels that most authorities are able to pay. The remedy in both cases is to ensure that standards are appropriate and that the constructed facilities will be appropriate and sustainable. They can be sustainable only if adequate funds are assured for a sound program of operation and maintenance. With the ever increasing competition for the use of scarce water resources, all control agencies have a duty to maximize the use of the water they are allocated. For urban water supply systems this means ensuring tight control of UFW. Privatization of UFW control may offer significant benefits for the DCs and merits serious consideration.     

Governing local sustainability

This paper draws upon the DISCUS (Developing Institutional and Social Capacity for Sustainable Development) research project, co-funded by the European Commission. The project was undertaken during 2001 – 2004 and involved an in-depth study of 40 European towns and cities in order to understand the institutional and social factors and conditions that might contribute to policy ‘achievement' or ‘failure' in local sustainable development policy and practice. Based on the findings of this research it proposes a conceptual framework for local sustainable development, linking the concepts of institutional capital, social capital and governance to provide a model for understanding the governing of local sustainability. The research shows that in those cases that exhibit sustainable development policy achievements, there are also greater levels of civil society activity and knowledge regarding sustainability issues, and high levels of institutional capacity. Confident local government is crucial to the development of institutional capacity and to institutional learning. One aspect of this is local authorities being equipped to address the longer-term issues and to have a strategic vision for a sustainable future.     

Beyond sustainability indicators

Sustainability indicators are an increasingly popular tool for the identification of policies and monitoring of progress towards sustainable development. The need for indicators is clearly set out in Agenda 21 and has been taken up by the Commission for Sustainable Development. Devising alternative measures of progress to gross national product has been the subject of much research in the past few years. There are many local sustainability indicator initiatives now under way, co-ordinated by local authorities and involving local communities. However useful these exercises have been (not least to those engaged in them) there is little evidence, so far, that sustainability indicators are leading to substantial shifts in policy at national or local level. Evidence points, in fact, to substantial barriers to progress in several key areas: for example, the necessity for the greater integration of environmental, social and economic policy, the tackling of inequality and poverty and the encouragement of greater public participation in action on sustainable development. In order for indicators to make any progress in surmounting these barriers there is a need to address issues of trust and to examine existing institutional structures and practices. In parallel with the development of indicators, national, and particularly local, government will need to experiment with new and creative techniques for community participation in decision making, engage in dialogue with new cultural networks and implement practical initiatives to improve the quality of life in particular communities.     

The meaning and ethics of sustainability

Some have argued that the meaning of sustainability varies according to context, forcing us to be as explicit as possible when defining our terms. An argument is offered that disputes this conclusion by maintaining that it is not the meaning of sustainability that changes with respect to context, but rather our understanding of the context itself. This is frequently apparent in contradictions that arise when conceiving each context in terms of sustainability. If this argument is correct, then we should be concerned not with the “meaning” of sustainability but rather the implications of sustainability as they affect the status quo. And in order to do this we must be prepared to answer the question: Why is sustainability desirable? This approach is illustrated through a preliminary conceptual and ethical analysis of ecologically sustainable development.     

The evolution of sustainability

Six separate but related strains of thought have emerged prominently since 1950 in discussions of such phenomena as the interrelationships among rates of population growth, resource use, and pressure on the environment. They are the ecological/carrying capacity root, the resources/environment root, the biosphere root, the critique of technology root, the no growth/slow growth root, and the ecodevelopment root.Each of these strains of thought was fully developed before the word sustainable itself was used. Many of the roots are based on fundamentally opposing assessments of the future of mankind. Many of the roots, such as the ecology/carrying capacity root, are based on physical concepts, and they exclude normative values. Others, such as the ecodevelopment root, include such values as equity, broad participation in governance, and decentralized government.When the word sustainability was first used in 1972 in the context of man's future, in a British book,Blueprint for Survival, normative concepts were prominent. This continued to be the case when the word was first used in 1974 in the United States to justify a no growth economy.Sustainability was first used in a United Nations document in 1978. Normative concepts, encapsulated in the term ecodevelopment, were prominent in the United Nations publications.After about 1978, the term sustainability began to be used not only in technological articles and reports but also in policy documents culminating in the use of the term in the report of the summit meeting of the Group of Seven in 1989.The roots of the term sustainability are so deeply embedded in fundamentally different concepts, each of which has valid claims to validity, that a search for a single definition seems futile. The existence of multiple meaning is tolerable if each analyst describes clearly what he means by sustainability.     

The morality behind sustainability

The concepts of sustainable agriculture, organic agriculture, regenerative agriculture, and alternative agriculture are receiving increasing attention in the academic and popular literature on present trends and future directions of agriculture. Whatever the reasons for this interest, there nevertheless remain differences of opinion concerning what counts as a sustainable agriculture. One of the reasons for these differences is that the moral underpinnings of a policy of sustainability are not clear. By understanding the moral obligatoriness of sustainability, we can come to understand precisely what must be sustained, and by implication, how. This article discusses the arguments that can be advanced for sustaining anything and initially concludes that our obligations to future generations entail sustaining more than just sufficient food production or an adequate resource base. Indeed, a tradition of care and community must underlie whatever agricultural and resource strategies we are to develop under the rubric of sustainability. A consideration of the larger social and environmental system in which agriculture operates and the constraints this system places on agriculture forces us to recognize that sustainability has to do with larger institutional issues, including our ability to incorporate our common morality democratically into our institutions, practices, and technologies.     

Tales of local sustainability

Local Agenda 21 (LA21) has emerged as the principal means of addressing sustainable development practice at the local government level. In the UK, progressive local authorities have emphasised the need for participatory processes and innovative policy options. This requires commitment and active involvement from a variety of individuals and organisations. Participants in LA21 have been interviewed to determine their motivations and perceptions, and their responses are represented in terms of the storylines of various constituencies of interest. The key themes seem to be those of actively promoting widespread participation, gaining competence in innovative techniques, taking a holistic approach to quality of life concerns, and claiming the legitimacy of local government as a key player in sustainable development.     

Pathways to urban sustainability

The concept of sustainable development has become very much in vogue in the past decade. We have also observed a shift in the interpretation of this concept from a global perspective to a meso perspective—that is, at a local, regional or sectoral level. This paper aims at highlighting the urban dimension of environmental issues. After a sketch of urban pollution problems and of tools for economic analysis, the notion of urban sustainability will be advocated as a meaningful analytical and policy concept. Next, the main focus of this paper will be on a typological approach to urban sustainability issues on the basis of three characteristic angles, viz. strong and weak sustainability, absolute and relative decoupling and the spatial ecological footprint. Various methodological issues will also be discussed, while the paper will conclude with some perspectives on policy issues. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Global sustainability: Toward definition

Sustainability is increasingly viewed as a desired goal of development and environmental management. This term has been used in numerous disciplines and in a variety of contexts, ranging from the concept of maximum sustainable yield in forestry and fisheries management to the vision of a sustainable society with a steady-state economy. The meaning of the term is strongly dependent on the context in which it is applied and on whether its use is based on a social, economic, or ecological perspective, Sustainability may be defined broadly or narrowly, but a useful definition must specify explicitly the context as well as the temporal and spatial scales being considered. Although societies differ in their conceptualizations of sustainability, indefinite human survival on a global scale requires certain basic support systems, which can be maintained only with a healthy environment and a stable human population. A clearer understanding of global sustainability and the development of appropriate indicators of the status of basic support systems would provide a useful framework for policy making.     

Global sustainability: Toward measurement

The widespread interest in the concept of sustainable environment and development has been accompanied by the need to develop useful systems of measurement. We discuss the use of indicators which might be used to assess such conditions. Our characteristics, or criteria, for desirable global sustainability indicators are:

sensitivity to change in time

sensitivity to change across space or within groups

predictive ability

availability of reference or threshold values

ability to measure reversibility or controllability

appropriate data transformation

integrative ability

relative ease of collection and use

We discuss the basis of these characteristics, and examine two categories of indicators (soil erosion and population) and two specific indicators (physical quality of life index and energy imports as a percentage of consumption) for their value as sustainability measures.     

Sustaining co-operation for coastal sustainability

Coastal-zone sustainability policies are socially constructed. It follows that their effective implementation depends on the sustainable voluntary co-operation of stakeholders with competing interests and priorities. No form of integrated coastal-zone management can nurture such co-operation as long as the objective is to determine ‘best’ policies, derived by expert-based rational analysis, instead of seeking to identify ‘correct’ policies, ones that can draw the maximum possible stakeholder support. The latter task requires a co-operative coastal-zone management that incorporates the relevant public discourse into the policy formation process in a direct, proactive and conflict minimizing manner. Towards this end, four major challenges are examined for maximizing the stakeholders' motivation for voluntary co-operation: (1) optimism about the level of optimism; (2) agenda setting; (3) value discourse; and (4) information and empowerment.