Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 02 November 2014, At: 17:17Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of SustainableDevelopment & World EcologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20
Scenarios for the Baltic Sea region: a visionof sustainabilityKarl-Henrik Dreborg a , Sven Hunhammar a , Eric Kemp-Benedict b & PaulRaskin ba Environmental Strategies Research Group , 2142 , S-103 14 Stockholm ,Swedenb Stockholm Environment Institute – Boston Center , 11 Arlington Street,Boston , MA 02116 , USAPublished online: 27 Mar 2012.
To cite this article: Karl-Henrik Dreborg , Sven Hunhammar , Eric Kemp-Benedict & Paul Raskin (1999)Scenarios for the Baltic Sea region: a vision of sustainability, International Journal of SustainableDevelopment & World Ecology, 6:1, 34-44, DOI: 10.1080/13504509.1999.9728470
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.1999.9728470
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Tnt] Sustain. Dro. WorldEcoL 6 (1999) 34-44
Scenarios for ,the Baltic Sea region:a vision of sustainability
Kn.r~HenrikDreborgJ, Sven HunhammarJ, Eric Kemp-Benedict' and Paul Raskin'
'Environmental Strategies Research Group, Box 2142, 5-10314 Stockholm, Sweden!Stockholm Environment Institute - Boston Center, 11 Arlington Street, Boston, MA 02116, USA
Key words: regional sustainability, scenarios, Baltic Sea, policy, values
SUMMARY
This paper presents integrated scenarios of the Baltic Sea region to the year 2030. Itsummarises research conducted for Baltic 21, a region-wide process to identifystrategiesfor sustainable developmenL The aim is to illuminate the requirements for a transitionto sustainability. This includes a view ofwhere the region is now, where it seems to beheading ifconventional development patterns persist, and where alternatively'it couldaim- a sustainabilityvision. In the sustainabilityvision, a high degree ofeconomic equityand full employment are attained, greenhouse gas emissions are sharply reduced, theacidification ofsoils and waters are kept within safe tolerance levels and the Baltic Sea isrestored to ecological health. Preconditionsfor realising this future include the diffusionof clean and efficient technologies, reorientation of consumer demand towards lessresource-intensive products. public support for strong sustainability policies, and acooperative climate between nations.
INTRODUCfION
The Baltic 21 process was initiated by the Headsof Governments of the Baltic Sea States and thePresident of the European Commission in 1996and an Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea region was'adopted by the Foreign Ministers at the Councilof the Baltic Sea States Meeting in June 22-23,1998. The mission was to develop a programmeof action consonant with the mandate ofAgenda21 from Rio (UNCED, 1992). Towards this end.the issue of sustainable development anddirections for action were considered in sevensectoral studies - agriculture. energy. fisheries,forestry. industry, tourism and transport(HELCOM, 1998; Danish Energy Agency. 1998;IBSFC, 1998; Finnish Ministry ofAgriculture andForestry, 1998; Finnish Ministry of Trade andIndustry, 1998; German Federal Environmental
Agency. 1998; (Declarations and sector reportsalso available at http://www.ee/baltic21). Finally,a study of alternative scenarios provided anintegrated examination of a range of possiblelong-term futures for the Baltic region.
This paper presents these socioeconomic andenvironmental scenarios developed for the Baltic21 process. The purpose was to examine broadcross-sectoral conditions. provide an integratedview ofwhere the region is now. wher.e it s~ems tobe heading assuming conventional develdpmentconditions persist, and where alternatively it couldaim - a sustainabilityvision. The time horizon forthe scenarios is 2030. In the paper, the Baltic Searegion (BSR) is divided into two sulrregions.SEBRrefers to the southeast Baltic region (Estonia,Latvia. Lithuania, Poland and the Russian
Correspondence: Sven Hunhammar, Environmental Strategies Research Group, Box 2142, 5-10314 Stockholm, Sweden. e-mail:[email protected],se
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
17:
17 0
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea region
Federation). NWBRrefers to the northwest Balticregion (Denmark, Finland, Gennany, Iceland,Norway and Sweden).
The paper first discusses the key issues ofsustainable development in the region and theuse of scenarios in this context. Then aConventional DevelopmentScenario is presentedfollowed by a Sustainability Vision. The paperends with a concluding discussion.
Sustainable development in the Balticregion
Sustainable development means harmonisingsocial, economic and environmental goals toensure the wellbeing of present and futuregenerations, as well as ecosystems (e.g. WeED,1987).The focus in the Baltic 21 process is on thefollowing aspects (Baltic 21, 1998):
(I) A safe and healthy life for current andfuture generations;
(2) A cooperative and prosperous economyand society for all;
(3) Local and regional cooperation based ondemocracy, openness and participation;
(4) Biological and ecosystem diversity andproductivity restored or maintained;
(5) Pollution to the atmosphere, land andwater does not exceed the carrying capacityofnature;
(6) Increased efficiency in the use andmanagement of renewable resources sothey remain within their regenerationcapacity; and
(7) Non-renewable resources are usedefficiently and recycled, while renewablesubstitutes are developed and promoted.
The challenge of sustainable development mustbe addressed at multiple spatial levels - global,regional, national and local. Although the focusof Baltic 21 is regional, a global perspective mustalso be kept in mind. The linkages are bidirectional. Regional activities have an influenceon biospheric processes while increasingglobalisation has environmental, economic,cultural and demographic influences on regions.
An egalitarian approach to reconciling regionalsustainability goals and global responsibilities
Dreborg et al.
would be to estimate an environmental spaceaccording to global carrying capacity andallocating that space internationally on an equalper capita basis. The focus in this report is onwhat the region can do for itselfwhile keeping inmind the wider perspective through the inclusionofsuch issues as climate change and acidification.
Key issues
The Baltic Sea region is well positioned to facethe challenge of sustainable development,possessing an abundant endowment of naturalresources and an educated population. At thesame time, there are significant challenges,including an unacceptable degree of economicdisparity across the region and excessive pressureon environmental systems.
The huge difference in living standard acrossthe region conflicts with the justice criteria ofsustainable development. To address this conflict,the standard of living in the SEBR must beincreased, with the goal ofgradually diminishingthe gap between countries and eventually closingit. Institutions and the market framework need tobe strengthened to supportlong-tenn investmentsand entrepreneurship in the SEBR. The pressingneed to improve the socioeconomic situation forthe poorest strata suggests that differences withincountries should also decrease. Access to highquality basic services, such as education, healthcare and housing, should be universal.
A number ofenvironmental concerns must beaddressed in the context of a transition tosustainable development. The key issues are:
(1) Regional contributions to emissions ofgreenhouse gases and other global issues;
(2) Acidification of land and water; and
(3) Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea and ininland waters.
A further problem is the depletion of nonrenewable resources such as energy and materials(e.g. phosphorus). Moreover, renewable resourcesare sometimes exploited in an unsustainablefashion. These environmental problems arecaused largely by activities today. However,problems also persist from the past, such ascontainers of mustard gas dumped in the BalticSea during World War II.
Intemationaljoumal ofSustainable Development and World Ecology 35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
17:
17 0
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea region
In the first wave ofconcern for the environmentin the 1960s, the focus was on reducing pointsource pollution through. end-of-pipetechnologies. Considerable scope remains for thistype of intervention, particularly in the SEBR.However, the major challenge today is reducingdiffuse sources ofpollution from transportation,households and other sectors. Beyond pollutionprevention, the focus turns to a deeper level: thepatterns of consumption and production thatdrive environmental pressures.
On the use of scenarios
A time horizon of many decades is needed in anenquiry on sustainability. Though the long-rangefuture cannotbe predicted, it is possible to generateinsightbydeveloping coherentstories, orscenarios,about plausible future developments. Scenarioanalysis is a key tool for illuminating the alternativepathways that complex and uncertain systems cantake. Scenarios that are relevant to the problem ofsustainable development are constructed fromvarious elements - an understanding of currentconditions, an identification of driving forces forchange, a vision ofthe future, and a coherentstoryofa process ofchange leading to thatfuture (Raskinet aL, 1996).
Alternative scenarios assist decision makers incoping with uncertainty and in understandingthe scope of possibilities in the long term.Explorative scenario methodologies are used toscan a range ofvisions and trajectories to providea'background for analysis and policy assessment(Schwartz, 1992; von Reibnitz, 1988). Scenarioanalysis helps in devising flexible and adaptivestrategies that are robust across a wide range ofpossible futures (Dreborg, 1997). Backcasting is atechnique for introducing normative futureimages and asking what pathways could lead tothe desired future state (Robinson, 1982; 1990;Dreborg, 1996), an approach we rely on indeveloping the SustainabilityVision for the Balticregion. .
A CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENTSCENARIO
The Conventional Development Scenario (CDS)assumes continuity in the evolution ofeconomic,
Dreborg et aL
social and environmental systems in the Balticregion. It envisions a future which unfoldsgradually under the influence of currentlydominant driving forces. A key element of thescenario is the absence of significant and coordinated policy initiatives for achievingsustainability goals. The economy grows steadilyin scale, becomes more oriented toward servicesectors and the market fully takes hold as theengine for growth. Economic globalization andtrade liberalisation continue to influence theregional economy and society. Transnationalcorporations play an increasingly important role.
Scenario elements
In the CDS, the imperatives of the global marketprovide the context for cooperation andcoordination. The level of regional integrationand sense ofcommon identity is minimal as eachcountry seeks advantage on a global field ofeconomic competition. Technological change inthe scenario proceeds gradually, driven largely bymarket incentives, while governmentallysponsored R&D efforts recede in importance.Information technology (IT) fosters the processof economic globalization. IT also provides themedium for an increasingly homogenisedinternational culture with a distinctlyconsumeristemphasis. Some resist these trends communitarians, local economic interests,geopolitical isolationists and environmentalistsbut are unable to forge sufficient political will foran alternative vision.
Based on this broad narrative, we can present aquantitative illustration ofthe CDS. The point ofdeparture for the scenario is a set of detailedcountry-level economic, resource andenvironmental accounts for 1995. Developed foreach country to the year 2030, the scenario issummarised here for the entire Baltic region.The summary presented below is the rqsult ofdetailed sectoral analysis, drawing from thesectoral background papers, existing data setsand regional scenario analysis (Kemp-Benedictand Raskin, 1997; Raskin, et aL, 1998).
Summary indicators for the scenario aregathered in Figure 1 for the region as a whole.Population projections are from the UnitedNations. Economic growth assumptions are basedon mid-range IPCC values (1992), which in turn
36,- InternationalJournal ofSustainable Development and World Ecology
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
17:
17 0
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea region Dreborg et at.
2.50
0>::J 2.00«i>Lll0) 1.500)........0>::J 1.00«i>0(") 0.500C\J
Ca.. til -.l!l «ic ~... 0 ... «i til til til ~ C0 0> III ~>. ,-.!!2 c c ... 0<!l ::J Ql ::J.- ::J til
~ 0. ..... a.. 11lf::>~
Ql := 0> ,~ ",0 .. 0 ~E ~U ~"O
:; a..'Q. 0 Eo> ~ ~ ~1Il O'~ O'~ ::J Ql ::J::J ::J-
0. o III <!l 'C: c ... ~] ~~ U.- U) ._ 0 ... .g "0 o.~(!)o a.. 0> 0> E E
'C ,-Ole
'C >.0 0l::J OlC ,~ .s «[a.. LU := 0> 0> «0. «
Figure 1 Conventional development scenario indicators for the Baltic region
are based on World Bank sources. The populationis projected to decrea e, e.g, by 14% in Russia.The regional economy doubles in scale by 2030,an average annual growth of about 2%.
All else being equal, economic growth mightbe expected to double both the requirements fornatural resources and pressure on theenvironment. This is not the case in the scenario,primarily because of a continuation of trendstoward greater efficiency of resource use. Mostend-use activities become more efficient in thescenario, e.g. automobile efficiency, appliances,and industrial processes. In addition, thecomposition of the economy shifts toward theservice sector, which is relatively less resourceintensive. The combined effect is to lower theaggregate resource intensities of the economy, asillustrated by decreasing energy/ GDP and water/GDP in Figure 1. Nevertheless, the expansion ofthe scale of activity outpaces these improvementsso that total energy and water requirementsincrease despite the impres ive improvements inefficiency,
The requirements for agricultural products inthe CDS remain steady over the scenario. This istraced to the underlying assumptions of littlechange in per capita caloric intake or dietstructure, i.e. the share of meat con umption indiets. On the production side, yield increase byabout 20% between 1995 and 2030. At the sametime, chemical inputs to agricultural systemsincrease, contributing to water qualitydeterioration, a problem that per ists over the
next decades.
The increased levels of CO2 and SOx shown inthe Figure illustrate air emission implications ofthe scenario. Other environmental pressures arealso likely to increase. For example, in moderneconomies, a huge variety ofpotentially hazardoussubstances are used in manufacturing processesand embodied in final products. Some, includingheavy metals and chlorinated organic compounds,are known to be toxic and persistent, and toaccumulate in living organisms and beconcentrated through the food chain. Under theconditions of policy complacency assumed in theCDS, the toxicological risks to human health andecosystems grow as the variety and level ofsyntheticchemicals production increase.
The pattern of income disparity between thesubregions endures and, because the growth ratesare about 2% in both regions, the absolUledisparity in per capita income also doubles, fromabout 16000 per capita in 1995 to 32000 percapita in 2030.
Sectoral patterns
In Figure 2 we take a closer look at enllrgy Prtternsin the scenario. The mix of energy sourcesgradually evolves from historic patterns. Ingeneral, the many activities (or 'end uses') drivingenergy demand increase in the context of risingincomes. Transportation levels (passenger-km/year) rise due to more luxury travel and to highercommutation loads associated with the extensionofsuburban settlement patterns. Industrial outputgrows somewhat and service sector activities grow
InternationalJournalof u tainable Development and World Ecology 37
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
17:
17 0
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea region Dreborg et al.
• Imported energy
o Renewables
~ Uranium
• Hydropower
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
1995
o Natural gas
Crude oil
~ Coal/peat/Oil shale
2030
alternative economic uses and ecologicalrequirements. In general, under the conditionsofhigh economic growth and weak policy assumedin the scenario, the region would probablyexperience aggravated social and environmentaltensions.
A SUSTAINABILITY VISION
The business-as-usual Conventional DevelopmentScenario illuminates the risks of unsustainabilityand provides guidance on the strategies requiredfor a transition to regional sustainability. Buildinga shared vision for the future is a process that mustcontinue with the involvement ofexperts, decisionmakers and the general public. The glimpseoffered here is intended as an initial image thatshould be expanded and amended. Hopefully, itcan help galvanise actions, values and policiesthat can change the course of regionaldevelopment toward the desired goal.
Elements of the vision
Year
Figure 2 Primary energy supply in PJ
rapidly. Household appliance ownershipincreases. Meanwhile, energy use becomes moreefficient. For example, average automobileefficiency approaches about 0.06 litres km- I by2030 compared to roughly 0.09 litres km- I in theNWBR currently.
The mix of energy sources comprising theprimary energy supply gradually changes duringthe course of the scenario. In the NWBR, naturalgas and renewables increase somewhat, whilenuclear energy decreases both as a share and inabsolute terms. The SEBR becomes increasinglyreliant on coal for electricity and heat generation.
Agricultural requirements in the CDS changelittle and, because production increases morerapidly than agricultural requirements, the regionenjoys increasingly strong food security. Finally,the pressure on freshwater resources wouldincrease, especially in the SEBR, due to growingdemands for water in industrial, municipal andagricultural sectors. River basins would experienceincreasing competition for water between
The vision is based on five key aspects representingeconomic, social and environmental dimensionsof sustainability in the region that are thenconsidered in more detail. These are:
(1) Economic equity,
(2) Full employment,
(3) Reduced greenhouse gas emissions,
(4) Acidification ofsoils and waters within afetolerance levels,
(5) Return of the Baltic Sea to ecologicalbalance.
In the context of rapid conomic developmentin the SEBR, regional differences in livingstandards gradually disappear by 2030 in thisvision. The economic differen,ces .}\'ithincountries are also decreased. Economic growthin the SEBR is driven by a booming industrialsector that benefits from the comparatively highlevel of education and skill of the work force.Currently, the GDP per capita in the NWBR isfour times that in the SEBR, based on purchasingpower parities. To illustrate how the differencemight be eliminated, if the economy grows at6% per year in SEBR and 2% in NWBR, GDP per
38 InternationalJournal ofSustainable Development and World Ecology
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
17:
17 0
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sustainability in the BalLic Sea region
40000
35000
30000
25000
.s'5. 20000I1l
~15000
10000
5000
01995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
2020 2025
Dreborg et al.
2030
Figure 3 Illustrative GDP (PPP) per capita growth assumptions in NWBR and SEBR
capita in the two subregions would be equal by2030. On the other hand, if the growth were 4%in SEBR and 2% in WBR the ratio would be 1to 2 in 2030 (see Figure 3).
Such economic growth as in the example above- 6% per year in SEBR and 2% in NWBR represents a significant expansion of economicactivity in the region. The GRP (Gross RegionalProduction) in 2030 would be 4.5 times the GRPin 1995. All else being equal, such a largeexpansion in the scale ofactivity would exacerbateenvironmental pressures dramatically. Therefore,a transi tion to environmen tally sustainabledevelopment under these assumptions wouldentail the massive development and deploymentof clean and efficient technology, along withadjustments to patterns of con umption andproduction.
Economic growth would need to be decoupledfrom the throughput ofresources to remain withinecological goals. This is illustrated in Figure 4, inwhich environmental impact is decomposed intothe product of three factors: population,economic activity and technology. The technologyvariable is expressed as an aggregate resource
intensity when natural resource impact is analysedor emission intensity when the focus is onpollution.
As the arrows in Figure 4 suggest, a reductionof environmental impact in association with anincrease in economic activity requires majordecreases in the intensity of resource use (oremissions) per unit of GDP. The requiredimprovements in efficiencies pose substantialchallenges to technological, organisational andmanagement systems.
In the vision, policies aimed at heightenedsocial security succeed throughout the region,leading in particular to low unemployment« 5%). This success is related to a restructuredand well-functioning market economy in thewhole region, coupled to appropriate policiesand regulations for achieving social andenvironmental goals. Moreover, the region is ableto cooperate effectively on the harmonisation ofnew policies, such as ecological tax reform, andthey are introduced in a coordinatelii and, timelyfashion.
Regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions arereduced by 30% by 2030, spurred by internationalagreements on the control of global GHGemissions. But the aim in the region is to reduceemissions still further. The measures that reduceGHG emissions also contribute to other goals reduction of local air pollution, employmentgeneration and human health. Energy
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 39
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
17:
17 0
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea region Dreborg et aL
1= P A T
Environmental Impact Population Economic Activity Technology[resource use or emissions] [number of people] [GNP/capita] [resource use or
emissions/GNP]
Example:
\~ ~ /1/2 1 4 1/8
Decrease needed No major changes GNP growth factor Reduction of resourceor emission Intensity
e.g. decrease CO, emissionsor nutrient depositIons by 50%
Figure 4 Environmental impact is represented as the product of population. economic activity and technology(I .. P x A x 11 (Ehrlich and Holdren. 1971)
consumption is stabilised by 2010 and NO.emissions are reduced by 25%, with substantialimprovements in other pollutant levels, as well.In particular, acidification caused by emissionsfrom within the region decreases in a programmedevised to achieve co-benefits with GHG emissionreductions. European agreements reduce thetransboundary emissions from outside the BSR.
The measures include considerableimprovement in energy efficiency, transport andindustrial sectors and fuel switching to renewableenergy. In the industrial sector, structural changescomplement improved technological efficiencyin order to reconcile high GDP growth withambitious environmental goals. Plant andequipment are modernised, resulting in majorimprovements in energy efficiency, especially inthe SEBR. Better insulation of buildings sharplyimproves the efficiency of heating. Increasedcombined heat and power production reducesenergyrequirements in the energy transformationsector.
A number of measures counteract the trendtoward increasing transport levels. Betterintegration of land-use and traffic planning andthe spread oftelecommuting reduce travel needs.These measures together with the marketpenetration ofhighlyenergy~fficient vehicles andmodal shifts lead to decreasing energy use andCOli emissions in the transport sector. Integrationof land-use and traffic planning cause a declinein structurally determined travel, particularlyshortdistance trips by car. In the SEBR, various
economic incentives accelerate the replacementand modernisation of the fleet.
In the sustainability vision, the Baltic Sea isagain an environmentally healthy and fullyproductive resource. The progressiveenvironmental recovery of the Sea steadily resultsfrom initiatives in the energy, transport, industryand agricultural sectors. Numerous measures more efficient energy use, cleaner productionprocesses, bettermanagementofcrop and animalproduction, reduced arable land, wetlandsrestoration, enhanced sewage treatment combine to reduce pollution loads. As the capacityof the Baltic Sea to sustain marine ecosystemsimproves, fisheries and tourism thrive.
In the scenario, a host of other issues are alsoaddressed. These include the protection ofbiodiversity, the reduction in use ofnon-renewableresources, and the near elimination of fugitiveheavy metals, persistent organic pollutants andradioactive hazards to the environmenL Proactiveapproaches are emphasised that provideincentives for changing practices andtechnologies. The capacityofsociety'to ad~pt in atimely and effective manner to new challengeshas evolved substantially. Strategies includeimproved monitoring systems and policycoordination within and between regions. Legalrules and economic policies are harmonlsed topave the way for common environmental andeconomic policies.
As the sustainability scenario evolves, goalconflicts arise. The most important of these is the
40 InternationalJournal ofSustainable Development and World Ecology
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
17:
17 0
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea region
tension between high economic growth andenvironmental preservation. A high economicgrowth is required in the SEBRcountries to reacheconomic equity. In the scenario. the region isable to implement 'win-win' solutions-measuresto increase .resource efficiency and reduceemissions that also improve economic efficiencyand generate employment. e.g. renewable energyresources stimulate local economies and the earlypreparation for the possibilities emerging frominfonnation technologies finds ready marketselsewhere.
Key actors
Many factors will shape the future of the Balticregion. Some are external and only partially inthe control of the region through participationin global processes - economic globalisation.global environmental change. cultural influences,infonnation technology, and migration pressure.At the same time, the regionally-specific evolutionof market factors, policy and human values cancritically influence the pathway to the future.
Market drivers
Some steps on the path towards sustainabilitymaybe taken withoutanyspecific policymeasures.Firms respond to demand but also seekopportunities to introduce and promote newproducts, thus influencing demand.
Consumerdriven change (demandpull) towardsustainabilitycould result from the emergence ofvalues supporting environmentally certifiedproducts, green consumerism and demand forlocal products. The stimulation of this marketcould come from firms whose products caterspecifically to these demands, from informationand education campaigns mounted by bothgovernment and NGOs and from deeper valuechanges. Technology driven change (technologypush) arises as enterprises position themselves inthe market place through innovative productsand cost reducing technologies. Examples aretrends toward miniaturisation of computers andother IT applications, product demateriali~ationand modular production units. In many casesdemand pull and technology push interact in ac<>-evolution (Dosi, 1988).
Dreborg et al.
The policy dimension
Government provides a framework of rules andincentives that shape markets, foster stabilityand promote social goals. Policy is the vehiclefor reconciling the disparate activities of themarket with the common good. It is well understoodthat environmental externalities that are notreflected in market prices must be handledthrough policy intervention that internalises costsor through regulation. The same considerationsapply to social and equity goals that are notautomatically addressed through marketmechanisms.
In addition. the sustainable developmentimperative suggests that government must act asa trustee for future generations, charged withsteering development in a direction that iscompatible with the long-term preservation ofenvironmental quality. Cooperation among BSRnations must also be stressed in the context oftheregional sustainable development process. This,of course. will be a process over time, where theviews of different parties gradually converge. Inaddition to developing a harmonised institutionaland policy framework, governments can makedirect investments in infrastructure. influencetrade and financial flows in the region. andpromote education. research and culture. Theycan also create niche markets for net\'environmentally benign products.
Human values
Prevailing attitudes and values shape markets,the political process and civic society. At oneextreme. if the influences of the global economyand market cultural norms dominate,individualism and consumerism may prevail asdrivers of market growth and materialisticlifestyles. At the other extreme. an alternativemodel may come into prominence. that; placesgreatvalue on the environment. on social fairness.on concern for future generations and onqualitative aspects of the life experience. Whilethe former set of values are dominant underconventional development conditions, thealternative vision will require the emergence ofanew sustainability paradigm. Information andeducation campaigns can influence attitudes,enhance awareness and alter consumer demand
InternationalJournal ofSustainable Development and World Ecology 41
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
17:
17 0
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sustainability in th8 Baltic S8G region
in directions more compatible with sustainability.The participation of civic society in this processwill be critical.
In the sustainable vision, the people in theregion increasingly adopt a set of values - a newsustainabilityparadigm- that influences lifestylesand emphasises the importance of findingmeaning in cultural and spiritual engagement asopposed to the mere accumulation of things(GaUopin et al., 1997). Among the ascendantvalues are an identity with nature, a desire forsocial equity and a sense of solidarity andparticipation in communities at local as well asglobal levels.
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
The CDS as a model of future development forthe Baltic region provides a mixed review. In thispicture, national economies grow substantiallyover the next few decades, but disparities betweenand within countries widen. The standard oflivingis up when measured by such quantitativeindicators as GDP per capita, but concern growsthat the quality of life has deteriorated astraditional cultural values erode and social frictionincreases. Pressure on the regional environmentis ameliorated bya numberoffactors- investmentsin end~f..pipe controls, progressively less materialand energy intensive products, and internationalenvironmental agreements. However, rapidgrowth in the scale of production andconsumption has nullified these gains, resultingin an increased environmental impact andcontinued degradation of the ecosystems in theregion.
A sustainable path of development forthe region would progressively mitigateenvironmental, resource and social stresses in thecourse of time. It would build a socioecologicalsystem that is resilient. Institutional andtechnological structures would have increasingcapacity to adapt to unforeseen shocks anduncertainties. The policy-eomplacent form ofdevelopment as envisioned in the illustrative CDSdoes not meet these criteria. Rather, theenvironmental pressures and economic disparitiesof the current era would be aggravated. Atransition to sustainabiIit}r requires transcendingthese conditions by pro-actively seeking a newsustainability vision. . .
Dreborg et al.
Sustainability values
The task ofBaltic 21 is to propose an agenda for asustainable BSR directed toward political leaders.In this context, it is important to emphasise theroles ofpolitical cooperation, regulatory policiesand economic incentives in the transition tosustainability. At the same time, it is important tounderscore that success requires the support ofmany actors. The notion of the co-evolution ofconsumer demand and technologicalopportunities suggests that attention be paid notonly to technology push but also to consumerdemand, and the values and preferences that liebehind that demand (Nelson and Soete, 1988).
As a complement to the Action Plans in thesector reports, the integrated scenario perspectivesuggests a broader political challenge, namelythe mobilisation of the general public for thecause of sustainability. This perspective does ~otimply that everybody must become an idealistwho acts according to the common good.regardless of personal benefits. Rather, what isneeded is a widespread willingness to accept theadoption of rules and incentives that promotesbehaviour that is sustainable in the aggregate.
The sustainability problem is a form of socialdilemma, as studied in social sciences and gametheory (Axelrod, 1984; Hardin, 1968; Ostrom,1990). A classic example of a social dilemma isthe 'tragedy of the commons' in which a group ofpeople share a common resource, e.g. a fishingground. Since over-use will ruin the resource foreveryone, it is in the common interest to restrictexploitation to a sustainable level. Yet, eachindividual is te~pted to take as large a share aspossible, because if he does not, the others maydo so and ruin the resource, making him a doubleloser. The rationality ofthe individual is in conflictwith the rationality of the group.
Situations like the 'tragedy of the commons'occur at all levels of human interaction, amongindividuals, companies and political'cntitiFs. Forexample, the dilemma arises when nationalgovernments weigh national commitments onCOr emissions in order to promote a global goal,or when urban commuters must choose betweena convenient but polluting trip by car or a lessconvenient but cleaner trip by some public meansof transport. The Sustainability Vision rests onthe assumption that a majority favours, - or atleast tolerates - a set of measures that change
InternationalJournal ofSustainable Development and World Ecology
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
17:
17 0
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
(2)
(3)
SustainabililJ in the Ballie Sea region
individual and corporate behaviours to align withthe aggregate goals set bysustainabilityprinciples.Achieving the common objectiyes is seen asdesirable from an individual point ofview.
What if sustainability values are weak?
To the degree that a broad commitment tosustainability values is weak, resistance to policiesthat restrict individual choice in order to attain acommon goal will be strong. How would thisaffect the prospects of the scenario?
(1) Taxes and regulations to promoteefficiency and reduce pollution would bedifficult to implement. An importantexample is the degree ofreJianceon privatecars.
Technological improvements maynot havethe desired effect. Many consumers seemto prefer that improved energy efficiencylead to stronger and faster cars, ratherthan lower petrol consumption.
Incentives for changes in productiontechnology (e.g. cleaner, more energyefficient processes) may be constrained soas to not significantly affect the productdelivered to the consumer.
(4) Demand pun from consumers for greenerproducts will be minimal.
What if sustainability values are strong?
On the other hand, a popular resurgence ofcivicand green values may arise over the next decades.This resurgence may come as a reaction to thedegradation ofthe environment and to increasingsocial segregation. Political activism forsustainability may take the form of both renewalof traditional political formations and grass-rootmovements motivated by environmental andcommunity values, and a search for moremeaningful lifestyles.
Howwould such changes in values and popularinvolvement in societal issues affect the prosp~cts
for the sustainability scenario?
(1) Politics would become more 'bottom-up'with a stronger focus on local and regionalissues. The urban environment and the
Dreborg et aL
accessibility of recreational areas of highquality in the countryside might attractmore attention than, say, the greenhouseeffect.
(2) Many people would be prepared to changebehaviour in accordance with civic andsustainabilityvalues. Life-style changes thatreduce environmental impact would beeasier to implement, such as use ofpublictransportation rather than private cars.
(3) Consumer demand would become'greener' and more directed towards locallyproduced goods. A demand-pull effectwould draw industry toward producingmore durable and dematerialised goodsand to abandon hazardous inputs.
Preconditions for the sustainability vision
The real challenge is to find an economic growthtrajectory, especially for SEBR, that does notrequire a major increase in resource use andemissions. The scenario exercise suggests a set ofpreconditions all necessary for the Baltic Searegion to realise a sustainability vision:
(1) Development and diffusion of clean andefficient technology.
(2) Public support for a policyofsustainabilityfostered through more emphasis on normformation and civic values in schoolcurricula, better education on the humanimpact on the environment. informationcampaigns and moral leadership frompoJiticalleaders.
(3) Rising consumer demand for greaterproduct durability. more services and lessmaterial-intensive products.
(4) A cooperative climate between nations inthe BSR and at the pan-European level aswell as an accord among polltical1eadersregarding the importance ofsustainability.
(5) Ambitious international agreements onreduction of COt emissions so thatemission abatement policies in the BSRwill not damage the competitiveness ofregionally-based firms.
Given the limited scope ofthis study. the scenariospresented here are necessarily provisional and
InternationalJournal ofSustainable Development and World Ecology
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
17:
17 0
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea region
indicative. Still. they may help to clarify thequestions of where the region might be headedand where it could go - and proyide a basis forgleaning key strategic requirements forsustainability in the region.
REFERENCFS
Axelrod. R. (1984). TMEvolution ofCcoperation. (NewYork: Basic Books)
Baltic 21 (1998). An Agenda 21for the Baltic Sea Region.Baltic 21 Series Nol/98. Swedish Ministry ofEnvironment. Stockholm
Danish Energy Agency (1998). Sustainable EnergyDevelopment in the Baltic Sea Region. (Copenhagen:Danish Energy Agency)
Dosi. G. (1988). The nature of the innovative process.In Dosi et aL (ed.) Technical Change and EconomicTheory, pp. 227-8. (London: Pinter Publishers)
Dreborg. K. (1996). Essence of Backcasting. Futures,28 (9) 813-28
Dreborg. K. (1997). Gaming and Backcasting: TrlJO
Approaches in the Faa of Uncertainty. (Stockholm:Royal Institute ofTechnology)
Ehrlich. P. and Holdren, J. (1971). Impact ofpopulation growth. Science,171,1212-17
Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (1998).Baltic21ActionProgrammeforSustainableDevelopmentof the Baltic Sea Region - Sector Report On Fornts.(Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Agriculture andForestry)
Finnish MinistryofTrade and Industry (1998). Agenda21 - Baltic Sea Region Tourism. Working Papers 6/1998, Helsinki, Finnish Ministry of Trade andIndustry
Gallopin, G.• Hammond, A.• Raskin, P., and Swart R.(1997). Branch Points: Global Scenarios and HumanChoice. Pole Star series report no. 7. (Stockholm:Stockholm Environment Institute)
German Federal EnvironmentalAgency (1998). Baltic21 TransportSectorReport. UBA·Texte 38/98, Berlin,German Federal Environmental Agency(Umweltbundesamt)
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons.Science. 162, 1243-8
HELCOM (1998). Agenda 21 for tM Baltic Sea Region.SectorReport-Agriculture. (Helsinki: HELCOM BalticSea Environmental Proceedings (BSEP»
Dreborg et aL
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Prof. Lars Kristoferson.Ulrika Hagbarth and Kristina Dahlberg at theBaltic 21 Secretariat for guidance and support.
IBSFC (1998). Sector&port on FisMries. Contribution toBaltic 21. International Baltic Sea FisheriesCommission, IBSFC, Proceedings
IPCC (1992) . 1992lPCCSupplemenL IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change. (Geneva: WorldMeteorological Organization)
Kemp-Benedict, E. and Raskin, P. (1997). IntegratedScenarios for Baltic 21: An Update. StockholmEnvironment Institute - Boston Center
Nelson,R. andSoete,L.L.G. (1988).Policyconclusions.In Dosi et aL (ed.) Technical Change and EconomicTheqry. p. 633. (London: Pinter Publishers)
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governingthe Commons: TheEvolutionof Institutions for Collective Actions. (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press)
Raskin, P., Chadwick, M., Jackson, T. and Leach, G.(1996). Tht Sustainabilit, Transition: BeyondConventional Development Pole Star report no. 1.(Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute)
Raskin, P., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A.and Swart, R. (1998). Bending tM Curoe: TowardGlebal Sustainability. Pole Star series report no 8.(Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute)
von Reibnitz, U. (1988). Scenario Techniques. (Hamburg,New York: McGraw-Hili)
Robinson,J. (1990). Futures under glass: a recipe forpeople who hate to predict. Futures, October, 22(8),820-42
Robinson,]. (1982). Energy backcasting: a proposedmethod ofpolicy analysis. Enerr;y Policy, December.10 (4),337-44
Schwartz,P. (1992). Th8Artojth8LongView. (London:Century Business)
UNCED (1992).Agenda21. UnitedNationsConferenceon Environmentand Development, Rio de-Janeiro
United Nations (1997). AnnualPopulations19.50-20.50.1996 revision. (New York: United Nations)
WeED (1987). Our Common Future. The WorldCommission on Environment and Development.(Oxford: Oxford University Press)
44 InternationalJournal ofSustaInable Development and World Ecology
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
17:
17 0
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
