043 | HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL SPACE FOR EUROPE WAS CALCULATED
       
    quantifying the ceiling    
         

The available environmental space sets a ceiling for the permitted level of using and depleting natural resources, based on the best available estimates of carrying capacity and expressed in terms of quantities of resource input into the economy or anthroposphere. Comparing the actual use of environmental space and the permitted use gives an input reduction quota to be achieved by national economies in order to bridge the sustainability gap, i.e. to reach a sustainable situation.
This however does not imply a significant reduction of standard of living or quality of life, since resources can be used in very different manners in order to meet social demands. These vary according to cultural or personal priorities and the efficiency of available technologies and prevailing consumption patterns. Dematerialisation of products, substitution of products by less resource-intensive services, reuse and recycling are just some well known means to de-link resource extraction and thus large scale environmental degradation from the availability of resource-based services.

For each of the different resources to be taken into account, the environmental space is calculated in a specific manner:

 

Joachim Spangenberg, Sustainable Europe Research Institute

Download full paper
Energy and non-renewable raw materials are seen as global commodities. Average use in Europe should not exceed a common global average maximum of environmental space used per capita. In some national studies productive land and wood are also treated as global resources.

    
For energy, the environmental space is based on the recommendations of the IPPC, which form the scientific basis for ongoing negotiations to develop the global Framework Convention on Climate Change signed in Rio 1992 by more than 150 governments. For primary energy consumption, besides the IPCC assumptions, the SEI energy scenario for Europe and work done for the German Federal Parliament's Enquete Commission on Climate Change were all analysed. As a result a global reduction of at least 50% in fossil energy use is considered necessary. Furthermore, a phase out of nuclear energy by 2010 was assumed for the whole of Europe.

Applying the equity principle to the suggested 50 per cent average global reduction for energy, a reduction target of 85-90% for Europe can be derived.

   
As with energy, for the consumption of raw materials, evidence suggests that we are already beyond environmental limits. However, research has yet to scientifically validate any specific reduction target. Hans Opschoor, using a resource economics approach, suggests reduction targets between 50 and 90 per cent; the "ecological footprint" of calculations of Wackernagel & Rees imply reductions of a similar size, as do other authors. As a first and admittedly rough estimate we suggest a target of cutting the total extraction of virgin resources by half on a global scale. This is clearly better than the precisely wrong assumption made by ignoring the issue, that the current consumption or even the current trend of increasing consumption could be maintained.

Applying the equity principle to the suggested 50 per cent average global reduction for raw materials, a reduction target of 85-90% for Europe can be derived.

A rough sensitivity analysis was conducted. This shows that if the global reduction target lies between 40 and 60 per cent, the European target varies only between 80 and 95 per cent. Even with no reduction in global consumption at all, a 75 per cent reduction of European consumption would be necessary in order to meet the equity principle. Consequently, we consider an 80 to 90 per cent reduction of resource use to be a valid first estimate for the reduction needed in Europe.

Resource use reduction strategies will have to be developed that will significantly change the European economy, regardless of whether a refined target for resource consumption comes up with a limit of eight, twelve, or 19 per cent of today's material flows (defined as the mineral itself plus its "ecological rucksack", i.e. the amount of material flows caused by extraction, processing or disposal on a global scale).

    
In the Sustainable Europe report agricultural and forestry products are considered to be regional resources (and in the case of Europe we have taken the European continent as the reference area). The reasoning behind this decision was twofold. Development theory and experience suggest that food security (a precondition for any kind of development, let alone a sustainable development) is best achieved based on regional supply. On the other hand, agricultural politics in Europe is no longer in the national domain, but decided at the EU level, with strong impacts on agricultural policies and practices in the CEE countries and other parts of geographic Europe.

Although the assumption of a regional reference area for agriculture and forestry does not argue against trade in such products, it implies that each region/continent should have a balanced trade of these commodities in terms of land occupied (with sustainable land use as a precondition). A permanent European trade deficit in agro-forestry products is considered unsustainable, since it deprives local populations of opportunities to feed and sustain themselves. Furthermore, for ethical reasons Europe with its wealth of fertile soils cannot justifiably claim additional agricultural land on other continents on a permanent basis.

A more complex and sophisticated approach has been developed for the UK national study, which suggests that as Europe has more fertile and productive land than the global average, equity demands a net export of European agricultural produce, as well as a much more dramatic reduction in timber consumption. See Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the UK study.

   
Water is treated as a regional or even local resource, with the availability and the permitted use preferably calculated on a catchment area basis. A possible principle of "water solidarity", i.e. delivering water for drinking and irrigation e.g. from Ukraine to Spain was taken to be environmentally unjustifiable due to the significant impacts in terms of energy consumption and material flows induced by long-distance water transfers.    
       
The basics of the environmental space methodology do not easily accommodate treatment of biodiversity. According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, biodiversity consists of three components:

    
ecosystem diversity, i.e. the abundance and frequency of different ecosystems,

    
species diversity, the best known component of biodiversity, and documented in the annual "Red List of Endangered Species", and

   
genetic diversity, the least known but possibly most essential component, since the diversity of alleles in the gene pool of a species is decisive for its capacity to adapt to environmental change.

    
These three dimensions of biodiversity, however, have no measure in common, so that any definition of "total biodiversity" is dependent on artificial conversion factors we decided to treat this important topic by analysing the threats to biodiversity and including scientifically reasonable measures to reduce the pressures into our set of conditions of sustainability. The measures proposed include:
    
ten per cent of all kinds of land to be set aside for nature protection, providing the "bio-networks" needed for ecosystem migration in the face of climate change (thus limiting the area of land that can be exploited for agriculture, forestry or urban development);

    
organic or similarly sustainable agriculture on 100 per cent of the agricultural area used;

    
sustainable forestry, defined as self reproducing forests of indigenous tree species of mixed age classes, with no use of fertilisers or pesticides, harvested by selective felling.

    
Overall we cannot claim that the targets developed so far offer a precise quantification of sustainability, but they can be considered as "sustainability guard-rails", foolproof indicators of the direction we have to go. They also give a first estimate of the distance we have to go, within the right order of magnitude. They define a reliable direction, but cannot determine the course to sustainability in detail. This is as it should be. Since democracy, participation and human rights are key elements of any sustainable society, any attempt to develop a masterplan or blueprint for a sustainable society would be counterproductive, and consequently unsustainable.

This simplified scenario already gives reliable indications of the direction to go. Speed indicators and detailed road maps will have to follow later, being developed not by scientists alone, but in political debate. 		   
         
    quantifying the floor    
         

The border line between "living within our environmental space" and overconsumption beyond the carrying-capacity of nature is the critical measure for European nations and other industrialised countries. But in Southern countries, and for some groups in richer countries the lower limit to environmental space is more significant. Here we give some hints how to establish the lower limit - the "floor" - of the environmental space. This "floor" represents the minimum annual quantity of resources needed per person in order to lead a dignified life.

It seems to be possible to identify some common criteria - at least within Europe - that must be fulfilled to permit a dignified life. Three elements can be added together to give the lower threshold of the environmental space: a physiological minimum (food, clothing, shelter), basic needs (essential public services like drinking water supplies, basic health service and education) and a social participation minimum (for mobility, security, access to all kinds of social institutions).

The physical minimum, a necessary precondition for mere survival, has been defined by several UN organisations. If we make the crude assumption that the major relevant technologies (construction, agriculture etc) in all countries are - or could be - comparable in their resource-efficiency, the physiological minimum should be similar.

The basic need minimum covers the crucial needs for an active and healthy life including basic social standards. The ecological costs of supplying basic services vary widely not only with the kind of services offered, but as well with way they are provided, which in turn is deeply dependent on the culture and infrastructure available and thus on the affluence of a society. Nonetheless, the services needed are of a similar quality and the difference in efforts to provide them is limited.

 

The social participation minimum, in our definition, is what is needed to lead a dignified life. Obviously, a dignified life cannot be described out of a social context, but has to take into account the specific conditions of the respective societies, cultures and social groupings. Here the absolute level of affluence is less significant than the relative. Those significantly below the average level of affluence are often disproportionately hindered from participation in society. Significant differences in minimum resource consumption can arise here, which can only be changed by changing the social standards. However, this does not necessarily imply changing per-capita income levels: the prices of goods are rarely representative of the resources consumed to make them available (their "ecological rucksacks"). Moreover, participation includes democratic rights etc., which cannot be expressed in financial terms.


Consequently, we did not define the "lower level" in internationally applicable quantitative terms. This would be an unjustifiable oversimplification of the rich diversity of (European) cultures and the sometimes painfully different social situations in different countries.

    
         
         
         
    socio-economic considerations    
        top