21 Issues forst
the 21 Century
Results of the
UNEP Foresight Process on
Emerging Environmental Issues

Published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), February 2012
Copyright © UNEP 2012
ISBN: 978-92-807-3191-0
DEW/1235/NA
Reproduction
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit services without special permission
from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publicationthat uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing fromthe United Nations Environment Programme. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the
reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, DCPI, UNEP, P. O. Box 30552, Nairobi 00100, Kenya.
The use of information from this document for publicity or advertising is not permitted.
Disclaimers
Mention of a commercial company or product in this document does not imply endorsement by UNEP. Trademark names and symbols areused in an editorial fashion with no intention on infringement on trademark or copyright laws.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on
the part of UNEP concerning the legal status of any country, territory or city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers
and boundaries.
We regret any errors or omissions that may have been unwittingly made.
© Images and illustrations as specified.
Citation
This document may be cited as:
UNEP, 2012. 21 Issues for the 21st Century: Result of the UNEP Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues. Alcamo, J., Leonard,
S.A. (Eds.). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, 56pp.
Cover photograph credits (top to bottom):bg_knight; UN Photo/R Kollar; Protasov A&N; IIja Masík; WDG PhotoThis report can be downloaded at http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/ForesightReport/
Cover Design: Audrey Ringler (DEWA, UNEP)
Printing: UNON/Publishing Services Section/Nairobi, ISO 14001:2004-Certified

UNEP promotes
environmentally sound practices
globally and in its own activities. This
report is printed on paper from sustainable
forests including recycled fibre. The paper ischlorine free and the inks vegetable-based.
Our distribution policy aims to reduce
UNEP’s carbon footprint.

21 Issues forst
the 21 Century
Results of the
UNEP Foresight Process on
Emerging Environmental Issues

Acknowledgements
Coordination: Joseph Alcamo (UNEP Chief Scientist); Norberto Fernandez (Former Chief UNEP/DEWA-Early Warning
Branch); Sunday A. Leonard (UNEP Scientific Assistant to Chief Scientist), Pascal Peduzzi (Head, Early Warning Unit, UNEP/
DEWA/GRID-Europe); Ashbindu Singh (Chief UNEP/DEWA-Early Warning Branch).

UNEP 2011 Foresight Panel
Prof. John Agard, Department of Life Sciences, University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago
Prof. Joseph Alcamo, Panel Chair, UNEP, Kenya
Prof. Frank Biermann, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands;
Prof. Malin Falkenmark, Stockholm International Water Institute, Sweden
Prof. Carl Folke, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden
Prof. Michael H. Glantz, Consortium for Capacity Building, University of Colorado, USA
Prof. Chris Gordon, Institute for Environment and Sanitation Studies, University of Ghana, Ghana
Dr Thelma Krug, National Institute for Space Research, Brazil
Prof. Rik Leemans, Department Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Netherlands
Prof. Isabelle Niang, Département de Géologie, Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Senegal
Prof. Shuzo Nishioka, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan
Prof. Oladele Osibanjo, Department of Chemistry, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Ms Cristelle Pratt, Independent Environmental Service Professional, Fiji
Prof. Roberto Sánchez-Rodríguez, Department of Urban and Environmental Studies, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Mexico
Prof. Mary Scholes, School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Science, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
Prof. Priyadarshi R. Shukla, Indian Institute of Management, India
Dr Leena Srivastava, The Energy and Resources Institute, India
Prof. Michael A. Stocking, School of International Development, University of East Anglia, UK
Prof. Jun Xia, Wuhan University and Centre for Water Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.R. China
Prof. Coleen Vogel, Department of Geography, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
Prof. Oran R. Young, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, USA
Prof. Linxiu Zhang, Centre for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.R. China
Foresight Panel Facilitator: Marc Gramberger (Prospex bvba).
Contributors to Text: John Agard; Joseph Alcamo; Frank Biermann; Alison Colls; Malin Falkenmark; Carl Folke; Michael H.
Glantz; Chris Gordon; Tessa Goverse; Marc Gramberger; Ruth Harding; Thelma Krug; Rik Leemans; Sunday A. Leonard; Shuzo
Nishioka; Oladele Osibanjo; Pascal Peduzzi; Cristelle Pratt; Roberto Sánchez-Rodríguez; Mary Scholes; Priyadarshi R. Shukla;
Ashbindu Singh; Leena Srivastava; Michael A. Stocking; Coleen Vogel; Jun Xia; Oran R. Young; Linxiu Zhang.
UNEP Science Focal Points: Mohamed Atani; Mia Turner; Alphonse Kambu; Balakrishna Pisupati; Jacqueline Alder; David Jensen;
Pushpam Kumar; Ravi Prabhu; Norberto Fernandez; Monika MacDevette; Tessa Goverse; Stephen Twomlow; Edoardo Zandri; Bob
Kakuyo; Heidelore Fiedler; Bubu Jallow; David Piper; Daniel Puig; Guido Sonnemann; Michael Spilsbury; Jorn Scharlemann.
Scientific and Expert Review: Keith Alverson (UNEP); Joseph Baker (Queensland Government); Phoebe Barnard (South African
National Biodiversity Institute); Peter Koefoed Bjornsen (UNEP); Agneta Sundén Byléhn (UNEP); Peter Gilruth (UNEP); Kas Higuchi(York University); Ashok Khosla (Development Alternatives); R.E. (Ted) Munn (University of Toronto); Helen Ross (University of
Queensland); Alison Rosser (UNEP, WCMC); Jorn Scharlemann (UNEP, WCMC); John Stone (Carleton University); Mia Turner(UNEP); Rusong Wang (Chinese Academy of Sciences); Bernard West (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry).
Coordination of Electronic Consultation: Ananda Dias (UNEP); Susan Greenwood Etienne (SCOPE); Norberto Fernandez(UNEP); Veronique Plocq Fichelet (SCOPE); Tessa Goverse (UNEP); Sunday A. Leonard (UNEP); Erick Litswa (UNEP);
Janak Pathak (UNEP); Mick Wilson (UNEP).
Respondents to the Electronic Consultation - Listed in Appendix 1
Production Team and UNEP Secretariat Support: Sarah Abdelrahim; Harsha Dave; Linda Duquesnoy; Pouran Ghaffarpour;Eugene Papa; Neeyati Patel; Audrey Ringler; Ron Witt.
Layout and Printing: UNON, Publishing Services Section, ISO 14001:2004 - certified.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) wishes to thank the Government of Switzerland and in particular the
Swiss Federal Office for Environment (CH-FOEN) for providing the funds for this work. Thanks also to Christophe Bouvier.

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................................. ii
Foreword.............................................................................................................................................................................iv
Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................................................v
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Emerging Themes – 21 Issues for the 21st Century.......................................................................................................... 2
Table 1: The 21 Emerging issues..................................................................................................................................... 4
Cross-cutting Issues ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
Issue 001 Aligning Governance to the Challenges of Global Sustainability.................................................................. 6
Issue 002

Transforming Human Capabilities for the 21st Century: Meeting Global Environmental Challenges
and Moving Towards a Green Economy...................................................................................................... 7

Issue 003

Broken Bridges: Reconnecting Science and Policy ....................................................................................... 9

Issue 004

Social Tipping Points? Catalyzing Rapid and Transformative Changes in Human Behaviour towards
the Environment....................................................................................................................................... 11

Issue 005

New Concepts for Coping with Creeping Changes and Imminent Thresholds ......................................... 12

Issue 006

Coping with Migration Caused by New Aspects of Environmental Change.............................................. 14

Food, Biodiversity and Land Issues.................................................................................................................................... 16
Issue 007 New Challenges for Ensuring Food Safety and Food Security for 9 Billion People..................................... 17
Issue 008

Beyond Conservation: Integrating Biodiversity across the Environmental and Economic Agendas ........... 19

Issue 009

Boosting Urban Sustainability and Resilience............................................................................................ 20

Issue 010

The New Rush for Land: Responding to New National and International Pressures.................................. 22

Freshwaters and Marine Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Issue 011 New Insights on Water-Land Interactions: Shift in the Management Paradigm? ....................................... 25
Issue 012

Shortcutting the Degradation of Inland Waters in Developing Countries.................................................. 26

Issue 013

Potential Collapse of Oceanic Systems Requires Integrated Ocean Governance......................................... 27

Issue 014

Coastal Ecosystems: Addressing Increasing Pressures with Adaptive Governance........................................ 29

Climate Change Issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
Issue 015 New Challenges for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation:
Managing the Unintended Consequences.................................................................................................. 32
Issue 016

Acting on the Signal of Climate Change in the Changing Frequency of Extreme Events ........................... 33

Issue 017

Managing the Impacts of Glacier Retreat .................................................................................................. 35

Energy, Technology, and Waste Issues .............................................................................................................................. 37
Issue 018 Accelerating the Implementation of Environmentally-Friendly Renewable Energy Systems ...................... 38
Issue 019

Greater Risk than Necessary? The Need for a New Approach for Minimizing
Risks of Novel Technologies and Chemicals .............................................................................................. 39

Issue 020

Changing the Face of Waste: Solving the Impending Scarcity of Strategic Minerals and
Avoiding Electronic Waste ........................................................................................................................ 41

Issue 021

The Environmental Consequences of Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors ............................................... 43

Appendix 1

Respondents to Electronic Questionnaire ....................................................................................................... 45

Appendix 2

Description of the Foresight Process................................................................................................................ 46iii

ForewordS

ound science is critical to UNEP’s work in termsof advising governments on the challenges and theopportunities of a rapidly changing world.

In order to achieve sustainable development, nations and theircitizens need to know how the policies of the past are impacting
the present: equally the judgements and assessments of likely
future trends need to be kept high on the international radar
screen.

This report is the outcome of that process and presents theidentified issues titled: 21 Issues for the 21st Century. Theseissues cut across all major global environmental themes
including food production and food security; cities and landuse; biodiversity, fresh water and marine; climate change andenergy, technology and waste issues.
Meanwhile, another cluster of issues were chosen thatessentially cut across sectors and individual themes.

In 2010, in support of the road to Rio+20 and UNEP’s
work towards an inclusive Green Economy, a unique andtransformational consultative process was instigated to answer
a set of critical scientific questions on what will be the big
emerging issues over the coming years.

These address questions surrounding such issues as thegovernance required to more effectively tackle 21st century
sustainability challenges, including the urgency to bridge thegap between the scientific and policy communities and therelevance of social tipping points to sustainable consumption.

The UNEP Foresight Panel, involving over 20 distinguishedscientists from around the world, spent close to a year
discussing and consulting with some 400 other scientists andexperts globally via an electronic survey.

The findings of the report, which was coordinated by the
Office of the UNEP Chief Scientist and the UNEP’s Divisionof Early Warning and Assessment, are aimed at all sectors ofsociety committed to realizing a more intelligent, decisive andforward-looking response to challenges of our times.

The goal was to deliver an international consensus and apriority list of the top emerging environmental issues alongside
options for action.
Emerging environmental issues were defined as “issues witheither a positive or negative global environmental impact thatare recognized by the scientific community as very importantto human well-being, but not yet receiving adequate attention
from the policy community”.
The issues chosen were termed as “emerging” based onnewness, which can be the result of: new scientific knowledge;
new scales or accelerated rates of impact; heightened level ofawareness; and/or new ways of responding to the issue.

iv

While the initial focus was to inform the Rio+20 Summit
taking place in Brazil in 2012, 21 Issues for the 21st Century
will be clearly relevant to environmental policy-making andscientific priority setting for many years to come as well as the
trajectory of UNEP’s future work programme.

Achim Steiner
United Nations Under-Secretary-General, andExecutive Director United Nations Environment Programme

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Executive SummaryT

he purpose of the UNEP Foresight Process is to
produce, every two years, a careful and authoritative
ranking of the most important emerging issues related
to the global environment. UNEP aims to inform the UN andwider international community about these issues on a timely
basis, as well as provide input to its own work programme andthat of other UN agencies, thereby fulfilling the stipulation ofits mandate: “keeping the global environment under review
and bringing emerging issues to the attention of governments
and the international community for action”.
The concept of ‘emerging issues’ is subjective. It is used in thisreport to describe issues that are recognized as very importantby the scientific community, but are not yet receiving adequate
attention from the policy community. Definitions of ‘very
important’ and ‘adequate’ are left open to those identifying theissues. Emerging issues are further defined as those that are:q Critical to the global environment. The issue can be either
positive or negative but must be environmental in nature,or environmentally-related.
q Given priority over the next one to three years in the work
programme of UNEP and, or, other UN institutions and,or, other international institutions concerned with theglobal environment.
q Have a large spatial scale. Issues should either be global,
continental or ‘universal’ in nature (by ‘universal’ we meanan issue occurring in many places around the world).
q Recognised as ‘emerging’ based on newness, which canbe the result of: new scientific knowledge; new scales oraccelerated rates of impact; heightened level of awareness;and, or, new ways to respond to the issue.
The UNEP Foresight Process has been designed so as toencourage the creative thinking of participants and to be
inclusive at the same time. At the core of the process is a
Foresight Panel consisting of 22 distinguished members of thescientific community from 16 developing and industrializedcountries, covering all world regions and internationallyrecognized because of their expertise in one or moreenvironmental or related issues.
Important steps in the process included:q A canvass of ideas from the UNEP community to obtain afirst list of emerging issues.
q Two facilitated meetings, during which the Foresight
Panel expanded, debated and ranked the list of issues ina structured and systematic process. Some issues werecombined and redefined, resulting in the selection of 21priority issues.

q An extensive electronic consultation of scientists
worldwide, in which more than 400 scientists provided
feedback on the preliminary issues selected by the Panelduring their first meeting.

The Issues: 21 Issues for the 21st Century
The output of the UNEP Foresight Process is a ranked list of 21
emerging issues described in a way that reflects their linkages
to the various dimensions of sustainable development. The
issues relate to the major themes of the global environment,
as well as important cross-cutting issues. Below, a summary
description of the issues is provided according to the different
clusters rather than their ranking.

Cross-cutting Issues

001: Aligning Governance to the Challenges of Global
Sustainability (Ranked #1). The current system ofinternational environmental governance, with its maze ofinterlocking multilateral agreements, evolved during the 20th
century, and is believed by many to be unsuitable for the 21st
century. Some commentators believe that this system lacks thenecessary representativeness, accountability and effectivenessfor the transition to sustainability, and that a much higher
level of participation and transparency is needed. New modelsof governance are being tested, ranging from public-privatecommunity partnerships to alliances between environmentalist
and other civil society groups. However, the effectiveness ofnovel governance arrangements is unclear and requires further
scrutiny.
002: Transforming Human Capabilities for the 21stCentury: Meeting Global Environmental Challenges andMoving Towards a Green Economy (Ranked #2). Adapting
to global change and attaining a green economy will require avariety of new capabilities, in particular new job skills, modesof learning, management approaches and research efforts.
Action is needed to close the skills gaps in the green sector;
update educational institutions to better meet educational
needs for sustainability work; train managers to better identify
and respond to global environmental change; and encourage
research to address the sustainability challenge.
003: Broken Bridges: Reconnecting Science and Policy(Ranked #4). To cope with global environmental change, oursociety needs strategies and policies that are underpinned by astrong science and evidence base. But many believe the linkage
between the policy and science communities is inadequate oreven deteriorating, and that this ‘broken bridge’ is hindering
the development of solutions to global environmental change.
This problem requires a new look at the way science is organizedand how the science-policy interface can be improved.
004: Social Tipping Points? Catalyzing Rapid andTransformative Changes in Human Behaviour towards
the Environment (Ranked #5). New social science research
has articulated the way in which damaging human behaviour

Executive Summaryv

can be transformed by public policy in a positive direction
within a relatively short period of time. An example is thetransformation of the public view of cigarette smoking whichswitched from being a fashionable activity to a dangerous healthhazard within one generation in many countries. Can these
insights also be applied to transforming habits of consumptionthat lead to destructive environmental changes? What public
incentives – economic, informative or prohibitions – would
work best to achieve this transformation?
005: New Concepts for Coping with Creeping Changes
and Imminent Thresholds (Ranked #18). Many humaninteractions with the natural environment cause a slow,
incremental and cumulative degradation of the environment;e.g., stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, tropicaldeforestation, mangrove destruction, and biodiversity loss,
among others. Ironically, these ‘creeping changes’ are typicallyoverlooked in their early stages when they can be most easily
addressed. They only become noticeable when their negative
consequences appear, by which time they are irreversible
or more costly to mitigate. Hence, effective early warning
monitoring systems are needed to spot them early on, before
they become environmental “hotspots”.
006: Coping with Migration Caused by New Aspects ofEnvironmental Change (Ranked #20). A growing body ofstudies suggests that environmental change will become anincreasingly important factor in the displacement of people.
Environmental change includes both rapid-onset events, suchas more frequent or intense coastal and river flooding, andslow-onset processes such as land degradation and sea levelrise. Among the response options to environmental migration
are: improving prediction of migration, incorporating plansfor coping with migration into national adaptation plans,
extending national and international immigration policies toinclude environmental migrants, and trying to mitigate theunderlying causes of environmental migration.

Food, Biodiversity and Land Issues

007: New Challenges for Ensuring Food Safety and Food
Security for 9 Billion People (Ranked #3). Although foodsecurity is a longstanding issue, the world needs to confront a
new set of challenges such as climate change, competition forland from bioenergy production, heightened water scarcity,and possible shortfalls of phosphorus for fertilizer. Food safety
also faces new challenges from increasing disease transmission
from animals to people and food contamination. There is anurgent need to increase the security and safety of the world’s
food supply by setting up more comprehensive early warning
systems, supporting smallholder farmers, reducing food waste,
and increasing agricultural efficiency.
008: Beyond Conservation: Integrating Biodiversity acrossthe Environmental and Economic Agendas (Ranked#7). In recent years, two important threads of research havedocumented how biodiversity is intertwined with other aspectsof society and nature. One thread has articulated the linkages
between biodiversity and other environmental issues (impact ofclimate change on ecosystems; interaction between ecosystemsviand the water cycle); and the other, the interrelationshipbetween biodiversity and economics (valuation of ecosystemservices; the role of biodiversity in underpinning economic
activities). It is time to act on these new scientific insights andtreat biodiversity as more than a nature conservation issue. It istime to fully integrate the issue of biodiversity into the global
environmental and economic agendas.
009: Boosting Urban Sustainability and Resilience(Ranked #11). The issue of sustainability of cities has to dowith both the environmental quality within cities that city
residents have to live with, and the environmental changes
caused by cities outside of their borders. Today neither aspect
is particularly sustainable, especially in developing countries.
The key to sustainability lies in the concept of ‘green cities’ or‘eco cities’ which differ from conventional cities in that they
are more compact, have a vital mix of land uses within theirboundaries, provide many different low-energy transportation
opportunities, and produce some of their own renewableenergy. Such cities would provide their citizens with a highlevel of environmental quality and liveability, and have a lower
environmental footprint outside their borders.
010: The New Rush for Land: Responding to New Nationaland International Pressures (Ranked #12). Concerns
over future energy and food supplies have led to a new rush
for acquiring lands in developing countries by both foreignand national investors. Research shows that the rate of landacquisition has greatly accelerated over the past few years. Thereis a need to better understand the scale of the phenomenon,
the main countries at risk, and the trade-offs involved. It is also
important to grasp how this trend will affect livelihoods, foodsecurity, ecosystem services, and conflicts. Putting safeguards inplace, such as assessing the potential environmental, economic
and social impacts of land deals before they are finalized, could
minimize the drawbacks to the host country while allowing theinvesting countries to gain the food and energy security they
aim for by acquiring land.

Freshwaters and Marine Issues

011: New Insights on Water-Land Interactions: Shift in
the Management Paradigm (Ranked #6). Recent scientificresearch has provided a new view on how water and landinteract, locally to globally. For example, scientists now
better understand the extent to which changes in land use
profoundly affect downwind rainfall patterns, and havecomputed the huge volumes of water appropriated (transpiredor evaporated) by society to produce rainfed crops (‘blue’
versus ‘green’ water flows). This new knowledge provides a
new impetus for bringing water and land management closer
together. The result could be a boost in water productivity andhigher food production per litre of water, as well as new waysof maintaining the quality of water.
012: Shortcutting the Degradation of Inland Watersin Developing Countries (Ranked #15). Water quality
degradation, channel modifications, and overfishing aresome of the factors posing a growing threat to the freshwater
ecosystems and inland fisheries of developing countries. But

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

as developing countries stand on the brink of large-scaledegradation of their inland waters, they have the option ofshortcutting this degradation by taking advantage of forwardlooking water technologies and management techniques thatwere not available to countries in Europe and North America
at the time they began contaminating their waterways.
013: Potential Collapse of Oceanic Systems Requires
Integrated Ocean Governance (Ranked #13). Oceansprovide many earth system functions including the regulationof climate and the hydrological cycle, as well as provide habitat
for a rich diversity of organisms, and food, materials andenergy for human use. But the oceanic environment is facedwith increasing threats to its long-term integrity, including:acidification, overfishing, land and marine-based pollution,
widespread habitat destruction, and the proliferation ofinvasive species. There is a growing presumption that thecurrent approach to managing oceans will be unable to preventa collapse of some oceanic systems. This is because, among
other reasons, responsible bodies are dispersed across UNagencies. Reforms are needed and new forms of governanceshould be considered and evaluated, including the option of
establishing a new coordinating body for integrated ocean
governance.
014: Coastal Ecosystems: Addressing Increasing Pressureswith Adaptive Governance (Ranked #19). Increased pressure
from the exploitation of coastal resources is significantly
affecting coastal ecosystems. Settlements, industries,
agriculture, fisheries and trade are concentrated in coastal
zones; hence sensitive and highly valuable coastal ecosystems
are subjected to on-going degradation. Present management
approaches are inadequate for halting the tide of degradation.
Therefore, an adaptive governance approach is needed thatinvolves the delegation of management, rights, and power insuch a way that encourages the participation of all stakeholders.

Climate Change Issues

015: New Challenges for Climate Change Mitigation and
Adaptation: Managing the Unintended Consequences(Ranked #7). When scaled up, mitigation and adaptation
measures may have unintended consequences. For example, large
scale wind farms may disrupt the migratory behaviour of birds;
new massive sea walls will protect the populations but may also
eliminate valuable natural wetlands; and large scale geoengineering
schemes could have many unintended impacts. These potential
negative side effects should be assessed, and then minimized or
avoided in order to maintain support for climate policies.
016: Acting on the Signal of Climate Change in the
Changing Frequency of Extreme Events (Ranked #16).
A spate of new scientific studies have compared climate
modelling results with observational evidence and confirmed
the hypothesis that climate change could alter the frequency,
strength and distribution of extreme events. For example,
studies have linked global warming with increased risk offlooding in England and Wales; with increased summer
rainfall variability in Southeast United States; and with theintensification of heavy precipitation events over much of theland area of the Northern Hemisphere. These new findings
underscore the need to adapt to a changing frequency of
extreme events, and suggest that ‘medium term’ early warning
systems might be possible.
017: Managing the Impacts of Glacier Retreat (Ranked#21). Recent research shows that many glaciers are in retreatand some have an accelerating rate of melting. These changes
pose threats to many people and ecosystems, especially in the
Himalayas, Central Asia and Andes. Threats include the riskof flooding from the bursting of natural dams holding backglacial lakes, as well as the eventual decline of runoff during
the dry season in some regions. A much better understandingof the hydrological consequences and economic and social
impacts of glacier retreat is needed, and the development ofadaptation strategies is equally urgent.

Energy, Technology, and Waste Issues

018: Accelerating the Implementation of EnvironmentallyFriendly Renewable Energy Systems (Ranked #7). As theworld seeks solutions to climate change, it looks increasingly
towards renewable energy. But regardless of the large potential
for renewable energy worldwide, this potential has notbeen realized due to many barriers. An important task is to
identify the means to eliminate the economic, regulatory andinstitutional barriers to renewable energy that undermine its
competitiveness with conventional energy sources.
019: Greater Risk than Necessary? The Need for a New
Approach for Minimizing Risks of Novel Technologies andChemicals (Ranked #10). We are fixed in a pattern by whichsociety first produces new technologies and chemicals and thenex post facto tries to evaluate the impacts of what it has produced.
The latest examples are the questions raised by applications ofsynthetic biology and nanotechnology. With the accelerated
pace by which novel technologies and chemicals are being
deployed, a new approach should be considered by which theirimplications are systematically and comprehensively assessed
before they reach the production phase with the aim to minimize
their risks to society and nature. While this is happening insome parts of the world for some technologies and chemicals, itis worth making this a universal approach and this may require
new forms of international governance.
020: Changing the Face of Waste: Solving the Impending
Scarcity of Strategic Minerals and Avoiding Electronic
Waste (Ranked #14). Increased demand for high-tech andrenewable energy equipment is contributing to a depletionof strategic minerals, including rare earth metals. This iscompounded by planned obsolescence and other wasteful
manufacturing habits. The increased exploitation of minerals
is also causing greater waste management problems, inparticular, the build-up of electronic wastes (e-wastes). A
promising option is to maximize the recovery of metals andother materials from electronic and other waste streams (socalled “waste mining”). This will slow down the extraction
and depletion of minerals, reduce the quantity of their wastes,
and thereby lessen their associated environmental and otherimpacts.

Executive Summaryvii

021: The Environmental Consequences of Decommissioning
Nuclear Reactors (Ranked #17). Many of the world’s nuclear
reactors are aging and will need to be decommissioned verysoon. This is of concern because decommissioning is a major
operation which produces large amounts of radioactive wastethat need to be disposed of safely. There is an inadequate
number of trained professionals to handle these operations,viii

even though the number of plants needing decommissioning
will at least double within the next 10 years. The Fukushima
nuclear accident in March 2011 has further accelerated the plansof some countries to close their nuclear plants. International
interventions, procedures, policies and cooperation are needed
to minimize the potential danger posed by decommissioning
activities to society and the environment.

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

1. Introduction
Why a Foresight Study?

T

he world today is confronted with many different
emerging environmental issues including new
problems to solve and new solutions to evaluate
and possibly implement. Which emerging issues are mostimportant? Which require our attention? These are thequestions dealt with in this report.

At the outset it is important to point out that ‘emerging
issues’ is a subjective concept. What qualifies as ‘emerging’
to one community may be yesterday’s news to another. Hereemerging is meant to apply to those issues already recognizedby the scientific community but thought to be insufficiently
attended to by the policy community and the rest of the society.

Box 1. Guidelines for ‘Emerging Global Environmental Issues’
An emerging issue in the UNEP Foresight Process is defined as ‘an issue with either a positive or negative global environmental
impact that is recognized by the scientific community as very important to human well being, but has not yet received adequate
attention from the policy community’. The definitions of ‘very important’ and ‘adequate’ are left open to those identifying theissues.
The recognition of an issue as ‘emerging’ is based on newness. Newness of an issue can be as a result of new scientificknowledge, new scales or accelerated rates of impact, a heightened level of awareness, and, or new ways to respond to theissue.
The emerging issue must be critical to the global environment and must be environmental in nature or environmentallyrelated.
The issue has to be of a large spatial scale. It should either be global, continental or “universal” in nature (by “universal” wemean an issue occurring in many places around the world).
The issue should be given priority over the next one to three years in the work programme of UNEP, and, or other UN
institutions and, or, other international institutions concerned with some aspect of the global environment. However, thisdoes not mean that the issue should be resolvable in this time period.
In the Foresight Process, UNEP recognized the need to:q select issues that if not addressed now will have significant future impacts
q focus on threats and direct causality as well as possibility of response due to new technologies
q address cumulative - often local - effects that are chronic in natureq appreciate that extremes are often more important than average changes, andq give attention to vulnerable people and places

The UNEP Foresight ProcessT

he approach used to identify and rank emerging issues
is called the ‘UNEP Foresight Process’. The goal of
the process is to produce a careful and authoritative
ranking of the most important emerging global environmental
issues. Through this process UNEP aims to inform the UN
and the wider international community about emerging issues
as well as provide input to UNEP’s own Programme of Work,
thereby fulfilling the stipulation of its mandate: “keeping
the global environment under review and bringing emerging
issues to the attention of governments and the international
community for action”.
Considering the rapidity at which new issues emerge, it isintended to repeat the Foresight Process every two years.
The process was designed to encourage the creative inputof participants by stimulating debate and examining issues
from different angles. Therefore the scientists involved in theprocess were intentionally selected to represent a wide rangeof disciplines and parts of the world. This wide variety ofscientists also contributed to the legitimacy of the process.
At the core of the process is a Foresight Panel consisting of
22 distinguished members of the scientific community fromdeveloping and industrialized countries (see Acknowledgements),
who are internationally recognized because of their expertise in
one or more environmental or related issues. The Panel covers awide spectrum of disciplines from environmental governance tomarine sciences. Five Panel members were from Africa; six from
Asia and the Pacific Region; three from Latin America and the
Caribbean; five from Europe; and three from North America.
Fourteen of them work primarily in the natural sciences andeight in the social sciences or economics. There were fifteen men
and seven women on the Panel.
The Foresight Process consisted of a set of alternating ‘open’and ‘closed’ steps. The ‘open’ steps opened up the process toa wide range of views, while the ‘closed’ steps allowed theIntroduction1

relatively small Foresight Panel to debate the issues in depth
and select a limited set of priority issues. The Foresight Panelwas guided through the process by a professional facilitator andthe UNEP Secretariat. The entire process took eight months.
The process was divided into six phases:q Canvass of UNEP Community. The Process began with acanvass of the UNEP community to solicit their views andinsights about important emerging issues. This canvass
resulted in a list of 68 issue which were described in a
background report sent to the Foresight Panel members
before their first meeting.
q Preliminary List of Issues. Before the first Panel meeting,
Panel members added their own ideas of emerging issues tothe list of 68 issues from the UNEP community, resulting
in a preliminary list of 95 issues. The Panel then scored theissues based on their perception of their importance andthe scores were used to rank the 95 issues. This ranked list
was a main input to the first Panel meeting.
q First Panel Meeting. At their first meeting, Panel members
debated the 95 issues in a structured and systematic way,giving more attention to the higher ranked issues. Some
issues were combined and redefined. The output of the firstmeeting was a list of 21 priority issues.

q Electronic Consultation. An interactive electronicquestionnaire was prepared with descriptions of the
21 priority issues from the first Panel meeting. This
questionnaire was sent to 933 scientists around the world
who were asked to score the issues between 1 and 10, andto suggest additional issues and issues to be dropped. The
distribution list had a balanced representation of regions
and expertise. The response rate and regional distributionof respondents was considered excellent (see Appendix 2).
q Second Foresight Panel Meeting. The Panel considered
the results of the Electronic Consultation, especiallythe scoring of issues and the suggestions for adding anddropping issues. They rearranged and redefined someissues and settled on a list of ‘top ten’, ‘middle five’, and‘bottom six’ issues, close to the results of the Electronic
Consultation. After the meeting, the Panel scored each of
the issues within the 3 groupings and thus produced a final
ranking of 21 issues.
q Final Documentation. The issues were then documented
with short descriptions and references.
This report presents descriptions of the 21 issues. The Foresight
Process itself is described in more detail in Appendix 2.

2. Emerging Themes – 21 Issues for the 21st Century

W

hile many of the issues identified through theForesight Process can be categorized according to
the major themes of global environmental change– water, climate change, the marine environment, and so on– the Foresight Panel felt that this sectoral view is becoming
increasingly obsolete (see Box 2). Hence, the descriptions of
the issues mention their linkages to other issues or themes andtheir linkages to the various dimensions of sustainability. For
example an issue related to biodiversity (Issue 008) refers to thelinkage of biodiversity with other environmental and economic
factors. Likewise, one of the issues pertaining to the water sector(Issue 011) refers to the impacts of water-land interactions.
Furthermore, about one-third of the issues are truly crosssectoral and address such concerns as the governance needed to2contend with 21st century sustainability challenges, the relevanceof social tipping points to sustainable consumption, and themigration flows following from new aspects of environmental
change. These clearly cannot be put into any one thematic box.
As described in Box 2, the Foresight Panel emphasized theneed to think in a holistic and cross-cutting manner. In thefollowing description of the issues we begin with the crosscutting issues and then follow with the thematic (but still
integrative) issues concerned with food, land, and biodiversity;
freshwater and marine environment; climate change; andfinally energy, technology and waste. Table 1 presents theentire list of emerging issues together with their rankings.

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Box 2. Global Change and the New Generation of Emerging Issues
It is natural and appropriate to identify issues in terms of familiar, important themes such as managing food systems;
creating more effective systems governing the uses of freshwater; stimulating environmentally friendly energy sources; orregulating the development of novel but potentially dangerous technologies. But all these issues take on new dimensions
when we consider how comprehensively humanity is unintentionally transforming the earth system. Indeed, the earthsystem is entering a new era that differs sharply from the last 10,000 years, the relatively stable period that has supported theemergence of human civilizations. While the last 10,000 years are known in geology as the Holocene, scientists increasingly
refer to the emerging epoch in planetary history as the Anthropocene, an era defined by the role of the human species as acore driver of earth system evolution.
Today human actions have become major forces in the operation of the earth system. They increasingly challenge the systemboundaries of the planet, which will result in fundamental, unprecedented and unpredictable changes in the earth system.
This is a new situation. It calls for a fundamental shift in perspectives and world views as well as a new paradigm to guideaction. It calls for reconnecting human development and progress to the capacity of the earth system to sustain our own
development. It requires planetary stewardship.
It is time to redirect the existing policies that still focus on sectoral approaches, on steady-state perspectives, and on a view ofthe environment as something that is ‘outside society’. Decision-makers need to recognize people and societies as integrated
parts of the biosphere, depending on its functioning and life-support while shaping it globally.
These changes have multiple elements and dimensions. To name a few:
q Levels of connectedness from local to global scales are increasing
q Rapid interactions and dynamics between domains are pervasive
q Processes of change are accelerating
q More changes are non-linear, abrupt, and irreversible
In short, we are moving into a world that differs in fundamental ways from the one we have been familiar with during mostof modern human history. This transition has profound consequences. It calls for the development of a new paradigm toguide thinking about emerging environmental issues.
Issues that previously could be addressed individually must now be examined together. Instead of thinking about land,
water, energy or biodiversity as distinct issues, for example, we realize that these issues interact extensively with one another.
Many emerging issues - such as the production of biofuels, the spread of marine dead zones, and the emergence of green
water teleconnections - are products of these interactions. This requires us to re-evaluate old issues in a new light. It informs
our understanding of what the new emerging environmental issues in the 21st century are.
Shocks and surprises that arise as emergent properties of the dynamics of the earth system are becoming regular occurrences.
The consequences of tipping points in the climate system and other planetary boundaries with environmental chain reactions
resulting in the loss of ecosystem services are cases in point. The pursuit of resilience - the capacity to deal with the interplayof gradual and rapid change and continue to develop - in a setting marked by high levels of uncertainty coupled with the
turbulent behaviour of large social-ecological systems is emerging as an overriding concern.
None of this reduces the importance of addressing familiar issues like managing food systems, creating more effective systems
governing the uses of freshwater, stimulating environmentally friendly energy sources or regulating the development anduse of novel but potentially dangerous technologies. In fact many of the 21 issues we identify in this report have a thematic
nature, but others broaden our view of emerging issues to encompass more than the sectors we are used to looking at. Our
comprehensive role in changing the earth system calls for a new, more comprehensive and cross-cutting perspective. We mustreinvent policies and governance systems to foster stewardship of our future, as humans in collaboration with the biosphere.

Introduction

3

Table 1: The 21 Emerging issues
Issue ID

Issue Title

Ranking*
Cross-cutting issues

001

Aligning Governance to the Challenges of Global Sustainability

1002

Transforming Human Capabilities for the 21 Century: Meeting Global Environmental Challenges
and Moving Towards a Green Economy

2003

Broken Bridges: Reconnecting Science and Policy

4004Social Tipping Points? Catalyzing Rapid and Transformative Changes in Human Behaviour
towards the Environment

5005

New Concepts for Coping with Creeping Changes and Imminent Thresholds

18

006

Coping with Migration Caused by New Aspects of Environmental Change

20stFood, biodiversity and land issues
007

New Challenges for Ensuring Food Safety and Food Security for 9 Billion People

3008

Beyond Conservation: Integrating Biodiversity Across the Environmental and Economic Agendas

7009

Boosting Urban Sustainability and Resilience

11

010

The New Rush for Land: Responding to New National and International Pressures

12

Freshwater and marine issues
011

New Insights on Water-Land Interactions: Shift in the Management Paradigm?

6012

Shortcutting the Degradation of Inland Waters in Developing Countries

15

013

Potential Collapse of Oceanic Systems Requires Integrated Ocean Governance

13

014

Coastal Ecosystems: Addressing Increasing Pressures with Adaptive Governance19

Climate change issues
015

New Challenges for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Managing the Unintended
Consequences

7016

Acting on the Signal of Climate Change in the Changing Frequency of Extreme Events

16

017

Managing the Impacts of Glacier Retreat

21

Energy, technology, and waste issues
018

Accelerating the Implementation of Environmentally-Friendly Renewable Energy Systems

7019

Greater Risk than Necessary? The Need for a New Approach for Minimizing Risks of Novel
Technologies and Chemicals

10

020

Changing the Face of Waste: Solving the Impending Scarcity of Strategic Minerals and Avoiding
Electronic Waste

14

021

The Environmental Consequences of Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors

17* Ranking based on scoring by the UNEP Foresight Panel and after considering the polling results of more than 400 scientists worldwide.

4

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Cross-cutting
IssuesIssue 001 Aligning Governance to the Challenges of Global
Sustainability (Ranked #1)
Where we standBy all accounts, governance for global sustainability isalready a major enterprise. Presently, more than 900
intergovernmental agreements with provisions onenvironmental protection are in force. Major environmental
summits – such as the Conferences of Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change – regularly
draw several thousand participants and observers. Global
environmental policy has become a core item on the agenda of
the UN system and of regional organizations alike.

number of studies, including those by Young and colleagues in
2008, and Biermann and colleagues in 2011, have asserted that
the UN Environment Programme and the UN Commission
on Sustainable Development could provide stronger leadershipon sustainability issues if they received stronger international
support. Although many specialized programmes andagencies of the UN system incorporate sustainability issues
in their agendas, a strengthening of coordination across theseorganizations would make their work more effective.

Despite the size of the effort, it is not clear that the current
system of global governance is adequate for the necessarytransition to sustainability. In an October 2011 report, Biermann
and many other social scientists argue that a core challenge forenvironmental policy is to align and revitalize governance, at
all levels, to the pressing needs of global environmental change
and the possible disruption of the earth system.

Other experts believe that the current global governance system
lacks sufficient means and mechanisms to help the most vulnerable
countries carry out sustainability programmes. Some believe thatthe reality of global environmental change, which every country
is affected by and which cannot be localized, provides a new
ethical motivation for richer countries to assist poorer countries
in adapting to climate challenges and other global changes.

In what way does environmental governance need to berevitalized? Firstly, on the national and local levels, experts
have found that sustainability concerns are, in general, notwell integrated into the energy, water and other sectors of theeconomy (see the discussion of governance in the coastal zone
in Issue 014). Several experts, including Jordan (2008) havepointed out the need for better integration at these levels.
A question being debated by scholars is whether the current
approach to international decision-making (decisions byconsensus), borrowed from the 19th century, is appropriate oradequate for dealing with today’s environmental challenges.
Some say that qualified majority voting, for example, would
be more appropriate.
Some also argue that governance is, to a degree, fragmented
at the international level and that more could be accomplished
if different institutions would work together more closelyon sustainability issues. (See, for example, the discussion of
governance of oceans in Issue 013). Several studies, including
one by Young and colleagues (2008), show that the plethoraof intergovernmental environmental agreements lacks overall
integration and effective coordination, as well as effectivemeans of foresight, early warning, and proactive developmentof policies.
Other researchers, including Newell and Bulkeley (2010),
have argued that intergovernmental decision-making today
is marked by too little representation, accountability, andeffectiveness in addressing the fundamental challenges ofglobal environmental change and the needed transition tosustainability.
Regarding the UN, scholars argue that the UN system has
not sufficiently addressed the challenge of sustainability. A
6

Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

Importance/relevanceIn general, national governments typically lack the capacity
to support strong policy actions on environment at the
global level. Yet the numerous emerging environmental
challenges facing the world today are unlikely to be resolved
without major, new efforts by governments in addressing thefundamental governance challenges that lie ahead.
Incrementalism and piecemeal approaches to global
governance may not guarantee the urgently needed transition
to more sustainable means of production and consumption.
It appears that we may be seeing the emergence of a‘constitutional moment’ in the development of international
relations and governance, comparable in recent times only
to the major constitutional moment of 1945 ‘post WorldWar II’ that saw the emergence of a multitude of new, andoften unprecedented, international norms, institutions, andagencies. Similar fundamental revisions in norms, processes
and mechanisms of global governance would help address theglobal sustainability challenge.

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Options for action
Policymakers have many options for better aligning
governance to the sustainability challenge. A first step would
be to raise awareness about this issue through a public debate
about the actions to be taken.
One action to consider is to streamline intergovernmental
decision-making by moving towards a qualified majority vote,which as it turns out, is already common in the 20-year old
regime on stratospheric ozone depletion and several othertreaty regimes. This could help speed up decision-making
processes.
Another option is to agree on a constitutional frameworkfor sustainable development, for example, comparable to thestrong one existing for trade liberalization. This could help
minimize overlaps between existing institutions and stimulate
the development of new institutions in areas such as water or
new technologies.
Stronger international institutions could help foster
compromises in international negotiations, initiate thenegotiation of new norms, and encourage the implementationof sustainability policies in smaller and poorer countries.
A stronger and more institutionalized involvement of civilsociety in intergovernmental decision-making could provide
broader support for norms on sustainable development andenvironmental protection, and better protect the interests ofmarginalized groups and future generations. Governance inthe 21st century may also require new types of involvement
and participation of civil society and other stakeholders
in decision-making. The founding of numerous publicprivate partnerships has provided examples of novel ways ofgovernance, including the institutionalized representationof stakeholders in decision-making – from farmers toenvironmentalist organizations. The overall effectivenessof such novel governance arrangements, however, is not yet
clear, and further research on the comparative advantages ofdifferent types of governance mechanisms is urgently needed.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
Business as usual in global politics is likely to result in further
deterioration of negative environmental trends. The protectionof global climate, for example, was already declared more thantwenty years ago as a ‘common concern of humankind’ by
the UN General Assembly, and all nations were requested totake forceful action on reducing emissions. Twenty years later,
many believe that the actions taken have been ineffective inforestalling major climate change impacts.
However, should governments and other actors take the pathof fundamentally realigning and revitalizing global governancein the area of sustainable development, the transition tosustainability may succeed.

Background information
Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M.M., Bulkeley, H., Cashore, B., Clapp, J., Folke, C., Gupta, A., Gupta, J., Haas, P.M.,
Jordan, A., Kanie, N., Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Meadowcroft, J., Mitchell, R.B., Newell, P., Oberthür, S., Olsson, L., Pattberg, P., SánchezRodríguez, R., Schroeder, H., Underdal, A., Vieira, S.C., Vogel, C., Young, O.R., Brock, A., Zondervan, R. 2011. Transforming Governance and Institutions for a Planet
under Pressure. Revitalizing the Institutional Framework for Global Sustainability. Key Insights from Social Science Research. Policy Brief 3 commissioned by the 2012
London Conference Planet under Pressure. Lund and Amsterdam: The Earth System Governance Project. Available at www.ieg.earthsystemgovernance.org
Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., Zelli, F. (eds). 2010. Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012, Cambridge UP.
Giddens, A. 2009. The Politics of Climate Change, Polity Press.
Jordan, A. 2008. The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards. Environmental and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 17-33.
Newell, P., Bulkeley, H. 2010. Governing Climate Change, Routledge.
Young, O.R., King, L.A., Schroeder, H. 2008. Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Young, O.R. 2010. Institutional Dynamics. Emergent Patterns in International Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Issue 002 Transforming Human Capabilities for the 21stCentury: Meeting Global Environmental Challenges
and Moving Towards a Green Economy (Ranked #2)
Where we standS

ociety has already confronted a host of global
environmental challenges including loss of biodiversity,
climate change, water and land degradation among
others, and, through persistence and ingenuity, has foundmany solutions to these challenges. Now the question iswhether society has the right capabilities to implement thesesolutions, meet the global environmental challenge andsupport a burgeoning Green Economy.

Many commentators believe that the answer to the capabilities
question is simply “no”, and that a huge effort is needed on all
fronts before society is adequately equipped to deal with thesustainability challenge of the 21st century. ‘Capabilities’, inthis sense, means the necessary job skills, modes of learning,
management approaches and research efforts. Starting with job
skills, a UNEP report in 2008 noted that the US, Germany,
Brazil, China and other countries, were already sufferingfrom a shortage of skilled workers in the ‘green’ sector of the

Cross-cutting Issues

7Credit: Still Pictures/VISUM/Wolfgang Steche

economy (as noted in Issue 018). With regards to modes oflearning, Beddoe and others (2009), argue that our current
pedagogic methods, from schooling to professional training,are unsuited for achieving sustainable development. Not only
are more training programs needed to provide workers for thegreen workforce, but background education in sustainability
principles is needed for virtually all professions, so that theseprinciples can be built into the day-to-day affairs of governmentand commerce. Current management approaches also have theirdrawbacks when it comes to building a Green Economy. The
aforementioned UNEP report also notes that ‘new perspectives,awareness, and managerial capacities’ are needed for the green
sector of the economy. Finally, many question the adequacyof traditional research efforts in meeting global environmental
challenges. Experts advocate a shift from independent, curiositydriven research to a much deeper level of engagement of science
with society. As put by the International Council of Science(2010) ‘…the global scientific community must take on thechallenge of delivering knowledge required to support efforts
to achieve sustainable development in the context of global
environmental change…’

Importance/relevance
There are already indications that the paucity of job skills in thegreen sector may be holding back society’s ability to cope with
global environmental change. Lack of personnel, for example,
is apparently slowing the growth of the renewable energy
industry, which has the knock-on effect of slowing the control ofgreenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Hence, society has amore difficult time coping with climate change and air pollution
impacts. More generally, UNEP (2008) suggests that current
shortages in skilled labor may ‘frustrate efforts by governments
to transition to a Green Economy and deliver the expectedenvironmental benefits and economic returns.’ In addition to
the gap in job skills, similar deficiencies in modes of learning,
management practices, and research efforts all undermine efforts
to deal with adverse global environmental change.

2008 report, UNEP defines green jobs as ‘work in agricultural,
manufacturing, research and development, administrative,
and service activities that contribute substantially to preserving
or restoring environmental quality.’ New green jobs include
various technical, administrative and engineering positionsin the renewable energy industry, as well as jobs retrofitting
residential and commercial buildings to improve their energy
efficiency. Coupled to the need for smarter and ‘greener’technologies are new employment opportunities in the fields
of housing and spatial planning, and sustainability-related legal
and policy issues. Many new managerial and administrative
positions will be needed for handling cross-cutting issues suchas integrated water resources management, ecosystem services
accounting, and ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change
How can we improve our modes of learning to make thembetter suited for the sustainability challenge? One way is foreducational systems to extend their curricula and programs
to better prepare students for jobs in the Green Economy.
It is particularly important to provide interdisciplinary andmulti-disciplinary training that equips students to deal withthe cross-cutting nature of sustainability-related jobs. Before
specializing in a particular field, say climate science or wind
power mechanics, students should be taught the fundamentals
of both the natural and social sciences that underlie global
environmental change. Based on a poll of professionals, theInternational Society of Sustainability Professionals also
identified other skills crucial to working in the sustainability
field such as strategic planning, systems thinking, and project
management.
What role do managers play in the sustainability agenda?
First of all, managers are needed across the board to manage
sustainability-related projects in areas such as renewableenergy development, integrated water management, andurban ecological planning. Second, they are needed withinmany larger firms, not necessarily within the green sector, tomanage their corporate programs on ‘Social Responsibility’ or‘Sustainability’. What new capabilities do they need? In bothcases, managers need training beyond standard interpersonal
management skills to encompass a strong understanding of
local to global sustainability issues. They also need a grasp of
the methods to assess the sustainability benchmarks of a firm,such as ecological footprint analysis, life cycle analysis, andothers, as well as a strong capability in systems thinking.

Options for action
What steps can be taken to build up society’s capabilities tomeet the sustainability challenge of the 21st century?
One obvious and important step would be to train workers tofill in the gaps in the green workforce, as discussed above. In its
8

Credit: Still Pictures/argus/Peter Frischmuth

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

The research community must also build up new capabilities
to address global environmental change and support theGreen Economy. The International Council of Science (2010)
argues that this will require basic changes in the structure ofcurrent research that promote interdisciplinary research, thatallow for more regional-based research, and that strengthen
the interaction of science with decision-makers and otherstakeholders. The form of these changes is now being debatedwithin the scientific and funding communities, but could
include a new governance structure for the organizations thatcoordinate global change research and new research priorities
for the scientific community.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
What are the consequences of not acting to build up humancapabilities? The International Council of Science (2010) has
stated that the ‘pace and magnitude of human-induced globalchange is currently beyond human control and is manifest inincreasingly dangerous threats to human societies and humanwell-being’. Extrapolating a decade or more from now, wemight logically assume that the adverse impacts of climatechange, land degradation and other global environmental
changes will be even more serious. Then, perhaps, we will
regret our lack of capabilities to deal with these threats.
On the other hand, society could follow an alternative
pathway to the future and make a special effort to fill in theskills gaps in the green sector. It can also update educational
institutions to better cover educational needs for sustainability
work, and train managers to better respond to global
environmental change, and retool research efforts to better
address the sustainability challenge. If society follows thispathway, then it is likely that a decade from now we will be in amuch stronger position to contend with global environmental
change.

Background information
Beddoe, R., Costanza, R., Farley, J., Garza, E., Kent, J., Kubiszewski, I., Martinez, L., McCowen, T., Murphy, K., Myers, N., Ogden, Z., Stapleton, K., Woodward, J. 2009.
Overcoming systematic roadblocks to sustainability: the evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions and technologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 106, 2483-2489.
International Council of Science. (ICSU). 2010. Earth system science for global sustainability: the grand challenges. http://www.icsu-visioning.org/wp-content/uploads/
Grand_Challenges_Nov2010.pdf
UNEP. 2011. Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. http://www.unep.org/GreenEconomy/Portals/93/documents/
Full_GER_screen.pdf
UNEP. 2008. Green jobs: towards decent work in a sustainable, low-carbon world. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute. http://www.unep.org/labour_environment/
PDFs/Greenjobs/UNEP-Green-Jobs-Report.pdf
Willard, M., Wiedmeyer, C., Flint, R.W., Weedon, J.S., Woodward, R., Feldman, I., Edwards, M. The sustainability professional: 2010 competency survey report.
International Society of Sustainability Professionals. http://www.sustainabilityprofessionals.org/system/files/ISSP%20Special%20Report_3.10_final_0.pdf

Issue 003 Broken Bridges: Reconnecting Science and Policy(Ranked #4)
Where we standMeeting the challenge of global environmental
change requires, among other things, a strong baseof knowledge about environmental issues. Thisknowledge largely comes from the scientific community but
also from many non-scientists. The important point is that
this knowledge has to be communicated to a wider audienceof decision-makers and the general public. It is this larger
community that has to make the difficult decisions about how
to contend with climate change, deforestation, water scarcity,and other global environmental changes facing society.
Because these decisions could be costly and have many other
implications for society, decision-makers need to have a highlevel of confidence in the science behind their choices.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Some attributethe inability to produce a new binding agreement on emission
reductions at the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit to a new
scepticism about climate change science. Others point to a 2010
Gallup poll which shows a general slump in concern over global
warming amongst US citizens since 2008. The poll shows a 13%
increase, between 2008 and 2010, in the number of those who
believe that the issue of climate change has been exaggerated,
and a 9% decrease in the number of those who believe that theissue is generally correct. Moreover, the president of the US
National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone remarked at
a conference in 2010 that he thought the damage to climatechange science “has spilled over to other kinds of science.”

Unfortunately, some experts including Upham and others(2009) believe that public confidence in environmental science
is diminishing. Others see signs of a deepening distrust ofenvironmental scientific outputs, such that scientific advice
is sometimes resisted by economic and policy actors, even on
critical issues. A signpost for this is the questioning of climatechange science set off by ‘Climategate’ and the controversy
over a few errors in the 2007 climate change assessment of the

As to the cause of the “broken bridges”, some scholars such as
Holmes and Clark (2008), believe that failed communication
is at the root of the problem. The Arctic Climate Change andSecurity Policy Conference noted that, ‘a communication gap
persists among scientists and policy makers’ (Yalowitz et al.,2008). This is not too surprising since scientific results areusually difficult to translate directly into actionable policy
options. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that

Cross-cutting Issues

9few scientists are trained to communicate results in a nontechnical way. When scientists do try to communicate theirfindings they sometimes lean too heavily on alarming results– on the growing water crisis, or rapidly disappearing numberof species. But this may work against effective communication
because, as noted by scholars such as Garnett and Lindenmayer(2011), people tend to discount bad news.
Campbell and others (2007) suggest that the relative
inaccessibility of scientific results is another factor. Althoughscientific outputs are increasing, many of them are embeddedin grey literature not widely distributed, or in costly scientificjournals which are too expensive for organizations indeveloping countries and many individuals across the world.
Another problem is that it is often difficult to retrieve needed
data or information because it is spread out across many
institutions and databases.

Importance/relevance
What are the consequences of the recent (or continuing)lack of confidence or concern for environmental science sharedby policymakers and the public? Some believe that scientists
continue to talk mainly amongst themselves and rarely with
policymakers such that the number of meeting points between
scientists and policymakers is relatively limited. Whether thisnumber has decreased in recent years or not has not been
documented, but it appears that most environmental researchis still instigated, designed and delivered by scientists withlittle appreciation for how it can be useful to policymaking.
The upshot, as articulated by Juntti and others (2009), isthat relatively few policy decisions are based on a balance ofenvironmental, economic and social considerations. To closethe circle, this reinforces the opinion of scientists, as observed by
Choi and others (2005), that research is not particularly usefulor of interest to policymakers. Hence, on one hand only a small
amount of science is driven by requests from policymakers, andon the other, science is seldom used in the policy arena where itis needed, or at times it is ‘cherry-picked’ to legitimize decisions
already taken. This is a dilemma because it seriously hampers theuptake of urgent environmental information by policymakers
and stakeholders at a time when solving environmental
challenges require, more than ever, scientific results with a highlevel of clarity, accessibility, credibility and legitimacy.

Options for action
A high priority for repairing bridges is to analyze which factor
or factors are contributing the most to the lack of confidence.
The task of strengthening or rebuilding bridges between scienceand policy requires a new look at the way science is organizedand how the science-society-policy interface can be improved.
On the issue of communication, this can be improved byorganizing more substantive meetings between scientists andpolicymakers. Examples of such meetings are the regularbriefings given by researchers to the ministerial advisors in
the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Adviceof the climate convention, and the regular ‘Science-Policy
Dialogues’ on climate issues organized by the International
START secretariat.
10

Credit: Shutterstock/olly

Communication and an exchange of views can be also beenhanced using the method of integrated assessment which
is a process by which knowledge about a particular topic isassessed by scientists in a multi-disciplinary and policy-relevant
way. During the assessment, scientists work closely with
policymakers and other stakeholders to scope the assessment,
review and critique drafts of the report, and agree upon its
summary and main messages. Major integrated assessments
such as the UNEP Global Environment Outlook and theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment have been carried out
for climate change, ecosystems services, water and the global
environment.
Another method for enhancing communication between
scientists and policymakers is environmental scenario analysis.
This approach involves scientists, policymakers and otherstakeholders working closely together to elaborate alternatives
on how an environmental situation may evolve into the
future. As just one example, the ‘Great Transitions Scenario’,
developed by experts and stakeholders as part of the Rwanda
State of Environment and Outlook Report, pointed out
the policy steps leading to ‘social regeneration’ and natural
resources management with participation of all stakeholders.
There is also a good argument for framing some science inmore optimistic and positive ways – an ‘actively-promoted
culture of hope’. Furthermore, uncertainties need to be clearlycommunicated, and ways found for more nuanced predictions
to be factored into policy.
On the issue of accessibility of scientific results, there aremany options to increase access including making international
scientific journals available at an affordable cost to individuals
and institutions in developing countries. This is being done,for example, through the ‘Online Access to Research in theEnvironment’ Programme. Another example is establishingopen clearinghouses to make information more accessible - anexample here is the “Conservation Commons” hosted by the
UNEP World Conservation and Monitoring Centre.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
Not acting to repair the bridge between environmental
science and policy will stifle vital cooperation between science

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

and policy communities. Tension may increase between the two
communities, thereby further hindering communication. The
likely outcome is that decision-makers will not have adequate
knowledge to intervene in environmental problems, scientists
will have few incentives to make their outputs policy-relevant,and the public will not support the expense of intervening.
In sum, society will be less equipped and less successful inmanaging the risks of global environmental change.

Taking action to improve communication, access to scientificinformation, and other underlying causes of broken bridges,
will provide an atmosphere by which the scientific community
can respond better to the needs of society. Policymakers
will be better informed, and the public will benefit fromevidence-based policies. The scientific community will take its
rightful place as an integral part of society, providing valuable
contributions to the handling of important issues of our day
such as climate change and environmental degradation.

Background information
Anon 2010. Editorial. Without candour, we can’t trust climate science. The New Scientist 207, 2769, 17 July, 2010
Campbell, S., Benita, S., Coates, E., Davies, P., Penn, G. 2007. Analysis for policy: evidence-based policy in practice. Government Social Research Unit, HM Treasury.
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/Analysis%20for%20Policy%20report_tcm6-4148.pdf
Choi, B.C.K., Pang, T., Lin, V., Puska, P., Sherman, G., Goddard, M., Ackland, M.J., Sainsbury, P., Stachenko, S., Morrison, H., Clottey, C. 2005. Can scientists and policy
makers work together? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 632-637.
Gallup. 2011. Gallup’s annual environment poll: In U.S., concerns about global warming stable at lower levels. http://www.gallup.com/poll/146606/concerns-globalwarming-stable-lower-levels.aspx
Garnett, S.T., Lindemayer, D.B. 2011. Conservation science must engender hope to succeed. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26, 59-60.
Holmes, J., Clark, R. 2008. Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environmental Science and Policy, 11, 702-711
Juntti, M., Russel, D., Turnpenny, J. 2009. Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the environment. Environmental Science and Policy, 12, 207-215
Robertson, D.P., Hull, R.B. 2003. Public ecology: an environmental science and policy for global society. Environmental Science and Policy, 6, 399-410
Rwanda State of the Environment and Outlook Report: www.rema.gov.rw/soe/
Upham, P., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Purdam, K., Darnton, A., McLachlan, C., Devine-Wright, P. 2009. Public attitudes to environmental change: a selective review oftheory and practice. A research synthesis for the living with environmental change programme. Research Councils UK, http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/LWEC-researchsynthesis-full-report_tcm8-6384.pdf
Whitmarsh. L. 2011. Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: dimensions, determinants, and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21, 690-700.
Yalowitz, K.S., Collins, J.F., Virginia, R.A. 2008. The arctic climate change and security policy conference, final report and findings. www.carnegieendowment.org/files/
arctic_climate_change.pdf

Issue 004 Social Tipping Points? Catalyzing Rapid andTransformative Changes in Human Behaviour
towards the Environment (Ranked #5)
Where we standT

he World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (2008) and a growing number ofscholars including John (2004), Conger (2009), andSchwerin (2010) argue that technological breakthroughs
and efficiency gains alone will be inadequate for achieving
environmental sustainability. According to this way of
thinking, it may also be necessary for society to shift away fromits current high consumption levels and polluting activities toa more sustainable mode of behaviour. If this is true, how can
the necessary changes to human behaviour be efficiently andrapidly triggered? An answer to this question may lie in recentsocial science findings about ‘social tipping points’, i.e., rapid
and purposeful transformative social change.
An often-cited example of a social tipping point is thetransformation within one generation of cigarette smoking
from a widely accepted activity to a social anathema in many
countries. This transformative change was brought about, orat least supported, by public policy. This included a successful
mix of economic incentives such as taxation, public awarenesscampaigns, unambiguous statements about health hazards,
public-private covenants in areas such as advertisement orentertainment, and a ban on smoking in some public spaces. An
environmental example is the emergence of wide-spread changes
in public perceptions and behaviour in many countries in areas

Credit: UN Photosuch as waste separation and recycling, as well as water and energy
conservation. Other transformative changes include the shifting
attitude regarding the consumption of whale meat within one
or two generations, or the use of animal furs for clothing. Someargue that the current growth of vegetarianism or the slow-food
movement might signal further transformative changes fromhighly consumptive to more sustainable ways of life.

Importance/relevanceThe key idea behind social tipping points is that societal
change is non-linear. As documented in the case of phasing

Cross-cutting Issues

11

out nicotine abuse in many countries, stronger governmental
policies might influence certain ‘tipping points’ in social
behaviour that lead to a more fundamental and rapidtransformation of societal norms and standards of behaviour
than might otherwise be expected.
As noted above, many experts believe that behaviouralchange is at the core of many environmental problems.
Behavioural transformations support more effective systems ofgovernance and help build human capacities for change. Suchchanges are also vital in addressing many other issues, fromthe depletion of water resources by overconsumption, to themitigation of climate change by modifying mobility patterns
and life-styles. The support of behavioural change is not new
per se, and it has been part and parcel of environmental andhealth policies for decades. Yet, Lucas (2008), Crompton(2009) and others believe that previous efforts to encouragesustainable behaviour were not sufficient. The much desired
sustainability transition is less likely, or more difficult, without
a substantial transformation in modern lifestyles, from the richindustrialized countries to the rapidly developing mega-cities
in the South.

Options for action
What can public policy learn from recent research about
how to encourage positive, rapid and transformative changes
in human behaviour? What incentives – e.g., economic,
informative, or prohibitive – work best to initiate suchchanges? How can international environmental agencies help
governments and other actors trigger transformative change?

No definitive answers exist to these questions and it would
be worthwhile for members of the policy and scientificcommunities to work together to uncover what knowledge
there is to gain. But part of the answer lies in informationexchange, joint programmes, and public-private partnerships.
For example, the public sector can encourage positive change
in consumer attitudes through more concerted information
campaigns, more effective economic instruments, andlegislative action. Governments can also further strengthen civilsociety organizations in their activities on public engagement
and behavioural change. Also public-private covenants canhelp develop new products and serve as agents of change.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
If public policy and other efforts are unable to moveconsumption patterns in a more positive direction, it islikely that an unsustainable culture of material consumption
will continue to spread to all countries with a burgeoning
middle class. The upshot will be a continuation, and perhaps
intensification, of the environmental pollution and resource
depletion caused by this consumption pattern.
On the other hand, society has the option of using its newfound knowledge about social tipping points to encourage moresustainable consumption habits. Eventually, perhaps soon, thecombination of sustainable consumption, together with lowimpact technology and efficiency improvements, will lead to amore sustainable rate of resource usage, a smaller pollution loadon the environment, and a more sustainable society.

Background information
Blackstock, K.L., Ingram, J., Burton, R., Brown, K.M., Slee, B. 2010. Understanding and influencing behaviour change by farmers to improve water quality. Science of the
Total Environment, 408, 5631-5638.
Conger, S. 2009. Social invention. The Innovation Journal, 14. http://www.innovation.cc/books/conger_social_inventions1_09232009min.pdf
Crompton, T., Kasser, T., 2009. Meeting environmental challenges: the role of human identity. WWF-UK, Surrey. http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/meeting_environmental_challenges___the_role_of_human_identity.pdf
John, C. 2004. Coping with ecological catastrophe: crossing major thresholds. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. http://www.int-res.com/articles/esep/2004/E56.
pdf
Lucas, K., Brooks, M., Darnton, A., Elster Jones, E. 2008. Promoting pro-environmental behaviour: existing evidence and policy implications. Environmental Science andPolicy, 11, 456 – 466.
Schwerin, D.A. 2010. Technology and sustainability: two parts of a three-legged stool. http://www.consciousthinking.com/Technology%20and%20Sustainability.pdf
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2008. Sustainable consumption facts and trends from a business perspective. World Business Council for
Sustainable Development. http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/I9Xwhv7X5V8cDIHbHC3G/WBCSD_Sustainable_Consumption_web.pdf

Issue 005 New Concepts for Coping with Creeping Changes
and Imminent Thresholds (Ranked #18)
Where we standR

esearchers including Glantz (1999) and Kelman (2006)
have labeled a special category of environmental changeas ‘creeping changes’. These are human interactions
with the natural environment that have a slow onset, advanceincrementally, and eventually pass a threshold and quickly leadto changes in the environment.
A classic example is the decimation of Central Asia’s Aral
Sea (the fourth largest inland sea in the world). The problem
began with the incremental diversion of water from the12

region’s two major rivers to grow crops in fertile desert soils.
The slow build up of diversions from the rivers, over time, led
to a situation in which the rivers’ substantial flows into theAral became trickles and the evaporation rates from the sea’s
surface greatly exceeded the amount of water reaching the sea,
and it began to shrink. By 2000, the Aral Sea as a major inland
body of water had essentially disappeared. This caused an
outmigration from its coastal areas; a loss of ecosystem services(fish, forest, grazing, wildlife); toxic dust storms emanatingfrom the heavily contaminated, now exposed, seabed; and a

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Glantz (1999) and other researchers believe this would
require a shift in the focus of environmental policy fromcrisis management to effective early monitoring and timely
precautionary action. Along these lines, early monitoring
systems could be customised to detect different slowonset environmental changes. Lenton and others (2008)highlight the need for systems with improved capacity forreal-time monitoring, e.g., effective signal detection andprecision predictions. They also note the need for backward
extrapolation of existing monitoring data in order to develop
better predictive models for anticipating creeping changes.
Credit: UN Photo/Martine Perretchange in regional climate with hotter summers and colder
winters.
Some environmental changes that could also be labelled
as creeping changes include acid rain, stratospheric ozone
depletion, desertification, tropical deforestation, mangrove
destruction, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, water pollution,
overfishing, and groundwater contamination by leaky landfills.

Importance/relevanceOf particular importance to policymaking is the fact thatcreeping changes are easily overlooked in their early stages
because of their slow onset and incremental nature. However,when left unchecked, they often build up over time and canhave local to global impacts. Yet, it is in their early stages thatcreeping changes are easiest and cheapest to cope with. An
early intervention to acid rain in Europe would likely haveavoided the expensive later costs of liming soils and lakes tocompensate for acid deposition, and the costly retrofits offilters on power plants to reduce acidifying emissions.

Options for action
It turns out that most creeping environmental changes that
occur because of human interactions with the environment areforeseeable. The challenge, then, is how to anticipate, monitor,and manage creeping changes early enough to avoid theiremergence as costly problems.

Another option to prevent the consequences of creepingchanges is to raise the awareness of policymakers and otherstakeholders, and convince them that action is needed to avert
a crisis. They could be informed about places in the world
where creeping changes have already led to environmental
turning points, as in the case of acid rain in Europe and ozone
depletion of the stratosphere. But action is not likely to betaken unless scientists can make a clear connection between aparticular creeping change and an important consequence of
this change such as the loss of a ‘keystone’ species or a threat
to food security.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
If environmental policymaking continues to center oncrisis management rather than trying to anticipate the likely
outcome of creeping changes, we may find ourselves solving
one newly emerging environmental crisis after another. In
effect, one generation is shifting responsibility for handlingenvironmental problems to the next generation, or the one
after that.
On the other hand, effective early warning systems and timely
responses can help policymakers keep ahead of potentiallydamaging changes. “An ounce of prevention is worth a poundof cure” is a cultural adage that applies as well to environmental
changes in which human activities are involved. Applying theearly detection of seemingly harmless small changes provides
that ‘ounce of prevention.’

Background information
Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., Brocks, W.A. 2009. Turning back from the brink: detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it. Proceedings of the National Academy
Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 826–831.
European Environment Agency. 2002. Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle from 1896 to 2000. Environmental Issue Report No. 22. http://www.
eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/Issue_Report_No_22.pdf
Glantz, M.H. (ed.). 1999. Creeping Environmental Problems and Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin, Cambridge UP.
Kelman, I. 2006. Island security and disaster diplomacy in the context of climate change. Les Cahiers de la Sécurité, 63, 61-94
Lenton, T.M. 2011. Early warning of climate tipping points. Nature Climate Change, 1, 201-209
Lenton, T.M., Held, H., Kriegler, E.,. Hall, J.W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S.,Schellnhuber, H.J., 2008. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 1786-1793.

Cross-cutting Issues

13Issue 006 Coping with Migration Caused by New Aspects ofEnvironmental Change (Ranked #20)
Where we standM

ass migrations of people have been a longstanding
feature of humanity and have had many causes
including civil conflict, war, religious intolerance,and economic opportunities. In the 1970s and 80s, the
new term ‘environmental refugee’ came into use. Recently
environmental migrants were defined by the International
Organization for Migration (2009) as ‘persons or groups of
persons who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressivechange in the environment that adversely affects their lives orliving conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes, orchoose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who
move either within their country or abroad’.

they displace are sometimes called ‘environmental migrants’and give a hint of the risk of human displacement due tofuture changes in climate. Estimates of future environmental
migrants range upwards from 200 million by 2050 according
to various studies reviewed by the International Organization
for Migration (2009). These estimates are, however,highly uncertain and depend greatly on the definition ofenvironmental migrants. But regardless of the exact numbers,
the message is that there is a high risk that environmental
change will become an increasingly important factor driving
migration.

It is important to note that environmental factors areusually mixed up with social and other factors so it is difficult
to unequivocally deem someone an ‘environmental migrant’.
Nevertheless, since the 1970s there has been increasing efforts,e.g., by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs, to monitor migration where environmental factors playa significant role. There is also a growing body of studies thatsuggests that environmental change will become an increasingly
decisive factor in the displacement of people. Hence, this is an
old but intensifying issue that merits renewed attention. What
are the new and ongoing aspects of environmental change thatwill contribute to future migration?
Firstly, there are rapid-onset events related to climatechange, such as more frequent or intense coastal and riverflooding, hurricanes, or wind storms that can permanently
drive people from their settlements. Under this category fallviolent conflicts due to competition for resources such as
water and land, which may be depleted by climate change orother environmental pressures (see Issue 016 for a descriptionof the increasing evidence for changing frequency of extreme
weather events).
Secondly, there are ‘slow-onset’ processes that gradually
make conditions untenable for people, causing them toconsider migrating (see Issue 005 for a description of “creepingchanges” in the environment). Included here is sea level rise
which will inundate coastlines and island states, and warmer
temperatures and more frequent droughts in some areas which
will pose new risks to agriculture. Another such slow-onset
process is land degradation (or ‘desertification’ when it pertains
to dryland areas) especially connected with intensive land use
and prolonged drought.

Importance/relevance
The UN Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs(2009) estimated that, in 2008 alone, at least 20 million people
worldwide were displaced by ‘climate-induced sudden-onset
natural disasters’. Although these natural disasters cannot be
unequivocally linked to long term climate change, the people
14

Credit: UN Photo/UNHCR/Alexis Duclos

Options for action
One response option is to address the root causes ofenvironmental migration. Some rapid-onset events can be better
dealt with through enhancement of early warning systems andwell defined hazardous area zoning. The slow-onset events canbe coped with through improved coastal protection, droughtplanning, land restoration, and other measures.
Another option is for governments to assess their capacity
for dealing with climate-related migration as part of their
National Adaptation Programmes of Action, being developed
under the Framework Convention for Climate Change. Somecountries, such as the Solomon Islands and the Maldives, are

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

already looking into resettlement options to safer quarters fortheir populations threatened by sea level rise.
Another option is for countries to broaden their immigration
policies to include environmental migrants, as Sweden and
Finland have done. On the international level, Biermann andother scholars (2010) argue that environmental migrants should
be protected under specific international legal agreements, forexample a protocol under the UN Climate Convention.
There is also a need to improve the prediction ofenvironmental migration. One source of uncertainty is that
migrations due to environmental factors have a different
character than those propelled by political persecution or
economic opportunities. Hence, there is a need for morereliable data about the environment-migration nexus andmore research about likely migration scenarios and pathways.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
If no decisive action is taken to address the issue ofenvironmental migration, the number of people displaced,
either within their own countries or across borders, will
likely increase as climate change and other pressures on
the environment grow in intensity. We might also expect
an increase in the human suffering, social disruption andinternational tension that accompanies large migration flows.

Credit: UN Photo/Paul Banks

But society can choose to follow an alternative pathway. By
combining short-term and long-term planning and research,
countries and institutions would be able to anticipate and copewith new environmentally-related population displacements
and help minimize the suffering involved. Large migrations
might be avoided through public policies that reduce thevulnerability of their populations, for example by improving
early warning of coastal and other floods, and by enforcing
the zoning of river flood plain areas. With advanced planning,much can be done to avert or alleviate environmental disasters
that cause people to leave their homes and join the sad streamof internal and cross-border migrants.

Background information
Biermann, F., Boas, I. 2010. Preparing for a warmer world: towards a global governance system to protect climate refugees. Global Environmental Politics, 10, 60-88.
Brown, O., Crawford, A. 2009. Battling the elements: the security threat of climate change. International Institute for Sustainable Development. http://www.iisd.org/
pdf/2009/COP15_Commentary_Battling_the_Elements_Oli_Alec.pdf
El-Hinnawi, E. 1985. Environmental Refugees.United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, Nairobi).
International Organization for Migration (IOM). 2009. Migration, environment and climate change: assessing the evidence. http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/migration_and_environment.pdf
UN General Assembly. 2009. Climate change and its possible security implications: report of the Secreatary General, 11 September 2009, A/6/350. http://www.unhcr.org/
refworld/docid/4ad5e6380.html
UN High Commission for Refugees. 2008. Climate change, natural disasters and human displacement: a UNHCR perspective. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,RESEA
RCH,UNHCR,,492bb6b92,0.html
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. 2009. Monitoring disaster displacement in the context ofclimate change. http://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/OCHA%20IDMC%20Displacement%20climate%20change%202009.pdf

Cross-cutting Issues

15

Food,
Biodiversity andLand Issues

Issue 007 New Challenges for Ensuring Food Safety and Food
Security for 9 Billion People (Ranked #3)
Where we standA

lthough food security is an age-old preoccupation ofhumanity, new threats to this security are constantly
arising. The most recent list includes climate change,
competition for land from bioenergy production, heightenedwater scarcity, and possible shortfalls of phosphorus for fertilizer.
Many of the older challenges still remain, including degradation ofagricultural land, competition for land with cities, and increasing
demand for food due to growth in population and affluence.
The US Department of Agriculture (2011) estimates thenumber of ‘food-insecure’ people (as of 2010) in 77 developing
countries at 861 million. Meanwhile, the UN says that theworld population is likely to reach 9 billion by 2050. Most ofthese billions will live in developing countries and have higher
incomes, which in turn will further increase the demand forfood. The implication is that food production has to grow still
further over the next half-century to cover this new demand.
When the effects of climate change are taken into account(higher temperatures, shifting seasons, more frequent andextreme weather events such as floods and droughts), thechallenge for food production becomes even more daunting.
For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (2007) noted that some African countries could face
reductions in yield of up to 50% by 2020 if they fail to adapt
to the changing climate.
In addition to the combined pressures of a larger populationand climate change, farmers will compete for land with bothold competitors, such as expanding cities, and perhaps newcompetitors, such as reforestation and nature conservation
projects, and energy cropping for bioenergy. The Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) and International Energy
Agency (2008) have estimated that the global area devoted tobioenergy crops could grow from around 13.8 million hectares
in 2004 to between 34.5 and 58.5 million hectares in 2030,
depending on scenario assumptions (see Issue 010 on the newrush for land in developing countries for bioenergy and othercrops). Meanwhile, den Biggelaar and others (2004) estimatethat around 2 to 5 million hectares of land continue to be losteach year to land degradation, mostly related to soil erosion.
The availability of water is already taken to be a limiting factor
in many agricultural areas. Another possible limiting factor
is phosphorus, which is a critical fertilizer input to modern
agriculture. The remaining lifetime of worldwide phosphorus
reserves is being hotly debated, as noted in a recent UNEP
report (2011). Although, reserves might last for 300 years
at current production rates, the supply of cheap and easily
accessible phosphorus is ultimately limited, raising questions
about the sustainability of world fertilizer supplies.
Apart from food security, food safety is also an essential
aspect of a sustainable and secure food system, and is ofconcern to both consumers and industries. According to
the World Health Organization (WHO) (2007), each year
up to 30% of the population in high-income countries may
suffer from food-borne diseases. A recent example is thecase of E. coli-contaminated vegetables which resulted in
15 deaths and over 1000 hospitalized people across Europe.
The contamination situation could be as bad in low-income
countries but is not well documented. Furthermore, Miraglia
and others (2009) estimate that global warming could, undersome circumstances, increase food contamination and lead tomore rapid spreading of diseases.
The WHO reported (2004) that about 75% of all diseases
emerging during the last two decades have been “zoonoses”,
or diseases caused by microorganisms of animal origin thatcan be transmitted to humans. This is of particular concern
to food safety considering there have been several recent
outbreaks of domestic animal-related diseases such as swine
flu, bird flu and mad-cow disease. Furthermore, wild animals
and plants are still a fundamental part of the diet of manyrural communities. The FAO (2008) estimates that about one
billion people consume wild foods; and a World Bank report(2000) states that wild game and fish provide 20 per cent of
dietary protein in at least 60 low-income countries. Wildlife
trade may be a main source of zoonoses and provide a pathway
for disease evolution and transfer. Recent research by Chaberand others (2010) suggests that about 270 tons of potentiallycontaminated illegal bushmeat may be passing unchecked
through a single European airport each year.

Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

Importance/relevanceFood safety and food security are important aspects of humanwell-being. A decline in the existing level of food security
threatens lives and social stability. Hunger and poverty are closely
linked, and addressing both will go a long way in achieving
the Millennium Development Goals. Inadequate food safety
can also pose enormous dangers as shown by the lives lost andeconomic costs of past episodes of food contamination.

Food, Biodiversity and Land Issues

17

Options for action
There are many options for enhancing global food security.
One general approach, sketched out in the UN Secretary
General’s ‘Comprehensive Framework for Action’ (2008), has
the first goal of covering the immediate needs of those alreadysuffering from hunger, and the second goal of building up theresilience of vulnerable populations.

To better ensure global food safety, greater attention should
be given to the dangers of zoonotic diseases. Early warning
systems could enable an early response to food contamination
episodes. Meanwhile, ‘clean production techniques’ could beapplied across the board to the food processing industry toensure the safety of food products going from farm to fork.

To cover immediate needs, the Framework recommends that‘emergency food assistance, nutrition interventions and safety
nets are enhanced and made more accessible; that smallholder
farmer food production is boosted; that trade and tax policies areadjusted; and that the macroeconomic implications are managed.’
To go beyond the immediate hunger crisis, and to buildup food security over the longer term, the Framework callsfor ‘social protection systems to be expanded; for smallholder
farmer-led food availability growth to be sustained; forinternational food markets to be improved; and for aninternational biofuel consensus to be developed.’
Over and above what the Framework calls for, foodsecurity can also be enhanced by strengthening the longterm ecological foundation of the world’s food supply. This
includes ensuring the long-term sustainability of fish stocks,
promoting ecologically-sound cropland intensification, andreducing waste such as post-harvest losses in the food system.
A viable option for enhancing both food security and foodsafety is to introduce or expand sustainable agriculture. As
described by UNEP (2011), sustainable agriculture involves
a wide range of actions, including: water conservation andwater harvesting; soil and nutrient management; restorationof degraded landscapes; efficient plant harvesting; and earlytransformation of products to reduce post-harvest losses. Allof these steps would strengthen the ecological basis of the foodsupply and make it safer and more reliable for consumers.

Credit: UN Photo/John Isaac

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
Failing to act to improve food security and safety will
leave vulnerable populations susceptible to increased hunger
and malnutrition, related civil unrest and perhaps further
migration (see Issue 006 on new causes of migration). Marine
ecosystems will continue to be depleted by overfishing andpollution. The public will be threatened by zoonotic diseases,
as well as other types of food contamination.
Acting now will increase the resilience of millions, if notbillions, to cope with new challenges to food security and foodsafety.

Background information
Bennet, E.L., Robinson, J.G. 2000. Hunting of wildlife in tropical forests, implications for biodiversity and forest peoples. World Bank, Washington, DC. Environment
Dept Paper, No. 76. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/03/26/000094946_0103100530377/Rendered/PDF/
multi0page.pdf
den Biggelaar, C., Lal, R., Weibe, K., Eswaran, H., Breneman, V. and Reich, P. 2004. The global impact of soil erosion on productivity I: absolute and relative erosioninduced yield losses. II: effects on crop yields and production over time. Advances in Agronomy 81:1-48, 49-95
Burlingame, B. 2000. Wild nutrition. Editorial: Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 13, 99-100.
Chaber, A., Allebone-Webb, S., Lignereux, Y., Cunningham, A.A., Rowcliffe, J.M. 2010. The scale of illegal meat importation from Africa to Europe via Paris. Conservation
Letters, 3, 317-323.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2008. The state of food and agriculture: biofuels – prospects, risks and opportunities. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0100e/
i0100e.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Synthesis report. An assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/
assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
Mills, J.N., Gage, K.L and Khan, A.S. 2010. Potential influence of climate change on vector-borne and zoonotic diseases: a review and proposed research plan.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 118, 1507–1514.
Miraglia, M., Marvin, H.J.P., Kleter, G.A., Battilani, P., Brera, C., Coni, E., Cubadda, F., Croci, L., De Santis, B., Dekkers, S., Filippi, L., Hutjes, R.W.A., Noordam, M.Y.,
Pisante, M., Piva, G., Prandini, A., Toti, L., van den Born, G.J., Vespermann, A. 2009. Climate change and food safety: an emerging issue with special focus on Europe.
Food and Chemical Toxicology, 47, 1009-1021
Nelson, G.C., Rosegrant, M.W., Palazzo, A., Gray, I., Ingersoll, C., Robertson, R., Tokgoz, S., Zhu, T., Sulser, T.B., Ringler, C., Msangi, S., You, L. 2010. Food security,
farming and climate change to 2050. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, USA
United Nations. 2008. UN Comprehensive Framework for Action. United Nations. http://www.un.org/issues/food/taskforce/Documentation/CFA%20Web.pdf
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011. Phosphorus and food production. In: UNEP Year Book 2011. 35-46. www.unep.org/yearbook/2011
US Department of Agriculture. 2011. International food security assessment, 2011-21. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/GFA22/GFA22.pdf
World Health Organization (WHO). 2004. Waterborne Zoonoses: Identification, Causes and Control. Cotruvo, J.A., Dufour, A., Rees, G., Bartram, J., Carr, R., Cliver,
D.O., Craun, G.F., Fayer, R., Gannon, V.P.J. (Eds). IWA Publishing, London, UK. ISBN: 1 84339 058 2.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2007. Fact sheets: food safety and foodborne illness. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs237/en/index.html

18

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Issue 008 Beyond Conservation: Integrating Biodiversity
across the Environmental and Economic Agendas(Ranked #7)
Where we standT

he traditional approach to nature conservation andpreserving biodiversity tries to minimize humaninterference with nature by isolating nature fromsociety. But globally, only about 130,000 protected areas, withvarying degrees of protection, have been designated, covering
around 13.9% of Earth’s land area. An even smaller area ofthe marine environment is protected, with 5.9% of territorial
marine surface under some form of protection (CBD, 2010).
Either the area protected is too small or the approach itself
is insufficient because the 2010 target of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, calling for no significant loss of
biodiversity, has not been achieved.
However, two important new threads of research suggest
a novel approach to maintaining biodiversity. They suggestthat nature usually cannot, and should not, be isolated fromhumanity and this idea points to new solutions for addressing
human-induced biodiversity decline.

Importance/relevanceThe first thread of research provides new insights into thelinkages between biodiversity and the environmental agenda. It
articulates the important role of biodiversity and ecosystem
functioning in the global biogeochemical cycles vital forsustaining life. For example, biodiversity plays a role in the
carbon sequestered and stored by natural ecosystems, which inturn helps regulate the climate. Changes in climate, in turn, feedback to biodiversity. Another example of the linkage between
biodiversity and the rest of the environment is the interaction
between natural ecosystems and the water cycle, in which forests
exchange vast amounts of moisture with the atmosphere, which
is important in controlling local and regional climate, especiallyprecipitation. Biodiversity also plays an important role in a whole
range of other ecosystem services, such as the production of food,the control of disease, flood regulation, coastal protection, croppollination, and recreational benefits. These and other research
results make a strong case for integrating nature conservation andpreservation of species into the rest of the environmental agenda.
The second thread of research provides new understanding
about the close relationship between biodiversity and economic
activity and value. For example, the 2010 ‘TEEB’ study on theeconomics of ecosystems and biodiversity has conservatively
estimated the global economic impact of biodiversity loss
at between $US 2 to 4.5 trillion, equivalent to about 7.5%of global gross national product. The report suggests that
supposedly ‘free’ ecosystem services should be inventoriedand priced by nations and businesses as part of the asset
base that underpins economic activity and thus supports
stable consumer prices. A conclusion of this second thread ofresearch is that the biodiversity and economic agendas should
be integrated more closely.
An overriding conclusion of both threads of research is that,making a stronger linkage between nature conservation andthe environmental and economic agendas will lead to policies
that more effectively conserve ecosystems while promoting
human well-being.

Options for action

Credit: Shutterstock/Sergej Khakimullin

How, then, can the biodiversity issue be better integrated
into the environmental and economic agendas? Starting withthe environmental agenda, one answer is to more vigorously
pursue the integrated management of land, water, marine,
forest and other environmental resources. A second answer isto promote sustainable agriculture, which involves the multiuse of land, water, and other environmental resources, andtempered use of substances that could damage biodiversity (e.g.,
pesticides and herbicides) (see Issue 007 on the link between
sustainable agriculture and food security.) Third, current andfuture environmental change (e.g., climate change) could
be incorporated as factors into biodiversity planning, andvice-versa. For example, plans for mitigating climate change
through use of renewable energy systems should consider the
potential effects of these systems on biodiversity.

Food, Biodiversity and Land Issues

19With respect to integrating biodiversity issues witheconomics, one idea is to introduce environmental accounting,i.e., inventories of the economic value of ecosystems, to alllevels of governance. This includes the incorporation of natural
capital (water supply systems, mangrove and other coastal
forests, and so on) in national economic accounts. Anotheroption is to have the public gradually pay for the ecosystemservices that are undervalued. An example of this would be amunicipality paying for the conservation of upland forests inorder to maintain the reliability and quality of downstream
water sources used by the city. Still another option is to phaseout ‘perverse subsidies’ i.e., subsidies that have a significant
negative impact on biodiversity and the sustainable use
and equitable share of ecosystem resources. Examples of
perverse subsidies are agricultural price supports that leadto deforestation, and fuel subsidies that support offshore oil
drilling in sensitive marine areas. There is also a need for further
research to understand the linkages between biodiversity andeconomic systems and to raise public awareness about thesefundamental linkages. As a general conclusion there are many
options for integrating biodiversity into the economic systemas part of a new ‘Green Economy’.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next 1020 years
If action is not taken to link biodiversity issues with thebroader environmental and economic agendas, there is
the risk that nature conservation will be viewed only as amethod for saving charismatic species. Moreover, we may
see a continuation of the undervaluing of ecosystems and theimportant goods and services they provide, from food and fuelto water and climate regulation. If the public and government
do not recognize the value of ecosystems, we may continue
to lose these ecosystems and their services, along with theirhabitats and species.
By contrast, linking biodiversity with the broader
environmental and economic agendas will lead to greater publicawareness that natural ecosystems have high environmental
and economic value, and that they play a vital role in humanwell-being. This, in turn, will lead to the development ofeffective policies for conserving ecosystems, and the goods andservices they provide.

Background information
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. Making protected areas relevant: a guide to integrating protected areas into wider landscapes, seascapes and sectoral plans
and strategies. CBD Technical Series No. 44. Montreal, Canada. http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-44-en.pdf
Daily, G., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision-making:time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 21–28.
de Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, Haines-Young, R., Gowdy, J., Maltby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., Portela, R., Ring, I. 2010. Integrating theecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. Chapter 1. in: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Ecologicaland Economic Foundations. Pushpam Kumar (ed.)
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Biodiversity across scenarios. Chapter 10 of Vol 2. http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.334.aspx.pdf
Pereira, H.M., Leadley, P.W., Proença, V., Alkemade, R., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Fernandez-Manjarrés, J.F., Araújo, M.B., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Cheung, W.W.L., Chini,
L., Cooper, H.D., Gilman, E.L., Guenette, S., Hurtt, G.C., Huntington, H.P., Mace, G.M., Oberdorff, T., Revenga, C., Scholes, R.J., Rashid Sumaila, U., Walpole, M.
2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science, 330, 1496-1501.
TEEB. 2010. The Economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of
TEEB. http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bYhDohL_TuM%3D

Issue 009 Boosting Urban Sustainability and Resilience(Ranked #11)
Where we standT

he issue of urban environmental sustainability has two
important aspects: there is the environmental quality
within cities that city residents have to live with, andthe environmental changes caused by cities outside of theirborders. Neither is particularly sustainable. Consider the caseof motor vehicles in cities: they pollute the air and water incities and threaten the health of urban residents, but also
contribute to air pollution outside of city limits and to global
climate change.
Within cities, it comes as no surprise that air and waterpollution levels often exceed recommended limits, especiallyin lower income countries. A 2007 UNEP report indicatedthat levels of particulate matter in the air over cities in many
developing countries are many times the public healthguidelines of the World Health Organization. Likewise,
the level of nitrogen dioxide exceeds guidelines in most20

large urban areas. Cities, of course, entirely alter the naturalenvironment within their borders and at their edges. Alberti(2010) pointed out that the interaction of humans and thenatural environment within cities may even be creating aunique biochemistry of the environment.
It is also easy to understand that the concentration ofpeople, industry, infrastructure and energy in urban areas
has a major influence on the environment outside of cities.
UNEP (2007) pointed out that this impact can be greater thanproportional; whereas cities contain about half of the world’s
population, they consume about 60 to 80% of its energy andemit about 75% of its carbon dioxide emissions. And outside
their boundaries, cities have a large ecological footprint. In
addition to the air and water pollutants transported to thesurrounding countryside and beyond, cities require an areamuch larger than their own for the food, materials and other

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

resources needed for their existence. As one example, Rees
and Wackernagel (1996) estimated that the city of Vancouver
requires a land area 178 times greater than its own area for
its resource needs. The impact of cities may be even greaterby mid-century when two-thirds of the world’s population is
expected to live in urban areas. On the other hand, not all
cities or city designs have the same impact, as discussed below.
The issue of boosting sustainability goes beyond improving
environmental quality within cities or reducing their outside
impact. Sustainability also implies that cities should be resilient
themselves to global environmental changes. Certainly one of
the most important environmental changes that cities will
have to cope with will be climate change, which is likely toincrease the frequency of heat waves, and in some regions, thefrequency of droughts and river and coastal flooding.

and so increase the resilience of city inhabitants to heat waves.
More vegetation, in general, tends to improve air quality
because plants absorb or adsorb air pollutants.
Renewable energy production – At first glance, the smaller
roof areas per person in dense cities would suggest that cities
are not ideal locations for using solar energy. Nevertheless,there are many successful examples of supplying a significant
fraction of energy requirements through solar energy in cities.
One of many examples is the city center of Rizhao in China
where UNEP (2011) reports that virtually all households use
solar water heaters.

Importance/relevanceAs urban areas become the home of a larger and larger
percentage of humanity, the sustainability agenda will
become increasingly intertwined with cities. The question
then becomes: how can cities become more sustainable andresilient within their boundaries and reduce their impact on
the outside world?

Options for action
There are, in fact, many different ways of achieving
sustainability and resilience in urban areas. These ideas havebeen compressed into the concept of ‘green cities’, also known
as ‘ecological cities’, ‘eco-cities’, or ‘sustainable cities’. Green
city concepts usually include the following features:Compactness – Research has shown that a denser settlement
pattern can reduce average trip distances and make walking,bicycling, and energy-efficient public transportation a morepractical option for travellers. This reduces the dependenceof urban dwellers on private vehicles which tend to use moreenergy and produce more air pollution per passenger-km
than alternative modes of mobility. Higher density also brings
lower costs for water and sewage systems, streets and otherinfrastructure, as well as lower per capita demands for land.
The multi-story buildings typical of denser cities have a lower
surface-to volume ratio, which can reduce heating and coolingloads compared to those of single story buildings. Suchbuildings often use less building materials per person thansingle story buildings. However, all of these economies dependon the income levels of city inhabitants. Usually the lower theincome level, the lower the level of per capita consumption.
Mixed-use settlement patterns – Allowing or encouraging a
mixture of residences, businesses and other services within thesame neighbourhood can also reduce dependence on vehicles
and thereby reduce energy use. This has been coined ‘access byproximity’ by Richard Register (2006).
Urban greening – Expanding the area of green in cities has
many benefits. Greater park areas provide more absorptive
surface for rainfall, and thereby increases resilience to floods.
More trees provide shading which tends to cool city streets

Credit: Shutterstock/Noraluca013

Land use planning – Zoning and planning within citiesor their surrounding areas can promote various sustainability
goals. Using zoning to preserve coastal wetlands adjacent toa city helps maintain the services provided by these wetlands
including protection against coastal flooding, recreation, andhabitat for fish and other wildlife. Land use policies can restore
natural vegetation and parkland along the banks of an urbanriver and this land can serve as a natural floodway during highwater and make a city more resilient to river flooding.
There are many ways of realizing these ideas. Certainly one
major route is mainstreaming them into urban planning.
In a 2007 report, Cities Alliance and other organizations
identified various planning tools that can be used for thispurpose including Integrated Development Planning; City
Development Strategies; Eco City Planning; ecoBUDGET;
and Strategic Environmental Assessment.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
If no action is taken, cities are likely to continue on theirunsustainable pathway, with an increasing urban population
subjected to poor environmental quality while cities themselvesexert a large environmental impact on the rest of the world.
The other option is to build ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ cities
which are more compact, have a vital mix of land uses
within their boundaries, provide many different low-energy

Food, Biodiversity and Land Issues

21transportation opportunities, and produce some of their own
renewable energy. Such cities would provide their citizens
with a high level of environmental quality and liveability, andhave a lower environmental impact outside their boundaries.
Sustainability is also an option for cities.

Background information
Alberti, M. 2010. Maintaining ecological integrity and sustaining ecosystem functions in urban areas. Current Opinion in Urban Environmental Sustainability, 2, 178-184.
Cities Alliance. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). UNEP. 2007. Liveable cities: the benefits of urban environmental planning. Cities
Alliance. http://www.unep.org/urban_environment/PDFs/LiveableCities.pdf
Dhakal, S. 2010. GHG from urbanization and opportunities for urban carbon mitigation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2, 227-283
Pickett, S., Cardenasso, M., Grove, J., Boone, C., Groffman, P., Irwin, E., Kausal, S., Marshall, V., McGrath, B., Nilon, C., Pouyat, R., Szlavecz, K., Troy, A., Warrem, P.
2011. Urban ecological systems: scientific foundations and a decade of progress. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 331-362.
Rees, W., Wackernagel, M. 1996. Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 16:223-248.
Register, R. 2006. EcoCities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature. New Society Publishers, 2006
Seto, K., Sanchez-Rodriguez, R., Fragkias, M. 2010. The new geography of contemporary urbanization and the environment. Annual Review and Environmental Resources,
35, 167-194
UNEP. 2007. Fourth Global Environment Outlook. http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4.asp
UNEP. 2011. Cities. Investing in energy and resource efficiency. towards a green economy. Green Economy Report. www.unep.org/greeneconomy/GreenEconomyReport/
tabid/1375/Default.aspx

Issue 010 The New Rush for Land: Responding to New
National and International Pressures (Ranked #12)
Where we standA

lthough the area of agricultural land has been
expanding in developing countries for decades, aboom in commodity prices in 2008 led to a surge ininvestments from abroad. The size of the surge is uncertain,
but a 2011 Oxfam report stated that up to 227 million hectares
have been sold or leased worldwide since 2001, with the bulkof the acquisitions occurring in the past two years. Anotherreport in 2010 by the World Bank says that investors expressedinterest in around 56 million hectares of land in 2009 alone,with about two-thirds of the investments taking place in SubSaharan Africa. In the same vein, the Global Land Project
estimated in 2010 that between 51 and 63 million hectaresof land were either part of finalized land deals or undernegotiation in 27 African countries in 2009. By comparison,
agricultural land worldwide grew by around 1.8 - 4 million
hectares per year before 2008. Deininger and others (2011)
stated that the 2009 demands for land in Africa equates tomore than the total land development on the continent overthe previous 20 years. It should be noted, however, that not allland deals have been converted to farmland.
As for the motivation for these investments, a main
driving force is the aim of countries to enhance their foodsecurity because it is not economically or otherwise viable tosufficiently boost agricultural production at home. In this case,investing in and exploiting productive land abroad is a wayof hedging against food shortages. Another important factor
is the interest of many countries in cultivating energy crops
abroad for import into their own countries. Bioenergy would
help them satisfy their growing demand for energy, provide
an alternative to increasingly expensive oil, and perhaps
help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, thedeveloping countries marketing their land look forward to theincome from such land deals, as well as to the employment
and other opportunities often promised by land purchasers.

22

Credit: UN Photo/B Wolff

On top of these international pressures come nationalpressures for land development, such as continued
urbanization, expansion of infrastructure, and demand for
new cropland to satisfy growing domestic food requirements.

Importance/relevance
Despite the advantages of selling land to investors abroad,there are sometimes undesirable side effects. In a 2010 report,
the World Bank noted that recent land deals ‘too often, …haveincluded a lack of documented rights claimed by local people andweak consultation processes that have led to uncompensated lossof land rights, especially by vulnerable groups; a limited capacity
to assess a proposed project’s technical and economic viability;
and a limited capacity to assess or enforce environmental andsocial safeguards.’ The report goes on to say that action is neededin some countries to protect vulnerable groups from losing landon which they have ‘legitimate, if not formally recognized, claims.
…Public disclosure, broad access to information on existing deals,

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

and vigilant civil society monitoring are needed, along with otherefforts to improve land governance, including the overall policy,
legal, and regulatory framework for large-scale land acquisition.’
The report also notes that the employment and training promised
as part of a land deal sometimes never happens.
Another downside of large-scale land acquisitions comesfrom the fact that much of the acquired land is currently
unmanaged or lightly settled ‘natural land.’ The conversionof this natural land to cropland often involves the loss of
ecosystem services such as fuelwood supply; control of watersupply and flooding in watersheds; supply of medicinal plants;
regulation of local climate conditions; and provision of habitatfor plants and animals.
A key question then is how to achieve the economic andother benefits a country receives by selling land to foreign
investors, while at the same time minimize or eliminate its
disadvantages.

Options for action
First of all, there seems to be an immediate need for more
concrete information about the scope of land acquisitions anda better understanding of their implications for livelihoods,
food security, ecosystem services and other issues. Aninternational and transparent inventory of these acquisitions
would be helpful to better assess the situation. It would also
be useful to have an ongoing monitoring system for keeping
track of new land acquisition contracts and for helping achievea win-win situation for all parties. This system could help
ensure that land development projects produce the promised
employment, skills and knowledge gains for local populations.

Another option is to put into place an internationallyaccepted procedure for assessing the socioeconomic andenvironmental costs and benefits of potential land acquisitions.
A further option is to encourage investors to adopt and follow
a set of ‘Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment’along the lines suggested by FAO (2009), World Bank (2010)
and others. These principles include: respecting land andresource rights; ensuring that investments do not jeopardize
food security (see Issue 007 for a discussion of other aspects offood security.); ensuring transparency and good governance ofcontracts; consulting all those materially affected; and ensuringthat projects respect the rule of law, reflect industry bestpractice, are economically viable, and result in durable sharedvalue. Some civil society groups, such as the Global Campaign
for Agrarian Reform (2010), however, consider these principles
to be insufficient for protecting vulnerable groups.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
The consequence of an unbounded rush for land could be
growing inequities and injustices in the country selling off its
land to foreign investors, including a continuing loss of land
rights of vulnerable social groups. Another consequence could
be the further depletion of unmanaged natural land which
provides various ecosystem services and products ranging fromwatershed protection to fuel supply.
Putting safeguards in place, such as monitoring investments,
assessing the potential impacts of land deals before they are
finalized, and adopting a set of principles for responsible
investment, could minimize the drawbacks while allowing theinvesting countries to enhance their food and energy security.

Background information
Deininger, K. 2011. Forum on global land grabbing: challenges posed by the new wave of farmland investment. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38, 217-247.
The Economist. 2011. The surge in land deals: when others are grabbing their land, evidence is piling up against acquisitions of farmland in poor countries. http://www.
economist.com/node/18648855, 5th May, 2011.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2009. Towards voluntary guidelines on responsible governance of tenure of land and other natural resources. Land Tenure
Working Paper 10. Land Tenure and Management Unit. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0955e/i0955e00.pdf
Global Campaign for Agrarian Reform and Land Research Action Network. 2010. Why we oppose the principles for responsible agricultural investment. http://www.fian.
org/resources/documents/others/why-we-oppose-the-principles-for-responsible-agricultural-investment/pdf
Global Land Project (GLP). 2010. Land Grab in Africa: emerging land system drivers in a teleconnected world. The Global Land Project: http://www.globallandproject.org/
Documents/GLP_report_01.pdf
Harvey, M., Pilgrim, S. 2011. The new competition for land: food, energy, and climate change. Food Policy, 36, S40-S51.
Oxfam. 2011. Land and power: the growing scandal surrounding the new wave of investments in land. 151 Oxfam Briefing Paper. http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/
publications/land-and-power-the-growing-scandal-surrounding-the-new-wave-of-investments-in-l-142858
World Bank. 2010. Rising global interest in farmland: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/ESW_Sept7_final_final.pdf
World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization, UNCTAD, IFAD. 2010. Principles for responsible agricultural investment that respects rights, livelihoods and resources.
http://www.responsibleagroinvestment.org/rai/node/256

Food, Biodiversity and Land Issues

23

Freshwatersand Marine Issues

Issue 011 New Insights on Water-Land Interactions: Shift in
the Management Paradigm? (Ranked #6)
Where we standR

ecent scientific research has provided a new view on
how water and land interact, from the local to global
level. For example, we are now beginning to appreciate
the enormous volumes of water appropriated by society to
produce rainfed crops. Weiss and others (2009) found that thewater transpired or evaporated each year from Africa’s rainfed
cropland (sometimes called ‘green water’ fluxes) is currently
about 6 to 7 times greater than the volume of water used inliquid form to irrigate crops (termed ‘blue water fluxes’). By
2050, the green water fluxes from African cropland could
double and be equivalent to around half of the total current
runoff from the entire continent.
Scientists are also providing new knowledge about therelationship between upland forests and downstream water flows.
As the FAO (2007) and others have pointed out, woodland areas
may be less important for the water they yield downstream, andmore vital for maintaining the quality of water by preventing
sediment and other substances from being washed downstream.
Upland forests also help regulate floods under some circumstances.
Similarly, science has uncovered subtle relationships between
land and water as in the case of ‘teleconnections’ betweenchanging land use in one place and changing precipitation
patterns at great distances away. An example is the study of
Avissar and Werth (2005) who postulate that deforestation in
Amazonia and Central Africa significantly reduces rainfall in
the lower U.S. Midwest during critical growing seasons, while
deforestation in Southeast Asia alters rainfall patterns on the
Balkan Peninsula in Europe and in China.

Credit: Shutterstock/dvande

Importance/relevanceThe new knowledge about water-land interactions has
important implications for how we manage water and land. It
suggests that the current ‘paradigm’, in which water and land
are managed largely as independent entities, is obsolete. This
new knowledge argues for a shift in the management paradigm
such that water and land are handled in an integrated fashion.

Credit: Shutterstock/sellingpix

Some scholars believe that land and water institutions havenot kept pace with the growing intensity of land use and river
basin development. This has led to an urgent need for improved
governance of land and water resources, and a closer integrationof policies targeting food security and poverty alleviation.

Options for action
How can the new management paradigm be enacted? What
options do policymakers have?
In view of the strong driving forces at work, some believethat the time is right to put sustainable land and water
management at the centre of the global development debate. A
first priority might be to develop an integrated shared vision at
the global, regional and national levels, reflected in strategies,
frameworks and investment programmes.
One specific option is to strengthen the links between land
and water management in agriculture by boosting ‘waterproductivity’, i.e., the crop yield per unit water. The basic
approach here, as explained by Falkenmark and Rockstrom(2006), is to raise crop yields through soil fertility management,
to minimize no-productive water losses by tilling soil to
improve rainfall infiltration, and to store water for dry periods
through rainwater harvesting. In principle, improving waterproductivity allows the same amount of food to be producedwith a reduced amount of water, and hence this approach
could improve food and water security in water-short regions.
Another option is to link water and land management through‘payments for ecosystem services’ or ‘green water credits’ as partof watershed management. An example of this approach isthe case in which upstream residents of a watershed are paid
to maintain the upland forest cover as a service to downstream
users, who benefit from higher water quality and in some cases

Freshwaters and Marine Issues

25fewer floods. Similarly, upstream farmers can be paid to change
their farming practices in order to reduce sediment runoff tolocal streams. The FAO (2002) has documented a case in which
farmers used a combination of contour-tillage, crop rotation,
cover crops, and other measures to reduce the sediment load to
the Lajeado-São José creek in Brazil by 69%, which substantiallyreduced costs downstream for water treatment. Water and land
management can also be linked through the implementationof the concept of ‘integrated water resources management - aholistic, ecosystem approach to help satisfy competing needs forwater and land resources.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years

result in continuing inefficiencies in the use of water and land
resources. These resources will continue to be managed mostly
in isolation of each other without realizing the benefits to begained by a more integrated approach.
An alternative pathway is for society to use its new knowledge
about water and land and incorporate this knowledge into
how it manages the environment. Integrating the managementof land and water will boost water productivity and could
produce more food per litre of water; it will reduce the runoff ofsediments and other contaminants and improve downstream
water quality. It will allow society to gain greater benefits fromboth its land and water resources.

In view of the widespread production systems at risk, notacting on the new knowledge of water-land interactions will
Background information
Avissar, R., Werth, D. 2005. Global hydroclimatological teleconnections resulting from tropical deforestation. Journal of Hydrometeorology. 6, 134-145.
Calder, I., Hofer, T., Vermont, S., Warren, P. 2007. Towards a new understanding of forests and water. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Unasylva.58, 3-10. http://
www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1598e/a1598e02.htm
Falkenmark, M., Rockstrom, J. 2006. The new blue and green water paradigm: breaking new ground for water resources planning and management. Journal of Water
Resource Planning and Management, 132, 129-132.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2002. Valuation of land use and management impacts on water resources in the Lajeado São José micro-watershed Chapecó,
Santa Catarina State, Brazil. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/watershed/watershed/en/brazilen/idxbraen.stm
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2011. The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) - Managing systems at risk. Earthscan,
LondonWeiß, M., Schaldach, R., Alcamo, J., Flörke, M. 2009. Quantifying the human appropriation of fresh water by African agriculture. Ecology and Society 14, 25. http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art25/

Issue 012 Shortcutting the Degradation of Inland Waters in
Developing Countries (Ranked #15)
Where we standO

ne of the good news stories over the past decades
has been the improvement of the water quality ofrivers and waterways in industrialized countries.
The story is different, however, in developing countries,
where freshwater degradation is increasing as a side effectof increasing population and material wealth, among otherfactors. A short list of old and new threats to inland water
quality include: poor sanitation, agricultural runoff loadedwith excess fertilizer and herbicide; residues from medicinesand other new chemical products; global climate change,
which will elevate water temperature in some world regions
and alter the dilution capacity of freshwater systems; andair pollution deposition into aquatic systems from local
and distant sources (nitrogen and sulphur compounds andsometimes heavy metals, organic compounds, and other toxic
pollutants). Ironically, another growing threat to water quality
in many developing countries is the expansion in coverage of
public water supply, as this is usually done without making
adequate provision for facilities to treat the wastewaterproduced by the new water supply infrastructure. This isleading to increased and concentrated discharge of untreatedsewage from communities to waterways, wetlands and coastal
zones. For example, a range of scenarios developed by theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) point to a factor
26

Credit: Shutterstock/Jan S.

of four- to eight-fold increase in wastewater loadings within
the next four decades over most of Africa.

Importance/relevanceThe degradation of water quality, together with pressuresfrom overfishing and the alteration of river channels, is placing
a tremendous stress on inland fisheries. This is worthy ofpolicymakers’ attention because of the importance of inland
fisheries to developing countries. First, there is the issue offood security since 95% of inland fishery harvests come from

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

developing countries, where fish are an important part ofthe protein in the diets of billions (see Issue 007 for more
information on food security). Second, there is the questionof livelihood – The World Fish Center (2008) estimates that
freshwater fish production in the tropics has an annual market
value of around US $6 billion and that around 2.5 million
people derive income from the inland fishery in Africa alone.
Third, there is the threat to biodiversity – the IUCN (2011)
estimates that more than 1 out of every 5 freshwater fish
species in Africa is threatened with extinction.
Apart from the threat to the vital inland fishery, thedegradation of water quality makes it more costly to comply
with the Millennium Development Goal for access to safe
drinking water, since contaminated surface waters have to
be treated before they are used in households. Moreover,increasing contamination of surface waters poses a new healthrisk to those using these waters for bathing, washing clothes
and other day-to-day activities.

Options for Action
In the 1950s and decades that followed, many industrializedcountries rapidly expanded their material well-being, withthe undesirable side effect of discharging a huge volume ofuntreated wastewater into their waterways. This caused
serious degradation of inland water quality, which was only
reversed many years later by costly investments in centralized
wastewater treatment. As developing countries stand on thebrink of a similar large-scale degradation of their inland
waters, they have the option of shortcutting this development
by taking advantage of forward-looking water technology

and management techniques that were not available earlier toindustrialized countries. Among the new options is ecologicallybased wastewater treatment (e.g., ‘artificial wetlands’) which
can be used to reduce the discharge of pollution. Other options
are the techniques of ‘cleaner industrial production’ which canlessen the source of pollution, and ‘zero effluent’ technology
which can virtually eliminate wastewater flows.
New management approaches are also available tocomplement these technical options. For example, ‘integrated
water resources management’ takes a holistic, ecosystemapproach to help satisfy competing needs within a river basin;
it provides a way to balance the preservation of inland fisheries
with other uses of a river basin.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
If no action is taken, it is likely that the inland waters ofdeveloping countries will go through a needless cycle ofincreasing degradation, loss of environmental services andeventual restoration. The implications of degradation include
human health impacts and a likely reduction in aquatic
production and loss of fish species.
Alternatively, developing countries could pursue theforward-looking water technology and management
techniques that were not previously available to industrializedcountries. In so doing, they can conserve the vitality of theirinland waters, protect public health, and maintain theirfisheries.

Background information
Alcamo, J., D. van Vuuren, W. Cramer, J. Alder. E. Bennett, S. Carpenter.,J. Foley, M. Maerker, T. Masui T. Morita, B. O’Neill, G. Peterson, C. Ringler, M. Rosegrant, and
K. Schulze.. 2005. Changes in ecosystem goods and services and their drivers across the scenarios. Chapter 9 in Carpenter, S., P. Pingali, E. Bennett, and M. Zurek, (eds.)
Scenarios of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, Oxford. 297-373.
Darwall, W.R.T., Smith, K.G., Allen, D.J., Holland, R.A, Harrison, I.J., and Brooks, E.G.E. (eds.). 2011. The Diversity of Life in African Freshwaters: Under Water, Under
Threat. An analysis of the status and distribution of freshwater species throughout mainland Africa. Cambridge, United Kingdom and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. http://
data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/RL-6-001.pdf
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2008. Freshwater under threat – Africa: vulnerability assessment of freshwater resources to environmental change.
United Nations Environment Programme, Kenya. http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/Freshwater_under_Threat_Africa_Pub_72dpi.pdf
UN-Water. 2009. The 3rd United Nations World Water Development Report: Water in a Changing World. http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3/
World Fish Centre. 2008. Tropical river fisheries valuation: establishing economic value to guide policy. World Fish Center Issue Brief 1890.
Zimmerman, J.B., Mihelcic J.R., Smith, J. 2008. Global stressors on water quality and quantity. Environmental Science and Technology, 42, 4247-4254

Issue 013 Potential Collapse of Oceanic Systems Requires
Integrated Ocean Governance (Ranked #13)
Where we standT

he five oceans and the three largest seas cover
approximately 71% of the Earth and have long faced
threats to their long-term integrity due to humanactivities. Growing evidence e.g., from Munday and others(2010) and Rogers and Laffoley (2011), indicates that thesethreats are increasing in number and severity. Some changes
have reached tipping points that could have serious and farreaching social, economic and environmental consequences.
This is exemplified by the sobering estimate by FAO(2010) that 85% of marine fisheries in 2008 were either
fully exploited, over exploited or depleted. In addition, theunabated land and marine-based pollution of our oceans andseas has prompted changes to their chemistry, temperaturesand currents which have led to ocean acidification; biodiversity
loss; widespread habitat destruction; proliferation of invasive
species; and simplification of ecosystems. The magnitude of
the cumulative impact of these changes on oceanic systems is
not yet fully comprehended.

Freshwaters and Marine Issues

27

Importance/relevance
The world’s oceans and seas provide invaluable
environmental, social and economic services. These include
earth system functions such as regulating climate and thehydrological cycle; affording habitat for a rich and abundant
diversity of organisms; providing an important source of foodprotein to more than 1 billion people; providing a large sink
for atmospheric carbon dioxide; and being a major producerof oxygen. Oceans connect countries and continents andprovide a wealth of services that benefit human well-being,such as energy, mineral and biotechnology resources andrecreational opportunities. Oceanic systems are, therefore,of critical importance to global trade, economy, peace andsecurity. Hence, the need for effective management of oceanic
systems cannot be overstated.

Options for action
Rather than leading to effective management, thegovernance of the oceans now consists of a plethora of binding
and non-binding rules and protocols, as well as soft and hardagreements, and a myriad of international, regional and national
bureaucracies. Crowder and others (2006) reported that atleast 20 federal agencies are responsible for implementing morethan 140 federal ocean-related statutes in the United Statesalone. Some believe this crowded institutional landscape is
too fragmented and incoherent to address the challenges
facing oceanic systems in the 21st century. Hence, experts
including Behnam (2009), Ivanova (2007) and others, suggestthat the current ocean governance architecture will need to be
re-shaped in order to prevent a collapse of oceanic systems.
Such reform is also needed to safeguard ocean resources into
the future, and to respond appropriately and effectively to thechallenges of climate change and food security. What are theoptions for re-shaping ocean governance?

Credit: UN Photo/Martine Perret

Another option for action, which particularly addresses thefragmentation of current ocean management, is to establish
a new coordinating body for ocean governance. This body
would provide a platform under which countries could
cooperate on critical marine environment issues. Experts at the2011 workshop mentioned above recommended that this be a‘global body that can ensure compliance with the Law of the
Sea treaty’ and that the new body be empowered to establish‘new rules, regulations and procedures where necessary to
implement these requirements [compliance with the Law of
the Sea] in an ecosystem-based and precautionary manner.’
This coordinating body would need to have representation andinfluence at the highest political levels, and at the same time
give voice to the wider constituency having interests in theworld’s oceans and seas.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years

One option noted by Alder (2004), Worm (2010) andothers is to harmonize fishing laws across countries toprevent the spreading of unsustainable fishing practices
from industrialized countries to developing countries where
legislation is less stringent.

Ignoring the need to reform international ocean governanceand failing to embrace interdisciplinary approaches tomanaging the world’s oceans will mean that marine ecosystems
will continue to be unsustainably exploited. This will almost
certainly lead to the continued decline and eventual collapseof oceanic systems, with inevitable implications for livelihoods
and human well-being.

Another option, as recommended by experts at a workshop
convened by the International Programme on State of the
Ocean in 2011, is to ‘establish a globally comprehensive andrepresentative system of marine protected areas to conserve
biodiversity, to build resilience, and to ensure ecologicallysustainable fisheries with minimal ecological footprint.’

However, if effective coordinated action is taken to reduce
exploitation rates of marine ecosystems and otherwise better
manage the marine environment, it is still possible to envisiona seascape where the rebuilding, conservation and sustainable
use of marine resources become unifying themes for science,
management and society.

Background information
Alder, J., Sumaila, U.R. 2004. Western Africa: A fish basket of Europe past and present. Journal of Environment and Development, 13, 156-178
Behnam, A. 2009. New and emerging challenges to ocean governance. International Ocean Institute. http://www.oceansportal.org/articles/view/136777.
Crowder, L.B., Osherenko, G., Young, O.R., Airame, S., Norse, E.A., Baron, N., Day, J.C., Douvere, F., Ehler, C.N., Halpern, B.S., Langdon, S.J., McLeod, K.L., Ogden,
J.C., Peach, R.E., Rosenberg, A.A., Wilson, J.A. 2006. Resolving mismatches in U.S. ocean governance. Science, 313, 617–618
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2010. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2010. Rome, FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e.pdf
Ivanova, M., Roy, J. 2007. The architecture of global environmental governance pros and cons of multiplicity. In Swart, L., Perry, E. (eds.). Global Environmental
Governance: Perspectives on the Current Debate, Center for UN Reform Education, New York, 48-66
Munday, P.L., Dixson, D.L., McCormick, M.I., Meekan, M., Ferrari, M.C.O., Chivers, D.P. 2010. Replenishment of fish populations is threatened by ocean acidification.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 12930-12934.
Rogers, A.D., Laffoley, D. 2011. Summary report: International Earth System Expert Workshop on Ocean Stresses and Impacts. International Programme on State of the
Ocean. Oxford. http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf
Worm, B., Hilborn R., Baum J.K., Branch, T.A., Collie, J.S., Fogarty, C.C.M.J., Fulton, E.A., Hutchings, J.A., Jennings, S., Jensen, O.P., Lotze, H.K., Mace, P.M.,
McClanahan, T.R., Minto, C., Palumbi, S.R., Parma, A.M., Ricard, D., Rosenberg, A., Watson, R., Zeller, D. 2009. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science, 325, 578-585.

28

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Issue 014 Coastal Ecosystems: Addressing Increasing
Pressures with Adaptive Governance (Ranked #19)
Where we standT

he world’s coastal ecosystems are coming underincreasing pressure from human activities. Amongthese pressures are: growing coastal development;
expansion of capture fisheries and fish farming; increased
pollution caused by agricultural and industrial activities(including oil exploration and production); and risingdemands on coastal resources from global markets and urban
areas. Moreover, the consequences of climate change such assea level rise, ocean acidification and ocean warming are also
becoming apparent.

In the same vein, beaches and sandy shores provide services
such as recreation and tourism which produce a substantial
number of jobs for people living in the coastal zone. Coral
reefs also support a rich variety of marine life, which in turnsupports a thriving and valuable tourism industry.
Globally speaking, mangroves, sea grasses and other socalled ‘blue carbon habitats’ play an essential role in climate
regulation. UNEP (2009) has estimated that the uptakeof atmospheric carbon dioxide by these habitats adds up toaround 120 to 329 teragrams of carbon per year. When the
uptake by estuaries is added, the total carbon dioxide stored isestimated to be between 235 and 450 teragrams of carbon peryear – or the equivalent of up to about half the emissions fromthe entire global transport sector.
These examples highlight the importance and urgency of
seeking a workable management approach for coastal ecosystems.

Options for Action

Credit: UNEP Grid Arendal/Peter Prokosch

Under threat are domestic economies, food security, the wellbeing of small-scale fishermen, and the integrity of coral reefs andother coastal ecosystems. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(2005) reported that over the last few decades approximately 35%
of mangroves have been lost or converted, and approximately
20% of coral reefs worldwide have been destroyed and 20%
degraded. A UNEP report in 2009 confirmed that key habitats
supporting coastal ecosystems are declining in area.
Unfortunately, according to studies by Burroughs (2011),
Gelcich and others (2010), current management approaches
seem to be inadequate to address these growing pressures.

Importance/relevanceTwo-thirds of the world’s largest cities are situated in coastal
areas and are at the same time the cause and casualty ofpressures on coastal ecosystems, with many millions depending
on coastal ecosystems for goods and services. In extreme cases,
as in the Small Island Developing States, the population fully
depends on the coastal and oceanic environment for theirlivelihoods and lives. Mangroves and coral reef habitats within
the coastal regions provide habitat for fish and other seafood,and are an important source of food, in particular protein, toa large fraction of the coastal population. Fish harvesting in
the coastal zone is also a significant economic factor, with anestimated market value of US$ 34 billion annually, according
to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).

How then to respond to increasing pressures on the coastal
environment? One answer lies in the concept of adaptive
governance which provides a new way of achieving sustainable
management of the coastal zone. This approach has been usedon the Great Barrier Reef system in Australia, the Baltic Sea,
southern ocean fisheries, and numerous coastal areas.
Adaptive governance is a flexible, integrated and holistic formof governance that takes into account the inherent problems ofcomplexity, uncertainty, change, and fragmentation associatedwith the interrelated social, economic and environmental
systems of the coastal zone. Adaptive governance addresses
these problems by creating conditions that:q encourage integrated planningq facilitate dialogue between stakeholders
q promote enhanced learning of complex socio-ecologicalsystems
q promote experimentation and innovation, andq support cross-scale and multi-level institutional linkages
Adaptive governance of coastal ecosystems could provide theflexibility needed for dealing with uncertainties in the coastalzone having to do with climate effects, rapidly developing
market demands, or changes to economic subsidies andgovernment policies. The required leadership, trust andvision is provided by key stakeholders, such as policymakers,
scientists, private organizations, local communities, networks
and other interested parties. If adaptive governance is toFreshwaters and Marine Issues

29help achieve sustainable management of the coastal zone,
stakeholders need to be informed about this approach andtrained in its practice.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
Not acting to create a viable, comprehensive governancestructure in coastal areas could mean a continuation of thedegradation of coastal ecosystems. This, in turn, could leadto a loss of the goods and services these ecosystems provide

including food, livelihoods, tourist income and climate
regulation.
But pursuing adaptive governance could help safeguard
coastal ecosystems. The future could see a productive coastal
zone, sustainably managed with the participation of a wide
range of stakeholders. Along the coast there will be a viable
fishery, preserved wetlands, and a thriving recreation andtourism industry, all providing valuable goods and services tothe large population living on the edges of the continents.

Background information
Adaptive governance descriptions from various institutions: United Nations University (UNU) - http://www.ias.unu.edu/sub_page.aspx?catID=155&ddlID=299; Stockholm
Resilience Centre - http://www.stockholmresilience.org/3173.html; International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) - http://www.iisd.org/measure/principles/gov/
Burroughs, R. 2011. Coastal Governance. Island Press, Washington, DC
Gelcich, S., Hughes, T.P., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Defeo, O., Fernández, M., Foale, S., Gunderson, L.H., Rodríguez-Sieker, C., Scheffer, M., Steneck, R., Castilla, J.C. 2010.
Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, 107, 16794-16799
Nellemann, C., Corcoran, E., Duarte, C. M., Valdés, L., De Young, C., Fonseca, L., Grimsditch, G. (Eds). 2009. Blue carbon: the role of healthy oceans in binding carbon.
United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, www.grida.no/files/publications/blue-carbon/BlueCarbon_screen.pdf
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Coastal systems. Chapter 19 of Vol 1. www.maweb.org/documents/document.288.aspx.pdf

30

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Climate
Change Issues

Issue 015 New Challenges for Climate Change Mitigation
and Adaptation: Managing the Unintended
Consequences (Ranked #7)
Where we standThere are signs that the tempo of mitigation andadaptation to climate change may be speeding up at alllevels. At the city level, many adaptation strategies andpolicies are being developed in European, North Americanand Latin American cities. At the international level, progresshas been made in several countries to control greenhousegas emissions, as documented by the Secretariat of the
Framework Convention on Climate Change (2011). At the2011 climate summit in Cancun, countries went further andmade substantial pledges to control or reduce greenhouse gas
emissions as part of a comprehensive agreement. Countries also
agreed to provide substantial international support for climate
adaptation by setting up an Adaptation Fund, a Green Climate
Fund and the Cancun Adaptation Framework (see Issue 018
about the motivation to accelerate the use of renewable energy
in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions).
As efforts to cope with climate change pick up pace, a new
aspect of climate protection is becoming more important:researchers and experts are alerting the policy communitythat scaling up mitigation and adaptation actions could haveunintended negative consequences on nature and society.
There are scale-up effects such as those caused by expanding
the use of wind generators from a few scattered turbines tolarge wind parks. Such concentrations of wind generators in
the landscape may obstruct bird migration and have otherimpacts that isolated turbines are less likely to have.
There are reductions of ecosystem services, when, for example, sea
walls are built to protect the coastal population from storm surges.
These sea walls could hinder the landward migration of beaches
and coastal wetlands that would normally occur in response to
sea level rise. The loss of these wetlands would mean the lossof habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife; recreation; erosion
control; access to offshore areas, and other goods and services.

Credit: Shutterstock/Wil Tilroe-Otte

There are economic impacts associated with the replacementof one service with a more expensive one. An example of thisis replacing electricity derived from a coal or oil-fired power
plant with more expensive electricity from photovoltaics orwind generators (although the full life cycle costs of electricity
derived from fossil fuels, including its environmental andsocial costs, are usually not reflected in market prices). Thisreplacement could also result in stranded physical, financial
and human assets, with varying remaining useful lives.
Another case is the replacement of traditional agricultural
practices with those better adapted to new climate conditions.
These new practices could be more expensive because of new
requirements for seeds and irrigation, for example.
There are social impacts, such as those which arise whenenergy crop production in a developing country competes
with domestic food production or clashes with the land rights
of inhabitants of agricultural land.
There are also possible risks to the global climate system
posed by various geoengineering schemes. For instance,some concepts, such as enhancing the albedo of the earth byinjecting sulphur compounds into the stratosphere or placing
platforms in orbit to reflect incoming solar radiation, will havean uncertain and possibly disruptive impact on regional energybalances and weather patterns. This is aside from the ethical,
moral and social concerns associated with geoengineering
raised by Robock (2008) among others.

Importance/relevanceIn sum, climate mitigation and adaptation measures could
have a range of possible negative side effects which could leadto a loss of public support for needed climate policies.

Options for action
Credit: Shutterstock/megainarmy

32

To protect the climate system and avoid climate impacts,
it is in society’s interest to find a way for forging ahead with

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

mitigation and adaptation actions while at the same time
avoiding or minimizing their undesirable side effects. How canthis be accomplished?
The first option is to anticipate and address these side effects. Thiscan be done by ensuring the social, economic and environmental
impacts of a particular policy or measure are evaluated before it
is implemented. Many well-developed standard methodologies
are available for these evaluations, including integrated
assessment, environmental impact assessment, or regulation
impact assessment. Which procedure to use will depend on theparticular plan for mitigation or adaptation. Once potential
negative impacts are identified, policymakers have the chance totake actions to minimize them in advance.
The second option is to consider not only one, but several,
mitigation or adaptation alternatives. This would allow
policymakers to select an alternative that balances technicaleffectiveness, with cost effectiveness and minimal negative side
effects. For example a pre-assessment may disclose that two
prospective wind farm sites are equally effective technicallyand cost-wise, but one of the two would cause significantly
fewer disturbances to birds and other wildlife.
Apart from anticipating impacts and examining different
alternatives, another option is to develop general guidelines on

how to minimize the undesirable side effects of specific policies
and measures. For example, in 2009 the State of Arizona issued
guidelines on how to minimize the environmental impacts ofwind turbines, suggesting practical measures such as setting
up buffer zones with wildlife nesting areas, placing power lines
underground and avoiding lighting that attracts wildlife.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
If society goes ahead with climate mitigation and adaptationin the next few years without accounting for possible
undesirable side effects, it is possible that public support forthese measures may eventually decline and emission reductions
slowed. As a consequence, greenhouse gases may build up in
the atmosphere at a higher than expected rate and the lack ofadaptation may leave society exposed to future climate change
impacts.
If, however, society begins to take a broader view towards
climate policies, insisting that any side effects are assessed
before going forward, then we may find ways to minimize
or avoid these unintended consequences. Likewise, climate
policies will have a higher level of public acceptance andsociety will be in a better position to mitigate and adapt toclimate change.

Background information
Carter, J.G. 2011. Climate change adaptation in European cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 193-198.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2011. Literature review on the potential impacts of climate related geo-engineering on biodiversity. Convention on Biological
Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cc/lgcrg-eng-01/official/lgcrg-eng-01-03-en.pdf.
Hardoy, J., Lankao, P.R. 2011. Latin American cities and climate change: challenges and options to mitigation and adaptation responses. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 3, 158-163
Phalan, B. 2009. The social and environmental impacts next term of biofuels in Asia: an overview. Applied Energy, 86, 21-29
Robock, A. 2008. 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea, Bull. Atomic Scientists 64, 14-18. http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf
State of Arizona. 2009. Guidelines for reducing impacts to wildlife from wind energy development in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department. http://www.azgfd.gov/
hgis/pdfs/WindEnergyGuidelines.pdf
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2011. National reports. http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php
Wheeler S.M. 2008. State and municipal climate change plans: the first generation. Journal of American Planning Association. 74, 481-496.
Zimmerman, R. Faris, C. 2011. Climate change mitigation and adaptation in North America cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 181-187.

Issue 016 Acting on the Signal of Climate Change in the
Changing Frequency of Extreme Events (Ranked #16)
Where we standFor some years, the scientific community has used models
to demonstrate that climate change could theoreticallyalter the intensity, distribution, and, or, frequency ofoccurrence of extreme events. Such events include heat waves,
floods, droughts, dust and sand storms, strong winds andhurricanes. In an important new development, theoretical results
are beginning to be confirmed by comparing climate modelling
results against observational evidence of changes in the frequencyof extreme events. Li and other scientists (2011) recently linked
anthropogenic global warming to the observed intensificationof the ‘North Atlantic Subtropical High.’ This meteorologicalevent, in turn, is associated with an increase in summer rainfall
variability in the Southeast United States from 1978 to 2007.

Credit: UN Photo/UNICEF/Marco Dormino

Climate Change Issues

33about an impending event and provide time for evacuationor other actions. Such early warning systems have existed
for some time for climate-related threats such as hurricanes,
heat waves and droughts. But despite the great strides madein implementing and using climate-related warning systems
over the past few years, these systems still have the following
limitations:q Most deal with only one aspect of climate-related risks or
hazards, e.g., heat waves or drought.

Credit: UN Photo/Martine Perret

Another study by Pall and others (2011) found it ‘very
likely that global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence in Englandand Wales in autumn 2000’. Meanwhile, Min and colleagues(2011) found evidence of human influence on ‘observed
intensification of heavy precipitation events’ over much of theland area of the Northern Hemisphere during the second halfof the 20th century.

Importance/relevance
These new studies have very important implications.
First, they show that we are beginning to detect the signal ofclimate change in the changing frequency of extreme events.
Put another way, they increase the body of evidence thatclimate change can/will alter the frequency of these events,
and imply that this is already happening.
Second, they add urgency to plans for preparing for an
increase in extreme events since these events may result in theloss of lives, cause economic damage and displace populations,
as is already being observed. (see Issue 006 for more informationon the climate-migration link). For example, in 2011 MunichRE, the world’s largest reinsurance company, estimated thathydro-meteorological hazards are responsible for 67% and
85% of economic and insurance losses, respectively. They
further reported that in 2010 alone, 874 weather and climate
related disasters resulted in 68,000 deaths and US$99 billion
damages worldwide. Data from the EM-DAT extreme events
database indicate that there were nearly 72,000 deaths in 15
countries resulting from the 2003 European heat wave andmore than 138,000 deaths due to the 2008 Nargis tropical
cyclone.
However, it is important to note that while evidenceis growing about the influence of climate change on thefrequency of extreme events, it is still very difficult to attributeindividual weather events to long term climate change.

Options for action
An obvious way to prepare for an increase in extreme eventsis to rethink, as well as further develop and implement early
warning systems that alert the population and authorities
34

q Most systems do not cover the entire early warning
landscape from monitoring of meteorological data todelivery and response of users.
q The communication of warnings and outreach to users
needs improvement in most systems.
q Most systems have large gaps in geographic coverage.
It is now technically possible to address these shortcomings
and work towards a comprehensive global climate-related
early warning system. The German Committee on Disaster
Reduction (2009), UNEP (2011) and other groups havepointed out various options for expanding early warning
systems such as:
q Covering many different hazards in a single system
including: droughts, floods, wildfires, heat waves, andwind storms.
q Covering the entire early warning landscape end-to-end
from data collection to response of users and feedback tothose collecting data and issuing warnings.
q Giving special emphasis to improving the efficiency andeffectiveness of the dissemination of warnings directly
to users and providing assistance to users in developing
response plans. People and institutions need to be preparedfor how to respond to early warning so that warnings canbe easily translated to effective responses. In this vein,adequate public awareness is needed about the existence ofearly warning systems and effective communication mustbe put in place.
q Expanding the coverage of early warning systems to all
populated continents, with special emphasis on developing
countries.
Apart from early warning, other measures can be taken
to prepare for an increase of extreme events. Many of thesemeasures are already covered under international efforts at‘disaster risk reduction’. For example, the UN’s International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2008) mentions the plantingof mangrove forests to ameliorate the impacts of coastal storm
surges; incorporating climate risk-related considerations
in macro-economic projection and development planning
processes; and building up national institutions for responding
to emergencies.

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
Not acting on the new evidence of the changing frequency
and magnitude of extreme events will mean a lost opportunity
to prevent the loss of lives, protect livelihoods, reduce
economic damage and population displacement, and theirassociated socio-economic consequences.

Taking action now could help reduce the risk to lives,
livelihoods and properties. Moreover, it could also enhance
economic development in developing countries exposed toclimate extremes by helping them avoid damage from climaterelated disasters.

Background information
EM-DAT, viewed 02 August 2011 http://www.emdat.be/
German Committee for Disaster Reduction. 2009. Birkmann, J.Tetzlaff, G., Zentel, K.O. (eds.) Addressing the challenge: recommendations and quality criteria for linking
disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change. DKKV Publication Series 38, Bonn. www.dkkv.org/de/ressource.asp?ID=282
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2011. Summary for Policymakers. In: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Managing theRisks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.
D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S. K., Tignor, M., Midgley, P.M. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
Li, W., Li, L., Fu, R., Deng, Y., Wang, H. 2011. Changes to the north atlantic subtropical high and its role in the intensification of summer rainfall variability in theSoutheastern United States. Journal of Climate, 24, 1499–1506.
Min, S-K., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F., Hegerl, G. 2011. Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes. Nature. 470, 378–381.
Munich RE. 2011. Great natural catastrophes world-wide 1950-2010. NatCatSERVICE, Munich RE
Pall, P., Aina, T., Stone, D., Stott, P., Nozawa, T., Hilberts, A., Lohmann, D., Allen, M. 2011. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England andWales in autumn 2000 Nature, 470, 382–385.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011. Early warning systems: state-of-the-art analysis and future direction. Draft Report. United Nations Environment
Programme. www.na.unep.net/geas/docs/Early_Warning_System_Report.pdf
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). 2008. Briefing Note 1 – Climate change and disaster risk reduction. http://www.preventionweb.
net/files/4146_ClimateChangeDRR.pdf

Issue 017 Managing the Impacts of Glacier Retreat (Ranked #21)
Where we standC

urrent trends show that a large number of the world’s
glaciers are undergoing significant retreat. For example,
Bury and others (2011) reported that the Yanamarey
glacier in Peru is retreating at an average annual rate of 30 m,
and Bajracharya and other scientists (2007) noted that Mount
Everest’s glaciers are receding annually by 10 to 59 m.
There are also indications that the rate of retreat isaccelerating. According to a 2007 UNEP report, 30 worldwide
glaciers monitored by the Global Terrestrial Network for
Glaciers showed an average mass loss of 0.58 m water for the
decade 1996–2005, more than twice the rate for the period
1986-1995, and more than four times the rate recorded during
the period 1976-85.

Importance/relevance
These changes are posing various threats to people andecosystems.
An already existing threat is posed by glacial lakes that arebuilding up below the melting glaciers. The natural dams
forming these lakes sometimes collapse causing devastating‘glacial lake outburst floods’ (GLOF) that have caused fatalities
downstream and extensive property damage. For example, aflood outburst in Norway damaged farmlands, while anotherin Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan caused many fatalities anddestroyed numerous livestock, crops, pastures and buildings.
Furthermore, glacier retreat uncovers stones and mud andthereby increases the risk of landslides.
Another threat is the long term change to water availability
in river basins downstream of glaciers. Initially, as glaciers

Credit: UNEP Grid Arendal/Peter Prokoschmelt, downstream runoff increases. But as glaciers graduallydisappear annual runoff also decreases and become
proportional to precipitation in the river basin. The impact ofmelting on seasonal runoff is particularly important. Glacial
melt plays an especially important role in making water
available to highland areas that have a pronounced dry season,such as the Peruvian Andes and the Central Asian Pamirs.
Here, glacial melt provides water supply to upland, as well as
lowland inhabitants throughout the dry season. But as glaciers
diminish, this vital seasonal supply of water will also eventuallydiminish.
The potential decrease in seasonal water supply may
strain relations between competing water users. An example
is Central Asia, where there is potential for disagreement
among the different sovereign states over the distribution ofwater originating from glaciers. This is equally true for the
Himalayan region.

Climate Change Issues

35

The retreat of glaciers has also been linked by Bajracharya(2009), Immeerzeel (2010), Xu (2009) and their co-authors tovarious types of ecological degradation including a decrease inbiodiversity, shifts in marginal ecosystems, and loss of soil carbon.

Options for action
Although the coverage of glacier monitoring is improving, itneeds to be extended to more locations. We also need a better
understanding of the hydrological consequences of glacial melt
and its impact on individuals, social groups, the economy andinstitutions. With better knowledge, stakeholders will be able
to develop better strategies for coping with glacier melting.
Two technical options are to design early warning systems
for GLOFs, and to draw down glacial lakes to lessen the riskof an outburst, as Nepal is doing.
Possible actions for coping with adverse changes in seasonal
water supply in upland areas include improving the efficiencyof water use, introducing irrigation, or switching to droughtresilient crops. For coping with the possibility of more
frequent floods, there are many conventional alternatives, suchas building embankments or setting aside land for floodways.
A general strategy for coping with changing glacier melt
in a particular river basin would be to follow an ‘integrated
water resource management’ (IWRM) approach. As noted
earlier in this report, IWRM provides general guidelines forplanning water use in a river basin and affords a framework forincorporating the interests of many different stakeholders inthe basin. IWRM helps planners account for many different
factors determining the basin’s water supply, includingchanging glacier melt.

Credit: UNEP Grid Arendal/Lawrence Hislop

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
Many glaciers around the world are rapidly melting andover the coming decades the consequences of this melting will
become increasingly apparent. Some downstream populations
may be threatened by flooding from glacial lakes, and someupland areas will experience a disruption in their seasonal watersupply. If preparations are not made for these changes, thenthe safety and livelihoods of many people may be threatened.
If adaptive action is taken, the population will be better
equipped to cope with the consequences of glacier melting.
Monitoring and early warning systems will help protect the
population from being surprised by lake outbursts or otherflooding from rapid ice and snow melt. Glaciers may continue
to disappear, but the risk to people will be better managed.

Background information
Bajracharya, S.R., Mool, P.K., Shrestha, B.R. 2007. Impact of climate change on Himalayan glaciers and glacial lakes: case studies on GLOF and associated hazards in Nepal
and Bhutan. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Bajracharya, S.R., Mool, P. 2009. Glaciers, glacial lakes and glacial lake outburst floods in the Mount Everest region, Nepal. Annals of Glaciology, 50, 81-86
Bury, J., Mark, B.G., McKenzie, J.M., French, A., Baraer, M., Huh, K.I., Zapata Luyo, M.A., Gomez Lopez, R.J. 2011. Glacier recession and human vulnerability in the
Yanamarey watershed of the Cordillera Blanca Peru. Climatic Change, 105, 179-206
Immerzeeel, W.W., van Beek, L.P.H., Bierkens, M.F.P. 2010. Climate change will affect the Asian Water Towers. Science, 328, 1382-1385
UNEP. 2007. Global outlook for ice and snow. http://www.unep.org/geo/geo_ice/
Xu, J., Grumbine, R.E., Shrestha, A., Eriksson, M., Yang, X., Wang, Y., Wilkes, A. 2009. The melting Himalayas: cascading effects of climate change on water, biodiversity,and livelihoods. Conservation Biology, 23, 520–530

36

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Energy,Technology,
and Waste Issues

Issue 018 Accelerating the Implementation ofEnvironmentally-Friendly Renewable Energy
Systems (Ranked #7)
Where we standAt the 2010 climate summit in Cancun, governments
again called for deep cuts in global greenhouse gas
emissions and urgent action to meet this goal. How
can this goal be reached? One answer is given in the 2007
report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) which states that ‘…all stabilization scenarios [ofCO2 in the atmosphere] concur that 60-80% of all [emission]
reductions would come from the energy and industry sectors’.
Later, in its Special Report on Renewable Sources of Energy
and Climate Change Mitigation, the IPCC (2011) asserted
that close to 80% of the world´s energy supply could be met
by low- or no-carbon renewables by mid-century, if the rightenabling public policies are put into place. Hence, renewableenergy has a vital role to play in the ‘urgent action’ on climate
protection called for in Cancun. There are, of course, otherbenefits of renewable energy, including: enhanced energy
security due to the reduced dependence of some countries onimported fossil fuels; increased public health protection due tolower air pollution; and new employment opportunities.

Importance/relevance
Despite the key role and high potential of renewable energy
in mitigating climate change, it will not automatically replace
conventional fuels in the world’s energy economy. According
to IPCC (2007), ‘under the business-as-usual case of continued
growing energy demand, renewables are not expected togreatly increase their market share over the next few decades
without continued and sustained policy intervention.’ Simply
put, accelerating the implementation of a renewable energy
economy will require special effort.

Credit: Shutterstock/alphaspirit

What is holding back renewable energy? The answer isa variety of economic, institutional, social, and technicalbarriers. According to the IPCC (2011), these include market
failures, up-front costs, financial risk, and lack of data. The list
also includes: inadequate public and institutional awareness;
38

Credit: UN Photo/R Kollar

incompatibility with energy infrastructure and market
regulations; inappropriate intellectual property laws; trade
regulations; lack of amenable policies and programs; and land
use conflicts. A lack of skilled labour is an additional factor. A
UNEP report from 2008 noted that Germany and the USA
have a shortage of qualified workers in the renewable energy
field, and Brazil, China and other countries suffered from thesame in the ‘green’ sector of the economy (see also Issue 002
on the need for the transformation of human capabilities inorder to meet environmental challenges and move towards a
Green Economy).

Options for action
How can these numerous barriers to the implementation ofrenewable energy be overcome?
One approach is to improve the economic competitivenessof renewable energy, compared to conventional energy sources,
through public financing policies (tax credits, incentives andrebates); special pricing and purchasing power rules (lowinterest loans, feed-in-tariffs for electricity); lower transaction
costs; and improved communication and awareness about
renewable energy resources.
There are many other options for providing positive
incentives for using renewable energy. These options include:
renewable energy promotion policies (e.g., policies supporting
cost reductions, public investments and market facilitation
activities, and those supporting access to the power grid);transport biofuel policies (e.g., biofuel tax subsidies);
emissions reduction policies (e.g., cap and trade, greenhousegas mitigation); electric power restructuring policies (e.g.,
privatization and, or, commercialization of utilities; self
generation; unbundling of generation, transmission anddistribution); and rural electrification policies (e.g., rural
electrification extension and energy service concessions, ruralbusiness development, and microcredit).

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

The implementation of renewable energy can also be
accelerated by resolving issues of property rights; engaging
local communities and authorities in the energy decisionmaking process; facilitating the integration of renewableenergy in the energy grid; increasing technology transfer,including the pooling of technology resources and knowledge
among countries; and organizing training programmes to
produce the needed skilled workers. Overall, the aim should
be to ensure ways of stimulating and promoting changes inthe energy system that include government and deployment
policies to create a market for renewable energy technologies.
It is important to note that all of these actions would haveto be tailored to the unique economic, political, cultural andnational circumstances of a particular country.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
Failure to realize the full potential of renewable energy
systems globally, may make it impossible to abide by theclimate protection goals of Cancun, including the two degree
target. Over the coming decades, this would result in increased
environmental, social and economic impacts due to climatechange. Furthermore, a slow implementation of renewableenergy could also slow progress to a low-carbon or a green
economy and sustainable development.
But if we act now, the world will look different in 10 to 20
years. The level of greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced,
which will ultimately slow the rate of global warming. A large
number of workers around the world will be employed in the
renewable energy sector. The world energy mix will be morediverse; many countries will be less dependent on fossil fuels
and have a higher degree of energy security. Clean renewableenergy will replace some fossil fuel use and this will reduce
local and regional air pollution and alleviate its adverse affects
on health and crops. Clean renewable energy will also be
used in poor rural areas, helping to alleviate poverty. All inall, speeding up the wide use of renewable energy will have asubstantial payoff.

Background information
Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate change. Conference of Parties 16. (Decision 1/CP.16),
Cancun, Mexico.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A. (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2011: Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change
Mitigation [Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Matschoss, P., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., Schlömer, S., Von Stechow,
C. (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Lund, H. 2010. The implementation of renewable energy systems: lessons learned from the Danish case. Energy, 35, 4003-4009.
Mondal, A.H., Linda Kamp, M., Pachova, N.I. 2010. Drivers, barriers, and strategies for implementation of renewable energy technologies in rural areas in Bangladesh – aninnovation system analysis. Energy Policy, 38, 4626-4634.
Umbach, F. 2010. Global energy security and the implications for the EU energy policy. Energy Policy, 38, 1229-1240.
UNEP. 2008. Green jobs: towards decent work in a sustainable, low-carbon world. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute. http://www.unep.org/labour_environment/
PDFs/Greenjobs/UNEP-Green-Jobs-Report.pdf

Issue 019 Greater Risk than Necessary? The Need for a
New Approach for Minimizing Risks of Novel
Technologies and Chemicals (Ranked #10)
Where we standThere is little doubt that novel technologies andchemicals have contributed to a higher standard ofliving, at least in industrialized countries. But it is also
evident that some technological innovations and chemicals
pose risks in the form of unforeseen or unexpected side
effects and intentional uses for harmful purposes. Examples
of unforeseen side effects include: contamination caused by
nuclear accidents and high-level radioactive wastes; airborne
and waterborne transport of dioxin and other toxic substances;and stratospheric ozone depletion (see Issue 020 for a
description of the risks from electronic waste). Well-known
examples of technological applications for harmful purposes
include the widespread use of poison gas during World War
I and the acquisition of nuclear and biological weapons as acoercive strategy in international relations.

Credit: Shutterstock/Shilova Ekaterina

Energy, Technology, and Waste Issues

39

Although society has experienced many health andenvironmental impacts of technology and chemicals, we are still
fixed in a pattern by which new technologies and chemicals areusually first produced and disseminated, and only afterwards
assessed more closely for any negative impacts. Consider thenumber of toxic chemicals released into the environment andonly later found to pose risks to public health and ecosystems.
According to an OECD study cited by ChemSec (2011), very
few of the 1500 most commonly used chemical substances within
the OECD have been adequately assessed in term of their risk
to human health and 10 % have not been examined at all. The
study further claimed that virtually none have been thoroughly
examined in terms of their environmental effects. In a 2007
report, the European Environment Agency asserted that ‘only
14% of more than 2000 high production volume chemicals
had basic toxicology information; 65% has less than base-set
data and 21% had no data at all’. Yet the same report stated thatchemical industries are growing worldwide, with global trade inchemicals increasing at an average rate of 14% per year between
2000 and 2005. Furthermore, according to OECD (2008), there
has been a shift of chemicals production, including new ones,
from OECD countries to the BRIICS countries - Brazil, Russia,
India, Indonesia, China, and South Africa and other developing
countries, which in many cases lack the capacity, infrastructure andregulatory control for their sound environmental management.
The resultant effect of this is the increasing risk of exposure of the
population in developing countries to toxic substances.

management approach by which the implications ofnovel technologies and chemicals are systematically andcomprehensively assessed before they reach the production phase.
The aim would be to minimize or avoid risks to society and nature.
Some institutions are moving in this direction. The amended EU
Cosmetics Directive (2009) requires that manufacturers reportcosmetic products containing nanomaterials to the European
Commission six months prior to releasing such products.
Meanwhile, the 2011 REACH regulations of the European
Union (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restrictionof Chemical substances) aim to improve the protection ofhuman health and the environment ‘through better and early
identification of the intrinsic properties of chemical substances.’
Despite some progress, the overall institutional landscapefalls short of providing a comprehensive, anticipatory approach
to novel technologies and chemicals. The problem is that someareas of this landscape are fragmented, as in the case of themultiple Multilateral Environmental Agreements dealing with
toxic chemicals. In other areas institutions are competing
rather than cooperating with one another. Elsewhere, there is avacuum, as in the potential impacts of climate geoengineering,where no international institution is taking responsibility formaking ongoing comprehensive assessments.
A comprehensive and anticipatory approach will likely
require the modification of existing institutions, or perhaps thefoundation of new institutions. Policymakers could consider,for example, organizing a new international governancesystem which would produce, and potentially oversee, newinternational procedures to identify dangerous side effects oftechnologies and chemicals before they are produced. Such agovernance system would be:
q Anticipatory, to avoid the difficulties of regulating
technologies and chemicals once they move beyond theconfines of the laboratory;

Credit: Shutterstock/Ulrich Mueller

Importance/relevanceThe question is whether society continues to take a reactive
approach to risks of technology and chemicals or, instead, takes
a more proactive stance. This is an urgent question because
we constantly have to make decisions about new chemicals
or innovations such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology,
or genetically modified organisms. In fact, Unger and others(2002) argue that the pace of introducing new technologies
has increased, while the role of regulatory bodies in protecting
the public from consequences of these technologies has
diminished. In a similar vein, a US National Research Council
report (2002) concluded that federal regulatory efforts havenot kept pace with recent advances in animal biotechnology.

q Impartial, to avoid situations in which influential actors
sit in judgment regarding matters of safety and security
relating to their own products;
q Aware of the need to deal with the risks arising frominteractions among multiple technologies developed for
different purposes;
q Universal, in order to address the global reach of newtechnologies, and ensure that individual countries andtheir corporate interests do not unilaterally make decisions
that can have global impacts.
The form of any new governance system should be shapedby policymakers working together with the scientific, business,environmental and other stakeholder communities.

Options for action

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years

Society has the option of going beyond it reactive stance,
and working towards a more comprehensive and anticipatory

If the pace of introducing new products is indeed accelerating,then staying with our current reactive approach to risk

40

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

management will result in increasing hazards to society. It isalready difficult to keep track of the impacts of the numerous
new substances released to the environment. It is possible thatat some point, the international regimes regulating dangerous
chemicals may not be able to keep up with the number of
new risky chemicals being introduced, thereby increasing thepresence of dangerous substances in the environment.

On the other hand, building a new governance system basedon the foundations of current institutions could help society
handle the inadvertent hazards caused by its novel technologies
and chemicals. This system would provide internationallyadopted procedures for anticipating, assessing and mitigatinghazards, and would enable society to reap the benefits oftechnological innovation while minimizing its risks.

Background information
ChemSec. 2011. The problem with hazardous chemicals – The toxic cocktail. http://www.chemsec.org/get-informed/the-problem-with-hazardous-chemicals/the-toxiccocktail
European Commission. 2009. European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 March 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
on cosmetic products (recast) [COM(2008)0049 – C6-0053/2008 – 2008/0035(COD)]. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&refe
rence=P6-TA-2009-0158#BKMD-14
European Commission. 2011. REACH introduction. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm
European Environment Agency (EEA). 2007. Europe’s Environment: The Fourth Assessment. European Environment Agency. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state_of_environment_report_2007_1/Belgrade_EN_all_chapters_incl_cover.pdf
International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA). 2008. Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. International Center for Technology
Assessment. www.icta.org/nanoaction/doc/nano-02-18-08.pdf
National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Animal Biotechnology: Science-Based Concerns. Washington DC. National Academy Press. ISBN-10:0-309-08439-3
OECD. 2008. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030. OECD Publishing. www.oecd.org/environment/outlookto2030
Schmidt, M., Kelle, A., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Vriend, H.de. (eds.). 2010. Synthetic Biology: The Technoscience and its Societal Consequences. Springer – Dordrecht,
Heidelburg, London, New York. ISBN 978-90-481-2677-4.
Unger, S.H. 2002. The growing need for high ethical standards in engineering. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 21, 65-73.

Issue 020 Changing the Face of Waste: Solving the Impending
Scarcity of Strategic Minerals and Avoiding
Electronic Waste (Ranked #14)
Where we standT

he growth in the manufacturing of high-tech and greenenergy products has had some unexpected consequences.
New goods, such as hybrid cars, rechargeable batteries,
wind turbines, mobile phones and plasma televisions, havegreatly increased the demand for some strategic minerals,
including rare earth elements such as lanthanum, cerium,
lithium, neodymium, indium and gallium. Global demands forrare earth elements have been reported by the US Congressional
Research Service (2010) to be increasing, with current demand(134,000 tons per year) exceeding global production (124,000
tons per year). Global demand is projected to be in excess of
200,000 tons per year by 2014.
Another consequence is that the disposal of hazardous
chemicals and materials from these manufactured products iscreating new waste management problems. The waste streams
from the manufacturing, use and disposal of electronic
products (‘electronic waste’ or ‘e-waste’ for short) consist ofa hazardous mixture of mercury, lead and other heavy metals;
endocrine disrupting substances such as brominated flame
retardants; and other toxic substances.

Importance/relevanceThe large demand for rare earth elements has resulted in thedepletion of some traditional mining sources. For example,
the US, once largely self-sufficient in these minerals, is now
dependent on China and other countries for its supplies. The
depletion of these materials is further aggravated by policies

Credit: Shutterstock/David Maska

of planned obsolescence and other wasteful manufacturing
habits that lead to shorter-than-necessary lifetimes of products
and hence greater demand for raw materials and larger flows
of wastes. Altogether, many rare earths are becoming rarer still
and will remain so until new mines are opened.
Meanwhile, e-waste has become an important risk to healthand the environment, especially in developing countries which
often lack environmentally sound waste management facilities.
Worsening the situation are ‘backyard’ or crude incineration
practices and dismantling of electronic equipment (without theuse of personal protective equipment) which not only expose
workers to toxic substances but also release hazardous materials

Energy, Technology, and Waste Issues

41

to the environment. Lacking intervention, these risks are likely
to grow over the coming years along with the rapid growth ine-waste. UNEP (2009) estimates a possible increase of between
200 and 500% in e-waste volume generated from old computers
by 2020 in India, South Africa and China, relative to 2007
levels. This does not account for possible increases from othere-waste sources such as mobile phones.

materials and the production of waste. At the same time theywould encourage a shift in thinking towards green technology
and sustainable development.

Options for action
The simultaneous depletion of key minerals and productionof new toxic waste streams is certainly a new and risky
situation. The solution lies in a shift in thinking – handlingthe situation as a resource management challenge rather thanas a waste disposal problem. This will mean maximizing thesafe recovery of key metals and other materials from electronic
and other waste streams. Put another way, it means “mining”
the waste streams for raw materials. This will slow down theextraction and depletion of minerals, reduce the quantity of
their wastes, and lessen the environmental and other impacts
associated with the production cycle. E-waste is of special
interest because much of it contains strategic minerals that
could be cost-effective to recover and recycle. According to a
UNEP report (2009), this new thinking requires ambitious,
formal and regulated processes for collecting and managing
e-wastes, leaving behind the dangerous recycling practices
being followed in some countries.
This shift in thinking is already occurring in Europe and insome other parts of the world. The Electronic Industry Market
Research and Knowledge Network (2010) estimates an increasein the e-waste recycling market from US $6.9 billion in 2009
to US $21 billion by 2020. Stringent government regulations
and policies, such as the 2011 WEEE (Waste Electrical andElectronics Equipment) directive in Europe, play a key rolein spreading this new thinking and stimulating the e-waste
recycling market.
It would also be helpful for manufacturers to move awayfrom planned obsolescence to ‘planned capacity for evolution’,thus allowing upgrade and reuse of devices instead of requiring
their frequent replacement. Furthermore, by using a life cycle
approach to electronic products management, manufacturers
would have to adjust the design of products to make it easierto retrieve valuable materials at the end of the product’s life.
Both of these steps would decrease the overall need for raw

Credit: Shutterstock/KamiraConsequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
If current manufacturing trends continue over the next
decade or two, we are likely to see an accelerated depletionof key minerals and materials and the continued spread andbuild-up of electronic and other hazardous waste. This is likely
to result in higher risks to public health and the environmentand heightened competition for strategic minerals.
Alternatively, new manufacturing procedures entailinggreen design, comprehensive regulations especially regarding
life cycle issues, and new policy measures, could be establishedto promote the safe recovery of key metals and other materials
from electronic and other waste streams. This would slow
down the depletion of strategic minerals, reduce the quantityof their wastes, and lessen the environmental and other impacts
associated with manufacturing. Spinoff effects would be:lower exposure of the public to hazardous substances; reduced
environmental damage due to mining; and new business andemployment opportunities revolving around trading andrecovering materials from used manufactured products. The
result would be a stronger Green Economy, rather than a moredangerous world.

Background information
European Union (EU). 2011. Waste electrical and electronic equipment. Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/
environment/waste_management/l21210_en.htm
GBI Research. 2010. E-waste Management Market to 2020 - Emerging Economies Poised to Capitalize on E-waste Recovery and Recycling Market. The Electronic Industry
Market Research and Knowledge Network. GBI Research.
Guiltinan, J. 2009. Creative destruction and destructive creations: environmental ethics and planned obsolescence, Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 19-28
Humphries, M. 2010. Rare earth elements: the global supply chain. CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41347.
pdf
Long, K.R., Van Gosen, B.S., Foley, N.K., Cordier, D. 2010. The principal rare earth elements deposits of the United States - a summary of domestic deposits and a global
perspective. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010 – 5220. http://pubs.usgs.gov./sir/2010/5220.
Nnorom, I.C., Osibanjo, O. 2010. Overview of prospects in adopting remanufacturing of end-of-life electronic products in the developing countries. International Journalof Innovation, Management and Technology, 1, 328-338
UNEP. 2009. Recycling – from e-waste to resources - solving the e-waste problem. Sustainable innovation and technology transfer industrial sector studies. United Nations
Environment Programme. http://www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/E-Waste_publication_screen_FINALVERSION-sml.pdf
US Department of Energy (DOE). 2010. Critical materials strategy, US Department of Energy. http://www.doe.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/news/documents/
criticalmaterialsstrategy.pdf

42

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Issue 021 The Environmental Consequences ofDecommissioning Nuclear Reactors (Ranked #17)
Where we standM

any of the world’s nuclear reactors are aging
and will need to be decommissioned soon.
(Decommissioning involves putting a nuclear
facility out of service, dismantling it, decontaminating it, andstoring or disposing of its elements). This is of concern because
decommissioning is a major operation which poses several
technical challenges, especially the disposal of large amountsof radioactive waste, with inherent environmental and safety
risks.
In 2010 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
noted that many of the 441 currently operating reactors
around the world were built in the 1970s and 1980s and had
an expected lifespan of around 35 years. Hence, a surge in thenumber of power plants going out of service and requiring
decommissioning is expected soon. The IAEA projects thatthe peak will occur between 2020 and 2030, and that when
it occurs it will ‘present a major managerial, technological,
safety and environmental challenge to those States engaged innuclear decommissioning.’ After the recent nuclear accident
in Fukushima, Germany and Switzerland have decided to
speed up the phase out of their nuclear power plants and thisis likely to further increase the number of plants that need to
be decommissioned over the coming decade.

Importance/relevanceOf the many challenges involved with nuclear
decommissioning, of particular concern is the productionof high level wastes (HLWs) and low and intermediatelevel wastes (LILWs). These wastes need to be removed andpermanently stored or disposed of. In addition HLWs require
reprocessing prior to disposal or permanent storage. The IAEA
(2006) estimates that the volume of waste generated duringdecommissioning can exceed, by 10 to 200 times, the volume
generated during the operational life cycle of nuclear plants.
Worldwide, nuclear power facilities annually generate about
10,000 m3 of HLW, including spent fuel designated as waste,
and 200,000 m3 of LILW, most of which is currently stocked
in intermediate storage facilities.

Credit: UN Photo/IAEA/Greg Webb

An important health issue, pointed out by Bylkin and others(2011), is that workers are at high risk of exposure to radiation
as they dismantle equipment on the site. Decommissioning
also involves handling other hazardous materials such as
beryllium, mercury, lead, cyanide and asbestos.
Some unexpected incidents have occurred duringdecommissioning as reported by Oskolkov (2010), Shimada
and others (2010). These include: releases of radioactive
elements; fires and floods affecting storage sites; and build-up
of living organisms in the Chernobyl cooling pond that canpotentially spread radioactivity. Also, Laguardia (2006) and
Ramana (2009) have noted that decommissioning costs insome cases have turned out to be significantly higher than firstestimated.
Another issue is that an increasing number of trained nuclear
professionals will be needed for decommissioning. A reportby the American Physical Society Panel on Public Affairs in2008 noted a possible shortage of workers in the US nuclear
industry. Similar demands for new professionals have been
identified in the European Union by the Sustainable Nuclear
Energy Technology Platform (2010) and by Bock (2010) andothers.

Options for action
While the decommissioning of nuclear reactors poses
environmental and safety risks, there are many ways to reducethese risks. For example, more effort could be given to the longterm planning of decommissioning, including the provision ofadequate funds to cover its costs. Funds for decommissioning
could be raised from many sources, including customer fees,
investors, or international donors.

Credit: Shutterstock/NoborInternational cooperation could help identify and plan
for reprocessing facilities and storage sites that can handle
the nuclear waste that is expected to be generated. It would
also be helpful to involve a wide range of stakeholders,
including members of the public, in the planning process forEnergy, Technology, and Waste Issues

43decommissioning because this could help allay the public’s
concern about this activity.
Planners and policymakers could also consider developing
international guidelines and regulations aimed specifically at
ensuring safety during decommissioning activities.
One option for addressing the shortage in nuclear personnel,
as discussed by Safief and others (2011), would be to establish
public-private partnerships such as the European Nuclear
Education Network (ENEN) which supports and funds thetraining of workers in the nuclear field.

Consequences of inaction/action in the next
10–20 years
Over the next few decades, the world will be confronted
with a wave of nuclear power plants going out of service andrequiring decommissioning. If no action is taken in advance,
decommissioning may be held up because of the lack offacilities for storing or disposing of the vast quantity of nuclear
wastes. It could be delayed for lack of funds or by the lack oftrained professionals to carry out the decommissioning. And if
decommissioning is delayed then perhaps many countries will
be dotted with the defunct hulks of nuclear power plants, witheach one circled by formidable security structures.
However, if action is taken now; we can proceed withdecommissioning and minimize its risks. Society will develop
adequate procedures and facilities for disposing of the expectednuclear wastes, and train a new cadre of professionals for thetask. Investing in a planning effort now will help society copelater with the challenges of decommissioning.

Background information
American Physical Society (APS). 2008. Readiness of the US nuclear workforce for the 21st century challenges. APS POPA Report. American Physical Society.
Böck, H. 2010. Education and training in nuclear energy: state of art, needs and future strategies. Transaction of the European Research Reactor Conference. European
Nuclear Society, Belgium.
Bylkin B.K., Pereguda, V.I., Shaposhnikov, V.A., Tikhonovskii, V.L. 2011. Composition and structure of simulation models for evaluating decommissions costs for nuclear
power plant units. Atomic Energy, 110, 77-81
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2006. Management of problematic waste and material generated during the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Technical Report Series No 441.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2010. Nuclear Technology Review 2010. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Laguardia, T. 2006. Reasons for inconsistencies between estimated and actual decommissioning costs. In Lessons Learned from the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities
and the Safe Termination of Nuclear Activities, Proceedings of an International Conference Athens, 11-15 December 2006, International Atomic Energy Agency, 231244.
Oskolkov, B.Y., Bondarkov, M.D., Gaschak, S.P., Maksymenko, A.M., Maksymenko, V.M., Martynenko, V.I., Farfán, E.B., Jannik, G.T., Marra, J.C. 2010. Environmental
problems associated with decommissioning the Chernobyl nuclear power plant cooling pond. Health Physics, 99, 639-648.
Ramana, M.V. 2009. Nuclear power: economic, safety, health, and environmental issues of near-term technologies. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 127152.
Safieh J., De Regge, P., Kusumi, R. 2011. ENEN’s approaches and initiatives for nuclear education and training. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 241, 3530-3539
Shimada T., Oshima, S., Sukegawa, T. 2010. Development of safety assessment code for decommissioning of nuclear facilities (DecDose). Journal of Power and Energy
Systems, 4, 40-53.
Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP). 2010. Nuclear Education and Training: Key Elements of a Sustainable European Strategy. Sustainable Nuclear
Energy Technology Platform. http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-ETKM/etkmbatweb.pdf

44

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

Appendix 1

Respondents to Electronic Questionnaire*

Abahussain Asma; Abdel Gelil Ibrahim; Abido Mohammad;
Adams Byron; Adejumo Sifau; Adelekan Ibidun; Agbola
Babatunde; Aguar Pilar; Aherne Julian; Akaegbobi Izuchukwu
Mike; Akanji Bola; Akinsanmi Francis; Akroush Samia;
AlAshkar Hiam; Alcafuz Ricardo; Al-Hussieni Ahmed; Ali
Ahmed Hamza H.; Ali Lulwa; Aljenaid Sabah; Al-Karadsheh
Esmat; Alkemade Rob; Al-Khateeb Mukdad; Allam Hossam;
Al-Sheriadeh Mohanned; Al-Sibai Mahmoud; Al-Yamani Faiza;
Al-Zaeim Mokhlesa; Amy Austin; Anyaeche Osita; ApSimon
Helen; Arico Salvatore; Arslan Awadis; Aw-Hassan Aden;
Awiti Alex; Awodoyin Rasheed Olufemi; Ayuba Haruna Kuje;
Bai Xuemei; Bakare Adekunle; Baker Joe; Balasubramanian
Vethaiya; Baron Jill; Basheer-Salimia Rezq; Bekunda Mateete;
Bell Andrew; Benigni Romualdo; Berbara Ricardo; Biggs
Reinette; Bleeker Albert; Bobrowsky Peter; Bonnes Mirilia
Mirilia; Bourdeau Philippe; Branquinho Cristina; Bringezu
Stefan; Britton Nicholas F; Bruce Campbell; Bustamante
Mercedes; Caceres Daniel M; Caldeira Ken; Calvo Alvarado
Julio; Canziani Pablo; Castellanos Edwin; Christodoulou
Symeon; Clothier Brent; Clout Mick; Confalonieri Ulisses;
Cory-Slechta Deborah; Costanza Robert; Coutinho Heitor;
Couvet Denis; Covich Alan; Cunha Alan; Dagenais Danielle;
Dale Virginia; Davidson Eric; Davis Donnell; Dawidowski
Laura; Décamps Henri; Di Bella Carlos; Diaz Sandra; Diji
Chukwuemeka; Douglas Ian; Du Enzai; Duraiappah Anantha;
Elbadawy Omar; Elias Pavol; ElMahgary Yehia; El-Sadek Alaa;
El-Sammak Amr; Erisman Jan Willem; Escobar Elva; Farajalla
Nadim; Fatlawi Saleh M. Bader; Fedorsky Catherine; Filmer
Paul; Finegan Bryan; Fleming Richard; Flitner Michael; Fraga
Vânia; Frame Bob; Frossard Emmanuel; Gallardo Laura;
Galloway James; Galy-Lacaux Corinne; Gamble Morag;
Garfin Gregg; Gbadegesin Adeniyi; Ghaddar Nesreen; Giller
Ken; Glaser Marion; Gochfeld Michael; Goldstein Bernard;
Greenwood Hamilton; Gupta Joyeeta; Haas Peter; Hadjizadeh
Zaker Nasser; Haeberli Wilfried; Hamel Chantal; Hammond
Geoffrey; Hardman-Mountford Nicholas; Hassan Ahmed
Farghally; Hayhoe Katharine; Hein Lars; Herat Sunil;
Herdies Dirceu; Hickman Jonathan; Hicks Kevin; Holland
Elisabeth; Howarth Robert; Hu Jianying; Hung Tsu-Chang;
Hungspreugs Manuwadi; Hunter-Cevera Jennie; Ibrahim
Amir; Iglesias Ana; Ignaciuk Ada; Ingram John; IsiugoAbanihe Uche; Ittekkot Venugopalan; Janetos Anthony;
Jashari Bardhyl; Jesinghaus Jochen; Johansson Matti; Johnes
Penny; Joly Carlos; Kabat Pavel; Kanie Norichika; Karanja
Nancy; Keen Steve; Keith David; Kempe Stephan; Kentarchos

Anastasios; Kershaw Peter; Khalil Anwar; Khalil Ahmed;
Khan Amin; Khater Ahmed Rashad; Khater Carla; Khosla
Ashok; Khraisheh Majeda; King Peter; Kislov Alexander;
Kouyoumjian Hratch; Kremer Hartwig; Krusche Alex; Lateef
Agbaje; Lavell Allan; Le Quere Corinne; Lerdau Manuel;Letson David; Li Jinhui; Linden Paul; Liverman Diana; Lloyd
Bruce; Lovejoy Thomas; Lu Yonglong; Ma Zhong; Maas
Rob; MacCracken Michael; Mace Georgina; Maher Mary;Malkawi Mazen; Manalang Anna Bella; Martinez Rodney;
Martinez-Alier Joan; Maynard Simone; McNally Derek;
Mezher Toufic; Mkwambisi David; Mol Arthur; Möller
Detlev; Montana Elma; Montanari Armando; Moyib Folake;
Mugendi Njiru Daniel; Naser Tarek; Nasir Muhammad;
Neronov Valery; Nimah Musa; Noellemeyer Elke; Noone
Kevin; Nousala Susu; Obot Emmanuel; Ofori Daniel;
Oguntunde Philip; Ohlemuller Ralf; Ojedokun Oluyinka;
Ojima Dennis; O’Keefe Sarah; Olayinka Abel; Ologunorisa
Temi; Olokesusi Femi; Olubode Oluseun; Omar AsemSamira; Ometto Jean Pierre; Oni Feyisetan; Opdam Paul;
Osman-Elasha Balgis; Oyekale Abayomi; Panario Daniel;Pfeffer W. Tad; Philippart Catharina; Pierrot-Bults Annelies;
Pillar Valério; Pla Laura; Podesta Guillermo; Popoola Labode;
Prasad Gisela; Prieto-Gonzalez Ricardo; Qadir Manzoor; Raji
Muhabat; Rania Masri; Raupach Michael; Rehman Faiz Ur;
Reid Walter; Rice Martin; Richardson David; Richardson
Katherine; Richey Jeffrey; Rickerby David; Risser Paul; Ritz
Christoph; Rojas Maisa; Romero Lankao Patricia; Rosswall
Thomas; Roy Joyashree; Rufino Mariana; Rusek Josef; Saber
Mohamed; Saidam Muhammad; Sakellariadou Fani; Sala
Osvaldo; Salcedo Ignacio; Salimon Cleber; Sampaio Cristina;
Samseth Jon; Sarigiannis Dimosthenis; Savage Nora; Schandl
Heinz; Scholes Robert; Schurr Ulrich; Seimon Anton; Sims
Ralph; Smichowski Patricia; Smith Kirk; Spehn Eva; Stafford
Smith Mark; Stephens Carolyn; Su Jilan; Su Huey-Jen; Tawfik
Ahmed; Thonicke Kirsten; Thorman Rob; Tiessen Holm;Tong-Bin Chen; Travasso Maria Isabel; Truffer Bernhard;
Turner II Billie L.; Urban Ed; Valentini Riccardo; van der Leun
Jan C.; van Ierland Ekko; Varady Robert; Vasconcellos Pérola;Vindimian Eric; Vineis Paolo; Virji Hassan; Visoottiviseth
Pornsawan; Vuille Mathias; Wang Jinnan; Wardam Batir;
Welford Rod; Whyte Anne; Winkler Harald; Xepapadeas
Anastsios; Yagi Kazuyuki; Yazdandoost Farhad; Young Bruce;
Yu Gang; Zamora Regino; Zermoglio Maria Fernanda; Zhang
Shiqiu; Zubari Waleed; Zurek Monika.

*These are the respondents who explicitly gave permission to include their names. A total of 428 scientists responded to the questionnaire.

Appendices45

Appendix 2T

Description of the Foresight Process

he Foresight Process was organized by UNEP’s Chief
Scientist’s Office and the Division of Early Warning
and Assessment. The process consists of a set ofalternating ‘open’ and ‘closed’ steps. The ‘open’ steps open up
the process to a wide range of views, while the ‘closed’ steps
allow for an in-depth debate and selection of priority issues.

discussed the 30 middle ranked issues. In the third breakout
group and plenary, the Panel discussed not only the bottom
ranked issues, but they also reconsidered the issues dropped in
the previous two sessions. More weight in the selection process
was given to the higher ranked issues. This procedure resulted
in a provisional list of 27 issues.

At the core of the process is a Foresight Panel consistingof 22 distinguished members of the scientific community
recruited from developing and industrialized countries
and internationally recognized because of their expertisein one or more environmental and related issues (seeAcknowledgements). The Panel covers a wide spectrum of
research disciplines from environmental governance to marine
sciences. 5 Panel members are from Africa, 6 from Asia andthe Pacific Region, 3 from Latin America, 5 from Europe, and3 from North America. 14 work mostly in the natural sciences
and 8 in economics or the social sciences. 15 are men and 7
women.

To select the ‘final’ provisional list of issues from themeeting, each Panel Member was allowed to select eight issues
to be dropped from the list of 27. The six issues with thehighest number of votes for dropping were eliminated, andthat yielded a ‘final’ provisional list of 21 priority issues.

The entire process, which took eight months (1 December
2010 – 31 July 2011), was divided into six phases as described
below:

1. Canvass of UNEP Community
The Process began with a canvass of the UNEP community
to solicit their opinions about important emerging issues.
The canvass was carried out by the Science Focal Points of
UNEP who are located in each of its divisions. The elicitationof views resulted in a list of 68 issues which were described ina background report sent to Foresight Panel members before
their first meeting.

2. Preparation of Preliminary List of Issues
Before the first panel meeting, Panel Members took the listof 68 issues from the UNEP community and added their own
ideas, which resulted in a preliminary list of 95 issues. The
Panel then scored the issues and the scores were used to rank
the 95 issues. This ranked list was a main input to the first
Panel meeting.

3. First Foresight Panel Meeting: Selecting aprovisional list of issues
This phase involved a structured debate and prioritization of thepreliminary list of 95 issues by the Panel at a three day meeting.
The Panel met in 3 sessions, each with a set of breakout groups
and plenary sessions. At these sessions they systematicallydebated proposed issues.
In the first breakout group and plenary, the 30 top ranked
issues were discussed. The second breakout group and plenary

46

Panel Members then drafted a short description of the final
21 issues. This served as the main input to the next phase of
the process.

4. Electronic Consultation.
An electronic consultation was organized in order toobtain input from a wide sampling of scientists worldwide.
An electronic questionnaire was prepared with a list anddescriptions of the 21 priority issues from the first Panelmeeting. This questionnaire was sent to 933 scientists aroundthe world who were asked to score the issues according totheir importance (i.e., 1 = not so important, up to 10 = very
important, in single digit increments). They were also requested
to provide comments on the issues, suggest additional issues,and suggest issues that should be dropped.
The distribution list was prepared by the ScientificCommittee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) withthe help of UNEP and was compiled to have a balanced
representation of world regions (the UNEP regions are Africa,
Europe, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean,
North America, and West Asia), expertise (natural sciences,economics, and social science) and gender. The response rate
was considered excellent (428 responses, giving a nearly 1 in
2 response ratio). The regional distribution of responses was
also thought to be very good (Africa 17%, Asia/Pacific 16%,Europe 27%, Latin America 13%, North America 18%, West
Asia 10%). The disciplinary and gender balance of responses
reflected current realities in the scientific community (naturalscience 76%, social science and economics 24%; male 73%,
female 27%).
Data from the electronic consultation were analyzed bycomputing the average score and weighted scores based onregion, expertise, and gender. These scores were used to rank
the issues. The issues were grouped into three categories: Top
7, Middle 7 and Bottom 7. The results served as the main
input for the second Foresight Panel meeting. Figures 1a, 1b
and 1c depict the response data for the electronic consultation.

21 Issues for the 21st Century
Results of the UNEP 2011 Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues

West Asia
10%

Africa17%

Social Science
15%

North America
18%

Latin
America / Carribean
13%

Economics
9%

Europe27%

Natural Science76%

Asia Pacific15%Fig. 1a: Regional breakdown of respondents to electronic questionnaireFig. 1b: Area of expertise of respondents to electronic questionnaire

Female
27%

Male
73%

Fig. 1c: Gender of respondents to electronic questionnaire

5. Second Foresight Panel Meeting: Selecting
the Final 21 Issues and Prioritizing the Top 10
Issues.
In this phase, the Panel revised the provisional list of 21
issues, based on results of the electronic consultation, including
the ranking of issues, comments on issues, and suggestions of
new issues.
The main objective of this final phase was to produce a final
list of 21 emerging environmental issues and to determine theTop 10 issues among the list of 21.
In breakout groups and in plenary sessions, the Panelconsidered the new issues suggested by the electronic
consultation. 125 new suggestions were considered. Most of
the issues were judged to be close to the provisional 21 issues,
or were noted to have been dropped during the first Foresight
Panel meeting. As a result of this discussion, two new issues
were added to the list of 21 making a new provisional list of 23.
In a sequence of breakout groups and plenary sessions, thePanel discussed whether to change the ranking of the 23 issues
which stemmed from the electronic consultation. The issues
fell into one of three groupings according to their ranking
from the electronic consultation – top, middle, and bottom.
The Panel discussed the ranking and decided to move someissues from one grouping to another. Also, as a result of the
discussion, some issues were merged so that a final list of 21

issues was produced. Another output of this discussion wasthat all issues were assigned into three final groupings: a groupof top 10 issues, middle 5 issues, and bottom 6 issues. These
final groupings were relatively close to the groupings arisingfrom the electronic consultation.
After the meeting, the Panel scored each of the issues within the
3 groupings and thus produced a final ranking of 21 issues. This
procedure ensured that all the issues remained in the same final
grouping determined at the meeting, and also ensured a high levelof consistency with the ranking from the electronic consultation.

6. Final Documentation.
Preliminary descriptions of the issues with references werethen prepared by the Panel and staff.

Postscript: Comments on the Process
After the process was completed, many Panel Memberscommented that the rigorous discussion and reconsiderationof issues several times over the course of 2 three-day meetings,
was an important factor in producing an effective list of 21
issues. The amount of time devoted to open debate eventually
allowed a wide range of views to be expressed and considered,and encouraged the creativity of the participants. ‘Opening
up’ the process by canvassing the UNEP community andthen conducting an extensive electronic consultation of theworldwide scientific community enhanced the legitimacy ofthe process.

Appendices47

EP# 2012-80345

www.unep.org
United Nations Environment Programme
P.O. Box 30552 - 00100 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel.: +254 20 762 1234
Fax: +254 20 762 3927
e-mail: uneppub@unep.org
www.unep.org

ISBN: 978-92-807-3191-0
Job Number: DEW/1235/NA