metadata: authors: 0: author: Colby, Michael E.
docna: 0: docna: Environmental management in development :
            the evolution of paradigms
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Environmental Strategy,Economic Theory & Research,Industrial Economics,Health Care Services Industry,Environmental Management,Economic Growth,Energy Demand,Energy and Environment,Energy and Mining,Global Environment
teratopic: Health, Nutrition and Population
abstracts: cdata!: In the past quarter century,
            environmental management has increasingly become a concern
            of governments. More recently, the traditional split between
            developers and conservationists has begun to break down.
            Conceptions of what is economically and technologically
            practical, ecologically necessary, and politically feasible
            are rapidly changing. This report discusses the implications
            of five paradigms of environmental management in
            development. The author notes that the remedial legalistic
            approach of environmental management is breaking down.
            Instead, interest in the more economically integrated
            approach of resource management has recently taken hold.
            Several interdependent forces indicate that improving the
            economic management of pollution and resources may be a
            necessary but insufficient measure to create the conditions
            for sustainable development. The perception of tradeoffs
            between development and environmental quality persists in
            the present debate, but its necessity is greatly
            exaggerated, according to this paper. Finally, it is noted
            that paradigms may be impervious to evidence, and
            institutions and societies too difficult to change. Whether,
            when and how these issues are resolved may be modern
            civilization's most significant test.
repnme: repnme: Environmental management in development :
            the evolution of paradigms
display_title: Environmental management in
            development : the evolution of paradigms
listing_relative_url: /research/1989/11/700408/environmental-management-development-evolution-paradigms
topicv3: Economic Growth m1326241 471,Energy and Extractives m1326595 507,Environmental Management m1327125 598,Environment, Natural Resources and Blue
            Economy m1327391 566,Health m1504661 3480
publishtoextweb_dt: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Health, Nutrition and Population
origu: Policy Plan & Prog Review Dept
no_of_pages: 42
model_extractions: **Plg,Paning, and Research**

_L_ **Strategic Planning** In the past quarter century, environmental management has increasingly become a concem of govemments. More recently, the traditional split between developers and conservationists has begun to break down.

Increasingly, analysts discuss sustainable development, with different ideas emerging from a range of disciplines as to what that entails. Conceptions of what is economically and technologically practical, ecologically necessary, and politically feasible are rapidly changing.

Colby discusses the distinctions and connections between, and implications of, five paradigms of environmental management in development. He says the remedial (defensive), legali-tic approach of environmental protection is breaking down because it has proven to be an ineffective and inefficient means of dealing with the negative consequences of unmodified frontier economics and development. Serious interest in the more economically integrated approach of resource management has recently begun to take hold.

Several interdependent forces indicate that improving the economic management of pollution and resources may be a necessary but insufficient measure to create the conditions for sustainable development. These forces include threats of changes in the ozone layer and global climate, widespread problems of depletion and degradation of natural resources and services, and growing disparities between the rich and poor. Together with the easing of military and ideological competition between the superpowers, these forces may compe.l a redefinition of both security and development, allowing for a redeployment of resources.

The perception of tradeoffs between development and environmental quality persists in the present debate, but its necessity is greatly exaggerated, according to Colby. Developmental approaches that fully integrate environmental, technological, and social systems offer synergetic economic, social, and ecological benefits; this is the synthesis ecodevelopment attempts to achieve.

But paradigms may be impervious to evidence, and institutions and societies too difficult to change. The adherents of each may go on talking past each other, avoiding the real discussions and conflicts that are necessary to achieve a synthesis. Whether, when, and how it resolves these issues may be modem civilization's most significant test.

This paper is a product of the Strategic Planning Division, Strategic Planning and Review Department. The paper also appeared as Strategic Planning and Review Discussion Paper No. 1. Copies are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433. Please contact Carole Evangelista, room S13137, extension 32645 (37 pages with figures and tables).

The PPR Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work under way in the Bank's Policy, Planning, and Research Complex. An objective of the series is to get these findings out quickly, even if presentations are less than fully polished. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in these papers do not necessarily represent offikial policy of the Bank.

Produced at the PPR Dissemination Center
# Table of Contents

The Context ................................... 1

|A Taxonomy of the Evolution of<br>|
|---|
|Concepts of Environmental Management...................................<br>3|
|_Figure I and Table I (Summary) ..................................._<br>_6_|
|_Frontier Economics ..................................._<br>_8_<br> <br>|
|_Deep Ecology ..................................._<br>_1.1_<br>|
|_Environmental Protection .................................._<br>13|
|_Resource Management .................................._<br>17|
|_Eco-Development_<br>.......................................<br>21|

|Changes in Context and Systems of Thought.....................|.............26|
|---|---|
|_Changing Conceptions of National Security ...................._<br>_Changing Values .................................._|_.............._<br>27<br>29|
|Conclusion..................................|30|
|_Possibilities for Convergence ........................................_|_....._<br>**_3_**_.............._<br>_1_|
|Appendix: Some Working Definitions..........................|32|
|References<br>..........................|34|
1

## **THE** EVOLUTION OF PARADIGMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN DEVELOPMENT

# **The** Contelt

1. The subject of "environmental management'l and its integration with "development" is a major concern and challenge for a growing number of people, businesses, and governments of the world. While this is not a new subject, the level of concern and sense of urgency has reached new heights, and presently there is widespread discussion, a myriad of new proposals, commitments of resources, and programs of action. Some important indicators of this, from different realms, are:

- On the international political scene: the 1987 International Protocol on Ozone and its strengthening in 1989; the publication of the Brundtland Report, _Our Common Future_<sup>_2_</sup> and the responses of many governments and international agencies; the international agrement over the disposal of hazardous wastes; international meetings on global warming; the 1989 high level meetings in London, Amsterdam, and Geneva; and the furor over deforestation in the Amazon.

- Organizationally: the creation of a central Environment Department and four regional technical environmental divisions in the World Bank, and growing cooperation between the World Bank, environmental NGO's, and other international agencies to create and coordinate action agendas.

- In scientific circles, the general media, and the public: the widespread discussion of the emergence of severe global environmental threats such as destruction of the Ozone layer, the "Greenhouse Effect" of glob.l warming, in addition to the persistence of droughts, mass-scale starvation, and tropical deforestation.

- Discussions in the Brundtland Report and the Spring 1989 journal issues of _Foreign Affairs_ and _Foreign Policy_ on redefining "national security" to incorporate the needs of environmental/resource quality and stability in addition to economic and military interests.3

- 1 See Appendix for a list of lorking Definitions for terms used in %is paper.

- 2 World Comnmission orn Environment and Development (WCED), 1987, _Otw Common Future,_ Oxford UniversiLy Press, Oxford & New YorL

- 3 Mathews, Jessica Tuchman, 1989. "Redefining Security", _Foreign Affairs, 68;_ #2, 162-177.
2 2. With all this political, organizational, sc!zntific, and public activity, the subject of how mankind is to integrate environmental management with concerns about economic and social development in order to create and ensure a future for civilization as it has come to be kmown is, sixteen years after the groundbreaking 1972 Stockholm UN Conference on the Human Environment, once again a major arena of debate. The pracaes of enhomntal managemnt and economic development planning, and the paradigms that underlie them, are in a period of major revision.

3. At both operational and theoretic-d levels, there have been many developments since the Stockholm Conference which portend major changes in the way sociedes will think about the management of the relationship between nature and human activity in the future. Most of these advances have yet to be institutonalized into govenments' and development agencies' policy and planning systems. In many respects, the Brundtland Commission said little that was not said at Stockholm, though perhaps it was said with more widespread participation and urgency. The ideas - that "sustainable development"<sup>4</sup> is necessary, that it requires careful management of the - biophysical-geochemical resources and processes of the planet are now in good currency once again, however. This brings with it both some ths and some major opportunities.

4. One concemn is that the apparent consensus in public and political attitudes will not be met on a timely basis with more powerful tools, conceptual bases, and practical options to translate changing attitudes into real, large-scale changes in policies and actions. In other words, it is probably not yet a truly practical consensus. Without more powerful approaches, the concept of "sustainable development" may prove to be unsustainable (politically), subject to yet another period of disillusion and backlash.

Myers, Norman, 1989. "Envimumea **n** t d Security", _Foreign Polc,_ #74,23-41. 4 The concept of "Susainable development isshowing some signs of unsusaaqy, due to thc appar difficulty of reaching agreemont ver its meaning, and he vaguen_ of even the better definidons that have been discussed. See Appdix
3

# A Taxonomy of the EvoluntlLof Concepts of Environmental Mangger

_5._ All human activity, economic and socio-cultural, takes place in the context of certain types of relationships with the bio-physical world (in simpler words, relationships between people or societies, and the rest of nature). "Development" necessarily involves a transformation of these relationships. For instance, agriculture, of any sort, is a form of environmental management, but the types of agriculture implemented may reflect very different underlying conceptions of the relationship between nature and humans, and what "environmental managemen;' means. As societies have evolved or developed, so has this relationship. Sometimes it evolved in ways that might be construed as mutually beneficial and ecologically sustainable. At other times or places, people exactd benefits by attempting to manage nature to improve their chances of survival and quality of life, in ways which have reduced local ecosystems' capacities to provide them in the future.

6. This was not too important when such activities took place on a scale that was minor compared to that of nature's own. When populations were small and new frontiers could always be found, people could move on to a new arena when they had exhausted the local capacity of the land to support their activides, and the land would then have time to regenerate itself (presumably). Between 1950 and 1986, however, the scale of the world population doubled (from 2.5 to 5.0 billion), while the scale of gross world product and world fossil fuel consumption each quadrupled.<sup>5</sup> _In this cemury, worldpopulation has tripled, and the worldeconomy has expanded_ - _to 20 times its size in 1900.6_ Matter and energy flows the physical presence of the economy - within the ecosphere were not negligible in 1900, but they now rival in magnitude the flow rates of many natural cycles and fluxes. They are having major effects on the stability of the biogeochemical and physical processts that support life, human and otherwise, on this planet. Thus, the new political pseudo-consensus that societies can no longer operate as if economics and ecology were two separate disciplines, with no need to learn from each other. The new scholarly 5 Daly, Herman, 1988, "Sustainability", mimeo. 6 Speh, James G., 1988. lThe Greening of Technology", _Washington Post,_ November 20,1988, p. D4.
4 journal _Ecological Economics,_ of the International Society for Ecological Economics, is another sign of the times.<sup>7</sup> 7. If one takes a slightly longer perspective on this "reborn" consensus, it is easy to see that it is more than just the second wind of a process that began in the 1960's. With a considerably longer view, and the idei of the evoludon of the relationship between man and nature in mind, one can see that this relationship has taken on a very specific character, in the Western world, at least, since the ime of the scientific revolution, and developed to its present state in that context. Going back even further in time, or by looling at other societies, one encounters other kinds of relationship between man and nature. Each society, in fact, has had its own relationship with nature. There evtn exist "ecological" accounts of history, with the thesis that the downfall of certain civilizations may have been more related to what today are called "environmental problems," than to the typical historical accountings of military give and take between societies.8 8. Peoples' views of their relationship with nature is one of the most important aspocts of any strategy for human development. Since this relationship is at the root of each of the seemingly distinct fields of "environmental management, **"** economics," and "development," its evolution is of very basic importance to current discussions and the future practice of "sustainable development." Concepts of environmental management are now in a period of major flux, and underlying this, so are societies' fundamental ideas about the relationship between human activity and nature. The term "nature" is used here purposefully to represent one "side" of this relationship, rather than "environment," as the latter is itself a term that has evolved as a consequence of a particular worldview on the relationship between man and nature. In other words, it is the result of one of the very paradigms that are in flux, and as such is a particular conceptual representation of nature which is also [still] evolving.

9. The outcome of this evolutionary process is paricularly important becr .se, in the words of the Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Thomas Lovejoy, "most of the great environmental struggles will be won or lost in the 1990's... I am utterly convinced. .. that by the next century it will be too late."<sup>9</sup>

- 7 lrnmauional Society for Ecogical Emics, 1989. _Ecological Economics. Esevier_ Science PubHshs, Amslerdam. Seveal Wodd Bank staff are volved n the foundig an eding of this journaL

- 8 Conon. Wiliaim, 1983. _Changes In the Land: Indaws, Coonsu, and the Ecology ofNe'w Exgland_ Hill ad Wang, Now York is one of the finest ejumples. Recent stdies of the Roman and Mayan civilizattons have lo provoked thought in _this_ vein.

- 9 Lovejoy. Thomas, August, 1988. Remars in an address to the Amedca Institute of Biological Sciences. quoted in Wicker, Tom, 2-2849, Decade of Decision., _New York rTes,_ Op-Ed coum
5 10. There are many ways of describing this fundamental relationship and how different social conceptions of it translate to or impact on practical **ai** iagement. It is proposed here that there are five basic paradigms of management of the rtlatimsbhip between humans and nature, or of "environmental management in development." Each paradigm is driven by different assumptions about human nature and activity, about nature itself, and the interactions between nature and humans. Each asks different questions and perceives different evidence, dominant threats or risks (problems for development), and solutions and management strategies. They also have different flaws, of course. Many of these differences will be highlighted for purposes of distinction. However, it is importan **t** o emphasize that these paradigms are not completely distinct or unrelated. Because some aspects are shared between two or more of the paradigms presented, the reader may feel that some of the distinctions made are overdrawn. In part this is true, in part it is evidence of the transitional stage of the debate about just what sustainable development and environmental management entail. All too often, the implications of changing conditions and innovations in thoug&t in the fi^ld have not been explored, all variations are viewed by the dominant paradigm as belonging in a single basket of strange thoughts. This is why "environmentalism" (an awful word) or environmental management can look so confusing to "non-environmentalists" - but it is nowhere near as monolithic as the latter tend to believe; just as economics is nowhere near as monolithic as many assume. This is what makes the debate about just what "sustainable - developmen' means so interesting and what makes greater clarity so very important.

11. Certain approaches _are_ more appropriate to different problems or issues than others, and all wil be necessary for long into the future; what is definitely changing is the dominance or relative degrees of emphasis the different approaches are given. At least in part due to sho mings in the previously dominant approaches, some of the paradigms have evolved out of the others, retaining many of their predecessors' features within an expanded framework, or expanded boundaries of the system considered. It should also be noted, of course, that there are still disagreements and _many_ schools of thought within each general paradigm presented. This paper wiU identify the core differences between the paradigms and begin to explore their implications.

12. The following tides are proposed and used for the five paradigms:

- "Frontier Economics"

- "Deep Ecology"

- "Environmental Protection"

- "Resource Management"

- "Eco-Development"
6 13. Table I is a summary of the distinctions between them, along the dimensions mendoned above. However, a one-dimensional (horizontal) array of the five paradigms can be misleading about the "evoludonary" reladonships between them. For this reason, a two dimensional diagram (Figure 1) is provided which attempts to convey this information more clearly, though sdll inadequately. The reladonships and si7nificance of them is what needs to be thought out by societies. It is also worth noting that within the basic dimension of dominant perceived threats, one could construct a sub-list of partcular problems or risks and then a whole additional matrix of the "solutions" preferred by each of the paradigms. Following the table is a more detailed discussion of each paradigm and the concepts raised in the table.

<!-- Start of picture text --> Eco-Development<br>_ ~~ ._ _, ........ __ _<br>Resource<br>Management<br>.. r rEnvironm"ental .......- X<br>mt / < ~Protection \<br>Frontier Deep<br>Economics Ecology<br><!-- End of picture text --> EIURE 1. Evolutionary Paradigms Diag . The diagram attempts to indicate schematically the non-linearity ofparadigm evolution in the following ways tht progressioi **n** time from one paradigm to the next going upward, with the horizontal scale indicating the upper three pardigms' position on a spectrum between the "diamettically opposed" frontier ecomoiics and deep ecology pradigms. The size of the boxes signifies (roughly) the degree of inclusiveness and integation of sociaL ecological and economic systems in the definition of development and organization of human societies. Non-solid lines indicate the hypothesized future.
Table 1. Basic Distinctions Between Five Paradigms of Environmental Management In Development

|Paradigm**>**<br>Dimension|_Frontier_<br>_Economics_|_Environmental_<br>_Protection_|_Resource_<br>_Management_|_Eco-_<br>_Development_|**_Deep_**<br>_Ecology_|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|_Dominant_<br>_Impea1tie:_|"Piogress,"as<br>Infinite Economic Growth<br>and Prosperity|'Tradeoffs,"<br>as in<br>Ecology versus<br>Economic Growth|<br>"Sustainability- as<br>nwcssary constraintfor<br>growth/deveopment.|<br>Green Growth-:<br>Co-dvloing<br>Humans and<br>Nature: Redefine Security'|Eco-topia:<br> <br>Anti-Growth Constraired<br> <br>HarmonywithNature'|
|_Human-Natur_<br>Qeiationshp:_|<br>_e_<br>Very Strong<br>Anthropocentric|Strong<br>Anthropocentric|<br>Modified<br>Anthropocen<br>rc|<br>Ecocentric|<br> <br>Biocntric|
|<br>_Dominant_<br>_Perceived Threat_|<br>Hunger, Poverty, Disease.<br>_s:_<br>"Natural<br>Disasters'|<br>Health Impacts ot Pollution<br>Endangered<br>Species,|<br>.<br>Resource<br>Degradation;<br>Poverty. Popultion growth|<br>Ecobgical Uncertainly<br> <br>Global Change|Ecosystm Collpse<br>Uniatural Disasters|
|Mait<br>_Themes:_|Open Access/Free<br>Goods<br>ExploitationofInfinite<br>Natural Resources|<br> <br> <br>RemediaVDefensive<br>'LegalizeEcology* as<br>Economic Extemality|<br> <br>Glbal Efficiency<br>'EconomizeEcology,<br>Interdependence|<br> <br>Generative<br>Restructurin<br>'Ecologize Economy'<br>Sophisticated Symbiosis|g<br>Back to Nature<br>Biospecies Equality'<br>Simple Symbiosis|
|_Prevalet_<br>_Property_<br>_Regimes:_|Privatization (Neoclass.) or<br>Nationalization (Marx.)<br>of all propety|<br>Privatization Dominant;<br>Some Public Parks<br>set aside<br>|<br>Gbbal Commons Law for<br>Conservation of:<br>Oceans, Atmosphere,<br>Climate Biodiversty?|<br>Recontextualize Private&<br>Common Property regimes<br>for Intra/lnter- Generatonal<br>Equity&Stewardship|<br>Private, plus Common<br> <br>Property setasidefor<br> <br>Preservation|
|_WmaPays?_|Property Owners<br>(Public at Large: esp. Poor)|_<br>Taxpayers<br>(Public at Large)|,<br>'PolluterPayse for Right<br>(Poor bear impacts)|<br>'Pollution Prevention Pays'<br>Integrated<br>Ecodeveloment|Avoid costs by foregoing<br>development|
|_Responsblity_<br>_tor Devoepment_<br>_andManaernent_|_<br>____________________<br>Property Owners:<br>Individuals or State<br>_:_|Fragmentation:<br>Development decentralized<br>Management centralized|Toward Integration across<br> <br>multipe levels of govt.<br>(e.g.,tedistatetlocal)|p<br>Private/Public InsMtutional<br>Innovations & Redefinition<br>of Roles|Largely Decentralized but<br>integrated design & mgmt|
|_Environmental_<br>_Management_<br>_Technologies_<br>_and Strategies:_|Industrial Agriculture:<br>High Inputs of Energy,<br>Biocide. & Water;<br>Monocultures,<br>Mechanized Production<br>Fossil Energy<br>Pollution Dispersal<br>Unregulated Waste<br>Disposal<br>High Population Growth<br>"FreeMarkets"|<br>'End-of-the-Pipe-or<br>'Businessas Usual Plus a<br>Treatment Plant Clean-up.<br>'Commandand Contror<br>Market Regulation: Some<br>Prohibition or Limits. Repair,<br>& Set-asides.<br>Focus on Protection of<br>Human Health.<br>'LandDoctoring'<br>Envir. Impact Statements|<br>Impact Assessment & Risk<br>Management, Pollution<br> <br>Reduction, Energy<br>Efficiency, Renewable<br>Resource/ Conservation<br> <br>Strategies, Restoration<br>Ecology, Population<br>Stabilization & Technology-<br>Enhanced Carrying<br>Capacity, Some Structural<br>Adjustment|Uncertainty (Resilience)<br>Management.<br>Eco-Technologies. o.g:<br>Renewable Energy,<br>WastelResource Cycling for<br>Throughput Scale<br>Reduction, Agro-forestry,<br> <br>Low Input Agriculture.<br>Extractive Forest Reserves<br>Population Stabilization &<br>Enhanced Capacity as RM|Stability Managemenrt<br>Reduced Scale ol Mkt<br>Economy (inc. Trade)<br>Low Technology<br> <br>Sinple Material Needs<br>Non-dominating Science<br>Indigenous Tech. Systems<br>Intrinsic Values'<br> <br>Population Reduction|
|_Analytic/Modeling_<br>_and Planning_<br>_Methodologies:_|Neoclassical OR Marxist<br>Closed Economic Systems:<br> <br>Reversible Equilbria,<br>Production Limited by Man-<br>made Factors, Natural<br>Factors not accounted for.<br>Net Present Value<br>Maximization<br>Cost-Benetit Analysis of<br>tangible goods & services|Neodassical Plus:<br> <br>Environmental Impact<br>Assessment after Design;<br>Optimum Pollution Levels<br>Equation of Willingness to<br>Pay & Compensation<br>Principles|Biophysical-Economic<br>Open Systems Dynamics:<br>Includo Natural CapitaL True<br>(Hicksian) Income<br>Maximization in SNAs<br>Increased. Freer Trade<br>Ecosystem & Social Heakh<br>Monioring; Linkages<br>between Population,<br>Poverty, & Environment|Socio-TechnicaV<br>Ecosystem Propess<br> <br>Planning & Design<br>Integration d Social,<br>Economic, & Ecological<br>Criteria for Technology<br> <br>Participation & Autonomy<br>Indigenous Goals &<br>Management; Land Tenure<br>& Income Distrib. (Equity)<br>|Grassroots Bioregional<br>Planning<br>Multipl Cultural Systems<br>Consesar.4n of Cultural &<br>Biobgical Divesiny<br>Autonomy<br>|
|_Fundamental_<br>_Flaws:_|.______________<br>_______<br>Creative but Mechanistic;<br>No awareness of reliance on<br>ecobgical balance|_______________<br>_______________________<br>Defined by F.E. in reaction<br>to D.E.; Lacks vision of<br>abundance without scarcity|________________<br>Still anthropocentri,<br>Subtly mechanistic; Doesn't<br>handle uncertainty|_<br>G eophysioloqysiol_<br>Magnitude d changes<br>require new consciousness<br>Doesnl manipulate fears|_v<br>Defined in reaction to F.E.;<br>Organic but not Creative;<br>How reduce population?|

M.E. Coby: Mabix 1- _958_ (Fntaer Ecaromia) (Envwionmnient Protecton) (Roiac Mangemei1 (ED-D9v*kWnwM

-(Dep Ecog
8

# Frontier Economics

14. "Frontier economics" is the terrn ust by economist and systems theorist Kenneth Boulding to describe the approach that prevailed in indusulal countries (from at least te time of t.' scirntific revolution) until the late 1960's. At its most basic, it treats nature as an infinite supply of physical resources (raw materials, energy, water, soil, and, air) to be used for human benefit, and as an infinite sink for the by-products of the development and consumption of these benefits, irn the fo¢m of varioas types of pollution and ecological degradation.<sup>10</sup> This _throughput aspect of the flow of resources from nature into the economy and the flow of wastes back out into the "environmene'_ did not enter into predominant economic thinking, because it was believed to be _infinite_ in potential, while neoclassical economics was chiefly concerned with the allocation of those resources perceived to be _scarc .11_ Thus, according to this view, th^re is no explicit biophysical "environment" to be managed, becauwse it is irrelevant to the economy. According to Lester Thurow (in 1980), "wmTies about natural resource exhaustion are hard to rationalize from the point of view of economics."'12 _15._ Hence, the economy became disembodied from nature, in theory and in human practice. _"The standard texbook representadon of the economic process by a circular diagran, a pendulum movement between production and consumption within_ a _conmletely closed system,"_ with all flows being completely reversible, (Figure 2) was widely ac=cpted.13 This posed little problem as long as the rate of demand for natual resources ard ecosystem services did not exceed nature's capacity to provide them. Since this capacity was assumed to be infinite, for all pracdcal purposes, the issue of _scale_ of total resource flow relative to total resource stocks was not considered.4 The primary limiting factors of production are perceived, in both neoclassical and Marxist economic analysis, to be human labor and man-made capital. There is an unbridled faith in the "progress" of human ingenuity, in the benevoleace of technological advancement, and their capacity to reckon with any problems that might arise (i.e., through substitution when scarcity causes prices to rise). Since both nature's capacity and human ingenuity are seen as ? ,.idless, there is little conceptual possibility for the combination of the accumulation of damage and the depletion of resources to

- 10 Boulding, Kenneth, 1966. MThe Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth," in HE. Jarett, ed., _Environment al QuaIly in a Growing Economy._ Johns llopdns Press, Baldtimore.

- 11 Daly, Hemman E., 1989. "Steady-State Vensus Growth Economics: Issues for the Next Century." Paper for the Hoover nstdtution Conference on Populadon, Resources and Environment, Stanford University, Febmay 1-3, 1989.

- 12 Thurow, Ler, 1980. _The Zero-Sum Society. Basic_ Books, New York, p. 112. B Georgescu-Roegen. Nicholas, 1971. _The Entropy Law and the Economic Process,_ Havd University Prss, Cambridge, MA.

- 14 Daly. Heman E., 1989. Q&e
9 eventually limit production and human opportunity. Sometimes economic theory blocks out - ecological reility, not to mention its .mpact on economic reality but somedmes it is econovists, not their theory, who narrow their 'pctical" concerns within a theoretical famework which might N. sufficient to handle many ecological problems if properly applied. It is a paradox of economics that "value" is generated by creating scarcity; depleting and degrading resources increass their measured value, tat it usually hurts people, the economy, and the functionality of the ecosystem on which they rest.

<!-- Start of picture text --> $ Coampo Experdwms<br>NATIONAL<br>AANS SERVICES ZD t PRODUCT<br>|HOUSEHOLDSI FIR<br>;J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'<br>'4 | '4 NATIONAL<br>LAND, LABOR, AND CAPITAL ' 4<br>$ Wages, Profit, Etc.<br><!-- End of picture text -->

Households sell or rent land, natural resorces, labor, and capital to finns in run for rent, wages, and profit (factor payments). Firms combine the factors of production to produce goods and services in retum for consumption expenditues, investment, govenunent expenditues, and net 15 exports.

16. Consistent with widespread interpretations of the major Western religions and Francis Bacon's "Technological Program" for the development of modern Western science, nature is seen in this paradigm as existing for man's instrumental benefit, to be explored, manipulated, exploited, modified, and even "cheated" in any way possible that could improve the material quality of human IS Modified from Hall, Charlies A.S, Cutler J. Cleeland, & Robert Kaufmnann, 1986. _Energy and Resource Quality: The Ecology of the Economic Process._ Wiley-Iterscience, New York; and Heilbroner, RL., and L.C. Thurow, 1981. _The Economic Problem._ Prentic-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
10 life.<sup>16</sup> In fact, Lature was to be remade according to man's image, transformed so as to be more suitable to humans' needs and desires. The relationship between human activity and nature under this management paradigm thus can be seen as _unilaterally oriented (anthropocentric)._ From "nature's perspective," the relationship may have been characterizable as _zero-sum,_ or _negadve;_ humans benefitted at the expense of other species and natural ecosystems.

17. This type of relationship between society and nature is common to relatively decentralized, capitalist economies and to centrally-planned, Marxist economies. They differ in tactics, such as in the type of property regime promoted as most efficient and/or desirable (private property versus state property), responsibility for governance and design of activity, and in how the income from production is to be distributed, but the underlying wxrldviews about the roles of people and nature, and their ultimate goals, are mu. h the same. Their visions are of infinite economic growth and human "progress." 18. Many technologies that have been used for "development" could thus be seen, with a minor adjustment in view, as technologies or strategies for managing the environment, since they were developed for the purpose of increasing man's power to extract resources and production from nature, and/or to reduce the negative impacts of nature's variability on society. A prime example is modern, industrial agriculture, which in order to solve the basic problem of hunger, replaced natural nutrient cycles and pest control with man-madc chemicals, irrigation, and fossil fuel energy. Another example is the "tall smokestacks" strategy of waste dispersal, based on the idea that if pollution is spread thinly enough, it will go unnoticed, by people or by nature.

19. Most developing nations have emulated this basic approach to economic and environmental management in one way or another. They have been in no small way encouraged by not just the example and teachings, but also the direct policies prescribed for them by the leaders and policymakers of industrialized nations and international development and financial institutions.<sup>17</sup> This approach was sometimes jusdfied as a minor evil, "necessary" during the pre- and early-industrial stages of development, as was rapid population growth, in order to achieve a more advanced state. This population growth then became a reason for yet more resource consumption and pollution. It is believed that damage can easily be repaired, where necessary, after development has proceeded

> 16 Bnn, Momris, 1981. _The Reenchantment of the World,_ ComneD University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 14-18. 17 It should be noted that such prsiptions were not necessary intentionally harmful; they arose due to the implicit, often unconscious assunptions made about the relationship and intedendence between hnman activity and nature. Unfortu"aely, the hidden effects were built into the policies. Many of these institutions and leaders are now trying to change this.
11 to some point where explicit environmental management can be afforded (see "Environmental Protection"). The vision is one where infinite technological progress and economic growth would eventualty provide affordable ways to mitigate environmental problems (and others, such as equity). The fundamental flaw is a lack of awareness of the human reliance on ecological balance.

20. One major problem with this philosophy arises from an important difference in vulnerability to ecological degradation between temperate (industrial country) and tropical (developing country) environments, and the types of "environmental" problems they face; the resource depletion and ecological destruction going on in tropical nations is in many cases irreversible on a human time scale, unlike the pollution problems which dominated environmental concerns in the industrial countries (at least until very recently; the ozone and global warming issues may be irreversible). In the late 1980's, most developing nations have come to see that they are damaging their own future prospects by pursuing development strategies and policies that are unsustainable, though they often feel that they have no choice. Natural resources and ecological processes are now becoming "scarcer," and so economic theory must change to incorporate them. A vicious circle of poverty and ecological destruction has been set up, often as a direct result of "development," with a unifying theme of increasing marginalization of people and the land on which they live.

# Deep Ecology

21. 'Deep ecology" is one name for a worldview that has been widely interpreted as the polar opposite of frontier economics (by advocates of both perspectives). In many regards, it is a reacdon to many of the consequences of the dominant paradigm. It is much less widely understood or accepted, though as a political movement it is growing. _Deep_ ecology is not to be confused with the _science_ of ecology (see Appendix). In its current form, it is an attempt to synthesize many old and some new philosophical attitudes about the relationship between nature and human socioeconomic activity, with particular emphasis on ethical, social, and spiritual aspects that have been downplayed in the dominant economic worldview. Deep ecology is far from a unified, consistent philosophy as of this date."<sup>8</sup> This title actually comes from one school

> 18 Though it has been criticized for a lack of coherence, even from within the Green Politics fold, some Deep Ecology advocates consider this to be a strength rather than a weakness, promoting diversity and flexibility. At any rate, neither is economic theory anywhere near as unified and consistent as its advocates or its critics are wont to assume. For some interesting discussions of the differences between various 'ecological' philosophies, see Vol. 18, No. _4/5_ (1988) of the Britsh joumnal _The Ecologist._
12 of thought within the philosophical spectrum of "Green Politics," the latter of which draws eclectically on various schools such as the modem science of systems ecology; wilderness preservationism; 19th century romanticism and transcendentalism, eastern philosophies such as Taoism; various religions' concepts of ethics, justice, and equity; ecofeminism; pacifism; Jeffersonian decentralized, participatory democracy; and some of the social equality aspects of socialism (which some have termed "social ecology").

22. Deep ecologists promote merging an understanding and appreciation of some of the more technical, scientific aspects of systems ecology with a non-anthropocentric ("biocentric," or "harmonious") view of the relationship between man and nature, which often means putting man under nature, the reverse of the frontier economics hierarchy. Among the basic tenets are intrnsic "biospecies equality" (the Convention on the Internatioaal Trade of Endangered Species, or CITES, signed by over one hundred nations, is a step toward the achievement of this goal); major reductions in human population (effective _and_ egalitarian means of achieving this are never specified); bioregional autonomy (reduction of economic, technological, and cultural dependencies and exchanges to within integrous regions of common ecological characteristics); promotion of biological and cultural diversity; decentralized planning udlizing multiple value systems; nongrowth oriented economies; non-dominant (simple or low) technology; and more use of indigenous management and technological systems. Deep ecologists (as well as many systems analysts of the resource management and eco-development paradigms) see technological fixes as usually leading - to larger, more costly, more intractable problems not exactly a desirable form of "progress." 23. The application of this philosophy would result in radical changes in social, legal and economic systems, and definitions of "development." Its advocates promote major changes in the quality and extent of human modification of nature, to symbiosis with nature. While _some_ of these - principles can actually be of great use in future development planning approaches, the extreme to expect the whole world to return to pre-industrial, rural lifestyles and standards of living -has been widely regarded as highly imprcticaL Even if everyone wanted to, this would be impossible at current population levels and rural land degradation. The extreme imperative is of an antigrowth "Eco-topia," of a constrained "harmony with nature." While this may be organic, it tends not to be creative - one of the fundamental drives in the evolution of both nature and human society. The following table comparing this worldview direcdy with Frontier Economics is modified from the book _Deep Ecology: Living as ifNature Mattered._<sup>_19_</sup> 19 Devall, Bill, and George Sessions, 1985. _Deep Ecology: Living as ifNature Mattered._ Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City, p. 69.
13 <!-- Start of picture text --> TABLE 2.<br>Doninant Economic Worldview VS. Deep Ecology Worldview<br>Dominance over Nature Harmony with nature; symbiosis<br>Natural environment is a resource All nature has intrinsic worth;<br>for humans biospecies equality<br>Material/economic growth for Simple material needs, serving a larger<br>growing human population goal of self-realization<br>Belief in ample resource reserves Earth "supplies" limited<br>High technological progress Appropriate technology,<br>and solutions non-dominating science<br>Consumerism, Growth in consumption Do with enough; recycling<br>National/centralized community Minority traditions/ bioregions<br><!-- End of picture text -->

# Environmental Protection

24. The dominance of the frontier economics paradigm began to weaken in the 1960's, especiaUly after the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson's book, _Silent Spring._ By the end of that decade, pollution was a major concern in the industrialized nations. Scientists began to study "environmental problems," usuaUy related to pollution or the destruction of habitats and/or species. The recognition of the pollution problem in the polarized context of frontier economics versus the nascent deep ecology schools led to the perception of the necessity to make compromises, or tadeoffs; the constrained perception of "Ecology _versus_ Economic Growth" became freshly explicit.

25. "Environmental impact statements" were institutionalized in some industrial countries as a rational means to assist in weighing the costs and benefits of development activities before they began. In actuality, statements often were added on after project planning and design were well along, so that the late-coming environmental concerns usually ended up being perceived as "antidevelopment." Even at its best, the process tends to focus on comparing a few alternative actions to find the least damaging one, iather than setting some "minimum standards" and then seeking an option that meets them. This is the beginning of what might be called the takeover of the "negative, or defensive agenda" in practical environmental management policies and actions, though the assumptions and values implicitly underlying it go much further back in ime. It is still fundamentaUy anthropocentric, though modified in the case of some major endangered species and
14 set-aside wilderness areas (a case can be made for the latter stll being basically to satisfy human aesthetic values).

26. By "negative," it is not meant that the e Onmtal protection approach explicitly set out to harm the envronment. On the contray, ental protection and threfore, nagement, was now at last an explicit enteps, contry to most of Western histotry, and this was certiy a "positive" development. It is termed negative because it instituionialized an approach that focussed on repairing and setting limits to harmful activity. Rather than focussing on ways to _improve_ both development actions and ecological resilience, this approach was concerned mainly with _ameliorating_ the effects of human acdvities. In its essence, the approach is inhereatly defensive or _remedial_ in practice. It has also been described as the "end-of-the-pipe" or "business-as-usual, plus a treament plant" approach. To use a medical analogy, "land doctoring" is practiced rater than "land health." Economic analysis is still based on the neoclassical model of the closed economic system 27. When regulatory approaches were crated to set limits, they usually focussed on actvities that rewlted in "excess" pollution. Excess or "optmal pollution levels" were defined -m by short-term economic acceptability (and therefore, politics) than by what was necessary for the mainteance of ecosystem resilience (admittdy, in part due to the fact that ecologically apx3xie levels wer/are not known). The limits enacted were thus often arbitary from a scientficecological point of view. Pollution dispersal connued to be a commm appwach to amelio , even when it created yet larger, more costly problems down the road, such as interational tansport of acid precipitation. In keeping with the dominant paradigm of sepaaton of issues and framentation of responsibility in govemment, seprate I"Eionenta Proton Agencies" were created. They were responsible for settng the limits, and in some cases, cleaning up after limits were exceeded, but they were not responsible for planning development activities in ways that did not pollute or impair necessary ecological functions, or better stiL, that facilitate ecologicd functions at the same time as taking advantage of them. As many pollution problems grew, the after-the-fact, clean-up nature of this type of management grew (e.g., the clean-up of the North American Great Lakes and the United States' Superfund), as did the prescription of new technological solutions to mitigate pollution problems (e.g., very expensive smokestack "scrubbers") .

28. In this approach, relbvely small parcels of common property sometmes were converted to state property to be set aside for preservation or crvion as national pars and wildeess eseves A more pervasive conceptual tenet of this path, however, is the neocssca belef in the
_15_ privatization of property as a principal solution to overuse of resources. Garrett Hardin's classic allegory of "The Tragedy of the Commons" has been widely accepted by researchers and development practitioners as a basis for this prescription.<sup>20</sup> Common property regimes are asociatd with "inevitable" resource degradation. This has become the dominant paradigm within which social scientists assess natural resource issues. Unfortunately, "the Hardin metaphor is not only socially and culturally naive, it is historically false."<sup>21</sup> What were actually _open access_ property regimes with the stereotypical "tragic" consequences, were lumped together with _commn_ property regimes 'under which specific usage rights and duties apply to a finite group, and from which others are excludable), which can be and often are actually sustainable (if the usage rights and duties are ecologically sound and enforceable).

29. The Stockhoim UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 signaled the internationalization of the problem of environmental disruption, and therefore, the subject of explicit management. While it is quite unfair to say that the conceptual framework of the organizers of Stockholm and its follow-up (such as the creation of UNEP, the Cocoyoc Conference in 1974, etc.) was exclusively of the "remedial" focus described above, the predomiant practical consequences were stll in this mode. UNEP has no operational power and no responsibility for truly changing the ways in which development activity is organized and measured. It is an information-gathering agency, ensconsed in Nairobi, far from the corridors of power, financial resources, and decision making. Most developing countries have been slow to implement comprehensive and effective protective legislation, planning and enforcement, partly because they believed they could not afford it (in the neoclassical sense, excluding the externalites) and partdy because it is perceived as unfairly restricting their development potential. Governments often have seen enviromnental concerns, especially pollution and land/wildlife protection, as the interests of the elite class or rich countries, and contrary to their needs and interests; more constraining than helpful. Somewhat paradoxically, governments do usually bow to those same rich elite interest groups when they resist land reform measures that might be useful in addressing some of the problems. Another paradox is that the poor aE harmed more by both pollution and resource degradation than are the rich.

30. This perception of unaffordabilit and unfairness is at least in part due to the fact that the environmental protecdon approach is basically a modest variation on the '"rontier economics" 2D Hwdin, Gare, 1968. She trady of thc commons." _Scence. 162;_ 1243-8.

21 Bromley, Daniel W. and Michael M. Cornea, 1989. "The Manageent of common propety natal reamrces: some concepual and opeaional fallaciea." Paper at the World Bank Nmth Agricultural Symposium, January 10-11, 1989, Wuhingto, DC.
16 paradigm of development, and even that was at least in part thrust on developing countries by industdal nations. Because of the types of informadon sought in economic analysis, this variation only shows up as added costs. Development activides that are also ecologically beneficial (or even benign) are rarely recognized as such. Impacts of excessive environmental depletions (resource exploitation) or insertions (polludon) are considered to be "externalities" to the economy. Therefore they are dealt with after they occur, for the most part, and usuaUy paid for by the public at large, in the forms of quality of life degradation and/or increased taxes. The ecosystem in general is seen as external to the economy. The impacts of pollution on human health and the aesthetic quality of the r mvironment are often the prime "environmental" concerns of industrial country governments; for this reason, some economists have claimed that it is mainly the concem of the industral middle class.2<sup>2</sup> Resource depletion and ecosystem services are stil not perceived in policy-making circles as serious limiting factors, because of an unbridled faith in technological progress and substitution. The very use of the term "environmental" as a label for these typos of problems belies how small the change in attitudes which underlie the approach realy are. Under a different set of assumptions about the relationship between man and nature, they might be more properly caUed "economic," "resource," or perhaps most appropriately, "development" problems.

31. The interaction between human activity and nature can still be seen as negative from nature's perspective (hence the dichotomous perception of "environment versus development"). The basic purpose of this interaction is still unilateral or anthropocentric. Setting aside national parks and cleaning up of pollution are still done primarily for human benefit, whether health- or aesthetically-oriented. Future radonales for parks or reserves may focus more on their genetic _resowce_ and climate regulation values, but again, these resources are intended for potential use by humans. That is what the term "resource" implies. It may seem unusual now, but we may not be far from considering "climate" and other natural processes as among the most vital of resources. Economists still focus almost exclusively on the market economy. Little understanding of "nature's economy" (the ecology of resource processes: the stocks and flows of nutrent cycles, ecosystem senrices, throughput processing abilities of different ecosystems, the iterdependence of 22 This perception is reinfomed in istrial nations beCause it is the middle class that is most vocal and powerful politically, and the marginality of costs affects it the mosL The survival priorities of the poor supersede their environmental quality interests. In tems of actual healh effects, the impacts are probably most severe on the poor, however. The story in developing countries is quite different because resoure depletion is often felt more severely than pollution effects, and it is the poor who are most affected Hence, in some developing countries such as India, "ecology movements" have risen frtm the lower classes. This is one of the more important distinctions between 'envirnmental" problems of the industrial versus developing nations, and a majr impetus for the shift to the next paradigm, "Resoue MangeleL SeeBandyapadhyay, Jayanta nd Vandana Shiva, 1988. "Political economy of ecology movements", _Economic and Poldcat Wee*,June_ 11, 1988, pp 1223-1232.
17 ecosystems and climate, etc.)<sup>23</sup> or the "survival economy" (that part of human activity which does not enter into any market stadstics but nonetheless supports hundreds of millions of people's lives) enters into economic analysis or development planning.

# Resource Management

32. The immediately preceding paragraphs provided ample foreshadowing that "Resource Management" is the emerging approach. It is the basic theme of reports such as the Brundtland Commission's _Our Common Future,_ the Worldwatch Institute's annual _State of the World,_ and the World Resources Institute's annual _World Resources_ reports. It is both a substantial change from and a fairly natural extension of the economic paradigm (therefore, it can be termed - "evolutionary," rather than "revolutionary"), to include all types of capital and resources - biophysical, human, infrastructural, and monetary in calculations of national accounts, productivity, and development planning. It directly contradicts the frontier economics assertion that natural resource exhaustion is not a matter of concern. Pollution can even be considered a "negative resource, 'rather than as an externality. As mentioned, climate may become regarded as a resource to be managed under this paradigm. The interdependence and multiple values of various resources are taken into greater account (e.g., the role of forests in watershed and climate regulation, affecting hydropower, agriculture, and fisheries productivity).

33. The beginnings of the relatively "neutral" (this to be explained below) resource management paradigm lie in an extension of economics' concern with resource allocation. Global systems dynamics modelers began to model not just the resources of capital and labor, but also the interactive supply and demand of other "natural resources," including energy, valuable metals, fisheries, forests, soils, and water, which were perceived as becoming scarcer, and the existence of "negative" resources such as pollution. The publication of the Club of Rome's _The Limits to Growth_ in 1972 was a landmark in this regard. This report, along with subsequent modelling attempts such as the U.S. _Global 2000 Report to the President_ in 1980, was widely vUified because it projected a future of "doom and gloom" based on linear extrapolation of trends without considering the positive potential of technological change, resource substitution, and price 23 Worster, Donald, 1977. _Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas._ Univ. of Cambridge Piess, Cambridge, UJL and Perrings, Charles, 1987. _Economy and Environment: A Theoretical Essay on the Interdependence of Economic and Enviroenfwtal Systems,_ Cambridge University Pzres
18 mechanisms. These "systems analysis" arguments thon languished in policy-malking circles in the early 1980's, amid a resurgent political climate of economic and technological optimism, and faith in free markets and trade growth. Also playing a major role were the debt crises in developing countries which were so acute that usually, rather than implementing even the defensive or remedial approach described above, they somedmes led to increased rates of extraction and destruction of natual resources, in an attempt to pay off their debt and meet the immediate needs of rapidly growing populations.

34. Outside of major policy and decision-making circles, however, much work continued along the lines of the systems analytical framework. Methodologies, monitoring, and documentation improved, particularly with regard to resource depletion, population pressure, and the cirular links with poverty. Interdisciplinary fields such as ecology, living systems, and self-organizing systems developed more rigorous systems modeling methods. Many of the threats predicted in earlier modeling efforts have in fact come true, despite the fact the one often reads statements that the doom and gloom scenarios have been "vanquished." "Global Commons" resources, such as the atmosphere in ger.=al and the ozone layer in particular, climate variation, biodiversity, and oceanic resources, have emerged as issues for which current legal, economic, political, and institutional structures and concepts are seriously deficient. No environmental management program in developing countries can successfully achieve sustainability without stabilization of population levels.

35. Non-govenmmental and international organizadons, such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the UN, prepared the World Conservation Strategy and the World Charter for Nature. Many more conferences were held. Collaborativ **e** fforts such as the Tropical Forestry Action Plan were launched.24 It was argued that increasing efficiency of resource use, through conservadon, wise management, and policies that integrated economic and ecological principles, along with ever-relied-upon promises of technological advances, would prevent disaster and ensure that _'The Global Possible"25_ would be achieved.

X By the World Bank, UNEP, UNDP, FAO, and the World Reoue Institte. 25 Repeuo, Rotlet (ed.), 1986, _The Global Possible: Resources, Development, and the New Cenury,_ World Rewce Insdtute, Washington, D.C.
19 36. New initiatives in global vommons law have already taken hold, with several more possible.<sup>2</sup> 6 The combination of greater resource depletion, pollution, continued population growth, rising energy costs, climatic changes, land destruction, and high dcbt burdens have created economic and social conditions in developing countries that are much worse than they were ten, or in parts of Africa, even twenty years ago. These conditions seriously threaten possibilities for economic growth and prosperity, not to mendon survival, for large numbers of people. "Risk management" is now a major aspect of management of the interactions between economic aeivity and its human and ecosystem health consequences, and a subject of numerous international conferences.27 37. The resource management approach might be termed as _"neutrar'_ because its greater emphasis on long-term sustainability of resource use and development activity in general is based on an attitudinal shift toward appreciation of the interdependence of human activity and ecosphere resilience. Concern for the environment no longer implies that one is anti-development; in fact, sustainable development depends on it. It is understood that the scale of human activity is so large that it now affects nature as much as nature affects man, and these impacts feed back on the quantity and quality of human life that is achievable. The neoclacsical imperative of economic growth is still the primary goal of development planning, but criteria of sustainability are viewed _as necessary constraints .2_ 38. Much work is being done to integrate understanding of the economy of nature with the economy of markets, and to improve the System of National Accounts (SNAs) accordingly (the subject of several Working Papers by the World Bank's Environment Department and work of the World Resources Institute and UNEP). Despite the fact that _ecology_ and _economics_ come from the same Greek root, _(oikos,_ meaning "house") the sciences of ecology and economics have very different concepts of what _production, capital, health, resource,_ etc. mean. Calculations of _Hicksian income,_ which is by definition sustainable, need to incorporate natural, or non-man-made capital as well as man-made economic resources such as labor, money, infrastructure. Perhaps 2i Previous effots included The Antarctica Treaty, the Convention on the Internatonal Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), the stalled Law of the Sea, the Nile Waters Agreement, and the U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty. Contemporary measues include the 1988 Montreal Protocol on Ozone and subsequent efforts to strengthen it,Intenational Trade of Hazardous Wastes, a renegotiated Antarctica Treaty. Other possibilities include an "International Law of the Atmosphere", a 'Biodiversity Conservation Agreement", recognition ofWorld Court jurisdiction by the nations of the UN Security Coundl, etc. Z7 Kleindorfer, Paul K. and Howard C. Kunruhr, eds., 1986. _Insring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond._ IHASA and Springer-Verlag, Berlin/New York Th World Bank hosted its own conference on risk management and industi developmnent in October, 1988. 28 Pezzey, John, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Sustainable Growth and Sustainable Development". Workng Paper #14, March, 1989, Environment Dept., World Bank.
20 even more significant, ecosystem processes, rather than just stocks of physical resources, need to be considered as resources and capital which should be conserved - as well as used more effectively through new technology. Differnces in the area of rate limitadons on the physical flow of matter and energy through the economy (out of, then back into the ecosystem at large) arm also important. These need to be integrated into a common discipline. This would lead to a much more explicitly managed relationship between man and nature, sometimes still involving "trade-offs," but with better accounting of the true values of functioning natural systems to economies, this perception will decrease. The approach is sdll anthopocentric at its core; aU this concern for nature is based on the fact that hurting nature is beginning to hurt economic man. Thus, the instrumental economic paradigm prevails, only it is enlarged to encompass some basic ecological principles in an attempt to maintain ecosystem/life support system stability for the support of sustainable development.

39. This approach has been called the _"Global Efficiency"_ path.<sup>29</sup> It expands economic analysis with systems analysis methods. The model of the closed economic system is replaced with the "biophysical economics" model of a thermodynamicaly open economy embedded within the ecosystem: biophysical resources (energy, materials, and ecological processing cycles) flow from the ecosystem into the economy and degraded (non-useful) energy and other by-products (poilution) flow back out to the ecosystem (see Figure 3).30 Energy efficiency in particular and resource conservation (or efficiency improvement) in general,<sup>3</sup> 1 pollution prevention (rather than clean-up) technologies, restoration ecology, ecosystem and social health monitoring, and the "polluter pays principle"<sup>32</sup> are management strategies that will probably be implemented on a large scale. Correcting incentive and punishment systems in order to haress market forces for efficient environmental management is a major theme. _In essence, ecology is being economized._ Much of the work is focussed on "getting the prices (of all resources) right." 40. The mislabeling of various societal messes as "environmental problems" is in many cases what helps to perpetuate them, because it enables professionals to conceive of them as "externalities" to be solved, cleaned up, or managed by different people from those who were responsible for creating the messes, rather than as evidence of a faulty system of logic by which :S Sachs, Wolfgang, 1988. "The Gospel of Global Efficiency: On Wordwatch and odier repow on th stat of te world.' _IFDA Dossier 68:_ 33-39 (November-Decembr).

30 Daly, Herman E., 1989. Q.ci1.

31 IUCN, 1980. _World Conservation Strategy,_ Ineraonal Union for the Consemvaon of Naue and Naual Resources, Gland, Swizerland.

32 OECD, 1975. _The Polluter Pays Principle,_ Paris, 117 pp. See also, Kapp, K. William, 1950,1971. _The Social Costs of Private Enterprise._ Schocken Books, New Yock&
21 society makes its choices (decisions). When they are fully internalized, they can be conceived of as "resource problems," but this too has limitations. The characterisdcs of problematic situadons of practice, which increasingly can be seen in the myriad "problems" of development, are frequendy mismatched with the nature of technical-economic rational logic and its tools on which professionals have come to rely. This leads to the need for a new, mutually positive synthesis of development and management of human-nature interactions for the future.

<!-- Start of picture text --> ECOSYSTEM<br>DIRECT ECONOMIC SYSTEM<br>SOLAR,<br>FOSSIL, & WASTE<br>ATOMIC - _r___,_HEAT LOW<br>SOLAR FUELS GRADE<br>ENERGY _ THERMAL<br>MATTER HOSHLSFRSENERGY<br>DEGRADED<br>ECOSYSTEM * t MATTER &<br>SERVICES SERVICES<br><!-- End of picture text --> FIGURE 3. Economic Production from a Biophysical Per&f=e A continuous input of high-quality/low entropy fuels, varying entropy material ("natural" esoures), and ecosystem services enter the economic system from tlw larger ecosystem. The economy then uses the fuels to upgrade the natural resources, driving thi tircular flow between households and fims in the process. The fuel, materials, and services are degraded and rurned to the ecosystem as low quality, high entropy heat and matter and impaii ecosystem process fuctioning.<sup>33</sup>

# Eco-Development

41. Eco-Development involves a larger, more discontinuou **s** hift in thinking and practice than idther of the two previous approaches, though again, it cao Le said to follow eventually from the limitations inherent to those paradigms. It more explicidy stis out to restructure the relationship 3 Modified from Hall. Chades A.S, Cutler J. Cleveland, & Robert Kaufmnann, 1986. _Energy and Resorce Quaity: The Ecology of the Economic Process._ Wiley-Interscience, New Yoa; and Daly, Herman L, _1977. Stady-Swe Economics._ Freeman, New YorL
22 between society and nature into a "positive sum game" througlh sophisticated forms of symbiosis, compared to the back-to-nature "simple symbiosis" advocated by deep ecologists. It sees most development activity as a form of management of this relationship; environmental management, economic development, and socio-ecological development might virtually become semantic distinctions for the same subject: the integrated coevolution of conscious civilization and nature. Hence, "Eco-" signifies both "economic" and "ecological" (since both words come from the same Greek root), while the use of "Development" rather than "Growth," 'Management" or "Protection" connotes an explicit reorientation and upgrading of the level of integration of social, ecological and economic concerns in planning.

42. Eco-development is not just about the clean up of polludon or prevention of excessive resource depletion, or efficiency of resource use, though these are certainly allowed and included, for practical reasons. Just as Environmental Protection includes and expands upon the system boundaries of Frontier Economics, and as Resource Management is doing the same for Environmental Protection, Eco-Development includes and expands Resource Management. Its real goal is to remove the need for the polluter to pay by restructuring the ecor.omy according to ecological principles. It would strive to make reality as close as possible to the theoretical neoclassical model of the environmentally closed economy (Figure 2). This is what Herman Daly's "steady-state" economics is about (though it is worth debating whether "steady-state" is too misleading a label). Growth is still possible, actually necessary, but it would be a very different kind of growth. Such _"green growth"_ would be based more on increasing the information intensiveness, community consciousness, and experiential quality of economic activity, rther than the material-energy intensiveness. The global warming issue has great implications for energy development planning, as well as transport and agricultural systems - subjects of seve&al forthcoming papers by World Bank staff. Eco-development would also attempt to incorporate many of the social equity and cultural concerns raised in the various schools of deep ecology. In _Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions,_ Michael Redclift argues that in order to take the work of the Brundtland Commission seriously, the direcdon of the development process itself must be redirected to give greater emphasis to indigenous knowledge and experience and to take effective political action on behalf of the environment.34 Other major problems of the economic paradigm that sdll need to be resolved are the impacts on sustainability of time scales and discount rates, and integrating returns on different types of investments (e.g., financial, ecological, and social).

34 Redclih, Michael, 1987. _Sustainable Development: Exploring the contrakdctions._ Methuen, London and Now Yoad
23 43. Eco-Development would thus move on from _economizing ecology to ecologizing the economy._ From the conflict between antiropocentric versus biocentric values, it attempts to synthesize _ecocentrism:_ refusing to place humanity either above nature (as in frontier economics, environmental protection, and resource management) or below it (deep ecology), it includes the ecological relationships among people and nature in communides, among communities sharing ecoregions, and among ecoregions cooperating to sustain fte shared ecosphere of the planet.<sup>35</sup> It also needs to allow for the aspirations of all, placing equal value on ecology and _creativity._ 44. Eco-development requires even longer term management of adaptability, resilience, and uncertainty, to reduce the occurrence of ecological surprises caused by crossing over unkmown ecospheric stock, flow-rate, and process thresholds. Ecological _uncertainty_ needs to be incorpoated into economic modeling and planning mechanisms; risk management (tryng to figure out how much can be gotten away with) is not sufficient.<sup>36</sup> The polluter pays prnciple, widely regarded by economists as a major corrective mechanism, does not incorporate ecological uncertainty and social equity issues well at all. Eco-development would therefore make explicit social, ecological, _and_ economic criteria for the development and use of technology (e.g., renewable, clean energy sources and energy conserving techniques; integrated pest management and low input agriculture; agro-forestry; and appropriate uses of biotechnology). It asks, "how can we create ecologically?" rather than "how can we create? and then how can we remedy?' The use of ecologically sound common property regimes and indigenous knowledge (e.g., sustainable extractve forest reserves, rather than clear-cutting for timber, cattle, and short-term cropping; effective common management of tnbal drylands such as by the nomadic Samburu of Kenya; and the involvement of local peoples in the management and benefit-sharing of national parks and tourism, as with the Maasai in Kenya) would also be subject to such criteria. True costs of development would be fully integrated, allocated socially and internationally according to cumulative benefits, ecological uncertainty, and means (ability to pay).<sup>37</sup> In so doing, ecodevelopment provides a _posidve,_ interdependent vision for both human development and nature.

- 35 Tokar, Brian, 1988. "Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and the Future of Green Polidcal Thought,* _The Ecologist, 18:_ 4/5; 132-141, p. 139.

- 36 Prow, Charles, 1984. _Nornal Accidets: Living with High-Risk Technologies,_ Basic Books, New Yodc. 37 See, for insanOe:

Sachs, Igny, 1984a. Ihe Strategies of Ecodevelopment", _Ceres,_ 17: 4: 17-21, (FAO). Riddell, Robert, 1981. _Ecodevelopment: Economics, Ecology, and Development: an Alternadve to Growth Iperative Models, Gower,_ London.
24 45. Parallel to the rise of the afore-mentioned "systems analysis" schools of thinking in the early 1970's was an even more dramatic paradigm change. "Synthesizing" systems of planning and reflective action began to emerge, which eliminated the idea of "externalities" and simultaneously recognized the limitations of centralized planning.<sup>38</sup> There have been several variations, some more directly focussed on the integration of ecological and developmental goals than others. A basic commonality between them is the idea that planning ought to be embedded in the total environment of the systems being planned for, including all of the parties affected (stakeholders). In order to achieve improved conditions for both the system being directly planned for _and_ its environment, global systems awareness must be coupled with local responsibility for action. This direct involvement of all concerned parties in the setting of goals, planning of means, and sharing accountability and benefits, is why decentralization is required, and what makes the process of "planning" more effective.<sup>39</sup> Interdependent autonomy, which may seem like an oxymoron, is promoted.

46. An early attempt to apply a synthesizing systems type of planning for environmental management was the International Joint Commission (IJC) of the U.S. and Canada's '"cosystem Approach" to resolving environmental disputes along the 4000 mile border between those two nations. Though the "systemic design" aspect is sometimes limited by the dispute resolution character of the IJ_'s charter, the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty,40 the UC now explicitly uses a stakeholder and positive-sum perspective in its approach. It is working on developing the ability to monitor and manage for ecosystem health, rather than for the doctoring of ecosystem dis-ease.<sup>41</sup> This relates to the concept of "removing the need to pay" for pollution, by removing the necessity to pollute.

- 38 See, for insane.

- Ozbekhan, Hasan, 1969. "Toward A Genera Theory of Planning", in Jantsch, Erich (ed.), _Perspecdves in Planning._ OECD, Paris.

Ackoff, Russell, and Fred Emery, 1972. _On Purposefid Systems._ Aldine-Atherton, Chicago/ New York Ackoff, Russell, 1974. _Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems._ Wileylnterscience, New Yogk.

Passmore, William A. and John J. Sherwood, 1978. _Sociotechnical Systems: A Sourcebook._ University Associates, San Diego, CA.

- Vergara, Elsa, Jamshid Gharajedaghi, & Russell Ackoff, 1980. "A Guide to Interactive Planning," _S-Cubed Papers, 804,_ 51pp., Social Systems Sciences Dept., The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

- 39 S4gasti, Francisco, 1978. _Science and technology for development: main comparative report of the Science and Technology Policy Instrunents Project._ Intemational Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, 112p., pp. 35-37.

- 40 Caldwell, Lynton K., 1988 (ed.). _Perspectives on Ecosystem Management for the Great Lakes._ State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

- 41 Bandurslci, Bruce L., Peter T. Haug, & Andrew L. Hamilton (Eds.), 1986. _Toward a Transhoundary Monitoring Network: A Continuing Binational Exploration._ (2 Volumes) International Joint Commission, U.S. & Canada, Washington, DC.
_25_ 47. Related to the idea of ecosystem health, James Lovelock is the father of the controversial, increasingly respected "Gaia Hypothesis" that the Earth is a self-organizing, self-reguladng living system in which life actively develops and maintains the environmiital conditions which sustain it. He has proposed a new science of "geophysiology," based on the marriage of biology, geochemistry, and atmospheric sciences.<sup>42</sup> 48. The positive vision of ceo-development is for _"green growth"_ and integrated coevoludonary development of humans and nature.4<sup>3</sup> The idea of co-evolution comes from studying the evolution of complex ecosystems with a high degree of speies-specific symbiosis, or mutual dependence (e.g., tropical rainforests and coral reefs). Its application to the theory of environmental management and development is based on the recognition that man and nature are not nearly so separate as Westem philosophy and approaches to govemance have supposed. In fact, all human cultures have been altering ecosystems for millenia, while nature simultaneously exerted evolutionary pressure on human biology and on social systems. In the past few decades, however, humans have succeeded in altering ecosystems to a far greater extent, and in the process, have begun to degrade their capacity to function effectively. Eventually, perhaps quite soon given the strong likelihood of accelerating, discontinuous chinges in the ozone layer and climate, the circle will close, leading to a "natural" degradation of human civilizations' funtioning capacities.

49. It is easy to think of environmental management as a remedial cost. However, there are great economic and social benefits, not just environmental ones, that would accrue, particularly from the types of changes that a redefinition of development along the lines of good resource management and/or ecodevelopment would help promote. In the words of Ignacy Sachs, The existence of tradeoffs between environmental management and economic growth can not be denied, but their pervasiveness and intensity have been overrated, to the detriment of a search for the best of two worlds.44 In many cases, insdtutional and both individual and organizational behavior factors are morp important than the economic ones cited in preventing the development of more ecologically sound

- 42 Lovelock, James, 1979. _GAIA: A New Look at Life on Earth,_ Oxford University Press, New York. 1988. _The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth._ Norton, New York.

- 4 Norgard, Richard B., Suzanne Easton, George Ledec, and LaIel Prevetti, 1987. "Social Orgnization for Susnaiing Renewable Resources." Paper prepared for the World Bank, 134 pp., and

- Norgaard, Richard B., 1988. "Sustainable Development A Co-Evolutionary View," _Futures. 20:6;_ 606-620.

- 44 Sachs, Ignacy, 1984. "Developing in Harmony with Naue: Consumption Patters, Time and Space Use, Resource Profiles, and Technological Choices", in Bt<hard Glaeser, ed., 1984, _Ecodevelopment: Concepts, Policies. Strategies,_ Pergammon Press, New York.
26 economies. One of the major factors contributing to the "economic miracles" of post-war West Germany and Japan is that fact that they were foreed to completely rebuild their economic infrastructure with new, state-of-the-ar **t** echnological production systems. as well as innovative ways of organizing the social (human) factors of producdon. While the United States had almost no competition in the first couple decades after the war because its production systems had not been destroyed, they eventually suffered in the newly competitive world marketplace of the 1970's and 80's, at least in part because their technological as well as social production systems were outdated. Change is often resisted due to behavioral and cultural inertia, despite economic imperadves. It is quite possible that in restructuring along the lines of eco-development, ecotechnologies might bring new comparative advantages that will hen to make those economies that are quickest and most effective at undertaking it more competitive and prosperous in the long run, rather than less so. Some developing countries might even be able to "leapfrog" over the "environmental protection" phase to a much more sustainable as well as self-defined state of development.

# Changgs in Context and Systems of **Thought**

_50._ In a broad sense, the five paradigms described above are distinguished by different conceptions of ecology, and varying degrees of inclusiveness and integration or operationalization of those conceptions. Those conceptions are embedded within different political, economic, biophysical, scientific-technological, philosophical, and social "environments," or _contu._ Other possible future directions involve even greater emphasis on the aspect of changing worldviews, values, and therefore, politics. Longer term changes in environmental management and development thought based on even more recently emerging patterns of thought in science, philosophy, and politics that are quite discontinuous with those that historically have been predominant, may lead to quite fresh thinking and endrely new possibilities for the relationship between man and nature. These new directions are. mainly philosophical in nature at this point in dme, often based on still controversial advances on the frontiers of science and a shifting sociopolitical climate. But, as Chinese proverb says, "the philosophy of one century is the common sense of the next." In one interesting twist, the frontiers of science in some cases are proving to be quite compatible with very old ways of thinking and relating between man and the environment.
27 51. Space does not permit elaboration here, but further insights and changes in practice may be stimulated by emerging concepts from some of the following areas of science and phiosophy:

- entropy (see Appendix);

- the afore-mentioned "geophysiology" (Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis);

- physics (e.g., new theories of time, holonomy, new energy technologies);

- the marriage of ecology and psychology (e.g., Gregory Bateson, Morris Berman, and "reenchantment"45);

- paradoxical and other "non-rational" or 'eyond technical rationalism" logics46 47;

52. On the sosio-political front, possibilities for great changes in both the availability of resources for environmental management and in the ways they are utilized are evolving so rapidly, it is almost dizzying. Three arenas from which new insights and changes in the feasibility of advances are particulaly intriguing:

- looking at environmentalism as a polidcal movement (Green politics); and

- the pactice of environmental management in traditional, non-market economy cultures.

- changing ideas of "national security."

# Changing Conceptions of National Security

53. In the introductory "Context" secdon of the paper, the Brundtland Commission and two articles on redefining national security to incorporate ecological stability as well as economic interests while recognizing a changing role for the military, were cited. 'Envomental stress" has become a major source of political tension and military acdon in the world. Amongst the several ecological threats which may force such a redefiniton are:

- growing numbers (millions per year) of "ecological refugees," often mistaken as polidcal or military refugees, in many countries.

- the very real possibility of regional conflicts over water and other resources in the coming decades, particularly in the Middle East, where water shortages are becoming a

- _45_ Bawson, Gregory, 1979. _Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity._ Bantam, New York. and Berman, Morris, 1981. _The Reenchanment of the World._ Cornell **University Pss,*** Iaa, NY.

- 46 Hawk, David, 1986 (draft). "Regulation of 'The Non-Rational: Approaches to the Management of Enviromnental Quality", in Eric Trist (Ed.), _i'lans Without Plans,_ in press.

- _47_ Miller, Alan, 1985. "Technological Thinidng: Its Impact on Environmental Management." _Environmental Management 9:_ 3; 179-190, p. 179.
28 more serious threat to peace than conflict over access to the region's petroleum (it is generally not acknowledged outside the Middle East, but water issues have already contributed to modvations for hosilides there on seveml occasions).

- the possibility of reaching the limits of the proportion of the Earth's net primary productivity (photosynthesis) that may be safely expropriated by man, perhaps sometime in the next half century as the world population doubles once again.

- discontinuous global climate variations causing disruptions in the world's rost productive agpicultural zones.

- major health crises due to ozone layer damage. (Scientific reseach indicates that the polar "holes" in the ozone layer dtat have appeared in the past few yeas are the rsult of chlorofluorocarbon use in the 1950's, which was trivial compared to that used in the past two decades; if that is the case, much greater damage can be expected, even if safe replacement products could be sweepingly introduced immediately. Similar processes are likely to be at work in the case of global warming.)

- the broad-scale loss of biodiversity and _in situ_ genetic resources, particularly of the tWpical rain forests and coral reefs, whose true economic and ecological values (as well as aesthetic and intinsic) are unknown and underappreciated but certainly vast.

_54._ Past concepts of national sovereignty are no longer sufficient for a world altered by everincreasing interdependence among nations on economic, ecological, and security fronts.<sup>4</sup> 8 At the same time, major geopolitical forces (demilitarization of the East-West superpower conflict, directly in the North and indirectly in the Southern proxies) may complement an accelerating political will to divert attention and resources to this highly-needed redefinition. Additionally, another record-breaking summer in Washington, DC or drought in the U.S. bread basket will probably do much **to** accelerate the politcal feasibility of such a redefiniton. The much-heralded, if tenuous, "resolution" of the East-West Cold War may free up vast financial, scientific/engineering, and diplomatic resources that could be redeployed to eventually lead to a resoludon of a more significant North-South "Silent Resource War" which has been brewing for a long time, but whose expression was hardly allowed due to the self-absorption of the North in its East-West ideological and geopolitical conflict. Even if this does not translate to more direct transfer of resources to the South (desperately needed), if it were to lead to a redefinition of development and massive restructuring of the industrial economies along the lines of the resource management and/or eco.development paradigms, this would give the South more freedom to utilize 48 Lebel, Gregory G. & Hal Hane, 1989. _Sustainable Development: A Guide to Our C (mmn Fuhue._ Global Tomoaw Coalidon, Washingwon, DC.
29 its natural resources sustainably for its own development, rather than for simple export to Nortiern markets. It could also allow far more equable forms of collaboradon and a search for new economic roles for all nations to play in ceatdng an integrated, sustainable relationship between civilizadon and nature, which would beneit all concerned.

# Changing Values

_55._ Implicit in much of this discussion has been the notion that the rise of environmental management means an evolution in societies' value systems is happening. The degree of anthropocentricity in the fundamental relationship between humans and [the rest of] nature is an indicator of modifications in ultimate values. Values (other than monetary ones) are very hard to deal with; perhaps this is why economists have tended to shy away from such discussions, and treated them as if they do not change. But values are clearly a inajor aspect of what development is about, and they do change; the rise of significant "green" political movements in Europe, Australia, India, and Brazil, not to mention the current struggles for change in the Soviet and Chinese systems are obvious examples.
30 56. Figure 1 and Table 1 (pages 6-7) provide a working summary of the five paradigms. It should be remembered that the paradigms presented here are not separate species. As is appropriate in times of great change, there is an increasing amount of fluidity between them. No single paradigm has the best answer to every type of environmental management or development problem. As the newer paradigms evolve, they incoporate much of the older. There are also two types of evolution entwined in this discussion: that of the historical _evoluion of thte concepts and tools_ within the particular paradigms, piesented here somewhat artificially as separate, for purposes of distinction, and that of the historical _progression in the dominance of their use._ If the paradigms are thought of as separate populations, rather than species, it may be seen that each is evolving through changing "selecdve pressures" imposed by different and changing _user groups_ and _problems._ Depending on the user group and the problem(s) they are concerned with, each paradigm is influenced differendy by the introduction of new ideas. In additon, the user groups themselves are also evolving in the context of both their paradigms and their perceived problems (or realities), which feeds back to both the evolution of the paradigms and of their use.<sup>49</sup> 57. So, paradigms of environmental management are in a period of flux. The defensive (remedial) agenda is breaking down, in no small ironic part because of its ineffectiveness in dealing with the negative consequences of unmodified frontier economics and development. The serious push at the neutral (resource management, systems analysis) agenda very recendy has begun to get under way, politically. The widespread perception at this time is sdll one of tradeoffs between environment and development. However, this is a pernicious and unnecessary assumption. There are great economic and social benefits to be obtained from fully integrated approaches to environmental management.

58. Still on the fringes are small but growing pockets of advocacy for the more positive approach, be they drough the synthesizing-systems planning methodologies, or the contextual, philosophical and values-based approaches of what are today some leading edges of science. It is possible that the growing sense of alarm about global climate change and ozone layer disruption may cause a more rapid evolution from Resource Management to Eco-Developmen **t** han it is polidcally expedient to advocate at this time. The co-evolutionary approach would require _4_ The aut would lik to akowledge andtk Richard Nogard for discussions about the co-evolutionaiy naue of the paradigms and teir users, as well as of the relatonship between man and nat
31 inclusion of all user groups, or stakeholders, in the development of future environmental management and development strategies.

# Possibilities for Convergence

59. It is hypothesized here that the three sets of condidons embodied in the unprecedented degree of threat of global changes in the ozone layer and climate issues, widespread prblems of resource depletion/degradation, and the easing of the military and ideological competiton between the superpowers, allowing for a redefinition of "security" and redeployment of resources for its achievement, may provide the necessary and sufficient forces for a synthesis or convergence to a paradigm along the lines of eco-development to emerge. The path to such a syndthesis may involve evolutionary learning and cross-over between the paradigms presented here, or it may occur as a more revolutionary change to one of these five, or yet another, becoming predominant in its own right. Widespread political para! fsis which will prevent effective cooperation and institutional innovations of the magnitude needed to meet the great challenges of the coming decades may be the result if some synthesis does not surface as a vision for the future development of both industrial and developing societies. Time might appear to be on the side of ecodevelopment. On the other hand, it may be that paradigms are impervious to evidence, insdtudons and societies too difficult **to** change, and the adherents to each will go on talking past each other, avoiding the real discussions (and conflicts) that are necessary to uldmately achieve a synthesis. Whether, how, and if so, when it resolves these issues may be the most significan **t** est of modern civilization.
32

# AIpnendix- Some Working Definitions

# Paradigm:

- (1) an accepted model or pattern ...as an object for further articulation and specificadon under new or more stringent conditions;

- (2) a criterion for choosing problems ... that can be assumed to have solutions. Other problems are rejected as metaphysical, as the concern of another discipline, or someines as just too problematic to be worth the time;

- (3) the endre constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by members of a given community, or one element in that constellation, the concrete puzzle-soludons which, employed as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as a basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science;

- (4) a dme-tested and group-licensed way of seeing;

- _(5)_ not the same as shared rules; the existence of a paradigm need not even imply that any full set of rules exists.50

Development: a process of progressive societal (therefore involving equity and political issues) and economic transformation, the major objective of which is the satisfaction of human needs and aspirations, usually achieved by increasing productive potential (growth) and equality of opportunity.51

# Sustainable Development:

- (1) "a pattern of social and structural economic transformations which optimizes the economic and other societal benefits available in the present, without jeopardizing the likely potendal for similar benefits in the future."<sup>52</sup> or,

- (2) "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. ...A process of change in which exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the reorientation of technology development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations."<sup>53</sup>

- (3) Related terms: Hicksian _income:_ "the maximum amount that a person or nation could consume over some time period and still be as well off at the end of the period as at the beginning. Income equals maximum sustainable consumption."<sup>54</sup> This does not consider the phenomena of time lags between activities and ecological effects, however, hence, the issue of economic discount rates is still a serious matter to be resolved. Ecology and economics presently have very different concepts of what _production, capital, health,_ etc. mean. These need to be integrated into a common discipline. Also, the distinction between _"sustainable"_ and _"sustained" is_

_5_ Kuho, Ihomas S., 1970. _The Structure of Scient#fkc Revolutions, 2nd Edition._ U of Chicago Press, Chicago.

_51_ World Commission of Environment and Development, 1987. _Our Common Futur,_ Oxford University Pross, Oxford & New YoL _52_ Goodland, Robet, and George Ledec, 1987b. "Neoclassical Economics and Principles of Sustainable Development" _Ecological Modelling, 38:_ 19-46; p. 36.

53 WCED, 1987, Qp. cit, p. 43,46. Ss Daly, Heman E., 1989. "Sustainable Development from concept and the towars opertional principle", _Populion and Development Review,_ Hoover Institution, in press.
33 important. What has been sustained in the past is not necessarily sustainable into the future.

Environment: the complex of biotic, climatic, soil, and other condidons which comprise the immediate habitat of an organism; the physical, chemical and biological sunoundings of an organism at any given time.

Environmental Management: the field that seeks to balance human demands upon the Earth's natural resource base with the natural environment's ability to meet these demands on a sustainable basis.

# Ecology:

(1) the study of the interrelationships between living organisms and their biological, physical, geological, chemical, and geographic environment (reductionist); or (2) the study of the structure and funcdon of nature (holistic).55 Economics:

- (1) the study of allocating the resources available to society in a way that maximizes social well-being (common neoclassical definition).

- (2) "the wise and legitimate government of the house for the common good of the whole family ... extended to the government of the great family, the State." (Rousseau)l

Resource: any component of the environmen **t** hat can be utilized by an organism.

Entropy: a measure of unavailable energy, or disorder, in a closed system

- Energy: the capacity to do work; except that high entropy (highly disordered) energy has no capacity to do work.

- Ecosystem: a particular community of organisms and their physical environment interacting as an ecological unit.

-

- Eoosphere: or biosphere; the sum of all the Earth's ecosystems the complete biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) components and processes of interaction which exist or take place on the planet.

s Odum, Eugene, 1953. _Fundamentals of Ecology,_ Saus, Philadelphia 56 Banduird, Bnrce L., 1973. "Ecology and Economics- Parters for **Producviry",** _Annals of the Acer ca Academy of Polkt and Social Science, 405:_ 75-94, Philadelphia, p. 81.
34

# R&eferences

Ackoff, Russell, 1974. _Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems._ Wiley-Interscience, New YorL Ackoff, Russell, and Fred Emery, 1972. _On Puwposefi Systems._ Aldine-Atherton, Chicago/ New York.

Bandurski, Bruce L., 1973. "Ecology and Economics- Partners for Productivit." _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 405:_ 75-94, Philadelphia.

- Banduirski, Bruce L., Peter T. Haug, & Andrew L. Hamilton (Eds.), 1986. _Toward a Transbowudary Monitoring Network: A Continuing Binational Exploration._ (2 Volumes) Intemational Joint Commission, U.S. & Canada, Washington, DC.

- Bandyopadhyay, Jayanta and Vandana Shiva, 1988. "Political economy of ecology movements." _Economic and Political Weekly,_ June 11, 1988, pp 1223-1232.

Bateson, Gregory, 1979. _Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity._ Bantam, New York.

Berman, Morris, 1981. _The Reenchantment of the World._ Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

- Boulding, Kenneth, 1966. "The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth." in HE. Jarrett, ed., _Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy,_ Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

- Bromley, Daniel W. and Michael M. Cernea, 1989. "The Management of common property natural resources: some conceptual and operational fallacies." Paper at the World Bank Ninth Agricultumal Symposium, January 10-11, 1989, Washington, DC

- Brown, Lester R. et al., 1984, -85, -86, -87, -88, -89. _State of the World._ W.W. Norton, New York.

Caldwell, Lynton K., 1988 (ed.). _Perspectives on Ecosystem Managementfor the Great Lakes._ State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

Carson, Rachel, 1962. _Silent Spring._ Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

- Cronon, William, 1983. _Changes In the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England._ Hill and Wang, New York.

Daly, Herman E., 1977. _Steady-State Economics. Freeman,_ New York . 1988, "Sustainability." mimeo.

. 1989. "Sustainable Development from concept and theory towards operational principles." _Population and Development Review,_ Hoover Institution, in press.

Devall, Bill, and George Sessions, 1985. _Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered._ Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City.
35

- Georgescu-Rocgen, Nicholas, 1971. _The Entropy Law and the Economic Process._ Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

- Goodland, Robert, and George Lcdec, 1987b. "Neoclassical Economics and Principles of Sustainabl DeVelopmenL" _Ecological Modeling, 38:_ 1946.

Hall, Charles A.S, Cutler J. Cleveland, & Robert Kaufmann, 1986. _Energy and Resource Quality: The Ecology of die Economic Process._ Wiley-Interscience, New York.

Hardin, Garrett, 1968. "The tragedy of _the_ commons." _Science, 162;_ 1243-8.

- Hawk, David, 1986 (draft). "Regulation of The Non-Rational: Approaches to the Management of Environmental Quality."" m Eric Trist (Ed.), _Plans Without Plans._ in pess.

- Heilbroner, R.L., and L.C. Thurow, 1981. _The Economic Problem._ Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

- lUCN, 1980. _World Conservation Strategy._ International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natumal Resources, Gland, Switzerland.

- Kapp, K William, 1950, 1971. _The Social Costs of Private Enterprise._ Schocken Books, New York.

- Kleindorfer, Pal K. and Howard C. Kunreuther, eds., 1986. _Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond._ IIASA and Springer-Verlag, Berlin/New York.

- Kuhn, Thomas S., 1970. _The Structure of Scientfic Revolutions._ 2nd Edition. University of Clhicago Press, Chicago.

- Lebel, Gregory G. & Hal Hane, 1989. _Sustainable Development: A Guide to QOurommon Future,_ Global Tomorrow Coalition, Washington, DC.

- Lovejoy, Thomas, August, 1988. Remarks in an address to the American Institute of Biological Sciences. quoted in Wicker, Tom, 2-28-89, "Decade of Decision." _New York Times, Op-_ Ed column.

- Lovelock, James, 1979. _GAIA: A New Look at Life on Earth._ Oxford University Press, New York.

. 1988. _The Ages of Gala: A Biography of OurLiving Earth._ Norton, New York.

Mathews, Jessica Tuchman, 1989. "Redefining Security." _Foreign Affairs, 68;_ #2, 162-177. Meadows, DR e aL 1972. _Limits to Growth ._ Universe Books, New York.

Miller, Alan, 1985. "Technological Thinking: Its Impact on Environmental Management." _Enviromnental Management 9:_ 3; 179-190, p. 179.

Myers, Norman, 1989. "Environment and Security." _Foreign Policy,_ #74, 23-41.

Norgaard, Richard B., 1988. "Sustainable Development: A Co-Evolutionary View." _Futures, 20:_ 6; 606-620.
36

# Norgaard, Richard B., Suzanne Easton, George Lcdec, and Laurel Prevetti, 1987. "Social Organization for Sustaining Renewable Resources." Paper prepared for the World Bank.

Odun, Eugene, 1953. _Fundwmentals of Ecology._ Saunders, Philadelphia.

OECD, 1975. _The Polluter Pays Principle._ Paris.

- Ozbekhan, Hasan, 1969. "Toward A Gene.al Theory of Planaing." in Jantsch, Erich (ed.), _Perspectives in Planning._ OECD, Paris.

- Passtnore, William A. and John _3._ Sherwood, 1978. _Sociotechnical Systems: A Sourcebook._ University Associates, San Diego, CA.

- Perrings, Charles, 1987. _Economy and Environnent. A Theoretical Essay on the Interdependence of Economic and Environmental Systems._ Cambridge University Press.

- Perrow, Charles, 1984. _Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies._ Basic Books, New York.

- Pezzey, John, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Sustainable Growth and Sustinable Development." Working Paper #14, March, 1989, Environment Dept., World Bank.

- Redclift, Michael, 1987. _Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions._ Methuen, London and New York.

- Repetto, Robert (ed.), 1986, _The Global Possible: Resources, Development, and the New Century._ World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

- Riddell, Robert, 1981. _Ecodevelopment: Economics, Ecology, and Development: an Alternative to Growth Imperative Models._ Gower, London.

- Sies, Ignacy, 1984a. "Developing in Harmony with Nature: Consumption Patterns, Time and Space Use, Resource Profiles, and Technological Choices." in Bernhard Glaeser, ed., 1984, _Ecodevelopment: Concepts, Policies, Strategies._ Pergammon Press, New York.

, 1984b, "The Strategies of Ecodevelopment." _Ceres,_ 17: 4: 17-21, (FAO).

- Sachs, Wolfgang, 1988. "The Gospel of Global Efficiency: On Worldwatch and other reports on the state of the world." _IFDA Dossier 68:_ 33-39 (November-December).

- Sagasti, Francisco, 1978. _Science and technology for development: main comparative report of the Science and Technology Policy Instrumnents Project._ International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

- Speth, James G., 1988. "The Greening of Technology." _Washington Post,_ November 20, 1988, p. D4.

Thurow, Lester, 1980. _The Zero-Sum Society._ Basic Books, New York.

- Tokar, Brian, 1988. "Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and the Future of Green Political Thought." _The Ecologist, 18:_ 4/5; 132-141.

- US Council on Environmental Quality, 1980. _Global 2000 Report to the President._ Washington, DC.
37 Vergara, Elsa, Jamshid Gharajedaghi, & Russell Ackoff, 1980. "A Guide to Interactive Planning." _S-Cubed Papers, 80-4,_ Slpp., Social Systems Sciences Dept., The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

- World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. _Our Common Future._ Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York.

- World Resources Institute, 1985. "Tropical Forests: A Call for Action." report of a task force of WRL the World Bank, and the UNDP, Washington, DC.

- 1987, -88, -89. _World Resources Report._ Washington, DC.

Worster, Donald, 1977. _Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas._ Univ. of Cambridge Press, Cambridge, U.K.
PPR Working Paper Series

||IllR|Authoor||Contact<br>paper|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|WPS294|Irreversibility. Uncertainty, and<br>Investment|Robert S. Pindyck|October 1989|N. Carolan<br>61737|
|WPS295|Developing Country Experience<br>In Trade Reform|Vinod Thomas|October 1989|S. Fallon<br>61680|
|WPS296|How Serious is the Neglect of<br>Intrahousehold Inequality?|Lawrence Haddad<br>Ravi Kanbur|November 1989|J.Sweeney<br>31021|
|WPS297|Effects of the Multi-Fibre<br>Arrangement on Developing<br>Countries' Trade: An Empirical<br>Investigation|Refik Erzan<br>Junichi Goto<br>Paula Holmes|November 1989|<br>L Tan<br>33702|
|WPS298|Evaluaticn and Validation of a Multi-<br>Region Econometric Model: A Case<br>Study of MULTIMOD: A Forward-L<br>Macroeconometric Model|Ahmad Jamshidi<br>ooking|||
|WPS299|The External Effects of Public<br>Sector Deficits|Carlos Alfredo Rodriguez|November 1989|<br>R. Luz<br>61588|
|WPS300|How the 1981-83 Chilean Banking<br>Crisis was Handled|Mauricio Larrain|||
|WPS301|Myths of the West: Lessons from<br>Developed Countries for Developm<br>Finance|Collin Mayer<br>ent|November 1989|<br>WDR Office<br>31393|
|WPS302|Improving Support Services for<br>Rural Schools: A Management<br>Perspective|Sherry Keith|||
|WPS303|Is Undernutrition Responsive to<br>Changes in Incomes?|Martin Ravallion|November 1989|<br>C. Spooner<br>30464|
|WPS304|The New Political Economy:<br>Positive Economics and Negative<br>Politics|Merlee S. Grindle|||
|WPS305|Between Public and Private: A<br>Review of Non-Governmental<br>Organization Involvement in World<br>Bank Projects|Lawrence F. Salmen<br>A. Paige Eaves|||
|WPS306|A Method for Macroecononr.ic<br>Consistency in Current and<br>Constant Prices|Ali Khadr<br>Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel|||
# PPR Working Paper Series

|||||Contact|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|WPS307|On the Accuracy of Economic<br>Observations: Do Sub-Saharan<br>Trade Statistics Mean Anything|Alexander J. Yeats|November 1989|J. Epps<br>33710|
|WPS308|Harmonizing Tax Policies in Central<br>America|Yalcin M. Baran|November 1989|T. Watana<br>31882|
|WPS309|Honduras-Public Sector Finances,<br>Issues, and Policy Suggestions<br>to Resolve Them|Yalcin M. Baran|November 1989|T. Watana<br>31882|
|WPS310|A Macroeconomic Consistency<br>Framework for Zimbabwe|Ali Khadr<br>Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel|||
|WPS311|Macroeconomic Performance<br>Before and After Disirflation in<br>Israel|Leonardo Leiderman<br>Nissan Liviatan|November 1989||
|WPS312|Improving Public Enterprise<br>Performance: Lessons from<br>South Korea|Mary M. Shirley|October 1989|R. Malcolm<br>61708|
|WPS313|The Evolution of Paradigms of<br>Environmental Management in<br>Development|Michael E. Colby|November 1989|C. Evangelista<br>32645|
|WPS314|Primary Commodity Prices and<br>Macroeconomic Variables: A Long-<br>run Relationship|Theodosios Palaskas<br>Panos Varangis|November 1989|D. Gustafson<br>33714|
|WPS315|Notes on Patents, Distortions,<br>and Development|Julio Nogues|||
|WPS316|The Macroeconomics of Populism<br>in Latin America|Rudiger Dornbusch<br>Sebastian Edwards|||
|WPS317|Price and Quality Competitiveness<br>of Socialist Countries' Exports|Zdenek Drabek<br>Andrzej Olechowski|||
|WPS318|Debt Buybacks Can Indicate<br>Sovereign Countries' Willingness<br>to Raise Investment and Repay<br>Debt When Partial Debt Relief is<br>Offered: Theory and Tests|Sankarshan<br>Acharya<br>Ishac Diwan|||
|WPS319|Trends in South-South Trade and<br>the Potential in Non-Discriminatory<br>Liberalization of Barriers|Refik Erzan<br>|||