International Society for Ecological Economicspolitical economy of defecation and water use in the...

Newsletter January 2007

1

Message from the ISEE President - ISEE 2006 Joan Martinez-Alier Between December 15th and 18th 2006, the Ninth Biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics took place at the Indian Habitat Centre in New Delhi. Two institutions helped us with extra space, TERI and the Centre for Science and Environment. About 800 participants from many countries were present. The main organizers of the conference were Pushpam Kumar (a well known author in our field) and Virginia Hooper (a young geologist from Cambridge U.K., now living and working in Delhi). Many other persons and institutions were involved at several levels. The ISEE is very grateful to all of them. Quite often throughout the conference, twelve or even fourteen sessions were running in parallel so that the closest thing to a summary report is the full programme of the conference running over one hundred pages with authors’ names and the titles of papers (or posters) classified into sessions, available at www.isee2006.com Guest of honour at the inaugural session was Kirit Parikh, member of the Planning Commission, who explained the prospects for energy supply in the rapidly growing economy of India, a topic also touched upon by myself in my wide-ranging introduction to the conference (available on the web) presenting its main topics and including the petition of Nobel Prizes in Economics for Robert U. Ayres and Herman Daly for work published in the late 1960s (twenty years before Brundtland) and for work they have done until today. Speakers in the same session were Jayanta Bandyopadhay (president of INSEE) who also ran sessions on Water Resources, C. Hanumantha Rao (president of the Institute of Economic Growth, University of Delhi, that housed the secretary of the conference for many months), and Robert Costanza, founder of the journal “Ecological Economics”, first president of ISEE back in 1989.

The plenary sessions were a great success. Helmut Haberl spoke on the methodologies for measuring the “metabolism of society” with results for many regions between 1700 and 2000; John McNeill traced a survey of environmental historiography across the world, and had some remarks to offer on the relations between environmental history and ecological economics (for him, our field has a “whiff of heresy” that he likes); Jacqueline McGlade showed

International Society for

Ecological Economics

Contents From the President 1 ISEE 2006 3 Opening address 3 A Journalist’s View 7 Beyond talking………………7 EE for what? 9 Modeling at ISEE 2006 11 Response to Schneider’s Policy Brief 12 ISEE Membership News 14 ISEE Website 14 Regional Societies News 14 Jobs 16 Forthcoming Events 17 Forthcoming Conferences 18 Publication Discounts 19 Journals & Books 19 The International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) is a not-for-profit, member-governed, organization dedicated to advancing the understanding of the relationships among ecological, social, and economic systems for the mutual well-being of nature and people. The Society publishes a research journal, ‘Ecological Economics’, books, and other materials; holds and sponsors scientific meetings; develops educational materials; and facilitates a voice for ecological economists in public forums. The ISEE Newsletter is published twice a year, is sent free to ISEE members and is available on the ISEE website. The views expressed are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Society as a whole.



2

the work on land use by the European Environment Agency of which she is the brilliant executive director; Sunita Narain, an activist and thinker, spoke on the political economy of defecation and water use in the conurbation of Delhi; Simon Levin explained the history of ecology until its recent encounter with the discipline of economics, revising the evolution of social norms to protect the environment. The plenary sessions were chaired by Kanchan Chopra (co-founder of INSEE), Charles Perrings (past-president, ISEE), and Peter May (president-elect, ISEE). Perhaps for the fist time in the history of ISEE conferences, there were sessions on corporate accountability, led by Peter Utting. ESEE president, Arild Vatn, was a plenary speaker focusing on the history of corporations and liability rules. Other sessions under the guidance of Juni Paavola, Kinsuk Mitra, Ron Janssen, dealt with participatory methods, environmental conflicts, and multicriteria evaluation of projects and policies. A roundtable honoured the memory of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906-1994) analyzing the significance of his work for Ecological Economics, with contributions by John Gowdy, Kozo Mayumi and others. The Board of the ISEE decided in Delhi to make a Georgescu-Roegen Award every two years to a scholar less than 35 years of age who has published in the journal “Ecological Economics”. The Kenneth Boulding prize for 2006 was awarded to Richard B. Norgaard, who received a standing ovation. To summarize his lecture, he traced an optimistic balance of the advances of our field of study as shown by the presence of many trans-disciplinary ecological economists in the teams that wrote the Millennium Environmental Assessment. In the final session Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize in Economics, introduced by Anantha Duraiappah, discussed poverty and environment, the threats to the environment but also its improvement, and how environmental services not only satisfy livelihood needs but also allow the deployment of human freedoms. This was followed by thirty minutes of questions and answers enjoyed by audience and speaker. The pragmatic virtues of the Stern report on the economics of climate change were defended by Sen when questioned by Clive Spash. According to Sen, Stern says that climate change is a gigantic market failure. In the inaugural session, I had quoted a phrase that comes from K.W. Kapp: “externalities are not so much market failures as cost shifting successes”. However, I chose not to enter into an argument with Sen, not only out of politeness.

Amartya Sen and Joan Martinez-Alier - the argumentative Indian and the

argumentative Catalan: Leah Temper.

ISEE Board Members President: Joan Martinez Alier [email protected] Past President: Charles Perrings [email protected] President Elect: Peter May [email protected] Board Members: John Gowdy [email protected] Wendy Proctor [email protected] Joan Roughgarden [email protected] Luciana Togeiro de Almeida [email protected] Pushpam Kumar [email protected] Membership: ISEE Membership Director Marsha Kopan [email protected] Ecological Economics: Editor-in-Chief Cutler Cleveland [email protected] OEEE: Editor Eric Neumayer [email protected]


3

Sessions on Science and Policy were complemented by the launching of a book edited by Angela Guimaraes Pereira, where Ligia Noronha and Darryl D’Monte (the environmental journalist) spoke. The pluralism of knowledges, the loss of knowledge by indigenous peoples and loss of agricultural varieties (a great loss of value) were discussed in sessions on Ethno-Ecology. Robert Costanza launched his new book on environmental history. A few of his co-authors were present at the conference. The sessions on the GIST project in India on counting and valuing environmental services in money terms, had well-attended sessions, as also the SANDEE workshops chaired by Karl-Goran Maler and others. Eco-feminist economics was discussed by Ariel Salleh, Mary Mellor, Vandana Shiva and others, and attracted many participants.

Vandana Shiva and Ariel Salleh: Anna Chiesura The social atmosphere was favourably influenced by the presence of many young scholars from Europe, from India, and other parts of the world. Practical matters of support for research projects were explained in a session led by Andrew Sors, of the European Commission delegation in Delhi. The Norwegian embassy sponsored a special seminar on “mainstreaming biodiversity into policies”. We are grateful to them and to all other sponsors, fully listed in the programme. There was much emphasis in this conference on the study of material and energy flows in different countries, and the construction of scenarios. Sessions on modeling of the relations between the economy and the environment, and sessions on the economic valuation of (and payment for) environmental services, were popular both as regards number of papers and number of participants. They were chaired by Jeroen van den Bergh, Gopal Kadekodi, and others. There were sessions on water management, on forestry (and Joint Forest Management in India), on coastal areas, on mountain development, on energy and particularly

on biodiesel, on projects that have arisen under the Clean Development Mechanism, and other issues in climate change with Jyoti Parikh, C.J. Jepma. There were also sessions on events such as tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, organized by Mohan Munasinghe. The nuclear policy of India was discussed by M.V. Ramana (CISED, Bangalore). A most reasonable critique of the conference was that we had placed too many papers into sessions with too little time for discussion or even for presentation of the content of the papers. A CD with full papers and/or abstracts was distributed only at the conference itself, without time for previous reading. Another critique publicly expressed at the Members’ General Meeting was that Ecological Economics is not proposing alternatives or even analyzing those already existing. The director general of UNEP, Achim Steiner, spoke at a plenary session. He invited the ISEE to hold the next biennial conference of 2008 in Nairobi, Kenya. It seems that we have a triple choice. First, Nairobi, good for the diffusion of our work and ideas among African colleagues, and also in order to learn about Kenya, and to establish long-term cooperation with UNEP. Second, Switzerland, in Zurich, at the ETH, a peaceful, well-heeled and scholarly place with a long scientific tradition. Clausius taught here. Third, Ecuador, a country where I have learnt so much, where a couple of card-carrying ecological economists are ministers in the new government, and the FLACSO would help us organize the conference. This is a country with volcanoes like Chimborazo that Humboldt climbed, occasional earthquakes, the Galapagos that Darwin visited in his journey with the Beagle, where some splendid coastal mangroves have survived the shrimp industry, and some indigenous groups have not survived oil extraction in the Amazonian region. Ecuador, however, cannot offer the exquisite music we heard at the cultural evening in ISEE2006. In any case, the decision must be taken not by the president of ISEE alone but by the full Board, before February 2007. The opinion of the president-elect is obviously very relevant. ISEE and INSEE plan to publish with Oxford University Press (Delhi) which has world distribution rights, a few thematic books with a selection of papers given at the 2006 conference. This project would be undertaken by the organizers of the conference together with the coordinators of technical sessions, symposia and roundtables. Other volumes with other publishers and also monographic journal issues might be edited by the session coordinators from the conference. Authors will be approached in the next few weeks or months. Joan Martinez-Alier President, ISEE (2006, 2007); 21 December 2006


4

Participant at ISEE 2006: Marsha Kopan

Stand and participants at ISEE 2006: Marsha Kopan

Children from Kucheipadar, a village in Orissa that has been resisting a bauxite mining project led by Canadian

company ALCAN: Leah Temper

A forest of sal trees (Shorea robusta) on the sacred hill

of Niyamgiri set to be razed for a proposed bauxite mine, Orissa: Leah Temper

The group of musicians dressed as "snake charmers" that played in the open air area at the Habitat Center, ISEE 2006: Marsha Kopan


5

ISEE 2006

The Ninth Biennial Conference of the International

Society for Ecological Economics "Ecological Sustainability and Human Well-Being"

December 15-19 2006 India Habitat Centre, Lodi Estate, New Delhi, India

www.isee2006.com

Joan Martinez-Alier has given his summary of ISEE 2006 in his opening statement to this newsletter. The following is the opening address to the conference given by Pushpam Kumar, which gives a flavour of the various conferences themes. Thereafter follows the views, from differing perspectives, of four participants at the conference. Opening address – ISEE 2006 Pushpam Kumar The theme of the conference, ‘Ecological Sustainability and Human Well Being’, has very special relevance not only for the discipline of Ecological Economics but for its timeliness and the location/venue/area/region where our deliberations are taking place. The Stern Committee Review on the Economics of Climate Change has just been released and contains findings pertinent to this area. For example, in South Asia the impact of climate change in the medium term is significant through changes in weather patterns and erratic rainfall increasing the likelihood of flooding. The widely acknowledged report clearly suggests that the benefits of mitigation measures outweigh the costs. The report also emphasizes the limitation of mitigation and suggests greater focus on adaptation bringing about the perennial but extremely critical issue of lifestyle, consumption and social metabolism. The fourth assessment report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is just around the corner and will be available by early 2007. The largest ever assessment, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) dealing with Ecosystem and Human Well-Being, reinforced the linkages of Ecosystem Services and Human Well Being including Human Deprivation in its reports published early this year. One of the alarming findings from the MA was that over last 40 years humans have degraded 60 percent of Ecosystem Services – the base of the human sustenance and development. On the one hand, the year 2006 happens to be the centenary year of Nicolas Georgescu Rogen - a pioneering thinker and philosopher in Ecological Economics. On the other,

this year is being observed as the International Year of Deserts and Desertification. The conference theme encompasses all these issues under different sub-themes. The conference would prove intellectually stimulating for academia while development practitioners should be able to gather policy relevant inputs. I sincerely hope that the participants in the conference who are coming from outside India would get the chance to explore this ancient city of Delhi. Delhi’s indulgence with past is unparallel. Among the cities of the world only Rome, Istanbul or Cairo can even begin to rival Delhi for the sheer volume and density of historic remains. The place which nurtured Sufism, provides the best example of ‘composite culture’ integrating the finer aspects of Islam and Hinduism. I would venture to guess that our friends from abroad, many of them coming for the first time, if they explore the city, would agree with Octavio Paz’s remark that ‘India is an ethnographic and historical museum’. But it is a living museum, one in which the most modernity coexists with archaisms that have survived for millennia. We sincerely hope that the long journey from within and outside India to participate in the ISEE2006 would pay a rich dividend – intellectually, aesthetically and spiritually. On behalf of the Local Organising Committee, I once again welcome you all to the ISEE2006! Pushpam Kumar Chair,Local Organising Committee, ISEE 2006.

Poster presentation at ISEE 2006: Marsha Kopan


6

Registration at ISEE 2006: www.isee2006.com

Kanchan Chopra: Virginia Hooper

Kozo Mayumi: Virginia Hooper

Robert Costanza: Virginia Hooper

Pushpam Kumar and Peter May: www.isee2006.com

Helmut Haberl: Virginia Hooper


7

The view of a journalist from Mumbai Darryl D'Monte ISEE 2006 was veritably a smorgasbord, often maddeningly so, given the bunching of so many sessions, which were difficult to choose between. For the most part, it was exhilarating because of the sheer persuasiveness of the speakers and the wealth of detail. For an Indian in particular, it was interesting to see how many nationals participated, some from unlikely institutions like the Indian Railways. In answer to my query, the railwayman - Indian Railways is incidentally the world’s biggest employer - pointed out how it was also a major emitter of carbon dioxide and suspended particulate matter, all of which obviously compelled the participant to travel to Delhi. The critique of conventional economics was sharpest from the feminists. Ariel Salleh from EcoEthics Consulting in Sydney asserted that the economic crisis was essentially one of reproduction. This was ‘materially and logically prior to production involving household labour, farmers and the like and was a template for social justice’. Nature derived much of its fertility from the forests and fields and the partnership between this system and society required careful nurturing. However, conventional ecological economists also ignored the role of power, which had to be incorporated into any enquiry. For me, a discordant note at ISEE 2006 was the ‘business-as-usual’ approach of some marketers. Nowhere was this more evident than in the panel discussion on CDM, where India’s Environment Secretary, Pradipto Ghosh described the country’s expected investments of around $8 billion in joint clean technology projects as an ‘economic achievement unparalleled in the country’s history’. The Confederation of Indian Industry representative added that the Indian carbon market sector was growing faster than any other. India had 447 projects, of which 140 had been sanctioned. This was more numerous than China, which had projects on a larger scale. There was no sense of the amorality of letting industrial countries off the hook through what the Centre for Science & Environment in Delhi dubs the ‘Cheap’ Development Mechanism. Some of the most intensive sessions were on GMOs and the feminist perspective. Unknown to most, the IUCN at its Bangkok Congress has passed a resolution, calling for a moratorium on the introduction of GM crops, but this has not gone any further. This served as backdrop for the discussions. Alejandro Nadal, for instance, cited how his native Mexico was

one of the centres of origin of corn, with 59 races and thousands of varieties. Typically, Mexican farmers owned two hectares and they sowed different seeds, to minimize the risk of pests and weather-related incidents. Although there was a moratorium in his country on GM corn since 1998, there had been some cases of contamination. There was a great deal of debate on the semantics to combat the ‘monocultures of the mind’: between words like ‘improved’, ‘engineered’, ‘manipulation’ and ‘intervention’. Given the huge number of participants and wealth of detail, it seems certain that the conference will prove a turning point for many academics and experts, at least from India, who have been exposed to such a very large dose of Ecological Economics for the first time. One only hopes that ISEE finds some way of engaging all participants from these bi-annual events in an ongoing inquiry, at the very least by exchanging papers or synopses on a regular basis in websites and elsewhere. Darryl D'Monte Chairperson, Forum of Environmental Journalists of India (FEJI), International Federation of Environmental Journalists (IFEJ) E-mail: [email protected]

Participants at ISEE 2006, Habitat Center: Marsha Kopan Beyond talking across disciplines - why ecological economics should engage with civil society Leah Temper After 30 odd years, Ecological Economics has come into its own as a science. Born out of a vivid criticism of neo-classical economics, it has evolved into a trans-disciplinary field that seeks solutions to the pressing environmental problems the world faces today. As EE deals with issues where, ‘facts are uncertain, values in


8

dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz) it considers itself a post-normal science. Post normal science argues that under such conditions expert opinion is no longer sufficient and the facts must come from an extended peer community of stakeholders. This is a new science, one that purports to create ‘useful knowledge’ that can be directly applied in the cases it studies. Yet while Ecological Economics is making inroads into including extended peer communities into its analysis, its goal of translating its findings into direct action for solving problems has met only limited success. I believe that what is lacking to achieve this goal is a deeper alliance between Ecological Economics and civil society. Collaboration with civil society has much to offer Ecological Economics as a discipline. In the words of Hali Healy, a researcher working on greater integration between EE and NGOs, who was invited to the conference to present a paper about ‘Ecological Economics for and through NGOs’, civil society groups can provide ‘a medium through which the principles of ecological economics can be implemented effectively in mainstream society’. The application of ecological economics principles and indicators will bring attention not only to the field of EE but offer an alternate vision of the economic system that is currently lacking in many movements who are agitating for change but may not offer clearly thought out alternatives. At the same time work done in the field of Ecological Economics can be invaluable for civil society. When an organization or a group of stakeholders confront corporations or governments they need good information but often do not have the special research skills needed. Ecological Economists can be a force in providing this research where it can be applied in the field. Ecological Economics can also provide an alternative framework for decision-making, along the lines of multi-criteria analysis. When I asked Sunita Narain, an activist with the Center for Science and Environment about her success in her struggles, which include getting the city to change the public transport system to use compressed natural gas and also providing the science for the parliament to ban Coca-Cola in its cafeterias, she also highlighted this point. ‘When we take on our battles, what we need is good information. Often people understand the politics but they don’t understand the science. Or we know the science but are weak on the politics’ she said. ‘The fusion between science and politics is critical, and we must do our homework very well.’ One example of a concept from ecological economics integrated into mainstream discourse is the ‘ecological footprint.’ Several NGOs have begun using this indicator, and the Ecological Debt day calendar, which calculates the day each year when humans exceed the earth’s annual capacity for

regeneration, has been featured regularly in the British media. Why has the ecological footprint realized such ‘glittering success’ and how can we bring other physical indicators of Social Metabolism into the mainstream consciousness? One reason why the ecological footprint resonates so strongly is that it provides a nexus between personal consumption and the environment. Thus by logging online one can calculate one’s own ecological footprint. Other candidates of indicators that could reach comparable usage include EROI and Material Flow Analysis. But this will require discussion with NGOs and activists who can help frame the terms of debate in a language that the general public can understand and digest. Speaking with social groups and activists will allow Ecological Economics to gear research towards the needs of those working towards social and environmental justice. Guiseppe De Marzo, an activist from Asud in Italy, an organization that works with indigenous groups in Latin America, came to the ISEE2006 conference. He offered an example whereby an ecological economist helped calculate the Ecological Debt of Texaco in Ecuador for the NGO Accion Ecologica. Armed with the statistics, those struggling for justice felt empowered that they could illustrate quantitatively as well as qualitatively, the debt owed them and are currently suing Texaco in court.

Leah Temper interviewing activist Giuseppe de Marzo from the organization Asud (Italy): Leah Temper

The concept of ecological debt provides an example of the fruits of collaboration between academics and activists. The term originated in Chile as a reaction against the monetary debt and in response to the question, ‘who owes whom?’ EE however, offers the resources for undertaking a quantification of a debt that was purely theoretical to begin with. Thus we can calculate the environmental services lost, the carbon debt due to flaring of gas, and the social debt for unfair


9

labour practices. The concept has been further popularized by Ecological Economists and has been added to the discourse of many NGOs in both the North and the South. Further collaboration can thus help express EE ideas in the language of grassroots advocacy groups. Activists can help to reduce jargon and hone in on which ideas are most accessible to the public. Their input can also help to resist existing structures that generate research that is inaccessible and irrelevant to those working for social justice. Actively involving civil society and rural leaders in selecting cases to study will increase the relevance of the research and can be then translated into public information campaigns. The publicity generated through such campaigns will bring EE to a much larger audience, and demonstrate that its science offers practical applications. According to Hali Healy, ‘Academia has got the resources,’ she says, ‘but doesn’t know how to go about extending them to civil society.’ One of her proposals is that the ISEE should create a post for outreach with civil society, or plan a forum for research and resource sharing. Another of her suggestions relates to adopting positions on controversial issues, for example a position of growth such as the one put up for proposal by Brian Czech. She feels that EE and NGO collaboration to develop and adopt a position on growth would raise awareness and generate public dialogue. The above agenda requires building egalitarian and mutually supportive relationships between academics and activists. This means also participating in forums not on traditional territory. For example, De Marzo pointed out that the Society has no planned presence at the World Social Forum, an ideal venue for transmitting ideas to those passionate about environmental issues and global change. One might add, not only the World Social Forum, but also in the Davos meetings, should Ecological Economics be present because it is too important to be the sole domain of the academic community and to wait till the ideas slowly seep out to the general public. A new mode of science calls for new forms of interaction with others working towards social and environmental justice (activist science, if you will). Leah Temper Journalist and Doctoral Student Autonomous University of Barcelona Email: [email protected]

Ecological Economics for what? Anna Chiesura Attending the ISEE 2006 in New Delhi was a great human and professional experience, as an ex-researcher within the field of ecological economics (EE) who has now become an environmental journalist. Being for the first time in India – so rich and so poor! - and attending a conference dense with thematic sessions gave me, since the first day, the concrete proof of the world complexity, the value of pluralism and the diversity of perspectives articulating in real life. Given the impossibility of being in many places at the same time, I could not attend all the interesting symposia I wanted. What follows, then, is a combination of soft and hard values: personal opinions, presented research findings and informal comments gathered during discussions or through recorded-interviews to some speakers at lunch/tea breaks. I thank all of them for their kindness!

John Gowdy and Arild Vatn at ISEE 2006: Marsha Kopan I truly appreciated seeing so many different disciplines coming together from different countries, because that’s in my view what makes scientific understanding “resilient” to ignorance, risk and uncertainty, making EE unique in this sense. Richard Norgaard sees it as a truly democratic process within a deliberative, post-normal science, which in his opinion “is the only way to understand ecosystem changes”. Contributions from economists or economic-related approaches covered the biggest share of the conference sessions, with many papers presented on payments for ecosystem services, green accounting and also (from ecologists) physical and material indicators. Having studied with Rudolf De Groot (co-author of the famous article “The total value of ecosystem services” in the journal Nature 1997), the issue of ecosystem services is pretty dear to me, and I


10

am happy to see it as an important subject of research within ecological economics. However, I see with some concern the scarce attention still paid to nature’s “immaterial” information services, as well as the absence of any debate on the ethical-moral implications of current valuation methods, which remain de facto purely technical and economic exercises. From one side EE claims quantification of nature in monetary terms is not always possible neither desirable, from the other that very approach is in fact more and more applied, because “this is what Ministers understand”. I also believe that much more challenging would be to better understand the mechanisms that determine the robustness or fragility of those very services. Biophysical indicators would in this respect be more pertinent: carbon stocks and organic matter in the soil, for example, could be a good way to account for important production and regulation functions, such as maintenance of soil fertility, nutrient cycling and energy flows, prevention of erosion and desertification (increasingly crucial in the Mediterranean!), biological diversity and agricultural production, not last CO2 sequestration from the atmosphere. The ultimate goal of such accounting should inform policy makers and help avoid unsustainable choices such as converting fertile agricultural land into industrial estates, as it’s happening in Uttaranchal, in West Bengal and elsewhere in India (Down to Earth, November 2006). But, as Helmut Haberl said “We know so little about below-ground compartments! C pools in the soil would account as stock, while HANNP is a measure of flow”. Soil is where trophic energy is finally decomposed and accumulated for further sustenance of global biophysical cycles, the crucial link between stocks and flows. Organic matter is for ecosystems what capital is for the economy: the very basis of the oikòs-system’s maintenance and reproduction. Ariel Salleh’s work and the material eco-feminist perspective add a gender/class based analysis of the human-nature metabolism and propose the autonomous “meta-industrial class” of household labour, subsistence farmers and gatherers as the “conceptual lever” needed by EE. I would be fascinated by seeing this perspective placed within the analytical lens of evolutionary theory and complex adaptive systems reminded in Simon Levin’s plenary speech. Advances in green accounting methods are what particularly interests UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner: “What has been developed within EE in the front of accounting the costs of development, production and consumption interests me very much. But not as a reason not to consume or not to produce, rather as tool to guide economic instruments and

policies to internalize such costs”. The issue of growth is crucial here, and in my view not sufficiently de-constructed at ISEE 2006. In this respect, Georgescu-Roegen’s work can be reminded: entropy IS the limit to growth. No matter how far dematerialization and technological efficiency can go, the irreversibility of energy degradation makes indefinite growth simply impossible when it is based on fossil fuels and not on the current input of solar energy. Haberl’s work recently published in the Economic and Political Weekly (November 25, 2006) corroborates the view that efficiency increases in terms of a reduction in resource use per unit of GDP may be beneficial, but are not enough to reverse current trends: it rather seems that efficiency increases are more than compensated for by increases in consumption levels. A concrete revival of the Javons paradox? Haberl is convinced that “We need a totally different type of societal organization, a radical qualitative change”. Kanchan Chopra puts it stronger “Technological efficiency is not enough, we need a new development paradigm”. The GMOs issue is emblematic of the limits of technocratic solutions and of the presence of value incommensurability: the cases of field contamination from Spain (Rosa Binimelis) and the wrong regulatory system in Mexico (Alejandro Nadal) strongly indicate the importance of political representation, transparency and participation, faced by ignorance or at least uncertain risks. Can Arild Vatn’s plea for social rationality and inclusive-integrative institutions be the solution? He doesn’t know if that will work in practice, but he certainly raises fundamentally crucial issues such as power distribution, institutional structure and political representation within societies: the “socio-political embeddedness” of the economy. Environmental historians know that very well. Maohong Bao’s paper on “The evolution of environmental policy and its impact in the People’s Republic of China” shows that despite the strengthening of Chinese environmental policy measures through the years, problems such as bureaucratic fragmentation and lack of administrative control and legal enforcement have prevented their full implementation. Robert Costanza, co-author of the book “Sustainability or collapse?” launched at ISEE 2006, sees two major added values coming from taking an historical perspective at the human-nature relationship: “One relates to the longer time-perspective of the historical analysis, the other to the human dimension involved in it. The first helps us getting a broader picture of the various problems at hand and – thus – to better grasp the world complexity, while the second one encourages human engagement and generates more confidence on future possibilities of change”, he concludes. Another environmental historian John McNeill argues that “Environmental history can help ecological economists to think more


11

concretely, more grounded”. As EEA Director Jaqueline McGlade put it: “What I genuinely feel is that we need more efforts to explain what all this these rather theoretically lofty ideas mean to normal citizens, how do we bring it down to people’s everyday life”. Indian environmental researchers and activists Vandana Shiva and Sunita Narain put social justice and inequalities of dominant economic models at the centre of their analysis. Vandana Shiva believes that “Only when these social and political dimensions will be treated as a core of ecological economics, then will ecological economics be able to make a radical shift in the way we look at nature and the economy. Without justice there won’t be any sustainability”. In her provocative and passionate speech on environmental and social injustices, Sunita Narain astonished us with the crude reality of the Delhi’s water distribution, deeply capital-intensive and socially unjust, and eventually inefficient. Intra-generational equity matters here, as did for Georgescu-Roegen decades ago, and as Kozo Mayumi spectacularly showed us in his speech.

Sunita Narain at ISEE 2006: Leah Temper While developing its various research areas and opening to other sources of knowledge, ecological economists will have to never stop confronting their theories and models with the real-world contradictions of our globalized societies, always remembering the socio-political embeddedness of their “dissident” choices. This will make a fascinating Babylon of languages and perspectives really able to mark a difference both as a (meta) scientific discipline and as cultural movement. That’s, is in my view, what ecological economics is worth for.

Anna Chiesura Environmental Journalist [email protected] Modeling the Relations between Economy and Environment at the ISEE2006 Jeroen van der Bergh Modeling in ecological economics attracted much attention at the conference. This resulted in as much as six sessions being devoted to this theme, organized by Jeroen van den Bergh, Charles Perrings, and Kanchan Chopra. The papers were classified into the following themes: the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC), Modeling ecosystem use and biodiversity loss, Macro economic and input-output modeling, Modeling theoretical aspects of environmental policy, and Complex systems modelling. Despite these titles, the internal diversity of the sessions was quite large. Research on the EKC turned out to be so popular that two sessions had to be devoted to it. Evidently, in these sessions papers showed more coherence. As one indicator of progress in research, EKC studies now often present not just a single EKC but test EKCs for many different regions or countries simultaneously. One can argue that this type of research is not very typical of ecological economics - witness the attention for EKC research at regular environmental economics´ conferences. This is different for I/O and complex systems modeling, which step away from the standard analytical (notably growth and equilibrium) and numerical (notably computable equilibrium) modeling in economics. Modeling in the real spirit of ecological economics tends to give much attention to combined economic and ecological dynamics, causality and disequilibrium transitions, and feedbacks between economic and ecological sub systems. This resulted in some presentations including impressive GIS based graphs and dynamics with some models being run during the presentation. A general problem of the modeling presentations was that too little time was available (because of 10 minute presentations) for the audience to get a good understanding of the details of the models, and thus ask relevant questions. For this reasons, presentations of modeling papers should in the future be allowed somewhat more time. Jeroen van der Bergh Professor of Environmental Economics Free University, Amsterdam


12

USSEE Policy Briefs The United States Society for Ecological Economics (USSEE) commissions and posts “Policy Briefs” from leading scholars on specific topics in ecological economics. These documents provide concise overviews concerning the problem, solutions, and policy implications of important issues in environmental policy. The ISEE Newsletter has been including these briefs in its recent issues, most recently Stephen Schneider’s contribution on ‘Global Climate Change’ in the June 2006 issue. Stephen’s policy brief from 2003, prompted the following comment and response from Clive Spash. Uncertainty & the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: A Response to Schneider’s “Policy Brief” Clive Spash In a recent article in the ISEE Newsletter Stephen Schneider made several remarks and a central suggestion which I believe need some clarification and amplification, if not correction. This is especially so because the piece was prefaced as a starting guide to the topic of global climate change. Before getting past the first sentence I was taken aback by some historical inaccuracy. The issue did not jump up as being serious in 1995 due to the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR), but had been on and off the international agenda for some time (see Chapter 1 of Spash, 2002). There had been building concern, mainly amongst scientists, since the first World Climate Conference in 1979. Indeed the IPCC was set-up due to that concern reaching a peak in the late 1980s. The issue was already on the political agenda even in the USA (with Congressional hearings). In December 1990 the UN established a negotiating committee for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), following on from the 2nd World Climate Conference in November. By 1990 several nations were proposing unilateral reductions in CO2 emissions and all European Community (EC) countries, except the UK, agreed on stabilisation of aggregate EC emissions. This informal EC agreement would have allowed Spain, Greece and Portugal to increase emissions. The US under the Bush administration remained opposed to emissions controls, while the Soviet Union was opposed to controls ‘at the current time’. Divisions were clear between those proposing substantial reductions, up to

50 per cent, those proposing stabilisation of emissions (not atmospheric concentrations) at various levels, and those opposing any action. We have gone a long way backwards since 1990! My next concern is the focus on average temperatures without any mention of deviations or distributions. Indeed the implicit assumption in referring to the IPCC figures is that only the mean global temperature is important. This is a highly misleading aspect of past global climate change modelling with its static equilibrium framing and single average shift under a double CO2 equivalent scenario. Just as and often more important than averages are distributions across space and time. Lots of rain in Brazil does not help Australia, one day of frost in spring can kill an entire regions crops, reduced spring and summer rainfall and higher temperatures leads to more fires and so on. Species also live within thresholds and these can be crossed by changing distributions without changing averages e.g. colder winters and hotter summers, more precipitation in winter and less in summer. The discussion of ecosystem change is conducted in terms of moving to escape, as if ecosystems were seeking a safe haven: “they are moving poleward, up mountain slopes, or both to “escape” climate change”. There are however, no empty rooms on the planet left vacant by recently departed ecosystems so the description is rather misleading. Thus, ecosystems are not moving as such but changing in their composition in unpredictable ways. Forests are not lifting up their roots and moving north; species may die be replaced by other species and so the existing structures change. The old ecosystems will be unable to re-establish in the same location or perhaps anywhere else. Change is also far more uncertain than is made explicit. This then gets to my biggest concern with the piece by Schneider. Having recognised “deep uncertainty ... and even catastrophic consequences” he tells us that we need “risk management” where “Scientists are responsible for defining the elements of risk”. In two paragraphs we have moved from “the multitude of unknowns” to “potential consequences of climate change have been well-outlined”. The standard probability of an event times the known outcome is the suggested approach all controlled by expert scientists. I have spent some time elsewhere explaining the problems of using standard risk assessment approaches for addressing the enhanced greenhouse effect (see chapter 4 Spash, 2002). More relevant is the concept of strong uncertainty which admits we lack the ability to place probabilities on events and that we lack the ability to define the future (see chapter 5 Spash, 2002). The concept of post normal science has been one of the more innovative aspects of ecological


13

economics (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1992; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994){Funtowicz, 1994 #823}, unfortunately Schneider pays no attention to this. Most worrying of all, the explicit use of scenarios by IPCC experts to address strong uncertainty, which seems eminently sensible, is described as a weakness leaving the policy makers unable to make a decision? That there are multiple futures which are equally likely due to our irreducible ignorance is just not good enough. It sees that we must strive to pretend strong uncertainty does not exist. Actually Schneider is incorrect in criticising the IPCC for failing to follow his chosen path. Despite stating that probabilities could not be placed on events, and the scenarios report explicitly avoiding this, the TAR notes its use of a classification system using ‘subjective’ probabilities with precisely defined quantitative confidence levels (see IPCC Working Group I, 2001: 2). Judging from his website, lobbying by Schneider may have had something to do with this. For more on the inconsistencies and contradictions in the IPCC reports see Spash (2002). A search for evidence about the implications of GHG emissions has led to modelling exercises to reduce strong uncertainty. Reliance for prediction has concentrated on simulation models (e.g., GCMs) as opposed to historical analogue because global temperatures are expected to occur at unprecedented rates. This need for artificial scenarios is a recognition of indeterminacy and partial ignorance. In order to avoid the whole concept of strong uncertainty Schneider is following a common line of asking for it to be transformed into weak uncertainty by pretending that scientists and experts (selected on what basis we might ask) can make guesses about the future to get “subjective probabilities”. However, we are told in the conclusions that policy makers need to act without this knowledge in any case. This seems a little contradictory to the earlier request to place probabilities on the IPCC scenarios due to the inability of the decision-makers to decide. In any case, if Schneider can make a decision on the need for greenhouse gas control, as have millions of others on the planet, then what is wrong with the mythical decision-makers that they cannot? Decisions on complex, long-term problems involving unique and catastrophic potential events, such as not controlling the enhanced Greenhouse Effect, cannot be reduced to fit within decision theoretic methods designed for repeatable events with nicely defined probability distributions and knowable consequences. Or perhaps we should let the mythical scientific experts

play their guessing games and wait to see if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet really does melt, or the northern conveyer belt does get disrupted, or sea level does rises 1 or 6 meters by 2100? The idea that uncertainty can be reduced, and even eradicated (normally by pleas for more research rather than guessing games) seems common amongst both natural scientists and economists. However, several points can be raised against such a prognosis: the persistence of weak uncertainty due to measurement errors; the persistence of strong uncertainty due to differences in the interpretation of given ‘facts’; the methodological problem that evidence can only disprove but never prove a theory; the existence of irreducible ignorance; the lack of any single metric for damage assessment; and the persistence of unknown cause–effect relationships. The type of work being produced by economists exemplifies how implicit value loaded boundaries are drawn in terms of designating which knowledge is employed. While the social aspect of economic knowledge may be deemed to make it implicitly subjective, a similar methodological problem also faces natural scientists. That is, how environmental problems are characterised is seen to be determined by assumptions which restrict the focus of any given research. The IPCC for example has been at pains to avoid talking of catastrophic events on the basis of political acceptability, NOT science. The alternative to Schneider’s plea is to accept that global systems are inherently unpredictable so that many different outcomes are equally likely. Strong uncertainty must then be regarded as a property of the system rather than a failure of scientific method which can be removed by increased research budgets, or by coaxing numbers from “experts”. Yet the main approach to uncertainty being put forward by both scientists and economists limits itself to weak uncertainty and fails to discuss the meaning or content of strong uncertainty. A role for some real ecological economics open here. Oh, yes and while I remember did anyone hear about the ethical issues... well may be another time. References: Funtowicz, S. O. and J. R. Ravetz (1990) Uncertainty

and Quality in Science for Policy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Funtowicz, S. O. and J. R. Ravetz (1992) Risk management as a post-normal science. Risk Analysis 12(1): 95-97.

Funtowicz, S. O. and J. R. Ravetz (1994) Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science.


14

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13(12): 1881-1885.

Spash, C. L. (2002) Greenhouse Economics: Value and Ethics. London: Routledge.

Clive L. Spash CSIRO, Sustainable Ecosystems Division 2006 For all the Policy Briefs in the Series, visit the USSEE website at: http://www.ussee.org

ISEE Membership News Marsha Kopan As we enter 2007 you should note that the ISEE has made a change to the way you renew your membership. You can now renew your membership for three years at the current dues rate. This new process will help those of you that do a lot of travelling or those of you that prefer to pay for several years in advance. At the present time, we are only able to renew your Journal subscriptions once a year so for those of you that make the choice to renew membership for three years, you will have to renew your Ecological Economics subscription annually. I hope you find our new process improved since last year. You will be able to login with your email address and the password that you select! Please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns at [email protected] My goal is to give you a prompt response to your inquiries.

ISEE Website Joanne Chamberlain The website continues to be developed and the last six months has seen an improved approach to the online membership renewal and joining process. We would therefore be grateful for your feedback on any aspect on the renewal process. From the 1st February 2007, however, all comments, suggestions and queries with respect to the website should be addressed to Marsha Kopan at [email protected]. After working with ISEE for over two years now, I am moving on to pastures new, and will handing over responsibility for the management of ISEE’s website to Marsha. I have

enjoyed working with ISEE, and wish the organisation and its members all the best for 2007! As ever, the website is there to serve the ISEE membership, so if there is something you would like to see, or you think can be improved, we will always be grateful. For suggestions, simply send an email via the suggestions link on the home page, or to [email protected].

Regional Societies News USSEE News UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development Barry Solomon and Karin Limburg The ISEE was invited to participate in the “UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014)” disciplines meeting, which was held in Washington, DC on May 10, 2006. USSEE board members Barry Solomon (past-president) and Karin Limburg (president) went as representatives of ISEE. The idea for the decade was originally proposed by Japan in 2002 and UNESCO was designated as the lead agency. Unfortunately while the decade has been strongly endorsed and promoted by Japan, Germany and several other countries, the U.S. government has not been officially involved. Consequently the U.S. Partnership for the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development has been formed as an NGO, with participation by several non-profit organizations.


15

Organized by Debra Rowe, Senior Fellow with the organization University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, and Anthony Cortese, president of Second Nature, the meeting was a means to introduce various discipline associations to each other and brainstorm ideas for moving the program ahead. Another fairly new organization, the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), also co-hosted the meeting. The AASHE, the new Higher Education Associations Sustainability Consortium, and many of the other groups present at the meeting can provide case studies of curricula, assessment tools, list-serves, conferences and other tools for all those interested in advancing sustainability in higher education. To start the meeting, Dr. Rowe provided background on the program, and specifically the U.S. Partnership, and Education for a Sustainable Future (ESF). The program seeks to instil sustainability in every academic curriculum, although the main focus is at the university level. If EFS is widely adopted, universities and colleges would also adopt sustainable development policies in the conduct of their own activities In addition to ISEE, some of the other associations that were attended this meeting were the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Institute of Biological Sciences, Ecological Society of America, Association of American Colleges and Universities, American Chemical Society, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society for Engineering Education, Association of American Geographers, American Anthropological Association, American Sociological Association, American Economic Association, American Philosophical Association, and the American Academy of Religion. Several brainstorming sessions explored ideas for engaging members of professional associations and scientific societies in EFS thru e.g. curricula, research, operations, purchasing, student life, community outreach, as well as ideas for fund-raising. Among other things, associations can include EFS as a part of their annual conferences - this is something that the USSEE plans to do. A major follow-up conference is being planned at Arizona State University from October 4-6, on the role of higher education in creating a sustainable world. For details and conference registration information see: http://www.aashe.org/conference/index.php

USSEE Biennial Conference New York City, 23-27 June 2007

“Creating Sustainability within our Midst: Challenge for the 21st Century” The 4th biennial conference of the United States Society for Ecological Economics (USSEE) will take place in downtown New York City on the campus of Pace University. Partnering with Pace's Institute for Regional and Environmental Studies as a co-sponsor, the conference will offer a variety of themes and special symposia featuring our collective interests as well as regional issues and amenities. Those interested in proposing symposia, workshops, and field trips should contact the conference committee ([email protected]). More information will follow soon, both through an e-mailing and posting on the USSEE website. Potential topics at the conference include the ecological economics of climate change, energy, biodiversity, ecosystems (such as estuaries) and resource systems (e.g., fisheries and forestry); valuation methodologies and issues thereof; population concerns; regional studies of sustainable development; greening the building industry; green entrepreneurship; and education in ecological economics and sustainability. Additionally, we hope to bring in some prominent keynote speakers to raise the visibility of the conference and the USSEE. The venue, Pace University’s downtown campus, is in the heart of lower Manhattan near Chinatown, South Street Seaport, and the financial district. Pace offers air-conditioned dormitory rooms that will help attendees on limited budgets; in addition, we anticipate getting discounted rates at several local hotels. We also hope to enable participants to purchase CO2 sequestration credits to offset the impacts of travelling to the conference. We invite appropriate co-sponsorship and underwriting. If interested, please contact [email protected]


16

Jobs Fellowships

The Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona supports a range of research and educational lines that are at the centre of the Institute’s committment to advancing insight into Global Change and its local causes and manifestations, promoting basic and applied research into the relations between the changing environment and society. ICTA runs Master and Doctoral programmes in Environmental Sciences, with about 10 Ph.D. theses per year. ICTA encourages qualified researchers at the junior and senior level with expertise in any of its priority science and research lines to apply for fixed-term fellowships and consolidated senior positions that will be open for application in 2007 from the national ICREA, Ramon y Cajal, Juan de la Cierva and Beatriu de Pinòs schemes. Priority science and research lines are:

Business and Environment. Corporate environmental management, accounting and reporting.

Conservation Biology. Agro-ecology. Ethno-ecology.

Ecological Economics. Environmental Sociology. Public Policies and the Environment.

Energy, Economy, Society and Environment. Environmental Monitoring. Pollution.

Aerobiology. Global and climate change and its dynamics.

Marine Geosciences. Oceanography. Industrial Ecology. LCA, E&MFA and

Ecodesign. Water Management: social, spatial,

technological and environmental aspects. The successful candidates will join ICTA’s international team of junior and senior scientists that are actively involved in environmental research and assessment. New incoming research staff from 2007 onwards are Jeroen van den Bergh (Netherlands, Ecological Economics), Mario Giampietro (Italy, Human Ecology), and Georgios Kallis (Greece, Water Management). Calls for applications will be published at:

The Catalan Institute for Research and Advanced Studies - www.icrea.es; Spanish Ministry for Education and Science (Ramon y Cajal, Juan de la Cierva) - www.mec.es/ciencia/becas; Catalan Agency for Management of University and Research Grants (Beatriu de Pinòs) - www.gecat.net/agaur/ Further information is available from: Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici Cn - Campus UAB, E-08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola), Spain. Tel. +34 - 93 581 3324, Fax +34 - 93 581 3331 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.uab.cat Donella Meadows Leadership Fellows Program Sustainability Institute is now accepting applications for the 2007-2008 class of Donella Meadows Leadership Fellows (www.sustainer.org/fellows). The Donella Meadows Leadership Fellows Program was launched in 2002 to honour and build on the life example of Dr. Donella Meadows by empowering sustainability leaders to incorporate systems thinking, reflective conversation and vision into their work and life. The Fellows Program trains sixteen to twenty influential mid-career environmental and social leaders in a series of four workshops and monthly personal coaching. Fellows learn systems skills: seeing the world through a systems lens, drawing and interpreting systems diagrams, analyzing the drivers of sustainability and the system rules and incentives that give rise to sustainability Application deadline is January 15, 2007, and applications are submitted online. Please go to www.sustainer.org/fellows/apply/index.php to submit an application. Jobs Assistant Professor - Institutions, Society and the Environment Arizona State University, USA Deadline: January 16, 2007 http://csid.asu.edu PhD Positions in Ecological Modelling Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Germany Deadline: January 8, 2007 http://www.ufz.de


17

Sustainability Coordinator University of Idaho, USA Deadline: January 9, 2007 http://www.hr.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=34234 Two Positions in Science & Environmental Policy California State University, USA Deadline: January 9, 2007 http://uhr.csumb.edu/jobs/db/fac/ PhD Fellowships - IGERT in Adaptive Management Center for Environmental Policy at the University of Florida, USA Deadline: February 15, 2007 http://amw3igert.ufl.edu Post-Doc Positions GoverNat Post-doc Deadline: April 15, 2007 www.governat.eu Faculty Position in Environmental Ethics & Philosophy Michigan State University, USA Deadline: until filled Position description Forest Management Analyst Washington State Dept of Natural Resources, USA Deadline: until filled Description of position Position in Environmental Economics Galen University, Belize Deadline: until filled www.galen.edu.bz

Forthcoming Events Workshops Ecological Footprint Workshop - York University, Toronto, Canada Two Masters in Environmental Studies students at York University, along with Professor Peter Victor, are currently working on an Ecological Footprint Initiative supported by the Institute of Research and Innovation in Sustainability and in collaboration with the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics (CANSEE). The purpose of this initiative is to expand and bring together the network of people interested in and supportive of the Ecological Footprint accounting metric in Canada. The long-term goal of this project is to promote the adoption of the Ecological Footprint as

a national indicator of economic and ecological health by the Government of Canada. An important part of this initiative involves the organization and facilitation of a workshop for key individuals concerned with and engaged in Ecological Footprint work. The aim of the workshop is to bring together these key stakeholders to examine three key topics. First, workshop participants will examine whether or not the methodology used to calculate the Ecological Footprint is robust and whether or not the data sets used to calculate it for Canada are valid and the best available. Second, opportunities within the Federal Government to take the lead in measuring the Canadian Ecological Footprint will be explored. Third, concerns about the Ecological Footprint raised by key stakeholders will be addressed. In addition to exploring these three topics, workshop participants will consider a proposal that Statistics Canada undertake an audit of the National Accounts for Canada (developed by the Global Footprint Network) be conducted. The workshop will be held at York University in Toronto, though the date has not yet been set. A supporting background report containing relevant research on the Ecological Footprint, including information on those countries in the process of adopting it as an official indicator, is being completed. Melissa Peneycad and Miranda Persaud, the Master in Environmental Studies students who are authoring this document, request that any individuals with information on the implementation of the Ecological Footprint in other countries contact them directly at either of these email addresses: [email protected] or [email protected]. Training Courses Management of Protected Areas - MSc Programme of the Klagenfurt University (Austria) The Klagenfurt University, Austria, launched a new international postgraduate master programme dealing with the inter- and trans-disciplinary issues of establishing and managing Protected Areas. The focus is on all aspects of establishing and managing Protected Areas such as national parks, Natura 2000 sites, state parks, RAMSAR sites. The programme includes the ecological, managerial, legal, institutional, economic, cultural and social dimensions of protected areas, and is set up in cooperation with international bodies such as CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), IUCN (World Conservation Union), WWF, Ramsar convention, PanParks, EuroParks, and prominent Protected Areas in Europe. The learning goals are:


18

- an excellent and comprehensive understanding of the aims and roles of Protected Areas in relation to the conservation of biodiversity and (integrated) regional development.

- detailed knowledge when applying the full range of tools available for the management of Protected Areas so that they can effectively fulfil their aims.

- an ability to analyse and solve problems encountered when establishing, planning and managing Protected Areas, to conduct inter- and trans-disciplinary dialogues with all stakeholders and to develop and implement appropriate integrated solutions.

- the development of hard and soft skills to create mutual benefits of nature conservation on the one hand, and for the local population on the other hand, particularly in peripheral regions as well as in developing countries with the aim of sustainable regional development.

The programme currently involves 20 students from countries such as Switzerland, Austria, Romania, Malta, Armenia, Nepal and Latvia. The next class starts in September 2007 – duration of the programme is 4 semesters, closing with a Master of Science in Management of Protected Areas. The deadline for applications is 30 June 2007. Further information: M.Sc. Programme “Management of Protected Areas” Prof. Dr. Michael Getzner, Department of Economics Klagenfurt University, Austria, A-9020 Klagenfurt Email: [email protected] Website: www.mpa.uni-klu.ac.at

Forthcoming Conferences

2007 February 1-3, 2007 Sustainable Cities: Ecological Economic and Environmental Psychological Aspects of Urban Design and Management University College, London, UK Organised by: UCL, Free University of Amsterdam and St Petersburg State University February 26-27, 2007 The Frontiers of Environmental Economics Washington D.C., USA Organised by: Resources for the Future www.rff.org/rff/Events/Frontiers-of-Environmental-Economics.cfm.

April 25-27, 2007 Sustainable Development & Planning Algarve, Portugal Organised by: Wessex Institute of Technology, UK and University of Thessaly, Greece http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2007/sustain2007/2.html June 1-2, 2007 Economics, ecology and approaches for the resolution of ecological conflicts in Argentina, Chile & Uruguay Tucumán, Argentina Organised by ASAUEE http://educatuc.org/asauee2007 June 5-8, 2007 Ecological Economics: Integrating natural and social sciences for sustainability Leipzig, Germany Organised by ESEE www.esee-leipzig2007.org June 23-27, 2007 Creating Sustainability within our Midst: Challenge for the 21st Century New York, USA Organised by USSEE http://www.ussee.org June 28 - 1 July, 2007 15th Annual Conference of EAERE Thessaloniki, Greece Organised by EAERE http://www.eaere.org/eaere_conf.html July 2-6, 2007 16th International Input-Output Conference Istanbul, Turkey Organised by IIOA http://www.iioa.at/conferences-16th.htm July 26-28, 2007 Sustaining Communities and Development in the Face of Environmental Challenges Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Organised by CANSEE http://www.cansee.org/2007 September 8-15, 2007 DISCCRS III Symposium Hawaii, USA http://www.aslo.org/phd/disccrsposter.pdf


19

Publication Discounts Latest books from Edward Elgar The following titles from Edward Elgar are available to ISEE members at 50% of the price listed. Email Laura Wyer for further information on: [email protected] Current Issues in Ecological Economics series 'Economic Growth, Material Flows and the Environment' (2005), Rutger Hoekstra. £55.00 'Sustainable Development Indicators in Ecological Economics' (2006), edited by Philip Lawn. £85.00 'Joint Production and Responsibility in Ecological Economics' (2006), Stefan Baumgartner, Malte Faber and Johannes Schiller. £75.00 (see below). And look out for…. 'Frontier Issues in Ecological Economics (due January 2007). Philip Lawn. £79.95.

Journals and Books Edward Elgar

Stefan Baumgärtner, Assistant Professor of Ecological Economics, University of Heidelberg, Germany, Malte Faber, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Heidelberg, Germany and Johannes Schiller, Senior Researcher, UFZ – Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle, Germany. This groundbreaking book takes a fresh look at how environmental problems emerge from economic activity and how they may be addressed in a responsible and sustainable manner. At its centre is the concept of joint production. This captures the phenomenon whereby several effects necessarily emerge from one activity and whereby human action always entails unintended side-consequences. This, according to the authors, is the structural cause behind modern-day environmental problems.

Combining concepts and methods from philosophy of science, systems theory, thermodynamics, economics and ethics in a truly interdisciplinary manner, the authors convincingly argue that the joint production perspective has fundamental and far-reaching implications for the valuation of economic goods, the dynamic analysis of economy-environment interactions, and the accumulation of stocks in ecological-economic systems. Complementing the joint-production perspective with the ethical notion of responsibility, the authors develop principles of sustainable environmental policy, and give philosophical support to the precautionary principle. Four extensive case studies illustrate and deepen the approach. With a wide range of analysis and case studies, this book will be of great interest to researchers and students in ecological economics, environmental and resource economics, environmental policy and regulation, environmental valuation, as well as environmental ethics and responsibility. Contributors include: J. de Swaan Arons, H. Dyckhoff, F. Jöst, E. Kiesele, G. Müller-Fürstenberger, T. Petersen, J. Proops, R. Winkler. October 2006 c 384 pp Hardback 1 84064 872 4 / 978 1 84064 872 0 c £75.00 – 50% discount for ISEE members. Advances in Ecological Economics series Earthscan

The Economics of Biodiversity Conservation: Valuation in Tropical Forest Ecosystems K N Ninan with a foreword by Charles Perrings This groundbreaking work is the most comprehensive and detailed examination of the economics of environmental valuation and biodiversity conservation to date. It offers original comparisons of the different


20

‘values’ of biodiversity, trade-offs, incentives for conservation, case studies of coffee growing and wildlife conservation and practical policy options. Hardback £65.00 ISBN: 1844073645 Publication date: December 2006 For more info and a 10% discount click here: http://shop.earthscan.co.uk/ProductDetails/mcs/productID/732 To request a review or inspection copy of this publication please send all the relevant details to [email protected]

International Society for Ecological Economicspolitical economy of defecation and water use in the...

Documents

Transcript of International Society for Ecological Economicspolitical economy of defecation and water use in the...