Brundtland Report

UNEDITED DRAFT
From Environment and Development

to
From Environment for Development:
Evolution of ideas from
Our Common Future to GEO-4:
Brundtland +20 Seminar Background paper
by Jennifer Mohamed-Katerere
with funding support from Sweden
ii
Evolution of ideas from Our Common Future to GEO-4:
FROM ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT TO ENVIRONMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT: EVOLUTION OF IDEAS

FROM OUR COMMON FUTURE TO GEO-4:
SUMMARY
This paper looks back over the last 20 years at the findings of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland
Commission) report, Our Common Future, and those of the fourth Global Environment Outlook: environment for development
(GEO-4)and asks whether we heeded Brundtlands call to action, what we have achieved, and where we go to from here.
In comparing the two reports, it considers how environmental ideas have evolved over the last two decades. It does not cover
every area or every finding of GEO-4, nor does it attempt to summarize these, instead it focuses on some key issues (at global and
regional levels) that resonate with challenges faced in forging sustainable paths to development.
The paper is divided into five main sections:
1. Introduction: Looking back, moving forward gives an overview of the urgent notice that the Brundtland Commission
issued in 1987.
2. The Global Context: Fundamental changes, startling similarities provides a brief overview of how the world
has changed since that notice was issued, and it considers the importance of three key drivers (population growth, urbanization
and globalization) for future choices.
3. A 20-year retrospective takes a closer look at how environmental governance and problem-solving has evolved since
Our Common Future and identifies progress made in addressing key environment-development issues. Through analyzing
five key interlinkages that capture the challenges of sustainable developmentglobal commons, climate change,
environmental and human security, gender inequities, securing biodiversity for the future, protecting
environmental resources for food securityit considers whether policy responses and actions have addressed the
issues raised by the Brundtland Commission, and identifies some policy directions needed to achieve defined goals.
4. Environment for development in the regions discusses development choices in six of the UNEP regions, through
the lens of a single environment-development challenge. Each regional section questions whether choices made tally with an
environment-for-development perspective and discusses how responses, approaches, and ideas around that issue have evolved
since Brundtland. These regional issues are also issues of global importance.
5. Conclusion: Our common future looks ahead at the challenges of defining future approaches, demonstrating how key
issues for action identified in GEO-4 (and Our Common Future) can help forge a path that delivers a more prosperous, more
just, more sustainable future.
NOTE: Throughout this paper reference is made to the related GEO-4 chapter [by number] or Our
Common Future chapter [by B number].
INTRODUCTION: LOOKING BACK, MOVING FORWARD

The 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development (also known as the Brundtland Commission) report, Our Common
Future, was an important turning point in environmental discourse. It:
Placed sustainable developmentdevelopment that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needshigh on the political agenda.
Marked the beginning of a real search for alternative models to development, and strategies and tools to charter development
paths that are sustainable.
Inspired many initiatives at global, regional, national, and local levels, including the 1992 ground-breaking United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), and National Strategies for Sustainable Development (NSSD), as well
as local, participatory conservation and sustainable use projects based on principles of fairness, equity, and benefit sharing.
Stimulated research and the development of policy-relevant scientific information that supports the knowledge-policy-actionoutcome transition.
Twenty years later, despite important successes, many of the challenges of forging development paths that are sustainable remain.
In looking to the future, it is essential that we look back and assess past performance.
Defining a global agenda for a sustainable future

Our Common Future sets out a global agenda for change. Its starting premise is that people can build a future that is more
prosperous, more just, and more secure but this is conditional on managing environmental resources with care and diligence to
ensure human progress and environmental sustainability [B1].
The Brundtland Commission served an urgent notice, based on the best available scientific evidence, that it was imperative not to
postpone action:
the time has come to take the decisions needed to secure the resources to sustain this and coming generations [B1].
The Brundtland Commission warned that:

Development trends were increasing the number of poor and vulnerable people and simultaneously degrading the
environment.
Environmental change was radically threatening development opportunities and eroding the environmental resources on which
development is based.
Addressing poverty and equity is a prerequisite for a sustainable future because a world in which poverty is endemic will
always be prone to ecological and other catastrophes.
It is futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses economic, social and
political factors, including those that underlie world poverty and global inequality.
Box 1: The Brundtland Commissions Mandate
1. Re-examine the critical environment and development issues to formulate realistic proposals for dealing with them.
2. Propose new forms of international cooperation that will re-orientate policy and events in the direction of needed
change.
3. Raise the levels of understanding and commitment to action of individuals, voluntary organizations, businesses, institutes,
and governments.
Source: WCED 1987
In looking to the future, Our Common Future offered, not a blueprint for change but, a framework for enlarging cooperation. It urged
an approach to environment and development problems that treated them as interlocked and shared challenges.
And, it called on countries to break out of past patterns:
Attempts to maintain social and ecological stability through old approaches to development and environment protection will
increase instability. Security must be sought through change.
The Brundtland Commissions focus on the poverty-inequality-environmental degradation-sustainable development link shaped its
recommendations (discussed throughout this paper). In emphasizing the need to achieve a new era of economic growthwhich
is socially and environmentally sustainableit urged fundamental policy change in areas of population, food security, species and
ecosystems, energy, industry, and urbanization.
The Brundtland Commission stressed the importance of developing shared approaches to managing the global commons and
ensuring peace and security.
Additionally, enhanced international cooperation as well as institutional and legal development were identified as key tools for
achieving desired outcomes. Six priority action areas were identified to support institutional and legal development (Figure 1,
B12):
Getting at the sources.
Dealing with the effects.
Assessing global risks.
Making informed choices.
Providing the legal means.
Investing in our future.
Figure 1: Priority actions for institutional and legal development
INSTITUTIONAL AND
LEGAL CHANGE

Getting
Dealing
Assessing
Making
Providing
Investing
at the
with
Global
Informed
Legal
in our
Sources
Effects
Risks
Choices
Means
Future
PRIORITY ACTION AREAS
THE GLOBAL CONTEXT: FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES, STARTLING SIMILARITIES

The world has changed radically since 1987 politically, economically, socially and environmentallyalthough startling similarities
remain.
There has been unprecedented environmental change mainly due to human activities. But the responsibility for the drivers that
cause this change is not equally distributed throughout the world [7]. The foremost challenges todayclimate
change, land degradation, and the loss of biodiversityimpact directly on human well-being by increasing vulnerabilities and
foreclosing opportunities. These challenges were already evident in 1987.
Figure 2: Progress towards improving human well-being

a) Percentage of population using improved sanitation, 2004
Coverage is 96% or higher
Coverage is 6095%
Coverage is less than 60%
Insufficient data
Source: WHO and UNICEF 2006
b) Share of people living on US$1 or US$2 a day and path to the MDG goal by region
North East Asia, South East Asia, South Pacific
Central and Eastern Europe and

Central Asia
per cent
Latin America and the Caribbean
50
Poverty rate at US$1 a day

Actual
Projected
40
30
Poverty rate at US$2 a day
29.6
Actual
28.4
Projected
23.4
5.7
0.3
South Asia
6.2
Path to goal
20
15
0.9
8.9
20
02
19
90
20
15
20
02
19
90
West Asia and Northern Africa
20
02
0.5
0.7
2.1
Goal
2015
11.3
8.2
4.9
Sub-Saharan Africa
per cent
50
44.6
44.0
41.3
38.1
40
31.2
30
20.7
19.9
22.3
10.4
10
15
Source: World Bank 2006
20
02
20
90
19
15
02
20
15
20
02
20
regions.
0.7
90
1.2
90
Note: Some graphs not strictly

presented according to GEO
1.6
19
2.3
13.8
20
21.4
20
19
11.6
10
17.2
16.1
14.8
20
15
19
90
20
There continues to be steady improvement in human well-being at the global level, but there is considerable variation across and
within the regions (Figure 2) [1, 7]. Improvements have been made in access to education and also in access to improved water
and sanitation. Despite a decrease in the proportion of people living on less than one dollar per day, with population growth the
numbers of people living in poverty continue to increase. Today some one billion people live on less than one dollar per day. The
challenges of achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are serious, but not insurmountable with concerted national
and global action.
Poverty is more than just the deprivation of income. It implies a low level of well-being, with such outcomes as poor health,
premature mortality and morbidity, and illiteracy [1]. The Brundtland Commissions description of the world as a place where
poverty is endemic remains apt. Our Common Future noted that the gap between rich and poor was widening and that there were
no identifiable trends to offer any real hope of narrowing that gap. Today, it is evident that income, and other, inequalities such as
gender, continue to pose major challenges and are increasing in many countries, both developing and developed [7].
Drivers and pressures, identified in Our Common Future, continue to generate environmental change; over the last 20 years the
impacts of many of these have intensified. Among these urbanization, population growth, inequity, globalization, and increasing
production and consumption are particularly evident.
Since 1987, global population has increased from 5 billion to 6.7 billion. Figure 3 shows population growth per region. In
many places, this growth together with the vast gap between rich and poor, and their relative access to goods and opportunities,
has increased the pressures on available environmental resources. In many regions new, heighten demand on environmental
resourcesfreshwater, fisheries, agricultural land, forestsare evident.
Figure 3: A changing population

a) Population growth by region
billions
4.0
Africa
3.5
Asia and the Pacific

Europe
3.0
2.5
North America
West Asia
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
Source: GEO Data Portal,

compiled from UNPD 2007
b) Urban population by region, per cent of total population

per cent
Africa
90

Europe
North America
West Asia
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

compiled from UNPD 2005
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
The impacts of urbanization on resources but also on human well-being are evident. By the end of 2007, more people will be living
in cities than in rural areas for the first time in history [1]. In some places, this is having strong adverse impacts on the immediate and
surrounding areas through increased demand for food, urban sprawl and high-density settlements, pollution and waste generation.
Many developing countries face immense challenges in providing sufficient services and infrastructure, for burgeoning populations.
Environmental misuse amplifies the challenges of urbanization and urban slums are expanding. Making improving the living
conditions of slum dwellers a challenging, although important, MDG.
Globalization has many dimensionseconomic, cultural, environmental, technological and political and has emerged as
a critical factor in creating new opportunities as well as significant threats. Economically, it has had powerful effects on the
environment and human well-being, with changes in the patterns of production in terms of scale, the separation of action and impact
from responsibility, spatial dispersal, and new technologies.
The global economy has grown exponentially. Globally, GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) increased from US$ 5 927
in 1987 to US$ 8 162 in 2004, but growth is uneven across regions (1, Figure 4). New economic powersIndia and China,
and to a lesser extent Mexico, Russia, Brazil, and South Africahave emerged. In some places, this growth has been a factor
in the large number of people who have worked themselves out of poverty, as in China and India. In other places such as Latin
America and the Caribbean, as Our Common Future noted, inequity and related distributional effects has meant that gains have
been marginal.
Figure 4: Gross domestic product purchasing power parity per person
thousand US$
1987
2004
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
compiled from World Bank
2006b
Africa
Europe
North America
New scales and patterns of consumption and production have emerged, but the ecological impact of this varies across and within
regions. The demand for energy has resulted in a steady growth of GHG emissions (see section Complex interlinkages/climate
change) and in places the impact of industrial growth on the environment is severe. New trade patterns have transcended natural
environmental barriers and contributed to the spread of invasive alien species, which is now a major factor in biodiversity loss and
ecosystem deterioration.
The separation of consumption and production locations has led to circumstances in which the benefits of consumption can continue
to be enjoyed (e.g. furniture, minerals) in one place while the costs (pollution, environmental degradation, deforestation) are borne
elsewhere [6, 7]. This effectively amounts to an export of vulnerability, as populations in producer countries face increase health
risks and a depletion of livelihood resources [7]. Vulnerability is imported where, for example, there is agreement to import waste
and hazardous materials to locations where it cannot be safely disposed of or managed[7].
Our Common Futures vision of greater equity in growth and fairer and more just cooperative global frameworks remains elusive.
While the World Trade Organization, founded in 1995, has brought fundamental change to international economic governance,
whether it has become fairer is highly disputed. Often, global cooperation is unsuccessful, stalling on the issues of fairness and
equity [1].For example, the Doha round of trade negotiations, aimed to make globalization more inclusive and help the worlds
poor, are still incomplete.
Global governance has expanded to include non-state actors, for example, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and
community-based organizations (CBOs), and the private sector. These organizations have been instrumental in developing new
approaches to environmental management. International corporations have emerged as particularly influential actors, not only
in trade issues but also in broader development areas such as health, technology, and agriculture. But in many global forum
developing countries remain severely disadvantaged.
Developments in information technology and communications have increased opportunities for greater collaboration and the
exchange of information, creating new opportunities for building partnerships across regions.
The expansion of the arena of policy engagement and decision making has had only mixed success in ensuring greater multilateralism,
on critical issues including biodiversity and climate change, some states opt to remain outside globally-agreed frameworks in pursuit
of short-term economic interests.
A 20-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE: DID WE ACT?

There has been some progress in the transition to a sustainable society with new patterns of governance, improved environmental
management, cleaner production systems, and the fairer distribution of costs and benefits.
At the global level, multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), guiding principles for environment and development, and action
plans (including Agenda 21 and the MDGs) have been agreed. Figure 5 shows the increase in ratification of major MEAs since
1970. This proliferation of MEAs is also evident at regional and sub-regional levels. But as shown in the sections on Complex
Interlinkages and Environment for development in the regions, the success of these MEAs varies considerably.
Figure 5: Ratification of major multilateral environmental agreements, 1970 -2006
Number of parties
200
Basel
175
CBD
CITES
CMS
World Heritage
150
Kyoto
Ozone
125
Ramsar
100
Rotterdam
Stockholm
UNCCD
UNCLOS
75
UNFCCC
Cartagena
50
25
07
20
05
20
03
20
01
20
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
97
19
75
19
73
19
19
71

compiled from various MEA
secretariats
At the national and regional level, progress includes:

Integrated environment-development planning and management approaches.
Transformation of institutional and governance arrangements and policies to include multiple interests and actors, and improve
managerial and planning effectiveness.
New and strengthened legislation. Conventional command-and-control measures have been supplemented with incentivebased approaches, including the use of economic and benefit-sharing tools.
Creating management partnerships, including with the private sector and communities.
There has been a strengthening of environmental knowledge, although the knowledge to action links remain weak (See sections
Making good choices and the Conclusion: Securing our common future). In parallel, massive advances have been made in
technologies to reduce environmental impacts and to restore ecosystems. This includes progress made in dealing with point-source
pollution using both low- and high-tech methods [4]. But both access and capacity to use these advancements remain weak where
these technologies are most needed [7].
Governments, the private sector, and the public have all made efforts to improve their performance. For example, the number of
companies opting to audit their environmental practice has increased dramatically: in 1998 less than 10 000 certificates were
issued under the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 for environmental management systems, by 2005
some 111 000 certificates had been issued (UNEP 2007).
But, as GEO-4 demonstrates the success of the actions taken has been mixed, with gains and losses for the environment and people.
While the quality of life of many has improved (Figure 2), the vulnerability of the human-environment system has persisted [7].
Human vulnerability is greatly affected by patterns of inequality and inequity, conflict, global relations including trade, governance,
the export and import of vulnerability from one place or generation to another, and the exposure to hazards [7].
The pace, scale, and depth of progress towards sustainable development has been inadequate (Bass 2007). There is still, for
example, poor integration of environment, social and economic considerations in decision making. Additionally, available knowledge
is insufficient to support effective action given the complexity of, and uncertainty associated, with environmental problems.
Box 2: Environmental gains since 1987

The intensity of energy use in most regions has declined steadily, and has stabilized in others but the overall demand for
energy continues to increase (UNEP 2007).
There has been a significant global increase in the extent of protected areas from about 7 per cent in 1987 to nearly 13
per cent in 2006 (UNEP 2007), although in many places biodiversity remains at risk [5].
The consumption of ozone depleting substances has decreased and it is expected that the ozone hole over the Antarctica
will recover by 2060 [2].
The decline in the area of temperate forest has been reversed with an increase of 30 000km2 between 1990 and 2005
[3].
There have been improvements in the control of point source pollution [4, 2]
Many causes of unsustainabilityincluding consumption and production patterns, inequitable economic growth, pervasive social
inequities and inequalities, poverty, insufficient knowledge and understandinghave not been adequately addressed.
A strong imperative to act has not emerged at government, business, and individual levels despite better understanding of
environmental issues (Bass 2007). Environmental deterioration is not seenas yetas impacting on every aspect of life, of
every person. This reveals the disconnect in the knowledge-policy-action-outcome chain and the shortcomings of environmental
communication, advocacy, and education.
From environment and development to environment for development
Our Common Future emphasized an approach to development that meets basic needs but is limited by the environments ability to
meet present and future needs. It warned that it was imperative to move away from approaches that borrow economic capital from
future generations, with no intention or prospect of repaying [B2].
Environment and development emerged as a joint consideration in the future of humankind.
Our Common Future identified eight strategic interventions for sustainable development:
Reviving economic growth.
Improving the quality of growth while ensuring environmental and social soundness.
Conserving and enhancing the natural resource base.
Stabilizing population levels.
Re-orientating technology and improving risk management.
Integrating environment and economic concerns in decision making processes.
Reforming global economic relations.
Strengthening international cooperation.
The GEO-4 report is underpinned by an environment-for-development perspective. Building on the Brundtland Commissions
understanding, that the environment is where we live and development is what we do, it emphasizes environment and development
as a single consideration. This approach, consistent with other UN processes and global developments, places people at the
centre of development, and of environmental management.
An environment-for-development approach is about improving and sustaining human well-being.
Several core elements are evident:

Improving human securityfreedom from want, freedom from fear, and the right to live in dignity (Annan 2000)is placed at the
centre of the environment agenda. Ensuring human security requires securing access to the resources that support human well-being.
Empowering people and enhancing their ability to make choices by improving governance and strengthening rights is essential:
Human development is about freedom. It is about building human capabilitiesthe range of things people can do, and
what they can be. Individual freedoms and rights matter a great deal, but people are restricted in what they can do with that
freedom if they are poor, ill, illiterate, discriminated against, threatened by violent conflict or denied a political voice.(UNDP
2005)
The future of humankind depends on the environment: The environment provides essential goods-and-services on which people rely
for their livelihoods and well-being. Diminishing quality and quantity affects access to material resources, health, security, and social
relations, and ultimately impacts on the ability of people to live lives they value, in both developing and developed countries.
Production and consumption trendsand the resulting patterns of poverty and affluenceaffect environmental degradation,
vulnerability, livelihoods, and development potential and are thus critical considerations. While poverty cuts into available
environmental capital in the pursuit of survival, the reckless pursuit of affluence overuses and misuses these resources.
Environment challenges are multifaceted (with diverse constituents and drivers) and are linked to each other in complex,
multidimensional, and non-linear ways. Deforestation, for example, is an outcome of production patterns (energy, food production,
mining), weak tenure arrangements leading to elite capture, and the global market among others. And, it is closely linked to the
climate change and biodiversity loss.
Finding solutions must take account of this complexityof these interlinkages. For example, responding to the challenges of
population growth is not simply about stabilizing population levels. It includes developing capacity and widening the choices
available to people in determining their livelihoods, including through equity in opportunities, the fairer distribution of benefits
and costs associated with environmental use and change, reducing conflict and building cooperation, and improving tenure and
governance rights.
Making good choices
Since 1987, ideas about how to make sustainable choices have evolved considerably.
Our Common Future emphasized an approach to decision making in which the demands of economy, society and the environment
are considered. Improving education together with institutional and legal development were acknowledged as critical tools for
making sustainable choices; the importance of law enforcement, to ensure that sustainable practices were adhered to, was
emphasized [B2]. It identified several deficiencies in institutional frameworks, at the time, which impeded good decision making,
including:
Weak environmental institutions subordinated to economic priorities.
Narrowly-focused and sectorally-driven institutions poorly equipped to deal with the integrated nature of environment and
development.
Environmental responsibility located primarily in state institutions.
A reactive and crisis management culture.
At UNCED, significant institutional and governance changes were put forward. Among these are two changes that affected
approaches at all levels (global, regional, and national).
First, by recognizing environment protection an integral part of the development process (Rio Declaration, Principle 4) a new basis
for decision making and interaction was established.
Second, but equally significant, was the development of an approach to environmental responsibility for environmental change
based on the fair, just, and equitable sharing of costs and benefits. This emerged from the understanding that responsibility for
environmental change and its impacts is unevenly distributed, at global as well as national levels. Key elements of this approach
include understanding that:
Those responsible for environmental damage should assume the costs.

A precautionary approach is essential to address the risks of uncertainty.
Nations have shared but differentiated responsibility for the environment.
Resource users and managers have environmental responsibility in practice and should be included in decision making.
Our Common Future recognized that the world faces a series of complex, interlocking crises with multiple drivers and diverse actors.
This contributed to understanding that no challenge stands in isolation; each is closely and inextricably linked to other challenges.
10
By the time of UNCED, in 1992, there was growing consensus that the environmental issues where not only linked to each other but
affected by a range of other factors. These include growing global interdependence, global economic and governances systems,
power dynamics (access to material resources, knowledge, capacity), equity and equality (poverty, gender, location), and rights.
And consequently, the search for solutions extended beyond technical fixes. But this transition to broad-based and multi-dimensional
approaches has at best been partially. Deeply entrenched science-policy making processes have meant that narrow, crisis-focused
decision making, which favours technological fixes have persisted (Keeley and Scoones 2003).
However, the emerging understanding of the interlinkages between human society and the environment has helped refine approaches
and sharpen understanding. By effectively demanding multidisciplinary and multistakeholder approaches it brought the social
sciences and the natural sciences together in direct engagement. This led to a re-characterization of the human-environment system
as dynamic and uncertain (Berkhout and others 2003).
The Earth functions as a system in which atmosphere, land, water, biodiversity and human society are linked in a complex
web of interactions and feedbacks [8]:
Human activity has unexpected effects and outcomes, as it sets in motion a mosaic of reinforcing environmental effects, because
land, water and atmosphere are linked in many ways, particularly through the carbon, nutrient and water cycles (Figure 6)
Thresholds, time-lags, and feedback loops characterize biophysical and social systems. For example, both have the tendency
to continue to change, even if the forces that caused the initial change are removed [8].
An interlinkages approach does not demand that everything be done at once, but redirects attention to adopting synergistic
approaches and improving governance and management across thematic areas, and spatial and temporal scales [8, 9].
It acknowledges that in making choices more often than not there is a need for trade-offs between economic growth and
environment, if tipping points are to be avoided.
Figure 6: Linkages and feedback loops among desertification, global climate change and biodiversity
loss.
Notes: Green text: major components
of biodiversity involved in the linkages.
Desertification
Bold text: major services impacted by

biodiversity losses. The major
components of biodiversity loss (in
green) directly affect major dryland
services (in bold). The inner loops
Reduced carbon
sequestration into aboveand below-ground
carbon reserves
Reduces primary production

and nutrient cycling
connect desertification to biodiversity

loss and climate change through soil
erosion. The outer loop interrelates
biodiversity loss and climate change.
Reduced
soil conservation
Soil erosion
Increase in
extreme events
(floods, droughts, fires)
Decreased plant and soil

organisms species diversity
Reduced
structural diversity
of vegetation cover
and diversity of microbial
species in soil crust
On the top section of the outer loop,
Reduced
carbon reserves
and increased
CO2 emissions
reduced primary production and

microbial activity reduce carbon
sequestration and contribute to global
warning. On the bottom section of the
outer loop, global warming increases
evapotranspiration, adversely
affecting biodiversity; changes in
Climate change
Loss of nutrients
and soil structure
Biodiversity loss
community structure and diversity are

also expected because different
species will react differently to the
elevated CO2 concentrations.
Increases
and reductions in
species abundances
Change in
community structure
and diversity
Source: MA 2005a
More recently, ideas about developing institutional and governance frameworks have focused more strongly on the knowledgepolicy-action-outcome trajectory. The UN reform is designed to strength the ability of the UN to deliver key results. It is an approach
that demands:
we must put people at the centre of everything we do (Annan 2000).
Progress is evident at the global level too, for example recent global objectives (such as in the Millennium Declaration) have been
linked to defined goals and targets (the MDGs).
The GEO-4 process takes up the challenge of the knowledge-policy-action-outcome trajectory by (1) strengthening collaboration
between key actors while (2) the report itself provides information and analysis that supports better decision making.
The GEO-4 assessment identifies several important considerations for improving decision making and outcomes:
Improved governance across temporal and spatial levels that acknowledge the interlinkages between sectors [7]
Understanding that both trade-offs and synergies exist in the efforts to achieve environmental and human well-being goals [8].
Involving all actors helps develop shared understandings and common goals on which there is a commitment to act [7].
Empowering local actors in decision makingthrough investments in human capacity, strengthening rights, and supportive
financial and institutional systemscan reduce vulnerability [7].
Facing the challenge: complex interlinkages
Today, as in 1987, the world faces a series of complex interlinkages. Finding sustainable solutions has proven difficult as there
are multiple, and sometimes conflicting, objectives and priorities. Defining sustainable paths requires not only that the ecological,
economic, trade, energy, agricultural, industrial and other dimensions are considered simultaneously but also that uncertainty in the
Earth system is taken into account [8].
Managing the global commons
In 1987, the Brundtland Commission noted that the effective management of the global commons is challenged by the realities
of ecological and economic interdependence (Box 3). Actions at the country level impact on these shared resources and on the
development of all that use them.
Box 3: What are the Global Commons?
Global commons are areas that fall outside the jurisdiction of states [B10] and that cannot be managed under the normal
governance framework of national sovereignty [7].
They include the deep oceans and seabed beyond national jurisdiction and the atmosphere. The atmosphere provides the
climate system, offers protection from the suns rays and is the source of oxygen that most organisms need to sustain life [7].
The oceans are not only a fisheries source but are also the primary regulator of global climate [4].
Both Our Common Future and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) broke with previous approaches that considered
biodiversity as the common heritage of humankind. The CBD recognized it as a common concern. However, in some contexts
biodiversity (where species concerned are found in the global commons) may be concerned as part of the global commons
[7].
In some contexts the Antarctica is listed as part of the global commons [7]
Sources: WCED 1987, UN 1993b, UNEP 2007
Successful approaches, which sustain these resources and reduce negative impacts on human well-being, require international
cooperation and agreed frameworks for use with clear, equitable, and enforceable rules [B10].
11
Achieving such agreement is often difficult because of the lack of consensus on what is fair and equitable. Questions arise about
what constitutes the public good and who the public is (global, national). Similarly issues of responsibility are often contested.
While there have been important successes, as evidence by the reduction in emissions of ozone depleting substances (ODS),
shared intent and joint action have been insufficient in others. Excess fishing, subsidies, and illegal fishing have led to large scale
declines of global fisheries [4]. Despite a global reduction in the use of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), they persist in the
environment and have entered the food chain [6, 7]. The global climate system continues to change primarily as the result of
anthropogenic GHG emissions.
The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is an example of the benefits of timely global cooperation
supported by clear action [2]. The Protocol aims to phase-out the production and consumption of CFCs and other ODS.
The threat of ozone depletion and the associated adverse impacts on human (eyes, skin and immune systems) and livestock health
was a major concern in 1987. Since then, emissions of ozone depleting substances (ODS) have decreased substantially (Figure
7). Sustained collaboration is essential. The ozone layer over the Antarctic will not fully recover until between 2060 and 2075,
assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol.
Figure 7: Worldwide consumption of CFCs and HCFCs
Consumption of ozone depleting substances in million tonnes of ODP
CFCs
1.2
HCFCs
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
chemical compared to the
0.4
impact of a similar mass of
0.3
0.1
02
20
04
20
05
00
20
98
20
19
96
94
19
19
92
19

compiled from UNEP-Ozone
Secretariat 2006
0.2
90
CFC-11 is defined as 1.0.
86
CFC-11. Thus, the ODP of
88
of the impact on ozone of a
0.6
19
potential (ODP) is the ratio
19
Note: Ozone-depleting
19
12
Several factors contribute to the success of the Protocol:

First, it achieved what was considered to be a fair distribution of costs and benefits, by developing a differentiated set of targets
for developed and developing countries with slower phase-out schedules for developing countries. This encouraged world-wide
compliance while recognizing the specific needs and challenges of these countries.
Second, attention to implementation systems helped encourage compliance. For example, a financial mechanism to help developing
countries meet the incremental costs of phase-outs and strengthen institutional systems to carry out the phase-out process was
established.
Third, a range of actorsnational governments from both developing and developed countries together with the private sector
came together in a commitment to act. The prevailing market conditions and wide acceptance of the urgency of the problem aided
success. Despite initial resistance, there was considerable competition within the private sector to develop non-ozone-depleting
substances, technologies, and products. This resulted in the development of cheaper and effective alternatives more rapidly and at
lower costs than expected [2]. Trade measures, that required signatories not to trade in ODS with non-parties, encouraged other
countries to sign up.
Climate change
Climate changethe disruption of the climate system, a global commonsis the result of sustained and increasing levels of GHG
emissions. Twenty years ago climate change was an emerging issue, but today there is unequivocal evidence of climate change
and its impacts are evident [2].
Our Common Future warned then, with uncanny accuracy, that climate change could cause, over the next 45 years, sea level rises
large enough to inundate many low-lying coastal cities and river deltas and upset agricultural production. Since then, there has
been a sharpand continuing risein the emissions and related factors (population, agricultural production, energy, deforestation,
transport, consumption) driving climate change (Figure 8).
The key global response to the Brundtland Commissions warning was the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which establishes a framework for addressing GHG emissions. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol
has a four-pronged approach: binding emissions targets, international emissions trading, Joint Implementation, and the Clean
Development Mechanism [2]. Despite these commitments there has been a remarkable lack of urgency and success in tackling
GHG emissions[2].
Figure 8: CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by region
billion tonnes per year
Africa
26
24
Europe
22
20
North America
18
West Asia
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
60
19
64
19
68
19
72
19
76
19
80
19
84
19
88
19
92
19
96
20
00
20
03
19

complied from UNFCCCCDIAC 2006
The approach adopted links the responsibility to reduce emissions directly to emissions production, while acknowledging the global
imperative to address poverty and developing country challenges. Achieving the MDGs, for example, is also closely related to
increasing access to energy (UN-Energy 2005). Our Common Future draws attention to the vast regional disparities in access to
energy and the need for investments in this area to address development needs.
Today, these patterns are still evident and developing sustainable energy systems can be addressed through technological support
and exchange, and investment. Yet, the technology transfer and assistance provisions of the Kyoto Protocol have had only limited
implementation. In part, this is because the required market conditions do not exist [2]. The CDMadvanced as a unique
opportunity for promoting sustainable development in return for undertaking emission reductionshas had mixed results.
The effects of this failure to act are now visible, with those least responsible being hardest hit. Impacts will be far-reaching and
the severest impacts will be on the most vulnerable people and regions: Africa, the Polar region, Small Island Developing States
(SIDs), and coastal populations in developed and developed countries. Sea-level rise, the increasing frequency and intensity of heat
waves, storms, floods, and droughts, changing rainfall patterns and water availability, land degradation, and biodiversity loss will
threaten settlements, food security, and productive sectors. In turn this will impact on the opportunity to achieve the MDG targets
on poverty, hunger, health, access to water among others as well as disrupt social relations and contribute to conflict [2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7].
13
Over the last two decades natural disasters have claimed more than 1.5 million lives, and affected more than 200 million people;
more than half of all disaster deaths occur in countries with a low human development index [7]. Climate change is a key factor,
together with increased population and poor environmental management, in this increased exposure: two-thirds of all disasters
are hydrometerological events, such as floods, windstorms and extreme temperatures [7]. And given expected impacts on health,
economic activities, and conflict, climate change will further erode capacity to adapt. Figure 9 shows the global distribution of
high-risk hot spots.
14
This raises difficult, but critical, questions of fairness and justice, and where responsibility lies for the predicament of the most
vulnerable. Policy-makers are faced with the challenges of developing an effective and urgent response strategy that addresses
the multiple factors and key drivers contributing to climate change. At the same time, measures must be adopted to support the
most vulnerable countries. For example, reversing the decline in development aid for infrastructure and agriculture may increase the
capacity of developing countries to adapt [7]. Today, official development aid falls far short of the globally-agreed target of 0.7
per cent of GDP [7]. Innovative and equitable approaches for mitigation and adaptation are crucial, and will require fundamental
change in consumption and production patterns.
Figure 9: Highest risk hot spots by natural hazard type
High total economic loss risk
top 3 deciles at risk from:
Drought only
Geophysical only
Hydro only
Geophysical and hydro
Drought and geophysical
Drought and hydro
Drought, hydro and geophysical
Notes: Geophysical hazards
include earthquakes and
volcanoes.
Hydrological hazards
include floods, cyclones and
landslides.
Source: Dilley and others 2005
The opportunities to address GHG emissions are increasing, as cost-effective technologies become widely available. The total cost
of mitigation measures would be a small fraction of global GDP [2].
An effective mitigation strategy should:
Improve energy efficiency and shift to lowcarbon and renewable resources (solar, biofuels etc) [2].
Develop a system for making trade-offs in energy choices (including of renewables) and understanding the subsequent impacts
on land degradation including deforestation, biodiversity, and human well-being [7].
Adopt mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation and land degradation.
Create an incentive structure for developing countries to reduce emissions while ensuring that local elites dont capture the
benefits of these mechanisms to the detriment of local forest producers.
Some impacts of climate change are inevitable in the coming decades due to the inertia of the climate system, making adaptation
a global priority [9]. Effective adaptation requires:
Supportive national and international policies and financial mechanisms [3].
Mainstreaming adaptation concerns in to development planning [2].
This needs to be complemented by research that identifies and addresses:
Risks to vulnerable communities posed by potential governance failures in climate change schemes.
Governance systems that enable intra- and inter-sectoral decision making and synergies in the context of climate change?
Synergies among adaptation and mitigation to overcome the dilemma of financing public goods (mitigation) versus private
goods (adaptation measures).
Environmental and human security

Achieving a sustainable peaceglobally, regionally, and within countriesis essential for securing human well-being and
capitalizing on development opportunities.
The environment is central to peace. The Brundtland Commission recognized that environmental stress can be both a cause-andeffect of conflict. Today, it is evident that the environment can also be a pathway to peace [7].
A new understanding about the links between development (or the lack thereof), human rights, and security have emerged (Annan
2005). Improving human well-being is at the heart of development, it is not just a moral imperative but has been widely recognized
as a critical aspect of human rights [7]. Secure access to environmental resources, supported by fair and equitable governance
systems, that attend to the needs of the present and future generation underlie development and human well-being. Low income
countries, for example, rely on environmental capital for 26 per cent of their wealth [1]. And in many of the worlds wealthiest
countries environmental resources, for agriculture, mining, fisheries among others, underlie the economy.
In 1987, the threat and potential environmental impacts of nuclear war, and other hostilities, from great power rivalry were major
concerns. Since then, the political context has changed considerably. With the end of the Cold War the risks of war has been
reduced. Concerns, expressed in Our Common Future, about growing potential for conflict in southern Africa have dissipated with
the end of apartheid in 1994. Although there continue to be fears of nuclear proliferation among states and non-state actors, civil
conflicts are the biggest threat [7]. The threat of conflict has been reduced significantly over the last 20 years (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Number of Armed Conflict by Type, 1946-2006
Number of armed conflicts
Extrasystemic
60
Interstate
55
Internationalized
50
Intrastate
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
46
19
50
19
54
19
58
19
62
19
66
19
70
19
64
19
68
19
72
19
76
19
80
19
84
19
88
19
92
19
96
20
00
20
04
20
06
19
Source: Harbom and

Wallensteen 2007
Since 1987 a more nuanced understanding of the complex and multidimensional relationships between environment, conflict,
and human security has emerged including the importance of inequity, inequality, and governance in shaping, and perpetuating,
conflict.
There is growing consensus that environmental degradation, scarcity, and abundance may trigger, amplify, or cause conflict
along with clearer understanding of how this interacts with poverty, inequity, and resource competition. Conflict potential related
to unequal access to scarce water, forest and land resources, may be exacerbated by climate change and land degradation. The
resulting social effectsmigration, intensified unsustainable behaviour and social sub-groupingstrain the states ability to meet
its citizens demands, and can contribute to violent outcomes [7]. In drylands, migration, a traditional coping strategy, sometimes
heightens conflict when migrants create new competition for resources or upset tenuous cultural, economic or political balances in
the receiving area [7].
15
Conflict reduces the ability of people to meet essential needs, disrupts social relations and the economic base, instills fear across
populations, and displaces millions. It destroys essential infrastructure and impacts on trading, governance and management
systems. And, it diverts essential resources from development to the purchase of arms and sustaining hostilities.
With better understanding of the complexity of the environment-conflict nexus the range of responses to conflict today are substantially
different to those of the late 1980s and 1990s. There has, for example, been a fundamental shift from a focus on the need to avoid
war to approaches that are based on the opportunities the environment presents for peace building. The concerns about water
wars highlighted in Our Common Future have not been realized. Instead there has been growing cooperation between states,
with the vast majority (67 per cent) of state-to-state interactions being cooperative [7].
16
Appropriate governance, including the more equitable distribution of benefits, can reduce the potential for conflict. At the international
level, emphasis has been on multilateral treaties aimed at mitigating the effects of global change. In addition, the role of the global
community in perpetuating conflicts is increasingly recognized, for example the indiscriminate demand for diamonds, timber, and
other resources that fuel conflict. At the sub-regional level, cooperation has focused on equitable sharing of natural resources,
such as regional seas and shared water resources as well as on improving conservation and development opportunities through
transboundary conservation areas [7]. While at the national level, codes and practice that focus on more equitable sharing of
resource wealth have emerged.
Gender, a neglected and persistent issue
Inequity and inequality undercut human well-being. Gains in life expectancy and per capita health expenditures, as well as
declines in child mortality have been systematically greater in those countries with more equitable income distribution and
access to medical treatment [7].
Along with the growing gap between rich and poor, gender is one of the most persistent inequalities. This results in unfair and
unjust outcomes that entrench disadvantage. Gender inequalities, reflected, for example, in male and female differences in wages,
nutrition, and participation in decision making result in, for example, higher levels of vulnerability to environmental change [7].
The Brundtland Commission acknowledged gender inequality as an important issue for sustainable development. However, other
than making some recommendations about addressing gender in specific contexts, it did not integrate gender considerations into
the report.
Since 1987, there have been important developments in gender discourse: the focus has shifted from the place of women in
environment and development (the impacts of environmental change on women and womens role in management) to an emphasis
on gender equity and equality as key factors for empowering women and enlarging the choices and opportunities available to
them. Developments in international agreements mirror these positive trends (Box 4).
Gender analysis, is an important integrated environmental assessment (IEA) tool, because it can help identify policy responses that
address existing environment-development challenges. It is essential because:
The opportunities and the ability for womenindividually and as a groupto make choices and improve their quality of life is
affected by gender inequities and inequalities.
Experiences of poverty and environmental change are gender-differentiated, with inequalities in access to environmental
resources, capacity to diversify livelihood strategies, and decision making powers.
Environmental security is mediated by gender relations.
Women and men have conflicting and complementary interests, roles, and responsibility in environmental management.
There are gender-specific differences in consumption patterns, lifestyles, access to resources and power, and environmental
effects.
Box 4: Changing Perspectives: Milestones in gender and environment

1985: Third UN Womens Conference, Nairobi
Effective development requires the full integration of women in the development process as agents and beneficiaries.
1992: UNCED
Women should be involved, as a group, in all levels of decision making (Agenda 21)
Gender issues should be integrated into sustainable development planning and implementation (Agenda 21).
Women have a vital role in environmental management and development (Rio Declaration).
1995: Fourth UN Womens Conference, Beijing
The Beijing Platform for Action (endorsed by 70 per cent of the governments in 1998) calls on governments (at all levels),
international organizations, NGOs and private sector institutions to:
Involve women actively in environmental decision making at all levels.
Integrate gender concerns and perspectives in policies and programmes for sustainable development.
Strengthen or establish mechanisms at the national, regional global level to assess the impact of development and
environmental resources on women.
2000: Millennium Summit, New York
World leaders commit to promote gender equality and the empowerment of women as effective ways to combat
poverty, hunger and disease and to stimulate sustainable development.
The MDG targets address gender disparities in access to primary and secondary education and the maternalmortality ratio.
2002: WSSD. Johannesburg Declaration:
World leaders commit to ensure that womens empowerment and emancipation, and gender equality are integrated in
all activities encompassed within Agenda 21, the MDGs, and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.
2005: Beijing plus 10
A 10-year review of the Beijing Platform for Action finds that Governments have failed to implement the Beijing
Platform for Action.
Renewed committed to the goal of gender equality and the empowerment of women is made.
Sources: Dankelman 2001; UNEP n.d
In 2005, UNEP recognized that gender analysis in its IEA reports was weak and committed itself to strengthening this aspect. Yet,
other than identifying some impacts of gender relations on choice and opportunity, gender is not factored into the conceptualization
of environment for development that underpins GEO-4 [1].
Gender however is considered as a critical aspect of developing approaches to reduce vulnerability [7]. For example, differential
access to material resources, including environmental resources, and the lack of access to political and economic power, in both
developed and developing countries, are acknowledged as affecting vulnerability, access to opportunities, and the distribution of
development benefits.
While GEO-4 acknowledges the need for policy responses to take gender into account [8], gender is not treated as an integral
aspect of identifying recommended policy options [10]. This represents a fundamental schism in the knowledge-policy-actionoutcome trajectory. Only two of the gender-specific responses identified throughout GEO-4 (Table 1) make it to the final list of
suggested policy options.
17
These are:
Supporting and facilitating the active participation of women, local communities, marginalized and vulnerable groups.
Gendered approaches are effective in generating additional financial resources to trigger entrepreneurship and employment
generation through environmentally-sound activities.
In both, Our Common Future and GEO-4 gender-specific responses focus more on improving resource management and less
on empowerment and equality (as a means of widening choices and opportunity)(Table 1)falling short of the global priority to
empower women.
Table 1: Gender responses in Our Common Future and GEO-4: Environment for Development
EXAMPLES OF RECOMMENDED GENDERSPECIFIC POLICY RESPONSES
18
Improve natural resource managment and
reduce environmental stress
Purpose &
Method
Widening the opportunity for choice
GEO-4
Environment for Development
Education
Improve education and natural

No recommendation
resource decision making to achieve
food security [B5]
Poverty
alleviation
Link population control strategies

to poverty alleviation to reduce
population driven environmental
degradation
Gender-sensitive poverty alleviation in both rural and

urban settings is a central component of strategies to
address environment issues. [7]
Inclusion
Include women in agricultural

programmes to meet food
production needs [B5]
Recognize the role women play in protecting,

using and understanding biodiversity in efforts to
empower communities and simultaneously ensure the
sustainable use of biodiversity[5].
Access to
resources
Improve
inter
generational
opportunity
Our Common Future
Extent land rights to

women to promote food
security [B5]
Empower women through improving access to

finance [7]
Poverty
alleviation
No recommendation
Gender-sensitive poverty alleviation in rural and

urban settings can support health goals [7]
Appropriate
technology and
design
Design houses to allow women to

work from their homes while caring
for children[B9]
No recommendation
Education and
communication
No recommendation
Ensure effective communication of knowledge that

supports adaptive learning to all stakeholders,
including women [3].
Addressing MDG 3, to promote gender equality,
empower women and eliminate gender disparity in
primary and secondary education, is essential for
increasing womens opportunities, reducing their
vulnerability, and improving their ability to create
sustainable and sufficient livelihoods [7].
Equity and Justice
Improve opportunities for women to

make choices about family size.
Promote gender equity and empowerment of

women, cultural factors and the ability to make
choices [4]
Access to
material
resources
No recommendation
Better access to resources, such as education,

increases maternal health creating a better starting
point for the next generation [7].
Securing biodiversity for the future

Our Common Future drew attention to the growing threats to species and ecosystems and it warned that misuse was resulting in
lost opportunities [B6].
Today, the threats to biodiversity are much more intense. Changes to biodiversity currently underway are more rapid than at any
time in human history and have led to degradation of many ecosystems [5]. Human consumption and production have surpassed
biocapacity (Figure 11).
Figure 11: Humanitys Ecological Footprint, 1987-2003
.
Humanitys ecological footprint
19
Number of Earths
1.4
Biocapacity
1.3
Humanitys ecological footprint
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
03
20
01
20
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
19
87
0.8
Source: Loh and

Goldfinger 2006
Understanding of the importance of biodiversity, and the implications of its loss, has evolved considerable since 1987.
Our Common Future focused strongly on economic benefits although it acknowledged the value of essential ecosystem services and
others contributions to human well-being. It stressed the potential losses from species extinction for genetic engineering, drawing
attention to the implications for agriculture, medicine and industry.
Our Common Future put forward a managerial approach that is still relevant today [B6]:
Protect genetic diversity by encouraging individual, community and corporate responsibility. It recognized that it not all genetic
diversity can be protected, and urged governments to take a selective approach.
Develop new approaches to protected areas that recognised the links between maintaining ecosystem services and providing
development opportunities.
Address the drivers of biodiversity loss at source, by for example reconciling the trade and environment agendas and removing
perverse incentives that encourage land conversion.
Encourage global action to support national conservation efforts.
Reinforce and expand existing strategies at the national level, including through economic diversification, creating new
opportunities for wealth generation (e.g. ecotourism), and extending protected areas.
Many of these approaches have been adopted at national level and there is also increased regional and global cooperation to
support these. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) addressed among others the issue of genetic diversity. And
across the world governments have made substantial investments in protected areas. By 2006 the global extent of protected areas
constituted 13 per cent of land and territorial waters (Figure 12).
Figure 12: Protected area coverage of terrrestrial and marine ecosystems

Marine
Less than 0.1
Terrestrial
05
0.10.5
510
0.51
1015
12
1520
210
2030
1020
3050
More than 20
More than 50
20
Note: All IUCN protected area
management categories combined.
Source: UNEP-WCMC 2006a
Since these approaches were developed there has been increased recognition that people are part of, not separate from, the
ecosystems in which they live. People are affected byand effectchanges in ecosystems, populations of species, and genetic
change in multiple and diverse ways [5]. GEO-4 emphasizes that human security and culture as well as human health and wealth
are closely interlinked with biodiversity and ecosystems health [5, 7]. People rely on biodiversity for products (food, medicine,
timber, energy) and services (breakdown of waste, pollination).
The poor management of biodiversity will affect opportunities to sustain existing levels of human well-beingfor all peopleand
to improve the well-being of the worlds poorest people [5]. Poor people tend to be more directly affected by the deterioration or
loss of ecosystem services than wealthier people, as they are the most dependent on local ecosystems and are more vulnerable to
ecosystem change [5, 7, 3].
The loss of biodiversity and ecosystem degradation makes achieving the MDGs related to poverty, hunger, and health more difficult.
For example environmental change has altered disease patterns and increased human exposure to diseases.
The CBD placed the challenges of managing biodiversity within the human context. It developed, among others, three issues raised
in Our Common Future the use of genetic diversity and equitable sharing of its benefits, the global imperative to collaborate
in efforts to protect biodiversity (biodiversity is a common concern of humanity), the need for conservation to be clearly linked to
sustainable use. The conservation approaches developed in the Convention prioritized strategic and integrated planning as well as
building partnerships and engaging with local communities and governments, international and local organizations, and the private
sector. Issues of equity, benefit sharing, and differentiated but shared responsibility came to the fore.
With increasing globalization the impacts of the key drivers and pressuresproduction and consumption, land conversion, trade
on biodiversity have amplified. The high and increasing demand for energy is accelerating biodiversity loss [5]. The impacts of this
are evident from local to global scales. Climate change is likely to have severe consequences for biodiversity, and amplify the risks
to people [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Addressing climate change and energy are necessarily part of a biodiversity strategy.
Achieving the CBD 2010 biodivesity targets will require multiple and mutually supportive policies of conservation, sustainable use,
and the effective recognition of the value biodiversity [5]. This will include expanding approaches that are working and developing
new approaches to more effectively implement existing policy. GEO-4 shows that for biodiversity loss to be contained policies and
economic systems will need to more fully incorporate the multiple values of biodiversity. This includes addressing perverse production
subsidies, the undervaluation of biological resources, the failure to internalize environmental costs into prices, and the failure to
incorporate global values at the local level [5].
Protecting environmental resources for food security

The food security challenges of today are as, if not more, urgent than those in 1987.
Although aggregate food production is sufficient to meet the needs of all people, 824 million people are undernourished [7]. This
represents an increase of close to 100 million people since 1985, when some 730 million people went hungry [B5]. However,
the proportion of people with insufficient food to meet their needs has declined (Figure 13).
Figure 13: Proportion and number of undernourished people by region
Per cent undernourished (MDG)
Number of undernourished (millions) (WFS)
40
1 000
Developing world
Sub-Saharan Africa
Latin America and the Carribean
800
30
West Asia and Northern Africa

World food security (WFS)
projection
600
20
400
10
200
Note: Some graphs not strictly
presented according to GEO
15
regions.
20
2
0
00
20
2
9
90
19
2
8
80
19
15
20
2
0
00
20
90
19
19
80
Source: FAO 2005b
Our Common Future identifies the global economy (global food distribution practices, pricing policies, production subsidies) as
a key driver of food insecurity, while population growth, land degradation, and poverty impact on the national ability to achieve
food security.
In recognizing these complex linkages between levels, Our Common Future identifies three critical areas for interventions:
Increase global production.
Reduce distortions in the structure of the world food market.
Shift the focus of food production to food-deficient regions, countries, and households. The need to secure essential agricultural
resources, such as soils and freshwater, is emphasized.
In assessing the environmentfood security links, GEO-4 focuses almost exclusively on factors affecting national production. For
example, global markets are considered primarily as a driver of land degradation [3] and impacts on production and distribution
are not considered.
All of the drivers identified by Brundtland are evident today. But insufficient or poorly-directed policy responses continue to threaten
food security. The situation is exacerbated by other closely-related challenges and trends:
Climate change is and will continue to impact on food production. Increased water scarcity impacts on agriculture [3] and
altered ocean thermal regimes affect fish stocks [4]. Extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts, also threaten
food production systems.
Globalization of agriculture and inappropriate agricultural policies are leading drivers of unsustainable environmental
and social change. Global market demand for high value commodities, such as soybeans and biofuels, has resulted in
substantial ecosystem degradation and replaced diverse smallholder farms with larger monoculture [5].
21
Conflict affects food production in the short and long term, as a result of personal insecurity, resource degradation, and
infrastructural damage.
Unequal access to land and other resources, especially for women and poor people, impacts on food production and
increases their vulnerability [7, B5]. In many societies, women have a central role in agriculture; improving their access to
education and support services and increasing their participation in decision making can have positive outcomes for food
security [7, B5].
The challenges are immense. For example, achieving the MDG on reducing hunger will require an increase of 50 per cent in
agricultural water use by 2015, and a doubling by 2050 [4].
22
Responses for improving production, through better land management, include:

The diversification of farming systems, including those that mimic natural ecosystems and closely match local conditions [3].
Technological investments [3, 4, 6].
Harnessing markets to the delivery of ecosystem services.
Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) at the basin scale, including consideration of conjunctive groundwater
aquifers and downstream coastal areas [4].
Increased attention to the productivity of rain-fed agriculture and aquaculture [4].
Reducing the vulnerability of producer communities through improved access to information and knowledge, markets and technologies
is an important strategy [7].
ENVIRONMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGIONS

Figure 14: The UNEP Regions
Success, challenges and opportunity

Since 1987, a global consensus on the importance of the environmentdevelopment link has emerged. All UNEP regions (Annex
1, Figure 14) share a commitment to developing sustainable paths but there are considerable differences in the specific challenges
faced and progress made on defined goals.
And, there is global commitment to achieving the MDGs. For developing regions this presents challenges of how to take advantage
of globalization, to promote growth, while safeguarding their peoples and securing environmental resources. And it is cause for
reflection in the industrialized countries tooto consider how their practices and policies impact on opportunities elsewhere.
In each of the regional sections, the intersection of two factors are considered, revealing how policy and practice fall short of an
environment-for-development approach notwithstanding improvements in economic development or human well-being.
Box 5: A note on method
In each of the regions, development choices are analyzed through the lens of a single environment-development challenge as
identified in the GEO-4 regional chapter [6] and supported by information and analysis from the GEO-4 report as a whole.
Each section poses the question of whether choices made tally with an environment-for-development perspective. The analysis
draws primarily, but not exclusively, on the general findings of GEO-4.
The thematic chapters in GEO-4 and Our Common Future are used to support the regional analysis of how responses,
approaches, and ideas around the issue under discussion have evolved since 1987. Our Common Future does not have
region specific chapters although throughout the report specific reference is made to the regions. Where appropriate this is
complemented by findings of other credible and widely-accepted assessment such as the CBDs Global Biodiversity Outlook.
Where the GEO-4 regions have considered future options this frames the options proposed. Otherwise the guidance given
draws on the thematic chapters of Our Common Future and GEO-4.
Table 2 is compiled from region-specific information in the two reports.
Across the regions, and despite the differences, certain drivers and factors are consistently important in shaping environmental
change including production and consumption (especially as it relates to industrial development), urbanization, globalization,
and climate change. Others such as conflict are more evident in Africa and West Asia. In all the developing regions poverty, and
inequity and inequality remain high on the environmental agenda, while in the more industrialized regions energy security and
consumption and responsibility for climate change are more prominent.
Many of the key region-specific issues identified in Our Common Future persist today as the impacts of some drivers intensify and
because of policy failure (see Table 2).
From GEO-4 and other analyses, it is evident that multiple factors contribute to the failure to achieve desired policy outcomes
including:
Inappropriate policy due to poor understanding or insufficient information.
Insufficient financial and human resources.
Global and national economic and political factor.
Lack of political will.
Policy capture.
Changing scales of impact of some drivers, such as consumption and production, give rise to new or emerging issues. Changes in
drivers including globalization, population, production and consumption, urbanization are addressed in the earlier section, Global
context: Fundamental changes, startling similarities.
23
Other issues have been successfully addressed and have since emerged as challenges in other regions. Here good management
approaches is a key consideration. In 1987, the impacts of acid rain were of major concern importance in Europe and North
America, but emissions controls successfully addressed these issues. With industrialization and increasing emissions, there is now a
risk of acidification in other regions, particularly Asia and the Pacific.
Other perceived threats have not materialized; this is particularly the case where available scientific evidence was insufficient
to support the conclusions made or where pre-emptive action was taken. The dire warnings of widespread forest decline across
Europe and North America at the time of the Brundtland Commission have not materialized.
Table 2: A comparison of selected regional environmentdevelopment issues
24
OUR COMMON FUTURE

(1987)
GEO-4: ENVIRONMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT

(2007)
Africa
Land degradation remains a challenge and has adverse impacts on human well-being and
development. There is an extension in focus from technical solutions to improving human capacity
and enhancing resilience.
Land degradation increases vulnerability, notably food Land degradationespecially of agricultural land, drylands,
insecurity: Food per person has declined by about 1 per cent forests and river catchmentsreduces the availability of
environmental goods-and-services and increases poverty and
per year since the 1960s
vulnerability and reduces available development opportunities.
Environmental stress, especially from degradation in drylands, E.g. Food insecurity continues to increase: food production fell
together with poverty contributes to the growing incidence of 12 per cent since 1987.
environmental refugees.
Some ecosystem changes have created new habitat niches for
Land degradationespecially deforestation and overcultivation disease vectors, increasing health risks, e.g. malaria.
is a factor in the increasing incidence of disasters.
Environmental stress, inequitable access to resources, poverty,
Drivers: Desertification, droughts, international trade patterns, and poor governance contribute to intra- and inter-state migration
unsustainable development policies, and research and extension and amplifying conflict.
deficiencies.
Drivers: Poverty, population growth, urbanization, and climate
change and variability especially drought.
Biodiversity loss: There is a shift in focus from species loss to maintaining habitat and protecting
ecosystems, inside and outside protected areas, and linking this to increasing development
opportunities.
Species extinction resulting in lost opportunities for agriculture, No substantive discussion of species extinction in Africa
medicine etc.
Drivers: pollution, invasive alien species, and deforestation
Air pollution has increased impacts on human health but concerns about acid rain not have not
materialized.
Air pollution and acidification is identified as an emerging Small increases in SO2 and NOX emissions.
issue
Air particulates impact on human health, especially for women
and young children exposed to indoor smoke when cooking.

Air pollution intensifies with impacts on agriculture and human well-being.
Air pollution and acid rain and acidification is identified as an Urban air pollution has high human health impacts, e.g. resulting
emerging issue.
in 500 000 premature deaths from indoor pollution.
Drivers: industrialization.
Tropospheric (groundlevel) ozone pollution causes significant

reductions in crop yield and quality.
Significant increases in SO2 and NOX emissions lead to acid
rain.
Drivers: Rapid industrialization, population growth, and
increasing consumer demands.
There is a shift in focus from land degradation as a factor in human vulnerability to a factor in
biodiversity loss.
Land degradationespecially from deforestation and Marine and terrestrial ecosystem degradation impacts on
overcultivationcontributes to increasing incidence of disasters, human health and contributes to biodiversity loss.
especially floods.
Drivers: increase demand for natural resources, poor waste and
pollution management, and dirty industries
Freshwater stress increases but emphasis shifts from concern about interstate conflict to development
impacts.
Increasing freshwater stress, along with overfishing, will increase Freshwater stress impacts on development opportunities and
risk of interstate conflict.
human well-being.
Drivers: Climate change and variability, pollution, inefficient
natural resource use and growing consumption.
Europe
There is a shift from meeting national needs to one on responsibility for global impacts, especially
climate change.
No Europe specific discussion
Energy use per capita remains high, management efforts

focus on renewables, efficiency, and reducing emissions.
High concern about global impacts of energy use. Consumer
demands remain a challenge.
Drivers: unsustainable production and consumption related to
growing affluence (e.g. transportation demands).
Air pollution: Acid rain, ozone depletion and transboundary impacts are of less significance given the
adoption of successful measures, priority concerns now relate to human health impacts.
Acid rain and acidification, and related impacts on soil, lakes, Poor urban air quality remains a problemdespite reduced
and forests are a major concern.
pollutant emissions due to strengthened national, regional and
global measures and improved technologiesand has adverse
Increasing risk from transboundary air pollution.
human health impacts.
Drivers: increased industrial activity and growing consumption Drivers: production and consumption (transportation) patterns.
(motor vehicles)
Water pollution remains a challenge and there is a managerial shift from point sources to diffuse
sources and developing integrated water resource management strategies.
Pollution from hazardous waste disposal sites.
(see urban challenges)
Ongoing water quality challenges, despite improvements in

some parts due to a reduction in contaminant loads as result
of wastewater treatments and a decline in industrial and
agricultural activity. In some parts access to improved water
and sanitation remain a challenge, contributing to 18 000
premature deaths per year.
25
Urban challenges: Given improvements in infrastructure, services, and human well-being in cities
there is a shift in focus to impacts on biodiversity and sustainability of land-use practice and settlement
patterns.
Challenges in addressing city water quality because of pollutants Growing cities, related land use change (extensive monoculture
outside cities and coastal settlements close to sewage outlets. agriculture and abandonment), and infrastructural development
have adverse impacts on biodiversity.
Land degradation, especially ecosystem degradation, and its impact on biodiversity and human wellbeing remain a challenge notwithstanding doubling in protected areas extent (marine & terrestrial).
There is an increased focus on human well-being impacts and intergovernmental measures such as
transboundary management.
26
Ecosystem degradation and deforestation is resulting in Land degradation and land-use practice has major impact on
biodiversity loss.
biodiversity loss, which in turn impacts on cultural diversity.
Land degradation may result in the future loss of rainfed cropland Biodiversity loss and marine and terrestrial ecosystems
due to soil erosion.
degradation results in economic losses (tourism) and impacts
on human health. Land degradation affects 15.7 per cent of
Land degradation is increasing incidence of disasters.
the region. Some 66 per cent of global forest loss occurred in
Latin America.
Drivers: disruptive development practices including agricultural/
rangeland expansion and dam construction, global markets, Some ecosystem changes create new habitat niches for disease
debt crisis.
vectors this has adverse health impacts, e.g. increasing malaria
risk.
Drivers: urbanization, coastal settlement, dirty production,
agricultural expansion for monoculture/pasture, infrastructural
development, national & global markets, pollution, and poor
waste management.
Climate change impacts on human well-being have become increasingly evident and better
understood.
No substantive discussion of climate change in Latin America
Climate change is increasing vulnerability especially in coastal

areas. Extreme climatic events have increased over the last 20
years.
Urban Challenge: Urbanization continues to drive environmental change within and outside cities and
impacts on human well-being.
Rapid urbanization over the past 30 years resulted in slums with Growing production and consumption has adverse impacts on
serious human well-being challenges, including lack of services environmental goods-and-services in their surroundings.
and facilities, pollution, and a high incidence of environmentalrelated disease.
Improved air quality in large cities but increases in pollution in
small and medium cities.
Air pollution and acidification is identified as an emerging issue
with potential impacts on forests.
Urbanization in some places has contributed to recovery of
natural forest ecosystems.
Drivers: agricultural and food policies, concentrated economic
development and industrialization.
Untreated domestic and industrial waste and its impact on
coastal areas and populations is an emerging issue.
Drivers: rural impoverishment.
North America
Energy efficiency continues to improve with steady decreases in energy consumption per unit of GDP
although per capita consumption continues to increase, with continued dependency on fossil fuels.
High energy use but steady improvements in energy consumption With only 5.1 per cent of world population, the region consumes
per unit of GDP since the 1960s.
over 24 per cent of global primary energy, but continued
improvements in energy consumption per unit of GDP.
Energy use is unsustainable given global development
objectives
Continued dependency on fossil fuels but increased investment
and research and development of alternatives, including
Drivers: Economic growth
renewables.
Drivers: population
consumption.
and
economic
growth,
increasing
Urban sprawl emerges as a major driver of environmental change.

no substantive discussion of urban challenges in North Urban sprawl is fragmenting ecosystems and contributing to
America
biodiversity loss, increased transport use and freshwater
availability.
Drivers: Population growth, affluence and lifestyle changes
Freshwater shortages are increasing given increasing demand, especially agriculture, and climate
change. Water quality continues to be a challenge.
High water use makes improving efficiency essential.
North America is the highest per capita user of freshwater in

the world.
Agricultural policies contribute to high demand.

Pollution from hazardous waste disposal sites.
Potential threat of acidificaton of lakes.
Demand for irrigation drives unsustainable use and is

overdrawing groundwater resources.
Primary sources of degradation are agricultural run-off, poor
sewage treatment, and hydrologic modification.
West Asia
Freshwater stress is increasing. There is a shift in focus to managing water for food production to
more integrated approaches.
Food self sufficiency is a challenge and there is a need for A significant decline in freshwater availability per person since
controlled irrigation management.
1987.
More than 60 per cent of surface water originates outside
the region making interstate collaboration and transboundary
management priorities.
Pollution from industrial effluents and domestic waste impact on
water availability and human and ecological health.
Drivers: rising population, high agricultural demand for water,
and water contamination.
Land, including ecosystem, degradation compromises human well-being including food security and
economic opportunities despite investments in improving management systems.
No substantive discussion on land and ecosystem degradation Rapid coastal development threatens marine and coastal
in West Asia
environments impacting on fisheries.
Expansion of cultivated and irrigated land and intensified land
use have resulted in improved food production but also adverse
environmental consequences that threaten the agricultural base
Drivers: Industrial, agricultural, and domestic pollution, oil
spill, war, coastal land extension, agriculture extension and
intensification.
27
Urban challenge: Rapid urbanization over the last 20 years has had significant environmental impacts
and creates new challenges for improving human well-being
No substantive discussion of the urban challenges in West Slums have expanded significantly.
Asia
Conflict and related infrastructural destruction and human
capacity impacts exacerbates these trends.
Significant waste management challenges.
Drivers: increased urbanization, conflict, economic disparities.
Conflict threatens environmental goods-and-services and undercuts human well-being
28
No substantive discussion on conflict in West Asia
Armed conflict has resulted in the degradation of

resources and ecosystems.
natural
Driver: Global interest in securing access to oil contributes to

conflict.
War and conflict has resulted in significant loss of life and
impacted on capacity, leading for example to disruption of
health and water management services.
Refugee populations place significant strain on environmental
resources such as aquifers.
Africa: Land degradation and lost opportunities

Is this environment for development?
Development approaches in Africa have focused primarily on agriculture, extractive natural resource use, and natural-resource
based industries. Agriculture is the dominant land use and the largest employer (Figure 15) [6].
This extractive development approach, in the face of insufficient investment in production technologies and poor conservation
measures, has meant that regional and national goals have not been achieved.
Many productive activities (agriculture, forestry, mining) have contributed directly to land degradationthe long-term loss of
ecosystem function and services, caused by disturbances, from which the system cannot recover unaided. For example Africa has
the highest deforestation in the world, although the rate of deforestation has declined since 2000, and agricultural land has been
widely degraded [6].
Figure 15: Changes in sectoral shares in employment in sub-Saharan Africa

per cent
Agriculture
70
Service
Industry
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Source: ILO 2006
1996
2004
2005
2006
Land degradation impacts directly on the natural resource base which supports subsistence livelihoods, agriculture, and manufacturing,
effectively foreclosing development opportunities for this generation as well as future generations:
The loss of environmental goods, such as forest resources and the deterioration of soils, affects income and contributes to food
insecurity [6, 3].
The loss of biodiversity and habitat potentially affects tourism opportunities [3, 5].
Land degradation increases the challenges of achieving the MDGs on extreme poverty and hunger.
This close link between environmental quality and development opportunities potentially sets into motion a series of knock-on effects
that accentuate negative outcomes for people and environment and contributes to heightened levels of vulnerability. In the Sahel,
for example, shortages of arable land and water, particularly in drought periods, have sometimes led to violent conflicts along a
number of lines of division: rural-urban, pastoralist-agriculturalist and ethnic group-ethnic group [7].
Economic growthbased primarily on agriculture sustained on an overused and declining ecological basehas been modest.
Similarly progress to improving human well-being has been slow.
However, from about 2000, when GDP began to improve and economic activities began to diversify, there has been steady
progress to meeting many of the MDGs (UN 2007). Some sub-regions and countries have been more successful than others, but
as a region, human well-being challenges remain monumental. For example, although there is progress in reducing the proportion
of people living on less than one dollar a day, achieving this MDG target will require an annual growth rate of at least seven per
cent. As the GEO-4 vulnerability analysis shows issues of equity, governance, conflict, trade and markets, access to technology and
human and financial resources together with environmental change are critical factor in human well-being outcomes [7].
Land degradation in Africa, as elsewhere, impacts on the multiple ecological services that support human well-being. Essential
ecosystem functions are affected, including soil water storage and regulation, and flood regulation services provided by
wetlands.
Human health is compromised by land contamination from agricultural chemicals [3, 6, 7]. In Africa stockpiles of POPs and the
import of hazardous waste create specific challenges that decrease land productivity and increase human vulnerability [2].
The evolution of responses, approaches and ideas
Recognizing that maintaining ecosystem health is essential for achieving sustainable development, Our Common Future warned
that, more often than not, these resources are used in ways that will make meeting future demands for environmental goods-andservices impossible [B6].
The Brundtland Commission noted that meeting the challenges of ecosystem degradation requires determined action from
governments and the public, and to achieve this, the scale and urgency of the threat needs to be understood. Twenty years later,
at a global level, land degradation stands on par with climate change as a threat to human society, the level of urgency remains
poorly understood, and the political commitment to action is lacking [3]. This is in part the result of inadequate information and
poor environmental communication.
Our Common Future warned that creating sustainable systems required a scientific assessment of land capacity and the annual
depletion of topsoil; and although this call was echoed in Agenda 21 such a scientific assessment has yet to be undertaken and
significant data uncertainties remain [3]. In addition guidance to improve food security (See section on Complex Interlinkages
/Securing resources for food security) was given.
Agenda 21a follow-up to the Brundtland Commissions call for actionaddresses the need for an integrated approach to the
planning and management of land resources (in all regions) based on (UN 1993):
Developing supportive policies and instruments that integrated approaches to goal setting and policy formulation at all levels,
and encourage the adoption of the principle of delegating policy making to the lowest level possible.
Strengthening planning and management systems including by taking an ecosystem approach to landscape planning, integrating
environment and development goals into strategic frameworks, recognizing appropriate traditional and indigenous land use
methods, and compiling detailed land capacity inventories.
Promoting the application of appropriate tools for planning and management including the integrated analysis of data,
information, and knowledge.
29
Raising awareness at all levels

Developing effective data and information systems including by improving assessment, enhancing coordination between
existing sectoral data systems, providing technical data to support decision making, strengthening regional and international
cooperation, and investing in human and institutional capacity.
Africas response has been mixed and despite some success has not succeeded in reversing existing trends.
30
At the regional level, the New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD), seeks to eradicate poverty and place countries on a
path of sustained economic growth and sustainable development. Its Environmental Action Plan prepared under the leadership of
the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment strengthens cooperation in addressing land degradation [3]. Since 1987,
new MEAs have been adopted (hazardous waste, illegal wildlife trade) and the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources has been strengthened [3].
All 53 countries have ratified the UN Convention on Combating Desertification and are at various stages of implementing it through
local, national and sub-regional plans.
Given the importance of agriculture, many countries have focused on improving the technical aspects of land management, and
increasing yields and reducing risk. The NEPAD Comprehensive Agricultural Development Programme focuses on increasing land
productivity, by among other things increased investment in irrigation.
The challenge ahead
Human demands on land resources and the risks to sustainability are likely to intensify as the population grows. Climate change will
make this more challenging as it impacts directly on water availability, ecosystem health, and biodiversity.
A mix of ecological, social, and economic factors contributes to the current state, and as the Brundtland Commission noted
successful environmental actions require addressing the sources (as discussed in the section, Defining a global agenda for a
sustainable future, of this paper). In developing actions these factors must be central considerations, if development is to be set on
more sustainable paths:
Poverty and environment are inextricably linked, as both cause-and-effect [1, 7]. Poverty and the declining availability of land
per person, as a result of population growth, may push farmers into marginal lands [3].
Poor management of arable land has led to soil erosion, nutrient depletion, and salinization [6, 3].
The lack of investment in agricultural technologies makes achieving desired outcomes difficult. For example, in some parts of
Africa as little as one kilogramme of fertilizer is applied to a hectare of land [3].
Global relations and production patterns impact directly and indirectly on land contamination. Stockpiles of obsolete pesticides
and the dumping of toxic wastes exported from developed counties contaminate land [3]. Limited market access and agricultural
subsidies in developed countries affect the viability of local agriculture, while unsustainable debt burdens, historically declining
levels of official development assistance, and the lack of direct investment contribute to practices which exacerbate degradation
[7].
Established evidence links land degradation with loss of biodiversity and climate change, both as cause-and-effect [3].
Weak or inappropriate institutional and governance systems, especially those that exclude rural people from decision making,
act as disincentives for land investment and undercut the resilience of local populations [7].
Governance systems that marginalize local users make it possible for powerful elites to capture valuable resources and push
poorer people into unsustainable livelihoods [7]. Inappropriate land tenure systems affect the benefits poor people are able to
derive as well as the motivation to invest [3].
Conflict, especially violent conflict, disrupts management systems [6].
There are opportunities to meet the challenge of insufficient national food protection (See section on Complex interlinkages/
Securing resources for food security).
But taking an environment-for-development approach must go beyond improving land management (for agriculture) and consider
other opportunities offered by Africas immense natural resource wealth. These actions recommended throughout GEO-4 may assist
in developing such an approach:
Strategic planning and appropriate investments including in technical innovation, research, and data collection (UN 1993).
Securing the remaining assets [1].
Improving governance across levels including developing more inclusive processes [7].
Building on past successes and supporting social and adaptive learning at all levels [7].
Developing systems that increase benefits to poor people from sustainable use, including better access to information (markets,
management) and empowering women [7].
Investing in people to build managerial, adaptive, and coping capacity and enhance the ability of people to make sustainable
livelihood choices [3, 7].
Supporting livelihood diversification [3, 7].
Strengthening national capacity in negotiations to reduce the possibility of adverse global systems.
Developing global and regional partnerships to create a supportive and enabling policy, promote technology development and
transfer, and encourage investment.
Asia and the Pacific: Industrialization and air pollution threats

In 1987, the Brundtland Commission recognized that industrialization would be important for achieving economic growth in
the developing world, but warned that unless sustainable approaches were adopted the benefits would be mixed. Drawing on
historical evidence of pollution and impacts on environmental and human well-being, it urged countries to adopt industrial paths that
had lower social and environmental costs.
Since then, Asia and the Pacificthe worlds fastest developing regionhas grown at over five per cent per year. Over the last
two decades, GDP has doubled and the numbers of people living on less than $1 per day, and $2 per day, has been reduced
dramatically. Although most progress has been made in India and China, improvements are evident across the region [7].
The irony of this rapid economic growth, which contributed to significant improvements in human well-being, is that it is eroding the
advancement it made. Economic growth is now threatening human health, undercutting livelihoods, and destroying ecosystems.
Emissions in the regions industrializing nations have increased dramatically since 1987. Asia and the Pacific is now home to
the worlds most polluted cities, has the highest levels of particulate pollution density, and generates about three times the global
average of waste per person [6, 3].
The impacts of these production patterns, on both human and natural capital suggest that the development paths fall far short of
being sustainable. A series of closely-related and interlinked human and environment impacts are evident that reduce, and could
potentially foreclose opportunities, for this and future generations:
Asia carries the worlds highest burden of disease attributable to indoor pollution and women are particularly exposed [2].
Water pollution threatens progress made in achieving the MDG target on access to safe water and compromise the ability to
improve access for the regions 655 million people (17.6 per cent) who still lack access to safe water [6].
Toxic substances from industry, and agriculture, enter the human food chain increasing ill-health [2].
Many air pollutants, including sulphur and nitrogen oxides, accelerate damage to materials, including historic buildings [2].
Air pollution adversely affects agriculture. Measurable, regional-scale impacts on crop yields are evident resulting in economic
losses and human well-being costs [2].
Industrial pollution is contributing to biodiversity loss (oceans, mangroves, land) and this affects other productive sectors
(agriculture, fisheries) and resource-based economic activities including tourism.
Pollution effects ecosystem structure and function, with impacts, for example, on forest growth and ecosystem services.
This pattern of production and consumption with its severe impacts on health, economic opportunity, cultural heritage, and key
environmental goods-and-services compromises the well-being of this generation and potentially increase vulnerability. It directly
reduces opportunities for achieving the MDG targets related to poverty and hunger, maternal health, child mortality, access to water
and sanitation and slum dwellers.
31
Rapid economic growth has supported high levels of urbanization and this, coupled with a lack of investment in services and
infrastructure, has contributed to the emergence of slums. The region has 60 per cent of the worlds slums. Over 70 per cent of urban
dwellers live in slums [6]. These settlement patterns expose the poorest people to pollution hazards contributing to their vulnerability.
Poor quality shelter makes them vulnerable to natural hazards such as floods, and further diminishes their resilience. Progress towards
the MDG target related to improving the lives of slum dwellers is uneven across the region (UN 2007). The rapid expansion of
cities is making the improvement of slums, and increasing access to safe water and sanitation more daunting (UN 2007). In some
contexts slums may increase exposure to malaria, dengue fever and other diseases undercutting potential to achieve MDG 6.
32
Several factors coalesce to produce the adverse impacts on people and the environment. As the Brundtland Commission observed
of industrial growth elsewhere, urbanization and changing consumption patterns (particular motor vehicles, increasing energy
demands) are major drivers in this unsustainable development path [B8]. Growing urban populations, along with population
growth, contributes to the expansion of agriculture and increased use of agrochemicals which pollute water as well as forest fires
(land clearance) which contribute to air pollution [6]. Discharges of organic water pollutants (including domestic waste) impact
on water quality; despite reductions in recent years the cumulative amount of discharges is greater than natural recovery capacity
[6].
Growing consumption, as a result of improved incomes, has impacted on both pollution and waste generation and this trend is
likely to continue. The increase in motor vehicles is particularly significant [6]. Expected waste generation trends for some countries
are shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16: per capita waste
generation in selected Asian countries
kg/person/day
1995
2025
0.5
1.0
1.5
Bangladesh
China
India
Indonesia
Japan
Laos
Malaysia
Mongolia
Myanmar
Nepal
Philippines
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Source: Terazono and

others 2005
Viet Nam
Globalization, and changes in the regional spread of industrial production, also impacts on development paths [2]. Many industries
rely on outdated and polluting technology exported from developed to developing countries. The demand for low cost goods in
wealthier nations places pressure on the regions industry to keep costs low and discourages investment in better technologies, thus
effectively transfers the cost of productionpollutionto Asia and the Pacific. Given the increased exposure and risks faced by
pollution in Asia and the Pacific this amounts to an export of vulnerability [2, 7].
These high costs of industrialization are not inevitable, and with the rich and diverse mosaic of pollution management practices
available it can be minimized.
Our Common Future urged an approach to industrial development (for all regions) that incorporates five core aspects [B8]:
Establish environmental goals, regulations, incentives and standards that set clear, mutually agreed targets. These should cover
air and water pollution and address the diverse, yet interlinked, issues of public and occupational health, energy and resource
efficiency, transport, marketing and use. All relevant actors including government, industry and the public should be involved.
Make more effective use of economic instruments. Pollution is a symptom of inefficiency, and many of the problems result from
air and water being treated as free goods and the externalization of costs. Approaches, such as the polluter pays principle,
can be used to address issues of responsibility.
Broaden the use of environment assessment and invest in the necessary institutional and human capacity needed to make them
effective planning tools.
Encourage action by industry that goes beyond legislative compliance.
Increase capacity to deal with industrial hazards including chemicals, hazardous waste, and accidents
To deal with the challenge of rapid urbanization, industrial development and the negative impacts on human well-being (in all
regions), the Brundtland Commission identified several key areas for intervention, including [B9]:
Strengthen local authorities. This includes investing in human and financial capacity, strengthening the authority and power of
agencies, and developing transparent procedures.
Reinforce self-reliance and ensure citizen involvement.
Invest in essential services and housing for poor people.
Increase cooperation among developing countries to increase learning and share best practice.
Increase global cooperation.
These approaches have only partially been taken on board:
Most countries have legislative and policy frameworks to address pollution at national and city level. Monitoring air pollutants
is essential for establishing compliance and enforcing regulations, as well as for revising existing policy. But, most cities face
significant challenges, and are unable to conduct regular monitoring [6].
Many countries have phased out the use of leaded fuels and are developing, or considering developing mass transit systems [6].
In dealing with the challenges of waste management, several countries including Bangladesh and India, have encouraged,
supported or adopted community-based recycling and composting initiatives. These have had benefits in reducing the extent of
waste intended for disposal, improving incomes, and living conditions in urban centres. These activities potential contributed to
achieving the MDGs and particularly the targets related to income, improving the living conditions of slum dwellers and increasing
access to safe water [6].
Other countries, including Japan and Korea, have opted for a reduce-reuse-recycle approach, supported by integrated policies that
aim at more efficient resource use, with the aim of moving towards a sound material cycle society [6].
Market tools intended to influence consumer choice, such as eco-labelling, have been adopted in several countries including
Singapore, Philippines and Thailand [6].
The challenge ahead
The challenge today is reducing the social and environmental costs of industrial pollution without threatening economic growth
setting development on a more sustainable path.
Approaches that demonstrate that the benefits and costs of pollution management compare favourably with social investment to
address negative impacts can encourage a change in practice. Returning to, and building on, the approaches highlighted by the
Brundtland Commission can guide future developments.
Success, in Asia and the Pacific as well as other regions, should be built on.
33
Regulatory and economic policy reform, better environmental management within factories, and more transparent management
systems may all contribute to better practice:
Where conventional command-and-control regulations have failed, an incentive system can be considered. It is important,
in each context to analyze the reasons associated with policy and regulation failure to develop better systems. Common
reasons include the challenges and costs associated with monitoring and evaluation, insufficient factory based capacity, and
corruption.
Greater openness to trade can enhance access to cleaner technology [7].
Global partnerships, including with industry, can support technological innovation and transfer. The use of improved technology
is essential for reducing pollutants.
Europe: Energy and climate change impacts

The Brundtand Commission warned that developing sustainable energy practices was critical for the environment and for
development, and that energy choices made would dictate patterns well into the future [B7].
Since 1987, Europe has continued to grow economically with ongoing improvements in human well-being. Improved human
capacity and significant technological investments have been at the centre of its success in addressing many of its environmental
problems. But, the challenge of climate change has remained and grown more urgent, and in turn it is impacting on human wellbeing. Since 1990, GHG emissions have increased across the European region as a whole although considerable differences
exist (Figure 17). However, there has also been an improvement in energy efficiency. Since 1990, energy consumption has grown
at a slightly slower pace than economic activity.
Figure 17: Trends in total greenhouse gas emissions
1990 = 100
EU25
105
EFTA
EE&C
100
South Eastern Europe

Notes: For some countries
95
reporting of some (mainly

fluorinated) gases was incomplete,
90
but because of the relatively low

weight of fluorinated gases, the
85
trends presented reflect the

development of total greenhouse
80
gas emissions rather accurately.

The volume of emissions in million
75
tonnes of CO2 equivalents in 1990

was: EU-25= 5 231, EE&C=4
70
630, SEE=620, EFTA=106 (see

Box 6.13 for explanations of
65
country groupings).
04
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
99
20
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
19
90
60
19
34
Defining more sustainable paths, and returning development to approaches in which natural capital can sustain this and future
generations will involve making trade-offs. Choices will need to be based on how improved understanding of the complexity of
environmental systems and in particular of thresholds, time-lags, and feedback loops (see section, Making good
choices).
Source: EEA 2007, adapted

from UNFCCC-CDIAC 2006
Mean changes in temperature in Europe have been higher than the global average with an average increase of 1.4C compared to
pre-industrial levels, and it is projected to increase by 2.1-4.4C by 2080. The European heat wave of 2003which contributed
to 30 000 premature deaths from heat stress and pollutionillustrates the potential human cost. The experience also shows that it is
the poor, elderly and other vulnerable groups who suffer most from weather extremes, even within relatively affluent societies [2].
The environmental impacts of climate change have run-on effects for people, threatening their well-being and potentially increasing
their vulnerability:
Accelerated glacier melting and a rise in sea level [6] will potentially increase exposure of many coastal urban areas to natural
hazards.
Increased frequency of extreme weather events which cause damage to industry, infrastructure and households. There has been
an increase in economic losses both as a result of increasing wealth and more frequent events (EEA 2004).
Biodiversity loss and changes in distribution [6].
Increased health impacts related to heatwaves, tick-borne diseases, and flooding (EEA 2004).
Increased availability of water in some parts and growing water scarcity in others (EEA 2004).
Increased crop yields in some parts and reducing yields in others (EEA 2004).
In addition to the impacts on the climate system, consumption and production patterns contribute to environmental degradation,
the depletion of natural resources, and increasing waste generation both inside and outside Europe [6]. Increasing consumption
including the demand for energy, transport, and luxury goods is related to increased wealth. The outsourcing of energy, food and
industrial production, effectively relocates the related environmental and social impacts to other regions [6]. Land degradation is
linked as cause-and-effect to climate change [3].
These impacts reveal that this development path is not sustainable for Europe and has negative spill-overs for people elsewhere,
particularly in developing countries.
In 1987, Brundtland drew attention to the potential global consequences of industrial activity and in particular its climate change
impacts. It urged an approach based on global cooperation, and as a result the UNFCCC was adopted in 1992 and the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997 (See the section, Complex Interlinkages /Climate change). Today, given improved understanding about impacts
at global scales such cooperation is even more urgent.
Our Common Future suggested that sustainable energy systems need to address the issues of energy efficiency together with
securing energy supplies, efficient and non-wasteful resource use, public health, and the control of emissions that impacted on the
biosphere and on more localized air quality [B7].
The Rio Declaration principle on shared but differentiated responsibility acknowledges that developed countries have a proportionately
greater responsibility than developing countries in resolving environmental problems. It is based on the understanding that developed
countries have a historical and current responsibility for negative environmental impacts of development and have more resources
at the disposal due to the uneven nature of the world economy. The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol are based on this approach
to responsibility.
Our Common Future also drew attention to the need to develop industrial systems that produced more with less. It noted that in the
developed economies, there was already evidence that demand for basic resources, including energy and water, had levelled-off
[B8]. These trends can be enhanced through greater investments in resource efficiency. New technologies hold some promise for
this, although in some cases this might result in new risks. It also proposed the adoption of strategies for sustainable production (See
Asia and the Pacific: Industrialization and air pollution threats).
To a large extent Europe, but more especially the European Union (EU), has recognised its responsibility for, and contribution to,
certain global problems. Since 1987, substantial progress in integrating the objectives of sustainable and equitable environmental
development into policy and specifically in environmental protection has been made [6].
There are significant efforts towards developing a more sustainable energy system, although these are not region-wide. In November
2006, the EU and the countries of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea agreed to a common energy strategy, based on four areas:
converging energy markets,
enhancing energy security,
supporting sustainable energy development, and
attracting investment for common projects.
35
Figure 18: Estimated impact of different factors on the reduction of CO2 emissions from public heat and
electricity generation in EU-25
CO2 emissions (million tonnes)
200
0
200
400
600
800
1 000
1990
1991
1992
1 200
1 400
1 600
1 800
Change due to efficiency improvement

Change due to fossil fuel switching
Change due to share of nuclear
Change due to share of renewables
Actual CO2 emissions
1993
1994
1995
36
Hypothetical emissions if
no changes had occurred
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Source: Adapted from EEA

2006b, Eurostat
Improvements in efficiency, as a result of capital investment to meet projected energy demand, have contributed to a reduction in
emissions. The impacts of the different energy saving approaches used are shown in Figure 18.
Other efforts towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns include attempts to decouple resource use from
environmental growth. National strategies related to sustainable consumption and production have been developed in the Czech
Republic, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In the EU, structural changes in the economy particularly related to production
levels, the intensity of agriculture, the modernization of technologies, and improvements in efficiency have contributed to the
stabilization of, and in some cases a decrease in, natural resource use [6]. Other measures include reduction and recycling of
materials.
Efforts to change patterns of consumption have been less successful. Voluntary measures used include eco-labelling, corporate social
responsibility, and eco-auditing.
The challenges ahead
Meeting the Kyoto Protocol targets is an immediate challenge.
The emissions for the new EU countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,
Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania) are expected to remain well below their 1990 levels. But, the current prospects of the EU-15
(The pre-2004 European Union member states: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) achieving its targets is low unless new concerted
action is taken. With existing domestic policies and measures, total EU-15 greenhouse gas emissions will only be 0.6 per cent
below base year levels in 2010. Taking into account additional domestic policies and measures being planned by member states,
a total EU-15 emissions reduction of 4.6 per cent is projected. This relies on the assumption that several member states will cut
emissions by more than is required to meet their national targets [6].
A further challenge is addressing the energy-efficiency gap across the European sub-regions (see Annex 1). Opportunities for
improving efficiency in those sub-regions or countries lagging behind include developing partnerships that promote the sharing of
technology and know-how [6].
Given the expected impacts of climate change on agriculture, health, and the economy the development and implementation of
adaptation strategies in Europe is important (EEA 2004).
To make consumption and production patterns more sustainable, economic instruments that reflect the real environmental and social
costs of materials and energy are needed, and should be combined with appropriate legal instruments.
Latin America and the Caribbean: The urbanizationbiodiversity interface

Twenty years, ago the Brundtland Commission recognized that biodiversity and ecosystems play an essential role in supporting
sustainable development, and that their conservation was of critical importance.
The Latin American and the Caribbean region (LAC) has emphasized an approach to development that focuses on manufactured
and human capital and discounts the value of natural assets, both environmental goods-and-services [6].
This development approach has resulted in significant improvements in human well-being, with, for example, an increase in life
expectancy from 66 to 71 years between 1987 and 2005. The proportion of poor people fell from 48.3 per cent in 1990
to 42.9 per cent in 2004. But, 222 million people still live in poverty, and 96 million of these people live in extreme poverty.
GDP grew by 53 per cent between 1990 and 2004 or 2.9 per cent per annum. The high level of income inequitythe highest
globallymeans that improvements in growth have not resulted in substantial benefits for poor people. However, there has been
a decrease in the poverty gap (UN 2007).To meet the MDG on extreme poverty LAC will need to grow at a rate of at least 4.3
per cent per annum [6].
Development has resulted in large, unplanned urbanization. The proportion of the urban population living in slums remains high, at
27 per cent (UN 2007). Progress to improving the quality of life of slum dwellers as envisaged under MDG 7 has been slow but
steady (UN 2007). LAC is the most urbanized region in the developing world, between 1987 and 2005 the urban population
increased from 69 to 77 per cent, although the urbanization rate slowed from 2.8 per cent per year in 1987 to 1.9 in 2005.
There is considerable regional variation. Rural poverty and the lack of jobs is a key factor in urbanization [6].
This development path, especially as a result of urbanization, has had mostly negative impacts on biodiversity in the worlds most
biologically diverse region. The long-term sustainability of this approach is questionable, given the erosion of the natural asset
base.
Widespread ecosystem degradation is evident. Of the 178 WWF ecoregions only eight are relatively intact and 27 are stable, the
remainder have become vulnerable or endangered. Of these 31 are critically endangered (Figure 19). A large number of endemic
species are threatened [5]. In 1987, the Brundtland Commission had already warned of the severe implications of development
choices for biodiversity in the Amazon Basin [B6] and urged the adoption of urgent measures to reduce deforestation and habitat
loss. Efforts are being made to reduce deforestation through legislative, and economic and other measures [6].
Both terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems face threats from urbanization due to an increased demand for resources
as well as unsustainable consumption and production practice. Direct threats to biodiversity include habitat loss, land degradation
including high levels of forest loss, land-use change, and marine population.
In some areas migration from rural areas has resulted in the recovery of natural forest ecosystems.
The high concentration of the urban population along the coast about half of the regional population lives within 100km of
the coastplaces considerable strain on coastal and marine ecosystems; this results in the loss of ecosystem services and places
increased threats on species. Aquaculture and shrimp farming contributes to mangrove damage and loss. The extent of loss various
considerably across the region: from 67.5 per cent in Panama, to 24 per cent in Peru, to 5.9 per cent in Costa Rica. The loss
of these systems increases the risks faced by coastal populations. And the loss of biodiversity contributes to economic losses from
declining fisheries and tourism, and makes achieving the MDG poverty and hunger targets more challenging. In the Caribbean,
61 per cent of the coral reef area is under medium to high threats from sediment, pollution and overfishing [6]. Degraded coastal
areas increase health risks, for example algal blooms cause neurological damage and death in people through the consumption
of affected seafood.
Increasing urbanization at the global level, with its increased demand for food and fuel crops, also impacts on ecosystems and
biodiversity. In Brazil, for example, the area of land for soybean production grew from 117 000 km2 in 1994 to 210 000 km2 in
2003, driven by substantial increases in global consumption of soybeans and soybean products [5].
37
Figure 19: Status of terrestrial ecoregions

Critical or endangered
Relatively stable or intact
Vulnerable
Ecoregions with no
ongoing threat
Note: An ecoregion is
a large unit of land
38
containing a
geographically distinct
assemblage of species,
natural communities, and
environmental conditions.
Source: WWF 2006

Our Common Future acknowledged that conserving ecosystem services, such as climate regulation and watershed protection,
cannot be divorced from conserving individual species within ecosystems. It encouraged the extension of existing protected areas
as a tool for protecting biodiversity. Heeding this call, LAC has invested in developing protected areas, and between 1985 and
2006 the extent of protected areas, both marine and terrestrial, almost doubled and now amounts to 11 per cent of total territory.
But the success of these initiatives is mixed as many are poorly protected.
The CBD identified best management approaches, for biodiversity inside and outside of protected areas, including:
Strategic and integrated planning.
Good science as the basis of management.
Integrating local participation (including indigenous people), knowledge and values in planning.
Partnerships between local communities and governments, international and local organizations and the private sector, including
ecotourism ventures.[5].
Following the CBD, new approaches to protecting habitat and biodiversity that include social, environment, and development
objectives emerged. Subsequently, approaches that focused on protecting habit across national boundaries became more
population. In LAC these including the Meso-America Biological Corridor agreed to in 1997, which extents from Mexico to
Panama. According to the World Bank the programme uses environmental conservation as a catalyst to alleviate poverty and
improve quality of life, foster regional cooperation, preserve the regions rich cultural heritage, and promote a new image of MesoAmerica internationally.
There has also been an important shift to using economic tools to promote conservation. In several countries including Mexico,
Costa Rica, and Colombia approaches based on payment for environmental services (PES) are being used to enhance biodiversity
protection.
In some countries, national policies have acknowledged the links between biodiversity and cultures in accord with the CBD. In
Panama, legal recognition of the rights of the seven major indigenous peoples, has resulted in 22 per cent of national territory being
designated as sovereign indigenous reserves [5].
In efforts to improve urban planning and reduce environmental impacts over the last decade, policy approaches have combined
command and control approaches with economic instruments.
As civil society has become more aware of environmental issues, they have acted as a check on intended government policy and
projects that have negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems and have influenced public policy developments [2].
Challenges ahead
In 2002, the CBD committed to achieve, by 2010, a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global,
regional and national levels as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth [5]. This target was
subsequently endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and the UN General Assembly and was
incorporated as a new target under the MDGs [5].
The region faces considerable challenges to meet this target. Addressing the following sectors related to growing populations is
urgent (CBD 2006):
The food and agriculture sector, contributes to biodiversity through land-use change, nutrient loading, and over-exploitation of wild
living resources. Better planning, regulations, and incentive measures may contribute to:
Improved agricultural efficiency.
More effective planning for agricultural expansion.
Reduced land conversions for ranchland by moderating the demand for meat by the more affluent sectors of society.
A halting of overfishing and other destructive fishing practices.
Food and agricultural production is closely related to trade making it imperative to integrate biodiversity concerns into trade
policies.
Given the need for LAC to improve growth to meet the MDGs, the high levels of income inequality, and persistent poverty,
incorporating biodiversity considerations into poverty reduction strategies is essential to ensure their sustainability.
Biodiversity will be better protected through actions that are justified on their economic merits. The development of tools for the
valuation of biodiversity is a priority
Developing indicators to measure changes in biodiversity and progress towards the 2010 Target is essential.
North America: Energy and Production and Consumtion

In 1987, Our Common Future warned that energy-intensify patterns of growth where unsustainable and could not support global
progress.
It noted that global energy consumption was highly skewed, with consumption per person in industrial economies being 80
times greater than in sub-Saharan Africa. In considering possible energy futures, it put forward two scenarios, that illustrate the
hypothetical range of demand, if:
These unequal patterns of consumption were maintained, by 2025, factoring in population growth, energy needs would have
grown by 40 per cent over those of 1980 (low scenario).
Consumption per person became uniform at industrial country levels, by 2025 energy needs would have increased by 550
per cent (high scenario).
Our Common Future drew attention to the global development challenges (include investment demands) and the global and national
environmental costs associated with these choices (see Complex Interlinkages/Climate change in this paper).
North America has the most intensive energy consumption of all regions. Since 1987, high levels of human well-being have been
maintained and GDP has grown significantly despite a population increase of 23 per cent (mainly due to immigration). There is
growing affluence, but in some parts the gap between rich and relatively poor people is increasing [7]. The impacts of this high
energy consumption on the climate systema global commonsis now well established raising questions of how these national
choices relate to global responsibility.
39
Figure 20: Per capital energy consumptions

tonnes of oil equivalent per person
Canada
6.4
United States
6.2
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
40
5.2
20
0
20 3
04
20
01
19
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
5.0
19
87

compiled from IEA 2007
and UNPD 2007
Is this high-energy use sustainable, for North America or the world?

Growing affluence and related consumption patterns contribute to these energy patterns and impact on the environment and on
human well-being, particularly human health. Between 1987 and 2004 energy consumption in the US transport sector rose by 30
per cent, mainly from the increased number of motor vehicles and the use of big, less fuel-efficient vehicles [6].
Human health impacts of climate change include increases in the intensity and duration of heatwaves, water and food contamination,
insect-transmit diseases such as Lyme disease and the West Nile Virus, and intensity of extreme weather events[6]. The most
vulnerable people include children, the elderly, poor people, disabled people, immigrant populations, Aboriginal people, those
who work out doors, and people with already compromised health [6].
Consumption patterns also impact on the vulnerability of populations in other regions. The outsourcing of some productivity to other
parts of the world effectively relocates energy use and passes on the associated costs, including ecosystem and health impacts, to
other regions [6].
Our Common Future emphasized that sustainability needed to be a central aspect of an energy strategy. It identified four key
elements of sustainability that would need to be addressed [B7]:
Security of energy supplies to meet human needs.
Energy efficiency and conservation measures to protect primary resources.
Public health.
Protection of the biosphere and more localized atmosphere.
Since 1987, North America has made efforts to integrate sustainable development into its policies, institutions, and practices.
Despite increases in energy consumption since 1987 there has been recent progress in reducing energy use per unit of GDP
as a result of improvements in energy efficiency, outsourcing production, and the growing importance of the service sector and
information and communication technologies. The US is a global leader in products that mitigate or prevent environmental damage
[6].
Securing energy resources is a critical aspect of energy strategies in North America. Given a decline in oil production in the US,
growing demands for transportation fuel, and uncertainty about supplies, the US has invested in Canadas oil sands. This resulted
in a doubling of oil production between 1995 and 2004, and increasing in GHG emissions and environmental impacts (water,
forests, landscapes, habitat loss). Given the proportionally high demand for energy in the US compared with Canada, there are
concerns that growing demands in the US may impact on the Canadas energy security [6].
Improving energy efficiency is a key focus of the US energy approach. For example, the US 2005 National Energy Plan provides
incentives for research and development of cleaner fuels and renewable energy (especially biofuels and hydrogen).
In developing more environmentally sustainable approaches, both countries have focused on reducing GHG emissions since 1990
through market-based, voluntary, and technological measures. Canada has committed to globally-agreed reductions in GHG
emissions in terms of the Kyoto Protocol. The US state of California, the 12th largest carbon emitter in the world, has adopted
legislation to reduce CO2 emissions.
Canada has committed to absolute emission reductions (2007 regulatory framework), although if the 2006 Clean Air Act becomes
law short-term targets will be based on intensity of energy use. This approach encourages efficiency but allows increases in
emissions if output increases. The US aims for emissions reduction of 18 per cent related to economic output by 2012 compared
with 2002.
Given the federal system in both countries, there are significant energy efficiency and emission reductions initiatives at more
localized levels (regional or city).
Challenges ahead
In both the US and Canada emissions have increased: from 1990 to 2003, emissions from CO2 rose by 24.4 and 13.3 per cent
for Canada and the US respectively. Finding innovative ways to change this path, while continuing to ensure economic growth, will
remain an important challenge for the foreseeable future.
Our Common Future identified several opportunities for creating more sustainable and secure energy futures, including [B7]:
Research, development, and investment in renewable energies.
Improving energy efficiency.
Strengthening energy conservation measures.
Reducing emissions of GHG.
Other opportunities for reducing the climate change impacts of energy choices are discussed in the Complex interlinkages/Climate
change.
West Asia: Human Security: Conflict and Water Scarcity

Twenty years ago, Our Common Future emphasized the close link between armed conflict and the environment: Environmental
stress is both a cause and an effect of political tension and military conflict.
Ensuring human security requires addressing the direct impacts of war (fear, violence, dignity) and its impacts on the resources
(environmental stress) that support human well-being. Human security is about achieving freedom from want, freedom from fear
and the right to live in dignity (Annan 2005).
Despite progress towards achieving the MDG targets on health, education, and empowerment of women, human well-being in
West Asia shows a decline. Across the region, improvements in Human Development Index scores between 1960 and 1990 have
not been sustained. Poverty has risen since 1987, although there is considerable variation across the region [6].
The region is characterized by natural resource dependent economies, population growth, and high rates of urbanization. Agriculture
is the main economic activity in the Mashriq and Yemen, while in the Arabian Gulf countries oil is a major source of income [6].
Global markets and geopolitical conflict and the strong relationship between them, together with population growth, have important
impacts on economic development. The high dependency on natural resources makes the region vulnerable to economic shocks
and fluctuations in international prices. Economic reforms in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, and temporary recovery of the oil
markets, led to some economic stabilization but there was no improvement in economic growth. From 2002 with the increases in
oil prices there has been an upward turn in the economy. Ongoing political instability in the region and the war-shattered economies
of Iraq and the Occupied Palestinian Territories continue to affect growth [6].
41
Conflict-related water pollution and infrastructural damage affect access to safe water, while land degradation and ecosystem
disruption impinge on the overall availability of water. Rapid urbanization, especially in the Mashriq, population growth and related
agricultural demand for water make efforts to meet water needs more challenging. Water quality is also affected by poor sanitation
and inadequate waste management.
Freshwater is a vital resource, and the lack thereof affects industrial and agricultural potential and health. Changes in water
availability impact on ecosystems, biodiversity, and existing populations, and may make it difficult to sustain existing human wellbeing.
West Asia is severely water stressed. Between 1985 and 2005, available freshwater per person fell from 1 700 to 907 m 3/year
(see Figure 21). By 2050, taking into account population growth, it is expected to decline further to 420 m 3/year.
Figure 21: Trends and projections in per capital freshwater availablity
m3/capita/year
Arabian Peninsula
3 000
Mashriq
2 750
West Asia
2 500
2 250
2 000
1 750
1 500
1 250
1 000
750
500
250
50
20
25
20
Sources: UNESCWA 2003b,

UNDP 2005
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
42
Conflict, along with other factors has had a detrimental impact on the environmental goods-and-services, as well as on other
resources, that underlie human well-being:
Ecosystem disruption:
o The construction of military facilities, mine-fields and clean-up activities, and the movement of personnel and equipment has
had serious impact on the desert ecosystems of Kuwait and Iraq accelerating soil erosion, increased soil movement, and
sandstorms [6].
o The wall separating the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel has resulted in ecosystem fragmentation and the rupture
of natural ecological corridors associated with the separation wall (UNEP 2003).
Land contamination:
o Israeli bombing of industrial sites in Lebanon has resulted in environmental contamination and human health risks linked to
toxic or hazardous ashes, oils, heavy metals, industrial chemicals, rubble, solid waste and sewage (UNEP 2003).
o The use of uranium munitions in the 1991 and 2003 wars impact on human health [6].
Water pollution: In the Occupied Palestinian Territories ongoing conflict, along with inadequate resource allocation and
environmental management, has contributed to the deterioration of water resources, inadequate or improper disposal of
wastewater and solid waste (including hazardous materials) [6].

The demand for water, especially from the agricultural sector is unsustainable. Consequently countries in West Asia have moved
away from development approaches that favour food security to IWRM approaches.
Policy reforms have emphasized decentralization, conservation and economic efficiency, and demand management approaches
and the need for these to be supported by improved policy and institutional provisions. Few countries have completed integrating
these strategies into social and economic development.
Various responses have been adopted to address the impacts of war:

National responses include the monitoring and assessment of damage, and the restoration and rehabilitation of affected areas.
At the intra-regional level, a mechanism to address environmental claims resulting from war was developed after the Gulf war. This
allows for countries to claim compensation from Iraq through the United Nations Compensation Commission.
Internationally, several conflict resolution initiatives and measures have been adopted, these include agreements and the development
of shared understanding through cultural exchange and other measures.
Challenges ahead
Creating a sustainable future requires policy that addresses, as Our Common Future noted, the root causes, the effects, and global
or interregional dimensions, and that makes investments in the future.
While West Asia has begun to develop more effective methods for water management, by moving away from a demand-driven
approach it faces much more serious challenges in finding sustainable peace. Yet achieving, peace is essential to secure the
environmental resources that underlie human well-being.
More than 60 per cent of West Asias surface water originates outside the region making the issue of shared water resources
important for regional stability, and inter-regional collaboration essential to secure current and future development.
CONCLUSION: SECURING OUR COMMON FUTURE

We have it in our power to pass on to our children a brighter inheritance
than that bequeathed to any previous generation
all the conditions are in place for us to do so.
Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, 1997-2006
The transition to a more sustainable society has begun:
There is wide recognition that social, environment, and development issues are interlinked; better integration of environment
into development planning; more effective and inclusive governance systems; increased levels of cooperation at global and
regional levels.
New environmental technologies have been developed and knowledge and understanding of the environment and its complex
interlinkages with human society have deepened.
Although there has been steady progress in improving human well-being in the worlds poorest regions, some one billion people
still live in extreme poverty.
But, poor development practice is placing an immense burden on populations: more than two million people die annually from
air pollution, and contaminated water remains the greatest environmental cause of human sickness and death. Water scarcity is
impacting on people and development opportunities in both developed and developing countries. And there are only modest
improvements in environmental well-being.
Serious and persistent barriers to sustainable development remain. In 1987, as Our Common Future noted, pressures on the
planet are now unprecedented and are accelerating at rates and scales new to human experience [B12]. Since 1987, the world
population has increased from 5 to 6.7 billion people and worldwide GDP per capita has increased from US$5 927 in 1987
to US$8 162 in 2004 and have due, in part, to globalization taken on new dimensions and further accelerated the pace of
environmental change. The responsibility for this change and its impacts is not shared equally across the world.
Increased consumption and production have led to massive improvements in human well-being for some, while at least one billion
people remain immersed in poverty. Improved security in some places has been at the expense of insecurity (and increased
vulnerability) elsewhere. Poor people are most affected, and poverty, and income and gender inequities have persisted.
43
The environmental goods-and-services that sustain development are being eroded, threatening development and future opportunities.
Environmental capital has been borrowed from future generations. Most urgently the Earths climate system has been disrupted,
biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented scales, and land has been severely degraded.
The commitment to action has been insufficient to achieve desired environment-development outcomes. New and incremental
changes are needed to set development on a more sustainable path. Achieving the Kyoto emission targets, the CBDs 2010
Biodiversity Targets, and the MDGs will require concerted efforts at global, regional, national and local levels.
There must be a renewed and shared commitment to secure our common future. Countries will need to act individually, to address
localized environmental problems, and collectively to address persistent environmental challenges such as land degradation,
climate change and biodiversity loss among others.
44
In defining an agenda for our common future, attention to achieving the desired and agreed outcomes, contained in so many
declarations and strategies in the 20 years since Our Common Future was first tabled, is essential. The choices made today will
shape the opportunities of this generation and of future generations. The ramifications of the chosen paths can persist long after the
drivers and pressures of change have been addressed [9].
To achieve defined objectives and goals sustainable development strategies need to encompass a globally integrated understanding
of environmental as well as economic and social dynamics and be action orientated.
Increased collaboration at all levels, from global to local, and across levels can strengthen opportunities for sustainability. Our
Common Future noted that the distinctions between local, national and international issues were blurring [B12]. GEO-4 reaffirms
this: policies that were previously considered to be exclusively of national concern (such as production) are now increasingly
accepted as affecting natural and human capital of nations elsewhere. Climate change illustrates this. Similarly global and national
policies affect human well-being and vulnerability at local levels [7]. Consequently the integration of decision making, policies,
governance, and management across levels, sectors, and time help achieve environmental and human well-being goals [7, 8, 9].
As GEO-4 has demonstrated forging paths to sustainability requires investing in results-based management and in turn this requires
strengthening the knowledge-policy-action-outcome trajectory. The value of credible knowledge to support decision-making, from
local to global scales, is widely acknowledged. The legitimacy of policy must be enhanced to be successful, and this requires
support and a sound basis [10]. Action must be tailored to making sustained and incremental gains. A reorientation to the
oneness of the humanitys future is essential.
Learning as one helps address the mismatch between the knowledge available today and that which is needed by decisionmakers at all levels. Existing or proven solutions (for established cause-and-effect relationships) cannot solve the urgent and
complex problems bearing on our very survival identified in Our Common Future and GEO-4 [8, 10].
For knowledge to be more policy-relevant and able to contribute to desired outcomes, it must take into account the dynamism and
complexity of environmental and social systems, and it must be linked to action. Three opportunities are evident for strengthening
environmental knowledgeall linked to improving communication and shared understanding (Kristjanson and others 2007):
First, the interaction and exchange between decision-makers and researchers must be strengthened. Decision makers need a better
understanding of what is available and what can be achieved. Researchers need to understand more clearly what decision-makers
need. Learning as one requires creative leadership and organizations that can bridge divides and bring diverse actors together
in finding solutins. Processes like GEO, and bridging organizations like UNEP, can play a central role in developing this interface.
The product of such processes is closely linked to how this interaction is mediated and the relative power of each group.
Second, given the complexity, multi-dimensional, and interlinked nature of the challenges faced efforts to link and harness the
understandings of different disciplines and of different kinds of knowledge (such as that derived from experience and indigenous
knowledge) must be strengthened. Scienceboth biophysical and socialhas an important role in providing information for
decision making, citizen knowledge and understandings should not be ignored [10]. The understanding of indigenous people is
also critical in finding solutions. Social (such as gender relations) and policy issues cannot simply be treated as add-ons, but must
be part of developing understanding.
Third, adaptive learningthat builds on what works while allowing for experimentation and is subjected to periodic reviewhelps
map more sustainable paths. Adaptive learning (learning by doing) increases opportunities for social learning and can enhance
adaptive and coping capacity [7]. It includes, for example regular monitoring of policy effectiveness [10]. Determined action,
notwithstanding uncertainties, is more effective and cheaper than waiting for better solutions to emerge [9]. Experimentation and
supporting innovation that pursues new and emerging solutions lies at the core of adaptive approaches [10]. GEO-4 highlights the
opportunities that economic instruments hold for addressing complex problems and influence economic drivers.
Choosing as one as people that share a common future and as people that aspire to a sustainable futurecan help make
decision making more focused while increasing its legitimacy. This requires placing people (and their long-term security) at the centre
of making choices: taking an environment-for-development approach.
A fundamental shift from short-term, crisis intervention approaches must be made. Understanding and taking thresholds, time-lags
and feedback loops into account is critical [8]. Because the environmental-development challenges faced are complexoften
deeply rooted in patterns of production and consumption, institutions and governance, and established and persistent patterns of
inequity and inequalityand are unfolding, given the levels of uncertainty, in unpredictable ways decision making must be reorientated:
A cautious approach is often justified. There is no sense in gambling away the resources on which tomorrow must be based
[B1].
Going back to fundamentals and basic principles, such as those articulated in Our Common Future, is essential. This requires
building on widely shared understanding and values. For example that the Earth is one, that the human-environment system is
one. This requires the integration of environmental activities into the broader development framework.
Building on what works (Box 6). This requires going beyond revising existing plans to developing approaches by linking those
that actually workwiring them together into new systems (Bass 2007). Often successful local approaches that can be applied
across spatial boundaries or that can be successfully upscaled are neglected.
Expanding and adapting policies that have already worked effectively for conventional problems into areas that lack such
policies, especially in developing regions [10]. Addressing problems at source can be a useful strategy, this includes considering
and developing economic instruments.
Processes must be inclusive, open to new ideas and different cultures, transparent and based on respect if they are to have wide
support and legitimacy. Better environmental education and more attention to involving stakeholders will make environmental
policies better rooted [10].
Setting targets and goals can help strengthen the policy-action link.
Box 6: Building on recent gains

Over the previous two decades, environmental policies have evolved and been strengthened [10]:
Command-and-control regulations have strengthened the implementation of standards, prohibited the
use of life-threatening products (some chemicals), created regimes for limiting emissions and resource
harvesting through permits and quotas, increased the opportunities for legal redress for harm suffered,
and extended responsibility for action.
Direct provisionof environmental infrastructure, eco-industrial zones, protected areas, and ecosystem
rehabilitationby governments has increased.
Public and private sector engagement has been a priority. Opportunities for public participation have
increased, management and decision making has been decentralized, new measures for information
disclosure have been adopted, eco-labelling and voluntary measures have made production and
consumption by environmentally focused, and public-private partnerships have emerged often improving
environment-development synergies.
Markets have been harnessed as a tool for improving environmental practice with the removal of
pervasive subsidies, the imposition of environmental taxes and charges, user charges, and voluntary
self-monitoring systems.
New markets have been created through among others property rights, tradeable permits and offset
programmes, green procurement, and payment for environmental services.
45
Acting as one is an essential step to delivering as one. Complementarity and synergies must be built between the actions
of different actors at different levels and across levels [10, 8, 7].
Acting as one requires opportunities for building effective partnership, processes, and systems based on inclusion, transparency,
and accountability. Leadership and organizations that can bridge establish divides are critical. An informed and more involved
population will be more effective in addressing failures of government and holding institutions to account [10, 7].
46
Acting as one requires enhancing capacity at multiple levels, including institutional capacity and technical capacity:
Influential and effective organizations, with sufficient authority and human and financial resources are necessary for effective
policy implementation, at all levels, and for building sustainable partnerships. Existing institutions must be supported and
strengthened [10, 7].
The UN reform process is designed to strength implementation and improved coordination; the One UN approach at country
level is designed to improve delivery of desired development outcomes.
Capacity building as envisaged under the Bali Strategic Plan on Technology Support and Capacity Building (2005) is a
cornerstone for effective local and national actionand will serve to strength the capacity of states to act and deliver [7].
Empowering women and poor people through improving their human well-being and reducing inequity is an essential step for
more effective local action and decision making [7].
Reducing peoples vulnerability to environment and social change, through strengthening local rights and improving access to
financial and technical support, and information empowers people to act in their own interest.
Acting as one requires a new commitment to mobilizing financial resources and sharing environmental technologies and knowledge
to ensure sufficient resources for action. This includes delivering on agreed official development aid, increasing opportunities for
direct investment, and developing fairer trade policies [7].
These steps will bring us closer to the goal of delivering as one and to delivering a future that is more prosperous, more
just, and more secure.
Annex 1: The GEO Regions

Region
Africa
Subregions
Northern Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, The Sudan, Tunisia, Western Sahara)
Central Africa (Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea,
Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe)
Western Indian Ocean (Comoros, Glorioso Islands, Juan De Nova Island, Madagascar
Mauritius, Mayotte, Reunion (France), Seychelles
Western Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote dIvoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo)
Eastern Africa (Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, Uganda)
Southern Africa (Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Saint Helena, South Africa,
Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe)
Asia and the

Pacific
South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, British Indian Ocean Territory, India, Islamic Republic of Iran,
Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka)
South East Asia (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Christmas Island, Indonesia, Lao Peoples Democratic
Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Spratly Islands, Thailand, Viet Nam)
North West Pacific and East Asia (China, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Japan, Macau, China,
Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Mongolia)
Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)
Australia and New Zealand (Australia, New Zealand)
South Pacific (American Samoa, Baker Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia,
Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kiribati, Mashall Islands, Micronesia (Federate Sates
of), Midway Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea,
Pitcairn Islands, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna, Samoa)
Europe
Western Europe (Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France
Germany, Greece, Guernsey, Holy See, Iceland , Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Jersey, Liechtenstein,
Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal
San Marino, Spain, Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland
Central Europe (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey)
Eastern Europe Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine
47
Latin America
and the
Caribbean
Caribbean (Anguilla (United Kingdom), Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba (The Netherlands), Bahamas,
Barbados, British Virgin Islands (United Kingdom), Cayman Islands (United Kingdom), Cuba, Dominica,
Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe (France), Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique (France), Montserrat
(United Kingdom), Netherlands Antilles (The Netherlands), Puerto Rico (United States), Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos (United Kingdom),
Virgin Islands (United States)
Meso-America (Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama
South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Falkland Island (Malvinas), French
Guyana (France), Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela
48
North
America
Canada, Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, and the United States of America
West Asia
The Arabian Peninsula (Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates and Yemen)
Mashriq (Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Syria)
Polar Regions
The Arctic (Greenland (Denmark))

The Antarctic (Antarctica, Bouvet Island, French Southern and Antarctic Territories, Heard Island & McDonald
Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
REFERENCES
Annan, K. (2000). We the Peoples. The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century. United Nations, New York
Annan, K. (2005). In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all. Report of the Secretary-General.
United Nations General Assembly, 59th Session. A/59/2005. United Nations, New York
Bass, S. (2007). A new era in sustainable development. IIED Briefing. International Institute for Environment and Development,
London
http://www.iied.org/mediaroom/docs/new_era.pdf
Berkhout, F., Leach, M., and Scoones, I. (2004). Negotiating Environmental Change. Edward Elgar, Cheltam
Dankelman, I. (2001). Gender and environment: Lessons to learn. Expert Group Meeting on Environmental management and the
mitigation of natural disasters: a gender perspective. 6-9 November 2001. EGM/NATDIS/2001/op.2. United Nations Division
for the Advancement of Women,
EEA (2004). Impacts of Europes changing climate. An indicator-based assessment. European Environment Agency http://reports.
eea.europa.eu/climate_report_2_2004/en/impacts_of_europes_changing_climate.pdf
Keeley, J. and Scoones, I. (2003). Understanding Environmental Policy Processes. Cases from Africa. Earthscan, London
Kristjanson, P., Reid, R., Dickson, N., Clark, W., Vishnubhotla, P., Romney, D., Bezkorowajnyj, P., Said, M., Kaelo, D., Makui,
O., Nkedianye, D., Nyangaga, J., Okwi, P., Puskur, R., Tarawali, S.(2007). Linking International Agricultural Research Knowledge
with Action for Sustainable Poverty Alleviation
ILRI Innovation Works Discussion Paper. International Livestock Research Centre, Nairobi
http://www.ilri.org/Link/Files/InnovationWorks/Files/ILRI_Harvard_Innovation_Synthesis_IW_Website.pdf
UN (2007). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2007. United Nations, NewYork
UN (2003). Agenda 21. United Nations Division for Sustainable Development.
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm
UN-Energy (2005). The Energy Challenge in Achieving the Millennium Development Goals. UN Energy, New York
http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/UN-ENRG%20paper.pdf
UNDP (2005). Human Development Report. International cooperation at a crossroads. Aid Trade and Security in an unequal world.
United Nations Development Programme, New York
UNEP (2007) GEO Year Book 2007. An Overview of Our Changing Environment 2007. United Nations Development Programme,
Nairobi
UNEP (2005). Mainstreaming Gender in Environmental Assessment and Early Warning. United Nations Environment Programme,
Nairobi
UNEP (2003). Desk Study on the Environment in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. United Nations Environment Programme,
Geneva
UNEP (n.d.) UNEP Issue Paper. Gender and Environment: Short History and State-of-the-Art. United Nations Environment Programme,
Nairobi
49

Brundtland Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brundtland Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNEDITED DRAFT

From Environment and Development

with funding support from Sweden

Evolution of ideas from Our Common Future to GEO-4:

FROM ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT TO ENVIRONMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT: EVOLUTION OF IDEAS

INTRODUCTION: LOOKING BACK, MOVING FORWARD

Brundtland +20 Seminar Background paper

Defining a global agenda for a sustainable future

The Brundtland Commission warned that:

Evolution of ideas from Our Common Future to GEO-4:

Figure 1: Priority actions for institutional and legal development

PRIORITY ACTION AREAS

THE GLOBAL CONTEXT: FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES, STARTLING SIMILARITIES

Figure 2: Progress towards improving human well-being

Source: WHO and UNICEF 2006

Brundtland +20 Seminar Background paper

Central and Eastern Europe and

Latin America and the Caribbean

Poverty rate at US$1 a day

Poverty rate at US$2 a day

West Asia and Northern Africa

Source: World Bank 2006

Note: Some graphs not strictly

Evolution of ideas from Our Common Future to GEO-4:

Figure 3: A changing population

Asia and the Pacific

Latin America and the Caribbean

Source: GEO Data Portal,

b) Urban population by region, per cent of total population

Asia and the Pacific

Source: GEO Data Portal,

Brundtland +20 Seminar Background paper

Asia and the Pacific

Latin America and the Caribbean

Evolution of ideas from Our Common Future to GEO-4:

A 20-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE: DID WE ACT?

Source: GEO Data Portal,

At the national and regional level, progress includes:

Brundtland +20 Seminar Background paper

Box 2: Environmental gains since 1987

Evolution of ideas from Our Common Future to GEO-4:

Several core elements are evident:

Brundtland +20 Seminar Background paper

Those responsible for environmental damage should assume the costs.

Bold text: major services impacted by

Reduces primary production

connect desertification to biodiversity

Decreased plant and soil

On the top section of the outer loop,

reduced primary production and

community structure and diversity are

Evolution of ideas from Our Common Future to GEO-4:

Brundtland +20 Seminar Background paper

chemical compared to the

impact of a similar mass of

Source: GEO Data Portal,

CFC-11 is defined as 1.0.

CFC-11. Thus, the ODP of

of the impact on ozone of a

potential (ODP) is the ratio

Several factors contribute to the success of the Protocol:

Evolution of ideas from Our Common Future to GEO-4:

Asia and the Pacific