A framework for scaling and framing policy problems in sustainability

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS

ELSEVIER

Ecological Economics 12 (1995) 93-106

A framework for scaling and framing policy problems in sustainability Stephen R. Dovers Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra, A. C.T. 0200, Australia

Received 6 December 1993; accepted 6 May 1994

Abstract

It is argued that a necessary, but lacking, component of our approach in seeking policy responses to sustainability issues is some repeatable means whereby the relative magnitude and characteristics of these various policy problems faced in a given context can be analysed and described. To this end, a simple and tentative framework is constructed, based on the definition of the key attributes which shape policy problems pertaining to environmental change. These are: spatial scale of cause and effect; magnitude, timing and longevity of possible impacts; reversibility; mensurability; complexity and connectivity; nature of cause(s); relevance to the given polity; tractability (availability and acceptability of means); public concern; and existence of goals. These attributes inform a general taxonomy of micro-, meso- and macro-problems. The attributes and the taxonomy are described with supporting examples. To illustrate possible application of the framework, it is discussed briefly in the contexts of operationalising the 'precautionary principle', and policy instrument choice. It is concluded that the framework can help focus debate and operationalise vague principles, introduce relativity into the notion of sustainability, and make policy choice more efficient. Keywords: Policy; Policy problems; Sustainability

I. Introduction

The notion of sustainability (sustainable development, ecologically sustainable development) comprises a constellation of different issues of environment and human development. This is evidenced by the scope of the report by the World Commission on Environment, and Development that defined the modern sustainability agenda: population and human resources, food security, species and ecosystems, energy, resource use and waste production, urbanisation, and peace and security (WCED, 1987). The W C E D

(p. 43) provides the basic definition of sustainable development as that which "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". A range of definitions can be found in Pearce et al. (1989, pp. 173-185; see also Barbier, 1987; Dovers, 1990; Costanza, 1991; LdI6, 1991; Common and Perrings, 1992; Harrison, 1992; Opschoor and van der Straaten, 1993). Dovers and H a n d m e r (1992) differentiate between sustainability, a long-term and difficult goal, and sustainable development, a variable process of moving somewhat closer to that goal.

0921-8009/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved SSDI 0921-8009(94)00042-5

S.R. Dovers / Ecological Economics 12 (1995) 93-106

94

Table

1

The constituent

issues of sustainability

1. Issues of resource depletion and degradation: - loss of biological/genetic

diversity

- in w i l d s p e c i e s a n d e c o s y s t e m s - in d o m e s t i c a t e d - land degradation

species

- water resources - fisheries - forests and timber - energy resources - mineral resources

2. Issues of pollution and wastes: - atmospheric pollution and climate change - local air pollution - marine pollution - pollution of inland waterways - l a n d a n d soil p o l l u t i o n - solid wastes

3. Issues of society and the human condition: - population

growth

- food security and hunger - shelter - rapid urbanisation - health and disease - l a c k o f skills, e d u c a t i o n

and empowerment

- debt, trade and poverty - security and the military industry - environmental refugees

A more detailed iteration of the 'constituent issues of sustainability' is offered by Dovers and H a n d m e r (1992, p. 267), shown in Table 1. This iteration offers a broad classification only, and conceals a great diversity of issues and sub-issues. For example, the categories of biological diversity in natural ecosystems, or the protection of land and water resources, would in any one country let alone globally - comprise a large, complex, and interlinked array of situations and policy challenges. It is extremely difficult to assign relative magnitudes to these components of the 'interlocking crises' (WCED, 1987) that make up the sustainability agenda at any organisational or political level. The main reasons for this are the uncertainties that pervade the issues of sustainability, and the difficulties of calibrating information and imperatives from ecological, cultural, and economic concerns (of which monetary valuation of environmental resources is a small, but much

discussed part). It is also the case that many policy processes have not attempted to provide such a view in any consistent way, for whatever reason, although some issues are often presented as more or less 'important'. However, this is usually done by inference - that is, by concentrating on or stressing particular issues - than by any explicit analytical process. A framework is presented here to provide a means of gaining an initial, broad grasp of the relative magnitude and characteristics of policy problems in sustainability from some defined perspective. The two components of the framework are the definition and scaling of the key attributes which shape policy problems, and the construction of a general taxonomy. Any attempt of this kind must be approximate and qualitative, given that it would not be possible to quantify even roughly and thus compare the magnitude of the range of problems faced in any policy context. Thus what is suggested here is heuristic in nature. The aim is to further our ability to more logically construct policy agendas, via a more detailed and robust description of the relative magnitude of policy problems in sustainability perceived to be faced in some decision-making context. The framework proposed here rests on the assumption that the relative magnitude and comparative features of sustainability issues should be assessed in two complementary ways: over the scope of all policy problems in a comparative fashion, and on a problem-by-problem basis for more detailed purposes. This is assumed to be valuable for policy and decision makers when considering conflicting demands on limited resources and attention across problems and issues, and when seeking appropriate policy instruments for specific problems. Also, it is assumed that the goal is to arrive at policy responses appropriate to the nature and scale of the problems at hand. In addition to the challenge of scaling the issues, there is the question of 'problem-framing'. The way in which an environmental issue or problem is initially (and often intuitively) structured and stated can be critical to later efforts to define policy and action (for a discussion, see Bardwell, 1991). The framework presented here offers a means for framing policy problems, not


intuitively and on a problem-by-problem basis, but rather across the range of problems and on the basis of some defined problem attributes. Before proceeding, a brief explanation of terminology is required. A defined perspective here refers to a given polity (i.e., a political entity), equalling the scale of concern and analysis of responsible policy makers facing a suite of policy

Table 2 Policy problem attributes and scale descriptors

Problem-framing attributes 1. Spatial scale of cause or effect: local-national-regional-international-global 2. Magnitude of possible impacts: a. Impacts on natural systems: minor-moderate-severe-catastrophic b. Impacts on human systems: minor-moderate-severe-catastrophic 3. Temporal scale of possible impacts: a. Timing: near (months, years)-medium (years, decades)-long term (decades, centuries) b: Longevity of possible impacts: short (months, years)-medium (years, decades)-long term (decades, centuries) 4. Reversibility: easily/quickly reversed-difficult/expensive-irreversible 5. Mensurability of factors and processes: well-known-risk-uncertainty-ignorance 6. Degree of complexity and connectivity: discrete, linear-complex, multiple feedbacks and linkages Response-framing attributes 7. Nature of cause(s): discrete, simple-cause(s)-fundamental, systemic 8. Relevance to the polity: irrelevant/beyond jurisdiction-primary responsibility 9. Tractability: a: Availability of means: fully sufficient-available instruments/arrangements/ technologies-totally insufficient b: Acceptability of means: neglible-moral/social/political/economic barriersinsurmountable 10. Public concern: a: Level of public concern: low-moderate-high b: Basis of public concern: widely shared-moderate variance in understandingdisparate perceptions 11. Existence of goals: clearly stated-generally stated-absent

95

problems. This may be a local government body, planning agency, state or provincial government, national government, or supra-national agency or grouping. (While the framework described here could be applied to the policy decisions of a firm or non-government organisation, the intended application here is public policy, that is, government.) A policy problem can be defined as a sub-issue, issue or suite of issues perceived to require resolution in some way, thus posing the challenge of choosing the optimum policy response(s). The analogy with a mathematical problem is suitable: there is a clearly defined problem to be 'worked out'. As opposed to categorisations of sustainability issues based on biophysical or environmental subdivision, or on the looser notion of environmental 'issues', this focuses on problems that are perceived to require redress.

2. Explanation The basis of the framework is an examination of the attributes of a policy problem that might operate to define its relative magnitude and character. Issues relating to environmental change, and thus policy challenges, may appear on the public or policy agenda for a variety of reasons (see Downs, 1972; Boyden, 1987, pp. 23-31). For example, topicality may arise due to public outcry, or warnings issued by scientists and other specialists as to the threats to production posed by environmental change. Environmental degradation may be evident, or it may be predicted or speculated. In most cases more than one reason will be evident. Therefore, it makes sense to delineate and better describe these policy problem attributes. These attributes form the basis of the proposed framework. T a b l e 2 summarises these attributes and the associated scale descriptors. The attributes are grouped into those which serve to frame the nature of the problem (the 'science' of the matter), and those which serve to inform the nature of the appropriate policy response. The following explains the attributes and descriptors:

96


2.1. Problem-framing attributes 1. Spatial scale of cause or effect. This describes the 'spread' of the issue, on the assumption that environmental changes with diffuse causes a n d / o r effects will as a rule, be the more difficult policy problems and be of wider concern, especially those which are spread further across political boundaries. Climate change, or to a lesser degree the cross-boundary movement of oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, illustrate the difficulties when compared to, for example, localised issues of land use zoning or m a n a g e m e n t of solid wastes. 2. Magnitude of possible impacts. This refers to the degree of ' d a m a g e ' in a worst-case scenario relative to the whole of the entity impacted upon. That is, a change that may reduce the productivity of an economy or an ecosystem by a larger amount is more serious than one that reduces it by a smaller amount. Two aspects can be identified: a. Impacts on natural systems. Impacts on genetic, species or ecosystem abundance or diversity, or on critical processes such as atmospheric or nutrient cycles. b. Impacts on human systems. Impacts on human health, well-being or enjoyment of the environment, on economic activities, or on the resources that underpin these. The impact on human systems will generally be closely related to that on supporting natural systems, but not always, and the relationship will vary. An environmental problem may have life-threatening implications for a substantial number of people, but not have great potential to disturb the functioning of the particular ecosystem (for example, a severe, localised pollution episode in a populated area involving a highly toxic, but short-lived chemical compound). Conversely, environmental disturbance (e.g., clearing a forest area to create a stable agricultural regime) may threaten one or more species with extinction, but pose little apparent, direct threat to humans other than in ethical terms (i.e., the existence value placed on non-human species of no material value to humans).

3. Temporal scale of possible impacts. This describes the important attribute of occurrence of possible impacts over time. Two aspects are recognised: a. Timing. Impacts may be expected to occur immediately, or at some point in the future. Depending on the potential seriousness of the impacts, the prospect of a less imminent environmental change may allow more time for research and consideration of the policy response. N e a r e r - t e r m onset will not allow such a luxury. Also, there will be some point at which potential, but very far-off impacts will be judged outside the pragmatic or moral realm of responsibility. b. Longevity (or, persistence). This assumes that if the impacts of environmental change will be long-lived, then it will be a problem harder to resolve than one with discrete, short-term effects. In the general category of waste management, a long-lived waste product (the obvious example being nuclear wastes) poses a threat in each time period over millenia, whereas treatment of inert solid wastes via well-managed landfill might impact for the fill life of the site only. This attribute is closely related to reversibility (4) below. 4. Reversibility. This attribute is strongly influenced by others, notably 1, 2, 3b, and 7. It rests on the notion of irreversibility from environmental economics - human-induced environmental changes (i.e., costs) that cannot be reversed, or could only be over a long time period or at great expense. It is given that the prospect of a less reversible impact, or damage less easily restored, defines a larger 'stake' to be considered in policy formulation. This attribute is particularly hard to judge due to, inter alia, the type of resource or environmental impact in question, uncertainty as to future technologies and costs, differing ethical perspectives, and the temporal scale of consideration. 'Pro-development' decisions will generally have at least an element of irreversibility. The loss of a species is plainly irreversible, but the case is rarely this clear. The impact following a decision to log a forest can be viewed as reversible over a few decades for fibre produc-

S.R. Dovers/ EcologicalEconomics 12 (1995) 93-106 tion, but not for many centuries if ecological maturity and high species diversity is the valued system property. Some fisheries (e.g., some coastal prawn species) may recover from overfishing in a few years, whereas others (e.g., larger tunas) may take several decades. Nonrenewable resource use is irreversible, but complicated by recycling or re-use and by natural-human capital substitution possibilities. The construction of a dam on a river is, in theory, reversible, but in practice, largely irreversible given the costs of deconstruction and the time required for downstream geomorphic and ecological re-evolution. In terms of 'proconservation' decisions, these are largely reversible at a later date, political barriers aside (for example, opposition to changing statute law to rescind conservation status of a natural area). 5. Mensurability. This is the degree to which we understand and can describe relevant impacts, factors, and processes pertinent to the problem. 'Well-known' is self-explanatory; 'risk' implies doubt, but where trustworthy probabilities can be assigned to possible outcomes; 'uncertainty' is where only the general nature and direction of outcomes are understood; and 'ignorance' is where outcomes are unknown, unguessable, or can be only speculated upon (Dovers and Handmer, 1993). This attribute will influence all others, and indeed is a crucial defining factor in issues of science and policy (for a discussion, see Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990). Precise definition of other attributes will be impossible where large uncertainties or sheer ignorance are apparent. Nevertheless, given that this is the case with many sustainability issues, and that policy responses to these problems are evidently demanded in the near term, at a minimum, worstand least-case estimates for attributes such as 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be required. 6. Degree of complexity and connectivity. This continuum ranges from discrete issues characterised by unidirectional processes, to highly complex issues featuring multiple feedbacks and possible threshold effects. Connectivity refers to the degree of linkage with other

97

problems, a factor that complicates any policy formulation process in two ways. First, there are difficulties in policy integration and coordination with more complex and interconnected problems and, second, the attribute of mensurability (5) will generally be more problematic. Issues which would score highly (i.e., badly) on this attribute would include climate change and population-environment linkages. This attribute is in part related to others (1, 2,

5, 7). 2.2. Response-framing attributes 7. Nature o f the cause. This describes the extent to which the cause or causes of the environmental change - and thus the targets of the policy response - are widespread in and crucial to the relevant society. It is defined in part by spatial scale, complexity, and connectivity, but implies another dimension. Human activities that cause problematic environmental change may be discrete, limited, and relatively minor components of the overall pattern of production and consumption, or they may be practices that are universally undertaken and fundamental to this pattern (i.e., systemic causes). These two extremes shape highly different policy problems, which invite different policy responses. An example is the difference between carbon dioxide emissions and their role in global warming, the greatest source of which are fossil fuel-based energy systems, and emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals. The uses of the latter, although widespread, are quite specific and so the policy problem is one of simple substitution. In contrast, to change energy systems in any substantive way would have massive repercussions throughout society, given the pervasive role of energy in modern economies (Patterson, 1991; Dovers, 1994). 8. Relevance to the polity. This is the degree to which addressing the problem falls within or without the jurisdiction of the polity in question. This is closely related to spatial scale (attribute 1). While an environmental issue may be of considerable concern to, say, a

98


government, that government may have no or only limited jurisdictional power to enact or influence policies to redress the issue (e.g., a local government authority in Australia has little influence over lead levels in motor spirit, although the local public health implications may concern it greatly). Alternatively, and typically in the case of more significant issues, effective responses will usually require cooperation across polities (e.g., greenhouse gas emission reductions, or m a n a g e m e n t of a shared river basin or fish stock). 9. Tractability. To an extent this is a composite of a number of the above. It describes the ease, or conversely the difficulty, with which a problem can be redressed, and is broken into two parts: a. Availability o f means. This refers to the availability of required, operational policy instruments, technologies or institutional structures: are these in existence a n d / o r immediately usable, or do they have to be researched, designed and created afresh? This says, perhaps naively, that more easily resolved problems will attract more immediate and less painful policy attention. b. Acceptability of means. If a particularly suitable policy instrument or technology is available, there remains the question of whether its application would be acceptable. This requires cognisance of moral, political, social, or economic objections or difficulties. The split between availability and acceptability of means here recognises that an operational policy instrument may exist (e.g., a tax measure or a regulation), but may not be practical in a given situation (e.g., fear of export income loss, or voter resistance due to distributional impacts or lifestyle changes). It will usually be the case that a highly 'unacceptable' measure (i.e., an apparently desirable reform beset by political or economic barriers) will indicate a process, behaviour or economic activity that is more fundamental to the society or economy. These are the systemic as opposed to marginal challenges in policy for sustainability. lO.Public concern. At least in democratic soci-

eties, public opinion can be crucial to shaping policy agendas. Two aspects are recognised here: a. Level o f concern. Some environmental issues are more popularly topical than others, and any policy agency operating in a political context will be cognisant of this. Insofar as topicality reflects the values of the broader society and influences a government's agenda, it is relevant to this exercise. Consider an Australian example. A recent and extensive survey of Australian households asked people to list their main concerns (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1993). The 17 listed problems were nominated by 5 - 4 0 % of the sample. On the basis of this survey, the priority problems in terms of level of public concern are air pollution (40%), destruction of t r e e s / e c o s y s t e m s (33%), ocean pollution (32%) and freshwater pollution (30%). In contrast, species extinction (19%), the greenhouse effect (i.e., climate change) (17%), land degradation (15%), and resource conservation (15%) scored lower. On the basis of the problem-framing attributes 1-6 above, these lower priority issues would arguably be judged more serious threats to ecological and economic systems in Australia in the long term, most particularly climate change and land degradation. Such differences are important in policy terms. b. Basis o f concern. The qualification that public opinion may not necessarily be well-informed or balanced is valid, but insufficient to negate consideration. In fact, the basis of understanding that lies behind public concern is highly pertinent to framing the policy response. An issue may be prominent and topical for varying reasons and in varying ways for different people. An environmental change may be perceived a problem because it is aesthetically unpleasant, because it threatens health or economic livelihoods, because it puts at risk a species, or for a mixture of such reasons. Critically, the basis of public concern may be uneven: various socio-economic, sectoral or regional groupings may have extremely different perceptions of the issue (as can be described by attributes 1-6).


11. Existence of goals. This asks whether there is a defined endpoint (i.e., a 'state' of the environment) that represents a target for policy efforts. Given such a goal, the policy task is clearer. Without such a goal, policy is aimless beyond the level of doing somewhat better than before. The larger problems of sustainability generally have not had such goals agreed to; indeed, the lack of clearly stated, long-term social and ecological goals has been argued as making the sustainability debate one lacking the most basic parameters to make it productive (Dovers and Norton, 1994). An example is the case of biodiversity in Australia. The National Population Council (1991, p. 3) developed a set of national goals encompassing economic progress, ecological integrity, social justice, and responsible international involvement. Ignoring potential conflicts between these categories, that of ecological integrity included 'preservation of biological diversity'. Does this mean nil loss of species, vertebrate and vascular species, plant assemblages, genetic variation within species, or something else? Such vague goals are common in policy statements. The existence of more clearly defined goals will strongly influ-

99

ence the definition of a policy problem and the policy response to it. It should be clear that the scales described in Table 2 are gradients for approximation on the basis of informed judgement. In few cases would exactitude be possible. The details would need to be adapted to a particular context. For example, the different spatial scales relevant in the context of public policy in Australia would be: local, state, and national government; in the context of bilateral arrangements with other countries; regional (south-east Asia and south-west Pacific); developed world (OECD); and global. For another country these would be different.

2.3 General taxonomy Following placement along these scales, the second judgement is the placement of each suite of problems within a general taxonomy. A detailed categorisation is possible, and perhaps more useful, but is not pursued here. A three-way categorisation is used, defined as follows: 1. Micro-problems: where most problem attributes can be placed at the lower end of each scale. These are the day-to-day challenges facing policy makers in environmental

Table 3 A n illustrative scaling of some topical issues Issue/policy problem

Global warming Population growth Biodiversity: in toto (evolutionary) ecosystem species Ozone depletion Desertification (land degradation) Fisheries m a n a g e m e n t Oil scarcity Atmospheric lead Environmental impact assessment: framework and process of a project Domestic solid wastes

Ranking a and perspective Global

Australia (national)

Local council

3 3

3 1

2 2

3 2 0 2 2 2 2 1

3 3 2 2 3 2 1 2

0 2 2 1 1 0 0 2

1 0 1

2 1/2 2

1 3 3

a O: not relevant at this level; 1: micro-problem; 2: meso-problem; 3: macro-problem.

100


management. These policy problems are: spatially and temporally discrete; not overly complex or fraught with uncertainty; not requiring large resource commitment or the development of new mechanisms or policy processes for redress; and, if particularly topical, then only on a local or sectoral scale or are so despite a lack of substantive evidence. These problems would be resolved on a case-by-case basis within existing institutional arrangements and policy processes such as environmental impact assessment, development approval, effluent licensing, and so on, and generally would not require the development of new technologies. 2. Meso-problems: where the majority of the relevant attributes are in the middle range. These problems are significant and may be prominent on the public agenda, but do not pose systemic threats to the present pattern of production and consumption, or overwhelming challenges to existing policy processes. Alternatively, a policy problem involving a process or decision affecting a large n u m b e r of microproblems would fall into this category (e.g., impact assessment procedures at the state or provincial level, or the entirety of a national air pollution emissions standards framework). Major issues fully addressable within one country would fall into this category (see Table 3 and related discussion). 3. Macro-problems: where the majority of attributes are in the u p p e r range. These are the big issues of sustainability. They are multifaceted, complex, fraught with uncertainties and ignorances, spatially and temporally diffuse, highly connected to other issues, and threaten major possible disruption of human and natural systems. They are typically amalgams of many smaller issues in different places, classified together on political agendas due to cause and effect linkages that demand integrated policy approaches. The combination of a n u m b e r of lower order issues, or aspects thereof, into a larger perceived problem often defines a macro-problem (e.g., the imperative for energy efficiency in response to resource scarcity may not qualify, but would warrant

mention as a means for attacking the major contributing factor to potential climate change). The assignation of a overall descriptor will be dependent on the scale of analysis or defined perspective (i.e., the polity in question). For example, matters that would not even appear on an international agenda would appear as micro- or even meso-problems on a national or local policy agenda (see Table 3 and related discussion). A meso-problem globally may well qualify as a macro-problem for a particular country or region. Also, only one or some aspects of a larger problem may be relevant at a more local scale. An example is where a local planning agency in a coastal area might be very concerned with the implications of climate change-induced sea level rise on land use planning, but not greatly with national or international strategies to reduce anthropocentric carbon dioxide emissions. The main operational value of treating problems according to this taxonomy lies in its relative view of the array of problems from a defined perspective. For many people sustainability is, in effect, only about those issues which would be defined as macro-problems here (climate change, biodiversity, etc.). However, the idea of sustainability is only useful if, on the one hand, it encompasses all the interrelated problems - big and small - but on the other if we can compare these problems in a relative sense according to some logical schema. This framework offers such a schema. Through application of the framework, particularly via the attribute of connectivity, attention can be directed to the role of minor problems as constituent parts of larger problems. It is usually the case that important sustainability issues are in fact composites of other, less critical issues. A prime example is the causes of the macro-problem of climate change - fossil fuel combustion, other industrial processes, and land use change. It is clear that in operationalising the notion of sustainability there has been an observable tendency to deconstruct the totality of the challenge down to discrete, and by definition, more tractable sub-issues (Dovers and Norton, 1994). This moves attention away from macro-problems back to mi-


cro-problems, thus losing the focus on larger, systemic discontinuities between human and natural systems that is the very value of the notion of sustainability. Any mechanism that forces explicit recognition of this is helpful. At this point the matter of hierarchies warrants some mention, given the apparent hierarchic nature of the exercise in terms both of the general taxonomy and of the cumulation of perspectives (polities) and policy problems. Hierarchies and hierarchy theory - particularly ecological interpretations - are valid and topical with respect to sustainability and global environmental change, for fairly obvious reasons (e.g., O'Neill, 1988). However, the hierarchic analogy for the framework is only partially valid. The attributes could not describe an ordering of a suite of problems in any absolute fashion, as this will be purposive insofar as it will be dependent upon the perceptions and requirements of the polity that represents the user. To illustrate the general taxonomy further, in Table 3 some environmental issues are ranked according to a global perspective, a national perspective (Australia), and a local perspective (a hypothetical urban, coastal municipal council in Australia). The purpose is to provide some examples of how the framework would operate to scale the issues from these different perspectives. The logic of the rankings in Table 3 should be largely self-evident: a few cases are explained to illustrate the principles. Only the final rankings are shown in the Table; fuller discussion of scaling specific attributes is given in the Discussion below. Doubtless, some concerned with a particular issue will feel that it is more important than the label micro- or meso-problem implies. However, not all problems can be macro ones. In any application the point of the exercise would be lost if the majority of the problems were all ranked highly. Rankings will depend upon perspective, and demand considered analysis. Indeed, the process of deliberation and assessment required of an agency to use the framework could quite possibly be worthwhile in itself. The outstanding example is global warming, which on any international and national agenda ranks highly on all attributes (or high in difficulty

101

regarding tractability, goals, etc.). From a local perspective, the totality is extra-jurisdictional (attribute 8), but for our hypothetical coastal council the planning implications of sea level rise would be significant. In contrast, ozone depletion, while ranking high on potential seriousness and pervasiveness, is a far more tractable problem as it involves relatively straightforward technological substitution achievable within existing policy and regulatory processes (for a discussion, see Skjaerseth, 1992). Thus it receives a lower ranking. The prospect of oil scarcity would once have ranked 3 on any global and many national agendas. Now it would not because the initial realisation of finite resource has softened and the possibilities of substitution and efficiency are better understood, and because other issues have overtaken it. (We were worried about not having enough oil to burn, but now are worried about the consequences of burning too much.) In Australia, it is not widely perceived as an important issue (although perhaps it should be). This example reminds us that policy agendas change, and any insight gained from using this framework will date eventually. Desertification (or land degradation) is a serious, global problem and would rank high on virtually all attributes. Nevertheless, unlike climate change, in most cases one country or region (for example, Australia or the United States), given sufficient will and resources, could tackle the problem, or at least a good deal of it, and enjoy the benefits independent of others doing so. Biodiversity as an example illustrates the diverse characteristics of a macro-problem when considered in view of its component issues and across the range of spatial/political scales. The extinction of one species is unlikely to rank at all from a global perspective, but (depending on the species) would at national or local scale. The essential concern for maintaining the evolutionary potential of life on earth is certainly a global and national macro-issue, but largely irrelevant locally. Preservation of a particular ecosystem (again depending on the one in question) would be most relevant at the national scale. The above examples are issues which mostly require substantially new institutional, economic,

102


and policy settings to be developed. Policy problems such as atmospheric lead levels and domestic solid wastes do not, although such problems dominate agendas at finer political scales. Lead levels in city air are a highly topical issue in, for example, Australia, and this problem has yet to be fully resolved. However, it is clear that the means to do so - mostly regulatory ones - are available, given sufficient political and community will. Finally, the setting of procedures and standards for environmental impact assessment (EIA) are largely irrelevant from a global perspective. From a local perspective these are essentially a set part of the operating environment for planning and development control, but the assessment of a particular project may be a dominating issue. At the national or state/provincial level the EIA process is a central part of the environmental management apparatus, but the assessment of a specific project would generally be less important. These examples are simply illustrative; doubtless the detail would attract some disagreement. A complete and documented application for a given polity would be a quite lengthy task. Nonetheless, this should suffice to allow discussion to proceed to other features of the framework. It is not simply the relative magnitude of each policy problem that is of interest, but also the reasons why. Those problems which are grouped together within the general taxonomy will often have quite different characteristics as defined by the attributes above. For example, one meso-issue may have a high ranking for spatial scale of cause and effect, but a lower tractability ranking (i.e., easier to deal with). For another meso-issue the situation may be the reverse. This is illustrated in the above examples. The nature of a policy problem is shaped by all the attributes. Such differences are assumed to be important with respect to policy instrument choice and design, flowing from a more consistent analysis of their relative features. Apart from any policy-informing value of the framework, there is an additional benefit. This is the focusing of attention on the spectrum of ecological, cultural, and economic aspects of the issues via a finer description of the attributes of a

policy problem. The integration of these aspects in policy and decision making is universally argued as a central challenge in sustainability. This was recognised in the United Nations-inspired Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992, and in Australia's National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (Australia, The Commonwealth, 1992). Nonetheless, although widely demanded, such integration is still highly problematic. This framework can be viewed as a means to approaching policy problems in sustainability complementary to other approaches. For example, the three overall descriptors used here can be equated with Funtowicz and Ravetz' (1991) three 'problem solving strategies' for science as it is applied to inform policy in the context of global environmental change. Micro-problems would only require their 'applied science' for resolution, meso-issues their 'professional consultancy', and macro-issues their 'post-normal science'. Their three strategies are defined as, respectively, low, moderate, and high on their two axes of increasing system uncertainty and increasing decision stakes. In one view, the attributes defined here can provide more detail to Funtowicz and Ravetz' schema. It is with respect to the uncertainties that pervade sustainability issues that the framework suggested here may have the most immediate application. We now turn to such application.

3. Discussion

This discussion briefly considers potential application of the framework with respect to two further contexts: the 'precautionary principle' and policy instrument choice.

3.1. The precautionary principle The so-called precautionary principle is a relatively recent and highly topical theme in environmental management. The question posed here is whether the framework can be used to contribute to operationalising this emerging principle of environmental policy. The precautionary principle has its roots in German environmental policy,

S.R. Dovers/ Ecological Economics 12 (1995) 93-106

and was further defined and applied in the course of negotiations over the North Sea (see Giindling, 1990; Bodansky, 1991; Cameron and Abouchar, 1991; Wynne, 1992). Since then the principle has been included in numerous environmental policies and strategies. At the international scale, these include the European Bergen Declaration of 1990, the Rio Declaration (principle 15) and the Rio Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, and a number of O E C D documents. It has also appeared in national policy. For example, in Australia it is a central principle in the overarching National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (Australia, 1992) and the ( l o c a l - s t a t e - f e d e r a l ) Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) of 1992. Despite criticisms of its content and usefulness, the widespread adoption of the precautionary principle demands that it be considered seriously. The principle is defined in the I G A E at s.3.5.1 as follows: Precautionary principle Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by: (i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and (ii)assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options. This definition is reasonably representative, although other definitions emphasise that the principle stresses anticipation and preventative rather than reactive approaches. The differences in wording and emphasis across statements of the principle are significant, particularly from a legal perspective (Cameron and Abouchar, 1991), but these cannot be dwelt upon here. The usefulness of the principle in a practical sense is the subject of much debate. For our purposes, we can note some basic criticisms (discussed at more length in Dovers and Handmer, 1993; see also Young, 1993). The principle is clearly a composite of value-laden notions and loose, qualitative de-

103

scriptors: serious and irreversible environmental damage, scientific certainty, careful evaluation, risk-weighted assessment. The terms that constitute the principle are less revealing and more open to argument than the principle itself! While the principle places an important consideration on policy, it is hardly operational. Established or proposed techniques that might help operationalise the principle (leaving aside the standby of more research) are at best imperfect, and are generally only usable at the 'micro' or discrete project level. These techniques include: quantitative risk assessment (see H o o d et al., 1992); ecological risk assessment (Hunsaker et aI., 1990); minimax and minimax regret criteria (Pearce and Nash, 1981); safe minimum standards (Bishop, 1978; Hohl and Tisdell, 1993); and environmental bonds (Costanza and Perrings, 1990). Finally, the principle does little to inform us when we are faced not with quantifiable risk and guessable uncertainty, but rather profound uncertainty and sheer ignorance (for further discussion and arguments as to the appropriateness of the term 'ignorance', see Smithson, 1989; Faber et al., 1992; Dovers and Handmer, 1993). These problems aside, a matter much-discussed in the literature and by affected decision makers is the question of when to apply the principle (see, for example, the various contributions in Harding and Fisher, 1993). The terms serious and irreversible are clearly the basis of any 'evidentiary threshold' (Cameron and Abouchar, 1991), but are, as noted above, hardly self-explanatory. It is in this sense that the framework suggested here may help. Consideration of the policy problem attributes defined above makes it very apparent that the descriptor 'serious' is insufficient. A problem may matter enough to warrant caution and preventative action (i.e., application of the precautionary principle) for a number of reasons. The enforced focus on policy problem attributes such as spatial scale, longevity of impacts and complexity makes it clear that, while an environmental impact may be validly described as serious or irreversible, it may well be a comparatively minor and discrete concern in the broader scheme of things. Connectivity demands, however, that apparently discrete

104


impacts are placed in relation to larger problems to which they contribute. This is relevant to framing the problem and to framing the response, and it follows, in stating the crucial question of whether action 'at the margins' of constituent micro-problems can ever suffice in some cumulative way to deal with macro-problems (or the ' m e t a - p r o b l e m ' of sustainability itself). Also, the attribute of mensurability forces attention on the detail of relative uncertainties and states of ignorance attending various problems, an area which has received too little attention. Finally, the attributes of the nature of the cause, tractability (acceptability), and public opinion focus attention on the socio-political side of sustainability questions, which can be too easily jettisoned if a more purely biophysical view is taken. O ' R i o r d a n (1992, p. 6) stated that the precautionary principle is 'as much political as it is scientific' - in reality, it is primarily a moral or political notion that may be informed (or misinformed!) by science. Consideration of the attributes defined here certainly do not tell a policy maker if some environmental change is serious, irreversible, both, or neither. Rather, they make more apparent and repeatable the things that are critical to such a judgement, and the reasons why. Any assumption that the threshold of serious or irreversible will be easily identified will be cast aside, and the finer texture of this judgement made more consistent and transparent across the range of issues faced. From this summary discussion it appears that at least the basic elements and general idea of the framework are the kinds of considerations required to further the operational usefulness of the precautionary principle. Given that this principle - at least in theory - now guides all significant decisions affecting the environment at international, national and local levels, this would suggest that the framework indeed offers something to environmental m a n a g e m e n t and the broader sustainability question. 3.2. Policy instrument choice The problem of choosing the most appropriate of the many available policy instruments - or,

more likely, a mix thereof - is central to environmental m a n a g e m e n t and to pursuing sustainability. Debate as to which instruments to choose from the broad categories of research, regulation, market mechanisms, education, and negotiation continues. The author's observation is that these are often defined along obviously disciplinary lines - simplistically, lawyers tend to be predisposed towards regulation; scientists to more research; economists are fond of prices, and other social sciences, moral suasion, negotiation or conflict resolution. Criteria have been suggested to guide this choice (Bohm and Russell, 1985; Common, 1990). On the assumption that the particular characteristics of a policy problem are relevant to the choice of instrument, the attributes defined here offer one means of framing the instrument choice problem across a range of problems (in combination with such a set of selection criteria). The following brief points indicate some ways in which this might be done. In the first instance, careful consideration of the attributes of policy problems should militate against devoting an inappropriately large amount of policy attention (a scarce resource) to problems which, in fact, do not warrant it. Similarly, it could also reveal problems which seem to deserve greater attention than they currently receive. Such outcomes would simply result from the encouragement of a more rational and comparative mode of thinking. More specifically, it can be proposed that a purely regulatory approach will by definition be inadequate to address the threats to sustainability that have systemic causes (attribute 7), although they may be useful for some, delimited aspects of these. In such cases, pervasive market mechanisms, such as energy taxation, offer the obvious workable means to change the pattern of production and consumption that is the root of the problem. Public education (moral suasion) may be similarly appropriate. Systemic problems demand systemic responses, not partial or particular ones. This said, particular responses will still be valid and appropriate, but not in the absence of consideration of more systemic responses. More broadly, it may not be in the area of 'environmental policy' that we should look, but rather at


social and economic policies that shape overall consumption patterns. On this view, measures to adjust overall consumption and production become candidates for 'frontline' sustainability policies, such as the full institutionalisation of parttime work, basic guaranteed incomes, or changes to the housing market and associated financing arrangements. Policy instruments which are politically unacceptable (attribute 9b) may be judged less objectionable following careful analysis and framing of a policy problem (that is, given a better grasp of attributes 1-4, 6). Policy settings which are d e e m e d adequate may be reviewed following consideration of a n u m b e r of attributes, and in particular, 11. Finally, the consideration of mensurability (5) alongside attributes 2 - 4 would highlight problems where reliance on further research as the sole response is inadequate, that is, where decisions must be made before any semblance of certainty can be erected.

105

ing effort across the range of policy problems, and to inform policy instrument choice in specific contexts. These applications, or combinations of more than one, would appeal to different individuals and groups. Some parts of the framework, such as the use of the more 'scientific' attributes 1 - 6 as an aid to problem framing, may be seen as more useful than others in a given context. It is again stressed that any approach will only ever be of an approximate and heuristic nature. The framework sketched here is a tentative step towards a generically applicable methodology; broadly explanatory and in the nature of a scoping exercise. Better framing of the policy problems in sustainability should, other things being equal, lead to better policy outcomes.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Chris Nobbs, Mick Common and two referees for this journal for their constructive comments.

4. Conclusions

It would a p p e a r to make intuitive sense to encourage a broad approximation of the relative magnitude and characteristics of policy problems in sustainability so as to allow a more effective view of competing claims on both resources and public policy attention. The benefits of further developing and applying a framework such as that presented here would be: - most generally, as a means of better focussing debate; - placing sustainability issues in relative perspective, guarding against 'deconstruction' of the integrative sustainability agenda into more tractable parts, the resolution of which is unlikely to equal sustainability (the whole being more than the sum of the parts); - emphasising and thus furthering the aim of integrating the ecological, social and economic dimensions of sustainability issues; - operationalising vague or general policy principles, such as the precautionary principle; and - providing a general scaling and problem framing mechanism to increase efficiency in allocat-

References Australia, The Commonwealth, 1992. National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 128 pp. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1993. Environmental Issues: People's Views and Practices, Australia, May 1992. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 69 pp. Barbier, E.B., 1987. The concept of sustainable economic development. Environ. Conserv., 14: 101-110. Bardwell, L., 1991. Problem-framing: a perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environ. Manage., 15: 603612. Bishop, R.C., 1978. Endangered species and uncertainty: the economics of a safe minimum standard. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 60: 10-18. Bodansky, D., 1991. Scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle. Environment, 33(7): 4-5, 43-44. Bohm, P. and Russell, C.S., 1985. Comparative analysis of alternative policy instruments. In: A.V. Kneese and J.L. Sweeney (Editors), Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 395460. Boyden, S.V., 1987. Western Civilization in Biological Perspective: Patterns in Biohistory. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 370 pp. Cameron, J. and Abouchar, J., 1991. The precautionary principle: a fundamental principle of law and policy for the

106


protection of the global environment. Boston Coll. Int. Comp. Law Rev., 14: 1-27. Common, M., 1990. Policy instrument choice. In: M. Common and S. Dovers (Editors), Moving Toward Global Sustainability: Policies and Implications for Australia. Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 87-116. Common, M. and Perrings, C., 1992. Towards an ecological economics of sustainability. Ecol. Econ., 6: 7-34. Costanza, R. (Editor), 1991. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York, 525 pp. Costanza, R. and Perrings, C., 1990. A flexible assurance bonding system for improved environmental management. Ecol. Econ., 2: 57-76. Dovers, S., 1990. Sustainability in context: an Australian perspective. Environ. Manage., 14: 297-305. Dovers, S., 1994. Introduction: the issue of energy. In: S. Dovers (Editor), Sustainable Energy Systems: Pathways for Australian Energy Reform. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. 2-11. Dovers, S. and Handmer, J., 1992. Uncertainty, sustainability and change. Global Environ. Change, 4: 262-276. Dovers, S. and Handmer, J., 1993. Ignorance and the precautionary principle: towards an analytical framework. In: R. Harding and L. Fisher (Editors), Proceedings, Precautionary Principle Conference, Sydney, 20-21 September 1993. Institute for Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales. Dovers, S. and Norton, T., 1994. Population, environment and sustainability: reconstructing the debate. Sustain. Dev. People Econ. Environ., 2: 1-7. Downs, A., 1972. Up and down with ecology - the issue attention cycle. Public Interest, 28: 38-50. Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Groups, 1991. Final Reports (9 volumes: agriculture, energy production, energy use, fisheries, forest use, manufacturing, mining, tourism, transport.) Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Faber, M., Manstetten, R. and Proops, J., 1992. Towards an open future: ignorance, novelty and evolution. In: R. Costanza, B.G. Norton and B.D. Haskell (Editors), Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 72-96. Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R., 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 229 pp. Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R., 1991. A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In: R. Costanza (Editor), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 137-152. Giindling, L., 1990. The status in international law of the principle of precautionary action. In: D. Freestone and T. IJlstra (Editors), The North Sea: Perspectives on Regional Environmental Co-operation. Graham and Trotman, London, pp. 23-30. Harding, R. and Fisher, L. (Editors), 1993. Proceedings, Pre-

cautionary Principle Conference. Institute for Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 20-21 September 1993. Harrison, P., 1992. The Third Revolution: Population, Environment and a Sustainable World. Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 377 pp. Hohl, A. and Tisdell, C.A., 1993. How useful are environmental safety standards in economics? The example of safe minimum standards for protection of species. Biodiv. Conserv., 2: 168-181. Hood, C.C., Jones, D.K.C., Pidgeon, N.F., Turner, B.A. and Gibson, R., 1992. Risk management. In: F. Warner (Editor), Risk Assessment, Perception and Management. The Royal Society, London, pp. 135-201. Hunsaker, C.T., Graham, R.L., Suter, G.W., O'Neill, R.V., Barnthouse, L.W. and Gardner, R.H., 1990. Assessing ecological risk on a regional scale. Environ. Manage., 14: 323-332. L~I~, S.M., 1991. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev., 19: 607-621. National Population Council, 1991. Population Issues and Australia's Future: Environment, Economy and Society. Final Report, December 1991. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 135 pp. O'Neill, R.V., 1988. Hierarchy theory and global change. In: T. Roswall, R.G. Woodmansee and P.G. Risser (Editors), Scales and Global Change. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 29-45. Opschoor, H. and van der Straaten, J., 1993. Sustainable development: an institutional approach. Ecol. Econ., 7: 203-222. O'Riordan, T., 1992. The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Management. CSERGE working paper 92-03. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, Norwich, 31 pp. Patterson, W.C., 1991. The Energy Alternative: Changing the Way the World Works. Optima, London. Pearce, D.W. and Nash, C.A., 1981. The Social Appraisal of Projects: A Text in Cost Benefit Analysis. Macmillan, London, 225 pp. Pearce, D.W., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E.B., 1989. Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan, London, 192 pP. Skjaerseth, J.B., 1992. The 'successful' ozone layer negotiations: are there any lessons to be learned? Global Environ. Change, 4: 292-300. Smithson, M., 1989. Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms. Springer-Verlag, New York, 393 pp. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 400 pp. Wynne, B., 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventative paradigm. Global Environ. Change, 2: 111-127. Young, M.D., 1993. For Our Children's Children: Some Practical Implications of Inter-generational Equity and the Precautionary Principle. Occasional paper 6, Resource Assessment Commission, Canberra, 57 pp.