---

ANNEX D Key Issues for Sustainable Development

Context for the Round Table's Work

D.1 This Annex sets out how the Round Table proposes to identify key issues for sustainable development, and to determine which topics should be given priority in its own work.

The concept of sustainable development

D.2 The Round Table has deliberately avoided attempting to produce a specific definition of sustainable development, on the basis that little would be gained - and much time spent - drafting a statement to which all members could subscribe. That remains its position. Nor does the Round Table regard it as necessary for it to advocate a specific model of sustainable development - for example that it might be thought of as three overlapping circles: economic prosperity, environmental integrity, and social issues; or that the social and economic "circles" might be depicted within a larger environmental circle, to symbolise the extent to which environmental capacity provides the overall constraint.

D.3 Round Table members believe that the important factor is that they should have a common view of the main components of sustainable development. The Round Table as a whole agrees that sustainable development involves

• the integration of economic, environmental and social elements; and
• minimising the trade-offs that have to be made between those elements.

D.4 The Round Table's report Defining a Sustainable Transport Sector elaborates on this by setting out five essential principles that underpin sustainable development - the precautionary, integration, polluter pays, preventative and participation principles - as well as six broad policy goals:

1. Sustainable development should satisfy economic, environmental and social needs in the present and future, and maintain the economic and environmental means to do so.

2. Sustainable development should provide the opportunity for all people to satisfy their needs equitably, both within and between nations as well as within and between generations.

3. Sustainable development should minimise activities that cause serious environmental damage, ensure that renewable resources are managed and used in ways which do not diminish the capacity of ecological systems to continue providing those resources, and ensure that non-renewables are managed and used in ways which account for future needs and the availability of alternative resources.

4. Sustainable development should operate within critical ecological limits.

5. Sustainable development should ensure that unique environmental resources, goods and services and irreplaceable cultural or historic features - ie. critical natural and physical capital - are passed on to future generations intact.

6. Sustainable development should maintain high environmental quality standards throughout urban and rural areas.

Criteria to assess significance

D.5 The Round Table has accepted as the starting point for its work the Brundtland definition "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". From this can be derived a sequence of evaluations to establish the significance of an issue for sustainable development, in a "key" form.

i) Has the particular development caused, or will it cause, an adverse environmental or social change? [By definition, development will cause economic change.]

Yes ¹ ....................................................................................................................ii) No......................................................................................................sustainable

ii) Is the change irreversible?

Yes...................................................................................................................iii)

No....................................................................................................................iv)

iii) Will it compromise the ability of future generations to have the same benefits, even taking into account the possibility of substitution?

Yes................................................................................strongly non-sustainable

Future effects may be mitigated by substitution or other technological fix.........................................................................................moderately non-sustainable

iv) The change is reversible; it reduces environmental quality, economic opportunity or social equity in relation to essential resources ......................... weakly non-sustainable

D.6 The Round Table's report Defining a Sustainable Transport Sector draws attention to the importance to sustainable development of protecting critical natural and physical capital. Three examples of strong non-sustainability would be:

• change of climate
• loss of irreplaceable cultural or historic features
• loss of species on a global scale (reduction in biodiversity).

D.7 Moderate non-sustainability may be exemplified by most usage of non-renewable resources. Pollution and over-exploitation of natural resources that do not lead to land or species loss, and inequitable distribution of resources, are examples of weak non-sustainability. Such inequity also occurs when the costs are not being felt by those who receive the benefits. This might be because the two are separated in time (the costs are stored up for the future); by geography (transboundary air pollution); or accrue to different sectors of society.

D.8 The gravity of issues is also dependent on the scale: global, regional or local.

What this means for the Round Table's work programme

D.9 Agreeing on a prioritisation of developments in terms of their sustainability and scale does not automatically set the agenda for the Round Table. For example, the key would confirm the proposed increase in coal-fired electricity generation in China, which the Round Table was told about at its June 1996 meeting, as an example of strongly non-sustainable development. But it seems unlikely to be a productive use of the Round Table's time to study that problem in detail or make specific recommendations.

D.10 Discussions in the first 18 months of the Round Table's existence have shown that there are far more worthwhile topics for study than can be examined in the time available. Inevitably, therefore, difficult decisions are needed on priorities. The Round Table's agreed working methods (see Annex C) identify four main criteria: where the Round Table is likely to have influence; where solutions are needed to genuine problems; where the information base is adequate; and where there are no major areas of overlap with the work of other bodies.

D.11 These produce a second key for determining the priority that the Round Table should give to particular topics.

i) Is the topic within the competence of a UK actor to control?

Yes.....................................................................................................................iv)

No.......................................................................................................................ii)

ii) Is the topic already under international review?

Yes..................................................................................................................End

No......................................................................................................................iii)

iii) Is there a point in getting it so treated?

Yes...........................................................................................Act to achieve that

No...................................................................................................................End

iv) Is the topic already under any form of multi-stakeholder review?

Yes.............................................................................................End (if adequate)

No.......................................................................................................................v)

v) Is there an information base?

Yes.....................................................................................................................vi)

No........................................Consider what could be done to get one at least cost

vi) Is there a way to bring the topic into the form of an added value opinion within 18 months (ie to help resolve conflicts/ win solutions/political intervention/stakeholder leadership)?

Yes...................................................................................................................vii)

No...................Why not? Consider referral to alternative agency (eg Royal Commission)

vii) Should this involve more work before we start?

Yes..................................	Commission synthesis - Secretariat to consider money Literature review - Secretariat to consider money Start up paper - volunteers? International experience - cost of gathering it in
No..................................	Then get on with it, if it stands the sustainable development test.