Search

This paper is a personal perspective on how New Zealand appears to have changed in its approach to environmental management in the twenty years since 1 first came to know and love the country.

The risks of coastal flooding and erosion in the UK are changing in response to the likely effects of climate change, natural isostatic readjustment and the consequences of hard coastal defence initiatives which have lead to coastal instability elsewhere. In addition to the considerable uncertainty brought about by these factors, there has been a significant, strategic shift in national coastal management policy in England away from investing in expensive ‘hard’ engineered defence, toward designing a more naturally functioning coastline. This policy change (Defra, 2005a) has come about in light of questions being asked about the physical sustainability (and increasing cost) of a reliance on engineered defences. This means that many coastal communities of varying size in England are now facing a situation of great unease and anxiety about their future; new policy preferences for retreat and realignment mean no future guarantees of protection. Coastal governance arrangements at national to local scales have not yet adequately responded to the new strategic outlook; the national shift of priority has not been matched by any compensation package or appropriate initiatives to promote the development and delivery of associated adaptation requirements in such locations. Drawing on Tyndall Centre research, this chapter presents an analysis of the governance setting for the management of England's changing coastline (O'Riordan et al., 2006, 2008; Milligan and O'Riordan, 2007; Milligan et al., 2009).

Restoring lakes from a degraded state is a costly and risky enterprise. It is costly partly because ‘rewinding’ the cycles of degradation involves great scientific uncertainties. Therefore, the only way forward is by careful, expensive monitoring, and much adaptation of treatment as the evidence unfolds. This process requires much patience and political commitment. Therefore, the economic challenge is to find a relationship between the ecological exploration of restoration techniques and the economic justification of the outcome. Unfortunately, the basis of that justification is an economy that creates environmental degradation. So there is a cruel circularity in the economic appraisal: the process of benefit calculation is predicted on an economy that is, at present, non sustainable. This suggests that there should be another approach to economic valuation, based more on participatory processes of involving interests with a stake in the outcome and in the gains and losses that will inevitably be incurred in reaching the outcome of lake restoration. In that process, ecological science plays a vital role of explaining possible future pathways for restoration, and the dilemma of uncertainty is handled by creating various scenarios rather than models. The real challenge, therefore, is to devise a fair and full process of bargaining over lake futures, within which both ecology and economics play important, but subsidiary roles.

In the last decade the precautionary principle has entered into the lexicon of modern environmentalism with remarkable speed and stealth. Nowadays, it appears regularly in national legislation, in international statements of policy and in the texts of international conventions and protocols. More recently, it has been adopted as a guiding principle of environmental policy in both the EU and the UK, and it makes an appearance in the 1992 Rio Declaration (a statement of principles and general obligations to guide the international community towards actions that promote more environmentally sustainable forms of development). So frequently is the term invoked that Cameron and Abouchar (1991: 27) go as far as to posit that, if the present rate of proliferation is sustained into the future, precaution may well become ‘“the” fundamental principle of environmental protection policy and law at the international, regional, and local scales’ (emphasis in original). Even the more cautious of the principle’s advocates suggest that ‘the concept has at least approached the status of a rule of customary international law’ (Hey, 1992: 307).

We at Environment have been anticipating the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (popularly referred to as Rio+20) for years. Unfortunately, the overwhelming reaction to this troubled meeting ...

The National Science Foundation (NSF) reflection on “tipping points,” which is discussed by Stafford et al. in this issue with appropriate scope for promoting the cause and significance of sustaina...

Scientific Uncertainty and Environmental Problem Solving Edited byJohn Lemons Blackwell Science: 1996. Pp. 433. £59.50, $80

This new column will become a regular feature in Global Environmental Change. The aim is to track the formation and progress of various institutional arrangements that have emerged following the UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and to assess their significance in the management of global environmental change. The column will consist of a mix of four themes: (a) organizational arrangements put in place since the Rio meeting designed to promote a particular cause, such as North-South resource transfers, or scientific assessments or the conduct of conventions. Early topics will include the Global Environment Facility (actually established before Rio but rejuvenated as a consequence), the Conference of the Parties of the two main Conventions (Climate Change and Biodiversity), the Commission on Sustainable Development, and the new procedures put in train in the UN agencies and headquarters; (b) the work of major international research institutes where research is relevant to the analysis of institutional change; (c) assessment of the state of the art in evaluating institutional performance and effectiveness in the post-Rio era, together with summaries of research in this area; (d) commentary on the theory of international environmental regime formation in the light of the initiatives such as cost-benefit analysis, environmental evaluation and application of the precautionary principle. This is a tall order, but we will do what we can to meet your expectations. The column is designed to be participatory. Readers are welcome to comment on articles, to generate their own copy and to encourage others to do so. In part, the success of this column depends on your cooperation. This is a vast and ambitious topic area so any help will be most warmly welcomed and fully acknowledged.

Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. By Kai N. Lee. Island: 1993. Pp. 243. $24.95, £18.95. (European distribution, Earthscan.)