Meeting the Challenge

This is a web page preview of a Microsoft Word document from the Sue Miller site. It is generated by a computer and is not manually edited. Formatting and content may be displayed differently to the original document, and should not be regarded as definitive.

“If you look throughout the world today and assess the reasons why many people are fighting in different parts of the world, in Africa and elsewhere, you will find most people are fighting over natural resources”

Wangari Maathai recognised that many problems facing communities in her home country of Kenya began with the depletion of its natural resources. In response she began a tree planting programme that eventually saw over 30 million trees planted across the country. Her experiences led her to believe that good governance and democracy are fundamental to environmental success and that all three are fundamental to peace.

Every political party in the UK likes to pledge its commitment to the environment by saying that it supports sustainable development. This wide, unquestioning support has, however, muddied the concept. As Liberal Democrats I want us to be sure what we mean by it. This is especially important considering the pressures that climate change and population growth will impose on our natural resources.

The foundations of sustainability are the building blocks of life itself: water, soil, biodiversity and air. In this essay I shall look particularly at water, with a glance at soil, concentrating on the relationship between natural resources and true sustainability. I shall suggest that by developing national and international regulation, the economic valuation of resources and, most importantly of all, enabling everyone's democratic right to involvement in resource management, Liberal Democratic principles are just what are needed.

Notable successes have been made in a few, high-profile arenas in the effort to protect our natural environment from anthropogenic harm. The speedy and effective efforts to reduce emissions substances that deplete the ozone or cause acid rain have substantially reduced these particular risks. Progress in limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases has been slower, but with Kyoto emissions trading systems finally in force this year, at least it is possible to say that progress is being made. Recognition of the need for action has substantially increased the political will to act. Even the United Sates has reduced air pollution by 54% since 1970 whilst the economy has grown by 187%.^[1]

Success in resource conservation is best achieved by a threefold effort. It is a hierarchy of effort recognising that if 1 were perfect we would not need 2. If 2 were perfect we would not need 3.

1) Awareness and involvement at a local level - assuming subsidiarity meaning of local i.e. the most appropriate may be parish in a national context or national in an international context . Local involvement is the sine qua non of achieving sustainability as Agenda 21 demonstrated. It is at the local level that people can develop the will and knowledge to support sustainable practice. By raising awareness that most resources are finite and becoming scarcer it is possible to limit demand and encourage more responsible supervision of our resources.

3) Effective regulation and targets, framed and scrutinised from an international level and implemented nationally and locally. It will be important to establish the sustainable use of resources as a 'common concern' for humanity, which will imply an international interest in all national practices.

In order to achieve this agenda, it is important to take the depletion of our water and soil resources as seriously as we have taken the threats of ozone depletion, acid rain and climate change. This three-tiered approach will ensure that no angle is neglected in the effort to limit use of resources to a sustainable level. Too often is the importance of education and local involvement forgotten in the strategies to manage our basic resources. Perhaps economists are particularly prone to this, believing that the introduction of market forces is sufficient in itself in the fight against unsustainable use.

The problem is that some people assume that sustainable development means zero growth, while others assume that it means the ability to maintain growth at present rates. The first is the easiest to dismiss. Development need not be unsustainable, since increasing GDP need not mean increased consumption of resources. On the other hand, the concept of sustainable development can be appropriated by those who advocate continued use of the earth's resources at the present or an increased rate. For them, sustainability is about finding the means to allow the market to produce more and more goods and ensure consumers continue to increase consumption.

The Liberal Democrats advocate a definition of sustainable development different from both of these. It is worth stating, because in Policy Paper 41, 'A Strategy for Sustainability', sustainability is separated from sustainable development, which is defined as 'the process by which society moves towards sustainability'.^[2] Our definition of sustainable development must go beyond this and cannot be as simple as a rough compromise, which gives some emphasis to extending the life of our resources. Sustainable development must include the ideal of sustainability forever, not just for the short and middle term. It must recognise that in the long term, sustainable development and sustainable utilisation are inextricably linked. Every policy for development must include sustainability, because present use of resources that does not take into account environmental limits will inevitably eventually curtail development and provoke conflict, as well as inflict serious damage on the natural world.

Currently, the concept of sustainable development rarely includes protection for resources such as soil and water and certainly not to an extent sufficient to ensure their sustainability in the face of demographic addition to demand and the depreciating effects of global climate change.

In 1977, the UN proclaimed that 'all peoples have the right to have access to drinking water in quantities and of a quality equal to their basic needs'. The World Health Organisation says that one person in three in the developing world still lacks that basic provision. In 2002, that was 1.1 billion people.

Scarcity in natural resources can mean disastrous conflicts or health problems. 1.8 million die each year from diarrhoeal disease, mostly caused by inadequate water supplies. Famine caused by poor protection for soils still blights the world.

As population continues to increase along with demand for our resources, these problems will be inescapably global in their implications. 40% of the world's river catchments have one or more transnational boundary.

STOP PRESS As I am completing this essay the news of the extreme pollution of China's Songhua river is emerging- a river shared with Russia. The environment agency there estimate 70% of China's rivers and lakes are so polluted their water is undrinkable. Water from aquifers is being fast depleted. Analysts are saying that this may well mean that China's emergence as a major economic power may be compromised by its lack of water.

It is necessary now to move beyond the narrow conception of resource scarcity as a national or even a regional concern and to cement its status as a global issue. Developed nations will have to up their standards, and they may well have to increase their commitment to help developing nations, who will have to shoulder responsibilities for which they have less financial and technological capacity.

It should be the concern of every nation to ensure that every other conforms to the standards of sustainability, environmental limits and the precautionary principle. These ideas are already established. They aim to ensure that, given that it is hard to know all the consequences of any activity that affects the environment, there are wide safety margins to guarantee that our resources are not depleted beyond their capacity to renew themselves.

This step is not as far-fetched as it might seem. Already the global atmosphere and ozone have been recognised by the UN General
Assembly as 'common resources' of mankind. Although nations may continue to enjoy sovereignty over their resources, this must be qualified by the assertion of global interests, which look beyond the artificial divide of state borders on the basis of ergo omnes obligations.^[3]

The economic interdependence of the modern world, the problems associated with environmental refugees and the worldwide repercussions of resource conflict mean that no nation can treat the environmental depredations of another as merely a national, bilateral, or regional issue. Currently, water agreements in the Middle East are overwhelmingly bilateral. Although this is better than nothing, in the event of conflict two-party agreements offer little stability. 40% of the world's population live in river basin catchments that cross one or more national boundaries so it is clear that we need multilateral agreements that acknowledges global interest in all our resources. They would not only lock countries into a much more stable system but also help to prevent conflict in the first place by applying scrutiny to resource use..

Such arguments inevitably provoke reactionary responses about the spectre of supranational government and erosion of rights, but the model of effective global institutions so far does not bear out these criticisms. The World Trade Organisation has the power to look in on domestic policies to encourage free trade and the International Monetary Fund can supervise monetary policy and neither has become a supranational government. True, IMF has exercised its power to impose conditions on a country's domestic policy in a way that has left many people suspicious or hostile to international governance, but this does not take away from the fact that international resource issues do urgently need a coherent international approach. Instead, the lesson must be taken on board that it is essential that individual governments are involved in consultation and formulation of strategies in order to recognise the specific needs of different countries.

The UN Environment Programme or CSD should be given powers to promote sustainable resource use, with the resources and authority to give financial assistance to solve problems and the power to impose sanctions on nations that do not comply with directions which affect their neighbours so that the international community can hold errant nations to account.

'National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalisation of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution'.^[4]

Susan Kramer has made a case for the Liberal Democrats to include economic incentives in their sustainability plans in her contribution to the Orange Book.^[5] The introduction of trading schemes, 'polluter pays' and user charging do have the potential to help provide funds for development, reduce public costs, assist prioritisation of allocation, reduce demand and discourage lower value usages.

The instruments proposed, however, are less applicable some to natural resources such as water and soil than to energy.. The different uses of soil mean that its economic value is difficult to quantify and the mechanics of a charging system are hard to envisage.

But there is a clear problem with the way we are currently using our water and soil resources. Both are commonly seen as 'free' and are used as if supplies are limitless. In Europe, nearly 80% of water withdrawn for domestic and municipal supplies ends up as waste, 30% leaking away before it even reaches the taps.^[6] An economic valuation of water would help to resolve this problem, giving an incentive for water companies to meet their targets to reduce leakage. It is now cheaper for them to let it pour away. The Liberal Democrats would replace Ofwat with a single Office of Utility Regulation to ensure that regulations for investments in infrastructure are met and allow greater public accountability.

But a simple charge for use of water may easily leave out the cost of losses which cannot easily be assigned a monetary price, such as the loss of flora and fauna dependent on water. The 'polluter', or in this case the over-user, can therefore get away with more than he is paying for. If the price is low, then it is likely to have little effect, but if the price is high, then its prohibitive effects may take their toll on those unable to pay, rather than those with the least important use.

One way to overcome these problems might be a comprehensive system of environmental accounting, rather than simply assigning prices to one or two commodities. European directives now require developments to be accompanied by Sustainability Assessments which assess the environmental impacts of proposals, but a system that assigns a value to these impacts would be a much better guide to policy and give a much clearer message to business about what is acceptable.

The economic value of our resources should involve two inputs. The first is that each resource is finite. Competition in the market can therefore give to each a saleable value. Secondly, the extraction of each resource may have environmental repercussions. The 'cost' of the processes can be given a monetary value in proportion to the damage caused: a positive charge to discourage a potentially negative process.

There are encouraging precedents for the practice of environmental accounting. As early as 1970, Norway began to amass data on energy sources, fisheries, forests and minerals, which then inform policy-makers of the ramifications of different development policies. Since then, the Indonesian government has developed a system for estimating the depreciation of soil assets.

Unfortunately, other attempts to inculcate an appreciation of environmental costs have been stymied by the influence of interest groups. For example, in the US, the Bureau of Economic Analysis began setting up environmental accounts for minerals, but were caught in controversy when opposed by the minerals industry.^[7]

It is time to focus efforts to create a broad-based approach to economic accounting and economic incentives by including not just marketable commodities, but all environmental value in the assessment of different policies.

One of the best things to come out of the European Union in the past few years has been the Water Framework Directive. Its aim is simple - to try to conserve and improve the quality and quantity of water. It recognises that water is essential to us and to whole ecosystems. It recognises that there are natural river catchment areas and it envisages working within them. But when the UK came to interpret this far sighted piece of legislation it did so in a way that gave the power for its implementation to the Secretary of State and the Environment Agency. Europe stressed that in order to succeed people would have to be closely involved, but the Government has decided to keep them at arms length.

To be successful, to clean up our polluted water, to safeguard supplies in water scarce areas, to keep a flow in our rivers in dry summers and to mitigate the effects of extreme weather that will become more frequent with climate change, to do all this everyone has to be involved: water users, private and commercial; planners; parish councils; farmers; the household that is deciding whether to concrete over the lawn, the hospital trust that is wondering whether to spend money on a grey water recycling scheme. The idea that every person in every community, as a water user, can have an influence over what happens with the supply is a powerful one and yet most people's only contact with the world beyond the tap is when the water bill lands on the doormat

To most citizens, the application of an economic value to water may mean metering. So far in England and Wales only 26% of households have a meter. The Liberal Democrats would encourage the further use of metering in order to promote efficient use of water at the domestic level. A Utilities Resource Fund would help those households unable to pay their bills, paid for by a 2% levy on water companies' profits.

I believe, though, that economic incentives alone are not enough to instigate the level of change needed to look after our resources. Moreover, to imagine that people cannot be moved to change the way they live except by monetary means is a patronising and pessimistic view that the Liberal Democrats do not condone. It is far better to give people responsibility for their own interests, with guidance to help, rather than rely on the 'invisible hand' to steer them.

Education and information must be provided at a local level in order to secure the necessary community backing for schemes. Public participation is a powerful contributor and watchdog. Schemes should set parameters to be implemented at the lowest appropriate level. Just as Liberal Democrat local councils have had substantial success in inviting innovative involvement by local communities in recycling household waste, so may we rely on people to take responsibility for their shared resources, once we meet our obligations to inform.

Water UK says that water practice is linked to community; hosepipe bans are more likely to be observed when neighbours are conforming. On a hot day more water may be used by garden sprinklers than by industry.^[8] Direct involvement in the process of conservation not only provides the boon of local expertise, it also makes sure that everyone is aware of what needs to be done. People are far less likely to use resources wantonly when they are involved, along with their neighbours, in projects to protect the environment.

There are few technological barriers to reusing water. It is certainly time challenge the idea that water that is used for washing clothes or the car must be as pure as that we drink. We should not be using water in water scarce areas to simply carry away our waste. In Israel, 'sewage farming' allows the reuse of water, In the UK, Highgrove Estates use a technique of passing 'grey water' through successive gravel beds to reuse. A small village in Somerset, Whitestaunton, developed a first time sewage system using reed beds - creating a wildlife habitat as well as solving the problem of remote rural sewage disposal. Dry urinals are now available, as are composting lavatories. Yet most new developments still have flush water systems. People need to have far better information about alternative systems of water catchment, grey water reuse and sewage disposal. Some barriers to more sensible use of water are resolutely psychological but once water saving can be equated with cost saving and ecological good the win-win-win situation is likely to appeal.

In the commercial and industrial world some companies stand out for their innovative approach. They are the ones for whom a combination of regulation and awareness have meant that changing their resource thirsty practices were cost effective and made them market leaders in responsible companies.

It is especially important to involve people in local initiatives not simply as a matter of Party principle but because the best solutions to many of the resource problems that we are likely to face will be different for each particular region. No 'one size fits all' remedy is available for the challenges of managing water and soil, nor will one solution necessarily last as climate and demand alter. Therefore the input and supervision of those with direct access and immediate understanding of each environment will be best placed to look after it.

For example, the Met Office predicts that agroclimactic zones are likely to move Northwest in the UK over the coming decades. 'By the 2050s eastern, southern and central England will have irrigation needs higher than those currently experienced anywhere in England'.^[9] There are already pressures on water supply in the South East. Water resource management should be at the top of at least that region's priority list.

The relationship between soil and water is immensely close. Damage one and usually the other is adversely affected. Soil that has been damaged by over working or inappropriate farming methods causes water to run off instead of being absorbed. This lessens the amount of available groundwater and often causes problems of flooding. Flooding washes soils into the rivers losing them to agricultural land and causing silting up of rivers. However the level of interest in soil management policy is low. It needs a far higher profile.

The rich fertile soils produced by glacial or volcanic action took millions of years to create. They are effectively a finite resource. As agricultural land comes under pressure from population growth and climate change the value of food producing soils will raise their profile up the agenda again. The last time they really caught the attention of the developed world was probably during the 1930s when farming methods had turned much of America's western arable land into a dustbowl. In the developing world erosion from deforestation with the resulting mudslides and loss of life, soils that are becoming salinated (a developed world problem too)due to over irrigation or fertility loss through failure to replenish nutrients and organic matter are, in their way, as big an issue as debt relief yet get hardly a mention. Other types of soil can be valuable in different ways too. Thin poor soils on chalkland, for example, produce some of the richest diversity of flora and insects in England - at least in their `unimproved' state. A simple notion of `Improvement' that just means fertilisation may not always be a gain.

Here in the UK in 1996 soil was highlighted as a neglected aspect of the environment in a by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.The report emphasises the pressures on soils in the UK.

The First Soil Action Plan for England sets out a three-year programme designed to ensure that soil will be used and looked after in ways that get the best out of a vital natural resource.

ii.) the absence of proposals for regulations, that would actually give soil equality of status and legal protection with the other natural resources of air and water (as strongly recommended by the RCEP).

iii) The agricultural impacts on the soil carbon bank need to be addressed.

iv)The role of organic agriculture is not addressed adequately with the tremendous value it places on the role of the soil in food production. The very name of the organic organisation best known in Britain is The Soil Association.

CAP reform with its cross compliance measures and the measures in the Water framework Directive will go some way to addressing a few of these issues but there is far more we should do urgently. Even implementing the Soil Action Plan with its faults would be a start.

Water and soil still underpin society. It is just that as we live in larger and larger conurbations where clean water is on tap and food comes off the shelf as ready meals, people have become disconnected from what sustains their life. Many people have forgotten how important it is to care for these building blocks of life.

Jared Diamond's book `Collapse' chronicles several societies, continents apart and throughout history, whose downfall was entirely due to their failure to conserve and nurture their natural resources. The examples are various: North America, South America, Pacific Islands. Their initial success and wealth generation is built on use of natural resources but these are depleted - not sustained. Add in other factors such as climate change and population growth and the warning is particularly stark. Now that society is globalised the shockwaves of a collapse are unlikely to be restricted to a geographical location; `modern societies cannot collapse in isolation', says Diamond.

Diamond uses an interesting term for accepting a year-on-year deterioration of the environment. He calls it `landscape amnesia'. Here in the UK I can think of lots of examples: smaller green spaces in the town, fewer hedgerows, less snow on the mountains in winter. In the case of water and soil, the gradual decline may be almost invisible as water tables lower and soil disintegrates and so the problem does not garner the attention it deserves. We have had prophets in our time to remind of our basic environment, people who saw changes happening and alerted us. These prophets were certainly not all scientists - James Ravilious, Ted Hughes, Edward Goldsmith - but they were each deeply engaged with their surroundings, with a knowledge and concern that is hard to emulate in treaty-signing or market-pricing. This is why individual empowerment and local level involvement are so critical.

One of the faults of political parties is that they are, by nature, rather short sighted. This short term planning mentality is brought about by the electoral cycle and the pressure for immediate results. Often though, this is at the expense of future generations.

Liberal Democrat philosophy places us in an ideal position for coming up with the solutions to the problems of sustainability and resource management, problems which we believe must be tackled with all urgency. Our commitment to the environment runs through all our policy, our outlook is international but we believe in subsidiarity, we have a positive approach to Europe and its ability to regulate for environmental improvement which, at the same time enhances economic performance and social well being.

I believe that this essay has underlined the importance we must place on natural resources and that talk of sustainability must be grounded by reference to them in policy making. Sometimes debate on more esoteric matters may push discussion on more basic issues down the agenda. It is probably less intellectually fashionable to talk about water, soil and sewage, but debate them we must.

I hope that our domestic agenda and foreign policy will place an emphasis on natural resource conservation that is at least equal to non-proliferation treaties when talking of promoting world peace.

As the Party gets tempted further down the road of market liberalism, we must remember that such an approach can only provide a partial answer to such fundamental matters as where our bread and water will come from in decades to come. Another basic tenet of Liberal Democrat thinking is our trust in people. Given the facts and appropriate guidance, people may yet choose to do what is right. Invigorating individual and community concern and appropriate regulation that spring from such concern are likely to be very powerful instruments.

Whereas water is widely considered the universal purifier and used in unsustainable quantities to wash away waste, our soil doesn't enjoy half so high a status. In fact, since the Old Norse word 'drit', the earth has been linked with filth and excrement. Why!?

Our soil is also a vital resource, without which we couldn't grow the food we live on. Desertification is the spread of desert-like conditions because of human activities, such as overgrazing, over-cultivation and deforestation. The soil loses its goodness and turns to dust.