Desktop Study:

Review of state of the EU Directives on production and consumption

and catalogue of international best practice models and tools for

Quality of Life Proofing

Interim Report

September 2010

Project Ref: EPA 2008-SD-LS-1-S1

Dr. Jessica Pape

(School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College, Dublin)

Dr. Frances Fahy

(School of Geography and Archaeology, National University of Ireland, Galway)

Environmental Protection Agency, Trinity College Dublin and National

University of Ireland, Galway

This is an interim report of a four-year research project (2009-2013) conducted by Trinity

College Dublin and NUI Galway. The study is part of a larger project entitled ConsEnSus:

Consumption, Environment and Sustainability. The ConsEnSus project is funded by the

Science, Technology, Research and Innovation for the Environment (STRIVE) Programme

2007–2013. The programme is financed by the Irish Government under the National

Development Plan 2007–2013. It is administered on behalf of the Department of the

Environment, Heritage and Local Government by the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) , which has the statutory function of coordinating and promoting environmental

research.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 ConsEnSus: A cross-border Household Analysis of CONSumption, ENvironment and

SUStainability in Ireland ...................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Project Objectives and Targets ............................................................................................... 3

2 Sustainable Consumption: Definitions and Key Terms ................................................................... 6

2.1 Definitions of Sustainable Consumption ................................................................................. 6

2.2 Towards Sustainable Consumption: The Need for Governance ............................................. 8

2.3 Overview: Policy Instruments to address Sustainable Consumption ..................................... 9

2.4 The Effectiveness of Policy Instruments ............................................................................... 11

2.5 Research Projects on SCP Policy Instrument Effectiveness .................................................. 13

3 EU Directives on Production and Consumption ............................................................................ 23

3.1 International Developments to address Sustainable Consumption ..................................... 23

4 Catalogue of International Best Practice Models and Tools for Quality of Life Proofing ............. 27

4.1 The Relationship between Consumption and Quality of Life ............................................... 27

4.2 Methods to assess Sustainable Consumption ...................................................................... 31

4.2.1 Overview of Indicator Sets developed by International Organisations ........................ 33

4.2.2 Overview of National Indicator Sets ............................................................................. 38

4.3 Catalogue of Best Practice Examples .................................................................................... 46

4.3.1 Promoting Sustainable Energy and Water Consumption ............................................. 47

4.3.2 Promoting Sustainable Food Consumption .................................................................. 50

4.3.3 Promoting Sustainable Transport ................................................................................. 54

4.3.4 Good Practice Examples: Cross-Sectoral Areas ............................................................ 55

4.3.5 Sustainable Consumption Programmes ........................................................................ 61

5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 70

Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 71

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 75

1

1 Introduction

The goal of promoting sustainable consumption (SC) has become a key issue in the debate on moving towards more sustainable development (SD). Overconsumption and what has been termed ‘unsustainable’ household consumption patterns dominate especially in industrialised and developed countries and have been identified as major drivers of resource depletion and environmental degradation (UNEP 2008).

In recent years, the environmental impacts of consumption have received an increasing amount of attention, in particular in international discussions on sustainable development. Major concerns in this debate include the recognition that consumption growth is depleting renewable and mineral resources, thereby causing irreversible damage to the environment (Michaelis & Lorek, 2004, p. 5). Transport, energy, water and food are the sectors which have been identified as having the largest impact by individual households on the environment in terms of CO2 emissions, use of natural resources, and production of waste (OECD, 2008; UNEP, 2008). Furthermore, it has been recognised that increasing consumption is not necessarily correlated to increasing wellbeing or quality of life in industrialised countries (Michaelis & Lorek, 2004; Jackson, 2009). Important questions remain regarding how a transition to more sustainable consumption patterns can be governed, and which policy instruments and strategies can be successful in this regard in a specific national context.

Consumption behaviours such as shopping, heating, washing and mobility can be regarded as socio-cultural practices that reflect shared social norms, values and goals (profit, convenience, safety), which often overshadow environmental concerns (Hobson, 2003; Shove, 2003). This raises questions about how to persuade people to act in more environmentally and socially responsible ways (Jackson 2006) when their decisions to behave in a certain way are not environmentally or socially focused. Fundamentally, how can sustainable living be encouraged and unsustainable behaviour be discouraged?

This question points to the role of governance. Many scholars have recognised the need for changing resources and infrastructures in order to provide the necessary context for individuals to change their consumption habits and point to the role of governments to provide the necessary systems of provision (Mayo & Knight, 2006; Doran, 2007; Jackson, 2009; Thøgersen, 2005). It has been argued that enabling changes to individual lifestyles requires changes in resources and infrastructures, and this calls for government action in terms of investment in the necessary systems of provision – otherwise, the danger is of ‘blaming the victim’ (Thøgersen, 2005) by placing the burden of more sustainable consumption behaviour on the individual alone.

Many authors have argued that it is government, at all levels, that is best placed to co-ordinate a collective approach to change, through an enabling policy framework (Mayo & Knight, 2006). The government ‘plays a vital role in shaping the cultural context within which individual choice is negotiated through its influence on technology, infrastructure,

2

market design, institutional structures, the media, and the moral framing of social goods’ (Jackson & Michaelis, 2003, p. 60).

To date, incentives to move towards sustainable consumption have been focused on providing information with the hope of motivating behaviour change (e.g. eco-labelling or awareness campaigns) or providing fiscal measures that penalise unsustainable behaviour (e.g. plastic bag levy or variable motor taxation). However, these measures are by no means widespread across household goods and services and it is unclear how much behavioural change can be directly attributed to the measures themselves. As social practices shape consumption patterns to a large degree, in-depth research in consumption behaviour in a given national context is necessary. At the same time, it is important to analyse how other countries address the challenge of sustainable consumption and how this might be applied to the Irish context.

This discussion document is the result of a desktop study conducted between April 2009 and March 2010. The study is part of a larger project entitled ConsEnSus: Consumption, Environment and Sustainability (see description below). The objective of the desktop study was to review the state of the EU Directives on sustainable consumption and production (SCP) and catalogue international best practice models and tools for Quality of Life Proofing in the area of sustainable consumption policies in Europe. This desktop review provides the basis for assessing Ireland’s performance in the area of SCP policies and for developing a model of good governance of sustainable living for Ireland (see Pape et al. forthcoming).

This document is divided into five parts. First, an overview on the ConsEnSus project is given, highlighting its aims and objectives. Second, the concept of Sustainable Consumption is discussed, focusing on its wider implications for individual consumption behaviour and the need for governance to provide a framework to enable lifestyle changes. Third, International Developments to address SCP are presented, focusing especially on EU Directives on Consumption and Production. Fourth, a catalogue of best practice examples in the area of SCP is presented, by first highlighting the connection of quality of life and consumption and presenting an overview of methods to assess sustainable consumption before turning to good practice examples in the area of SCP selected from a wide range of sources. Finally, chapter five provides a summary of the main findings and points out the implications for further research on sustainable consumption in the Irish context.

1.1 ConsEnSus: A cross-border Household Analysis of CONSumption,

ENvironment and SUStainability in Ireland

The ConsEnSus project (CONSumption, ENvironment and SUStainability) is a four year collaborative research project involving Trinity College Dublin (TCD) and the National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG) which examines four key areas of household consumption that currently impact negatively on the environment and inhibit our ability, both in Northern Ireland and the Republic, to progress the goals of sustainable development:

3

transport, energy, water and food. The ConsEnSus project is funded by the Science, Technology, Research and Innovation for the Environment (STRIVE) Programme 2007–2013. The programme is financed by the Irish Government under the National Development Plan 2007–2013. It is administered on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has the statutory function of coordinating and promoting environmental research.

The focus of the ConsEnSus project is on the household level, i.e. on the domestic consumption patterns of individual consumers in an Irish (all-island) context. The aim of the project is to generate baseline data on Irish consumption practices in the areas of food, transport, energy and water and to develop strategies on how to overcome ‘un-sustainable’ consumption habits in these areas by identifying the underlying motives and barriers for more sustainable consumption practices. It is anticipated that these strategies will serve as guidelines for policy-makers in Ireland to introduce policies that motivate consumers to change their behaviour. For this to be successful it is necessary to look closer at the Irish cultural and socio-economic background in order to find out what drives consumption patterns in Ireland, as the social and cultural aspects of a nation, which differ between countries, shape consumption patterns to a large degree. In the following section, the project objectives and targets of the ConsEnSus project are described in more detail.

1.2 Project Objectives and Targets

The ConsEnSus project aims to respond to national and international research objectives on sustainable consumption in three main ways. First, it will generate important baseline data for Ireland in key areas of consumption that impact directly on the environment, including transport, energy, water and food. Second, it will address existing gaps in the international body of literature dealing with (sustainable) consumption. Third, it will advance possibilities for measuring sustainable consumption through the development and application of innovative social research methods. These include the design and testing of a multi-method strategy for evaluating virtual mobility tools.

In the Irish context, research in this critical field of sustainable consumption is only in its infancy. This interdisciplinary research project will establish a solid foundation for this evolving area and contribute to a better environment by delivering applicable and relevant data on sustainable consumption, based on theoretical and empirical research. Throughout the course of this project, new techniques, methods and models will be developed to assess record and predict sustainable consumption behaviour. In addition to using quantitative data (resulting from an all-island survey on sustainable lifestyles, 1,500 face-to-face interviews, which is being conducted at the moment) to examine consumption patterns and develop models, a number of qualitative research methods will be employed to gain a more nuanced understanding of the cultural embeddedness of consumption behaviour (e.g. sector-specific case studies, focus groups, visioning workshops).

4

Each stage of this project involves employing practical methods for the integration of the research into policies and programmes at a range of levels. The project will provide an overview of international best practice and design recommendations for national programmes concerning sustainable consumption and production policies, in addition to recommendations about procedures, techniques and policies for advancing sustainability at the local level.

Given the complexity of the topic of sustainable consumption, research efforts in this area need to incorporate the principles of interdisciplinary research and use innovative multi-method strategies for data collection and analysis. The ConsEnSus project therefore builds on, and expands existing work on sustainable consumption nationally and internationally. This project will incorporate (a) detailed reviews of existing studies and policy documents, (b) the identification of barriers to sustainable consumption, (c) the design and application of innovative tools, (d) the development of action plans aimed at promoting sustainable consumption, and (e) the introduction of sustainable consumption themes into third and fourth level curricula in all three participating universities. The project aims to enhance participation of actors from a variety of interest groups in the promotion and adoption of the principles of sustainable consumption.

The ConsEnSus project encompasses a number of key strategic priorities outlined in the EPA call for research proposals under the theme of Sustainable Development and Environmental Socio-Economics. They are:

1. Measurement and evaluation – the development of indicators, policy/programme evaluation, and economic valuation (i.e. the development of data sets and methods);

2. Sustainable behaviours and incentives – attitudes/behaviour (links and piloting innovative approaches to behavioural change), examining public understanding of sustainability concepts and environmental knowledge, examining potential demand for and public understandings of sustainability/environment interventions, and sectoral analysis, e.g. water, energy, food and transport;

3. Health and well-being – geographical and socio-economic dimensions of quality of life, the advancement of quality of life concepts and measures, economic and sociological approaches to environmental threats;

4. Governance, institutions and participation – effectiveness of participatory research and strategies of governance; address ‘implementation deficit’ through participatory democratic structures; support policy goals through research into international obligations (e.g. EU Producer Directives) and evaluating and establishing institutions for sustainable development in an all-island context.

These themes are addressed throughout the work packages outlined below. The work packages can be viewed in three phases: foundation, exploration and integration (see Fig. 1). A set of seven integrated work packages is addressing four key themes: how consumption can be measured and evaluated; how sustainable behaviours and incentives are being developed and implemented; identifying links between consumption, health and well being; and how

5

matters of household consumption are being governed through institutional practice and participation.

Figure 1 Overall Project structure

WP 2- Sustainable Living

Survey

(FOUNDATION)

WP 1- Tools for governing

sustainable living

(FOUNDATION) WP 5 – Washing

(EXPLORATION)

WP6 – Food

(EXPLORATION)

WP 4 – Shelter

(EXPLORATION)

WP 3 – Transport

(EXPLORATION)

CONSENSUS

WP 7- Project management

and dissemination

(INTEGRATION)

6

2 Sustainable Consumption: Definitions and Key Terms

The concept of sustainable consumption has evolved from the broader debate on sustainable development. Therefore, it is important to define how ‘sustainable development (SD)’, ‘sustainable consumption (SC)’ and ‘sustainable consumption and production’ (SCP) can be distinguished and defined. Sustainable development (SD) basically describes the aim of preserving the world’s (finite) natural resources for future generations while balancing this aim with social justice and economic growth. SD is usually conceptualised as aiming for three objectives, i.e. economic stability, social justice and environmental protection (Illge & Schwarze, 2009). Balancing these sometimes-conflicting goals is not always easy – for example, the need to consume less might be problematic for economic growth.

Household consumption in Western industrialised states has been identified as one of the main impacts on the environment (e.g. in terms of carbon emissions), which hinder sustainable development. According to a report by the European Environmental Agency, households are directly responsible for one fourth of final energy use and two thirds of municipal waste generation in the EU (EEA, 2005, p. 33). While the focus of the international scientific community was first on production processes, i.e. on the development of less resource intensive production processes, the focus has shifted in recent years onto consumption processes. One reason is that the focus on more efficient technologies and production methods proved to be insufficient due to an ever increasing demand of consumers all over the world, which has led to ‘rebound effects’, i.e. the positive effects of more energy-efficient appliances are counterbalanced by an increased use of these appliances or when cost savings made through use of more sustainable products are used to purchase other consumables which themselves create environmental impacts (Davies et al., 2010, p. 60). This also relates to increasing world population and the emergence of economic growth in former transition countries, creating increasing demand for a variety of goods.

Consumption and production can be regarded as two sides of the same coin – both aspects have to be addressed in order to achieve the overall goal of sustainable development: ‘The need to reduce the consumption of resources is central to sustainable development. This will require not only the development of less material- and energy-intensive production but also a change in individuals’ consumption behaviour’ (McClenaghan, 2008, p. 809).

2.1 Definitions of Sustainable Consumption

There are different ways to conceptualise and define SC and these definitions differ with regard to their implications for individual lifestyles (consuming less, differently or more responsibly) as well as to their focus on economic growth as a prerequisite for sustainable development and SCP.

One of the most oft-cited definitions of sustainable consumption has been proposed by the Oslo Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption in 1994 in Norway:

7

‘the use of goods and services that respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life, while minimising the use of natural resources, toxic materials, and emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle, so as not to jeopardise the needs of future generations’ (see http://www.iisd.ca/consume/oslo000.html).

However, as noted above, it has not been clarified in the current academic discourse if SC means consuming differently, more responsibly or simply less (Michaelis & Lorek, 2004). Hinton and Goodman (2010, p. 3) argue that sustainable consumption can relate to different forms of consumption change: ‘On the one hand, SC relates to the attempt to reduce the enviro-social impacts of consumption through less or “different” forms of consuming. On the other hand, SC can also be about increasing the impacts of consumption through the support of environmental and socially related alternatives such as fair trade and local products’. They find that in some cases, the rationale for SC can imply the strive for environmental, as well as social and economic goals: ‘shopping for locally produced foods is about both avoiding the carbon footprint of internationally-sourced supermarket foods but also supporting local businesses and local farmers in order that they stay in business’ (Hinton & Goodman, 2010, p. 3).

Focusing on the broader academic debate surrounding sustainable development and the role of the individual for consumption patterns, Hobson (2002, p. 95) states that ‘sustainable consumption is a key concept in the sustainable development paradigm, which calls for individuals in high-incomes countries to consider, and take action on, the environmental impacts of their household consumption practices’. She adds that within recent international policy framings, sustainable consumption is usually part of an efficiency-focused rationalisation discourse, representing theories of the environment, the state and the individual. In contrast, business oriented organisations have highlighted the need for economic growth as a prerequisite for sustainable consumption: For example, the OECD (OECD, 2008, p. 7) argues that ‘promoting sustainable consumption and production are important aspects of sustainable development, which depends on achieving long-term economic growth that is consistent with environmental and social needs... promoting sustainable consumption is equally important to limit negative environmental and social externalities as well as to provide markets for sustainable products’.

The focus on economic growth as a necessary condition for sustainable consumption is ambiguous insofar as it could be seen as a contradiction to the implicit goals of sustainable consumption to consume less; it presupposes continuing or even increasing consumption. In contrast, the concept of ‘sufficiency’ as proposed by Princen (2003; 2005) indicates the need for consuming less in industrialised countries. The current de-growth debate and recent literature by Jackson (2009) ‘Prosperity without Growth’ exemplify attempts to deal with this ambiguous relationship between addressing overconsumption in industrialised countries and the current paradigm of capitalist societies which regard ‘economic growth’ as the basic fundament for social stability and wellbeing. Recognising this ambiguity, attempts have been made by scholars (Schor, 2010; Hinton & Goodman, 2010; Jackson, 2009; Speth, 2008) to develop solutions for ‘prosperity without growth’, by focusing on new ways to conceptualise wellbeing and quality of life, independent of consumption and material goods alone. There is

8

a growing body of research investigating the correlation between quality of life and GDP growth, which highlights that increasing wealth and consumption does not automatically lead to higher levels of wellbeing or quality of life after a certain level of development (see Jackson 2009 or Speth 2008 for an overview).

2.2 Towards Sustainable Consumption: The Need for Governance

Sustainable development remains a central challenge for state and society. Policy must initiate, stimulate and monitor the development of economies and societies to respect the natural limits of planet earth (Rubik, et al., 2009). Despite the progress in environmental protection policy and technologies that has taken place since the 1960s, the European Environmental Agency observes that ‘(…) the general trend is an increase in environmental pressures, because consumption growth is outweighing gains made through improvements in technology. The reasons seem not to be a lack of activity, but a lack of integration and cohesion within public policy, and also a focus on the supply side of markets in the programmes’ (EEA, 2005, p. 14).

Many authors have argued that it is government, at all levels, that is best placed to co-ordinate a collective approach to change, through an enabling policy framework (Mayo et al., 2006 p. 6). At the same time, the business and industry sector has been central to the creation of technology and wealth that impacted on society changes in the last century by providing most of the products and services that people consume. As the business sector invents, designs, develops and markets those products and services, it shapes the environmental impacts of consumption to a large degree (Jackson & Michaelis, 2003, p. 50). Finally, the role of consumers is also crucial for attaining sustainable consumption by creating demand for certain products and services: ‘consumers are directly and indirectly responsible for the environmental and health effects of their food consumption choices’ (OECD, 2008, p. 117). Changing current consumption patterns will require collaborative action from all relevant actors, e.g. government, businesses and consumers.

In order to design policy strategies that will be successful in a given national context, it is necessary to understand triggers and barriers of current consumption behaviour, which are shaped by internal (e.g. individual level factors like attitudes, age, gender) and external factors (e.g. the social context in which individuals interact and infrastructure: the supply of alternatives for behaviour change). Jackson (2009, p. 161) argues that in this regard ‘physical infrastructure and social architecture conspire against us. Lured by our evolutionary roots, bombarded with persuasion, and seduced by novelty: we are like children in the sweet shop, knowing that sugar is bad for us; unable to resist the temptation.’ This relates to short-term versus long-term thinking; while individuals often think in terms of short-term fulfilment of needs, it is the role of the state to provide long-term planning for the collective good of its society (Jackson 2009).

To explain individual consumption behaviour, many authors in the field of environmental psychology and sociology have in the past relied on varying forms of the so-called ‘attitude-

9

behaviour model’, which uses individual attitudes to predict the concrete future behaviour of individuals (Spaargaren, 2003). However, this approach has been criticised for being too simplistic by neglecting to acknowledge the wider social contexts in which individuals act. Many authors argue that such a micro-level view fails to consider how consumption is embedded in the specific social and cultural context in which individuals interact: Different social groups engage in ‘practices that are performed in the (co-) presence of others and (are) therefore subject to collective norms of contextualised engagement’ (Southerton et al. 2004, p. 34). Assumptions based on the attitude-behaviour model underestimate the ‘normative basis of shared ways of consuming, how these patterns are established in the first place, the range of purposes for which goods and services are utilised, and their role in the practices in which they are deployed’ (Southerton et al., 2004: 36). The so-called ‘Value Action Gap’, whereby a considerable gap can often be observed between people’s attitudes, which are often pro-environmental, and their everyday behaviours (Doran, 2007; Davies et al. 2005), seems to confirm this criticism: attitudes alone cannot predict actual behaviour of individuals. Gatersleben and Vlek (1998) argue that any assumed causal link between attitudes and behaviour is mediated by cognitive processes, including social and cultural norms, beliefs and values, as well as contextual factors such as the level of technological innovation.

This line of thought corresponds to approaches by other scholars who emphasise the importance of internal and external conditions (or constraints), which shape human behaviour (see for example Gardner & Stern, 1996; Tanner et al. 2004; Thøgersen, 2005; Jackson 2009). Internal conditions have an influence on people’s knowledge and motivation to act; external or contextual conditions, on the other hand, affect the possibility of people participating in ecological action, regardless of the individual motivation to act (Tanner et al. 2004: 96). External (or contextual) conditions relate to socioeconomic conditions (education, employment status, occupational level), living circumstances (place of residence, household income, household size) as well as to social norms, infrastructures or so-called ‘systems of provision’ (Spargaaren 2003; Southerton et al. 2004).

Material and infrastructural arrangements have an impact on the so-called ‘choice sets’ of individuals, which exclude alternative forms of action: ‘the “package deal” of choices which are available as a result of a particular set of policies, and which preclude other choices. A choice set is a collection of interconnected acts of consumption, and other behaviours which come with them, and the production and infrastructure that supports them’ (Levett et al., 2003, p. 42). As already mentioned above, in order to develop policy instruments that are effective in addressing the challenge of sustainable consumption, it is necessary to explore influences on consumption patterns in different national contexts. In the following sections, the role of policy instruments in addressing sustainable consumption is reviewed in more detail.

2.3 Overview: Policy Instruments to address Sustainable Consumption

In this section, the characteristics of different policy instrument types are described and the question of instrument effectiveness in a general way is addressed. In the following section,

10

frameworks to assess Sustainable Consumption policies are presented. This report adopts the classical distinction between some of the most common types of policy instruments (i.e. legislative, economic and communicative). In the following section, a brief overview on the characteristics of these instruments types as well as questions of effectiveness will be discussed.

Legislative instruments (also often referred to as regulatory or command and control measures) are the most traditional policy instrument setting clear rules and standards, which can potentially enable and stimulate the development of more sustainable lifestyles. These instruments include laws, regulations and standards, for example. Other coercive techniques discussed by De Young (De Young, 1993, p. 490) include legal penalties and the employment of physical barriers to ‘nonconserving behaviour’ such as restricting the availability of certain consumer products. Administrative measures, from banning activities such as backyard burning to providing information on how to recycle, are cited by researchers such as Linden and Carlsson-Kanyama (2003) as stimulants to behaviour. Limitations of such instruments have been well documented (Blowers & Hinchliffe, 2003) and include large administration burdens as well as issues with monitoring and enforcement.

Economic instruments have become increasingly popular within the EU as they are viewed by many as flexible and efficient tools to engender environmental reform (Buckingham, 2008). They are designed to appeal to the self-interests of consumers and producers. The role of material incentives in shaping consumption has given rise to extensive research (De Young, 1993; Karp, 1996; Price, 2001). Indeed, forms of economic measures such as taxing, pricing, or charging customers have been proposed as efficient means of forcing people to shift to more sustainable forms of behaviour (Linden & Carlsson-Kanyama, 2003). De Young (1993) classifies monetary reinforcement (e.g. deposit system for beverage cans, contests for participation in recycling schemes, etc.) and monetary disincentives (e.g. consumption-based taxes) as positive and coercive motivational techniques that make behaviour more or less appealing. However, economic instruments specifically developed and directed at supporting sustainable lifestyles are not without criticism. These levies and charges can be unpopular, result in high and sometime unpredictable costs and are often not feasible unless they are effectively accompanied with measures that ensure satisfactory provision of alternatives. Several studies (reviewed in Guagnano et al. 1995) have suggested that while such fiscal incentives can play a valuable role in initiating behaviour changes, prolonged transformations in behaviour require intrinsic motivation, that is, motivation that comes from inside an individual rather than from any external force. Some studies even find that economic incentives can decrease intrinsic motivation (see Thogersen 2005). In this case, it has been suggested that feedback performance-based incentives can help to counterbalance this effect (e.g. waste by weight increased performance to motivate recycling). It has been argued that a mix of strategies is necessary to solve this problem and that more research is required in this field (Thogersen 2005).

Communicative instruments are premised on appeals to an individual’s own conviction and responsibility. These include information campaigns, education programmes, as well as labelling activities. However a prolific drawback to communicative instruments is the

11

underlying assumption that information and communication produce effect. As has been widely stated in literature on environmental psychology and behaviour change, usually a large ‘value action gap1’ exists between what people value and how they behave. If information is supposed to affect people’s values and consequently their behaviour, communicative instruments are a necessary, but not a sufficient tool to achieve this. Information and education campaigns should be combined with other strategies, i.e. the design of external conditions that facilitate changes towards more sustainable consumption patterns, for example by providing appropriate infrastructure or financial means to citizens in form of subsidies. Consumer policy is important in this regard to empower consumers to make informed choices by means of education and information (Thogersen 2005; Southerton et al. 2004). De Young (1993), assumes that individuals are ready to act but are uncertain how to proceed or behave. The aim, therefore, is to assist the person to recognise the pro-environment behaviour as well as gaining the knowledge to carry out the behaviour. For example, participation in recycling activities requires fundamental procedural information, such as the location of recycling facilities or times of collection. Furthermore, environmental information can be contested, uncertain and highly technical. A number of studies have discussed the difficulties involved in accessing information, understanding that information and the correlation between information, attitudes and behaviour (see for example Petts, 1997). In their comparative study of environmental communication in the UK and the Netherlands, Burgess and Bedford (2002) note how uncertainty and confusion about environmental problems were cited as the most prominent reasons for failing to adopt pro-environmental behaviours. Hawthorne and Alabaster (1999) discuss how the acquisition of information can often be reliant on other variables such as social class and education. On a wider scale, information is linked to the issues of trust, not only in the information itself but also in the science underpinning the nature of the environmental problem, and in the people disseminating the information. As Macnaghten and Urry (1998, p. 85) remark, information ‘is only likely to be believed in conditions of trust’. Across the EU to date, incentives to move towards sustainable consumption have been focused on providing information with the hope of motivating behaviour change (e.g. eco-labelling or awareness campaigns) or providing fiscal measures that penalise unsustainable behaviour (e.g. plastic bag levy or variable motor taxation). However these measures are by no means widespread across household goods and services and it is unclear how much behavioural change can be directly attributed to the measures themselves.

2.4 The Effectiveness of Policy Instruments

The discussion on policy instruments leads to several questions: Which instruments are more effective than others in achieving certain goals? What do we expect in a ‘good’ policy instrument? Which instruments work in which national context? In the 1980s and 1990s, after heated debates about the advantages of certain instrument types over others, researchers have

1 Many scholars and surveys have found that there is often a considerable gap – the so called ‘value-action gap’ – between people’s attitudes, which are often pro-environmental, and their everyday behaviors (see for example Doran 2007; Davies et al. 2010).

12

come to the conclusion that it is not possible to make a clear connection regarding instrument choice and ‘ideal regulation’. There is no simple causal relation between policy instruments and implementation effectiveness: implementation literature has failed up to date to identify specific constellations regarding situations and context in which certain instruments are ‘always’ more effective than others (Knill, 2008, p. 187). It has been argued that such an assessment might be impossible, since it depends on the design of the instrument and the specific institutional context to assess their effect (Pape, 2009). Many possibilities of how to design the individual instruments exist: charges can be high or low, standards can be strict or lax, and the implementation can be flexible and tailored to individual situations or follow a rigorous pattern. Since many combinations of instrument types and designs are possible, it is important to look at individual cases in detail in order to find out which (combination of) factors enhance implementation effectiveness and environmental performance (Linder & Peters, 1989; Andersen, 1994; 2000; 2001; Howlett, 2004). Furthermore, the discussion of the advantages of individual instruments disregards the fact that in most policy areas, several instrument types are usually combined in order to achieve policy objectives.

If we consider this fact, to what extent can instrument mixes be designed to be optimally effective? Several success factors have been suggested by Howlett (2004) in this regard. First, policy instruments should create positive interactions with each other and respond to context-dependent features of the policy sector. Second, the full range of policy instruments should be considered rather than assuming that a choice must be made between regulation and markets. Third, various forms of self-regulation by industry should be applied in the context of relieving financial burdens on government. Finally, network appropriate policy instruments should be adopted in order to ‘meet the challenges of governance’: this relates for example to techniques of network management such as the use of advisory committees and public consultations (Howlett, 2004; see also Gunningham and Sinclair, 2002).

This approach is an important development due to its focus on the choice-context for the design of instrument mixes. However, it is doubtful whether policy-makers can anticipate all the consequences of instruments they design; rather, it can be assumed that this will be a process of ‘trial and error’, where adjustments are made in policy design over time in order to account for context-specific aspects (Andersen, 2000, p. 43). Besides, policy-makers can have objectives other than designing the most effective instrument mix: re-election and public support from relevant interest groups might be more important motives for instrument choice in some situations (Hahn, 1989; Linder & Peters, 1989).

Following this line of thought, it is important to explore which motives and which actors influence instrument choice and design, and how this varies in different countries. Howlett (2004, p. 8) argues that implementation styles account for instrument choices by government, which are defined as the ‘set of previously existing arrangements and any long-standing preferences for particular instruments’. Implementation styles are expected to change infrequently and are influenced by state capacities and by the ‘nature of societal targets’. The questions remain: exactly how do state capacities and societal targets impact on implementation styles? and how could changes in these variables alter preferences for policy instruments?

13

A useful starting point to conceptualise the influence of actors on policy instruments is provided by Bressers and O’Toole (Bressers & O’Toole, 1998; 2004), who argue that the relative strength of different interest groups in existing policy networks has an effect on instrument choice. Starting from the assumption that relevant state and non-state actors are organised in policy networks, the authors argue that network characteristics influence instrument choice: ‘The more an instrument’s characteristics help to maintain the existing features of the network, the more likely it is to be selected during the policy formation process’ (Bressers & O’Toole, 1998, p. 220). Policy networks are defined in this approach as patterns between a ‘steering’ coalition (e.g. a government agency with allies within and outside the public sector) and the ‘targeted’ constellation (e.g. a strong individual organisation and/or representative organisations along with their allies, which may include some additional governmental agencies)2. In this approach, actors’ preferences are clearly linked to instrument choice. Changes in policy instruments are seen as the result of network changes. In line with this approach, the attempt has been made to link national characteristics of interest intermediation and state intervention to instrument choice and design and the resulting policy outcomes. Even in countries that formally apply the same instrument mix, the design of instruments as well as the policy outcomes can differ considerably (see Pape, 2009 for more detail).

Summing up, it seems crucial to look at the national context, the role of political culture, policy styles and interest intermediation (the relative power of different interest groups), in order to understand why certain policies succeed or fail in a given national context. After this overview on different instrument types and some theoretical considerations on instrument choice and design, some European research projects are presented which have analysed the effectiveness of certain instrument types and mixes for sustainable consumption and production.

2.5 Research Projects on SCP Policy Instrument Effectiveness

The promotion of sustainable production and consumption patterns became an important object of international policy and research at the 1992 UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro. Since then numerous studies have been carried out on this topic as part of research into sustainability. Most of these have concentrated on the analysis of constraints on sustainable consumption and the development of appropriate policy measures to overcome these. Questions, however, remain: Do the policy measures that have been recommended and accepted so far really work, and, if so, how? Do they really contribute to more sustainable patterns of consumption in everyday life? How can policy strategies and measures be

2 The two dimensions, which characterise networks, are cohesion and interconnectedness. Cohesion describes the distribution of objectives among actors, which can range from ‘conflicting’ through ‘compatible’ to ‘mutually reinforcing’. Interconnectedness relates to the intensity of actors’ interactions (Bressers & O’Toole 1998: p. 219).

14

improved so that the consumption behaviour of different populations changes in everyday life?3

EUPOPP: Policies to Promote Sustainable Consumption Patterns

The questions raised above are being studied by seven European research institutes within the project, ‘EUPOPP – Policies to Promote Sustainable Consumption Patterns’. The project is funded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the EU and is running from 08/2008 until 07/2011. The focus of the project is on policies in the need areas of housing and food. The project partners4 follow an interdisciplinary approach and investigate and evaluate previous strategies and measures for promoting sustainable consumption, and develop these further, using trend analyses. The goal is to provide policy makers and other decision makers with better instruments and ways to organise consumption in a manner gentler for people and the environment5. The Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE) is studying the effects of policy measures and strategies for promoting sustainable consumption patterns from a gender specific perspective. At the core of the study is the question of how the effects of such measures are influenced by the different life situations, experience and needs of men and women and how, during the development and implementation of policy measures, these differences can be better taken into account6.

First results from EUPOPP on ‘Gender aspects of sustainable consumption strategies and instruments’ can be found at http://www.isoe.de/ftp/publikationen/ISOE_GenderWP1.pdf.

ASCEE: Assessing the potential of various instruments for sustainable consumption practices and greening of the market

ASCEE was a research specific support action for policy in the programme ‘Scientific Support to Policies’ of the European Union’s 6th Framework Research Programme. It began in February 2007 and was finalised by November 2008. The project team consisted of three institutes7:

• Institute for Ecological Economy Research [IÖW], Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany (www.ioew.de ) [coordination]

3 http://www.isoe.de/english/projects/eupopp.htm. 4 Project partners include the National Consumer Research Centre, Finland; University College London; the Baltic Environmental Forum; the Ecoinstitut Barcelona; and ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. Lead partner is the Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), a non-commercial research facility dedicated to integrated environmental and sustainability research at both a national and international level, based in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 5 See http://www.isoe.de/english/projects/eupopp.htm 6 Ibid. 7 See Rubik et al. 2009, policy brief: ‘promoting sustainable consumption: new policy approaches’, available at: http://www.ioew.de/uploads/tx_ukioewdb/ASCEE_Policy_Paper_Promoting_Sustainable_Consumption_01.pdf.

15

• Institute for European Studies – Free University of Brussels [IES-VUB], Brussels, Belgium (www.ies.be )

• National Institute for Consumer Research [SIFO], Oslo, Norway (www.sifo.no).

The project published a scientific report ‘Innovative Approaches in European Sustainable Consumption Policies’ which can be downloaded from the following link: http://www.ioew.de/home/downloaddateien/IOEW-SR_192_Approaches_Sustainable_Consumption.pdf.

In a policy brief summarising their main findings, the researchers argue that sustainable consumption policies should be differentiated according to their contribution to changing consumer behaviour. Looking at current policy developments in Europe, they find that one can distinguish three major ways to foster sustainable consumption patterns:

• Raising consumer awareness • Making sustainable consumption easy

• Greening markets.

They argue that the more government policies can grasp these three dimensions, the larger their overall impact will be. They present examples of good practice as regards sustainable consumption policies, i.e. the UK Red/Green Calculator, the Dutch Green Funds Scheme, the international Topten initiative, the Finnish Eco-Benchmark, the Danish ‘One tonne less’ initiative and Hungarian initiative combining product charges and eco-labels (Rubik, et al., 2009) [see section 4.3 for more details on these examples].

They found the following elements to be essential for the design of sustainable consumption policies:

1. The mix of regulatory and voluntary policy approaches 2. The importance of collective action 3. The adaptability and flexibility of instruments 4. The use of a sound evidence base, covering social science data as well 5. The need for an increased consideration of social aspects of sustainability.

Their main messages for policy makers can be summarised as follows:

• Policy foundation: Understand sustainable consumption as a policy field in its own right and consider thoroughly the policy requirements derived from modern consumption patterns

• Policy approach: Take a flexible role in policy formulation and implementation, and design a multi-stakeholder-based and sufficiently institutionalised policy

• Policy instruments: Develop policy instruments with high built-in adaptability (in particular in areas of rapid technological progress) with a sense of community and social feedback, based on an appropriate evidence-base and increasingly integrating issues of social sustainability

16

• Policy documentation: Systematically assess and monitor the impacts of sustainable consumption policies and create more interactive networks for the dissemination of innovative approaches among EU Member States (Rubik et al., 2009).

SCOPE: the effectiveness of policy instruments for SCP

Under the EU’s 6th Framework Programme, a project was executed on the topic of the ‘effectiveness of policy instruments for SCP’. The project was produced by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO (Netherlands), the Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI, Austria/Germany) and the International Institute for Industrial Ecological Economics (IIIEE) of Lund University (Sweden). The project covered the following elements:

• An inventory and analysis of the effectiveness of policy instruments, voluntary business initiatives and more systemic approaches to realise SCP.

• A gap analysis, focusing on effectiveness gaps (how instruments and approaches can be applied more effectively, alone or in combination), sectoral and geographical gaps (successful approaches are applied in some sectors or countries, rather than in all sectors or countries), and white spots (new instruments and approaches that seem necessary but are not applied at all).

• Conclusions and recommandations (Tucker et al., 2008 p. 3).

The project applied the following working method. First, long lists of instruments and approaches and application areas were generated, where possible, giving an impression of success and failure factors of the approach. For about 8-12 cases per area (policy instruments, business initiatives, and systemic approaches) a more in-depth analysis was done. Cases were selected in such a way that: (a) Each type of policy instrument, business initiative and systemic approaches would preferably be covered by one or two cases; (b) The consumption domains mobility, food and housing/energy use should preferably be covered at least by one or two cases (Tucker et al., 2008). The following table gives an overview of the policy instrument types, business initiatives and systemic approaches analysed in the SCOPE project.

17

Table 1: Overview of instrument mixes towards sustainable consumption and greening the market as developed by the SCOPE project

Policy instruments

Administrative Bans, product standards, material and quality requirements, emission levels, regulation of chemicals, recycling, and recovery quotas; public procurement policies; recommendations of official documents with a normative but non-binding character

Economic Environmentally related taxes and subsidies; Fees and charges; Licenses and permits; Emission Trading Scheme

Informational Mandatory environmental information from governments to the public or to upstream governmental bodies (e.g. for statistical reasons) and from business to the public and/or to governments; mandatory and voluntary certification, eco-labelling, consumer advice, consumer campaigns, education voluntary certification schemes

Business initiatives

Demand side Green private procurement; green products, technologies and operations

Supply side Eco-labelling and social labelling; choice editing; green marketing; product service systems

Systemic approaches

Innovation system approaches (IS)

IS approaches look at support of innovation in general, and aim to identify the functions or factors in the innovation system that need support to let innovation flourish (e.g. the availability of a vision, risk capital, lead markets, entrepreneurs, schooling, research capacity, etc.). The approach was not developed for fostering sustainable innovation per se, but can be used for it, e.g. when countries use the lessons for fostering innovation in the field of environmental technologies.

System innovation approaches (SI)

System innovation approaches were developed around 2000 by groups of mainly Dutch, British and German scholars. The aim is to understand the change to SCP as change in a complex system, which cannot be fully predicted or steered in traditional ways, but needs experimentation, learning, and novel governance approaches via coalitions of front runner societal actors.

(Source: Tucker et al. 2008: 4.)

In the following section, an overview of the main results of the SCOPE project is given regarding the effectiveness of policy instruments in the area of SCP (see Tucker et al. 2008, pp. 4-5):

Effectiveness assessment

The cases evaluated and the results of the effectiveness assessment by the SCOPE project are summarised in Table A1 (see appendix – the results are limited to the sectors under investigation in the current project e.g. food water, energy and mobility). General conclusions with regard to effectiveness assessment by the SCOPE project are:

18

• There are very few, if any, studies that assess the intended and actual outcomes of business initiatives. For policy instruments, most studies focus on energy efficiency instruments. Effectiveness assessments of system innovation and innovation system approaches are scarce, mainly due to the fact that these instruments were only introduced rather recently.

• In the case of policy instruments, regulatory and financial instruments like minimum standards for energy efficiency of housing, and congestion taxes, have a higher impact than softer informative instruments such as labels.

• Having surveyed and analysed some business strategies, it is clear that there is very little coordination of business efforts on macro-economic level and the number of companies involved in greening the market activities is very low; but it is still much higher than that of companies that develop alternative business models for sustainable consumption. Seemingly voluntary actions of companies often are driven either by existing or anticipated regulatory actions, public demand and public opinion. Most business initiatives aim at incremental improvements leaving the existing business chains intact.

• Effectiveness and efficiency of many instruments and initiatives are often hard to evaluate due to the problem of ‘attributability’. For instance, the EU mandatory energy labelling is supported by the availability of A-rating products from well-known brands, by the existence of proper retailer stock policy and by the price support that reduces price differentials (Tucker et al., 2008).

• However, the former point reflects another key message. Combinations of instruments targeting the same area seem to be more effective than individual policy instruments. This package of policy instruments itself needs to be supported by actions and strategies of other actors, most notably business. An example is the labelling legislation on organic food that in itself probably has limited effect. Support of organic food by large retailers not only helps distribute organic food to the general public, but it also increases consumer awareness and reduces consumers’ price premium. The same influence is reported if organic food is included as a requirement in public procurement.

• In summary, Tucker et al. (2008 p. 5) argue that even for changes in consumption and production patterns in the short term, a systemic view has important added value for determining the most effective mix of instruments and business initiatives.

The SCOPE project has also identified so-called ‘white spots’ in sectors, products, target actors or geographical areas, where successful policy instruments, business initiatives and systemic innovations have not yet been applied, but might be applicable (see Table A2 in the appendix for a comprehensive white spot analysis). The most important general ‘white spots’ according to Tucker et al. (2008) are the following:

• National SCP Action Plans have been devised only in three EU countries8 by 2008 8 The authors acknowledge, however, that most EU countries develop sustainable development strategies, which may include issues related to SCP.

19

• Regulative measures in SCP are less employed than economic and particularly informative instruments

• Most instruments focus on production and products. If consumption processes are addressed at all, the focus is on voluntary actions by consumers and information instruments are employed (Tucker et al., 2008 p. 5).

The authors find that in the domains of housing/energy use, mobility and food a long list of instruments and approaches has been identified, that could be applied on a much broader scale than is currently being applied (see Table A2 in the appendix). Some examples are given below:

Housing and energy using products

• Diffusion of zero-energy housing concepts differs markedly across EU member states, suggesting that some member states are more successful in tackling bottlenecks for diffusion than others.

• Energy labelling could cover more products than are covered today (mainly household appliances).

Mobility

• Congestion charges in combination with improved public transport have proved to be very effective in reducing mobility impacts, but are applied in just a few cities.

• Only a limited number of airlines have a user-friendly way of purchasing CO2-compensation certificates when booking a ticket.

• Eco-driving programs (i.e. lessons in fuel-efficient driving) are applied in just a few EU member states.

Food

• Choice editing or promoting sustainable food by retailers is effective, but applied by some of the retailers only.

• There is a high difference in market share of organic food and concepts like slow food across EU member states, reflecting the difference in stimulation measures (Tucker et al., 2008, p. 6).

Furthermore, the SCOPE project has identified some of the main gaps in the existing toolbox of policy instruments, by analysing whether new instruments and initiatives are needed, or if new mixes of these instruments are required, or whether extensive use of existing instruments will suffice for greening of the market and setting conditions and incentives for businesses to invest in innovation that stimulates more sustainable consumption patterns. The analysis is reviewed in Table A3 in the appendix.

The most important gaps identified by the SCOPE project are summarised below:

20

1. There is a clear implementation gap: in practice, it seems difficult to translate statements made at major events like the World Summit on Sustainable Development or major policy documents like the Sustainable Development Strategy.

2. There is a lack of coherent and shared vision on SCP, and its institutional implications.

3. Current SCP policies mainly address marginal improvements in the economic system, but do not address fundamental issues like

(a) the growth paradigm;

(b) the fact that the current way of organising the economic system did not lead to a fundamental improvement in quality of life in Western countries, despite a massive ‘economic growth’ in the last decades.

• It is more the exception than the rule that SCP policies are truly developed from a systemic perspective (see Table A4 in the appendix). This is both true for the short term - what mix of actions can bring (usually incremental) change now, given the positions of different actors? and the long term - how can a process be organised for long term change? (Tucker et al., 2008, p. 6).

In the domains of housing/energy use, mobility and food a long list of gaps has been identified by the SCOPE research team (see Table A3 in the appendix). Some illustrative examples include:

Housing and energy using products

• Minimum energy performance targets exist only for heating, not for lighting, hot tap water, etc.

• No incentives for limiting the amount of living space in m2 per person. • No dynamic targets for the housing sector to improve material and energy efficiency;

standards are minimum standards and standards for more ambitious solutions (e.g. ‘passive houses’) are absent.

Mobility

• Important differences in energy taxation per modality exists (e.g. no taxation on marine and airline fuel).

• The central role of the car in the mobility system is not put up for discussion. • Mobility is usually neglected in (sustainable) public purchasing.

Food

• Except for health and safety regulations, voluntary instruments dominate.

• Policies aimed at reducing meat consumption are not commonplace yet. • Unlike for other industrial sectors and the mobility sector, there are few targets for the

food sector to reduce its life cycle environmental impacts (Tucker et al., 2008, p. 7).

21

The SCOPE project has developed operational guidelines for policy makers including recommendations for how sustainable consumption and greening of the markets can be facilitated by a combination of measures and institutional adaptations. For this, a matrix of actors and instruments has been developed, and specified for the domains food, mobility and housing/energy use. The actors include supra-national organisations like the EU, national governments, local and regional governments, and other participants along the value chain (including consumers). Instruments include administrative, economic and informative policy instruments, as well as business initiatives at the demand and supply side. Instruments are divided into established instruments, underexplored instruments, and innovative instruments. Some illustrative examples include the following (see Tucker et al., 2008, p. 8):

Housing/energy use

• Establish a top runner scheme for housing/houses (EU). • Exercise sustainable public procurement for public buildings and their energy supply

(governments). • Development of standards for zero-energy houses (EU, governments).

Mobility

• Establish a top runner scheme in the automotive field (EU).

• Implement congestion charges; develop infrastructure for non car mobility (local and regional governments, national governments).

• Adapt fuel pricing (particularly for aviation) (EU).

Food

• High VAT on food products with high environmental impacts (e.g. meat) (EU, national governments).

• Informative campaigns influencing meat consumption levels (EU, national governments).

• Making impact of food visible (e.g. via carbon footprint labels; retailers).

Apart from these domain-specific recommendations, the SCOPE research team has also developed some general policy recommendations. These include:

• Ensuring adequate stakeholder involvement, impact on decision-making. They find that this element is usually well organised in most EU member states and at EU level.

• Development of clear multi-dimensional sustainability targets. There is a clear reluctance to set such goals in an SCP context (e.g. targets with regard to overall resource-efficiency improvements in society).

• Clear agreements on implementation steps to be taken by different agents. Given the widely experienced ‘implementation gap’ in the field of SCP, this point needs attention.

22

• Implementation control, success monitoring and feedback loops. This is partially covered at national and EU level by institutions such as EUROSTAT and the EEA (and similar ones at national level) (Tucker et al., 2008, p. 8).

Finally, the authors emphasise that SCP is a concept that seeks to make our economic system more sustainable as a whole. They argue that even though this is usually neglected, the discourse must address some fundamental questions about how the economic system works, and if it provides quality of life for the population in the most effective way. They conclude that topics such as ‘beyond GDP’, ‘de-growth’, and ‘effectiveness in quality of life provision’ must have a place on the SCP agenda, even though they might be difficult to deal with (Tucker et al., 2008, p. 8).

In the following section, EU Directives on production and consumption are presented, which are relevant to the area of SCP. First, a brief overview of international development to address sustainable consumption is presented before the focus turns to the European level.

23

3 EU Directives on Production and Consumption

3.1 International Developments to address Sustainable Consumption

The concept of sustainable consumption and production has been on the international agenda since the early 1990s; before that, environmental policy and attempts to address sustainable development had focused primarily on the production side by aiming to transform production processes through eco-efficiency and pollution control (Berg, 2010). The first global political agreement on sustainable consumption was Chapter 4 of Agenda 21 at the Rio Earth Summit, which stated that ‘action is needed to promote sustainable consumption and production that will reduce environmental stress and will meet the basic needs of humanity’ (UNCED, 1992, p. 45).

The Rio Summit 1992 represented ‘a watershed in the international community’s way of thinking, and the focus of environmental policy shifted from production alone to consumption and production’ (Berg, 2010, p. 3). During the next decade, however, reports showed that implementation of sustainable consumption policies at the national level had been slow, leading to the proposal of a global framework programme (UNEP & Consumers International, 2004, p. 7). Consequently, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD Conference organised by UNDSD, 2002) in Johannesburg indicated a renewed global policy focus and the agreement to develop a framework of regional and national SCP initiatives (Clark, 2007, p. 493). To this end, UNEP initiated the Marrakech Process, with the goal to create a Global Framework for Action on Sustainable Consumption and Production. The Marrakech Process is a global multi-stakeholder process to promote (SCP) and to work towards a 'Global Framework for Action on SCP', the so-called 10-Year Framework of Programmes on SCP (10YFP). The draft of the 10YFP was developed in a participatory process with key partners of the Marrakech Process and other stakeholders such as: the Marrakech Process Advisory Committee, the regions, governments, Marrakech Task Forces, major group stakeholders (businesses, NGOs and Trade Unions) as well as SCP experts, UN agencies, etc. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) are the leading agencies of this global process, with participation of national governments, development agencies, private sector, civil society and other stakeholders9.

The 10-Year Framework of Programs on SCP is subject to revision by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in the period 2010/2011; a first assessment prepared for this review can be found in a report produced by Barber (2010) with the title ‘Still waiting for Delivery: A Review of Progress and Programs in the 10-Year Framework’. The 18th UN Commission on Sustainable Development calls for a review of progress on the implementation of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development’s mandate to develop a 10-year framework of programs on sustainable consumption and production. ‘Still Waiting for Delivery’ contributes to this review from a civil society perspective (Barber, 2010, p. 1). Regarding the criteria to evaluate progress so far, Barber (2010) argues that in

9 http://www.unep.fr/scp/marrakech/

24

order to effectively review progress, a clear understanding of the original aims and objectives of the activity being evaluated, is required. However, he argues that is difficult, because ‘one of the problems of the 10-Year Framework of Programs on Sustainable Consumption and Production has been a lack of clarity about exactly what it was that was supposed to be developed, when it was supposed to be delivered, who was to be held responsible for developing it, or by what criteria to evaluate progress’ (Barber, 2010, p. 3). He adds that the 18th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development confronts a major challenge, particularly for those delegates and observers who were not part of the process formulating this mandate in Johannesburg eight years before this (Barber, 2010).

At the European level the Lisbon Strategy (EC, 2000), the Sustainable Development Strategy (EC, 2001) which was revised in 2006 (EC, 2006) and the 6th European Action Programme10 (EAP) provide the broad programme for promoting SPC. In 2004 the EU Environment Minister stated that one of four priorities would be to find the path to more sustainable patterns of production and consumption (EC, 2004).

On July 16, 2008, the European Commission announced a series of proposals to improve the environmental performance of products and to increase the demand for more sustainable goods and production technologies, which are formulated in The Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan (EC, 2008). This Action Plan is an important part of the EU’s Sustainable Development Strategy, which affirms the United Nations’ Marrakech Process on Sustainable Consumption and Production and the global 10-Year Sustainable Consumption and Production Framework11.

The main target of the Action Plan is to arrange a dynamic framework to improve the energy and environmental performance of products and foster their uptake by consumers (Rubik, et al., 2009). The Action Plan consists of three parts: smarter consumption and environmentally better products; leaner production; and stimulating global market activities for sustainable products. The character of the Action Plan is that of a communication of intended measures and activities. It will be implemented by specific actions, which must be arranged by directives and regulations (Rubik, et al., 2009).

The SCP Action Plan formulates EU goals for environmental sustainability, economic growth, and public welfare. By improving the overall environmental performance of products throughout their life cycle and supporting the development of more sustainable products and production technologies, it aims for resource conservation and efficiency by attempting to ‘decouple’ economic growth from environmental degradation12. The Action Plan integrates and complements a number of existing EU and Member State actions to foster resource efficiency and the use of eco-friendly products: for example, it builds on the EU’s Integrated Product Policy, Thematic Strategy on the Use of Natural Resources, and Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling. Along with the Action Plan, these initiatives provide

10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/index.htm 11 http://www.epa.gov/oswer/international/factsheets/pdfs/200810-sustainable-consumption-and-production.pdf. 12 Ibid.

25

strategic direction for the EU in achieving sustainability goals. Furthermore, The EU SCP Action Plan includes:

- A proposal to revise and expand the scope of the 2005 EU Eco-Design Directive for Energy-Using Products. The current directive establishes minimum technical eco design requirements for consumer appliances such as hairdryers, computers, refrigerators, and office equipment. The proposal expands requirements to energy-related products: products that do not consume energy during use, but have an indirect impact on energy consumption. It also defines voluntary benchmarks for environmental performance.

- A proposal to extend mandatory labelling requirements related to the energy performance of products, under the 1992 Energy Labelling Directive. Under the proposal, this directive, which requires labelling of household appliances to increase consumer awareness about energy and environmental performance, would be applied to a wider range of products.

- A proposal to strengthen the voluntary EU Eco-Label by widening the number of products covered (e.g. including food and beverage products) and streamlining the system. The proposal is designed to encourage manufacturers to go beyond mandatory minimum product standards.

- The Action Plan also proposes that only products attaining a certain level of energy or environmental performance should be procured by EU Member States and institutions and should be eligible for incentives granted by Member States to consumers for the purchase of eco-friendly products.

- A separate Communication on Green Public Procurement. This communication identifies priority sectors of the economy and includes a process to establish common environmental criteria and targets to guide green public procurement by Member States.

- A proposed revision of the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) to increase the number of companies involved, including companies outside the EU, and reduce the administrative burden and costs for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs). EMAS are a management tool to help firms evaluate, report and improve their environmental performance (EC, 2008).

The following table gives an overview of the main EU targets and proposed actions regarding its Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) which are integrated in the SC Action Plan:

26

Table 2: EU SDS objectives and proposed actions EU SDS objectives and targets EU SDS proposed actions

• Address social and economic development within carrying capacity of ecosystems

• Decouple economic growth from environmental degradation

• Improve environmental and social performance for products and policies

• Aim to achieve by 2010 an EU average level of Green Public Procurement (GPP) equal to the level currently achieved by best performing Member States

• Increase global market share in the field of environmental technologies and eco-innovations.

• Dialogue with business to set environmental and social performance targets

• Structured process to share best practice on GPP and benchmarking

• Step up efforts to promote and disseminate social- and eco-innovation through effective implementation of the Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP)

• Extend performance labelling schemes • Support information campaigns with

retailers to promote sustainable products (organic farming, fair trade, environmentally sound products).

(Source: adapted from Doran, 2007, p. 11).

The Action Plan is directed mainly towards the improvement of environmental features of products and towards support of the purchasing behaviour of consumers. Bearing in mind that the purchase of a product forms the starting point of a consumption process, the Action Plan actually deals with sustainable consumption, for instance, when it refers to public purchasers. However, the way that consumers use products and their levels of consumption are not addressed by the measures contained in the Action Plan (Rubik et al., 2009, p. 4). The most concrete measure, dealing with product use, planned is the identification of labelling classes below which Member States would not be allowed to set incentives (e.g. subsidies). The plans for other measures that might stimulate a greener product use and the empowerment of consumers are less concrete and less precise. They seem inadequate to influence product use. Moreover, there is no reference to the most pressing environmental concerns arising in the areas of food/drinking, mobility, and housing. The Commission also announced a review of the Action Plan for 2012 (Rubik et al., 2009, p. 4).

In a recent paper reviewing the Communication of the EU on the Action Plan, Nash (2009) concludes that the absence of mandatory quantifiable targets and deadlines and a reliance on both cross-sectoral and multi-level relationships are likely to weaken the ability of the action plan’s fundamental objective of decoupling economic growth from resource use. However, it might be too early to assess the impacts of the European SCP Action Plan; its implementation and success depend on many factors as well as on various state and non-state actors and its impact will only be visible over a long period of time. Nevertheless, the fact that there are no mandatory targets and deadlines might affect the impact of the Action Plan at state and local levels and this problem should be kept in mind when assessing further progress of its implementation.

27

4 Catalogue of International Best Practice Models and Tools

for Quality of Life Proofing

In the following sections, a catalogue of international best practice models and tools for quality of life proofing is presented. To this end, in section 4.1, the connection between consumption and quality of life is discussed. In section 4.2, methods to assess sustainable consumption are presented and their strengths and limits are discussed. An overview of national indicator sets to assess sustainable consumption and production patterns, is then presented. Broader conceptual frameworks which aim to assess national and sub-national initiatives to achieve sustainable consumption are then reviewed. In section 4.3, examples of best or ‘good’ practice are drawn from a range of international examples for the areas energy, water, food, transport as well as for cross-sectoral areas, highlighting good practice for specific instrument types (economic, legislative, communicative).

4.1 The Relationship between Consumption and Quality of Life

In order to facilitate behaviour change towards more sustainable lifestyles, it is important to understand the connection between consumption and quality of life. Thereby, ‘the notion of “sustainability” itself is inherently contestable, and its links with issues of consumption have triggered significant debates about needs versus wants, quality of life and degrees of acceptable impact on the environment’ (Davies et al., 2010, p. 59). It is necessary to focus on the behavioural dynamics of consumption and the links between consumption behaviour and quality of life; more attention needs to be paid to both the practices and governance of consumption, whereby governance can be regarded as the ‘sum of ways that affairs are managed in particular contexts’ (Davies et al., 2010, p. 61).

There are increasingly powerful links being made between consumption, health and well-being, both in Ireland (Rugkasa et al., 2007) and overseas (Gatersleben, 2001; Woodcock et al., 2007). These links include, but also move beyond, visible connections between pollution and health. They also inform perceptions of, and communication about, risk in the context of debates about modern technologies such as waste incineration and gas processing (Leonard, 2008). These concerns are grounded in issues relating to regulation, trust and justice (Davies, 2006) but they are also being articulated in terms of quality of life (Fahy & Ó Cinnéide, 2008). A focus on quality of life, which encompasses concerns about health and well-being, is being promoted as a means of engaging with people’s holistic ways of thinking about their interactions with the environment.

A critical issue in this debate is the relationship between quality of life (health and well-being) and consumption, for it has been assumed that consumption is an attempt to provide for individual well-being (Jackson, 2006). Material consumption is often equated with quality of life, or happiness, despite the fact that for developed countries empirical research provides little support for this link (or even shows the opposite tendency). (For an overview, see Speth, 2008; Jackson, 2009). The equation of economic growth, generating greater consumption and leading to an increased quality of life, is therefore increasingly being questioned (Jackson, 2009).

28

It can be argued that human needs are the drivers of consumption practices (Burgess & Bedford, 2002), which can relate to material as well as non-material needs. Max-Neef and colleagues (1992) claim that ‘needs range from basic requirements of subsistence, and protection through affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity and freedom. These motivational needs are expressed in a matrix form with different categories of experiential encounters – being, having, doing and interacting – recognised as being equally important in satisfying them’ (in Burgess & Bedford, 2002, p. 11). This research is an important development as it explains the underlying needs of drivers for human consumption, which can only partially be fulfilled by the market. The distinction in the Max-Neef matrix between ‘material needs’, which require resource use, and ‘non-material needs’, which are basically outcomes of processes of human interaction, is a good starting point to conceptualise the complex relationship between human needs, consumption patterns and quality of life.

This distinction between ‘material needs’ and ‘non-material needs’ is also addressed in an analysis by Jackson and Marks (1999), who examine patterns of expenditure in order to explore the relationship between the consumption of economic goods and needs satisfaction. Jackson and Mark find that ‘the pattern of consumption in the UK appears increasingly to implicate material artefacts in the attempted satisfaction of non-material needs’ (p. 437). These findings seem to suggest that people are locked in by their social and cultural consumption habits, which are shaped by the media and commercials of products which promote certain lifestyles, to consume more and more in order to fill their partly non-material needs. Even though this is basically not possible, people will keep on consuming if they keep their common lifestyles of (un-) sustainable consumption patterns.

Quality of Life and Sustainable Consumption

Interest in sustainable consumption over the past decade has provided important insights on the role of consumption, numerous proposals for alternative views, and many moral arguments for a focus on different, more accurate descriptions of quality of life. There is, however, a paucity of empirical and experimental work on what people construe as quality of life. We know, for example, from public health researchers that some forms of consumption can become addictive – such as compulsive shopping or eating disorder – and can lead to reductions in quality of life. There is, though, insufficient understanding of how lifestyle choices, activity patterns, social factors, infrastructures, and policies affect the quality of life of different groups13.

In 2005, the ‘Oslo Declaration on Sustainable Consumption’ was formulated by fifty researchers from around the world, who met in Oslo for the final workshop of a three-year project on Life Cycle Approaches to Sustainable Consumption. The project built on prior work in sustainable consumption and provided for an extended period of structured exchange

13 http://www.oslodeclaration.org/

29

among researchers active in the area (http://www.oslodeclaration.org/). The declaration consists of two parts: a statement of intent and an outline of principal research questions. The Oslo Declaration on Sustainable Consumption highlights aspects of equity and quality of life by stating that ‘Sustainable consumption focuses on formulating equitable strategies that foster the highest quality of life, the efficient use of natural resources, and the effective satisfaction of human needs while simultaneously promoting equitable social development, economic competitiveness, and technological innovation’ (Oslo Declaration 2005, p. 1).

The researchers contributing to the Oslo Declaration approached the EU to promote a strong focus of the next EU Framework Programmes on the topic of SPC and emphasised that there had been an implementation gap as regards SPC policies since the WSSD in 2002 and the formulation of Agenda 21: ‘A frequent point of discussion during the event in Norway was the growing divergence between official statements made during the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002 regarding the need to foster more sustainable consumption and the paucity of actual achievements meeting this objective’ (Tukker et al., 2006, p. 9). According to Tucker et al. (2006), two issues seem to be responsible for this implementation gap: on the one hand, they argue that the prevailing focus of governments on resource and energy efficiency to tackle SCP is not sufficient to ensure long-term sustainability. On the other hand, Tucker et al point to research indicating that the growth of personal incomes (in developed countries) over the past decades has ‘not contributed appreciably to overall improvements in quality of life, wellbeing, or happiness’ (Tucker et al., 2006, p. 9). They point out that the contemporary economic system does not seem to fulfil consumer needs in an efficient way.

Increasingly, quality of life is being regarded as an essential element of sustainability. This is so because efforts to promote sustainable development policies are unlikely to be fruitful if they impinge too severely on perceptions of human well-being. It is argued that there is little point in trying to implement sustainable systems if they detract from the quality of life of the people in these systems (Bell & Morse, 2003). Some authors argue that the maintenance and even improvement of quality of life for all is essential to the programme of Sustainable Development (Meister & Japp, 1998).

If consumption alone cannot increase quality of life after a certain point of wealth, the question is: which alternative factors matter in this regard? This question is being addressed by research focusing on human needs, which shape individual consumption patterns.

Definitions of Quality of Life

There are a large number of diverse definitions of quality of life. For example, Cutter (1985, p. 10) defines it as ‘an individual’s happiness or satisfaction with life and environment including needs and desires and other tangible and intangible factors which determine overall well-being’. For Kline (2001) quality of life, at a minimum, needs to measure the ability of citizens to get adequate health care, housing, childcare, public safety and education.

30

Some scholars argue that better community relations or more time with family might be more important for improving quality of life (Frank, 1999). Evidence from the US indicates that individuals trade off money for better quality as measured by better local amenities in some areas, e.g. by paying for a higher quality of life through a less attractive combination of lower wages and higher rents (Blomquist, 2006). The Oslo Declaration from 2005 argues that rather than being determined by material wealth and consumption, ‘Quality of life is more an outcome of less tangible considerations such as freedom, security, social embeddedness, environmental quality, health, ability to live in accordance with one’s values and ideals’ (Oslo Declaration, 2005, p. 5)14. Juliet Schor (2005; 2010) as well as other authors (see for example Seyfang 2009; Hinton & Goodman 2010) has made the case for reducing working hours in order to improve quality of life by increasing the amount of free time, which also would have the effect of creating more jobs.

An interesting approach to conceptualising consumption patterns and incentives for behaviour change has been brought forward by Doran (2007) and Hinton and Goodman (2010), who have suggested promoting sustainable behaviour not only as a moral issue but also in terms of quality of life and rational self-interest: ‘whereas public communications about “sustainable development” and “climate change” can often prove overwhelming, messages focusing on quality of life solutions that also address wider ecological issues may find a ready audience’ (Doran, 2007, p. 33).

In a similar line of argument, Hinton and Goodman (2010, pp. 18-19) point to an emerging direction in research on alternative forms of SC referred to as ‘alternative hedonism’ (Soper & Thomas, 2006). ‘Alternative hedonism’ starts from the assumption that consumerism ultimately leads to an overall level of disenchantment in the sense that one can never satisfy all desires by just consuming more. Thomas (2008) argues that this kind of disaffection or ‘ambivalent consumerism’ is already present and being acted on in the mainstream media in the form of UK lifestyle television programmes that incorporate narratives linking downsizing, downshifting and ‘the good life’, where alternative hedonistic activity supports a domestic, local version of citizenship in the face of political disenchantment (Hinton & Goodman, 2010, p. 18). By building on this disenchantment with consumerism and by re-directing people’s desires towards the cultural and artistic aesthetics of ‘anti-consumption consumption’, sustainable consumption could be ‘much more effective at motivating societies beyond moral concerns alone and work towards a more holistic vision of sustainable living that has room for self-interest rather than centring on a kind of moral superiority’ (Hinton & Goodman, 2010, p. 19).

This approach suggests that it might be useful to promote the concept of sustainable lifestyles in terms of individuals’ interests for quality of life in order for any changes in consumption patterns to occur. If individuals realise that more sustainable lifestyles could improve their quality of life as well as doing something meaningful to ensure future generations’ consumption and resources, they are more likely to be more motivated to change their consumption patterns. The theory of ‘alternative hedonism’ cited above points to some

14 http://www.oslodeclaration.org/

31

possibilities on how to build on the resulting disenchantment of individuals to promote more sustainable lifestyles. Methods such as social marketing as well as information campaigns targeted to specific consumer groups could be a step in the right direction in this regard.

At the same time, however, it will be necessary to provide sufficient infrastructure or ‘systems of provision’ (Southerton et al., 2004) for sustainable lifestyles, e.g. well-functioning public transport; products with trustworthy labelling; carefully designed information campaigns; as well as a government which leads by example: ‘people no longer respond to persuasion alone. They expect government to set an example and to make its interventions tangible and fair’ (Doran 2007, p. 44). In the following section, methods to assess sustainable consumption are discussed.

4.2 Methods to assess Sustainable Consumption

As has been indicated above, there is no clear conceptualisation on how to define Sustainable Development (SD) or Sustainable Consumption (SC). This makes it difficult for measuring progress on sustainable consumption as well: ‘...the measurement of sustainability is fraught with difficulty, as might be expected for a concept that is so polysemous’ (Parris and Kates 2003; quoted in Rosa et al., 2010, p. 93). The concepts of SD and SC overlap insofar as they both attempt to aim for economic, social and environmental sustainability. Sustainable Consumption can be regarded as one way to operationalise sustainable development (see Comim et al., 2007), as overconsumption in industrialised countries has been identified as one major obstacle to achieve sustainable development. Due to the common ground between SC and SD, it makes sense to look at both evaluation tools for SC and SD in order to assess progress in national strategies for SC. In the following section, an overview is given of different tools to assess sustainable consumption and development, and their benefits and limitations are discussed.

Measurement Tools: Strengths and limits of different approaches

Ecological Footprinting (EF) and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) have been central to many attempts to consider the impact of consumption patterns on resource depletion. Other tools include the use of indicators, best practice assessment and visioning, aim to develop solutions starting from desired future scenarios of sustainable living instead of focusing on how to solve current unsustainable situations alone. One way to distinguish these different tools is the level of aggregation of assessing environmental impacts of human behaviour. While some indicators focus on certain aspects alone (e.g. the level of recycling or the usage of public transport in a given national context), other measures like EF aim to aggregate many indicators into one measurement tool. The underlying logic of EF is to estimate how much productive sea and land would be required to support a particular pattern of consumption (Dietz et al., 2010, p. 9). In order to do this, this measurement tool is an attempt to aggregate all major stressors into a single

32

measure. It takes into account GHG emissions, consumption of forest products, products of grazing, agriculture, fish and other seafood; and the amount of land used for living space and infrastructure15. Thereby, EF can be applied at any unit of analysis – it can be calculated for individuals, households, communities, organisations, nations or the entire planet (Dietz et al., 2010, p. 92). This approach has both benefits and limitations: for example, it has been questioned if it is possible to objectively know and quantify what makes consumption unsustainable, which is an implicit assumption of EF. The numeric values, which are the result of EF, conceal important questions about what should be measured, how it is measured, and even if it is measurable at all (Haberl et al., 2001). In this regard, this measurement tool has been criticised for neglecting important stressors like toxic substances or water shortages. The effects of international trade are not reflected sufficiently as the environmental impacts of production in one country can arise in other countries due to the transfer of production to low-cost countries (Dietz et al., 2010, p. 120). Another limitation is that there is not one uniform approach to EF, which can lead to different footprint sizes for the same units of analysis, hampering the comparability of the results (Wiedmann & Minx, 2008). LCA techniques and carbon calculators reveal similar problems (Padgett et al., 2008, Reap et al., 2008).

Further tools to assess SC/SD include: Visioning, which describes the development of long-term wide-ranging visions of alternative scenarios. This serves to enable the public and policy-makers to recognise that there are numerous choices to achieve sustainable development. The outcomes of visioning workshops can inform stakeholders about different possible SD strategies, encourage planning reforms, and help to achieve sustainability goals. However, a crucial challenge for visioning is to implement these visioning scenarios, i.e. to transfer visions into practicable policy or design solutions (Wheeler, 2004; Fahy and Ó Cinnéide, 2008).

Environmental Impact Assessment can be used to assess threats to the environment and is often used in the context of environmental management policies (Deakin et al., 2002). Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 called for the development of indicators for sustainable development. Since then, this tool has become prominent for assessing sustainability (Bell & Morse, 1999; Wheeler, 2004; Gahin et al., 2003; Hoernig & Seasons, 2005). The use of indicators has been considered to be a central element in operationalising sustainability (Bell & Morse, 1999). A sustainability indicator ‘captures and measures a particular aspect of sustainability policy in an easily communicable form, allowing monitoring and subsequent “steering” of policy, whether by internal management or external political pressure’ (Rydin et al., 2003, p. 581). Benefits of indicators include that they can provide important information about trends in key environmental areas and assist in tracking progress towards SD goals. Indicators can also be regarded as a method to engage the community in working towards shared aims and objectives (Gahin et al., 2003) and can therefore be used as tools for

15

The aggregation occurs across types of consumption by translating each into the land area required to sustain that

consumption, assuming global average levels of productivity (Dietz et al., 2010, p. 9).

33

planning, learning, communication and collaboration (Hoernig & Seasons, 2005). However, some authors have also pointed out the limitations of indicators for sustainability. First of all, it has been criticised that indicators try to encapsulate diverse and complicated processes in a small number of measures: ‘for all their attempt at holism and a desire to incorporate the richness of humankind’s complex relationships with nature, indicators are still a classic reductionist set of tools based on quantification’ (Bell & Morse, 1999, p. 31). It seems difficult to find clear links between the development of indicator programmes and actual changes in decision-making and policy outcomes: Analysing the effects of five sustainability indicator programmes, Gahin et al (2003) find that ‘actual change as measured by the indicators was not found in any of the case studies’ (Gahin et al., 2003, p. 663; see also Rydin et al., 2003). However, indicators can steer change in a desired direction by helping to produce certain tangible and concrete outcomes, e.g.:

• Intangible outcomes: indicators can provide a forum for discussion; facilitate

conversation and value shifts; and increase awareness.

• Concrete outcomes: these include the introduction of new agendas or programmes by

influencing (policy) decisions, which can then be incorporated into planning process.

Further concrete outcomes can be changed individual behaviour and more appropriate

resource allocations.

• Measurable outcomes: indicators can steer change in a desired direction by helping to

measure progress toward sustainability as defined by the respective indicators.

In conclusion, one could argue that indicators are no substitute for action; however, they can help to create social knowledge and connections that are necessary for ‘meaningful action’ (Gahin et al., 2003, p. 666; Rydin et al., 2003). In the following section, some examples will be provided highlighting concrete indicators developed by International Organisations like the UNEP or OECD for the area of sustainable development and sustainable consumption. Examples of indicator sets that have been developed for individual countries will also be presented.

4.2.1 Overview of Indicator Sets developed by International Organisations

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN/DESA) published a set of indicators measuring changes in consumption and production patterns in 1998, as an important element of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) work programme of indicators for sustainable development. This set of indicators is the outcome of consultation and workshops with policymakers and experts on SCP. Seventeen SCP indicators are selected as a core set, covering four key resources and five consumption clusters. The selection of these indicators reflects a number of key issues on SCP, including eco-efficiency, cost internalisation, trends and developments in policy making, responsibilities of key actors, and an analysis of unsustainable consumption and production

34

patterns and lifestyles. Also, an effort has been made in the selection process to avoid overlap with other chapters of Agenda 2116. This core set of seventeen indicators is a starting point for further development of SCP indicators. DESA is currently in the process of revising this publication to reflect new priorities and emerging key issues on SCP, for example, impact of consumption and production patterns on climate change, recycling rate of material, waste from life-cycle of products, institutional capacity in shifting towards SCP, etc. Meanwhile, a survey on SCP indicators is part of this proposed revised plan, to identify the common issues and needs for training in better-use of SCP indicators. It is expected that the revised version of SCP indicators17 will be used as an information tool for guiding policy-making and monitoring the process of changing consumption and production patterns18. The set of sustainable development indicators19, which was finalised in 2006 by a group of indicator experts from developing and developed countries and international organisations, consists of a set of fifty core indicators, which are part of a larger set of ninety-six indicators. The set includes thirteen major themes, including one on SCP. The UN Millennium Development Goals are the basis for many of the other themes. See Table 3 below for an overview of indicators developed by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development: Table 3: Indicators for Consumption and Production Patterns by UN/DESA Key Resources Core indicator Objectives Energy Annual energy consumption per

capita Monitors energy consumption

Intensity of energy use Monitors energy use per unit of production/service (for selected sectors)

Share of renewable energy in total energy consumption

Monitors the development of renewable energy sources

Energy prices Monitors energy prices in relation to GDP and disposable income

Materials

Total material requirement Monitors total material throughput, including hidden or indirect material flows required for a national economy

Intensity of material use Monitors material use per unit of production/service for selected sectors

16 http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/international.htm 17 See http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/consumption/cpp1224m.htm for more details on ‘consumption and production patterns – work in progress’. 18 Ibid. 19 For more details on sustainable development indicators, country submissions of indicators profiles, the Johannesburg plan of implementation and guidelines on indicators and methodology sheets, see: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_ind/ind_index.shtml?utm_source=OldRedirect&utm_medium=redirect&utm_content=dsd&utm_campaign=OldRedirect.

35

Water Intensity of water use Monitors water use per unit of production/service for selected sectors

Land Intensity of land use Monitors land use (forestry, agriculture, settlements, infrastructure and recreation)

Consumption Clusters Core indicator Other indicator Mobility Distance travelled per capita by

mode of transport Monitors the use of different modes of transport (foot, bicycle, train, boat, car, bus, plane)

Number of road vehicles Monitors the total number of vehicles (possibly by type and fuel efficiency)

Consumer goods and services Retail sales of selected goods per capita

Monitors retail sales of goods (e.g. electronics, home-appliances, clothing,)

Market share of more sustainably produced goods and services

Monitors social and environmental interest of consumers and producers

Buildings and house-keeping Residential energy and water use per household

Monitors total water and energy use in households due to consumer behaviour and housing design and construction

Average household size Monitors the number of persons per household

Food Market share of more sustainably produced food

Monitors social and environmental interest of consumers and producers

Recreation Spending on recreation as share of disposable income

Monitors the demand for recreation activities

Time spent on leisure, paid and unpaid work, and travelling

Monitors time-allocation and distribution, and reflects lifestyles

(Source: UNEP 2010, see http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/international.htm) Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) The OECD developed a set of sustainable household consumption indicators20 in 1999. Emphasis was placed on final household and government consumption in developed countries (as opposed to intermediate consumption and production, which is undertaken by companies). There is also a focus on the environmental pillar of sustainability21. There are three overriding themes in the framework: (i) sectoral trends and patterns of environmental significance; (ii) interactions of consumption and production with the environment; and (iii) economic and policy aspects. Specific indicator topics include economic trends, resource use and trade aspects. The framework includes a total of forty-five indicators, some examples of which are shown in the below table. 20 See http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_34331_2397498_1_1_1_1,00.html for more details. 21 http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/international.htm

36

Table 4: Indicators for Sustainable Household Consumption developed by OECD Theme Indicator Topic Environmentally significant consumption trends and patterns

Economic trends e.g. level and trends of private final consumption expenditure Socio-demographic trends e.g. urban versus rural population: in 1000 inhabitants, and as a percentage of total population Sector-specific trends including transport, tourism, and consumption of durable and non-durable goods e.g. average length of product life, by selected product groups

Interactions between consumption and the environment

Air e.g. air emission from passenger transport (as a share of total emissions, and related intensities in kg per capita or per-passenger km and per-vehicle km) Waste e.g. waste recycling rates (paper, glass, batteries, PVC bottles, metals, other waste streams) Water e.g. waste water discharges by households Noise e.g. national population exposed to noise levels from various sources Land and biodiversity e.g. urbanisation: land covered by urban development in km2 and as a percentage of total land area

Economic and policy aspects Regulatory instruments No indicators proposed at this stage Economic instruments e.g. tax rates on natural resource use compared to tax rates on services Information/social instruments e.g. eco-labelled products: share of purchase of eco-labelled products/total consumption purchase (%) Trade aspects e.g. ratio between imported and domestically produced goods in domestic consumption

(Source: UNEP 2010, see http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/international.htm). European Commission (EC) Eurostat, the European Commission’s statistics office, has developed a set of sustainable development indicators. The indicators are linked to the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. The strategy, adopted by the European Council in Gothenburg in June 2001, and renewed in June 2006, aims to reconcile economic development, social cohesion and protection of the environment. Monitoring progress towards this overarching goal is an

37

essential part of the Strategy. The indicator framework includes ten themes that reflect major sustainable development priorities. Sustainable consumption and production is one of these themes. Other indicators of SCP are included in many of the other themes. Table 5: Indicators for Sustainable Consumption and Production developed by the EC Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Sub-theme: Resource Use and Waste 1. Resource Productivity 2. Municipal waste generated 3. Components of domestic

material consumption 4. Domestic material

consumption by material 5. Municipal waste treatment,

by type of treatment method 6. Generation of hazardous

waste, by economic activity 7. Emissions of acidifying

substances by source sector 8. Emissions of ozone

precursors by source sector 9. Emissions of particulate

matter by source sector Sub-theme: Consumption Patterns 10. Electricity consumption by

households 11. Final energy consumption by sector

12. Consumption of certain foodstuffs per inhabitant

13. Motorisation rate Sub-theme: Production Patterns 14. Enterprises with an

environmental management system

15. Eco-label awards by products

16. Area under agri-environmental commitment

17. Area under organic farming 18. Livestock density index Contextual indicators Number of households

Household expenditure per inhabitant, by category

(Source: UNEP 2010, see http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/international.htm). Apart from these indicators sets for SCP developed by international institutions, there are also SCP indicator initiatives ongoing in Europe by several research institutes and public institutions. The study by Spangenberg and Lorek (2002) proposes an indicator framework that can be used by households and policy makers22. Indicators on construction and housing, food and transport are presented. The indicators are for households in developed countries.

22 See http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/pdf/WP117.pdf for more details.

38

There are also other indicator initiatives funded by the European Commission that have relevance to the SCP indicator agenda. These include initiatives on life-cycle-based indicators for sustainable consumption and production in the European Union and eco-innovation indicators for Europe. Furthermore, the European Environment Agency's Topic Centre for Resource and Waste Management is conducting on a new set of SCP Indicators for Europe23. In the following section, some examples are given of indicator sets developed by individual countries.

4.2.2 Overview of National Indicator Sets

Several countries have developed and utilised indicators for SCP. This includes efforts to develop complete frameworks of SCP indicators and to develop individual SCP-related indicators as part of wider indicator frameworks on economic and sustainable development. Research organisations have also conducted work on SCP indicators (e.g. The Society of Non-Traditional Technology, Japan)24. Two example initiatives are discussed briefly below. United Kingdom A set of national sustainable development indicators was developed and consulted on as part of the UK's sustainable development strategy. They represent the four UK priorities, including SCP. There are presently 25 sustainable consumption and production indicators. The UK Government is in the process of updating its set of SCP indicators. Table 6: Indicators for Sustainable Consumption and Production developed in the UK Indicator Topic Indicator Topic Greenhouse gas emissions e.g. Kyoto target and CO2 emissions, 1990 to 2012

Waste e.g. waste arising by sector, 1998-9 to 2002-3

Carbon dioxide emissions by end user e.g. CO2 emissions from industry, domestic, transport sectors (excluding international aviation and shipping), 1990 to 2005

Household waste per person e.g. recycled or composted, 1991-2 to 2005-6

Aviation and shipping emissions e.g. greenhouse gases from UK-based international aviation and shipping fuel bunkers, 1990 to 2005

Agriculture sector e.g. fertiliser input, farmland bird population, ammonia and methane emissions and output, 1974 to 2006

Household energy use e.g. domestic CO2 emissions, domestic energy consumption and household spending, 1990 to 2005

Land recycling e.g. new dwellings built on previously developed land or through conversions, 1990 to 2006

Road transport e.g. CO2, NOx, PM10 emissions from road transport and Gross Domestic Product, 1990 to 2005

Fish Stocks e.g. sustainability of fish stocks around the UK, 1998 to 2005

Private cars e.g. private car CO2 emissions, car-kilometres and household spending, 1990 to 2005

Emissions of air pollutants e.g. NH3, NOx, PM10 and SO2 emissions and GDP, 1990 to 2005

23 See http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/international.htm. 24 See http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/national.htm#UK.

39

Road freight e.g. Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) CO2 emissions, freight moved and Gross Domestic Product, 1990 to 2005

River quality e.g. rivers of good biological quality, 1990 to 2005

Manufacturing sector e.g. CO2, NOx, SO2, PM10, emissions and output, 1990 to 2005

Economic growth e.g. Gross Domestic Product, 1990 to 2006

Service sector e.g. CO2, NOx emissions and output, 1990 to 2005

Productivity e.g. international comparisons of productivity growth, 1991 to 2005

Public sector e.g. CO2, NOx emissions and output, 1990 to 2005

Investment e.g. total investment and social investment relative to GDP, 1990 to 2006

Resource use e.g. Domestic Material Consumption and Gross Domestic Product, 1990 to 2005

Demography e.g. population and population of working age, 1970 to 2006

Water resource use e.g. total abstractions from non-tidal surface and ground water, leakage losses and Gross Domestic Product, 1990 to 2005

Households and dwellings e.g. households, single person households and dwelling stock, 1971 to 2004

Domestic water consumption e.g. litres per person per day, 1995 to 2005

(Source: UNEP 2010, see: http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/national.htm#UK) Belgium In 2002, the Centre for Sustainable Development (Ghent University, Belgium) developed a set of SCP indicators for Belgium. The study also considered measures for evaluating specific SCP policies. The methodology aims to cover the four pillars of sustainability. The social pillar encompasses ethical, equality and participation indicators. However, no targets are included – all indicators are directional only. The final result is a set of twenty-five indicators. The indicators are partly used in federal reports on sustainable development and in particular in the 'Tableau d'indicateurs de développement durable' published in 2005 as a supplement of the third Federal Report on Sustainable Development 2000-200425.

25 See http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/national.htm#UK.

40

Table 7: Indicators for Sustainable Consumption and Production developed by Belgium Indicator Number of companies with a certified eco-management and/or socio-management audit system Total Material Requirement (TMR) per GDP The total amount of used packaging material by companies per GDP Total energy use in the industry sectors per GDP Share of electricity from renewable sources (wind, water, sun, earth heat and biomass) on the Belgian electricity market Total amount of tonne-kilometres on Belgian roads per GDP Total tap and ground water consumption by companies per GDP Total waste production by companies per GDP The emissions of greenhouse gases in CO2-equivalents from companies Surplus on nutrient balance Share of total agriculture area used for organic agriculture Surpluses of the Belgian agricultural sector Companies with twenty employees or more without trade union representation Number of cases of labour diseases and accidents Number of employees in a position of trust per hundred employees Number of products taken off the shelves Number of relevant charges of misleading consumer information Market share of labelled products (Iso type I) Average amount of kilometres per vehicle per year (total amount of road kilometres per year per size of Belgian vehicle fleet) Share of imported food compared to locally produced food Share of ethical trusts in the total investments Amount of construction licences granted for new houses compared to amount of licences granted for renovations Total domestic energy consumption per inhabitant Total domestic tap or ground water consumption per inhabitant Total amount of domestic waste per inhabitant (Source: UNEP 2010, see: http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/national.htm#UK) SCP indicators integrated in National Development Plans and Sustainability Strategies Many national development plans including National Sustainable Development Strategies include some indicators of SCP. These often include eco-efficiency and decoupling indicators in European countries and agriculture or natural resource management and sometimes eco-efficiency indicators in developing countries. The following table (Table 8) provides an overview of the types of SCP indicators used in some selected countries. Table 8: Examples of SCP indicators included in National Sustainability Strategies Selected themes

Argentina Japan South Africa

Sweden Tanzania Vietnam

Cleaner Production / Eco-efficiency

+ + + + + +

Consumption patterns

+ + +

Agriculture + + + + + + Corporate responsibility

+ + + +

(Source: UNEP 2010, see: http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/indicators/national.htm#UK)

41

The examples above demonstrate that there is a wide range of international and national indicator sets aiming to assess sustainable consumption and production. Even though these indicators differ (which can result in problems with measurement and comparability), an important role of indicators is to raise awareness of the environmental impacts of consumption behaviour (Stoeglehner & Narodoslawsky, 2008). The use of graphic language and examples helps to communicate and resonate with the personal experiences of many people (Wackernagel & Rees, 2004). The application of these tools can help to engage people with the topic of sustainable consumption and raise awareness regarding the impact their personal behaviour can have on the environment. One could argue therefore that measurement tools such as EF, LCA and indicators can be useful both in monitoring and triggering attempts to change patterns of consumption. However, they are less useful in identifying the underlying reasons why patterns both emerge and evolve (Davies et al. 2010). In order to assess these underlying reasons, it is necessary to look at the social practices that shape consumption patterns, which is a central focus of the ConsEnSus project. After the following overview of different measurement tools to assess progress towards sustainable development, some broader frameworks to assess SD and SC are presented. These frameworks address SC/SD policies in different national contexts, and focus on the role of actors and institutions in the SC/.SD policy making context.

Conceptual Frameworks to Assess SC/SD Programmes

In this section, frameworks to assess SC and SD programmes developed by Lafferty and Meadowcroft (2000), Seyfang (2009) and Berg (2010) are presented, which provide good starting points to evaluate national and sub-national initiatives to achieve sustainable development and consumption. In their book ‘Implementing Sustainable Development’, Lafferty and Meadowcroft (2000) present case studies of the implementation of Sustainable Development policies in ‘high consumption societies’ (Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Australia, Canada). Although not proposing a measurement for SD or SC per se, they apply certain criteria by which the implementation of SD policies can be evaluated and by which the case studies are structured. These criteria can be a useful starting point when evaluating Sustainable consumption policy implementation. The focus here is on specific governing mechanisms, which include the following assessment criteria:

• Basic governmental understanding: How is SD conceptualised in a country and how is it supposed to be achieved given a nation’s specific ecological, economic, social, political and cultural circumstances?

• The pattern of institutional engagement: Does SD have a constitutional or legal base (e.g. in national SD strategies)? Have new special-purpose institutions been created to undertake SD related initiatives? Institutional engagement can also relate to the level of commitment to SD by certain ministries and agencies that are already in place: the

42

underlying assumption is that structures and resources play a crucial role in achieving sustainable development goals.

• Measurement and monitoring: Even though measurement of SD is difficult, as has been discussed above, it is important to define benchmarks and indicators to assess implementation. Countries have to define indicators to evaluate existing practices and to monitor policy innovation. According to Lafferty and Meadowcroft (2000), it is important to analyse how measures of environmental condition, economic activity and quality of life are interrelated in national attempts to measure and monitor progress towards SD implementation.

• Involvement of other domestic actors: The principle of cooperation is enshrined in the SD paradigm. Does the government take it seriously? How do central governments incorporate sub-national and non-governmental actors in the policy formation and implementation process of SD? What approach has been adopted toward the mobilisation of ‘major stakeholders’?

• Internationally oriented initiatives: SD is inherently targeted towards national as well as international cooperation to achieve sustainable development. The UNCED agreements call upon national actors to aim for strong initiatives to achieve SD at a global level, in cooperation with international state and non-state actors. What initiatives exist in countries to address these goals?

• Sustainable production and consumption (SCP): Lafferty and Meadowcroft (2000, p. 6) define SCP as ‘one of the more innovative themes emerging from the UNCED process – the challenge of modifying existing patterns of production and consumption so that they become compatible with environmentally sustainable development’. In order to assess progress in this area, it is important to see if issues and programmes are taken up in countries explicitly under this heading.

The criteria mentioned above provide a good starting point for the assessment of SD and SCP policy frameworks and their implementation in individual nation states. Next, assessment criteria specifically for SCP and SC programmes are presented. While there is ‘no single method by which national SCP programmes can or should be instituted’ (UNEP, 2008, p. 3), there seems to be agreement over several key principles to achieve the objectives of SCP, which reflect the criteria developed by Lafferty and Meadowcroft discussed above. These include:

• a high-level national commitment and leadership;

• a multi-stakeholder approach;

• the definition of clear objectives, actions, targets and indicators as well as monitoring

movement towards achieve this progress (Lafferty & Meadowcroft, 2000; UNEP,

2008, p. 3).

Furthermore, it has been recommended to integrate SCP programmes with existing national strategies and develop sector or issue specific action plans (UNEP, 2008).

43

A useful theoretical framework specifically for the evaluation of sustainable consumption policies has been developed by Seyfang (2009). Building on key elements of the New Economics Approach26, she suggests five indicators to evaluate SC strategies:

1. Localisation 2. Reducing ecological footprints 3. Community-building 4. Collective action 5. Building new infrastructures of provision.

Table 9 presents a description of the indicators of sustainable consumption based on the New Economics Approach proposed by Seyfang (2009) as well as examples on how these indicators can be implemented.

Table 9: Indicators and examples of sustainable consumption (Seyfang, 2009)

Indicator Description Example Localisation Making progress towards more

self-reliant local economies; import-substitution; reducing supply chains

Supporting local businesses; eating more local, seasonal food to cut food miles; encouraging money to circulate locally; ‘buy-local’ campaigns; DIY; growing food on allotments

Reducing ecological footprints

Shifting consumption to cut its social and environmental impact on others, to reduce the inequity of current consumption patterns; cutting resource use; demand-reduction; carbon-reduction and low-carbon lifestyles

Downshifting; voluntary simplicity (accepting cuts in income in return for higher quality of life and lower consumption); energy and other resource conservation, e.g. water-saving devices, energy efficiency and insulation, buying local to reduce transport costs; choosing ethical and fair trade where possible; sharing goods instead of owning them; cutting consumption; choosing less carbon-intensive goods and services; avoiding flying.

Community-building

Nurturing inclusive, cohesive communities where everyone’s skills and work are valued; growing networks of support and social capital; encouraging participation to share experience and ideas.

Developing social networks around green building, local food, community volunteering; overcoming social exclusion barriers to participation; fostering shared experiences through group activities; growing friendships

Collective action Enabling people to collaborate and make effective decisions about things which affect their lives; changing wider social contexts by institutionalisation

Boosting self-efficacy and empowerment; encouraging participation in local organisations; engaging with local government and public policy; generating critical mass so that new sustainable

26 The New Economics is a philosophical and political school of thought founded on a belief that economics cannot be divorced from its foundations in environmental and social contexts (Seyfang, 2009: 46). Although its roots go back to twin traditions of environmentalism and social economics (see Pepper, 1996 and Lutz, 1999 for reviews), it has emerged in recent years from the environmental movement and built upon the work of writers such as E.F. Schumacher (1993) to develop a body of theory about how a ‘humanistic economics concerned with justice and social wellbeing could be envisioned and practised’ Seyfang, 2009: 46).

44

of new norms; active citizenship

behaviours become the norm.

Building new infrastructures of provision

Establishing new institutions and socio-technical infrastructure on the basis of New Economics values of wealth, work, progress and ecological citizenship

Alternative food systems which avoid supermarkets; autonomous housing which does not rely on mains services; new systems of exchange which value abundance and reward sustainable consumption.

(Source: adapted from Seyfang, 2009: 62).

According to Seyfang, the New Economics Approach ‘proposes nothing less than a paradigm shift for the economy … rather than making incremental changes, this model entails a widespread regime change for the economy and society, altering the rules of the game and the objective of economic development’ (2009, p. 23). While the current dominant approach to address SC calls for ‘green consumers’ to ‘do their part in the marketplace’, the New Economics Approach calls instead for ‘Ecological Citizens’ who act ethically in public and in private to reconfigure the patterns of their lives to reduce environmental and social impacts on others (Kennedy, 2009). This links in to the current de-growth debate, in which variables like sufficiency (Princen, 2003; 2005) are used to discuss the need for a paradigm shift in current capitalist societies which are built around economic growth as a necessary condition for social, economic and environmental stability (see Jackson, 2009; Speth, 2009). The approach developed by Seyfang is an important theoretical contribution to evaluate SC programmes as it focuses not only on ecological factors like the EF (‘Reducing ecological footprints’ is just one of five indicators to assess sustainable consumption), but also incorporates social and economic aspects, which are central dimensions in the SC and SD paradigms. It goes beyond purely individualistic approaches by emphasising the role of collective action and community building. Besides, calls for sufficiency are integrated by promoting downshifting and consuming less, e.g. by promoting the sharing of devices. Finally, the approach considers the importance of context and infrastructure for behaviour change by suggesting the building of ‘new infrastructures of provision’ (see also Southerton et al., 2004). The focus on systems of provision is vital: ‘if one can choose between different models of hybrid car, but does not have access to reliable, affordable public transport, one’s ability to act in an environmentally responsible manner is constrained’ (Kennedy, 2009, p. 533). By also incorporating calls for localisation, Seyfang clearly includes the most important factors from the current debate on sustainable consumption. Localisation aims to promote social and economic sustainability at the local level while also addressing environmental problems that arise from the transportation of goods in terms of CO2 emissions in a globalised world, e.g. resulting in so-called ‘food miles’ in relation to food transportation. However, this approach also has its limitations: The emphasis on localisation, which is a central element in many approaches to conceptualise sustainable consumption, can have detrimental effects for developing countries which depend on the revenue from international trade for their survival. In this regard, Kennedy (2009: 533) argues that ‘the issue of localisation is perhaps more complex than Seyfang suggests. The potential for decreases in

45

demand for imports from developing nations reduces these countries’ ability to generate revenue. Before the wealthy adopt broad policies to buy local, it might be prudent to promote such policies in the global South’. This is an important issue which deserves more attention in the current debate on localisation as a solution to address unsustainable consumption patterns. Another problem is that the successful case studies, which Seyfang presents, are small-scale, local initiatives that cannot easily be transferred to a broader level. This proves to be a fundamental challenge, which Seyfang acknowledges: ‘as techniques are appropriated by the mainstream, devoid of their social contexts and unique processes, the factors which made them sustainable – and function – are removed, resulting in low take-up of the new technologies’ (Seyfang, 2009, p. 179). Kennedy (2009, p. 534) argues that this is a crucial problem: ‘if “sustainable” is always associated with small-scale ventures, there is little likelihood that sustainable approaches will be adopted broadly’. In her book, Seyfang offers no solutions in that regard; however, her framework to assess sustainable initiatives provides a valuable theoretical contribution to assess current grass-root and civil society level initiatives to address SC. In order to make sure that these promising local level initiatives are adopted at a broader level, the need for governance becomes evident. To assess progress that has been made in this regard, the following frameworks assessing national level initiatives to trigger SC are presented.

Assessing SC Policy Frameworks: ‘Weak’ versus ‘Strong’ Sustainability

Keeping in mind the goals of economic, social and environmental sustainability, which are enshrined in the concepts of SD and SC, the distinction between ‘weak’ versus ‘strong’ sustainability strategies is one way to assess different national approaches to address SC (Fuchs & Lorek, 2005; Berg, 2010). While there are many different definitions of ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ sustainability in literature, a useful way to conceptualise weak and strong sustainability strategies is to apply principles of strategic planning, i.e. the level of comprehensiveness, commitment and clarity to the assessment of SC policy programmes (Berg, 2010). While ‘strong’ applications of sustainability strategies promote structural changes with commitment and coordination, targeting, resourcing and monitoring, weak applications lack several of these qualities, resulting in fragmented policy actions (Berg, 2010). Another useful approach to assess SC policy programmes is to consider the degree to which the principles of efficiency, cooperation and sufficiency are incorporated in SCP frameworks (Princen, 2003). In an assessment of national programmes for SCP in Finland, Sweden and the UK, Berg (2010) concludes that while the efficiency principle still dominates, principles of cooperation and, especially, sufficiency are developed to a much lesser degree in the respective SCP frameworks. This relates to the current ‘de-growth’ debate, which questions the dominant paradigm of economic growth in industrialised countries. The fact that economic growth requires increasing consumption is seen as one of the fundamental problems or contradictions of sustainable consumption. As sustainable consumption implies consuming less if current patterns of overconsumption are to be addressed. Simply

46

consuming differently or promoting ‘green consumerism’ might not be sufficient. This debate has triggered research on how to tackle the delicate balance between a stable economy (which is ultimately linked to social stability) and the limits to growth and can be regarded as one of the biggest challenges of our time (Jackson, 2009).

4.3 Catalogue of Best Practice Examples

In the following section, examples are given that have been identified as ‘best practice’ examples in the area of sustainable consumption and production policies. However, it is important to note that the concept of ‘best practice’ is flawed as it is (a) not possible to give a complete overview on all policies that exist in OECD countries, as these are developing constantly, and (b) not possible to compare them in absolute terms, i.e. say on what grounds one policy is necessarily ‘better’ than another one. So this approach has to be seen as an attempt to sketch the policies which exist and which of these policies can be regarded as ‘good examples’ without claiming to be giving a complete and accurate overview. This might be one reason why the OECD and other organisations tend to use the term ‘good practices’ in their recent reports instead of the term ‘best practices’, which was used formerly; therefore, the term ‘good practice’ will be used in the following review. The examples discussed below are taken from the OECD (2008) which regularly conducts extensive performance reviews on OECD countries in relation to environmental and economic performance. This review draws on authors such as Doran (2007), the European Environment Agency (EEA) (2007), UNEP (2005; 2008), Seyfang (2009) and Rubik et al. (2009). Firstly, examples from key sectors are provided (food, transport, energy, water) before cross-sectional policy examples are highlighted. In the following section, more encompassing SCP programmes are evaluated, i.e. the institutionalisation of broader frameworks and SCP action programmes in certain countries are discussed. This is based on methods of assessment, which have been discussed above (section 4.2). The following examples provide a good overview of what kind of policies exist to promote SC and can serve as models on how to tackle SC and serve as ‘food for thought’ on how these policies could be applied to the Irish context. In an ideal scenario, this can lead to a case of ‘policy learning’ whereby it is necessary to keep in mind and explore the specific national institutional and cultural characteristics which can help or hinder policy introductions. A policy which can ‘work’ (e.g. be accepted by the public and successfully implemented by institutional actors) in country A does not necessarily work the same way in country B. Therefore the aim of the ConsEnSus project is to explore the characteristics of the Irish context (i.e. the motivation behind Irish consumption patterns both North and South of the border) in order to be able to recommend regulatory strategies which will be accepted by the Irish population.

47

The OECD (2008) has identified in its report ‘Promoting Sustainable Consumption – GOOD PRACTICES IN OECD COUNTRIES’ many good examples of government strategies and regulations from OECD countries in the area of Sustainable Consumption. While stressing the fact that ‘mixes of instruments tend to be more effective in promoting sustainable consumption in certain product groups and emphasising the need for ‘more integrated programmes as well as institutionalisation of sustainable consumption in sustainable development strategies’ (OECD, 2008, p. 7), current trends from OECD countries are presented, which are structured according to different instrument types, followed by country examples. In the following section, an overview of these good practice examples is given for the sectors transport, water, energy and food, which are the focus of the ConsEnSus project.

4.3.1 Promoting Sustainable Energy and Water Consumption

Most OECD countries have established energy efficiency standards for a variety of household appliances, most commonly refrigerators, air conditioners, washers and dryers, heating, ovens and lighting. For example, Canada amended its Energy Efficiency Act in 2006 so that 80% of the energy used in homes will soon be regulated. The European Union (EU) has established minimum efficiency standards for hot-water boilers, refrigerators and florescent lighting. Under the Energy-Using Products Directive of 2005, the EU is considering energy efficiency standards for a wider range of consumer products including other appliances, computers, printers and electronics. Standards for lighting efficiency, with the intent of phasing out less efficient incandescent light bulbs, have been introduced in Australia and Canada. Australia was the first country to announce that incandescent light bulbs would be completely phased out by 2010 and replaced by florescent models, which use approximately 20% of the electricity to produce the same amount of light. Canada has developed new standards with the intention of eliminating incandescent lighting by 2012 (OECD, 2008, p. 10). Since 2009, the EU has begun phasing out traditional light bulbs (goal to be completed in 2012) in favour of a new generation of energy-efficient lighting. Under new rules which came into force in September 2009, manufacturers and importers can no longer sell clear incandescent light bulbs of 100 watts or above in the EU. However, shops may continue to sell bulbs already in stock. The ban is part of an effort to save energy and fight climate change. It will be expanded in September 2011 and 2012 to include lower wattages of clear incandescent bulbs. Frosted bulbs and high-energy halogen lights are also being phased out. By 2020 the measures are supposed to save enough energy to power 11 million households every year, which is claimed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 15 million tons each year27. The Marrakech Task Force on Sustainable Products, led by the United Kingdom, is focusing on energy efficiency standards for lighting, home entertainment products and electric motors through Global Sustainable Product Networks (GSPN). The Task Force also intends to

27 See http://ec.europa.eu/news/energy/090901_en.htm

48

include computers, standby power, and waste and water-use issues and to set targets for phasing out the least sustainable products in these categories (OECD, 2008, p. 9). Mandatory labels indicating the energy efficiency of household appliances are common in many OECD countries, where these goods are grouped into different categories with an indication of energy consumption levels. Studies show that labels for promoting energy-efficient consumption have not increased consumer prices (IEA, 2007). For example, the European Union has issued a directive for labelling of refrigerators, washing machines, tumble dryers, dishwashers, lamps, air conditioners, and electric ovens. EU Member states have the responsibility to ensure that the labelling schemes are accompanied by educational and promotional information campaigns aimed at encouraging more responsible use of energy by consumers (OECD, 2008, p. 10). Several countries, including Canada and New Zealand, are proposing to extend these labels to electronic equipment such as televisions and home entertainment products. Table 10 presents some examples of good practice case studies in some OECD countries.

Table 10: Promoting Sustainable Energy Consumption

Country Good practice example UK: Energy efficiency household appliances

Cooperation with stakeholders to devise ‘roadmaps’ for phasing out unsustainable products; Instruments: labels + minimum energy performance standards. Business profited from eco-designs and efficiency gains. Phasing out of less efficient machines was implemented and price differentials were reduced.

UK: ‘Choice editing’: combining labelling and standards

Through a combination of labelling and standards called ‘choice editing,’ the United Kingdom, Chair of the Marrakech Task Force on Sustainable Products, effected the removal from the market of all water heaters other than more energy-efficient condensing boilers. www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/consumption.html

France: Small Steps for Individual Change

In 2005, the French environmental energy agency, ADEME, launched ‘Energy Savings: Hurry Up. It’s Getting Hot’, a television communications campaign aimed at mitigating climate change, which encouraged individuals to break through consumer apathy and suggested small steps for conserving energy. http://www2.ademe.fr

Australia and New Zealand: Mandatory energy labels

Mandatory energy efficiency rating labels, now recognised by more than 95% of consumers, complement Minimum Energy Performance Standards for a comprehensive range of household electrical products. www.energyrating.gov.au

Mexico: standards and labels

Energy consumed in Mexico by household appliances fell by more than 50% due to standards and labels developed for washing machines, refrigerators, water heaters, lights, water pumps, boilers, thermal insulation materials and other household products. www.ises.org/sepconew/Pages/Efficiency_Standards_MX/document.pdf

Switzerland: Topten initiative

Topten was launched in 2000 in Switzerland and is supported by public agencies. The idea of Topten originated from the identification of a lack of simple, comprehensible information to enable potentially active consumers to make environmentally sound purchasing choices. Through product comparison, the Topten project aims at sparking changes from the different players in the market (e.g. producers, retailers, consumers), thereby allowing market penetration of high environmental performance products. Topten makes sustainable consumption easier for the consumer: Topten products are displayed in the form of rankings of the ten best performing products in terms

49

of energy efficiency, according to a set of criteria within defined product groups (e.g. refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, energy-saving lamps). Product evaluations take place on a six-monthly basis. This translates into changes in selection of the ten best available products. Furthermore, new products can be added, as soon as the necessary information is provided. This gives the website a dynamic feature. Success in Switzerland stimulated the launch of other national websites and the diversification of activities. Following the Swiss success, the initiative began to spread throughout Europe. Today, there are Topten websites in thirteen different countries, each of them tailored to the respective national market. In addition to the national websites, Euro-Topten, the overarching European-wide website, was launched in 2006. It seeks the cooperation of various national initiatives, further pushing the benchmarking of product performances across national borders (Rubik et al., 2009, p. 6). http://www.topten.info/

(Source: adapted from OECD, 2008 and Rubik et al., 2009).

The UK works with business and other stakeholders to devise ‘roadmaps’ for phasing out unsustainable products. In the case of improving the energy efficiency of household appliances (e.g. water heaters), labels were accompanied by minimum energy performance standards. Driven by these standards and consumers, manufacturers moved towards more eco-designs and efficiency gains. The less efficient machines, although often cheaper, were gradually taken off the market and price differentials were reduced. Nevertheless, energy efficiency labels by themselves are not sufficient in promoting more sustainable purchases. In many countries, providing information failed to get more than a minority of people to buy energy-efficient dishwashers, refrigerators and washing machines, even when labels highlighted savings on operating costs (OECD, 2008, p. 49). However, it helped when the label was reinforced with an energy tax, as was enacted in Germany and other countries through residential electricity charges. Households facing higher costs tend to purchase energy-efficient appliances, change heating and cooling systems and invest in insulation or more energy-efficient housing. Many countries are now considering taxes and standards to accompany labels for light bulbs to close the price gap between traditional and more energy-efficient models (OECD, 2008).

50

Table 11: Promoting Sustainable Water Consumption Country Good practice example Denmark: combination of taxes Household water consumption was greatly

reduced by a 100% increase in the price of water through a combination of taxes – water supply tax (41%), VAT (20%), variable water taxes (12%), green taxes (14%), variable taxes (9%), fixed wastewater charge (2%), and State wastewater tax (2%).

Denmark, Hungary & The Netherlands: Public Information campaigns combined with water prices

These countries charge for water supplied to houses and add additional levies for consumption once certain thresholds are reached. They combine this with public information campaigns to encourage further reduction of water wastage.

USA: Financing advertising campaign Local governments financed the development of an advertising campaign on ‘Water: Use it Wisely’ which highlights effective ways to save water in and around the home with the slogan ‘There are a number of ways to save water and they all start with you. You are water-saving device No. 1’. (OECD, 2008, p. 23).

(Source: adapted from OECD, 2008).

Many countries in the EU, as well as Australia, Canada, Mexico, tax domestic water use based on consumption, the size of the house, or the number of occupants. Most of these countries also have a charging system for wastewater. Progressively graduated water prices based on taxes have been effective in helping to reduce water consumption in countries such as Denmark and Hungary. In Ireland, the re-introduction of water charges, which had been abolished in 1997, was announced by the Irish government early in 2010.

4.3.2 Promoting Sustainable Food Consumption

The characteristics of shifts to sustainability in the food sector differ from the key drivers for other goods and services. Concern for animal welfare is behind the trend to dolphin-friendly tuna and free-range eggs, while concern for human welfare as well as environment has prompted purchases of Fairtrade and Rainforest goods. Low-cost certification methods and labelling schemes that appeal to health and welfare are promoting more sustainable choices in these areas. However, some governments reinforce these instruments by providing financial support and mounting communications campaigns for Fairtrade and other labelling promotions. Promoting healthy diets may also require a combination of standards, labelling and communications campaigns. Concern for personal health has led to demands for labelling on the nutrition and fat content of food, and some countries are experimenting with simplified ‘traffic lights’ nutrient labelling, which indicates fat, sugar and salt content. However, where significant price differences remain, labelling is generally not sufficient (as in the case of many organic products) and standards may be needed (OECD, 2008).

51

Table 12: Promoting Sustainable Food Consumption

Country Good practice example Austria, Germany, France, Sweden and UK

All countries encourage Fairtrade by giving financial support to labelling organisations, sponsoring public campaigns, and including these products in public procurement rules.

Austria

From a successful beginning in 2004, Das bringt’s Nachhaltig has become a yearly Sustainability Week’s event when thousands of retailers throughout the country promote and have special offers on organic, fair trade, and locally made products.

UK Eostre Organics is an award-winning organic producer cooperative based in Norfolk, East Anglia; an organisation aiming to build a ‘fair, ecological and cooperative’ food system, which sells to local businesses and hospitals as well as through market stalls and weekly subscription boxes of mixed vegetables and fruit delivered direct to consumers (Seyfang, 2009; see discussion below)

UK Successful example of ‘upscaling’ innovative niche food systems: ‘Abel and Cole’ is a large-scale box scheme (www.abelandcole.co.uk) that has sixty farm suppliers and deliver widely across the south of England (Seyfang, 2009, p. 104).

(Source: adapted from OECD, 2008 and Seyfang, 2009).

In recent years there has been a growing interest in the phenomenon of ‘alternative agro-food networks’ and locally-sourced, organically-produced food has been proposed as a model of sustainable consumption. The benefits claimed include rural regeneration, livelihood security, cutting food middles and carbon dioxide emissions from transport, social embedding, community-building, and increasing connection to the land (Seyfang, 2009, p. 83). The reasons for promoting organic and local foods can be summarised as follows: Organic production refers to agriculture which does not use artificial chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and animals reared in more natural conditions, without the routine use of antibiotics used in intensive livestock farming. The main environmental rationale for organic agriculture is that it is a production method more in harmony with the environment and local ecosystems. The decision not to use chemical fertilisers and pesticides also puts less stress on soil and water systems, thus enhancing water quality. A second rationale for organic food is to protect an individual’s health by avoiding ingestion of chemical pesticides (Reed, 2001). Until the 1990s organic food was classified primarily as a niche environmental interest, associated with a desire to bypass intensive agriculture and return to small-scale production, and grow a new sense of connection with the land (Ricketts et al., 2006). As such, it has been

52

representative of a movement towards the (re)localisation or shortening of food supply chains, and explicitly challenges the industrial farming and global food transport model embodied in conventional food consumption channelled through supermarkets (Reed, 2001). Localisation of food supply chains means that food should be consumed as close to the point of origin as possible. Therefore, the construction of ‘local’ is both socially and culturally specific, and can change over time and space (Hinrichs, 2003). The main environmental reason for localising food supply chains is to reduce the impact of ‘food miles’ – the distance food travels between production and consumption. This cuts the energy use and pollution arising from the transportation of food. According to Jones (2001), most of the transportation of food around the world is only economically rational due to the exclusion of environmental and social externalities from fuel pricing. Although some deeper examinations of the ‘food miles’ idea exposes contradictions in terms of life-cycle energy use, food production and transport, the ‘food miles’ concept has become an easily communicated idea to rally local food activists (Seyfang, 2009, p. 87). In her book ‘The new economics of sustainable consumption – seeds of change’, Seyfang (2009) presents an extensive case study of a good practice example based on her indicators for sustainable consumption discussed above (section 4.2). By evaluating a grassroots sustainable food initiative, Seyfang explores how effective local and organic food networks are to influence mainstream provisioning. She presents the case of ‘Eostre Organics’, an award-winning organic producer cooperative based in Norfolk, East Anglia; an organisation aiming to build a ‘fair, ecological and cooperative’ food system, which sells to local businesses and hospitals as well as through market stalls and weekly subscription boxes of mixed vegetables and fruit delivered directly to consumers. Evaluating ‘Eostre Organics’ as a tool for sustainable consumption, Seyfang’s conclusions are contained in Table 1328:

Table 13: Case study of a sustainable food initiative: Eostre Organics

Sustainable Consumption Indicator

Evaluation Eostre Organics

Localisation �

Improving the security of livelihoods for growers; keeping money circulating in the local economy; better feedback between producer and consumer; increasing a sense of connection with the land; promoting local food, cutting food miles.

Reducing Environmental Footprint �

Cutting food miles and associated energy use; organic production avoids use of artificial pesticides,

28 The research was a multi-method study carried out in 2004 which consisted of site visits to Eostre’s headquarters and market stall, interviews with organisers and staff, documentary analysis of their website and newsletter to ascertain the scope and nature of activities, objectives and values. This was complemented by two customer surveys asking about motivations for, and experiences with, consuming local organic food (see Seyfang, 2009: 91).

53

fertilisers; reduced packaging. Community-Building

� Forging links between growers and consumers; developing a sense of community; growing social capital around food networks; accessing low-income consumers.

Collective Action �

Cooperative structure shifts the incentive and reward systems for producers; influencing public provision through schools and hospitals.

New Infrastructures of Provision �

Developing a value-based cooperative structure; avoiding mainstream food supply chains (supermarkets); prioritising local, organic, seasonal produce which runs counter to the norm of year-round supply; enjoying limited choice of produce.

(Source: adapted from Seyfang, 2009, p. 103)

Seyfang (2009, p. 109) argues that Eostre, which is a niche, grassroots-based sustainable food initiative, is effectively developing new social and economic institutions for sustainable consumption, and successfully addresses all five indicators for SC mentioned in the table above. The alternative model developed by Seyfang (based on the New Economics Approach), prioritises localisation and re-embedding the economy with social networks. According to Seyfang, Eostre is a good example of how this might work in practice. It uses food as a mechanism for community-building and social cohesion, while delivering sustainable rural livelihoods and a channel for the expression of alternative values about society, environment and the economy (Seyfang, 2009, p. 109).

In her assessment of the potential of diffusing the benefits of sustainable food niches to a broader level, Seyfang is using the sustainability transitions management literature as a starting point. This literature mentions three mechanisms in which niche innovations can diffuse and influence regimes: (a) replication; (b) upscaling; and (c) translation of ideas to mainstream contexts (Seyfang, 2009, p. 104). She explains that in the case of the UK, all three mechanisms can be observed: replication is evident in the rapid growth in the number of farmers’ markets, box schemes, and other alternative food networks. The second mechanism, upscaling, is evident in the development of some very large-scale box schemes such as ‘Abel and Cole’ (www.abelandcole.co.uk) who have sixty farm suppliers, deliver widely across the south of England, and achieve far greater economies of scale than Eostre could manage. Seyfang argues that these successful diffusion routes are being threatened by supermarket competition, which increasingly supply local as well as organic products. This can be regarded as an example for the third mechanism (translation of ideas to mainstream contexts): ‘The encroachment of mainstream retailers into the market for local and organic produce is an indication that niche practices are being

54

adopted by the regime, but (...) it fundamentally threatens the existence of the niche itself’ (Seyfang, 2009, p. 105). Seyfang states that even though respondents in her interviews said that they spend half of their weekly money on food for local, organic or fair trade products, 75% of the respondents said that they purchased these products in supermarkets from time to time. This can be explained by the fact that food-purchasing habits are influenced by aspects of affordability, accessibility and ethics (Seyfang, 2009, p. 105). If organic certification of products is the principal concern, this need can be well catered for by the supermarket provisioning; however, Seyfang argues that other issues cannot be easily transferred into the market supply chain. This includes the support for a cooperative, keeping money in the local economy, having face-to-face contact with growers and increasing ones connection with the sources of the food; she implies that these aspects ‘appear to be the antithesis of the supermarket model’ (Seyfang, 2009, p. 108). She concludes that there is an ‘urgent need for policymakers to recognise and demonstrate the wide-ranging benefits of direct marketing initiatives for sustainable consumption, to raise awareness of the interconnected social, economic and environmental issues surrounding food provisioning systems, and to support initiatives seeking to construct alternative infrastructures of provision’ (Seyfang, 2009, p. 111). Despite the growing demand for organic food, she identifies several barriers, which should be kept in mind when designing policy strategies for more sustainable consumption in the area of food:

1. Local organic produce costs more than imported conventionally-grown food 2. Difficulties remain supplying the public sector despite government recommendations

to hospitals and schools to source food supplies locally and organically where possible; therefore, the potential growth of sustainable food consumption through public procurement is hampered (Morgan & Morley, 2002).

Seyfang argues that market signals continue to misdirect – but that ‘small groups of committed ecological citizens form a niche following their values rather than their purses’ (Seyfang, 2009, p. 110). She suggest that removing the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies to intensive industrial farming and internalising externalities, will correct pricing so that a situation could arise where it would become economically rational to consume more sustainably, e.g. by buying more local and organic products.

4.3.3 Promoting Sustainable Transport

Personal transport decisions are strongly influenced by cost, which makes financial penalties and incentives the instruments of choice. As consumers buy more and bigger cars, countries are adopting a mix of measures to encourage sustainable transport choices. Taxes and charges, including petrol taxes, differential vehicle taxes and congestion charges, can be effective particularly when combined with investments in public transport (OECD, 2007). Norway and Denmark are adding charges to car prices based on the level of vehicle CO2 emissions and at the same time giving tax deductions to cars running on alternative fuels.

55

Canada introduced a transport package consisting of discounts on fuel-efficient vehicles, green levies on ‘gas guzzling’ vehicles, increased budgets for vehicle disposal programmes, and incentives to remove older vehicles from roads. These tools may also be combined with congestion charges to influence personal transport choices and manage traffic in urban areas, as in London and Stockholm (OECD, 2008, p. 50). Table 14: Promoting Sustainable Transport

Country Good practice example

France (Paris) and Ireland (Dublin):

The Velib (free bike) scheme is an example of an incentive to promote more sustainable transport. It was launched in Paris in 2007 to reduce car traffic and pollution around Paris – 20,000 bicycles were placed at 1,000 stations around the city. www.velib.paris.fr/ A similar scheme was introduced in Dublin in September 2009. The Dublin bike scheme has been termed ‘the most successful in Europe’ (Dublin city council, February 2010) with 25,000 subscribers.

Norway and Denmark:

Charges on car prices based on level of vehicle CO2 emissions; tax deductions to cars running on alternative fuels

London and Stockholm: Congestion charges: Cars driving into the centre of the city during working hours pay a charge. The main objectives of this charge are to reduce congestion and hence promote sustainable transport, as well as to raise funds for investment in London's transport system.

Sweden: In order to promote sustainable transportation, Sweden has introduced a mix of a carbon-differentiated vehicle tax, an environmental tax on air travel, tax exemptions for diesel cars with particle filters and alternative fuel engines, as well as a congestion charge in Stockholm. www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/a/65711;jsessionid=a7dYp2DkPWH

Canada:

Discounts on fuel-efficient vehicles; incentives to remove older vehicles from roads.

(Source: adapted from OECD, 2008 and Dublin City Council, 2010).

4.3.4 Good Practice Examples: Cross-Sectoral Areas

In the following section, good practice examples from cross-sectoral areas are presented, focusing on different instrument types, according to the categorisation communicative instruments, legislative instruments and economic instruments, as discussed above in section 2.3. These instruments are not restricted to specific sectors like food, transport, water or energy alone. Their application and effectiveness deserves special attention, as the academic discourse focuses on these different instrument types (see Tables 15 -19 below).

56

Table 15: Good practice examples: Communicative Instruments

(VOLUNTARY) LABELLING Country Good practice example Germany: The Federal Environment Agency sponsored a consumer

organisation to build a virtual platform on a broad range of labelling activities in Germany and Europe, where consumers get updated information on over 300 eco-labels and the certification systems behind every label. www.label-online.de

Nordic Countries: The strengths of the Nordic Swan eco-label, administered by the Nordic Council of Ministers, are its multi-country coverage (five Nordic countries), high product uptake (1 200 products in sixty categories), government certification, and extensive brand awareness among consumers. www.svanen.nu/Eng/

United States: The voluntary Energy Star label denoting energy efficiency was introduced by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy in 1992 and has spread since to Australia, Canada, the European Union and Japan. www.energystar.gov

UK: The Red/Green Calculator is a voluntary policy tool developed and applied in the UK that strives to accelerate the shift towards more sustainable product offers on retailing shelves (Rubik et al., 2008: pp. 4-5). http://www.redgreencalculator.com/

(Source: adapted from OECD, 2008 and Rubik et al., 2009 (ASCEE project)).

The Red/Green Calculator developed and applied in the UK is a voluntary policy instrument that provides retailers with an easy-to-use tool (database), enabling them to assess their own performance with regard to the sustainability of their product portfolio, and consequently encouraging them to change their offer. The R/G Calculator aims to make it easy for retailers to comply with UK policy and targets mitigation of the environmental impact of products. At the moment, it covers energy consumption in the use-phase of a number of different consumer electronic product categories. It translates performance data of these products into so-called ‘ecopoints’. Based on the ecopoint scores, the different products, and the retailer as a whole, are classified ‘red’ or ‘green’: ‘Green’ stands for a ‘sustainable’ product offer and ‘red’ for not sufficiently sustainable products. The criteria for deciding if a product is ‘green’ reflect not only the UK government’s (long-term) policy targets with regards to environmental goals such as energy efficiency and CO2 emissions, but also the current product stock on the British market (Rubik et al., 2008, pp. 4-5). While these examples focus on good practice cases in the area of voluntary labelling, communicative instruments encompass other types of initiatives as well, for example information campaigns and education. An overview of good practice examples in this area is given below in Table 16.

57

Table 16: Good practice examples: Communicative Instruments

Information Campaigns and Education

Country Good practice example United Kingdom The Climate Change Communication Initiative uses the latest

multimedia techniques, including interactive websites, champion blogs, and films, to promote individual involvement in action against climate change under the theme Tomorrow’s Climate: Today’s Challenge. www.climatechallenge.gov.uk/ The academic year 2006/2007 was the year of action on sustainable schools, sponsored by the Department of Education and Skills, to provide resources and materials to help imbed sustainability in all areas of school life. www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools

Japan Japan launched its Cool Biz campaign in 2005 to lower CO2 emissions by encouraging people to wear casual clothes and businessmen to go without ties and jackets to reduce the use of air conditioning. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article525496.ece

Australia The National Youth Affairs Research Scheme (NYARS) sponsored Sustainable Consumption: Young Australians as Agents of Change which enumerated techniques to empower students to change their consumption patterns and act as catalysts for more sustainable lifestyles in the wider community. www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/youthsustainable_ consumption.htm

European Union In a multi-country project entitled Persuasive Power of Children Towards Energy Consumption, students measured energy savings from different sources, received lessons on renewable energy, and participated in audits of school and household energy consumption. www.curbain.be ChangeLAB: Learning for Sustainable Living is an online database of successful approaches in promoting sustainable consumption which cross-references techniques (regulations, taxes, incentives, information) with other factors (predisposing factors, enabling factors, reinforcing factors). www.changelabproject.org

Italy Italy, which chairs the Marrakech Task Force on Education for Sustainable Consumption, has set up a network of ‘Schole Futuro’ or schools of the future which teach and practice environmental and social sustainability. www.educazionesostenibile.it

Ireland The Irish Sustainable Development Commission (COMHAR) Schools Pilot Project is developing ways of incorporating the key principles of sustainable development, including consumption, into the existing school curricula (OECD, 2008, p. 26).

Finland The Finnish Eco-Benchmark tool provides consumers with key information on the environmental impacts of their consumption behaviour in an easy and comprehensible way. It is based on a life cycle assessment of products. Five different environmental impact categories are considered, namely primary energy consumption, aquatic eutrophication, contribution to climate change, acidification and formation of trophospheric ozone. These five impact categories have been weighted by experts and aggregated to a single score. The relative scale refers to the impact in a specific region caused by one person, per day. It is calculated according to yearly emissions and consumption in the same region. The Eco-Benchmark encompasses different types of consumer goods (five reference products: rye bread, cheese, washing, car driving, apartments) and supports the comparison of their environmental impacts (Rubik et al., 2009, p.

58

5). Eco-Benchmark: www.environment.fi/eco-benchmark

Denmark The Danish initiative ‘One Tonne Less’ aims at reducing CO2 emissions from individuals and households. The tool raises consumer awareness. It has developed a large variety of activities to engage consumers including a CO2

calculator, individual advice, competition and games, exhibitions and the involvement of well-known people and artists. The consumers are guided towards committing themselves to reduce energy consumption in their household. For each activity, their CO2 emission is calculated, and also how much money they will save with their new consumer habits. The consumer’s commitment is made on the One Tonne Less homepage. One Tonne Less: http://www.1tonmindre.dk/

(Source: adapted from OECD, 2008 and Rubik et al., 2009).

Countries are also promoting the development of ‘eco-schools’ where the institutions adopt environmental approaches in areas including curricula, buildings, waste management, and energy and materials consumption. The international Eco-Schools Programme was founded in 1994 as a way to involve young people in addressing sustainable development challenges at local level. The schools are involved in practical activities such as saving water and energy, and recycling materials. There are more than 14 000 schools participating in the Eco-Schools network, mostly in Europe but also in countries such as South Africa. Many countries, although they may not have eco-schools, sponsor environmental education including consumption issues at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of education. The Environmental Education Network in Norway provides lessons and activities for students on waste separation and recovery and preventing air and water pollution. Through the Schultrager 21 project in Germany, the Environment Ministry is sponsoring the German Foundation for Environmental Education contest for schools implementing projects to help progress towards the goals of Agenda 21 (OECD, 2008, p. 27). In the following table, good practice examples for economic instruments are presented (see Table 17 below).

Table 17: Good practice examples: Economic Instruments

Country Good practice example

France

Variations in VAT taxes: France has initiated discussions at the European Union level with regards to the use of temporary variations in VAT taxes according to a product’s social and environmental performance. This performance is conveyed by the third-party certified labels on the product.

Italy (Milan) EcoPass: A fee is needed to enter the central area of Milan by vehicle; this fee is based on the emitted pollutants of your vehicle. The fee is based on five engine classes.

The Netherlands

Tax incentive: The Dutch Green Funds Scheme (GFS) is a tax incentive instrument that has been used by the Dutch government since 1995 to encourage environmentally friendly initiatives, e.g. in renewable energy, organic farming, or sustainable housing (Rubik et al., 2009, p. 5).

59

(Source: adapted from OECD, 2008 and Rubik et al., 2009 (ASCEE project).

The Dutch Green Funds Scheme (GFS) is an incentive to invest in environmentally friendly initiatives. Investing in Green Funds means that individual investors – private consumers – who lend their money to banks, at a lower interest rate, are compensated by a tax incentive. The government provides the necessary legislation, supervises the banks issuing green funds or offering green savings and ensures that green projects are properly assessed against the ecological criteria it sets. The green banks can then offer cheaper loans to environmental projects. A precondition for the success of the Green Funds Scheme is a triple-win-strategy: for consumers (tax deductions); for banks (reaching new target groups and satisfying social responsibility requirements); and for the funded projects (cheaper loans). This has to be arranged by the fiscal regime of the government (Rubik et al., 2009, p. 5). In the following table, some examples are given of good practice using legislative instruments.

Table 18: Good practice examples: Legislative Instruments

Country Good practice example

Belgium

A legal definition of fair trade: Belgium is considered a leader in the area of fair trade products by developing a legal definition of fair trade. This legal definition is included in the country’s public procurement mandates, and provides guidelines for public authorities at federal, regional and local levels.

European Union Countries

The Energy-Using Products Directive of 2005: This directive was established to determine minimum energy efficiency standards for hot water boilers, refrigerators, and fluorescent lighting. EU member states have the responsibility to ensure that the labelling schemes are accompanied by educational and information campaigns.

Switzerland

Sustainable procurement: Sustainable procurement has been practised in Switzerland since 2002. The aim of this procurement is to shift public purchasing towards goods and services that meet high environmental, social and economic standards throughout their life-cycle.

United Kingdom

A national Action Plan (‘Securing the Future’): This action plan was developed by the Sustainable Procurement Task Force. This task force was composed of the government, businesses, NGOs and trade unions. This action plan recommends coherent guidelines for sustainable procurement, minimum standards for agencies, and budgetary mechanisms such as whole-life costing.

(Source: adapted from OECD, 2008).

Finally, in Table 19 below, an overview of instrument mixes to address sustainable consumption is presented. Many authors have found that combining instruments is the best way to address the challenge of sustainable consumption (for example, see Stern, 1999; Tucker et al., 2008; OECD, 2008).

60

Table 19: Good practice examples: Mixed Instruments

Country Good practice example

European Union

ChangeLAB: Learning for Sustainable Living: This is an online database of successful approaches in promoting sustainable consumption with cross-references techniques (regulations, taxes, incentives, information) with other factors (predisposing factors, enabling factors and reinforcing factors).

United Kingdom

Choice Editing: The United Kingdom, which is the chair of the Marrakesh Task Force on Sustainable Products, removed all water heaters from the market apart from those that were energy-efficient, condensing boilers. This was achieved through a process called ‘choice editing’; a process of combining labelling and standards.

Sweden

Sustainable Transport: Sweden has combined a number of instruments to help promote sustainable transport: a mix of carbon-differentiated vehicle tax; an environmental tax on air travel; tax exemption for diesel cars with particle filters and alternative fuel engines; as well as a congestion charge in Stockholm.

Germany

‘Labelling Combined with Energy Taxes’: Research has found that combining labelling with an energy tax (i.e. residential electricity charges) helped to promote more sustainable purchases of appliances, as well as increased investment in insulation and more energy efficient housing.

Green Dot Packaging Ordinance: Programmes like the Green Dot Packaging Ordinance combines waste disposal charges with extensive recycling incentives and facilities.

Hungary

Combination of Product Charges and Eco-labels: Hungary applies a connection between product charges and eco-labels. The purpose of the Hungarian product charges is to influence consumers, by discouraging the purchase of polluting products, and to influence producers, by facilitating the production of environmentally-sound goods that are not subject to the charge (Rubik et al., 2009, p. 6)

(Source: adapted from OECD, 2008 and Rubik et al., 2009).

Hungary is an interesting case. It applies a combination of product charges and eco-labels. The purpose of the Hungarian product charges is to influence consumers, by discouraging the purchase of polluting products, and to influence producers, by facilitating the production of environmentally sound goods that are not subject to the charge. The Hungarian government set up a special incentive for producers to include environmental concerns in their product design. Products regarded as ‘environmentally safe’ receive a 25% reduction in the product charge. The Hungarian (or the European) eco-label serves as proof. For example, electronic equipment granted the eco-label would be taxed at 0.30€ per kg instead of 0.40€ per kg (Rubik et al., 2009, p. 6).

61

In the following section, an overview on national sustainable consumption products is given and good practice examples for the ‘institutionalisation’ of SCP are given.

4.3.5 Sustainable Consumption Programmes

Sustainable consumption programmes can promote coherence and realise synergies across a range of policies: consumer, education, economic, social, environmental, etc. In the absence of an integrated strategy, disconnected initiatives not only lack cohesion but also the full force of a range of government ministries and their policy tools. Without coherent approaches to sustainable consumption in terms of sectors (food, energy), actors (households, young people) and instruments (regulations, taxes, communications), initiatives may have inconsistencies or significant gaps and be generally ineffective. UNEP has developed Guidelines for National Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, which address many of these issues (UNEP, 2008). While OECD countries have a wide range of instruments aimed at promoting sustainable consumption, very few have combined these into a cohesive plan. Countries that have overall strategies for sustainable consumption and production include Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Korea, Norway, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Hungary, Germany and Greece are in the process of developing national sustainable consumption and production strategies. Sweden and the United Kingdom are the only OECD countries with dedicated sustainable consumption programmes or action plans. Although its implementation is currently on hold, the Swedish programme on sustainable consumption (Think Twice! An Action Plan for Sustainable Household Consumption) was developed in 2006 by the Swedish Consumer Agency (Konsumentverket) and contains specific proposals in the areas of food, energy-efficient households and travel. The UK sustainable consumption action plan targets behaviour groups and purchasing patterns with a mix of policy interventions in the areas of energy efficiency, waste and recycling, water usage, personal transport and food. Ten ‘road maps’ for promoting sustainable consumption in specific product categories are being developed. Consultation with all relevant stakeholder groups, particularly consumers and business, needs to be ensured. In 2004, the United Kingdom established the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, a joint effort of the National Consumer Council and the Sustainable Development Commission, to develop proposals. The Finnish ‘Getting More from Less’ programme was formulated by a multi-stakeholder advisory group, the Committee on Sustainable Consumption and Production (KULTU), co-chaired by the Environment and Trade Ministries and including some eighty-six stakeholder representatives (OECD, 2008). The Czech Republic Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production was prepared by a similar working group chaired by the Minister of Environment. The National Council for Sustainable Development in France, a civil society body and watchdog, proposes sustainable consumption issues and actions. In Germany, the Federal Environment Ministry (BMU) started a national process on sustainable consumption and production in 2004, which involves all relevant stakeholders. In this context, consumer policy agencies are

62

particularly important. Understanding the social and economic aspects of consumer behaviour is central to designing effective approaches. Consumer agencies have direct links to market behaviour in dealing with regulations, standardisation and codes of conduct as well as maintaining basic access to goods and services (OECD, 2002). Table 20: Good practice examples: Institutionalisation

Country Good practice example Czech Republic The Czech Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and

Production is derived from the objectives of the National Sustainable Development Strategy, which stresses the integration of existing policies. www.env.cz/AIS/web-en.nsf/pages/sustainable_development_on_national_level

Finland The national programme to promote sustainable consumption and production, Getting More from Less was the first such initiative in the OECD, prompted by the recommendations of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=62075&lan=en

Norway Norway is revising its Action Plan for Sustainable Development following a peer review by Sweden to, among other things, strengthen sustainable consumption provisions and link them to the budget and indicator-based monitoring. www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/ud/bro/2003/0013/ddd/pdfv/171847-nsbu.pdf

Sweden ‘Think Twice!’ is a fully integrated sustainable consumption programme with a four-year action plan focused on household consumption to teach consumers how to eat, live and travel sustainably. www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/a/65711;jsessionid=a7dYp2DkPWH

United Kingdom The Sustainable Consumption Roundtable (2004 - 06) was a joint endeavour of the National Consumer Council and the Sustainable Development Commission mandated with developing recommendations for action on sustainable consumption for the government. www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/consumption.html

(Source: adapted from OECD, 2008).

Sustainable Development Strategies

Sustainable consumption programmes can adopt the institutional infrastructure of national sustainable development strategies (NSDS), for which good practices include clear goals and targets, integrated decision-making, stakeholder involvement, links to localities, and indicators and monitoring (OECD, 2006). A few countries have included sustainable consumption and production as an NSDS priority (Czech Republic, France, Korea, and United Kingdom). Others include issues relating to sustainable consumption across various parts of their strategies (Austria, Belgium, Finland, Norway, and Sweden). Some national strategies address consumption-related issues in sector policies related to transport, energy, climate change, waste, or integrated product policies (Denmark, Switzerland). The EU Council of Ministers voted to include sustainable

63

consumption and production as a priority in the European Union Sustainable Development Strategy. Links to national strategies help sustainable consumption actions to achieve co-ordination and synergies across governments as well as to obtain more high-level political commitment. Responsibility for sustainable consumption-related activities in most OECD countries resides with Ministries of Environment, although consumer agencies should be directly involved as well as ministries and agencies dealing with education, social issues, energy, transport, agriculture, etc. Interagency processes developed for national sustainable development strategies can be used to promote shared responsibility and policy-making across government agencies on sustainable consumption and allow for integration of a package of initiatives.

Monitoring and evaluating sustainable consumption initiatives can also be facilitated through the indicators, targets and monitoring systems of national sustainable development strategies. This contributes to accountability and public transparency in programme implementation. Most OECD countries have consumption indicators included in their sustainable development indicator sets. These most often include: household materials, water and electricity consumption; generation of household waste; energy consumption and CO2 emissions from personal transport; share of overweight or obese people; extent of green public procurement; and ecolabel awards by product group. Findings by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) The European Environmental Agency (EEA, 2007) has compiled a report on ‘National Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) Strategies in the EU: A comparative review of selected cases’, which was a background paper for the conference ‘Time for Action –towards Sustainable Consumption and Production in Europe’. The conference which took place in Ljubljana, Slovenia on 27-29 September 2007, was jointly organised by the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Slovenia, the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the UNEP/Wuppertal Institute Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP). The objective of this EEA report was to provide information on national strategies addressing sustainable consumption and production (SCP) in the EU. Strategies in focus of the study included dedicated SCP frameworks of programmes or action plans as well as national sustainable development strategies (NSDSs) integrating SCP as a key component. The aim was to identify publicly available cases and to conduct a comparative review of a limited number of examples (EEA, 2007: i). The more detailed objectives of the study were to provide information about the preparation of strategies, their main foci and content, as well as about targets and indicators defined for monitoring purposes and main responsibilities for implementation. The methodology of information collection was primarily desk research, mainly in English. In a later phase of the research informal communication with SCP experts from the selected countries was also conducted. The study focuses on the content of

64

strategies. The evaluation of implementation was not in the scope of the report (EEA, 2007, p. i). Countries and Programmes under review included cases, which encompass both dedicated SCP strategies and NSDSs integrating SCP as a key component. They represent both old and new Member States as well as small and large countries and they include a variety of institutional structures. It should be noted that the strategies presented here represent only a sample of the full extent of SCP related strategies in the EU (EEA, 2007, p. i). Table 21: Overview National SCP programmes

Country SCP programme

Austria The SCP perspective in the national sustainable development strategy of Austria, ‘Building our Future – a sustainable future for Austria’ (2002) and its annual work programmes.

Czech Republic The ‘Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production’ (2005).

Finland ‘Getting More and Better from Less’, the Finnish National Programme to Promote Sustainable Consumption and Production (2005).

France SCP as one of the key challenges identified in the national sustainable development strategy of France, ‘Acting in the European Dynamic’ (2006).

United Kingdom The UK Government programmes on sustainable consumption and production, ‘Changing Patterns – UK government framework for SCP’ (2003) and Chapter 3 ‘One Planet Economy – Sustainable Consumption and Production’, in ‘Securing the Future’ (2005), the UK national sustainable development strategy.

(Source: adapted from EEA, 2007).

The findings of the EEA 2007 show that sustainable consumption and production is being addressed in national strategies in an increasing number of cases. During the period of research, up to the end of August 2007, almost a dozen of examples of dedicated SCP strategies or NSDSs integrating SCP as a key component were identified (EEA, 2007: pi). The examples identified represent a very wide range of approaches. The findings of the comparative review are summarised below:

Table 22: Comparative Review of National SCP programmes

Assessment Criteria Findings

Governance of preparing the strategies

For the development of strategies or at least to support the preparation of strategy by the government, a dedicated multi-stakeholder body (a committee or working group) was set up in all cases. The mechanisms of coordination and the range of stakeholders involved, however, show remarkable differences. The coordination of preparation was, in general, vested in the ministries of environment. In the cases of Finland and the UK the ministry of industry also played a key role. By various means and to various degrees the wider public was also consulted, mainly in the framework of Internet-based consultations. In three out of five cases, in the Czech Republic, Finland and the UK, dedicated SCP strategies have

65

been prepared in a first stage. In a second stage, however, in each of these countries SCP has been or is being integrated into the NSDSs. For Austria and France the entry point for SCP into the strategic planning policy arena was directly through the NSDSs.

Level of planning and novelty The SCP strategies reviewed in this paper contain elements of both framework strategies (i.e. aimed to set out general policy directions, etc.) and action plans (describing concrete objectives and detailed measures). The level of novelty in terms of measures and actions planned also varies. With the exception of the Finnish SCP Programme, the strategies also report extensively on already implemented or ongoing activities. The strategies of Austria and the UK contain several provisions regarding the strengthening and extension of existing activities and, at the same time, a good number of new initiatives also. The Czech, Finnish and French strategies seem to have focused more on planning for new initiatives.

Priority implementation areas and production consumption systems in focus

The defined priority implementation areas represent a very broad range, including e.g. sectoral, thematic, horizontal and cross-cutting as well as overall policy coordination and integration type of topics. Nevertheless, some common implementation areas as well as preferred tools and instruments can be identified as follows:

- The improvement of eco-efficiency is the most broadly and uniformly shared overall implementation area. The focus, however, is on production processes and domestic economy.

- Commitment for setting the example in the public sector is in the forefront of most strategies and ambitions usually go beyond Green Public Procurement (GPP).

- A key role is assigned to market interventions in the promotion of SCP in all reviewed cases. Voluntary agreements also play an important role in a number of cases. There are only some sporadic examples for planned normative regulation.

- Key fields of consumption side measures are education, sensitisation for responsibility and provision of information. Only few activities go beyond these issues. At the same time research aimed at understanding the dynamics of consumption decisions is a common element of strategies.

- Promotion of research and innovation and furthering of the environmental technologies sector is a broadly shared implementation area.

- Consumer goods and/or product policy are addressed in the forefront of strategies in a good number of cases.

- Institutional innovations play a key role in some of the countries. - It can be broadly confirmed that ‘food and drink’, ‘housing’ and

‘mobility’ are in the foci of strategies. At the same time, in most of the cases these areas are already addressed or are planned to be addressed in more detail in relevant dedicated strategies.

- As regards the comprehensiveness of action (e.g. from the life-cycle perspective, etc.), some areas considered of key importance (e.g. impacts of food consumption, energy use of household appliances, etc.) are not specifically addressed.

Implementation and monitoring In most cases the overall responsibility for the coordination of implementation lies with the ministry of environment, which is supported by a larger group of committee members, etc., usually the same people who were involved in the development of the strategy. In Finland and the UK, similarly to the case of the preparation of strategies, the coordination is the joint responsibility of the ministry of environment and the ministry

66

of industry. Most strategies specify some kind of monitoring mechanisms, typically annual or biannual evaluation reports and indicator reports.

Targets and indicators There are very few quantitative targets for SCP specifically defined by the strategies. One exception is the SCP programme in Finland. However, there seems to be SCP-related targets set in many countries, but they are included in the sectoral (such as transport, agriculture) or thematic (e.g. climate change, energy efficiency) strategies, etc.

Particular SCP considerations Environment vs. other considerations

The main focus of the reviewed strategies lies on the ecological aspects of consumption and production. As regards interaction between the elements of sustainability (environmental, economic and social aspects), actions which represent a ‘win-win’ situation for the environment and the economy can widely be found in the strategies. Regarding social aspects, considerations usually do not go beyond the employment potential of planned action, and the particular social drivers (e.g. demographic trends) of contemporary consumption patterns seem not to be amongst the main issues. Domestic issues vs. considerations from the global economy perspective

The strategies dominantly focus on domestic issues. In most of the cases they also contain an international dimension (especially the NSDSs), where some important elements are covered, such as liberalisation of trade, promotion of the SCP concept in international policy-making process, etc. At the same time planned action taking the perspective of the global economy, burden shifting and the global use of resources is only very sporadic. Exceptions to this are several examples to promote the consumption of locally produced food.

SCP building blocks vs. systems approach

The overall approach of strategies seems to combine consistent planning with the ‘building blocks’ of SCP (e.g. labelling, GPP, education, etc.) with some more holistic considerations, according to the systems approach (e.g. fostering structural changes and new modes of satisfying societal needs). As regards holistic considerations, the most broadly shared type of action in this respect is related to overall ecological tax reform and/or system of ecological taxation. Fostering structural change in agriculture and to a lesser extent in the transport sector is also a broadly shared category of ambitions.

(Source: Adapted from EEA, 2007, p. iii).

Findings by UNEP

In their 2004 report ‘Tracking Progress: Implementing sustainable consumption policies’, the UNEP and Consumers International (CI) have reviewed the progress of the implementation of UN guidelines for Consumer Protection, which were expanded in 1999 to include new elements on Sustainable Consumption (UNEP, 2004, p. 6). These guidelines represent a framework for governments for formulating and strengthening consumer protection policies and legislation. The Guidelines encompass such issues as providing information, conducting

67

consumer research, testing products, promoting recycling and sustainable government practices, encouraging life-cycle thinking and ecoproducts, as well as strengthening regulatory mechanisms and adopting economic measures (UNEP, 2004, p. 6). The UNEP and Consumers International have conducted the first global governmental study of the status of implementation of the SC section of the guidelines. Findings show that despite a strong interest by governments in implementing the guidelines, more than a third of the fifty-three governments whose survey responses are included in the study had not been aware of the guidelines before they received the global survey (UNEP, 2004, p. 6). The UNEP acknowledges that this shows a clear need for a better and more systematic approach to spreading knowledge and understanding of the Guidelines. Altogether, UNEP and CI approached and actively followed up almost 150 governments, receiving a positive response from ninety, including those that participated in the study. Their findings show that the status of implementation of the specific elements of the Guidelines varies widely. For example, three-quarters of governments surveyed said that they had started to implement policies in line with the need for sustainable government practices, but just over half said that they had promoted research on consumer behaviour to identify ways to make consumption patterns more sustainable (UNEP, 2004, p. 6). UNEP reports that governments are calling for training and other opportunities to learn from the international community, including consumer organisations, NGOs and other interested parties. A third of the governments surveyed believe that the guidelines need to be modified, because certain guidelines are felt to lack clarity and need better explanation. Measuring progress is another area where there is room for improvement. Half the governments surveyed do not have designated representatives in charge of implementing, or monitoring compliance with, the guidelines. However, one of the clear positive messages from the study is the large number of governments that have raised consumer awareness about sustainable consumption issues. Eight in ten governments have promoted such practices in recent years and many others have devised campaigns for the future. The most common activities revolve around disseminating information about saving energy and water resources, or protecting the environment by recycling or buying recycled products. However, this is by no means all that should be done. Governments, especially those in non-OECD countries, could learn from examples in other countries and extend their campaigns beyond the traditional resource-saving sphere.

In its report, UNEP has selected eight national case studies which demonstrate a host of good practices for countries intent on starting or furthering sustainable consumption policy making (UNEP, 2004, p. 7). Countries were chosen in terms of the quality of their survey responses and their willingness to provide expanded accounts of their progress towards complete implementation of the Guidelines. The researchers attempted to balance responses from developed and developing countries, with coverage of the major world regions. UNEP observed that some of the countries are more advanced than others in their progress, but all case studies highlight varying and interesting initiatives and approaches towards implementing the various elements. The focus of the case studies range from highlighting

68

measures directed at industry to those directed at consumers. The selected countries include: Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Germany, Japan, Mauritius, and Senegal (see UNEP, 2004, pp. 30-58). Regarding the whole sample, the following picture emerges: Each country was given a score for its progress with implementing eight key paragraphs of Section G of the UN Guidelines, from 0 (no policy implementation) to 10 (implementation in line with all paragraphs started, along with information and monitoring activities). However, the score indicates only that implementation has begun, and not how far it has progressed (UNEP, 2004, p. 64; emphasis added). See Table 23 for an overview of the implementation scores.

Table 23: Implementation Scores regarding UN Guidelines on SC policies

Implementation scores Score Countries 10 Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,

Hungary, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Sweden 9 China, Germany, India, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland 8 Canada, Hong Kong, Kuwait, Seychelles, Slovak Republic

7 Argentina, Chad, El Salvador, Fiji, Israel, Japan, Zimbabwe 6 Kiribati, Mauritius, New Zealand, Senegal, Switzerland

5 Austria, Chile, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Uruguay 4 Bulgaria, Cote D’Ivoire 3 Costa Rica, Haiti 1 Burundi, Ecuador, Kenya 0 Cyprus, Zambia (Source: adapted from UNEP, 2004, p. 64).

In its 2008 report ‘Planning for Change’, UNEP has produced an update of their 1999 guidelines for SCP. These guidelines contain nine case studies (Argentina, Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Finland, Jamaica, Japan, Senegal, Thailand and the United Kingdom) and several other examples of good practice, which illustrate how governments are implementing SCP programmes all over the world. An analysis of the case studies highlights some key lessons learned. Updated information on the existing national initiatives can be found on the UNEP Clearinghouse for SCP Programmes at http://www.unep.fr/scp/nap/clearinghouse/. UNEP find that by 2008, many countries have instituted individual policies to promote sustainable consumption and sustainable production. Today more than thirty countries from all over the world have developed or are developing national SCP programmes. These national level initiatives are diverse in nature: they constitute national frameworks, programmes, action plans and strategies. Often the programmes are incorporated in existing national strategies on sustainable development and poverty reduction. Africa, Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean also have regional programmes in place (UNEP, 2008, p. 3).

69

However, the report finds that these actions are often neither coherent nor driven by an integrated programme: individual national initiatives, no matter how innovative, cannot bring about fundamental changes in consumption and production patterns. Therefore, UNEP argues, the Marrakech Process on Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) is encouraging the development of integrated national programmes on SCP (UNEP, 2008, p. 3). The guidelines developed by UNEP, 2008 intend to provide advice to governments and other stakeholders on how to plan, develop, implement and monitor national SCP programmes. They include the following ten steps:

1. Establish an advisory group

2. Conduct a scoping exercise

3. Set the institutional framework

4. Select the priority areas

5. Define objectives and set targets

6. Select policies and initiatives

7. Obtain official approval of the programme

8. Implement the programme

9. Document, monitor and evaluate

10. Sustain and improve.

UNEP argues that it is important in this regard to link the programme to existing strategies such as national development plans and national sustainable development strategies. A country’s policy framework can be very complex; therefore, identifying potential linkages early on in the process is important (UNEP, 2008, p. 3).

70

5 Conclusion

The objective of this report was to review the state of the EU Directives on sustainable consumption and production (SCP) and catalogue international best practice models and tools for Quality of Life Proofing in the area of sustainable consumption policies in Europe. The findings discussed in this report are that progress has been made in the area of SCP both at international and national levels in terms of agenda setting, development of policy instruments and strategies to tackle the challenge of SCP. Key findings of this report include the following:

• A multitude of instruments, strategies and frameworks exist both at national as well as at international levels; however, an implementation gap is still evident (Barber, 2010; Rubik et al., 2009; Tucker et al., 2008). Important questions remain about the effects of certain instrument mixes. Combinations of instruments targeting the same area of SCP seem to be more effective than the use of individual policy instruments (Tucker et al., 2008; OECD, 2008).

• Most successful examples of policy strategies relate to singular examples from individual countries or relate to grass-roots ‘niche’ strategies; how these examples of good practice can be transferred to a broader, mainstream level is still very much unclear (for example, see Kennedy, 2009).

• Promising attempts have been made to measure and evaluate SCP strategies both by national and international indicator sets as well as through qualitative frameworks (e.g. Seyfang, 2009; Berg, 2010); however, a more cohesive or consistent way to evaluate SCP strategies is still missing in the international discourse on SCP.

• Scholars are increasingly questioning the equation between economic growth and wellbeing. There is an increasing awareness that wellbeing and quality of life cannot be achieved by increasing consumption and that other elements are more crucial in this regard (for example, see Jackson, 2009; Tucker et al., 2008). Fruitful attempts are being made questioning certain elements of the current economic systems depending on economic growth; however, the dilemma that economic growth is unsustainable but de-growth is unstable (Jackson, 2009) is still very much unsolved and further research is needed in this area.

This desktop review provides the basis for assessing Ireland’s performance in the area of SCP policies and for developing a model of good governance of sustainable living for Ireland (Pape et al., forthcoming). The guidelines developed by international organisations like UNEP and the policy examples from specific national contexts can be used as a framework and learning tools for the Irish perspective. In order to transfer these good practice examples to the Irish policy context, however, it is necessary to explore the Irish policy and institutional context, as well as cultural and social norms, which shape consumption patterns in Ireland. The ConsEnSus project is exploring this context and will develop innovative strategies for more sustainable consumption policies and practices in Ireland.

71

Appendix

Table A1 SCOPE Project: Policy instruments – effectiveness assessment of 12 cases

(Source: Tucker et al., 2008, p. 9).

72

Table A2 SCOPE: Gap analysis. White spots of instruments in housing, mobility and food

(Source: Tucker et al., 2008, p. 12).

73

Table A3 SCOPE: Gap analysis. Gaps of instruments in housing, mobility and food

(Source: Tucker et al., 2008, p. 13).

74

Table A4 SCOPE: Gap analysis. Short, middle and long-term goals housing, mobility, food

(Source: Tucker et al., 2008 p. 14).

75

Bibliography

Andersen, M. S. (2001). Economic Instruments and Clean Water: Why Institutions and Policy Design

Matter. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Andersen, M. S. (2000). Designing and introducing Green Taxes: Institutional Dimensions. In M. S.

Andersen, & R. U. Sprenger, Market-based instruments for environmental management, 67-88.

Cheltenham: Politics and institutions.

Andersen, M. S. (1994). Governance by Green Taxes: Making Pollution Prevention Pay. Manchester:

Manchester University Press.

Barber, J. (2010). Still Waiting for Delivery: A Review of Progress and Programs in the 10-Year

Framework. Integrative Strategies Forum and the International Coalition for Sustainable Production

and Consumption. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from:

http://icspac.net/documents/StillWaitingforDelivery3.pdf

Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2003). Measuring sustainability: learning by doing. London: Earthscan.

Bell, S., & Morse, S. (1999). Sustainability Indicators. London: Earthscan.

Berg, A. (2010). Not Roadmaps but Toolboxes: Analysing Pioneering National Programmes for

Sustainable Consumption and Production. Retrieved June 1, 2010, from Springer Link:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/d32470816g364436/

Blomquist, G. C. (2006). Measuring Quality of Life. In R. Arnott, & D. McMillen, A Companion to

Urban Economics. Boston: Blackwell Publishing.

Blowers, A., & Hinchliffe, S. (Eds.). (2003). Environmental Responses. Chichester: John Wiley and

Sons/Open University.

Bressers, H., & O'Toole, L. J. (2004). Instrument Selection and Implementation in a Networked

Context. In E. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett, Designing Government: From Instruments to

Governance. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Bressers, H., & O'Toole, L. J. (1998). The Selection of Policy Instruments: A Network based

Perspective. Journal of Public Policy, 18 (3), 213-239.

Buckingham, S. (2008). The rise of environmental politics and the Environmental Movement. In S.

Buckingham, & M. Turner, Understanding Environmental Issues. London: Sage.

Burgess, J., & Bedford, T. (2002). (Un) sustainable consumption. In M. Leach, F. Berkhout, & I.

Scoones, Global Environmental Change: review and prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Clark, G. (2007). Evolution of the global sustainable consumption and production policy and the

United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) supporting activities. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 15, 492-498.

Comim, F., Tsutsumi, R., & Varea, A. (2007). Choosing Sustainable Consumption: A Capability

Perspective on Indicators. Journal of International Development, 19, 493-509.

76

Cutter, S. L. (1985). Rating Places: A Geographer’s View of Quality of Life. Washington, DC:

Association of American Geographers.

Davies, A., Fahy, F. and Taylor, D. (2005). Mind the Gap: Householder attitude and actions towards

waste in Ireland. Irish Geography, 38 (2), 151-168.

Davies, A. R. (2006). Environmental justice as subtext or omission: examining discourses of anti-

incineration campaigning in Ireland. Geoforum, 37 (5), 708-724.

Davies, A. R., Fahy, F., Rau, H., & Pape, J. (2010). Sustainable consumption: practices and

governance. Irish Geography, 43 (1), 59-79.

De Young, R. (1993). Changing behaviour and making it stick. Environment and Behavior, 25 (4), 485-

505.

Deakin, M., Curwell, S., & Lombardi, P. (2002). Sustainable Urban Development: The Framework and

Directory of Assessment Methods. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 4

(2), 171-197.

Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A., & York, R. (2010). Human Driving Forces of Global Change: Dominant

Perspectives. In E. A. Rosa, A. Diekmann, T. Dietz, & C. C. Jaeger (Eds.), Human Footprints on the

Global Environment: Threats to Sustainability, 83-134. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Doran, P. (2007). Sustainable Consumption & Production - ‘The Art of the State’, Recommendations

to Comhar for the 2007 Review of the National Sustainable Development Strategy. Belfast: Queen's

University Belfast.

EC. (2008). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the

European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the sustainable

consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan. Brussels: EC.

EC. (2006). The renewed European sustainable development strategy 2006: A Platform for Action.

Brussels: EC.

EC. (2004). Sustainable production and consumption in the EU. Brussels: EC.

EC. (2001). The European sustainable development strategy. Brussels: EC.

EC. (2000). The Lisbon Strategy. Brussels: EC.

EEA (European Environment Agency). (2007). National Sustainable Consumption and Production

(SCP) Strategies in the EU - A comparative review of selected cases. ETC/RWM.

EEA (European Environment Agency). (2005). Household consumption and the environment. EEA

Report No 11/2005.

Fahy, F., & Ó Cinnéide, M. (2008). The reality of the locality: exploring spatial aspects of quality of life

in Galway City, Ireland. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 3 (1), 29-44.

Frank, R. (1999). Luxury fever. Why money fails to satisfy in an era of excess. New York: Free Press.

77

Fuchs, D. A., & Lorek, S. (2005). Sustainable consumption governance: A history of promises and

failures. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 261-288.

Gahin, R., Veleva, V., & Hart, M. (2003). Do indicators help create sustainable communities? Local

Environment, 8 (6), 661-666.

Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior. Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Gatersleben, B. (2001). Sustainable household consumption and quality of life: the acceptability of

sustainable consumption patterns and consumer policy strategies. International Journal of

Environment and Pollution, 15 (2), 200-216.

Gatersleben, B., & Vlek, C. (1998). Household Consumption, Quality of Life, and Environmental

Impacts: A Psychological Perspective and Empirical Study. In K. J. Noorman, & T. S. Uiterkamp, Green

Households? Domestic Consumers, Environment and Sustainability, 141-183. London: Earthscan.

Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behaviour relationships.

Environment and Behaviour, 27 (5), 699-718.

Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (2002). Leaders and Laggards: Next Generation Environmental

Regulation. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

Haberl, H., Erb, K. H., & Krausmann, F. (2001). How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints

for long periods of time: the case of Austria 1926-1995. Ecological Economics, 38 (1), 25-45.

Hahn, R. W. (1989). A Primer on Environmental Policy Design. Chur: Harwood Academic Publications.

Hawthorne, M., & Alabaster, T. (1999). Citizen 2000: development of a model of environmental

citizenship. Global Environmental Change, 9, 25-43.

Hinrichs, C. C. (2003). The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies,

19, 33-45.

Hinton, E. D., & Goodman, M. K. (2010). Sustainable Consumption: Developments, Considerations

and New Directions. In M. Redclift, & G. Woodgate (Eds.), International Handbook of Environmental

Sociology (2nd edition). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Hobson, K. (2002). Competing Discourses of Sustainable Consumption: Does the ‘Rationalisation of

Lifestyles’ Make Sense? Environmental Politics, 11 (2), 95-120.

Hobson, K. (2003). Thinking habits into action: the role of knowledge and process in questioning

household consumption practices. Local Environment, 8 (1), 95-112.

Hoernig, H., & Seasons, M. (2005). Understanding Indicators. In Community Indicators Measuring

Systems, 3-32. London: Ashgate.

Howlett, M. (2004). Beyond Good and Evil in Policy Implementation: Instrument Mixes,

Implementation Styles, and Second Generation Theories of Policy Instrument Choice. Policy and

Society, 23 (2), 1-17.

78

IEA (International Energy Agency). (2007). Experience with Energy Efficiency Regulations for Electrical

Equipment. IEA.

Illge, L., & Schwarze, R. (2009). A matter of opinion – How ecological and neoclassical environmental

economists think about sustainability and economics. Ecological Economics, 68, 594-604.

Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without Growth – Economics for a finite Planet. London: Earthscan.

Jackson, T. (2006). Handbook of sustainable consumption. London: Earthscan.

Jackson, T., & Marks, N. (1999). Consumption, sustainable welfare and human needs – with

reference to UK expenditure patterns between 1954 and 1994. Ecological Economics, 28, 421-441.

Jackson, T., & Michaelis, L. (2003). Sustainable Consumption & Production, Economic, regeneration:

Policies for Sustainable Consumption. Sustainable Development Commission.

Jones, A. (2001). Eating oil: Food supply in a Changing Climate. Newbury: Sustain London and Elm

Farm Research Centre.

Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their Effect on Pro-Environmental Behavior. Environment and

Behavior, 28 (1), 111-133.

Kennedy, E. H. (2009). Book Review: The New Economics of Sustainable Consumption: The Seeds of

Change (Gill Seyfang 2009). Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34 (2).

Kline, E. (2001). Indicators for sustainable development in urban areas. In D. Devuyst, L. Hens, & W.

De Lannoy, How green is the city?, 275-298. New York: Columbia University.

Knill, C. (2008). Europäische Umweltpolitik. Steuerungsprobleme und Regulierungsmuster im

Mehrebenensystem. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Lafferty, W., & Meadowcroft, J. (2000). Implementing sustainable development. Strategies and

initiatives in high consumption societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leonard, L. (2008). The Environmental Movement in Ireland. London: Springer Press.

Levett, R., Christie, I., Jacobs, M., & Therivel, R. (2003). A Better Choice of Choice: Quality of life,

consumption and economic growth. London: Fabian Society.

Linden, A., & Carlsson-Kanyama, A. (2003). Environmentally friendly disposal behaviour. Local

Environment, 8 (3) 290-301.

Linder, S., & Peters, G. (1989). Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts. Journal of

Public Policy , 9 (1) , 35-58.

Macnaghten, P., & Urry, J. (1998). Contested Natures. London: Sage.

Mayo, E., & Knight, A. (2006). I will if you will – towards sustainable consumption. Sustainable

Consumption Roundtable.

79

McClenaghan, A. (2008). Ecological modernisation in the UK: Northern Ireland's sustainable

development strategy in context. Environmental Politics , 17 (5), 804-814.

Meister, M., & Japp, P. (1998). Sustainable development and the global economy: rhetorical

implications for improving the quality of life. Communication Research, 25 (4), 399-421.

Michaelis, L., & Lorek, S. (2004). Consumption and the Environment in Europe: Trends and Futures.

Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency.

Morgan, K., & Morley, A. (2002). Relocalising the Food Chain: The role of creative public

procurement. Cardiff: The Regeneration Institute.

Nash, H. A. (2009). The European Commission’s sustainable consumption and production and

sustainable industrial policy action plan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17 , 496–498.

OECD. (2008). Promoting Sustainable Consumption. GOOD PRACTICES IN OECD COUNTRIES. Paris:

OECD.

OECD. (2007). Instrument Mixes for Environmental Policy. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2006). Good Practices in the National Sustainable Development Strategies of OECD Countries.

Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2002). Policies to Promote Sustainable Consumption: An Overview. Policy Case Studies Series.

Paris: OECD.

Oslo Declaration (2005). Oslo Declaration on Sustainable Consumption. Retrieved March 2010, from:

http://www.oslodeclaration.org/.

Padgett, J., Steinemann, A., Clarke, J., & Vandenbergh, M. (2008). A comparison of carbon

calculators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 28 (2), 106-115.

Pape, J. (2009). Domestic Driving Factors of Environmental Performance: The Role of Regulatory

Styles in the Case of Water Protection Policy in France and the Netherlands 1970-2005.

Suedwestdeutscher Verlag fuer Hochschulschriften.

Petts, J. (1997). The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: Expertise,

credibility and process. Public Understanding of Science 6 (4), 359-381.

Price, J. L. (2001). The Landfill Directive and the Challenge Ahead. Resources, Conservation and

Recycling, 32, 333-348.

Princen, T. (2003). Principles for sustainability: from cooperation and efficiency to sufficiency. Global

Environmental Politics, 3(1), 33-50.

Princen, T. (2005). The Logic of Sufficiency. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., Bras, B., Robins, N., & Roberts, S. (2008). A survey of unresolved

problems in life cycle assessment – Part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. International

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13 (4), 290-300.

80

Reed, M. (2001). Fight the Future! How the contemporary campaigns of the UK organic movement

have arisen from their composting past. Sociologica Ruralis , 41 (1), 131-145.

Ricketts, H. J., Ilbery, B., & Kneafsey, M. (2006). Distribution of local food activity in England and

Wales: An index of food relocalisation. Regional Studies, 40 (3), 289-301.

Rosa, E. A., Diekmann, A., Dietz, T., & Jaeger, C. C. (Eds.). (2010). Human Footprints on the Global

Environment: Threats to Sustainability. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Rubik, F., Scholl, G., Biedenkopf, K., & Kalimo, H. (2009). Innovative Approaches in European

Sustainable Consumption Policies. ASCEE. Berlin: Schriftenreihe des IOW 192/09.

Rubik, F., Scholl, G., Biedenkopf, K., Kalimo, H., Mohaupt, F., Soebech, O., et al. (2009). Promoting

Sustainable Consumption – New Policy Approaches. Policy Brief. Retrieved March 2010, from

http://www.ioew.de/uploads/tx_ukioewdb/ASCEE_Policy_Paper_Promoting_Sustainable_Consumpt

ion_01.pdf

Rugkasa, J., Shortt, N., & Boydell, L. (2007). The right tool for the task: ‘boundary spanners’ in a

partnership approach to tackle fuel poverty in rural Northern Ireland. Health and Social Care in the

Community , 15 (3), 221-230.

Rydin, Y., Holman, N., & Wolff, E. (2003). Local Sustainability Indicators. Local Environment, 8 (6),

581-590.

Schor, J. (2010). Plenitude: The New Economics of True Wealth. Penguin Press.

Schor, J. (2005). Sustainable Consumption and Work time Reduction. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9

(1-2), 37-50.

Schor, J. (1999). The new politics of consumption. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from Boston Review:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR24.3/schor.html.

Seyfang, G. (2009). The New Economics of Sustainable Consumption: Seeds of Change. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: the social organization of normality. Oxford

and New York: Berg Publishers.

Soper, K., & Thomas, L. (2006). Alternative hedonism and the critique of consumerism. Retrieved

March 2010, from http://www.consume.bbk.ac.uk/publications.html

Southerton, D., Chappells, H., & Van Vliet, B. (2004). Sustainable Consumption – The Implications of

Changing Infrastructures of Provision. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Spaargaren, G. (2003). Sustainable consumption: a theoretical and environmental policy perspective.

Society and Natural Resources, 16 (8), 687-701.

Spangenberg, J., & Lorek, S. (2002). Environmentally sustainable household consumption: from

aggregate environmental pressures to priority fields of action. Ecological Economics, 43 (2-3), 127-

140.

81

Speth, J. G. (2008). The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing

from Crisis to Sustainability. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal of

Consumer Policy, 22, 461-478.

Stoeglehner, G., & Narodoslawsky, M. (2008). Implementing ecological footprinting in decision-

making processes. Land Use Policy, 25 (3), 421-431.

Tanner, C., Kaiser, F. G., & Woefing Kast, S. (2004). Contextual Conditions of Ecological

Consumerism: A Food-Purchasing Survey. Environment and Behavior, 36 (1), 94-111.

Thøgersen, J. (2005). How May Consumer Policy Empower Consumers for Sustainable Lifestyles?

Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 143-178.

Thøgersen, J. (2002). Promoting green consumer behavior with eco-labels. In T. Dietz, & P. Stern

(Eds.), New tools for environmental protection: Education, information, and voluntary measures, 83-

104. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Thomas, L. (2008). Alternative realities: downshifting narratives in contemporary lifestyle television.

Cultural Studies, 22 (5), 33-45.

Tucker, A., Mont, O., & Lorek, S. (2008). Sustainable Consumption Policies Effectiveness Evaluation

(SCOPE2). Final Report Draft, Project FP6 2005-SSP-5A.

Tukker, A., Cohen, M. J., De Zoysa, U., Hertwich, E., Hofstetter, P., Inaba, A., et al. (2006). The Oslo

Declaration on Sustainable Consumption. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10 (1-2), 9-14.

UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). (1992). Agenda 21 – Action

Plan for the Next Century. Rio de Janeiro: UNCED.

UNEP & Consumers International. (2004). Tracking progress: Implementing sustainable consumption

policies. Retrieved August 2010, from http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0570xPA-

TrackingProgress2.pdf

UNEP. (2008). Planning for change: Guidelines for national programmes on sustainable consumption

and production. United Nations Environment Programme.

Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (2004). What is an Ecological Footprint? In S. Wheeler, & T. Beatley

(Eds.), The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, 211-219. London: Routledge.

Wheeler, S. (2004). Planning for sustainability. London: Routledge.

Wiedmann, T., & Minx, J. (2008). A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. In C. C. Pertsova (Ed.), Ecological

economics research trends. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Woodcock, J., Banister, D., Edwards, P., Prentice, A., & Roberts, I. (2007). Energy and Transport.

Lancet, 370 (9592), 1078-1088.