SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE: A REVIEW OF CONTEXT, APPROACHES, AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS Prepared by: Executive Summary Sustainability Science: A review of context, approaches, and potential applications

Zainal Sanusi

This chapter discusses the ProSPER.Net initiative to integrate sustainability into business schools in the Asia-Pacific region. The project deserves scrutiny, as it led to positive change within each of the partner universities, involving innovative research, curricular transformation and the development of regional case studies. As such, the project is an instructive case in its own right, highlighting the successes, as well as the obstacles encountered, in introducing and coordinating education for sustainable development (ESD) in diverse organizations. The experience of the project clearly shows that whereas there is a recognized need to promote ESD in business schools throughout Asia, the process of achieving this is difficult and complex. Through a consideration of the achievements and frustrations of the project, it is hoped that this chapter will contribute to a better understanding of these issues, and will help in subsequent efforts to integrate sustainability in business education.

Chapter 1, From Agenda 21 to Target 4.7: the development of ESD, by Alexander Leicht, Bernard Combes, Won Jung Byun and Adesuwa Vanessa Agbedahin, provides an account of this emergence and the development of the concept of ESD. The chapter highlights the two flows of change: the development of ESD examining both the integration of sustainable development into education systems and how education has been embedded in the discourse of sustainable development. It addresses certain international processes that supported the emergence of ESD and shows how these two flows of change laid strong grounds for ESD over the years. Among other things, the chapter addresses the increasing centrality of ESD to the global education discourse, as reflected in the Education 2030 Agenda, and the relevance of education and particularly ESD in relation to the achievement of all the SDGs.

This chapter presents ESD as a form of transformative and competence-based education. It describes the competencies that ESD should develop and the action-oriented transformative pedagogy needed to facilitate this process. It also discusses the needs of educators in developing competencies for ESD.

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE: A REVIEW OF CONTEXT, APPROACHES, AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS Prepared by: Zainal Abidin Sanusi, Dzulkifli Abdul Razak, Kanayathu Koshy, Salfarina Abd Gapor, Craig Hutton, Smita Krishnan, Abd Malik Abd Aziz Malaysia, July, 2013 1 Executive Summary Sustainability Science: A review of context, approaches, and potential applications Zainal Abidin Sanusi, Dzulkifli Abdul Razak, Kanayathu Koshy, Salfarina Abd Gapor Craig Hutton, Smita Krishnan, Abd Malik Abd Aziz The 20-year review of the Earth Summit (Rio+20, 2012) acknowledged the need to further mainstream sustainable development at all levels, integrating economic, social and environmental aspects and recognizing their inter-linkages, so as to achieve sustainable development in its full scope. The major outcome declaration of Rio+20 - The Future We Want, embodies the global assessment of key sustainability challenges and aspirations to address them, at a critical time when there is unequivocal evidence to show that the continued functioning of the Earth system as it has supported the well-being of human civilization for years, is at risk. The conference made it clear that there must be a shift towards the practices of a sustainable economy and sustainable growth, strengthened by sustainability science along with innovative institutional framework designed for its promotion and implementation. To this end, this paper will i) identify the key components that make up sustainability science without having to define it as such, ii) explore the potential application of sustainability science as a framework of thought processes to achieve the stated objective and goals of sustainable development in the region, iii) suggest tools, methodologies and approaches that can be of use in practicing sustainability science within a cultural context, iv) recommend a way forward in sustainability science, to be adopted by UNESCO and higher education institutions, practitioners, learners and policy makers in the Asia Pacific region. i) Key components of Sustainability Science: Linked to the global discourse on sustainable development, sustainability science seeks to link the existing gap in the current knowledge system with that of society at large. It recognises that knowledge on sustainability is not entirely new, as understood in the Brundlant report, but has been practiced in several communities as a way of life. In essence it is the science that addresses the socio-cultural gaps towards sustainable policy development and implementation. As such, it must not be constrained by any one definition so long as it is characterised by its key components. These can be thought of as:  Adhering to scientific norms or quality, repeatability and data handling (Science) without being "reductionist,"  Adopting a transdisciplinary approach across the disciplines of the study of society, economics, environment and governance (Science)  Supporting the development and implementation of plans and policies that link sustainability and society (Sustainability)  Adhering to the principles of equity and poverty alleviation (Sustainability) Drawing on data and perceptions from across a wide profile of stakeholders with an emphasis on those most likely to be impacted by policy 2 ii) Applications of Sustainability Science: Sustainability science emerged from the recognition that globally humanity faces a nexus of inter-related problems linked to the sustainable management of ecological degradation and dehumanisation with respect to development, globalisation, poverty, and development. This implies that sustainability science ultimately supports and enhances decisions for a negotiated and shared future. Fundamentally, sustainability science needs to be predicated on a wide range of thematic areas that buttress consensus building, and provide a platform for discourse and debate. To this end, sustainability science should be applied where there is a need to:  Address specific and well defined problems and issues, e.g decision making processes for agricultural land use where decisions can impact the economy as well as local livelihoods  Understand interactions between human and natural systems  Work with diversified fields of knowledge as a basis for understanding and developing a new form of sustainable management and governance  Work for the co-produced knowledge as part of community based policy iii) Methodologies, tools and approaches to sustainability science: Here, the authors suggest broad categories with respect to the methodological approaches that can be applicable to the pursuit of Sustainability Science, and in the absence of a single clear definition, offer the potential to characterise sustainability science through the most suitable tools/methodologies/approaches that are applicable. In general, the methodology advocated in sustainability science can also be synthesised so as to constitute the following elements:  Systems dynamics which allow integration of diverse models and data sets  Indicator development for M&E  Institutional and stakeholder demand mapping  Scenario development, handling uncertainty and policy testing  Capturing of Community and stakeholder perspectives and priorities More specifically, these methodologies can be translated into the following tools:  Integration across disciplines: This can be thought of in 2 key ways i) the operation of a series of cross disciplinary models running in parallel and considered independently, ii) Integration across disciplines towards a transdisciplinary and quantitative (or qualitatively ) link models. The authors recognise the value of the first approach, but recommend the second, as it is more integrative. Examples of truly integrative approaches include:  Systems dynamics approaches which use quantification data to link across fields such as environment, social modeling and economics, as well as a governance decision making processes. 3  Risk Appraisal and Hot Spotting: Risk can be defined in many ways, but it is often characterised through vulnerability, exposure and hazard or components thereof. As such Risk is an integrative tool which combines issues of socio-economic vulnerability with the characteristics of environmental hazard of stress to define Hot “pots .  Stakeholder network analysis, Delphi and Participatory Rural Appraisal: Such stakeholder approaches allow for the gathering of perceptions and priorities of a profile of stakeholders, and for their utilisation of this data in the defining of parameters and their subsequent weighting in socio-environmental modelling. These approaches allow for a move beyond consultation with stakeholders to their direct inclusion in the scientific process.  Scenario development: By developing a baseline model of integrated behaviour in a socio-environmental system, it is then possible to extend the model to develop scenarios of plausible futures dependent on external drivers (climate change, macro-e o o i s, food p i i g, upst ea i te e tio s et . a d i te al drivers such as interventions, policy and plans of decision makers. While recognising the need to be flexible and dynamic in these methodologies, and tools to suit the complex nature of sustainability issues, there are however, common approaches advocated as fundamental to the concept of sustainability science, as follows: - from supply to demand-driven - from technocratic to participative - from objective to subjective - from predictive to exploratory - from certain to uncertain iv) Recommendations: The following are outlines of key areas for recommended UNESCO activity:    Capacity building and awareness raising of sustainability science across institutions of government, civil society and private sectors to include curriculum development of higher education Methodological development in the form of specific case studies which demonstrate the validity and practical application of sustainability science e.g scenario development, systems studies Incorporation of sustainability science into current and new knowledge networks across the UNESCO system. 4 TABLE OF CONTENT SECTION 1: SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 1.1 The Increasing Need for Sustainable Development 1.2. The Science of Sustainability Science: Going Back to the Origin 1.3. Fundamental Concepts of Sustainability Science 1.4. The Approaches of Sustainability Sciences 1.5. Synthesis of Tools and Methods of Sustainability Science SECTION 2: SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC REGION: OPPORTUNITIES FOR APPLICATION OF SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE IN ASIA PACIFIC REGION 2.1 Environment and Development in Asia Pacific – In Search for Sustainable Development Model 2.2 Economic Growth and Sustainability in Asia Pacific – Questioning the Patterns of Growth 2.3 Social Sustainability in Asia Pacific – Mainstreaming Well-Being Agenda in the Region 2.4 Major Challenges of Sustainability in Asia Pacific 2.4.1. Poverty - Diverse Dimensions in the Region 2.4.2. Gender - Inequality and the Region Development Workforce 2.4.3. Health - as Purpose of Development 2.4.4. Water - The Dynamic Sustainability Issue 2.4.5. Energy - Addressing the Increasing Need in the Region 2.4.6. Biodiversity - Preventing Further Lose to Development Need 2.5 Conclusion SECTION 3: CASE STUDIES ON SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE 3.1. ANAYSIS OF CURRENT STATE OF SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE 3.1.1 Sustainability Science in Education and Research in Asia-Pacific region a. Sustainability Science Centre, at Harvard Kennedy School , USA b. Center for Sustainability Science (CENSUS), Hokkaido University, Japan 3.1.2 Lessons from Sustainability Science in the Europe a. MATI““E Methods a d Tools fo I teg ated “ustai a ilit Assess e t b. Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS) c. NeWater Project and - Integrated Water Resource Management 5 d. ARTEMIS Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies on MultipleScales – A Participatory Multi-Criteria Approach Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) 3.2 A Case Study for Applying Sustainability Sciences: Sustainable Solution for Water Insecurity in Asia Pacific SECTION 4: MAPPING UNESCO’S POTENTIAL IN SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAINSTREAM SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE AS NEW AGENDA FOR UNESCO 5.1 Institutionalisation and Mainstreaming of Sustainability Science for the Future We Want a) Mainstreaming the Content and Context of Sustainability Science b) Networking/Partnership for Sustainability Science c) Capacity and awareness building on Sustainability Science d) Promoting Research for Sustainability Science 5.2 Potential Initiatives for UNESCO to Promote sustainability Science Final Statement 6 SECTION 1: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE 1.1. The Increasing Need for Sustainable Development The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, 1992 (UNCED, Earth Summit) ignited a wild fire of interest in sustainable development. The Wo ld Co issio o E i o e t a d De elop e t a d its B u dtla d epo t , hi h as the sp i g oa d fo the ‘io o fe e e, a gued that the e i o e t e li e i a d the de elop e t that e do to improve our lot are inseparable. The challenge is to sustain the life supporting resources and human well-being (for e.g. earth, biodiversity, ecosystem goods & services, environment, cultures and indigenous knowledge systems), while at the same time developing the human capital, economy and social capital (for e.g. health, education, equity, wealth, products, services, and institutions that improve social capital). Sustainable development requires, therefore, a balance between economic growth, social development and environmental protection. Underlying the economic dimension is the p i iple that so iet s elfa e eeds to e a i ized a d po e t e adi ated. The social aspect relates to people, access to basic services in health, education, security, good governance, equity, human rights and maintenance of cultures. The environmental dimension is concerned with the integrity of bio-physical systems. Sustainable development therefore is defined by the ability to strike balanced development among the three pillars and ensure that the intergenerational equity is maintained. For that reason sustainable development is required to take account of not merely the interests of the current generation but also those of future people. Thus, it seeks to eet the eeds of the p ese t ithout o p o isi g the a ilit of futu e ge e atio s to eet thei o eeds. Examples are plentiful around the world today and throughout history, of incredibly destructive ways and amazingly congenial approaches in which humans organise their interactions with the environment. In addition to the goods humans receive from nature, there is also a steady flow of services from functioning environments – everything from climate regulation to water purification to oxygen production. We can manage these flows in ways that enhance and sustain those flows or degrade them by choosing short-term gains. So the question is, what kind of knowledge and governance institutions are required that will guide development in ways that both promote prosperity in the short run and sustainability of our life supporting systems and overall human well-being for the long term? (Clark 2009, interview by Doug Gavel) Observing the degrading state of our environment, it is obvious that the present mode of knowledge generation and application seems not to be able to provide needed sustainable development. Thus, a sustainability-based approach is thought as the possible solution to this challenge. Over the past two decades, sustainability has found its way into the UN system, government agencies, enterprises and institutions of higher education across the world. The 20-year review of Earth summit (Rio+20, 2012) acknowledged the need to further mainstream sustainable development at all levels, integrating economic, social and environmental aspects and recognizing their inter-linkages, so as to achieve sustainable development in its full scope. [http://g8usummit.jp/english/index.html] The major outcome declaration of Rio+20 - The 7 Future We Want, embodies the global assessment of major sustainability challenges and aspirations to address them, at a critical time when there is unequivocal evidence to show that the continued functioning of the Earth system - as it has supported the well-being of human civilization for years, is at risk. The state of the planet declaration resulting from the lead-up to Rio+20 conference, Planet Under Pressure, 26-29 March 2012, London had this to say about the current predicament: ithout u ge t a tio , e ould face threats to water, food, biodiversity and other critical resources, intensifying economic, ecological and socio-cultural crises that ould eate a hu a ita ia e e ge o a glo al s ale . The o fe e e ade it abundantly clear that it is not mere naïve optimism, but recognition of necessity would demand that we urgently shift towards the practices of green economy and green growth that is strengthened by sustainability science and innovative institutional framework designed for its promotion. In this discourse of sustainable development, the major concern is how should the issue be approached? What kind of knowledge framework should be applied in addressing the crosscutting issue of sustainable development such as climate change, biodiversity etc.? In search for the answers, sustainability science has been proposed as one of the possible approaches, as advocated by many academics and scholars who have been in the circle of environmental studies, development or even natural scientists. In line with this purpose, this paper aims at identifying the potential application of sustainability science as an approach to better understand the state of sustainable/unsustainable development of countries in the region. Subsequently, to suggest the way forward of promoting sustainability science as an approach in the region to be adopted by the various stakeholders in the regions including UNESCO, higher education institutions, practitioners and policy makers. 1.2. The Science of Sustainability Science: Going Back to the Origin Research over the last two decades has shown that the human influence on global life support systems has reached a magnitude unprecedented in human history and modern science is considered by many as one of the major drivers of the increase in human prosperity over the last three centuries (North, 2010; Mokyr, 2002). However, despite of these contributions, science today seems caught in a cross-fire between two opposing world views. On the one hand, science is a major tool of the ideology currently driving the industrialisation, modernisation and the world economy. On the other hand, science is increasingly being called on to produce knowledge and technology that promote environmentally sustainable, peopleoriented development and long-term management of resources. At the very moment that humanity fails to tackle major global crises of an economic, environmental and social nature, modern science seems incapable of providing operational solutions for overcoming these current crises. The failure of this modern science, has been analysed by many scholars in recent decades (Arendt, 1963; Latour, 1993; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). Among the factors identified: science is seen as another discipline of knowledge instead of a knowledge acquisition process itself; science has evolved into an equivalent of technology and innovation (as in the concept of STI development to solve human problems); science is detached from ethics and action; and science as an outcome of a reductionist approach in understanding the natural phenomena. 8 In order to understand the science in the sustainability science, it is very important to refer back to the original meaning and spirit of the word science . Science in the larger picture does not stand alone, and has dynamic and ever-changing relationships with many related concepts from ethics to policies and also with the general public. Formulating a comprehensive definition for science and seeking the aim of it are strenuous due to this intertwined nature as well. However, without trying to define the meaning of the word science as it will dilute the original dynamic of the word, it is however, useful to review the commonly agreed definitions and evolution of the word science. The word science comes from the Latin word "scientia," which means knowledge. Science operationally refers to a system of acquiring knowledge and also the organized bodies of knowledge that people have gained using that system. In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge or discipline of knowledge, and not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with 'natural and physical science', thus restricting it to those branches of studies that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws. This synonym has been widely spread, that the original meaning of science has been diluted in the advancement of knowledge which has caused fragmentation of that knowledge taking away the holistic and ethical component of the meaning of science. For sustainability science to make a difference and achieve the desired objectives, the meaning of science and its role in the society need to be revisited, reviewed, questioned and understood in terms of its impact. The review must include tracing back the evolution of science, recognising various contributions - not only from the Enlightenment period, but to include many more great scientific contributions from different cultures and civilisations. An example of observations of revisiting science is well argued by Hirsch and Ghiradella who believe that attempts to modify western science by adding values or worthy objectives while retaining faith in its core investigative principles – its valorization as a uniquely reliable form of knowledge acquisition – will fail to produce the desired transformation. We live in an era where the borders are blurring or even evanished, finding concrete and satisfactory answers to the centuries-old uestio s of What is s ie e? a d What is s ie e fo ? a e halle gi g more than ever before. Thus, a new knowledge system or reinstatement of the original function of knowledge and science need to be in place. When the world is increasingly interdependent and interlinked, knowledge and science are required to address the complex problem, and must therefore be very integrated and comprehensive and converged. The current framework and hierarchy of knowledge base on discipline, and which is very specialized and fragmented will not be able to solve the crosscutting global issue and societal problem. The current detachment of spiritual and ethical concern in knowledge generation and application are the source of the inability of science to solve the problem. An example for this, is as Simonelli (1994, p. 37), argued that Western science, must change in order to address the destructive consequences ﬂo i g f o its eje tio of the spi itual and emotional dimensions of both natural reality and human inquiry (Simonelli R. 1994. Toward a sustainable science. Winds of Change 8: 36–37). It is further strengthened by Hirsch and Ghiradella, who argue 9 that the effort to radically alter science education stems from concerns about what they perceive to be a dangerous and entrenched privileging of the pursuit of high te h olog a d the g eat ush to a d size a d po e o e a si ple s ie e sp i gi g f o a se se of u iosit a d o de a d i fused with humane and ecologically responsible values.(Hirsch HVB, Ghiradella H. 1994. Educators look at contemporary science teaching. Winds of Change 8: 38–42) Thus, there is urgent need to recall the fundamental role of ethical and spiritual concerns in knowledge generation, as it were in the philosophy of science. And this is what sustainability science should be shaped into - a meaningful concept that is truly based on ethics, values, beliefs and aesthetic preferences, acknowledging the dependency of one upon the other, recognising the inherent interconnectedness of sustainability and spirituality. John E. Carroll contends that true ecological sustainability, in contrast to the cosmetic attempts at sustainability we see around us, questions our society's fundamental values and is so countercultural that it is resisted by anyone without a spiritual belief in something deeper than efficiency, technology, or economics. He a gues that the G ee E o o fo e a ple, a e see as a atte pt to g ee our present economic system. However, it remains to be seen if this will be accepted. What is needed is a moral/spiritual dimension to which economies are a s e a le. I othe o ds, a e ou e o o i poli ies ethi al a d ight, ot just ill the ake o e ? . These are the questions that sustainability science needs to address. Based o these de ates, the s ie e of sustai a ilit s ie e, is ot a s ie e a usual definition, i.e., understood as a set of principles by which knowledge of sustainability may be systematically built (Rapport 2007). A closer exploration of the nature of sustainability science in the following section, suggests that the notion of multiple sciences addressing a common theme seems to more readily apply, rather than that of a mature discipline with shared conceptual and theoretical components (Clark and Dickson 2003). The sciences referred to in this context would include the wisdom of humanities and the contribution of social sciences approaches, values and perspectives together with natural sciences. The fragmentations need to be bridged if not collapsed to allow the fundamental of sustainability science such as transdisciplinary, integrated and complexity to play their roles. Sciences have reached a watershed at which they must unify if they are to continue to advance rapidly. Convergence of the sciences can initiate a new renaissance, embodying a holistic view of technology based on transformative tools, the mathematics of complex systems, and unified cause-and-effect understanding of the physical world from the nanoscale to the planetary scale up to cosmic understanding. Accordingly, science needs to become more multidisciplinary and its practitioners should continue to promote cooperation and integration between the social and natural sciences. A holistic approach also demands that science draw on the contributions of the humanities (such as history and philosophy), local knowledge systems, aboriginal wisdom, and the wide variety of cultural values. The concept of science in sustainability science can also be interpreted as a manifestation of the reversion of science in general back to the original meaning of science as discussed above. Analysing the mainstream definition of science, Gibbon argues that there is a shift in science - from mode-1 to mode-2 science (see Diagram below) (Gibbons, 1994) whereby Mode-1 science is completely academic in nature, monodisciplinary and 10 the scientists themselves are mainly responsible for their own professional performance. In mode-2 science, which is at the core, both inter- and intradisciplinary, the scientists are part of a heterogeneous network. Their scientific tasks should constitute at least the following criteria (Pim Martens, 2006): To conclude this subsection, the shift to the mode 2 component is exactly the mission of science that sustainability science advocates for. It is this kind of science that will determine the character and the success of sustainability science as an approach to solve the complexity of human and nature interaction. 1.3. Fundamental Concepts of Sustainability Science This subsection will review and synthesise the vast literature on what constitutes sustainability science, what are the main fundamentals, and what are the values that shape sustainability science and what are the tools and methodology that characterize sustainability science. Officially the word sustainability science was introduced at the World Congress "Challenges of a Changing Earth 2001" in Amsterdam, organised by the International Council for Science (ICSU). However, the concept in practice can definitely be traced far back in ancient history or various civilisations as part of their traditional wisdoms or indigenous knowledge. In this context, the spirit of sustainability science has long been part and parcel of human civilisation. Only that, recently the concept was given a new momentum with the introduction of the sustainability science word especially in response to the global discourse on sustainable development. To date, it has been variously defined, and there is a need of a conceptual framework in tandem with the concept of "sustainability" and/or "sustainable development" as promoted by the Brundtland Commission's report Our Common Future in 1987. This section will dwell on the need to capture the dynamics of the nexus of nature-society-economicsscience with the appropriate policy and institutional support systems that would enable to mainstream sustainability science into the current knowledge structure and construct. Sustainability science or sustainability studies are now gaining currency as a new discipline or orientation that bridges the gap between science and society. It also attracts a strong interest and attention for the fact that human society needs a knowledge system capable of explaining the dynamics of socioecological systems as the planetary condition of the Earth continues to deteriorate and better understanding of the cosmos is needed as the interdependencies increased. Therefore, it can be observed that across the world, the academe (comprising universities and research institutions) is developing a process of institutionalizing a nascent scientific field such as sustainability science. 11 The uestio , hat is sustai a ilit s ie e is ot e easil a s e ed . The situation is much like the lack of clarity surrounding the concept of sustainable de elop e t itself. The la k of a p e ise defi itio is ot a i di atio of “D s o Sustainability Sciences s o eptual eak ess. Ma o epts, central to world civilizations such as democracy and equity, are equally hard to define and harder still, to practice. What is more important is that as the science that is required to address sustainability challenges articulated in Agenda 21, Johannesburg plan of implementation, The Future We Want, the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals, sustainability science needs to integrate the entire body of knowledge in the realms of natural science, engineering and health; social sciences and humanities with a view to comprehensively addressing current sustainability challenges that daunt people and the planet alike. However the term being defined, it is this objective that should be of primary concern to be achieved. As in any other fields, in order to provide strong understanding of the field, it is important to outline the underpinning concepts of sustainability science. First, the meaning and spirit ofboth the terms – science and sustainability must be adopted as discussed in the above context. Second, application of both terms combined would need to be high, especially in response to the different implications and role of science in different cultures and levels of development of one country. The following word cloud provides a good summary of the diverse concepts that need to factor in as the fundamental of sustainability science. 12 The conceptual words incorporated above are based on the diverse sources of knowledge generation such as ilm that strongly and widely exist in the Islamic traditions. Rosenthal, in highlighting the importance of the term in Muslim civilization and Islam, argues that 'ilm is not confined to the acquisition of knowledge only, but also embraces socio-political and moral aspects. Knowledge is not mere information, it requires the believers to act upon their beliefs and commit themselves to the goals which Islam aims at attaining. The theory of knowledge in the Islamic perspective is not just a theory of epistemology. It combines knowledge, insight, and social action as its ingredients (Knowledge Triumphant: The Concept of Knowledge in Medieval Islam 1970, The Encounter of Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man, first appeared in 1968). Another important term in the word cloud is sejahtera – a widely used concept among Southeast Asian countries to represent state of wellbeingness both mental and physical. It has a strong tradition within the local culture in terms of knowledge application especially in the context of socio-cultural perspective. It propagates many indigenous knowledge and practices that has been keeping the social sustainability particularly among the Malay community in the region. Thus of e essit , the disti ti e k o ledge eated sustai a ilit s ie e is use-inspired and, at its best, provides solutions to real-world, often place-based, p o le s e ou te ed fo the eeds of a sustai a ilit t a sitio Kates. ‘, , Readings in sustainability science and technology, Working papers, Centre for International Development, Harvard University). Analysing about 37,000 distinct authors of over 20,000 papers, from 174 countries and territories and 2,206 cities worldwide, Bettencourt and Kaur (Bettencourt LMA, Kaur J (2011), The evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:19540–19545) showed that Sustainability Science articles grew rapidly beginning in the 1990s and are doubling about every 8/year. These articles originated beyond the normal concentration in such centers of traditional science as in Japan, the United States, and Western Europe, and included emerging nations such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. However, perhaps the most impressive thing is about the very large number of papers from developing countries as Kenya and Nigeria which highlight many wisdoms of the local knowledge for sustainability. The authors also found that Sustainability science, as reflected in the disciplinary classification of the journals in which the papers were published, is also extraordinarily multidisciplinary. The field receives its largest contribution (about 34%) from the social sciences and other large contributions from biology and chemical, mechanical and civil engineering. Such presence of social sciences however can be optimized by integrating strongly, in the predominance of scientific solution to the environmental problems. Other important contributors are from medicine, Earth sciences, and infectious diseases. Using network analysis of co-authorship, Bettencourt and Kaur concluded that sustainability science unified as a special scientific field around the year 2000, with most scholars and places connected with links of authorship. Sustainability science, here, to e defi ed as a e dis ipli e ithout a dis ipli e , if its k o ledge 13 generation and application were to be structured along the conventional disciplinary-based categorisation of knowledge (Chemistry, Physic, Social science etc.). However, from another perspective, if one were to look at the history of knowledge generation, the idea of "sustainability" as an ancient wisdom has been in existence and practised for a long time until knowledge is compartmentalised or fragmentised into specialisation or focus of studies as discussed in the previous subsection. It must be highlighted, that at this juncture one of the contentious implications that can be raised from here is that the usage of the word science in sustainability science may invite another debate of again compartmentalisation of knowledge. For this reasons, some scholars suggest that sustainability studies may serve as a better term to avoid any possible marginalisation of some segments of the knowledge community. In an attempt to understand how the above concepts of sustainability science being applied as solutions to the various sustainability issues, Kate produced the following word cloud bigrams which shows a better sense of subjects addressed; (Independent Scholar, Trenton, ME 04605, PNAS | December 6, 2011 | vol. 108 | no. 49 | 19449– 19450). As diverse as represented by the word cloud, Kates concludes that – I o lude ith my initial question as to what kind of a science is sustainability science. Both the insider and outsider stories answer that sustainability science is a different kind of science that is primarily use-inspired, as are agricultural and health sciences, with significant fundamental and applied knowledge components, and commitment to moving such knowledge into societal action. In just over 2 decades, it has attracted tens of thousands of research authors, practitioners, and knowledge users, as well as teachers and students, with a geographical, institutional, and disciplinary footprint very different from most science. However, its real test of success will be in implementing its knowledge to meet the great environment and development halle ges of this e tu . This conclusion is a good primer of much clarity. Conceptually, the field of sustainability science attempts to address the deficit in previous approaches by trying to integrate and bridge the knowledge gap between 14 understanding nature, society, economics and science. It will also focus on the longterm aims and objectives to develop a new transdisciplinary approach, based on new research strategies and grassroots community innovations, by organically reconnecting back to indigenous knowledge and wisdom, where sustainability originates. The emergence of sustainability science, hopefully, will boost an otherwise slow implementation of sustainability across all levels. The concept of sustainability science is also a platform to the development of resilient, adaptive industrial and societal systems that mirror the dynamic attributes of ecological systems. The concept of resilience has emerged as a critical characteristic of complex, dynamic systems in a range of disciplines including economics (Arthur, 1999), ecology (Folke et al. 2002), pedology (Lal, 1994), psychology (Bonnano, 2004), sociology (Adger, 2000), risk management (Starr et al. 2003), and network theory (Calloway et al. 2000). Resilience can be defined as the capacity of a system to tolerate disturbances while retaining its structure and function (Fiksel, 2003). In conclusion, the fundamental concepts of sustainability science is much predetermined and contextualised by one definition or answer to the questions of what is science, what is sustainability and sustainability of what? The answers to these questions must then be applied to the next level of question - what is a sustainable society and ultimately sustainability is a social choice about what to develop, what to sustain, and for how long (Kojikawa, 2010, Parris and Kates 2003), and is thus a deeply normative process (Kemp and Martens 2007) as illustrated in the diagram below. The answers also have to be framed on deeper and overarching fundamental concerns and origins and the value systems embedded in the concept. 15 There is a list of values relevant to sustainability science and it may vary across authors. Nonetheless, four common themes emerge. These include: 1. the shift f o a p edo i a tl a th opo e t i to a (Curry 2006), o e e o- e t i ie 2. the adoptio of p e e tio , p e autio , a d pollute -pa s as guidi g principles for environmental regulations, and 3. the acceptance of international principles, such as common but differentiated responsibilities and 4. The potential role of green economics in future growth and development. On top of these values of sustainability science, is the paramount importance of ethics and sustainable governance, which can be argued, to have been a compromised factor that contributes to the existing unsustainable development. In highlighting the critical role of these ethical foundations in sustainability science, Earth Charter International Council Co-Chair Steven C. Rockefeller commented: The e is a fou th pilla – the global ethical and spiritual consciousness that is awakening in civil society around the world and that finds expression in the Earth Charter. This global ethical consciousness is in truth the first pillar of a sustainable way of life, because it involves the internalization of the values of sustainable human development and provides the inspiration and motivation to act as well as essential guida e ega di g the path to ge ui e sustai a ilit . Cla k i a e e t i te ie , when asked what is the most important question in conservation and sustainability science, Clark (2006) responded, "What is, and ought to be, the human use of the Earth? In other words, sustainability is primarily — and perhaps most importantly — about our moral relationships with the world — i.e., about ethics . 1.4. The Approaches of Sustainability Sciences Synthesising a number of literatures, sustainability science can be concluded as an approach to facilitate the design, implementation, and evaluation of practical interventions that promote sustainability in particular places and contexts; and to improve linkages between relevant research and innovation communities on the one hand, and relevant policy, private sector and management communities on the other. While it is conceptually challenging to define the actual meaning and therefore application of sustainability science, the nature and implication can be understood from a number of fundamental approaches as suggested by a number of academics (Andersson, Krister, Michael Burns, Marcel Bursztyn, Adam Douglas Henry, Ann Laudati, Kira Matus, and Elizabeth McNie, 2008) who highlight three main characteristics as follows: Sustainability science as a problem-driven approach Sustainability science emerged from the recognition that we face severe problems of ecological degradation and human poverty, development, globalisation and that these problems are inextricably related. This implies that normative goals and questions play a prominent role in sustainability science, since at some point we are 16 required to make judgments regarding the problems to be solved and the trade-offs that we are willing to make in solving these problems. Sustainability science focuses on the interactions between humans and natural systems Although sustainability science draws upon many different research traditions, the focus in particular is on how those research traditions help to understand the complex intersections between social, economic and ecological systems. Building a science of sustainability requires integrating multiple forms of knowledge In addition to building a common language between scholars of natural, economic and social systems, a major goal of sustainability science is to build dialogue and collaborations across different sectors of the knowledge enterprise, such as academics, decision makers, practitioners in the field, and local stakeholder groups. Sustainability science must also accommodate multiple knowledge systems, from lo al t aditio al k o ledge to sta da d edu tio ist s ie tifi k o ledge, e e though these systems are traditionally at odds with each other. “ustai a ilit s ie e is thus eithe asi o applied , athe , it is a e te p ise e te ed o the use-i spi ed asi esea h that the late Do ald “tokes ha a te ized as Pasteu s Quad a t of the modern science and technology enterprise (Figure, Stokes DE (1997, http://openeducationresearch.org/2009/01/pasteurs-and-edisons-quadrants/) Pasteu s Quad a t: Basic Science and Technological Innovation (Brookings I stitutio , Washi gto , DC . It i ludes the theo izi g of Boh s Quad a t a d p ag ati p o le sol i g of Ediso s Quad a t. I so doi g, it se es the uest for advancing both useful knowledge and informed action by creating a dynamic bridge between the two. By the virtue of these approaches and principles, the central elements of sustainability sciences can be summarized as follows (Pim Martens, Sustainability: Science or Fiction in Sustainability: Science, Policy and Practice, Spring 2006):  Inter and intra disciplinary research 17   Co-production of knowledge  Learning through doing and doing through learning  Co-evolution of a complex system and its ecosystem System innovation instead of system optimisation These are the integral elements that form the tools and methods of sustainability science. 1.5. Synthesis of Tools and Methods of Sustainability Science With the above outlined fundamentals, sustainability science definitely requires a change from conventional knowledge production and application to a more dynamic and relevant approach. Sustainability science emerged over the last decade as a diverse set of interdisciplinary research and innovation activities pursued in support of so iet s effo ts to a igate a t a sitio to a d sustai a ilit . Toda , it has developed elements of a shared conceptual framework, sketched a core research agenda and set of associated methods, and is producing a steadily growing flow of results. It is obvious, therefore, that sustainability sciencerequires a holistic approach involving the classical realms of natural sciences, engineering & health and social sciences & humanities to address the varied aspects of sustainability challenges such as poverty, food & water security, climate change etc. Its methodology is a heuristic approach that solves problems through the collaborative engagement of natural and social scientists, stakeholders, and practitioners (Komiyama & Takeuchi, 2006). This is because sustainability science deals with many interacting factors and actors involving the natural, economic, social and scientific systems all at once. Bearing in mind the various divides and asymmetrical global situations that currently render the world unsustainable. Sustainability science must be two-pronged – it should e i teg ati e a d also ele a t to so ietal eeds fo t a sitio to a ds sustai a ilit . The uestio of integratedness and relevance emerge from the increasing scale of human impacts on the natural environment, the intensity of nature-society dynamics which consequently fostered a scientific response to the fundamental social, cultural, economic, and ecological changes that humankind is confronted with (Kajikawa 2008; Quental et al. 2011). Such scientific attention responds to both a growing skepticism about whether science nowadays is meeting challenges adequately, particularly those posed by the quest for sustainability, and new demands a ti ulated so iet Gallopı et al. . E go, sustai a ilit s ie e should a oid a reductionistic approach which is divorced from practical problems confronted by society, to ensure that not only is it integrated but also relevant. Reductionism is an attempt to understand the nature of complex things by understanding their parts. It is a useful technique in some ways, but is worthless without the opposite process of then putting together what we know into some general principles which can be of use to us. It is therefore necessary to cast the net wider in a more holistic way, recognising the various tensions as enumerated by UNESCO of: global and local; universal and individual; tradition and modernity; spiritual and material; long-term and short-term considerations; competition and equality of opportunity; the extraordinary 18 expansion of knowledge and the capacity of human beings to assimilate it. This should be addressed in the context of relationships between humans and nature, and technologies in order to ensure human dignity through the advancement of sustainability goals relevant to the issues water, food, energy, health and education. To quote Albert Einstein: "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity." Thus, sustainability science uses tools and methods that strongly influence the current educational practices in general and also specifically, educational science. It invites disciplinary contributions from a broad range of subjects to research within sustainability science. Therefore, it must borrow theoretical concepts and methodologies from a wide range of established fields. Despite this, sustainability science is more than the sum of its disciplinary parts. Nevertheless sustainability science is not merely a collection of established research programs related to human-environment interactions. Active collaboration with various stakeholders throughout society—transdisciplinarity—must form another critical component of sustainability science. (Barth, 2012). Thus partnership and collaboration between academia, industry, government and civil society are thus increasingly seen as a prerequisite for tackling various sustainability challenges and must take place more structurally than by default. This would definitely require a shift to the transdisciplinary approach. Transdisciplinarity has emerged as a new mode of knowledge co-production with – rather than, for - society in order to deal with complex societal problems that can no longer be approached and solved by mono-disciplinary approaches only (for the most significant contributions see Hadorn & Pohl 2008; Hirsch-Hadorn et al 2006; Lang et al 2012; Regeer & Bunders 2009; Scholz & Tietje 2002; Scholz 2011; Thompson-Klein 2004). As a new mode of knowledge production, transdisciplinarity has been conceptualised as being capable of producing both practical, useful knowledge for solving real world problems as well as theoretical, scientific knowledge for better understanding our complex world. Global warming and climate change; natural resource depletion; soil degradation; pollution; food security; increasing poverty; water and energy crises, are just a few examples of such complex societal problems warranting a transdisciplinary response. These problems are complex because they are truly planetary-level problems, existing simultaneously at the global and local scales. But they are also complex because they are being produced by both nature and society, and therefore also have far-reaching longte o se ue es fo oth atu e a d so iet . These a e e ta gled o h id problems that can no longer be approached in terms of the two-world theory and dis ipli a di ide of sepa ati g the atu al f o the so ial as supposedl t o fundamentally different and unconnected realities that can only be worked on separately by the natural and social science in isolation of society. Attempts to work within this double disciplinary and science vs. society divide can only result in the single disciplines producing partial knowledge of these hybrid problems; whereas the need today is clearly for integrated solutions based on integrated knowledge (Morin 1999). Transdiscilinarity is not an automatic process that can be successfully carried out simply by brininging papers together from different disciplines. Something more 19 is required, although the magic ingredient is not easy to describe or prescribe. But sustainability science is an attempt to provide this ingreidient by being transcendent, whereby it requires giving up of sovereignty on the part of the constributing discipline with common undertandong that science is a process towards that. (Margaret, 2000) Roughly, the literatures suggest a number of different kinds of methods for the integrated assessment of sustainability: analytic methods, participative methods and more managerial methods. Analytic methods mainly look at the nature of sustainable development, employing among other approaches the theory of complexity. In participative research approaches, non-scientists such as policymakers, representatives from the business world, social organizations and citizens also play an active role. The more managerial methods are used to investigate the policy aspects and the controllability of sustainable transitions. The new paradigm of sustainability science obviously has far-reaching consequences for the methods and techniques. The consequences can be summarized as follows: - from supply to demand-driven - from technocratic to participative - from objective to subjective - from predictive to exploratory - from certain to uncertain - from simplicity to complexity - from singularity to heterogeneity and hybridity - from linearity to non-linearity - from unity and universality to unifying and integrative processes - from fragmentation to connection, collaboration and consequences - from boundary formation to boundary blurring and crossing - from short term and ephemeral to the long term - from analysis and reduction to synthesis and dialogue Through these methods, sustainability science, therefore, seeks real world solutions by breaking down artificial and outdated disciplinary gaps between the natural and social sciences through the creation of new knowledge and its practical application to decision making (Clark & Dickson 2003; Palmer et al. 2005; Weinstein et al. 2007). Above all, the sustainability transition and sustainability science are committed to bridging barriers through a transdisciplinary approach across biophysical, socioeconomic, planning, and design principles (Naveh, 2005). The tools and methods being used aim to understand the complexity and dynamic interactions between natural and human systems for transforming and developing these sustainably (Clark and Dickson 2003; Jerneck et al. 2011; Kates et al. 2001; 20 Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Komiyama et al. 2011; Spangenberg 2011; Wiek et al. 2012a). From the practical or application perspective, the methodology advocated in sustainability science can also be synthesised as to constitute the following elements: • Systems dynamics which allow integration of diverse models and data sets • Indicator development for M&E • Institutional and stakeholder demand mapping • Scenario development, handling uncertainty and policy testing • Capacity building for use of sustainability science outputs in governments and governance • Capturing of Community and stakeholder perspectives and priorities • Interface with the concepts of the Green Economy with a particular focus on equitability of benefits Synthesising various tools and methods suggested in the literature, one of the most fundamental keywords that characterise sustainability science is its nature of interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary (divorcing itself from traditional disciplinary-based perspectives) depending on the level of complexity of p o le s to e add essed. Although outi el used, the diffe e t adje ti al dis ipli a app oa hes a e isu de stood a d e e used s o ousl . Fo clarity, consider the diagram below. As is obvious, the level of collaboration, cohesion and complexity increases as we move from multi, through to inter and trans-disciplinary approaches. Each has its own merit depending on the SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE question being addressed. 21 Kojikawa (2010), in explaining the characteristic of sustainability science as not to be based only on single discipline, illustrates the relation of sustainability science to other scientific fields as below: With the two diagrams, it will be obvious that integrated approaches – as characteristics of sustainability science - are not only much better, they are the only options for finding comprehensive solutions for the sustainability challenges. An example of sustainable development issues that require such approach can be reflected are: • Building public-private-academia partnership for innovative institutional arrangements for sustainable development • Ensuring food and water security for poverty alleviation and community wellbeing in Asia-Pacific • Factoring green energy as an integral part of green growth • Climatic extremes and climate change associated disaster risk management for sustainable development • Water, sanitation and human health for sustainable development • Interplay of globalization, urbanization and culture for sustainable development • Bring under control unsustainable population growth, industrial production and massive consumption • Ensuring good governance, accessing innovative technologies, setting indicators. These and related issues across the three pillars of sustainability must be addressed usi g pa ti ula tools a d ethods to o e to a ds a futu e e a t as envisioned in the Rio+20 declaration. They require knowledge generation, dissemination and transfer for training and research capacity building at multiple levels, aimed at addressing pressing development issues forming functional networks involving development partners, policy makers, communities and academia. An example of interrelatedness among those pressing issues can be illust ated i the follo i g o d loud, p ese ted i the Futu e Ea th esea h workshop organized by ICSU in KL, 21-23 November, 2012. 22 An important principle derived from the cloud is – only through co-design, co-finance and co-implementation across the knowledge disciplinary boundaries and institutional enablers that such a complex diverse component can be made connected to each other to achieve sustainability. Based on these reviews of definitions, fundamentals and values, sustainability science, in the context of higher education can be regarded as the platform for the third mission of universities – engaging and empowering the society; employing both the first mission (education) and the second mission (research).(Co-creating sustainability: cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations Gregory P. Trencher*, Masaru Yarime, Ali Kharrazi). 23 SECTION 2: SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC REGION OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE APPLICATION OF SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE IN THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION The Asia Pacific countries collectively present very diverse issues of sustainable development, ranging from the challenge of sustainable consumption and production in developed countries to the major issues such as poverty and equitable growth in less developing countries. According to UNESCAP report (2012) incidence of poverty has declined from 1.7 billion in 1990 to 0.8 billion in 2010 but still making 57% of the people living in extreme poverty (living on less than USD 1.25 per day), with the highest in Bangladesh and India. Asia and the Pacific is also a region that is highly affected by natural disasters, such as flooding, earthquakes, haze, volcanic eruptions and so on. In 2011, more than 170 million people were affected by natural disaster, with 21, 000 lives lost (http://www.unescap.org/stat/data/syb2012/didyou-know.pdf). According to the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) 2011, countries in this region range between medium and low HDI, except for the developed countries such as Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong. The region has the highest population in the world, 4.2 billion in 2011, which made up of 60 % of the world population (http://www.unescap.org/stat/data/syb2012/did-youknow.pdf) with diverse climatic, geographic, topographic, socio-cultural, and religious aspects. This diversity is an asset and is unique to this region; however this can also be a challenge when promoting sustainable development. Given the complexity of the issues, sustainability science has substantial potential to serve as the most appropriate approach to address such issues. Development in Asia Pacific countries raises classic sustainability questions. Many of these countries are experiencing rapid economic growth, and its megacities are experiencing massive rates of urbanization with growing population. Despite the global financial crisis, the Asia Pacific region s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth was positive at 6.6 % in 2010, whereby at around 6.1% in middle income countries and 9.4% in lower middle income countries, while the higher income countries are lower and having about a global GDP growth at 4.5 to 5.5% (http://www.unescap.org/stat/data/syb2012/did-you-know.pdf). UNESCAP s report (2012) also stated that countries in the Asia Pacific have very low unemployment rates, at only 4.6%, compared to the rest of the world, and leading in merchandise export by the top two economic engines, China and India. This is due to high domestic and foreign direct investment, plus high overseas workers remittances to their respective countries. Within a period of only few decades, countries in the region have experienced intensive environmental disruption, namely conversion of forested land, agricultural intensification, and rapid biodiversity loss. Asia Pacific countries are the largest carbon dioxide emission contributors in the world, 50% of the world s CO2 emissions, with China leading at 6.8 billion tonnes in 2009. However, regional differences show that South East Asia has the lowest carbon intensity while North and Central Asia the highest (http://www.unescap.org/stat/data/syb2012/did-you-know.pdf). For forested land, the trend is mixed, with deforestation as well as afforestation activities varied according to regions. According to UNESCAP (2012) since 1990, South East Asia has lost about 332, 000 square kilometers of forest, in contrast to East and Northeast 24 Asia that have planted 454, 284 square kilometers of forest trees. Each involves complex and changing environmental dynamics which have an impact on human livelihoods and well-being. These challenges have intersecting ecological, economic, and socio-political dimensions with both local and global implications. The complexity of understanding the connection between society and its environment is widely recognised, not only in the Asia Pacific region but across the world. Accompanying this is the conviction that a new knowledge system known as sustai a ilit s ie e , as opposed to the t aditio al e i o e tal s ie e disciplines is needed as a tool to advance our understanding of the complex interaction between society and its environment (Barnett, Ellemor, & Dovers, 2003; Cash et al., 2003; Kates et al., 2001; Komiyama & Takeuchi, 2006). The following sub-section discusses selected major issues of unsustainable development specifically of concern in the region and globally in general. It is intended to highlight the pertinent problem, complexities, challenges and dynamism in the region whereby only through integrated approaches, systemic thinking, and scenario development in addressing the uncertainty, ethics and effective governance that better understanding of the issue could be acquired leading to a more accurate and appropriate solution. 2.1 Environment and Development in Asia Pacific – In Search for Sustainable Development Model The dilemma between conservation of environment or development is a classic case of sustainable development. This dilemma specifically represents the complexity of interactions between humans and natural systems; to what extent should the natural system be exploited for development for human beings? The complexity can be resolved only through multiple forms of knowledge which is applied based on problem-driven approach. It is at this juncture that the principles and fundamentals of sustainability science approach is acutely relevant and urgently needed. The Asia Pacific region is the most economically, rapid growing developed region complemented by both natural resources and human resources. However, the toll on the environment from the development process has been very significant throughout all countries in the region. While these threats are significant at local and national levels, trans-boundary environmental problems constitute a major challenge in the region. The development has affected the freshwater resources, the marine and coastal environment, air pollution, climate change, land degradation, forests and biodiversity, hazardous substances and waste.(APFED Report Paradigm Shift towards Sustainability for Asia and the Pacific-Turning Challenges into Opportunities; http://www.apfed.net/pub/apfed1/final_report/pdf/final_report.pdf). The regional environmental effects, such as deforestation, loss of soil fertility and biodiversity, are becoming of increasing concern to Asia Pacific countries. These changes are more profound than those that have occurred in the past during the first half of the twentieth century and are impacting on more than just the immediate local environment. 25 Asia-Pacific region is consuming its natural resources too fast. This could threaten the means of living of millions who depend on them. This note of caution has been issued by a new report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Asian Development Bank (ADB). The report also notes that the state of biodiversity is worsening in the Asia and Pacific region. A trusted index for measuring biodiversity around the world is called the Living Planet Index (LPI), which can be regarded as an indicator of the health of the pla et s e os ste s. A o di g to a aila le data, the glo al LPI dipped by almost more than a quarter (30 per cent) between 1970 and 2008. During the same time, the LPI decline in the Indo-Pacific region was more than double at 64 per cent. The rate of disappearance of species loss is twice the global average in Asia and the Pacific. (Ecological Footprint and Investment in Natural Capital in Asia and the Pacific) In this region, from 1990 until 2012, 20 countries report losses of forest area, while 14 report an increase (ADB, 2011). The losses are substantial and related directly to the biodiversity loss, which includes habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation, climate change and pollution. The efforts to preserve biodiversity does not match the extent of the loss. Southeast Asia for example, being the primary terrestrial and marine centres of the world has experienced increase in the number of threatened species between 2008 and 2010 and has lost 13 per cent of its forest area since 1992 (UNEP, 2012). The factors for changes in land use include logging for livelihoods, wood fuel, and conversions to agricultural and industrial. Given the rapid development, climate change is obviously a serious concern in the Asia Pacific region. This region accounted for 50% (up from 38% in 1990) of the o ld s total CO2 emissions in 2009. Carbon dioxide emissions in Asia Pacific are al ost i e ita le fo ei g du ed as the glo al e gi e of e o o i g o th. This region is expected to contribute to an estimated 45 per cent of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 and estimated 60 per cent by 2100 (UNEP, 2012). This trend, hopefully, will be offset by the voluntary pledges by 10 countries to reduce emissions by 2020. The richer countries like Singapore managed to reduce per capita emissions to 5 per cent per year but countries like China, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan s per capita emissions went up from 1990 (ADB, 2011). Yet, Asia Pacific is also the region that will be largely affected by increased sea level rise and extreme weather events, particularly among the small low-lying Pacific islands countries. Recently, the Asia and Pacific region paid a huge human toll as a result of natural disasters. In East and North East Asia almost 21 thousand people died due to natural disasters. In 2011, more than 170 million people in Asia and the Pacific were affected by natural disasters. South-East Asia was particularly hard hit by natural disasters. In 2011 alone, 14.3 million people in South-East Asia were impacted by atu al disaste s. Of the o ld s total, i , Asia a d the Pa ifi i luded % of those affected by natural disasters, 81% of deaths due to natural disasters, and 80% of economic damage from natural disasters. Thus, sustainability science is hoped to serve as platform to search for the appropriate development model that is not trading off the environment or compromise the conservation initiatives in the highly diversified region. 26 2.2 Economic Growth and Sustainability in Asia Pacific – Questioning the Patterns of Growth An economically sustainable system must be able to produce goods and services on a continuing basis, to maintain manageable levels of government and external debt, and to avoid extreme sectorial imbalance which damage agricultural or industrial pollution. According to the Asian Development Bank report (2011) Asia Pacific has experienced impressive economic growth compared to the other regions despite facing several economic crises and downturn, which demonstrated the economic resilience of the region. Between 1990 and 2008, the yearly growth in real gross domestic product was 6.1% (in 2005 purchasing power) with Peoples Republic of China heading at 9.1 %, followed by India at 4.9 % and the Republic of Korea at 4.6 %. This is also due to the ability of the region to recover, for example in 2010 exports rebounded after the sharp fall in 2009 and the effects of 2008/2009 economic downturn. These trends have positive implications towards high employment growth and poverty reduction. However, these achievements are not without negative implications to employment quality in the middle and low income countries, such as persistent low and uncertain income, poor environmental conditions. Hence, despite achieving high economic growth, improving quality of employment is critical and should be prioritized as one of the main agendas in the Asia Pacific to ensure sustainable and inclusive economic growth in this region. The economic growth in Asia Pacific countries constitutes one of the fastest phases of social change in the world, and its natural environment has undergone intense pressure from decades of rapid economic development. Now the region faces a new economic reality—a reality characterized by growing resource constraints. Unsustainable patterns of natural resources use and climate change have brought economic and environmental challenges together, with dramatic impacts on millions of people (Green Growth, Resources and Resilience Environmental Sustainability in Asia and the Pacific 2010, UNESCAP Report) Rapid urbanization and industrialization involving intensive use of resources has accelerated the degradation of natural capital and the production of waste and emissions. This pattern of growth questions the sustainability of the economic growth itself. Thus, one of the major challenges facing the region will be overcoming resource constraints, including energy, minerals, water and land, as people in the region strive to achieve higher living standards. Global supplies of non-renewable resources cannot readily accommodate the rapid changes in demand that are currently being witnessed in the region. Meanwhile, renewable resources, such as forests and groundwater resources are also under threat. (Green Growth, Resources and Resilience Environmental Sustainability in Asia and the Pacific, 2012). Therefore, what is needed in the region is a fair green economy—one characterized by su sta tiall i eased i est e ts i e o o i a ti ities that e ha e the ea th s natural capital and reduced ecological scarcities and environmental risks (activities such as renewable energy, low-carbon transport; energy and water-efficient buildings; and sustainable agriculture, forest management and fisheries) with a fair and equal access and opportunities for participation in the economic activities. It is 27 in this context of providing an integrated solution of appropriate economic growth model that the characteristics of sustainability science is needed - the multiple forms of knowledge combining science, natural science, social sciences and humanities. 2.3 Social Concern for Sustainability in Asia Pacific – Mainstreaming the Well-Being Agenda in the Region The previous sections highlight that the models of economic growth and development models in the region based on low-cost labour and inefficient resource use are not economically or environmentally sustainable. Such a pattern is equally unsustainable from the social perspective. A socially sustainable system must achieve fairness in distribution and opportunity, adequate provision of social services, including health and education, gender equity and political accountability and participation. Despite the egio s a su esses, it e ai s the ho e to t o-thirds of the o ld s poo : . illio people ho li e o less tha $ a da , ith illio struggling on less than $1.25 a day. Countries vary widely in how well they use both financial and natural resources. Some countries have used resources relatively well to i p o e thei peoples ell-being. But in other countries, the use of agricultural land, water, and energy is not having the expected impacts on meeting basic needs and boosting socio-economic progress. Resources are used inefficiently and ineffectively, despite their limited availability; rising costs; supply risks; and the millions of people without sufficient food, water and energy. According to ESCAP, 2 , app o i atel . % of the o ld s p i a fo ests e ai i the Asia Pa ifi ; however the coverage of primary forests has declined dramatically, especially in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Philippines and Indonesia, due to logging and agriculture. Agricultural intensification affects biodiversity in the Asia Pacific through excessive use of fertilizers and expansion of irrigation. There are more deepening social divides and vulnerability in the region. (UNESCAP Report 2010) An example for this is the phenomena, in many countries in the region, whereby infrastructure investments were not guided by the principles of sustainability, accessibility, and social inclusiveness which resulted from a mere development need and growth factors. The social dimension of sustainability includes rights to basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, water, health facilities, education, etc., which basically contributes towards a better quality of life and the rights to self-determination in development. This includes the rights to decide one s own future and the rights to participate in the development process. The social dimension is very much related to the populist concept of empowering and engaging the grassroots, particularly those who have often been marginalised and deprived such as indigenous people, women, children, the elderly and people with disabilities. Human rights issues still pertaining in the Asia Pacific include bonded labour, caste discrimination, domestic violence, extra-judicial killing, HIV AIDS, migrants, national security laws, peace, right to information, torture and human trafficking (http://www.hurights.or.jp/english/hurights1/issues/). Example of bonded labour is the Kamaiya System, labour to pay debt which is still practised in Nepal. Efforts have been done to reduce and empower the Kamaiya. Initially in 1990, there were 70, 28 000 to 100, 000 Kamaiya among the indigenous Tharu people in Western Nepal (Kattel, 2000). Caste discrimination in the Asia Pacific include an already embedded and structured discrimination against the Dalits, mainly in South Asia and Nepal. Even during the aftermath of a natural disaster, such as the 2004 tsunami, this group are more disadvantaged than the other victims due to their status as a Dalit. Migrant s issues is becoming serious in Asia Pacific as most flocked to the developed countries either within the region or outside the region for remittances. This is perhaps the most quick and lucrative income to support families in their origin countries. However, the migrant workers are facing many human rights violations. In order to meet the needs of these marginalised, deprived and exploited groups, responsible policy and policy-makers are important to create a platform to enable the mainstreaming of their needs and grievances into policy-making. This will ensure inclusivity. Hence, the need for a sustainable governance which is responsive to the needs of all, especially to those who are often undermined - an institution full of integrity and transparency in planning and implementation of development programmes as well as accountability to any downfall. Under socio-cultural aspects, the main issues focus not only on rights and selfdetermination but also in relation to the opportunity and freedom of the people to preserve their identity, self-esteem and the feelings of self-belongingness to their community, the freedom to live without fear, freedom from violence, discrimination and peace. This includes increasing social capital for positive and sustainable development. Failure to factor in these dimensions results in responses that potentially exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and inequalities or pose new challenges to the welfare of those at risk, and further approaches that do not address the issue in its entirety. In Chapter one, it has been clearly stated that one should be cautioned when using the o ept of g ee e o o . This is e ause ot all lai ed as g ee is a tuall t ul g ee . This is despite the p o otio of g ee e o o i the ‘io+ summit to promote it as an engine for development and sustained economic growth in the international trade arena. What is of concern is that, opportunists will not only use the word green to sell for profit-making, but take advantage of the situation by creating a e e fa ade o the o e withbusiness as usual on the inside, thus causing muchapprehension of green washing . This is because the green economy concept originates from the anthropocentric views influenced heavily by modern ecologist, which rationalised conservation of the natural resources towards sustaining accumulation of wealth and economic growth. Indeed it is possible to resolve socio-economic and socio- ultu al p o le s usi g the g ee e o o approach, if conditions are to be complied. Culture, to some extent, can be valuable and provide sustainable livelihoods, such as in ecotourism or agrotourism as long as the exploitation on people and the environment is controlled. In Asia Pacific, with diverse cultures, religions and natural environments, this is real and is still happening, even before the intorduction from Rio+20 catchword on green economy . This social pillar also encompasses such concerns as socially differentiated vulnerability, social drivers and social outcomes of SD. It also refers to an approach 29 that guards against narrow interpretations that redu e the so ial to g ee jo s , g ee e o o a d so ial p ote tio fo those egati el affe ted t a sitio , ut p o otes a holisti app oa h that fo uses o g ee so ieties a d p e e ti e (rather than only compensatory) measures and services. Sustainability must be defined to include meeting human s physical, emotional and social needs. Equity considerations are primary in order to have the resources to reduce poverty and increase well-being in developing countries. Well-being is multidimensional and context-specific, and must be approached in a way that preserves cultural diversity and societal autonomy while meeting universal human needs. The insertion of culture into sustainable development is more than just an additive framework. In this sense, culture is not just another pillar to be integrated into the well-settled notion of sustainable development. Alternatively, it is a basis for interrogating the meaning and practice of sustainable development at its epistemic core so that culture does not become just a palliative. As the concept of sustainable development has matured, it has opened up the debate for further reflection. This is a welcomed development and explains why culture is being considered as a key element of the sustainable development framework. Culture should be viewed not just as an additional pillar of sustainable development along with environmental, e o o i a d so ial o je ti es e ause peoples ide tities, sig if i g s ste s, cosmologies and epistemic frameworks shape how the environment is viewed and lived in. For this purpose, the sustainability issue must go beyond GDP, measuring the various objective and subjective components of well-being to monitor our progress. Socioeconomic inequality is not just an ethical issue: research shows that it also is a fa to i a of the p o le s of the o ld. Ho does s ie e o t i ute to ensure social sustainability? Science has to be seenas a body of knowledge and process of enquiry not just a discipline. 2.4 Major Specific Sustainability Concerns in the Asia Pacific Apart from the above three main pillars of sustainable development concerns, there are some specific issues that are common and contextual to the region, which needs to be highlighted and where the approach of sustainability science has the most potential to be applied. 2.4.1. Diverse Dimensions of Poverty in the Region The first of the Millennium Development Goals is to Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger. Additionally, Poverty is also the third WEHAB Cross-sectorial issue which directly influences the fulfilment of the WEHAB areas. The eradication of poverty is of utmost importance, as it is the catalyst to the success of all the other subsequent goals. When people have enough to eat, enough to feed their children and a stable source of income, only then can the other MDGs be achieved: i.e. education, health, gender-equality, reduction of child mortality, etc. It is speculated that approximately 6 million children die every year as a result of malnutrition – that amounts to about 17,000 every day. Some of the other MDGs are in direct correlation with the elimination of poverty and malnutrition, such as the improvement of maternal health and the combating of diseases – many of which are caused by weakened immune systems due to a lack of proper nutrition and access to safe drinking water. Poverty is divided by the World Bank into extreme and moderate poverty, with the 30 condition of living on less than USD 1.25 a day defining extreme poverty, whereas moderate poverty is at less than USD 2 per day. It was estimated that in 2001, 1.1 billion people survived on less than USD 1 per day while 2.7 billion survived on less than USD 2 per day According the World Bank Poverty Data, there is a decrease in regional poverty since 1981, as seen in figure 2.1 below. This shows that there is a significant reduction in the Percentage of the population living on less than the value of the national poverty line. FIG 2.1 : AVERAGE ANNUAL CHANGE IN NATIONAL POVERTY RATES Source: World bank poverty Data However figure 2.2 shows the changes in inequality as measured by the distribution of income (or consumption) across quintiles (1/5th) of a population. It can be clearly seen that the distribution of income across ASIA PACIFIC is quite skewed, indicting that the largest share of income is held by the highest 20% of the population. 31 Fig 2.2: DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME OR CONSUMPTION BY QUINTILE Source: World bank poverty Data Sustainability science will be able to identify examples of poverty profiles from the Asia Pacific region, which undermines the utility of GDP as an effective metric of national progress on poverty. Effective application of sustainable science could be used to leverage sustainable change in addressing the longstanding poverty issue in the region. 2.4.2. Gender Inequality and the region development workforce Gender inequality coupled with poverty is one of the most common forms of oppression existing today. Conventionally, gender discrimination was almost exclusively perpetuated against women and transcended cultures from around the world; however, today, it is most noticeable in developing and least developed countries. Gender Equality and the Empowering of Women is Goal 3 in the MDGs, and integrating a sense of respect across such societies for the critical role that women, from developing and under-developed countries, play in their households, and the social fabric of their societies is an issue that must be treated with urgency if such societies are to change their perception of women. Gender is one of the most common markers of inequality. Women, who generally have less political and social power than men, usually also, have much lower incomes and far less access to p odu ti e esou es a d oppo tu ities. No he e, otes the UN De elop e t P og a 's Glo al Hu a De elop e t ‘epo t , a e po e i e ualities a d thei o se ue es o e lea l displa ed tha fo o e . The penalty of gender inequality across the developing and underdeveloped world has dire consequences for women, as it is not only the financial stability of women that is affected but their health, nutrition and the welfare of their children as well. It is the estimate of the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute that if gender balance was attained in sub-Saharan Africa, child undernourishment would decrease by a significant 3 per cent, with 1.7 million fewer undernourished children. Combating gender inequality would then mean the engagement of other 32 MDGs such as the reduction of child mortality, improvement of maternal health and fighting diseases. Women's empowerment and the promotion of gender equality are keys to achieving sustainable development. Greater gender equality can enhance economic efficiency and improve other development outcomes by removing barriers that prevent women from having the same access as men to human resource endowments, rights, and economic opportunities. In Asia and the Pacific region, Ge de inequality remains a major barrier to human development. Girls and women have ade ajo st ides si e , ut the ha e ot et gai ed ge de e uit as stated in the 2010 Global Human Development Report. East Asia and the Pacific show one of the lowest loss among developing regions where it averages 47 per cent in the Gender Inequality Index (GII) (Figure 2.3). Among the best performing East Asia countries are those that do well in the HDI overall, Malaysia ranked 58th on HDI and 50th on GII and China ranked 89th on HDI and 38th on GII. However, South Asia shows the worst losses of any region with an average loss of 74 per cent. The women lag behind men in all dimensions captured, especially parliamentary representation, education and labour force participation. More than 87% of all women suffer from domestic abuse, making Afghanistan the most dangerous place in the world to be a woman. According to ESCAP women in the Asia pacific continue to face discrimination and institutionalised legal and structural barriers to full and equal participation in society and economy. In many countries of the region, societal cultural and belief continue to subordinate, disadvantage and endanger women. Violence against women is pervasive, for example women have less control over their reproductive rights, low political decision-making, and limited economic empowerment – most of them are in low-paid markets. An example in Asia Pacific, in the three South Asian countries of Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, where they p a ti e so -p efe e e aki g this a pat ili eal so iet i Ba gladesh a d moreover the girls are denied education and forced into child marriage. 33 Source: Asia Pacific HDR (2010) Power, Voice and Rights: A Turning Point for Gender Equality in Asia and the Pacific Given the complexity of the issue, sustainability science approach will be able to highlight, analyse and provide effective approaches to the propagation of gender rights and culturally sensitive transitions through best practices and highlighting of gaps in current approaches. 2.4.3. Health as purpose of development I , the Wo ld Health O ga izatio WHO defi ed health as a esou e fo everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and pe so al esou es as ell as ph si al apa ities. The u ella te Health can be broadened to encompass Goals 4, 5 and 6 of the MDGs i.e. Reduction in Infant Mortality, Improving Maternal Health, and Combating HIV/AIDS and other Diseases respectively. The focus hereon however, is that of HIV/AIDS and Malaria, and although other diseases are undoubtedly also priorities, the mentioned two are of major concern, seeing as they are the most widespread of diseases across much of Africa and in other poorer nations. Malaria is responsible for approximately 350 – 500 million cases worldwide annually; killing between 1 to 3 million people per year. In 2005 alone, AIDS killed 2.4 – 3.3 million people worldwide, 570,000 of which were children. While Africa bares the greatest burden, Asia-Pacific had 30 million cases of malaria and approximately 42,000 deaths in 2010. The majority of these deaths were in India, Burma, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea (PNG). Such a large loss of lives is undoubtedly detrimental to the economic well-being of any country and this is almost certainly true for countries that are already struggling with economic and financial grief. The application of sustainability science will be able to highlight, analyse and provide effective approaches to the complex interactions between sustainable environmental management, economic development and benefits, and health outcomes in the Asia Pacific region. 2.4.4. Water as the most dynamic sustainability issue The Asian and Pacific region has the o ld s la gest sha e of e e a le f esh ate resources, but, on a per capita basis, has the lowest availability of water—5,224 cubic metres per capita compared with the world average of 8,349 cubic metres. Among the countries in the region, the demand for water from urban and industrial centres, as well as from agricultural activity, is competing with the need for water to sustai e os ste s a d thei se i es o hi h peoples li elihoods depe d. The need for water for both purposes is intensified as populations grow and urbanization rates rise rapidly, and where regulatory regimes are unable to reduce pollution loads. (Green Growth, Resources and Resilience Environmental Sustainability in Asia and the Pacific, 2012). At the same time, the unavailability of clean water in certain populations in Asia have resulted in the spread of virulent diseases such as cholera, dysentery, tapeworm infections, malaria and many other contagious diseases that could have been prevented, had proper sanitation and access to clean water been available. 34 Water is also an important security issue since the availability of water is a major factor in food security, as nearly 70 per cent of freshwater withdrawals are for agriculture, mainly for irrigation. However, high proportions of water for agriculture do not always translate into benefits for reducing poverty and hunger. This situation is extreme in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Tajikistan—all water stressed countries— where more than 90% of water is used for agriculture, yet more than one in five people in these countries remained undernourished in 2005. Therefore, to address both water security and food security simultaneously, one of the major challenges will be to improve the performance of both irrigated and rain-fed production to p odu e oe op pe d op. G ee G o th, ‘esou es a d ‘esilie e Environmental Sustainability in Asia and the Pacific, 2012). Water issue – accessibility, availability or usage problems, reflects a very dynamic interlinkage of the three pillars of sustainable development. Striking the balance requires a systemic understanding and approach, which sustainability science framework will be able to offer in order to suggest effective approaches for optimal integrated management of water in the Asia pacific region in light of the many demands made upon this resource. Sustainability science - given its problem driven approach should be able to reveal the gaps in the current model of looking at the water issue in the region. 2.4.5. Addressing the Increasing Energy Need in the Region Current usage of fossil fuels such as natural gas, petroleum and coal has long been recognized as major pollutants of the environment and as an unsustainable method of harnessing energy. In spite of the great contributions fossil fuel has historically made toward the advancement of technology, development and human lives, the global community now acknowledges the unsustainability of the continuous use of such energy sources. In recognizing the need for devising newer and more sustainable sources of energy, Energy was identified as the second WEHAB priority and consequently, major efforts have been taken to identify alternative sources of energy which has in turn led to the proliferation of research in substitutes to fossil fuel such as renewable energy, sustainable energy, green energy and alternative energy. While these different terminologies may relate to varying sources of energy or their extraction thereof, they all share one thing in common – a diversion from conventional fossil fuel use. This departure from fossil fuels heralds a change in a ki d s attitude, ot o l to a d the e i o e t, ut the defi itio of hat constitutes development and advancement. In Asia Pacific, meeting energy needs as population, urbanization and income levels increased, is a major challenge that must be addressed urgently and more sustainably. Energy access, affordability and quality continue to be important issues in developing Asian countries. The region remains home to a large number of people without access to modern forms of energy. Primary energy demand in the region is projected to increase from 4,025.3 million tons of oil equivalent (mtoe) in 2005 to 7,215.2 mtoe in 2030, growing at an annual rate of 2.4 per cent. Supplying this energy demand is expected to necessitate capital investments ranging between $7.0 trillion and $9.7 trillion during 2005-2030. 35 In order to meet these needs, the conventional disciplined based knowledge structure is proven not able to address the unsustainable production and consumption of energy in the region. Therefore, a new approach and analysis based on multiple forms of knowledge is needed to understand the complex interaction between human and nature. 2.4.6. Preventing Further Biodiversity Lose to Development Needs The Asia a d Pa ifi egio s iodi e sit a d a u da t atu al esou es p o ide sustenance and livelihoods for millions of people—from seafood and agricultural products to livestock fodder, fuel wood, timber and medicine. The region is one of the glo e s i hest egio s i te s of iodi e sit —it o tai s fou of the egadi e sit ou t ies, a d a out pe e t of the o ld s spe ies. (www.unep.org/Geo2000/english/0066.html) In the region, as economies and populations grow and as climate change develops, the demand for ecosystem services increased. This ecosystem service depends on the state of biodiversity in the region. Overuse of environmental resources affects the supply, health and diversity of ecosystems and their services from which all economies and societies benefit. Environmental degradation can reduce the flow of those services or result in inequitable and unsustainable trade-offs; for example, the use of land to produce agro-industrial products for export can disrupt the functioning of watersheds that produce water to meet both agricultural and other needs. While it is generally understood that human progress and development cannot be halted and is a natural part of human advancement, the realization that a sustainable wa of utilizi g the fo ests a d it s o tai i g fau a a d flo a as fo long, marginalized and remain undiscovered. Such lacking may be attributable to limited understanding of ways how the planet ecosystem functions and the nature of biodiversity itself. Finding the equilibrium between what needs to be sustained and what to be developed is where sustainability science has the strongest potential of laying the necessary foundation through its respective tools and method. 2.5 Indigenous knowledge and Cultural Sustainability Asia Pacific has the biggest number of indigenous people, 70% of the 370 million self- proclaimed people in the world (http://www.ifad.org/english/indigenous/). Indigenous people are rich in their culture and first hand experiences and knowledge of their immediate environment and ecosystem but they are also the poorest and most marginalised group. Sustainability Sciences approaches that are proposed in this report uplifted their knowledge to a higher level, since solutions of a problems should incorporate both modern science and indigenous knowledge. Their knowledge has been tested overtime and in real life situation, unlike those tested in a superficial laboratory. Their knowledge is based on a systems approach that is more flexible and quick to identify problems and solutions suitable for local specific problems. Indigenous knowledge has been useful to enhance the livelihoods of people in different sectors, such as agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors. However, its importance and contribution has surpassed not only livelihood but also learning and teaching system; local organisation, control and enforcement and; health (http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/contents/APEIS/RISPO/spo/pdf/overall/3.4.3_link.pdf) 36 . Most importantly, recognising indigenous knowledge also promotes empowerment and self-determination among the indigenous people. 2.6 Conclusion Complexity of human and natural ecology across the region, not only physical, the region is also noted for its cultural and ethnic diversity producing a vibrant cultural legacy within the countries. The challenges manifested in the region - the serious pro le s of pollutio fa i g the egio s ega ities; a d i the diffi ulties of improving participation in development, under increasingly internationalised market pressures are among the immediate sustainable development challenges that are waiting for the sustainability science approach to solve them. The countries in Asia Pacific are experiencing different levels of development stage hi h e ui e a o te tualised espo se to ea h ou t s halle ges of sustai a le development issues. Developed countries like Japan and South Korea are naturally focusing on green economies, low carbon society and other means of reducing the impact of modernisation and industrialization. The content and focus of sustainability science in this particular context would be more towards scientific solution or techno centric approaches and relatively less emphasis on socio cultural perspectives. While the challenge, in developing countries like Malaysia and Singapore, are to choose the development model that can strike a balance among the three pillars of sustainable development. For the less developing countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia the major challenge is to fulfil the need for rapid development and modernisation and at the same time to meet the pressure for sustainable development. All these challenges either in poverty reduction, gender discrimination, poor health conditions, water scarcity, meeting increasing energy demand or even sustaining the biodiversity require problem driven approaches rather than mere identification and recognisant of issues from disconnected disciplinary perspectives. It is very critical that despite the different levels of sustainable development among these highly diverse countries, an equal footing of sustainability science is being stringently applied. The challenges also need to be analysed from the perspective of interactions between humans and natural systems rather than dissecting them from science and social science paradigms. And more importantly for these two fundamentals to be successfully adopted, the approach must allow multiple forms of knowledge generation and application into the process. 37 38 SECTION 3: CASE STUDIES ON SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE 3.1. ANAYSIS OF CURRENT STATUS OF SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE IN ASIA PACIFIC In reviewing the progress of sustainability education in the Asia Pacific, UNESCO ‘epo t E“D Cu e ts: Cha gi g Pe spe ti es f o the Asia-Pa ifi highlighted that despite the scale of its contrasts and challenges, the Asia-Pacific region has pioneered the sustainability thinking and practice in various spheres, particularly in the educational arena. This observation is not surprising and indeed a very natural response given the dynamics of sustainable development as outlined in the previous section. 3.1.1 Sustainability Science in Education and Research in the Asia-Pacific region The Rio+20 conference has provided additional momentum for global promotion of sustainable growth, the move towards knowledge-societies and more importantly how higher education institutions can contribute to this process. Among higher education institutions, the evolution of the debate on sustainable development has been fairly well developed. Over the past two decades, much progress has also been made in respect of sustainability, and sustainability science, including institutional changes in terms of policies, multi-party agreements and networking. In addition to the already popular landmarks such as the Talloires Declaration of University Presidents for a Sustainable Future and the Ubuntu Declaration on Education, Science & Technology for Sustainable Development as approaches and mechanisms to integrate sustainability into higher education, the official parallel higher edu atio al e e t alled Wo ld “ posiu o “ustainable Development at Universities (WSSD-U), the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, emerging from Rio+10, are specifically aimed at HEIs and research centres to look at new and innovative ways of fostering sustainable development at universities. In this progress, most of the systematic sustainability science activities and programs are led by universities based in the United States and Europe, with Japan leading the community in Asia. The process unfolds through founding educational and research programs or even establishment of centres of excellence on sustainability. Some of those centres and programs are identified as listed below, and it can be seen that only 6% of these centres and programs are from the Asia-Pacific region, all of which are only from Japan.       The Sustainability Science Centre, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Sustainability Science program, Harvard Kennedy School, USA Center for Sustainability Science (Census), Hokkaido University , Japan Ritsumeikan Research Center for Sustainability Science, Japan ESRC Centre for Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability in the University of Sussex Centre for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Reims University, Sustainability Science International Research Center 39     Institute of Sustainability Science, Kyoto University, Japan Institute for Sustainability Science, Osaka University, Japan Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, BarcelonaTech University Research Institute for Sustainability Science and Technology (ISUPC), Spain  Kean University Centre for Sustainability Science, USA  Institute for Sustainability Science in Latin American and the Caribbean  Graduate Program in Sustainability Science, University of Tokyo, Japan  Graduate Program on Sustainability Science, Ibaraki University, Japan     CIS- MSc Sustainability Science and Policy, Maastricht University, The Netherlands Master's degree at the IATEUR - Urban, Regional Planning and Sustainability Science Institute, Reims University, France Lund University's International Master's Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science, Lund University, Sweden. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA BhIOSuSci Group (Birmingham Initiative on Sustainable Sciences) University of Birmingham, UK Apart from these university-based initiatives, there are pockets of activities encouraged by international development such as the United Nations megao fe e es a d it s De ade of Edu atio fo “ustai a le De elop e t DE“D . There is also progress driven by domestic needs and carried out by university academics, think tank analysts and members of the non-governmental organizations in their quest to understand and to reverse the problems associated with de elop e t a d sustai a ilit . He e, UNE“CO s i itiati e is a su sta ti e, and timely first step to identifying the current status of sustainability science in Asia and the Pacific with an eventual view to mainstream it within both its own science and sustainability activities as well as within the decision making structures and public policy within the region. At the same time there is increasing number of new scientific journals such as Sustainability Science (Springer) and Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (Elsevier) have also been initiated and run by academic societies. These are not just intended for research, but also for capacity development and policy advocacy. The recent years have witnessed emergence of more work and organisations that advocate the ideas of sustainability science. A number of workshops and conferences have been organized specifically to address sustainability issues in Asia Pacific. One of the most consistent and pertinent one is the Annual Conference on Sustainability Science organised in Asia. It serves as platform that gathers sustai a ilit s ie tists i the egio , hile updati g the ost u e t esea hes and discussions on the subject matter. There is also a allia e of elite u i e sit focusing on promoting sustainability known as Alliance for Global Sustainability. And very recently the Salzburg Academy has also established a new initiative called 40 Academic Leadership for Sustainability. There are also networks that have been established, in the region, for the sustainability science community and an on-going work led by the United Nation University to establish a global-meta network on sustainability science. One of the networks actively promoting sustainability science is the Sustainability Science Consortium (SSC), led by Tokyo University with current membership from Kyoto University, Osaka University, Hokkaido University, and I a aki U i e sit . Bei g a e dis ipli e , this ki d of platfo is itical as a foundation to promote sustainability science. However, despite these tremendous initiatives already on the ground in Asia Pacific, sustainability science needs a further push by an international organisation like UNESCO to gain a bigger momentum. The region is yet to have a strong and coherent overarching umbrella organization for the various strands of its sustainability science work. Therefore, it is very critical that synergies are made among these initiatives to steer the right direction and derive optimal impacts collectively for the sustainable development agenda of the region. 3.1.1.1 Examples of Initiatives to promote Sustainability Science a. Sustainability Science Centre, at Harvard Kennedy School , USA An example of the fellowships to promote sustainability science, through research and publications, is under the Sustainability Science Centre, at Harvard Kennedy School. The Sustainability Science Program is the hub of Harvard's research, teaching, and interventions on the challenges of sustainable development, to foster shared prosperity and reduced poverty while protecting the environment. The Program harnesses the University's strengths to promote the design of institutions, policies, and practices that support sustainable development, and promotes research on what works, under what conditions, for better linking knowledge with a tio i suppo t of sustai a le de elop e t. Fu the o e, the P og a s app oa h is multidisciplinary, engaging people from the natural, social, medical and engineering sciences, and from practical field experience in business, government, and civil society, and the research seeks to include evaluations of the efficacy of alternative policies and institutions, historical analysis to identify best practices, and systematic learning from comparisons of experience across sectors and places. b. Center for Sustainability Science (CENSUS), Hokkaido University, Japan The Center for Sustainability Science (CENSUS), in Hokkaido University, Japan, was inaugurated with the aim of contributing to the stabilization of the very foundation of human survival as well as the development of sustainable human society by addressing the challenges including global warming, ecosystem deterioration, uneven distribution of resources and safety of food, and health hazards caused by environmental deterioration and infectious diseases. It also aims to establish sustainability science, which integrates a broad range of research fields, and to develop knowledge resources and networks to promote the establishment of a sustainable society from an international perspective through education and research programs on sustainability. The center develops education and research activities that integrates a variety of un-reconciled issues, by promoting related researches and exchanging information both on and off campus, and by planning 41 interdisciplinary education and research projects through reinforced partnerships with domestic and international education and research centers and institutions. 3.1.1.2 Lessons from Sustainability Science in the Europe The progress of sustainability science in Europe offer many lessons on establishing, mainstreaming or advancing the agenda of sustainability science to Asia Pacific region. There are a number of projects that have consciously or unconsciously applied the values and approaches of sustainability science. The following is compilation of projects taking a sustainability science approach in Europe. a) MATI““E Methods a d Tools for I tegrated “ustai ability Assess e t The project is about development of a process for Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA). ISA is a cyclical, participatory process of scoping, envisioning, experimenting and learning through which a shared interpretation of sustainability for a specific context is developed and applied in an integrated manner in order to explore solutions to persistent problems of unsustainable development. ISA is based on the following principles:    the dynamics of sustainable development are at different scales in time, space and function; there are significant trade-offs between the social-cultural, economic and ecological domains; the interaction of both collective and individual agents influence the system in question. The methods used to work with this set of ISA principles are a combination of an analytical approach in the form of an integrated systems analysis, and a process approach in the form of a participatory process involving relevant stakeholders. In process terms we can define ISA as a cyclical, iterative and participatory process based on four stages:   scoping  experimenting  envisioning learning A shared interpretation of sustainability for a specific context is developed among researchers and stakeholders. This interpretation is applied in an integrated manner, in order to explore solutions to persistent problems of unsustainable development. (http://www.matisse- project.net/projectcomm/index.php?id=224) 42 b) Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS) Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS) are a vehicle for testing the applicability of development research results. Each project is designed to implement strategies developed jointly by researchers and local stakeholders. PAMS projects aim at triggering social learning processes between scientific and non-scientific actors. These processes provide opportunities for jointly exploring pathways and developing strategies to mitigate negative effects of global change and thus contribute to more sustainable development. PAMS rely on a demand-oriented approach rooted in the partnership with actor groups in the Joint Areas of Case Studies (JACS) of the NCCR North-South. PAMS are designed to respond flexibly and pragmatically to concrete challenges in those regions. NCCR North-South (Switzerland) PAMS are a vehicle for testing the applicability of development research results. Based on a transdisciplinary approach to development research, PAMS are meant to promote mutual learning and knowledge-sharing between academic and non-academic partners in sustainable development. (http://www.northsouth.ethz.ch/news/past_events/inaugurationnorthsouthcentre/p osterexhibition/NCCR_pams.pdf) c) NeWater Project and - integrated water resource management The complexity of current water resource management poses many challenges. Water managers need to solve a range of interrelated water dilemmas, such as balancing water quantity and quality, flooding, drought, maintaining biodiversity and ecological functions and services, in a context where human beliefs, actions and values play a central role. Furthermore, the growing uncertainties of global climate change and the long term implications of management actions make the problems even more difficult. NeWater addresses some of the present and future challenges of water management. The project recognizes the value of highly integrated solutions and advocates integrated water resource management (IWRM) concepts. However, NeWater is based on the hypothesis that IWRM cannot be realized unless current water management regimes undergo a transition towards more adaptive water management. 43 NeWate also ide tifies s ie tifi management solutions as below:        halle ges of searching for sustainable water governance in water management (methods to arrive at polycentric, horizontal broad stakeholder participation in IWRM) sectoral integration (integration of IWRM and spatial planning; integration with climate change adaptation strategies, cross-sectoral optimisation and cost-benefit analysis) scales of analysis in IWRM (methods to resolve water resource use conflicts; transboundary issues) information management (multi stakeholder dialogue, multi-agent systems modelling; novel monitoring systems for decision systems in water management) infrastructure (innovative methods for river basin buffering capacity; role of storage in adaptation to climate variability and climate extremes) finances and risk mitigation strategies in water management (new instruments, role of public-private arrangements in risk-sharing) stakeholder participation (promoting new ways of bridging science, policy and implementation) Adaptive Integrated Water Resources Management (AWM), as one of the IWRM tools, is a management approach that takes the complex socio-ecological nature of river basin environments into account in policy development and implementation. AWM addresses the inherent uncertainties associated with management and complexity by increasing and sustaining the capacity to learn while managing. Learning is sustained by an iterative process of testing and improving methods of analysis and management policies and practices. This process also responds to insights gained from monitoring outcomes. Management strategies should be robust and perform well under a range of potential but initially uncertain future developments. This implies an increased use of scenario planning. For more than four years, NeWater studied and fostered Adaptive Integrated Water Resources Management (AWM) as a concept guiding theory and practice. Taking up the interdisciplinary challenge of managing the river basins as social-ecological systems, NeWater reflected the diversity of perspectives and potential through 37 project partners from Europe, Africa and Central-Asia. It has supported the capacity building of the stakeholders in our seven different case study basins. (http://www.newater.uni-osnabrueck.de/index.php?pid=1001) d. ARTEMIS Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies on Multiple Scales – A Participatory Multi-Criteria Approach Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) The ai of the esea h p oje t A‘TEMI“ Assess e t of ‘e e a le E e g Technologies on Multiple Scales – A Pa ti ipato App oa h as to appl , iti all assess and further develop participatory multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) of selected future energy scenarios that are based on sustainability criteria (social, economic, environmental, systemic-technological). 44 In the first step, energy scenarios for Austria, for 2020, were developed in cooperation with energy experts and stakeholders at two different levels. These scenarios specifically addressed electricity and heat generation from renewable energies as well as, to a lesser extent, energy efficiency measures. The scenarios were elaborated both for the national scale (national case study) and for two communities in Styria (local case study). In the second step, for both case studies evaluation criteria were developed in collaboration with and weighted by stakeholders. The 15 (local level) and 17 (national level) quantitative and qualitative criteria chosen represents the societal goals regarding sustainable energy systems. The weights attached to these criteria reflect the social preferences. The criteria ranges from environmental aims (reduction of CO2 emissions) to social (impact of energy system on social cohesion), systemic technological (security of supply) and economic aims (employment created by the energy system). The evaluation of the scenarios was based on impact matrices, which included the impacts of the scenarios on the criteria described above. The data was compiled (1) by exploring and integrating existing databases and studies into scenario impact modelling and (2) through personal interviews with selected experts and stakeholders. The evaluation and ranking of the scenarios was calculated by use of the multicriteria evaluation (MCE) method PROMETHEE. The result of the MCE was a ranking of the energy scenarios on both geographic levels – depending on the performance of the scenarios against the criteria. On the national level, rankings were calculated for all stakeholders and different preference profiles derived. These preference profiles allowed to the study of the la ds ape of so ial p efe e es. Thus gaining a deep understanding of the conflicts of interests in the energy field, the potential for compromises, and the consequences of certain energy technology pathways. Since the two local communities, which were involved in the ARTEMIS project, strive to become e tified as pa t of the Aust ia e -p og a e f. .e gemeinden.at), local-level results of the scenario ranking will be used for this process. The e5-programme assesses and certifies local communities with respect to their attempts to use energy more efficiently and to intensify the use of renewable energy (http://www.project-artemis.net/docs/Executive%20Summary.pdf) These four case studies have illustrated a number of important fundamentals of sustainability sciences such as integratedness, transdisciplinarity etc. They have also highlighted how the approaches of sustainability science as discussed in Section 1 are being applied into solving real issues of sustainable development as elaborated in Section?. The following sub-section is an attempt to probe further into the dynamics of sustainable development issues in Asia Pacific region and explore the possibility of applying sustainability science in addressing these issues. 3.1.2 Sustainability Science in the Community in the Asia-Pacific region Globally, most of the systematic sustainability science activities and initiatives are led by universities, and community outreach programmes. Some examples are 45 initiatives carried out through ESD by the various networks formed in the AsiaPacific, such as the Regional Centres of Expertise of the United Nations University, that are situated in different countries in the Asia-Pacific Region. Some examples of the initiatives carried out by the various RCE in Asia-Pacific are highlighted in the follwing sub-sections. a. Community Initiatives for Biodiversity Conservation in Northeastern India: North-eastern India has a unique land tenure system. The land belongs to the community and not to the government. Forest conflicts in the hill regions of northeast India have a long history, with intertribal disputes occurring periodically ever since the region was settled more than 1,000 years ago. The Centre for Environment Education (CEE) has been working in the region since 1993 and has tried to encourage community initiatives in environmental conservation through various initiatives, including the RCE initiative. Through the RCE networks in Srinagar and in Guwahati, these efforts are being further strengthened using the experience and expertise gathered from other parts of India and overseas, such as the AsiaPacific region in particular. Conservation had little pla e i people s li es he the CEE ega its o se atio edu atio i itiati e i Kho o a. Mu h of the ha ge as due to the CEE s awareness programme. But the real impetus came from the village council. The council passed strictures to regulate hunting in 70 square kilometres of forests near Khonoma. The implementation of customary laws also helped the conservation effort. Village youth were trained in wildlife management and protection, and were then used to guard the forest and wildlife. This community managed wildlife sanctuary was linked to tourism through the Khonoma Green Village project supported by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. There is much to be celebrated from these initiatives as well. The community land ownership and community based conservation initiatives are success stories that can be used to motivate government agencies and other communities in the region and across the country. b. RCE Cebu: Toward a Sustainable Forest Community – Ethnobotany of Campo Siete Forest Community The fo us of ‘CE Ce u s atte tio i the past fe ea s has ee the fo est mountain community of Campo Siete in Minglanilla, Cebu. The community is one among many biodiversity-rich areas in the region that has been experiencing pressures from human population, poverty and climate change. As a first step to saving these areas from further degradation, RCE Cebu embarked on an inventory of forest community resources that was aimed, among other things, at generating knowledge of and an appreciation for indigenous and sustainable methods in the use of these resources. RCE Cebu established a multisectoral approach in establishing partnerships with the community. The overall objective of the project is to bring together the community, local stakeholders and regional stakeholders, in collaboration with global stakeholders to develop and implement an innovative project for the conservation and rational use of the 123 hectare forest reserve in Minglanilla, Cebu towards effective poverty alleviation options and sustainable development. This is done 46 through building the capacity of people in the local community to identify their poverty levels by using recently established research methods. Mobilise as many stakeholders as possible through participatory research on poverty levels and an inventory of natural resources. c. RCE Greater Dhaka: Biodiversity Conservation As an action strategy to create awareness about biodiversity, the RCE considered the regular commemoration of important days. The International Day for Biological Diversity was observed throughout the RCE region with awareness and practices campaigns, workshops and seminar, training, tree plantation programmes, exhibitions, the collection and propagation of rare plants, and advocacy against habitat loss and pollution, among others. These activities resulted in an increased understanding among the communities of the role of biodiversity for human wellbeing, as well as understanding of ecosystems functioning. d. RCE Greater Phnom Penh: Promoting ESD through Food, Agriculture and Environment Education in Elementary Schools and Rural Communities Agriculture is one of the important sectors of the Cambodian national economy, with more than 70% of the population engaged in the agricultural sector. In Cambodia, female students from rural areas or students from lower income families are all g ossl u de ep ese ted i edu atio statisti s. The ajo it of stude ts ho do t continue onto secondary school often start working in the agricultural sector. As education is the key for developing human resources and skills, the Cambodian government and many international and non-governmental organisations try to provide better education in the country. However, more time and support is needed to achieve the same level of education as other Asian countries. Accordingly, the activities of RCE Greater Phnom Penh are contributing to green growth, sustainable production, and sustainable consumption, to achieve global sustainable development. e. RCE Penang: Traditional Medicine, Biodiversity and Health in Rural Communities Traditional knowledge on herbal medicine has diminished and is only guarded by aging healers. Dissemination of knowledge to the younger generation is not common, to the point of being almost non-existent. Thus, there is a danger of losing this important cultural heritage forever, if it is not documented. This therefore indicates that there is an urgent need for improving capacities of local knowledge holders as well as other stakeholders, such as community-based organisations, and educational institutions. This has led to the creation of capacity development modules and programmes for various stakeholders such as healers, researchers, civil society organisations and policymakers through the RCE programme. A key focus of the training programme has been to build capacity of traditional health practitioners and researchers in the area of traditional medicine and to deliberate on the role of traditional medicine in the emerging sustainable healthcare systems. This includes identification, documentation, assessment and promotion of safe and effective traditional health practices for community health care. The programmes are targeted to revive traditional knowledge in local communities 47 related to health and nutrition for addressing complex community health needs and recognising their roles and highlighting the silent contributions of traditional health practitioners in health care. 3.1.3 Sustainability Science in Policies in Asia-Pacific region There is no single and focused Sustainability Science policy that binds the Asia-Pacific together. The move that resembles such a concept is still country-based and none bind the region together. A binding policy is needed due to the characteristics of the three pillars, particularly environmental sustainability. This is because environmental problems are transboundary, and in many cases, such as river management in Mekong delta of Indochina, covering many neighboring countries such as Thailand, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia. Hence, a regional approach using sustainability science as the foundation of problem-solving will harmonize and synergize policies towards clearer objectives and more effective deliverables. Developing countries, like Japan, have used sustainability science approaches in their disaster and risk management policy. Disaster prone countries, like Bangladesh, have also employed the same strategies, mainly added by foreign donors for technical and expert knowledge. In 2005, 340 delegates from Asia Pacific region embraced the concept of green growth which lead to a regional cooperation strategy for sustainable development with the adoption of Green Growth theories into three major documents developed at the meeting: the Ministerial Declaration on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific, 2005; 13 Regional Implementation Plans for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific, 2006-2010; and the Seoul Initiative on Environmentally Sustainable Economic Growth. As a result, three initiatives were introduced to promote green economy in three countries – China, Republic of Korea and the Philippines with the objective of green growth (http://www.rrcap.ait.asia/nsds/pub/SUSTAINABLE%20DEVELOPMENT%20PATHWA YS.pdf). In China, it was to resolve environmental damage by promoting energy-saving and environmentally friendly production. This is to ensure a resource-efficient economy and to nurture conservation-minded society. In the Republic of Korea, it was focusing at waste-management through recycling, which not only creates employment in the recycling business, but also save the per capita waste generation by 22% from 1994 to 2002, reducing the volume of wastes sent to landfills by 43% during the same time and the volume of recyclable items has risen by 146% (http://www.rrcap.ait.asia/nsds/pub/SUSTAINABLE%20DEVELOPMENT%20PATHWA YS.pdf). The Philippines also focuses on waste management through recycling, composting and proper management of the landfill, which includes capacity building at institutional levels, increasing public awareness on solid waste management, improving the health and working conditions of waste pickers and improved management of medical wastes. 48 3.2 Case Studies 3.2.1 A Case Study for Applying Sustainability Sciences: Sustainable Solution for Water Insecurity in Asia Pacific Water is an important source of livelihoods for all. However, its availability varies according to climatic conditions, topography, development activities, governance and socio-economic dynamics. The demand for water has increased over the years due to population growth, economic activities and changing lifestyles. Water insecurity is a critical global agenda and has been emphasised in many global environmental meetings such as the United Nations Water Conference in 1977, the International Conference on Water and the Environment in 1992 and documentation of Agenda 21(Chapter 18) from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Discussions on water issues have accelerated since 2000 in response to the call of the UN Millennium Declaration and several international conferences as well as world water forums. The UN Millennium Development Goal (MDG) indicates that water security is one of the greatest priorities in the 21st century. The UN set targets fo to hal e the p opo tio of people ho a e u a le to ea h o to affo d safe drinking water (UN Millennium Declaration para. 19; MDG Goal 7/Target 9 and . At the Asia Pa ifi le el, the glo al goal o f esh ate sele ted fo Asia-Pacific (the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation - Paragraph 26 C) targets the improvement of water allocation, conservation of both the quantity and quality of water resources and the safeguarding of ecosystems. Water security is also closely linked with food security since agricultural activities; especially the staple food of the world depends heavily on water. In the Asia Pacific, access to safe water and per-capita availability varies significantly. Countries like Papua New Guinea have bountiful supply of water resources, whereas the countries along the Mekong rivers are struggling with shared common water resources, and if not controlled can cause political conflicts between the countries, for example the negative impacts experienced by Cambodia and Laos over the dam built upstream in China and Thailand. The global water usage in Asia Pacific can be considered low compared to the other developing countries but rapid economic and population growth plus changing lifestyles has increased demand in water supply. According to ADB (2011), access to safe drinking water has improved by 14 % et ee a d , ith Chi a s a essi ility to water improving from 67 to 88 % during those periods. Accessibility to safe drinking and sanitation varies between rural and urban areas, with the later more developed and readily accessed. Countries like Singapore and Maldives are facing water stress due to climate change while countries like India, Republic of Korea and Pakistan are experiencing periodic water stresses. Water security involves many sectors and issues – safe drinking water for consumption, sanitation, irrigation and water for industrial activities. Figure 3.1 shows how sustainability science can resolve water insecurity problems. The method uses the problem driven approach to solve water insecurity problems by first determining the core problems, as Wate i se u it , and followed by differentiating the effects of problems which is termed as the determinants. Water insecurity is an environmental problem or degradations that are inextricably related 49 to human activities and may cause disparities in accessing safe, clean and sufficient water for all types of economic development activities, which if not met is part of the fundamental decline to a high quality of life and an indicator of human poverty. The second layer, next to the core problems, is stakeholde s a al sis hi h sho s interactions between human and natural systems, which is one of the main characteristic of Sustainability Sciences that focuses on understanding the complex intersections between social, economic and ecological systems. The third and fourth ring layers are the determinants, which are divided into two – Primary Determinants (PD) and Secondary Determinants (SD), showing the intricacies and complicated cause and effect determinants based on the problembased analysis. Figure 3.1 Problem-based Model for Sustainability Science Water Security Solutions The Primary Determinants of water insecurity in the Asia Pacific as shown by Figure 3.1 are poor sanitation, climate impact, resource exploitation, public access issues and poor supply for irrigation. Poor sanitation has more impacts, and is listed as Secondary Determinants – pollution, health problems and socio-cultural problems. Pollution, especially water pollution is obvious, and without proper sanitation, for example in some of the Asia Pacific countries, floating and open latrines at the river bank are common, whereby faeces are not treated and pollute the rivers directly. With growing population this will causes health problems such as diarrhea and 50 water-borne related diseases. Poor sanitation also has socio-cultural problems, when toilets are far or outside the houses, especially for women and girls where privacy is linked with socio-cultural and religious values. Many women, for example those in India, priority is to have toilets built in-suite the dwellings. Resource exploitation has many other environmental impacts which is termed as Secondary determinants – increased floods, soil erosion, watershed problems, ecosystem imbalance and ground water contamination. These environmental problems will have implications to the economic and socio-cultural activities of a community. Policy access issues have implications towards water crisis, issues with water tariffs and health problems. Policy issues are related directly to governance and the political will power of the government agencies or local authorities in charge of water provision. If good governance is not practiced in water management, water crisis can occur. Political disputes and conflicts may cause further crises and insufficient clean and safe water supply. This has been indicated by the water crisis in the state of Selangor, Malaysia, whereby political involvement has prolonged and/or exacerbated water supply crisis. Obviously this will lead towards other implications such as health and quality of life. Moreover, poor supply irrigations will have implications toward food insecurity, poverty, nutrition problems and cross border geopolitical problems. The food insecurity relationships with water problems are palpable, as over 75 % of water, globally, is used for irrigation and food production. Lack of water for irrigation can cause migration and if it is crossing borders between nations, it may cause political and ethnic conflicts. Hence, the analyses of the primary and secondary determinants show the transdisciplinary nature of the problems faced in water security which requires a transdisciplinary solution as well. Hence, the solutions are by building a science of sustainability that integrates multiple forms of knowledge. This requires building a common language between scholars of natural, economic and social systems, through dialogue and collaboration across different sectors of the knowledge enterprise, such as academics, decision makers, practitioners in the field, and local stakeholder groups. For Sustainability science to resolve the water insecurity problems, the solutions must accommodate multiple knowledge systems, from local traditional knowledge to standard edu tio ist s ie tifi k o ledge, e e though these s ste s a e t aditio all at odds with each other. These characteristics reflect a shift from a predominantly anthropocentric to a more e o-cent i ie the adoptio of p e e tio , p e autio , a d pollute pa s as guidi g p i iples fo e i o e tal egulatio s, a d the a epta e of international principles, such as common but differentiated responsibilities, as well as enhancing the potential role of Green Economics in future growth and development. In order to implement these multiform solutions, radical and more flexible tools are needed which are more post-modernist in nature, bottom-up, participatory, adaptive and exploratory in nature. Figure 3.1 shows an example of how a water insecurity problem, as a core problem, has implications on primary determinants, the climate impact. The secondary determinants are increased drought, increased flood and extreme weather. The problems show an 51 interrelationship between human and nature interactions, whereby all these have direct implications to the ability to produce food and sustain livelihoods. The solutions are combination of indigenous knowledge which is derived from the community who knows their immediate environment better and suitable to their socio-cultural and religious needs. Modern science is also introduced through soil and water conservation techniques. A combination of both modern and traditional can also be tested through further innovation and learning and sharing between the community and the experts. Good governance and political support are needed to ensure a good framework to develop a holistic and integrated water management system. The establishment of necessary legal and institutional capacities are required for integrated water resources management rather than a sectorial approach. These are essential to ensure balanced water supply and demand through coordination and improved water resources management. This case study provides a perfect example of how the tools and methods of sustainability science can be applied using the Method for Sustainability Science Solution as illustrated in Figure 3.1. It can always be used address many other cases of sustainability issues in the region by identifying the primary determinant, secondary determinant and then adoption of the various principles such as action oriented solution etc. 3.2.2 A Case Study for Applying Sustainability Sciences: Sustainable Solution Flooding Trends in the Asia Pacific The frequency and severity of flooding is becoming worse in the Asia Pacific and very much related to climate change. According to APFED report (2010) flooding occurs not only in low-level areas, but also in the highland countries, like Nepal, that experienced serious floods in 2002, 2003 and 2004. South Asian countries like India and Bangladesh also experienced floods. India also experienced severe floods in 2005 causing more than 1000 deaths. Sri Lanka experiences floods due to high precipitation of 730 millimeters rain in the southern province in 2003. The Indochina countries like Cambodia experience severe floods in 2000, while Thailand in 2011. Vietnam and Malaysia experienced many flash floods due to extreme rains and bad drainage designs and management. The Philippines experience landslides and heavy flooding in 1990 and 2004. In China, there have been increasing floods in the NorthEast part, which caused severe floods in 1999. Developing countries like Japan and Australia also experienced severe and prolonged floods. The floods in Australia, in parts of Queensland and New South Wales, was caused by the Oswald cyclone, resulting in widespread damages to thousands of properties and forcing widespread evacuations with an estimated insured loss of AUD290 million (USD302 million) in 2013, and losses of AUD2.4 billion (USD2.5 billion) in 2011 (Australia Flooding http://www.gccapitalideas.com/2013/02/01/floods-in-eastern-australia-2/). The impacts of flooding in Asia Pacific include death; economic loss such as loss of business, property (including houses and cars) and crops; physical damage from landslides, disruption to transport routes; and socio-cultural problems in relief centers during flooding due to overcrowding, inconducive environments and conflict, as well as high costs to maintain the center and deploying emergency services, Environment Agency and local authority staff. According to UNISDR report, in the whole of Asia Pacific region, floods and storms of 2011 resulted in an economic loss 52 of USD 63.7 billion, affecting 167 million people and claiming 5, 910 lives. In the Philippines alone, economic loss of such hazards amounted to USD730 million affecting 11.6 million and claiming 1,904 lives. One of the worst impacts of floods in the Asia Pacific was the 2011 flood in Thailand, which claimed 800 lives, and disrupting economic activities resulting in great losses whereby 7 huge industrial estates in the central region closed affecting 14,000 businesses and 1,300 factories (http://www.gccapitalideas.com/2012/10/28/thailand-flood-2011-executivesummary/). The impact was global, as supply chains on electronics and car parts were disrupted. Analysing Flood problems using the Sustainability Science tools There are three main primary determinants of floods – modernization that result in the changes of consumer patterns and lifestyle, changes of land use due to physical development, and geographical factors. All of these primary determinants need to be addressed by all three main players, the community (C), academia (A) and the government through policy (P). All of the three primary determinants tend to overlap, for example changes in consumer patterns and lifestyle also influenced changes of land use leading to physical development. Man-made activities is closely linked to physical development that results in change of land use. Hence, deforestation and environmental degradation due to physical development is causing floods. Change of land use as a result of physical development has five secondary determinants – housing, drainage, catchment size and shape, deforestation and environmental degradation and road networks. For the secondary determinants of housing, drainage, catchment size and shape need the attention from academia and policy-makers to initiate understanding of the issues through research development and development control to reduce the likelihood of flooding. The problems of deforestation need the involvement of all three parties, including the community, academia and the policy-makers to resolve the problems successfully. Changes in land use through physical development are caused by the demand for new resettlement, which will increase the need to build more drainages and road networks. Unsuitable drainage and road networks that cannot cope with population and uncontrolled development will cause flooding. Physical development also often involves clearance of forests. Clearance of forests is mainly associated with environmental degradation and natural disasters such as floods, landslides and soil erosion. This is because without the roots from the trees, rainwater will not be soaked because the rainforest holds the soil together preventing soil erosion from happening. Hence for the solution, the policy-makers can prevent this potential disaster by providing land-use zoning and imposing on planning restrictions on vulnerable sites. A well-planned urban development is necessary to avoid the occurrence of flooding due to rapid and unplanned urbanization, which promotes bad drainage mainly due to clogged drains, which is the main cause of flash floods. The community can adapt to flooding by redesigning their dwellings to prevent or minimize floods from destroying their properties. This can be done, for example by redesigning lower floors of buildings or by creating hard floor defense such as building walls and embankments. Soft flood defenses like open land and woodland 53 can also store floodwater and reduce flood occurrences. Direct management such as by dredging rivers is also a common alternative to control floods by creating channel, dams and reservoir to contain floodwater. The geographical factors as the primary determinants have four secondary determinants – geology, relief, state of ground or antecedent conditions and transboundary watershed, meteorological and hydrological. Geological factors affect flooding depending on the types of rocks, for example impermeable rocks are saturating precipitation more quickly than porous and pervious rocks. Thus, infiltration is more rapid in sandy soils compare to more saturated clay soils; hence excess overland flow, which may result in flooding, is more likely to happen. Relief can also influence flooding depending on the gradient of the slope, size and shape of the basin. The state of ground or antecedent conditions, which is the level of discharge before the storm will also influence the likelihood of flooding. For example, heavy continuous precipitation means higher discharge antecedent and hence possible flooding. Meteorological secondary determinants include floods causes by prolonged and intense rainfall, cyclones, typhoons, storms and tidal surges. Transboundary watershed is shared watershed between countries, which can have socio-economic and socio-cultural issues like political and economic refuge. In the Asia-Pacific alone, there are six rivers shares by ten countries. For example, the Mekong River is shared between six countries, Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and China. Four countries - China, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh, share the Brahmaptra River. Figure 3.2: SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE model for analysing flood issues problem The primary determinants of modernization that result in changes in consumer patterns and lifestyle are caused by two secondary determinants, lack of awareness on environmental control and management, and deforestation. The secondary 54 dete i a ts la k of a a e ess o e i o e tal o t ol a d a age e t eed to be addressed by the academia and government through policy. Disaster cannot be stopped but can be reduced through good management. The academia can improve knowledge and disseminate the awareness to stakeholders involved in flood control and management to the community and the government, so that flood control and management can be part of the policy. Such awareness includes understanding the mechanisms to organize and coordinate disaster risk such as disaster risk reduction budgets, updating data on hazards and vulnerabilities, knowledge about investment in critical risk reduction infrastructure; safety assessments of schools and health facilities and the necessary upgrading; risk compliant building regulations and land use planning principles; education programmes and training on disaster risk reduction; protection of ecosystems and natural buffers to mitigate floods, storm surges and other hazards; early warning systems and emergency management capacities; and, after any disaster, ensuring that the needs of survivors are at the centre of reconstruction. In Asia Pacific, the integrated flood risk management has been introduced by Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC) to provide a holistic way of addressing flood risks by taking into account the need for cooperation of all stakeholders and ensuring all phases of the disaster cycle are equally addressed. Their approach is somewhat paralleled to sustainability sciences methods of taking into consideration the social dimensions (human environment), dynamic natural environment (which may include sharing of transboundary rivers and watershed areas that result in political disputes, changing landscape due to development process) and the flood risk management (vulnerability and adaptability). However, there is yet an integrated region-wide implementation in accordance to the plan. Using the sustainability sciencemodel, an example to resolve flood problems as a result of modernization that changes consumer patterns and lifestyle include the development of an early warning system using modern science and also adapting indigenous knowledge to reduce deforestation through agroforestry programmes and indigenous adaptability strategies. For example in India, there was planning to install a satellite weather warnings to enable the flood victims a chance to react and respond before any flood disaster. Information is relayed to the community through several sources, such as television, internet and the local radio. As maintaining forestry is essential in reducing floods, the planting of trees through traditional agroforestry can help reduce flooding. Moreover, many flood victims have indigenous adaptation strategies, such as in terms of their dwellings design, example stilted houses are common with boardwalk connecting the houses in a village which takes into consideration the normal expected height of flood level. 55 SECTION 4: MAPPING UNESCO’S POTENTIAL IN SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE UNESCO has been globally recognised as a champion of various agendas on promoting education, science and culture at all levels either as an umbrella organisation for global initiatives, such as Education for Sustainable Development, Education for All, or as a platform for discourse on issues of global concern. This agenda setting has provided significant direction on the role of education, science and culture for many organisations around the world and brings them together to address issues such as sustainable development. While there are many dimensions to map the vast work and network initiatives under UNESCO, which has direct or indirect relation to sustainability science, one particular approach can be used to categorise them into initiatives that fall into research and education or capacity building; secondly, institutionalisation of science and its integration to address sustainability; thirdly, promotion of stakeholder collaborations in promoting science and sustainable development. At the outset, the recently held Rio + 20 Conference recognizes the important contributions of the scientific and technological community, the importance of technology transfer to close the technological gap between developed and developing countries, the need to strengthen the science policy interface (which is addressed by MOST programme, UNESCO), the need to strengthen national scientific and technological capacity, and the need to foster international research collaborations on sustainable development. This in essence, is the aim and objective of sustainability science. Therefore, this global agreement calls for a more synergised work, especially between the scientists and social scientists. In translating this commitment, at the highest level of the agenda setting, there are two major organisations that serve as UNESCO umbrella organisations, namely ICSU – which champions the role of science and sustainability science, and the International Social Science Council (ISSC) as platform for promoting the social science perspective. While it is naturally understood that both institutions will be promoting their interest, recently there is increasing collaborative work that brings the two together that entails the interaction of science and social science, as desired by the sustainability science approach. There are several documents produced by these two agencies that can serve as referral sources to bring closer collaboration between science and social science. One of the documents that strongly calls for lose olla o atio et ee s ie e a d so ial s ie e is Earth System Science for Glo al “ustai a ilit the G a d Challe ges , hi h is a out o e of IC“U a d sustainability science collaborative work. Therefore, towards gearing up sustainability science to greater heights and a more mainstream agenda, UNESCO already has strong direction and foundation. The only challenge is dilution of the idea at implementation level. There are also number of agencies under the auspices of UNESCO, such as cited in the case studies that promote the tools and methods advocated by sustainability science. UNESCO has done substantial work in promoting many components of sustainability s ie e, ut the e e do e sepa atel . The follo i g Mat i su a ise UNE“CO s work which have the potential for application of sustainability science and areas for 56 Education which they can contribute to mainstream sustainability science. The programmes have been selected based on how UNESCO runs or categorises them, and the third column indicates the activities in Asia Pacific that matches UNESCOs divisions. This matrix shows a kind of situational analysis to identify the gaps and strengths for Sustainability Science approaches and interventions. Potential sustainability science(gaps) for No. Activities in Asia and the Pacific 1. There are more than 1600 ASPnet schools in 40 countries in the Asian and Pacific region(as of Platform for pilot test October 2010). A large number of schools in of SuSci Asia and the Pacific work on topics related to (education) Education for Sustainable Development. 2. Education in Emergencies and Disaster Risk Reduction (EiE/DRR) for Sustainable Development: A workshop for National Education Managers – (Philippines) The Workshop aimed to build the capacity of DepED and its partners to develop and effectively implement a policy framework on EiE/DRR, incorporating strategies at the national, regional, divisional, district and school levels. 3. UNESCO Bangkok Expands Online Education System Profiles - The ESPs cover information on education legislation and overall structure of Database for crosseducation systems, as well as issues related to cutting issue access, quality, management and financing for each sub-sector. 4. Beyond Access, Quality Education for Migrant Children - Fuelled by dissatisfaction with the marginalization of migrant children, FRY provides education programmes and partners of with schools to support the integration of Introduction integrated curriculum migrant children into mainstream Thai schools. Their work has allowed children who were once (education) marginalized to be equipped with basic Thai language skills and to enrol in local schools, not just for their own benefit but that of the entire community. 5. as scientific With the goal of enabling teachers to use ICT to ICT enhance the quality of teaching and learning, contribution A test case for transdisciplinary issue (education, research, capacity building, institutionalisation and collaboration) 57 the UNESCO ICT in Education Programme has implemented a number of regional, sub-regional and national projects. Projects implemented as part of the ICT in Education programme include: • • • • • • Natural Sciences • Facilitating Effective ICT-pedagogy Integration The Next Generation of Teachers (Next Gen) project ICT in Education Teacher Training Modules for Developing Countries Training and Professional Development of Teachers and Other Facilitators for Effective Use of ICTs in Improving Teaching and Learning Bridging the Within-Country Digital Divide in Education: Improving Education in Western China through Innovative Use of ICT Training of teachers in information technology in Sri-Lanka Establishing effective use of ICT in EFA in Cambodia 1. The Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme is an Intergovernmental Scientific Programme aiming to set a scientific basis for the improvement of the relationships between people and their environment globally. it proposes an interdisciplinary research agenda and capacity building that target the ecological, social and economic dimensions of biodiversity loss and the reduction of this loss. 2. The International Hydrological Programme (IHP) is the only intergovernmental programme of the UN system devoted to water research, water resources management, and education and capacity building. The programme, tailored to Me e “tates eeds, is i ple e ted i si year phases – allowing it to adapt to a rapidly changing world. 3. IOC/WESTPAC Programmes and Projects - The world community faces growing challenges arising from climate variability and change, marine environmental degradation and pollution, biodiversity losses, and natural hazards. As a competent body and focal point in Policy connection (education, research, capacity building, institutionalisation and collaboration) Model of sustainability science (education, research, capacity building, institutionalisation and collaboration) Case study (education, research, capacity building, institutionalisation and collaboration) 58 Social & Human Sciences ocean affairs within the UN system, IOC needs to respond to these global issues. WESTPAC, as a Subsidiary body of IOC, contributes to the translation of the objectives of the global programmes and ocean services of the Commission into activities that maximize the benefit for Member States, taking into account the regional-specific perspectives and capability and the priorities indicated by WESTPAC Member States. Its work and action truly add value and capacity in line with IOC objectives and WESTPAC member needs. 4. Environmental, social and cultural implications of a ship-breaking industry, Alang-Sosia, Case study Gujurat, India 5. Reducing the impact of a coastal megacity on island ecosystems, Jakarta and the Seribu Case study Islands, Indonesia 6. Sound development in the Motu Koita urban Case study villages, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea 7. Coastal resources management and ecotourism: an intersectoral approach to localizing Case study sustainable development, Ulugan Bay, Palawan, Philippines 8. Education for sustainable village living, Saanapu Case study and Sataoa villages, Upolu Island, Samoa 1. The ECCAP project is producing policy reports Policy connection that combine science and philosophy. (institutionalisation) 2. Afghanistan - Afghanistan Demain homes for orphans and street children In Kabul, UNESCO assisted the F e h NGO, Afgha ista De ai Case study in constructing and running homes for orphans and abandoned vagrant children and providing basic educational services. 3. UNESCO Youth and Peace Ambassador Training Integrated curriculum and Workshop 4. Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciences in Showcase for social Asia and the Pacific - In an era of rapid science contribution 59 globalization, UNESCO's Regional Unit for Social and Human Science in the Asia-Pacific (RUSHSAP) aims to develop and promote social policies which uphold peace, human rights, democratic governance and tolerance. The overall objective is to create a grass-roots, mass movement throughout the Asia-Pacific region which shares this aim and helps bring it to fulfillment. 5. for sustainability (education, research, capacity building, institutionalisation and collaboration) Management of Social Transformations (MOST) Programme is an intergovernmental mechanism created to facilitate the transfer of relevant research and data from social sciences to decision makers by this building bridges between research, policy and practice. The Programme promotes a culture of evidencebased policy making at national, regional and international levels. The two current thematic priorities of the MOST progarmme are Culture a) Social inclusion and b) Social dimensions of global environmental change. 6. The World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) is an advisory body and forum of reflection that was set up by UNESCO in 1998. The Commission is mandated to formulate ethical principles that could provide decisionmakers with criteria that extend beyond purely economic considerations. Currently, COMEST is working in several areas: environmental ethics, with reference inter alia to climate change, biodiversity, water and disaster prevention; the ethics of nanotechnologies along with related new and emerging issues in converging technologies; ethical issues relating to the technologies of the information society; science ethics; and gender issues in ethics of science and technology. 1. The Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) is a non-profit organisation for Asia and the Pacific regional activities in line with the principles of UNESCO, working for the promotion of mutual understanding and cultural Showcase for social science contribution for sustainability (education, research, capacity building, 60 Communication & Information cooperation among peoples in the region. ACCU institutionalisation has since been implementing various regional and collaboration) cooperative programmes in the fields of culture, education and personnel exchange in close collaboration with UNESCO and its Member States in Asia and the Pacific. 1. International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) - The IPDC is the only multilateral forum in the UN system designed to mobilize the international community to discuss and promote media development in developing countries. The programme not only finances ICT as scientific media projects that produce significant change contribution using relatively small amounts of money; it also integrates these projects into a long-term strategy of human rights-based support aimed at expanding the space for freedom of expression and media pluralism in developing and post-conflict countries. The Matrix illust ates the e iste e of diffe e t le els of sustai a ilit s ie e within UNESCO programmes. Through appropriate intervention and adjustment, the case for sustainability science can surely be developed through these programs. 61 SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAINSTREAM SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE AS NEW AGENDA FOR UNESCO The first two sections of this report have deliberated the need for sustainability science to address diverse sustainable development issues in the Asia Pacific region. There are three challenges identified in establishing sustainability science, namely, 1. Academic development including concepts, methodologies, and practical tools, 2. Institutionalization, and 3. Contribution to society through collaboration with stakeholders in the society. This last section is mainly to propose the way forward to meet the second challenge of institutionalisation of sustainability science especially from the context of UNESCO as the main relevant agency in the region. The proposal draws lessons from various existing work on sustainability science and related initiatives from different experiences of different countries and contexts. This chapter has two sections; one is general recommendations on the institutionalisation and mainstreaming of sustainability science itself. The second section consists of specific suggestion for UNESCO to move the agenda forward. 5.1 Institutionalisation and Mainstreaming of Sustainability Science for the Future We Want The process of institutionalising and mainstreaming of sustainability science is required to be carried at as many levels as possible and must involve the optimal number of relevant stakeholders. a) Mainstreaming the Content and Context of Sustainability Science The content or the operational framework of sustainability science proposed in this paper is essentially to be constituted of the following criteria;  Rediscovering of science as an enquiry process and body of knowledge  Science as an enquiry process must include both material and spiritual perspectives  The model to promote such science must be problem based and solution oriented  Inclusive of modern sciences and indigenous knowledge  Emphasis on contextual and locality concerns  Inclusive of the three stakeholders – community, academia and policy circle These criteria are to ensure the transdisciplinary, holistic and integrated nature of sustainability science. As for the overall methodologies suitable, the paper advocates that institutionalising Sustainability Science requires: i) Framing of programs and studies to suit the issues, locality, scenario generation, road mapping, consensus building and network/partnership formation. 62 ii) Promotion of in-service and pre-service training for teachers, sponsored studies using interns, graduate students, staff exchange, post-doctoral researchers, sabbatical attachment, and secondments to work with institutions and networks advanced in Sustainability science implementation. iii) Development of standardised approaches to the application of Sustainability science as a series of tool kits and workflows which allow early commitment and adoption without creating unnecessary competition for scarce resources and facilities. iv) Support for the development of capacity and education in this field across the stakeholder profile to provide a clear pathway to sustainability. b) Networking/Partnership for Sustainability Science Internationally, many Universities, UN organizations, development agencies and NGOs are currently engaged in a large number of smaller and short term project activities, whereas SD requires long-term and consolidated programmatic approaches. Such SD programmes will be more regional in nature like the Regional Science flagships UNESCO is already implementing. There are many other sustainability groups and researchers under many banners active in the Asia Pacific region and a critical component of the activates of the Sustainability science will be identifying where contributions can be made to enhance the current programs and to identify gaps where it is possible to develop new approaches based upon the tool sets identified. Several other groups such as APN, UNU/IAS RCEs, ProSPER.Net partner universities, UC-SIS of SIDS universities, UNESCO-ACCU, APUCEN, ULSF (possibly an Asia Pacific Chapter), GUPES (Global Universities Partnership on Environment and Sustainability), launched during Rio+20 (possibly an Asia Pacific action group), SEAMEO, ASEAN, ICSU, AIT, ADB, ProSper.Net and university networks are excellent examples of network groups in the region, who could play increasingly more important ESD and Sustainability science roles. Building further upon current innovative networking and coordination, UNESCO could promote Sustainability science and its associated tool sets as pa t of UNE“CO s Bie ial “e to al Pla s o Mai Li e of A tio age das. Other strategic partners in the region include selected Universities which have a sustainability science centre such Hokkaido University, Ritsumeikan Research Centre for Sustainability Science, Tokyo University Graduate Program in Sustainability Science, the Asian Institute of Technology in Bangkok (AIT), Universiti Sains Malaysia Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Albukhary International University (AiU), the SEAMEO regional Centres, ASEAN, ADB, ICSU and other UN agencies. The work plan of the newly established Regional ICSU office in Kuala Lumpur shows a good match with priorities defined many UNESCO programmes. Disaster preparedness, renewable energies and environmental sustainability are subjects of great interest to these partners and UNESCO. 63 c) Capacity and awareness building on Sustainability Science Developed country experience reveals that education, research, knowledge workforce, innovation and economic growth and the need to tackle inequality and poverty are intertwined. To remain competitive on the global stage, and to secure economic and social equity, we must ensure that each of these remains vigorous and healthy. For this purposes, capacity and awareness building are the key success factor mainstreaming of sustainability science. Based on the experiences of various agencies reviewed in the previous chapters, the following initiatives can be emulated as capacity building and awareness raising towards institutionalising sustainability science;      Networking for capacity-building and promotion of research and education in basic sciences and mathematics in the Asia-Pacific Active, joyful and effective learning in science education for MDGs Capacity-building in STI policy development in the Asia-Pacific region Engaging planners, policy-makers and practitioners in STI issues, and building public awareness Effective promotion of the sustainability science techniques and approaches as defined in this document d) Research for Sustainability Science For research, a variety of methodologies and approaches are required to handle sustainability issues in their entirety, from the development of fundamental indicators to the trail and testing of policy interventions. These include development and understanding of the use of: 1) Effective cross thematic indicators which are able to be regularly monitored. These should include i) international standards where possible (HDI, WB), ii) be of high resolution to determine the associations between environmental variables and socio-economic/economic outcomes, iii) cover the fields of Sustainability science, namely economics, socio-economics, environment, and potentially governance, iv) utilise remote sensing and earth observation data where possible to provide comparative, broad reaching and accessible data sets, v) promote stakeholder participation in the selection and relative weighting of the indicator base. 2) Utilising the indicator base develops integrative biophysical and societal modelling across the thematic areas of Sustainability science, utilising traditional and systems dynamic approaches in order to provide a coherent and testable evidence base for the development of sustainable policy and intervention solutions. 3) Based upon the integrated dynamic modelling of socioeconomic/economics/environment, develop future scenarios and associated Risk 64 Matrices. By challenging the integrated dynamics models it becomes possible to produce families of future scenarios (based upon a range of possible environmental/climatic, economic and socio-economic variables) as an approach to handling uncertainty. This approach allows decision makers to both test interventions within the modelling and to explore potential policy responses in what is effectively a simulation. The following diagram can serve as a model, on how researching on the complex issue of sustainable development can be approached. 5.2 Potential Initiatives for UNESCO to Promote Sustainability Science The propagation of sustainability science into the international agenda finds UNESCO in a unique position to provide a cross-silo holistic approach to the support of decision makers and the broader sustainability scientific community. There is a clear need for the development of effective tools and approaches that can utilise the substantive body of information, literature and data available and organise and present it in such a way as to optimise decision making and policy formulation processes. These approaches should include data mining and archiving, standardising scenario development, risk planning, spatial analysis, cross disciplinary indicator development, quantitative capture of stakeholder perspectives and adaptive management amongst others. Currently, the imbalance between available information and the effective utilisation of that information in a coherent and relevant fashion by decision makers, offers UNESCO with the potential to provide a portal for effective integration of the key policy relevant information groups of natural sciences, economics, socio-economics with the governance community. 65 There are several reasons for UNESCO to further promote sustainability science: 1. With the dual dimensions of the UNESCO Office, Jakarta, i.e, (i) as a Cluster Office, representing UNESCO in Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Timor Leste, and (ii) as a Regional Bureau for Science, covering the Asia and Pa ifi ‘egio UNE“CO s o e age a d e pe ie e of the edu atio al a d development needs of the Asia-Pacific region are excellent. The presence of National Commissions makes the work of UNESCO more focused and efficient at the national level. Given the comparative advantages, UNESCO Jakarta stands out to be the most relevant choice of UN agency to promote Sustainability science in the AsiaPacific region. 2. Being the lead agency for the implementation of major global educational movements such as EFA, UNLD and UNDESD, it is only logical that UNESCO integrates the principles and practices of the newly emerging field of Sustainability science into its educational thematic areas as an innovative approach to address issues relating to the content and character of the curriculum. 3. If we define sustainability science simply as the science behind SD, it then follows that gi e UNE“CO s p eo upatio ith “D a d DE“D, UNE“CO o has a e powerful tool to tackle a host of sustainability challenges, the declared priorities for UNESCO s o e all issio a ti ities. 4. Sustainability science requires academics to collaborate to bring about solutions to major societal problems. This is not naïve optimism but recognition of necessity. The extensive and unique network of educators and scientists who operate within the auspices of UNESCO meets this challenge. As a rule, interconnected challenges require interconnected solutions. 5. This should also be extended to inter agency collaboration within UN and with major external initiatives. For example, UNESCO has a great opportunity to work closely with new initiatives such as UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network launched in September 2012; the ten-year global sustainability research program, Future Earth, established by the International Council for Science (ICSU) and its alliance; IPBES (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, launched in 2012); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- for example, see chapter 3, case Study 2, Man and the Biosphere programme, and other global change networks. 6. Sustainability science blends the mission areas of UNESCO – Education, Science a d Cultu e, hile at the sa e ti e helps i ple e t UNE“CO Jaka ta s fi e u e t thematic areas: • Education • Natural Sciences 66 • Social & Human Sciences • Culture • Communication & Information. With this priority, and the broader focus of the Future We Want, UNESCO has a unique opportunity to use science and technology as a tool not only to promote growth and prosperity but also social cohesion, equity and overall well-being. 7. A special feature of sustainability science is that it consists of both basic and applied research, with both a quest for fundamental understanding and also consideration of applicability. In this sense, sustainability science is user-inspired research which also reflects UNE“CO s app oa h to p o oti g s ie tifi esea h fo enhanced human well-being. . O e all, as the ustodia of Edu atio , “ ie e a d Cultu e ithi the UN s ste , Sustainability Science offers UNESCO a unique pathway to champion scienceeducation and research based capacity building to support the aspirations of member states in Asia-Pacific to become knowledge societies and to achieve their SD goals in ways that are environmentally sustainable, economically viable and socioculturally acceptable. For example, the UNESCO-JFIT (Japanese Funds-in-Trust) programme aims to maximize the effectiveness, impact and visibility of programme delivery by adopting a number of approaches, including aligning activities directly with the UNESCO C4 and C5 plans. The programme has, over the years supported important activities in terms of science capacity building, and in supporting InterGovernmental Science Programmes, including MAB, IHP, and IOC in the region. A variety of knowledge generation, dissemination and transfer methodologies have to be used to provide a holistic, value-laden and action-oriented evidence base for policy makers as well as education and supporting research and outreach activities as part of ESD and Sustainability science. In order to reach out to stakeholders at all levels , decision makers, civil society and the public and to provide research results tailored to solving decision makers identified sustainability issues, we need to employ multimodal approaches involving integrative methodologies which provide outputs in the formats required by users. To capitalise on such approaches there is a requirement to utilise the extensive network of resources and institutions that have been built up by UNECSO such that synergies of action and cross fertilisation of ideas can be realised as well as for pragmatic reasons of funding and project impact. 10. There are innovative research approaches connecting risk management to sustainable development by recognizing a risk and a disaster level behind every sustainability challenge. The strategy, therefore, is to reduce the risk before it is realized as disaster. Proactive risk reduction through science and technology interventions is a lot easier and cheaper than reactive disaster responses. The capacity building for this may be promoted within an augmented EiE/DRR of UNESCO (see Chapter 4, Table item 2.) 67 Based on these reasons, UNESCO obviously stands as one of the most important institutions if not the most important one, that should champion this sustainability agenda. Apart from weaving into the existing work structure, as identified above, UNESCO through various agencies under it, can also pick up a number of suggestions outlined i the ‘io+ out o e pa ag aphs , a d hi h a e supposed to ake things happe , that if follo ed-up with commitment by all stakeholders, at all le els, ill e a le us get hat e a t . …We resolve to pro ote edu atio for sustai a le develop e t a d to i tegrate sustainable development more actively into education beyond the United Nations De ade of Edu atio for “ustai a le Develop e t… , …We stro gly e ourage edu atio al i stitutio s to o sider adopti g good practices in sustainability management on their campuses and in their communities with the active participation of, inter alia, students, teachers and local partners, and tea hi g sustai a le develop e t as a i tegrated o po e t a ross dis ipli es... , …We u ders ore the i porta e of supporti g edu atio al i stitutio s, espe ially higher educational institutions in developing countries, to carry out research and innovation for sustainable development, including in the field of education, to develop quality and innovative programmes, including entrepreneurship and business skills training, professional, technical and vocational training and lifelong learning, geared to bridging skills gaps for advancing national sustainable development o je tives . Although the world is globalizing in terms of financial and economic markets, our efforts to enshrine environmental protection and sustainable development as an overarching theme of science application and education (natural science & engineering and social science & human sciences) in all countries has only just begun to make headway. UNESCO has been in the forefront of the major sustainability discourses and has occupied the lead agency role to promote both international educational agreements such as Education for All (EFA), United Nations Literacy Decade (UNLD) and the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (UNDESD), among others, as well as, promoting its second overarching objective of Mo ilizi g s ie e k o ledge a d poli fo sustai a le de elop e t ith su h activities as UNESCO-Jaka ta s Mediu Te “t ateg -2013 (34C/4), UNESCO Science and technology park development in Asia and IFAS flood modelling in Pakistan (2011 – on-going) to name but a few. Experience with sustainable science and the requisite capacity building required to support its application in the field mean that UNESCO is uniquely placed to both champion and guide the application of sustainability science in tackling some of the most challenging issues of today and the foreseeable future. Through promotion of an Earth System (ES) approach which incorporates the unified set of physical, chemical, biological and social components, processes and interactions that together 68 determine the state and dynamics of Planet Earth, including its biota and its human occupants to understand, anticipate and address global change issues, UNESCO can utilise its global position and recognition in order to be at the forefront of the application of sustainability science. This overarching objective would be attained through a number of strategic programmes, including i) leveraging scientific knowledge for the benefit of the environment and the management of natural resources, ii) fostering policies and capacity-building in science, technology and innovation – the philosophy and drive behind sustainability science and iii) offering strong leadership in associations with other partner organisations both within and outside the UN family. In this exercise UNESCO could make substantial contribution by bringing all the key players together to agree on an implementation strategy for sustainability science including the establishment of the associated tool sets and concepts and a support mechanism for agreed action plans to be implemented with targets and timelines. Using a specially developed sustainability indicators progress towards the agreed goals could be monitored and results published to facilitate knowledge and technology transfer as packages that are ready to use. Then, and perhaps only then, will the A-P o u ities ill take sustai a ilit s ie e o u it s esol e se iousl . UNESCO could play a central role i p o oti g this t pe of poli ele a t s ie e a d s ie e ele a t poli to ake e ide e ased atio al t a sfo atio s e ui ed for sustainable development. Encouragingly for this sustainability science , one good piece of news from Rio+20 is that a esti ated , usi ess leade s togethe ith othe ajo g oups a d NGOs who attended the summit pledged about US$500 billion for voluntary publicprivate partnerships that promote green growth within the Natural Capital Declaration they launched at Rio. Here we have an opportunity to forge innovative public-private-academia partnerships needed to make Sustainability science contributions to national development and human well-being sooner than later. UNESCOs ability to promote inter-agency collaboration within the UN system, foster global change research networks, bring Universities and research centres together, work with pro-sustainability and pro-poor NGOs, and influence donor partners to fo a loose et o k of et o ks to i g a out the desi ed out o es is considerable and must be channelled towards the promotion of Sustainability Science. A oalitio of the illi g i Asia-Pacific could be organized provided there is strong leadership from UNESCO and a high level task force to raise funds. The business community response in Rio to the global call from UN cannot be dismissed as a oneoff publicity stunt. It could be repeated in Asia Pacific innovatively. A set of spe ifi e o e datio s f o JFIT-UNESCO Science Programme on Global Challenges in Asia and the Pacific Region - Programme Objectives and Strategy 2008 – , p epa ed the Japa ese Fu ds-in-Trust (JFIT), with minor alterations is found worth reproducing here. 69 F o the ie poi t of “ustai a ilit “ ie e , i ple e t a u ified a age e t structure to strongly collaborating with the social and human science sector and the natural science sector, and to promote an integrated approach into the next medium-term strategy (37C/4) and the programme and budget (37C/5) based on the strategy. UNESCO to take the initiative for establishing a forum of scientists, policymakers and others for more coordinated approaches to promote Sustainability science. Recognising that UNESCO is a forward-looking agency, develop strategic long-term approaches that benefit every Asia-Pacific country and, develop diverse measures through various initiatives. To be specific: a) Align and integrate separate scientific knowledge to launch a structured, multidisciplinary programme, serving needs of the society. b) Focus on the development of human resources who will be able to sustainably tackle global challenges through cooperation among various fields in o de to p o ote “ustai a ilit “ ie e . I pa ti ula , o side i g the collaboration and relations with ESD, implement and accelerate education to foster knowledge and wisdom which makes wise use of science, cultivated through tradition from the stage of primary education. Develop diverse measures in order to encourage a larger number of countries and stakeholde s to ealize the sig ifi a e of “ustai a ilit “ ie e a d pa ti ipate i promoting it. To be specific: a Depe di g o the de elop e t of “ustai a ilit “ ie e , hold conferences which foster political leadership and continue to disseminate messages to global opinion leaders who have influence on the international community aiming for the penetration of sustainability science b) Hold workshops and other events highlighting the characteristics of each region with the participation of other international agencies, governments, the industry and NGOs in order to promote and assess the activities on a regional level. One perceived difficulty with sustainable development and sustainability science is that it is difficult to measure progress as the necessary indicators are slow in coming and are not well developed. This is where UNE“CO s o k o sustai a ilit indicators, developed for the implementation of the DESD Framework and Action Plan makes a difference. With this background, UNESCO may wish to take the lead to de elop a set of “ustai a ilit “ ie e i di ato s fo the o itoring and evaluation of the growth of the field in due course. This is especially urgent when viewed in the o te t of the ag ee e t ade the o ld s go e e ts du i g ‘io+ to produce a set of sustainable development goals (SDG), that should be integrated into the post-Rio+20 development agenda, as a natural successor of MDGs. SDGs should be built around cross-disciplinary sustainability themes such as food, water, energy 70 security and poverty eradication, rather than separate pillars of economy, environment and society (Glaser 2012). Final Statement UNESCO has, for some time, promoted the cause of sustainability and perhaps as importantly the structures and research and educational approaches that underpin the potential success of that approach. Whilst there have been successes there has long been an issue of definitions and monitoring progress and too many opportunities for disparate interests to water down the full implementation of the longer term perspective on economic growth and environmental integrity. The time has o ee ea hed he a o kflo of spe ifi tools a d activates can be used to define what is required to truly and demonstrably embrace sustainability. UNESCO is uniquely placed to provide this leadership, working with its partners to producing tools sets and outputs that forewarn and thus forearm decision makers and provide the clear evidence base for policy planning and development through quantifiable interactions with the stakeholder profile. References 1. Bettencourt LMA, Kaur J (2011) The evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proc Natl A ad “ i U“A : –19545. 2. Kates RW, et al. (2001), Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642 PNAS, December 6, 2011, vol. 108, no. 49, 19449–19450). 3. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/ 4. http://www.unescobkk.org/ 5. Glaser. G, (2012); Base sustainable development goals on science, Vol 491, NATURE. 71

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE: A REVIEW OF CONTEXT, APPROACHES, AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS Prepared by: Executive Summary Sustainability Science: A review of context, approaches, and potential applications

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE: A REVIEW OF CONTEXT, APPROACHES, AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS Prepared by: Executive Summary Sustainability Science: A review of context, approaches, and potential applications

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE: A REVIEW OF CONTEXT, APPROACHES, AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS Prepared by: Executive Summary Sustainability Science: A review of context, approaches, and potential applications

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE: A REVIEW OF CONTEXT, APPROACHES, AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS Prepared by: Executive Summary Sustainability Science: A review of context, approaches, and potential applications

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE: A REVIEW OF CONTEXT, APPROACHES, AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS Prepared by: Executive Summary Sustainability Science: A review of context, approaches, and potential applications

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS