APPENDIX 8
Memorandum from Dr Gill Seyfang, Centre
for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE)[24]
Dr Seyfang is a Senior Research Associate in
Sustainable Consumption with CSERGE (the Centre for Social and
Economic Research on the Global Environment), at the University
of East Anglia, Norwich. CSERGE is core funded by the Economic
and Social Research Council. Dr Seyfang's research examines the
social implications of sustainable consumption, and local initiatives
for sustainable development.
INQUIRY ISSUE
C: INDICATORS
The economic indicators set out in the strategy
are limited by the fact that they rely upon traditional national
accounts to measure economic activity (eg GDP). A range of alternative
accounting systems have been proposed to measure social well-being
rather than its proxy, material consumption. These would begin
to reorient economic policy towards meeting broader goals than
economic growth—after all, what gets measured, counts.
— The Measure of Domestic Progress
(MDP) developed by Tim Jackson and the New Economics Foundation
is a set of indicators which attempts to measure the value of
economic activity which contributes to quality of life by making
several adjustments to GDP. For example, it subtracts the defensive
costs of environmental degradation, loss of habitats and resource
use, social inequality and crime, and adds in the value of unpaid
domestic labour. Results published in 2004 show that while GDP
has risen by 80 per cent in the last 30 years, MDP fell sharply
during the 1980s and has still not regained the peak level achieved
in 1976. MDP more closely tracks other indicators of life-satisfaction,
which have not risen for the last 30 years, than GDP.
INQUIRY ISSUE
D: SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION
Sustainable consumption is a contested term—there
are many meanings attached to it, just as there are with "sustainable
development". For example, sustainable consumption could
mean "green growth", or it could mean "no growth",
depending on one's viewpoint. These different meanings represent
competing views about how society should develop, and as such
they echo the arguments about sustainable development,
and are simply another way of phrasing the same questions. The
UK strategy resolutely sticks to one particular interpretation
of sustainable consumption—that of `cleaner production'
and continued economic growth, but there are more fundamental
questions to be asked about the goals of development, and competing
views and strategies that deserve attention and policy support.
Policy recommendations:
Existing market-based tools and instruments
need to be improved to overcome market failures which currently
send the wrong price signals. These failures are principally related
to inadequate pricing (requiring the full resource costs to be
incorporated into market prices—across all sectors), and
poor flows of information for consumers (comprehensive labelling
schemes will help consumers make informed choices).
Introduce government regulation to build
on and protect the improvements brought about through voluntary
corporate self-regulatory initiatives such as ethical trade. At
present they are welcome signs of consumer-driven market change,
but are constantly threatened by changing consumer interests and
fashions (inevitable outcomes of competing claims to consumers
attention) which can erode the incentive for firms to maintain
the standards. Instead, corporate voluntary measures could be
instituted in regulation as new "minimum standards"
and continuously ratcheted up, to consolidate and strengthen government
boundary-setting of the market.
Support social and economic niches for alternative
technologies and consumption patterns can be carved out, and
provide valuable pioneering examples which the mainstream may
learn from and potentially adopt in the future. But they are hampered
by higher levels of decision-making, in terms of funding and practical
support, but also in terms of the general social acceptability
of such projects. Most importantly they need "policy space"
in which to operate—in other words, current regulatory frameworks
(on taxes and state benefits, and planning regulations in these
two examples) need to be changed to allow these non-conventional
initiatives to thrive and achieve their aims.
An illustrative example is that of community
currencies such as Local Exchange Trading Schemes (LETS) and time
banks, and NU-Spaarpas which are all new forms of local money
designed to serve a social, community or environmental purpose.
— A LETS is a cashless economy which
allows people in a locality to exchange goods and services without
using money, and there are now about 300 schemes in the UK involving
some 20,000 people. LETS has been widely described as "green"
money for its potential to strengthen decentralised self-reliant
local economies, encourage recycling and sharing of resources,
and enable people to access "environmentally friendly",
low-consumption alternatives to mainstream market offerings such
as locally grown food, or handicrafts.
— A second model of community currencies
is Time Banks, whose currency is based on time, and everyone's
time is worth the same. By rewarding the unpaid labour that people
put into their communities and social reproduction, time banks
encourage reciprocity, build social capital, and challenge
existing hierarchies of labour value—all of which are Egalitarian
principles. Time banks are growing in the UK: the first project
was established in 1998 and the 2002 national evaluation found
that there were a total of about 2,196 members in 36 projects
and nearly 64,000 hours exchanged. By 2004 the number of projects
had grown to 68 (www.timebanks.co.uk). Community currencies are
attracting participants among the most socially excluded neighbourhoods
in the UK, perhaps because they offer accessible means to redefine
social institutions of wealth and work. In many cases, LETS and
time banks have emerged as community responses to the negative
impacts of unrestrained global capitalism.
— A third example of a local currency
designed for a specific purpose is the NU-card, a "green
point" currency in the Netherlands. This currency is designed
to promote environmentally-friendly consumer behaviour, and
acts like a reward card. Points are earned when residents separate
their waste for recycling, use public transport, or shop locally.
Extra points can be earned by purchasing "green" or
"ethical" produce (such as organic food, fairly traded
goods, recycled products etc) at a range of participating local
stores. The points can then be redeemed for more sustainable consumer
goods, public transport passes, or cinema tickets, or donated
to charity. In this way, there are incentives to change behaviour
both when earning and spending the points, and private businesses
benefit at the same time as public goals are met. The points circulate
in a closed-loop system, and card scanners in participating shops
feed data into a central set of accounts. This currency has been
piloted in Rotterdam in 2002, in the Netherlands, and there is
growing interest in adopting the card elsewhere to promote sustainable
consumption.
Promote Public Engagement
Government can also take steps to increase the
number of people willing and able to take a pro-active stance
towards sustainable development. The traditional measure of political
engagement—voting turnout in a representative democracy—has
shown a sharp decline in recent years, with increasing numbers
of people feeling detached from public life. Local participative
or direct democracy address this democratic gap, and have become
increasingly important as a structure for engaging citizens fully
with decision-making. A recent Swiss study of the impacts of direct
democracy found that greater participation in local referenda
boosted quality of life regardless of the outcomes; in other words,
being consulted, having one's views heard and taken into account,
and feeling valued for this participation is rewarding in its
own right, and fosters greater civic engagement. There is enormous
scope for innovation in local government to introduce a range
of empowering, educational deliberative tools which aim to
combat fatalism by bringing people together to discuss pertinent
issues, and enabling decisions to be taken as far as possible
by the communities affected by them. Examples include Future Search
meetings to plan local development; and Democs ((Deliberative
meetings organized by citizens) is a new initiative which helps
any group of people to learn about and work through an issue of
public policy (see work by the New Economics Foundation); while
time banks have already been piloted as a tool to reward public
input into local public service delivery.
It is my considered view that the government
would achieve more significant shifts towards sustainable consumption
by supporting and making space for enthusiastic grassroots community
groups, rather than through a top-down coercive approach, or by
leaving it to the market.
April 2004
24 This submission also included an article by Dr Seyfang,
entitled "Consuming Values and Contested Cultures: A Critical
Analysis of the UK Strategy for Sustainable Consumption and Production",
which is due to be published in the forthcoming September edition
of Review of Social Economy, Vol. 62, No 3. Please also see www.uea.ac.uk/e175. Back
|
