Just six meters of sea level rise will drastically change coastal habitation and ecosystems. (photo courtesy of NASA)

Small islands are highly susceptible to the consequences of climate change. Rising sea levels will completely submerge certain inhabited islands, and warming temperatures will affect fisheries that such small islands depend on for sustenance and employment. Indeed, the small Pacific island of Kiribati is already negotiating to buy land on Fiji. The smaller, lower atolls of Kiribati are experiencing encroachment, and many villagers have been forced to abandon their homes. Kiribati’s president hopes to purchase 2000 hectares on Fiji so the 113,000 inhabitants of Kiribati can relocate when the sea overwhelms their land.

As climate change is already evident to the small island nations, a group of their political leaders came together in an attempt to secure the future of their people, and on May 8^th signed the Barbados Declaration.

The declaration is a commitment to “providing all households with access to modern and affordable renewable energy services, while eradicating poverty, safeguarding the environment and providing new opportunities for sustainable development and economic growth.” The declaration also demonstrates the vulnerability of small island nations to climate change, including narrow resource bases, high dependency on imports, generally large national debts, vulnerability to energy and food price shocks, and remoteness. Additionally, the declaration emphasizes the importance of shifting to renewable energy sources. It states that there is an abundance of opportunities for wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean energy; however, the global community has struggled to make renewable energy cost-effective and efficient for the global poor.

A view of the photovoltaic panels for a renewable energy project in Fakaofo, Tokelau. (photo courtesy of United Nations Photo via flickr)

Many of the small islands set truly ambitious goals: Tuvalu and the Cook Islands plan to use renewable energy to meet 100 percent of their electrical demand by 2020. Tokelau, an island off New Zealand, plans to be completely energy self-sufficient in 2012, relying on coconut biofuel and solar panels. Other islands will attempt to reduce firewood dependence, build wind turbines, reduce oil imports, and provide electricity to more inhabitants. Thus far, 19 countries have committed to the program voluntarily. Although these island nations show a commitment to renewable energy use and environmental initiatives, if the agreement fails to have enforcement mechanisms, countries may fail to meet their target. This would be disastrous not only for the climate, but even more so for the island nations, who stand to lose everything if they cannot reform their practices.

The Barbados Declaration is certainly a critical step toward encouraging the use of renewable energy and in combating climate change. Yet, it remains to be seen if the declaration will achieve its desired outcome. While the success of Rio +20 cannot be predicted, the declaration argues that Rio+20 this June must produce ambitious outcomes that accommodate the needs of small islands.

(Written by Alison Singer; Edited by Antonia Sohns)

This cycle of insecurity and falling employment is one that currently plagues much of the world. Therefore, the question arises, how can societies develop an employment system that is equitable and economically and environmentally sustainable? Nicholas Ashford and Ralph Hall offer a multitude of suggestions in their new book, Technology, Globalization, and Sustainable Development: Transforming the Industrial State. Some of the solutions they propose include taxing excess profits, integrating labor into production and services once again encouraging leasing and sharing programs, taxing corporations that shift production abroad, and relieving payroll taxes.

Some of these strategies have already been implemented, with varying degrees of success. In Germany, for example, massive job losses were prevented by providing subsidies to workers and shortening their work hours. This prevented Germany from suffering the same rate of unemployment as other EU nations in the wake of the 2008 recession. However, data reveals that although jobs were saved, the low-wage and temporary-job sectors were boosted, thereby increasing wealth inequality. Integrating labor back into production and services is often difficult, as people become accustomed to conducting business on the Internet or using technology in place of human-labor—but perhaps not in all cases. Few people I know would complain if a human helped them check out their groceries or check in for their flight, instead of being forced to try on their own with a not-so-friendly touch screen computer.

Now you can scan and bag your own groceries as you shop and then just pay a machine after you're done. Soon groceries stores will only need to employ one person simply to check your receipt as you leave. (Image courtesy of Ben Schumin via Wikimedia)

In this context, however, worker-owned co-operatives have been successful, with the Mondragon Corporation in Spain as the largest example.  Although some worker-owned co-operatives have survived in the current economic climate, it is difficult to imagine a world in which multinational corporations evolve to be more worker-owned—not without some serious interventions by governments at least.

One way governments can help workers is by cutting payroll taxes. This will encourage employment as it allows employers more flexible finances. The United States recently extended its payroll tax cut in an effort to encourage employment and growth. However, the government depends on revenues generated from the payroll tax, and so as it cuts payroll taxes, it must find another revenue stream. One possibility is to shift payroll taxes to pollution or carbon taxes, thereby taxing “what we burn, not what we earn.” Several countries including Russia, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, and Sweden have already transitioned so they tax pollution instead  of increasing payroll taxes. This method is both logical and economically viable.

Other tax reforms can contribute to a sustainable employment regime. For example, taxing technology could produce government revenue while still encouraging technological innovation and employment. There are already small fees on some technological conveniences, such as online orders and payments. Perhaps taxing airport kiosks, self-checkouts, and other forms of convenience that replace jobs is a solution? But then again, this transitions the cost of technological innovation onto the consumer, so probably wouldn’t deter this technological shift. Also, taxing corporations that move their productions overseas would encourage localized growth and employment.

What is clear is that the traditional employment mechanisms have failed in the current economic crisis. Though labor reform may be difficult, having enough job opportunities for all is absolutely critical for a sustainable and prosperous society.

(Written by Alison Singer; Edited by Antonia Sohns)

A new book explores the function of the economy.

The authors’ main question is obvious from the book’s title: what is the economy for? They argue that this is the fundamental question that must be asked before any policy shifts. And they also argue that there must be policy shifts: a shift away from “grow, baby, grow” towards a sustainable economy. In order to make that shift, we need to understand what a sustainable economy entails, and that’s why their seemingly simple question is so important.

The economy is arguably for a multitude of things: material stuff, education, health, leisure, fairness, insurance, secure retirement, a sustainable environment, and the list could go on endlessly. De Graaf, a filmmaker and activist, and Batker, and ecological economist, ultimately side with Gifford Pinchot, and argue that the economy serves to provide “the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest run” (28). The rest of the book is taken up with explaining how our current (and their focus is on the U.S.) system fails to do this, and providing examples of how we could improve in different areas: labor, health, education, environment, poverty, food.

The book is highly dependent on examples of what they consider successful programs from other countries, mostly European, mostly Scandinavian. Indeed, while their examples are relevant and cogent, they could have done with more diversity. Everyone knows Denmark is full of highly taxed, very happy people; however, there must be examples from Latin America and Africa of policies that are moving those regions towards sustainable prosperity. While the United States is certainly more similar to Western Europe, it seems slightly shortsighted to limit our emulation to a certain region when there is surely a wealth of useful knowledge and examples throughout the world. However, that criticism aside, the examples they do use offer plenty of insight and deserve serious attention from policymakers here in the States.

If we had a policy similar to Germany’s Kurzarbeit, in which workers can reduce their hours and have some of the income loss compensated by the government, we may have faced less unemployment during the recent Recession. Bhutan may be onto something with their Gross National Happiness indicator (one of the most insistent argument in the book is that the GDP needs to quickly become an artifact of the past). Let’s guarantee mothers some time off after giving birth, like every country in world does, except Liberia, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, and the United States. In fact, there were times while reading that the U.S. felt like a third-world country – we Americans don’t have vacation time, maternity (or paternity) leave, or a national health care system.  And at the same time, we are constantly told to make unhealthy choices – eat this processed food! Spend time in front of a screen instead of with people! Make sure you work really long hours so you can buy this fancy, cool, entirely unnecessary gadget!

Bhutan's Gross National Happiness is an inspiring new way to measure a country's success. (photo courtesy of ctsnow via flickr)

The book, while necessarily limited in depth (after all, it does need to end at some point), offers a brief course in U.S. economic history, following the rise and fall and rise of laissez-faire economics, particularly outlining our recent financial woes. It uses pertinent examples as a way to offer suggestions on how to ensure that the future economy does provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people for the longest time. And these goods are not simply material goods, but include social, cultural, and physical goods. The authors argue for a more equitable society, one that includes a safety net, one that rewards hard work, one that values more than consumption. You might disagree with some of their suggestions. In fact, sometimes de Graaf and Batker disagree, and that is one of the joys of reading this book. It’s not just a book about politics, or economics. It’s a book about people, written by two people, who speak about their lives – their families, their experiences, their doubts and fears. They intersperse relevant personal anecdotes, which are sometimes touching, sometimes provocative, and yes, oftentimes funny.

(Written by Alison Singer)

What's for lunch? How about some Lunchmeat? Nachos? Pop? Some Ice Cream? A T-shirt? Not the healthiest options at this oasis in the food desert. (Image courtesy of Zol87 via Flickr.)

Many of the statistics are discouraging. “Food deserts” are more common in urban areas, leaving communities devoid of anything except convenience stores and packaged, artificial foods (Cheetos and Pop Tarts anyone?). Children’s lives are also lacking exercise like never before. According to New York Times health columnist Jane Brody, “In 1974, 66 percent of all children walked or biked to school. By 2000, that number had dropped to 13 percent.”

These problems are a result of poor urban and community planning. Many children in suburban areas are confined to their neighborhoods because public transport isn’t available or reliable. Urban children also have fewer free spaces to play or (often) safe streets to walk on.

Jason Corburn, Associate Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley sums it up well: “the major barrier to a healthy city is inequality. Poor neighborhoods are just more toxic and have higher rates of childhood illness.”

This inequality is evident in the community Bayview-Hunters Point in San Francisco. The area has high numbers of African Americans and Latinos and higher rates of adult and pediatric asthma, adult diabetes, and congestive heart failure than anywhere else in the city. The same situation is replicated in major cities all across the United States including New York City, where neighborhoods in the Bronx, Harlem and Brooklyn have double the number of cases of diabetes, asthma and HIV/AIDS.

Where one lives affects health and many areas are failing to keep their residents healthy. Fortunately, the flaws of urban planning have been scrutinized over the past decade and a few particular urban centers have set the stage for future success. Urban Atlanta–a whopping 8,000 square miles where the average resident drives 66 miles a day, is undergoing a change.

As Brody notes, “In what may be the crown jewel in environmental restructuring for better health, the city plans to create an urban paradise from an abandoned railroad corridor over the next two decades, with light rail and 22 miles of walking and biking trails.”

People getting fresh air and exercise in High Line Park in Manhattan (image courtesy of Beyond My Ken via Wikipedia)

This is similar to High Line Park in Manhattan’s West Side, which is a public park converted from a defunct freight rail line. Now it is a model for how cities across the U.S.  can reuse their seemingly “unusable” industrial infrastructure.

Syracuse is another city rejuvenating its neighborhoods. The industrial ghost town has renovated the saltworks district to include mixed-income and energy-saving housing while establishing public parks. Even more remarkable are the community gardens including the Southwest Urban Community Farm, that are located in food deserts. These gardens create a sense of ownership in the community while providing residents with healthy alternatives to fast food.

Communities all across America are at a crossroads. They can continue to expand suburbia, lengthen commutes and heighten inequalities. Or, they can start shifting momentum away from bad planning – one refurbished railroad or community garden at a time. The choice must be made – and soon.

(Written by Nina Keehan; Edited by Antonia Sohns)

A farm in Boulder (courtesy of cool.as.a.cucumber via Flickr)

Boulder, Colorado is often in the news for being happy, healthy, and crazy about all things local—but not often does news coverage dive into policy efforts that underlie that hearty sheen.

One key: initiatives by the county government to support a local food system.

Boulder County leases approximately 25,000 acres to local farmers and ranchers in an effort to promote sustainable agriculture.  This acreage is part of approximately 90,000 acres of county-managed open space.

Having such local agricultural production capacity is remarkable in Colorado’s sprawling Front Range.  And heightened consumer interest in local foods has been a boon for local producers.

In addition to shaping consumer demands – the “all things local” craze also created new producer desires.  More people began envisioning lives as small-scale producers – a few acres of organic vegetables, a lavender farm, some goats.

Yet historically, most of the farmers and ranchers leasing county land operated at a large scale.  Niwot Farms, for example, is a natural beef operation with more than 1,000 head of cattle.  And according to Mary Young, a writer for The Blue Line, third generation Boulder County farmer Jules Van Thuyne, Jr. runs a  1,800-acre operation, with 950 acres leased from the county.

Yet the county sought a way to facilitate smaller scale-farming dreams.  And today, small producers (typically smaller than 20 acres) have access to public lands through recently developed regulations for a Growers’ Association model for agricultural leases.

Through the Association model, several producers work together on one larger parcel of land with access to shared resources, such as water, coordinated among members.  According to Adrian Card, Boulder County’s Colorado State University Extension Agent, the county currently has 3 Growers’ Associations encompassing 8 producers, with annual leases running $100/acre.

Hay Season on a Boulder Farm (courtesy of Let Ideas Compete via Flickr)

Growers’ Association producers include Ollin Farms, a family business committed to sustainable agriculture that operates a farmers’ market booth, on-farm dinners, summer youth camps and also offers shares in its “community supported agriculture” (CSA).  Organic produce, eggs, and honey can also be found at Hoot n’ Howl Farm, one of three farms which comprise the Gunbarrel Growers’ Association.

A key challenge of the program has been helping would-be farmers realistically consider the requirements of running a production business.  Boulder County’s Extension Office offers a variety of informative print material, as well as interactive listservs and business workshops. The county also requires each member of a prospective GA have farming experience and/or direct mentorship and oversight from an experienced farmer.

Many local producers have developed close connections with community grocers and farmers’ markets.  Boulder’s top restaurants, including Frasca, Salt, and the Kitchen also foster close connections with local farmers and ranchers.  The Black Cat Farm Table Bistro has gone so far as to create their own organic 70 acre farm which supplies the restaurant, a farmers’ market booth, as well regular food deliveries for their membership-based community food share.

This strong connection between local restaurants and food producers – from vegetables to mushrooms to poultry — was noted in Boulder’s 2010 recognition as “America’s Foodiest Town” by Bon Appetit magazine.

Boulder County’s first Growers’ Association hit the ground in 2008 and the program is following a path of slow, careful growth.  According to Extension Agent Adrian Card, key is to ensure potential producers have a solid business plan based on realistic expectations.  A successful backyard garden isn’t sufficient to ensure larger-scale success.

Still, with its innovative policy setting and relatively strong local market, Boulder County offers a place where ambitious small-scale producers can pursue their farming dreams.  Would-be farmers must bring experience, determination and a willingness to work hard, but the Growers Association Model provides access to another central requirement – land.

—

Written by Lori M. Hunter, Associate Professor of Sociology and Environmental Studies at University of Colorado at Boulder

A View of Central Park by Mathew Knott via Flickr

New York City. For some people the first thoughts that pop into their head are Central Park, urban density, low-ecological impact. Others think of traffic jams, trash piled high on city streets, and the consumeristic orgy that is Times Square. But in truth, it is neither of these extremes. Or perhaps it is both. The Big Apple is at the same time a leader in going green while also showing us the flaws in urbanization.

The issue of sustainable cities is not going away anytime soon. Historically, the world’s population, as it increased, has grown more urban. According to the United Nations Population Fund, already half of the world’s population lives in cities – a number that is projected to increase to 5 billion people by 2030. This means that cities are quickly becoming a focal point for sustainability.

David Owen explains one sustainable aspect of NYC in an article for The New Yorker.

“By the most significant measures, New York is the greenest community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world. The most devastating damage humans have done to the environment has arisen from the heedless burning of fossil fuels, a category in which New Yorkers are practically prehistoric. The average Manhattanite consumes gasoline at a rate that the country as a whole hasn’t matched since the mid-nineteen-twenties, when the most widely owned car in the United States was the Ford Model T. Eighty-two per cent of Manhattan residents travel to work by public transit, by bicycle, or on foot. “

The city also has 27,000 acres of parks divided between Central Park, Riverside Park and Prospect Park – an area the size of Disney World. Those are indeed both very positive trends, however, NYC is not exempt from many of the sustainability issues inherent in urban areas.

Where does all our waste go? (Courtesy of United Nations Photo via flickr.)

One of the major issues is disposing of the daily 24,000 tons of waste its resident and visitors produce per day. The Department of Sanitation deals with nearly 13,000 tons waste generated by residents, while the rest is dealt with by private companies. A growing lack of landfill space combined with increasing restrictions and costs mean New York City will be facing a crisis in the near future.  Or if the city chooses to burn the waste, then the problem gets distributed to the global population through the atmosphere. Ultimately, the best solution to the rotten half of the Big Apple’s sustainability record is a major economic shift that centers on degrowth rather than continued growth.

A shift to a shorter work week, simpler lifestyles, less consumerism, more public goods to replace private goods and more self-provisioning – what Erik Assadourian describes in Chapter 2 of State of the World 2012, “The Path of Degrowth in Overdeveloped Countries.” That, while not an easy sell, would help to address many of the social, health and environmental problems New Yorkers, Americans, and yes, all people face. And combined with New York’s density and green spaces, The Big Apple would then certainly be one of the greenest cities on the planet.

You can read the first two chapters here or order a copy here.

Enjoy!

About State of the World 2012

In 1992, governments at the Rio Earth Summit made a historic commitment to sustainable development—an economic system that promotes the health of both people and ecosystems. Twenty years and several summits later, human civilization has never been closer to ecological collapse, a third of humanity lives in poverty, and another 2 billion people are projected to join the human race over the next 40 years. How will we move toward sustainable prosperity equitably shared among all even as our cities strain to provide decent jobs, housing, transportation, and social services, and as our ecological systems decline?

To promote discussion around this vital topic at the Rio+20 U.N. Conference and beyond, State of the World 2012: Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity showcases creative policies and fresh approaches that are advancing sustainable development in the twenty-first century. Chapters written by international experts present a comprehensive look at current trends in global economics and sustainability, a policy toolbox of clear solutions to some of our most pressing environmental and human challenges, and a path for reforming economic institutions to promote both ecological health and prosperity.

Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity is the latest publication in the Worldwatch Institute’s flagship State of the World series, which remains the most recognized and authoritative resource for research and policy solutions on critical global issues. State of the World 2012 builds on three decades of experience to offer a clear, pragmatic look at the current state of global ecological systems and the economic forces that are reshaping them—and how we can craft develop more-sustainable and equitable economies in the future.

In Eric Klinenberg’s new book, “Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone”  he disputes the idea that people living alone use more resources than people who are living together with family or friends. As he explains to Mother Jones:

“We need better research on this. People who live alone overwhelmingly tend to live in cities. They tend to live in apartments. They’re less likely to own cars. As individuals, on a per capita basis, their carbon footprint is surely lower than people who live in large detached single-family houses.”

The Greenest Spot in Manhattan (image courtesy of Magnus Nordstrom via Flickr)

So, while there might be benefits to living alone – this is probably only the case in really well-designed urban centers like Manhattan. Manhattanites, for example, use less gas and electricity than most US urban centers. But then again, being more affluent on average, its residents are still inclined to consume far beyond the planet’s means.

Let’s consider what Klinenberg doesn’t: multi-generational homes.

The number of multi-generational households rose 10% between 2007 to 2009 – driven largely by the recession. These households turn out to be a good way to cope with economic downturns, with multi-generational households having lower rates of poverty despite them having lower median incomes. As Erik Assadourian notes in “The Path to Degrowth in Overdeveloped Countries” multi-generational housing could also be an innovative answer to the ecological crisis because the more people in a household the more hands there are for green activities like home childcare, elderly care, cooking, and gardening. Many of these both reduce household costs (and bring new informal economic opportunities) while also reducing ecological impacts – no spinach is more sustainable than the spinach grown in place of the grass in one’s front yard.

U.S. government social marketing poster (from Library of Congress)

In fact, during World War II 40% of all vegetables consumed by households were grown in personal gardens. As Assadourian notes, “Gardening could reduce both household food costs and the ecological impacts of agriculture if people are taught food cultivation strategies that emphasize organic and integrated pest management methods. As climate change disrupts large-scale agriculture and as food-insecure countries ban the export of grain, backyard and community gardens could play a substantial role in food security and community resiliency.”

Of course there are downsides to suburban living where many multi-generational homes are located including commuting long distances, lack of public transport and larger homes. But that of course assumes that there are formal jobs in the consumer economy to commute too. Yet as Assadourian notes, the consumer economy is a model that can’t last too much longer.

While suburbs right now tend to be unsustainable, perhaps one day in the future they will once again be the self-sustaining, homesteading communities of the future, filled with multi-generational households bartering food, skills, and time. Indeed, it appears to be already happening in Greece, where the unraveling of consumer economy seems to be most pronounced.

Aquabus in front of False Creek North in Vancouver--strong efforts to increase density and orient around the pedestrian (photo courtesy of Jennie Moore)

It isn’t easy being green. The City of Vancouver is learning what Kermit the Frog has known for a long time. In a bid to become the world’s Greenest City, Vancouver recently launched its Greenest City Action Plan that includes a goal to reduce its ecological footprint 33% by 2015, en route to a longer term goal to become a “one-planet” city. Ten action areas spanning food, transportation, buildings, economy, climate change, waste management, etc., outline a path towards the lighter footprint objective.

The problem is that the sum total of the initiatives identified to date in the Greenest City Action Plan will only contribute to an 11.5% reduction in the City’s ecological footprint. Additional stretch measures in the eleventh action area, called “Achieve a Lighter Footprint” could bring the total reduction to 23%, which is still short of the 33% target and nowhere near the level of reduction that would be needed to achieve one-planet living.

One-planet living is a concept that uses the ecological footprint as a metric. If the world’s total biocapacity were equitably distributed among the global population, with a minimum of 12% set aside for natural habitat preservation, the resulting allowance would be 1.8 hectares of land with global average ecosystem productivity per person. Contrast this with the 9 hectares required to support an average US citizen or the 7 hectares required to support a Canadian. For people in these countries, getting to one-planet living requires a factor-five (80%) reduction in current levels of energy and materials consumption and waste production!

To understand the implications of this shift, consider the following numbers, based on my comprehensive assessment of Vancouver’s ecological footprint:

1. Half of Vancouver’s footprint is attributable to food (production, distribution, retailing, etc.)  And half of the food footprint itself is attributable to meat, fish and eggs (with the majority attributable to red meat).
2. Transportation accounts for 20% of Vancouver’s footprint, and half of that is due to single-occupant vehicle travel. If you add the embodied energy of the motor vehicles as well as impacts from air travel, then together these account for almost 90% of Vancouver’s total transportation footprint.
3. Buildings account for 16% of Vancouver’s footprint, and of this amount 80% is attributable to the energy required to operate residential, commercial and institutional buildings.
4. Consumables, meaning goods that we purchase, account for 12% of Vancouver’s footprint. The big ticket item here is paper which accounts for half the consumables footprint, followed by plastics, organic wastes, metals, glass, household hygiene (including diapers), etc.

Vancouver's Ecological Footprint Based on Consumption Activity (Calculated by Jennie Moore)

So, if we want to get to one-planet living, there doesn’t appear to be much wiggle room for avoiding some of the largest contributors: red meat, car travel (air travel too), home energy use, and personal consumption. No surprises so far, right? But here is the kicker: to actually get to one-planet living, we’re not just talking about a little less meat consumption or a more thoughtful approach to the commute to work. We are talking about massive changes to life as we know it. Virtual elimination of animal proteins in the diet (think vegan) and abandonment of personal automobile ownership are critical considerations. In other words, highly efficient use of energy in the home and an emphasis on recycling or even consuming less just won’t cut it. If one-planet living is the goal, then radical transformation of our lifestyles has to be on the table. And since we know that individuals embedded in a system won’t be able to make dramatic personal changes if the system doesn’t support them (how many vegans living without cars do you know?), this means the government is going to have to play a central role in supporting more sustainable individual consumption choices.

These statements may seem to be political non-starters, but the sheer scale of the problem forces us to reconcile with some tough decisions. Perhaps Kermit’s insect-eating, lily-pad lifestyle is on the right track? Or if it isn’t, at least it’s clear that our cow-eating, iPad lifestyle is not.

A high-end luxury condominium complex under development in Vancouver. Note the starting price is $5 million, but ownership comes with access to the "communal" Ferrari--and what could be more sustainable than a shared car? (Photo courtesy of Jennie Moore)

—

Jennie Moore is Director of Sustainable Development and Environmental Stewardship at the British Columbia Institute of Technology. She is currently completing her PhD under the supervision of Professor Emeritus William E. Rees, researching what it will take to make Vancouver a One-Planet City.

Only Peru finds itself in the sustainability sweet spot--and just barely. (Figure 1-2 from State of the World 2012)

What does a truly sustainable country look like?  How do you measure true sustainability in a country? One way has been to compare how well a country achieves human needs, and at what ecological cost. WWF Global arrives at this by comparing two measures: the United Nation’s Human Development Index and the Ecological Footprint measure. To be sustainable, a country must first get a Human Development Index score of over 0.08–a number the UN deems the lowest threshold for a high level of human development (i.e. meeting the needs of the present). The country must also have an ecological footprint of less than 1.8 hectares per person, the global average limit for not undermining the earth’s ability to regenerate (i.e. meeting the needs of the future).

According to that calculus, in 2007 only one country in the world could be listed as sustainable: Peru, with a Human Development Index of 0.086 and an ecological footprint of 1.5 hectares. Cuba had been in that sustainability sweet spot the year before, but had just missed the ecological footprint cut-off. Ecuador and Columbia, as well, hovered on the edge of sustainability.

Of course, sustainability is easier for a country blessed with abundant natural resources. Approximately 50 percent of Peru is covered by lush rainforest, providing ample timber and water resources. While much of Peru’s rainforests are conserved, there is a high level of both legal and illegal deforestation due to illegal squatting, road expansion, mining, and petroleum drilling. Though Peru struggles with wealth inequity and environmental degradation, it recognizes that moving towards sustainable prosperity requires government intervention. Peru’s Environment Minister hopes to virtually eliminate deforestation using international aid in addition to Peru’s own resources. Peru’s Prime Minister has vowed to not allow environmental pollution, and the government demands environmental impact assessment for mining operations. However, it appears that much of Peru’s sustainability is due to natural resources and a decent level of equity that ensures a basic level of development for most. Of course, there are also a variety of organizations working to protect Peru’s natural resources and thus create a truly sustainable country.

Cuba found itself in this sustainability sweet spot for a very different set of reasons. Cuba’s agricultural system depended to a large degree on exporting sugar to the Soviet Union—a very resource intensive and fragile farming strategy. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba was forced to fend for itself, and in doing so promoted organic farming and land conservation. In fact, Cuba is one of the few nations that has actually seen an increase in forest cover. Of course Cuba didn’t have much choice—thanks to the US trade embargo—but one could argue that at this point nobody has a choice, thanks to the rapid breakdown of Earth’s ecosystems services, including climate regulation.

When faced with crisis, Cuba responded with massive agricultural reforms focusing on local, sustainable and organic agriculture (as the below documentary describes). The government turned over half of the state-held farmland to the people in the form of cooperatives. Farmers were permitted to sell excess yield at farmers’ markets, leading to higher incomes and affordable pricing. Citizens were allowed to take over vacant lots as long as they were used for food production. The Asociacion Cubana de Agricultura Organica was created to promote organic farming techniques, such as crop rotation, composting, and green manure, and encourage knowledge-sharing. Around 75 percent of Cuba’s agriculture is now organic.

A rural mountain farm (photo courtesy of Peter Griffin via public domain photos)