International Conference on Engineering Education in Sustainable DevelopmentEESD2004

D. Ferrer-Balas, K. F. Mulder, J. Bruno and R. Sans (Eds.) © CIMNE and UPC Barcelona, 2004

Sustainability: necessity for a prosperous society

Prof. Dr. J.T.F. Fokkema Delft University of Technology

INTRODUCTION Ladies and Gentlemen, the Netherlands is often seen as one of the leading nations in sustainability issues. In 1972 most copies of the report of The Club of Rome were sold in Japan and in the Netherlands. Does this mean that the Japanese and the Dutch were gentler towards the environment than other people? The attitude towards Sustainability in these countries is probably not caused by a moral superiority or an over average cosmopolitism of its inhabitants. Sustainability is a necessity for these densely populated countries, with a very high standard of living, that depend so much on external resources, but that are thereby also very vulnerable. The Netherlands is more or less an experimental area in Sustainability and I will first explain why. THE NETHERLANDS IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT The specific situation of the Netherlands with respect to the environment creates a great sense of urgency. In the Netherlands the combination of

• a high population density • a relative high level of welfare and • its delta character

results in the highest burden on the environment per surface area. As a nation the Netherlands have:

• The highest GNP, the highest energy use, the greatest number of cars, the greatest length of highways and (until recently) the greatest number of pigs per square km

• An economy which depends for 50 % on import/export. Raw materials are imported and products are exported while the wastes in between remain in the Netherlands. A striking example is pigs breeding: soya fodder is imported from South America and Asia and pigs meat is exported keeping an enormous quantity of manure threatening soil and groundwater inland.

• The geography of The Netherlands as a delta means a very vulnerable soil, which is easily poisoned once waste is deposited. Moreover much waste is “imported” by the rivers from upstream countries. This poisons the sludge that settles in riverbeds and harbours.

In the sixties and seventies of the last century the Dutch situation seemed to be rather unique. Nowadays we know that with growing world and national economies this pattern can be found in many densely populated areas giving rise to global messages of concern, global threats and global challenges as described in “Our Common Future” the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987).

Meanwhile, many of the direct effects of pollution have been mastered in the past 30 years: inland waters are cleaner, toxic emissions lower and the most polluted soil has been cleaned. However, we failed to develop solutions for persistent threats such as exhaustion of non-renewable resources, extirpation of species and climate change. Sectors causing these problems are especially

• mobility and transportation, • power supply and • agricultural production (fourth National Environmental Policy Plan, 2001).

Mastering these threats will require radical transformations, or `transitions` being long lasting (several decades!) societal transformation paths in economy, social and institutional structures and technological systems. The need for a Sustainable Development is therefore perhaps less visible, but still most urgent in country that is so dependent on transport, energy and agriculture, and meanwhile so vulnerable by its open economy, dense population, and high levels of consumption. The Netherlands therefore has to be in front of Sustainable Development, whether we want it or not.

WHY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT? When we take our moral responsibility towards future generations serious we have to keep some almost inescapable developments in mind:

• the world population may grow up to 10 billion in 2050, 1.5 times the current population.

• our economies require economic growth levels of some 2 - 3 % in order to be able adapt to external changes.

• a stable and peaceful world requires bridging the prosperity gap between developed and developing nations.

s

To achieve this last goal, economic growth levels of 5 - 10 % are needed. (China and India nowadays grow this fast). This creates a further burden for the overexploited environment and resources, which is not acceptable. We have to become 5 – 50 times better in utilising the fruits of the Earth in the coming decades (Factor approach, Holdren and Ehrlich, 1974, Weterings et al, 1992, Factor 10 Club 1997). Like we say in mining: “we have to move from poachers to protector of the earth”. This creates new challenges for engineers and new opportunities for business. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development comprises many companies, like Shell and Unilever, that are leading in Sustainable Development. These companies recognise that it is in the interest of business to work towards Sustainable Development. Consumers were for long regarded as only being interested in price and performance of products. Governments had to deal with the general (political/ethical) issues regarding industrial production like public health, safety and emission levels. However, modern consumers concern for the consequences of their consumption and for the long-term availability of goods and services of acceptable quality at acceptable prices. Morality and strategic pragmatism increasingly mixes up in the entanglement of people and organizations.

Figure 1 : Sustainable Development: Morality and Strategy

2

Avoiding social, economic, ecological and managerial risks through depletion of resources and instability is in the interest of all actors who are involved in production and consumption. A new techno-economic paradigm, pushing technology towards sustainability could be rooted in: * a fundamental (economic) shift of relative costs of dominant production factors * a gradual but fundamental cultural shift of public attitude with respect to future and

environmental interests.

TECHNOLOGY IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Technology will be a crucial element for Sustainable Development. Many critics have argued that technology is the root cause of the lack of sustainability in modern society1. Their argument assigns the key role in the development of the problems to technology. However, the history of technology presents another picture: social forces shaped technology. Technologies reflected the moral, social and political orders of the time of their creation, and so will it be in the future. With the compelling need for a leap in the environmental efficiency of our production of goods and services, technological change must be at the very heart of sustainable development. A factor 5-50 of improvement in the environmental productivity of technologies is needed. However, it is clear that not every single technology will be able to be improved so much. Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity now takes places with efficiencies of over 50 % so a factor 20 improvement in fuel efficiency of electricity production is not within reach. In order to improve the environmental efficiency of domestic power consumption, various technological options have to be combined.

• Lower power consumption by more efficient appliances • Higher efficiency in fossil fuel technologies • Micro-heat/power cogeneration • Various renewable energy technologies like PV, wind, biomass, geothermal, waves • Nuclear fusion • The (still) unknown

The resources for R&D will probably be insufficient for all options. Which route to be picked is hard to decide, and cannot be decided by engineers and industry alone. A high level of public consensus is needed to be able to generate the political support to provide sufficient means for these solutions. We do not need to go through similar controversies as the ones we experienced on nuclear energy in the 1970s and early 80s. Therefore, technological sustainability research will need foresight studies, careful strategic planning and process management, in which engineers will have to cooperate extensively with social scientists.

AHEAD IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Although the urgency of a sustainable development is recognised by many people in business, science, government and NGO’s both national and international, it is not yet a common shared orientation for society. Strong forces resist to the necessary changes (Jansen 1993, Factor 10 club 1997). On the one hand market prices react only to short term shortages or overproduction and therefore they do not signal the gradual depletion of non-renewable resources. Regulative or financial policy instruments will only be regarded by business as credible and consistent for limited periods of time (up to about ten years) and as long as they are equally enforced in all nations, which is highly unlikely.

1 For example the philosophers Habermass and Marcuse. More recently also Ernest Braun (1995) and Kirkpatrick Sale (1995).

3

Policy instruments to launch development of sustainable technology should therefore be based on a shared responsibility and consensus among the relevant actors. The how.

Sustainable development is a complex process and encloses apart from leaps in technology, also changes in behaviour, organisation, institutions, power relations and many other non-technical aspects. The latter may be even more decisive for implementation than the availability of “technology”. Complex social processes of change require “systems renewal” or transitions. As a concept, transitions integrate technological, cultural and structural elements. Characteristic for transitions is:

• the long-term orientation • a variety of stakeholders • fields of conflicting interests • an environment with large uncertainties.

Technological renewal is then a transdisciplinary activity involving all relevant stakeholders and disciplines. Robert et al. (2002) gave an overview of applied tools in strategic sustainable development. Already the recognition of “needs” and their definition as a starting point deviates from the more traditional engineering approach to depart from technologies that are applied within existing structures. In many cases technology development as a quest will be the initiating action. In those cases the engineer has to ascertain transdisciplinarity from the very beginning e.g. the problem definition of fulfilling the needs in a sustainable manner. In my closing address of EESD 1 (Fokkema, 2002), I concluded that:”Also more research could be done on methods of the development and the transfer of knowledge in the field of technology, innovation and education, all focussing on sustainable development.” Such research could contribute to structure the transition inside the educational system embedded in society. Concluding on the “what and how”, three dimensions of change may be identified:

Cu ltu re – S tru ctu re - Tech n o log y

In volved P arties

Optim isation -Im provem en t -Ren ew a l

Figure 2. Three interacting dimensions of change for achieving sustainable development. Shaping Future Orientations: The origins. Transition is the newest branch of exploring options for a sustainable future. Looking back on the developments of technologies of future exploration we may conclude that the approach of transition is firmly rooted in the experiences of the last decades: the experiences with future exploration techniques and the experiences with (more) democratic decision making in technology development: Imaging the future: From Extrapolation to Exploration.

Extrapolation was an accepted methodology to prepare policy decisions in the early seventies

4

of the last century. An example is the Note on nuclear energy by the Netherlands minister of Economic Affairs in 1971. Based on extrapolation of the use of electricity the minister opted for 50.000 MW capacity for electricity production of which 25.000 MW nuclear in the year 2000. The actual installed capacity in the Netherlands in 2000 was 16.000 MW of which 600 MW nuclear. Scenario building is a more advanced approach. Two modes can be distinguished according to Jantsch, OECD (1969) in the OECD conference on planning in Bellagio in 1968: “explorative” starting from the existing situation (“forecasting”) on the one hand and “normative” based on orientation from a realistic future image (“backcasting”) on the other (see Annex 1). Already in his time Jantsch recognised the mutual interrelationships between technology, men, nature and society.

Technology

Society

Men

Nature

Figure 3: Interrelations in integrative planning (Jantsch, 1969)

Jantsch proposed feedback loops in integrative planning based on material and non-material resources (see Annex 2). In the same Bellagio conference Forrester (1969) presented the dynamic interaction model, which was applied in “The limits to growth” (Meadows et al 1972). The OECD 1979 scenario study called Interfutures, “Facing the future, mastering the probable, managing the unpredictable” is a future exploration on a normative basis: “liberalisation of trade” taking environmental degradation for granted. “Our common future” clearly is a normative exploration as well. Apart from the exploration mode it brought in a new element: “world wide participation of stakeholders”. This brings us to the second root of modern technology development. Future Technology: Decision-making.

During the turbulent times of the 1970’s the democratisation movement affected many domains of society. It did not leave the development of new technologies untouched. Parliaments were often confronted by technologies that created social conflict. Organisations were developed to generate information on (effects of) new technologies for public debate and political decision-making. An example was the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) that was intended to assess new technologies before they diffused into society. However it became clear that this form of technology evaluation was not effective in improving public decision-making regarding technology. Social effects of technologies were

• often hardly predictable • judged differently according to political preference • often not caused by new technology alone

Technology Assessment therefore developed from being primarily a desktop method of technology impact analysis to a process of organising strategic debates on technology (Smits & Leyten, 1991). A follow up in technology assessment was the constructive technology assessment approach (Daey Ouwens et al., 1987, Rip et al. 1995). It aims at involving stakeholders from the very beginning of the technology design process, starting with the

5

formulation of the problem to be solved. Constructive Technology Assessment marks the roots of public participation in policy making and future exploration. An early example (with some 40.000 participants) of this approach was the Dutch “Societal debate on energy policy” from 1981 to 1984 (Jansen, 1985). Engineering future technology: Designing future options. “Fulfilling peoples needs of the present and future generations” according to the Brundtland report requires actions on the short, medium and long term focusing respectively on optimisation, improvement and redesign and restructuring of the production and consumption system (see § 1.1). The first two approaches may be regarded to belong to the traditional engineering practise. The latter, demanding systems renewal, however requires new approaches. This has been studied in the program “Sustainable Technology Development” (Weaver, 2000) and evaluated in the European Research Project AIRP (Hinterberger et al, 2003). The challenge is to find options to fulfil people's needs using the environment at large in a radical more efficient way. “Needs” is therefore the basic starting point to innovate new systems of provision. The approach combines the normative scenario building as suggested by Jantsch in the late sixties and the Constructive Technology Assessment resulting in an image of future needs as a source of options for engineering challenges. Similar innovative processes are applied in other fields than technology development e.g. in regional rural development (Hildebrand et al, 2002). Building of engineering capacity: Parallel Routes. Transition of society for sustainability is a process that consists of numerous initiatives for renewal throughout society. The management and development of such initiatives is a new way of managing complex social processes (Martens, 2002). Although the concept of such operations was known, remarkably experience with the practical application in technology development failed almost until the early 1990’s. The urgency of the challenge requires that initiatives have to be taken to achieve timely results in the next decades and at least a start should be made to learn “how to do”. Once first experiences have been obtained evaluation may show up elements of optimal approaches as a basis for formal education. Learning by Doing.

The capacities to initiate, operate and manage these initiatives can be developed in a “learning by doing” manner. The evaluation of some ten sustainability oriented RTD (Research and Technology Development) projects in the European AIRP Project2 led to conclusions on the arrangement of sustainability oriented RTD programs and projects. Participation in such projects is a source of developing new competences for engineers. Learning by Education.

Future capacities are also integrated into education systems. Based on the “backcasting” approach: “Which competences should our engineers have 10 years from now and what should the university look like”. Delft University of Technology developed a program to embed sustainability in all its education programs. So far the university is well under way with three lines in education:

6

2 AIRP stands for: Adaptive Integration of sustainable Research and Policy for development.

• All graduates should be aware of the significance of sustainability for technology and

its applications, • Sustainability should be integrated in all regular courses and • Every student can incorporate sustainability in their graduation.

In research spearhead programs have been initiated in important fields as Renewable Energy, Sustainable process technology and Sustainability in the Built Environment.

Practice, Research and Education in interaction.

Almost no interconnection exists between the two manners of capacity building for system renewal: in learning by doing and by education. In both cases experiences are gained in sustainable development oriented research. To my opinion exchange of experience and results between the practical R&D projects on the one hand and the educational system on the other could deliver interesting synergy. However realisation of such synergy demands the effort to structure the process of implementation of systems renewal in both domains. Backcasting from a future of full implementation of systems renewal in the practise of R&D shows a possible structuring path of interaction between practise and education.

20502000 TIME

1

Renewed Systemsto Fulfil

peoples needsBackasting

Evaluation of SR experiences

SR Model developped

Future orientations designed

LT strategic Planning is common sense

SR in policy Programs

Mod

el S

D in

tegr

atio

n in

edu

atio

n de

velo

pped

Cop

erni

cus C

harte

r im

plem

ente

d

Post

aca

dem

ic S

R c

ours

es

Post

aca

dem

ic S

R c

ours

es

SR in

tegr

ated

in e

duca

tion

Backast

ing

SR implemented

SUBSEQUENT STEPS

Figure 5: Programming of full implementation of systems renewal

ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Technological universities and institutes should take the responsibility to integrate technologies into a sustainable development. They could develop and collect further knowledge on the capacities of a sustaining ecosystem and contribute to operationalise sustainability criteria as indicators and guidelines for technology development. Current trajectories of technology development could be checked on their ability to fit in sustainability. Methods for long term programming of research and development directed to sustainable technology, and of programming of infrastructure in a context of sustainable development could be developed. Challenges of sustainability for technology, could be detected, indicated and articulated to clients to contribute to consciousness and changing attitudes of clients with respect to sustainable technology. To this aim ways to check and to work out orders for development and application of technology in the context of sustainable development could be explored and market conditions for introduction and application of new technology could be elaborated. They could create (financial and personnel) facilities for development of sustainable technology as a basic condition for continuity of the institute and develop a sense of cooperation for approaches which exceed the own reach of institute, discipline etc. and develop structures for cooperative funding.

7

The future engineer: Attitude, Competences and Skills In my closing address in the 2002 EESD conference I stated:

“I believe that each engineer has a responsibility to society. Each engineer should have an awareness of possible ethical, social, environmental, aesthetic and economic implications of their work and to act accordingly. An engineer should know the basic principles and implications of sustainable development and should be able to incorporate this in their work. It is a new element of the qualification profile of our graduates.”

This is particularly at stake in finding solutions in a Sustainable Development. Sustainable Technology Development is a transdisciplinary playing field where the engineer cooperates with other disciplines (even within the engineering profession) and non-scientific stakeholders. In this playing field the parties may identify sustainability problems but usually they expect the engineer to come up with a solution. The engineer has to meet a threefold challenge: • Providing new creative approaches on the one hand and setting up and executing R&D

programs that produce results. • Cooperating with other disciplines and lay stakeholders on one hand and guarding

disciplinary quality on the other. • Bridging moralism and strategic pragmatism. These challenges reflect in the attitude, the skills and the knowledge, which we expect from our future engineers. I hope we have a very successful conference that contributes to educate engineers that will meet these challenges.

STUDENT

ATTITUDE SKILLS

KNOWLEDGE

8

ATTITUDE:

• Sustainability oriented

• Cooperative

SKILLS

• Integral approach

• Application oriented

• Systemic

• Communicative

KNOWLEDGE

• Technology

• Culture ( Behavior, Need-orientation)

• Structure (Institutions, Economy etc)17

Graduation in sustainable development.

Final Terms.•Ability to apply most relevant methods,

•Ability to analyze complex (environmental) problem situations and to develop alternative approaches,

•Ability to design and implement solutions

•Ability to signalize, anticipate and eventually sweep away barriers to solutions

Figure 5, 6 & 7: Terms for engineers in sustainable development REFERENCES Braun, E., 1995, Futile Progress, Technology's empty promise, Earthscan

Brundtland, Gro Harlem, 1987, World Commission on Environment and Development, ‘Our common future’, Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York. Daey Ouwens, C., Van Hoogstraten, P., Jelsma, J., Prakke, F., Rip, A., 1987, Constructief Technologisch Aspectenonderzoek; een Verkenning NOTA V4, Den Haag Factor 10 Club, 1997, Statement to Government and Business Leaders, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Energy and Environment, E-mail: info@mail.wupperinst.org

8

9

Fokkema J.T., 2002, Closing address Engineering Education in Sustainable Development, Forrester, J., 1968, Planning under the dynamic influences of complex social systems, in Jantsch, E. Perspectives of planning, OECD, Paris 1969, p. 237-254. Hildebrand et al, 2002, System Innovations in Rural Areas, Innovation Network Rural Areas and Agricultural Systems, Report 03.2.069, ISBN 90-5059-215-5, http://www.agro.nl/innovatienetwerk/ Hinterberger F., 2003, Adaptive Integration of Research and Policy for Sustainable Development – Prospects for the European Research Area, Project No STPA – 2001-00007 Holdren, J.P., Ehrlich, P.R., 1974, Human Population and the Global Environment, American Scientist, Vol 62, no 3, pp 282-292. Jansen. L., 1985, Handling a debate on a source of severe tension, in A geography of Public Relations Trends, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, (Kluwer Academic Publishers Group) Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster, p 148-154. Jansen J.L.A., 1993, 'Towards a sustainable future: En route with technology!', in: 'The Environment: London, Towards a sustainable future.', p 497-523, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/ London. Jantsch, E., 1968, Integrative planning of technology, in Jantsch, E. Perspectives of planning, OECD, Paris, p. 179-185. Jantsch, E. Perspectives of planning, OECD, Parijs 1969, Working Symposium 27/10-2/11 1968 Bellagio Martens, P., Rotmans, J., 2002, “Transitions in a globalising world”, Swets & Zeitlinger B.V, Lisse , ISBN 90 265 1921 4 (HB). Meadows D. H. et al., 1972, Limits to Growth, Universe Books, New York, based on J.W. Forrester, World Dynamics, Cambridge MA, Wright Allen Press, 1971. Netherlands National Environmental Policy Plan IV 2001 OECD, 1979, Interfutures, “Facing the future, mastering the probable, managing the unpredictable”. Rip, A., Misa, T., Schot, J., 1995, Managing Technology in Society, The approach of constructive technology assessment, Frances Pinter Robèrt K.H. et al., 2002, "Strategic sustainable development - selection, design and synergies of applied tools”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 10 (3) pp. 197-214

10

Sale, K., 1995, Rebels against the Future, The Luddites and their War on the Industrial Revolution, Addison Wesley. Smits R. and Leyten J.,(1991) Technology Assessment, Waakhond of Speurhond, Kerckebosch bv, Zeist 357 pgs, ISBN 90-6720-101-4. English Summary p 339-341. Weaver, P. et al., 2000, Sustainable Technology Development, ISBN 1 874719 09 8, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield UK., 256 pp Weterings R.A.P.M., Opschoor J.B., 1992, The Ecocapacity as a challenge to technolo-gical development, Advisory Council for Research on Nature and Environment, Rijswijk. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York