Sustainable consumption - Sustainable Europe Research Institute ...

Sustainable consumption Political debate and actual impact

Doris A. Fuchs, Sylvia Lorek

Nr. 4, March 2004 ISSN 1729-3545

Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) Garnisongasse 7/27, 1090 Vienna, Austria Tel.: +43-1-9690728-0, Fax: +43-1-9690728-17 www.seri.at, The [email protected]

The authors Doris Fuchs, PhD is assistant professor at the chair of International Politics at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. Contact: Doris Fuchs, PhD Oettingenstr. 67, R. G 1.49 80538 Münche n, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

Sylvia Lorek is researcher at the Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) in Overath, Germany. Contact: Sylvia Lorek Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) / Overath Office Glatzer Str. 1 51491 Overath, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

SERI Background Papers present a comprehensive overview on the state of the art in SERI's research fields, addressing researchers from related research fields.

1

Abstract This paper explores the prospects for global sustainable consumption governance. Analyzing developments in this area since the Rio Summit and Agenda 21, the paper highlights that core actors and efforts have neglected essential parts of a sustainable consumption governance strategy. While they focus on the efficiency of consumption, questions regarding the sustainability of consumption levels and necessary fundamental changes in consumption patterns in industrialized countries have been neglected on the official agenda. The paper traces this development through the work of the major IGOs engaged in developing sustainable consumption governance. Therefore it mainly reflects preparations and results of the Johannesburg summit. The paper briefly delineates the alignment of interests of core actors in the sustainable consumption arena against substantial progress in the development of governance strategies. In the course of this task, the paper argues that "globalization" and "global governance" with their respective influences on the relevant actors strengthen rather tha n weaken the forces supporting overconsumption. In the end, the paper asks, but cannot answer, the question how global sustainable consumption governance can and will be achieved. Thereby it hopes to create a new impetus for in-depth scholarly and societal debates about strong sustainable consumption.

2

1 Introduction This paper examines prospects for global sustainable consumption governance. It reviews developments in this field so far and explores potentials and pitfalls for sustainable consumption in the context of the Johannesburg summit and thereafter. In particular, the paper highlights the obstacles to fundamental rather than marginal progress in sustainable consumption governance. It argues that a necessary requirement for achieving sustainable consumption, fundamental changes in consumption patterns and reductions in levels of consumption in industrialized countries, will not be pursued. In fact, this topic has been effectively silenced in political debates and only exists now in marginal sectors of society and academic research or as kind of reminders in official documents. The most the core actors in the sustainable consumption arena are willing to support are marginal improvements in eco-efficiency. Moreover, the paper postulates that globalization and global governance with their respective influence on the relevant actors, in particular consumers, governments, and business, strengthen rather than weaken the forces lined up in support of continued overconsumption1 Thus, sustainable consumption governance, like the new economic order or other concepts related to global social justice, may well remain an elusive idea and political rhetoric. (Global) sustainable consumption governance is highly necessary. Without sustainable consumption there canno t be sustainable development. Unsustainable consumption patterns and levels, in particular in industrialized countries, are a major cause if not the major cause of environmental degradation in the world today (UNDP 1998, Worldwatch 2004). Increasingly, scholars have also highlighted the social unsustainability of these consumption patterns and levels (Daly 1998, Mayer 1998). Furthermore, previous research has identified the limits to national governmental influence on the sustainability of consumption patterns in a globalizing world, highlighting the need for multilateral if not global sustainable consumption governance (Fuchs and Lorek 2002). But what is sustainable consumption? The Oslo Roundtable in 1994 defined sustainable consumption as “...the use of services and related products which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of further generations” (Ministry of Environment Norway 1994, this definition was adopted by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) 1

The literature(s) on globalization and global governance use a wide range of definitions for the two concepts and identify various relationships between the respective empirical dynamics. The most useful definition of globalization is "deterritorialization" and the reconstruction of socio-geographic space (Scholte 2000). The most frequently used definition of global governance is that of multi-level, multi-actor governance arrangements (Brand et al. 2000). One may identify the shift in political capacities among state and non-state actors typically discussed in the context of global governance as an element or consequence of globalization (Scholte 2000).

3

in 1995). To be more specific, however, in the eyes of most sustainable consumption scholars (e.g. Daly 1998, Princen 2003, Spangenberg and Lorek 2002), moving towards sustainable consumption will require two developments: increases in the (eco-)efficiency of consumption (often via more efficient production patterns or an efficiency friendly design) and fundamental changes in consumption patterns and reductions in consumption levels 2 in industrialized countries. 3 The former aspect focuses on reducing resource consumption per consumption unit as a function of technological improvement, for instance. Thus, rather than driving a car that needs 10 liters of gasoline per 100 kilometers, one may drive a car that will only use 3 liters. The latter aspect, however, is not a function of technological improvements but of changes in individual and societal behavior. Fundamentally changing consumption patterns can mean, for example, going by train rather than by car. Reducing consumption levels can mean simply traveling less (far). These latter changes will be called strong sustainable consumption for short in the context of this paper. It is these changes that are politically most controversial in industrialized countries, of course, and yet those that need to happen if we want to achieve sustainable consumption. Indeed, it is those changes that a focus on sustainable consumption rather than sustainable production or sustainable developments highlights (Princen 2001). As the paper will show, these fundamental changes are neglected from the political sustainable consumption debate for the most part (in the present and likely also in the future). The core of the paper presents an analysis of developments in global sustainable consumption governance to date and an assessment of prospects for substantial progress in global sustainable consumption governance. Beginning with the Earth Summit in 1992, at which Agenda 21 firmly established sustainable consumption on the global governance agenda, the paper explores the various activities of the prominent global (and some national) actors in this respect. Here, the paper highlights in particular the work of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Furthermore, the paper delineates preparations outcome and follow up with respect to the issue of sustainable consumption for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. In the course of this analysis, the paper will show the changing emphasis on the global sustainable consumption debate and, in particular, the missing emphasis on strong sustainable consumption.

2

Discussions of consumption, over-consumption and sustainability are prone to confusion in terminology between consumption of goods and services (demand and volume, mostly linked to individual consumption) and consumption of resources (ecological impact, mostly linked to national consumption). The term 'patterns of consumption' has grown in usage as a way of expressing the linkage between these two aspects of consumption and the impact that arises from the consumption of goods and services and the particular ways such goods and services are produced (UNEP 2002). 3 For this reason, the focus of the paper will be on industrialized countries. The situation for a large part of the population in developing countries is a very different one, of course.

4

Much of this information is known, but presenting it somewhat systematically allows the paper to raise some doubts regarding assessments of future prospects that are too hopeful, be it on the basis of consumers' alleged interest in sustainable consumption or business' alleged willingness to contribute to sustainable consumption. Moreover, this exercise intends to show that current political, economic, and social trends tend to strengthen interests running counter to strong sustainable consumption governance. As the paper demonstrates only very few of the relevant actors, specifically International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and (International acting) Non-Governmental Organizations ((I)NGOs) have a potential interest in initiating and strengthening strong sustainable consumption governance. However, the former tend to be too dependent on governments and the latter too weak and marginal in the overall political game to be able to achieve significant successes. (Strong) global sustainable consumption governance thus is likely to remain a promise unfulfilled.

2 Global Sustainable Consumption Governance: From Rio to Johannesburg Sustainable Consumption was firmly established on the Global Governance Agenda in the course of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21, specifically its fourth chapter, called for the adoption of sustainable consumption patterns. Since then much has happened in terms of global sustainable consumption governance from one perspective, and yet not much at all from another. A number of actors, in particular IGOs, have started working on the issue of sustainable consumption and developed a range of activities (for a listing of major reports issued on the topic see Table 1). Yet, the goals have remained unambitious and the (especially in industrialized countries) politically controversial aspects have been dropped fast from the agenda. According to UNEP, Chapter 4 remains the least implemented of the various chapters of Agenda 21.4 Table 1: Major Reports on Sustainable Consumption Issued by IGOs UN: Changing Consumption Patterns - Report of the Secretary General

1995

OECD: Sustainable Consumption and Production: Clarifying the Concepts

1997

IIED: Unlocking Trade Opportunities: Changing Consumption and Production Patterns UN CHS: Changing Consumption Patterns in Human Settlements,

1997 1997

4

Communication in the context of the promotion of the "Consumption Opportunities" report, January 9. 2002.

5

OECD: Sustainable Consumption Indicators

1998

IIED: Consumption in a Sustainable World (Kabelvag Report)

1998

UN DESA: Measuring Changes in Consumption and Production Patterns . A Set of Indicators UNECE: Recommendations to ECE governments on encouraging local initiatives towards sustainable consumption patterns OECD: Towards more Sustainable Household Consumption Patterns Indicators to measure progress UN: Comprehensive review of changing consumption and production patterns Report of the Secretary - General UN DESA: Trends in Consumption and Production: Household Energy Consumption UNEP/CDG: Sustainable Consumption and Production. Creating Opportunities in a Changing World OECD: Information and Consumer Decision-Making for Sustainable Consumption UNEP: Consumption Opportunities: Strategies for Change

1998

OECD: Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? Trends and Policies in OECD Countries UNEP/CI: Tracking Progress: Implementing Sustainable Consumption Policies UN DESA: Survey of International Activities on Consumption and Production Patterns

2002

1998 1999 1999 1999 2000 2002 2001

2002 2003

Table 2: Reports Issued by NGOs Friends of the Earth Europe (Spangenberg, ed.): Sustainable Europe

1995

World Business Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD): Sustainable Consumption and Production: A Business Perspective Friends of the Earth International: Sustainable Consumption - A Global Perspective, WBCSD: Sustainability Through the Market

1996

Tools for Transition: Transitions to Sustainable Consumption and Production

2001

The World Federation of Advertisers & The European Association of Communications Agencies: Advertising Sector Report: Advertising a Better Quality of Life for all. WBCSD: The Business Case for Sustainable Development

2002

International Coalition for Sustainable Production And Consumption (ICSPAC): Waiting for Delivery

2002

1997 1999

2002

6

Table 3: Selection of Important Conferences 1994 - Soria Moria Symposium (Oslo) 1995 - Oslo Ministerial Roundtable 1995 - Clarifying the Concepts workshop (Rosendal) 1995 - Workshop on Policy Measures for Changing Consumption Patterns (Seoul) 1996 - Workshop on patterns & policies (Brasilia) 1998 – Inter-Regional Expert Group Meeting on the Extension of the UN Guidelines on Consumer Protection ( Sao Paulo) 1998 - Workshop on Indicators for Sustainable Production & Consumption (New York) 1998 - Encouraging Local Initiatives Towards Sustainable Consumption Patterns (Vienna) 1998 - Consumption in a Sustainable World (Kabelvag) 1999 - From Consumer Society to Sustainable Society (Soesterberg) 1999 - Sustainable Consumption: Trends and Traditions in East Asia (Chejudo) 1999 - 7th Session of CSD (New York) 2000 - Creating Opportunities in a Changing World (Berlin) 2002 - Implementing Sustainable Consumption and Production Policies (Paris)

Adapted from: ICSPAC 2002.

Rather than approaching the issue of sustainable consumption in its breadth, i.e. taking on issues of eco-efficiency, of fundamental changes in consumption patterns, and of reductions in consumption levels, global sustainable consumption governance so far has almost exclusively focused on questions of efficiency. Efficiency can be accepted by consumers as a good thing as the classical win-win solution. It certainly can be accepted by business, especially if combined with the raising of hopes for innovations that can sell. The earliest "global" meetings on sustainable consumption, in particular the Oslo meeting in 1994 still defined a much more ambitious agenda for global sustainable consumption governance. It explicitly noted that a focus on eco-efficiency would not provide a sufficiently comprehensive framework for identifying, understanding and changing unsustainable consumption patterns. With time, however, focus and ambitions were systematically reduced. Even when the need for sufficiency is mentioned in (semi)official documents there are no ideas, tool or instruments how to reach it. The main actors in the global sustainable consumption arena have been IGOs. (I)NGOs and some national governments have been active as well, as will be 7

shown below, but the IGOs, in particular the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), 5 UNEP, and parts of the OECD are the ones that have been able to support global sustainable consumption governance in the official arenas. Understandably, much of their work has focused on developing the fundamentals: a common understanding of and framework for sustainable consumption, sustainable consumption indicators, and overviews of potential policy instruments and strategies. Unfortunately, much of their work has also lacked ambition to seriously pursue strong sustainable consumption. 2.1

CSD and DSD

The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) has been among the most active participants in the sustainable consumption arena. In general, the sustainable consumption issue clearly has benefited from the high level and openness of dialogue possible at the CSD, and, in consequence, received some visibility on the global governance agenda. Yet, the CSD has failed in truly fostering the implementation of Agenda 21 in the context of sustainable consumption, due to its lack of support for strong sustainable consumption as a governance goal. The CSD emphasizes that changing consumption and production patterns has been a subject of discussion at all of its sessions. In 1995, the CSD adopted its International Work Program on Changing Consumption and Production Patterns. This program consists of five parts (UN DESA 1995): : 1. Trends in Consumption and Production Patterns 2. Impacts on Developing Countries of Change in Consumption Patterns in Developed Countries 3. Policy Measures to Change Consumption and Production Patterns 4. Voluntary Commitments from Countries/Indicators for Measuring Changes in Consumption and Production Patterns 5. Revision of the UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection As part of the first element, the CSD has pursued a periodic overview of major global and regional trends related to resource consumption and their environmental, social, and economic impacts, for example. Furthermore, reports on trends in production and consumption have been prepared (by DESA) on household energy consumption and the consumption of selected minerals. In addition, a global modeling forum was organized. The third program element, for instance, led to the 5

In its work, it has been fortunate to be able to draw on the technical and organizational resources of the Division for Sustainable Development (DSD) which is part of the Department for Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and affiliated with the UN Secretariat.

8

publication of a report for the seventh session of the CSD in 1999 reviewing chapter 4 of Agenda 21 “Changing Consumption and Production Patterns.” Moreover, DESA has completed a stud y “Promoting Sustainable Production and Consumption: Five Policy Studies” for the CSD looking at acid rain reduction (US), leaded gasoline phase-out (Slovakia, US), palm oil effluent reduction (Malaysia), tradable carbon offset instruments (Costa Rica), and tradable water rights (Chile). As part of the fourth element, the CSD fostered the development of a core set of 17 indicators for monitoring changing consumption and production patterns through expert consultations in 1998. These indicators cover key resources and major consumption clusters, focusing on those with significant environmental impacts and a high susceptibility to public policy intervention. Furthermore, the CSD is developing, or rather has asked other actors and agencies to develop methodology sheets for this set of indicators to provide a basis for continued empirical assessment. Finally, as part of the fifth element, the CSD prepared an extension of the UN Guidelines on Consumer Protection to include sustainable consumption at the request of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The subsequent revised version of the Guidelines was endorsed by ECOSOC in 1999 and adopted by the General Assembly in its decision 54/449. Observers judge this extension of the UN Consumer Protection Guidelines to include sustainable consumption as a significant achievement with respect to the promotion of global sustainable consumption governance.6 Finally, the DSD itself has decided to make changing consumption and production patterns part of its multiyear program besides its work on sustainable development indicators and the transfer of environmentally sustainable technology. Among the valuable contributions of the DSD to the global sustainable consumption agenda is its collaboration with the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). IISD has been responsible from 1997 to 2000 for an interesting website covering definitions and concepts of sustainable consumption, key resources on the topic, and a compendium of policy instruments for changing consumption and production patterns.7 The website was meant as a source of suggestions and examples for governments. Thus, the CSD and DSD have provided important work and input on trends, indicators, and policy measures regarding sustainable consumption. Unfortunately, questions regarding fundamental changes in consumption patterns and reductions in consumption levels have not been officially targeted. They have been raised, of course, in the context of discussions of "common but differentiated responsibilities" at the CSD, in particular its seventh session, one of the primary foci of which was

6

In 2002 UNEP/CI reviewed the implementation of the guidelines. Tracking Progress: Implementing Sustainable Consumption, Paris. 7 The compendium, which unfortunately is very anecdotal to date, collects information on the implementing country and agency, economic sector, target groups, stakeholders, environmental and development objectives, implementation date, and provides some evaluation of the instrument.

9

sustainable consumption. Yet, they have not found their way into official CSD reports and certainly not into global governance strategies for sustainable consumption. 2.2

UNEP

Most of the work on sustainable consumption the United Nations Environmental Program UNEP has pursued since the Earth Summit has been focusing exclusively on increasing the eco-efficiency of consumption with a particular interest in identifying interesting options for innovations for business. In the context of this work, a focus on consuming less was intendedly and explicitly excluded. UNEP's Sustainable Consumption Program is housed in the Production and Consumption Unit of the Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics (DTIE). The Program started in 1998 with the intention to develop demand-side oriented activities to complement DTIE's supply-side oriented ones. Its stated goal is to understand the forces driving global consumption patterns, to develop appropriate activities for business and other stakeholders, and to look for innovation potentials for business, governments and NGOs. For the business focus, the program promotes the adoption of the life cycle approach. With respect to the NGOs, the objective is to help the latter to improve communication by developing strategies for delivering reliable information on consumption, products, and environment, and to foster training and networking activities. 8 With respect to governments, the program aims to persuade governments to put frameworks in place enabling consumers and producers, such as infrastructure measures and the revised UN Consumer Guidelines (see above). Finally, pursuing its goal to analyze consumption patterns and the wants of global consumers, UNEP DTIE has conducted a "global consumer survey", surveying 700 consumers from 6 "global" cities. (Berntley 2000) Furthermore, it is investigating trends and indicators for energy, materials (material flow and waste), water and land; as well as for mobility, consumer goods and services, buildings and housekeeping, food, and recreation. Overall, UNEP's approach would appear quite broad and promising. UNEP DTIE seems to be extremely cautious, however, not to scare away its Northern members. Thus, the head of UNEP DTIE has emphasized that “sustainable consumption is not about consuming less, it is about consuming differently, consuming efficiently, and having an improved quality of life. It also means sharing between the richer and the poorer” (UNEP/CDG 2000). How she is going to achieve the latter, i.e. sharing between the richer and the poorer, without the former, i.e. consumers in industrialized countries consuming less, remains unclear, however. Likewise, the authors of a UNEP DTIE report stress that “in terms of ‘modern’ consumption, the avocation of simply consuming less is not necessarily the most suitable reaction” (Bentley and de Leeuw 2000, p. 6). Furthermore, they postulate that consumers' responsibilities towards others and the earth need to be balanced 8

For example the Youth, SC.net, Indicators, Life Cycle Initiative, and Global Consumer Survey projects.

10

with the "rights of free consumers" (Bentley and de Leeuw 2000, p. 8). This emphasis on the rights rather than responsibilities of consumers, on sustainable consumption as not being about consuming less, presents a major blind spot in the program's efforts. While UNEP presented some disappointing cases of global sustainable consumption governance so far there are recently quite hopeful ones. The strategic policy report "Consumption Opportunities" issued by UNEP in preparation for Johannesburg decidedly included the topic of "appropriate" consumption in its analysis (UNEP 2001). The report was meant to provide an outlook on the issue of sustainable consumption for Johannesburg. It aimed to develop a new structured approach to sustainable consumption and the respective framework and guidelines for action with a particular focus on civil society. UNEP sees this particular report as a major part of its contribution to the implementation of Chapter 4 of Agenda 21. Importantly, in this report thus set up as a crucial element of UNEP's work on sustainable consumption, the author does not shy away from the politically sensitive topic of overconsumption and misconsumption (Princen 2001). While he does not apply these terms in his own framework, his differentiation of four types of consumption and in particular the discussion of appropriate and conscious consumption only thinly veils ideas similar to those captured in Princen's terms. While the report clearly does not promote downshifting as a primary goal, neither does it neglect the need for respective changes in consumption patterns and levels. Unfortunately, the main activity for which the report was used is the Sustainable Consumption Opportunities for Europe (SCOPE) project run by UNEP's Regional Office for Europe (ROE) in collaboration with UNEP DTIE. While this project is described by UNEP as a pan-European initiative to raise awareness and sensitize policy makers on the issue of sustainable consumption as well as to promote broad dialogue, build consensus, and foster action, the project's focus appears to be solely on (the needs, challenges and opportunities of) central and eastern Europe as well as the Newly-Independent States. 9 While the creation of "sustainable consumption coalitions" clearly is important in these countries as well, it is difficult to understand why similar activities in Western Europe are not being pursued more forcefully. Is Eastern Europe really in more need to shift consumption patterns and levels towards sustainability than its Western counterpart? This report seemed to be a starting point with that UNEP is becoming more ambitious with respect to global sustainable consumption governance. In 2002 it issued a Global Status Report identifying six strategic areas that ha ve to be developed to overcome problems in current work on Sustainable Consumption. • Clarifying the various (and often confused) meanings of the term consumption. 9

This project follows up on ROE's previous work in this area and is associated with UNEP DTIE's program of regional roundtables.

11

• •

• • •

Developing better feedback - indices to measure consumption pressure and quality of life, and putting them to use. Finding a more appropriate conceptual schema for describing systems of production and consumption, to allow for more complexity of elements and interactions but still simple enough to assist analysis and intervention. Supporting and enhancing localized campaigns of action to transform consumption of targeted resources or goods and services. Focusing production and consumption-oriented action on the transformation of products and services. Developing and promoting the idea of 'leap-frog' change as a radical shift in existing product, services and business sectors. (UNEP 2002)

Finally, in the preparation of Johannesburg, UNEP quite quickly picked up the idea of a “10-Years Framework of Programmes for Sustainable Production and Consumption” - originally an idea from the European Union - and promoted it. 2.3

OECD

Another important actor among IGOs with substantial work on sustainable consumption is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Appropriately, as one might say, the OECD took on the subject of sustainable consumption in 1995 acknowledging that the OECD countries are home to 19% of world's population but consume 80% of the world’s resources. Based on this background and given the nature of the OECD, it is difficult to decide what one would expect from its sustainable consumption work. On the one side, this would appear the right place to talk about overconsumption. On the other side, the economic basis of the OECD and its sensitivity to particular political interests would prohibit such a focus. Yet, the OECD has initiated quite interesting work on environmental issues, targeting the right consumption clusters in their studies. The OECD's work on consumption and environment is housed in its integrated work program Environmental Impacts of Production and Consumption. The focus of this program is on resource efficiency and the link between technological change and the environment, through which the program aims to explore the means by which environmental improve ments and economic growth can be mutually supporting. Thus, the framework for the consumption work is clearly set, and not in a direction challenging the predominant neoliberal/growth framework. The Consumption and Environment work itself focuses on data and analysis with the aim to help countries reduce environmental impacts of household consumption patterns, with a particular focus on tourism, food, energy, and water consumption. The core elements of the work are similar to that of the CSD and include the development of a conceptual framework, indicators, as well as analyses of trends in and policy options for OECD countries. However, the OECD explicitly concentrates on selected sectors and consumption clusters, specifically food, travel, 12

and housing. With respect to the conceptual framework, the OECD chooses to look at household consumption patterns, i.e. final consumption, to complement its existing work on the supply side. (OECD 2002b) For the policy studies, the OECD published an overview of policy instruments for sustainable consumption, on information and consumer decision making for sustainable consumption, and on the question of participatory decision making for sustainable consumption. With regard to the development of indicators, the OECD's stated goal is to relate available economic and environmental data to conceptual and policy work.(OECD 1998) Unfortunately it missed to develop an coherent framework but listed indicators related to household consumption and to economic consumption without clarification in a way that is misleading for political decision making. (Lorek/Spangenberg 2001) Again, therefore, the overall objective of the program appears to be broad and ambitious tackling the most important aspects. Yet, it remains to be seen whether the restrictive frame will allow the development of sufficiently strong recommendations for actions that go beyond the aim of improving eco-efficiency and the mutual pursuit of economic growth and environmental quality. A focus on environmental measures in the context of the pursuit of economic growth does not bode well for strong sustainable consumption. Meanwhile the OECD finished its work on sustainable consumption. A follow up in form of an offensive lobbying for the adoption of the policy recommendation figured out in their three years research can hardly be recognized and is limited to internal debate and promotion. The OECD Forum 2003 dealing with the WSSD follow up, and the implementation of sustainable development in general do not mention the aspect of sustainable consumption. Other Actors, like National governments, (I)NGOs, researchers and research networks have also been active in the area of sustainable consumption. Clearly, these actors are not in the same privileged position as IGOs to serious ly forge global agreements on sustainable consumption measures. Nevertheless, their work eventually contributes to global sustainable consumption governance. Thus, the achievements by (I)NGOs and scholars frequently feed into the know-how of IGOs on the topic. Furthermore, the activities by (I)NGOs in particular are important because of their explicit pursuit of strong sustainable consumption and potential influence on the respective social values. Likewise, efforts by individual governments to promote sustainable consumption dialogue and measures in their countries can prepare the ground for global sustainable consumption governance. Starting with the latter, e.g. the efforts of the Norwegian, German and Danish governments deserve particular attention. These governments have not only sponsored a substantial amount of research on the topic of sustainable consumption, but, more importantly, have taken initiatives to foster global and national sustainable consumption governance. The Norwegian government has been particularly active with respect to the global agenda (see the sustainable consumption workshops in 13

1994 and 1995) and pushed for a broad understanding of requirements and potentials for sustainable consumption governance. It is also very active in collaborating with its respective academic research centers on promoting sustainable consumption ideas at the national level. The German government has initiated a national societal discourse on sustainable consumption bringing the whole range of stakeholders to the table. This discourse has been based on sponsored research on sustainable consumption indicators and policy measures similar to that at the international level, and not closely focused on questions of strong sustainable consumption too much eithe r. However, while the effort failed in terms of achieving a broad consensus on actual policy measures for fostering sustainable consumption, it is this kind of societal discourse that would appear to be an essential ingredient if not requirement for a fundamental shift towards sustainable consumption. The Danish Government, finally, took the lead in the preparation of the WSSD and initiated under its EU presidency the promotion to include the call for a “10-year framework of programmes” into the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. Yet (I) NGOs have played a strong and active role in the global campaign to promote sustainable production and consumption. Throughout the many cycles of the Commission on Sustainable Development, NGOs concerned about production and consumption patterns regularly organized themselves and their advocacy and education efforts and built the International Coalition for Sustainable Production and Consumption (ICSPAC) now. (ICSPAC 2002) As pointed out above, it is these NGOs that really do ask the crucial questions and with their diffusion of alternative lifestyles and values contribute to the development of strong sustainable consumption governance. While these NGOs clearly extend their work beyond national boundaries, however, their influence at the global level is limited. Finally, scholars also have contributed much to the understanding of sustainable consumption. This research tends to address the whole range of sustainable consumption issues, in particular also questions regarding overconsumption and the required reduction of consumption levels and changes in consumption patterns. Assessments of the willingness and ability of consumers to reduce their consumption have been the focus of numerous research efforts and collaborations in Europe, in particular. Unfortunately, however, not much of the critical ideas raised by this research is reflected in the official global sustainable consumption discourse. On the national as well as in the international level, there is insufficient communication between scholars and political decision-makers. Some national and international agencies have assumed the role of a “translator” in this respect, however with rather poor results to date. Global sustainable consumption governance since the Rio Summit, then, has shown a substantial amount of activity, including the publication of numerous reports by a variety of actors. Important fundamental issues have been discussed and aspects developed, such as conceptual frameworks and indicators. From another 14

perspective, however, not enough has happened. Crucial questions have been excluded, and no consensus about common governance strategies for sustainable consumption has developed.

3 The Johannesburg Summit: WSSD and Beyond What progress in global sustainable consumption governance was to be expected from the WSSD in Johannesburg? Based on the previous history of sustainable consumption governance to date, one would not have counted on much more than marginal development. As will be shown below, general preparations on the topic for the summit clearly were insufficient. Moreover, it was unlikely that the difficult items of reductions in consumption levels and fundamental shifts in consumption patterns would receive a place in official agreements. The latest UNEP report with its hinting at these politically sensitive issues may have been too little too late. Thus, governments probably could be expected to express renewed commitments to improve the efficiency of consumption. Any achievements in the area beyond that, i.e. any major commitment to serious moves towards strong sustainable consumption, should have come as a major surprise. The actor to be watched was UNEP, then, after all. To what extent did "Consumption Opportunities" (UNEP 2001) reflect a renewed and serious commitment to sustainable consumption governance? And if it did, how would UNEP pursue that commitment for Johannesburg? UNEP's sustainable consumption program was quite active in preparing reports and fostering dialogue as a lead up to the summit. Unfortunately, much of this work was disappointing. As pointed out above, the regional roundtables used to stimulate debate did not necessarily focus on the regions where unsustainable consumption is the most pressing issue. The advertising sector report, which the advertising industry prepared at UNEP's request in the context of the WSSD sector reports, failed to identify any problems concerned with advertising's influence on consumption levels and patterns. On the contrary, it explicitly rejected the notion that advertising could be responsible for overconsumption. 10 The report was produced by the advertising industry and, perhaps, we should not blame UNEP for its contents. Yet, UNEP's promotion of this report for Johannesburg without a critical evaluation of its claims is quite striking. Next to UNEP, the UN Secretary General contributed to the preparations for Johannesburg. In his report, he named changing unsustainable patterns of production and consumption as one of the top three priorities for the next two to three decades. (UN 2001)

10

Specifically, the report uncritically postulated that advertising provides more power and greater choice for consumers, and increases competition and efficiency thereby forcing down prices so that consumers can improve their quality of life. The report merely notes that advertising can help to spread the concept of sustainable consumption to the extent that it is existing already, and claims that advertising is not able to change or create values, but merely good at detecting new and using them.

15

In addition, the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development issued a report dealing with the topic of sustainable consumption. (Holliday et al. 2002) The report gave consumers the key role in shaping markets, thus placing responsibility firmly on the demand rather than the supply side. It identified increasing eco-efficiency as business's contribution to sustainable consumption but clearly avoided any discussion of the role of business in driving and reducing overconsumption. The only additional responsibility the report attributed to business was to inform consumers about the social and environmental effects of their choices and offer them appropriate ones. Finally, on behalf of the International Coalition on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ICSPAC), the Integrative Strategies Forum prepared the SPAC Watch Report based on the perception of the insufficient seriousness and strength of commitments to action from governments in the course of the second PrepCom for Johannesburg. The contributing NGOs perceived governments to be "rehashing" unfulfilled promises from the last decade and wanted to increase the pressure. (ICSPAC 2002) Corresponding to these expectations, the picture from the Johannesburg summit does indeed not look too promising for the future of (strong) sustainable consumption governance. The relevant articles in the Plan of Implementation are formulated in the weakest language possible, identifying what governments “should” do, and merely asking them to “encourage” a “framework of programs” to foster a shift to more sustainable consumption and production patterns.11 This specification is rather vague and clearly does not mention aspects of strong sustainable consumption, of course. (UN/WSSD 2002) In general, the outcome of the WSSD with respect to strong sustainable consumption is as disappointing as was to be expected. Not only the past, but also the future of sustainable consumption governance looks rather bleak in this respect. This lack of past achievements and future promise may not come as a surprise, however, if one considers the constellation of interests of core actors on the issue, of which the discussion below wants to remind us. But even this outcome has to be seen as a good result in some respects. It was achieved only after long and controversial discussions about the inclusion of the issue of sustainable consumption in the Plan of Implementation as such. Moreover, the aspect of life-cycle analysis is included in an approved UN document for the first time. Thus, the plan provided a (rather weak) ground, on which new developments and initiatives nevertheless may prosper, however. Having been rather invisible in the preparation process of Johannesburg, UN DESA tried to get back into the discussion after the summit. Sustainable Production and Consumption will continue to appear as a cross cutting issue in its 2004-2017 Multi-Year Program of CSD Work. The cycle 2010/2011 will additionally highlight the 11

The central outcome in this respect was the call for governments to: “encourage and promote the development of a 10-year framework of programmes in support of regional and national initiatives to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production...” (UN/WSSD 2002).

16

“Ten Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns” as a thematic cluster. UNEP initiated several regional roundtables to identify elements for the development of programmes that could fit into an overall framework. Interestingly, Latin America and Asia were the first ones to move ahead with these consultations. Europe, in contrast, is still preparing for its first round in Autumn 2004, while there are no signals from public actors in North America that they will pursue this subject. Anyway, the first mayor conference after Johannesburg, the “International Expert Meeting of the 10 Year Framework of Programmes for Sustainable Consumption and Production”, held in Marrakech in June 2003, still and again stressed only the importance to delink economic growth and environmental degradation through improving efficiency and sustainability in the use of resources. Instead of the necessary conceptual shift towards strong sustainable consumption most emphasis was given to strengthen the cooperation of the activities of international organizations, inter-governmental bodies, major global partnerships and certain international non-governmental organizations in the area of sustainable consumption and production. (UN DESA, 2003b)

4 The Prospects for Global Sustainable Consumption Governance Global governance means multi-actor, multi-level governance in which governments may or may not play a prominent role (Brand et al. 2000). Most importantly, other relevant (non-state) actors need to be considered. With respect to sustainable consumption, these actors have to include consumers and business, as well as IGOs and societal organizations. For each of these (and for governments), one can analyze their perspectives and interests with respect to sustainable consumption governance as well as the resources available to them to affect desired changes. The following analysis merely provides a glimpse of the respective picture. Each of the actors deserves more inquiry and space than this paper can provide. However, the brief overview will hopefully be able to show why one may consider the prospects for global sustainable consumption governance bleak. It suggests that we are likely to see continued politically acceptable efforts in terms of improvements in ecoefficiency. However, such improvements will only mean marginal increases in the sustainability of consumption. The major tasks, fundamental changes in consumption patterns and reductions in consumption levels in the North, likely will not be tackled at or after the Johannesburg summit either. If one considers the coalition12 of core actors, consumers, business, and governments, whose primary interests appear to be to maintain overconsumption and even to some extent misconsumption, there is 12

This "coalition" is not based on a formal agreement among these actors, of course, but rather characterized by common interests and perspectives.

17

little potential for other actors to induce substantial change. In fact, current political, economic, and social developments associated with globalization appear to stack the deck further against sustainable consumption governance. 4.1

Consumers

Consumers play a core role with respect to the achievement of sustainable consumption. Globalization optimists even go so far as to celebrate global consumer sovereignty, a belief that the market only produces what consumers demand. While this author does not share that view, one has to acknowledge that it would be difficult to achieve fundamental changes in consumption patterns and levels without the at least partial support of consumers (unless a crisis forces a reduction in consumption on them). While consumers thus play an important role, they clearly are not the only ones responsible for the (un)sustainability of consumption. Consumers make their consumption decisions in a socio-economic context. Their choices are constrained by matters of financial, time, and human resources, by requirements imposed on them by their professional or personal environments (Ropke 1999). Moreover, a large share of decisions about the sustainability of a product is made before the consumer ever makes a consumption choice (Fuchs and Lorek 2002). Thus, the "individualization of responsibility" implied in the green consumerism literature, as well as the market based demand -side argument need to be viewed very critically (Maniates 2001). Nevertheless, consumers do bear part of the responsibility for unsustainable consumption patterns and levels, and thus their support of global sustainable consumption governance is necessary for its success. After all, improvements in the resource efficiency of a product frequently have been undermined by rebound effects. Consumers tend to base their consumption decisions on a multitude of criteria, among which may be environmental, social, or sustainability values. With respect to these latter criteria, the sustainable consumption literature highlights that consumers increasingly lack the ability to apply them due to long and complex commodity chains and the informational distancing of production and consumption decisions (Conca 2001, Princen 1997). Yet, even if consumers had the ability to make sustainable consumption choices in all cases, i.e. if they had the necessary information and resources to do so, there is ample evidence that they still might choose the less sustainable options. Sustainability objectives often rank low compared to competing aims (even in this case, where it is just a question of buying a different product and not foregoing consumption). For the future of sustainable consumption governance, the question is whether this ranking is likely to change in favor of sustainability. Unfortunately, while there are some forces pushing in that direction, the majority of forces appear to take the opposite turn, i.e. strengthen competing criteria for consumption choices. These criteria include the ability of a product to express status, define one's identity, 18

establish belonging, or just function drug-like as a distraction and way of "making oneself feel better" (Ropke 1999, Howarth 1996). 13 After all, the individual need for such functions of consumption is heightened in a globalizing world in which traditional social structures and networks and their status and identity defining influences are increasingly disappearing, interpersonal contacts are briefer and more superficial, and personal insecurity is rising (Scholte 2000). As these consumption criteria are particularly vulnerable to interpersonal comparisons, and the loss of traditional social structures and networks also tends to be accompanied by a loss of social solidarity, the collective action problems associated with a transition to sustainable consumption patterns and levels increase as well. Some movement in other direction exists of course. Consumers are adopting alternative lifestyles based on ideas and values such as simple living or slow food. Global communications also foster the diffusion of these lifestyle models. Individuals have acknowledged the destructive nature of their consumption habits and the increasing burden of accumulated debts in interviews and studies (Schor 1998). If presented with a choice, they claim they would choose more leisure over more money and consumption. Yet their actions frequently are different. Part of that may be due to the context in which consumers have to operate. Part of it may be due to their continued vulnerability to the temptation of further consumption, despite better knowledge. In the sum of global communications "sustainability" messages are overpowered by opposing ones. The advertising industry estimates that every consumer has thousands of brand contacts per day. David may win against Goliath under some circumstances. But even those of us watching the development and diffusion of alternative lifestyles with hope will have to acknowledge that they still are marginal and likely to remain marginal compared to the overall global movement in the other direction. This pessimistic outlook stands in contrast to the frequent proclamation of the new awareness and interest in the environmental and social effects of consumption by consumers. It is becoming more and more evident that consumers are increasingly interested in the “world that lies behind” the product they buy. Apart from price and quality, they want to know how and where and by whom the product has been produced. This increasing awareness about environmental and social issues is a sign of hope. Governments and industry must build on that (Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director, 23 August 1999, UNEP News Release NR 99-90). Surveys show a high ratio of consumers concerned about the impacts of their consumption behavior. Thus, UNEP's global consumer survey indicates that on average 93% of consumers are aware of impact of their consumption patterns on environment, 60% are quite concerned, and more than 30% consider the life behind the product always or most of the time (Bentley 2000). Accordingly, the author claims 13

Biologists will tell you that it is not just these competing criteria that work against sustainable consumption levels but also biological instincts of the (human) animal as a gatherer of resources (Low 1996).

19

that "consumers are calling for change and seem poised to support and accept viable initiatives that will reorient consumption patterns towards sustainability” (Bentley 2000). He sees 83% of consumers as recognizing "their personal responsibility to change consumption habits and promote sustainability" (op.cit.). Interestingly, the ratios are often higher among consumers in developing than in developed countries, which the author explains with the argument that consumers in developing countries may have more reason to distrust the quality and safety of products. Moreover, it is a well known fact that surveys frequently indicate higher levels of environmental awareness and perceived green behavior among individuals than their actions reflect. Looking at consumption levels and patterns in industrialized countries, there is some willingness to pursue green consumerism (on which an entire industry is based) (Conca 2001). There still is only limited willingness to fundamentally change consumption patterns and reduce consumption levels, however. Empirical research has shown that consumers faced with a task to reduce their energy consumption, for instance, are willing to make small sacrifices only and generally fail to achieve the required amount (Gatersleben and Vlek 1998). So campaigns on energy saving lamps are success stories while those for the reduction of car use tend to fail. However, this sho uld not lead to a view, to go the easy way; hoping consumers will become better and more environmentally responsible step by step. The contrary can be observed. Consumer awareness is of limited capacity. (Lorek and Spangenberg, 2002) The situation is different, of course, when it comes to food scares and associated health concerns. In the course of the BSE and Foot and Mouth Disease crises in Europe, a large number of consumers changed their meat eating patterns. Interestingly, consumers reacted much more strongly in some countries than in others. More fundamentally, however, these changes only occurred for a limited period of time. A year after the crises, meat consumption was almost up to the levels of before even in the countries with the strongest consumer reactions such as Germany. There has been some growth in the organic food market, but it remains to be seen whether the latter will really be able to be more than a niche market in the near future. The real challenges of this crisis are changes in the political structures. So, in the example above, the public discussion and reaction were finished after a three month period. The change in Germans policy structure from the former federal agricultural ministry towards a consumer ministry is still fact. Materialistic and most of all individualistic values, which are behind much of the pressure for overconsumption, are still held by majority of population and are experiencing further diffusion through the rise of the new global consumer class (Bentley and de Leeuw 2000). Consumption is perceived as a right, and in those countries where shops are not yet open 24 hours a day there has been pressure for the liberalization of opening hours. Achieving a fundamental change in perception and interests of consumers with respect to sustainable consumption would entail a dramatic turn around in values in the majority of the popula tion. From an optimistic 20

perspective, the growing numbers of consumers pursuing a different consumption and life style may appear promising. From a pessimistic perspective, which may be closer to actual consumption levels and patterns in industrialized countries, achieving the fundamental value shifts necessary for strong sustainable consumption is outrageously difficult at best, and completely impossible at worst. In the pessimistic view, then, only a huge crisis, be it environmental or economic/financial may force unwilling consumers to pursue a more sustainable consumption behavior. 4.2

Business

Business is an interesting actor with respect to sustainable consumption governance for two reasons. First, business is supposed to be one of the major beneficiaries in shifts in political capacity from the state to non-state actors due to globalization and developments in global governance (Scholte 2000). Secondly, business is generally perceived as an actor with very little interest in changing consumption patterns and especially consumption levels towards sustainability. Where, then, can we find any interest of the business sector in strong sustainable consumption measures or at least positions not completely opposed to them? Assuming that business' primary interest is in making profits, selling less in terms of resources used does not have to mean a reduction in profits per se. As long as the profit margin covers the loss in quantity sold, business would not necessarily be opposed. This familiar argument, however, may be unrealistic in terms of the quantity of opportunities for products to distinguish themselves on the basis of quality irrespective of price. Given the competition in the globalized economy, furthermore, competition in terms of prices is still extreme. While consumers do not choose products only on the basis of prices, in a large share of instances relative prices do matter. The current functioning of the global economy is to a large extent based on the mass production of incredibly cheap products (considering the inputs required in terms of labor and resources). This economy would face major problems in an overhaul towards sustainable consumption. One of the reasons for the ability of the economy to provide consumers with such cheap products is the externalization of environmental and social costs. Indeed, pressures for externalization probably have grown even stronger with simultaneous capital concentration and subsidiarization trends in the economy, i.e. with big players a various stages of the product chain being able to squeeze those at the stages in between. Strong sustainability in consumption is not going to be possible without the internalization of these costs. Internalization in turn would mean higher productions costs and prices for consumers, who in turn will no longer be able to buy as much. Thus, business would face a reduction in sales without the associated increase in the profit margin. Besides the higher quality argument, some scholar and practitioners tend to highlight business measures for improvements in corporate citizenship and the sustainability of production as indications that business is changing its environmental 21

and social stance. Observers cite the global diffusion of new business values, the global visibility of misbehavior, or business taking on responsibility as an actor in global governance as reasons for this development. ISO 14000 standards, the clean production goals of the chemical industry, and the Global Compact are examples of such measures. Critical voices, howe ver, have pointed out the weaknesses of these voluntary measures, highlighted the lack of corresponding improvements in actual environmental performance, or questioned whether the new celebrated corporate standards are more than "corporate greenwash" (Clapp 1998, Hawken 1993). More importantly, in our context, none of these measures are able to contribute to improvements in strong sustainable consumption. Fundamentally, the business world tends to reject responsibility for strong sustainable consumption. According to representatives of the business sector, the latter's role with respect to sustainable consumption is to promote eco-efficiency. Fundamentally changing consumption patterns and reducing consumption levels, in particular, does not match with the set up and functioning of today's economic system(s). We should not fall prey to conspiracy theory with respect to the evaluation of business' role, of course. First of all, the business sector is frequently not quite as unified as this superficial assessment suggests. Moreover, images of huge corporations streamlining the world in their best interest painted by globalization pessimists tend to leave out the struggle of these corporations for survival. How many of the "big guys" have suddenly gone bankrupt? While corporations in some ways may be better equipped than governments to function in a globalized world, it would be wrong to assume that they know the right decisions and moves at all times. Rather, it increasingly appears that they "rule the world" on instant guestimates and hope that it works out (which may be all the worse for those "ruled"). Having said that, however, there is preciously little evidence that business is willing and ready to support strong sustainable consumption governance. 4.3

Governments

Government is the third actor to play a major role with respect to sustainable consumption governance. Sustainable consumption, as sustainable development in general, is a public good, and government intervention frequently is needed for the provision of public goods as these tend to be undersupplied by the market. Furthermore, governments influence socio-economic contexts framing and constraining consumption. Finally, governments are still the core actors when it comes to adopting international agreements. Like consumers and business, however, governments in the majority of industrialized countries14 are unlikely to seriously push for strong sustainable consumption governance in the near future. Current global political and economic 14

Given that the focus of the paper is on overconsumption in industrialized countries, only those governments are considered here.

22

trends have induced shifts in political capacity, the indirect effect of which is that governments are becoming less and less likely to take on politically unpopular issues. These shifts in capacity have been one of the central topics of the global governance debate and will not be discussed in detail here (Cutler 1999, Scholte 2000). The tenor of the arguments is that governments have been losing capacity to provide public goods previously associated with their role such as a social security and welfare.15 While the rhetoric of election campaigns suggests the contrary, governments also appear to have less and less potential to influence matters of employment in the context of a globalized economy. In consequence, the state is moving towards a legitimacy crisis. To counter the resulting pressures, politicians increasingly if not exclusively rely on populist rhetoric and policies. Taking on issues in terms of required reductions in consumption levels is highly unlikely in this context. This is particularly the case, since most governments still work within the "growth" discourse, which suggests that economic growth in terms of increasing GDP is the most important goal to strive for. The environment, for instance, only fits into this equation as long as measures to improve environmental quality do not hurt economic growth. One of the frequently proclaimed goals of politicians is to increase consumption in order to foster economic growth. In this ideological framework, ideas about reductions in private consumption are not received favorably. Finally, a significant problem for governmental intervention is that individual governments by themselves have limited control over influences on the consumption patterns and levels of their populations. As previous research has shown, globaliza tion and its associated trends in trade liberalization, capital concentration, and the diffusion of information and values, for instance, strongly influence the sustainability of consumption patterns (Fuchs and Lorek 2001). Individual governments can do little to change the institutional framework of these influences unless they opt out of the present international economic and political systems. In the absence of such a dramatic step, which nobody seems prepared to even consider at this point, multilateral if not global governance strategies in pursuit of sustainable consumption are necessary. However, given how difficult it would be to find individual governments seriously pursuing strong sustainable consumption governance, finding a coalition of governments willing to do so appears impossible. Against this background, real governmental efforts with respect to strong sustainable consumption are unlikely. Governments probably will sign on to continued efforts to increase eco-efficiency to cover their backs in the sustainability debate. They most likely will not agree to and pass policies seriously transforming consumption patterns or reducing consumption levels.

15

Some authors suggest that the state is not losing political capacity, but that it is merely shifting (Hirst and Thompson 1992, Garrett 1998). These authors are in the minority, however, and have not been able to convincingly show that the "new" capacities of the state indeed exist to a sufficient extent to provide renewed legitimacy.

23

4.4

IGOs and (I)NGOs

Given the likely aversion of consumers and business and (therefore) governments to strong sustainable consumption policies, the only hope remaining are IGOs and (I)NGOs. As was shown above, these were also the most active in the sustainable consumption arena so far. Both groups face obstacles as sustainable consumption advocates as well, however, although different ones. IGOs need to be sensitive to governmental interests and therefore frequently tend to stick "politically correct" policy objectives. What is politically correct in this case differs markedly in the view of developed and developing countries, of course. However, there is little evidence of developing countries' ability to successfully put pressure on developed countries in cases in which the latter's interests truly would be hurt. In the sustainable consumption arena, this has led to the focus on improvements in the eco-efficiency of consumption rather than fundamental changes in consumption patterns and reductions in levels in the past. As pointed out earlier, the latest UNEP report takes a much more ambitious stance though, with politically correct phrases only minimally veiling "politically incorrect" goals. It remains to be seen whether there is sufficient stamina and vision to further push in this direction. UNEP has been able to make some headway against national and governmental interests in the past due to strong leadership. Furthermore, while depending on the political acceptance by members, IGOs just like any bureaucracy sometimes justify their existence precisely by forcefully pursuing new societal visions and goals. If the current chairman Klaus Töpfer is able to extend UNEP's role, vision, and resources, as he seems intend to do, there may be hope for strong sustainable consumption strategies on the IGO side. Moreover, a coalition among the IGOs involved in the debate may become possible. (I)NGOs tend to be less dependent on government approval. However, they face the problem of limited capacities. Not only do individual (I)NGOs not have the resources of business or governments. Their communication can hardly compete in quantity with advertising and the images and messages spread by the mass media. (I)NGOs pushing for strong sustainable consumption also face numerous (I)NGOs pushing for the opposite. Any alliance in favor of public transport, for example, is opposed by hugely powerful alliances of car drivers. Yes, the voluntary simplicity and slow food movements are encouraging in a sense, but do they realistically have a chance?

5 Implications and Outlook Where is strong sustainable consumption governance supposed to come from? At the moment, we probably cannot expect much more from Johannesburg and the future of sustainable consumption governance than the continuation of business as usual. In other words, we will talk about how to increase the eco-efficiency of consumption. We will even investigate how developing and transition countries can 24

leapfrog to cleaner consumption and production patterns. However, we will not find much discussion of strategies for achieving strong sustainable consumption in official governance efforts. Help may come from further development and more offensive communication of sustainable consumption indicators. They have the potential to raise the visibility of the issue and increase awareness. However, we have also had better indicators for quality of life than GDP for a while now, and everybody is still using the latter. It remains to be seen, whether the sustainable consumption indicators will indeed be applied and used much. Sustainable consumption, then, may just be another environmental and social (and economic) vision that will not succeed. What should be the response to this insight? On the one side, we may argue that we need to explicitly center debate and efforts on strong sustainable consumption, and that we need to be much more aggressive in the pursuit of value change and transformations in the socio-political and economic framework. In this sense, Germany's societal discourse approach clearly was not a bad idea although once again much too weak. On the other side, we may argue that the difficulty if not impossibility to generate support for strong sustainable consumption means that we should invest everything in achieving the outmost efficiency of consumption possible. In this case, we would need to find and institute measures against any kind rebound effects, of course, which we do not yet have and which may not be possible without the changes in values and frameworks of the first approach. In sum, this paper fails to offer a promising solution and stops at this rather pessimistic assessment of the situation and future of global sustainable consumption governance. Its contribution is to highlight that we should not be too unrealistic in our assessment in terms of the willingness of consumers or business to change, as well as in the willingness and ability of governments to affect the desired changes. If this paper is correct, the future of global sustainable consumption governance rests solely on the shoulders of (I)NGOs with some potential help from IGOs, and is waiting for its time to come.

References Bentley, Matthew. 2000. Global Consumer Class Report: 'In Search of Common Ground for Common Good. Paris: United Nations Environmental Program. Bentley, Matthew, and Baas de Leeuw. 2000. Sustainable Consumption Indicators. Report for UNEP DTIE. Paris: United Nations Environmental Program. Brand, Ulrich, Armin Brunnengräber, Lutz Schrader, Christian Stock, and Peter Wahl. 2000. Global Governance. Alternative zur neoliberalen Globalisierung? Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Charkiewicz, Eva, Sander van Bennekom, and Alex Young. 2001. Transitions to Sustainable Consumption and Production. The Hague. Tools for Transition Clapp, Jennifer. 1998. "The Privatization of Global Environmental Governance." Global

25

Governance 4(3): 295-316. Conca, Ken. 2001. “Consumption and Environment in a Global Economy.” Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): 53-71. Cutler, Claire. 1999. Locating 'Authority' in the Global Political Economy. International Studies Quarterly 42: 59-81. Daly, Herman. 1998. “Consumption: The Economics of Value Added and the Ethics of Value Distributed.” In Westra, Laura, and Patricia Werhane (eds.). The Business of Consumption. Maryland: Rowman & Littelfield. Fuchs, Doris, and Sylvia Lorek. 2001. “An Inquiry into the Impact of Globalization on the Potential for ‘Sustainable Consumption’ in Households.” ProSus Report No. 2/01. Oslo: Program for Research and Documentation for a Sustainable Society, University of Oslo. Fuchs, Doris, and Sylvia Lorek. 2002. "Sustainable Consumption Governance in a Globalizing World." Global Environmental Politics 2(1): 19-45. Friends of the Earth International. 1997. Sustainable Consumption: A Global Perspective. Brussels. Friends of the Earth. Garrett, Geoffrey. 1998. Global Markets and National Politics: Collision Course or Virtuous Cycle. International Organization 52 (4): 787-824. Gatersleben, Brigitta, and Charles Vlek. 1998. "Household Consumption, Quality of Life, and Environmental Impacts: A Psychological Perspective and Empirical Study." In Noorman and Schoot Uiterkamp (eds.). Green Households? Domestic Consumers, Environment, and Sustainability. London: Earthscan. Hawken, Paul. 1993. The Ecology of Commerce. New York: Harper Collins. Hirst, P.; Thompson, G. 1992. The problem of 'globalization': international economic relations, national economic management and the formation of trade blocs. Economy and Society 20 (1): 1-56. Holliday, Charles, Stephan Schmidheiny, and Philip Watts. 2002. Walking the Talk. The Business Case for Sustainable Development. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. Howarth, Richard. 1996. "Status Effects and Environmental Externalities." Ecological Economics 16: 25-34. ICSPAC. 2002. Waiting for Delivery. Integrated Strategies Forum. Rockville: Integrated Strategy Forum. IIED. 1997. Unlocking Trade Opportunities - Changing Consumption and Production Patterns. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. IIED. 1998. Consumption in a Sustainable World (Kabelvag Report). London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Lorek, Sylvia, and Joachim Spangenberg. 2001. “Indicators for Environmentally Sustainable Household Consumption.” Int. J. Sustainable Development 4(1): 101-120. Low, Bobbi. 1996. "Men, Women, and Sustainability." Population and Environment 18(2): 111-141. Maniates, Michael. 2001. "Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?" Global Environmental Politics 1(3): 31-52. Mayer, Don. 1998. “Institutionalizing Overconsumption.” In Westra, Laura, and Patricia Werhane (eds.). The Business of Consumption. Maryland: Rowman & Littelfield. Ministry of the Environment Norway. 1994. Symposium Sustainable Consumption. Oslo: Ministry of the Environment Norway.

26

OECD. 1997. Sustainable Consumption and Production: Clarifying the Concepts. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD. 1998. Sustainable Consumption Indicators. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD. 1999. Towards More Sustainable Household Consumption Patterns - Indicators to Measure Progress. Paris: OECD OECD. 2002a. Report of the Workshop on Information and Consumer Decision-Making for Sustainable Consumption. Paris: OECD. OECD. 2002b. Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? Trends and Policies in OECD Countries. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Princen, Thomas. 1997. “The Shading and Distancing of Commerce: When Internalization Is Not Enough.” Ecological Economics 20: 235-253. Princen, Thomas. 2001. Consumption and its Externalities: Where Economy Meets Ecology. Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): 11-30. Princen, Thomas. 2003. “Principles for Sustainability: From Cooperation and Efficiency to Sufficiency.” Global Environmental Politics 3(1): 33-50. Ropke, Inge. 1999. “The Dynamics of Willingness to Consume.” Ecological Economics 28: 399-420. Scholte, Jan Aart. 2000. Globalization. A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Schor, Juliet. 1998. The Overspent American. Upscaling, Downshifting, and the New Consumer. New York: Basic Books. Schrader, Ulf. 1999. “Consumer Acceptance of Eco-Efficient Services. A German Perspective.” Greener Management International (1): 105-121. Spangenberg, Joachim (ed.). 1995. Sustainable Europe. The Study. Brussels: Friends of the Earth. Spangenberg, Joachim, and Sylvia Lorek. 2002. “Environmentally Sustainable Household Consumption: from Aggregate Environmental Pressures to Priority Fields of Action.” Ecological Economics 43: 127-140. United Nations. 1993. Earth Summit: Agenda 21 - the United Nations programme of action from Rio. New York: United Nations. United Nations. 1995. Changing Consumption and Production Patterns - Report of the Secretary-General. New York: United Nations. United Nations. 1999. Comprehensive Review of Changing Consumption and Production Patterns - Report of the Secretary-General. New York: United Nations. United Nations. 2001. Changing consumption patterns - Report of the Secretary-General. E/CN.17/2001/. UN Conference on Human Settlement. 1997. Changing Consumption Patterns in Human Settlements, Nairobi, UN DESA. 1995. International Work Programme on Changing Consumption and Production Patterns. New York: United Nations. UN-DESA. 1998. Measuring Changes in Consumption and Production Patterns - A Set of Indicators. New York: United Nations. UN DESA. 1998a. “Promoting Sustainable Production and Consumption: Five Policy Studies.” DESA Discussion Paper No. 7. New York: United Nations UN DESA. 1999. “Trends in Consumption and Production: Household Energy Consumption.” DESA Discussion Paper No. 6. New York: United Nations

27

UN DESA. 2003a. “Survey of International Activities on Consumption and Production Patterns.” Background Paper for the International Expert Meeting on a 10 Year Framework of Programmes for Sustainable Consumption and Production. Marrakech: United Nations. UN DESA. 2003b. International Expert Meeting of the 10 Year Framework of Programmes for Sustainable Consumption and Production, Marrakech, June 16–19, 2003. New York: United Nations. UNDP. 1998. Human Development Report 1998. New York: United Nations Development Program. UNECE. 1998. Recommendations to ECE Governments on Encouraging Local Initiatives towards Sustainable Consumption Patterns. Geneva: United Nations Economic Mission for Europe. UNEP. 1999. News Release NR 99-90. Klaus Töpfer, August 23 . Nairobi. UNEP. UNEP. 2001. Consumption Opportunities. Strategies for Change, A Report for DecisionMakers. Paris: United Nations Environmental Program. UNEP. 2002. A Global Status Report. Paris: United Nations Environmental Program. UNEP/CDG. 2000. Sustainable Consumption and Production: Creating Opportunities in a Changing World. Report of the 4th International Business Forum. Berlin: Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft. UNEP/CI. 2002. Tracking Progress: Implementing Sustainable Consumption Policies. Paris: United Nations Environmental Program. UN/WSSD. 2002. Plan of Implementation. New York: United Nations. WBCSD. 1996. Sustainable Consumption and Production: A Business Perspective, Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development. WBCSD. 1999. Sustainability through the market. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development. WBCSD. 2002. Sustainable Production and Consumption: A Business Perspective. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Worldwatch. 2004. State of the World 2004. Washington, D.C. Worldwatch Institute.

28