SoE 2006 > Toward Environmental Sustainability > 1.1 Progress toward environmental sustainability

1.1 Progress toward environmental sustainability

The current rate of progress toward sustainability is not yet sufficient to balance the underlying pattern of environmental decline and historical legacies. Increasing rates of consumption put pressure on the environment, leading to an expanded ecological footprint and further resource use.

Consumption of resources and commodities continues to grow at rates that cannot be sustained indefinitely. Consumption puts pressure on natural resources, and economic and social progress comes with impacts on the environment.

Since SoE 2003, many new techniques and reforms have been implemented and these are expected to significantly boost sustainability in the longer term. However, a number of long-standing key pressures on the environment remain. These include increasing demand for energy, water, transport and commodities along with growing pressure on land for development which are giving rise in particular to increased greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss.

Education programs to better inform the community have made significant progress, with the results reflected in community attitude surveys.

The NSW community is becoming increasingly sophisticated and discriminating in its attitudes and knowledge of environmental issues. The extent to which this translates into personal decisions or actions that take into account the environment is less clear and may depend on convenience and whether the community has been provided with the facilities and services that support behaviour that has lesser environmental impacts. In particular, major personal decisions about housing and lifestyles are, for many, made with little consideration for environmental impacts.

Progress toward sustainability may be assisted by a better integration of regulatory, economic and persuasive approaches. There is considerable support by some groups in the community for regulatory measures. Market-based instruments that reflect the total value of resources and the full environmental cost of production, distribution and disposal can stimulate economic efficiencies and reduce inputs and wastes. However, while some positive examples exist, a range of social, economic and other factors also have to be taken into account in the implementation of policy.

NSW indicators

Introduction

Underlying characteristics of the NSW environment

NSW landscapes have been shaped by extremes in temperature, rainfall and evaporation, and these have produced soils that are often aged and infertile, and scarce water resources.

The climate is generally dry but can be highly variable, with large fluctuations in rainfall, temperature and evaporation across regions and over time. Rainfall across NSW varies by as much as 35% from annual averages, and extended periods of very little rain and drought are normal (ABS 2002a). The trans-Pacific climate phenomenon known as the 'Southern Oscillation' is implicated in these fluctuations, often resulting in extreme weather events, such as major droughts and storms (EPA 1997a; EPA 2000a; WMO 2003). Due to harsh climatic conditions, only about 12% of all rainfall reaches Australian rivers and water storages (NLWRA 2002). These conditions have an impact on soils, rivers and biota through wind and water erosion, desiccation and fire (see Appendix 1).

Australian soils are very old and difficult to restore once they are degraded. For management purposes they are best considered non-renewable. While their physical and nutrient content can be improved for agriculture by adding fertilisers and conditioners, many NSW soils are readily susceptible to degradation (see Land 4.1).

Australian flora and fauna have adapted to natural fluctuations in water supply and extreme conditions. However, human actions to make the land more productive by clearing vegetation, and to moderate variability by controlling river flows, can create conditions that favour exotic species (see Biodiversity 6.4 and Biodiversity 6.9).

Climate variability and change

During the current SoE 2003–06 reporting cycle, much of NSW has experienced drier than average conditions or drought. This is partially reflected in the status and trend of many of the indicators in this report, and it has been difficult to gauge the potential effects of many recent initiatives against this backdrop of adverse weather conditions. However, weather extremes are normal in NSW and are projected to intensify in the future if the effects of climate change become increasingly apparent (see Atmosphere 3.1 and Appendix 1).

Population and economy

In September 2005, the population of NSW was 6.788 million people, around one-third of the Australian total. The distribution of settlement is uneven, with about 85% of people living near the coast and 75% in the highly urbanised environments of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong (ABS 2002b). Over the last century, the NSW population has increased five-fold.

From an economic perspective, average income and wealth are high by world standards, meaning that the people of NSW have a large capacity to improve or to degrade the environment through production activities and purchasing decisions. The NSW economy has increased 28-fold over the last century.

Determinants of environmental sustainability

The NSW Government recognises the need for environmental sustainability and this is expressed through policy and legislative requirements.

The principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) are described broadly in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. The main features are that it 'requires the effective integration of economics and environmental considerations in decision-making' while 'ensuring the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity' and that 'the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations'.

In general terms, the state of the environment reflects the interaction of past and present human activity with its underlying characteristics. Some natural features, such as land and soils, are relatively fixed or change only slowly, while others, such as climate and fauna, are highly variable.

Human activity has impacts that can be managed. The key determinants of human impact include population numbers and settlement patterns, the type and efficiency of production systems, and the level and patterns of consumption. The challenge is to improve environmental outcomes as well as secure high living standards, extracting natural resources at sustainable rates and maximising the efficiency of production systems. Where an economy becomes more efficient or shifts towards products or services with a lower environmental impact, the environmental effects of a given level of activity can be reduced, while living standards remain stable or improve.

Sustainability is covered more generally in the rest of this SoE report. Some trends in economic analysis and the costs and benefits of environment protection are presented in Appendix 3.

This chapter concentrates specifically on mechanisms to integrate social and economic considerations into environmental decision-making and to assess overall progress towards sustainability.

Current status and trends

Measures of environmental performance and sustainability

Gross domestic product

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the conventional indicator of economic activity used to summarise a nation's economic condition and often the implied wellbeing of its citizens. However, from an environmental perspective, there are several reasons why GDP does not provide a measure of progress towards sustainability:

• GDP measures flows, not stocks. For example, GDP records fish catch or grain harvest, but not the status of underlying fish stocks or soils. High GDP can mask levels of resource extraction that are depleting stocks and are unsustainable.
• GDP measures do not include non-monetised aspects of activity. For example, polluting oil spills are recorded as increases in GDP because they generate clean-up activity, while the loss of unique species or harm to ecosystems are generally excluded from GDP.
• Where resources are scarce, GDP measures may actually have an inverse relationship to sustainability. If the resource constraints are due to unsustainable practices, the cost of providing equivalent goods and services is likely to increase, and the resulting rise in GDP reflects a move towards unsustainability.

A number of alternative approaches have been developed that attempt to provide better measures of performance linked to environmental outcomes. No measure has yet gained the acceptance of international agencies. While this is still an evolving field, some valuable insights are available.

Measures of Australia's progress

Measures of Australia's progress, produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, describes the nation's performance on key social, economic and environmental criteria (ABS 2002c; ABS 2004; ABS 2006). Progress is summarised against 14 headline indicators. The ABS does not produce a single progress measure because it is not clear how the different headline indicators should be weighted. In the latest report released this year, progress on the economic and social indicators was generally positive, but the report noted regression on some environmental indicators over the past decade, especially threatened species and soil salinity. A possible interpretation is that Australia's ongoing economic and social success has come at the cost of some negative impacts on the environment.

Ecological footprint analysis

The 'ecological footprint' of a population is the notional amount of 'biologically productive' land required to produce the ecological resources the population consumes and absorb the waste it generates. The area of land is used as a common unit of measure to allow comparisons over time and between populations. The size of the footprint arguably reflects the pressures placed on the environment by the production and consumption of resources. While the ecological footprint is an accounting system for the use of natural resources, it makes no provision for the preservation of biodiversity.

Ecological footprint analysis is a developing concept and a variety of methodologies have emerged to measure it in a range of settings (Wackernagel & Rees 1995; Wackernagel & Silverstein 2000; Lenzen & Murray 2001). Ecological footprint calculations have been commissioned for several NSW SoE reports (Lenzen & Lundie 2002; Lenzen forthcoming) and the latest figures are presented in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: NSW ecological footprint

Source: Lenzen (forthcoming)

While the methodologies have differed and the figures are not directly comparable, several consistent trends have emerged from the various footprint estimates available:

• the residents of the greater Sydney metropolitan area, taken here as the Sydney Statistical Division (SSD) (ABS 2002b), have a slightly larger per capita footprint than the NSW average (Table 1.1), which is, in turn, larger than the benchmark of 5.22 hectares (ha) for the average Australian consumer (Lenzen forthcoming)
• Australian footprints are large by Western standards
• the NSW per capita footprint continues to grow over time.

Both the size and the growth rate of the ecological footprint have implications for sustainability. Continued growth, as shown in the NSW figures, is not sustainable over an extended period.

The consumption of general goods and services constitute the bulk of the ecological footprint (87%) while energy, transport, water and waste together make a relatively small contribution (13%) (Lenzen & Lundie 2002). General household consumption is a significant pressure driving resource depletion and general environmental deterioration without any technological change. The NSW per capita footprint is expected to continue to grow for as long as the economy grows and consumption patterns remain substantially unchanged.

Table 1.2 presents a breakdown of the main components of the ecological footprint for the greater Sydney metropolitan area in 2001 based on the standard commodity classification shares. This shows the largest single component to be retail trade, which includes general distribution, packing, transport and storage. The next largest component is services provided by restaurants and clubs, followed by consumption of meat, meat products and clothing. The top five components all strongly reflect consumption and lifestyle choices.

Table 1.2: Main components of the greater Sydney metropolitan area's ecological footprint, 2001

Source: Lenzen (forthcoming)

An understanding of the global context in which ecological footprint analysis has been developed assists in interpreting the results. The methodology grew out of concerns that consumption rates in modern, developed countries were unsustainable, and the latest figures for global footprints support this given current technologies.

On average the 'biologically productive' area available globally is 1.8 ha per person, whereas human demands placed on the biosphere are now 2.2 ha per person. From this it was concluded that the planet's ecological stocks are being depleted faster than nature can regenerate them, and that human society is operating at the risk of environmental collapse (EEA & GFN 2005).

Estimates of ecological footprint can vary depending on the exact methodology used, but recent global comparisons (Table 1.3) have found that Australia has the fifth-largest ecological footprint in the world at 7.0 ha per person (EEA & GFN 2005), indicating that our consumption of natural resources is high by world standards.

A large footprint can be related to national benefits, such as the generation of societal wealth, which can be used to address other environmental issues (as discussed in the next section). However, a large footprint suggests a cost to the environment, and, like any other environmental pressure, the impacts of consumption need to be addressed.

Table 1.3: Performance of selected countries in a variety of sustainability measures

Source:

^(a) EEA & GFN 2005

^(b) Esty et al. 2005

^(c) Esty et al. 2006

Notes:

^(d) Top 10 countries: United Arab Emirates; US; Canada; Kuwait; Australia; Finland; NZ; Norway; Estonia; Cyprus

^(e) Top 10 countries: Finland; Norway; Uruguay; Sweden; Iceland; Canada; Switzerland; Guyana; Argentina; Austria

^(f) Top 10 countries: NZ; Sweden; Finland; Czech Republic; UK; Austria; Denmark; Canada; Malaysia; Ireland

Environmental Sustainability and Performance indices

The ecological footprint is not a measure of overall sustainability and should be considered alongside other economic and social indicators (ECOTEC 2001). Broader measures of sustainability and environmental performance at the global level are provided by the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and the pilot Environmental Performance Index (EPI) suite of products.

Environmental sustainability is a very broad concept that is difficult to define operationally. It encompasses a nation's natural resource endowments, historical outcomes, present environmental performance and future directions. The ESI attempts to define and standardise measures of sustainability to enable comparison between nations (Global Leaders of Tomorrow Environment Task Force 2002; Esty et al. 2005). It is based on 21 key indicators derived from 76 underlying data sets. The indicators fall into five broad categories: environmental systems; environmental stresses; human vulnerability to environmental risk; social and institutional capacity to respond to issues; and global stewardship. Australia's performance was rated 13th overall out of 146 countries in 2005 (Table 1.3).

The EPI records performance against targets for 16 specific indicators in six policy categories – environmental health; air quality; water resources; productive natural resources; biodiversity and habitat; and sustainable energy – and two overall dimensions of environmental health and ecosystem vitality (Esty et al. 2006). The EPI provides a common platform for examining the relationship between economic competitiveness and environmental performance. Australia rates less well on the EPI, being placed 20th overall out of 133 countries.

The dimensions in which Australia's performance on the EPI lags in particular are greenhouse gas emissions and the protection of biodiversity.

The ESI and EPI are complementary. The ESI is a gauge of a country's long-term trajectory towards sustainability, incorporating its past, present and future. The EPI focuses on current environmental performance and management as reflected in policy settings leading to demonstrable on-the-ground outcomes. The EPI records performance on environmental management issues against absolute targets, whereas the ESI is only a relative measure of progress towards sustainability across a broader range of factors. The ESI incorporates a country's natural endowments while the EPI represents its actual environmental performance.

Overall, Australia performs much better on the ESI and EPI measures than on the ecological footprint (Table 1.3). However, a better rating on the ESI than the EPI might indicate that Australia's performance is boosted by its natural resources and advantages. The four countries that Australia most closely resembles in terms of its ecological footprint profile – Canada, Finland, New Zealand and Sweden – score better on the EPI. The lowest rating of these countries is Canada (eighth), reflecting very strong environmental management, whereas Australia is rated 20th.

Community attitudes and actions

Community and individual concern for the environment and willingness to take action to reduce impacts are vital elements in achieving sustainability. A series of surveys in NSW indicates that the community continues to place a high priority on environmental issues (EPA 1994; EPA 1997b; EPA 2000b; DEC 2003; DEC 2006a). In the 2006 survey, 93% of respondents stated that the environment was either very important or rather important to them personally, third only to family and friends (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: NSW people – personal priorities, 2006

Source: DEC data 2006

Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.

A major finding of the past two surveys has been the growing sophistication of knowledge and attitudes about the environment within the community. This has been evident in increasingly discriminating responses across the range of questions and a significant increase in correct answers to questions that test environmental knowledge. The surveys also reveal considerable support for regulatory measures to protect the environment and a view that all sectors, including individuals, need to do more to contribute to environmental protection (DEC 2003; DEC 2006a).

However, at the same time, the extent to which positive attitudes and knowledge translate into behaviour and actions beneficial to the environment has only grown slowly. The main actions taken in response to these concerns have been to reduce noise, avoid polluting stormwater, reduce the consumption of water and energy, and recycle and reuse old products (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2: NSW people – frequency of environmentally friendly behaviour in the last 12 months (prompted, 2006)

Source: DEC data 2006

Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.

The Sustainable Cities inquiry (HRSCEH 2005) noted an apparent disparity between the generally expressed community support for sustainable living practices and individuals' actual choices of housing and settlement options. Between 1991 and 2001, the average size of new private-sector houses in Australia increased by 15% from 187 to 215 square metres. At the same time, average household size fell and the number of households increased.

Over much the same period, there was also similar growth in the ownership of air conditioners and dishwashers (see Human Settlement 2.3). This inconsistency between environmental attitudes and behaviour appears to be most evident where people's lifestyles and aspirations are affected.

Sustainability education

Environmental education is important in translating community attitudes into actions and behaviours that benefit the environment and achieve sustainability.

Agenda 21 – the global plan for sustainability developed by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 and reaffirmed at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development – states that 'education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address environment and development issues' (UNCED 1992).

The scope and influence of education in achieving environmental sustainability is indicated in Figure 1.3. Educating for ecological sustainability should be broad in scope and address change at all levels in society: individual, household, community, institutional and societal.

Figure 1.3: Scope and influence of education for sustainability

Source: DEC 2006b

The importance of environmental education is also reflected in the NSW Government's statewide environmental education plan, Learning for Sustainability 2007–10 (DEC 2006b), developed by the NSW Council on Environmental Education. The aim of this plan is to achieve 'effective and integrated environmental education which builds the capacity of the people of NSW to be informed and active participants in moving society towards sustainability'.

The plan sets out a range of strategies and actions to achieve seven key outcomes for environmental education in NSW. Progress towards meeting these outcomes and the overall aim is monitored and reported each year and in SoE reports.

There was evidence of progress in each of the outcome areas during the 2002–05 plan (EPA 2002), as summarised below:

• Education is being integrated with a range of regulatory, technical and economic tools and strategies. For example, recent environmental policies in NSW, including the Metropolitan Water Plan 2006 and the NSW Greenhouse Plan 2005, incorporate education and community involvement as core strategies. Environmental education is also included in the corporate plans of some NSW Government agencies and local councils.
• Many environmental education programs of NSW Government agencies and local councils are being coordinated across sectors and delivered with multi-agency input.
• Partnerships and networking between providers of environmental education are common and this contributes to the quality and reach of programs. Most state agency and local government programs are developed in partnership with other organisations.
• Improved access to environmental education for all NSW people is being facilitated by tailoring programs specifically to community needs and using the internet to disseminate information. While the general community is most commonly targeted, programs are also addressing the specific needs of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, ethnic and rural communities, and others.
• Research and evaluation of environmental education programs to enhance their quality is occurring across the sector, although to varying degrees.
• Training and professional development to improve the skills and practices of environmental educators is being provided through a wide range of approaches, including university and vocational education and training courses, capacity-building programs for community groups, and other programs at an organisational level.
• The active and informed participation of all NSW people in creating a sustainable future is the final outcome and the cumulative result of all previous outcomes. This is assessed in the triennial surveys of environmental attitudes, knowledge and behaviour of the NSW community, reported on in the 'Community attitudes and actions' section, above.

While education can bring about a stronger alignment of the knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of individuals, personal responsibility and action can achieve only so much. Regulatory and institutional changes, combined with market reforms, are also required to produce the economic efficiencies and structural adjustments necessary to achieve sustainability in the longer term. The most direct ways to improve sustainability are to reduce consumption and improve the efficiency of production processes by doing more with less. Technology development can make a major contribution. Public policy intervention can include ensuring price signals incorporate environmental costs and providing education to support informed choices.

Response to the issue

In NSW an extensive array of programs is being developed or implemented to make progress towards sustainability, including:

• water-sharing plans to allocate water for environmental flows and human use, and water buy-back to increase its availability for environmental flows (see Water 5.2)
• fundamental and far-reaching reforms to threatened species legislation and biodiversity policy which place a greater emphasis on dealing with threats (see Biodiversity 6.3 and Biodiversity 6.8)
• a proposed 'biobanking' scheme, which will establish a market-based framework for offsetting ecosystem damage that may be caused by development (see Biodiversity 6.3)
• reforms to vegetation legislation and policy to stop broadscale clearing and encourage better land management practices (see Biodiversity 6.1)
• ongoing programs to extend the coverage and representativeness of the terrestrial reserve system (see Biodiversity 6.2) and marine protected areas (see Biodiversity 6.7)
• the NSW Greenhouse Plan 2005, which describes mandatory targets for electricity retailers and strategies to achieve them, and the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme which establishes a local market for emissions reductions and greenhouse credits (see Atmosphere 3.1 and Human Settlement 2.3)
• the Metropolitan Strategy, which provides a planning framework for population growth in Sydney until 2030, based on the guiding principles of economic, social and environmental sustainability (see Human Settlement 2.1, Human Settlement 2.4 and Atmosphere 3.3)
• the Metropolitan Water Plan 2006 to manage Sydney's water supply and demand, encourage recycling, make provision for the current drought and population growth, and improve river health (see Human Settlement 2.2)
• the Building Sustainability Index (BASIX), which enhances the performance of new and redeveloped housing on sustainability criteria, particularly water and energy consumption (see Human Settlement 2.2, Human Settlement 2.3 and Atmosphere 3.1)
• the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2003, which creates a framework and targets to reduce waste and make better use of resources, including proposals for extended producer responsibility mechanisms (see Human Settlement 2.5)
• the Action for Air strategic plan (NSW Government 1998), to improve air quality (see Human Settlement 2.4 and Atmosphere 3.3)
• restructure of the fishing industry and buy-back of commercial fishing licences to ensure the sustainability of fishing stocks (see Biodiversity 6.10)
• the Policy for Sustainable Agriculture in NSW (NSW Agriculture 1998) and the Soilworks program that promote the use of environmental management systems in primary industries (see Land 4.1 and Land 4.2)
• the NSW Biodiversity Strategy (NPWS 1999) to improve knowledge of biodiversity and involve landholders and the community in conserving biodiversity on public and private land (see Biodiversity 6.3)
• the use of economic incentives and market-based approaches to reduce pollution, such as the Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme and load-based licensing for major pollution emitters (see Water 5.3)
• the three-year State environmental education plans, Learning for Sustainability (EPA 2002; DEC 2006b), to increase community awareness and interest in the environment and sustainability
• the statewide community education campaign 'Our Environment – It's a Living Thing', which promotes awareness of sustainable living behaviour.

SoE 2003 described two publications by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists – Blueprint for a Living Continent and Blueprint for a National Water Plan – which summarised key changes the members believed should be adopted to achieve sustainability in natural resource management (Wentworth Group 2002; Wentworth Group 2003). Many of these initiatives have since been incorporated into the recent NSW natural resource management (NRM) reforms (see Appendix 2). There is an emerging understanding that both consumers and producers of goods and services benefit from access to land and natural resources, and both have a responsibility to move NSW to a more sustainable position.

The NRM program is being delivered regionally through catchment management authorities (CMAs), which are responsible for implementing catchment action plans (CAPs). Thirteen statewide targets have been adopted and progress in meeting the targets will be tracked through the NSW Government's Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (MER) strategy. For further details of the NRM reforms and their relationship to SoE reporting, see Appendix 2. Specific NRM targets are outlined in the Land chapter, Water chapter and Biodiversity chapter of this report.

Significant gains have been achieved in some environmental spheres over recent decades. Highlights include reductions in air emissions from vehicles and industry, leading to better air quality in urban areas and greatly reduced pollution from industry (see Atmosphere 3.3). Improved sewage treatment has also resulted in better recreational water quality (see Water 5.3 and Water 5.6).

Although many new programs and innovative reforms have been introduced during the current reporting cycle, a number of long-standing key pressures on the environment remain. These include increasing demand for energy, transport, water and commodities, along with development pressures on land (see Atmosphere 3.1 and the Human Settlement chapter), which, in turn, are affecting the condition of the State's land, water and biodiversity (see Water 5.2 and the Land chapter and Biodiversity chapter).

In general, the overall status and trend of the indicators in this report show that the current pace of change towards sustainability has not yet reached the speed and breadth needed to overtake and correct an underlying path of degradation. As many of the environmental problems facing NSW have been created over decades, it is not surprising that serious challenges remain.

Future directions

Environmental gains to date have largely been achieved in the control of pollution through regulatory frameworks, reforms in natural resource management, a move towards establishing sustainable use of forests and fisheries, and the addition of new areas for conservation to the reserve system. The issues still outstanding are generally more dispersed and diffuse, and less amenable to individual decision-making frameworks. Future solutions will need to be based on a sophisticated integration of regulatory, economic, technological and persuasive approaches.

While major reforms have been instituted, resource condition has generally not changed much since the last SoE report. NSW still faces the same set of issues, generated by the same pressures. Significant reforms for biodiversity, vegetation and natural resource management have been introduced over the past three years, but the issues they address are long-standing and respond slowly to intervention, so will not be resolved in the short term.

The large number of sustainability initiatives underway is a positive sign of society's willingness to respond to the complex and significant environmental challenges confronting NSW. The community has demonstrated it is prepared to adopt environmental measures where systems and structures are in place, but there is often a lag in the social and economic reforms required to achieve broadscale results.

Far-reaching changes are still needed to produce the economic efficiencies and associated structural adjustments that will support progress towards sustainability. Further investment in research and development is necessary to maximise the efficiency and sustainability of production systems.

Market-based instruments can be used to signal scarcity and the true costs of resources to industry and consumers, which may stimulate innovation and improvements in efficiency, thus maintaining or improving living standards while environmental impacts are reduced.

Perverse environmental outcomes – the often unintended and unforeseen effects of government policies, subsidies and incentives – can be identified and reversed across all levels of government. Correct price signals will help to enhance sustainability.

General household consumption is a source of pressure on the environment. Price signals and education will help to ensure that households take the environmental consequences of their choices fully into account.

There needs to be a better understanding of the relationship between expressed attitudes and what motivates individuals to take positive actions. Community education should focus on encouraging changes in people's behaviour that lead to better environmental outcomes. In particular, a closer alignment should be sought of people's stated environmental priorities and their aspirations and lifestyle choices.

Commitment to sustainability should be promoted as a fundamental principle of government, across all levels, so that the social, economic and policy constraints that still exist on sustainability can be addressed more broadly.