Caribbean forum: Shaping a sustainable development agenda to address the Caribbean reality in the twenty-first century

Includes bibliography.

Financial constraints on economic development: Theory and policy for developing countries

This article contains a theoretical and policy analysis of the financial constraints on economic development in developing countries. Following a Keynesian interpretation, it concludes that financial policies are needed to relieve these constraints, given the natural tendency of financial systems to operate in ways that are dysfunctional to economic development. It then proposes three lines of policy that take account of the special characteristics of developing countries: resource allocation policies targeted at segments of strategic importance for economic and financial development; policies to control financial and external fragility; and compensatory policies of a more interventionist cast, in particular directed credit programmes for both public- and private-sector lending to complement resource allocation policies, and countercyclical regulatory barriers so that fragility can be better controlled.

Emergy diagnosis and reflections towards Brazilian sustainable development

This paper presents an environmental emergy-based diagnosis of Brazil compared with Russia, India, China, South Africa and United States. Reflections on the Brazilian sustainable development are presented and discussed based on the evaluations published since 1979. The variation of the emergy per capita for Brazil from 1979 to 2007 indicates that the country's growth is tied to the exploitation of non renewable natural resources which do not directly reflect in the welfare of the population. The total emergy exported per unit of gross domestic product increased in the period, suggesting that the country exports more emergy than that contained in the money received for the exportation. With the help of the emergy indices, the future development of Brazil is explored and discussed. The comparison among the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries and United States indicates that what may be appropriate and usable within one country may not be within another and that to achieve the global sustainability two concomitant actions may occur: (i) the reduction of the total emergy use in developed economies, and (ii) the reduction of indigenous resources exportation in developing economies. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Managing organizations for sustainable development in emerging countries: an introduction

This introduction article is for the special issue Managing organizations for sustainable development in emerging countries: natural resources, biodiversity, and climate change' in the International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology and presents an introduction to the topics and summarizes accepted contributions in the special issue. The accepted works may contribute with organizational management in the search for more sustainable organizations. The works focus on the challenges of managing organizations in a context of degradation of natural resources, loss of biodiversity, and climate change. Accepted papers discuss these issues, based on the reality of emerging economies (e.g. Brazil, India, and China).

Sustainable development in the BRICS countries: an efficiency analysis by data envelopment

There is much concern about the social and environmental impacts caused by the economic growth of nations. Thus, to evaluate the socio-economic performance of nations, economists have increasingly addressed matters related to social welfare and the environment. It is within the scope of this context that this work discusses the performance of countries in the BRICS group regarding sustainable development. The objective of this study regards evaluating the efficiency of these countries in transforming productive resources and technological innovation into sustainable development. The proposed objective was achieved by using econometric tools as well as the data envelopment analysis method to then create economic, environmental, and social efficiency rankings for the BRICS countries, which enabled to carry out comparative analyses on the sustainable development of those countries. The results of such assessments can be of interest for more specific scientific explorations.

Combining ALOS/PALSAR derived vegetation structure and inundation patterns to characterize major vegetation types in the Mamiraua Sustainable Development Reserve, Central Amazon floodplain, Brazil

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Global Change and Sustainable Development: A Synthesis of Regional Experiences from Research Partnerships

Humankind today is challenged by numerous threats brought about by the speed and scope of global change dynamics. A concerted and informed approach to solutions is needed to face the severity and magnitude of current development problems. Generating shared knowledge is a key to addressing global challenges. This requires developing the ability to cross multiple borders wherever radically different understandings of issues such as health and environmental sanitation, governance and conflict, livelihood options and globalisation, and natural resources and development exist. Global Change and Sustainable Development presents 36 peer-reviewed articles written by interdisciplinary teams of authors who reflected on results of development-oriented research conducted from 2001 to 2008. Scientific activities were – and continue to be – carried out in partnerships involving people and institutions in the global North, South and East, guided by principles of sustainability. The articles seek to inform solutions for mitigating, or adapting to, the negative impacts of global dynamics in the social, political, ecological, institutional and economic spheres.

Identifying indicators of sustainable development using the global sustainability quadrant approach

Advances in information technology and global data availability have opened the door for assessments of sustainable development at a truly macro scale. It is now fairly easy to conduct a study of sustainability using the entire planet as the unit of analysis; this is precisely what this work set out to accomplish. The study began by examining some of the best known composite indicator frameworks developed to measure sustainability at the country level today. Most of these were found to value human development factors and a clean local environment, but to gravely overlook consumption of (remote) resources in relation to nature’s capacity to renew them, a basic requirement for a sustainable state. Thus, a new measuring standard is proposed, based on the Global Sustainability Quadrant approach. In a two‐dimensional plot of nations’ Human Development Index (HDI) vs. their Ecological Footprint (EF) per capita, the Sustainability Quadrant is defined by the area where both dimensions satisfy the minimum conditions of sustainable development: an HDI score above 0.8 (considered ‘high’ human development), and an EF below the fair Earth‐share of 2.063 global hectares per person. After developing methods to identify those countries that are closest to the Quadrant in the present‐day and, most importantly, those that are moving towards it over time, the study tackled the question: what indicators of performance set these countries apart? To answer this, an analysis of raw data, covering a wide array of environmental, social, economic, and governance performance metrics, was undertaken. The analysis used country rank lists for each individual metric and compared them, using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation function, to the rank lists generated by the proximity/movement relative to the Quadrant measuring methods. The analysis yielded a list of metrics which are, with a high degree of statistical significance, associated with proximity to – and movement towards – the Quadrant; most notably: Favorable for sustainable development: use of contraception, high life expectancy, high literacy rate, and urbanization. Unfavorable for sustainable development: high GDP per capita, high language diversity, high energy consumption, and high meat consumption. A momentary gain, but a burden in the long‐run: high carbon footprint and debt. These results could serve as a solid stepping stone for the development of more reliable composite index frameworks for assessing countries’ sustainability.

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Knowledge as a resource: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jäger 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.