Search

This paper is part of the special issue of European Environment devoted to the outputs of the EU SRDTOOLS project,1 which developed and applied a new model of regional sustainable development evaluation. The paper introduces the concept and framework of the four-capital model, which was used in the project. First it discusses some issues around sustainable development evaluation, before introducing the theory of the four-capital model. It then describes how indicators can be used to evaluate programmes such as those financed by the EU Structural Funds against criteria for sustainable regional development in terms of the four capitals. An ‘ideal’ indicator set is listed in the appendix. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Northern Australia's globally significant savannas and rivers face major threats, from cattle to weeds to land clearing to climate change. In the face of imperatives and pressures such as reducing carbon emissions, nature conservation, alleviating Indigenous disadvantage, the resources boom and global food security, how should development be managed to protect its globally significant ecosystems? Nine planks in a ‘Sustainable Northern Australia’ agenda are proposed: (i) enhance investment in mitigating pervasive landscape threats; (ii) strengthen support for Indigenous Caring for Country activities and incorporation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge into land management; (iii) align and strengthen invasive species control and management; (iv) facilitate new economic development pathways focused on sustainability; (v) build climate resilience by maintaining and enhancing landscape-scale connectivity; (vi) protect free-flowing rivers from dams and major water resource development; (vii) establish and effectively manage a large interconnected network of protected areas; (viii) develop cooperative governance arrangements; and (ix) enhance knowledge generation and research and monitoring capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last five decades, Malaysia has undergone rapid economic, social and environmental change, a process which is still continuing. The pursuit of socio-economic progress has been accompanied by an unprecedented rate of change in the natural environment. In parallel to this development, governmental responses have also adapted over time to address emerging environmental situations. This article views the recent history of Malaysia's evolving policy response to development needs and environmental change as consisting of four distinct stages. Despite an impressive array of policy statements and strategies to implement sustainable development, many challenges remain today. A clear articulation of normative principles of sustainable development is of paramount importance, as is the monumental task of policy implementation. The article argues that the trajectory of Malaysia's policy on natural resources and environmental issues bears the characteristics of path-dependent evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the limiting factors to environmental protection and policy implementation in China. The country's environmental performance, governance and economic status among industrialized nations was examined. It found out that the government attempts in protecting the environment were hindered by various constraints such as socio-economic, institutional and legal factors. The country also faced the problem of maintaining its economic growth with ecological sustainability.

In compliance with UN requests, National Strategies for Sustainable Development (NSSDs) are emerging around the world. With these strategies, countries are supposed to halt or reverse trends that conflict with sustainable development. We begin by giving a brief overview of the history of environmental policy planning leading up to NSSDs. Afterwards, we summarize the content of the 2002 Austrian SSD and describe its making as well as implementation processes. On that basis, we proceed to analyze its respective strengths, weaknesses and the lessons learned in the process. As one of the authors took part in the making of the Austrian strategy, our process description and the subsequent analysis are able to draw upon insider knowledge. The three main conclusions of this analysis are the following: (i) the design of the implementation process is more policy relevant than NSSDs themselves; (ii) as NSSD processes, driven by bureaucracies rather than governments, will face limits in implementation, high-level political commitment is crucial and (iii) experiences and lessons learned should not only be transferred from international organizations to individual countries but also directly between the countries themselves. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]