A Global Scenario Group (GSG), which
also serves UNEP's GEO Scenario Working Group and is co-ordinated
by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), has so far focused on
qualitative contours of three classes of scenarios: a central "Conventional
Worlds" class; a pessimistic "Barbarization" class;
and an optimistic "Great Transitions" class.
Conventional Worlds
Reference or Conventional Development
scenario: already developed; analysed in this chapter.
Balanced Growth: stronger
policy interventions; strong political will to implement policy reforms,
strengthen management systems, and ensure widespread use of better
technology; all to provide greater social equity and environment protection;
many of the same patterns of production and consumption, notions of
global governance, and political and cultural values as the Reference
scenario.
Barbarization Scenarios
Breakdown: an extreme case of
destructive anarchy; governmental and social failures, unchecked population
growth, and environmental and social deterioration lead to scarcity,
violence, and possible massive migration; eventually leading to economic
collapse, a drastic fall in global population levels, loss of institutions,
productive capacity, and technological wisdom.
Fortress World: an authoritarian
"solution"; a minority of the elite in privileged enclaves
protect their way of life by forcibly imposing limits and social controls
on the impoverished majority, by seizing control of critical natural
resources for their exclusive use, and by restricting access to information
and technology; instability of a "Fortress" system may push
the world into a "Breakdown" situation.
Great Transitions
Eco-communalism: a deep green
utopian vision that emphasizes bio-regionalism, localism, face-to-face
democracy, small technology, and economic autarky; population and
economic scales diminish, environmental conditions improve dramatically.
New Sustainability Paradigm:
seeks to alter the character of urban industrial civilization rather
than to replace it; to build a more humane and equitable global civilization
rather than to retreat into localism; a dramatic decrease of per capita
material flows through behavioural changes and technology improvements,
a resilient and high-quality environment, and high, well-distributed
welfare with economic activity oriented towards services.
Although such futures may be
viewed as utopian or unrealistic, the contrary hypothesis may be entertained
as well, namely that attempting sustainability without such changes
is quixotic.
The discussion of alternative
futures raises a host of profound questions. Which of these pathways
are self-consistent and plausible? Can the policy reforms of "Balanced
Growth" achieve sustainability, or at least solve the urgent
problems in many regions as identified in this GEO? What critical
points could kick the system into global or regional "Barbarization"
and what policies and actions are needed to reduce this risk? Can
new values and policies transform industrial society as assumed in
the "New Sustainability Paradigm"? And last but not least,
the practical question for next GEO Reports: what actions are implied?
