The world is dying from producing and buying too much stuff. This is how you could summarize degrowth. The unlimited growth of material flows, energy use, and subsequent environmental harm are particularly worrying. Just take the plastic soup in the oceans and the enormous waste of raw materials. The implicit message is that we must change our behaviour. But do people also do that if they can afford to forget about the prices in the supermarket?

So, declutter, consume less, and do more with less. The number of devices in Dutch households has grown enormously over the last twenty years. I took a look myself. The kitchen alone has a refrigerator, coffee maker, toaster, kettle, air fryer, microwave, juicer and an induction hob. Do I need all of them? No, it’s luxury, comfort, convenience. What do we do with those devices when they fall into disuse? Then we often buy a new one instead of going to a repair shop. This creates a mountain of electronic and plastic waste. Even if recycled, materials re-enter the production chain for the production of minor quality products.

Degrowth focuses on a voluntary transition to a participatory and ecologically sustainable society. This approach raises many questions, discussions, and misunderstandings. Degrowth is not the same as green growth and decoupling, where clean technology reduces environmental pressure. Wind and solar farms and electric cars may help reduce CO2 emissions. However, this cannot stop the demand for more materials, for instance rare earth materials, which leads to exploration of the deep sea.

Degrowth requires a socio-economic transition and a different organization of the economy. I received an international publication about degrowth-oriented organizations from a friend. It shows that such organizations create value to achieve equality, participation and ecological sustainability. These values conflict with conventional efficiency and economic growth.

Degrowth is essentially about a value transition. It’s not an easy message to sell. I recall the story of the monkey trap. A monkey is trapped with his hand in a coconut containing his favourite snack. If he continues to hold on to it, he won’t be able to get his hand out of that coconut. The monkey has to choose. What is more important: his freedom or a minor chance to get his tasty snack? That is also the message of the degrowth movement. Do we want a sustainable future or stick to our current way of life?

Peter van de Laak
27-1-2024

Statistics Netherlands publishes several indicators as inputs to the national Broad Welfare Monitor. The monitor invites to not only measure prosperity in terms of GDP and its growth. For instance, national welfare is unevenly distributed, e.g. in favour of the higher educated in the cities. Moreover, created income goes at the detriment of the environment, both in the country itself and abroad. What should we worry about?

To start with, a major concern is our nature and biodiversity. The Netherlands suffers from inadequately protected nature. A major factor of the lack of sustainability is the far too large livestock population. Therefore, the land suffers from overloads of manure and nitrogen depositions culminating in poor soil, water and air quality. The transition to sustainable agriculture is not going smoothly. For instance, organic agriculture takes no more than three per cent of the agricultural area. Recently, alarm bells are ringing over the dwindling numbers of bees and other insects have declined dramatically.

In addition, our healthcare system is a cause for concern. We have quality healthcare, but because of aging and a lack of personnel, its continuity is under pressure. Our healthy life expectancy is declining. Obesity and smoking lead to known health risks, but there are other causes of illness and death. A quarter of people are affected by noise pollution and poor air quality. More effort is needed in prevention and positive incentives for healthy behaviour.

The Netherlands is doing well economically. However, there are significant differences from region to region. Major sectors are industry, trade & transport, and commercial services. Agriculture is only 2 per cent of GDP, but is a major exporting sector and a crucial supplier to the food industry. Nonetheless, its heavy reliance on land and imported feed makes it a vulnerable sector. While at the micro-level Dutch agriculture is innovative and efficient, at a higher system level, its operations are questionable and untenable.

To get to know our international competitive position in detail, more information is needed about the performance of Dutch regions. International competition is increasingly taking place between regions at a European level and other regions in the world. The business climate and economic competition depend on the wider society, including innovative capacities and social amenities such as infrastructure, education and health care. Other factors also count for the economic business climate, such as R&D investments and modernization of the energy infrastructure.

Peter van de Laak

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and its reliability are frequently under discussion, primarily when interests and perceptions differ widely. Knowledge conflicts cause delays and increase costs. However, in many cases, Joint Fact Finding can prevent such conflicts.

Joint Fact Finding (JFF) brings the world of systems and the living world closer together, creating opportunities for EIA. However, as it has become too much of a part of the systems world, EIA is much less in line with the everyday reality of residents, entrepreneurs and authorities.

Available time and financial budgets can stand in the way of applying JFF in EIA. However, it may suffice to focus on the most crucial knowledge issues only. For instance, knowledge issues about public health effects of airports and intensive livestock farms. These conflicts often have to do with the lack of scientific evidence. Or with the used calculation models, the reliability of which is disputed.

JFF is a form of public participation. It is applied to carry out analyses in area development jointly. In EIA, this approach can describe the reference situation. This is often a matter of desk exercise. Involving area actors in this analysis enhances insight into the reference situation and may prevent knowledge conflicts.

Mandatory accountability for knowledge gaps usually occurs at the end of the EIA assessment process. Then, specific data may appear unavailable, while the models may need more accuracy. A JFF mission may bring to light existent knowledge gaps and lead to their closure.

Initiators and administrators may resist JFF in EIA because of ignorance or out of a fear of losing control. It is then of vital importance to highlight the benefits of JFF. Involving the public is becoming increasingly important. Nowadays, citizens are better educated and informed than in the past. Therefore, JFF promises to lead to superior and feasible solutions.

Peter van de Laak