You are on page 1of 16

02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 351

Sustainable Development from a


Temporal Perspective
Martin Held

ABSTRACT. Sustainable development is an inherently temporal


concept that includes future generations and their needs. We can
improve the understanding of the concept if we explicitly start with a
temporal perspective. The timescape framework is demonstrated as a
useful tool to see the relevance of temporal diversity to direct our
economy and way of life into the direction of sustainable develop-
ment. KEY WORDS • future generations • sustainable development
• temporal diversity • time-scale • timescape

‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present with-
out compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’
(WCED, 1987: 43)

Sustainable development is inherently a temporal concept as this famous inter-


pretation of the Brundtland Report reveals. Indeed, integrating the needs of
future generations is given some consideration in the debate on sustainability
under the heading of discounting. As I will discuss in the first section, this
temporal aspect plays a prominent role specifically within a relatively young
branch of economics – ecological economics. It defines itself as ‘the science and
management of sustainability’ (Costanza, 1991).
In general, however, temporal issues are not very often explicitly treated in
the ongoing debate. This fact is closely linked to the major breakthrough, which
was officially endorsed by nearly all governments worldwide at the Rio Earth
Summit in 1992, that environmental issues should no longer play a separate,
extraneous role but, instead, ecology should be seen as interrelated with eco-
nomic and social dimensions (see for example Enquête Commission, 1998).
Most of the efforts in the field of sustainable development research and the

TIME & SOCIETY copyright © 2001 SAGE (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), VOL.
10(2/3): 351–366 [0961-463X; 2001/09;10:2/3;351–366; 019373]
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 352

352 TIME & SOCIETY 10(2/3)

related political debate are focused upon grasping this very new way of thinking
in a world in which we are trained to separate issues and to specialize.
It is the intention of this article to demonstrate that we may gain a better
understanding of, and improve, the concept of sustainable development by
explicitly utilizing a temporal perspective. Specifically, a temporal perspective
is a prerequisite for the main task of understanding the linkages and networks
within and between the three dimensions – ecological, economic, social. To
realize the full potential of time research for the concept of sustainable develop-
ment I will utilize arguments from some of the first contributions to address
sustainable development through a temporal perspective (such as Grove-White,
1997; Hofmeister, 1997; Vercelli, 1998). Understandings of time as linear,
homogeneous and even reversible have hindered the realization of this poten-
tial. The concept of sustainable development needs temporal diversity to be
taken as a starting point. Thus, I will use the timescape framework Barbara
Adam has elaborated (Adam, 1998) since it allows a whole array of diverse
temporalities to be understood.
The Brundtland Report’s definition of sustainable development is promin-
ently linked to an underlying normative rationale of intergenerational and intra-
generational equity. There is consensus on this normative framework across the
broad range of different authors and lines of sustainable development within
economics known as the soft versus hard sustainability controversy (Ecological
Economics, Special Issue 1997; Held and Nutzinger, 2001) and in the public
debate (Enquête Commission, 1994a, 1994b, 1998).

Future Generations, Myopia, and Discounting the Future

Allocation is the main topic in economics. If distributional issues related to


justice and equity are considered they are restricted to persons now active in
markets. The concept of sustainable development requires an enlarged scope of
reasoning, since the time horizon must also embrace future generations and their
needs. This is not normally discussed in the far-reaching mode required by the
normative starting point mentioned above. This raises the basic yet novel ques-
tion of how actors not yet alive could play a role in economic transactions and
the formation of institutional arrangements.
But there is one line in economics, and specifically in ecological economics,
which is interesting with respect to a temporal perspective. Discounting is seen
as relevant to the general aims of sustainability – respecting needs of future
generations – since it ‘gives different weights to future costs and benefits’
(Vercelli, 1998: 260). ‘The discount rate is defined as the return on foregone pre-
sent consumption that is sacrificed to secure future consumption’ (Norgaard and
Howarth, 1991: 89). As these authors elaborate in their article on the relationship
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 353

HELD : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 353

of sustainability and discounting the future, this is a vital mechanism for an


efficient allocation of resources. But it is a problem as well for a world in which
we try to foster sustainable economies and lifestyles. Positive interest rates have
the effect of devaluing future costs and benefits. So it favours a thinking domi-
nated by short-termism which runs contrary to sustainability requirements.
Discounting has a role to play in allocating resources within the given set of
institutional arrangements for efficient allocation of resources in the short run.
But it is an inadequate basis for the institutional framework itself. It favours
existing generations and diminishes the chances of future generations meeting
their needs. Such a perspective downplays long-term effects degrading natural
supports which are the basis of all life – like ozone layer, climate system, soils,
groundwater, etc. (on the value of these ‘services’ see Costanza et al., 1997).
Myopic perspectives which prefer the now and the very near future, compared
to the states of the world later on, and in doing so make a – normally implicit –
value-judgement on time-scales, have to be abandoned in sustainable develop-
ment (Vercelli, 1998: 267).

Linear Time, Entropy, Uncertainty, and Resilience

In economics, time is typically taken to be clock-time with the underlying


assumption that it is linear and homogeneous without any need to clarify this
assumption, or even a need to demonstrate its validity for the issue under ques-
tion. Time is just taken-for-granted. Of course, economists know that time is not
always the same and that there can be times with differing qualities. Therefore,
they sometimes use another set of assumptions like introducing time periods
and focusing on aspects of timing on an ad hoc basis (Winston, 1982). But in the
bulk of theory and analytical studies, over a vast range of topics, time is used
as a monolithic concept ignoring the diversity of temporal aspects. Since
uncertainty complicates the story at the core of economic theory, i.e. trying to
establish a general equilibrium theory, related assumptions like zero informa-
tion costs, full foresight/complete information, etc. play a major role (Biervert
and Held, 1995). The two main characteristics of this ‘economic’ time – linear-
ity and homogeneity – are usually combined with a third aspect – reversibility –
in the sense of mechanistic process. Or as the famous economist John Maynard
Keynes put it in his General Theory: ‘The social object of skilled investment
should be to defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance which envelop our
future’ (1936, cited in O’Driscoll and Rizzo, 1985: 1; emphasis in original)
Sustainable development cannot be adequately understood within such a
view. For example, great and irreversible losses in biodiversity are outside the
scope of this type of economics even if they have severe impacts upon the
resilience and reproductive functions of nature’s services. Issues like climate
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 354

354 TIME & SOCIETY 10(2/3)

change cannot easily be understood since regeneration periods, the potentials of


oceans and soils to act as buffers, all involve long cycles whose interplay cannot
be analysed in such a narrow perspective. Surprises, thresholds and the like are
not compatible with theories premised upon certainty and linearity. So it is no
surprise that in the literature on sustainable development, specifically in eco-
logical economics, the arrow of time comes into the picture (usually referring to
the basic work of Georgescu-Roegen; see for example Daly, 1996).
Literature addressing temporality more explicitly in the context of sustainable
development emphasizes the major role of this reorientation (see for example
Vercelli, 1998). Time is no longer the abstract concept of clock-time with its
mechanistic characteristics, rather historical time with path-dependencies is
taken as the starting point. Uncertainty is no longer an enemy – as in the above
quotation by Keynes – but a basic property of the world to understand the
challenge of irreversibility. Any damage and major changes like degradation of
soils, groundwater, ozone layer and the like cannot be reversed, but there is
much effort to be put in to regain fresh water, to stabilize the ozone layer, etc.
And that will take time, quite often on a longer time-scale than we can accom-
modate within the human time-frame of a generation or a life-time (Kümmerer,
1996; Graßl, 1999: 13).
To be precise, in the main bulk of literature and debates on sustainability these
temporal aspects play a minor role. Even in new lines of thinking, such as eco-
logical economics, there is a strong tendency still to take clock-time for granted.
However, there are green shoots emerging from the interdisciplinary work of
economists and ecologists which help to develop a thorough understanding of
the implications of time’s arrow and uncertainty in the context of sustainable
development. These are summarized in a short article on the subject by promi-
nent economists and ecologists where nature is no longer seen as a static
and fixed entity (Arrow et al., 1995). Rather, it is stressed that its carrying
capacity is dynamic, building on a network of biotic and abiotic processes
that are inherently complex so that we cannot understand them as a totality.
Therefore, it is problematic to try to control the environment since the impacts of
these control measures are necessarily uncertain, as are the effects of biological
evolution. What is important instead is to understand and take into account
ecosystem resilience (and, we may add, the resilience of social systems).
One way of thinking about resilience is to focus on ecosystem dynamics.
Resilience in this sense is a measure of the magnitude of disturbances that can
be absorbed before a system centred on one locally stable equilibrium flips to
another. (Arrow et al., 1995: 521)

Since we cannot understand the dynamic effects of changes in ecosystem vari-


ables on the total system, because of fundamental uncertainties, a precautionary
approach is needed.
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 355

HELD : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 355

Timescape as a Basic Concept to Understand Temporal Diversity

It is evident that time research is important in grappling with the analysis of


the still dominant, unsustainable path on which we are set, but also has a lot to
offer for a more thorough analysis of the temporalities needed for sustainable
development. Specifically the concept of timescape, originated by Barbara
Adam (1998) is an excellent tool to take us from the understanding of time as
a single dimension to the perspective of temporal diversity in which time
embraces a broad range of dimensions and features.
Barbara Adam starts with the notion of landscape with which we are all
familiar, and building upon that she outlines the new concept, timescape, and its
implications for the environment. Landscapes can be very different, entailing
specific landmarks, having different scale in diversity and homogeneity in their
characteristics, can exhibit differences in climate, historical sequences of human
activities as well as natural history, etc. In quite a similar way a timescape per-
spective can help ‘to develop an analogous receptiveness to temporal inter-
dependencies and absences, and to grasp environmental phenomena as complex
temporal, contextually specific wholes’ (Adam, 1998: 54).
This perspective helps to improve understanding of temporal features that are
visible but are quite often subordinated to a spatial view, such as:
• differences in speed of human activities as well as the various relevant
processes in non-human nature;
• ways in which activities are synchronized;
• role of punctuality and precision in timing;
• aspects of timing as well as varying influences from the past and future
expectations, etc.
A timescape perspective is even more relevant for the complementary task of
being more sensitive to temporal features which are very important, but to
which our senses are not as attuned or are not as linked to our lived experience:
• latencies of effects with a broad scale of time lags;
• rhythms which are very short (micro-cosmos) or extremely long (macro-
cosmos) so that we cannot directly experience them;
• eigenzeiten, i.e. the embedded times of organisms, ecosystems, economic
systems, etc.
The timescape perspective is specifically important to regain a sense of context,
spatial and temporal, as part of our scientific endeavour. Science is very
successful at controlling times and spaces, by abstracting from context in order
to produce a controlling knowledge. As was outlined in the previous paragraph,
this approach is only one part of the story, since alongside this success story of
science we learn, too, that we can only know parts of the networks of the world.
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 356

356 TIME & SOCIETY 10(2/3)

Evolutionary theories, biological as well as cultural ones, are as relevant a


development of science as are classical physics and chemistry.
Taking context into account is a major prerequisite of sustainable develop-
ment. For example, if we ignore climatic and other relevant context-variables
with their rhythms and eigenzeiten, as we have done for a long time in planning
our settlements, architecture and construction, we cannot be on a sustainable
energy-path. We also fall short in delivering the quality of life that is possible, if
we use context-sensitive, traditional knowledge and construction combined
with modern know-how and new options in materials and technologies.
As Barbara Adam demonstrates in detail in her book, a timescape perspective
is also needed to understand the long-delayed, invisible hazards and impacts of
our unsustainable lifestyles. Let us consider nuclear power as a widely debated
example. At first sight it seems obvious that nuclear power should be preferred
to modern power-plants with natural gas, since the impact on the climate is
lower. This is true as long as we ignore nuclear power’s specific temporalities.
The comparison changes to some degree if the consequences of mining are
taken into account, but much more significant is the time-scale of radioactivity.
We degrade future generations’ potential for economic welfare and a good life
with the long-lasting effects of radioactive waste. Therefore, we have to be
cautious with both options for different reasons (Adam, 1998: Ch. 6).
Another example might be the so-called ‘modern type of farming’, which is
increasingly understood as generating far from rational outcomes, having a
tendency to produce crises such as that of BSE, due to the underlying rationale
of short-term economic profits. Risks, invisible at first sight, impact upon vital
relationships which are not easy to detect alongside long-term hazards which
are out of consideration (Ch. 5). Since agriculture and food production offer a
very interesting example of economics and life central to sustainable develop-
ment, I will elaborate them in the following paragraph (for a detailed analysis
see Schneider et al., 1999).

Example: Timescape Perspective in Agriculture and Food Production

Agriculture has not only formed the large-scale spatial landscape, but has also
changed the basic way of life and reshaped timescapes. Consider, for example,
the beginning of agriculture in central Europe. The rhythm of seasons on farm-
land is different from that in forests; new species had a chance to spread with
their specific eigenzeiten; cattle and other domesticated animals gained a bigger
share of the cycles of nature; storing food changed cultural rhythms, etc. But
still the timescapes were basically structured by the interplay of natural
rhythms, specifically day-and-night, moon-cycles, seasons of the year and the
corresponding religious and other cultural rhythms, rhythms of generations, etc.
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 357

HELD : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 357

Broadening the perspective from central Europe to agriculture in general, it


has to be understood that pre-modern agriculture was not sustainable per se
(Ponting, 1991; Held, 2000). Slash-and-burn-agriculture is a good illustration
(Kleinman et al., 1995). If this type of agriculture is utilized at a rate which fits
with regeneration periods it can sustain on a very long time-scale. In some
cases, however, population increase gives rise to pressures which force cycles
of rotation to accelerate beyond a threshold at which, if no other methods to
balance productivity are invented, the productivity of soils is degraded. Com-
paring various methods of agriculture under different conditions – climate,
soils, precipitation, cultural techniques, etc. – gives evidence that some agri-
cultural practices are unsustainable under very productive natural conditions,
while other methods, applied under marginal conditions such as in steep areas at
a high altitude in the Andes, and adapted to these specific conditions, may even
improve soil fertility on a long time-scale (Hillel, 1992: 127f.).
These short examples suggest that a timescape perspective may help to focus
on issues which are relevant to understanding the degree to which different
types of agriculture are sustainable/non-sustainable. The ratio of natural regen-
eration rhythms and the production rhythms of agriculture is especially relevant.
The lags and delays of effects are also important. Thus, in some cases irrigation
was utilized in river-agriculture systems with a high increase in productivity
without severe side-effects. But humankind also experienced severe drawbacks
in cases where salination accumulated in irrigation systems after some time
degrading soils (Ponting, 1991: 68–73).
In more modern times, industrialization has seen the rise of the concept of
abstract linear time, not only in science but also in the everyday life of towns
and cities. Control of time according to clock-time was a key characteristic of
the changes in the labour force. The whole way of life sped up with the use of
fossil fuels and steam engines and railways. The areas affected also expanded
and timescapes of rural regions changed, too, but at a slower pace, dependent
on, for example, if they were located within or outside the range of the new rail-
way lines. Basically the temporal fabric of agriculture was still dominated by
the interplay of natural rhythms – seasons, specific times of animals and plants,
etc. – and the cultural rhythms which had evolved over the course of genera-
tions.
In the 20th century the use of cheap oil and its derivatives, being another way
of using natural carbon deposits and their inherent geological time-scales
(Nutzinger, 1995), dramatically changed the agricultural timescapes. Mechani-
zation, pesticides, and the like resulted in a new type of timescape which can be
characterized as a blend of industrialized, de-contextualized times and natural
rhythms (Schneider et al., 1999; Adam, 1999). Hybrids of domesticated plants,
such as corn, are no longer able to give rise to new life in the next generations at
the same level of productivity. Only a very limited number of plants, with a very
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 358

358 TIME & SOCIETY 10(2/3)

narrow spectrum of seeds, are used world-wide – degrading and finally destroy-
ing the long inherent times of evolutionary processes of local varieties (Lahmar
et al., forthcoming). Growth hormones speed up the growth of pigs, cattle and
other livestock (Postler, 1999). Agriculture is now close to the linear clock-time
of the industrialized parts of the economy, which so successfully changed other
parts of the economy and modern ways of life.
This type of agriculture nowadays looks like ‘normal’ agriculture and is,
accordingly, labelled as conventional farming; but it has been shaping agricul-
tural timescapes for no longer than two to three generations in the industrialized
countries. It is basically a non-sustainable type of economy and way of living,
since using more energy from outside the system than natural energy from the
sun is in contradiction to authentic primary production and is non-sustainable. It
produces a broad range of related effects, usually described as ‘side effects’ but
which are actually an integral part of this type of agriculture and food pro-
duction which tries to control time and space. Let me illustrate this with three
examples.
First, conventional farming uses a broad range of chemicals. Farming cannot
keep these chemicals in closed cycles, whereas in other industrial processes they
can be contained to minimize interference with the environment. Instead, it is
the direct intention to apply them to the fields and to animals and plants. This
implies a potential for a broad spectrum of risks. Elaborate methods of risk
analysis and management are intended to keep risks within specified bound-
aries, but these methods usually ignore temporalities and use linear time as their
rationale, seeing time basically as a homogeneous entity. This is the main
reason why hormone-disrupting effects of chemicals are overlooked. Very low
doses, considered harmless by conventional wisdom, may have severe effects if
they interfere with sensitive times in breeding cycles. These endocrine effects
cannot be detected with standard procedures since they typically do not show up
directly in the newborn offspring of the respective species. Instead, impacts are
often time-delayed, affecting fertility only in the next generation, or causing dis-
orders of various types even in the second and third generations. So long-term
impacts are passed down from one generation to the next (see Colborn et al.,
1996, a book which represented a break-through in bringing these phenomena to
attention and boosted research on the topic). Even after a heated debate on how
the narrow scope of normal risk-analysis levels out the potential effects of tim-
ing by using average numbers, the related shortcomings are not well understood
in the community. For example, an overview of the state-of-the-art by a leading
German expert on eco-toxicology totally ignores the core of the timing argu-
ment (Greim, 1998).
A second example (see Adam, 1998: Ch. 5) is how within an industrialized
time-perspective all times are seen as equal – homogeneous, linear, even
reversible – and the rhythms of nature can be ignored. Then practices of feeding
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 359

HELD : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 359

animals against their evolutionary-derived habits are just a matter of economic


trade-offs. The probable promotion of diseases such as BSE (Bovine Spongi-
form Encephalopathy) then comes as a surprise. Seeing agriculture with a
timescape perspective means the economic rationale is different from the very
beginning and nobody can be surprised that particular feeding practices produce
particular effects. The specific temporalities of species are taken into account
from the very start. This includes, of course, trial-and-error changes in the
specific time cycles of domesticated animals compared to their wild ancestors.
But their inherent times – reproduction cycle, seasons, etc. – are seen as rele-
vant, not as variables that can be endlessly modified or simply ignored (Kollek,
1999). With a timescape perspective it is no longer ‘old-fashioned’ to respect
evolutionary patterns characterizing all life, domesticated or not, but understood
as following the scientific knowledge of evolutionary theories, chronobiology,
chronopharmacology and other fields of time research. The costs of the growing
distrust in nearly all major industrialized countries of dominant ‘play against
nature’ agriculture and food production could have been avoided if such a per-
spective had been the guiding principle (as in Sweden, where ethical considera-
tions have resulted in such an agricultural policy since the end of the 1980s).
In sustainable agriculture other practices not yet debated as intensely in
public will also come to an end. It is against the rhythms of pigs, for example, to
be fed within an extremely short period, only a few minutes per day once a day,
since search for food, tasting, and so forth is a major part in the life of pigs last-
ing hours every day in their natural habitats (Bartussek, 1999). Besides being
cruel, this severe time-compression weakens the immune-system of pigs, result-
ing in the need for high levels of antibiotics and other drugs (see various articles
in Schneider et al., 1999). Space-compressing conditions in farming are a
parallel of these time-compressing methods. Studies reveal that alternative
types of farming which allow animals to live according to their needs and
specific features in space and time can result in the same level of productivity
(Bartussek, 1999). However, it can only compete with conventional farming
if institutional arrangements in agricultural politics no longer distort market
signals, externalizing the relevant parts of real costs.
A third example, degrading and destroying soils, complements these two
examples and illustrates the broad range of ways in which a timescape per-
spective improves our understanding of sustainability (Kümmerer et al., 1997;
Pimentel, 1997; Haber et al., 1999). Soil constitutes the central life support
system for food and is the basis upon which human beings have expanded all
over the world – supplemented with food from marine systems. Just in the
middle of the dust bowl, throwing its shadow over major parts of the USA in the
1930s, the significant rise in productivity started the success story of contempo-
rary conventional farming (Crosson, 1991). New breeding practices with hybrid
plants and the use of fertilisers, pesticides, etc. on a large scale in mechanized
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 360

360 TIME & SOCIETY 10(2/3)

farming masked the effects of soil degradation which was widespread at the
very same time (Norse et al., 1992; Pimentel et al., 1995). Productivity is still
increasing so that the effects of soil degradation will be visible only after a very
long time lag. This delays reaction to the degradation process – and therefore,
further worsens the eventual situation (Pimentel et al., 1995; see the analogous
effect of the use of chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs] and their impact on the ozone
layer in the higher atmosphere/stratosphere, Kümmerer, 1996). Compensation
for losses in primary soil fertility is non-sustainable in itself since it is not based
on the regenerative influx of solar energy but is heavily dependent on the use of
fossil oil and its derivatives. This process not only degrades soils directly but
also degrades their regenerative potential and thus changes regeneration times.
Soils are easily degraded within decades, but it takes hundreds and thousands of
years for them to be renewed (Kümmerer et al., 1997).
Actors in agricultural systems cannot acknowledge these effects ex ante if
they see agriculture in a decontextualized perspective. They tend to react when
negative ‘side effects’ accumulate in time and can no longer be ignored. In
such a perspective it is difficult to work according to the criteria of sustainable
development (Enquête Commission, 1994b: 42ff.). A timescape perspective,
however, emphasizes a dynamic view that also takes long-term effects into
account and that can help to improve the institutional framework in order to
foster sustainable use of soils (The Tutzing Project ‘Time Ecology’, 1998;
Odendahl, 2001; German Advisory Council on Global Change, forthcoming).

Temporal Diversity as a Perspective for Sustainable Development

Human activities shape not only landscapes but also timescapes. How does the
timescape framework advance our understanding of sustainable development?
Do we have ideas on the temporal features, the specifics of timescapes of sus-
tainability and their characteristic markers and signposts to guide us?
Perception of time is usually dominated by the measurement of time through
clock-time, to the point where the measurement of time is seen as time itself. In
this perspective time is one ‘entity’ to be understood according to the principles
of mechanical time, each bit of time homogeneous, in a linear succession and
even without direction and reversible. Sustainable development is not seriously
relevant in such a view. If a problem happens it can be reversed, since time does
not really matter: time-scales, changes in quality as a consequence of path-
dependencies, latency, changes in regeneration potential and the like are not
covered within this perspective. Each negative effect can be reversed or com-
pensated for with resources and effort. So, in principle, there is no basic
problem of sustaining the prerequisites to meet the needs of generations yet to
come; there is merely a trade-off between costs and benefits.
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 361

HELD : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 361

The timescape framework is an adequate starting point to understand why


and how sustainability issues may arise in our real world with its temporal
diversity. This framework is vital to highlight the irreversible effects which may
be experienced, even though time-delayed and/or in other contexts not directly
related to the first-order effects. Generally speaking, context matters. Times
are not all equal, but times can be qualitatively very different: pace, rhythms,
eigenzeiten, kairos, and coordination of time-scales at different levels, change
events and impacts.
The timescape framework also helps to highlight the regenerative potential
(and damage to such potential) that is especially important for sustainable
development. One important general aspect of the timescape perspective is that
we no longer focus exclusively on production and productivity but include
dynamic reproductive and regenerational forces as well. This will overcome
the split into resources (input) and waste/sinks (output) and integrate the repro-
ductive forces that are basic for sustainable development (Held et al., 2000).
The timescape framework can also show us that fundamental uncertainties
are not the only problems, as it stresses the relevance of flexibility and potential
for adaptation. It helps to prevent inadequate and misleading ‘certainties’ lead-
ing to a series of surprises – labelled as scandals and leading to all sorts of
quick-fix reactions, partly adequate but often not addressing the real issues at
stake. Therefore, it underlines the significance of the precautionary principle
(Hofmeister, 1997). The timescape perspective also advocates attending closely
to the linkages and networks of the rhythms of life. Of course, we will still use
information about direct, linear relations between relevant variables, but we are
also well advised to focus on webs of relations, including path-dependencies,
evolutionary principles and time-lagged effects. Taken together, resilience is
given a more prominent role to play compared to a focus only on static stability.
The timescape framework gives an insight into the plurality of temporalities
beyond chaotic ‘pictures’ of various temporal aspects. Rather, there are more or
less coherent patterns of timescapes with typical linkages and features of the
various temporal dimensions. Such a pattern can be characteristic of pre-
modern societies which are non-sustainable, while another may be a prominent
example of a more modern type of society. Gus Koehler (2000) has proposed
an adaptation of the concept of heterochrony – which is part of evolutionary
biology (McNamara, 1995, 1997) – to understand patterns of timescapes:
A more generalised application of heterochrony suggests that changing the causal
relationships among an aggregate’s parts changes the time pattern of the flows of
energy, information or resources, within or between parts, affecting not only the
part or aggregate’s form and its Eigenzeiten but also the kairos and chronos of
the associated time-ecology. Heterochrony also suggests that changing the
rhythm, pace and connectivity of flows can modify this aggregate as well.
(Koehler, 2000: 2)
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 362

362 TIME & SOCIETY 10(2/3)

I illustrate patterns of timescapes with some examples relevant for sustain-


able development.

(1) Energy Coal, crude oil, natural gas and atomic energy allowed a high-
density energy path to be established. This stimulated a development in which
context is either ignored or plays only a marginal role. Architecture, infra-
structure, transport, settlements, farming, tourism, in short the whole fabric of
society in industrialized countries is adapted to that type of energy use. There-
fore, patterns of timescapes in industrialized countries have specific features –
like the dominating levels of speed, de-contextualized architecture, etc. – com-
pared to other countries. Within the industrialized part of the world there are also
differences in the level of use of non-sustainable energy resources.
At the start of a transition from the short period of a high-density energy path
to a more sustainable energy path we have to innovate timescapes in which the
use of the rhythms of sun, wind, water, biomass production and the like will be
normal at the level of modern societies. This will not be just a technical affair in
which we pay specialists for their professional, efficient work to invent and
apply the technologies needed for this transition, just like switching light on and
off. It is not a question of applying isolated technologies while everything else
goes on along the former path of development; we also have to think in terms
of context-dependent, embedded technologies and societal structures at an
advanced scientific and technological level. It will be a major change in the
whole of the ‘hard’ infrastructure as well as in the ‘soft’ infrastructure of habits,
modes of thinking, institutional arrangements, etc. It could give us a chance of a
soft landing, since current efforts for such a change have time for an intense
trial-and-error process. Perpetuating the still dominant non-sustainable energy
path could lead to a situation in which we will run short of time for a transition,
increasing the probability of a hard landing.
Traffic signs can show us the direction on our journeys in the landscapes and
cityscapes. Likewise, insight into the dual capacity of the sun – being the basic
sustainable provider of energy and its basic rhythms (Adam, 1990: 72 ff.) – can
guide us in the Great Transformation (term taken from Polanyi, 1957) ahead to
paths of sustainable development and their timescapes.

(2) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) On the one hand we are experi-
encing the first efforts to develop a sustainable energy path. At the same time
we know that the promises of a de-contextualized, monotemporal perspective
are still quite strong since the potentials of this kind of science and technology
are far from reaching their limits. Green GMOs are just one prominent example.
Knowledge of the basics of life at the micro level can be used within an evolu-
tionary perspective. In doing so it may be very useful to improve our under-
standing of biodiversity as an integral part of temporal diversity, but these
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 363

HELD : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 363

technologies are also promoted by very powerful interests in a control-


oriented mechanistic attitude to continue conventional farming and food pro-
duction. This is in contradiction to the very knowledge it produces of the
complex web of temporalities of life. It is important to strengthen the temporal
perspective in the debate to see that bringing new mixtures of life into existing
networks of life – without the evolutionary times needed to adapt – can cause
non-linear effects. Diminishing the variety of plants and animals – as is the
trend in farming with GMOs – will destroy the inherent evolutionary qualities
of context-adapted life on a very long time-scale. The timescape framework
strengthens the focus on biodiversity, on human-made varieties of domesticated
plants and animals adapted to specific places and their contexts, as well as the
diversity of all other forms of life.

(3) Information We are living in a time of rapid developments in information


and knowledge generating, processing and storing. The basic patterns of time-
scapes are changing in less than a generation. Information technologies are
combining and linking actors in networks between distant places all over the
world. Simultaneity has reached a new level. This could help to substitute
physical transport by transmission of information. However, at the moment
these information networks tend to have the opposite effect: speeding up the
pace of life and of economic transactions, and stimulating further growth in
physical transport, outweighing any substitution effect. But there is a way in
which networks could lead the emerging information society to a new, more
sustainable path of development. Information grids could be used to link people,
societies and economies with less burden on natural resources; globalization
would no longer be the opposite to local and regional development but a com-
plement to it.

Taken together, we know that a timescape perspective will help us to gain a new
understanding of context. For everything in the world there is a time and a place,
as the old saying tells us; and this is true of the transformation to a sustainable
culture at the beginning of the 21st century. We can see the first signs of such a
transformation within the political sphere. Reading the somewhat strangely
gendered phrasing of ‘man-made inputs’ as ‘human-made impacts’, the follow-
ing general rule for sustainable development is such an indicator, written by an
Enquête Commission of the German federal parliament:
There must be a balanced ratio between the time scale of man-made inputs to, or
interventions in, the environment and the time scale of natural processes which are
relevant for the reaction capacity of the environment. (Enquête Commission,
1998: 46)
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 364

364 TIME & SOCIETY 10(2/3)

References

Adam, B. (1990) Time and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press and Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.
Adam, B. (1998) Timescapes of Modernity. The Environment & Invisible Hazards.
London: Routledge.
Adam, B. (1999) ‘Auf dem Weg zur Laborzeit. Wandel der Zeiten in der Land-
wirtschaft’, in M. Schneider, K.A. Geißler and M. Held (eds) Zeit-Fraß. Zur Ökologie
der Zeit in Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, 3rd edn. Politische Ökologie Special
Edition 8, pp. 20–4. Munich: oekom Publishers.
Arrow, K. et al. (1995) ‘Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment’,
Science 268 (28 April): 520–1.
Bartussek, H. (1999) ‘Zeit der Tiere – Raum für Tiere. Die Haltung von Tieren in der
Landwirtschaft’, in M. Schneider, K.A. Geißler and M. Held (eds) Zeit-Fraß. Zur
Ökologie der Zeit in Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, 3rd edn. Politische Ökologie
Special Edition 8, pp. 66–70. Munich: oekom Publishers.
Biervert, B. and Held, M. (1995) ‘Time Matters – Zeit in der Ökonomik und Ökonomik
in der Zeit’, in B. Biervert and M. Held (eds) Zeit in der Ökonomik. Perspektiven für
die Theoriebildung, pp. 7–32. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.
Colborn, T., Myers, J.P. and Dumanoski, D. (1996) Our Stolen Future. How Man-made
Chemicals are Threatening our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown & Co.
Costanza, R. (ed.) (1991) Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of
Sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.
Costanza, R. et al. (1997) ‘The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural
Capital’, Nature 387 (15 May): 253–60.
Crosson, P.R. (1991) ‘Croplands and Soils: Past Performance and Policy Challenges’, in
K.D. Frederick and R.A. Sedjo (eds) America’s Renewable Resources – Historical
Trends and Current Challenges, pp. 169–203. Washington DC: Resources for the
Future.
Daly, H.E. (1996) Beyond Growth. The Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston,
MA: Beacon Press.
Ecological Economics (1997) Special Issue, ‘The Contribution of Nicholas Georgescu-
Roegen’, Ecological Economics 22(3): 171–306.
Enquête Commission of the German Bundestag on the ‘Protection of Humanity and the
Environment’ (ed.) (1994a) Responsibility for the Future. Options for Sustainable
Management of Substance Chains and Material Flows. Bonn: Economica.
Enquête Commission of the German Bundestag on the ‘Protection of Humanity and the
Environment’ (ed.) (1994b) Die Industriegesellschaft gestalten. Perspektiven für
einen nachhaltigen Umgang mit Stoff- und Materialströmen. Bonn: Economica.
Enquête Commission on the ‘Protection of Humanity and the Environment – Objec-
tives and General Conditions of Sustainable Development’ (1998) The Concept of
Sustainability. From Vision to Reality. Zur Sache 4/98. Bonn: Deutscher Bundes-
tag.
German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) (forthcoming) World in
Transition. New Structures for Global Environment Policy. London: Earthscan.
Graßl, H. (1999) ‘Böden und globaler Wandel. Brisante Mischung’, in M. Schneider,
K.A. Geißler and M. Held (eds) Zeit-Fraß. Zur Ökologie der Zeit in Landwirtschaft
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 365

HELD : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 365

und Ernährung, 3rd edn. Politische Ökologie Special Edition 8, pp. 12–16. Munich:
oekom Publishers.
Greim, H. (1998) ‘Hormonähnlich wirkende Stoffe in der Umwelt – Einführung und
Sachstand’, Mitteilungsblatt der GDCh-Fachgruppe Umweltchemie und Ökotoxikolo-
gie 4 (3): 4–8.
Grove-White, R. (1997) ‘Environmental Sustainability, Time and Uncertainty’, Time &
Society 6(1): 99–106.
Haber, W., Held, M. and Schneider, M. (eds) (1999) Nachhaltiger Umgang mit Böden.
Initiative für eine internationale Bodenkonvention. Munich: Süddeutsche Zeitung.
Held, M. (2000) ‘Geschichte der Nachhaltigkeit’, Natur und Kultur 1(1): 17–31.
Held, M. and Nutzinger, H.G. (eds) (2001) Nachhaltiges Naturkapital. Ökonomik und
zukunftsfähige Entwicklung. Frankfurt: Campus.
Held, M., Hofmeister, S., Kümmerer, K. and Schmid, B. (2000) ‘Auf dem Weg von der
Durchflussökonomie zur nachhaltigen Stoffwirtschaft: Ein Vorschlag zur Weiter-
entwicklung der grundlegenden Regeln’, GAIA 9(4): 257–66.
Hillel, D. (1992) Out of the Earth. Civilization and the Life of the Soil. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Hofmeister, S. (1997) ‘Nature’s Temporalities: Consequences for Environmental
Politics’, Time & Society 6(2): 309–21.
Kleinman, P.J.A. et al. (1995) ‘The Ecological Sustainability of Slash-and-burn
Agriculture’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 52: 235–49.
Koehler, G. (2000) ‘Government Regulation and Industry-Cluster Time-Ecologies’,
unpublished paper presented at the International Conference of Complex Systems,
Nashu, New Hampshire. Sacramento CA: California Research Bureau.
Kollek, R. (1999) ‘Zeit der Natur – Zeit der Kultur. Zum Verhältnis von Evolution,
Züchtung und Gentechnik’, in M. Schneider, K.A. Geißler and M. Held (eds) Zeit-
Fraß. Zur Ökologie der Zeit in Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, 3rd edn. Politische
Ökologie Special Edition 8, pp. 25–30. Munich: oekom Publishers.
Kümmerer, K. (1996) ‘The Ecological Impact of Time’, Time & Society 5(2): 209–35.
Kümmerer, K., Schneider, M. and Held, M. (eds) (1997) Bodenlos. Zum nachhaltigen
Umgang mit Böden. Politische Ökologie Special Issue 10. Munich: oekom Publishers.
Lahmar, R. et al. (eds) (forthcoming) People Matter. Foodsecurity and Soils. Paris:
Editions Charles Léopold Mayer.
McNamara, K.J. (ed.) (1995) Evolutionary Change and Heterochrony. Chichester: John
Wiley.
McNamara, K.J. (1997) Shapes of Time. The Evolution of Growth and Development.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Norgaard, R.B. and Howarth, R.B. (1991) ‘Sustainability and Discounting the Future’, in
R. Costanza (ed.) Ecological Economics. The Science and Management of
Sustainability, pp. 88–101. New York: Columbia University Press.
Norse, D. et al. (1992) ‘Agriculture, Land Use and Degradation’, in J.C.I. Dooge et al.
(eds) An Agenda of Science for Environment and Development into the 21st Century,
pp. 79–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nutzinger, H.G. (1995) ‘Von der Durchflusswirtschaft zur Nachhaltigkeit – Zur Nutzung
endlicher Ressourcen in der Zeit’, in B. Biervert and M. Held (eds) Zeit in der
Ökonomik, pp. 207–35. Frankfurt: Campus.
Odendahl, K. (2001) ‘Bodenschutz nach Völkerrecht: Bestandsaufnahme und
Entwicklungsperspektiven’, Archiv des Völkerrechts 39(1): 82–1009.
02_T&S articles 10/2 2/8/01 12:00 pm Page 366

366 TIME & SOCIETY 10(2/3)

O’Driscoll, G.P., Jr and Rizzo, M.J. (1985) The Economics of Time and Ignorance.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Pimentel, D. (1997) ‘Soil Erosion and Agricultural Productivity: The Global
Population/Food Problem’, GAIA 6(3): 197–204.
Pimentel, D. et al. (1995) ‘Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosion and
Conservation Benefits’, Science 267: 1117–23.
Polanyi, K. (1957) The Great Transformation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press (first pub-
lished 1944).
Ponting, C. (1991) A Green History of the World. The Environment and the Collapse of
Great Civilizations. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Postler, G. (1999) ‘Lebens- oder Höchstleistung? Vom Hirten zum Gentechniker in der
Tierzucht’, in M. Schneider, K.A. Geißler and M. Held (eds) Zeit-Fraß. Zur Ökologie
der Zeit in Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, 3rd edn. Politische Ökologie Special
Edition 8, pp. 57–61. Munich: oekom Publishers.
Schneider, M., Geißler, K.A. and Held, M. (eds) (1999) Zeit-Fraß. Zur Ökologie der Zeit
in Landwirtschaft und Ernährung. Politische Ökologie Special Edition 8. Munich:
oekom Publishers.
The Tutzing Project ‘Time Ecology’ (1998) ‘Preserving Soils for Life. Proposal for a
“Convention on Sustainable Use of Soils” (Soil Convention)’, Schriftenreihe zur poli-
tischen Ökonomie 5. Munich: oekom Publishers (English, French, German, Spanish).
Vercelli, A. (1998) ‘Sustainable Development, Rationality and Time’, in S. Faucheux,
M. O’Connor and J. van der Straten (eds) Sustainable Development: Concepts,
Rationalities and Strategies, pp. 259–76. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common
Future (The Brundtland Report). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winston, G.C. (1982) The Timing of Economic Activities. Firms, Households, and
Markets in Time-specific Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

MARTIN HELD studied Economics and Social Sciences in Augsburg,


Germany. He is currently a Director of Studies at the Protestant Academy,
Tutzing. In the years 1992 to 1994 he was a member of the German
Parliament’s Enquête Commission on the Protection of Humanity and the
Environment. He has published in the fields of economics, sustainable
development and time ecology and jointly edited many books on economic
ethics and on time ecology. Together with Karlheinz Geißler he founded
the Tutzing Time Ecology Project. ADDRESS: Evangelische Akademie
Tutzing, Schlossstrasse 2+4, D-82327 Tutzing, Germany.
[email: held@ev-akademie-tutzing.de]

You might also like