Reference

Delphi Round 2 Responses (General)

Response 1

Overall, I agree that many members contributed thoughtful responses, and Eric did a great job synthesizing the responses. Perhaps because of the general nature of the question asked, the responses cover vast subjects related to sustainable mineral development. The responses vary from discussion of definition and concept of mineral sustainability, to social, economic, environmental, and ecosystem impacts and concerns, to community sustainability, to resource management principles, to policy and decision making process, to strategy and actions to be taken. The term does mean different thing to different people.

As you can see, my response focuses on definition and concept. I believe this is the first step which will help creating common understanding of the term used, so that we can address the subsequent questions with right focus. To that end let me reiterate the most important things I tried to express:

1. We should not label all minerals with the word "non-renewable". When metals are recycled, it is renewed. Fuel such as coal ,oil and gas can not be renewed, however; but can be substituted. I used to call "minerals" non-renewable resources, but I have changed my mind. Therefore, I would like the Group to consider sustainable vs non-sustainable resources in stead of renewable vs non-renewable resources.

2. I prefer to define "sustainability" as any substance that can be made to last longer or more abundant. Thus, I suggested to use a spectrum of concept ranging from these that are regeneratve, renewable, recylable, substitutable to the economists' definition of being sustainable by transforming proceeds from mineral development into capital invesment. In that context, minerals are sustainable resources.

3. With this definition in mind, then we can figure out the best way to manage mineral resources (management principles, strategy and actions) assuming sustainability is a desirable goal to pursue, and to develop indicators to measure the accomplishments in the sense of GPRA.

Points 1 and 2 above were made in my paper but were not synthesized. The third point is my new suggestion as to how do we proceed from here. It was not in my previous response, but has been in my mind.

Response 2

COMMENTS ON SYNTHESIS

? Sustainability is not an open-ended concept. I.e., we do not need to sustain the availability of a nonrenewable resource forever. We need to sustain that resource only within the expected time frame in which it will be needed (with a safe margin for error if that time frame is unclear).

E.g., whale oil was a vital fuel for heat and light in the 19th century - today it has been replaced and is unnecessary for those purposes. Thus, the whale population should have been Afarmed@ so as to sustain the whale oil resource for the time it was a needed fuel. (Note that while whales are Arenewable@ to some degree we have certainly seen that they are a finite resource - e.g., right whales.)

Please do not take this as a callous perspective of whales - this is just an example of a nonrenewable energy resource whose Asustainability@ was a finite issue. Other nonrenewable energy resources (e.g., natural gas) are often viewed as having finite periods of need: natural gas is often referred to as a Atransition fuel@ for the next 50 (?) years until renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) can be established, and natural gas goes the way of whale oil.

? Sustainability can be viewed as either a global (planet) or national concept. The synthesis appears to discuss sustainability from a global concept where the Earth=s resources are viewed as a whole. This is certainly a viable perspective, but if we are trying to develop concepts of sustainability that are useful to our respective agencies and U.S. policy makers, we must also consider sustainability from a nationalistic perspective.

E.g., while the world=s supply of oil is probably infinite (in a practical sense) when looking at future demand and supply of oil, the supply of oil that the U.S. controls within its boundaries is definitely finite. For the last 20 years (and for as far as we can see into the future) the sustainability of domestic oil production is a major policy issue with serious economic and social dimensions. A simple example of this is the Arab oil embargo in the early 1970's which resulted high prices and short supplies - this caused economic hardship for the country (declines in GDP), gas lines, changes in driving and living patterns (smaller cars, living closer to work, etc.). Another example is the Gulf war against Iraq when the U.S. and other nations made a decision to go to war because the sustainability of world (and U.S.) oil supplies was threatened.

I think where I=m going with this is that politics, nationalistic agendas, etc. have direct effect on sustainability. In fact, we run the risk of creating an abstract definition of sustainability if we do not consider these constraints that would only have application in a Aperfect world@, but would not be useful in the real world we and policy makers must operate in.

? Sustainability can be both a resource availability question and a resource production question. The synthesis states that sustainability is not about production but is about resource availabity. I think its both. Sustaining resources is certainly important, because this is the base from which usable products will come. But, sustaining production is equally important because of the direct implications this has for economic, environmental, and social welfare.

Response 3

Comments on Synthesis

There are some interesting and valuable inputs to this Delphi process that can provide ideas for the group's effort. However, at this stage there is also a danger that the synthesis will mix the good with the not so good and produce a camel (you know, a horse designed by a committee). I encourage the synthesizers to exercise a stronger hand (mind?) in selecting what is included.

One of the difficulties evident in the inputs is that there are different views about what "mean" means in the question "what does sustainability mean for nonrenewable resources?" Some think that "mean" means a definition of sustainability that encompasses nonrenewable resources. As I will explain below, this is the better approach for the group at this point. I think you have the materials for a good one page synthesis of definitions of sustainable development and sustainability.

Other group members think that "mean" means a list of prescriptions, rules for do's and don't's, we must follow in nonrenewable resource management in order to achieve sustainability. This is a loop we fell into frequently in our work on sustainable development indicators. Most of the us are resource managers or have interests in resource management issues. We are practical people who have developed expertise and experience in resource management issues. We tend to approach a task by figuring out what needs to be done. Some of us are also partisans in conflicts over resource management policies. As a result, we tend to approach a task by building a case against management policies and practices we or our institution opposes and for the management policies and practices we or our institution favors. This can bog the discussion down in endless arguments about the "right" prescriptions.

Eventually we need to agree on prescriptions, but I think that we can move forward more productively now if the synthesis helps the group achieve consensus about a vision or definition of sustainability. Furthermore, our vision needs to be broader than the narrow context of nonrenewable resource management.

The following reasons support this suggestion:

• Sustainability and sustainable development are broad, overarching concepts that need to be applied consistently in specific instances. Much of the potential value of these concepts will lost if we use a different meaning of sustainability for each issue area.

• Working toward a broad vision of a desirable future can help group members see their common interests, providing a basis for later development of consensus on specific measures on which they tend to have conflicting interests.

• If an indicator system is developed only to measure the achievement of specific resource management policies and practices, then the feedback the indicators provide will not help us assess whether society has actually made progress toward its ultimate goals as a result of our actions. A indicator system should include measures that help us to assess our ultimate success as well as those that help use measure implementation of new policies and practices.

A useful analogy: the question is, what does success mean for an NFL quarterback? We might answer that success requires that he stand in the pocket, that he read the defense well, that he step forward when he throws a pass and that he throws passes to where his receivers are going to be and not to where defenders are going to be. (Note that there are many other prescriptions, many of which football fans would argue about.) After answering the question this way, we might develop measures and indicators for these quarterbacking techniques. Later we might find high levels of achievement of such measures only to be surprised when our bosses complained that the team was not winning. It would seem obvious then that we should have started with a broader vision, goal or definition of success, namely that the team wins the Superbowl and the quarterback gets to go to Disney World.

My own view regarding a definintion is that it is useful to regard development as an ongoing process in which we evolve capacities to meet human needs and wants. Sustainability, on the other hand, is a dynamic condition of our system. Sustainable development can be thought of as development leading toward sustainability. (In some ways, the Brundtland definition works better for sustainability than for sustainable development.)

The condition we call sustainability may also be achieved by subparts of the whole system. However, with the extensive interaction among subparts typical of industrial societies, it is difficult to imagine how this would occur. We also lack the measurements needed assess the sustainability of subparts with strong interactions outside of their boundaries. (Few if any of the indicator sets that have been published deal with transboundary flows among subparts of a system.) Furthermore, the system as a whole could still experience the consequences of non-sustainability even if subparts within it had achieved sustainability. It is much more useful to think of sustainability as a condition a large system may achieve and examine how subpart of the system contribute to achieving it.

Specific comments by paragraph.

Paragraph 1. Skip the argument about whether nonrenewable resources are exhaustible or inexhaustible, finite or infinite. What's relevant is that "what we mean by sustainability" is not something about the resources by themselves, but a characteristic or condition of the overall system of which the resources are a part. Deal next with a definition of that condition.

Paragraph 2. This is mostly about prescriptions (action plans?) for managing nonrenewable resources in a way that contributes to achieving sustainability. I suggest that all proposed prescriptions be listed for future consideration in an appendix.

Paragraphs 3 and 4. Effects on environmental and social subsystems are clearly relevant if we are using a broad definition of sustainability. I suggest that the synthesis identify the types of effects that are important in both the short run and the long, but avoid taking any sides on what the actual effects are. The general statement of sustainability here is pretty good.

Paragraph 5. The statement about accepting short term effects is part of the controversy about controlling the environmental effects of mining. The synthesis should not get drawn into this controversy. Instead it should state how they are relevant to sustainability, namely: Short run effects are relevant to the way in which we meet the needs of current generations, whereas long run effects are relevant to the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

Paragraph 6. This paragraph appears to be presc riptive about political philosophy and the organization of government. The synthesis should avoid getting drawn into controversy about such questions. Do we really want to revisit the Federalist Papers, etc.? I strongly believe that the structures and processes of governance as well as of our economic and societal activities are strongly linked to sustainability because, in addition to affecting the outcomes, they affect experiences people have as a result of such processes. (For example, do people experience property loss, injury and death when they lose in the course of resolving questions of governance? Or do they experience frustration and bitterness? Or do they experience mild regret and hope about prevailing in the future?) But I also believe that the group is ill equipped and lacks the time needed to deal with such questions thoughtfully. If they can't be sidestepped, then the synthesis should describe their relevance to sustainability in general terms and avoid stating positions on specifics.

Paragraph 7. This could be included in the description of the basic concept of sustainability.

Response 4

Comments on Delphi Synthesis

I think the synthesis should contain the following points:

* The concept of balance should be included and emphasized. Sustainability for non-renewable resources requires a balance among the sometimes competing interests of economic growth, environmental protection and improvement, and societal needs. We cannot achieve sustainability of the "larger system" without balancing our goals in all of these areas. The societal goals in themselves require a complex balancing act. As Respondent #8 wrote, "there is a push-pull relationship" between the suppliers of raw materials and the society that demands those materials to meet it's lifestyle goals but places sometimes onerous and costly restrictions on

mineral extraction.

* I don't think sustainability is only a matter of minimizing footprint and reclaiming areas used for mineral extraction after the extraction is completed. It does not work only in the long term as stated in the synthesis. At least some development activities can be planned so as

not to preclude multiple uses of the same land, even in the short term, as well as contribute to long term sustainability of the environment and social system. Short term decisions can be made on sharing of facilities, e.g., roads, wise use of mineral revenues, and near-term mitigation activities that can enhance the environment, e.g., through habitat improvement or surface land reserves while extraction takes place in the subsurface. This short term aspect and the concept of multiple use should be included.

* It should be stated that concerns over sustainability should not preclude mineral extraction because that would harm the economic sustainability of the system, unless we are sure that our environmental and social goals cannot escape irreparable damage.

* I would like to see the third paragraph ("But, the question quickly arises...") rewritten in a positive light, rather than a negative question about overwhelming our planet. Put it in the context of what sustainability means, i.e., we can use our knowledge and ever-improving technology to manage non-renewable resource extraction in ways that do not overwhelm the ability of the environment to absorb the wastes and emissions that result.

Response 5

I think we need to get to some consensus on what sustainable development will mean for minerals in the context of the workgroup.

It would be useful to put up some sideboards. Is the task of the group to address sustainability from a local perspective, worldwide? Which or what.

Response 6

Missing from the synopsis was the fact that the resonses covered a very wide range, and a unified position may be difficult to arrive at. One respondent went so far as to say that the only physical constraints to sustainability are technological. Others were much less optimistic that certain once through systems can continue much longer. The issue of complements and substitutes, strong and weak sustainability positions was not brought out in the synopsis. Also not clearly stated was the fact that sinks are as important as sources. The overwhelming focus on sources by the respondents I can only assume is due to discipline or culture.

Response 7

1. The systhesis by Eric was a good summary of the responses. However, it would seem useful for the group to work on coming to consensus on a long term "vision" of sustainability for mineral resources (with consideration of the President's Council on Sus. Development's vision and goals - see www.whitehouse.gov/PCSD) prior to getting into a discussion of the actions needed to reach this vision. This was the successful approach used by the PCSD to develop their consensus vision, goals and specific recommendations.