Eco-sufficiency

Sufficiency (also called ‘eco-sufficiency’) is a concept that relates both to an ideal and to a strategy to achieve it.

As a goal, sufficiency is about ensuring that all humans can live a good life without overshooting the ecological limits of the Earth (for now and generations to come), and defining what that good life may be made of.[5]

As an increasing number of experts consider that technical progress and greener technologies alone will not be enough to achieve this goal, sufficiency also designates the societal transformations (in terms of lifestyles, social practices, infrastructures, etc.) that will be necessary to bring production and consumption patterns to a level compatible with the goal. It raises the question of individual and social limitations on these current patterns, building in particular on a sense of ‘enoughness’.[6]

The term sufficiency has been popularised by Thomas Princen’s book ‘The Logic of Sufficiency’ published in 2005, in which he argues that ‘seeking enough when more is possible is both intuitive and rational - personally, organizationally and ecologically. And under global ecological constraint, it is ethical.’[7]

Sufficiency may be approached at individual level as a personal attitude or life philosophy (such as in the ‘Sobriété heureuse’ concept of French environmentalist Pierre Rabhi,[2] or Schneidewind‘s concept of the ‘Good Life’[3]), as well as a core collective value that could amend the notion of liberal societies.[4]

Sufficiency can be interpreted and discussed in virtually all social settings and economic sectors. In terms of lifestyles, it is strongly related to the concepts of voluntary simplicity and downshifting.

The concept of sufficiency has been primarily developed in the area of energy consumption, where levels of greenhouse gas emissions far exceed what the planet may absorb and “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” are necessary according to IPCC.

Drawing on the limits of technical efficiency and rebound effects, sufficiency proponents argue that energy demand and its associated emissions cannot be sufficiently reduced if the root causes of this demand are not addressed, that is the nature and level of the energy services our societies rely on.[8]

In that prospect, energy sufficiency is about questioning and drastically reducing energy demand through ‘changes in quantity or quality’ of the energy-based services consumed,[9] notably by ‘favouring behaviours and activities that are intrinsically low on energy use’.[10]

The boundary between efficiency and sufficiency actions are not always precisely set; some authors have a broad conception of efficiency that may include aspects of lifestyle change.

Sufficiency is also applicable to material consumption. Similar to energy sufficiency, it consists in reducing demand for services and activities requiring high level of material resources, and favouring intrinsically lean ones. It is for instance associated with the ideas of avoiding wasteful consumption, owning fewer products, and prolonging their lifetimes.[11]

Here also, depending on authors’ definitions, the boundary between efficiency and sufficiency may not always be perfectly drawn. As an illustration, a report for UNEP classifies items such as reducing living spaces, driving smaller cars and car sharing as ‘material efficiency’, while they would be more traditionally viewed as sufficiency.[12]

Where most established environmental strategies and policies do not question perpetual growth in energy and material service consumption, sufficiency does. It needs to be translated into implementation principles to challenge current lifestyles and social paradigms. The "Four D's" suggested by Wolfgang Sachs are one example:[19]

1. Decelerate (going slower and less far);
2. De-clutter (accumulate fewer things);
3. Decentralize (choosing local and regional) ;
4. Decommercialization (leaving less room for the market).

The discussion about sufficiency principles is not restricted to a particular area or sector, and may relate to broad lifestyle aspects such as quality of life and work-life balance.

Sufficiency, as a strategy, may also be operationalised through distinguishing between different approaches to limiting the need for energy/resource-intensive services:[20]

1. Reducing (i.e. consuming less);
2. Substituting (replacing highly-consuming services by less intensive ones);
3. Better sizing (avoiding oversized services and waste);
4. Sharing (optimising the use of each energy/resource-based service).

There are many examples of individual and collective actions and changes that fall under the sufficiency approach. The following (non-exhaustive) list provides some:[21][22]

• Living and working in smaller (or shared) spaces;
• Moderating internal temperatures in buildings;
• Using more natural rather than artificial light;
• Choosing smaller appliances (or at least commensurate to actual needs);
• Owning and using less (often) appliances and electronic products;
• Sharing equipment between businesses;
• Flying less;
• Favouring low-energy transport modes (walking, cycling…);
• Sharing vehicles;
• Promoting working from home and reduced working time;
• Recycling, re-using, repairing goods;
• Refraining from fast fashion;
• Favouring local low-techs over high-techs;
• Favouring more vegan and vegetarian diets;
• Buying locally-produced food;
• Avoiding food waste.

As it builds on a sense of self and collective moderation in relation to the consumption of energy and material-based services, sufficiency requires drawing a line between wants seen as superfluous and actual justified needs. It triggers potentially complex and contentious theoretical and practical questions.[25] Answers may differ culturally, change with time and context, as well as depend on income and other socio-economic factors.

The issue is not only relevant at the level of individual values, ethics, and lifestyles, but also for public decisions. As an illustration, whereas building or extending an airport was rarely challenged successfully in the past, two recent decisions show this has changed: the decision of the French government to drop the Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport in 2018, and the UK court decision to rule Heathrow’s extension illegal over climate change in 2020.

Sufficiency supposes a moderation in the consumption and development of high energy-based and material-based services, which are often delivered by or associated with goods and equipment. Thus, sufficiency means limitations on current consumption levels of some products and renouncing some types of infrastructures.

A common criticism, shared with the degrowth concept, is that this would hurt economic growth, increase unemployment and lead to social problems. While it is clear that current energy and resource intensive services would be hit by sufficiency, leaner, more local, and employment-intensive activities would also be fostered in the meantime.

There is currently limited research on the macroeconomic impacts of a sufficiency-based society. Notably, there is a lack of understanding of how systematic sufficiency-based business models could be developed and promoted, and how it would change the economic system.[26]

A third objection to sufficiency is that, as for efficiency, the energy and material savings could lead to indirect rebound effects.[27]

This suggests that sufficiency should be implemented as comprehensively as possible, to avoid savings in one sector being annihilated by the growing environmental footprint of another. Capping incomes and resource use are strategies that could mitigate rebound effects.[28]