Rita Vasconcellos Oliveira

Commercial interest in marine mineral resources has increased substantially in recent decades, yet the emerging deep-sea mining sector remains characterized by significant risks. This study examines the key risks constraining investment in deep-sea mining and explores how these risks are perceived and interpreted in decision-making and sectoral development. The study also investigates how different stakeholder groups perceive and interpret risks. The research design combines a literature review, stakeholder survey, and semi-structured interviews. Data is collected from representatives of industry, academia, regulatory bodies, civil society, and non-governmental organizations, with a focus on stakeholders involved in the Cook Islands and the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.The findings indicate that risk in deep-sea mining comprises both objective and interpretive dimensions. While stakeholders identify a similar set of risks, substantial variation exists in how these risks are prioritized and understood. Industry actors primarily emphasize regulatory risks, academic stakeholders highlight environmental risks and knowledge gaps, and regulators focus on governance challenges. The study further demonstrates that risks are interconnected and mutually reinforcing rather than discrete categories. Among these interdependencies, regulatory risks emerge as a central condition influencing how other risks are interpreted and tolerated. The findings suggest that risk in deep-sea mining is not purely objective but is constructed through the interaction of governance conditions, institutional priorities, and stakeholder interpretations. These insights help explain why the same conditions may be perceived differently, depending on stakeholder perspectives, and how such interpretations influence investment decisions and the broader development of the sector.

Introduction: For achieving just transitions, it is crucial to address Indigenous perspectives and knowledge systems. In the North of Europe, the fast pace of transformational actions toward the decarbonisation of society has caused much controversy associated with the (further) endangerment of the traditional modes of life. Reindeer herding is a traditional activity of the Sámi, the Indigenous Peoples of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and North-Western Russia. For many Sámi, reindeer herding is of economic, social, and cultural importance. However, increasingly, pressures are being put on reindeer, as human activities, such as the building of roads or wind turbines, further encroaches on grazing lands.Methods and objective: Using semi-structured group and individual interviews, this article investigates Sámi perspectives on drivers and stressors impacting reindeer in Norway and its connections to sustainable development activities, in the context of the energy transition. It also focuses on the communication of Traditional Ecological Knowledge to better address inclusive decision-making processes.Results: The results highlight the divide between Western and Indigenous ways of thinking about land management and use. They provide reflections on why Traditional Ecological Knowledge, including from the Sámi is still far from being actively integrated in the processes toward Just Transitions. This work also brings to light some of the reasons behind the hesitance of many Indigenous Peoples to integrate mainstream transition processes as well as make available their Ancestral Knowledge for the benefit of nature conservation and sustainable management of the areas they inhabit. Lastly, the article offers some insight into how to facilitate communication of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and its potential impact on the current Norwegian strategy toward nature conservation and societal decarbonization.

The current European energy crisis in combination with the international climate agreements dictate the need for strong investment in green energy. Among others, offshore wind is widely considered an efficient low-impact low-carbon technology. Despite the positive institutional landscape for the adoption of this form of energy generation, European nations witness societal resistance to its deployment. This paper explores the critical ethical dimensions of offshore wind fuelling relevant societal controversies surrounding its deployment and governance. I argue that at the core of most societal disputes lay normative issues shaping and contributing to the polarisation of the discourses and affecting the viability of initiatives. The method applied to characterise the social controversies is ethical analysis. Using the conceptualisation of the three tenets of energy justice-distributive, procedural, and recognition - I uncover the prevailing justice dimensions present in thematic literature and specific European offshore wind initiatives (Taggen park and Utsira Nord). I also use ethical analysis to characterise further normative implications of offshore wind. At the end, I offer normative insights on how project developers and policymakers can lower the barriers to offshore wind energy implementation and improve governance mechanisms.

In 1987, the Brundtland Commission urged nations to improve present conditions without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Against the background of this appeal for sustainable development, there is a call for intergenerational justice, under a sufficientarian framework. Despite their strong relation, we claim that, to some degree, intergenerational sufficientarianism disregards relevant sustainability notions. This neglect undermines intergenerational sufficientarianism in the context of sustainability, here operationalized as sustainable development. In response, we propose the concept of irreplaceable goods as a necessary bridge between the two frameworks. Simultaneously, we stress the need for scholars to consider sufficientarianism as a valid alternative to egalitarianism for achieving resource justice. To harmonize intergenerational sufficientarianism and sustainability, we firstly delineate sustainability theoretical notions that influence fair distributive futures. Secondly, we incorporate those sustainability constraints into the conceptual background of intergenerational sufficientarianism. We also establish the concept of irreplaceable goods as a pivot and anchor for further theoretical development on the sufficient well-being of future generations. Finally, we discuss the implications of this concept in terms of expenditure and investment by contemporary people. With the proposed adjustments, we advocate that intergenerational sufficientarianism is a robust framework to deliver just futures.

Social innovation has gained increased attention as a mechanism for sustainable development. As the Brundtland Commission highlights, the improvement of present conditions should not compromise future generations’ needs. So far, (social) sustainable development has mostly focused on the amelioration of contemporary people’s wellbeing, relegating its duties towards future generations to second place. Given this, I consider it necessary to (re-)direct social innovation towards the promotion of the wellbeing of future people. I propose the concept of irreplaceable goods, a notion deriving from a strong sustainability perspective, which could then be integrated into social innovation practices related to sustainable development. Focusing on guaranteeing, at least, sufficient fruition of certain goods and resources, I devise this concept as a governance tool for steering development actions towards intergenerational justice, driven by social innovation action. In this article, we firstly delineate the relations between sustainable development and social innovation, while focusing on ‘value-driven’ social innovation. Afterward, I shortly introduce strong sustainability as support for future generations’ wellbeing. Furthermore, I develop the concept of irreplaceable goods as a governance tool in social innovation practices and finalize with a discussion on the application of irreplaceable goods in the assessment of sustainable development strategies.

The rapid growth of human population and associated industrialisation creates strains on resources and climate. One way to understand the impact of human activity is to quantify the total environmental pressures by measuring the ‘footprint’. Footprints account for the total direct and/or indirect effects of a product or a consumption activity, which may be related to e.g. carbon, water or land use, and can be seen as a proxy for environmental responsibility. Footprints shape climate and resource debates, especially concerning environmental strategies. However, in general, footprints hold a dichotomous producer–consumer perspective that is not unanimously accepted. In addition, the current footprinting system transmits a simplistic message about environmental responsibility that taints the justice debate and jeopardises the validity of policies based on them. Consequently, it is crucial to question who is (and should be) accountable for adverse environmental effects. It is also critical to investigate how the methodological characteristics of footprints shape and affect the efficacy of policies on climate and natural resources. This article examines these challenges, focusing on negative justice and policy implications resulting from assigning environmental responsibility to a sole agent. The article proposes, and morally justifies, the development of a footprinting method that includes justice parameters in an attempt to render fair results that are more meaningful for environmental action. The second objective is to establish the potential of this new framework to promote environmental responsibility and justice while facilitating policymaking. The suggested justice elements aim at turning footprints into a concrete environmental policy instrument framed under the value of environmental fairness.

The establishment of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) bolstered momentum to achieve a sustainable future. Undeniably, the welfare of future generations is a fundamental value of sustainable development since the publication of the Brundtland report. Nevertheless, SDGs and their targets are meagre on intergenerational justice concerns. The 15-year target horizon of the SDGs might be beneficial for implementation reasons. However, such a short-term perspective is far from innocuous in justice terms. It jeopardises the establishment of long-term goals, which protect both present and future people. This article advocates for clearer stances on intergenerational justice. What type of distributive principles could and should dictate the present socio-economic development? Looking at intragenerational justice principles contained in SDGs does not provide a full answer since they express conflicting visions of what constitutes a fair development. Furthermore, a fair distribution of the development benefits and burdens among present and near future people does not necessarily guarantee the wellbeing of more distant generations. I propose an intergenerational sufficientarian perspective as a way of extending the beneficial impacts of SDGs to both close and distant future generations. Hopefully, it facilitates the translation of the SDGs into policies that promote fairer implementation strategies.

Climate change mitigation effort is being translated into several actions and discourses that make collateral benefits and their rationale increasingly relevant for sustainability, in such a way that they are now a constant part of the political agenda. Taking a border and consensual perspective, co-benefits are considered here to be emerging advantages of the implementation of measures regarding the lowering of greenhouse gases.Departing from the analysis of policy documents referring to two European urban transportation strategies, the emergent co-benefits are problematized and discussed to better understand their moral aspect. Further ethical reflection is conducted after an analysis of some unintended consequences of co-benefits rationale coming from the mentioned examples. The focus is primarily on the challenges of an integrative moral justification for co-benefits and also for their role in the climate change mitigation effort. We also discuss the limitations of the current normative models that frame co-benefits rationale, from a moral viewpoint and in relation to the overall climate change mitigation strategy.In this article, we propose the concepts of well-being and freedom, as portrayed by Capabilities Approach, as possible guiding notions for the moral and social evaluation of goodness of these emergent benefits and their rationale too. Additionally, some preliminary conclusions are drawn regarding the potential of the presented concepts to favour the climate change mitigation action. Finally, a scenario is drawn where Capabilities Approach is the moral guideline for co-benefits rationale showing this way its potential in terms of enhancing climate change mitigation strategy.