by C.L.
“The world has enough for everyone’s need but not enough for everyone’s greed”
-Gandhi-
Introduction:
In the past the prevalent relationship between people and the environment was conceived as humanity’s triumph over nature. The environment has been largely seen as external to humanity, mostly to be used and exploited (Hopwood and O’Brien, 2005) and development was perceived as simply modernization of the globe along Western lines.
During the last forty years the “Promethean view” (Dryzen, 1997) that human knowledge and technology could overcome all obstacles including natural and environmental problems has become increasingly obsolete.
The exacerbated problems that societies throughout the world face in terms of non-sustainability are increasingly complex and persistent in nature. In an early effort to address these challenges the term “sustainable development” was introduced in 1980 by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Resources (IUCN), through the World Conservation Strategy. The goal was to realize sustainable development through the preservation of living resources. (Dresner, 2008; Baker, 2006).
Rotmans (2001) recognised abiding environmental issues such as climate change or non-sustainable mobility are hard to resolve because they tend to be deeply “embedded in societal structures and institutions”. Given this understanding the early definition of sustainable development addressing primarily ecological sustainability, with no correlation to wider social and economic issues was inadequate.
This paper aims to describe the evolution and significance of the concept of sustainable development and discuss some of the criticisms concerning the term. The evolution of the concept will be illustrated by looking at the contributions of the Stockholm Conference, the Brundtland Report, the Rio Summit, Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Summit. In the second part of the essay some of the criticisms of the term “sustainable development” will be presented in a critical manner.
Evolution of “Sustainable Development”:
The turning point in the history of contemporary environmentalism was in 1972 at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment` in Stockholm, Sweden. It provided “the first international recognition of environmental issues” (Dresner, 2008; http://www.iisd.org/rio+5/timeline/sdtimeline.htm).
Specifically, the Swedish government had been concerned about the damage that pollution from other European countries was doing to their lakes. Another key issue raised was the poverty of the developing world and the “regional pollution and acid rain problems of Northern Europe”. The Stockholm Declaration acknowledged the responsibility of governments to protect and improve the environment for future generations – the idea of environmental responsibility. As a result from that several states recognized “in their constitutions or laws the right of their citizens” to an “adequate environment as well as the obligation of the state to protect it” (Baker, 2006).
The concept of sustainable development was introduced as a challenge to the conventional development and with the aspiration to integrate environmental considerations into economic policy. At its early stages the concept aimed at balancing environmental concern with “endorsement of economic growth, at least in the South […] and it sought to modify the kind of growth strategies that were pursued” (Dresner, 2008).
Meadowcroft (1997) recognized that there are many ways of delineating sustainable development and of specifying its implications for policy making (Lele, 1991; Redclif, 1992; Mitlin, 1992; Pezzy 1992). Though the most widely used definition of sustainable development was postulated by the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987, with the publication of the Brundtland report “Our Common Future” that defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Baker, 2006; Dresner, 2008; Blewitt, 2008; Edwards, 2005; Meadowcroft, 1997).
The Brundtland Report acted as a milestone in explicitly addressing the links between social, economic, and ecological dimensions of sustainable development. Moreover, as Lele (1991) noted through the report sustainable development was seen as a model of societal change, that in addition to traditional development, it has the objective of maintaining ecological sustainability. It further elaborated the idea of environmental responsibility by stressing the fact that the promotion of sustainable development involves “guarding the common fate of humanity”. And by calling upon several changes in global environmental governance by: “getting at the source, dealing with the effects, assessing global risks, making informed choices, providing legal means and investing in our future” (Baker, 2006).
Prior to the Brundtland Report, environmental protection was seen narrowly as a threat to development and growth. O’Riordan (cited in Dresner, 2008) argued that the reason that sustainable development emerged as a popular term is that it could be used both by “environmentalists, emphasizing the sustainable part, and by developers, emphasizing the development part”. With the introduction of the term it was the first time that a mutual interlinkage between the economy and the environment was articulated. Specifically the World Commission on Environment and Development stated that: “Ecology and economy are becoming ever more interwoven – locally, regionally, nationally and globally – into a seamless net of causes and effects” (WCED, 1987).
According to Baker (2006) the political significance of Brundtland Report is that it does not only address issues of unsustainable development but it “puts forward solutions or pathways to the future”. Thus, it provides a foundation for the integration of environmental policies and development strategies into a new development paradigm.
Furthermore, the report set the normative principles to guide behavior. These are: common but differentiated responsibilities, inter and intra generational equity, justice, participation and gender equality principles.
In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in Rio de Janeiro and came to be known as the Rio Summit. It was attended by more than 178 representatives of states and of governments signifying the support to the goals of the Brundtland’s Report and the increasing importance of reconciling environmental protection with economic development policies at the international level (Meadowcroft, 1997; Baker, 2006; Dresner, 2008).
The Rio Summit presented 27 principles of sustainable development including the normative principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and equity (inter – intra generational equity) principles of the Brundtland Report. Hence, it placed human beings at the center of concern of sustainable development. Additionally, it attested the sovereign right of states to exploit resources according to their own environmental development policies. Further, it “asserted the right to development” and talked about the importance of making environmental protection “an integral part of the development process” (http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163&l=en).
The Rio Summit also addressed practical issues surrounding the promotion of sustainable development, emphasizing the introduction of policies that balance environmental protection with social and economic concerns, particularly in the Third World. Moreover, it contained several principles of good governance including the precautionary and the “polluter pays” principles that were absent from Stockholm Declaration. Thus, emphasized development and national sovereignty, whereas the Stockholm had emphasized environmental protection and international cooperation. Besides of the development concerns it also dealt with principles of civil society and social and economic groups in the promotion of sustainable development (Meadowcroft, 1997; Baker, 2006).
Rio Summit over the years came to be considered significant for the evolution of the term sustainable development. It led to a number of agreements including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Forest Principles and Agenda 21. It also led to the establishment of new institutions. With the most important being the Commission on Sustainable Development (CBS), whose primary role is to “monitor progress on the agreements reached at Rio” (Dresner, 2008).
One of the most important outcomes from the Rio Summit and in consequence the evolution of sustainable development is the agreement of Agenda 21. It was adopted to “orient environment and development related activities into the 21st century” explicitly called upon states to elaborate “national strategies, plans, policies and processes” to achieve this end (Meadowcroft, 1997; UNCED; 1992; http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/a21-01.htm).
Koch and Grubb (cited in Grubb et. al., 1993) identified four main areas of action of Agenda 21: social and economic development, conservation and management of resources for development, strengthening the role of major groups and setting the means of implementation.
Agenda 21, aimed at offering an action plan for sustainable development for the further integration of social and economic concerns while shifting the emphasis by articulating the importance of a participatory community. It had a bottom up approach stressing the role of the citizens – particularly women – communities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). As Dresner (2006) stated “development was seen for the first time as something built by people rather than from the top down through large scale projects”.
Another contribution made by Agenda 21 was that it specifically pointed to the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption in wealthy countries as the most significant cause of environmental degradation. Thus, it stressed for the first time the importance of the promotion of sustainable development in the form of new social learning. By emphasizing the importance of creating adequate knowledge and institutions through education and through the development of human resources.
Further, a major achievement was the introduction of Local Agenda 21 (LA21). It gave priority to the role of local authorities as promoters of sustainable development since they are closest to the people and can have an important role in educating and mobilising the public. Baker (2006) observed that local authorities are “expected to act as catalysts in the start-up of LA21 initiatives and subsequently as facilitators, ensuring the participation of a wide range of actors drawn from within their local community”.
Though LA is not legally binding worldwide by 2000 more than 61% have established policies and frameworks for sustainable development at local and regional levels – Local Action Plans – addressing diverse diversity issues such as: water management, unemployment, poverty, health and climate change (Blewitt, 2008; Baker, 2006).
In 2002 United Nations called the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg “to make progress in the formulation and elaboration of national strategies for sustainable development and begin their implementation by 2005” (UN, 2002 cited in Brodhag and Taliere, 2006).
The goal of the Johannesburg Summit was to review progress and “fill the key gaps that have impeded its implementation” (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/media/Brochure.PDF; Blewitt, 2008). The Summit enhanced the notion of sustainable development by stressing the role of trade and overseas development aid, the importance of debt reduction and good governance in the developing world, the mobilization of national and external investment.
The Summit reaffirmed the commitment to the “full implementation of Agenda 21 and the Millennium Development Goals with governments adopting a Political Declaration and a Plan of Implementation” detailing the priorities of action. Moreover, at the Summit more than 300 partnership initiatives were announced “by and between the Governments, civil society and the private sector” as a vital tool to pursue sustainable development “in a way that complements government action”. Besides, the agreements that were reached the Summit also identified “not only what had to be done but also who will do it”
(http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/media/Brochure.PDF).
Criticisms of Sustainable Development:
Despite the progress and the increased awareness of the major environmental problems and their implications “sustainable development” is a deeply contested term.
One of the early criticisms of the definition of the term sustainable development is that it is rather vague and lacks of consistency in the sense that you can claim anything as part of sustainable development. And it’s open to a variety of interpretations or conceptions, especially for policy implementation (Baker, 2006; Dresner, 2008; Jacobs, 1991; Heyes & Liston-Heyes, 1995). Nonaka and Toyama (2005) in a similar fashion claimed that “sustainable development has no clear end to it and requires relentless efforts to achieve it”. Daneke (2001) noted that due to its ambiguity the term has taken on that “peculiar political status” through which one can “exude rhetoric support without necessarily committing to particular policy requirements”. While, Dresner (2008) claimed that the real problem was not agreeing on a precise definition but upon the values that would underlie any such definition.
Likewise criticisms arise in the emphasis different people put in the term sustainable development. With some highlighting development through economic growth while others give priority to sustainability through environmental protection. Similarly, there is a discrepancy on the definition that people ascribe to “development”. Someone will stress the need for “development” in terms of improving prospects for human beings – human resource development. Someone else will describe it in terms of growth. As Dresner (2008) stated “most people support these goals but disagree about what exactly constitutes sustainable development”.
Similarly criticisms were drawn concerning the Brundtland Report and the principles that were compromising it. In contention, while it provides a set of guidelines “it is not detailed enough to determine actual goals”. In addition, Baker (2006) stressed the need for a distinction between what the report argues “ought to be the case and what it is actually the case in practice”.
In the case of environmental responsibility, critics attest that not all countries have contributed in the same way and to the same extent in the creation of the current environmental crisis. Thus, underlining the fact that countries have different capacities to take action to deal or prevent further environmental deterioration.
Nonetheless, it seems that the criticisms concerning are uncalled for since the report’s “common but differentiated responsibilities” provides a way of bridging the gap among the Third World and industrial countries by distributing the duties and tasks related with the promotion of sustainable development more fairly. Baker (2006) sums up the importance of the principle by stating “[…] in short the use of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is driven by equity considerations. The use of the principle thus helps to ensure that efforts to promote sustainable development have a more global reach”.
A different issue that arose was traced during negotiation processes on international environmental treaties by developing countries. They claim that environmental protection measures deprive them of their right to choose their economic development strategies. In that case, Baker (2006) observed that the use of the above principle might help prolong the belief that “a trade-off exists between the environment and development” notwithstanding the “fact that the model of sustainable development is designed to break such a perception”. Thus, a possibility exists that differential obligations can strengthen environmental degradation by allowing Third World countries to continue polluting, destroying habitats or overusing their resources.
In relation to the Brundtland principles and specifically the inter-generational equity principle criticism derives from the link between poverty and environmental harm. The main claim is that, the poor are not the only ones that misuse environmental resources but the rich as well. Consequently the alleviation of poverty does not necessarily result to an end of environmental degradation. Pepper (1996) shifted the focus in terms of environmental degradation naming as the root cause the Western style of wealth instead of poverty. Moreover, he claimed that the problem of pollution cannot be solved by market solutions but by “reversing the enclosure of the commons”, suggesting that the call for more “global management” is simply another example of Western cultural imperialism. Dobson (1998) highlighted the importance to link poverty relief with other policies if environmental degradation is to be halted.
Criticisms about inter-generational equity principle focus on “how today’s unsustainable behaviour can narrow the options available for future generations” (Baker, 2006). Scepticism from the above statement ascends on the lack of timeline, of how far into the future the obligations stretch. Moreover, the lack in advance knowledge of the interests and needs of future generations and the way that they could be given some form of voice or consideration in present policy making is detested. Baker (2006) states that “environmental tasks, such as planning, monitoring and evaluating, typically do not fit in with the long-term period needed to take account for future generations”.
Fiorino (cited in Baker, 2006) referred to the lack of agreement over the definition of participation. He acknowledged that not all countries have developed civil societies that are able to take part effectively in policy making. Hence, participation does not necessarily ensure the promotion of sustainable development. Lafferty and Meadowcroft (cited in Baker, 2006) questioned the “assumption that democracy and enhanced environmental protection are mutually reinforcing”. Furthermore, the development strategy of one region may deprive another of a source on which its prosperity has traditionally depended. A particular locality might refuse to accept the consequences of policies that the country’s citizens collectively endorse. Similarly, a region may wish to accept levels of environment risk that its neighbors or national authorities find unacceptable (Lafferty and Meadowcroft cited in Baker, 2006). From that perspective, participation could create the possibility for “demagogic behavior and political extremism”. Finally major problems lay on who is to decide what groups or individuals participate and on what basis they participate in policy making.
Ecologists condemn the concept of sustainable development as a model that reflects the interests of the politically and economically powerful nations of the industrialized world. They maintain that states with power use “constitutions such as the UN to transform their own state interests into international agreed-upon, environmental norms and governance systems” (Baker, 2006).
Daneke (2001) criticized the role of governmental interventions in regards to the implementation of the goals set by sustainable development as “limited […] regulatory bureaucracies with parochial methods of strategic assessment”. Additionally, he said that in countries where major “sustainability initiatives have emerged they contradict as much as compliment private sector activities”. He then continued by noting that these initiatives (emission targets, fuel efficiency etc.) only help to “underwrite some of the information costs of industry” without being able to sustain appropriate levels of commitment by individual firms due to their vagueness (i.e. Montreal Protocol on CFCs).
Hayek and Wildavsky (cited in Meadowcroft 1997) argued that the concept of “plan for progress” for sustainable development is flawed because it is impossible to determine in advance what progress will entail. In Wildavsky’s word’s “planning does not work because no large and complex society can figure out what simple and unambiguous things it wants to do, or in what clear order of priority, or how to get them done”. There is some validity in the sense that the future can never be controlled widely, though Meadowcroft (1997) argues that “elements of the future may be determined through courses of action adopted in the present”.
Critics also claim that the state is losing its sovereignty in international environmental management due to the development of global environmental governance. Still, Baker (2006) recognized that the state still “remains the primary actor in the global environmental governance”, however in close association with other actors.
Conclusion:
Although there have been a mass variety of factors in the evolution of sustainable development it is intrinsic to note that the significant factors were developed over the course of the given conferences and documents. Sustainable development has been introduced in order to build bridges between the social, economic and environmental factors within the international communities. In answering the criticism Meadowcroft (cited in Baker, 2006) observes that the vagueness that critics ascribe to the term sustainable development do not actually detract from its usefulness, rather indicate the complexity of issues that are “invoked when development and environment are juxtaposed”. In addition Baker (2006) emphasized that the lack of clarity of the term can have positive effects on stimulating creative thinking and practice thus; in political terms it has allowed different groups with conflicting interests to reach some “common ground upon which concrete policies can be developed”.
Sustainable development has offered recognition to third world countries and their poverty factor and has presented a means for a possible solution. Considering that it is a relatively new theory it requires further developments in order for it to be a model suitable to be further success. This study of sustainable development has proven that it is an evolutionary concept in its nature and by this logic it is a given that there is potential for it to develop further and overcome the present glitches it faces.