CHAPTER 1

REFLECTIONSON SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT

What do we mean by "sustainable development"! How did we get to the current situation!Why should we do things differently! Where, when, and what action is required! Who will be affected!

Are the issues of develoPing countries fundomentally different from those of the industrialized world!

THE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

The traditional concerns expressed in West-ern concepts of development have been"who gets what" and "how is it distributed?"As a discipline, economics(and consequently thestudy of development) hasbeen selective and incom-plete in explaining whyhumans make the choicesthey do. Narrowly definedfactors of production, land,labor, and capital ignore "externalities," so-called free goods or external costs. Cost-benefit ratios, often used to determine therate of return on investment, exclude ancil-lary effects and focus only on intendedconsequences. Equations, based on quantita-tive factors, are inadequate in determininghow human values arise and how qualitativefactors contribute to peoples' choices.

Western understanding of howhumanityrelates to the natural world has been greatlyinfluenced by historical traditions of subduingnature, taming the wilderness, and pacifyingforces that oppose our will. Assumptions ofhuman superiority have been encouraged bycultural and/or religious traditions thatemphasize a confrontational approach, com-petition for resources, and satisfaction flow-ing from winning or defeating adversariesand from accumulation and consumption.There is abundant evidence that theseapproaches have succeeded in stimulatingcreativity and innovation, producing amplerewards for some. There is also substantial

Sustainable development: meetingthe needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet thei rown needs.

evidence that these gains, by a minority, aremade at a cost that the natural environmentand the majority of the global population can

no longer afford to pay.If "economic progress"

leads to global warming,climate change, acceleratedextinction of biologicalspe-cies, and degradation ofsoils, air, and water, wemight need to rethink how

we measure and account for such "progress."What are some of the alternatives? Econ-omics designed to maximize growth mightgive place to systems that optimize security,satisfybasic needs, and empowerpeople withthe means to contribute to the betterment oftheir lives (UNDP,199O, 1991, and 1992).The value of growth might be seen in itsability to generate resources to finance thoseimprovements rather than as an end in itself(World Bank 1990, 1991, and 1992). Socialchange that increases the options availableto individuals and societies could become abasic objective of public policy. Economiesand societies based on ecological harmonyof humankind with the rest of nature wouldprovide a firmer base for progress and devel-opment, and some optimism that futuregenerations will have opportunities as greator greater than those we enjoy.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

Each of us functions in a variety of different

17

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILITY

relationships or spheres of influence. Wehave different relationships with our parents,our spouse, our children, with schools, withemployers, with clients, with organizations,with religious affiliations, with figures ofauthority. There are feedback mechanismspresent in all of these relationships: How weinteract on one level has an impact on ourother interactions.

The same concept of interactions andfeedbacks is helpful in understanding the"spheres" in which we act in a larger context(Weiner, 1991) (see Figure 1.1). Gases andmolten material began to cool and congealsome 4.5 billion years ago, becoming thefoundation of our globe, the Uthosphere.Vigorous volcanic activity early in Earthhistoty contributed the gaseous emissionsthat formed the atmosphere; about one billionyears later, the atmosphere had evolved to achemical mixture similar to the present-dayatmosphere, hospitable to life. Thehydrosphere and cryosphere - the water inour oceans, lakes, and rivers, and the polarice caps, respectively - followed; liquidwater has been present on the Earth for atleast the past 3.8 billion years. Life forms,the biosphere, began to emerge at least asearly as 3.5 billion years ago. Some 65 mil-lion years ago, probably as a result of theimpact of an immense asteroid colliding withthe Earth in the Yucatan and the subsequentblockage of significant parts of the sun's rays,many life forms - including the dinosaurs- were destroyed, and the Age of Reptilesgave way to the Age of Mammals.Theancestors of modern humans, homo habiUs(cognitive beings, inhabitants of a reasoningworld, the rwosphere), made their appearanceabout 2.5 million years ago, distinguishingthemselves from the other animals, whoinhabit the zoosphere.Modern humans, homosaPiens,did not appear until about 50,000years ago. It was only 10,000 years ago thathunting and gathering gave way to cultiva-

18

tion as the chief means of livelihood, leadingto the establishment of villages, towns, andlater cities. Subsequently, pastoralism gaveway to agriculture, to mercantilism, andeventually to the industrial revolution.

HUMAN IMPACTSAND THE LAWS OFNATURE

We often refer to the "laws of nature" to

explain how this process occurred. Whateverwas required to make the planet fit for lifehas been "provided by nature" for at least3.5 billion years. During this immense spanof time a dynamic system existed that main-tained an equilibrium, so that basic relation-ships of heat and cold, light and darkness,respiration and photosynthesis were conduc-ive to the emergence and evolution of mil-lions of species. Amino acids and DNAchains combined to produce an unprece-dented diversity of life, which is now esti-mated to contain some 10 million species.

Human beings are relatively late arrivalsin this evolutionary chain (see Figure 1.2).Many other species emerged earlier andsurvived for long periods. Some becameextinct before humans appeared. Manyspecies that predated humans still thrive.Throughout Earth's history, all species haveshared a relationship. They have contributedto, and are part of, a food chain andbiogeochemical cycle that has sustained lifeon Earth. The various "spheres" of theirexistence have interacted and providedfeedback to maintain a dynamic and adjust-able system. Throughout this period,"nature" has managed the relationship andmaintained an equilibrium.

Humans changed this relationship. Theygathered seeds from the forests and began toplant and cultivate the soil, channellingwater for their use, cooking and processingfood, and using animal and plant material fortextiles and utensils. They domesticated

REFLECTIONSON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Figure 1.1 - Schematic View of the Earth System

AtmosphericChemistry

CO2CH.N20NO

°3

SCHEMATICVIEW OF THE EARTHSYSTEM.Among the representative processes depicted clock-wise from top); atmospheric chemistry; winds (large arrows); evaporation and precipitation, criticalingredients of the physical climate system; ocean circulation (small arrows) around polar ice cap;sea-floor spreading, reshaping Earth's surface and recycling elements through the interior (section);and photosynthesis by terrestrial vegetation, one of many contributors to the global carbon cycle.

From: Earth System Sciences Committee, NASAAdvisory Council, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Washington, D.C.,May 1986). Reprinted with permission.

plants and began to calculate animals interms of their utility to humans rather thanfor their intrinsic worth as part of an interde-pendent relationship among species.

Initially, the impact of humanity onnature was relatively light. As towns andcities emerged, trading relationships devel-oped, sea and land transportation improved,

and linguistic and cultural diversity led tothe formation of states and empires. Localdespoliation occurred, but there were newfrontiers that could be settled when localresources were depleted. Until the advent ofthe industtial revolution, human activitieswere lightly felt on the surface of the Earth,in the oceans, and in the air.

19

-----

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILITY

The Scientific and IndustrialRevolutions

Western knowledge of the world around us,previously based on philosophical and theo-logical concepts, became "scientific" throughthe discoveries and experimentations ofCopernicus and Galileo, Columbus andMagellan, Newton and Faraday, Linnaeusand Darwin (Boorstin, 1985). The mysteriesof the Earth did not reveal themselves easily;the search for knowledge and scientificcertainty became increasingly specialized,narrow, and esoteric, often lacking connect-ive tissue among disciplines. The idea ofEarth as an integrated, mutually interdepen-dent entity receded in Western conscious-ness. Partnership between the sexes gave wayto stereotypes of male and female roles, withgreater social and economic value placed onaggression, warfare, and male dominance.Work performed outside the home wasconsidered economically productive, whilewhat was done inside the home - mainly bywomen - was ignored in terms of economicor social productivity or worth.

The industrial revolution greatlyexpanded the scope and impact of humanactivity. Freed from the constraints of indi-vidual or collective muscle power andartisanship by the capture of energy and itsmechanical transmission, humans were ableto change materially many of the resourceson which their lives depended. Coal, steam,and mechanical devices transformed min-

erals, metals, wood, and plants into newmaterials for new uses. The use of theEarth's resources increased. Wealth created

from the exchange of goods placed a pre-mium on productivity and competitiveness.Exploration led to the discovery of newriches and lands to be exploited. The divi-sion of populations into economic classes,always present, became more pronounced.Vested interests were more narrowly defined.Continuous exponential economic growth

20

was seen as the means to greater progress.The Western world continued to operate

within the paradigm of the scientific andindustrial revolutions until the middle of the

20th century. Those who questioned theseorthodoxies, like Marx and Engels, or Ibsenand Steinbeck, or Mahatma Gandhi, orNyerere, Mao, or Allende, or who espousedmore collective or humanist values, wereattacked - not because their analysis ofsociety was incorrect, but because the coursethey advocated did not conform to theaccepted view of the world.

THE UNIQUENESS OF OUR WORLD

One of the major factors that distinguishesEarth from Mars or Venus is respiration, thatis, the ability to convert carbon dioxide intooxygen through photosynthesis. The Earth'slithosphere, the hydrosphere, and thecryosphere contribute to an environment inwhich life is possible (the biosphere) becausethe atmosphere contains the right mixture ofoxygen and provides a protective ozonelayer. The oxygen enables air-breathing spe-cies to survive, and the ozone layer shieldsthe biosphere from harmful ultraviolet radi-ation. Mars and Venus do not have the

precise atmospheric mixture that enablesplants to grow and keeps oxygen accessible,nor do they have protection from those raysof the sun that are harmful to life.

Consequently, as the Goldilocks problemwould have it, Venus is far too hot and Marsis far too cold to sustain life. Earth is justright, unique - at least in our solar system- in having the conditions necessary tosustain life (Weiner, 1991).

The Gaia Hypothesis

We do not know why the Earth has theseunique properties. James Lovelock, a Britishscientist of repute and a self-proclaimed

REFLECTIONSON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Myths and Realities

Human beings continue to ignore the evidence of the past 50 years and tobehave in a way that is increasingly self-destructive. It may be helpful to lookat some of our underlying assumptions about how the world works. Each ofthese assumptions helps to shore up our present way of doing things. Each ofthem is highly questionable and calls fOr us to adjust our thinking.

. Cause and effect are linear - there is a simple explanation.

All growth is good - there are no effective limirs... When we throw something "away," it is gone.

Better technology has the answers... The future is what happens to us; we don't create it.

If a problem can't be measured, it doesn't exist..

. If something can be justified economically, it is good.

If something is "uneconomic," it has no value... Relationships are linear; feedback is accurate and timely; there are no

critical thresholds; systems can be managed through cause-effectthinking.

More security, better education, can be measured by money expended.More is better.

Nations, people, economic sectors can develop separately and indepen-dently, some thriving while others suffer.

Choices are either/or, never both/and.

Possession of more things means greater happiness.

.

.

.

.

. You can't buck the system - individuals can't make any difference.

People are bad, greedy, and not to be trusted - good people are rareexceptions.

Rationality is superior to intuition or moral values.

Present systems are okay - alternative systems would be worse.

We know what we are doing.

.

.

.

.

(Modified from Meadows. 1991. pp. 4-5.1

21

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILIlY

Figure1.2 - The Late Arrival of Humans in the Span of Earth History

End of ice agesHuman evol~lion

245'"EQ,0-

286

'-t!t"

0 Millions 01 "e' r ars

-or;-FJ

100

'!:.0

500~'"

From: Earth by Frank Press and Raymond Siever. Copyright @ 1986 by W.H. Freeman and Company. Reprinted with permission.

eccentric, has put forward the Gaia Hypoth-esis, which "supposes the Earth to be aliveand considers what evidence there is for

and against the supposition" (1990, p. 8).We may find this hypothesis helpful as anaid to understanding the links among thespheres in which we operate, whether weaccept it metaphorically or as a literal geo-

22

physical possibility (that all ecosystems areinterconnected and therefore interdepen-dent). Lovelock describes the biosphere asthe envelope of living matter and takes allspecies and their physical environmenttogether as a single interactive system. Hepostulates that all living matter both con-tributes to the health of and assists in the

demolition of the natural environment. To

live "in harmony with Gaia" (Lovelock,1990, p. 225) is the objective, in otder topreserve the Earth's life-sustaining properties.

The principle behind the Gaia hypoth-esis is not one of preplanning but one ofreaction and adaptation, of global co-oper-ation among species, of interdependent linksthat connect every species on Earth andaffect the survival chances of every otherone. As a1\ living bacteria and organismsconstantly interact, the Earth adjusts andcompensates, altering habitats in response tochanging conditions and stimulating, deplet-ing, or extinguishing species as the condi-tions required for their survival change.

Gaia is not purposefullyanti-human, but solong as we continue to change the globalenvironment against her preferences, weencourage our replacement with a moreenvironmentally seemly species lf we seethe world as a living organism of which weare a part - not the owner, nor the ten-ant; not even a passenger - we couldhave a long time ahead of us and our spe-cies might survive for its "a1\otted span"(Love\ock, 1990, p. 236).

In the long run the biosphere survives butits species do not, just as the human bodysurvives while losing and replacing individ-ual cells (Weiner, 1991, p. 210).

Fossil evidence would lead us to conclude

that species whose behavior was not con-ducive to harmony among the interactivespheres that support life found it increasinglydifficult to survive. Whether humans can

expect to be treated differently by Gaia maydepend on our readiness to adjust our behav-ior and harmonize our activities with nature

rather than attempt to set ourselves apart.

REFLECTIONSON SUSTAINABLE DEVElOPMENT

ADJUSTING THE PARADIGM

Prospectsfor New Approaches

Events of the last 50 years have begun toshake the complacency of the global com-munity. First, atomic physics gave rise tothe splitting of the atom and the consequentmaking of nuclear weapons. The DoomsdayClock was created to measure humanity'smarch towards "mutua1\y assured destrUc-tion." Second, the electronic revolution,particularly the invention of the microchipand subsequent generations of computers,each more compact and powerful, gave acompetitive advantage to those who couldprocess and transmit information most quick-ly. While the industrial revolution enhancedthe impact of human muscle power by fac-tors of tens and hundreds, the electronicrevolution enhanced brain power and theability to communicate exponentia1\y. Third,evidence is mounting that human activitiesare now destroying the equilibrium amongthe various spheres that support life at apace that nature can no longer correct.

The "problem" may be the way in whichhumans view their relationship with the restof the world. This relationship includes ourinterdependence with other people and otherspecies, the impact that our activities haveon the continuing ability of the biosphere tosustain life, and the way we measure orassign value to things and relationships.Perhaps if we recognize the anomalies in theway we view our current world and what isactua1\y happening out there, our paradigmmay change and we may be able to see moreclearly a way to a desirable future.

What we are doing now may be meetingsome short-term needs, but at a long-termcost that cannot be met. While our approachto development to date has had many suc-cesses in terms of per capita income gains,higher literacy, lower child mortality, greater

23

THE CHAllENGE OF SUSTAINABIUTY

life expectancy, better access to education,etc., the cost of achieving these gains hasbeen high financially and environmentally,and very uneven in the benefits obtained.

For the first time in history over 50 per-cent of the human race is literate Our

ability to gather and communicate infor-mation has never been greater. The worldas a whole still has more than enoughresources to meet all human needs. Never

before has the human population had suchpower, organization and riches with whichto manage those resources wisely and tomeet those human needs sustainably. Sim-ultaneously, never before have so manyresources been wasted and destroyed onsuch a large scale in so many parts of theplanet or have so many people lived livesof deprivation and suffering (Meadows,1991, p. 39).

During the decade of the 1980s, there was amarked decline in some of these indicatorsfrom what had been achieved in previousdecades. Is it not time to ask whether thereis a better way of doing things? The impactof sustained poverty, disease, and lack ofopportunities to realize human potentialaffects all of us in developing and developedcountries. We need to do new things and weneed to do things differently.

The Challenges Are Real

The challenge facing world leaders, and all ofus whom they represent, was summarizedprior to the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED)heldin Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, as follows:

[World leaders] must initiate significantreform of the policies and institutions thatare behind the steady depletion of ourbasic ecological capital, the acceleratingdegradation of the environment, and the

24

growing threat to essential life-support sys-tems. They must commence a process ofbasic change in the way we conductdomestic and international economic rela-

tions and in the way we make decisions ingovernment, industry, and the home. Theymust begin to reshape our internationalinstitutions for an age of total interdepen-dence (MacNeill et al., 1991, p. 109).

Is there such great urgency? Are we beingstampeded into actions before we know theirconsequences? Is there enough evidence tojustify fundamentally different approaches tothose that have'served (some of us) to date?Is there validity in the view that environ-mental risks now pose the greatest danger tohuman security and survival? "The next onehundred years will be one of the most dan-gerous periods since the origin of life W eare living at the start of a mass extinction, amass dying, such as the planet has notexperienced since the end of the Age of theDinosaurs, some 65 million years ago"(Weiner, 1991, pp. 6, 188).

There is no doubt that changes aretaking place in our soils, water, and atmos-phere more quickly than ever because of theimpact of human activity. Consistent in-creases over the past one hundred years inthe level of carbon dioxide, methane, andother "greenhouse gases" have been welldocumented. Deforestation and deserti-fication reduce the Earth's natural capacityto absorb carbon dioxide and remit oxygeninto the atmosphere. The impact of syntheticchemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)in depleting the protective ozone layer is nolonger questioned. Population growth rates,while declining in percentage terms globally,are creating population densities that exceedthe carrying capacities of many parts of theworld. Approximately one-fifth of the world'spopulation that lives in the developed worldis responsible for four-fifths of annual global

REFLECTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Is There Such Great Urgency?

The dynamics of "our system" are in disarray. The evidence speaks for itself.

Each day:

. 35,000 people die of starvation, 27,000 of them children;220,000 people are born; and1.4 billion people (25 percent of the global population) live inabject poverty with their most basic needs unmet; yet enough foodis already produced to feed more than the current globalpopulationof 5.4 billion people.

.

.

Each day:

.

.57 million tons (52 tonnes) of topsoil are lost to erosion;70 square miles (181 square kilometers) become desert; and80 square miles (207 square kilometers) of tropical forest aredestroyed; yet hundreds of thousands of farmers know and practiceagricultural technologies that preserve the soil, promote long-termyields, and minimize the use of harmful chemicals; desertificationreduces the amount ofland that can support human livelihood; for-est losses result in soil erosion, flooding and drought, siltation ofwater reservoirs, extinction of species, and enhancement of thegreenhouse effect.

.

Each day:

.

.$2 billion is spent on armaments; andbetWeen 10 and 100speciesbecome extinct because their habitats havebeen destroyed by human activity.

Each minute:

. 60 million barrels of oil - whichis non-renewable- are burned andcontribute significantlyto the release of carbon dioxide into the atmos-phere at rates that threaten a global climate change, yet all the goodsand services the world now consumes could be produced with one-fourth of the energy it now uses, just by using it more efficiently.

(Modified from Meadows. 1991. pp. 37-38.)

25

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILITY

resource use. If similar levels of consumptionwere "enjoyed" in the rest of the world, therates of soil degradation, and water andatmospheric pollution would increase by 400percent. Global warming and consequentclimate change threaten to flood coastalareas, increase the violence and frequencyof tropical storms, and disrupt agriculturalproduction. The extinction of hundreds ofspecies - many unknown and undocu-mented - along with their role and poten-tial benefits lost depletes the biologicaldiver-sity of the planet, the gene pool that permitsadaptation to change.

We do not understand fullythe synergis-tic feedbacks that these changes are produc-ing in the Earth's natural dynamic systems.They could be slow and insidious,or sudden,sporadic, and unpredictable. There are warn-ing signs that human activity has exceededthe design tolerances of Spaceship Earth(Fuller, 1969 and 1970). Having taken overthe management of the planet from nature- or Gaia - by the intensity of our activ-ities, "we have to take on the never-ceasingresponsibilityof keeping the Earth a fit placefor life, a service now (hitherto) provided forfree" (Lovelock, 1990, p. 202).

NEW ASSUMPTIONS AS A PRELUDETOACTION

A Fundamental Proposition

If we look at the meshing of the world'seconomy with the Earth's ecology only interms of our relationships with developingcountries, we are missing some fundamentalpoints: The actionswe take in any part of theworld affect all parts; we cannot segregatehuman activities from the activities of otherspecies,nor within the artificialboundariesofnation states; global interaction quickly andinevitably transforms local actions into global

26

results. This understanding should serve bothto caution us about activities that are detri-

mental and encourage us to act in ways thatare increasingly beneficial to global ecology.

How do we take on the responsibility ofplanetary management? If we accept that weare approaching, and indeed may havepassed, a number of critical thresholds, wecan set out some assumptions for responsiblemanagement of planetary resources(MacNeill et al., 1991, pp. 30-49).

. Current consumption levels in indus-trialized countries cannot be sustained,let alone emulated by the nearly 80 per-cent of the global population living indeveloping countries.

. Population growth and density should berelated to the carrying capacity of thelocality where the population lives.

. Emissions of ozone-depleting syntheticchemicals must be curtailed; even if cut-backs are achieved, the concentrationsof chemicals already in the stratospherewill continue to deplete the ozone layerfor many years to come.

. Global warming is a reality that must beanticipated; while its full implicationsare unclear, it will have diverse impactsin different parts of the world.

. Economic growth is a means to humanbetterment, not an end in itself, andmust be fully costed through proceduresthat take account of the value of stand-

ing resources and the impact on theenvironment.

. Environmental issues are no longer anafterthought, but rather an integral partof public and private decision making.

. Change is needed in the way govern-ments intervene in the market throughtaxes, incentives, subsidies, and disin-centives.

. Accounting systems must incorporatevalue for standing assets and revise whatis included in estimates of Gross Nation-

al Product (GNP).

. We must fe-examine the manner inwhich public and private sector actorsare held accountable for the ecologicalas well as the economic consequences oftheir actions.

What Needs To Be Done?

Environmental changes that threaten peaceand security will likely be recognized andresponded to more rapidly than those thatdo not appear to have a strategic impact.Examples might include control over energyand scarce resources, ozone depletion ashealth care costs mount, or migration if lossof livelihood due to deforestation ordesertification results in mass movements of

people (MacNeill et al., 1991).In terms of North-South relations there

will be a need to find common cause and

repair the apparent polarization that emergedin Rio. In its Human Development Report1991, the United Nations DevelopmentProgram (UNDP)called for a new understand-ing of what constitutes national security interms, not of military might, but of theability to meet the needs of inhabitants. Thereport emphasized the sometimes forgottentruth that development is supposed to pro-vide people with a greater range of choicesand greater control over decisions that affectthem. In subsequent reports, the UNDPalsocalled for substantial reform of international

development institutions, to ensure thatenvironmental and developmental needs are

REFLECTIONSON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

taken together in public sector investmentplans (1990, 1991, and 1992).

Public policy should reflect a new under-standing of the relationships of trade, debt,investment, and access to technology and aidwith environmental concerns. This is critical

if developing countries are to recognize thatthey share both a short- and long-terminterest with the developed countries inreaching new international agreements torespond to environmental needs. Globalbargains can be struck, as seen in the UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea

(Montego Bay, 1982), and in the Protocol onSubstances that Deplete the Ozone Layer(Montreal, 1987), as well as in the agree-ments reached at the United Nations Con-

ference on Environment and Development(UNCED) (Benedick, 1991). Much moreremains to be done through internationalconventions, but there is no utopia to befound in some new form of world govern-ment, particularly given the strong reluc-tance of governments worldwide to cedeelements of national sovereignty.

Where Do We Start?

"The most critical need...will be to activateand accelerate the entire presently availablemachinery for international action at alllevels" (Sand, 1990). This could involvemaking existing machinery more efficientand effective, such as ensuring that the newUNCEDis given adequate resources, andbroadening the mandate of the InternationalCourt of Justice in the Hague to arbitratedisputes and conduct fact-finding judicialenquiries of environmental issues. It will beequally important that the World Bank,regional development banks, and othermultilateral, as well as bilateral, developmentinstitutions strengthen their environmentalcapacity and conduct environmental impactassessments as a standard part of program

27

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILITY

and project planning. This approach reflectsthe need for broad, internationally recog-nized standards, but acknowledges thar theimplementation of international agreementsis only as good as the actions rhar take placeregionally, nationally, and locally.

Bridges will need to be built among gov-ernment, business, developmental non-gov-ernmental organizations, and environmentalgroups to reduce antagonism and benefitfrom diverse points of view. Environmentaldiplomacy, multilateral and bilateral, requiresthat political leaders, foreign ministries, anddevelopment organizations be scientificallyinformed, so thar their actions will be appro-priate and based on accurate information.Policy formulation will increasingly requirethe involvement of non-governmental al1dprivate sector organizations and environ-mental groups, both as sources of informa-tion and input and as actors in carrying outwork to implement the agreements reached.

Are We Making Progress?

How can we determine whether we are

moving in the right direction? We mustexamine the allocation and use of resources.

Do governments encourage ecologicallyresponsible, long-term behavior, or do theyrespond to short-term political or economicpriorities? Is the private sector encouraged bytax and other incentives to invest in conser-

vation, reclamation, and resource use in asustainable way? Are we using nonrenewableresources as efficiently as possible? Are weemploying renewable resources in ways thatwill provide sustainable yields? Do account-ing systems increasingly use real costs, incor-porating values for existing natural capital inthe form of forests, fisheries, soil quality, andfor work performed in the "informal sector"?

We must monitor the development ofalternative technologies that will make farfewer demands on scarce resources than

28

current approaches. Will these technologiesbe globally available? Under what arrange-ments? How appropriate will they be to thediverse circumstances of different countries

and regions?We must look for evidence that atti-

tudes towards economic growth and invest-ment have changed. Has there been a shiftaway from investments in short-term, one-time, high-payoff endeavors, in favor ofinvestments in sustainable yield enterprises?Can we move beyond the carefully nuancedreport of the World Commission on Environ-ment and Development (WCED)that calledfor a five- to tenfold increase in global eco-nomic activity (WCED, 1987), and stipulatethat less of that growth must take place inthe over-consuming North and much morein response to the growing needs of theSouth?

We must seek confirmation that envi-

ronmental issues have become fully incor-porated into decision-making processes at alllevels. Is there evidence of greater under-standing by governments and the public ofthe fundamental importance of environ-mental issues? Is this reflected in our educa-

tional institutions, in multilateral organiz-ations, and bilateral aid agencies, as well asin the decisions of the private sector?

PRIORITIES

In order to promote sustainable develop-ment, we need to ensure that mandates,philosophies, values, attitudes, behaviors,goals, objectives, strategies, programs, pro-jects, and activities encourage the function-ing of systems that support development witha long-term perspective. Development prior-ities must include the following.

. Poverty alleviation: in rural and urbanareas, including improved access tohealth, family planning, education,

employment, and decision making.

. Structural adjustment: helping econ-omies cope with debt and reducedexport earnings and improve economicmanagement (while being sensitive tothe social and economic effects of thisadjustment) .

. Increased participation of women: pro-grams and projects to promote general-ized economic growth and social change,as well as programs aimed specificallyatwomen.

. Environmentally sound development:ecologically sustainable development,environmental impact assessment of allcapital projects, and support for environ-mental strategies.

. Food security: agricultUral research,production, extension, post-harvest tech-nology, transportation, and marketing.

. Energy availability: development ofexisting resources, and research anddevelopment of sustainable alternatives(CIDA, 1987, p. 25).

Dialogue

Primary responsibility for development restswith developing counrties themselves, and isshared by governments, business, labor, non-governmental organizations and institutions,and individuals. To participate effectivelyand have a sense of ownership, all of thesestakeholders must have a voice in deter-mining approaches and making decisions.Discussionof national and regional priorities,policy options, constraints, and the terms onwhich external assistance may be forthcom-ing helps to ensure that the importance of

REflECTIONSON SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT

global concerns is recognized,while nationalactions are taken that are appropriate tolocal circumstances and capacity. Localknowledge, skills, and experience can becomplemented by outside financing, technol-ogy,and organizational and managerial skills.Given global interdependence, we are allstakeholders in sustainable development.

It is clear that economic growth doesneed to be accelerated in developing coun-tries. It is undeniable, however, that theSouth cannot attain current consumptionlevels of industrialized countries withoutplacing unsupportable demands on the recu-perative powers of land, air, and water. Atthe same time, industrialized countries needto develop more efficient and ecologicallysound means of production, implement effec-tive conservation measures, and accept lowerlevels of consumption as the norm in thefuture.

Defining SustainableDevelopment

"Sustainable development" is difficult todefine. While there is increasing consensuson the need for sustainable development,there is not yet sufficient understanding ofthe elements that contribute to it or theirinterrelationships. Prior to UNCED,the formerSecretary for the Environment for Brazilcalled for an approach that would "put ourspecies back in harmony with the rest ofcreation." The report issued by WCEDsays:"Sustainable development is developmentthat meets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of futUre gener-ations to meet their own needs" (WCED,1987, p. 43). The report also provides amore precise definition of sustainable devel-opment: "A process of change in which theexploitation of resources, the direction ofinvestments, the orientation of technologicaldevelopment, and institutional change are allin harmony and enhance both current and

29

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILITY

future potential to meet human needs andaspirations" (WCED,1987, p. 46).

Our current understanding of the con-cept of sustainable development has thefollowing five elements.

1. Physical or environmental sustain-ability: deals with the capacity of thebiosphere to sustain life and preservespecies, and with humanity's stewardshipand responsibility for efficiency in usingand conserving nonrenewable resourcesand using renewables in a sustainablemanner to reduce carbon emissions,remove ozone-destroying chemicals fromproduction, reduce deforestation andland, air, and water degradation.

2. Social sustainability: relates to theinfrastructure of society and its capacityto cope with, measure, and evaluate thechanges that accompany actions affec-ting poverty, demographic change,access to basic health, shelter, educa-tion, jobs, income, and gender equity.

3. Cultural sustainability: relates to thecongruency of personal ethnic, religious,philosophical, and other values andbehavior with the changes that accom-pany development, involving a sense ofownership of the development processand of cultural integrity.

4. Economic sustainability: refers to thecontinuing financial, organizational, andmanagerial capacity to maintain theprocess of adjustment through adoptionand implementation of appropriatemacroeconomic policies.

5. Political sustainability: involves theresponsiveness of the political system tohuman rights and gender equity, individ-ual participation in decisions, a system

30

of representation and freedom to expressviews, political pluralism, the consent ofthe governed, the transparency of deci-sion making, the ethical basis on whichpower is exercised, and good governance(CIDA,1991).

PRINCIPLESINTO PRACTICE

Policy frameworks for sustainable develop-ment should start with an understanding ofhow the finely balanced, integrated Earthsystem works. The Earth is basically a com-plex, closed system. The materials andresources provided when the Earth wasfotmed are limited, and - except for theconstant input of solar energy - they are allwe have. Policies should reflect the need to

use nonrenewable resources as efficiently aspossible, and to ensure that renewableresources are replaced in a way that makestheir continued use sustainable.

To be environmentally responsible,sustainable development programs should payparticular attention to the dynamics of theglobal system: the importance of watershedsas microclimates and natural ecosystems; thecapacity of natural vegetation, including for-ests, for maintaining system equilibrium; theimportance of soil quality and agriculture inensuring basic human security; the role ofhuman settlements and urbanization in

providing basic needs; the fundamentalsignificance of the atmosphere and climate inpreserving the ability of the biosphere tomaintain life; the role of oceans and coastalzones in the provision of basic elements ofthe food chain; and the need to husbandEarth's materials, provide energy efficiently,and reduce waste.

If we are to survive and thrive as a glo-bal community, we must challenge thetraditional mentality that equatesintense resource utilization with higher

standards ofliving. To meet the needsof a growing population, we must pro-duce more, using far less energy andfewer materials, and with much lighterenvironmental impact. Our political,social, economic, and technologicalefforts worldwide must be fully com-mitted to this goal. We must concernourselves with the satisfaction of basic

human needs, a more equitable dis-tribution of the Earth's material

resources and the rejection of excessiveconsumerism as a way of life. We mustacknowledge - and pay - the truecosts of resource utilization (Kumarand Murck, 1992, p. 190).

Equally important is to ensure that decisionsare made by those who will be affected.Environmental considerations should be

REFLECTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE DEVElOPMENT

incorporated at the beginning of economicdecision making; local experience should befully used in designing and implementingprograms; and the governance and steward-ship of the planet should be shared amongglobal institutions, governments, business,labor, private groups, and individuals. In theend, the realization of sustainable develop-ment will depend on "a political system thatensures effective participation in decisionmaking (in other words, human rights anddemocracy), an economic system able togenerate surpluseson a sustainable basis, andan administrative system that is flexible,witha built-in capacity for self-correction"(MacNeill et al., 1991, p. 20).

31

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILIlY

Questions for Review

1. How have our definitions of economic progress and Western attitudestowardsnature influenced and shaped current approaches to development?

2. What are some alternative ways of defining or envisioning economicgrowth and development? Are economic growth and developmentnecessarily incompatible with care for the environment and ecological har-mony?

3. What is the "Gaia Hypothesis"? In what ways have human impacts upsetthe natural balances maintained by Gaia throughout Earth history?

4. How can we monitor and assess our progress towards sustainabledevelopment?

Questions for Discussion and Research1. What is "wrong" with each of the assumptions listed on page 211

2. Do you think it willbe possible for the human species to regain a dynamicand balanced relationship with Gaia?

3. Which of the "problems" listed on page 25 would you identifYas being ofhighest prioriry?

4. With respect to the priorities listed on pages 28-29, do these parallel yourown objectives? Is anything missing?

5. Why is "sustainable development" such a difficult concept to define? Howwould you define it? Do you think the five elements given in this paperconstitute a reasonably comprehensive definition of sustainable develop-ment?

6. What should be the substance and goals of a North-South dialogue? Isthere a basis on which to begin such a dialogue?

7. How can we successfully balance the roles of government, business, devel-opmental and non-governmental organizations, and environmental groups,with respect to the formulation and implementation of policy forsustainable development?

32

--

REFLECTIONSON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

REFERENCES

Benedick, R.E. 1991. Protecting the ozone layer: Newdirections in diplomacy. In Preserving the GlobalEnvironment:The Challengeof ShoredLeadership,ed.J.T. Mathews. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Boorstin, D.J. 1985. The Discoverers:A History ofMan's Search to Know His World and Himself. NewYork: Vintage Books.

ClDA. 1987. Shoring Our Future: Canadian Interna-tionalDevelopmentAssistance.Hull, Quebec: Ministryof Supply and Services Canada.

-. 1991. Sustainable dvelopment discussion paper.Ottawa, Canada: CIDA.

Fuller, B. 1969. Utopia or Oblivian:The ProspectsforHumanity. New York: Bantam Books, 1969.

-. 1970. Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. NewYork: Pocket Books.

Kumar, R., and B. Murck. 1992.On CommonGround:ManagingHuman-Planet RelatianshiPs.Toronro: JohnWiley & Sons.

Lovelock, J. 1990. The Age of Gaia: A BiographyofOur Uving Earth. New York: Bantam Books.

MacNeil, J., P. Winsemius, and T. Yakushiji. 1991.Beyond Interdependence:The Meshing of the World'sEconomy and the Earth's Ecology.New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Meadows, D. 1991. The Global Citizen. Washington:Island Press.

Sand, P.H. 1991. International cooperation: Theenvironmenral experience. In Preserving the GlobalEnvironment:The ChoUengeof ShoredLeadershiP,ed.J.T. Mathews. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

UNDP. 1990. Human Development Report. New York:Oxford University Press.

-. 1991. Human Development Report. New York:Oxford University Press.

-. 1992. Human DevelopmentReport. Washington:The World Bank.

Weiner, J. 1991. The Next HundredYears:ShopingtheFate of Our Uving Earth. New York: Bantam Books.

World Bank. 1990. World Development Report.Washington: The World Bank.

World Bank. 1991. World Development Report.Washington: The World Bank.

World Bank. 1992. World Development Report.Washington: The World Bank.

WCED. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

33