CRITICAL SUSTAINABILITY

© Tony Ward2006

No part of this document may be published or reproduced without the writtenpermission of the author

More free slides at:www.TonyWardedu.com

Daily, the newspapers and other media are filledwith reports on:

• Increased crime• Climate change• Global warming• Increasing poverty• World hunger• Global terrorism• Genocide

Against this, the Holy Ideological Trinity• Free Trade,• Globilisation• Sustainable Development

are touted as the solution to the world’s ills.

WORLD IN CRISIS?

What World Ills?In the last 200 years, unprecedentedand dramatic population growth,industrialisation, rapaciousenvironmental and human exploitationand unprecedented technologicaldevelopment has damaged the world’secosystem to a point that is almostbeyond repair.

The exploitation of natural and humanresources over that time took placewithout any thought for the future. Nowwe realise that unless we do somethingto reverse this process-

There may not be a future for civilisation aswe know it.

WHO IS TO BLAME?It’s clear that the world’s richestcountries are the biggest culprits:

• Globally, the 20% of the world’s people in the highest-incomecountries account for 86% of total private consumptionexpenditures. The poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%.

• the richest fifth consume 45% of all meat and fish the poorest fifth5%･

• the richest fifth consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifthless than 4%･

• the richest fifth have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth1.5%･

• the richest fifth consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1%･• the richest fifth own 87% of the world’s vehicle fleet, the poorest

fifth less than 1%

IS THIS COINCIDENTAL?

The truth is that the richest countries have achieved theirwealth at the expense of the poorest. A glance at the globalconsumption statistics (above) makes it clear that the wealthand consumption of the richest nations has resulted fromcenturies of Colonialism, slavery and land and resource theft.

The answer is No!

Table 1–1. Consumer Spending and Population, by Region, 2000

Region

Region Share of World

Private Consumption

Expenditures

Share of World

Population

Consumption Ratio

United States and Canada 31.5 5.2 6.06

Western Europe 28.7 6.4 4.48

East Asia and Pacific 21.4 32.9 .64

Latin America and the Caribbean 6.7 8.5 .79

Eastern Europe and Central Asia 3.3 7.9 .42

South Asia 2.0 22.4 .09

Australia and New Zealand 1.5 0.4 3.75

Middle East and North Africa 1.4 4.1 .34

Sub-Saharan Africa 1.2 10.9 .11

THE BRANDT REPORT (1980)In 1980, a group of respected world economists developed ablueprint for global development. The Brandt Report notedthat:

…the South (a code for Third World countries) needed to be able to tradeon fairer terms with richer countries, as well as securing political andeconomic independence.

economic power, with the North’s domination of the internationaleconomic system, its rules and regulations, and its internationalinstitutions of trade money and finance

It also noted that the disparities in wealth between the“Developed ”and “Developing” nations was caused by:

It outlined how:transnational corporations were able to survive at the expense of developingcountries.”

In other words, economic imperialism

WHAT HAPPENED THEN?NOTHING!

•In 1999, some 2.8 billion people (40% of the world population)lived on less than $2 a day.•In 2000, 20% in the developing world (1.1 billion) did not haveaccess to safe drinking water.•2.4 billion people worldwide (40%) live without basic sanitation.

The Brandt Report received much publicity and wideranging acceptance as the best way forward forgovernments globally to realistically reduce thegrowing economic disparity between the rich Northand developing South. However the proposals putforward by its eminent and diverse range of memberswere never adopted by governments due to theCold War and a resulting lack of political will to act onthese issues.(http://www.stwr.net/content/view/43/)Since the 1980 Brandt Report

TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVETo provide adequate food, clean water, and basiceducation for the world's poorest could all beachieved for less than people spend annually onmakeup, ice cream, and pet food.

Little wonder, then that:

•“Global Terrorism” is on the rise, as the poor seek justicefor past wrongs and the possibility of a humane future fortheir children

•Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, waged to secure suppliesof oil to the West are never depicted in their true light as

ImperialismThe poor, the victims of colonialism continue to be

depicted as the villains. This is Neocolonialism

THE MYTH OF FREE TRADE

The World Bank and IMF will only lend money to Developing Countries onterms that are favourable to its controlling Western States. The principals ofthe World Bank are the leaders of Western Capitalisdt Development. TheWorld Bank is not a neutral broker, but an agent of Western Capitalistinterests. THIS IS HARDLY FREEDOM!

To combat global poverty, Brandt and subsequent economic theorists haverecommended Free Trade as a way of stimulating Third World growth.

BUT

THE MYTH OF GLOBALISATIONGlobalisation is the other cornerstone of current economic theory.Globalisation has become identified with a number of trends. Theseinclude greater international movement of commodities, money,information, and people; and the development of technology,organisations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement.Like its counterpart, Free Trade, Globalisation is promoted by the WorldBank and IMF and by Western capitalist Governments and Transnationalcompanies.

Its main purpose is to allow unlimited access for Transnationalcompanies to Third World resources and labour, using imposedWestern legal structures and definitions to secure patent and copyrightownership to natural resources and indigenous knowledge systems. Thiswill ensure the ongoing dominance of Western economies in the globalmarketplace. It is accomplished at the point of a gun!

The theory and policy is backed by British and American and Australianmilitary and economic power in Afghanistan, Iraq, Columbia etc.to ensureneocolonial access and ownership of remaining world oil and uraniumreserves.

AND NOW?A new piece of word-magic has been added to FreeTrade and Globalisation in the discourse on worldpoverty. A word that promises to solve the problemsposed by the Brandt Report. That word:

SUSTAINABILITYWe are now advised by Governments that growthand development must now be globally“integrated” and “free” but that it must also besustainable.

So what do they mean?

SUSTAINABILITYCurrent mainstream definitions suggest that itmeans that we must :

• Conserve the world’s resources• Reduce or eliminate pollution• Reduce or eliminate greenhouse gasses• Reduce or eliminate waste• Develop new sustainable technologiesIf not, we are told, the world and all life in it faces• Unparalleled global hunger and starvation• Massive desertification• Mass migrations• Conflict for access to diminishing resources• Anarchy and the end of civilisation as we know it.

SUSTAINABILITY DEPOLITICISEDYou will notice that in the preceding definitions there isno mention of:

• Who caused the problems• The instrumental use of military and economic Power• The causes of “terrorism”

- the imposition of Western culture, structures, laws- The imposition of majority representative “democracy”- The theft of national and cultural resources

• The history of Colonialism in Third World poverty• The role of the World Bank and IMF in Third World poverty• Who stands to gain most from current economic theories• The plight of indegenes as a result of continuing colonisation• The poverty of the Third World is caused by the high living standards

of the West

Instead,economic theories are presented as“rational”, non-political, scientific realities.

THE SCALE OF THEORYEconomic theories exist not just at the scale of nationsand multinational corporations. They impact down to thenational, regional and local level also.International theories affect:

• National laws and policy-making• Corporate policies and decision-making• Regional visions and policies• Local Authority standards, policies and processes

The saying “Think Globally - Act Locally can bemisleading. The same mystifications thatexist at the Global level exist also locally.

LOCAL LEVEL MYTHSJust as depoliticising myths of value-neutralitypervade the discussion of poverty, power and socialconflict at the international level, so also at theNational, Regional and Local levels do concepts ofsocial change embody the thinking of the already-powerful.At this level, the most potent current concept is thatof

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTCommunity Development theories are similarly basedupon naïve notions of co-operation and partnershipbetween competing social and cultural groups andavoid all reference to realities of power and influence.

SUSTAINABILITY/PARTNERSHIPTHE PREVAILING MYTH is that SustainableCommunities can best be realised through aPARTNERSHIP between:

• Local Authorities and Councils• Community groups• Business

This implies that all three groups share powerequally and that development decisions reachedhave the support of all three parties. It suggests thatthey share common visions, goals and aims and thatthey are willing to accommodate to each others’needs in their mutual self-interests

THE TRUTH IS A LITTLE MORE COMPLEX

POWER and SUSTAINABILITYLocal Sustainable Development is also hindered by disparitiesof power. Just as the Nations and Multinationals conspirethrough the World Bank and IMF to maintain the power statusquo, so also Governments in their own countries operate asagents of the already-powerful

The State acts as agent of the dominant culture in maintaining itspower. The poor don’t stand a chance!

CONSIDER TWO IMAGES

The photographs were taken about half a mile apart in San Francisco. In the first, theSan Francisco City have erected metal arms on public seating and barriers aroundgrassed areas for the express purpose of preventing the homeless and poor from usingthem to sleep. The poor were affecting the tourist industry! In the second, the Cityfathers have developed a public garden, with cushioned seating and pots of fragrantflowers for the lunch-time use of the office workers in the CBD. Note the sleeping, suitedworker with his creased-trouser uniform, the trash receptacles, the lack of barriers andthe creation of peaceful enclaves. THEY ARE BOTH FUNDED OUT OF THE PUBLICPURSE. ASK YOURSELF WHY THESE PLACES ARE SO DIFFERENT

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIESThe prevailing theorists of social developmentsay they are concerned about:• Uneven distribution of resources and opportunities• Increasing disparities between the rich and the poor• Exploitation, Degradation and exhaustion of the natural environment

They say these are unsustainableTo say that they are unsustainable means that they aresocially, culturally, politically and economically unstable in thelong-term: that they will lead inevitably to social conflict whichwill threaten the well-being and survival of the humanspecies. The sustainability of human life on the planetrequires that we develop new ways of organising decision-making, resource allocation and environmental development.

They say that sustainability is a community issue (involvingeveryone) and that the answer lies in

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES!!!

THE ACCEPTED DEFINITION

• Capable of fulfilling their own potential• Overcoming their own difficulties

• Community conflict• Extremism• Racism• Deprivation• Unemployment• Disadvantage• Economic difficulties

• Defining their own Visions• Realising their own goals• Determining their own destinies• Managing change

, .

For communities to be sustainable, they mustoffer:･ decent homes at prices people can afford･good public transport･ schools･ hospitals･ shops･aﾊclean, safe environment.People also needopen public space where they can relax andinteract and the ability to have a say on the waytheir neighbourhood is run.

OF SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES IS THAT THEY ARE:

THEORY vs PRACTICEWhile theories about the development ofSustainable Communities are pervaded withthe rhetoric of social equity, the practice stillrelies upon outmoded processes and systemsbased upon privilege and exploitation,masked by the coded logic of instrumentalrationality in which

Partnership = consultationConsultation = informing

NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCALGOVERNMENTS USE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

AS A FORM OF CONTROL AND PACIFICATION

SUSTAINABILITY DYNAMICSThere are three Dynamics of Sustainable Community

• ECONOMICS The management of resources to meet personal,

household and community needs• ECOLOGY

The pattern of relationships between living thingsand their environment

• EQUITYThe power relationships between people, groups ofpeople and generations of people

Each of these needs to be present as partof the process and not just as a proposedoutcome of sustainable CommunityDevelopment

PRAXIS: THE MEDIUM is theMESSAGE

If Communities (and this means the people) donot have:

• BOTH the (independent) economic resources• AND the equality of power in decision-making

in shaping their environment then•CONSULTATION IS A LIE• PARTICIPATION IS A LIE• EQUITY IS A LIE• SUSTAINABILITY IS A LIE.

PATERNALISM IS NOT SUSTAINABLE

TEN SUSTAINABILITY MYTHSMyth 1. Consultation: Consultation does not mean asking people what they want and then

making sure they get itConsultation means asking people what they want then telling them what you have already decided on their behalf.

Myth 2. Participation: Participation does not mean working with different cultural groups toward common goals to solve common problemsParticipation means inviting cultural groups to work towards solving their problems but reserving the right to ignore their conclusions

Myth 3. Partnership: Partnership does not mean that all players have equal decision making powersPartnership means that one partner has all of the power to ignore or veto decisions and conclusions reached either together or singly.

Myth 4. Equity: Equity does not mean that all groups in a working process are equal, orthat the outcome will lead to their equalityEquity means that the most powerful group will use the myth of equalityto undermine political protest, to shape outcomes and do everything inits power to retain its power. This group is predominantly white, male andmiddleclass.

Myth 5. Representation: Representation does not mean that political representatives will represent your interests to the fullest extent of their abilities.Representation means politicians will advocate your interests only whenthey are congruent with their own, and that your voice and desires will befiltered and “balanced” to ensure that you get only enough of what youwant to keep you quiet.

Myth 6. Democracy: Democracy does not mean that the voice of minority groups will be heard or that their dreams and expectations will be metDemocracy means that minority interests will always be subordinatedto the will of the majority.

Myth 7. Social Transformation: Social transformation does not mean that society will be transformedto be more equal, more caring and more satisfying.Social transformation means that dominant groups will strive continually to control all of the information and decision-making agencies to maintain the status quo.

Myth 8. Employment Creation: Employment creation does not mean that projects undertaken will create jobs in the communityEmployment creation means that employment will be created or sustained for those within State agencies who will manage processesand file reports.

Myth 9. Open Government: Open Government does not mean that you will have direct access todecision-makers or that their decisions will be transparentOpen Government means that decisions will often be made behind closed doors on the basis of undisclosed information and in the interests of private interest groups.

Myth 10. Political Fairness Political Fairness does not mean that decisions will be even-handedand that all groups will have equal access to the decision-making process.Political Fairness means that you will be seduced into believing that the system is fair in order to obviate complaints and protests when decisions are made that are unfair.

SO WHAT TO DO?One of the most frustrating experiences to be had in the field of Community Design, Community Architecture orCommunity Development is to be when one works through intermediary functionaries at City Hall - from the Mayor,down to the lowliest employee. The most successful projects are undoubtedly those that arise from the community, thatare initiated by the community and are driven, developed, monitored, evaluated and implemented by the community.Such examples are rare! Notable examples include the work of:

• The Community Design Studio, University of Auckland, New Zealand. (See Critical Practice PDFs (tonywardedu.com)

• The Pratt Centre for Community Development (PICCED) in New York (http://www.prattcenter.net/),• The Miami University Centre for Community Engagement in OtR• (http://www.fna.muohio.edu/cce/index.html)• The Labour/Community Strategy Centre, Los Angeles. (http://www.thestrategycenter.org/)