Sustainable Development - The Journey Avoided
By Gurmit Singh
Sustainable development was the new paradigm that governments and NGOs were talking about in the lead-up to the Rio Summit [1992] and at Rio itself. The elements of this development were incorporated in Agenda 21, which was formally adopted by UNCED, in addition to the Rio Principles. But 17 years after, sustainable development seems to be hardly the path taken by most nations.
There seems to be little unanimity about the term itself. Many resort to using the concept first articulated in the Bruntland Commission Report i.e. development that ensures that global resources are maintained at levels that will enable future generations to live quality lives. Others say that it aims to balance economic imperatives with environmental and social factors. There are even some who distort it to imply that sustained economic growth is the core of sustainable development.
One of the fundamental assumptions on which Agenda 21's sustainable development model was based on was that adequate financial resources and appropriate technologies would be provided to developing countries to implement the vision of the Agenda. Both these have not been forthcoming to any significant extent. But even the countries with the resources, like most of the OECD members, have done very little to change their economic structures along sustainable lines.
The only thing that seems to have happened has been some success in implementing Local Agenda 21 [LA21] i.e. a single chapter from the full forty in Agenda 21. And most of it is due to pressures by local communities in developed countries on their local authorities. In developing countries, where local authorities are far less responsive to the pressures of their citizens, at most a few LA21 activities have been implemented. Even the participatory element in these however is weak.
The World Sustainable Development Summit in 2002 evaded completely evaluating the achievements under Agenda 21 and instead side-tracked into the more nebulous Millennium Development Goals adopted by the UN General Assembly. It set out 7 new thrusts including one on new energy directions which had not been adequately addressed in Rio. But even here they were unable to agree on targets and timetables for renewable energy. This had to done a year later at a separate conference convened by German government in Bonn.
Why is Sustainable Development So Difficult?
Surely the question must be why is sustainable development having such a hard time all over the world when it seems to be the solution for most of the global environmental, economic and social problems? As we have pointed out repeatedly, the very strong vested and economic interests prevailing in most countries are dead set against the fundamental concepts of sustainable development as they feel threatened. To them, including politicians in power, their current strength is more important than any distant survival of humankind and even the earth!
Attempts to develop universally acceptable sustainable development indicators have not been very successful. The Commission for Sustainable Development's efforts have not been widely accepted, either. Even when some indicators like the use of renewable energy per capita are agreed to, most countries run into the major obstacle that there is very little reliable data on this in the official statistics available. This seems to be the problem with the use of most sustainable development indicators, especially in developing countries.
And without acceptable indicators, it is difficult to assess how well the efforts to move on the sustainable path have fared. Another problem is that efficiency of production, whether in agriculture or industry, is still based on monetary or acreage terms. The sustainable way would be to make energy usage or environmental resource utilisation the reference base. For example, if such an approach is used, organic farmed produce would turn out to be more efficient than that from modern conventional agriculture.
But sustainable development policies and practices can be simply stated as involving the minimisation of the ecological footprints of all individuals and entities, the elimination of all forms of wastage, optimisation of energy efficiencies & the switch to renewable forms of energy. Its hallmarks also include efficient, clean and affordable public transport [with a high ridership]; greater extent of organic farming; more reliance on clean technologies [basically of the pollution prevention type]; effective public participation, accountability and transparency in national decision-making. In addition, all forms of vital natural resources [ranging from land to air] have to be conserved and all hazardous wastes and products are eliminated.
Individuals can educate themselves and their colleagues on the basic issues of sustainable development. They then need to modify their own and family lifestyles by thinking through about what they need rather than succumbing to greed. In addition, they should plan for and select goods and services that are environment friendly [using eco-labels to make the right choices]. A further approach would be to repair and reuse as many products as possible. Recycling should be undertaken both in the house and the office / workplace, with a serious effort to discard absolute minima, and that too in environmentally safe ways.
But the aim for sustained economic growth for most countries cannot be considered sustainable as economic growth will level off as resources are conserved for the future. But many policy makers do not seem to see the contradiction when they claim that they are on the sustainable path through ensuring that economic growth is sustained for decades. It is just like maintaining population growth right to the end of the century!
The other problem with business as usual [BAU] in rapidly growing economies is to ensure that energy supply grows faster than economic growth. But where are the resources to sustain this scenario? Surely equity considerations in a global context require that more of the energy resources should be re-directed to the hard-core poor and marginalized. This can be done to some extent by ensuring that there are greater efficiencies of utilisation in the major economic sectors so as to free large chunks of energy for this purpose.
Similarly, sustainable development can only occur if there is adequate food for the poor of the world. This cannot be done if existing arable land is diverted to the growing of bio-fuels rather than food crops. Let bio-fuels [if needed] come from agricultural wastes! Cheap bio-fuels only allow the fuel wasting motorists to continue their wasteful habits by having access to fuel that is cheaper than petrol, when global oil prices rise.
Another ingredient for sustainable development to take root is to observe diligently the three pillars of good governance - public participation in decision making, public accountability by both the public and private sectors, and transparency especially as related to all major issues and decisions. This can only be done if there is adequate democratic space in each nation that will allow free flow of information as well as channels for public views to be sent in the most direct way to the relevant decision makers. There must be active public debate, in which all stakeholders can participate, not just monologues. The regular publication of the monitoring results of pollution levels and food contamination should be a norm!
Politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats and corporate heads should not be allowed to be immune from public scrutiny. On the other hand, the more powerful they are, the more they should be held accountable. And when it comes to taxpayers' funds, no abuse or misuse by ministers or civil servants should be tolerated. Strong ombudsmen may be a way to ensure that such abuses do not flourish and adequate parliamentary sanctions are enforced.
The only institution that arose out of the Rio Summit was the Commission on Sustainable Development [CSD]. But in their obsession to ensure that this would not be yet another UN body, the developed countries especially made sure that it would only function during a certain period of the year at the UN Headquarters in New York with the Secretariat services being provided by an existing division.
The first meeting of the CSD started in 1993 with much fanfare but it very soon turned out to be a watered down version of the General Assembly - much talk [being repetitive after some time] but unable to get members to ACT. Session after session has failed to provide the critical sparks for sustainable development to take off. The 2006 and 2007 sessions were supposed to address climate change, energy and cleaner production. After lengthy papers and speeches from governments, the private sector and civil society, no new and innovative ideas were agreed to that would produce concrete action to reduce climate change or result in greater reliance on sustainable energy consumption!
The General Assembly of the UN gave form to the CSD after the Rio Summit but did little to make its work more effective [perhaps it never had such an intention]. Instead it came out with the Millennium Development Goals in 2000 [more on the initiative of its then Secretary General] and authorised the convening of the World Sustainable Development Summit in 2002. This, as mentioned earlier, failed to identify why Agenda 21 was not being implemented by most countries and ended up putting almost complete reliance on partnerships with the private sector in order to push sustainable development components.
The private sector has not become a great champion of sustainable development as it has too much vested interests in and benefits most from the current development forms. Its only compromise has been in showing through some Corporate Social Reports that some major environmental problems are being addressed via improved energy usage, for example. Some of the largest multinationals even shun the use of the word sustainable in any of their reports! The other excuse is that there is little market demand for goods and services provided in accordance with sustainable development principles.
Without switching to sustainable development and resolving most of the major environmental and social problems of the world, we are not likely to have any livable future. Many parties will have to shoulder the blame for this tragic scenario - certainly the CSD and UN General Assembly will be the major ones with all the national governments, who are their members, being even more guilty. The powerful members of the Security Council who invoke sanctions on other nations for all sorts of reasons should be held particularly responsible for failing to make sustainable development the cornerstone of international security issues!
The Missing Sparks
Where can we look for the missing sparks and how can we trigger them so that sustainable development will get to live? We have suggested elsewhere how individuals can change their lifestyles and demands on the world's resources. But we need enough and influential numbers of them to provide a major spark. Beyond this, we need to generate the consumer pressure to change industry and manufacturers' BAU attitude. In addition, we need to exert enough pressure on politicians at all levels to change gears in all decision making bodies, including the UN General Assembly, so that the momentum for sustainable development builds up and global changes occur rapidly enough.
We cannot afford to fold our arms and be bystanders since our survival as well as that of coming generations hinge on the speed and intensity of implementation of sustainable development. The CSD, UN General Assembly, Security Council, our governments, multinationals, and enterprises are, after all, groupings of humans and they also have a duty to ensure that not only humankind survives but that the Earth itself remains habitable to all living organisms! Escaping into outer space or another planet is not a viable option.
Sustainable development is also essential if we want to see better social justice and greater equity within nations as well as among nations. Without these two, existing tensions and animosities will worsen as climate change refugees mushroom and struggles to access/ control water resources intensify. As natural disasters are likely to increase in frequency, society will have to be able to adapt to these more quickly, without a breakdown of important social structures and coherence.
One international option to move forward would be to merge the CSD and UNEP into a much more powerful World Sustainable Development Organisation, which should have the sanction powers equivalent to that of the WTO. It would then command greater respect from nations and would have the power to regularly monitor the extent of sustainable development implemented within nations. It would have to command adequate financial resources [provided by the rich OECD nations] that could be used to promote sustainable technology, energy etc among poorer developing countries. Such an organisation should also be able to host the Secretariats of the various international environmental and social conventions.
At the national level, the economic, environment and social ministries should be merged into a single but powerful Ministry for Sustainable Development, which should be able to coordinate all the national efforts for sustainable development. Similarly, sustainable development units should be established at the local government level. This would be matched by citizen groups and civil society organised along similar lines. In this way, there would be a much greater probability of Agenda 21 and other aspects of sustainable development being implemented.
Without such drastic institutional restructuring at all levels of government, it is very likely that sustainable development will remain an empty mantra rather than the definite path for humankind to progress on. Decarbonisation of the global economy would then be made easier with such institutions and the switch to a hydrogen economy faster. These measures would help arrest further global warming and curb more adverse climate changes.
Although the private sector may not transform itself that easily but the new governmental institutions and changed market demands by a motivated citizenry may leave it with no other options. Once the rules and directions are clearly set out with firm time lines, it is very likely that firms and business entities will move in droves to grab leadership roles in sustainable production and marketing. More effective and widespread use of third-party verified eco-labels would also be another driver. Multinationals may then really become green rather than resorting to green washing of different hues, as at present!
Sustainable Development Councils comprising government, private sector and civil society representatives as the crucial stakeholders should be formed at all levels. They should monitor, assess and guide efforts by all relevant sectors to move rapidly along the sustainable development path. The mass media should be involved actively in disseminating information and news on new approaches to the general public as well as providing public feedback on these issues. This is essential as widespread and active involvement of all stakeholders is a cornerstone of sustainable development.
As stressed earlier, there is no time to lose and inaction is not an option. Everyone [from the individual to heads of government and corporations] has to chip in and help sustainable development take off! Sustainable development is essential for our survival.
Gurmit Singh is the Chairman of the Centre for Environment, Technology & Development, Malaysia which has been working since its inception in 1985 to promote sustainable development.