Download Sustainable Development? - Café Economique Nottingham

Rio 20+:
Sustainable
Development?
Dr Amanda Smith
Senior Lecturer in International Studies
Nottingham Trent University
[email protected]
1
Overview of talk

The Road to Rio 2012
 Sustainability & Modern Environmentalism
 Key Global Conferences, Reports and Agreements








1972 Stockholm
1987 Brundtland Report
1992 Rio
COP3 Kyoto 1997
COP15 Copenhagen 2009
COP16 Cancun 2010
Johannesburg 2002
Rio 2012
 Green Economy?
 Sustainable Development?
 The Future We Want?
2
The Enigma of
Sustainability
Popular
 Multi-faceted
 Multi-dimensional
 Highly Contested
 Chastised
 Prey to differing interpretations

3
Brundtland Commission’s
Definition from ‘Our Common
Future’
“development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.” (WCED, 1987:8)
4
This definition encompasses
two key concepts


the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the
essential needs of the world’s poor, to which
overriding priority should be given; and
the idea of limitations imposed by the state
of technology and social organisation on the
environment’s ability to meet present and
future needs.
(op cit:43)
5
Popularity of Brundtland
Definition despite it being
chastised


Difficult not to be in favour of sustainable
development, as it seems to hold out the hope of
‘development’ with at least no further environmental
degradation and an improved quality of life.
It offers to bridge the gap between economic growth
and environmental preservation, without significant
changes to the capitalist market system
(Escobar,1996).
6
Sustainability and Sustainable
Development- clarifying the
semantics?
The terms ‘sustainability’ and
‘sustainable development’ are
frequently used interchangeably and
rarely clarified.
 Many take the term ‘sustainability’ to
be synonymous with ‘sustainable
development’ (Reid, 1995).

7
Sustainable’, as an adjective in the
English language, means enduring or
lasting at a certain rate or indefinitely.
 Thus the term ‘sustainable’ can be
used as a prefix or suffix to a variety of
actions, which should caution us to
question;
“What is to be sustained? For whom?
How long?” (Lélé, 1991:615)

8
Does the word ‘development’
matter more?

Some authors (Pearce et al 1989) feel that
sustainable development simply means:
– Development that lasts

Therefore it is the word ‘development’ that
needs clarification:
– development is essentially economic
development, which they claim can be narrowly
defined as real GNP, or more broadly to include
other indicators such as education, health and
‘quality of life’ (Pearce et al, 1993)
This relates to my talk in Nov about well-being
9
Sustainability does not =
sustainable + development



As a concept sustainability is far more
complex than sustainable development
It addresses additional ethical features,
such as the appropriate management of
nature, reflecting the more traditional
concerns of environmentalism
Sustainability’ in its strongest sense can be
a highly biocentric and ethical endeavour
10
Environmentalism and
Sustainability
Ecocentrism
Deep
Environmentalists
Very Strong
Self-reliance,
soft
technologists,
Communalists
Strong
Radical
Technocentrism
Accomodaters
Cornucopians
Weak
Very Weak
Reformist
Source: O’Riordan (1981, abridged)
“four stopping points in what is really a continuum of
environmental concern.” (O’Riordan, 1981:375)
25
The ecocentric mode




Characterised by attitudes of reverence, humility,
respect and care for nature.
Codes of behaviour are based upon ecological
principles.
This is a mode of thought best understood through
its roots in 19th century romanticism and its
enrichment with the ideas of individuals such as
Malthus and Darwin
Its geographical roots are not as distinctly
‘Northern’ as those of technocentricism
12
Ecocentrics believe:
1 Lack of faith in modern large-scale
technology and its associated demands on
elitist expertise, central state authority, and
inherently antidemocratic institutions


2 Implication that materialism for its own
sake is wrong, and that economic growth
can be geared to providing for the basic
needs for those below subsistence levels
13
Deep Environmentalists
Intrinsic importance of nature for the
humanity of man
 Ecological (and other natural) laws
dictate human morality
 Biorights- the right of endangered
species or unique landscapes to
remain unmolested

14
Soft Technologists



Emphasis on smallness of scale and hence
community identity in settlement work, and
leisure
Integration of concepts of work and leisure
through a process of personal and
communal improvement
Importance of participation in community
affairs, and of guarantees of minority
interests. Participation seen both as a
continuing education and political function.
15
Ecocentrism and
Romanticism
“Nature they [transcendentalists of mid 19th century
America] claimed, enjoyed its own morality which,
when understood, could lead the sympathetic and
responsive human being to a new spiritual
awareness of his own potential, his obligations to
others, and his responsibilities to the life-supporting
processes of his natural surroundings.”
(O’Riordan 1981:3)
16
Ecocentrism and
Malthus




Notion of (natural) limits
Essay on the Principle of Population 1798
population growth would eventually reach the limits
of food production, and unless checked, lead to
famine, poverty, disease, and war
He was sceptical of the abilities of agricultural
production to be increased indefinitely, which
reflected a contrast to the optimism in the
agricultural revolution of the time
17
The technocentric
mode


the dominant mode of thought towards nature and
environmental problems in modern Western society
Characterised by the need to approach and
manage environmental problems in a scientific,
objective and rational manner; where,
– nature is seen as separate from humans;
– knowable via scientific investigation; and
– ultimately manageable.
18
Anthropocentrism
“though all societies live from nature, the
industrial technologies of modern societies
allow them to exploit natural resources much
more efficiently and systematically, thus
speeding up the degradation of nature.
In the quest for economic and material
development, the problem of nature has been
all but lost sight of.
Nature is seen simply as the backdrop fro
human activity, presenting no limits to what
can be achieved, given human ingenuity and
technological advances”
(Sutton, 2004:77)
19
Roots of Anthropocentrism: The
Bible?



Can the historical roots of our ecological
‘crisis’ be located in the despotic JudaeoChristian world-view, which interpreted
Genesis as regarding nature as existing
solely to serve mankind and therefore ripe
for exploitation? (White 1962)
Or can we see in the Bible traditions
associated with stewardship, conservation
and concern for ‘non-humans’? (Carter,
2007)
Indeed, this Judaeo-Christian thesis cannot
explain why non-Christian societies have
20
‘exploited’ nature
Roots of Anthropocentrism: The
Enlightenment?

The dominance of anthropocentrism in
Western culture is often blamed on the
Enlightenment ideas and the scientific
revolution of the sixteenth/seventeenth
centuries.
– Francis Bacon
– Renee Descarte
– Reductionism and Cartisian Dualism
21
Anthropocentrism and
Classical Science



Descartes suggested that nature could be known
through reductionist analysis:
– By breaking nature down into component parts,
ultimately, everything can be reduced to the same,
measurable, basic qualities and quantities
Descartes also suggested that a Cartesian Dualism
exists whereby:
– humans and nature are dualistic, in that nature is
made up of primary qualities, an object, reducible to
atoms with unthinking, mechanistic behaviour. As
opposed to humans, who having a soul, are selfreflective and capable of rational thought; thus they
are able to observe the subject of nature.
22
Later Francis Bacon affirmed that scientific knowledge
equated to power over nature
Accommodators
1 Belief that economic growth and resource exploitation can
continue assuming,
a) suitable economic adjustments to taxes, fees etc.;
b) improvements in the legal rights to a minimum level of
environmental quality;
c) compensation arrangements satisfactory to those who
experience adverse environmental and/ or social effects
2 Acceptance of new project-appraisal techniques and decision
review arrangements to allow for wider discussion or genuine
search for consensus among representative groups of
interested parties
3 Provision of effective environmental management agencies at
national and local levels
23
Cornucopians
1 Belief that man can always find a way out of any difficulties,
either politically, scientifically, or technologically
2 Acceptance that pro-growth goals define the rationality of
project appraisal and of policy formulation
3 Optimistic about the ability of man to improve the lot of the
world’s people
4 Faith that scientific and technological expertise provides the
basic foundation for advice on matters pertaining to economic
growth, public health, and safety
5 Suspicious of attempts to widen the basis for participation and
lengthy discussion in project appraisal and policy review
6 Belief that any impediments can be overcome given a will,
ingenuity, and sufficient resources arising out of wealth
24
Summarising

Both modes of thought have influenced and
shaped modern environmentalism and
policy making/politics
– Ecocentrism - natural morality, the concept of
limits, questions of equity, the need for
democracy, and participation, alongside selfreliance and self-sufficiency
– Technocentrism - optimistic outlook,
technology has the power to overcome all
problems, and political decisions can be value
free if they draw upon scientific knowledge for
justification
25
26
Evolution of Environmental
‘Issues’

1st generation: preservation and conservation (pre1960s)


2nd generation: ‘modern environmentalism’ (from
1960s)


Protection of wildlife and habitats, soil erosion, local pollution
Population growth, technology, desertification, pesticides.
Resource depletion, pollution abatement
3rd generation: global issues (late 1970s onwards)

Acid rain, ozone depletion, rainforest destruction, climate
change, loss of biodiversity, GMOs
Source: Carter (2007:5)
27
The Global
Problématique
Club of Rome in early 1970s coined the
term to bring attention to:
1.
impact of human activities upon the earth
2.
the increasing polarisation and inequity
between rich and poor
3.
concern over the rate of population
growth, especially in light of the previous
issues
28
Responses to the
Global Problèmatique

Environment

Development
29
1960s
Economic
Growth
1970s
Development
& Poverty
1980s
Environment
&
1990s
Development
Sustainable
Development
Dominant sustainability ideologies from
the 1960s to 1990s (based on Elliott,
1994)
30
Global Problèmatique:
The Key Responses
1972 United Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm
1974 UNEP-UNCTAD : Pattern of Resource Use,
Environment and Development Conference at Cocoyoc
1980 World Conservation Strategy - IUCN
1984 UN appoint WCED - Brundtland Commission
1987 Brundtland Commission Report published
1992 Rio ‘Earth Summit’ United Nations Conference on
Environment & Development
Further: Kyoto 1997, Johannesburg 2002, Copenhagen 2009 etc.
31
Stockholm 1972


Stockholm conference seen as a ‘milestone’, as the first
‘global’ response to the environmental problems.
The Stockholm conference was attended by 113 nations and
500 NGOs and published two documents:
– ‘The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment’ with its
‘Declaration of Human Rights’ and the ‘Action Plan for the Human
Environment’.


Also the book ‘Only One Earth’ (Ward & Dubos, 1972) was
written for the conference, the ethos of which reflected the
emerging ideology of a finite global ecosystem.
The Conference established the UNEP (United Nations
Environment Programme) and subsequently it was the UNEPUNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development) symposium that issued the Cocoyoc Declaration
in 1974.
32
Cocoyoc Declaration 1974




The UNEP-UNCTAD symposium on the “Pattern of
Resource Use, Environment and Development” was
held in Cocoyoc, Mexico in 1974
The Cocoyoc Declaration provided a strong critique of
development, advocating development of human beings
rather than ‘things’; the pursuit of self-reliance; and the
avoidance of development which had adverse impacts
upon local and traditional economies and cultures
Followed by the 1975 report “What Now? Another
Development”, by the Dag Hammarskjöld Institute in
Uppsala, Sweden
Both based on the concept of Eco-development
(equitable distribution rather than ‘no growth’)
33
Brundtland

Shortly after publishing its second report (Common
Crisis) the UN disbanded the Brandt Commission
and appointed the Brundtland Commission in 1983
with the following mandate;
“to re-examine the critical environment and development
issues and to formulate realistic proposals for dealing with
them.” (WCED, 1987:3)

Published “Our Common Future” in 1987, and this
contained that ubiquitous and ambiguous ‘definition
of sustainable development:
“development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.” (WCED, 1987:8)
34
The WCED (Brundtland) suggested a
number of critical objectives for
environment and development
policies that followed from its
conception of sustainable
development
 reviving growth;
 changing the quality of growth;
 meeting essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water, and
sanitation;
 ensuring a sustainable level of population;
 conserving and enhancing the resource base;
 reorienting technology and managing risk; and
 merging environment and economics in decision making.
(WCED, 1987:49)
35
The WCED, itself, was quick to
establish that the report is;
“not a prediction of ever increasing environmental
decay, poverty, and hardship in an ever more
polluted world among ever decreasing resources.
We see instead the possibility for a new era of
economic growth….based on policies that sustain
and expand the environmental resource base.”
(WCED, 1987:1, emphasis added)
36
Brundtland’s Faith in
Multilateral co-operation
“The Commission feels confident that the
mutual interests involved in environment
and development issues can generate the
needed momentum and can secure the
necessary international economic changes
that will make it possible” (WCED, 1987:64)
37





Sustainable development, for the WCED, was
based upon the need to maintain and revitalise the
world economy
The WCED recognised that growth might apply
environmental pressures but nonetheless felt that
world growth should speed up.
It was agreed that such environmental constraints
could be respected, and indeed mitigated against
Adams (1990)suggests that this is rooted in a
Cornucopian (technocentric) ideology, and reflects
the 1960s optimism in economic development as a
cure for all ills.
It is tempered by some ecocentric ideals, such as
basic needs and the equity debate, but essentially
rooted in a ‘business as usual’ global politics or
a “comfortable Keynesian reformism”
38
Key Global
Conferences and
Agreements
39
The Rio ‘Earth Summit’
1992



The Summit brought environmental issues to centre stage in
world diplomacy.
It was the result of a two year process, supported by an
UNCED secretariat.
The specific aims of the process were to produce:
– an Earth Charter- 20 years on from the Stockholm
Declaration; an Agenda 21- a programme of action to
implement the principles of such an Earth Charter by the
year 2000;
– an agreement upon financial resources for actioning
Agenda 21; and
– to conclude negotiations already underway on climate
change, biodiversity and forests (Finger, 1993).
40
Who was at Rio?

Key
– 117 heads of state and representatives of
178 nations
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2164240.st
m

Marginalised?
– The Global Forum- 30 miles away

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vfR_0iYf28
41
The outcomes of Rio
Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development
 Agenda 21
 Convention on Biological Diversity
 Statement of Principles on Forests
 Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC)

42
Conferences of the Parties
(COP)
Since the UNFCCC entered into force in 1994, the
parties have been meeting annually in
Conferences of the Parties (COP) to assess
progress in dealing with climate change, and
beginning in the mid-1990s, to negotiate the Kyoto
Protocol (at COP-3 in 1997) to establish legally
binding obligations for developed countries to
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
43
Securing the Climate –
UNFCCC Approach

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change came into force in 1994 (after Rio 92) and led to COP
process e.g. COP 15 Copenhagen: Article 2:

The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal
instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to
achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame
sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate
change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and
to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable
manner.

44
Kyoto-COP3


This agreement committed developed
countries to reducing their collective
emissions of 6 key greenhouse gases by at
least 5% below 1990 levels throughout
2008-12.
Individual Targets:
–
–
–
–
8% The EU
7% USA
6% Canada, Hungary, Japan, Poland
0% Russia, New Zealand, Ukraine
45
Kyoto Protocol



Agreed in Dec 1997
Entered into force in Feb 2005
176 countries have ratified
46
Kyoto Protocol

The Protocol also agreed three new flexibility
mechanisms to reduce the costs of reducing
emissions:
– An international emissions trading regime allowing
industrialised countries to buy and sell emissions credits
amongst themselves
– A Joint Implementation procedure enabling industrialised
countries to implement projects that reduce emissions or
remove carbon in another Annex 1 country in exchange for
emission reduction credits
– A ‘clean development mechanism’ permitted developed
countries to finance emissions-reduction projects in
developing countries to receive credit for doing so
47
COP15 Copenhagen







December 2009
An attempt to agree ambitious targets to move
Kyoto onwards and come into force in 2013
What came out? Copenhagen Accord
This Accord, brokered by the US in a backroom
agreement between Brazil, China, India and South
Africa came about in the final hours of the 2-week
conference. But not without controversy because,
Some delegates out of the 187 countries excluded
from this backroom meeting were visibly upset at
not being involved
Some therefore decided not to support it, and
In the end, the accord had no legal standing under
the UN convention on climate change —
participating countries merely noted its existence
and expressed support or not.
48




A fundamental obstacle throughout negotiations lay in the
question of how much the western world, which has polluted
its way to prosperity, should consider itself in "carbon debt" to
countries that have yet to realise their industrial potential.
Rich nations acknowledged that debt in theory, but wanted
assurance that big polluters in the developing world would
ultimately share the carbon-cutting burden.
That stance was denounced by poorer countries as an
attempt by the west to wriggle out of obligations, with the
added inference that the habits of imperialism were to blame.
That is an emotive argument, but not always a helpful or an
accurate one. The status of a "developing nation" does not
accommodate the enormous and growing power of China and
India. They represent a new kind of strategic entity – bearing
the economic and military might of superpowers, but with
huge populations living in pre-modern conditions of poverty.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/20/leader-copenhagen-accord
49
Copenhagen Accord

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv2R
gEOGGJU

the deal includes the first formal financial
commitment by richer nations to help poorer ones
adapt to the threat of climate change. It establishes
a fund with an initial annual outlay of $30bn, rising
to $100bn by 2020.
50
COP16 Cancun Dec 2010

Cancun Agreement (not legally binding)
– The agreement acknowledges the need to keep
temperature rises to 2C and brings non-binding emissions
cuts pledges made under the voluntary Copenhagen
Accord
– Green climate fund - intended to raise and disburse
$100bn (£64bn) a year by 2020 to protect poor nations
against climate impacts and assist them with low-carbon
development



Bolivia would not agree- "giant step
backward" suggesting that the pledges are insufficient to
meet science's recommended 2 degree Celsius cap for
temperature rise. The pledges will lead to a 4 degree
cap.
Bolivia’s dissent was ‘noted’ by the hosts Mexico, but
the agreement went ahead under ‘consensus’
Back in Bali 2007, the USA would not agree a deal but
the Indonesian hosts did not ‘note’ their dissent and
51
move on with consensus
52


How to build a green economy to achieve
sustainable development and lift people out
of poverty, including support for developing
countries that will allow them to find a green
path for development;
and how to improve international
coordination for sustainable development 53
54
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/rio-20-tim-jackson-leaders-green-economy
55
Tim Jackson suggests:






Traditional thinking will lead us to
destruction
Green Growth is the Emperor’s New
Clothes
There is a fear of economic collapse
We need to look beyond a consumer
society
We need to disconnect the real economy
and the monetary economy
We need an alternative path
56
57
58
59
60
61