SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A SYLLOGISM OF OUR TIME (21ST CENTURY)

Sustainable development (SD) has in the recent years morphed into a development du jour in the development arena. So much so that it has captured the attention of actors and actions at various levels i.e. nations and international organizations-For Example; the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations (UN), non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations amongst other. This has further heightened mobilization of what Scoones I., et al., (2015) term ‘make-or- break’ climate agreements in an effort to address environmental problems caused by economic growth: the 92 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro (Grober, 2007), the 2002 Johannesburg “Earth Summit” (Dodds F., 2014) and the 2012 Rio de Janeiro “Earth Summit” (Pisano, U., et al., 2012).

However, there are voices of disgruntlement with regards to SD’s definition and inconsistent use amongst various development specialists-ecology, economics, politics and sociology. As posited by Tolba, M.K., (1984), SD has turned out to be “an article of faith, a shibboleth; often used, but little explained."

This perceived oxymoronic nature of SD makes it amenable to development cliché. Consequently, there is need to be pro-active and solution driven as opposed to being reactive and carping in our debates. Such debates framed that way will enable the concept of SD to be unpacked and characterized before it is misconstrued, distorted, and eventually co-opted (Lele, SM., 1991).

The co-optation aspect is already here with us and it is the new development trend subsumed in the UN development road map -sustainable development goals-a set of 17 ambitious goals and 169 targets meant to be achieved by the year 2030 (Griggs, D., 2013; Sachs, J. D., 2012). Nonetheless, the ambivalence surrounding SD theoretical and analytical framework complicates the process to determine whether this development framework will advance sound and socially meaningful form of development for everyone concerned (Lele S.M., 1991; Buttel, F. H., & Gillespie Jr, G. W., 1988).

In September 2011, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, while stating his priorities for the second 5 year term in the office, posited that, “Saving our planet, lifting people out of poverty, advancing economic growth...these are one and the same fight."

The crux of this paper will be to critically discuss this statement and determine how alive it is to the contemporary thinking around sustainable development as a means to an end or as an end goal in its self.

The first part of the paper will attempt to examine the various interpretations of SD. In addition, this section will also explore the genealogy and definition of SD and also determine the various points of convergence and departure. Finally, in the third section, I will critique the statement by Ban Ki-Moon above. I will justify why I agree with Ban Ki-Moon in principle but differ with him on fundamental grounds.

INTERPRETATION, GENEALOGY AND DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Interpretation of SD varies tremendously, this is so much so that O’Riordan T., (1985) construe SD as a "contradiction in terms," Redclift, M., (1987) on the other hand, considers SD as just "another development truism.”

However, all these interpretation variations have a common point of departure or semantic roots. First, “sustainable development” and "ecological sustainability” are often used interchangeably. In this scenario, SD is often likened to "'ecological sustainability"; and, on the other hand, as a concept that has ecological sustainability added to its originally intended objectives. Secondly, SD is often construed to mean "'sustained growth," "sustained change," or simply "successful" development (Lele SM., 1991; Tolba, M., 1984).

This leads us to the fundamental and critical question that Sach, J., (2015) rose in his writing about planetary boundaries. Can economic growth be reconciled with environmental sustainability without over stepping the planetary boundaries? (Sach, J., 2015). This question plunges us into the heart of sustainable development.

(a) Definition and genealogy of sustainable development

Providing a universally accepted definition of SD without raising eyebrows is quintessentially a will–o'–the–wisp. This is not to caricature SD as concept that is weak or imprecise, but, as a field of art and science whose application in the field of development goes past our current understanding, hitherto, providing a “sweet” ground to the debate, I guess for the better.

It was in the 1980 that the term SD came into the mainstream discourse. This was after International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) presented its report on World Conservation Strategy (WCS) whose overall aim was “achieving sustainable development through the conservation of living resources” (IUCN, 1980).

What was agreeable then to opponents and proponent alike, was, by WCS identifying SD as the primordial goal of society, significantly contributed toward the goal reconciling the interests of environmentalist and developmentalist (Khosla, A., 1987). There was also a common understanding that the primacy of the strategy was biased towards living resources, focused primarily on the necessity of maintaining genetic diversity, habitats and ecological processes. It was not able to sufficiently deal with the emerging contemporary issues like political and economic order, population and urbanization (Khosla, A., 1987). Moreover, this strategy was primarily supply side driven; it overlooked and divagated around the issues of sustainable development, and only addressed the issues ecological sustainability (Lele, S.M., 1991; Sunkel, O., 1987).

In 1980, these critiques resulted into adjusting and refining of the SD definition by other international bodies like the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) which resulted into the world conservation strategy- Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development report. It targeted policymakers, conservationists and development practitioners with its core tenets of protection of ecological processes and life-support systems, preservation of genetic diversity and sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems (IUCN., 1980).

According to Lele, S.M., (1991), IUCN definition “epitomizes the mixing of goals and means of fundamental objectives and operational ones that have burdened much of the SD literature.” While the report took cognizance of food, water, good health and shelter as fundamental objective of the traditional development, as to whether self-reliance, cost effectiveness, appropriateness of technology and people-centeredness were additional objectives or the operational requirements for achieving the traditional objective of development was obfuscated” (Lele., S.M., 1991).

It was until the 1987 World Conference on Environment and Development (WCED) report, commonly referred to as “Our Common Future” or “The Brundlandt Report” that a widely accepted definition generated and subsequently co-opted. According to this report,

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (WCED, 1987).

The commission clearly articulated eight objectives to guide its operationalization. These include: 1) reviving growth; 2) changing the quality of growth; 3) meeting essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water, and sanitation; 4) ensuring a sustainable level of population; 5) conserving and enhancing the resource base; 6) reorienting technology and managing risk; 7) merging environment and economics in decision making; and 8) reorienting international economic relations (WCED, 1987). A ninth objective was later added to address the issue of citizen participation which was a missing link and later evolving to be a constant theme and the foundation of right based approaches (RBAs) to development. An approach to development meant to correct the shortfalls of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) (Uvin, P., 2007; Cornwall, A. & Nyamu-Musembi, C., 2004). It is not within the scope of this paper to discuss the interesting debates around “RBAs” 'Rights', 'human rights', and 'rights-based' as development lexicon. But, I will take cognizance of RBA as a critical tool to ensure sustainable societies by upholding human rights and ensuring good governance and freedom (Sen, A., 1999).

WCED definition has also faced a fair share of criticism, according to Banerjee, S. B., (2003) and other scholars like Escobar and Redclift, this concept is divagating around the issue of apparent reconciliation of economic growth and the environment. In addition, it does not elaborate on the notion of human needs and wants. They term it, “a green sleight-of-hand that fails to address genuine environmental problems” (Escobar, A., 1995; Redclift, M., 1987).

(b) Points of departure and convergence in the SD discourse

Beneath the simple WCED concept underlies a moral concept (Starkey, R., and Walford, R., 2001). This moral concept varies vis a vis the various field of expertise, players, strategies geographical stetting, political ideology etcetera, hence, the varied meanings.

To have a laconic picture of the varied meanings source, we need to ask ourselves, what is development? Development has been in use for over 200 years, and it is generally agreed amongst most scholars that the contemporary notion of development was endorsed by President Harry Truman in 1949.

In this context, development simply meant the rest of the world had to “catch up” with the West. However, we have had other forms of definitions from development theorists. To some, development is synonymous with growth in gross national product (GNP) or gross domestic product (GDP) -the reductionist approach, to others, development is simply anything that has socially desirable outcome for example-, being able to meet our objectives e.g., basic needs: shelter, food, clothing etc (Lele S.M., 1991). Thus, development is basically a process directed change which embodies the objective of the process (end goal) and the means to achieving the same.

However, the peculiarity of these two objectives is glaringly implicit in the development discourse; an explicit feature in the same discourse is treating the burgeoning material consumption to be synonymous with development. This furthers the underlying principle of modern theory of development and other neoclassical theories of economic growth e.g. Hartwick-Solow models. These theories implicitly and/or explicitly imply that for the south (developing countries) to be like the North (developed countries); 1) there is need to adopt and capitalize on the existing technologies in developed world in order to expand the social and economic conditions of the developing or under developed world, and, 2) the under developed world should be supported to achieve the development goals; end point (development) being, having an economy that promotes mass consumption- growth per capita (Matunhu, J., 2011; Lele, S.M., 1991).

Another categorization of SD that might be a constant source of departure is the weak and strong sustainability, products of the debate around nature and environment. On the one hand, Strong sustainability objective is to maintain and enhance natural capital since the function performed by the same cannot be duplicated by manufacture capital. It is “a ‘glue value’ that holds everything together”. On the other hand, weak sustainability means manufactured capital of equal value can replace natural capital (Dietz, S., & Neumayer, E., 2007).

(c) Sustainable development as a sum of Sustainability and Development

With all these differences and similarities, it means, for us to achieve SD, we will have to use different strategies. The best analogy that can concisely illuminate what is ahead of us is that of a patient (read environment) with multiple infections or diseases being handled by different medical specialists (read sustainable development specialists).

In this process, we will be subjected to different approaches and different definitions in different areas of work. According to Starkey, R., and Walford, R., (2001), environment to them is the mainstay of sustainability, since it is the mother for all economic activities. Common, M. S., & Stagl, S., (2005) on the other hand, view SD in economics sense, to them economics-environment dyad must work in tandem if we are to achieve sustainable development. Others, will simply emphasize the importance of societal moral in the whole sustainable development equation (Hardin, G., 1968).

In summary, the mainstream interprets SD as “a form of societal change that, in addition to traditional developmental objectives (growth per capita), also has the objective of ecological sustainability” (Lele S.M., 1991).

The unpredictability of the world is something noteworthy, hence, developments objectives and priorities, and the requirements for achieving sustainability, ought to evolve responsively. But the fundamental concern will be how this evolution is understood at each stage. However, we need to take cognizance of the fact that, ecological sustainability, economic growth (traditional objective of development) and societal morals are not mutually exclusive phenomenas. There is need to identify points of leverage where we can optimally maximize the traditional objectives of development while at the same the same time honoring planetary boundaries (climate change, ozone depletion, ocean acidification, Nitrogen and phosphorous fluxes, fresh water depletion) (Sach J., 2015).

SUSTAINABLE ECOLOGY = SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY = SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY?

In this section, I will critically examine Ki-Moon’s statement, “Saving our planet, lifting people out of poverty, advancing economic growth...these are one and the same fight." I am cynically optimistic with this statement. Because, it all depends on which angle you look at it. As indicated above, SD is both a means to a defined end and an end point in itself. I totally agree that for us to achieve SD, we need to save ecology, reduce poverty while at the same advancing economic growth, hence my optimism. However, I am cynical about the operationalization and the core assumptions that underlie the process of achieving these three goals.

To achieve the goal of SD, it is pervasively acknowledged that nations (more so developing nations) need human capacity, financial resources, favorable market policies, good governance and advanced science and technology (Sachs, J. D., 2012). These are all scarce commodities in the developing world creating a fertile ground of dependency on the West, and, strive to be like the West.

I am of the opinion that SD is just another imperial tool clothed differently with no sincere aim to address the underlying issues. This is further echoed by Banerjee, S. B., (2003) who states that, “As with development, the meanings, practices, and policies of sustainable development continue to be informed by colonial thought, resulting in disempowerment of a majority of the world’s populations, especially rural populations in the Third World.” This is further enounced in the quote below by Mies M, and Shiva, V., (1993).

“In the early phases of colonization, the white man’s burden consisted of the need to “civilize” the non-white peoples of the world — this meant above all depriving them of their resources and rights. In the latter phase of colonization, the white man’s burden consisted of the need to “develop” the Third World, and this again involved depriving local communities of their resources and rights. We are now on the threshold of the third phase of colonization, in which the white man’s burden is to protect the environment — and this too, involves taking control of rights and resources. . . . The salvation of the environment cannot be achieved through the old colonial order based on the white man’s burden. The two are ethically, economically and epistemologically incongruent.” Mies, M., and Shiva V., (1993)

My argument will borrow largely from Foucault M., (1980) social theory of power and knowledge. According to Foucault, disciplinary practices represents the borders of discourse, determining “what is and what is not, what can be done and what cannot be done; what should be and what should not.”

In the contemporary world, imperialism is never overt and is often furthered by powerful institutions like the WB, UN, WTO, among others. This form of imperialism, that Mies and Shiva call “the third phase of colonization”, usually come clothed as support to the developing world coated with conditions and rules, subsequently becoming “natural” rules. For example, structural adjustment programs (SAPs) came with conditionalities and went without any tangible progress made (Dollar, D., & Svensson, J., 1998), later followed by RBAs to development, this has been largely criticized for furthering the same failed SAPs conditionalities agenda and now we have SD presenting more or less the same conditionalities that we need to normalize if not we are likely to face negative environmental sequelae.

We need to come alive to the fact that SD is capital oriented process furthering a capitalist agenda. As Porritt, J., & Tang, K. (2007) contend, “capitalism is the only game in town”. Globalization of SD, as a solution remains firmly rooted in the tradition of Western economic thought and subordinates indigenous knowledge and communities in the whole SD discourse. Hence, developing countries will continue to receive financial support through AID or as loans, human resources as consultants, market liberalization and advance science and technology.

Currently, conflicts are already emerging in the area of capitalizing the advances in science and technology, patents and intellectual property laws on genetic resources such as seeds protect and serve the corporate and institutional interests of developed countries while violating peasants’ and farmers’ rights in the Third World. North–South conflict over the World Trade Organization’s controversial Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is the recent case in point (Banerjee, S. B., 2003). This is a bellwether of what lies ahead in the process of reconciling the perceived and real difference emerging form actors.

In conclusion, the latter part of this paper, I have deliberately painted a grotesque picture of the SD process, this is not to dispute the fact that we desperately need SD as we are already facing a new geological epoch, but, this process of problematizing some of the core assumptions that underlie the whole SD process transforms our understanding of the past while enabling us to construct a history of the present and our attitude toward the future.

Currently, our past, the hegemony of the expansion through large-scale, export-oriented programs and policies that inverted the survival needs of local cultures is here with us as SD (Escobar 1995).

If, as Sen, A., (1999) states, ‘the quality of life should be measured not by our wealth but by our freedoms’, then the current discourse around SD, albeit emphasizing issues around poverty reduction and improving quality of life, is deficient in freedom, hence, are not the same as Ban Ki-Moon claims. In the words of Einstein, “we cannot solve our problem with thinking we used when we created them.”

Martin Omedo is the Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer with LVCT Health and Global Health Fellow with University of Edinburgh, Global Health Academy, Scotland. Above all he is a global-public health Practitioner with a staunch belief in a health system that is resilient and robust enough to be responsive to every population notwithstanding their wealth status or sexual orientation.

Disclaimer: The opinion presented herein is purely of the author and does not reflect that of my employer or any affiliate institution.

Bibliography

1. Arndt, H. W., (1981), Economic development: a semantic history, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 457-466.

2. Banerjee, S. B., (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24(1), 143-180.

3. Bartelmus, P., Environment and Development (London: Allen & Unwin).

4. Buttel, F. H., & Gillespie Jr, G. W., (1988). Agricultural research and development and the appropriation of progressive symbols: Some observations on the politics of ecological agriculture. Bulletin, (151).

5. Common, M. S., & Stagl, S., (2005). Ecological economics: an introduction, Cambridge University Press.

6. Cornwall, A. & Nyamu-Musembi, C., (2004) ‘Putting the 'rights-based approach' to development into perspective’ Third World Quarterly 25(8), pp. 1415-1437.

7. Dietz, S., & Neumayer, E. (2007). Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement. Ecological Economics, 61(4), 617-626.

8. Dodds, F. (2014). Earth summit 2002: a new deal. Routledge.

9. Dollar, D., & Svensson, J., (1998). What explains the success or failure of structural adjustment programs? (No. 1938). World Bank Publications.

10. Elkington, J., (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. The triple bottom line: Does it all add up, 11(12), 1-16.

11. Escobar, Arturo 1992 ‘Imagining a post-development era: Critical thought, development andsocial movements’. Social Text 31/32: 20–56.

12. Foucault, M., (1980), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York: Pantheon

13. Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockstr?m, J., ?hman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., ... & Noble, I., (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495(7441), 305-307.

14. Grober, Ulrich. 2007. Deep roots—A conceptual history of sustainable development, WZB Discussion Paper.

15. Hardin, G., (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.

16. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1987), pp. 35-54.

17. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, (1980), ed. World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. IUCN–UNEP–WWF.

18. Khosla, A., (1987), Alternative strategies in achieving sustainable development, in P. Jacobs and D. A. Munro (Eds.), Conservation with Equity: Strategies Jor Sustainable Development (Cambridge: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), pp. 191 2/).

19. Lele, S.M., (1991). Sustainable development: a critical review. World development, 19(6), pp.607-621.

20. Matunhu, J. (2011). A critique of modernization and dependency theories in Africa: Critical assessment. African Journal of History and Culture, 3(5), 65-72.

21. Mies, M, and Shiva, V., (1993), Ecofeminism. Melbourne: Spinifex Press.

22. O'Riordan, T., (1985), Future directions in environmental policy, Journal of Environment and Planning, Vol. 17, pp. 1431-1446.

23. Pisano, U., Endl, A., & Berger, G. (2012). The Rio+ 20 Conference 2012: Objectives, processes and outcomes. ESDN Quarterly Report, (25).

24. Porritt, J., & Tang, K. (2007). Sustainability and capitalism as if the world matters. Cut carbon, grow profits–business strategies for managing climate change and sustainability, 3-18.

25. Redclift, M., (1987), Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions (New York: Methuen).

26. Sachs, J. D., (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. The Lancet, 379(9832), 2206-2211.

27. Sachs, J.D., (2015) The Age of Sustainable Development. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 181-218.

28. Scoones, I, Leach, M & Newell, P (2015) The Politics of Green Transformations (Chapter 1) [E].

29. Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 35-86.

30. Starkey, R., and Walford, R., (2001) The earthscan reader in business and sustainable development by Richard Starkey and Richard Welford, Earthscan, London.

31. Sunkel, O., (1987), Beyond the world conservation strategy: Integrating development and the environment in Latin America and the Caribbean, in P. Jacobs and D. A. Munro (Eds.), Conservation with Equity: Strategies" for Sustainable Development (Cambridge:

32. Tolba, M. K., (1987), Sustainable Development: Constraints and opportunities (London: Butterworths).

33. Uvin, P. (2007) ‘From the Right to Development to the Rights-Based Approach’, Development in Practice 17 (4/5), pp. 597-606.

34. World Commission on Environment and Development., (1987), Our Common Future (New York: Oxford University Press).