Nov 2015
By Musadag El Zein
Sustainable Development (SD). The most prevalent representation of SD was introduced in 1996 by which appears to be the International Centre for Local Environment Initiatives (Steve Connelly,2007). In a Venn Diagram the term SD is situated in the centre of three overlapping circles. Each circle represents a zone, with one being the Environment, a second the Economy and the third Society. The SD being in the centre of all these three circles symbolizes the integration and rather solutions of the three areas of concern. Another way to look at this intersection among these areas is as a struggle or perhaps “a tug of war” between the respective areas. The Economy would want to grow exponentially, the Environment would want to stay healthy and undisturbed while Society would want to ensure that human needs and living conditions and standards are met. With all setting their own demands, SD represents the “magic wand” that should bring about the “magic formula” to please all areas simultaneously.
With the remarkable theory of Sustainable Development, one may still wonder why has not there been much done on the ground so far? It is this continuous struggle amongst the three areas (the economy, environment and society) which hinders any remarkable achievements on the sustainability front. Rather than having these work together towards a goal they tend to always work against each other in favor of their respective interests. There have been many different categorizations on sustainable development in relation to these three areas. For instance in O’Riordan’s (1989) widely used categorization of environmental views, ecocentrics tend towards social and economic equity and redistribution while technocentrics are more likely to support the economic and political status quo(Bill Hopwood, Mary Mellor & Geoff O’Brien,2005). Others such as Marcuse, points out ‘Sustainability and social justice do not necessarily go hand in hand’(Bill Hopwood, Mary Mellor & Geoff O’Brien,2005).
There are also among these three areas; which of course should never be looked upon as areas with distinct boundaries but rather a way to simplify classifications; there are the reformists, transformationists and supporters of status quo. A reformist accepts that there are current problems with policies and governments and most businesses but does not consider that a collapse in ecological or social systems can happen or requires a fundamental change; whereas a transformationist, realizes the mounting problems in the environment and/or society and sees the necessity for a transformation in societies relation with the environment. While on the other hand supporters of the status quo recognize that change is needed but see neither society nor the environment are facing huge problems (Bill Hopwood, Mary Mellor & Geoff O’Brien,2005).
In today’s world we are all aware that both corporations and governments are and have been the major influential players for where we stand today, whether it be sufferings, joy, bright or dark futures yet to come. There is no doubt, that engagement of these big players is vital for us (pro SD) to be able to achieve considerable positive changes on the ground. Achieving gender equality, ending poverty and hunger, promoting the wellbeing and accessibility of education for all, ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all, making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe and resilient along with ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns and taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts and protecting and restoring ecosystems and reversing land degradation and halting biodiversity losses(Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform); all these SD goals which also serve as SD indicators, would be quite impossible to achieve if we were to discard the government’s and corporation’s roles and duties.
This, of course does not exempt us from doing our part as individuals being part of the affected society. In fact as I see it we have to work on two fronts. On one hand we need work within our communities and on the other we need to be vigilant for the decisions/actions made by our governments and these big corporations. Working within communities can take many shapes and forms. You may as well be part of an NGO and be involved in a humanitarian relief or bring people’s concerns to governments attention but one of the most important tools is to educate people and raise their awareness. This can be anything from human rights, environmental and health issues to sustainable living styles. There is nothing more beneficial and rewarding to a community than to have the investment in its citizens and their knowledge. In addition to the benefit of raising the awareness to the public, working within communities results in an exchange of information. Thus providing a rich interdisciplinary platform where everybody coming from different disciplines, backgrounds and experiences come together to resolve issues. This process helps to alleviate and minimize the struggle amongst the three areas of economy, society and the environment discussed earlier. This in fact promotes what SD strives to achieve.
Another front that individuals and societies can play roles in is by closely monitoring the decisions and actions made by the big players and see how these affect our present and future in all aspects. Here also there are many forms in which communities may act should they be affected with the actions of these big players. For instance displacing people in a village for exploitation of resources or firms dumping poisonous wastes into rivers. Acts such as protests, strikes, civil disobedience and boycotting could pay off at the end of day and cause changes on the ground. These have been successful especially against governments (e.g. recent Arab spring). Another form of act that could be useful too is by lobbying the governments and corporations through petitions or declarations.
I personally see myself being a semi-technocentric and somehow lying between reformists and transformationists. Advanced technology (e.g. shifting to renewable energy) can play a big role in helping us achieve sustainability nevertheless it should never be the one and only option. The role of governments and mega corporations is also vital but needs always be closely monitored by the society and put on the right track whenever needed. Altogether societies should transform at a steady rate towards a more eco-conscious and friendly societies because time is ticking.
Brundtland’s definition for sustainability is an excellent one. I wish we had a magic formula to make it happen. I believe it suits what we all long for today though this may not suit in 50 or 100 years time. Maybe we’d require another better definition then. Who knows?
I believe that there is no unique approach for achieving Sustainable Development. Yes, the goals may be same (e.g. reduction in CO2 emissions) but we should have different approaches and strategies to suit different parts of the world. A superb strategy in the U.S may never work in The Sudan and vice versa. You always need to know your audience in order to be able to convey your message, be heard and hopefully succeed in making a change. It is always important to understand and know the feasibility of your approach for that particular environment, society and nevertheless always be aware of the economic aspects.
Author:
Musadag El Zein