Critical Thoughts on The Concept of Sustainable

#1・
2

subscribers

1

issue

Subscribe to our newsletter

By subscribing, you agree with Revue’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy and understand that Musings and Inspiration will receive your email address.

Musings and Inspiration
The Concept of Sustainable Development is not the same as sustainability but how many know this. As we race towards 2030, what are we missing about accomplishing the SDGs?

The concept of sustainable development is globally endorsed and I would say it has some unquestionable type of “cult following”. Positioned in conversations as the way to “save the world” from the looming destruction, reduce poverty, grow the economy; you find it everywhere in discourses, policies, political manifestos, scholarship applications, NGO agendas, funding terms, corporate yearly reports, school curriculum and it always reminds us of the SDGs. An environmental activist dealing with the impact of the oil spill in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region told me once he was critical of the concept and the SDGs, I never understood then. Some may have read and understood the critique of the concept often used interchangeably with the concept of sustainability (more on the long-term basis). To put it simply, Sustainable development is a man-made concept that is focused on “development” A.K.A… Economic growth(GDP-ish) as the vehicle to achieve sustainability and particularly the SDGs are the steps (with indicators as metrics) to achieve the long-term goal of sustainability. Maybe, we can save the world!
The thing about “Sustainable Development” is that many of us do not look beyond the surface value of the definition. It is easy to be hyped up about it in trying to help humanity that we may have missed the critical understanding of the concept, hence, all our approaches to solving what we have defined as problems (never mind who or what is left our left in achieving problem definition) are essentially flawed from the foundation. But in case, you have never thought deeply about how the concept of sustainable development is flawed, this article i hope can help and this is a reminder for those who already know.
An important point is that some progress has been made from countless United Nations conferences, deliberations on human progress, particularly the 1992 United Nations Conference on Economic and Development (UNCED), popularly called “The Earth Summit” at Rio de Janeiro where commendable deliberations, agreements and treaties like Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Agenda 21 and Commission of Sustainable Development was created. Despite the pains from conference fatigue of numerous conferences attended in the past and those to come in the future, the effort for including non-governmental actors, interest groups like indigenous, women, and child rights groups as well as corporate bodies has gained traction.
Sustainable Development and Flawed Elements
The widely accepted definition of sustainable development comes from the 1987 Brundtland report known as Our Common Future defined as:
“Sustainable development is a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.“ (i know you are probably tired of seeing this definition). The popular Venn diagram that shows the nexus and interactions of the 3 Ps; Planet, People, Profit, the 3 pillars of sustainable development (Purvis, et al., 2019), social, economy and environment interactions at different levels. Essential human Needs and Limits of technology (along with human capacity) were the 2 main considerations of the Brundtland report.
Three pillars of sustainability (Tedeschi, et al., 2015)
However, Sustainable Development has become an “over-worked” buzzword with a meaning that remains rather elusive. As an ambiguous concept open to diverse interpretations which insufficiently capture the whole picture, shifting from logic to semantics. (Mebratu,1998; Du Pisani, 2006; Meadowcroft, 2017). It is actively used as other normative ideas like freedom, democracy, feminism in international discourses, research, policy deliberations within different ontological and epistemological frames. The vagueness associated with the concept means everyone could mistake it as doing some good to save the earth by interpreting the concept within their political and social construct. How people define it and interpret it reflects on how they approach sustainable development problems and solutions. The ambiguous nature also translates to lacking specificity, not defining who should do what and responsibilities are shifted to others. Not much can be achieved in such situations.
One positive this about the Brundtland Report is that it attempted to “reconcile economic growth with environmental protection and not view them as tradeoffs since one is not possible without the other” (Axelrod et al, 2011). This report considered the division between the Global North (forgoing some comfort) and South (readjusting aspirations). It hoped to open up discussions on finding a middle ground of compromise since both the rich and poor countries had to change consumption patterns eventually regardless of the dispute. This allowed for the possibility of bringing more people to the table of key negotiations (leave no one behind) especially the global south to clear any doubt of it being another colonization agenda Whether this has been successful, remains a heated debate because there will always be someone who will be left out and there will be winners and losers.
The Brundtland report was focused on development being the end goal. Screams “Anthropocentric” but i would argue that as long as human elements are involved there will be an anthropocentric undertone (same goes for Circular/ Green Economy). So, maybe Anthropocentric as a term is not exactly evil in every context. Development within the frame of the Brundtland definition means improving human social conditions, health, education, economy, prosperity within environmental limits (balance between demand and the environment). Balance refers to intergenerational equity translates to the state of equilibrium between human contentment and appropriate environmental limits (Hueting & Reijnders, 1998). This has reduced the meaning of being focused on meeting human needs ahead of environmental limits and intergenerational equity. (Meadowcroft, 2017).
Prioritizing human basic needs becomes the only path to achieving progress and a path for preserving the environment. Being focused on human needs translates to growing the economy and pursuing high GDP, the trickle-down economics language. Then, we would count all the things in the economy with value by building capital. Remember that, capital in economics is a stock of goods with the ability (use, value or function) to produce further goods. This definition implies that environmental capital is the possible function and uses of environmental resources (renewable and nonrenewable). Environmental capital also includes negative values such as pollution, contamination, and desertification. (Hueting & Reijnders, 1998; El Serafy, 1991). The Brundtland definition implies that “societal development trajectories” are tied to what economic value means in economics, the root of many theories on growth, only what is termed valuable, measurable counts (Meadowcroft,2017). People will pay only what gives them value but can a price be put on the ability of environmental resources? Should environmental capital be seen as an equivalent of economic capital in measurement?
The focus on the limits of technology and human capacity meant that more should be done in these areas to solve environmental problems in the face of dwindling resources. If only we had the right technology with sufficient human capacity, then we can have things like substitutes for diminishing non-renewable resources and better manage renewable resources. Well, the critics of the green economy, decoupling and the concept of net zero
 will have you thinking twice about your stand. At the other end of the spectrum is the place of those with power and resources to constantly push the narrative and accord the “beloved” concept the global presence it enjoys. We find ourselves embracing concepts/buzz words like this and using them without questioning how it fits within our lived experiences. But who is really asking? is it important?
The Sustainable Development Goals
The 17 interlinked Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were globally endorsed in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly and designed to be a “blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all”.  17 goals 169 targets, 232 indicators. Developed after the end the Millennium Development Goals which ended in 2015. Since we at least know (even though not all will agree) that the most used definition of sustainable development is already flawed, then we can do more to manage targets and indicators better. As a fan of the SDGs, understanding the limitations of the concept keeps me enlightened and helps me to avoid the urge of jumping on project bandwagons because “sustainable development” is mentioned as the goal of the project. It helps me to approach collaborations beyond my disciplines to accommodate others. It is a deliberate and constant learning experience for me. Reflecting on the flaws of the concept also enables me to pay attention to how problems are defined, who is left out (at the very least, since we cannot carry everyone along 100 percent), and how solutions are designed.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
In the face of climate change (whether we believe or not), we must ask ourselves how to implement policies, research that can truly help the environment, and do less talking. There is so much focus and investment in economic development and governance but environmental governance has not exactly received the same traction. Part of this may have been the idea that human needs, economic growth, and technology advancement can help us achieve the long term goal of sustainability but the hard truth is that we would be running an even more complicated rat race if we do not deliberately commit to act better with our environment. Mining of rare earth elements for luxury gadgets (a good substitute is yet to be found on a large scale) or the limitations of solar power are just a few of the things that prove that technology has its limitations. Fossil fuels are still chief ingredients for the survival of many economies. You would probably still shop next Black Friday and Flight Shaming or eating organic foods are not quite as easy as it would seem on paper. If we were to argue, what will be the large-scale, affordable and sustainable alternatives? Sometimes, it would feel like the way there is so much talk on saving the environment and less action, the world will eventually self-destruct. Far from being a prophet of doom but really, why is everything else happening except action? Yes, we cannot save the environment without saving ourselves first but also in saving the environment, we save ourselves. It is one and the same thing.
So maybe, Next time, you would not jump on the bandwagon to say something will work because it has the globally endorsed “sustainable development” seal. Look critically beyond the surface and ask relevant questions necessary for targeted effective action.
References
El Serafy, S. (1991). The environment as capital. R. Costanza. Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York, 168–175
Brundtland, G., 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, s.l.: Oxford University Press.
Du Pisani, J. A., 2006. 2006. Sustainable development – historical roots of the c. Environmental Sciences, 3(2), pp. 83-96.
Hueting, R. & Reijnders, L., 1998. Sustainability is an Objective Concept. Ecological Economics, 27(2), pp. 139-47.
Meadowcroft, J., 2017. Sustainable development, limits and growth: reflections on the conundrum. In: P. A. V. a. B. Dolter, ed. Handbook on Growth and Sustainability. s.l.: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 39-58.
Mebratu, D., 1998. “Sustainability and Sustainable Development: Historical and Conceptual Review. Environment Impact Assessment Review, Volume 18, pp. 493-520.
Tedeschi, L. M. J. P., Fox, D. G. & Riley, D., 2015. Future implications for animal production: a perspective on sustainable livestock intensification.. Belo Horizonte MG Brazil, Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (SBZ).
United Nations, 2020. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. [Online]
[Accessed 19 September 2021].
Axelrod, Regina S., and Stacy D. Van Deveer (eds.), 2019/20. The Global Environment: Institutions, Law, and Policy. 5th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
Did you enjoy this issue? Yes No
Margaret Aligbe

Sustainability issues, community development and surviving as an international student abroad

In order to unsubscribe, click here.
If you were forwarded this newsletter and you like it, you can subscribe here.
Created with Revue by Twitter.