Hopwood; Mellor & O’Brien (2005): Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches

 Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches 2005

Bill Hopwood*, Mary Mellor and Geoff O’Brien

38

It is in contrast to the dominant outlook of the last couple of hundred years, especially in the ‘North’, that has been based on the view of the separation of the environment from socio-economic issues.

For most of the last couple of hundred years the environment has been largely seen as external to humanity (…) Environmental problems were viewed mainly as local. On the whole the relationship between people and the environment was conceived as humanity’s triumph over nature.

(…)

38-39

As Bacon, one of the founders of modern science, put it, ‘The world is made for man, not man for the world’. Environmental management and concern amongst most businesses and governments, apart from local problems and wilderness conservation, was at best based on natural resource management.

(…)

39

Economics came to be the dominating issue of human relations with economic growth, defined by increasing production, as the main priority (Douthwaite, 1992). This was the seen as the key to humanity’s well-being and, through growth, poverty would be overcome: as everyone floated higher those at the bottom would be raised out of poverty.

The concept of sustainable development is the result of the growing awareness of the global links between mounting environmental problems, socio-economic issues to do with poverty and inequality and concerns about a healthy future for humanity. It strongly links environmental and socio-economic issues.

(…) This process of bringing together environmental and socio-economic questions was most famously expressed in the Brundtland Report’s definition of sustainable development as meeting ‘the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs’ (WCED, 1987, p. 43). This defines needs from a human standpoint; as Lee (2000, p. 32) has argued, ‘sustainable development is an unashamedly anthropocentric concept’.

Brundtland’s definition and the ideas expressed in the report Our Common Future (…) Rather than domination over nature our lives, activities and society are nested within the environment (Giddings et al., 2002) (…) points to the planetwide interconnections: environmental problems are not local but global, so that actions and impacts have to be considered internationally to avoid displacing problems from one area to another (…)

 

It recognizes that past growth models have failed to eradicate poverty globally or within countries, ‘no trends, ... no programmes or policies offer any real hope of narrowing the growing gap between rich and poor nations’ (…) Social justice today and in the future is a crucial component of the concept of sustainable development.

40

the Brundtland Report attempted to bridge some of these debates by leaving a certain ambiguity, talking at the same time of the priorities of meeting the needs of the poor, protecting the environment and more rapid economic growth. The looseness of the concept and its theoretical underpinnings have enabled the use of the phrases ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’ to become de rigueur for politicians and business leaders, but as the Workshop on Urban Sustainability of the US National Science Foundation (2000, p. 1) pointed out, sustainability is ‘laden with so many definitions that it risks plunging into meaninglessness, at best, and becoming a catchphrase for demagogy, at worst. [It] is used to justify and legitimate a myriad of policies and practices ranging from communal agrarian utopianism to large-scale capital-intensive market development’ (…) Rees (1998) points out that this allows capitalism to continue to put forward economic growth as its ‘morally bankrupt solution’ to poverty. If the economy grows, eventually all will benefit (Dollar and Kraay, 2000): in modern parlance the trickle-down theory. Daly (1993) criticized the notion of ‘sustainable growth’ as ‘thought-stopping’ and oxymoronic in a world in which ecosystems are finite. At some point, economic growth with ever more use of resources and production of waste is unsustainable. Instead Daly argued for the term ‘sustainable development’ by which he, much more clearly than Brundtland, meant qualitative, rather than quantitative, improvements. Development is open to confusion, with some seeing it as an end in itself, so it has been suggested that greater clarity would be to speak of ‘sustainable livelihoods’, which is the aim that Brundtland outlined (Workshop on Urban Sustainability, 2000).

Another area of debate is between the views of weak and strong sustainability (Haughton and Hunter, 1994). Weak sustainability sees natural and manufactured capital as interchangeable with technology able to fill human produced gaps in the natural world (Daly and Cobb, 1989) such as a lack of resources or damage to the environment. Solow put the case most strongly, stating that by substituting other factors for natural resources ‘the world can, in effect, get along without natural resources, so exhaustion is just an event, not a catastrophe’ (1974, p. 11). Strong sustainability criticizes this, pointing out that humanmade capital cannot replace a multitude of processes vital to human existence such as the ozone layer, photosynthesis or the water cycle (Rees, 1998; Roseland, 1998). Deep Greens would go further in arguing that non-human species, natural systems and biodiversity have rights and values in themselves (Naess, 1989).

(…) Haughton (1999) has usefully summarized the ideas of sustainable development in five principles based on equity: futurity – inter-generational equity; social justice – intra-generational equity; transfrontier responsibility – geographical equity; procedural equity – people treated openly and fairly; interspecies equity – importance of biodiversity.

41

Mapping Sustainable Development

(…)

O’Riordan (1989) in his widely used categorization of environmental views, from strong ecocentric to strong technocentric, pointed out that these often combine with socio-economic viewpoints so that ecocentrics tend towards social and economic equity and redistribution while technocentrics are more likely to support the economic and political status quo.

42

Overlaid on this map are three broad views on the nature of the changes necessary in society’s political and economic structures and human–environment relationships to achieve sustainable development: that it can be achieved within the present structures – status quo; that fundamental reform is necessary but without a full rupture with the existing arrangements – reform; and that as the roots of the problems are the very economic and power structures of society a radical transformation is needed– transformation (Rees, 1995).

(…)

Status Quo

Supporters of the status quo recognize the need for change but see neither the environment nor society as facing insuperable problems. Adjustments can be made without any fundamental changes to society, means of decision making or power relations. This is the dominant view of governments and business and supporters of the status quo are most likely to work within the corridors of power talking with decision makers in government and business. Development is identified with growth and economic growth is seen as part of the solution. The UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions argues that ‘to move towards more sustainable development, we need more growth not less’ (DETR, 1999, para. 3.31).

(…) Simon and Kahn see markets and technology as producing a future world that will be ‘less polluted, more ecologically stable . . . and the world’s people will be richer’ (1984, p. 1).

43

Reform

Those who take a reform approach accept that there are mounting problems, being critical of current policies of most businesses and governments and trends within society, but do not consider that a collapse in ecological or social systems is likely or that fundamental change is necessary. They generally do not locate the root of the problem in the nature of present society, but in imbalances and a lack of knowledge and information, and they remain confident that things can and will change to address these challenges. They generally accept that large shifts in policy and lifestyle, many very profound, will be needed at some point. However it is assumed that these can be achieved over time within the present social and economic structures. The key is to persuade governments and international organizations, mainly by reasoned argument, to introduce the needed major reforms. They focus on technology, good science and information, modifications to the market and reform of government.

(…) A common theme is the benefits that technology can bring to protecting the environment (…) It is argued that these changes will offer market opportunities for businesses and they should grasp the changes (…)

Reformers recognize that government has a key role in moving towards sustainable development as business will need pushing, and in some cases controlling, taxes and subsidies changing, targeting of research and disseminating of information. Most reformers also assume that there will be reform of the political system to increase democracy and participation.

45

Some of the reformers edge towards the transformation group, such as Schumacher (1973), who argues that the economy should be run ‘as if people mattered’, with the implication that small and local is more sustainable than large and global, although he envisages small as being privately owned and operating in a market economy. Other reformers lean much more towards the status quo. The Brundtland report is generally reformist in broad tone but leans towards the status quo in proposed details.

Transformation

Transformationists see mounting problems in the environment and/or society as rooted in fundamental features of society today and how humans interrelate and relate with the environment. They argue that a transformation of society and/or human relations with the environment is necessary to avoid a mounting crisis and even a possible future collapse. Reform is not enough as many of the problems are viewed as being located within the very economic and power structures of society because they are not primarily concerned with human well-being or environmental sustainability (…)

Transformation without Sustainable Development

As sustainable development is a human-centred view of the inter-relations between environmental and socio-economic issues, some transformationists are not concerned with sustainable development.

Deep ecologists’ primary concern is the environment, with the emphasis on the intrinsic value and needs of nature and the environment, while human needs come very much second. In the eight points of the deep ecology platform (Naess, 1989) there is little on human needs and nothing on equity. Bradford (1989), in a critique of deep ecology, points to the trend towards racism and support for imperialism as well as an anti-human outlook behind their ‘nature first’ rhetoric.

45-46

Transformation and Sustainable Development

Those who adopt a transformatory approach that embraces both social and environmental questions cover a range of different viewpoints although all share the view that the mounting crises in the environment and society are interconnected and that the social and environmental systems risk breakdown if radical change does not occur (George, 1999; Rees, 1995) (…) are addressing the issues of how to live within the environment without great inequality or poverty. Transformationists see the fundamental problems as rooted in our present society, which is based on the exploitation of most people and the environment by a small minority of people.

46

(…)

Social Ecology or Dialectical Naturalism is a perspective associated with the ecoanarchist Murray Bookchin. In his view humanity and nature are in a dialectical relationship and environmental concern needs to be ‘rooted in social criticism and a vision of social reconstruction’ (1989, p. 13). His main concern is the power of the state and he puts forward government through local municipalities based on direct democracy through local assemblies.

(…)

Ecofeminists see a relationship between the degradation of the environment and the subordination of women (Buckingham-Hatfield, 2000; Mellor, 1997a).

(…)

Much of ecosocialist thinking draws on the writing of Marx and Engels on the nature of human society and its relation with the environment: ‘We by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature – but ... we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst’ (Engels, 1968). These link inequality and environmental damage to capitalism’s exploitation of people and the environment (Cock and Hopwood, 1996). Ecosocialists argue for the need to change material conditions and the social structure of society to overcome both environmental crises and injustice (Pepper, 1993).

47

(…)

battles for environmental justice usually starts with a local single issue but people ‘realize the root of their problem is the lack of organized political power, deteriorating neighborhood conditions, poverty and race . . . recognize the international dimensions of the problem ... build an even broader coalition for change . . . with civil-rights and labor organizations, housing groups, women’s groups and healthcare advocates . . . these new alliances and cooperative work can achieve real democracy’.

(…)

Conclusion: Towards Sustainable Development

(…) There is no such thing as a single unified philosophy of sustainable development (…)

48

The usual model for sustainable development is of three separate but connected rings of environment, society and economy, with the implication that each sector is, at least in part, independent of the others. Defenders of the status quo see the root cause of a lack of sustainable development in the lack of knowledge and appropriate mechanisms, rather than a fundamental linkage.

(…)

The reality is that humanity is dependent on the environment, with society existing within, and dependent on, the environment, and the economy exists within society. Humans live within the environment (Giddings et al., 2002) and depend on it for survival and well-being; we cannot ignore the environment.

49

The future envisaged by transformationists takes a different view, starting from the view that environmental degradation, poverty and a lack of justice are not a historical coincidence. The linkage is not simply moral; it is rooted in a society of domination and exploitation of the environment and most people. In what O’Connor (1989) describes as combined and uneven development, some communities and people are rich because others are poor and vice versa. O’Riordan states that ‘wealth creation based on renewability and replenishment rather than exploitation . . . is a contradiction in terms for modern capitalism’, so that real sustainable development requires a ‘massive redistribution of wealth and power’ (1989, p. 93). Transformationists emphasize justice and equity, believing that if these are not central to any analysis the ecological problems will be blamed upon a common ‘us’, who are held equally to blame. This trend is evident in some deep ecologists’ thinking that holds all humanity responsible for the ecological crisis, thus masking divisions of race, class and gender. In an unequal society it is those who are least powerful who suffer poverty and lack of access to resources. The poor also have to bear the heaviest burden of ill-health, war and ecological problems (Sachs, 1999; UNDP, 2002; Agyeman et al., 2003) (…) The core values of sustainable development as outlined by Haughton are environment protection and justice.