.
Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR)
1. Title
The Contested Nature of Sustainable Development Part 2: Analysis of Key Issues
2. Keywords
Biodiversity, consumption, democracy, environmental values, equity, pollution, population, resources, sustainable development.
3. Introduction
Sustainable development is a “metafix” that will unite everybody from the profit-minded industrialist and risk-minimizing subsistence farmer to the equity-seeking social worker, the pollution-concerned or wildlife-loving First Worlder, the growth-maximizing policy maker, the goal-oriented bureaucrat, and therefore, the vote-counting politician.(1)
Sustainable development has emerged in the last decade or so as apparently one of the most important goals of public policy. Most of the world’s governments have now endorsed one or more of the several international agreements on sustainable development produced at, and subsequent to, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).(2) In so doing they have committed themselves, amongst other things, to producing their own national strategies for sustainable development and promoting the development of similar strategies at the level of local government. This activity in the political sphere has taken place within a context of intense lobbying by a wide range of business and non-governmental organisations. Alongside all of this, and interacting with it, the subject of sustainable development has been investigated by large numbers of academics, approaching the subject from a wide range of disciplinary and intellectual perspectives.
Although there is apparently widespread agreement that sustainable development is ‘a good thing’, there is actually much disagreement as to what it actually means. Contained within this disagreement are disputes concerning, for example, the science of environmental change, the economics of resource management, the environmental impact of different technologies, and the efficacy of different policy instruments. In addition, there are debates of a more fundamental philosophical, ethical and socio-political nature, as indicated by the following quotation:
As a social goal … sustainability is fraught with unresolved questions. Sustainable for how long: a generation, one century, a millennium, ten millennia? Sustainable at what level of human appropriation: individual households, local villages, major cities, entire nations, global economies? Sustainable for whom: all humans alive now, all humans that will ever live, all living beings at this time, all living beings that will ever live? Sustainable under what conditions: for contemporary transnational capitalism, for low-impact Neolithic hunters and gatherers, for some space-faring global empire? Sustainable development for what: personal income, social complexity, gross national product, material frugality, individual consumption, ecological biodiversity?(3)
4. Aim
The aim of this TLR is to provide students with an opportunity to undertake a detailed analysis of the concept of sustainable development in relation to a range of key issues. It is part of a series of TLRs concerned with sustainable development (see Section 13 – Links with other TLRs) and, being somewhat abstract in nature, is intended as a follow-up to the first – rather more concrete – TLR in the series.
5. Learning outcomes
After using this TLR, students should:
6. Pre-requisites
Students should already be familiar with the concept of sustainable development; and, in particular, appreciate that there are many different interpretations of, or approaches to, sustainable development. They should also, preferably, have studied a sample of these competing approaches, such that they are aware of at least some of the (at times quite fundamental) ways in which they differ. Where this is lacking, the following TLR might be used prior to this one:
Students should have at least an elementary knowledge of environmental ethics and/or values. Where they do not have this knowledge, the following TLRs might be used prior to this one:
In addition, it would be helpful if students were familiar with the idea that the production of knowledge can be view as a process of making ‘knowledge claims’, and had had at least some experience of thinking critically about such processes. Where this is lacking, the following TLRs might be used prior to this one:
7. How to use TLR
The Study Questions (see Appendix A) and Notes for Tutors (see Appendix B) have been designed to be used in a variety of ways. For example, the questions could be used by students working individually, in pairs or small groups, or in the context of a whole-class activity. It is possible that they could be given to the students in their present form or, equally, that they could be modified prior to use. (Modification could involve changing, deleting or adding to the list of questions provided). It goes without saying, of course, that students should be fully briefed with regard to the nature of the activity they are to undertake, the expected learning outcomes, any associated assessment, and so on. They should also be given an opportunity to reflect upon what they have learnt during the course of this activity.
8. Instructions to students
As directed by tutor.
9. Stimulus Material
The TLR does not require any specific stimulus materials.
10. Degree stage
It is anticipated that this TLR would be most appropriate for use with students at level 3. However, it could be used at level 2 provided that the students satisfied the pre-requisites (see Section 6), and that the activity was presented in an appropriate manner.
11. Resource requirements
The TLR has no special resource requirements.
12. Preparation
To be decided by the tutor.
13. Links with other TLRs
This TLR has been designed as part of the following series:
The first of these TLRs is intended to serve as a ‘primer’ on the contested nature of sustainable development, which may but need not be followed by one or more of the others – used in whatever order seems most appropriate in any particular learning and teaching situation.
14. Follow-up activities
The following article is recommended as a basis for some kind of follow-up activity – which could be anything from independent study to something more formal such as a seminar.
In this article, Dobson aims to provide a map of the “territory of environmental sustainability and sustainable development”. He rejects the definitional and historical approaches of most standard surveys of environmental sustainability and sustainable development, in favour of an analytical and typological approach – which, amongst many other things, leads him to claim that ‘sustainable development’ should be considered as but one of several possible distinct conceptions within the broader concept of ‘environmental sustainability’. The article is clearly written, highly informative and comprehensive. As such, it should be rewarding for most students of environmental science/studies who are prepared to make sufficient effort – but it is likely to be somewhat challenging for first and second year undergraduates, and for students with limited experience in the social sciences.
In addition, see Section 13 – Links with other TLRs.
15. Recommended reading
There is a huge and rapidly expanding academic literature on sustainable development – produced by scholars across a wide range of disciplines. It is not possible to list the innumerable books and articles that they have published, or the many internet sites on which some of this material is now available. However, it is possible to identify at least some of the journals in which articles on sustainable development frequently appear:
Many different kinds of organisation also publish in this area (in print and on their own internet sites), including:
In addition, material on sustainable development can sometimes be found in the mass media (print-based and broadcast).
1. What – in general terms – do you do you understand by sustainable? Give examples of situations in which social activities, practices or processes might become unsustainable to illustrate your answer.
2. What do you understand by development (a) in general and (b) in the context of society as a whole? What do you think is the relationship between development (of society as a whole) and the concepts of (c) economic development and (d) economic growth?
3. What do you understand by sustainable development? How might it be assessed? What is the relationship between sustainable development and the sustainability of individual activities, practices and processes of the kind discussed in Q1? More generally, to what extent does it make sense to talk about sustainable development in relation to specific individual ‘analytical categories’ of human activity including (a) the behaviour of individual people, businesses and other organisations, (b) specific sectors of an economy such as the oil or manufacturing industries, and (c) specific domains of public policy-making such as energy, transport and waste? To what extent does it make sense to talk about sustainability in relation to different levels of socio-political organisation (ie local, national, regional, global)? Over what time-scale should sustainability be assessed?
4. What do you think is the relationship between sustainable development and (a) population growth and (b) population density?
5. What do you think is the relationship between sustainable development and the consumption of goods and services?
6. What do you think is the relationship between sustainable development and technological innovation?
7. What do you think is the relationship between sustainable development and the use of (a) renewable resources and (b) finite or non-renewable resources?
8. What do you think is the relationship between sustainable development and the production of pollution and waste?
9. What do you think is the relationship between sustainable development and biodiversity?
10. What is the relationship between sustainable development and (a) ‘intragenerational equity’ and (b) ‘intergenerational equity’?
11. What is the relationship between sustainable development and democracy?
12. What is the relationship between sustainable development and environmental values?
It is hoped that students would raise some or all of the following points during the course of this activity – with or without the intervention of the tutor.
1. The dictionary defines sustainable as the adjectival form of the verb, to sustain, for which the following meanings are listed: to hold up, bear, support, provide for, maintain, keep going, keep up, support the life of, prolong. In general, sustainable conveys a sense of something (eg an activity, practice, process) continuing – often indefinitely. Examples of usage might include: the fishing industry in a particular place becoming unsustainable when the fishery is over-fished; hill farming in a particular place becoming (economically) unsustainable due to the import of cheaper produce from overseas; mining in a particular area becoming unsustainable once all of the (economically) extractable reserves have been exploited; a particular community becoming unsustainable due to population decline (for whatever reason).
2. The dictionary defines development as: the act or process of developing; a gradual unfolding or growth; evolution. When applied to society as a whole, this might refer to the co-evolution of cultural, economic and/or political processes – with the suggestion that changes in one area of social activity are likely to entail changes in other areas. Economic development is thus just one component of social development more generally. Both social and economic development (ie change) may entail economic growth, stagnation or decline – setting aside questions of how economic growth is defined and measured.
3. Sustainable development involves the continuation – in some form or other – of society as a whole, although there may be some (reasonable) ambiguity as to what constitutes a ‘whole’ society, and what constitutes ‘continuing’. For example, if a technologically advanced society shifts to a state of low-tech scavenging due to, say, the depletion of fossil fuels, should the shift be considered as development or decline? The point here is that value-judgements are inevitably built in to any assessment of whether a change in society is labelled as development or decline. There may not necessarily be any relationship between sustainable development and the sustainability of individual activities, practices and process – although sustainable development whole may be dependent on the sustainability of a sufficient number of, and/or certain key, individual activities etc. More generally, the relationship between sustainable development as a whole and the sustainability of specific individual ‘analytical categories’ of human activity is also ambiguous – not least because of the interactions that generally exist between such categories. However, the pursuit of sustainable development would almost certainly have implications for the organisation of activity within categories such as: the behaviour of individual people, businesses and other organisations; specific sectors of an economy such as the oil or manufacturing industries; and specific domains of public policy-making such as energy, transport and waste. The relationship between the sustainability of one area with another (eg a geographically remote area, or a larger area of which it is a part) is also ambiguous – again, not least because of the ways in which such areas interact culturally, economically, politically and environmentally. The question of time-scale in discussions of sustainability is also problematic. Concern for the well-being of future generations seems to imply a time-scale of at least several decades and, possibly, centuries. Moreover, some of the decisions taken in the present have implications which span millennia (eg those concerning policies on nuclear power), whilst others have implications that are irreversible (eg the extinction of species and the depletion of finite resources). However, it is difficult to imagine how decisions taken in the present can realistically take account of the ‘needs’(4), preferences, interests and values of those living in the very distant future. And, of course, scientists believe that in the very long run, life on Earth will come to an end with the ‘death’ of the sun - and, eventually, that there will be no possibility of life in this galaxy as it too ‘dies’.
4. All other things being equal, increases in population will tend to give rise to increases in (a) resource use and (b) the production of pollution and waste. This could make development less sustainable. (See #7 and #8 below.) According to some, there is a limit to the number of people that the Earth can sustain – the Earth’s ‘carrying capacity’. However, even if this is accepted in principle, the carrying capacity would vary according to consumption patterns (see #5 below) and technological choices (see #6 below). This issue is hotly contested. It is also politically charged as a result of the preoccupation of many in the so-called developed world with the high population growth rates of many so-called less developed countries – despite the fact that many developed countries now have relatively high population densities as a result of high growth rates in the past.
5. All other things being equal, increases in per capita consumption will tend to give rise to increases in (a) resource use and (b) the production of pollution and waste. This could make development less sustainable. (See #7 and #8 below.) This issue is hotly contested. It is also politically charged as a result of tensions associated with the huge differences in per capita consumption between rich and poor – both within and especially between countries.
6. All other things being equal, technological innovation could give rise to decreases in (a) resource use and (b) the production of pollution and waste – which could in turn make development more sustainable. This is possible, for example, in situations where existing technology is replaced by more resource-efficient technology (ie technology that uses fewer resources and/or creates less pollution and waste). Alternatively, technological innovation could give rise to increases in (a) resource use and (b) the production of pollution and waste – which could in turn make development less sustainable. (See #7 and #8 below.) This is possible, for example, in situations where new technologies give rise to price cuts which in turn give rise to increase levels of consumption; or where they give rise to the consumption of entirely new goods and services. Analyses of specific cases and more general conclusions are both hotly contested.
7. Renewable resources can in principle be used sustainably, if the rate of consumption is less than the rate of replacement – sometimes known as the maximum sustainable yield (MSY); although the exploitation of renewables is generally accompanied by the consumption of finite resources. Finite resources can be used more or less quickly and more or less efficiently; but they cannot in principle be used indefinitely and, therefore, cannot be used sustainably. It is sometimes argued that the MSY of renewable resources and the finite nature of non-renewable resources impose a limit on the total level of economic activity that can be sustained in the long run.(5) However, it is also argued that this limit can be circumvented more or less indefinitely by substituting one resource for another as stocks become depleted – a process that is claimed to occur automatically and unproblematically through the normal operation of a free market economy. This issue is hotly contested.
8. All other things being equal, increases in the production of pollution and waste could make development less sustainable. This is possible in situations in which the production of pollution and/or waste bring about environmental changes which, in turn, threaten the sustainability of certain of societies (at a local, national, regional or global level). The classic case of this is the so-called greenhouse effect. According to the widely-held view, emissions of so-called greenhouse gases are changing the chemical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, which in turn is causing: mean surface temperatures to rise, sea levels to rise, patterns of precipitation and extreme weather to change, patterns of agricultural productivity to change, and patterns in the distribution of certain diseases to change. It is claimed that these changes will affect societies in all countries to a greater or less degree, and that certain ‘at-risk’ societies may sooner or later become unsustainable (eg societies on low lying islands and in coastal areas, and some societies in areas that are already marginal in terms of their capacity to sustain economic activity). This topic – the greenhouse effect in particular and the more general relationship between sustainable development and the production of pollution and waste – is hotly contested.
9. All other things being equal, decreases in biodiversity could make development less sustainable. This is possible in situations in which the biodiversity that is lost plays a more or less important role in the normal operation of society. The classic case here is large-scale deforestation. According to many people, forests play an important role in regulating the Earth’s climate. On this view, large-scale deforestation could lead to significant climate change, which could in turn make at least some societies less sustainable. (See #8 above.) More generally, there is a view that whilst particular cases in which biodiversity is reduced are unlikely – on their own – to affect the sustainability of society as a whole, the cumulative effect of wholesale biodiversity loss could do so. This topic – deforestation in particular and the more general relationship between sustainable development and decreases in biodiversity – is hotly contested.
10. It is widely believed that intragenerational equity is necessary to the pursuit of sustainable development. The argument for this view, put very crudely, is that where there are large gaps between rich and poor (within and between countries), tensions will arise that militate against the pursuit of sustainability. Against this, it could be argued that the elimination of poverty is not essential to the pursuit of sustainability, provided that the economic status quo is accepted by the population (for whatever reason) or enforced upon the population (by whatever means). It is also widely believed that intergenerational equity is necessary to pursuit of sustainable development. The argument for this view, put very crudely, is that concern for the well-being of future generations is, more or less by definition, the whole point of sustainable development. For example, the seminal Brundtland Report defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”(6) According to this view, (i) contemporary society can choose between different development paths which may be more or less sustainable in the long run and – importantly – (ii) contemporary society has a moral duty to pursue a development path that is more rather than less sustainable. This is contested on various grounds, and there is a counter-view that future generations should be left to take care of themselves, and will be able to take care of themselves provided that the present generation takes care of itself.
11. It is widely believed that democracy is necessary to the pursuit of sustainable development. The argument for this view, put very crudely, is that where democracy is lacking, there will inevitably be political conflict that will militate against the pursuit of sustainability. Against this, it could be argued that democracy is not essential to the pursuit of sustainability, provided that the political status quo is accepted by the population (for whatever reason) or enforced upon the population (by whatever means).
12. The dominant discourse of sustainable development is based upon a substantially instrumental approach to the valuation of nature. More specifically, insofar as there are calls for nature to be conserved, it is because nature is essential to the continuation of society (eg as life-support system, source of essential resources, sink for pollution and waste – see #9 above). On this view, the pursuit of sustainability does not provide a basis for advocating nature conservation where the nature concerned (eg a particular living organism, or habitat, or species or even ecosystem) is not essential to the continuation of society. Of course, other reasons may be advanced for conservation in such cases – such as that the particular bit of nature in question has some non-essential instrumental value (eg as a recreational resource) or that it has intrinsic value (ie value that is independent of any instrumental value it might have or humans). It is worth noting, however, that arguments for nature conservation based on an intrinsic approach to the valuation of nature are frequently intertwined with those concerned ostensibly with the sustainability of human societies.
Overall, students should realise that despite the veneer of apparent consensus, the topic of sustainable development is multi-faceted and extremely complex; and that knowledge claims concerning sustainable development are likely to be uncertain, provisional, value-laden and subject to contestation.
For illustrations of the contested and problematic nature of sustainable development see, for example, the article by Andrew Dobson cited in Section 14 of this TLR, and the following(7):
Notes:
(1) S. Lele (1991) Sustainable Development: A Critical Review. World Development, 19(6), p613. Cited in A. Dobson (1996) Environment Sustainabilities: An Analysis and a Typology. Environmental Politics, 5(3), p401.
(2) For example, Agenda 21 and the conventions on climate change and biodiversity.
(3) Timothy Luke (1995) Sustainable Development as a Power/Knowledge System: The Problem of “Governmentality”, pp21-2. In Frank Fischer and Michael Black, eds, Greening Environmental Policy: The Politics of a Sustainable Future. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
(4) The definition of ‘needs’ - as opposed to preferences – is itself problematic, insofar as most of what constitutes a need seems to vary between cultures at different times and in different place.
(5) For the seminal statement of this case, see: Meadows, DH, DL Meadows, J Randers and W Behrens (1972) Limits to Growth (London: Earth Island). The modelling upon which this study was based, and the specific predictions to which it gave rise, have now been largely discredited. However, the argument that the finite nature of the Earth, and its supply of solar energy, impose a ‘limit to growth’ remains a strong theme in much of the discourse on sustainable development.
(6) World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. OUP, Oxford, p42.
(7) These articles are used as stimulus materials in a related TLR (see Section 13) entitled Sustainable Development Part 3: Critical Readings.