“Believing What You Know Ain't So”: Response to Holdgate and Munro

Martin Holdgate and David Munro have cogently summarized the intent and strategy followed by those who framed Caring for the Earth (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources/United Nations Environmental Program/World Wildlife Fund 1991 ). The pragmatic approach that they advocate is "to relate the primary objectives that [Caring for the Earth] espouses to the aspirations of the widest possible audience." Holdgate and Munro make no apologies for the fact that Caring for the Earth might be an "unattainable utopia" or "simplistically optimistic." Instead they argue, persuasively as always, that political documents must be broadly understandable and acceptable to the people that wield political and economic power in the world. In the words of the American author Mark Twain, the pragmatic approach is to go on "believing what you know ain't so." The widespread acceptance of Caring for the Earth by those in government agencies and international development organizations is testimony to the success of this approach. But the ease with which the document has been accepted demonstrates that Caring for the Earth does not advocate a sea change in our patterns of resource exploitation. And such a transformation is necessary if we are to live sustainably. Consider the chapter on business, industry, and commerce, which is mentioned by Holdgate and Munro as "full of relevant suggestions." The chapter advocates resource and energy efficiency, technological innovation, waste reduction, and pollution prevention. These are all actions that can and do win support from industry, because they frequently increase profits. But there are no specific suggestions on how to make business operations more sustainable (beyond identifying sustainability as a need). There is no discussion of the need for greater geographic equity in the distribution of industrial production, or of a more realistic valuation of the environmental costs of doing business. There is nothing to give a CEO pause for thought. Business as usual, though more palatable to world leaders, will not promote sustainable living. Holdgate and Munro scold those that make "academic distinctions," and they suggest that understanding would not be promoted by "a detailed analysis of all the factors that must be considered." I disagree. Conservation policy must be rooted in the most complete understanding of the ecological, social, and economic contexts that we have available. We must examine the consequences of development and conservation initiatives on biodiversity, on the lives of rural peoples, and on the balance of power among different interest groups. And we must adjust our strategies so as to achieve the optimal balance between conflicting and frequently contradictory aims. To do otherwise relegates conservation to empty generalities and politically correct phrases. The need to incorporate scientific understanding is illustrated by Holdgate and Munro's response to Limits to Caring (Robinson 1993) in which they suggest that it is possible to manage "adjacent, judiciously chosen and carefully defined" blocks of forest for both sustainable harvest and complete preservation of all species. A huge literature on the effect of forest fragmentation on biodiversity argues otherwise. Realistic recommendations must derive from the applied research of many disciplines, and from the experience of those who have implemented conservation and development projects. None of this denigrates the "avowed aim of Caring for