Models and complexities of achieving sustainable development
Tags: Sdgs, Sustainable Development, Complexities

A paper submitted in reference to “The Introduction to sustainable development” course (Masters’ of Sustainable Development, Class of 2019 ) at Uppsala University, Uppsala-Sweden. I have added more information to broaden the scope of the article.

Introduction

Sustainability as a concept is argued to be too vague to have a universally accepted definition; leading to exploitation and “greenwashing”, sounding so good, it can have too many shallow definitions and due to the absence of a standard theoretical framework can be interpreted to mean anything. (Caradonna, 2014, p.7). Sustainable development as a concept being notorious and elusive to define with at least 80 definitions which both compete and contradict. (Williams and Millington, 2004).

The concept was given a name in the early 18th century as “Nachhaltigkeit” describing the practice of harvesting timber. The world was not in a state of “perfection” back in that era as an ecological problem existed. As the world developed into the era of industrialization, plastic, high pollution rate from fossil fuels, nuclear waste, synthetic chemicals all increased the impact of man on the environment and resulted in environmental degradation. There was awareness about forest exploitation with surviving documents showing the roots of sustainability stretching back to the pre-industrialized world. Present-day “sustainists” would argue that we are 250 years into an unsustainable living but the argument of what is determined as unstainable or sustainable still stands. A great part of the world’s socio-economic sector still embraces industrialization and capitalism, a society that thrives on mechanization and the use of fossil fuels. (Caradona, 2014, p 34)

From the era of pre-industrialized societies, era of colonial trade (consumer revolution) and consumption of coffee, tobacco, sugar rooted in slavery to the era where humans were thought to hold exalted place in the natural order to this present era, it is clear that the sustainability movement of the present day is rooted in early pioneers of ecological thinking who were able to connect the three pillars of modern sustainability human society, (albeit in an unrefined way) creating a foundation of what is today called “sustainable development”.

Sustainability; A definition

The wildly accepted definition given in the book by Brundtland commission “Our Common Future” also known as The Brundtland report published in 1987 state sustainable development as;

“The development that meets the needs of the present without comprising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs”.

Wackernagel and Rees in 1996 argued that looseness of the concept has enabled the phrase “sustainable development” to become a “fashionable” word for politicians and business leaders to justify policies and large-scale capitalism. However, recent definitions of sustainable developments lay emphasis on the interconnectivity of the society, the economy and the need for humans to live in harmony with the environment.

Understanding Sustainability

Haughton (1999) outlined five equity principles on which sustainable development needs to be based, regardless of the classification as social, economic, environmental or a mix of the three. Basing sustainable development on principles gives it clarity, giving room for similar questions to be asked about policies. It is also crucial in linking human equity to the environment, challenge meaningless interpretations and provide a basis for evaluations.

1. Futurity — Inter-generational equity

2. Social Justice — intra-generational equity

3. Trans-frontier responsibility — Geographical equity

4. Procedural equity — people treated fairly and openly

5. Inter-species equity — Importance of biodiversity.

The Venn Diagram model (The Three E’s)

The recent commonly used sustainability model is known as the “tripartite Venn diagram” illustrates the interconnectedness of the “there Es”; environment, economy and equity (social equality) (see Figure 1). The 2005 United Nations endorsed model which is widely used in discussions centered on sustainable development has a fourth “E” education added sometimes to demonstrate the need to educate in establishing a sustainable society.

This model illustrated by equal-sized rings in a symmetrical interconnection viewing the society (equity), the environment and the economy as separate spheres which are interconnected. It approaches and tackles the issues of sustainable development in a compartmentalized manner, distracting from the connections between the three sectors, leading to assumptions can trade-offs can easily be made. (Giddings et al, 2002). Weak sustainability favors this model giving priority to human-centered discourse (anthropocentric), justifying the approach that natural and manufactured capital can be interchanged with technology (Hopewood el al, 2005).

The Nested model

A more recent model which further develops the concept of the tripartite Venn diagram as a series of circles, in which the environment is seen as the foundation for sustainability, with the economy and the society is dependent on the environment. (See Figure 2). Sustainability economists Peter Victor and Herman Daly argue that the environment should take priority in the sustainability model as society and the economy could not exist without the environment. “Nearly all human actions have an impact on the environment and human life itself depends on the environment. Art, spiritual beliefs and technology draw on the environment. Waste which can also be described as goods and services end up in the environment” (Giddings et al, 2002). The ‘nested’ model rather than the three E model encourages a more conceptual outlook focused on integration. The economy being placed at the center does not mean it should be a hub around other sectors revolve but it is seen as a subset of the others and dependent on them. While human and society depend on the environment, the environment can exist without society. (Lovelock, 1988).

The nested model has its limitations as the boundaries between each sector is not neat rather it is fuzzy, there is a constant flow between human activities, materials, and energy that breaks down boundaries. (Giddings et al, 2002). The Three sectors being considered as if there is only one type of environment or one economy and one society strengthens the controversy around this model. There are multitudes of environments (Antarctica, European forest, the Sahara and Mediterranean), societies and economies at different spatial scales. This model undermines the constant change in the world giving credence to priorities that are believed to have existed and will continue to exist.

Achieving Sustainable Development

Hopewood et al (2005) suggested a mapping methodology based on combining environmental and economic issues to help understand sustainable development. Overlaid on the mapping methodology are three broad views on the nature of changes, which they believe was required in political and economic structures as well as human-environment relationships to achieve sustainable development.

Achieving sustainable development within the present structures (maintaining the status quo). The argument that business drives sustainability as increased information and changing values, improved management skills and new technology are the best means of achieving sustainable development is reflected in many government policies and monopolized business decisions(discourages competition) majorly in developing countries like Nigeria where the political systems are driven by supporters of the status quo, keeping power, resources recycled among the elite and keeps the global index score low with a huge percentage of the population battling multidimensional poverty and making achieving the sustainable development an impossible task by the 2030 target. Those within the corridors of power decide if economic growth should receive more attention than the environment, climate change or equity. Achieving sustainable development through reforms as the mounting problems faced by the world today are rooted in the current economic and power structures of the society but do not consider social system collapse. They recognize the government as playing a key role, accepting dialogue and shift in policies as goals can be achieved over a period within the existing socioeconomic structures. In this group are academics and NGO. The challenge with this methodology is the issues of many NGOs and academia shifting the “goal post” when faced with the politics of funding as regards research and execution of local projects. This is no longer a question of ethics in convincing the government to redesign policies focused on the needs of the society, but the dialogue is always in favor of those with power and influence. Achieving sustainability through a radical transformation. Reform is never enough as radical change is key to altering the human relationship with the environment which is at the core of the issues in the present society. Environmentalist and climate activists use this approach. The challenge with this methodology would be the case of morality. The fact that the morality of any proposed radical transformation should be based on what is right or wrong. Who defines what is right and what is wrong? Who determines if a habit or a lifestyle is sustainable or unsustainable? For a country like Nigeria, how do you convince someone that eating meat is unsustainable when your argument on eating meat is partly based on animal cruelty, industrialized meat packaging as common with the western countries as against the way meat is sourced for food in Nigeria? Or how do you make a solid case for the spotted owl to be protected according to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) if it will cost human jobs in the timber industry, considering that the argument for human basic needs will receive more support? (DesJardin, 2013)

A more structured view on achieving sustainable development is introduced by Sachs et al (2018). Stating that complementary actions are required by stakeholders with a shared understanding on how the 17 SDGs can be operated, introducing the 6 SDG transformations, drawing on an earlier work by “The World in 2050 initiative”. The transformations organize the 17 SDGs as modular building blocks, simplifying interlinkages between the SDGs and interventions.

Transformation 1; Education, gender and inequality Transformation 2; Health, well-being, and demography Transformation 3; Energy decarbonization and sustainable industry Transformation 4; Sustainable food land, land, water and oceans Transformation 5; Sustainable cities and communities Transformation 6; Digital revolution for sustainable development

These six transformations consider work on global, regional and national scales with adaptability in the context of different countries at levels such as development, natural resource base, ecosystem challenges and structures of governance requiring deliberate long-term structural changes in different sectors of social, environmental and economic spheres to achieve development.

Leaving no one behind

All definition of the concept of sustainable development agrees on the need for balance and a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of the environment, the economy, and society.

The controversies surrounding the concept of sustainable development is what makes it interesting, open to more discourse regardless of your stand on sustainability.

The undeniable effects of global warming (oceanic current shifts, worldwide drought, flooding), combustion from fossil fuel being the largest source of health damaging pollutants and a major source of greenhouse gas emissions requires we understand our limits and plan wisely for the future. (Kaygusuz, 2007). Every country must take full responsibility for sustainable development to be achieved, there is very little foreign aid can achieve if the underlining problem of poverty, hunger, corruption, infrastructure is not addressed. The idea of leaving no one behind may just be another case of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

References