P221 Understanding Sustainable Development€¦ · Sustainable Development Commission has...

© SOAS | 3742

Centre for Development, Environment and Policy

P221

Understanding Sustainable Development

Prepared by Dr Ben Daley

Understanding Sustainable Development Module Introduction

© SOAS CeDEP 1

ABOUT THIS MODULE

Fifty years ago, nobody talked about sustainable development. Now, the idea of ‘sustainable development’ is the central, defining term of the international development agenda, in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Over that relatively short time period, the language of ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’ has grown from a fringe concern to become ubiquitous. These are terms and ideas that are now encountered everywhere, from international conference centres (as at the ‘Rio+20’ summit) to the labels of produce on supermarket shelves; the glossy reports produced by multinational corporations; the performance targets of local authorities; the packaging and instruction manuals of consumer goods; and the efficiency ratings of cars, aeroplanes, houses and electronic appliances. The idea of sustainable development emerged during the late twentieth century in response to growing concerns about the apparent failure of conventional, state-led ‘development’ initiatives and about the extent and pace of environmental degradation, especially at the global scale. ‘Sustainable development’ has rapidly become a popular term – yet one that is also ambiguous and fiercely contested. As Jonathon Porritt, past Chairman of the former UK Sustainable Development Commission has acknowledged, sustainable development is a notoriously slippery term that can mean ‘practically nothing to people, or practically everything’. Indeed, some versions of sustainable development demand radical social re-organisation – including new forms of government and governance – in order to promote more just relations between societies and environments, whilst other versions of sustainable development amount to little more than ‘business as usual’. Therefore, it is important to understand the concept of sustainable development and the various ways in which it is used. In its most authoritative form, sustainable development is associated with some important, core principles that deserve critical examination.

In this module, the idea of sustainable development is explained and explored. Some influential definitions of sustainable development are considered and the main principles of sustainable development are explained. An account of the emergence and evolution of the concept of sustainable development is also provided in order to explain the historical context of current debates. ‘Mainstream’ notions of sustainable development are outlined together with some of the key strategies that have been devised to promote sustainable development. Various resistances to the concept, and some alternative approaches to sustainable development, are also examined critically. Importantly, we also try to get beyond the current impasse in thinking about sustainable development, using new approaches and perspectives, including ideas based on the notion of responsive cohesion. Overall, this module provides an overview of some of the most important areas of debate and controversy in relation to sustainable development.


© SOAS CeDEP 2

STRUCTURE OF THE MODULE

The module consists of fifteen units which are best followed sequentially. Unit 1 provides an introduction to the core challenge of sustainable development: the problem of balancing the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of development, both for people now and for future generations. In Units 2–6, the emphasis is placed on understanding various definitions of, and the evolution of ideas about, ‘mainstream’ sustainable development. Various alternative approaches and perspectives to sustainable development are presented next, in Unit 7, before we ask (in Unit 8) whether reformism or radicalism is the better way forward for the concept. In Unit 9, we review a relatively new idea with obvious relevance to sustainable development – that of the circular economy; then in Unit 10 we take stock and ask whether there has been sufficient progress to date in achieving anything resembling sustainable development. The account emphasises that sustainable development is a political process, one that raises important ethical questions. In Units 10-14, those ethical ideas are brought to the fore – using the framework provided by the theory of responsive cohesion (Fox, 2006) – and are then applied to the isssues of climate change and biodiversity loss, and also to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Some key ideas and organising principles – those that recur throughout the course – are summarised in Unit 15.


© SOAS CeDEP 3

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN

Module Aims

This module introduces students to definitions of, and approaches to, sustainable development to enable them to develop a better understanding of the concept and its implications for policy and decision-making.

The specific aims of the module are:

• To explain the core challenge of sustainable development.

• To define sustainable development.

• To provide an overview of the emergence and evolution of the concept of sustainable development.

• To outline the main strategies for promoting sustainable development.

• To present some alternative perspectives, approaches and critiques.

• To illustrate some important, current issues and debates in sustainable development using case studies.

Module Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module, students should be able to:

• define, understand and evaluate critically the concept of sustainable development

• understand and evaluate critically the main principles of sustainable development

• understand and evaluate critically the emergence and evolution of the concept of sustainable development

• understand and evaluate critically the main strategies for promoting sustainable development

• understand and evaluate critically a range of alternative approaches and perspectives towards sustainable development

• understand and evaluate critically some of the most important current issues and debates in relation to sustainable development.


© SOAS CeDEP 4

ASSESSMENT

This module is assessed by:

• an examined assignment (EA) worth 40%

• a written examination in October worth 60%.

Since the EA is an element of the formal examination process, please note the following:

(a) The EA questions and submission date will be available on the Virtual Learning Environment.

(b) The EA is submitted by uploading it to the VLE.

(c) The EA is marked by the module tutor and students will receive a percentage mark and feedback.

(d) Answers submitted must be entirely the student’s own work and not a product of collaboration. For this reason, the VLE is not an appropriate forum for queries about the EA.

(e) Plagiarism is a breach of regulations. To ensure compliance with the specific University of London regulations, all students are advised to read the guidelines on referencing the work of other people. For more detailed information, see the FAQ on the VLE.


© SOAS CeDEP 5

STUDY MATERIALS

There are two textbooks for this module.

Adams, W.M. (2009) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in a Developing World. Third Edition. Routledge, Oxon.

This book provides a detailed, highly-respected account of the historical roots, emergence and evolution of the concept of sustainable development, together with some balanced and critical discussions – in several chapters – of the relevance of the concept of sustainable development to various environmental and development issues.

Sachs, J.D. (2015) The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press, New York,

This book is an overview of the ‘mainstream’ sustainable development approach by the respected economist and development advisor, Jeffrey Sachs. His views closely reflect that of the dominant international development agenda that is now reflected in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

For each of the module units, the following are provided.

Key Study Materials

These are drawn mainly from the textbooks and relevant academic journals and internationally respected reports. Readings are provided to add breadth and depth to the unit materials, as appropriate and are required reading as they contain material on which students may be examined. For some units, multimedia links have also been provided. Look at these and use the Virtual Learning Environment to discuss their implications with other students and the tutor. The notes under each resource indicate its scope and relevance.

Further Study Materials

These texts and multimedia are not provided in hard copy, but, weblinks have been included where possible. Further Study Materials are NOT examinable and are provided to enable students to pursue their own areas of interest. (A selection of works of literary fiction is also provided in the Further Study Materials which may provide an alternative perspective on some of the issues covered more formally in the units.)

References

Each unit contains a full list of all material cited in the text. All references cited in the unit text are listed in the relevant units. However, this is primarily a matter of good academic practice: to show where points made in the text can be substantiated. Students are not expected to consult these references as part of their study of this module.


© SOAS CeDEP 6

Self-Assessment Questions

Often, you will find a set of Self-Assessment Questions at the end of each section within a unit. It is important that you work through all of these. Their purpose is threefold:

• to check your understanding of basic concepts and ideas

• to verify your ability to execute technical procedures in practice

• to develop your skills in interpreting the results of empirical analysis.

Also, you will find additional Unit Self-Assessment Questions at the end of each unit, which aim to help you assess your broader understanding of the unit material. Answers to the self-assessment questions are provided in the Answer Booklet.

In-text Questions

This icon invites you to answer a question for which an answer is provided. Try not to look at the answer immediately; first write down what you think is a reasonable answer to the question before reading on. This is equivalent to lecturers asking a question of their class and using the answers as a springboard for further explanation.

In-text Activities

This symbol invites you to halt and consider an issue or engage in a practical activity.

Key Terms and Concepts

At the end of each unit you are provided with a list of Key Terms and Concepts which have been introduced in the unit. The first time these appear in the text guide they are Bold Italicised. Some key words are very likely to be used in examination questions, and an explanation of the meaning of relevant key words will nearly always attract credit in your answers.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

As you progress through the module you may need to check unfamiliar acronyms that are used. A full list of these is provided for you in your study guide.


© SOAS CeDEP 7

TUTORIAL SUPPORT

There are two opportunities for receiving support from tutors during your study. These opportunities involve:

(a) participating in the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)

(b) completing the examined assignment (EA).

Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)

The Virtual Learning Environment provides an opportunity for you to interact with both other students and tutors. A discussion forum is provided through which you can post questions regarding any study topic that you have difficulty with, or for which you require further clarification. You can also discuss more general issues on the News forum within the CeDEP Programme Area.


© SOAS CeDEP 8

INDICATIVE STUDY CALENDAR

Unit Unit title Study time (hours)

Study week (16 weeks)

Unit 1 The challenge of sustainable development 20 1

Unit 2 Defining sustainable development 20 2

Unit 3 The evolution of the concept 15 3

Unit 4 Types of sustainable development 20 4

Unit 5 Delivering mainstream sustainable development 15 5

Unit 6 Measuring sustainable development 15 6

Unit 7 Alternative perspectives 15 7

Unit 8 Reformism and radicalism 15 8

Assessment Examined Assignment 25 9

Unit 9 The circular economy 15 10

Unit 10 Revisiting the challenge of sustainable development 15 11

Unit 11 Responsive cohesion 15 12

Unit 12 Climate change and sustainable development 15 13

Unit 13 Biodiversity conservation and sustainable development

20 14

Unit 14 Revisiting the SDGs 10 15

Unit 15 Conclusion 10 16

Assessment Revision and examination 40 After end of study

session

Unit One: The Challenge of Sustainable Development

Unit Overview 2 Unit Aims 2 Unit Learning Outcomes 3

Key Study Materials 4

1.0 What’s so difficult about sustainable development? Food, freight and fair trade 5 Section Overview 5 Section Learning Outcomes 5 1.1 Isn’t sustainable development straightforward? 5 1.2 Questioning food miles 7 1.3 A complex issue 8 1.4 A sustainable development dilemma 10 Section 1 Self-Assessment Questions 13

2.0 Environment and development 14 Section Overview 14 Section Learning Outcomes 14 2.1 What is development? 14 2.2 Unsustainable development 16 2.3 The lessons of Easter Island 19 Section 2 Self-Assessment Questions 21

3.0 The problem of poverty 22 Section Overview 22 Section Learning Outcomes 22 3.1 The persistence of poverty 22 3.2 The need for poverty reduction 24 3.3 The lessons of the Akosombo Dam 26 Section 3 Self-Assessment Questions 29

4.0 The problem of environmental change 30 Section Overview 30 Section Learning Outcomes 30 4.1 Global environmental issues 30 4.2 Environmental degradation 33 4.3 The lessons of palm oil production 34 Section 4 Self-Assessment Questions 37

Unit Summary 38

Unit Self-Assessment Questions 39

Key Terms and Concepts 40

Further Study Materials 41

References 42

Understanding Sustainable Development Unit 1

© SOAS CeDEP 2

UNIT INFORMATION

Unit Overview

Most people probably have a general idea of what words like ‘sustainable’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ mean. The terms are popular and widely used, and they can blandly and wholesomely signify any good aspiration or hope for the future of humanity and our planet. On the other hand, they can also generate fierce debate and controversy, particularly when they are used in the context of trying to modify or restrict certain behaviours of individuals and organisations. Why does the term ‘sustainable development’ provoke such different reactions? What is sustainable development about? Is sustainable development desirable? Is it even possible to achieve sustainable development, or is that a contradiction in terms? Such questions are often raised in debates about sustainable development, so it is important to understand the variety of issues and concerns associated with the term. Sustainable development is a contested and problematic concept that is hard to define adequately – and even more difficult to apply in practice. Yet, it is also a term that is now almost ubiquitous and informs development policy and practice, including at the highest level of governance. So, it is worth understanding what it really means! Unfortunately, we will see that sustainable development can sometimes mean virtually anything – and virtually nothing. However, a central theme that runs through most debates about sustainable development is the critical relationship between environment and development, as well as the choices we make – collectively and individually – about these things, and this is at the heart of what sustainable development is about.

This unit introduces the main challenge of sustainable development: the need to balance the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of development, both for people living now and for future generations of people. This sounds simple, but in reality this is a daunting challenge that has proved remarkably intractable to date. In fact, the first step in understanding sustainable development is to acknowledge the many ways in which the concept is not as straightforward as it seems at first glance. We will return time and again to the centrality of the relationship between environment and development – and the choices humans make about them – and we will see that this is where the difficulties start. This unit focuses on the relationship between environment and development – and on the profound tensions that can exist in that relationship. Using the examples of ‘food miles’, deforestation, hydropower dam construction and palm oil production, this unit illustrates a range of issues associated with decisions about environment and development. The unit also emphasises the central importance of two problems, global poverty and global environmental change, because concerns about those two issues led to the emergence of ideas about sustainable development. Above all, this unit emphasises that decisions about the environment and development must be considered together if there is to be any hope of understanding – or promoting – sustainable development.

Unit Aims

• To explain the main challenge of sustainable development.

• To introduce the idea of the relationship between environment and development.


© SOAS CeDEP 3

• To introduce the central problems of global poverty and global environmental change – and to explain why those two issues are central in debates about sustainable development.

• To illustrate a range of sustainable development issues using examples.

Unit Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit students should:

• understand the main challenge of sustainable development

• understand the idea of the relationship between environment and development

• recognise the importance of the problems of global poverty and global environmental change in debates about sustainable development

• be familiar with several examples of sustainable development issues.


© SOAS CeDEP 4

KEY STUDY MATERIALS

Adams, W.M. (2009) The dilemma of sustainability. In: Adams, W.M. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in a Developing World. Third Edition. London, Routledge, pp. 1–25.

This chapter introduces the ‘dilemma of sustainability’. It provides a useful introduction to debates about sustainable development, together with an overview of the key problems of poverty and global environmental change. Adams (2009) is an authoritative and highly respected academic commentator on the emergence and evolution of the field of ‘green development’ or ‘environment and development’, which we will later see has given rise to the field of ‘sustainable development’. Adams takes a balanced but critical approach to sustainability, showing that there are many problems and nuances with the concept of sustainable development, and arguing that it has not yet been effectively translated into action. But Adams is also a strong advocate of conservation and environmental protection, and his book argues for much stronger and more effective forms of sustainability. His book is complex – and is not always an easy read – but its rich and careful scholarship, its deep historical perspective and its political insight make it well worth the effort.

Sachs, J.D. (2015) Introduction to sustainable development. In: Sachs, J.D. The Age of Sustainable Development. New York, Columbia University Press, pp. 1–44.

This chapter introduces the idea of sustainable development as conceptualised by one of the most influential contemporary commentators on the subject, Jeffrey Sachs. This account reflects the current international mainstream approach to sustainable development, and Sachs’ book gives a clear and accessible account of the way in which sustainable development is now being interpreted, promoted and put into practice, internationally. The book has a strong focus on the current international governance framework for sustainable development – including the central role of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – and his account is optimistic and policy focused. It is interesting to contrast the perspectives of Sachs and Adams on the subject.


© SOAS CeDEP 5

1.0 WHAT’S SO DIFFICULT ABOUT SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT? FOOD, FREIGHT AND FAIR TRADE

Section Overview

In this section, we begin by asking why sustainable development is a challenge at all. In principle, it should be a very straightforward concept. But we will see that it is challenging in many ways. The complexity of the issues involved is then illustrated using a single example: the question of ‘food miles’. This section demonstrates that an issue that at first glance seems straightforward may actually, on closer examination, raise a variety of difficult questions about economic, social and environmental costs and benefits – in other words, about sustainable development.

Section Learning Outcomes

By the end of this section students should:

• recognise that the issue of food miles raises many questions about economic, social and environmental costs and benefits

• understand that debates about sustainable development may be controversial – and may involve choosing between environmental and development goals.

1.1 Isn’t sustainable development straightforward?

Different views on sustainable development

In principle, achieving ‘sustainable development’ should be easy. Although we have not yet defined the term properly, if for the sake of argument we start with a simple, working definition of sustainable development as ‘development that can be sustained indefinitely through time’, then it is fairly easy to see that sustainable development simply means ‘doing’ development in such a way that it can continue in perpetuity (or at least until ‘development’ has been achieved worldwide and there is nothing more for us to do in that respect). So, we need to make sure that we use resources efficiently and in such a way that they are not used up faster than they can be replenished. We also need to make sure that the by-products of development (waste and pollution) do not accumulate faster than we can deal with them. And we also need to make sure that we maintain a group of skilled, trained people who know what to do – who are able to continue to organise and manage the development process so that the progress achieved does not stall or go astray. In principle, that should be all that is required; and, given enough time, ‘sustainable development’ would then be achieved. Simple.

For some people, the process described above is basically correct and is proceeding more-or-less according to plan, give or take a few temporary setbacks here and there. To those people, we are basically on course to achieve a sustainable society, even if it may be taking a little longer than expected to do so. But others are not so sure. If it is so easy to achieve sustainable development, why haven’t we done so yet? Why is it taking so long? To some people, we do not actually seem to be getting much closer at all to achieving ‘sustainability’. Indeed, to some people, we seem to be getting even further


© SOAS CeDEP 6

away from ‘sustainability’ with each passing year. Those people might point to the fact that we continue to observe obscene levels of poverty in the world, despite decades of targeted investment aimed specifically at ending poverty. They might point out that breath-taking inequalities not only persist between poor and rich people, both within and between countries, but that those inequalities seem to be widening relentlessly. They might argue that we continue to see widespread injustices and appalling abuses of human rights, sometimes committed overtly and with impunity, and often systemically and pervasively in the forms of corruption and discrimination. They might point to the fact that global and local environments are being exploited to the point of natural resource exhaustion, species extinctions and even the wholesale collapse of ecosystems. They might argue that we now face unprecedented environmental risks and hazards at the global scale – such as changes to global climate – whose scope and severity we cannot fully comprehend. They might worry about the fact that the human population continues to grow, together with our overall level of resource consumption (even if that consumption is grotesquely distorted in favour of a minority of people). Some people might quite reasonably say that, given these disturbing facts, we do not seem to be making much progress towards achieving ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’ at all, and that these things may be remote possibilities that are in fact little more than pipe dreams.

Moreover, some people might argue that – in addition to facing these profoundly disturbing and gathering threats – we seem to be, if anything, less capable than ever of actually addressing them. When it comes to the most important issues of our time, we seem to be mired in division, controversy and conflict – even about what the salient issues are, never mind about how to respond to them. In the context of enormously destabilising, divisive, interest-driven, ‘post-truth’ politics, we seem less able than ever to agree even on the facts about the state of the world, on whose authority we can trust, or on whose versions of events count. We struggle to reach any kind of agreement on which issues matter, never mind about the best ways in which to address them. And even when we agree on both the issue at stake and the right course of action, we seem woefully unable to put these good intentions into practice. These are deeply troubling observations, and they raise deeper and more difficult questions about ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’. If sustainable development is so important, why doesn’t it seem to be a priority to many people? If the logic of sustainable development is so self-evident, why is it still so difficult to persuade people and organisations to behave in ‘sustainable’ ways? Is it even possible to achieve sustainable development, or are we chasing an impossible dream? Does sustainable development even make sense, or might it be a contradiction in terms?

These questions illustrate something of the challenge of sustainable development, and we will explore this challenge more in this unit – and throughout the module. They are important to gaining a deep and nuanced understanding of sustainable development – a concept which sounds deceptively simple at first glance, but which actually goes to the heart of our humanity, our values and our choices.

So what is the challenge of sustainable development? In the next section, we will explore this in a little more detail using the example of ‘food miles’.


© SOAS CeDEP 7

1.2 Questioning food miles

Do you think food products should be transported by air? State a range of

reasons for and against the air freight of food products.

Should we fly food around?

The term ‘food miles’ refers to the distance food is transported from its point of production to its point of consumption. Although food items have long been transported, more recently there have been growing concerns about the practice of transporting food over long distances, especially internationally and especially by air. These concerns relate partly to the intuitive idea that food production and consumption should somehow be ‘local’ wherever possible, but they are specifically raised by concerns that the long-distance transport of food can be fossil fuel-intensive, and therefore contributes to climate change. Some people argue that food can be produced in many places and there is no real necessity for foodstuffs to be transported around by plane, especially when those long-distance shipments are driven largely by cost considerations. It does not make sense to transport milk across Europe, for instance, simply because it is cheaper to produce milk in one country than another. Some people argue that such practices are undesirable both because of their environmental impacts and because they affect the livelihoods of the farmers who are unable to compete with the distant, cheaper producers elsewhere.

In 2007, the Soil Association – the organisation responsible for certifying organic produce in the UK – launched a year-long consultation into the environmental impact of organic produce that is air-freighted to the UK from other countries. The consultation was a response to concerns about the increasing contribution of air freight to climate change. The key issue at stake was whether air freight should be addressed in the Soil Association’s organic standards. The debate raised the question of whether ‘organic’ certification should be removed from goods that have been air-freighted to the UK. This was the first time that the Soil Association had considered applying standards relating to transport and climate change, and the consultation proved to be a significant – and controversial – exercise.

The consultation was prompted by concerns that, while air freight accounted for a very small proportion (less than 1%) of all organic food imports to the UK, the air-freight industry – and the air-transport industry more generally – was growing rapidly in response to strong, sustained demand, so this was likely to become an increasingly important issue over time. Air freight allows fresh food to be carried thousands of miles around the world in a matter of hours, with the result that a wide variety of products can be stocked on supermarket shelves throughout the year. Air freight is particularly useful for transporting highly perishable organic fresh fruit and vegetables, year-round, as supermarkets attempt to ensure continuous availability to consumers of the freshest and most exotic produce. Air freight also enables importers to respond to unexpected shortfalls in supply or surges in demand – and so to meet the UK consumer demand for year-round fresh produce. The fact that a wide variety of fresh produce is reliably available in UK (and many other) supermarkets, regardless of the season, is a direct result of the efficient long-distance freight – including the air freight – of many of these foodstuffs.


© SOAS CeDEP 8

Food miles and climate change

Of course, one of the downsides of this rich diversity of foodstuffs in UK (and other) supermarkets arises because air transport is dependent on the use of fossil fuels, and air transport is responsible for an increasing share of global carbon dioxide emissions. Consequently, there are concerns that the air freight of organic produce is making a growing contribution to climate change. Compared with other forms of transport, air transport is particularly carbon intensive and damaging to the earth’s climate. Furthermore, air freight is the most rapidly growing method of food transport; the air freight of food to the UK increased by 140% between 1992 and 2002 and remains significant. While air freight is currently responsible for less than 1% of total UK food miles, it produces 11% of the carbon dioxide emissions from UK food transport (Melchett, 2007). Hence a consignment transported by air may have a climate impact that is far greater than the same consignment carried by sea.

In response to such concerns, the Soil Association considered a range of options for addressing the environmental impact of air-freighted organic food. Those options included taking no action; introducing new procedures for labelling air-freighted organic produce so that consumers can make more informed choices about the issue; using carbon offsetting schemes; and imposing a partial or general ban of air-freighted organic produce. Of those options, the introduction of a general ban received the greatest support from members of the general public, from some environmentalist groups (including Greenpeace) and from some organic producers. Some people argued that imposing a general ban on the air freight of organic produce would also bring other benefits for people in the UK, including a general reduction in air-traffic levels and in road congestion (because air freight tends to drive airport expansion). Of course, there was always the possibility that parochial and protectionist concerns – motivated by a desire to protect UK farmers from overseas competition – might also be playing a part.

1.3 A complex issue

Many considerations

Therefore, at first glance, the idea of banning air-freighted organic produce seems to be an attractive one, as it could potentially reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts associated with food transport. Yet, on closer examination, the situation is not so straightforward. One consideration is that many air-freighted products are carried as ‘bellyhold’ cargo aboard passenger aircraft flying existing, scheduled routes. The planes are flying anyway; so why not use them to transport valuable, fresh food? If a ban on air-freighted organic products were imposed, the aircraft would still fly those routes and the bellyhold space would instead be used to carry other, non-perishable goods – which do not necessarily need to be transported by air. Another consideration is that, if the same (generally exotic) products were grown in the UK or elsewhere in Europe, rather than in tropical countries where the climate is well-suited to their cultivation, they would have to be grown in hothouses – and the production of food in hothouses is carbon intensive and, in fact, results in higher greenhouse gas emissions than does air freight.


© SOAS CeDEP 9

Another important consideration is the fact that many producers in developing countries depend heavily on the income they earn from the sale of organic produce destined for markets in the UK (and elsewhere). Around 80% of air-freighted organic produce is grown in developing countries, and many thousands of people depend on the revenue from organic produce for their livelihoods. Research has shown that the trade in high-value, organic fresh fruit and vegetables has important social and economic benefits in developing countries – as a means both of alleviating poverty and of preventing environmental degradation. Imposing a ban on air-freighted organic produce would disadvantage farmers in developing countries who have already invested in the production of crops using organic methods. Those farmers might then be forced to resort to non-organic agriculture – or they might lose their livelihoods altogether. In addition, in some developing countries, building capacity for organic production through export horticulture is important in stimulating more sustainable local markets for organic food. Consequently, a ban on air-freighted organic produce could have the unintended effect of destroying many farmers’ livelihoods and blighting development.

Blue Skies

The potential for the air freight of organic produce to drive development has been highlighted by Blue Skies, a UK-based company that specialises in the export of pre-cut, ready-to-eat fruit from developing countries. One of the most important Blue Skies products is organic, chopped, sugarloaf pineapple; the fruit is grown by groups of small-scale farmers in the Central Region of Ghana and is processed and packed locally before being exported to the UK aboard commercial aircraft during scheduled passenger flights. By adding value at source through processing and packing, Blue Skies ensures that its organic pineapples are worth around 38% more than the non-organic alternatives and that the value of the exported product is around five times that on the local market. The Blue Skies fresh-cut production facility in Nsawam, in the Eastern Region of Ghana, employs over 1500 people and contributes around £2 million to the local economy through salaries alone. Other employment opportunities have been created in the Central Region, where unemployment is around 70%, because the company has provided access to drinking water and has built roads – enabling farmers to trade and to send their children to school (Blue Skies, n.d.).

Besides providing employment and infrastructure, the Blue Skies operation creates a range of environmental benefits. Farmers are attracted by the prospect of obtaining premium prices and by the relatively low cost of producing organic food. By working with Blue Skies and with the Soil Association, farmers learn skills in sustainable agriculture and environmental conservation, as well as receiving regular training and financial support. Farmers are encouraged to adopt a range of organic environmental management techniques: achieving commercial yields without relying on artificial chemical inputs; preserving ecological habitats by protecting forests and rivers, and maintaining buffer strips and natural borders; limiting soil erosion by aligning fields with contour lines; and improving soil structure and organic matter content by producing and applying compost. By using such techniques, farmers ensure that the production of sugarloaf pineapples has a relatively low environmental impact, especially when compared with production elsewhere in Africa and Europe (which is relatively carbon intensive) (Blue Skies, n.d.).


© SOAS CeDEP 10

A model of development practice

As a result of the benefits it has delivered, Blue Skies has been cited as a model of development practice and was awarded the Queen’s Award for Enterprise in the Sustainable Development category in 2008, 2011 and 2015, as well as receiving many other awards (Blue Skies, n.d.). Blue Skies also operates in Brazil, Egypt and South Africa, and a similar model is being used in Rwanda, Tanzania and Zimbabwe to promote development that meets high ethical, environmental and organic standards. Given the importance of the export trade in air-freighted organic produce for farmers in the developing world, and the success of the Blue Skies model, the Soil Association concluded that its proposal for a general ban of air-freighted organic produce was not consistent with sustainable development. Nevertheless, the Soil Association argued that the importance of urgently addressing climate change cannot be overstated – and that the effects of climate change will disproportionately affect many African countries. The Soil Association emphasised that development strategies that depend heavily on fossil fuels are irresponsible and that it is vital to set a long-term goal to limit the use of air freight.

1.4 A sustainable development dilemma

What are the priorities?

This example highlights a sustainable development dilemma: should we protect the livelihoods of small-scale farmers in developing countries – even if those livelihoods depend on (carbon-intensive) air freight – or should we adopt a more urgent approach towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions, despite the adverse effects on those farmers’ livelihoods, economies and societies? To a large extent, the answer to that question depends on human attitudes, values and beliefs – which are often highly subjective and contested. If they were asked, the small-scale farmers in developing countries would probably argue that the air freight of organic produce is an important part of their development strategy; that dealing with the immediate effects of poverty might even be a more immediate and urgent task than addressing the long-term effects of climate change; and that, in any case, much of the responsibility for reducing carbon dioxide emissions rests with the developed countries that have largely created the problem. In contrast, an environmental activist in a developed country might argue that dealing with climate change is the more urgent priority because, unless carbon dioxide emissions are dramatically reduced, the livelihoods of people worldwide (including the smallholder farmers themselves) could be threatened by extreme climate events.

This example also illustrates the fact that debates about sustainable development often involve a wide range of complex economic, social and environmental issues. An issue that initially seems straightforward – in this case, a suggestion to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions due to food transport – may in fact prompt significant debate and controversy, particularly about whose agenda is being served by any proposed changes: who stands to gain and lose from a certain course of action? The Soil Association’s proposal to impose a general ban of air-freighted organic produce would undoubtedly have benefited farmers in the UK at the expense of farmers in developing countries, so it could be viewed as a (thinly disguised) form of protectionism. From another point of view, the high dependence of producers in developing countries on


© SOAS CeDEP 11

the revenue from exported products could be viewed as evidence of neocolonialism, since small-scale producers in developing countries are consigned to live in vulnerable, marginal conditions and are denied opportunities for greater self-determination and freedom, while affluent consumers in developed countries enjoy a year-round supply of exotic products sourced from around the world.

A political issue

Questions about governance and participation are also raised by this example. Some people would suggest that, in this situation, strong regulation is required to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Others would argue that free market forces should influence which products are bought and sold; that economic considerations should determine which transport mode is most appropriate; and that consumers should be allowed to decide which products they wish to buy – a decision that could be assisted by clearer food labelling. Advocates of fair trade would argue that small-scale producers should have a greater role in determining the terms of trade for their products – as well as a greater share of the profit – and that, if they did so, they would then have a greater incentive to ensure that production occurs on a sustainable basis. From yet another perspective, some people would argue that the real issue is not the (false) choice between farmers’ livelihoods and climate change but rather the endless demands of affluent consumers in developed countries. Underlying all of these considerations is a fundamental, political question: who has the power to decide which economic, social or environmental considerations are the most important ones?

The relationship between environment and development is central in debates about sustainable development. Often, in those debates, conflicts may emerge between those who prioritise environmental goals and those who prioritise development ones. Sometimes a situation may require that difficult choices are made between environmental and development goals – choices that ideally should be made in a transparent, accountable manner. Geographical scale is often an influential factor in determining which environmental and development concerns come into conflict. Thus, at the local scale, for the organic sugarloaf pineapple farmers of the Central District of Ghana, there is no obvious tension between environmental and development goals; indeed, the adoption of organic farming techniques has apparently had a strong positive effect in terms of development. It is only when we consider the global scale that a tension emerges between the development goals pursued by those farmers and the environmental objective of mitigating climate change.

From this example, then, we can see that an issue that initially seems to be fairly straightforward can actually be ‘unpacked’ to reveal a multitude of critical questions and issues. The more we think about this issue, the more considerations there seem to be. The more we consider the impacts of any given decision or course of action, the more effects and implications we realise we have to take into account. It is not simply that these decisions are complex; it is also that they are political and they go to the heart of human values and power relations. They are issues of justice because one group’s ability to make decisions that affect other people – even if those decisions are motivated by well-intentioned concerns to protect the environment, or to promote development, will inevitably impinge on another group’s ability to make decisions about their own lives and their own futures. When we add to this the fact that groups of people vary significantly in their capacity to make those decisions – and in the power


© SOAS CeDEP 12

they wield over others – then we can see that the situation quickly becomes extremely problematic. This is why sustainable development is not straightforward: because it involves the most fundamental and difficult questions about who should make decisions about whom, what, when, how, why and with what consequences.


© SOAS CeDEP 13

Section 1 Self-Assessment Questions

1 List three ways in which the production of organic food for export contributes to climate change.

2 List three ways in which organic farming methods may create environmental benefits.

3 Besides the issue of food miles, state another sustainable development issue in which environmental and development considerations may come into conflict.


© SOAS CeDEP 14

2.0 ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

Section Overview

We cannot understand sustainable development without understanding the relationship that is at its heart: the relationship between ‘environment’ and ‘development’. Indeed, the field of study and research that became known as ‘sustainable development’ is sometimes referred to simply as ‘environment and development’ (Adams, 2009). This section focuses more sharply on the relationship between environment and development – a relationship that, unsurprisingly, has not always been a happy or harmonious one! Some basic ideas about development are considered first. Next, the historical example of Easter Island is used to illustrate the important point that development is unsustainable if it exceeds the capacity of the natural resource base. This section shows that, at a very basic level, the relationship between environment and development may be used to evaluate whether or not development is ‘sustainable’.



• understand the idea of the relationship between environment and development

• understand that the relationship between environment and development is central in debates about sustainable development.

2.1 What is development?

What do you understand by the term ‘development’? List the words or phrases that you associate with the term.

You might have listed some of the following words: change, consumption, economic development, economic growth, education, entitlements, equality, equity, freedom, gender equity, goals, good governance, gross domestic product (GDP), health, human development, human rights, income, justice, livelihoods, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), participation, peace, positive change, poverty reduction, process of change, production, progress, reducing vulnerability, responsibilities, self-determination, social development, social inclusion, sustainability, targets, wealth.

Write a definition of ‘development’.


© SOAS CeDEP 15

Development – a political term

A multitude of meanings is attached to the idea of development; the term is multifaceted, multidimensional, complex, contested, ambiguous and elusive. However, in the simplest terms, development can be defined as bringing about social change that allows people to achieve their human potential. An important point to emphasise is that development is a political term: it has a range of meanings that depend on the context in which the term is used, and it may also be used to reflect and to justify a variety of different agendas held by different people or organisations. The idea of development articulated by the World Bank, for instance, is very different from that promoted by Greenpeace activists. This point has important implications for the task of understanding sustainable development, because much of the confusion about the meaning of the term ‘sustainable development’ arises because people hold very different ideas about the meaning of ‘development’ (Adams, 2009). Another important point is that development is a process rather than an outcome: it is dynamic in that it involves a change from one state or condition to another. Ideally, such a change is a positive one – an improvement of some sort (for instance, an improvement in maternal health). Furthermore, development is often regarded as something that is done by one group (such as a development agency) to another (such as rural farmers in a developing country). Again, this suggests that development is a political process, because it raises questions about who has the power to do what to whom.

Development transforms the environment

But development is not simply about the interactions between human groups; it also involves the natural environment (This is a fact that may seem obvious now, but this was not always the case.) So, from another point of view, development is about the conversion of natural resources into cultural resources. This conversion has taken place throughout the history of human societies, although the process has generally increased in pace and complexity with time. If we use a system diagram to illustrate – in very general terms – what an economy does, we see that the basic function of an economy is to convert natural resources (in the forms of raw materials and energy) into products and services that are useful to humans (see 2.1.1). Inevitably, because conversion processes are never totally efficient, some waste is produced which is usually discarded into the environment as various forms of pollution. Therefore, the environment is both a source and a sink in relation to economic processes: it is a source of raw materials and energy and a sink for pollution.

2.1.1 A representation of a generalised economy

Source: unit author

EconomyRaw materials

Energy

Products and services

Waste (pollution)Economy

Raw materials

Energy


Waste (pollution)


© SOAS CeDEP 16

Resources, energy and waste

An example of this type of conversion would be the extraction of crude oil from the North Sea, its fractionation and distillation in oil refineries, and its conversion to petroleum or diesel. In turn, those products (petroleum and diesel) are converted – through combustion processes – into useful work (such as transportation), while the waste products are released into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide). If we add together all of the conversion processes that occur, for instance, in a given country, we would have a sense of the total input and output of that national economy. This could be expressed in terms of the total natural resources and energy consumed, the total products and services created and the total pollution generated. (The total value of the finished products and services created in a given country may be expressed using widely used measures such as GDP.) If we wanted to increase the creation of products and services, in a given economy, we would require more natural resources and energy, and we would also generate more pollution as a by-product.

Economic growth

From this point of view, development means an increase in the size or pace of the economy such that more products and services are produced. Conventionally, a common assumption has been that, if an economy generates more products and services, then humans will enjoy a higher standard of living. The aim of many conventional approaches to development has been to increase the size of the economy (economic growth) in order to increase the output of products and services. Of course, without any change in the fundamental economic processes involved, the production of more products and services will inevitably require more raw materials and energy, and will generate more waste. In a system diagram (see 2.1.2), this would simply be represented by greater flows of materials and energy through the central box, the economy.

2.1.2 A representation of economic growth

Source: unit author

2.2 Unsustainable development

The effects of greater throughput

The fact that economic growth means an increase in the throughput of an economy raises several issues.

• While some raw materials (such as air) are ubiquitous and others are readily available, many raw materials are scarce and their availability cannot be guaranteed indefinitely.

LARGERECONOMY

Raw materials

Energy


Waste (pollution)

LARGERECONOMY

Raw materials

Energy


Waste (pollution)


© SOAS CeDEP 17

• Similarly, some sources of energy (such as the wind) are renewable and freely available, while others (such as fossil fuels) are non-renewable and finite.

• Most pollution sinks have a limited capacity to absorb the waste by-products of economic processes.

• In affluent societies, problems of overconsumption have emerged and questions are now being raised about the extent to which the acquisition of additional products and services actually improves well-being in those societies.

These considerations hint at an important idea: that development can be ‘unsustainable’ insofar as it cannot continue indefinitely if economic growth exhausts the available supplies of raw materials, the sources of energy or the pollution sinks. But suppose economic growth does reach the limits of raw material supplies, energy supplies or waste assimilation capacity: what happens then? The example in 2.2.1 illustrates what can happen in such a situation.

2.2.1 The tragedy of Easter Island

The Easter Island mystery

Easter Island is one of the remotest inhabited places on earth. It is a small island (around 400 km2) in the Pacific Ocean, approximately 2000 km from the nearest habitable land (Pitcairn Island). Despite the small size and remote location of the island, at the peak of its society, it had a human population of 7000 people. Yet even that small population was to place demands upon the natural environment that could not be sustained. At the time of first contact with Europeans in 1722, around 3000 people were found on the island in desperate conditions. Subsequently, the population continued to decline and their living conditions worsened. In 1877, Peruvians removed and enslaved the remaining population, with the exception of 110 elderly people and children. Eventually the island was annexed by Chile and was leased to a British company for sheep grazing, with the few remaining inhabitants being confined to a single small village.

The mystery that faced the first European visitors was that, despite the appalling conditions they found on the island, there was also evidence of a once-flourishing and advanced society. Over 600 huge stone statues (averaging over 6 m in height) were found on the island. The task of carving, transporting and erecting the statues was a complex one and was undeniably beyond the capacity of the poverty-stricken inhabitants of Easter Island in 1722. Indeed, given the limited resources of Easter Island, the society that constructed the statues must have been one of the most advanced in the world for the technology they had available. So what had happened to the statue-makers? Modern archaeological techniques revealed that the advanced society that constructed the statues collapsed because the development that occurred on the island placed immense demands — that could not be sustained — on the natural environment of the island. This makes the history of Easter Island a powerful example of the dependence of human societies on their natural environment — and of the consequences of irreversibly damaging that environment.

The collapse of a society

The colonisation of Easter Island began in the fifth century by Polynesians during a major phase of exploration and settlement across the Pacific Ocean. The first settlers would have found a volcanic landscape with adequate soils but poor drainage and few fresh water supplies. Due to its remote location, the island had few plant and animal species and the surrounding waters contained few fish. Hence the settlers relied on a


© SOAS CeDEP 18

very limited range of plants and animals for their subsistence: their diet would have consisted mainly of chicken and sweet potatoes. As the population of Easter Island grew, familiar forms of Polynesian social organisation were introduced. Ceremonial activities —including elaborate rituals and monument construction — became a major part of the social life of the islanders. The growth of the population was accompanied by increased competition between clan groups. In turn, the outcome of that competition was the creation of one of the most complex Polynesian societies, the construction of hundreds of ceremonial centres with large stone platforms, and the carving of the stone statues. It was at this point that the society suddenly collapsed, leaving more than half of the statues partially completed. Why did this collapse occur?

The cause of the collapse of the society was the extensive environmental degradation resulting from the deforestation of the entire island. The Europeans who visited Easter Island in 1722 found the island completely denuded of trees (with the exception of some isolated trees at the bottom of a deep volcanic crater). Yet scientific analysis indicates that, at the time of initial settlement, the island would have been densely vegetated with large areas of woodland. Those trees were cleared by the growing islander population to provide clearings for agriculture, fuel for cooking and warmth, and a source of material for the construction of housing and canoes. Above all, vast quantities of wood were needed to transport the enormous statues to the ceremonial sites around the island; that task was accomplished using an elaborate system of wooden tracks. As a result of the excessive demand for wood, the island was almost entirely deforested by 1600 and the construction of statues halted. By that time, other effects of deforestation would have been apparent. House-building became impossible and people resorted to living in caves, stone shelters or reed huts. Fishing — that previously used nets made from bark — became more difficult. The construction of canoes became impossible and the population was then unable to escape the island. The removal of trees caused soil erosion, the leaching of nutrients and the decline of crop yields. The combined effect of those changes meant that the population could no longer be supported on a shrinking resource base, and a rapid decline in numbers occurred. After 1600, the remnant society regressed to very primitive living conditions and continued to decline until its eventual disappearance.

An avoidable tragedy

The tragedy of Easter Island is that — in a remote and unlikely location — the original inhabitants had flourished and created one of the most advanced societies in the world for the technology available. Their achievements could have been celebrated as a triumph of human ingenuity and capacity to adapt and survive. Ultimately, however, competition between clan groups and the intensity of human demands on the natural resource base exceeded the capacity of the environment. Following abrupt environmental decline, the society collapsed and a substantially reduced population reverted to very poor living conditions. The Easter Islanders must have been aware that they were entirely dependent upon their extremely limited resource base. Environmental changes on the island — especially deforestation — must also have been readily apparent. Nevertheless, the islanders were unable to prevent the destruction of their resource base; instead, key resources were depleted until they were totally exhausted. Archaeological evidence suggests that, instead of prompting careful management of the remaining resources, competition between clans (and the use of timber) intensified as the environmental crisis became more acute. The history of Easter Island suggests that the response of the islanders to their deepening environmental crisis was not one of re-evaluation and restraint, but was desperate and chaotic, and it resulted in the fatal destruction of their life support system.

Source: adapted from Ponting (2007) pp. 1—7.


© SOAS CeDEP 19

2.3 The lessons of Easter Island

Development depends on the environment

The environmental catastrophe that was precipitated on Easter Island is an example of ecological ‘collapse’: a total breakdown of the environmental basis of livelihoods and human existence in a particular place at a particular time. Other such ecological and environmental ‘collapses’ have also been documented (Diamond, 2005; Hughes, 2009). The example of Easter Island, while tragic and extreme, is useful for illustrating several key points about the relationship between environment and development. There is an intimate relationship between environment and development. Development – understood, in this example, as the increasing use of natural resources by humans for their economic, social and cultural activities – cannot occur independently of the environment that provides resources and assimilates pollution. (It is worth emphasising the obvious point that this relationship is certainly not reciprocal: while development depends heavily on the environment, the environment does not require development – or human existence – at all.) In this example, as in many other cases, the nature of the relationship between environment and development is central to interpretations of whether or not development is sustainable.

In the example of Easter Island, we can conclude that the expansion of human activities on the island was unsustainable because the relationship between environment and development was characterised by the overexploitation of natural resources, even in a situation where subsistence was already marginal, together with a complete disregard for the warning signs and consequences of environmental degradation.

A critical trade-off

On Easter Island, the relationship between humans and their environment was such that a trade-off between environment and development occurred. In other words, natural resources (trees and soil) were progressively exchanged, by the islanders, for a range of economic, social and cultural benefits (ceremonial activities, stone platforms, statues, dominance, power and wealth). Such a trade-off becomes inevitable if development conflicts with the need for at least a minimum level of environmental protection. As a result of the trade-off between environment and development, the Easter Islanders did not leave a sufficient resource base for future generations. In the language of sustainable development, there was no intergenerational equity. Each current generation failed to protect the resources that would be needed by its descendants. Once the deforestation of the island had reached a critical point, future generations were left without the resources they needed to maintain an equivalent way of life. That failure to maintain the resource base for future generations inevitably set up conflict between islanders and made the challenge faced by each successive generation more difficult to surmount.

Above all, the example of Easter Island illustrates the imperative for human societies to live within the capacity of their natural resource base. We cannot really escape the reality of these ultimate biophysical limits to human existence (even if we do not always know exactly where those biophysical limits lie – and even if we sometimes discover where they lie only by transgressing them, with adverse and sometimes disastrous implications). If excessive demands are placed upon the natural resource


© SOAS CeDEP 20

base (through deliberate or inadvertent exploitation or mismanagement of the environment), then both natural processes and human activities are bound to decline – perhaps with catastrophic consequences.

A metaphor for global development

The Easter Island example can be regarded as a microcosm of, and a metaphor for, global development. Like Easter Island at the time of its first inhabitants, the earth has limited resources to support human societies and their myriad demands. Like the stranded islanders, the inhabitants of earth have no realistic means of escape. Human existence depends, ultimately, upon the continued availability of the earth’s natural resources that support life. In general, over the period of human existence (around 2 million years), human societies have been successful in obtaining food and in extracting natural resources, with the result that growing populations – and increasingly complex, advanced societies – have been sustained. But what about the critical relationship that indicates whether or not development is sustainable: the relationship between environment and development? Have modern societies been more successful than the Easter Islanders in living in a way that does not exhaust the available natural resources? Have we fallen – or are we falling – into the same trap as the Easter Islanders: that of fatally damaging our life support system? It is easy to read about the actions of a primitive people in a bygone age who drove their environment to the point of ecological collapse, to imagine their predicament and to ponder at their folly. But we are arguably doing precisely the same thing, now, at the global scale, in the face of almost all scientific evidence and advice.


© SOAS CeDEP 21


4 Which of the following are the inputs and outputs of a generalised economy?

(a) energy, capital, products and services, pollution

(b) raw materials, energy, products and services, waste

(c) raw materials, energy, capital, infrastructure

(d) raw materials, energy, waste, recycling

5 List three ways in which the activities of the Easter Islanders were unsustainable.

6 Which of the following is the clearest example of a trade-off between environment and development?

(a) A population of wild animals is culled to prevent ecological degradation.

(b) Funding is diverted from health care services to support military activities.

(c) Contaminated land is rehabilitated and designated as a wildlife reserve.

(d) In a rural area, topsoil is quarried to supply the construction industry.


© SOAS CeDEP 22

3.0 THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY

Section Overview

This section introduces the problem of global poverty as a key element in debates about sustainable development. It emphasises the fact that, although considerable progress has been made in some respects, poverty has persisted – or in some cases has actually worsened – for many people, in many parts of the world, despite substantial efforts to bring about development. Moreover, new forms of poverty are emerging, and profound inequalities are widening in some societies, even in the context of overall economic growth. We have not yet solved the problem of global poverty, despite many decades of targeted intervention aimed specifically at doing so. This so-called ‘failure of development’ was one of the factors that prompted the emergence of the concept of sustainable development.



• understand that poverty has persisted in many parts of the world despite decades of efforts to bring about development

• understand that the problem of poverty is a crucial issue in relation to sustainable development

3.1 The persistence of poverty

Poverty – a multidimensional concept

The term ‘development’ has a broad range of meanings, not all of which are mutually compatible. Those meanings range from ‘economic growth’ and ‘business as usual’ to notions of poverty reduction and redistributive justice. While development theory, policy and practice have sometimes become entangled in debates about the morality and methods of development, there is no doubt about the urgent necessity to tackle the problem of human poverty. The idea of ‘poverty’ itself is nuanced and contested, and a wide range of definitions have been suggested. However, one important insight is that poverty is complex and multidimensional: poverty includes a range of human experiences such as thirst, hunger, malnutrition, illness, lack of shelter, lack of education, illiteracy, unemployment, insecurity, vulnerability, violence, powerlessness, servitude and despair. The understanding that poverty is complex and multidimensional leads to the further insight that the task of development is the enhancement of multiple individual freedoms: political, economic and social.

Contrasts between rich and poor

Yet, despite decades of efforts aimed at bringing about development, the problem of poverty persists (UNDP, 2018). The stark contrasts at the global scale between the rich and the poor were highlighted in the World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography, published by the World Bank, and they remain true today. In that


© SOAS CeDEP 23

report, it was acknowledged that the likelihood that a person would experience poverty depends above all on where they are born. Thus, the income of the average US-born person is around one hundred times that of the average Zambian-born person, and the life expectancy of a US-born person will be three decades longer than that of a Zambian. Even starker contrasts were concealed by those average figures. A child born in a village near Lusaka will live less than half as long as a child born in New York City, and will earn only $0.01 for every $2 earned by the New Yorker. During their lifetime, an average person born in New York will earn a total of about $4.5 million, while the total income of a rural Zambian will be less than $10 000. Globally, concerns about poverty have focused on the ‘bottom billion’: the 12% of the world’s population with less than 1% of its GDP. That population actually reflects several overlapping populations: a billion people living in slums in developing world cities; a billion people living in insecure, lagging areas within countries; and a billion people living in the world’s poorest nations.

In addition to the billion poorest people in the world, however, are many others who experience poverty. An earlier report – the Human Development Report 2006, published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) – indicated that around 2.8 billion people were living on less than $2 a day; those people lacked access to education and health care and they were vulnerable to illness, violence, natural disasters and a wide range of other problems. This is not to deny that some progress in promoting poverty reduction has occurred, and some significant achievements have been made (UNDP, 2018). The proportion of people in the world living on less than $1 a day halved during the period 1981–2001, and the absolute number of people living at that level began to decline. Nevertheless, the distribution of those improvements has been highly uneven and most improvements over that period were achieved in China. If China is excluded from the analysis, the number of people living on $1 a day actually increased, especially in Africa, and the brutal reality was that more than a fifth of the world’s population were still living in extreme poverty. There remains much to do in this respect, and the SDGs have been agreed in an attempt to drive and guide further progress in poverty reduction (UNDP, 2018).

A challenge to development thought

The fact that poverty remains an obscene reality presents a profound challenge to development agencies and professionals, as well as to development theorists and analysts. Why have so many people in the world remained trapped in experiences of poverty when substantial resources have been devoted to the task of poverty reduction? The fact of the ongoing problem of poverty has prompted criticism of conventional development policies and practices; some commentators have argued that those policies and practices must be deficient, since they have so obviously failed billions of people worldwide. Added to this are the conceptual challenges and critiques that have emerged from post-modern critical theory, which have eroded the certainties that were formerly associated with development efforts. It is no longer clear that there is a ‘right’ way to go about development or poverty reduction – or indeed that any one state or agency has the right to impose ‘development’ upon people or states elsewhere. Such considerations have emerged, since the 1980s, in the context of ascendant neoliberal approaches to development which emphasise the aggressive opening of markets, the promotion of globalisation and the reduction of state expenditure on public welfare. All of these factors have prompted a crisis in conventional development


© SOAS CeDEP 24

thinking and have caused the re-evaluation of state-led development efforts. In turn, this has prompted the emergence of ideas about sustainable development which, some commentators have argued, could offer a way out of the impasse.

3.2 The need for poverty reduction

Poverty cannot be ignored

The important point here is to acknowledge that, from the outset, ideas about sustainable development have focused explicitly on the problem of poverty. At the global scale, it makes no sense to talk about sustainable development if that does not mean introducing effective measures to ensure that billions of people worldwide no longer endure experiences of poverty. At any scale – whether that of an individual development project or of a national development plan – no form of development can claim to be ‘sustainable’ if it does nothing to reduce the extent or severity of poverty. This may seem to be stating the obvious; however, tragically, in the past, many development initiatives have done very little to reduce poverty – and in many cases may actually have increased poverty. The example in 3.2.1 illustrates such a case.

3.2.1 The impacts of the Akosombo Dam

An ambitious development plan

The Volta River flows southwards through Ghana and drains into the Gulf of Guinea. In 1957, when Ghana gained its independence from colonial rule, the national economy was largely supported by cocoa production. Following independence, the new government sought ways to promote rapid economic growth through industrial development. Such development required large supplies of energy — which could be obtained by using the Volta River as a source of hydroelectric power. Consequently, plans to develop the Volta River Basin were drawn up (based on earlier proposals that dated from the 1940s). The first Prime Minister of Ghana, Dr Kwame Nkrumah, initiated the Akosombo Hydroelectric Project: a major project that was intended to mark the beginning of a new era of economic development in Ghana based on the manufacture of aluminium. In 1961, the Ghanaian government established the Volta River Authority to manage the development of the Volta River Basin.

The project involved the construction of an aluminium smelter (to process bauxite) at Tema, a major dam in the Akosombo gorge (to generate electricity) and a network of power cables across southern Ghana (to distribute electricity). The project was expected to stimulate local bauxite mining and refining, which would in turn allow local aluminium production without the need to import foreign bauxite for smelting. Thus the Akosombo Dam was a central part of the project and of the overall Ghanaian development plan. In addition to supplying electricity within Ghana, the dam was also intended to supply electricity to neighbouring West African countries, such as Togo and Benin. The Akosombo Dam was constructed between 1961 and 1965 using funds provided by the Ghanaian government, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development of the World Bank, the United States and the UK. The smelter was funded by a US-based company, the Volta Aluminium Company (VALCO), and by the Export–Import Bank of the United States.


© SOAS CeDEP 25

The creation of Lake Volta

The construction of the dam resulted in the flooding of the Volta River Basin and the formation of Lake Volta, one of the largest artificial lakes in the world. Lake Volta extends from the dam to Yapei, around 400 km to the north, covering an area of around 8500 km2 (approximately 3.6% of the total land area of Ghana). The creation of Lake Volta and the hydroelectric power scheme have brought economic and social benefits: the dam generates electricity, which in turn supports aluminium manufacture and generates income, while the lake allows easier inland transport and is a potentially valuable resource for irrigation, fishing and aquaculture. Some new agricultural activities have been undertaken near the shoreline, and tourism has also developed. In some respects, therefore, the Akosombo Hydroelectric Project has been a success story. However, a range of social and environmental impacts have also been associated with the project, especially with the construction of the Akosombo Dam and the formation of Lake Volta.

Displacement and dispossession

The impacts of the Akosombo Dam include large-scale human migration as people were displaced from their land. The formation of Lake Volta by the flooding of land behind the dam necessitated the forced relocation of 80 000 people (around 1% of the population) from 700 former villages to 52 new, resettlement villages. Most of those people were riparian fishers or subsistence farmers whose fisheries and lands were submerged. Indigenous people were also displaced by the formation of the lake. Overall, the displacement of those people meant the loss of their primary economic activities (fishing and agriculture), their homes, their significant cultural places (including burial places), their community stability and — eventually — their social values. Mortality rates were reported to have increased among elderly community members following their resettlement. Inadequate planning resulted in the relocation of people into areas that were not capable of sustaining their former livelihoods and traditions. Fertile soils were submerged beneath the rising waters of Lake Volta and, with their loss, traditional farming practices disappeared. The resettlement villages were characterised by poverty; the poor living conditions in the settlements prompted the departure of those who were able to leave. The displaced communities also placed new demands on natural environments that had not previously supported such populations.

Environmental impacts

In addition to the displacement of people, a range of environmental impacts have resulted from the construction of the Akosombo Dam and the formation of Lake Volta. Those impacts include the decline of agricultural productivity in the area surrounding the lake and its tributaries. Compared to the land submerged beneath Lake Volta, the soil surrounding the lake was less fertile and was further depleted of nutrients by intensive commercial agriculture. The loss of soil fertility was exacerbated by the absence of periodic floods (which occurred prior to the construction of the dam and which previously supplied nutrients to the land). At the same time, nutrients were washed into the lake and surrounding rivers as a result of fertiliser runoff from intensive commercial agriculture, runoff from cattle grazing lands and the discharge of sewage. The runoff of nutrients into the lake led to eutrophication which, in combination with low water velocities, led to the growth of aquatic weeds (such as Ceratophyllum) which impede navigation and transportation on the watercourses. Other impacts of the Akosombo Dam and the creation of Lake Volta include the increased occurrence of earthquakes due to readjustments of the earth’s crust in response to the enormous weight of additional water in the lake. Below the dam, changes in the river flow have led to the migration of the river mouth and changes in the morphology of the delta, with the result that coastal erosion has occurred. In


© SOAS CeDEP 26

addition, changes in the hydrology of the river have altered local microclimates, causing reduced rainfall and higher mean monthly temperatures — changes that may be compounded by the effects of climate change.

Disease

The construction of the dam and the creation of Lake Volta have had severe impacts on human health. The flooded land created ideal conditions for the vectors of water-borne illnesses, such as bilharzia and malaria. In particular, the incidence of bilharzia in children aged under 10 years old increased to 90% following construction of the Akosombo Dam; the disease is transmitted as people bathe, fish, wash clothes or collect water in areas affected by the parasitic larvae. Furthermore, the degradation of the natural aquatic habitats led to the decline of shrimp and clam populations, with the result that a vital source of dietary protein for local communities was lost. Increased levels of poverty and migration, following the construction of the dam, led to higher rates of HIV infection within Volta Basin communities; HIV also spread more rapidly as a result of the increased demand for the services of sex workers during the construction of the dam when a workforce of thousands of males was present in the area.

Winners and losers

Finally, various concerns have been expressed about the politics of the distribution of the costs and benefits of the hydroelectric project and the aluminium smelter. The infrastructure was constructed using funds provided by the Ghanaian government, loans from the World Bank and investment by the United States and the UK. Questions have been raised about the extent to which the loans were repaid using taxes collected from cocoa farmers elsewhere in Ghana; about the extent to which Western companies, rather than Ghanaians, have profited from the project; and about the extent to which the commercial supply of electricity to neighbouring countries takes precedence over the needs of local residents. Furthermore, the project was originally intended to use local supplies of bauxite and to reduce the dependence of the country upon imported bauxite. However, imports of raw materials have continued, raising doubts that the project has reduced the reliance of Ghanaian industry on foreign suppliers. Thus, while power supplies have increased, critics argue that the Akosombo Dam has also increased Ghanaian debt and dependency, and has promoted neocolonialism, while also exacerbating poverty among those who were displaced from their land.

Source: adapted from Gyau-Boakye (2001) pp. 17—29; Smithson et al (2008) p. 672; Suave et al (2002) pp. 402—408.

3.3 The lessons of the Akosombo Dam

Development may create poverty

The example of the Akosombo Dam illustrates various important points about sustainable development. Attempts to bring about development may be successful in raising industrial output and GDP. Those successes are important; across national economies as a whole, they may bring very valuable benefits. However, such successes are also based on a relatively narrow definition of ‘development’, one that focuses on economic growth rather than on improving well-being. In this example, as in many other similar cases, development led to some highly undesirable social and environmental outcomes. In particular, the creation of Lake Volta, the dispossession of around 80 000 people and their forced resettlement, the increase in levels of poverty


© SOAS CeDEP 27

and disease, the loss of fertile soils and a range of other environmental impacts all resulted from the construction of the Akosombo Dam. In the language of sustainable development, the scheme failed to promote intragenerational equity, since it actually increased the poverty of the people who were displaced.

On balance, the severity of the social and environmental impacts of the Akosombo Dam suggests that the project did not promote sustainable development. This is not to say that development should never have any social or environmental impacts whatsoever: that would be an unrealistic expectation. But the balance between the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of development should be favourable, both for present and for future generations. In this case, we would be justified in arguing that the economic, social and environmental costs outweighed the economic, social and environmental benefits of the dam. It is interesting that the same questions are now raised about a new generation of hydropower dams – ones that are at least partially motivated by a concern to promote renewable energy sources in the context of growing concerns about the effects of climate change.

Another trade-off

As in many other cases, the construction of the Akosombo Dam involved a trade-off between environment and development. In this case, however, that trade-off also involved a social dimension, since the well-being of the displaced people was exchanged – together with the fertile soils and the other natural resources of the region – for the wealth associated with the generation of electricity and the manufacture of aluminium. The trade-off involving the well-being of the displaced people, the natural resources of the flooded area and the economic benefits of the project raises questions about the timescale over which development is judged. In the short term, a single generation (or perhaps several) were affected by the displacement and the poverty associated with the project. In the long term, many generations of people – who would have no memory of the displacement – stand to benefit from the electricity supplies, the industry and the employment provided by the project. Indeed, the needs of future generations seem to have been well-served by this project. Does this mean that the project is actually an example of sustainable development? No, it does not, because those benefits were achieved at the expense of the present generation. In this example, there was no intragenerational equity. The project created, rather than reduced, poverty for many people. Those who were displaced paid a terrible price for this development.

Who decides about development?

The example of the Akosombo Dam – and the trade-off it involved – raises vital questions about who has the power to make decisions about development (sustainable or otherwise). In this case, powerful actors (the Prime Minister of Ghana, the Ghanaian government, the World Bank, the United States, the UK, the Export–Import Bank of the United States and several companies) made decisions that affected the lives of rural fishers and farmers who had scarce power, representation or resources. Ideally, those people would have been enabled to participate in a decision-making process that was to have such profound implications for their lives. This example also raises uncomfortable questions about the role of international organisations – such as the World Bank and transnational corporations – in development. It is not clear that the


© SOAS CeDEP 28

power exerted by such organisations can ever truly operate in favour of the poorest people in society. The actions of international organisations should be carefully monitored and scrutinised in relation to the promotion of sustainable development.

Multiple criteria

We have now considered two examples of development (the transformation of Easter Island and the construction of the Akosombo Dam) that may be regarded as unsustainable – at least in the very basic terms that we have defined so far. In the first example, the activities of the Easter Islanders led to ecological collapse through the complete destruction of the natural resources on which their society depended – a situation that was clearly impossible to sustain. Therefore, we can characterise the transformations wrought by the Easter Islanders as unsustainable development because they brought about the total destruction of their natural resource base, and also because they did not provide for the needs of future generations. But the second example describes a situation that is more difficult to evaluate. At first glance, as a result of development plans that stimulated industrial development and economic growth, many economic benefits (in the forms of electricity, industry, employment, income and wealth) have been provided for future generations. The environmental impacts associated with this project were significant, over an area of many thousands of square kilometres, but they did not amount to the wholesale destruction of the natural resource base. The claim that the Akosombo Dam promoted sustainable development can be rejected on different grounds; in this case, we could argue that the development was unsustainable because it created, rather than reduced, poverty for many people (those who were displaced by the creation of Lake Volta). The situation becomes even more problematic in relation to the new generation of hydropower dams – those which are at least partially justified on the grounds that they contribute to the production of renewable energy, and that they therefore make a contribution to climate change mitigation. Arguably, the balance of social and environmental costs and benefits of these dams may therefore tip more towards the benefits of renewable energy in these particular cases – but the point is that the issue is not a straightforward one by any means.

Already, we can conclude that there are multiple criteria for evaluating whether or not development is sustainable. In fact, as we examine the concept of sustainable development from different angles, we will be forced to acknowledge that it is multifaceted and multidimensional: there are many aspects of sustainable development, and there are many factors that could be taken into account in deciding whether or not development is sustainable. Yet, not all of these factors are equal, just as not all considerations are equal in any area of human decision-making. So far, the most important criteria we have explored are the protection of the natural resource base and the reduction of poverty. In other words, if a development project conserves its natural resource base, and if it brings about poverty reduction, then it already meets two of the most important criteria for being judged ‘sustainable’. In the next section, we will add another important criterion, one that is related to the problem of environmental change.


© SOAS CeDEP 29


7 What does it mean to say that poverty is multidimensional?

8 List the main negative impacts of the Akosombo Dam.

9 Which of the following is the strongest reason to regard the construction of a major dam as an example of unsustainable development?

(a) Displacement of people from their land often creates poverty.

(b) Employment for construction workers tends to be short term.

(c) Dam construction permits greater control of a river’s flood regime.

(d) The availability of electricity may stimulate industrial development.


© SOAS CeDEP 30

4.0 THE PROBLEM OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

Section Overview

This section introduces the problem of global environmental change as a key element in debates about sustainable development. Recent scientific assessments of environmental change – especially of global environmental change – suggest that current development trajectories are unsustainable. Concerns about global environmental change were another of the factors that prompted the emergence of the concept of sustainable development.



• understand that recent assessments of environmental change – especially of global environmental change – indicate that current development trajectories are unsustainable

• understand that the problem of environmental change is a crucial issue in relation to sustainable development

4.1 Global environmental issues

Environmentalist concerns

List what you consider to be the most important global environmental issues.

Together with the widening realisation of the problem of poverty, there has been an increasing awareness of the existence of a second global crisis: that of environmental degradation. Concerns about the state of the environment have deep historical roots, but those concerns came to prominence during the 1960s following the publication (in 1962) of a seminal book by Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the emergence of the modern environmentalist movement in some countries (Carson, 1962). Since then, and particularly since the 1980s, considerable scientific efforts have been made to investigate and to document the state of the global environment and the nature of global environmental change. Those efforts have been prompted by widespread concerns that the pace and extent of development in many parts of the world have far outstripped the capacity of natural ecosystems to absorb the impacts of human activities.

Global environmental change

Numerous environmental changes have been identified as issues of global concern: desertification; the depletion of fuelwood; the destruction of tropical rainforest and rapid declines in forest cover; the modification of coastal ecosystems; the reduced


© SOAS CeDEP 31

availability and quality of drinking water; the depletion of soil resources; the overexploitation of fisheries; food shortages; species extinction and the loss of biodiversity; stratospheric ozone depletion; rapidly rising levels of fossil fuel demand for energy supplies; and climate change. The sheer number, magnitude and complexity of these issues can seem overwhelming and some commentators have argued that they amount to a cumulative, sustained human impact on the environment that has profoundly transformed the surface of the earth.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Many assessments of global environmental change have been produced since the 1980s. Those assessments have painted a consistently negative picture of the state of the global environment and of the impacts of human activities (UN Environment, 2018). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, published in 2005, reported that, over the previous 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time. This rapid environmental change has been wrought primarily to meet rapidly growing human demands for food, fresh water, timber, construction materials and fuel. The pace and magnitude of human impacts have resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on earth. In addition, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found that approximately 60% of the ecosystem services it examined were being degraded or used unsustainably – including fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water purification, and the regulation of regional and local climate, natural hazards and pests.

The Global Environment Outlook

An authoritative series of reports on the state of the global environment, entitled the Global Environment Outlook (GEO), has been published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), documenting a very wide range of examples of global environmental change. The Fourth Global Environmental (GEO-4) Assessment report, published in 2007, highlighted a now familiar set of environmental concerns that were broadly categorised as climate change, environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity and the potential for conflict due to competition for dwindling natural resources (especially water). The GEO-4 report argued that responding to these environmental issues is ‘the great moral, economic and social imperative of our time’, and the report emphasised that global environmental changes may be rapid and catastrophic – in contrast to some previously held assumptions that environmental changes at the global scale must inevitably be slow and incremental (UNEP, 2007). Subsequently, the 2012 GEO-5 report identified unprecedented patterns of consumption and production – which are expected to worsen at least until 2050 – and stated that the condition of the environment, globally and regionally, is ‘sobering and cause for profound concern’ (UNEP, 2018).

Atmospheric environmental issues

A series of major atmospheric issues exist, with both short- and long-term implications, and these issues are already affecting human health and well-being. Climate change is a major global challenge; its impacts are already evident, and changes in water availability, food security and sea-level rise are projected to dramatically affect many millions of people. More than 2 million people globally are estimated to die


© SOAS CeDEP 32

prematurely each year due to indoor and outdoor air pollution; while air quality has improved dramatically in some cities, many areas still suffer from excessive air pollution. The Antarctic ‘hole’ in the stratospheric ozone layer that gives protection from harmful ultraviolet radiation is now the largest ever; emissions of ozone-depleting substances have decreased over the last 20 years, yet concerns about the state of stratospheric ozone persist (UNEP, 2007; 2018).

Terrestrial environmental issues

The demands of a burgeoning population, economic development and global markets have been met by unprecedented land-use change; during the last 20 years, the exponential expansion of cropland has slackened, but land is now used much more intensively. Unsustainable land use is driving land degradation. Harmful and persistent pollutants, such as heavy metals and organic chemicals, are still being released to the land, air and water from mining, manufacturing, sewage, energy and transport emissions; from the use of agrochemicals; and from leaking stockpiles of obsolete chemicals. Forest ecosystems are threatened by increasing human demands. Exploitation of forests has been at the expense of biodiversity and natural regulation of water and climate, and has undermined subsistence support and cultural values for some peoples. Land degradation in the form of soil erosion, nutrient depletion, water scarcity, salinity and disruption of biological cycles is a fundamental and persistent problem. Depletion of nutrients by continued cropping with few or no inputs now limits productivity over vast tropical and subtropical upland areas. Desertification occurs when land degradation processes, acting locally, combine to affect large areas in drylands. Demands on land resources and the risks to sustainability are likely to intensify (UNEP, 2007; 2018).

Aquatic environmental issues

Increasing water scarcity is undermining development, food security, public health and ecosystem services. Human well-being and the health of ecosystems in many places are being seriously affected by changes in the global water cycle, caused largely by human pressures. Climate change, human use of water resources and aquatic ecosystems, and overexploitation of fish stocks influence the state of the water environment. Water quality degradation from human activities continues to harm human and ecosystem health; 3 million people die from water-borne diseases each year in developing countries, the majority of whom are children under the age of five. Aquatic ecosystems continue to be heavily degraded, putting many ecosystem services at risk, including the sustainability of food supplies and biodiversity. Global marine and freshwater fisheries show large-scale declines, caused mostly by persistent overfishing (UNEP, 2007; 2018).

Ecological issues

Current losses of biodiversity are restricting future development options. Ecosystems are being transformed, and, in some cases, irreversibly degraded; a large number of species have become extinct in recent history or are threatened with extinction; reductions in populations are widespread; and genetic diversity is widely considered to be in decline. Changes in biodiversity currently occurring on land and in fresh and marine waters are more rapid than at any time in human history. Biodiversity loss continues because current policies and economic systems do not incorporate the values


© SOAS CeDEP 33

of biodiversity effectively in either the political or the market systems, and many current policies are not fully implemented (UNEP, 2007; 2018).

A circular relationship

This is a daunting list of global environmental issues. For the purposes of understanding sustainable development, however, there are two key points to make about this list of issues. First, many – if not all – of these environmental issues are caused, in one way or another, by development. For this reason, conventional efforts to promote development have attracted severe criticism from environmentalists – and they have prompted some people to call for ‘green’ forms of development that are more ecologically sensitive. Second, many – if not all – of these environmental issues represent, in turn, significant obstacles to further development. Depleted natural resources and degraded ecosystems mean that it is more difficult to provide even the basic goods and services that people need to support their livelihoods and well-being. Once again, the relationship between environment and development is brought to the fore: a relationship that is now seen to be circular. Thus development can cause environmental degradation; in turn, environmental degradation can undermine development.

4.2 Environmental degradation

Poverty and environmental degradation

Development can cause environmental degradation; in turn, environmental degradation can undermine development. This can be expressed more simply by saying that poverty is both cause and an effect of environmental degradation. The example in 4.2.1 illustrates this circular relationship between development and environmental degradation.

4.2.1 The impacts of palm oil production

Palm oil and biofuels

Palm oil is currently used in many food products including margarine, chocolate, cream cheese and oven chips. It is also used in cosmetics and, increasingly, to produce biodiesel. The use of palm oil to produce biodiesel is being driven by commitments by various governments to increase the amount of biofuels being sold — because biofuels are regarded by some people as a quick solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, which are causing climate change. Currently, more than 70% of the palm oil produced is used in food items. However, because the biofuels industry is expanding rapidly, the demand for palm oil is also growing dramatically. Compared to levels in 2000, demand for palm oil is expected to more than double by 2030 and to triple by 2050. In Indonesia, millions of hectares are now used for palm oil plantations and biofuel production. In the EU, by 2020, 10% of the fuel sold is expected to be biofuel. China is aiming for 15% of its fuel to be biofuel, and India is planning for biodiesel to make up 20% of diesel sales by 2012.

Impacts of palm oil production

At first glance, palm oil production seems to have several benefits: it generates economic growth and it creates employment in a rapidly expanding industry. The use of


© SOAS CeDEP 34

biofuels could be useful in climate change mitigation, as it avoids the carbon dioxide emissions that are released when fossil fuels are burned. It might seem as though palm oil production is both good for the environment (by reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and good for economic development (by generating income and employment). However, the situation is not quite so straightforward. In fact, palm oil production is associated with devastating environmental impacts — including impacts on global climate. To meet the growing demand for palm oil, tropical rainforests and peatlands in Southeast Asia are being destroyed to create land for palm oil plantations. Ironically, the clearance of rainforests, and the draining and burning of peatlands, make climate change worse, because those activities release more carbon dioxide than simply burning fossil fuel. The problem is particularly acute in Indonesia, which was recently the country with the highest rate of deforestation in the world. Indonesia is also the third largest emitter of greenhouse gas, mainly as a result of deforestation. Similar problems are also occurring in other parts of Southeast Asia. Palm oil production has other environmental and social impacts, including the loss of biodiversity (as rainforests are destroyed) and the effects on local communities, as traditional ways of life are disrupted and people are displaced from their land. Furthermore, the growth of crops for biofuels may increase food prices and reduce global food reserves, thereby reducing food security and increasing vulnerability.

An ongoing issue

The environmental impacts of palm oil production could – in principle – be prevented. A moratorium on converting forest and peatlands into oil palm plantations could be introduced until long-term solutions are found. Restoring deforested and degraded peatlands could provide a relatively cheap, cost-effective way to make dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Indonesia. Governments around the world could provide funds to help countries with tropical forests to protect their resources, as well as reducing their own carbon dioxide emissions, so as to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Yet, in practice, curtailing the expansion of palm oil production is likely to be extremely difficult, since it requires national governments and multinational corporations to forgo economic growth, political support and substantial profits. From the perspective of local workers who are dependent upon the palm oil industry for their employment, any restrictions of the growth of the industry could jeopardise their livelihoods. In the absence of effective international agreements and legislation to prevent deforestation or greenhouse gas emissions, it is likely that palm oil production will continue to result in the destruction of rainforest and peatlands for as long as it is economically viable to do so.

Source: adapted from Greenpeace (2009)

4.3 The lessons of palm oil production

Difficult questions

This example raises many difficult questions about sustainable development. Does economic growth inevitably result in the destruction of the environment? Is it possible to have economic development without environmental damage? Is poverty reduction a justification for allowing environmentally destructive practices? Who benefits from the economic growth created by industries such as palm oil production? Who suffers the effects of the resulting environmental degradation? Which parts of the environment are most important to conserve, and why? Which environmental issues are – or should be – the priorities for action? Is employment in rapid-growth industries a good basis for


© SOAS CeDEP 35

development? Why do governments encourage industries that deplete natural resources and damage the environment? Why is it difficult to stop environmentally destructive practices such as the expansion of palm oil production? And how might an issue such as this be resolved?

Vicious and virtuous circles

This example shows that the production of palm oil in Southeast Asia – and in Indonesia in particular – is responsible for some devastating environmental impacts: the clearance of rainforests; the draining and burning of peatlands; the release of greenhouse gas; and the loss of biodiversity (as rainforests are destroyed). In turn, these environmental impacts are likely to hinder attempts to promote development in the future – especially because they are exacerbating climate change. It is worth pointing out that, while the benefits of palm oil production are enjoyed by relatively few people (palm oil producers and their communities, the multinational companies involved in the trade, and the Indonesian authorities), the environmental impacts of the industry will affect people worldwide. This is a good example of a ‘vicious circle’ in which development causes environmental decline, which in turn undermines further development. Ideally, rather than a vicious circle, we would prefer to have a ‘virtuous circle’ in which ecologically sensitive forms of development lead to environmental protection and restoration – and that, in turn, those healthier environments form a strong basis for further ecologically sensitive development.

Another criterion

We have now considered three examples of unsustainable development (the transformation of Easter Island, the construction of the Akosombo Dam and the production of palm oil in Southeast Asia). In doing so, we have identified the main criteria by which we can judge whether or not development may be regarded as ‘sustainable’. First, development should preserve the natural resource base on which human survival depends. Second, development should promote intergenerational equity by protecting the survival, livelihoods and well-being of future generations. Third, development should promote intragenerational equity by protecting the survival, livelihoods and well-being of people living today, especially through poverty reduction. And we can now add a fourth criterion: that development should promote environmental protection and restoration rather than degradation. We might wish to express this fourth criterion in terms of protecting the survival and well-being of a much greater range of species and habitats than those of immediate use to humans. Some people would argue that the first and the fourth criteria (preserving the natural resource base, and promoting environmental protection and restoration, respectively) are very similar – and may actually amount to the same thing. Yet promoting environmental protection and restoration implies a richer, broader and more ambitious vision than simply maintaining the minimum natural resource base necessary for human survival.

A daunting task

We can now appreciate something of the main challenge of sustainable development. For any human activity, the task of meeting all four of these criteria is a formidable undertaking. To do so when resources are scarce – and when economic and social


© SOAS CeDEP 36

pressures are intense – is harder still. We may sympathise with Kader Asmal, the Chair of the World Commission on Dams, when he said that ensuring that development is sustainable is like asking a surgeon to operate without inflicting any wounds. As this unit has illustrated, the issues involved in sustainable development are often vast, complex and interrelated: they include a wide range of economic, social and environmental considerations. Indeed, the main challenge of sustainable development is often expressed in terms of the need to balance the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of development, both for people living now and for future generations. Geographical scale is an important consideration, because some forms of development that appear to be sustainable at one scale (such as the local scale) may be judged to be unsustainable at another (such as the global scale). Another, complicating factor is that scientific knowledge and understanding of the nature of human impacts and of the behaviour of environmental systems is often incomplete – and may be embryonic – so decisions about development must sometimes be made in the context of radical uncertainty.

A multifaceted concept

Above all, it is crucial to emphasise that the relationship between environment and development lies at the heart of ideas about sustainable development: this means that environment and development must be considered together in policy- and decision-making if there is to be any hope of promoting sustainable development. Furthermore, sustainable development is a multifaceted, political concept. Sustainable development may be viewed and interpreted from many perspectives, and there are many factors that could be taken into account in deciding whether or not development is sustainable. Not all of those factors are equally important, and not all interpretations of sustainable development are equally valid. Yet which factors are the most important ones, and whose interpretations should carry most weight, in making decisions about development? Asking and answering such questions is critically important in the task of understanding sustainable development.


© SOAS CeDEP 37


10 Which of the following statements is correct?

(a) Global environmental change is invariably slow and incremental.

(b) The Antarctic stratospheric ozone ‘hole’ has now almost entirely recovered.

(c) Humans are causing one of the major extinction events of earth’s history.

(d) The effects of climate change are unlikely to be observed until after 2050.

11 Which of the following statements about biofuels is NOT true?

(a) Biofuels are ‘carbon neutral’.

(b) The growth of crops for use as biofuels may increase food insecurity.

(c) Using biofuels is a relatively quick way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

(d) Producing biofuels is consistent with the idea of sustainable development.

12 Which of the following is NOT a criterion for assessing whether or not development is sustainable?

(a) Development promotes poverty reduction.

(b) Development promotes international relations.

(c) Development promotes environmental rehabilitation.

(d) Development promotes intergenerational equity.


© SOAS CeDEP 38

UNIT SUMMARY

This unit has introduced the main challenge of sustainable development: the need to balance economic, social and environmental costs and benefits, both for people living now and for future generations. This is a daunting challenge because of the magnitude and complexity of the issues involved. In particular, the immense problems of poverty and global environmental change are key concerns in debates about sustainable development: indeed, those two issues were important in prompting the emergence of ideas about sustainable development in the first place. The relationship between environment and development is central to understanding sustainable development. That relationship may contain profound tensions and is often one of conflict. Often, unsustainable forms of development have led to environmental degradation – and that environmental degradation, in turn, hinders further development. Occasionally, however, the relationship between environment and development is more positive, as in cases where environmental protection is one of the benefits of ecologically sensitive forms of development. Obviously, the latter situation is far preferable.

In this unit, four examples have been used to illustrate various aspects of sustainable development. The example of food miles demonstrates that sustainable development issues may initially seem to be straightforward – yet they may actually be very problematic on closer examination. Despite this complexity, several criteria may be used to assess whether or not development is ‘sustainable’. The example of the deforestation of Easter Island illustrates one of those criteria: the need to preserve a natural resource base that is sufficient for human survival – and one that allows future generations to survive, too (intergenerational equity). The example of the Akosombo Dam demonstrates that development should promote intragenerational equity – especially through poverty reduction. The example of palm oil production in Southeast Asia illustrates that development should promote environmental protection and restoration rather than degradation. Meeting all of these criteria is an extremely difficult task, and difficult choices must often be made between conflicting goals. This makes sustainable development a highly political concept: understanding how such decisions are made – and whose interests are given priority – is one of the key aspects of understanding sustainable development, and we will return to this dilemma many times as we explore the concept of sustainable development in more depth.


© SOAS CeDEP 39

UNIT SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

1 Using the list of terms provided, fill in the missing words/phrases in the diagram showing a generalised economy.

• Economy

• Waste (pollution)

• Energy

• Products and services

• Raw materials

2 Is sustainable development a contradiction in terms?

3 How does environmental change threaten development?


© SOAS CeDEP 40

KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

bellyhold air-freight cargo carried aboard passenger aircraft

bioaccumulation the gradual build-up of a chemical in an organism, due to the rate of absorption being greater than the rate of excretion

biodiversity the variety of species existing in a given ecosystem

biofuel a fuel obtained from recently-living organic material (generally crops or wood). Biofuels are regarded as ‘carbon neutral’ because the carbon dioxide emitted during their combustion is offset by that absorbed during their growth

carbon dioxide an important greenhouse gas emitted as a result of fossil fuel combustion

carbon neutral an activity or process is said to be ‘carbon neutral’ if it releases no more carbon dioxide than it absorbs

dependence in the context of sustainable development, dependence refers to the reliance of one society or individual on another, as in the case when small-scale producers in developing countries rely on the income obtained from the sale of their produce to affluent consumers in developed countries

food miles the distance over which food products are transported from producer to consumer, which is regarded as an indication of the environmental impact of food transport

globalisation the process of increasing integration of economies, societies and cultures, worldwide, as a result of advances in communications, technologies and transport

hothouse a heated greenhouse, generally used for food production

intergenerational equity

justice between people of different generations; in relation to sustainable development, it refers to the principle of protecting the survival, livelihoods, and well-being of future generations

intragenerational equity

justice within people of the same generation; in relation to sustainable development, it refers to the principle of reducing inequalities between people, especially through poverty reduction

neocolonialism the involvement of developed countries in the affairs of developing countries in order to ensure the economic, social, political or cultural dominance of the former; it often takes the form of foreign capital being used to exploit, rather than to promote, the development of the latter

stratospheric ozone a layer of gas in the upper atmosphere that absorbs solar ultraviolet radiation, and which is depleted by a range of chemicals including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)


© SOAS CeDEP 41

FURTHER STUDY MATERIALS

Fitch, C. (2018) Essential oil? Geographical, January, 18–25.

Available from: http://geographical.co.uk/nature/polar/item/2820

Palm oil is now a widely used product and ingredient, and there have been many concerns about the environmental and social impacts of its production. This article explores some of the issues in palm oil production, questioning whether it is as problematic as is often thought.

IISD. (n.d.) International Institute for Sustainable Development. [Online].

Available from: https://www.iisd.org/

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) regards sustainable development as environmental, economic and social well-being for today and tomorrow. The IISD has produced a useful timeline of sustainable development.

Michaels, A. (2009) The Winter Vault. New York, Bloomsbury.

This is a work of fiction by an award-winning Canadian novelist and poet, which powerfully illustrates sustainable development issues through an evocative account of the effects of a dam’s construction (among many other issues!).

UN-DESA. (n.d.) Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. [Online]. Division for Sustainable Development (DSD), United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA).

Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/

This website provides authoritative information on the processes supporting the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It is supported by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

http://geographical.co.uk/nature/polar/item/2820

https://www.iisd.org/

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/


© SOAS CeDEP 42

REFERENCES Adams, W.M. (2009) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in a Developing World.

Third Edition. Oxon, UK and New York, Routledge, pp. 1–25.

Blue Skies (n.d.) Blue Skies: Homepage. Available from: http://www.blueskies.com/ [Accessed 15 February 2018]

Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.

Diamond, J. (2005) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. London, Penguin.

Greenpeace (2009) Palm oil. [Online]. Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/forests/palm-oil [Accessed 21 September 2009]

Gyau-Boakye, P. (2001) Environmental impacts of the Akosombo Dam and effects of climate change on the lake levels. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 3 (1), 17–29.

Hughes, J.D. (2009) An Environmental History of the World: Humankind’s Changing Role in the Community of Life. Second Edition. Oxon, UK and New York, Routledge.

Melchett, P. (2007) Are Air Miles and Organic Food Compatible? [Online]. The Guardian, 6 September. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/2007/sep/06/areairmilesandorganicinco [Accessed 14 February 2018]

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington DC, Island Press. Available from: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/synthesis.aspx [Accessed 15 February 2018]

Ponting, C. (2007) A New Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilisations. London, Vintage, pp. 1–7.

Smithson, P., Addison, K. & Atkinson, K. (2008) Fundamentals of the Physical Environment. Fourth Edition. London, Routledge.

Suavé, N., Dzokoto, A., Opare, B., Kaitoo, E.E., Khonde, N., Mondor, M., Bekoe, V. & Pépin, J. (2002) The price of development: HIV infection in a semiurban community of Ghana. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 29 (4), 402–408.

UNDP. (2006) Human Development Report 2006: Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. New York, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

UNDP. (2018) State of Sustainable Development. Available from: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home.html [Accessed 16 January 2018]

UN Environment (2018) UN Environment. Available from: https://www.unenvironment.org/ [Accessed 16 January 2018]

UNEP. (2007) Global Environment Outlook (GEO) 4: Environment for Development. Nairobi, Kenya, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Available from: http://web.unep.org/geo/assessments/global-assessments/global-environment-outlook-4 [Accessed 15 February 2018]

UNEP. (2012) Global Environment Outlook (GEO) 5: Environment for the Future We Want. Nairobi, Kenya, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Available from: http://web.unep.org/geo/assessments/global-assessments/global-environment-outlook-5 [Accessed 15 February 2018]

World Bank (2009) World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography. Washington DC, The World Bank.

http://www.blueskies.com/

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/%E2%80%8Cforests/%E2%80%8Cpalm-oil

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/%E2%80%8Cforests/%E2%80%8Cpalm-oil

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/%E2%80%8Cethicalliving%E2%80%8Cblog/%E2%80%8C2007/sep/06/areairmilesandorganicinco

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/%E2%80%8Cethicalliving%E2%80%8Cblog/%E2%80%8C2007/sep/06/areairmilesandorganicinco

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/%E2%80%8Cen/%E2%80%8Csynthesis.aspx

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/%E2%80%8Cen/%E2%80%8Csynthesis.aspx

http://www.undp.org/content/%E2%80%8Cundp/%E2%80%8Cen/%E2%80%8Chome.html

http://www.undp.org/content/%E2%80%8Cundp/%E2%80%8Cen/%E2%80%8Chome.html

https://www.unenvironment.org/

http://web.unep.org/geo/%E2%80%8Cassessments/%E2%80%8Cglobal-assessments/global-environment-outlook-4

http://web.unep.org/geo/%E2%80%8Cassessments/%E2%80%8Cglobal-assessments/global-environment-outlook-4

http://web.unep.org/%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8Cgeo/%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8Cassessments/%E2%80%8Cglobal-assessments/global-environment-outlook-5

http://web.unep.org/%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8Cgeo/%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8Cassessments/%E2%80%8Cglobal-assessments/global-environment-outlook-5

P221 Understanding Sustainable Development€¦ · Sustainable Development Commission has...

Documents

Transcript of P221 Understanding Sustainable Development€¦ · Sustainable Development Commission has...