INTRODUCTION
The growing environmental problems in the 1980s caused a re-think in the approach of development as people became concerned at the rate at which environmental resources were being used. Therefore, as an alternative world view of development, ‘sustainability’, which is sometimes referred to ‘Green Vision,’ emerged in 1987 during the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report). Proponents of this paradigm shift argued that there was need for a new vision of development, new forms of thinking, a different focus and a challenge to the old dominant approaches which were inappropriate and exploitative.
Premised on the above views, this essay expounds on the meaning of sustainability and how relevant the concept is to the development of developing countries (LDCs).
DEFINITIONS\MAIN BODY
Sustainability has been defined differently by various scholars. According to Jarzombek (2003: 09), “it is simply sustainable development, a concept which was coined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1980, which refers to the development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising future generations’ ability to meet their own needs.” Jaiyebo (2003: 111-112) defines it as “the development that is manageable, irreversible and interdependent; and that which takes on board environmental concerns into account.”
Additionally, Agrawal (1992: 34) claims that sustainability concerns the use of resources for economic growth with the conscious of integrating social, economical and environmental factors that are cardinal to national development. It is about striking a balance between environmental, social and economical considerations. That is, improving the quality of life whilst living within the ecosystem’s carrying capacity. It entails limits, checks and balances between human and environmental needs and between the present and future generations, (ibid). It is about stakeholders’ participation in decision-making and implementation, for instance, disadvantaged groups such as women, youths and indigenous people. In other words, it is about localised actions that are considerate of environmental aspects in all developmental programmes.
The concept encompasses economic, environmental and social aspects as three general policy areas. The three were however broken into seven strategic imperatives for sustainable development in the Brundtland report. These are: reviving growth; changing the quality of growth; meeting essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water and sanitation; ensuring a sustainable level of population; conserving and enhancing the resource base; reorientation of technology and managing risks; merging environment and economics in decision-making (op. city.). This entails that sustainability is basically about preserving the ecosystem in the context that the poor are able to improve their material condition without those wealthy suffering adverse effects in the long run. According to the World Bank (2002: 12), “sustainability is about achieving millennium goals in a way that is supportive of the ecosystems.” Additionally, the Brundtland report emphasized that the state of technology and social organisation, lack an integrated social planning which limits the world’s ability to meet human needs now and in future.
Sustainability presents various complementary ideas on how development should be conceptualized which have a common theme, appropriate linkages and grounded in local (grass-root) situations and realities. It brings to the core of development thinking and conceptualization, the poor who are neglected, and portrays them as active and creative human beings who lack the chances and choices to determine the kind of development that makes sense to them, (ibid. p.45). The view also deals directly with issues such as gender, the environment, peace, the household, community and religion, human rights and democracy. Proponents of the view propagate for the kind of development which shifts attention away from growth and economic processes to more meaningful forms which put people and especially the poor first and the environment.
According to Seabrook (1993: 233), “sustainability is simply ecological sustainable development, which refers to using, conserving and enhancing community’s resources so that the ecological process on which life depends are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in future can be increased.” And the IUCN quoted in Shiva (1992: 197) further states that, “sustainable development means achieving a quality of life\ standard of living that can be maintained for many generations because it is; socially desirable (as it fulfills people’s cultural, material and spiritual needs in equitable ways), economically viable (self-reliant, with costs not exceeding income) and ecologically sustainable (maintaining the long term viability of supporting ecosystems).” This entails balancing these objectives since none should be pursued at the expense of other, but should be integrated as development can only be sustainable when all the three objectives are met.
Principally, sustainable development involves the integration of developmental and environmental aspirations at all levels of decision making. It encompasses the concepts of inter and intra-generational: that is, ‘equitable’ access to environmental resources both within the present and future generations; application of precautionary principles; and the maintenance of biological diversity and integrity, both of which are important for continued existence of ecosystems. Inter-generational equity refers to the use of resources by present generations without degrading the environment to the extent that future generations fail to meet their needs, (ibid). However, it is not clear on how far into future the present generation should be considerate. Assuming the needs of the future generations is not clear also. The concept is also not explicit on which future generation it is talking about; human or ecosystem, thus making it more problematic to determine how these generations will be appropriately considered in the design and implementation of current policies.
According to Shiva (1992: 198), “Intra-generation equity refers to the view that present generations have the right to benefit equally from the exploitation of resources, and have equal rights to clean and healthy environment both at national and international levels.” At national level it implies fairness in accessing common natural resources between ethnic groups in society. It also looks at how government can restrict the use of resources through environmental laws. Paradoxically, at international level it means fairness between countries in accessing international resources. That is, low income people should at least meet their basic needs, such as healthy, environment, food, shelter, cultural and spiritual needs. This can be achieved by transfers of wealth from higher to lower income countries and within poor countries between the wealth elites and the poor.
RELEVANCY OF SUSTAINABILITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF LDCs
The relevancy to sustainability to the developing of LDCs is questionable considering the unprecedented challenges they are faced with in balancing economic growth and environmental concerns. According to Hugh-Jones (1989: 89), “constraints of LDCs to sustainability result from laws of nature, physical environment, raw material resource stocks for exploitation, carrying capacity, human actors due to high poverty, cultures, ethics and values, technology, and available spectrum of diversity.” These constraints reduce the total range of future possibilities and consequently leave only a limited, potentially accessible set of options. Different from the situations at early development stage of developed countries, developing countries have to pay more attention to current challenges of poverty, debt, balance of payment problems, budget deficit among others, in order to realize the same level of economic growth.
Critics argue that major causes of ecological destruction in LDCs and the world over are commercial extractions of raw materials from naturally endowed countries to meet the high demand for them by the expanding agricultural and industrial activities. This situation is worsened by the encouragement of free (but unfair) trade, at the expense of the environment. Deteriorating terms of trade has worsened environmental negligence especially by LDCs that have to allow more extraction of raw materials that they have specialised in exporting on the international market. The prices for these commodities have often reduced further because these countries produce same types of commodities that flood the world market thus further reducing the prices of LDCs’ exports. For example, those exporting timber cut more timber and those producing cotton, copper, and the like produce more both to meet the needs of their economies and servicing the debt.
Failure by LDCs to pay their debts for instance forced creditors to push for their money through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). This puts more pressure on LDC governments that have to produce more foreign exchange in order to meet certain benchmarks, thus a serious oversight on environmental matters. Many multinational corporations (MNCs) are often attracted to invest in these countries even in environmentally sensitive areas with fewer regulations to ensure that basic environmental standards are met. According to (2004: 209), “MNCs have taken advantage of the weak environmental laws in LDCs, thus have caused devastating and almost irreversible environmental problems in these countries.” Additionally, people have been displaced to marginal lands, water reserviours have been polluted, soils are eroded, floods have been enhanced, and droughts are common due to disturbed rainfall patterns. MNCs have mainly targeted mining, agriculture, forestry and ranching sectors of LDCs, which have proved to be serious contributors of environmental degradation.
Worse still, the desperation by LDCs to provide basic needs for their people and that coupled with the surmounting pressure to wipe out their debts has compromised their little attention towards the environment. According to Ellis (2000: 212), “the pressure of paying the debts have forced LDCs to engage MNCs at different levels in the exploitation of their natural resources in the bid to increase their exports, but the burden has continued to accumulate.” In addition, most LDCs are struggling to meet certain benchmarks set by those they owe money through the IMF and the WB, thus diverting most of the funding towards those benchmarks at the expense of the economy, environment and the social sector which are the general concerns of sustainable development. The heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) completion point can be one example where to reach the benchmark; Zambia diverted a lot of resources to programmes under its auspices at the expense of key areas of the sustainability concern.
Further more, LDCs lack the technological capacity required to handle environmental degradation like recycling non-biogradables such as plastics. According to Akufo (2005: 10), “today world’s demands for products and services with high technological content and recycling of non-biogradables that are a serious threat to the environment, but against this backdrop, LDCs only spend less than 2% on Research and Development, which excludes them from the global economy.” LDCs cannot the ability to reduce environmental degradation. In Zambia for example, Konkola Copper Mines failed to meet the Environmental Council of Zambia’s (ECZ) statutory standards regarding sulphur dioxide pollution from its Smeltaco Plant in Kitwe (ibid). ECZ recommended the use of converter modified technology, which enables the capture of more sulphur dioxide that can in turn be used to manufacture sulphuric acid for mineral processing. This is in line with the environmental concept of cleaner production, which promotes the continuous use of industrial processes and products in order to reduce pollution and thus minimise the risks to humans and the environment.
CONCLUSION
The concept of sustainability poses a crucial challenge to methods of development pursued so far as they are deemed harmful to the environment and have adverse effects on the quality of life and livelihoods on both humans and the ecosystem. The concept’s core thesis is premised on the use of resources for economic growth with the conscious of integrating social, economical and environmental factors that are cardinal for balanced development. It is concerned with the reconciliation of development and the environment in order to enhance socio-environmental sustainability for the benefit of future generations. Ironically, the applicability of the concept in LDCs can be a costly move due to high poverty levels, indebtedness among other challenges. People in LDCs depend more on the environment for livelihood resources because they have few options for survival. These countries also have huge debts to wipe out. These socio-economic challenges of LDCs have resulted into the commercialization of most economic activities for more returns in terms of foreign exchange. Additionally, it has weakened the use of environmental friendly developmental methods, because new economic and cultural aspirations of the new socio-economic cleavages have alienated local control of resources, which has led to the emergence of ‘anarchic’ charcoal, fuel-wood and timber businesses to sustain global markets. These coupled with rapid population increases have led to over exploitation of the already shrinking natural resource bases in LDCs, which MNCs have largely fueled.
The growing environmental problems in the 1980s caused a re-think in the approach of development as people became concerned at the rate at which environmental resources were being used. Therefore, as an alternative world view of development, ‘sustainability’, which is sometimes referred to ‘Green Vision,’ emerged in 1987 during the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report). Proponents of this paradigm shift argued that there was need for a new vision of development, new forms of thinking, a different focus and a challenge to the old dominant approaches which were inappropriate and exploitative.
Premised on the above views, this essay expounds on the meaning of sustainability and how relevant the concept is to the development of developing countries (LDCs).
DEFINITIONS\MAIN BODY
Sustainability has been defined differently by various scholars. According to Jarzombek (2003: 09), “it is simply sustainable development, a concept which was coined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1980, which refers to the development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising future generations’ ability to meet their own needs.” Jaiyebo (2003: 111-112) defines it as “the development that is manageable, irreversible and interdependent; and that which takes on board environmental concerns into account.”
Additionally, Agrawal (1992: 34) claims that sustainability concerns the use of resources for economic growth with the conscious of integrating social, economical and environmental factors that are cardinal to national development. It is about striking a balance between environmental, social and economical considerations. That is, improving the quality of life whilst living within the ecosystem’s carrying capacity. It entails limits, checks and balances between human and environmental needs and between the present and future generations, (ibid). It is about stakeholders’ participation in decision-making and implementation, for instance, disadvantaged groups such as women, youths and indigenous people. In other words, it is about localised actions that are considerate of environmental aspects in all developmental programmes.
The concept encompasses economic, environmental and social aspects as three general policy areas. The three were however broken into seven strategic imperatives for sustainable development in the Brundtland report. These are: reviving growth; changing the quality of growth; meeting essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water and sanitation; ensuring a sustainable level of population; conserving and enhancing the resource base; reorientation of technology and managing risks; merging environment and economics in decision-making (op. city.). This entails that sustainability is basically about preserving the ecosystem in the context that the poor are able to improve their material condition without those wealthy suffering adverse effects in the long run. According to the World Bank (2002: 12), “sustainability is about achieving millennium goals in a way that is supportive of the ecosystems.” Additionally, the Brundtland report emphasized that the state of technology and social organisation, lack an integrated social planning which limits the world’s ability to meet human needs now and in future.
Sustainability presents various complementary ideas on how development should be conceptualized which have a common theme, appropriate linkages and grounded in local (grass-root) situations and realities. It brings to the core of development thinking and conceptualization, the poor who are neglected, and portrays them as active and creative human beings who lack the chances and choices to determine the kind of development that makes sense to them, (ibid. p.45). The view also deals directly with issues such as gender, the environment, peace, the household, community and religion, human rights and democracy. Proponents of the view propagate for the kind of development which shifts attention away from growth and economic processes to more meaningful forms which put people and especially the poor first and the environment.
According to Seabrook (1993: 233), “sustainability is simply ecological sustainable development, which refers to using, conserving and enhancing community’s resources so that the ecological process on which life depends are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in future can be increased.” And the IUCN quoted in Shiva (1992: 197) further states that, “sustainable development means achieving a quality of life\ standard of living that can be maintained for many generations because it is; socially desirable (as it fulfills people’s cultural, material and spiritual needs in equitable ways), economically viable (self-reliant, with costs not exceeding income) and ecologically sustainable (maintaining the long term viability of supporting ecosystems).” This entails balancing these objectives since none should be pursued at the expense of other, but should be integrated as development can only be sustainable when all the three objectives are met.
Principally, sustainable development involves the integration of developmental and environmental aspirations at all levels of decision making. It encompasses the concepts of inter and intra-generational: that is, ‘equitable’ access to environmental resources both within the present and future generations; application of precautionary principles; and the maintenance of biological diversity and integrity, both of which are important for continued existence of ecosystems. Inter-generational equity refers to the use of resources by present generations without degrading the environment to the extent that future generations fail to meet their needs, (ibid). However, it is not clear on how far into future the present generation should be considerate. Assuming the needs of the future generations is not clear also. The concept is also not explicit on which future generation it is talking about; human or ecosystem, thus making it more problematic to determine how these generations will be appropriately considered in the design and implementation of current policies.
According to Shiva (1992: 198), “Intra-generation equity refers to the view that present generations have the right to benefit equally from the exploitation of resources, and have equal rights to clean and healthy environment both at national and international levels.” At national level it implies fairness in accessing common natural resources between ethnic groups in society. It also looks at how government can restrict the use of resources through environmental laws. Paradoxically, at international level it means fairness between countries in accessing international resources. That is, low income people should at least meet their basic needs, such as healthy, environment, food, shelter, cultural and spiritual needs. This can be achieved by transfers of wealth from higher to lower income countries and within poor countries between the wealth elites and the poor.
RELEVANCY OF SUSTAINABILITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF LDCs
The relevancy to sustainability to the developing of LDCs is questionable considering the unprecedented challenges they are faced with in balancing economic growth and environmental concerns. According to Hugh-Jones (1989: 89), “constraints of LDCs to sustainability result from laws of nature, physical environment, raw material resource stocks for exploitation, carrying capacity, human actors due to high poverty, cultures, ethics and values, technology, and available spectrum of diversity.” These constraints reduce the total range of future possibilities and consequently leave only a limited, potentially accessible set of options. Different from the situations at early development stage of developed countries, developing countries have to pay more attention to current challenges of poverty, debt, balance of payment problems, budget deficit among others, in order to realize the same level of economic growth.
Critics argue that major causes of ecological destruction in LDCs and the world over are commercial extractions of raw materials from naturally endowed countries to meet the high demand for them by the expanding agricultural and industrial activities. This situation is worsened by the encouragement of free (but unfair) trade, at the expense of the environment. Deteriorating terms of trade has worsened environmental negligence especially by LDCs that have to allow more extraction of raw materials that they have specialised in exporting on the international market. The prices for these commodities have often reduced further because these countries produce same types of commodities that flood the world market thus further reducing the prices of LDCs’ exports. For example, those exporting timber cut more timber and those producing cotton, copper, and the like produce more both to meet the needs of their economies and servicing the debt.
Failure by LDCs to pay their debts for instance forced creditors to push for their money through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). This puts more pressure on LDC governments that have to produce more foreign exchange in order to meet certain benchmarks, thus a serious oversight on environmental matters. Many multinational corporations (MNCs) are often attracted to invest in these countries even in environmentally sensitive areas with fewer regulations to ensure that basic environmental standards are met. According to (2004: 209), “MNCs have taken advantage of the weak environmental laws in LDCs, thus have caused devastating and almost irreversible environmental problems in these countries.” Additionally, people have been displaced to marginal lands, water reserviours have been polluted, soils are eroded, floods have been enhanced, and droughts are common due to disturbed rainfall patterns. MNCs have mainly targeted mining, agriculture, forestry and ranching sectors of LDCs, which have proved to be serious contributors of environmental degradation.
Worse still, the desperation by LDCs to provide basic needs for their people and that coupled with the surmounting pressure to wipe out their debts has compromised their little attention towards the environment. According to Ellis (2000: 212), “the pressure of paying the debts have forced LDCs to engage MNCs at different levels in the exploitation of their natural resources in the bid to increase their exports, but the burden has continued to accumulate.” In addition, most LDCs are struggling to meet certain benchmarks set by those they owe money through the IMF and the WB, thus diverting most of the funding towards those benchmarks at the expense of the economy, environment and the social sector which are the general concerns of sustainable development. The heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) completion point can be one example where to reach the benchmark; Zambia diverted a lot of resources to programmes under its auspices at the expense of key areas of the sustainability concern.
Further more, LDCs lack the technological capacity required to handle environmental degradation like recycling non-biogradables such as plastics. According to Akufo (2005: 10), “today world’s demands for products and services with high technological content and recycling of non-biogradables that are a serious threat to the environment, but against this backdrop, LDCs only spend less than 2% on Research and Development, which excludes them from the global economy.” LDCs cannot the ability to reduce environmental degradation. In Zambia for example, Konkola Copper Mines failed to meet the Environmental Council of Zambia’s (ECZ) statutory standards regarding sulphur dioxide pollution from its Smeltaco Plant in Kitwe (ibid). ECZ recommended the use of converter modified technology, which enables the capture of more sulphur dioxide that can in turn be used to manufacture sulphuric acid for mineral processing. This is in line with the environmental concept of cleaner production, which promotes the continuous use of industrial processes and products in order to reduce pollution and thus minimise the risks to humans and the environment.
CONCLUSION
The concept of sustainability poses a crucial challenge to methods of development pursued so far as they are deemed harmful to the environment and have adverse effects on the quality of life and livelihoods on both humans and the ecosystem. The concept’s core thesis is premised on the use of resources for economic growth with the conscious of integrating social, economical and environmental factors that are cardinal for balanced development. It is concerned with the reconciliation of development and the environment in order to enhance socio-environmental sustainability for the benefit of future generations. Ironically, the applicability of the concept in LDCs can be a costly move due to high poverty levels, indebtedness among other challenges. People in LDCs depend more on the environment for livelihood resources because they have few options for survival. These countries also have huge debts to wipe out. These socio-economic challenges of LDCs have resulted into the commercialization of most economic activities for more returns in terms of foreign exchange. Additionally, it has weakened the use of environmental friendly developmental methods, because new economic and cultural aspirations of the new socio-economic cleavages have alienated local control of resources, which has led to the emergence of ‘anarchic’ charcoal, fuel-wood and timber businesses to sustain global markets. These coupled with rapid population increases have led to over exploitation of the already shrinking natural resource bases in LDCs, which MNCs have largely fueled.
No comments:
Post a Comment