 |
The Future of Sustainability: Have Your Say! Week One - “Global Challenges to Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century”
I have followed this discussion with interest in the past week. To me, it is an affirmation of our strong desire to live in an ideal world. In our desire, and in some cases the expectation, of a fair world respecting nature we are perhaps touching the depths of romanticism! This reminds me of Psyche's pursuit to resurrect Eros. While she was successful in getting Eros back, our sincerest efforts have seemingly failed to bring "environment" back to life. I am in no way negating the importance of beliefs, 'sense of hope' , or optimism and desires of spirituality, but there is a difference between what can be done and what should be done. In the present world scenario, these are perhaps not more than beautiful dreams waiting infinitely to be realized. All religions, traditions, indigenous beliefs, scientific evidences, campaigns, international conferences, billions of dollars spent on the environmental movement over several decades have seemingly failed in conserving our valuable resources.
Yes, FEAR does play a critical role in influencing decision making. It is functional at its worst-best in today's world. But fear of "visible threat"; fear of "spectacular risks" works. The proof is the dramatically changed world reality after the tragic events of 9/11. While the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are statistically negligible, thousands die every every day due to water born disease and air pollution but are hardly noticed by decision makers. Even acute events like Katrina have not managed to shake the main decision makers out of their reverie. Cognitive bias would always remain regarding environment and even dramatic climatic events are not changing this.
Therefore, let us start by accepting that while the environmental movement succeeded in making people aware of environmental issues, it fell far short in making them care enough to instigate a change in destructive behaviour!!! We have made strategic blunders in selling our "product" by not realizing market needs or even in creating the right sustainable market. Awareness alone is meaningless if not followed by real actions... rather outcomes. If still we want to live in our "paradise" and tell and retell success stories (which are like droplets on a sizzling pan), I am sorry to say this sector might find it difficult to survive. We can keep on living in our own make believe world by doing things the way we know best. Perhaps, we are surrounded by our own noise. ..our own rhetoric.. we take our echoes as a response of the wider world. I am sorry........it is delusional.
I am not suggesting that we give up. I am saying however, that it is time to change our strategy. When the "Silent Spring" came it was the right time for it but it will not work now. What to say of the commercial and the public sectors, we even failed to convince our friends from the development sector to take environment seriously. I am referring to the mainstream development INGOs and NGOs. The unfortunate fact is that the very word “environment” is taken by the mainstream development sector as an ill afforded luxury or even a para-development phrase. In spite of the decade old poverty-environment-people linkage debate and initiatives there remains a gulf between the mainstream development and conservation sectors in having a shared or even proper understanding in this regard. In general, the development sector in its pursuit for poverty eradication and reducing vulnerability has largely neglected the value of environmental linkages. In many instances the development sector's own initiatives are compromising the sustainable livelihoods of its target beneficiaries. First by not looking at the impacts of project activities on local environmental conditions and then by not working to conserve and manage the resource base on which livelihoods are dependant. On the other hand, the conservation sector’s initiatives, at times, fail to achieve sustained impacts by ignoring the communities’ long term interests and livelihood aspects. More often than not livelihoods and community empowerment activities are undertaken for cosmetic purposes or for appeasing donors. The “conviction” on both sides is simply not there. At the end of the day, the only sustainable outcome is that both the environment and people are suffering continuously. So, increasing poverty and irreversible environmental catastrophes are fast becoming the norms.
The public awareness is there and has its own limitations. To have desired changes in the public sector is a wild goose chase as it is mostly run on an adhoc basis and political interests. Working with this sector means working with the environment ministries which unfortunately does not work as they have no teeth. Therefore, I would strongly suggest that IUCN and its Members devise a 'practical' strategy to infuse environment into the mainstream development sector and simultaneously work on influencing international polices. The future of sustainability and even survival is in going into PARTNERSHIPS with the mainstream development sector. Almost all the interventions of the INGOs/NGOs are NOT based on scientific knowledge, the need is to make the "valuable scientific know how" accessible to these development organization not just by research and publications because no one has time to go through these "best practices guidelines" but working with them through "Integrated Partnerships" i.e. joint ventures. This would obviously require that the donors are on the same page on this with us. |