The Future of Sustainability: Have Your Say!

Week Two - “Human Wellbeing and Sustainability”
Comment / Comentario / Commentaire

Ali Raza Rizvi, Environment Advisor, CARE International Sri Lanka

Moderating team: Ali Raza Rizvi says that for politicians well-being has to do with short-term needs, thus the term 'sustainability' is not in their dictionary because they are profit oriented during their own 'time on the stage'. He also compares the environment sector to the private sector to say that if we want to have a tangible impact on sustainability our campaigns need to be based on psycho-social research. In addition to understanding human attitudes and behaviour we must also understand the “Political Economy” as well as social justice, inclusion, diversity, and gender in order to effectively tackle the poverty-environment nexus. In short, the conservation movement must be driven by the principles of the Rights Based Approach.

Ali Raza Rizvi afirma que para la clase política, el bienestar humano se refiere a necesidades de corto plazo y que el término “sostenibilidad” simplemente no se encuentra en su diccionario porque su enfoque está en las utilidades. Compara el sector ambiental con el sector privado y afirma que si queremos tener un impacto en la sostenibilidad, las campañas ambientales deberían basarse en una investigación psico-social. Adicionalmente, para comprender las actitudes y comportamientos del ser humano necesitamos comprender la “economía política” al igual que la equidad social, la inclusión, la diversidad y el género; de esta manera podremos abordar los nexos entre pobreza y ambiente. Es decir, el movimiento de conservación debería enfocarse en los principios de un “Enfoque basado en derechos”.

----

The correlation between human well being and sustainability is well established and understood but least 'acted upon' by those who matter.

'Well being' does matter to everyone, especially to those who are running the world i.e. politicians and the corporate sector. Because their own well-being i.e.’ political survival' and 'markets' is based on the 'well being' of voters/consumers. However, the term 'sustainability' is not in their dictionary because these persons are profit oriented in the shortest possible time period which lasts only during their own 'time on the stage'. They are concerned about the graphs of 'economy' and marketability shooting up and not 'future sustainability', future even in terms of 10-20 years!

The environmental sector desires to tackle the issue of "affluenza" but is equipped with little more than passion, energy, and good intentions. The corporate sector on the other hand works with a strategy based on R&D. Serious scientific research on the psychological and sociological aspects of attitudes and behaviour i.e. how attitudes are formed, maintained and change is undertaken. Billions are spent on this scientific research the product of which are science-based advertisements and the outcome is the 'creation' of markets. On the other hand, in the environment sector the concept of research in the field of psycho-social aspects of environmentalism is almost negligible. And if there is some research it is too academic to be applied and if applied it tends to be very superficial.

Ashok Khosla put it right that the environment sector keeps on converting the converts. The three billion people struggling to keep their dreams of the next meal alive will never care for the local natural resources. The two billion middle class will take part in walks, sing songs, discuss the consumerism of the First World and for the most part have a “positive attitude” towards environment but will do nothing substantial for the cause of environment through their behaviour. I need not to say anything about the consumer behaviour of the First World. This leaves a negligible population caring for the environment in “real terms”. And this minority has no power as their majority never dared to go for the real power i.e. “politics”! The Green Parties need to be promoted!

“It is all commerce” or politics. And for the most part the environmental sector shies away from both. I agree with Ashok that we need to change the way we do conservation. If we want to have a tangible impact in this area, our campaigns need to be based on psycho-social R&D (there is a lot to learn from the corporate sector). Moreover, we need to understand the “Political Economy” in order to effectively tackle the poverty-environment nexus. The understanding in the sectors of social justice, inclusion, diversity, and gender need to be enhanced and invested in much more than in the present scenario. In short, the conservation movement must be driven by the principles of the Rights Based Approach. For the majority of environmentalists this is all Greek, rather "alien species". The environment sector usually treats these areas in the same way as the mainstream development sector treats environment, that is, as "perverted areas"! These are "strategic blunders" and this attitude of the environmental sector is the typical syndrome of “the frog in boiling water”. We need to get out of this rut that we seem to be stuck in and start thinking out of the box. Time is running out on us if we fail to understand the "environment" around us!