 |
The Future of Sustainability: Have Your Say! Week Three - “The New Economy and Biodiversity”
Many thanks to those who commented on Dr. Lu Zhi’s statement on “The New Economy and Biodiversity” in Week 3. A passionate discussion was generated, revolving around arguments on whether or not markets have a role to play in the future of sustainability. Quantifying Gaia Several participants evoked the long standing ideas of limits for the Earth, referring to Boulding’s 1966 concept of “Spaceship Earth” to “Mother Earth”, and the carrying capacity of the Earth ecosystem Gaia. However, others emphasised that promoting this line of argument is not enough. We need to move beyond theories to demonstrate the ‘ecological truth’ that the economy is reliant on the environment. To some a dichotomy exists between sustainability and the global market as it is currently set up. The economy needs to be converted to take into account the economic value of natural capital and promote markets for ecosystem services. Lester Brown in his “Plan B” calculates that restructuring the economy, eradicating poverty and restoring natural systems would require a budget of some USD161 billion. Some suggested that these funds could come from redirecting military spending. The economic approach is resisted by those who feel that estimates of monetary and other values of biodiversity for ecosystem services do not reflect intrinsic and spiritual values of nature. The Role of the Market There were mixed opinions about the role of the market in advancing sustainability. While many promote the market a positive lever for change, others were sceptical about the ability of the market to deliver biodiversity outcomes. For instance, biodiversity extinction does not send out market signals in advance and so the market is powerless to avert impending calamity. Concerns were raised that the market economy is not the panacea for people living in different settings around the world; another suggested that markets can be efficient but only a local scale. The “bottom of the pyramid” concept was supported but its practise in reality was questioned as most developing and developed countries focus on national or regional development and ignore indigenous and poor communities. On a global level, markets are dominated by more advanced western economies and companies. For these markets to be sustainable, they should be transformed from product-based to services-based economies, thereby lowering optimal output levels to those in ecologically sustainable production models. Yet views were shared that companies cannot be relied on to act voluntarily on this, particularly corporations that dominate certain sectors. Markets for non-timber forest products were highlighted as benefits in the production chain are distributed extremely inequitably, and do not provide sufficient incentives to rural communities for conservation. Market-based approaches towards conservation need to be supported by strong institutions that can ensure both equity and efficiency of resource allocation. However, others suggested that voluntary initiatives taken by businesses can be helpful designing effective, efficient and equitable enabling frameworks and policies. Although their success is debatable and caution is required, initiatives such as Fair Trade labelling and the Forestry Stewardship Council demonstrate that if regulated and incentivised well, business can make money while doing good. Consumerism-based Development Problems with the current development model being based on consumerism were highlighted by several participants, along with the irony of countries being encouraged to develop by producing exports for West economies. This is reflected in definitions and indicators of poverty which are based on scale of material consumption. Echoing week 2’s discussion, several participants highlighted the fact that social welfare/standard of living is not equivalent to quality of life. Measures for development and wellbeing other than GDP were also promoted, including Gross National Happiness (GNH) as used in Bhutan . Many participants agreed that civilisation based on the unchecked greed of capitalism, which influences consumers and promotes unsustainable lifestyles, cannot continue: a steady state economy will have to be developed. Furthermore, concerns were shared over irrational over-consumption such as competition for material possessions. Some participants suggested targeting consumers to change their “American” unsustainable lifestyles, especially the “future consumers” of China and India , whereas others saw consumers not just as the cause but the solution to the sustainability crisis: individuals together can mount public pressure to demand changes from businesses to make changes for a more sustainable future. It was pointed out that discussions on resource limits have mainly focused on ‘impact’ related aspects, such as the efforts to tackle human population growth; but need to be extended to include ‘demand’ management and the causes of unsustainability, both in terms of consumer and systemic demands. Incentives for Sustainability Various suggestions were put forward on how to bring about these necessary changes in attitudes and lifestyle. Both formal and informal education on new social and moral values were emphasised again reflecting ideas from previous weeks. Others suggested that legal frameworks are required to address the supply side of business but also, more controversially, the demand side of consumer choice to limit consuming activities that are not sustainable. Discussions focused on how economic incentives could be used to influence change in behaviours for a more sustainable future, such as establishing global permits or global compensation for providers of global goods and services, such as the Amazonian forests. An example of eco-commerce in the Columbian Amazon was given, which generates an income for local communities as well as promoting conservation. Some spoke of how individual enterprises should be promoted to unleash the power of human creativity. Others suggested ways for markets and sustainability to coexist. The ZERI (Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives) network identifies a framework of 12 “axioms of economics” for production and manufacturing systems inspired by ecosystem science for a new generation of sustainable businesses. Promoting green technologies and models that mimic nature can create development opportunities for society to leapfrog towards a more sustainable future. How to mobilize the social forces to shape a sustainable future is taken up in week 4’s discussion, led with a statement from Dr. Rubens Born. Resources mentioned in Week 3 include:
|