 |
The Future of Sustainability: Have Your Say! Background Document - “The Future of Sustainability: Rethinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-First century”
Comments on IUCN’s “Future of Sustainability Initiative”
Unfortunately, I will be traveling during the period of the “Discussion Forum” and be able to log in and participate only occasionally, if at all. I have read the report, “The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century,” which is a good start on this “new” IUCN initiative. I have written the following response, and hope it can be posted as part of the discussion. Overall, I am pleased that IUCN is finally getting back to promoting a proper version of [environmental] sustainability, and I look forward to learning more about the initiative and how to support it.
My strongest concern with the report is the continued use of the term "sustainability" without any qualifiers. I suggest that as it pursues this initiative, IUCN should regularly use the terms "environmental sustainability" and "environmentally sustainable development"—or even better "environmentally sustainable livelihoods." Without always including environmental protection as the major point of any sustainability discussion or initiative, you run the danger of supporting the current corporate globalization of "sustainable development," despite the clear recognition in the paper that, for example—among many other similar statements—"we need to devise processes that allow gear-down in industrialised economies (in terms of energy and material throughput) as well as necessary gear-up in less industrialised economies" (end of section 6.3, p. 14), and "the language of ‘environmental limits’ is ... central to the challenge of sustainability. Failure to understand and live within limits is the main reason why current patterns of development are not sustainable" (3rd paragraph of section 7.1, p.14).
In the initial listing of the history of the [environmental] sustainability concept (Section 2, p. 1), I was disappointed that IUCN's first "World Conservation Strategy" (WCS) was only mentioned as one of many. However, I was pleased that the importance of the first WCS was recognized later, at the beginning of Section 3 (p. 4). In my opinion, the statement there is absolutely correct: the WCS "offered the first coherent a [sic] analysis of environmental sustainability. It emphasised the need to maintain essential ecological processes and life support systems, to preserve genetic diversity, and to ensure the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems." In my own review of the development of the concept, I have found that this last point has become a less and less apparent—and an even less important—factor in the discussion. It is sad that we've had to wait for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) to revive its importance, but my sense is that in public discussions, the MEA is somewhat separate from the 'sustainable development' discussions. It is important that IUCN continue to make the strong connection between the the MEA and environmental sustainability.
I was also disappointed that the paper totally ignored the second version of the World Conservation Strategy, "Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living," published by IUCN et al. in 1991. I was a participant in the discussion of the penultimate draft of this at the 18th IUCN General Assembly in Perth, Australia (1990). I think this publication was an essential next step after the first World Conservation Strategy, since it emphasized environmentally sustainable living. I have suggested that CEESP and its Theme on Sustainable Livelihoods, as successor the to IUCN Commission on Social Policy, which sponsored that discussion, revive that document as central to the concept of environmental sustainability. So far, that hasn't happened, but perhaps this new initiative can revisit the idea. [A PowerPoint show for a “Retrospective Review of Caring for the Earth" that I presented at the 3rd World Conservation Congress in Bangkok is available at http://rcellarius.us/.]
I understand that there are criticisms of "Caring for the Earth" involving some of its initial theologizing and perhaps the overwhelming list of imperatives (Box 30. Check list of actions) at the end of the document. Nevertheless, it certainly can be a source of ideas and concepts as material for this new initiative develops.
I noted the single use of the term "global problematique" (Section 4, p. 7), which was devised by Aurelio Peccei and his colleagues of the Club of Rome. The set of diagrams in Figure 3 of Peccei's article, "The Predicament of Mankind," [SUCCESSO, June 1970. Pp. 149-156] still describe the problem well and should be part of the continuing analysis of how to proceed, although the computer modeling promoted by the Club of Rome may not be a useful part of the process any longer. I have a PowerPoint file based on that figure that might be useful in future work [available at http://rcellarius.us/].
The report correctly notes the creation of environmental ministries and laws beginning in the 1970s (p. 2) and describes the problem of trade-offs well (Section 2.2, pp. 3-4). In a recent talk, Jim MacNeill, Secretary General of the World Commission on Environment and Development ("Brundtland Commission") asserted that "In terms of power and resources, with few exceptions, the environment agency is the low man on every totem pole," and that the basic message of the institutional and legal changes needed for sustainable development described in Chapter 12 of "Our Common Future" has been ignored (the "forgotten imperative"). [The talk may be published in a journal, but I am not presently aware of the reference.] This point is reflected a bit in the report’s discussion of trade-offs and subsequently in later sections as well; as the initiative develops, these necessary changes need to be emphasized as a major piece of the solution.
I was pleased to see the diversity of participants in the Zurich discussions that the report summarizes. On the other hand, I was disappointed that, as far as I could tell, no one from IUCN’s Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) was among the list of those attending. I would argue that there are a number of members of CEESP that could help in the development and implementation of the initiative. Their participation is fundamental to putting the proper human livelihoods factor into the discussions. I hope that will be the thrust of the second weeks discussion on “Human Wellbeing and Sustainability” led by Dr. Ashok Kholsa.
I do like the overall thrust of the report in how it lays out the issues. The three hypotheses (Section 5. pp. 10-11) make good sense, and I applaud both the ideas that "re-orientating the concept of sustainability, [and] re-emphasising what it means" is important (Hypothesis 1) and that "IUCN should take a lead in developing new thinking ..." (Hypothesis 3)—except perhaps it's not "new" thinking that's needed as much as "re-emphasizing" the original concepts of ecological and evolutionary sustainability.
Finally, I support the proposition that IUCN should "mobilize" its membership in this initiative. It is my impression, at least in the U.S., that IUCN does not promote its members taking an active role in IUCN programs. I know there is more interaction among the European members; Countdown 2010 is an example. Recently, I have been working with the membership staff in Gland about re-activating or establishing an organization of U.S. IUCN members (U.S. Committee). I understand that another IUCN conference, this time in The Hague, emphasized the importance to IUCN of national and regional committees. I suggest that close cooperation between the [Environmental] Sustainability Initiative and the effort to increase and strengthen Regional and National Committees would be a way to engender support for and effectiveness of both efforts.
The “Future of Sustainability Initiative” needs full implementation and leadership from the hightest levels of the IUCN Secretariat and Council. The biggest problem may be for IUCN to gain the increased visibility and members' participation necessary for a successful effort in the face of current events and action in other directions. Hopefully, through IUCN's state members particularly, good progress can be made.
It's not easy to change the world, even when you're right. |