Sustainability: Just a buzz word?
3 October 2009 | by Hon Ken Shirley
Sustainability means anything to anyone
The ‘S’ word has become the ultimate universal buzz word, capturing the public imagination and dominating political agendas globally. We hear of sustainable development, sustainable growth, sustainable economics - societies, agriculture, business – sustainable everything.
As a concept, sustainability is akin to ‘motherhood and apple pie.’
Who could possibly oppose it or speak ill of it? It provides a potential solution for all of the troubles and woes we confront.
Herein lies the real problem
Sustainability has become a multi-defined mantra that means everything to everyone. The value of the word has been severely debased but the concepts are real and live on in a web of rhetoric and confusion.
Of course we should all strive to use resources wisely and diminish or eliminate waste. We are all forced to acknowledge that the global commons, be they fisheries, oceans, rivers, lakes, forests or atmosphere have all been degraded and in some cases, totally trashed.
Is this an extension to the ‘tragedy of the commons’ where destructive exploitation occurs because there are no clear property rights or guardian?
Or alternatively, is the degradation the direct result of human over-population placing unacceptable pressures on the finite resources of the planet?
The answer seems to depend on which part of the philosophical and political matrix you adhere to.
The word sustainability is derived from European foresters of the 18th and 19th century who were alarmed at the rate of deforestation in Europe at that time.
Wood was the driving force of the European economy.
Homes, factories and boats were made of wood which was also the main source of heating.
The European foresters determined that it was essential to ensure that new plantings occurred so that the growth of wood within forests matched the harvest rates.
This would ensure that the needs of future generations would be met. As it turned out, future generations of Europeans did not build their homes, factories and boats of wood and found more efficient and cheaper ways of heating their homes. Undoubtedly other cultures throughout the ages have encountered parallel situations.
Sustainability emerged as part of the global environmental awakening of the 1960’s and 70’s.Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ and Paul Ehrlick’s ‘Prophecies of Doom’ became rallying calls for global action.
In 1983 the United Nations convened the Brundtland Commission, formerly known as the World Commission on Environment and Development.
This Commission, named after its chair, Gro Harlem Brundtland, medical doctor and former Prime Minister of Norway, produced the report entitled ‘Our Common Future’, which was published by the United Nations in 1997.
It focused on sustainable development and the change of politics needed globally to achieve it.
This report was a precursor to the United Nations conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED), more commonly known as The Earth Summit which met in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.
As a member of the New Zealand delegation I was astounded by the scale of this global jamboree comprising delegates from 150 nations, 1,400 NGO groups and 8,000 journalists.
Most heads of state were there, along with celebrities such as Jacques Cousteau, Jane Fonda and the Maori Queen. Essentially it was decision-making by a committee of 15,000.
The principle outcomes were the adoption of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, known as Agenda 21.
Principle 7 of the declaration states:
“States shall cooperate in the spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s eco-system.
In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, states have common but differential responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and the technological and financial resources that they command.”
Other outcomes emanating from UNCED were the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNCCC), the convention on biodiversity, together with the adoption of sustainable forestry principles.
The UNCCC formed the foundation for what was to become the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997 and subsequently ratified by various nations.
The ethos of sustainable development purports that third world economies can be ‘kick started’ and reach economic ‘take-off’ at which point they will be self sustaining and equal to developed world economies.
This in turn will alleviate poverty and suffering, making the world more equitable for all human beings. All this while simultaneously enhancing the physical environment and combating pollution.
Concurrent to the Brundtland Commission and UNCED, New Zealand was reviewing all its environmental law under the Resource Management Law Reform process.
The debate between ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainable management’ was very central to this process.
Essentially those favouring market economies and individual freedoms favoured sustainable development while those advocating prescriptive, centralised action plans favoured sustainable management.
This philosophical rift epitomises the inherent contradictions within the Resource Management Act (RMA). At the outset, the RMA was intended to be a streamlining of environmental laws, with a ‘one stop shop’ approach that would be non prescriptive and empowering.
This was part and parcel of the economic reforms implemented by the Lange/Douglas government. Instead, the process was captured by interest groups and we ended up with a highly prescriptive and smothering legislation which has impeded development.
The RMA was intended to provide for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, but instead as a nation we grafted onto it a plethora of cultural and metaphysical concepts which defy definition.
It is interesting to note that in 2009, 15 years after the RMA enactment, and after years of litigious wrangling, we still do not have a clearly defined and understood definition of the meaning of sustainability which is the core concept underpinning the legislation.
More worrying is the fact that not one new resource based industry has established in New Zealand since the RMA enactment in 1993.
Sustainability sounds wonderful, but how on earth do you apply it? In the absence of guidance from central government, local government filled the vacuum and ran amok.
Globally there have been two broad responses to the sustainability clarion call. One approach is for continued economic growth based on the application of innovation and technology to raise living standards and break the link between poverty and environmental degradation.
The other approach requires a reduction in resource consumption, a smaller global population and a radical change to the world economic order. We can all identify the underlying philosophies and the groups of devotees to each of these broad approaches.
In New Zealand we have been confused by public economic policies which purport to pursue the former, but under a mantle of environmental law that is trapped in the latter.
The emphasis on the need of future generations, while being superficially seductive, is extremely confusing in its application.
To forego consumption now for the anticipated needs of future generations is very problematic. Just how much do we forego, and for how many generations?
How can we possibly anticipate what future generations will find useful and what they will not.
“The stone age didn’t come to an end because the Earth ran out of stones.”
We are reminded that the urban planners of London in the 1850’s wanted to set a population limit because of the anticipated inability to supply the necessary horse feed and clear away mountains of dung from the city streets. They failed to foresee the advent of the internal combustion engine. Will a future derivative of Glen Martin’s jetpack render our cars and motorways obsolete?
The fact that one kilogram of fibre optics can convey more electronic data than a ton of copper wire is significant.
Technology and innovation is not tied to a greater consumption of finite physical resources. This is the basic error of Malthusians.
How many million tons of coal can a few kilograms of uranium replace with near zero CO² emissions. Even if we did decide to limit our global consumption of copper to ensure we met the needs of future generations, what would be the right level of consumption? Even if only 1 kilogram was consumed globally per year at some future point there would be none left and we would have failed.
Our attitude to mining under successive New Zealand governments over the past 20 years is revealing. We have until very recently precluded new mining opportunities on the vast land areas administered by the Department of Conservation even though most of our mineral wealth is contained there and much of the land has a relatively minor conservation value. Hard rock mining occupies 0.01% of New Zealand’s land but directly employs 4,000 people with an output value of $1.5 billion per year. This equates to $250,000 per hectare which far exceeds the land unit output of other activities. We know that there is over $100 billion worth of minerals within the DOC estate and yet we ban exploration.
By applying the principle of net conservation benefit (rejected by former governments) we could have developed this wealth while simultaneously enhancing our conservation estate.
The moratoriums that have truncated the development of our aquaculture industry and life sciences in New Zealand are further examples of economic, social and ecological enthusiastic foolhardiness. These agendas have been prompted by ultra conservative fundamentalists who are opposed to any development.
It is regrettable that these opponents all too often shelter behind the sustainability banner.