A new definition of oxymoron
Our focus has been on development and not on sustainability
Thanks to Madam Gro Harlem Brundtland for popularising the idea of sustainable development in her report ‘Our Common Future’. It was a four-year study report of World Commission on Environment and Development launched by the United Nations (UN) in 1983. The report defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The basic premise is that the world community needs to find an equitable way to balance development for human prosperity without damaging the environment for future generations, a noble idea of social and environmental justice.
The UN launched Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in 2015 with 17 goals and 169 targets to be met by 2030 as a successor to the Millennium Development Goals. We need ambition and optimism to be successful in life and I guess same holds true for countries and organisations including the UN. But what about REALISM? Can we be successful without being realistic?
Realism has to be based on opportunities, skills, access to resources, and a conducive environment. The goals and targets set for SDG appears to be a sum of all the wishes and aspirations of all the politicians and diplomats gathered during the UN general assembly session in September 2015 - a truly UN style inclusive process so that everyone is happy!
There are two problems here. Many targets set are extremely vague and elusive with no realism in sight whatsoever and cannot be measured whichever way one interprets.
Take for example target 1.4
It reads ‘countries to ensure … in particular the poor and the vulnerable have equal rights to economic resources … ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate technology, financial services, …’ etc.
Take another example, target 4.7
‘ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development …’. I think, I need a serious translation here!
Well, irrespective of the vagueness of the targets, many countries formulated their workplans and are marching towards 2030 with their own interpretations of the targets. Here comes the second problem, which is perhaps the most important one. The focus is squarely on development and not on sustainability. Development needs huge amounts of Natural Capital besides financial capital such as water, minerals, forestry resources and energy. As a result, our development agenda is causing extreme harm to the environment through polluted air, polluted water, deforestation and over extraction of underground resources beyond the capacity of mother nature to regenerate. Of course, we cannot think of stopping countries’ development efforts but they can at least give enough time for nature to regenerate. It is possible to do so by recalibrating priorities and optimising consumption habits.
Nature has a capacity to regenerate itself, a kind of self-healing process to repair damages but our development efforts have caused sever damages to the nature which might not be easily repaired. Every year countries have overshot natural ecosystem’s regenerative capacity of that particular year. In the year 2020 for example Luxemburg overshot it in first 46 days of 2020 while the US did so in first 74 days. Indonesia took the longest, 352 days. It seems like we have amputated the nature.
As we are approaching midpoint of SDG targets it is essential to review the definition of sustainable development and reconsider our commitments to the sustainability component of the SDG to ensure that we actually leave behind some resources to our children and grandchildren!
Just remember that more than 600 million children will be born between now and 2030.
I just saw the movie "The Girl in the Cafe" in which a young women as a guest at a "G8" meeting criticises the world leaders for talking and not keeping their promises. Her point was taken - only in the movie, of course.
ReplyDeleteAnd I just read about a major oil discovery by a Canadian company in Namibia endangering the natural environment. Yet the people need jobs. Unless alternate energy sources become affordable, "development" will remain the main goal.