Sustainable Development A definition and a brief history

Transcription

1

2 Introduction 106 days left on the countdown to The Future We Want. This is the core theme of Rio+20 the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, scheduled to take place from June Rio+20 will bring together heads of governments and ministers from around the world to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Earth Summit - the UN Conference on Environment and Development, convened in Rio de Janeiro in As preparations for the conference intensify, this briefing note examines the history of sustainable development, the core issues at stake in Rio, and the anticipated deliverables from the summit. Sustainable Development A definition and a brief history Sustainable development is defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 1 It stresses environmental limitations, the needs of the poor and the notion of intergenerational equity or protecting resources for future generations. Sustainable development is underpinned by a three-pillar structure, encompassing environmental protection, economic development and social equity. Sustainable development as a paradigm for growth emerged from the publication of the 1987 Brundtland Report, entitled Our Common Future. The Report was the outcome of deliberations by the World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by then Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, who had been tasked by the UN General Assembly with formulating a global agenda for change. This agenda for change was the focus of the 1992 Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, which brought together over 178 states to discuss sustainable development. The principal results of the Summit were formulated in three documents - the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (which set out a number of principles, such as the polluter pays principle and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities), Agenda 21 (an action plan covering 40 different chapters) and the Statement of Forest Principles. The Summit also saw the opening of two legally binding agreements for signature the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 1 Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), available at 1

3 Convention on Biological Diversity - and established the Commission on Sustainable Development, charged with monitoring the implementation of the Rio outcomes. A number of reviews of the Earth Summit have been held, including the Rio+5 conference in New York in 1997 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in It has been widely acknowledged that progress on both the aspirational dimensions of the Rio Declaration and the action-oriented dimensions of Agenda 21 has been slower than anticipated, with economic inequality and environmental degradation still rife. Economic growth over the past twenty years has been fuelled by intensive resource consumption, even if resource use has become more efficient and renewable energy production much more widespread. Although there has been progress in poverty alleviation under the Millenium Development Goals, rapid economic growth in India and China has masked less positive trends in Sub-Saharan Africa. 2 According to WFF 3, humanity s demands on the planet have more than doubled over the past forty-five years. The world therefore faces deep and interlocked challenges: financial and economic crisis, food, energy and water insecurity, biodiversity loss, climate change, and endemic poverty and hunger. Moreover, additional strains on the planet s boundaries are forecast for the coming decades. The global population is anticipated to grow from 7 to 9 billion by The number of middle-class consumers is expected to increase by 3 billion in the next 20 years and forecasts indicate a 50% increase in food demand, a 45% increase in energy demand, and a 30% increase in water demand by Despite the lofty promises at Rio in 1992, the UN High Level Panel on Global Sustainability, chaired by Finnish President Tarja Halonen and South African President Jacob Zuma, 5 recently acknowledged that the current global development model is unsustainable sustainable development remains a generally agreed concept, rather than a day-to-day, on-the-ground, practical reality. 6 2 See, for instance, Sustainable Development: from Brundtland to Rio 2012, International Institute for Sustainable Development (2010), available at: 3 Cited in IISD (2010) 4 Resilient People, Resilient Planet A Future Worth Choosing, Report of the UN High Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012), available at: 5 The group comprises 20 other eminent members from around the world, appointed by UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon to formulate a new vision for sustainable growth and to identify mechanisms to achieve this. 6 Resilient People, Resilient Planet, op cit. 2

4 It attributed this to a failure of political will and short-termism in political decision making, as well as to the fact that the sustainable development paradigm is not central to mainstream economic policy or theory. It is often dismissed as the preserve of either environment or development ministries, rather than a whole-ofgovernment concern. Rio+20 Agenda Against this background, the stated objective of Rio+20 is therefore to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and address new and emerging challenges. 7 Considering the wide range of challenges faced and the differentiated impacts globally, there could be a risk of an unfocussed agenda at Rio. However, the Zero Draft negotiating text 8 for the conference, released in January 2012, narrows the focus of the agenda to two core themes: The Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and The institutional framework for sustainable development The Green Economy The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) defined the Green Economy as one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. 9 In its broadest understanding, the Green Economy values and invests in natural capital such fresh water, clean energy, forests or clean air. Contrary to conventional wisdom, economic growth and environmental protection are not seen as mutually exclusive by definition, but rather can be complementary. Thus, potential for green growth is identified in sectors such as renewable energy, energy efficiency in buildings, clean transportation and waste and recycling. Indeed, in an Irish context, a 2009 Forfás report valued the domestic 7 See: 8 Available at: an%20clean.pdf 9 Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, UNEP (2011), available at: onomyreport_final_dec2011.pdf 3

5 Green Economy at 2.8 billion, with potential for substantial growth and job creation. 10 In the developing world, a focus on valuing natural capital can make a significant contribution to poverty alleviation, not least because the depletion of natural resources, such as fish stocks or forests, tends to impact most on the poor who depend on them for their livelihoods or basic survival. However, the Green Economy as the focus of the conference has been the cause of some concern amongst developing countries, not least because of the lack of a clear, universally accepted definition. In particular, concerns have been raised that the concept risks being understood purely in environmental economic terms, making the social and equity dimensions of sustainable development secondary. Another concern is that a one size fits all approach will be taken, which does not sufficiently acknowledge the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, central to the Rio Declaration. Related to this is a concern that the developed world will use the environment as an excuse for trade protectionism or attaching greater conditionality to aid and loans. 11 Another criticism is that certain understandings of the Green Economy do not sufficiently acknowledge environmental boundaries. For instance, the idea of resource efficiency is often extolled, where resource limits might be more appropriate. Growth and environmental sustainability may not always be win-win in this context. The Zero Draft document affirms the potential of the Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and responds to many of the concerns raised above in so doing. It specifically rules out environmental trade barriers and reaffirms the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Accordingly, the draft takes a bottom-up approach, whereby the Green Economy is seen a framework for decision making, with the preparation of strategies left to individual countries according to their differentiated situations. This marks a contrast from the trend witnessed in the global climate regime, which appears to be moving from a bottom up pledge and review approach post-copenhagen towards a top down global deal post-durban. Indeed, the approach of the Rio Zero Draft is itself subject to criticism, with fears expressed that a voluntaristic, bottom-up strategy will do little to address the historical implementation deficit. 10 Environmental Goods and Services Sector on the Island of Ireland: Enterprise Opportunities and Policy Implications, Forfas (2008), available at: 11 Ocampo, J.A., Cosbey, A. and Khor, M. The Transition to a Green Economy: Benefits, Challenges and Risks from a Sustainable Development Perspective, available at: 4

6 While the draft affirms the need for monitoring and reporting of countries Green Economy strategies and goals, a more robust review and enforcement framework may be needed to drive progress. From MDGs to SDGs? One promising development in this context is a proposal contained in the Report of the High Level Panel and in the Zero Draft document to devise a set of Sustainable Development Goals, modeled on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The proposed goals could include sustainable consumption and production patterns as well as priority areas such as oceans; food security and sustainable agriculture; sustainable energy for all; water access and efficiency; sustainable cities; green jobs, decent work and social inclusion; and disaster risk reduction and resilience. 12 On the principle of you manage what you measure and based on the positive lessons of the MDGs, such goals might provide a useful framework within which to monitor progress, identify distances to targets and introduce additional measures to meet the goals where required. The intention in Rio is not to set SDGs, but rather to agree to launch an inclusive process towards devising these goals by 2015, which would have to be implemented by This could be more ambitious, and the rationale for longfingering the decision on goal setting beyond Rio is not immediately clear. It could risk losing the political momentum that Rio is likely to generate and becoming hostage either to inertia or to the usual disputes between negotiating blocs in the UN system. One important issue that will have to be addressed in the context of defining SDGs is how they will interact with the wider development agenda post-2015, when the MDGs are due to expire. Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development At present, the Commission on Sustainable Development is the intergovernmental body charged with addressing sustainable development within the UN system, primarily related to implementing the original Rio outcomes. It is a functional commission of the UN Economic and Social Council, comprising 53 member states. Its work programme is multi-annual (at present it is in the midst of seven two-year cycles), with the thematic focus set in advance. The Commission on Sustainable Development is considered to be inadequate to tackle emerging challenges because it lacks an implementation mechanism and is inflexible in its work programme. However, wider criticisms of the institutional framework are manifold. It is considered to be fragmented, under-resourced and lacking in enforcement capabilities. This results in a lack of policy coordination 12 Zero Draft, op cit. 5

7 and weak implementation. Most importantly, sustainable development is seen to be insufficiently integrated into economic and trade policy, with the environment seen as weak in authority, priority, profile, and capacity by comparison to the economic pillar, according to a Background Paper on options for institutional reform prepared for Rio In order to address this weak institutional framework, a number of proposals have emerged. The High Level Panel on Global Sustainability has proposed to create a Global Sustainable Development Council to address emerging issues and review progress, which would replace the Commission on Sustainable Development. This is reflected in the Zero Draft text, along with an option to establish a specialised World Environment Organisation, akin to the World Health Organisation or the Food and Agriculture Organisation, by strengthening the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). This latter option is strongly advocated by the EU, as it would raise the global political profile of the environment and the authority of the UNEP. These options are not considered mutually exclusive and indeed the Background Report suggests that bolstering the UNEP in tandem with the creation of a sustainable development council would strengthen cohesion between the economic, environment and social pillars of sustainable development. 14 Beyond GDP? Strengthening the institutional dimensions of sustainable development and introducing SDGs may go some way towards enhancing the priority given to the environment. However, these measures will not in and of themselves address the failure of political will and political short-termism identified by the High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability as the key reasons why the sustainable development agenda has floundered since The challenge remains to mainstream sustainability across Government and to integrate sustainability into core economic decision making in a way that prompts long-term thinking. An oft-cited barrier in this respect is the way that governments are primarily judged on their quarterly economic performance, measured in GDP. Over the last number of years, however, momentum has been building towards more holistic measures of wellbeing and overall performance that go beyond GDP. This idea is articulated in the Rio Zero Draft document, which recognizes the limitations of GDP as a measure of well-being and agrees to develop a set of indicators that go beyond GDP to integrate economic, environmental and social factors in a balanced manner. If a more holistic measure of wealth and well 13 Bernstein, S. and Brunne, J: Options for Broader Reform of the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD); Structural, Legal and Financial Aspects, available at: RT%20-%20FINAL%20VERSION%201%20NOV%20for%20posting.pdf 14 Ibid. 6

8 being makes its way into the final text and gains widespread currency, it has the potential to be extraordinarily powerful as a driver of more holistic, integrated policy making. Conclusion Rio has the potential to regenerate political momentum on sustainable development at a time when intertwined global crises necessitate a paradigmatic shift in policymaking more than ever. The preparations for the conference are intensifying, with a proliferation of documents and position papers on various dimensions of the Green Economy and the institutional framework for sustainable development, including the High Level Panel s report and the Zero Draft negotiating text. Both of these documents contain many positive aspects. They are full of worthy ambition and heavy on aspiration across the full breadth of the environmental, economic and social pillars of sustainable development. However, their breadth and diversity of ambitions (from women s participation in the workplace to reforming fiscal systems to coastal management to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies) could in itself prove problematic in terms of achieving a concrete outcome. While sustainable development as a holistic concept has to be viewed through a wide angle lens, there could be an argument for more targeted, clear and actionoriented outcomes at Rio, which might have more long-term likelihood of implementation. The proposals on SDGs and moving beyond GDP are particularly promising in this respect, although the Zero Draft only establishes a process to reach agreement on these aspirations. However, if substantive outcomes could be agreed on these goals, it would mark a major shift towards a more integrated model of sustainable development. 7