| We were camping that summer, 30+ years ago, when we
crossed into Mexico and headed for the open air markets. The three legged stools with
their hand tooled leather seats were a great buy. The sturdy walnut stained legs were
cleverly joined in the middle by three interlocked eyes about the size of your index
finger looped to the base of your thumb. And they folded up compactly for the ride home in
the back of a VW Bug. The only problem was, when we got back to the campground, those legs
didn't seem to want to stand for me anymore. I twisted them this way, then that and only
occasionally did I accidentally discover the mysterious interconnections among them that
would re-create the functional seat.
These three-legged Mexican stools came to mind after I heard someone
describe the concept of sustainable development as a three-legged stool. At first I
pictured a wooden stool with "sustainable development" neatly lettered in a big
circle around the seat. In my mind, each wooden leg was fixed in place with dowel braces
between them, and each leg was labeled with the three essential elements of sustainability
-- the environment, economic development, and social equity. But as I considered the
tensions among these three elements, I realized this picture was too neat and static. My
somewhat inept struggle to get the Mexican three-legged stools to interlock in a
supportive fashion seemed a more accurate description of the interactions among the
environment, development and equity within the context of sustainability.
The generally accepted definition of sustainable development has
survived more than a decade since the UN's Commission on Environment and Development first
promulgated it -- "development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." The Earth Summit
in Rio in 1992 was a five year temperature check on the UN's and member states' progress
toward that goal. And each of the other five major global conferences since then has
referenced sustainable development in one shape or form.
Most of the debate about sustainable development seems to revolve
around whether or not the three legs of the stool indeed can be put together, or whether
one or another of the legs is receiving adequate attention. Some people claim that
sustainable development is an oxymoron. They critique the North's industrial economies and
highly consumptive life styles as incorrigible assaults on the integrity of Mother Earth.
They feel that people who talk about sustainable development are kidding themselves.
Industrialized society is such an evil and is having such a negative impact on the
ecosystem and on a majority of human beings within it that industrialized development
cannot be salvaged. It must be scrapped, and we should start over with something smaller
scale and more "appropriate."
A second critique holds that sustainable development is either too
environmentally or too business oriented; not enough attention is paid to the needs of
poor people and those most adversely affected by environmental impacts, who, in this
society, usually are ethnic/racial minorities. These critics usually propose
"people-centered" development as an alternative to large infrastructure projects
like huge dams or highways.
So-called "Third World" countries from the global South
have reacted negatively to the issue of conditionality. They claim that sustainable
development is a dangerous imposition of more conditions to be placed on aid and
investments from industrialized countries. Even though official development aid is at its
lowest point since 1970 as a percentage of GDP (gross domestic product) among the G7
countries, private investment is transforming parts of the South. It has nearly quadrupled
since 1990, reaching approximately $170 billion in 1996. And recipient countries do not
want the industrialized North to attach more restricting strings on either aid or
investment in the guise of environmental protection.
The term "development" itself is a problem. To many it
suggests a western, ethnocentric view of a belief in ongoing progress; this linear view of
history clashes with other cultural views of history, e.g., circular or spiraling
worldviews. Thus these critics propose alternative language, such as sustainable communities,
because community is a central building block of societies in all their diversity.
Despite these critiques, we at Global Learning have decided to
continue to use the term sustainable development in our educational work. It is a concept
accepted by a majority of nations in the world & the UN system. Primary source
materials are available in abundance, and the fact that Brazil or Bangladesh is wrestling
with sustainability just as the U.S. is helps establish local-global connections for
students. For example, as a follow-up to the Earth Summit in Rio, the Clinton
administration appointed a President's Council on Sustainable Development with broadbased
representation from businesses, environmental organizations, and governmental agencies.
Their 1996 report, Sustainable America: A New Consensus, affirms, among other
things:
Economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity are
linked. We need to develop integrated policies to achieve these national goals.... A
growing economy and healthy environment are essential to national and global security....
Finding common values and shared goals is a better way to shape the
future than endless reruns of the stale drama of confrontation....We believe that
consensus will move America forward both faster and farther than confrontation. Moreover,
we believe that consensus is the public's job, not the government's. Government is
important in implementing what people agree on, but we all need to do the hard work of
listening, learning, and finding common ground.
Both nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and government officials
here in the State of New Jersey have visited the Netherlands and studied their national
"Green Plan" -- another national response to the call for sustainable
development -- to learn how we might shift from a command and control approach to
environmental protection to more of a consensus and mutual goal-setting process.
We at Global Learning have also seen impressive responses to
sustainable development when posed as a challenge. For example, responsible corporations
are moving into product life cycle design and redesign, eliminating hazardous solvents,
reducing toxic emissions, and saving millions of dollars in the process. They are also
switching to full cost accounting systems to incorporate what had been hidden and less
tangible environmental health and safety costs into the economic evaluation of projects
and programs. They are evaluating the environmental practices of their suppliers as well.
And when businesses have polluted their surroundings, community groups have raised
the equity issues of fairness, expeditious remedies and disproportionate impacts on people
of color.
The elements of sustainable development have challenged and
stretched our thinking as we've worked with it over the past decade. We feel we're part of
a global community of local citizens, governmental representatives, business executives
and union members, environmental professionals and international bureaucrats who are on a
stimulating, sometimes frustrating, but always energizing ride of an accelerating learning
curve.
What is sustainable development? The full answer's not in yet, and
probably never will be. But the direction toward the answer is getting clearer all the
time. |
