Desarrollo de raíces.

quality and socio-economic development in the long term. It must therefore involve answers to questions:

"What is to be sustained? For whom? How long?" The value of the concept, however, lies in its ability to generate an operational consensus between groups with fundamentally different answers to these questions, i.e., those concerned either about the survival of future human generations, or about the survival of wildlife, or human health, or the satisfaction of immediate subsistence needs (food, fuel, fodder) with a low degree of risk. It is therefore vital to identify those aspects of sustainability that do actually cater to such diverse interests, and those that involve trade-offs.

(Lélé, 1991, p614-615)

The literature on SD in the 1990s and the early part of the 21st century has been concerned with numerous aspects of SD, particularly implementation and measurement, both in the developed and developing worlds at numerous levels in a variety of contexts. As Agenda 21 is seen as the blueprint for implementation, one of the essential aspects of Agenda 21 is that it exists as a result of intense political bargaining during international deliberations. Therefore its chapters and paragraphs are open to multiple interpretations, as are those of SD. As Harris and Udagawa (2004) note, context is vital. In areas most affected by pollution, environmental considerations may be at the forefront of policy, in areas suffering more poverty, economic development will likely be the main consideration. In some instances, sustainability, in the environmental sense, will be the primary goal, in others it will be seen as a means to economic growth with assistance required from central government or international institutions.

A central debate regarding SD is between those who focus on technological development and institutional reform and those who argue for a necessary value and behavioral change (Robinson, 2004). For the former, SD is about achieving sustainability for human purposes and mankind’s ability to solve environmental and social problems through the application of reason. For the

40

latter what is needed, are new ethics, sets of values ways and of relating to the natural world. The discourses of SD revolve around the following: social capital; grassroots; participation; local governance, civil society, NGO; ecological footprint; and these mean different things to different actors in different contexts and therefore open to ideological capture (Bek, Binns and Nel, 2004). This could explain their appeal as they are essentially palatable to all and that is why this version of SD has been adopted. These ambiguities and the fuzziness surrounding the terms can therefore enable misappropriation and manipulation, meaning that the term can be hijacked for almost any standpoint. Adams and Hulme (1992) contend that it is not the achievements of the discourse of sustainability which are critical, but the interests of the policy makers, bureaucrats, technical experts, organisations etc. whose needs are served by the narrative.

How SD is put into practice depends on how the concept is viewed and interpreted. This involves a thorny discussion on how best to achieve equity of access to natural resources which create human well-being and how best to distribute the costs and benefits (social, economic, and environmental) which occur from resource utilisation (Fox, 1994). In essence it is about attempting to balance the three pillars of sustainability – the economy, society and the environment, (Holder and Lee, 2007). What is needed, argue Carley and Christie (2000), are answers to difficult questions about how to balance industrial production, consumption and environmental quality through political processes all of which are dependent on ideological perspectives.

Wheeler (2004, p28) charts the various perspectives on sustainable development under four headings: Environmentalists; Economists; Equity Advocates and finally; Spiritual Writers and Ethicists. For environmentalists, environmental concerns of SD are paramount and include conservationists, preservationists, natural resource scientists, global environmentalism and deep ecology. For economists the emphasis of SD is on incorporating environmental concerns into an economic framework and includes environmental economics, ecological economics, ecological footprint analysis and socially responsible investment. The equity advocates examine structural

41

inequality and include dependency theorists, development critics, Third World activists and social ecologists. Spiritual writers and ethicists focus on a transformation of values and mindsets and include new paradigm writers, environmental ethicists, green politics/ecofeminists and spiritual writers. These various perspectives influence the positions of SD which can be taken and these are discussed in 2.5.4.

Futurity

Futurity involves the needs of future generations or inter-generational equity. This however raises intergenerational concerns regarding obligation, motivation and uncertainty (Catron et al, 1996). They argue that three fundamental questions need asking: what is our obligation to future generations? How can we motivate the present generation to fulfil these obligations? How can we know what future generations require? It can be argued that futurity is affected by resource availability for future generations (Becker, 2005). As mankind depends on natural resources to meet our needs and aspirations, the principle of futurity includes the requirement to keep within the environmental limits of the Earth. When considering sustainability problems, any impact of today’s actions on tomorrow’s generations must be related to capital stocks and assigning property rights to individuals, states Meyer (2000). He argues that this is not feasible if intertemporal external effects are considered, as future generations cannot own property rights today. Even if today’s generation conceded these rights to future generations, they would be unable to use these property rights to state their preferences in the market as they cannot be present today, thus constituting the crucial problem of sustainability. From an economic perspective, Howarth and Norgaard (1992) argue that incorporating economic values to environmental capital is required if intergenerational equity is to be achieved. However, it does not solve the moral question of how the rights of future generations and responsibilities of current generations should be defined and is still the centre of much debate on SD.

42 Environment

While the main priorities of development usually revolve around the reduction of poverty, illiteracy, hunger and disease, they are quite different from the goals of environmental sustainability, which are based on maintaining the environmental sink and source capacities unimpaired (Goodland and Daly, 1996). There are however differing views of environmental sustainability.

Since the Brundtland report one ecological/development oriented theory which has emerged in both academic and policy/practice arenas is Ecological Modernisation (EM) theory. For Hajer (1995) this has emerged as the dominant way of conceptualising environmental concerns. This neoliberal approach to the environment sees that environmental degradation and economic growth are not mutually exclusive and through the capitalist system, industrialisation can be more environmentally sustainable through green regulation, investment in technology and opening up trade (Christoff, 1996). EM theory seeks institutional reform in how environmental issues are dealt with such as technological change, market dynamics and social movement activities (Mol 2002), although as Warner (2010) notes, the pace of global environmental change is out of sync with the pace of this institutional reform. EM theory and practice is about the further advancement of technocracy (both technology advances and institutional) and large corporations understand the discourse of EM argues Hajer (1996). While neoliberalism has been the dominant approach to development since the 1980s, as mentioned above, there have been alternative discourses and approaches to development and these are the basis for radical approaches to SD. Most ecological modernisers (Beck, 1992; Mol, 2002) support the neoliberal status-quo they do see the need for some reform, although this reform is to come in the form of technological advancement through partnerships between business, government, moderate environmentalists and scientists with much less concern for equity, justice or human wellbeing.

This approach to environmental concerns is the polar opposite to deep ecologists. The term deep ecology was first coined by Naess (1973) and is at odds with the anthropocentric, technocratic, Western view of man and nature

43

being separate entities. The deep ecology discourse revolves around the premise that the well-being and flourishing of all life has intrinsic value that all life is interconnected and that human interference in the non-human world is excessive and worsening.11 Deep ecologists see that all the pollutants emitted into the atmosphere are harmful and it is overpopulation and our socio- political systems that encourage over consumption (Light, 2010).

The middle ground involves numerous approaches that accept there are mounting environmental concerns and are critical of current policies of most businesses and governments and trends within society, but do not see a collapse in ecological or social systems is likely or that fundamental change is necessary. They see solutions in generating greater knowledge and information, advancements in technology, changes in policy and market reforms will lead to a more sustainable use of environmental resources (Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien, 2005).

Participation

One of the principal themes of the Brundtland Report and Agenda 21 is the involvement of citizens in decisions about and the implementations of social and economic change. Agenda 21 argues that only if ordinary members of the community, particularly those in disadvantaged groups, take part in decision making processes can the outcomes of those processes be regarded as positive. In order to promote SD, participation also involves the co- management of resources (the appropriate sharing of planning, financing and implementation responsibilities) between local communities and the state (Véron 2001). Participation also requires a rich social infrastructure of positive relationships between governance, citizens, and companies which results in information, knowledge, and understanding flowing around and among stakeholders (Healey, 1998). She asserts that where this is not the case it can lead to the promotion of self-interest or conflict and where it is the case it is generally referred to as 'social capital' (Putnam, 1993) or 'institutional capacity' (Amin and Thrift, 1995).

11

44

While this is appealing, there are a number of theoretical and practical issues. Issues of structure and agency play out here. Macnaghten and Jacobs (1997) argue that ignorance about sustainability issues can be rectified by the provision of information, which engenders concern resulting in both personal and political behaviour changes. This involves individual’s agency, or a sense of people’s ability to change their situation or the wider world, reacting as responsible citizens. For Giddens (1976) there is a duality between structure and agency, whereby structures shape people’s practices, but it is also practices that constitute structures. SD is meant to involve numerous agents (or stakeholders) to influence events and therefore this involves ever-more complex intermeshing of structures to enable and constrain these agents (Meadowcroft, 2007). Agency involves people’s social constructions of the world, discourse, power, social processes, identity and ideology (Healey, 1998). For governments, particularly in planning, this increases complexity and dealing with agency can be problematical, especially if institutional capacity is limited. As participatory methods in decision-making is a component of SD, then governance and thus government need to find mechanisms to achieve this at all levels, which is theoretically appealing, but in practice is problematical (Blair, 2000)

In practice participation is problematical for a number of reasons. Trade-offs exist, participatory process can take a long time, be expensive, information limited, and they can be complex with no guarantee of change. They need to operate within current political and economic constraints and while they should be bottom up processes they often end up being top-down (Fraser et al, 2006) In order to achieve SD with a participatory strategy, environmental awareness among the population is essential (Véron 2001) and this is not always the case. Other concerns are proffered by Bridger and Luloff (1999) who state that there can be gaps in local social organisation and a lack of locality-oriented action, especially in rural areas. There is often little coordination among actors and actions with different interest groups pursuing their own self-interest and largely in isolation from one another. It is also the dominant actors or local elites who control the process and often benefit most

45

from participation, while most of the costs are borne by the rest of the populace. They conclude that sources of income and employment and development decisions are made or controlled outside the locale with little regard for sustainability concerns.

Equity

The issue of equity is of fundamental concern in SD and involves issues of social justice and fairness (Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien, 2005). Inequity can manifest itself as areas of deprivation, which may have poorer living environments and reduced access to a range of public services and facilities for residents than other areas (Dempsey et al, 2011). Equity does not just mean economic equity. For rural communities in the developing world, equity also involves a fair distribution of all benefits. This includes empowerment and access to land, particularly where any conservation measures may close access to an area or a resource (Berkes, 2004).

Sustainability for many in the developing world denies the advantages gained by those in the developed world and lacks a critical approach to overconsumption, which is at the root of many environmental problems. This has implications for equity in consumer lifestyles between and within nations. This is because the earth’s carrying capacity cannot cope with a leveling of consumption from the bottom up (ibid). The Western nations do not want to see a fall in living standards, and the dominant consumer oriented ideology continues unabated. The unrealistic nature of achieving equity has not been accepted by most politicians and citizens and while it is desirable for low- income countries to be as rich as the higher income ones, for resource-based reasons, it is not achievable. If greater equality cannot be attained by growth alone, then sharing and population stability will be necessary. For those in power, it is easier to revert to wishful thinking than to face these two issues (Goodland and Daly, 1996).