When the World Commission on Environment
and Development (Brundtland Commission) published
its report in 1987, it presented a new concept - sustainable
development. The concept became one of the most successful
approaches to be introduced in many years. In fact,
it helped to shape the international agenda and the
international community's attitude towards economic,
social and environmental development.
The Brundtland Commission's report
defined sustainable development as "development
which meets the needs of current generations without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs". The concept supports strong
economic and social development, in particular for
people with a low standard of living. At the same
time it underlines the importance of protecting the
natural resource base and the environment. Economic
and social well-being cannot be improved with measures
that destroy the environment. Intergenerational solidarity
is also crucial: all development has to take into
account its impact on the opportunities for future
generations.
Hectic international and national
debate and activity were triggered by the report's
publication. Actors from the entire social spectrum
saw opportunities for using the new concept. It was
soon pointed out that the concept was both broad and
vague - its content could be given different interpretations.
The Brundtland Commission, named
after Norway's former prime minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland,
who chaired it, found an eager audience for its proposals
at the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The documents
approved at the Conference, notably the comprehensive
Agenda 21, included ambitious commitments by world
leaders to ensure sustainable development in many
areas and on all levels of society.
The Rio Conference gave a boost to
both national and local action. National committees
for sustainable development were established on a
high political level in many countries. Local Agenda
21 documents and action plans were drawn up in a great
number of municipalities. Many corporations jumped
on the bandwagon. And the newly established United
Nations Commission for Sustainable Development started
to scrutinize the implementation of the Rio decisions
at its annual meetings.
At the same time a sceptical debate
about the concept continued. One of the most striking
characteristics of the term "sustainable development"
is that it can mean all things to all people. In the
environmental community many accused government and
business of "cosmetic environmentalism"
under the umbrella of the concept. Some felt that
the term "sustainable development" was used
as an alibi rather than as guidance for strong action.
Another critical argument was related
to the de facto dominance of environmentally centred
actors in the work. These critical voices demanded
more emphasis on the economic and social "pillars"
of the concept. More recently it has been argued that
the political acceptability of sustainable development
depends on its capacity to respond to a country's
persistent social problems. It has also been noted
that the economic "pillar" has to be integrated
in the concept as a whole and not be seen as an independent
part of it. However, the term does not give any guidance
on how to arbitrate between the unavoidably conflicting
objectives of economic rationality/profitability,
social justice and ecological equilibrium.
In particular the social pillar poses
it own complex problems of measurement. There does
not seem to be a consensus on what is to be understood
by "social" in the first place. Moreover,
most social phenomena are difficult, often impossible,
to quantify.
Despite the cloud of ambiguity hanging
over the concept of sustainable development, the international
community has continued using it. The concept has
been seen as inclusive and operational enough to make
meaningful action in pursuit of sustainable development
possible and broadly supported. The preparations for
the 2002 Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development
showed that the enthusiasm of Rio had started to wane,
but high-level political support for the process persisted.
The focus, however, clearly changed from all-encompassing
attempts to cover a great number of areas simultaneously
to a more practical approach with the emphasis on
a limited number of substantive areas at a time.
Johannesburg also boldly highlighted
the implementation of commitments rather than spending
time on drafting new declarations. In this context
the United Nations regional commissions were given
stronger recognition than before. It was felt that
better implementation demanded a devolution of the
global process. The regions were seen to be quite
diverse between them and within. Using the same global
actions for all regions was considered to be too rigid.
The regional contributions from the outset brought
an additional dimension to the process, giving further
emphasis to practical solutions that can be implemented
on the ground. Also the identification of key problem
areas has become more specific and the conclusions
more action-oriented.
The decision to choose three different
items for each two-year cycle of the Commission on
Sustainable Development has helped greatly to focus
the work. The items for 2004-2005, water, sanitation
and human settlements, are not new, of course, but
the sustainable development umbrella might be new
for some of the actors. Even if these areas are also
still quite diverse, they are more manageable than
was the case with the pre-Johannesburg way of treating
Agenda 21 at the level of the Commission on Sustainable
Development.
More than a decade of experience
of sustainable development work has produced both
successes and challenges. One of the clearest successes
is the widespread local activity. Thousands of municipalities
have taken the promotion of sustainable development
seriously, with subsequent increased awareness and
improved performance.
But, of course, many problems still
persist. At a recent course for government officials
from Central and Eastern Europe, participants raised
a number of concerns: lack of understanding of the
concept in administrations, insufficient political
support, limited resources at different levels for
effective action, inadequate involvement of civil
society, inertia in education systems and various
problems in specific sectors of the economy.
On the other hand, it was pointed
out that different win-win solutions do exist. Active
social housing policies promote social inclusion and
equity, boost economic growth, and increase mobility
and labour productivity. Likewise more sustainable
transport leads to less pollution and fewer environmental
and health problems, less congestion and fewer accidents.
One of the cross-cutting issues to
promote sustainable development that has gained prominence
recently is education. Even if sustainable development
is not a scientific concept enabling understanding
of the different interactions in relation to it, decision-makers
and ordinary citizens would benefit from more learning.
The United Nations Decade for Education for Sustainable
Development starting in 2005 and led by the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) illustrates the importance of education in
achieving sustainable development.
The drafting of a UNECE strategy
for education for sustainable development, which was
initiated by the Environment Ministers at their Conference
in Kiev in May 2003, shows that there is support in
the region for an operational commitment to it. The
cooperation between environment and education ministries
in the drafting process has been very encouraging,
but after the adoption of the strategy its application
will constitute the real litmus test of countries'
readiness to cooperate.
An enormous amount of academic, administrative
and political effort has been put into trying to find
a more precise definition of sustainable development
than the one put forward by the Brundtland Commission,
but to no avail. In these processes strong disagreements
soon crop up. This is the reason why some scholars
support the original concept, which has been described
as presenting a "constructive ambiguity".
In a world with very varied political cultures and
priorities the lack of definitional precision of the
term 'sustainable development' may represent an important
political opportunity.
Where does this "soft"
approach lead us? An important conclusion is that
sustainable development is a process, not an end in
itself. It also implies that participation and genuine
dialogue among stakeholders are key prerequisites
for sustainable development. In brief, sustainable
development needs democratic thinking, but it can
also help strengthen democratic institutions through
consensus-based public participation.
Some might say that this "constructive
ambiguity" may lead to a certain level of "anarchy"
in the practical application of the concept, but this
does not need to be the case. For instance, the UNECE
strategy for education for sustainable development
was prepared by intergovernmental negotiations without
an explicit definition of the concept. Experience
of the implementation of Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg
decisions also shows that the challenges are less
related to the definition of the concept than to the
political and practical preparedness for action within
the consensus of the concept on which the Brundtland
Commission agreed.
Kaj Bärlund
Sources used
1. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts
on the idea of sustainable development, by John Robinson
in Ecological Economics 48, 2004.
2. The environmental social interface
of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital,
institutions, by Markku Lehtonen in Ecological Economics
49, 2004.
3. Course for sustainability in Venice
12-25 September 2004, country assessments, by participants.
4. Water and sanitation in the UNECE
region: achievements in regulatory aspects, institutional
arrangements and monitoring since Rio, trends and
challenges, ECE/AC.25/2004/5, 12 November 2003.
5. Sustainable development of human
settlements in the UNECE region: progress and challenges,
ECE/AC.25/2004/4 plus Adds. 1 and 2, 19 November 2003.
6. Draft UNECE strategy for education
for sustainable development, CEP/2004/15, CEP/AC.13/2004/8/Rev.1,
3 August 2004.