Foundations for failure

As mentioned in one of my earlier blogs, the most recognised definition of sustainability to date is that of the Brundtland Report

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: 1) the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and 2) the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.” 

It is fine as a broad definition but lacks focus on the more modern outlook of the different pillars of sustainability as discussed by the World Summit in 2005. This outlook of sustainable development needs to be embraced by mass governing bodies such as the IPCC, that is measurable and more encompassing of the three pillars which are defined by Thwink.org as:

      

      

Environmental sustainability is the ability to maintain rates of renewable resource harvest, pollution creation, and non-renewable resource depletion that can be continued indefinitely.

Economic sustainability is the ability to support a defined level of economic production indefinitely.

Social sustainability is the ability of a social system, such as a country, to function at a defined level of social well being indefinitely.

Sustainability is in their words 'the ability to continue a defined behaviour indefinitely'; it needs to be seen as a win-win financially, environmentally and socially. 

In order to measure the growth or success of any project objectively, there needs to be a metric system to determine a measurable outcome. Nowhere in the Brundland report definition, are any basic measurable blocks to measure achievement or failure. This is the first fundamental mistake of this definition. How do you measure development or a need? By definition, development has at least three meanings according to the Oxford dictionary that qualify, directly contributing to ambiguity, namely "the process of developing or being developed; an event constituting a new stage in a changing definition and the process of converting land to a new purpose by constructing buildings or making use of its resources".

Are 'needs' the basic requirements to survive or to live comfortably (i.e. have access to a healthy, well balanced diet, warm clothes and shelter, education and health care)? Presuming most people would be unlikely to strive to achieve a way of life that is less comfortable than what we have now, can we provide this way of life for 8 billion people? We certainly haven't achieved this globally to date and as populations in less developed countries continue to grow, without the financial means to meet basic human rights, it seems that we may be moving even further from it! So how are moving towards a goal that we actually have no way of knowing is truly attainable, realistic or indeed sustainable?

The above trends are based on UN 2004 GDP per capita projections

Secondly, the popularity and trend toward sustainability was driven by the IPCC in 2007 when they described that climate control could not be achieved without maintaining resource use stability within the confines of current and future climatic projections. We cannot thrive as a species, if we run out of the resources that allow us to do so – we need to reach an equilibrium.  Therefore we need to strive to maintain our resources in order to provide us with quality of life. If we give ‘over-riding priority’ to meeting the needs of the poor over that of environmental sustainability what will sustain everyone, including the poor, when the resources are gone?  

Topsoil erosion has been a top priority on UN Sustainable Development Programme agenda. Ethiopia alone, loses 1 Billion tonnes of topsoil annually. It takes 500 years to build a 2cm thick layer of topsoil. Globally, we have about 60 years of topsoil (the layer that allows plants to grow) remaining (UN, 2014). 

Prof Thomas Dietz, Assistant Vice President of Environmental Research at SMEP once said “we move towards sustainability, we never really achieve it”. Perhaps this is the inconvenient truth as our idea of positive movements ie sustainable actions are proving to be less than ideal.The Oil Change International report published before the Paris Agreement of September showed that despite the commitment of 193 countries to cap and reduce Greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, we will exceed the recommended, sustainable, temperature increase threshold of 2 degrees celcius, by simply burning the fuels that already exist within our active mines. More needs to be done and we are finally realising it. On Thursday next week UNEP is hosting an Emissions Gap Report launch in Westminster which I will attend. It embraces hindsight aiming to identify discrepancies, analyse and report what needs to be done to ensure we meet the Paris agreement. By setting real targets and acknowledging the consequences of falling short.

In the words of Henry Thoreau “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at the root”. Perhaps, the UN will lay the foundations needed for a real sustainable future but will we and our leaders be up for the challenge? Next week I consider the barriers to sustainability that have plagued us in the past.