Greening Development: International Development Cannot Be Both Sustainable and Just

Azwar Surahman (2011)
Introduction

This essay aims to discuss and critically assess the question of Greening Development session that stated in a bleak way; international development cannot be both sustainable and just. In responding the topic of discussion, I take my position that I agree with the statement. To support my argument, I will attempt to locate the debate about the sustainability and justice within the economic and political context of international development. For that, I will begin to explain about sustainable development as an important concept in this discussion.

Basic Concept and Arguments

Adams (2009:23) has summarised the term ‘sustainable development’ as a central concept in development studies, building on environmental, social and political critiques of development theory and practices. Further, Adams (2009:56) explains this idea that emerged in the 1980s had deep roots. Those important themes include the development of  environmentalism, concern for nature preservation, the development of international environmental organizations, the development of the science of ecology (and ideas about the balance of nature and the need for science-based ecological management), concern about global population growth and the development of global scientific networks (Adams ibid). But the definition of ‘sustainable development’ does not have simple meaning. In the publication of the Brundtland Commission’s report on the global environment and development in 1987, 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” (in Redclift, 2006: 67). In other words, by this definition everyone meets their needs: present and future generation. Redclift (2006) claims that this has problems of definition by questioning what are determining the changing of needs, can needs defined universally, who decides? The next problem according to Redclift; what is to be sustained? For the last question some writers provide the answers that it is present (or future) levels of production (or consumption) that need to be sustained with the argument is that the growth of global population will lead to increase[d] demands on the environment, and our definition of sustainable development should incorporate this fact (Redclift, 2006).

Yet a diversity of intellectual pointed out the impossibility of harmonizing the goals of development with the needs of nature within any known economic framework, as the Brundtland report and Agenda 21 – bravely perhaps implausibly – purported to do (Escobar 2001:137). In nowadays perspective, international development commonly known has inevitable relation with economic growth that includes financial system and industrial system. Alier (2009) quoted the main point from Frederick Soddy, a professor at Oxford, about financial system and industrial system which is still applied today. Soddy think that financial system has not difficulty to raise debt (private or public), and to mistake this expansion of credit for resulting of real wealth. Another real world practice, growth of production and growth of consumption in the industrial system imply an increase in the extraction, and eventual destruction, of fossil fuels; things that is dissipated and cannot be recycled. Moreover, Robinson (2004) delineates to believe that trying to achieve sustainable development as to trying to square the circle, in the sense of trying to achieve the impossible. One of Robinson’s arguments is from the basis of concern to environmentalists and researchers who had been involved in extensive arguments and confrontations with government and industry was picked up by government and industry and used in ways that seemed to many to move in the opposite direction. In line with Robinson, there are indeed limits to what technocentric strategies can achieve, and what ecological modernization can mould into sustainable paths; as ‘modernity’s capacity to provide solutions to modernity’s problems has been increasingly compromised’ (Escobar in Adams 2009). Even development success involves substantial costs, such as environmental and human costs of rapid industrialization and economic change (Adams ibid). Furthermore, development everywhere tends to transform, homogenize and degrade biological diversity (Imhoff et al. 2004; Sanderson 2005; Hails et al. 2006; Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2006 in Adams ibid). So, in the case of the environmental crisis, the capitalist state intervenes partly in response to such movement pressure and partly to save capital from undermining its own capacity for capital accumulation (Castro, 2004:215).

Now, how about justice? One of good explanation about the relation between sustainable development and justice is from Andrew Dobson who notes that justice is subordinate to sustainability and this position is concealed by the language of ‘functionality’ (Dobson in Redclift 2006). Redclift interprets this on two views. First, if you view sustainability as sustaining household and people, then the distribution of resources and rights in them is central to your objectives. Second, if you view ‘sustainability’ as the protection and conservation of the environment, then ‘justice’ consists primarily of ensuring it continues to play its vital ecological function. Then from those views according to Redclift, at the moment we cannot say whether justice is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for environmental sustainability. This observation, in turn, leads us to understanding as Ghosh (2011) concerns how globally, there has been some shift in distribution of global output and investment to developing countries, at the margin, but without necessary involving increased incomes and consumption of the poor in the developing world. Ghosh observed the socio-political impacts of the unequal pattern of growth are being felt in countries from Thailand to Mozambique to Mexico and now Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries.

Thus the problems and the solutions of sustainability and justice on the frame of international development are just like a vicious circle. I will use a narration from Jayati Ghosh ideas called dignity for all. As the background, to solve widening inequalities, it is necessary to define the minimum basic needs (material needs, livelihood, human security and freedom) that must be achieved for all citizens of the developing world. Achieving these necessary requires a significant increase in production/imports to ensure the availability of goods and services that will ensure these basic needs for the citizens of developing world. As the impact, this will involve extensive use of global resources and this means more natural resource use and more carbon emissions. So, it is clear that this strategy of ensuring basic needs for all in a sustainable way cannot and will not be achieved on the basis of the existing model of growth (Ghosh, 2011: 165).

Mainstream Contradiction

While those  arguments above that tend not to giving good prospective future of current development process for sustainability and justice in the earth, sure there are some ideas and work have been proposed and done to make better world for all. Escobar (2011) denies that the world is some sort will progressively and inevitably be fully occupied by capitalist modernity by taking sustainability as design for the pluriverse. His notion of sustainability would be one capable of inspiring the popular and scientific imaginations alike to take steps that are at once pragmatic and transformative in the path towards more ethical and ecological words. This idea is as important stream as some radical thoughts in socialism that provides a powerful critique of the environmental and developmental impacts of capitalism. They emphasize in particular the political dimensions to decisions about society and nature, and challenge the notion that sustainable development can be achieved through technical and managerial responses alone (Adams, 2009: 200). But again, as the reality faced today, it is being stumbled by the challenge of the powerful contrary trends in indicators such as energy use, emissions, land appropriation, poverty, militarism and breakdown in governance systems. Arsel (2011) explains the reason why the optimistic concept of sustainable development becomes uncredible anymore, it is because what we are faced with conflicts in which the central role is played not by the natural resources themselves but by the unequal distribution of their use. This is also mentioned by Gosh (2011) that there is already widespread evidence of greater tension and conflicts over access to and control over land, water, forests and certain mineral resources; such conflicts are erupting within nations and internationally.

Conclusion

The realisation of pro-growth worldwide development model has challenged the complexity meanings of sustainable development discourses. This is because the global economic patterns which is dominated by capitalist system have been contributed to the worsening of both quality and quantity of earth limited natural resources. It also has produced the condition which so called an inequality to the welfare distribution all over the world. Therefore a new and different development frame is required to adjust with the pressure of sustainability and justice demands. What also important is to taking seriously and properly the idea of sustainable development as the common priority world agenda by promoting anykind effort of international movements in social, economy and politics that pro sustainable environment and more secure for all human race.

References

Adams, W.M. (2009) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in a Developing World / W.M. Adams. London [etc.]: Routledge.

Alier, J.M. (2009) 'Socially Sustainable Economic De‐growth', Development and Change 40(6): 1099-1119.

Arsel, Murat (2011) Fuelling Misconceptions: UNEP, Natural Resources, the Environment and Conflict. Development and Change 2011, pp 448-457.

Castro, Carlos J. (2004), ‘Sustainable Development: Mainstream and Critical Perspectives,’ Organization & Environment v.17 (June): 195–225.

Escobar, Arturo (2011) “Sustainability: Design for the pluriverse” Development,54(2), pp. 137–140.

Ghosh, J. (2011) 'Sustaining Real Development in the South', Development 54(2): 164-166.

Redclift, Michael R. (2006), ‘Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age,’ Horizontes Antropológicos v.3, 12(25): 65-84.

Robinson, J. (2004), ‘Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development,’ Ecological Economics 48(4): 369-384.