Sustainable Development

It has been ten years since the adoption of "Agenda 21"a program of global action for sustainable development (SD)at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Now governments and civil society organizations are getting ready for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which will be held this August/September in Johannesburg, South Africa, to assess the last ten years' efforts and to adopt concrete steps and strategies to better implement SD.

As part of the preparations for the WSSD, APCEIU (Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding) held a research forum this past June 4 on four WSSD-related topics, for the purpose of promoting the spread of this relatively new concept of SD in Korean schools and society.

This article will revisit the concept, debates and practices surrounding "sustainable development" by relating them to the main points of the presentations and subsequent open discussion at the APCEIU forum. The forum presenters were: Myung-Je Cha (Korean Presidential Advisory Commission on Sustainable Development); Chang-In Yoon (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy); Mi-Young Lee (Executive Secretary of Korea Women's Environmental Network); and Pil-Yul Lee (Professor of Korea National Open University).

The concept of sustainable development has some inner contradictions from the start, due to its global-level challenge to balance economic growth with resource sustainability and a healthy environment. Specifically, though SD aims to find ways to harmonize economic development (the core goal of the dominant Western modernization model) with preservation of nature (resources and environment), in fact, western-style modernization (industrial development) depends on the destruction of nature. A second contradiction lies in SD's dual liberal/conservative character, considering that it supports progressive, liberal visions without assuming the possibility of fundamental changes in the market economy system.

Reviewers of the SD concept, back in 1992, counted ad many as 40 different definitions of SD (see Oldfield and Shaw, 2002), and one critic has harshly named it "a flawed concept" (Lascelle, 2002). In many debates it has been pointed out that the SD concept is too "fluid" (see IISD) or "slippery" (Oldfield and Shaw, 2002) to be explicitly defined as one concrete and solid concept. The definitions of sustainable development tend to differ across many groups such as national governments, business organizations and civic organizations (NGOs) depending on their own interpretations.

Sustainable development, however, has some common attributes at an abstract level in the varied conceptualizations defined by each different organization: (1) equity and fairness, (2) a future-oriented long-term view and (3) a holistic framework of thinking. This article is organized around these three common characteristics of sustainable development by linking them with the presenters' arguments and the open discussion at the APCEIU forum<1>.

1. These three are modifications by the author of the original formulations of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

Sustainable development is concerned with meeting the needs of the powerless and marginalized portions of our current population: the poor, women, even future generations--those who are excluded from the present decision-making processes. Thus, it is no coincidence that the concepts of equity and fairness are the most prominent in definitions of sustainable development, which means that uses and distribution of resources and opportunities should be equal and fair betweem the North and the South, men and women, the present generation and future generations, etc. Moreover, with the ever increasing global integration of recent years, inequality between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is becoming more and more aggravated.

As both Myung-Je Cha and Chang-In Yoon concurred in their forum presentations, poverty become a core topic in sustainable development, due to the common perception that poverty is a fundamental cause of a variety of other social and environmental problems, and that overcoming poverty is essential for sustainable development. Cha reminded the forum that throughout the history of the various global conferences, there have always been conflicting interests between the developed countries and the Third World; and Yoon pointed out that the poverty issue is intertwined with other global issues such as women's rights, climate change, biodiversity and environmental pollution.

Yoon's view of poverty, however, seemed to reflect a positive evaluation of the effects of globalization on the world economy and of the logic of the developed countries (whose economic systems are market-centered), as he focused more on market-oriented solutions to poverty. In contrast, many of the discussion participants emphasized the negative aspects of economic globalization as a system and process that exacerbates Third World poverty through multinational corporatism, neocolonialism and exploitation of labor. That is, due to the unequal economic structures at both global and national levels, equity and fairness in the worldwide flow of capital, power and labor are difficult to achieve--not only between the poor and the rich in any given nation but also between the North and the South at the global level.

The unequal and unfair distribution of resources and power is not confined only to the flow of wealth. Empowering women with the ability to influence and participate in decision-making processes is also important for sustainable development. On behalf of one of the "major 9 multi-stakeholders," Mi-Young Lee of the Women's Environmental Network argued that there should be "gender equality" and "gender equity" through "mainstreaming women" and "mainstreaming gender" in the process of decision-making on sustainable development issues. Women's involvement in the process of sustainable development is significant in the sense that their success may give words to the voiceless, i.e., "the hidden and unheard voices of the oppressed, the powerless and the marginalized," based on the belief that all kinds of oppression are similar and interconnected, and therefore liberation of women, nature and other oppressed groups should be accomplished through the integration of the various sectors of society.

Likewise, equity and fairness must be considered in the light of the energy and environment issues, because future generations can also be considered "the voiceless," having no ability to speak on their own behalf or to protect their interests in the decision-making process. Pil-Yul Lee maintained that each and every one of us now living in this globalized world should take seriously our responsibility to hand over the Earth to the next generation in healthy condition, giving our descendants the same equal and fair opportunity to utilize its resources.

Along with equity and fairness, the importance of taking a future-oriented, long-term view in discussing sustainable development cannot be overemphasized. In order to live together with others on this Earth, we think not only of the present but of the future as well, remembering not only "us" but also "them."

Pil-Yul Lee told the forum that the concept of "sustainability" originated from the exhaustion of natural resources. This means that the resource problem should be resolved as a priority issue, because it constitutes the foundation of our way of living. Clearly, there are limits to the amounts of fossil fuels and metal ores that can be extracted from the earth: the planet, after all, has a finite mass. Resources should not be removed faster than they can be renewed, nor disposed of more quickly than they can be absorbed. In line with the recent position of environmentalists, Lee also warned that we should be even more concerned about running out of the sinks of resources. The amount of actual production and reserves of conventional oil, for example, is decreasing more and more rapidly, at a speed much greater than was expected by mainstream economists and scientists (e.g., Lomborg, 2001). Another very grave threat to the sustainability of the environment, climate change, is occurring very gradually, but unlike the mainstream scientists, Professor Lee argued that we all should be concerned about this change from the long-term view.

Despite concerns and criticisms related to the high costs of developing renewable energy sources, Lee's argument was based on the firm belief that "endless efforts toward Utopia should be made through fundamental change of our patterns of living, however distant and unreachable the idealized vision seems," and that "wise distribution as well as wise use of resources can only bring a better way of life for the mutual benefit of all." This viewpoint is strongly linked to the holistic framework of thinking that is discussed below; that is, he showed that the energy problem and changing patterns of our daily life are integrally connected to other, different areas and issues, and that our continuous efforts to overcome all these problems with a long-term view can lead to decentralization of political powers and systems and eventually bring about solid grassroots democracy.

Likewise, with regard to the "mainstreaming of gender" in SD, it was suggested at the APCEIU forum that some totally new and different paradigms may be necessary for the ultimate achievement of equal rights for women, but this is not impossible in the long run, and actual experiments are being carried out in countries such as Germany.

As Pil-Yul Lee pointed out, the resolution of environmental issues and energy problems is deeply connected with other social and political problems and structures. Nowadays, the idea of "hybrid knowledge" and "hybrid culture" is becoming familiar to the public not only through the media and on the streets, but also in academe (e.g., Sungook Hong). The implication is that through interdisciplinary mixing and connecting of seemingly different or separate concepts and fields, a synergy is formed to induce more productive outcomes and creative solutions to problems.

Sustainable development strategies usually underscore the interplay between "local and global," "developing/underdeveloped and developed," and the need for cooperation "within and between" sectors. The more globalized the world system, the more interconnected are all problems and phenomena. Therefore, solutions to current problems should also be sought through cross-connecting and integrating all the different levels and dimensions of the whole system. Every sector in society (ex. economic, environmental, political) is connected to every other.

This "inter-connectivity" is required in every level and dimension, especially in terms of sustainable development: in academe (interdisciplinary exchange of ideas and research outcomes); in linking academic theories with real life practices; in cooperation between public and private sectors at local levels; and in efforts to enhance communication and solidarity through exchanging information and integrating activities at the global level.

In this vein, the APCEIU forum on WSSD was a meaningful opportunity for scholars, NGO leaders and policy makers to gather in a public space for productive discussion and cooperative deliberation on sustainable development from these various perspectives.

Thinking about sustainable development at an abstract level in this way (that is, by extracting three common basic characteristics from varied definitions) can be meaningful in the sense that it allows open discussion of the topic in an integrating, connective and interdisciplinary way. Conversely, this level of abstraction is also subject to criticism, since it may contribute further to the confusion surrounding the concept of SD (e.g., Lascelles, 2002; Oldfield and Shaw, 2002). Thus, I would like to make the following suggestions for further development of WSSD.

First of all, the established path of modernization (industrial development) should be reexamined at this point in order to implement sustainable development in the true sense. The official concept of sustainable development takes for granted) the capitalistic market economy system (that is, the growth-oriented development system). The various definitions of SD have never challenged this basic assumption.

As brought out in this APCEIU forum, it seems that the approaches to SD are clearly divided into two general parts. The policy makers, the First World and the "haves" seem to lean toward the notion that Sustainable Development can be achieved within the dominant Western development model of continuous growth, whereas those who are engaged in social movements and criticism of the negative effects of global capitalism tend to view that the achievement of SD must be allied to a fundamental shift in our understanding of what constitutes development (Oldfield and Shaw, 2002).

Second, SD should be revisited not just at the abstract level of conceptualization but also in terms of concrete methods of putting it into practice in real life. This should be a major concern of the WSSD. The concept of SD is so broad and inclusive that there has been no meaningful progress in implementing it. More concrete and practicable action plans and strategies are needed simultaneously with the sharpening of theoretical conceptualization. For instance, during the APCEIU forum, the women's movement for SD was cautioned not to lose its focus through too narrow a concentration on "mainstreaming gender," whichby fighting only for limited interests such as equal male-female employment ratesmight get in the way of developing more concrete, participatory and practical methods of "mainstreaming women's views."

Here, the concept of "social capital""those stocks of social trust, norms and networks that people can draw upon to solve common problems" (from Civic Practices Network)can be usefully adopted in SD for the construction of civil society, civic connectivity and solidarity at local and global levels. The denser the networks of civic engagement, the more likely the members of a society (or a community) will cooperate for mutual benefits. Social capital is being usefully adopted and put into practice in relation to certain global issues such as poverty reduction, women's movement, environment and SD, and education. Through joint civic efforts among the sectors of society at both local and global levels, fair and equal distribution of resources, opportunities and power may be achieved.

Finally, a new approach of "mental SD" is needed to overcome the limits and negative impacts of the "materialistic SD" promoted by the dominant Western model of modernization. Established modernization has focused mainly on material achievement. But mottoes such as "think differently, act differently" suggest that there should be drastic change at the fundamental level of spirituality and mentality, ethics and values. As Samuel Lee, the director of APCEIU and Buddhist priest Jinwol suggested, for example, the Eastern values of honest and honorable poverty, conscientiousness and altruistic frugality should be newly adopted as useful guides for future directions of SD. In this sense, education in ethics and values for "living together, helping each other" (the meaning of Sang Saeng 相生) is indispensable and important for implementing SD and reaching a truly sustainable way of life.

References

- Civic Practices Network (http://www.cpn.org).
- Four papers presented at APCEIU Research Forum on the World Summit on Sustainable Development, UNESCO conference room, Seoul, Korea, June 4, 2002.
- Hong, S. Short essays (on http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~sungook/korean/short.html).
- Lascelles, D. (2002). Revisiting the sustainable development concept. (news report on http://allafrica.com).
- Lomborg, B. (2001). TheSkepticalEnvironmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. Cambridge University Press.
- Oldfield, J. D. and Shaw, D.J.B. (2002). Revisiting sustainable development: Russian cultural and scientific traditions and the concept of sustainable development. Paper prepared for the Conference at BASEES (British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies) 2002.
- The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). (http://www.iisd.org).

--written by 우산

(From "Sang Saeng (living together, helping each other)," Vol.4, Summer 2002, a quaterly magazine published by UNESCO/APCEIU)
|}}

Note: When quoting from this article, please contact the author, 'cause you might need 우산's real name.^^;

It shows currently moving tendancies from Eastern to Western. Limitations of modernization ask for the key points of philosophic conclusion in Eastern. Even though those of mentioned topics are quitely abstract, the forum clearly revealed certain flows on the earth. I hope human beings will have the good harmony in the process of globalization over consumption theory on only economic development with harsh competition. However, we have to follow practical ways of living till properly built conceptualization of superior SD appect entire surroundings. Thank you for this page and good luck for your SD. Umbrella always protect us and will do it for the earth. If possible, I'd like to see more concrete INFO for ACPEIU on this page. Thank you in advance. --Roman

Thank you so much for your sincere and thoughout opinion. I really appreciate that and feel so honored. And also happy to get a change to talk with you. btw, in the first sentence of yours, wouldn't it be "from Western to Eastern"?? just wondering...^^;; --우산

If westernized countries were developed by Western methods (including Eastern Countries, Korea, Japan, Chinese, Singapore...) are seaching for important solutions as like as key points of SD, the keys from Estern moving into Western. The flow of answers for present World will be came from Eastern to Western. I intended to express this situation according to the method of great president, Nehru, in his history books by the sentence of "From Eastern to Western." Dominant party for those of topics has higher position on clues of flow.(Yes, I meantioned "Life" as the standard of the position at the aspect only.)--Roman

Aha.. I see. That was due to my lack of understanding in reading your point.^^;;; Now I perfectly understand what you had originally intended to share, and yes, I also see the same kind of tendancy as you pointed out like saying that "Limitations of modernization ask for the key points of philosophic conclusion in Eastern." Besides, like you said, finding a means for harmonizing practical way of life and mental/philosophical values might be somewhat problematic and not so easy as well as necessary and critically important at this point. --우산

갑자기 여성문제가 왜 등장하지? 라는 의문을 가지고 읽다보니, 역시나 한마디 하셨더군요..^^ 잡종적지식 개념을 접목시키신것은 좋은 시도인 것 같습니다.
{{|
The denser the networks of civic engagement, the more likely the members of a society (or a community) will cooperate for mutual benefits. |}}

이 문장에 감동 먹었는데.. 만드신건가요? SocialCapital 에 대해 약간이라도 공부해봐야겠습니다. 재미있을 것 같아요. 상생이라는 잡지는 온라인으로는 볼 수 없나봐요?
정말 잘 정리된 글이라는 느낌을 받았습니다. 게다가 잡지 이름인 상생을 마지막에 등장시키는 센스는 정말...하핫. 수고하셨습니다아~~ (__)
그러나 저러나 난 언제쯤...저렇게 영작을 하나.... --김우재 i know your english is great 'cause i have your thesis.

See also EcologicalFootprint

아티클분류 환경분류