Contradictions within the concept of sustainability

Introduction:

 

The concept of ‘Sustainability’ is bringing many complexities for those studying the concept. The starting point of any work is generally the United Nation Conference on Environment and Development of Rio (or ‘Rio Earth Submit’) in 1992, where the interdependencies between human and natural systems became an international evidence. The WCED Report of 1987 is also considered as a prelude to the ‘Rio Submit’. Many discussions and debates have since been led and are still going on, from the definition of the concept to the practical applications of ‘sustainable development’ or the possible ways of achievement. This intellectual emulation and those  academic divergences seem to reflect possible contradictions within “the concept goal of sustainability” and “the process of sustainable development”, as described by Dovers and Handmer (1993). In other words, this process appear as finding the best management of environmental, social or economical ( and also moral and ethical) conflicts. Yet it seem relevant to try to understand the real meaning of those contradictions, how sustainability appear as a concept of contradictions and how the conflicts are managed in practice.

After discussing the concept of ‘sustainability’ and the possible contradictions, we will try to illustrate some of the main contradictions highlighted by Dover and Handmer in their article “Contradictions in Sustainability” (1993), through the evolution of the agricultural and environmental policy in Ethiopia.

 

 

Contemporary sustainability and the Three E’s:

 

According to Holmberg and Sandbrook (1992), 70 current definition are usually listed with different variants, reflecting the disciplinary standpoint of  the authors and the point of view of the theoreticians and practitioners of environment and development. The most popular and maybe the most simple and clearer explanation of ‘sustainable development’, given by G. H. Brundtland in the ‘World Commission on Environment and Development Report’ (or commonly the Brundtland Report) in 1987, is “… a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This definition based on the moral principles of intergenerational and intragenerational equity “or justice between generations” is one of main contradiction argued by Dovers and Handmer.

Moreover, this formulation and especially the Brundtland report may have created the first framework for governments and other organizations “to take concerted action to protect the earth's life support systems in ways that simultaneously promoted economic goals (development, growth and employment) and ‘social justice’ objectives (greater equality both within and among nation-states)” (Kirkby J., O’Keefe P. & Timberlake, 1995).

From a conceptual point of view it is commonly admitted that it contained the first articulation of what is seen as the key characteristic of contemporary sustainability principles, known as the Three E’s, where any proposed action or initiative should be evaluated with reference to the simultaneous structural interaction of the three fundamental criteria: ‘Environment’, ‘Economy’ (especially employment), and ‘Equity’ (social/community equality or social justice). A forth E is sometimes introduced to show the importance of education to achieve ‘sustainability’.

Nevertheless the Tree E’s principles illustrate some contradictions especially when considering the Ecology-Environment one. Within this first E, short-term and long-term time perspective may be considered just as piecemeal and systemic appreciation of the indispensability of ecosystems for the viability of human existence. In this context, environmental sustainability abandons the philosophy of short-term gains in exchange for the long-term viability of our resource use, especially in areas like resource extraction, agriculture, transportation, manufacturing and building materials. At last ecosystems know limitations which can be illustrated with reference to the decimation of oceans from overfishing, forests from clear-cutting, and fresh water from toxins and pollutants all of which ended up creating not simply ecological crisis, but long-term economic dislocation as well.

However, ecosystems are confronted to the economical needs of growth. Economic sustainability speaks to the relationship between employment needs and environmental protection. (see contradiction in Dovers & Handmer, 1993, “Grouth versus Limit” p.219 and below). Thus, the second ‘E’ for Economic sustainability departs from traditional environmentalism in its recognition of the importance of providing secure, long-term employment without compromising the health of ecosystems. Having a healthy environment while simultaneously providing the basis for a dynamic economy that will endure for an extended period all these are viewed in sustainability as complementary, rather than conflicting issues.

The Third aspect of sustainability, Equity-Equality attempts to add a sense of community to the existing mix of ecologically-minded, long-term economic development. The community-building aspect of sustainability recognizes the importance of cooperation and concern for one's neighbour. At a fundamental level, members of a sustainable community understand that the well-being of the individual is ultimately dependent on the well-being of the larger community and vice-versa (see in Dovers & Handmer, 1993, “Individual versus Collective Interests” p.219). In this context, social cohesion, and virtues such as compassion and tolerance, are more likely to thrive in an environment where all members of the community feel that their contribution to the whole is recognized and appreciated, and where a fair and equitable distribution of resources is recognized as essential for the long-term viability of the group as a whole. In this sense, sustainability argues that just and equitable resource allocation is not simply ethical or moral, but essential for the well-being of the larger

community in this case, the entire world (http://www.tew.org/publications/st.introduction.html#5).

But those definitions of the principles of  sustainability seem to be more ‘Eco-centred’, in reference to the roots of modern environmentalist of ‘ecocentrism’ opposed to ‘technocentrism’ integrating more complexities (egocentrism, homocentrism and ecocentrism) (Pepper, 1996), other aspects of contradictions environmental policies and resource management are dealing with.

 

From those perspectives, adopting a sustainable management is complex in practice, especially in countries or areas where the basic needs are difficult to complete.

The case of Ethiopia, much more complicated than what will be explained here, will be used to illustrate the applications of the some contradictions within the concept of sustainable development through the evolution in the agro-environmental policy in this country, almost during the 1980’s and 1990’s.

 

Environmental problem in Ethiopia (Keeley J. & Scoones I. 2003):

 

The management of soils has long been a concern in Ethiopia but also Mali and Zimbabwe as illustrated in “Understanding environmental policy processes: Cases from Africa” by Keeley an Scoones (2003). Natural resource-based agriculture is, in those countries, essential to the livelihoods of the majority of the population, and soil management is the key component of this. Thus, decline of fertility and soil erosion, leading to desertification are generally the common framework for debates, resulting in major development efforts.

 

In Ethiopia (Keeley & Scoones Chapter 4 p.72), the major famine of 1984 was explicitly linked to natural resources degradation (EHRS report 1986) and influenced different environmental programs. A strong ‘conservation-agriculture’ policy was first efficiently followed, with strategies of environmental rehabilitation at its centre. Different solutions where planned as the restoration of woodlots, hillsides closures, terracing, bunding.

In a second phase (1990’s), principally generated by the major political changes, consisted of the promotion of a ‘Green Revolution’ and the use of technology like fertilisers, supported by the “scientific establishment” and “agricultural authority”. The support of this new policy was reinforced by personal influences derived from educational and training experiences. The mean goal was to increase agricultural productivity. Food self-sufficiency was the strongly prioritised policy issues. But it has to be said that the success of those measures have been strongly reinforced by exceptional ‘raining-fall years’.

Thus the sustainable issues of this policy were not really certified, whereas today the conservation of the soil is less linked to food relief but more to a rehabilitation on the ‘development agenda’. A third phase has now reincorporated the soil conservation aspects into the agricultural extension and intensification policy. The aims are now to “insure the rehabilitation and the conservation of the natural resources, base of agriculture, principally through biological measures such as the use of legumes, crop rotations, alley-cropping and use of compost”.

 

Contradictions observed:

 

In this case the first contradiction that appears is the problem of preventing famine and preserving the resources at the same time. As Keeley and Scoones are saying “the general Malthusian narrative is very familiar in Ethiopia: With growing population resource depletion is accelerating […] wide spreading deforestation overgrazing, biodiversity loss, soil erosion and soil fertility loss” . In the 1980’s into the1990’s, the treat of famine was the core of the Environmental discourse, strongly established in centre of rural development policy. “During this period huge conservation works were constructed using food-for work programmes”. 

 

Technology versus culture (Dovers & Handmer,1993)

Science as in many cases, is a main component in policy processes. The intensification of agriculture by importation of techniques, tools and agronomic products from the West or the East blocks, have led to the impoverishment and erosion of the soil, deforestation and desertification, and at last, but not as the only cause, to famine. On the other hand technology has permitted to fertilize the soil and made the land more productive. Before this ‘Green Revolution’ different rational measures as scientific research and education, have been led to preserve the soil and restore environment. According to “Contradictions in sustainability” those changes in society is a “culture ability […] to reason, communicate, plan, and invent, that allows us to entertain desirable changes.” In the same way, the two phases described by Dovers & Handmer have occurred in Ethiopia: “Up to present the dominant manifestation of culture has been technology in the service of intensive growth. A sustainable future would have to see technology used more and more in service of environment.” But the ancestral knowledge of the community should not be forgotten in our case and may be considered seriously. This is one of the reason why community involvement is so important in sustainable development. According to this, the combination of technology and culture within the involvement of the community in policies, have shown more effectiveness than a previous top/down action plan. But the policy seem also to gain success by a combination of top/down and down/top processes.

 

Intergenerational versus Intragenerational (Dovers & Handmer,1993)

This contradiction, as evocated above, is a difficult question when a response to immediate needs is required. But considering the future has been shown here as a real necessity, as the erosion and impoverishment of the soil have already affected the highland population. This issues has mainly contributed to the awareness of the need to preserve the resources.  

 

Growth versus limits and optimisation versus spare capacity (Dovers & Handmer,1993)

Those issues can also be discussed and linked with the previous ones, as the growth agricultural production was needed in Ethiopia for basic livelihood and food self-sufficiency. The success of the ‘Green revolution’ optimised by favourable climatic conditions have allowed the country to export some of it production, representing a significant economic achievement. But the limited resources and ‘less gentle’ rain-falls are still in mind and bring new questions such-as the need to optimise agriculture while thinking about spare the capacity of the soils end general resources.

 

Other contradictions may be found as ‘Individual versus Collective Interests’, and further analyses are still possible in this case study. Yet, it has to be said that it would be simplistic and wrong to consider the example of Ethiopia used here, is a good illustration of  a ‘sustainable development process’. Different political and social input might be considered, adding more complexity to the different issues. But on the other hand it constitute an interesting case not only for it environment/human (community) relations but mainly for the interactions of conflicts and influences in policy making process, to reach a more ‘sustainable compromise’ by a real complex road towards sustainability, one of the issues presented in Keeley and Scoones book’s.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

It seem that every environment/human problem have to deal with contradictions. The sustainable development process has to be considered as a step forward to attain the goal of sustainability, by trying to reconcile the existing contradiction and maybe find an idealistic ‘win-win solution’. This goal is maybe not achievable in practice and is perhaps mainly consisting in finding a balance in the contradictions. It may also result in alternative solution in some cases. Nevertheless it seem important to keep in mind the concept-process as the better way to follow and as a necessity or moral obligation, more than luxury that only developed countries can afford.

To conclude, it seem, in our case, that Dovers and Handmer have well identified the principal contradictions present in most of environmental problems. Some others may surly be added to these. Nevertheless saying that “there are contradiction within the concept of sustainability  might be wrong. It is more the process of sustainable development tending to sustainability that has to deal with contradictions, not the concept that is contradicted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References :

 

Keeley J. & Scoones I., 2003, Understanding environmental policy processes: Cases from Africa, Earthscan, London

 

Pepper D., 1996, Modern Environmentalism, Routledge, London

 

Kirkby J., O’Keefe P. & Timberlake, 1995, Sustainable Development, Earthscan, London, 371 p.

 

Dovers S. R. & Handmer J. W.,1993, Contradictions in Sustainability, in Environmental Conservation, Vol. 20, Nr 3, The Foundation for Environmental Conservation

 

Holmberg J. & Sandbrook R., 1992, Sustainable Development: What is to be Done?, in Holmberg (ed) Policies for a Small Planet, Earthscan, London

 

 

‘Sustainability Today: A Compass for the Future’ By: Andres R. Edwards

(http://www.tew.org/publications/st.introduction.html#5)

 

UNCED.

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/docs_unced.htm