The Politics Of Sustainable Development

Maurice Strong, who spearheaded the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) stated that: ‘Sustainable development involves a process of deep and profound change in the political, social, economic, institutional and technological order, including redefinition of relations between developing and more developed countries.’ This definition signifies one particular element, that is of redefining the international political relations between developing and more developed countries. This may facilitate global negotiations about environmental concerns by accommodating economic and political demands. The principles around sustainable development arose against the backdrop of depletion of resources and environmental degradation. Such principles will be effective only if there is ability, particularly that of industrialised world, of restrictive use of non-renewable resources. In taking a political perspective of sustainable development vis-a-vis the current contemporary economic realities, private actors along with government bodies, occupy increasingly significant roles in terms of global environmental politics, governance mechanism, changing economic system, role of business in implementing, significance of green economy, and changing nature of political dynamics.

Sustainable development imposes challenges to pickup new and different development paths and approaches. Proper political framework has to be in order for its implementation and for considering other factors in the field of modern political system in a particular jurisdiction. For instance, the UK sustainable development policy was created based on i) international covenants and conventions such as the 1979 Convention of Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution and 1985 Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer; ii) national and international legislation such as the 1992 Fifth Action Plan of the Environment that established the policy and implementation programmes; and iii) environmental economics such as the debate around on environment and development where the 1989 contribution of Prof. David Pearce “Blueprint for a Green economy’ proved a landmark and the concept of creating value of environmental products to enable financial measurement of damages.

Act Utilitarianism theory focuses on the ethical decisions to be the principle basis of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Kant’s Duty Ethics focuses on consequences of the acts for decision making. These theoretical principles could be seen reflected in individual actions around sustainable development that received collective actions. Example is the US Environment Protection Agency 33/50 voluntary program that calls for pollution reduction amongst companies to take up least-cost programmes as well as gain positive public recognition. Similarly, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 is to govern waste management and required voluntary action by firms. As they are voluntary, they may face complex and expensive processes, as what one could see with the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 that requires reporting by manufacturing facilities of annual off-site transfers of toxic chemicals and on-site releases. Further, there could be opposition politics against collective action, international laws or conventions. See the United Nations’ Agenda 21: The Rio Declaration on Development and Environment that became a rallying cry for Tea Party, property rights advocates and many others. They oppose sustainability city planning, and have accordingly introduced legislation in 26 US states. They alleged that the planning was allegedly connected to the Agenda 21, which allegedly restricts individual property rights and American sovereignty.

The UK has laid out a political framework that attempts to achieve sustainable development goals in the form of a coordinated implementation of departmental planning process. This is in accordance with the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) expected of signatories to contribute internationally and to deliver them domestically towards removing extreme poverty, fight inequality and injustice. Similar adoption was done by the Australian government under the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C). The important question is to what extent will this be effective in terms of implementation or decide what factors need be considered for effective implementation. It is also a known fact that achieving sustainable development is often deterred by trade-offs, which favour economic growth and make social well-being and ecological viability subservient. This altogether goes against the SDGs. One way to counter this may be by adopting inclusive development principles, which focus on social, ecological and political aspects of development. Similar question is to what extent SDGs framework will will consider such inclusive approach. Inclusive development as such presents three key dimensions, i.e. social, ecological, and relational inclusiveness. Social and ecological roots are considered to articulate social and ecological inclusiveness, whereas power politics are addressed to protect social and ecological goals, which will bring relational inclusiveness. When applied to the SDGs and their aims, SDGs does very well on social inclusiveness, but quite less on ecological and relational inclusiveness. The probability and the risk of shifting more focus on social inclusiveness is available in implementation processes. But, to give effectiveness to SDGs in totality, fair weigh must be given to all the three dimensions.

The problem with implementation may lie in ignoring the local players and factors that mostly lead development programmes. Thus, for creating effective implementation planning, the focus should shift from national–centric approach to more of local-centric approach. This also applies to SDGs as well. Finance should go to those players that advance sustainable development, but are not sufficiently equipped. Nation-centric framework where nations are the focus as they are the center of economic development and financial power should be amended to be more inclusive of municipalities, local governments, and cities. Arguably, economic growth can even protect environment by implementing key policies, though it is also highly possible that it may also overshadow environmental concerns. A strategic comprehensive approach such as implementation of sustainable development may able to foster sustainable development while addressing environmental protection.

Conclusion

A more rapid integration of all the three dimensions of political, social and ecological aspects into political alignment and core principle of sustainable development is the need of the hour. This is to be done considering the fact that nature and role that sustainable development and its politics play may be opened to different or varied interpretations. What is important and the aim to be for achieving the relevant objective is the requirement of concerned institutions and political alignment, which is more than just putting together relevant factors in order.

Books

• Bridgewater G, Politics Of Sustainable Development In The United Kingdom) New Generation Publishing 2017).
• Gupta, J., Cornellissen, V., and Ros-Tonen, M. A. F. ‘Inclusive development’ in P. Pattberg and F. Zelli (eds.), Encyclopedia of global environmental politics and governance (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2015).
• J. Vogler, The international politics of sustainable development. In Handbook of sustainable development (Edward Elgar Publishing 2014).
• Khanna M, The US 33/50 voluntary program: its design and effectiveness. In Reality Check (Routledge 2010).
• Thiroux J and Krasemann K, Ethics Theory and Practice (New York: Pearson-Prentice Hal 2012).
• Timothy C, Eastwood L, Michaelis FLC, Maraseni TN, Pittock J and Sarker T, The political economy of sustainable development: policy instruments and market mechanisms (Edward Elgar Publishing 2015).

D. Mosse, ‘A relational approach to durable poverty, inequality and power’ (2010) 46(7) The Journal of Development Studies, 1156–1178.

Frick T, Weinzimmer KD and Waddell, P, ‘The politics of sustainable development opposition: State legislative efforts to stop the United Nation’s Agenda 21 in the United States’ (2015) 52(2) Urban Studies 209-232.

Gupta, J. and Vegelin, C., ‘Sustainable development goals and inclusive development.’ (2016) 16(3) International environmental agreements: Politics, law and economics 433-448.

Jefferson M, ‘There's nothing much new under the Sun: The challenges of exploiting and using energy and other resources through history’ (2015) 86 Energy Policy 804-811.

Polasky S, Kling SL, Levin SA, Carpenter SA, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Heal GM and Lubchenco J, ‘Role of economics in analyzing the environment and sustainable development’ (2019) 116 (12) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 5233-5238.