Criticism of sustainable development and Sustainable development in the Southeast Asian context
Criticism of sustainable development: The implementation in Southeast Asia
. Introduction
The concept of 'sustainable development' has become a popular topic of intense debate and extensive discourse since its inclusion in the World Commission on Environment and Development Bruntland Report in 1987. 'Our common future' is now believed to be the discourse of 'sustainable development'. Academics originally thought it was a breakthrough and had the potential to become ethos for further positive economic and environmental reforms. Unfortunately, following the promulgation of the sustainable development concept, its actual meaning became increasingly clouded, with different definitions being adopted across groups. Some people may think that the term sustainable development 'has become more of a catch-phrase than a revolution of thought, and employing its use has simply fuelled the interests of advocates of exponential economic growth, undermining environmental reforms.'(Hove,2004:48). Others contended that the common usage of'sustainable development' was too narrow in its preoccupation with stewardship and the interests of future generations while these were important factors in the concept, it should also include other goals, such as 'providing adequate income...reducing disparities...and providing equitable access to resources.'(Pierce,1992:312). Sustainable development is often discussed as a purely environmental objective, but this paper will explore its broader relevance and its emergence as a new development paradigm at many scales for example political, economic, social and cultural aspects. This paper is going to analyse both the positive and negative points of the discourses of sustainable development and draw out the practical problems that stand within the world today. The essay outlines the issues concerning sustainable development that it has addressed, and even more importantly, what it has failed to address and whether the discussions it can reflected genuinely new ideas about development. Why did the concept of sustainable development emerge? What exactly is this concept of sustainable development and its relevance for different parts of the world and difference scales of application? These questions would be considered in this essay.
2. Literature review
2.1 The origins of sustainable development
Environmental degradation is now apparent a global problem. In addition to the over consumption and deterioration of what were once considered free goods such as air and water, escalating scarcity of natural resources, deforestation, desertification and threatened bio-diversity are now commonplace across the spectrum. One of the positions put forward is that environmental degradation is the result and inevitable price of economic development. However, environmental quality directly affects human welfare, especially health, living conditions and global climate change. The public generally recognize the need of an 'ongoing system to continue functioning into the indefinite future without being forced into decline through exhaustion...of key resources.' (Pierce, 1992:306) and sustainable development is a strategy by which communities seek economic development approaches that also benefit the local environment and quality of life.
'Sustainable development' is commonly understood to have originated from a publication of UN-affiliated World Commission on Environment and Development(UNCED) in 1986 which is known as 'Brundtland Report'. To describe the way of relieving environmental degradation, the concept of sustainable development has been first used and laid out its guiding principle of 'development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.'(WCED, 1987: 43) It was the starting point for the acknowledgment of the relationship between environmental degradation and poverty and emphasises meeting human needs in a manner that respects intergenerational responsibility. The report concluded that if we continue to use up natural resources as we do at present, if we ignore the plight of the poor, if we continue to pollute and waste, then we can expect a decline in the quality of life.(Pierce, 1992:306). Over-consumption in the first world and poverty in the third world are the major causes of environmental degradation.
Following on Earth Summit from the Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, they had created international agreements which respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the global environmental and developmental system and recognize the integral and interdependent nature of the Earth. Three supplementary areas were agreed including; a statement of Forestry Principles, the Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biodiversity and it step forward from previous meetings as it concerned not solely our ecosystem, but life itself. There is the idea of the world being one family, with different countries representing family members who should act in each other's best interests - an analogy frequently employed in global environmentalist discourse (Gupta, 1998:302). The conference aimed to establish a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among States, key sectors of societies and people. Hopes and expectations were high, with the belief that the world would take major steps towards sustainable development by adhering to the new ideals that integrated economic growth, social development and environmental protection.
Sustainable development is about creating: 1)sustainable economies that equitably meet human needs without extracting resource inputs or expelling wastes in excess of the environment's regenerative capacity, and 2)sustainable human institutions that assure both security and opportunity for social, intellectual, and spiritual growth. It is examining the patterns of development so that future generations can live as well as the present generation. It emphasised that 'Environmental degradation is neither the inevitable price of, nor a desirable path for, economic development.' (UNDP, et al, 2005) It means that in order to protect our earth and its environment from destruction of its resources, we need to reverse the recent development style, improving the quality of human life while protecting the Earth's capacity for regeneration, so that we sustain our environment as our future generation could also be benefited from what we have done.
2.2 Mainstream concepts of sustainable development
Sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony. Rather, it is an ongoing process of evolution in which people take actions leading to development. Apart from the Bruntland Report definition, the concept of sustainable development has been evolved. These approaches can be categorized not only by how they differ in terms of policy toward the environment e.g. ecocentric versus anthropocentric; strong regulation versus free market.
The 'ideal' model aimed at structural change of the society. Growth is measured in qualitative terms and non-monetary wealth through individual quality rather than ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
2.2 Mainstream concepts of sustainable development
Sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony. Rather, it is an ongoing process of evolution in which people take actions leading to development. Apart from the Bruntland Report definition, the concept of sustainable development has been evolved. These approaches can be categorized not only by how they differ in terms of policy toward the environment e.g. ecocentric versus anthropocentric; strong regulation versus free market.
The 'ideal' model aimed at structural change of the society. Growth is measured in qualitative terms and non-monetary wealth through individual quality rather than overall standard. It envisages a form of 'pure' sustainable development whereby mankind puts as much in the ecosystems as it takes out. Sustainable development therefore requires to construct new moral value in considerations of all living organisms
The 'strong' or eco-centric interpretation argues that human is situated in nature and not above it, continued economic and social development will harm future environmental capacity. Therefore, ecological preservation should over-ride current economic, social and political aspirations. It believed that humankind is a part of nature, human is only one kind of life forms and it cannot dominate the whole. Humankind is threatening its own existence by self-destruction, by seeking to subjugate the planet and by imposing human domination. Anti-materialistic seek to enhance the non-material (spiritual) dimension of human experience.
The 'weak' or anthropocentric interpretation argues that very few ecological functions are vital to human survival. Humankind is above the nature as divine and has the right to subjugate it. The wealth of natural is only seen in relation to what it can provide service to mankind. Hence, certain ecological values can be traded to achieve an economic, social and environmental balance. Based on materialism and pursuit of wealth, the scientific-rationalist concept believed that the planet Earth exists for the benefit of and exploitation by, the human race. Humankind is seen as something separated from the rest of life on earth - and superior to it.
The 'treadmill' approach viewed natural environment in terms of its utility to the economic system, sustainable development is solely measured in terms of expansion of Gross National Profit (GNP), continually aimed at maximizing production and growth and geared to production imperative with little or no concern of environmental consequences.
Deep Ecology is a radical ecocentric approach which have single-minded in focus and strives to maximise immediate positions primarily through conflict. Deep Ecology advocates want it all, now. For them, anything less than total victory is total failure, hence they have devised strategies and designs focused on winning battles. By contrast, resourcism and mainstream environmentalism are more 'one step at a time' in approach, in that they are designed to achieve long-term gains at relatively modest optimizing increments gained through a blend of cooperation, competition, and, where necessary, conflict. Co-evolution is what happens when many such varied approaches collide in cooperation, competition, and conflict. (RUHL, 1999)
There are generally four dimension of sustainable development including: 1)Social and economic dimensions which address issues such as poverty, health, economy, population and consumption pattern ; 2)Conservation and management resources include reduce the negative disturbance of development to physical environment such as atmosphere, forest, oceans, agriculture; 3)Strengthening the role of major groups recognize the actors of actual implementation of sustainable strategies including people, governments, NGOs etc. and 4)Means of implementation concerned how the changes required can be implemented and organized.
3. Criticisms of sustainable development
Three main critiques were made: 1) sustainable development is Western construct, erpetuating the ideological underpinnings of former approaches, 2) it focuses its efforts on the unsustainable expansion of economic growth, and 3) its broad nature creates dangerous opportunities for actors to reinterpret and mould the approach the way they see fit. (Hove, 2004)
One of the problems with the concept of sustainable development is the lack of an agreed definition, or, at least, a lack of agreement on the implications of that definition. Paul Elkins (1992) points out the problem with the definition of sustainable development on Bruntland report that 'no-where in the Bruntland Report is there a clear statement of how sustainable economic growth can be recognised and distinguished from the patently unsustainable variety which is all the industrial world has so far known'(Elkins, 1992) However, conceptualising sustainable development is in itself problematic, as it is likely to mean different things to different people at different stages in development.
Most of the debate about sustainable development seems to revolve around whether or not the free market economy and environmental protection can be put together, or whether one or another is receiving adequate attention. Sustainable development may attempt to reconcile opposing interests between environmental degradation and economic development, however there still remains a contradiction in terms, as sustainability and economic development are based on very different and often incompatible assumptions. Some environmentalists claimed that sustainable development is an oxymoron. They feel that people who talk about sustainable development are kidding themselves. Eckerberg & Lafferty (1998) states that the precondition of sustainable development 'Business as usual' approach, 'have with no active attempts to ameliorate the negative environment-development consequences of industrialism and open-ended materialism'(Eckerberg & Lafferty 1998: 238) Sustainability is only achievable if there is some equality of experience and outcome. The problem is that the discourse of sustainable development is being concluded within the context of a global capitalist economy, which requires and demands the subordination of nations and social groups as an inherent part of accumulation. Therefore, economic equality is essential to achieve sustainable development. Sustainable development is also dependent upon balancing the interplay of policies and their effective implementation to achieve economic, environmental and social needs. Economic growth requires a secure and reliable energy supply, but it is sustainable only if it does not threaten the environment. Sometimes the policies are mutually reinforcing and sometimes they are in conflict and trades-off will often need to be made.
Sustainable development is usually be considered as ideology as it originally appealed most to those preoccupied with the tendencies of capitalist development to deface the world in its haste to convert anything and everything into commodities which could be sold for a profit. Many advocates of sustainable development have seemed to reason within Western traditions that see humans as stewards of Nature, with responsibility for its care. As the environment is placed at the forefront of debate in western societies, increased attention has moved towards so-called 'global' environmental problems such as climate change and the protection of biodiversity. Some people even saw it as Western hypocrisy surrounding environmental issues and sustainable development and spoke of the sovereign right to exploit forest resources. The current universalistic sustainable development discourse does not yet encompass the distinctiveness of certain regional contexts or the specificities within those contexts and thus encounters problems during stages of implementation.
Some radical activists even believed that 'there is no form of development, sustainable or otherwise, compatible with the health of Nature as a whole, including human beings within it.' On the other hand, anthropocentric critics believed that sustainable development has the danger of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' which means that 'reject the essential with the inessential' or to destroy something good with something bad.
4. Sustainable development in the Southeast Asian context
Southeast Asia is exemplary in displaying requirements for more 'sustainable' development methods and processes in the midst of the rapidity of political, environmental and economic change. It has a trend of rapid economic growth and large-scale environmental degradation, provides an excellent contextual base from which to explore the meaning of sustainable development.
Parnwell and Bryant describe the development in southeast Asian as the 'intensely political nature of sustainable development-from its initial definition to its attempted implementation.' (Parnwell and Bryant, 1996:2). It also encompasses social, historical and cultural considerations alongside regard for production and the environment and the interplay between these elements. At the heart of these conflicts remain differing sets of values, interests, priorities and needs that fluctuate not only across social strata and political interests, but also across scenarios, in which the development process is at different stages of implementation.
The sustainable development in contemporary Southeast Asia has been largely conditioned by historical factors, particularly those during the colonial interlude, which have initiated a resource dependency in the region. Export-orientated resource extraction is the main economic activities and dealt Southeast Asia's environment a significant destruction. Rapid resource extraction for an export-orientated economy has been exacerbated by patterns of permanent agriculture, with cleared land being used to produce cash crops. Moreover, as the processes of globalisation and regional integration become more implicit within the Southeast Asian society, governments are competing to position themselves within a global economic order. This continuing process has begun to push the resource exploitation into peripheral areas for example Thai logging companies moving into the abundant forest reserves of Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. Consequently the 'exploited' are now the 'exploiters'. Parnwell and Bryant(1996:5) describes the interconnectedness of colonial politics and environmental change. 'The widespread conversion of forest to field in southern Burma would not have occurred without a package of incentives offered to peasants by the colonial state designed to facilitate this process.' Southeast Asia should be viewed within this historical context as it offers the observer a pattern of human-environment interaction which has wide political and ecological ramifications, creating an exploitative tradition within its territories for large financial rewards.
Nationally, the influence of the state becomes paramount to issues regarding sustainable development. 'Political ecology addresses environmental questions through a political-economic lens of state, capital and social formation, which determines patterns of control over natural resources.' (Hirsch and Warren, 1998:55). The political sources and their motivations to better comprehend what sustainable development might mean in the Southeast Asian context. The state sovereignty is an influential actor and catalyst of environmental change, there remains a conflict in its role. The construction of the Nam Theun Hinboun hydro-power project in Laos which it hopes to become the battery for Southeast Asia and earn valuable foreign exchange for its struggling economy represents 'an inherent, continuing potential for conflict between the state's roles as developer and as protector and steward of the natural environment on which its existence ultimately depends.' (Walker, 1989:32) These kinds of projects show how state policy plays such a crucial role in contemporary human-environment interaction and demonstrate the kinds of dilemmas faced by governments and the impact on local communities, but they are often touted as the epitome of sustainable development.
In Southeast Asia there is a dependency on resources and resource exploitation is continuing because economic growth is prioritised at the state level. The meaning of sustainable development in the region is also defined by the input of and control over business enterprise, which in Southeast Asia continues to be dominated by capitalism, and the relatively recent influx of transnational corporations, which have both been instrumental in the process of industrialisation with profound ecological and social impacts. Business elites may feel threatened by efforts to implement environmentally protective measures, or development which purports to be 'sustainable' because their power is often maintained with profits derived from non-renewable resources. (Walker, 1989:42)
The processes of development have regional trends and similarities and are also affected by externalities and the new international division of labour. A global, eco-centric sustainable development concept that is, or is seen to be, driven by rich western nations becomes wrought with inadequacy when implemented within national or local environments. "Location-specific circumstances should be taken into account in the operationalisation of the sustainability concept" (Nijkamp and Vreeker, 1999:13) Advocacy of the need for conceptual variations to be incorporated in the meaning of sustainable development, should thus be aware and in accordance with the requirements of particular peoples and environments at different stages of development.
Dividing the concept of sustainable development into global, regional, national and local definitions could also be problematic, as it could undermine the collective global effort to implement the concept. Current political rhetoric focuses on the inclusion of a universalistic sustainable development concept in the policy making process, but implements it according to the state's definition of what sustainable forms of development might constitute, or what might be most suitable for their political or economic interests. Moreover, the wide manipulation of the concept and the way it is practiced is largely a consequence of government needs and priorities. The elusiveness of the concept encourages varying interpretations of sustainable development practice. 'Our Common Future', while espousing a universal form of sustainable development, recognised that there remain certain conditions affecting promotion of a common cause. 'Our inability to promote the common interest in sustainable development is often a product of the relative neglect of economic and social justice within and amongst nations.' (WCED, 1987:49) In the Southeast Asian context its meaning has been applied in several controversial areas. An area in which analysis is particularly illustrative is that of eco-tourism, which encompasses the issues of needs and priorities while demonstrating the continuing lack of regard for elements contained within the broader notion of the sustainable development concept.
In Southeast Asia, eco-tourism is adopted by governments and private enterprises and sold to tourists in the form of new and exciting destinations. However, over time, as numbers of tourists intensify, the impact they have on local environments will increase, alongside greater control of activities by the tourist industry as it vies to profit from increasing demands. Eco-tourism in Indonesia has witnessed the opening of various national parks to increasing numbers of tourists, but as Cochrane notes, they are having little benefit on local ecosystems and communities. 'Thailand's Northern province of Chiang Mai, 'eco-treks' are promoted to offer tourists 'rare' glimpses of hill minorities in their natural environments, they have become so popular that they are now a serious threat to hill communities, whose needs are rarely considered, and whose fragile lifestyles are overexposed.' 'Indonesia ecotourism is not currently making much of a contribution to conservation, and there are certainly few examples of it being sustainable.'(Cochrane, 1996:259)
5. Conclusion
Sustainable Development is a challenge for all people around the world and should not be handled in isolation, in order to ensure that the relationships of all aspects of life between human and nature are involved such that economic growth is achieved whilst the environment is also properly cared for. The definition remains vague and thus it is debated by different perspectives with different emphasis. Issues concerning sustainable development are extremely complex with constant competition of conflicting needs and interests. What must be remembered here is that the shift towards sustainable development was never going to be easy. The topic itself is a huge challenge for humanity and one that can only be overcome if forces are joined at every level. However, instead of debating the definition, what is more important is how we respond to the challenge and therefore achieve the implementations to make a better life for present and future generations.
The environmental challenge in terms of rectifying the damage done through the past development, such as global warming; and ensuring future conservation of resources, such as overcoming poverties also ensures that the future fulfillment of development aspirations in the world, is dependent on collective actions of all societies across the globe. The different stages of development as well as other main obstacles in achieving sustainable development need to be tackled. To embark upon them, global awareness is important to support international cooperation. The discourse on sustainable development contains the possibilities of transformation, but the realities of power dictate the financing and allocation of aid. Moreover, conventional approaches to sustainable development, in so far as they are based on the pursuit of economic growth, are unlikely to produce either sustainability or development.
"Sustainable development strategy cannot be fixed or static. It must evolve, and also be custom-designed for conditions specific to place and culture." (Mitchell, 1994:146) To argue the case for a region specific definition of sustainable development would expose it even further to political manipulation and could potentially hinder successful implementation efforts. The conflicts emerging from sustainable development discourse seem to coincide with conflicts arising from implementation efforts. In a diverse region such as Southeast Asia there is a clear need not only for a distinctive Southeast Asian definition of sustainable development, but for particular nationalised and localised definitions as well.
Sustainable development as a universal concept is therefore, problematic when we take into account the diversity of the Southeast Asian region. The consideration of varying factors in the political, socio-cultural and economic realms should be inherent in the conceptualisation of sustainability and sustainable development practice to ensure that methods can be implemented more successfully. It is important to recognise the relationships between criteria to better understand the forces and impacts of change. For example, while the espousal of a universalistic sustainable development definition is problematic, it is also unhelpful to separate the processes of environmental change from the impact of international economic forces. "The environment in the international economy is an internationalised environment and one which often exists to serve economic and political interests far removed from a specific physical 'location' (Redclift, 1987:79)
6. Reference
Brown J.(1996)'What is sustainable development' Global Vistas International Studies Education Project of San Diego (ISTEP).
Cochrane, Janet (1996), 'The sustainability of ecotourism in Indonesia: Fact and fiction.' In Parnwell, Michael J.G. and Bryant, Raymond L. (eds) 'Environmental Change in South-East Asia: People, Politics and Sustainable Development', London: Routledge.
Elkins, P.(1992) A New World Order. London: Routledge.
Eckerberg K. & Lafferty W.(1998) From the Earth Summit to Local Agenda 21: Working towards Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan Publications.
Hirsch, Philip and Warren, Carol, (eds) (1998), 'The Politics of Environment in South-East Asia: Resources and Resistance.' London: Routledge.
Hove,H.(2004), 'Critiquing sustainable development: a meaningful way of mediating the development. impasse?' Undercurrent[1], 48-54.
Mitchell, B (1994), 'Institutional Obstacles to Sustainable Development in Bali, Indonesia.' Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 15, 2, 145-56.
Nijkamp, P and Vreeker, R. (2000), 'Sustainability assessment of development scenarios: Methodology and application to Thailand', Ecological Economics, 33, 1, 7-27.
Pierce, J.T.(1992), 'Progress and the Biosphere: The Dialectics of Sustainable Development', The Canadian Geographer, 36[4] 306-320.
Pinkney-Baird, Jonathan (1993) Agenda 21: Sustainable Development and Volunteering. Volunteer Centre UK.
Parnwell, Michael J.G. and Bryant, Raymond L. (eds) (1996), 'Environmental Change in
South-East Asia: People, Politics and Sustainable Development', London: Routledge.
Redclift, M. (1992), 'Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions', London: Metheun.
RUHLJ.B.(1999) 'THE CO-EVOLUTION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: COOPERATION, THEN COMPETITION, THEN CONFLICT' Duke Envtl. L. & Pol'y F. 161
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/delpf/articles/delpf9p161.htm#FA0
World Commision on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future.(The Brundtland Report) Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks.