Rio+20: “The Future We Want”? Let’s hope it’s better than that
Fiona Nunan is a Lecturer in Environment and Development in IDD, specialising in environment and natural resource management and governance, including fisheries governance and management, poverty and the environment, and impact evaluation methods and approaches. She convenes the module on Transforming Development for Sustainability and co-convenes Critical Approaches to Development and Making Policy on campus and via distance learning.
Drafting outcome documents from international conferences must be no easy task! Just how can you summarise the complex negotiations that have taken place, the diversity of views and interpretations of terms, and the range of commitments, or lack of them? There are just five months to go until the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development takes place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, marking twenty years after the 1992 Earth Summit, also held in Rio. A couple of days ago, the ‘zero draft’ of the outcome document, “The Future We Want”, was released.
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, President of Haiti (at podium), addresses the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), or Earth Summit, 12 June 1992. Photo credit: UN Photo 281533.
The 1992 Earth Summit produced an array of impressive conventions and commitments, including the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21 and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. However, in reading the Zero Draft of the outcome document for the 2012 conference, you get a strong feeling of frustration that progress since 1992 has been slow and piecemeal and that what is really needed is action based on the 1992 agreements rather than yet more new concepts, ideas and targets. Swiftly following the preamble, the second section is entitled “Renewing Political Commitment”, recognising that this is what has been lacking, but are there really any indications that there will be a major change any time soon?
The flyer for the Conference suggests that Rio+20 provides a chance to “move away from business as usual”. Whilst the flyer sets out some innovative approaches that have been taken in moving towards more sustainable development, the draft outcome document doesn’t embrace the same spirit of opportunity. It gives little sense of the urgency or the scale of change required to respond effectively to the major environmental and social challenges faced.
Two key themes have been set for the Conference:
- a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication
- the institutional framework for sustainable development
Sha Zuzkang, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, speaks at the launch of “Rio+20: The Future We Want”, a campaign enabling people around the world to contribute to discussions on sustainability, the world we want in 20 years and how that vision is achieved. Photo credit: UN Photo 495393.
The ‘green economy’ agenda is solution-oriented, looking for green business and employment opportunities, but, is there a danger that the Conference could be taken over, or perhaps has been already, by concerns about global recession and the need for economic growth, without sufficient attention to the state of our planet’s resources and equity in access to those resources. What happened to increasing interest in ideas such as “Prosperity without Growth”, wellbeing and quality of life? Where is the intrinsic value of nature recognised in the Zero Draft Outcome document?
Of course, you wouldn’t expect the outcome document to present detailed solutions, but what would be good to see is greater recognition of the scale of environmental challenges we face, with the existence of nature recognised as being beyond a resource for our insatiable consumption, and stronger commitment to change. Instead of a list of things that must not be done in assisting developing countries build a green economy, positive language is needed, emphasising the opportunities that exist to adopt technologies and approaches that support greater equality and sufficiency, whilst reducing our terrifyingly large impact on the global environment.
Yes, now is the time for much greater political commitment to sustainable development, but let’s hope we’re not looking back in another 20 years, wondering how that time passed, with so little progress to show for it.
David Cobley is a doctoral student in IDD investigating economic empowerment strategies for people with disabilities in Kenya, India and The Philippines. David has worked in the field of disability for 23 years, including managing a care home for adults with learning disabilities
The 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities marked a watershed moment for the worldwide disability movement, but can it really make a difference to the lives of millions of disabled people around the world, many of whom are living in conditions of extreme poverty? This was one of the questions on my mind when I visited India, one of the first countries to sign and ratify the Convention, at the beginning of this year.
At the national level, there was no doubt that efforts were underway to address some important disability issues. A lack of reliable data on the scale of disability in India is widely acknowledged. The 2001 Census, for example, reported a prevalence rate of just 2.13%, while many organisations working in the field estimate the rate to be at least three times that. At the time of my visit, household data was being gathered for the 2011 census, and careful preparations had been made to ensure that the mistakes of the previous census, when the question on disability was inserted at the last minute, were not repeated. The disability question had been given greater prominence on the census form, and enumerators had been given special training on how to raise the topic with sensitivity. Local NGOs were supporting these efforts, by distributing leaflets urging families to answer questions honestly and not to hide their disabled children, out of shame.
Another important Government-led initiative, underway at this time, was a national consultation exercise in preparation for a brand new Disability Act. The new Act is designed to promote the full participation of disabled people, reflecting the ideals on which the Convention is based, and to address the inadequacies of India’s existing disability laws, which have been heavily criticised for their inconsistencies and poor implementation. This consultation exercise was being viewed with suspicion in some quarters, with several disabled representatives having resigned from the consultation committees, in protest at their views not being taken seriously enough. However, other disabled committee members, whom I met with, felt that the Government was making a real effort to engage with the disability community, in line with Article Four of the Convention.
Crippled from birth, this man takes his hand-pedalled wheelchair through streets near Chandni Chowk to offer phone services which he operates via a car battery and antenna system -- giving a different meaning to "mobile phone"! Photo credit: Meena Kadri
While the Indian Government appears to be demonstrating some commitment to meeting its obligations, under the terms of the Convention, real change is unlikely to come about unless Indian society itself becomes more accepting of people with disabilities. During the course of my visit, it became increasingly apparent to me that this may actually be starting to happen, at least in the areas that I visited. In the formal sector jobs market, for example, there were signs that private sector companies have, in recent years, become increasingly open to employing disabled people. In Bangalore and Chennai, I visited several disability organisations that were running job placement schemes, and all of them were reporting placement rates in excess of 70%, for disabled clients that had completed vocational training programmes. One scheme manager felt that there had been a “sea change in attitudes over the last five years, with parents now believing that if they educate their disabled children then there will be job opportunities for them.” Further evidence of a positive shift in employer attitudes was gleaned at an employability conference in New Delhi, on February 18th, at which several employer representatives revealed that their companies were now starting to recognise a strong business case for employing skilled disabled persons, with many proving to be particularly loyal employees, as well as frequently outperforming their able-bodied colleagues.
In rural areas, where the majority of disabled people live, prospects of formal employment are much slimmer. However, the rapid proliferation of disability self-help groups appears to be empowering disabled people on a huge scale, enabling them to engage in economic activity, as well as raising their status in society. In Tamil Nadu, for example, the State Government have supported the formation of around 8,000 disability self-help groups, across the poorest districts of the State, providing them with seed money to support group income-generating activities, as well as enabling the groups to provide individual business loans to their members. The majority of these groups have been linked with local banks, enabling them to gain a credit rating and providing access to larger loans. The disabled beneficiaries of this scheme are identified by the communities themselves, by a process known as ‘participatory identification of the poor’, in which whole villages are mapped out and community members are asked to identify where the most vulnerable people, including those with disabilities, are living. My conversations with beneficiaries revealed that many value the social benefits of this scheme above the economic benefits. One self-help group member, for example, stated that “before, our status was not recognised in the community. Now we have gained recognition, and others want to join the group”.
These may be just fleeting impressions, but I returned from India with the feeling that there is now a sense of genuine hope and expectation, among people with disabilities and the organisations that represent them, that Indian society is starting to view disabled people as potentially active citizens, rather than passive recipients of charity. India’s ratification of the Convention may not be the sole reason for this, but it has certainly played a role in raising the profile of disability within the country, while encouraging both the Government and NGO sectors to take account of the views of disabled people themselves. These impressions suggest that Indian society may be starting to move towards becoming more inclusive as well, thus creating space for the Convention to have a far greater impact.
Does Brundtland’s sustainable development need a human dimension?
Fiona Nunan is a Lecturer in Environment and Development in IDD, specialising in environment and natural resource management and governance, including fisheries governance and management, poverty and the environment, and impact evaluation methods and approaches. She convenes the module on Transforming Development for Sustainability and co-convenes Critical Approaches to Development and Making Policy on campus and via distance learning.
As anyone working or interested in environment and development will know, the most often cited definition of sustainable development is the one given in the 1987 report Our Common Future, produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development (more commonly known as the Brundtland Report, after the chair of the Commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland):
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p.43)
Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, addressing the General Assembly on Environment and Development, October 1987. (UN photo 149071)
Love it or hate it, it is the most common definition used. It certainly has its limitations, however. Critics ask what ‘needs’ are and argue that the concept of sustainable development merely supports economic growth without challenging our Western environment-destroying way of life.
There are, of course, many other definitions of sustainable development. Most recently, the UNDP’s Human Development Report 2011, released on 2 November, suggested that a new concept of “sustainable human development” is needed. This new concept is intended to address some of the criticisms of the concept of sustainable development, taking out reference to needs, and bringing in the concept of freedom. The report defines sustainable human development as:
“the expansion of the substantive freedoms of people today while making reasonable efforts to avoid seriously compromising those of future generations” (UNDP, 2011, p.18)
This does sound rather noble: who could argue against expanding substantive freedoms? But does the concept of sustainable development really need revisiting at all? Bringing in the word ‘human’ could add yet more confusion and discussion over the plethora of concepts and definitions within the broad area of environment and development.
It is the intergenerational dimension of the definition that really causes concern. The report claims to adopt a ‘strong’ sustainability approach, which does not advocate substitution between different forms of capital, and argues that some forms of natural capital must be preserved. Indeed, it goes on to review evidence for the depletion and degradation of natural resources, most of which would be considered as un-substitutable.
A ‘strong’ sustainability approach is not, however, reflected in its definition of sustainable human development. The definition instead lacks assertiveness in its language, which is unhelpful, given the criticisms made of sustainable development, that it is a vague concept meaning different things to different people. The suggestion that ‘reasonable efforts’ should be made does not reflect the implied urgency of the review of trends in sustainability in the report, and it seems that the ‘substantive freedoms’ of future generations may be compromised, as long as it is not to a serious level. A truly strong sustainability approach would surely want to set the bar higher than such a definition suggests.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other principals discuss the upcoming Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development. (UN photo 480724, Evan Schneider)
The concept of sustainable development may be far from ideal, and certainly there are concerns about how it is used at times to justify all sorts of measures and initiatives that are far from sustainable as many would understand the term. However, it may well be unhelpful to bring in new concepts and definitions, particularly so close to the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, just 7 months away. Much more effort is surely needed to ensure that the concept of sustainable development, which is globally well-known, is acted on in a much more assertive way in the face of sustained global inequalities, environmental devastation and human-induced climate change.
