Memorandum from Charles Caccia, MP (Davenport)
and Chair, House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment
and Sustainable Development, Canada
THE PROBLEMATIQUE
OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
A discussion on the implementation of the World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) goals inevitably includes
a discussion on the meaning and principles of sustainable development.
In itself, the implementation of Summit commitments may differ
from country to country. In the United Kingdom (UK), with a fairly
centralized system of government, the implementation would be
carried out quite differently than in Canada where we have a federal
system, large distances between regions and a federal-provincial
division of powers and responsibilities. Therefore, the administrative
execution of the WSSD Plan of Implementation in Canada would pose
different challenges from those being faced here in the UK. Our
Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development,
I am sure, will attest to this fact of geo-political life, as
seen from her perspective as a parliamentary officer.
But if we look beyond the administrative implementation
of WSSD commitments and search for the fundamental elements animating
both the Johannesburg and Rio Summits, we can see that our efforts
face the same conceptual challenges. To start with, the definition
and application of sustainable development. Why do I say that?
As you know, since the publication of the Brundtland
report entitled Our Common Future, the definition of sustainable
development has been the object of thousands of speeches, discussions,
studies, interpretations, application, use and even abuse. As
a result, sustainable development can mean different things to
different people. To some, it means a balance between environmental
and economic goals. To others, it means exploitation for the duration
of the resource. To others, it means unlimited growth so as to
create employment for the expanding global population. And finally,
to others it means the integration of environmental, social and
economic objectives. So the question arises, whose definition
should we adopt? And where and how is it practised? In this labyrinth
of interpretations, no wonder the political signals are timid,
uncertain and at times, downright contradictory within the same
government. And as a result, we increasingly face complex problems,
be it the preservation of endangered species, the regulation of
land use, the regulation of toxic pollutants, the sustainable
management of natural resources, the functioning of large urban
centres, climate protection and the allocation of vital resources
such as water and fish. The political signals are hesitant, even
confusing, because different meanings are given to sustainable
development whether in politics, public administration, business,
civil society, etc. And so, 15 years after the adoption by the
United Nations (UN) of the Brundtland report, we face what on
the surface appears to be a problem of semantics but in reality
is a conceptual problem, confusing communications, policy development
and the application of sustainable development. We have, therefore,
to confirm the meaning of sustainable development and ensure its
integrity is respected and applied in a coherent way by all sectors
of society and at all levels of governance.
Looking down the road, the success of Johannesburg
+5 will depend on the realization that the application of sustainable
development is more than an exercise in semantics. It is a value-loaded
term, currently evoking different values and responses and thus
leading to different and conflicting objectives. This is, in essence,
the problematique of sustainable development.
As a supporter of sustainable development as
an integrating force of environmental, social and economic objectives,
I would like to report to you on the Government of Canada's implementation
of sustainable development. In 1994, our committee examined and
strengthened the bill sent to us by the government, creating the
Commissioner's office. The public and Parliament are very supportive
of this office. Progress is slow, at times spotty, inertia makes
progress difficult, while the "business as usual" mentality
is hard to eradicate. Take as an example the most recent budget
in February of this year. It proposes several positive social
measures. It allocates substantial funds to Kyoto-oriented initiatives.
But it leaves unchanged an outdated tax structure which favours
greenhouse gas emitting industries and overlooks badly needed
measures to encourage and develop renewable sources of energy.
True, governments need time to adjust to new values and objectives,
but time is not on our side.
Another area which requires attention is the
pattern of human exploitation of natural resources, over time.
Volumes have been written on this subject. Historians have been
helpful in drawing a picture. Ancient Greek and Roman historians,
for instance, wrote about the abundant green forests growing along
the Mediterranean coast, including North Africa. In more recent
times, at the height of their naval domination, some would argue
perversely the Venetians practised sustainable development by
exploiting the resource until it was exhausted. It should be noted
that today, around the world, two trends in forest exploitation
have emerged. One consists of careful rotation so as to ensure
continuity in lumber production, erosion control, water retention
and the presence of wildlife. This is the case of several European
countries which have a strong forest and wildlife tradition, and
where sustainable development has been practised long before the
birth of the term. In other parts of the world, however, in places
such as Central Africa, Brazil, Indonesia and certain parts of
Canada, the exploitation by transnational corporations is relentless.
Hardly any benefit accrues to the local population (eg Indonesia).
Human behaviour with respect to forest resource management leads
to the conclusion that if we want to manage a resource for the
benefit of future generations (given certain pre-conditions, values
and political systems), we should treat natural resources (as
pointed out by the Brundtland report) in the same way we treat
our bank savings—harvesting the interest but not eating
into the capital. To do that, we have to know the inventory of
the resource and correctly assess the yearly growth generated
by the resource. The size of the harvest, be it fish, lumber,
water, etc, should be related to inventory and growth. We seem
to have forgotten that fundamental principle of sustainability.
WHERE IS
THE POLITICAL
WILL?
It can be found in a diffused form but it lacks
the force and sense of urgency of the late 1980's and early 1990's.
Public opinion and media pressure help in generating attention
and in setting political priorities so as to implement the sustainable
development agenda. In this respect, parliamentarians can play
an active and significant role in caucus, in committee, in the
House, through the media, and through international parliamentary
associations. This committee is to be commended for its forward-looking
initiative. Both Johannesburg and Rio require parliamentary activism
so as to trigger political will at the executive level for in
the end, sustainable development is not about technical or semantic
issues. It comes down to political will.
March 2003
|
