APPENDIX 5
Memorandum by the Centre for Research
in Education and the Environment, University of Bath
This memorandum responds to the questions asked
in the recent EAC press release.[22]
Does the Definition of "Sustainable Development"
matter?
The existence of a range of definitions of "sustainable
development" is not only probably inevitable, but also desirable.
However, it needs to be emphasised that to be credible, any definition
must have, at its heart, the understanding that the natural environment
places constraints upon our freedom of action in both social and
economic spheres.
For the Government to say that the Brundtland
definition, "puts undue emphasis on environmental concerns"
is to miss this point entirely. That it has been missed is clear
from the further remark that, "there are equally sound definitions
that favour a fundamentally economic definition". This commits
the error of supposing the economy to be somehow independent of
the environment. Definitions which focus on environmental constraints
are fundamentally economic. A particularly well-developed account
of this relationship from the perspective of economics makes use
of the concept of "natural capital". We attach a policy
briefing note (Foster et al 2004), produced by ourselves
in collaboration with colleagues at the University of Lancaster
through a recent ESRC-funded research project, which may perhaps
be found useful in respect of these points.
Has the Strategy acted as a driver ...?
We are sure that in many ways it has. For example,
it has played a significant part in prompting innovative thinking
and action by the Purchasing and Supply Agency of the National
Health Service in relation to sustainable development, which has
the potential to result in real, often measurable gains. There
have been benefits in terms of strengthening and clarifying the
position of those in, for example, local government who have responsibility
for sustainable development. There have been some limited impacts
on the school curriculum as well as on universities" abilities
to link curriculum innovation to environmental management (ie,
to a "greening" of the estates).
There are, however, a lot of strategies about—a
joke circulating in local government circles depends for its punch
line on Martin Luther-King's famous speech beginning with the
words "I Have a Strategy..."—and it is not always
very clear to practitioners (or, perhaps, to anyone else) how,
for example, "community planning", or "social inclusion"
relate to sustainable development. In our view, this results directly
from the failure to firmly root sustainable development policy
discourse in an understanding of environmental constraints. The
"four objectives" of the existing strategy are entirely
worthy but, as they are expressed, lead far too easily to a presumption
that all four actually can be achieved, in all cases, "at
the same time". Even the HEPS initiative (2004) and the Learning
and Skills Council (2004) do not seem grasp this fundamental point.
To expand this point with reference to an argument
advanced earlier: continuing economic growth is clearly very important
as necessary social goals depend on it, both here and across the
world. There will certainly be instances in which it quite properly
has a higher priority for government that environmental conservation.
However, it is only congruent with sustainable development if
does not deplete critical natural capital. It is very congruent,
of course, if it can increase (useable) natural capital—something
which is, in certain circumstances, possible. Hence, there are
certain to be instances in which particular opportunities for
economic growth should be rejected on sustainable development
grounds. Failure of policy-makers to acknowledge this possibility,
and to have a clearly developed view of the circumstances under
which it might occur, amounts to nothing less than complete disengagement
from the idea of sustainable development and an abnegation of
responsibility: we simply end up with sustainable development
as something we do if there is no immediate economic benefit in
doing something else.
Similarly, social progress, however defined,
is important and may be expected, at times, to have a higher priority
than environmental conservation. After all, at the extreme, there
is no point in worrying about the environment for future generations
if today's children are starving or living degraded lives. However,
sustainable development may well entail social costs in the short-to-medium
term, and this needs to be confronted. A very good example is
CAP reform, which would certainly strike a huge blow for global
sustainable development, but at an immediate economic and social
cost to many rich-country farmers and associated communities.
Additionally, the much-needed root and branch reform of the CAP
may well have (for many) unwelcome impacts on the countryside.
So, we need to be clear (and government needs
to help us be clear) about the choices we face, and the Strategy
largely fails to confront this challenge. A result is that some
of Government's partners (for example those involved in the implementation
of the England National Biodiversity Strategy) would seem have
lost faith in the concept. As someone recently remarked at a meeting
of a DEFRA-hosted National Biodiversity Strategy committee, "No
one thinks sustainable development" got anything to do with
the environment". Although we don't fully accept this, we
do think that sustainable development has increasingly tended
to be seen as, and for many become, just a big wish-list of everything
that would be nice—as well as a way of keeping vocal and
well-positioned special interest groups on board.
How effectively do the indicators reflect the
UK's "sustainability gap"?
We quote here from our policy briefing note
Aiming for Sustainability—Can We Keep on Track?, attached.[23]
The Strategy declares that: "the Government's
aim is for all the headline indicators to move in the right direction
over time . . When the trend is unacceptable, the Government will
adjust policies accordingly and will look to others to join it
in taking action".
This kind of serious commitment is very welcome.
But there is nevertheless a major problem
with the whole approach. It is that if the headline indicators
are broadly negative, we can tell that the overall position is
not sustainable. Unfortunately this does not mean that when they
are all positive the position necessarily is sustainable. Indeed,
it is even possible that positive indicator results will operate
perversely to move us off a sustainable pathway.
This is a fundamental problem which needs both
acknowledging and addressing. A further question here is whether
policy can in fact operate to correct variance from targets in
quite the linear way the Strategy supposes. We have argued in
earlier evidence to the EAC's Learning the Sustainability Lesson
enquiry that a broad movement towards sustainable development
requires a process of social learning to occur.
How can the concept of sustainable consumption
be integrated within the Strategy?
A ready answer is available to this question
where there are immediate economic (and/or social) benefits in
moving to more sustainable consumption practices. Examples include
water and energy saving by households and public/corporate bodies,
efficient corporate procurement practices, and exploitation of
opportunities for energy efficiency and the re-use and recycling
of resources. In these cases quite major gains may be achieved
through education and public awareness initiatives (often linked
to other measures, such as taxes, subsidies and regulation) provided
only that these are appropriately designed, targeted and communicated.
Unfortunately, this has often not been the case in practice despite
its being the easy bit of the puzzle.
It seems clear, however, that the exploitation
of such "win-win" opportunities will be a necessary
but not sufficient condition for the achievement of sustainable
development. If a major change in the social preferences that
underpin patterns of consumption is ultimately needed, this seems
likely to require more complex policy-supportive interventions
through education and lifelong learning. For a full discussion
of these issues see Scott and Gough (2003), chapters 4 and 11.
Government intervention on the production side
is more likely to be successful where short-to-medium-term economic
benefits are available from more sustainable behaviours. For example,
if the achievement of economies of scale in the production of
green energy can be facilitated by Government, then the price
can be lowered to consumers. However, if it is necessary (as it
may be) to move towards lifestyles in which total energy consumption
(having allowed for efficiency savings) is significantly reduced,
this will involve fundamental changes to the structure of preferences
in the marketplace, which would seem to require sophisticated
educational and other interventions, both to bring about the changes
themselves, and to mitigate the costs and consequences for producers—especially
as success in policy terms will not necessarily result in benefit
to the public, institutions, or business. Consumption and production
patterns are part of the way we live. They are an important part
of sustainable development, which is ultimately about the way
we live. It is not just about how we manage technical aspects
of living the way we do.
Finally, all of this needs to be seen in a context
of global trade. In principle, free trade must tend to promote
sustainable development because it promotes the efficient use
of resources. A danger that arises from the "four objectives"
approach of the existing strategy is that social progress and
economic benefit at the local level may be allowed to obscure
wider net social, economic, and environmental gains available
through trade. So, for example, to the extent that DEFRA has put
CAP reform at the centre of its thinking on sustainable development
it has, in our view, been absolutely correct.
Organisational Structures and Costs
As noted above, some useful steps towards sustainable
development are possible which should pay for themselves. More
difficult changes would incur costs. It would be useful if Government
could establish clear priority areas where it considers it worthwhile
(or politically proper) to mitigate costs, and thus aid change.
There is a case for:
— rationalising the number of strategies
with which public-sector organisations, in particular, must comply;
— clarifying the relationship between
these strategies;
— being honest about trades-off between
desirable goals where these are unavoidable; and
— making a clear distinction between
those goals which represent easy wins and those which seem certain
to result in costs to particular individuals, groups and/or organisations.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we wish
to argue that there is a need for a more sophisticated (but by
no means impractical) approach on the part of Government to policy-making
in relation to sustainable development. In part we have already
touched on this, suggesting that education and public awareness
initiatives need to be designed, targeted and communicated to
take account of the properties of both the intended audience and
the case to be presented. In addition, we would ask you to note
that sustainable development is a concept which excites both altruistic
and self-interested responses from individuals and organisations.
For example, a single individual may be committed to the conservation
of wildlife, and willing to make personal sacrifices to this end,
but nevertheless depend for a living on a polluting industry.
There is a growing body of empirically-based work which suggests
that policy needs to be carefully designed so as to be "robust"—in
the sense that it does not depend for its success on particular
assumptions about how and why individuals and organisations are
motivated. Much of this work is summarised in a recent book by
Julian Le Grand (2003), in which he argues for, and provides examples
of, policy instruments which simultaneously respect and appeal
to both altruistic and materially self-interested motivations.
REFERENCES
Higher Education Partnerships for Sustainability
(2004) Learning and Skills for Sustainable Development: developing
a sustainability literate society—guidance for Higher Education
institutions; London: Forum for the Future.
Lancaster/Bath (2004) Aiming for Sustainability—Can
We Keep on Track? ESRC Environment and Human Behaviour New
Opportunities Programme (briefing note); Lancaster University:
IEPPP.
Learning and Skills Council (2004) Position
Statement From Here to Sustainability Position Statement;
London: Learning and Skills Council.
Le Grand J (2003) Motivation, Agency and
Public Policy: of knights and knaves, pawns and queens; Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Scott W and Gough S (2003) Sustainable Development
and Learning: framing the issues; London: RoutledgeFalmer.
May 2004
22 See Environmental Audit Committee Press Release,
5.4.04 "NEW INQUIRY. The Sustainable Development Strategy:
illusion or reality?". Back
23
Not printed here. Back
|
