4 of 15

Write now Article Tools

Concerns about the sustainability of the means of subsistence to support the population date at least back to Malthus in the early 19th century. Malthus proposed that "the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the Earth to produce subsistence" and his law stated that "population presses against the means of subsistence" (Harvey 1974, p399). Unease about the ability of the World to sustain a rapidly

increasing population became more widespread in the 1960's and 1970's, and this was accompanied by a resurgence of neo-Malthusian arguments. Prominent among them was "The Limits to Growth" which predicted that the carrying capacity of the World would be exceeded, within 100 years, if the then current trends and pressures continued. (Meadows et al. 1972).

Garrett Hardin summed up the neo-Malthusian view particularly well using the "tragedy of the commons" which is a parable to highlight the threat to the carrying capacity of the land, upon which humanity ultimately depends for its sustenance. Its premise being that all will try to extract the maximum profit from the grazing land, leading to its despoilment from overuse. The scenario "is tragic because people naturally tend to be selfish" and "individual freedom in the commons has brought ruin to all". (Hardin 1968). Unfortunately the tragedy of the commons has been seized upon by certain extreme free market capitalists as a vindication of the argument to privatise the World's resources. "Private property rights ensure that individuals will not overuse their resources for fear of devaluing them. However, common property rights over resources lead to overuse because no individual feels specific interest in protecting them". (Goodin 1992). This argument fails to account for the fact that degradation of the environment, and some times the wider economy, does not always lead to profit devaluation for the protagonist. As examples, with the activities of mining, oil extraction, and logging there is always an externalised and unsustainable cost to the environment and society.

Hardin himself does not appear to have advocated privatisation, and to do so is probably to get the interpretation of the parable completely the wrong way around. Common grazing land is a very important strand of farming for the sustainability of populations upon marginal land, and this is often where common land occurs. Because of its very nature marginal land must be farmed with respect if it is to support any human population, and by and large it has been for hundreds of years. Good examples of marginal common grazing land succumbing to Hardin's parable occur both in Ireland and in the Sahel of sub Saharan Africa. In both cases the parable appears to hold true, until a closer inspection reveals the interference of external economic forces. In Ireland a previously healthy population of sheep was replaced by the overstocking of the commons with sheep to take advantage of "headage payments", as part of the Common Agricultural Policy reform of 1984. This led to environmental damage caused by overgrazing and the over use of fertilizer. Because payment was received for numbers grazed rather than the quality or indeed marketability of the animals' meat, the normal carrying capacity was exceeded. In the Sahel we saw a wetter climate in the 1950's and 1960's leading to cash crop cultivation of crops such as peanuts on what was previously common grazing land. The grazing had to move north into more marginal land. The consequent drought in the 1980's led to famine and desertification. Here we see a natural drought cycle producing famine and land degradation as a consequence of the privatisation of common land. (Ehrlich 1990).

With his commons parable Garret Hardin may not be making adequate distinction between the commons farming which is sustainable, and exploitation of the commons. The deciding factor is probably less about privatised resources versus commons land, than it is to do with large national and international corporations that are divorced from the land, and that are constrained by a regimen of producing the maximum short term dividend. It is here that we see the unsustainable ""externalised costs of exploitation such as the banana plantations of Latin America. Here banana monoculture plantations have been placed in areas of decimated primary rainforest.

"The bananas from the plantations of Latin America are cheaper than anywhere else largely because the costs are externalized', which means they are paid by someone else; in this case by plantation workers and the environment. If these costs were internalized', decent wages paid and environmental damage eliminated, the cost difference would disappear."

(Mendenhall 2004).

Mainstream sustainable development, via the Brundtland report, specifically warns against increasing food production by such unsound production policies, as they are not only unsustainable, but they also endanger the long term prospects for food security in a World of increasing population. A small hold farmer, or large resident farm, is unlikely to exploit the land to its detriment, when they have nurtured it, and depend upon it for their continuing wealth. Hardin's tragedy of the commons appears to be using Aristotelian logical truth in a similar manner to Malthus. As such he is arriving at a false and pessimistic conclusion that could wrongly be interpreted by free market advocates as proof of the need for property rights of ownership over the environments resources. But as David Harvey warns "Aristotelian normative analytical model building produces categories and concepts that are abstract stationary tools imposed on a changing World". (Harvey 1974). Sustainable development, within the population and resource relationship, is probably too complex for "stand alone" logical empiricism such as the tragedy of the commons.

Defining correctly what is, and what is not sustainable development is a complex task as multiple elements form what can be termed sustainable development. Very broadly these elements of sustainable development consist of:

Economic Development
Social Development
Environmental Development
Source: based on Bannister (2005)

Development which is only concerned with economic growth is not going to be sustainable if it does not consider its effect on society and the environment. This does not mean that it will be an unprofitable enterprise, merely that it can only be supported for a finite period of time, and that on balance the negative effects of the development upon society, and the supporting environment, may well exceed any profits achieved by an individual or a limited section of society. Likewise social and environmental development projects need to be based on a firm economic footing if they are to survive. The Brundtland report of 1987, also called "Our Common Future", rather neatly defined sustainable development thus:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"

(WCED 1987, Chapter 2.1.)

The importance in addressing the need for more equitable geographic access to resources, and the wealth they create is clearly pointed out within the report by the fact that poverty causes environmental damage. Also the need for development that will not compromise the health of the environment is identified as a key element.

This report is considered a milestone in the move towards sustainable development, and more responsible economic and social practice, as for the first time it looked strategically at integrating economic and ecological considerations, when planning and implementing development. Previously these had been considered separate and competing concerns.

Caring for the Earth was published in 1991 by the IUCN. This like the Brundtland Report emphasised mutual inclusion and good global management, although it said less about the global economy. While it engages less successfully with the incumbent free market capitalist economy, it does very significantly serve to move some of the most important players from the environmental camp into the arena of global and regional development. Again the profound change in mindset of conservation being linked to development is made.

"We have to stop talking about conservation and development as if they were in opposition, and recognise that they are essential part of one indispensible process."

( IUCN 1991, p 8)

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This created a number of important documents and conventions. Most notable of which were the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. The Rio Declaration promoted international action and responsibility. Of the 27 principles in the Rio Declaration one of the more profound was principle 7 which establishes common but differentiated responsibilities in tackling global environmental degradation. This definitively states that the developed World is disproportionately responsible for pursuing sustainable development. (UNCED 1992).

Agenda 21 is a vast document that was not implemented because of its sprawling yet inclusive content. Also, adequate funds were never committed for its implementation, and none of its recommendations were mandatory. It is still a very important document that is used to legitimise arguments, and that may form the basis of future implementation of a sustainable development agenda. Agenda 21 is most explicit in its call for inclusion and the participation of the public in achieving sustainable development, even at a local level.

The two conventions that were signed at UNCED were Biological Diversity, and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Biological Diversity Convention again produced a leap forward in sustainable development by stipulating that the economic benefits of genetic resources should be shared by nations, and that the species and ecosystems should be conserved. (Adams 2001). The Framework Convention on Climate Change directed that governments report information on their national greenhouse gas emissions, developed countries agreed to promote the transfer of funding and technology to help developing countries respond to climate change, and they also committed to taking measures aimed at returning their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, although this was not a binding commitment. (UNEP 1997).

Through the monumental UNCED Rio Conference of 1992, the mainstream sustainable development that had been forged by Brundtland, and other reports, was put firmly at the core of international development. In summary mainstream sustainable development presents an optimistic view of progress, and growth, through both technological change, and change to society. The environment still imposes limits, and not all growth is possible or desirable. Ultimately the health of the environment is the bottom line as this under pins sustainable development, and economic development should view the environment and its resources as natural capital that sustains human activity. (Baker 2006).

This has been labelled as utilitarian conservationist, and has drawn criticism from deep ecologists, who are concerned that it only preserves within nature that which is of value to human beings. Such a position is held to be anthropocentric, while deep ecologists take the ecocentric view that nature possesses its own intrinsic value, which should be respected. Deep ecology argues that managing the environment reduces nature to a controlled resource. This in turn leads to the people who work the land being managed as a resource by the emerging urban industrial society. Throughout society there is a trend for people to become viewed as personnel, focussing on their economic value rather than their intrinsic human value. (Devall and Sessions 1985). Furthermore utilitarian environmentalism advocates a sustainable yield, which is the harvest that can be extracted indefinitely from the environment. Deep ecology argues that such an anthropocentric view can unintentionally disrupt delicate and poorly understood balances within ecosystems. (Baker 2006). The sustainable development ladder (Baker et al 1997) is a useful tool for viewing the differing policies associated with different approaches to sustainable development. The rungs of the ladder range upwards through different levels of increasingly sustainable policies, from the lowest which is pollution control, up through weak, and then strong sustainable development. Finally the ideal model is reached which is strongly ecocentric, as opposed to the anthropocentric pollution control model. The practice of sustainable development is rejected by both the pollution control model, as it interferes with growth for the sake of growth, and the ideal ecocentric model, because sustainable development interferes with natural cycles. An argument in favour of the pollution control model is "Kuznets Curve", where the per capita income increases as does the level of pollution. After a maximum level, pollution then decreases as the economy switches to a post industrial model, higher up the sustainable development ladder. A floor in this argument is that post industrialisation involves shifting manufacturing to developing countries, and it is questionable if industrialisation can be removed from an industrial World anyway. (Baker 2006).

The Brundtland report makes the valuable observation that what are perceived as free goods, such as water availability and the quality of air and water are actually resources that carry a cost to the environment and society when they are polluted or squandered. The accounting for this environmental cost due to natural resource exploitation often does not occur. This leads to environmental resources being degraded without replacement, and pollution not being remedied or prevented.

"The process of economic development must be more soundly based upon the realities of the stock of capital that sustains iteconomic development must take full account in its measurements of growth of the improvement or deterioration in the stock of natural resources."

(WCED 1987, Chapter 2.36.)

In order to maintain the stock of ecological capital the Brundtland report states that in future growth must be less energy and material intensive in its impact. This would help address the very important fact that most of the raw materials and energy that are consumed by industrial production are actually converted to waste and pollution. Relatively little of the finite stock of the Earth's resources is actually turned into useful product. The economics and processes of the industrial World produce waste at all stages from extraction, production, retail, use, and finally their disposal. Recycling is usually limited to an addendum in some niche industries. In contrast to the unsustainable use of resources that modern market based capitalism, with its attendant mass production industries, consumes, it is useful to compare the production processes of nature. Here there is no waste. By product of one natural system forms the food or nutrients for another. These natural systems are circular, and if the waste and pollution from industry is to be curtailed in any meaningful way then a similar reprocessing of by product will be needed, and a change of mindset from waste that is to be discarded, to by product that is to be reprocessed into the manufacturing cycle. Across all industries by weight, less than 10% of everything extracted from the earth becomes used product. The remaining resources become waste products. The production of more waste and subsequent pollution continues with the use of products, and finally their disposal.(Senge and Carstedt 2001).

Both thermal treatment plants, and landfill gas collection and combustion, can be used to achieve energy recovery as a side product of waste disposal, and thus re-circulate into production what was once discarded. A further example of waste product being usefully recycled back into production can be found at the E.ON Benelux power station in Rotterdam. Here residual heat from the power station is used to heat the water tanks of a tropical shrimp farm. This is an example where co-siting makes sustainable production possible. (E.ON Benelux 2006) In the future it may become feasible to use algae farms sited at power stations to sequester carbon dioxide, and then harvest the algae for bio fuel. Algae-link of Roosendaal in the Netherlands has recently signed a contract with Air France-KLM to provide them with the worlds first sustainably produced aviation fuel. (Henley 2008).

Indeed a major component of pollution and waste comes from the use of energy, and much of this is from finite fossil fuel. Humans are living upon the World's energy principle (fossil fuel) and not its energy income (renewable energy). A major requirement of sustainable development is to conserve and use energy more efficiently. Renewable energy is a harder win than using fossil fuel, and even if the current huge usage of fossil fuel energy could be replaced by renewable energy it would require a massive financial investment, with a major impact on the environment, in order to accommodate such infrastructure. Clearly the rate of energy usage required to sustain such a wasteful mode of industrial production is itself unsustainable.

The average global carbon consumption per person equals 3.9 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide annually. With the current World population at 6.5 billion persons it has been calculated that this must reduce to 2 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide annually, in order for emissions to be stabilised within the atmosphere.(Banister 2005).

Such a reduction in emissions does not need to equate to zero economic growth, it just means that the growth will have to be environmentally sustainable with less resource usage and lower rates of waste and pollution. So instead of challenging the dominant free market capitalist industrial model, what has become mainstream sustainable development instead challenges some of its methodology. As such it can be perceived to be far more engaging with free market capitalism than the previous neo-Malthusian "limits to growth" debate. This latter uncompromisingly limited any further growth.

A more precise definition of what is and what is not sustainable development will be manifested only when sustainable development comes to be practised in a consistent manner by interested parties at an international level.

The individual components of what will become sustainable development methodology are probably already present and documented by the different organisations within, and the conventions created by, mainstream sustainable development. However they are not all agreed upon, and are relatively seldom applied on local, national, or international levels.

Part of the problem causing this lack of progress lies within the structure of market based capitalism, which drives the majority of development. As such many aspects of the development process will continue to act contrary to what is in the best interests of the environment, and the health and welfare of the local, and global, Human population. This is because of the economic necessities of competition, and also the need to raise short term profits even if it means the enterprise is thus doomed in terms of long term sustainability.

It is doubtful that the inefficient mode of consumption that market based capitalism requires for growth and development can continue to indefinitely be supported by technical advances in the use and manipulation of the environment.

According to Harvey an unsustainable population can be alleviated by four main structural changes to Human existence.

These are:

Change human social organisation. This would interfere with market based capitalism.

Change human technical appraisal of nature. This has been the preferred and most successful option to date.

Change the levels of consumption. This would impact on capitalism by reducing profits and the requirement for labour.

Reduce the human population.

(Source: Based on Harvey 1974).

Ultimately humanity will be forced, through the adoption of sustainable development practice, to alter its approach to the status of the different aspects of the "population-resource" relationship. This in itself will require a different model from the free market based capitalism that reins today. An unspoken question is will this change occur smoothly in the face of obvious need, or will it be necessary to reach a breaking point with an attendant loss of population and civil strife, that some Malthusians have been awaiting for so long. If recent human history is an indicator then we can hope for the former, with some of the latter.

References:

Adams, W., M. 2001. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World. London. New York.: Routledge.

Baker, S. 2006. Sustainable development. London [u.a.]: Routledge.

Baker, S; et al. 1997. in Baker, S. 2006. Sustainable development. London [u.a.]: Routledge.

Banister, D. 2005. Unsustainable transport : city transport in the new century. London ; New York: Spon Press.

Devall, B. & G. Sessions. 1985. Deep ecology. Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith.

Ehrlich, A; Ehrlich, R; 1990. Global Ecosystem Health in Pepper, D. 2003. Environmentalism : critical concepts. London : Routledge.

E.ON Benelux. 2006. E.ON Benelux congratulates Happy Shrimp Farm on festive opening. Rotterdam.

[Accessed 17/12/2008]

<http://www.eon-benelux.com/eon www/publishing.nsf/Content/E.O N+Benelux+feliciteert+Happy+Sh rimp+Farm+met+feestelijke+open ing_English>

Goodin. 1992. in Pepper, D. 1996. Modern environmentalism : an introduction. London ; New York: Routledge.

Hardin, G. 1968. in Pepper, D. 1996. Modern environmentalism : an introduction. London ; New York: Routledge.

Harvey, D. 1974. Population, Resources and the Ideology of Science in Pepper, D. 2003. Environmentalism : critical concepts. London : Routledge.

Henley, P. 2008. In bloom: growing algae for biofuel. In BBC Science and Environment, ed. BBC News. London: BBC.

[Accessed 12/10/2008]

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci ence/nature/7661975.stm>

IUCN. 1991. in Baker, S. 2006. Sustainable development. London [u.a.]: Routledge.

Meadows et al. 1972. in Baker, S. 2006. Sustainable development. London [u.a.]: Routledge.

Mendenhall, k., Reeves, M. 2004. Banana plantations in Latin America. In WRM Bulletin, ed. R. Carrere. Montevideo: World Rainforest Movement.

[Accessed 12/12/2008]

<http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin /85/viewpoint.html;

Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). 1992. RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT. United Nations.

[Accessed 15/12/2008]

<http://www.un.org/documents/ga /conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.ht m>

Senge, P., M & G. Carstedt. 2001. Innovating Our Way to the Next Industrial Revolution. In MIT Sloan Management Review, 24-38. Cambridge Massachusetts: Sloan Management Review Association.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1997. earth summit +5 special session of the general assembly to review and appraise the implementation of Agenda 21. Geneva: United Nations Department of Public Information.

[Accessed 12/10/2008]

<http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/ge ninfo/sustdev/climate.htm;

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future. ed. L. Starke. World Commission on Environment and Development.

[Accessed 12/10/2008]

<http://www.un-documents.net/wc ed-ocf.htm>

Learn more about this author, Robert Moss.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Environmental sustainability and conservation of natural resources?
We want to hear your view. Write now!