Is sustainable development sustainable?

References

Cite

Share

Abstract

This journal proclaims its concern with ‘‘the relationships between science, society and policy and a key aim is to advance understanding of the theory and practice of sustainable development’’. We have certainly endeavoured to publish research articles, from scholars in the natural and social sciences, which put forward what our title calls an ‘‘integrative’’ approach. This integration is intended to be at once interdisciplinary, crossing not only disciplinary divides but also bringing together science and policy and policy and practice. And this integration is to be achieved through a focus on sustainable development as the integrating concept. But, it may be asked, has this concept any validity or utility as the leitmotif of a journal? Is it merely a routine recognition of a normative concept that is now pretty much axiomatic for environmental scientists and policy makers alike? Or, does the concept still retain sufficiently positive, purposive and practical connotations to fulfil its presumed role as an overarching goal of scientific understanding and political policymaking? The answer is, we suspect, a bit of both of these. It all depends on perspective, on value and viewpoint; in short, on what we think we mean by sustainable development. It is worth going back to the original identification and definitions of the concept a generation ago, beginning naturally with the Brundtland pronouncement in 1987. ‘‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’ (World Commission 1987, p. 44). This theme has been oft repeated since in a variety of versions and contexts. For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), referring in 1997 to radioactive waste stated that society should be protected ‘‘in such a way that the needs and aspirations of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their needs and aspirations’’ (IAEA 1997, Article 1). As might be expected the IAEA had a particular concern that impacts on health ‘‘will not be greater than relevant levels of impact that are acceptable today’’ (IAEA 1995, Principle 4). By contrast, the UK Government of Margaret Thatcher stressed the notion of stewardship involved in sustainable development. The Prime Minister herself announced in a speech to the Royal Society in 1988 that ‘‘we do not hold a freehold on our world, but only a full repairing lease’’. This was formulated as a statement of principle, a moral imperative, in the White Paper This Common Inheritance: ‘‘We have a moral duty to look after our planet and to hand it on in good order to future generations’’ (HMSO 1990, p.10). Over the years such heady and idealistic declarations have, perhaps, become more pragmatic, more vacuous even. By 1999 the UK’s approach was defined as providing ‘‘a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come’’ Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2012, 1–8