For all the apparent willingness to commit to sustainable development, there aren't enough tangible results, according to Hungary's senior environmental advisor
By Istvan Pomazi
It makes an interesting play on words — "Europe for Environment" or "Environment for Europe" — but they are both important processes. (The former means that Europe should bear greater political responsibility for its own and the world's environment, while the latter is a UN-led, pan-European process or forum. The solution of environmental problems will remain on the agenda throughout Europe for a long time to come. At the same time, Europe can also do more in the future to tackle global environmental threats such as climate change and biodiversity loss.
If we take the March 2007 meeting of the European Council as a yardstick, the political will seems strong, but nothing tangible has yet been accomplished, and it seems that tangible results will only be achieved in the distant future. In the meantime, the European Union should guard against losing its credibility as far as combating climate change and halting biodiversity loss are concerned.
Climate change and sustainable development are being discussed now more openly than ever, and there finally seems to be some genuine political will to make long-term commitments to solving environmental problems. That's the good news: the bad is that, for all this apparent willingness, there isn't much to speak of in terms of tangible results that Europe can be proud of.
Twenty years after the publication of 'Our Common Future' (the so-called Brundtland Report) the world is marking a number of other dates that are significant in the past four decades of environmental policy. Thirty-five years ago more than 100 country representatives gathered in Stockholm for a UN conference, but with only one minister for environment among them. It was at this 1972 Conference on Human Environment that participants laid down many key environmental policy principles that are still cited today. It was after this event that environment policy became institutionalised at both national and international levels; e.g. the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) was founded, environment ministries and agencies were established, and the most important laws related to environment were drafted.
The next notable milestone, after four years of deliberation, was the 1987 publication of the Brundtland Report by the World Commission on Environment and Development. The report dug deeper than the narrowly interpreted environment policy of before, and argued that environment protection, reduction of global inequalities, and poverty alleviation could actually lead to greater global sustainability. Also, the term 'sustainable development' was first formulated in this report, and the phrase is now used regularly by environmental actors and detractors alike.
The word 'sustainable' seems to be creep up in all manner of discussion these days, but not necessarily everywhere. Surveys have revealed that public awareness of sustainable development is very low. Also, international bureaucracies and most politicians tend to misinterpret the term; for example, 'sustained economic growth,' 'sustainable economic growth' and 'sustainable development' are often used as interchangeable synonyms.
Others say that the term is so difficult to quantify as to be meaningless. How can we know when we've arrived at such a point? One could point to 'sustainable economic growth' (which means growth without boom or bust periods), 'sustainable aviation' (which means a doubling passenger numbers) or 'sustainable communities' (building as many new homes as possible). But these terms are oxymorons; they actually deliver the opposite of what is claimed.
Actual sustainable development — simultaneous social, environmental, and economic progress — has, however, emerged as a central structural concept for many organisations. There are ministries of sustainable development (e.g. in France and Sweden), national plans and international summits to measure such progress. Leading businesses, too, have embraced the concept of looking at the 'triple bottom line.' On paper, and in policy terms, much has happened, but the concept of sustainable development is still subject to criticism.
Some argue that the attempt to balance social, environmental and economic concerns is really a way to avoid making difficult choices, or an excuse for pretending there are no trade-offs and that everything can be win-win.
Finally, sustainable development is a concept that is often difficult to communicate to the general public. The term itself is an abstraction that encompasses three more abstractions in the 'triple bottom line' concept. In 1992, many heads of state and government officials convened in Rio de Janeiro for the World Conference on Environment and Development. The conference resulted in the signing of some very significant international agreements (e.g. on climate change and biodiversity), and the publication of the lengthy 'Agenda 21' document.
"Rio+5" took place in 1997, and the Kyoto Protocol was signed after intense negotiations and several compromises, resulting in some modest commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. Ten years after Rio, the World Summit on Sustainable Development took place in South Africa, but the resulting 'Johannesburg Plan of Implementation' showed little ambition and was generally disappointing.
Three landmark reports commissioned by the UN in 2005 revealed the grand scale of problems to be addressed worldwide: the 'Millennium Project' confirmed that progress in reducing poverty was too slow; the 'Millennium Ecosystem Assessment' concluded that 16 of 25 ecosystem benefits to humanity were being critically degraded; and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly demonstrated the seriously negative impact of unsustainable development paths.
September 11, 2001 marked yet another milestone, though a grim one, in the history of sustainable development. With the appearance of global terrorism as a permanent threat, global and individual security became a top priority and, in many cases, the only priority.
In Europe, during the Cold War period that preceded the political changes of 1989-90, divided Europe engaged in little or no environmental cooperation. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and Germany's reunification, however, a host of brand new and unexpected opportunities to protect the environment became apparent. It was a time marked by great enthusiasm and, one might say, over-optimism, as millions believed that socio-economic justice was near at hand. However, the populations of many Central and Eastern European countries confronted high economic debt, economic recession, running inflation, complex privatisation, rising unemployment and individual insecurity. Populations forced to choose between bread and clean air will clearly choose the former.
At the same time, however, there were some positive developments: international dialogue became clearer and pan-European cooperation grew stronger, and many environmental agreements were signed under the UNECE aegis. Meanwhile, the 'Environment for Europe' process was launched in 1991 in Dobris (in then-Czechoslovakia, while the European Union continued to prepare new action programmes (five since 1972). Also, the EU now contains 27 members, with the largest wave of expansion occurring in 2004, when 10 new countries joined.
With the EU's half-billion inhabitants comprising the world's largest common market it is important to think of the bloc as an entity that should bear more responsibility for alleviating global problems, as it contributes to creating them. In fact, the European Union has the necessary economic, intellectual and cultural potential to be a global leader in enhancing sustainable development.
At the same time, the enlarged EU faces diverse and complex challenges: coping with global competition (namely the US and China), addressing growing institutional deficits, maintaining credibility and narrowing the economic disparities between old and new member states while ensuring the realisation of sustainability criteria. Other EU priorities are to enhance sustainable development in declarations and documents (e.g. the 2001 Gothenburg Strategy and the 2006 Renewed Sustainable Development Strategy) and to establish mechanisms for making them work, but it strikes me that essential profit-driven approaches tend to undermine the concept of sustainable development. The only chance that Central and Eastern Europe's new EU member states have for successful convergence with 'developed' Europe and creating a better quality of life for its citizens is the wise and efficient use of EU and domestic funds. These funds, utilised in an efficient manner by the recipient countries, can provide chances to move toward greater sustainable development. But we should not forget during this era of increasing globalisation and regional integration that it is impossible to establish 'islands of sustainability.' It is therefore vital to achieve lasting and durable solidarity between nations and regions and to spread this out over generations; and this involves addressing several moral questions.
National governments must strive to avoid dividedness within the European Union on issues such as climate change and energy security; and it will be necessary to locate necessary partners, as none of this can be accomplished alone. There is also a vital need to strengthen those institutions enhancing sustainable development, both at the governmental and NGO level
