Achim Steiner, director general of IUCN-The World Conservation Union, discusses the challenges of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Johannesburg 2002: A Wake-up Call
Environment, biodiversity, climate change and ecosystems have become the terms of engagement with which the conservation community had sought to redefine the context for development during much of the 20th Century. Yet, as we meet in Johannesburg in the year 2002, globalisation, poverty, privatisation and trade have emerged as top of the agenda for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).
Much of the two-year preparatory process leading up to the WSSD has left many wondering whether we are engaged in a dialogue of the deaf, rather than a discourse on sustainable development. Whatever one’s interpretation may be, this phenomenon must be seen as a wake-up call to the conservation community.
There can be no question as to the far-reaching impact that “environmentalism” has had on our communities, and indeed the world as a whole. Whatever our frustrations and regrets, we must recognise that the world in which we live today is a different place from the one we faced at the time of the 1972 Stockholm Summit. It is time for us to take stock and engage in some self-critical reflection as to how conservation has responded to the challenges of survival faced by the rich and poor alike and how it can succeed in influencing development in the 21st Century.
Perspectives on development – and what it should be – have changed significantly during the past century. We now have the critical mass of knowledge and resources to move into a new age of development. Transitions from authoritarian rule to democratic decision-making have led to the proliferation and strengthening of civil society organisations within countries and internationally.
Public interest that used to place a premium on techno- economic solutions is giving way to one which places much more weight on the rights and interests of people and communities affected by development activities, with a focus on equity and benefit sharing – within and between societies and generations.
Our basic perspective on the management of natural resources is shifting from technical and economic optimisation to an emphasis on human development dimensions, which views the management of resources in the broader context of human security and welfare.
We are coming to terms with the changing roles and responsibilities of the public sector and how this has influenced the scope for civil society to participate in negotiating sustainable development choices. The role of civil society organisations has expanded and their legitimacy in representing and defending social and environmental interests in decision-making is resulting in greater transparency and accountability, and thus more democratic decision-making.
Political and economic transformation has also given the private sector a vastly expanded role at national and global level. Globalisation and corporate responsibility are redefining the scope for business, but also the conditions under which it can operate legitimately in the future. And yet, the larger picture remains that two billion people lack access to adequate, safe drinking water and sanitation. By 2025 there will be a total of 3,5-billion people living in water-stressed countries where their well-being, livelihoods and environment will be exposed to increasing levels of risk and uncertainty – be they farmers, urban consumers or indigenous people.
Whether it is water, food and nutrition, health care, human security or species loss, the figures are staggering. With all our economic, technological, scientific and institutional advances, we can hardly claim to be progressing as a global community. We have not been able to deal with the complex interplay of ecological processes, culture, economy and human action. Have we been talking to ourselves?
Without biodiversity – no future
During the past decade biodiversity has emerged as a concept which sought to provide a more integrated view as to how flora, fauna and the human species relate to each other. The ecosystems that support the provision of clean water depend on biodiversity to maintain their optimal functioning. Renewable sources of energy, including wood fuel and biogas, depend on biodiversity; and maintaining biodiversity is an essential part of adapting to the climate change that seems inevitable.
Many of the factors that threaten human health also threaten biodiversity, such as the effects of toxic and hazardous materials and various forms of pollution. Yet biodiversity provides the basis of many traditional and local forms of health care and makes numerous other contributions to human health. And agricultural productivity, if it is to be sustainable, needs to be built on a strong foundation of biological diversity at the gene, species and ecosystem level.
Sustainable development is built on sustainable livelihoods. For development to yield lasting benefits, it must offer the world’s population a means of making a living that does not lead to the degradation of natural resource systems, the disenfranchisement or marginalisation of large groups of people, the deepening of equity gaps, the spread of poverty, the loss of biodiversity, or the weakening of the institutions on which human security depends.
Biodiversity provides the foundation for continued maintenance and enhanced productivity of natural resource systems. It provides the genetic diversity which supports the ongoing agricultural and industrial production systems that provide many of the goods upon which people depend. For example, biodiversity provides the basis of some 75% of the world’s modern drugs produced by the traditional and modern pharmaceutical sectors. And it supports the continued functioning of the ecological processes that are critical to these production systems. Yet according to IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species, more than 11 000 species are threatened with extinction.
The complexity of our existence requires that we mainstream the conservation of biodiversity into the activities of all sectors – rather than sending messages from the periphery of environmentalism. The 21st Century requires organisations that can talk to each other, work together and move beyond our geographic, sectoral and ideological boundaries.
Conservation for development
The concept of sustainable development is persuasive in that it provides a language and a discourse that guide us to think through the issues of economic, environmental and social inter-relationships and their effects.
The future of conservation will depend on our ability to redefine the terms of engagement with governments, the private sector and society at large. In a world of 10-billion people, the pressures of the wealthy and the poor on our environment will be even greater – a scenario less than 50 years away. Conservation must be seen and thus must see itself as a force for development, not against development. Protecting an ever-dwindling resource base against an ever-growing demand for food, water, energy and biomass is doomed to failure unless it can help to provide practical answers to real dilemmas.
To succeed we must bring the knowledge about species, ecosystems and biodiversity and sustainability into the mainstream of economic and social welfare decision-making. Reducing the ecological footprint of the wealthy and expanding the scope for sustainable livelihoods of the poor is no pipe dream. We already have many examples of success.
However, our ambition must shift from focusing on neighbourhoods, single species or wetlands alone to changing entire economies, industries and development strategies for managing water and energy resources. It also means rethinking our partnerships and alliances so that today’s “enemies” become tomorrow’s partners.
The conservation community can contribute significantly by saying more on the nature of the trade-offs and the social and environmental consequences of different development options. It needs to translate its science into the day-to-day realities of industrialists, bureaucrats and community leaders. It needs to lead as convenor, inform the discussion and facilitate the negotiations without which the environment will become an increasing source of conflict rather than a sustainably managed resource for our collective survival.
IUCN – a concept for the 21st Century
IUCN-The World Conservation Union is just such an example of institutionalising participation, and of fostering multi-sector collaboration. In its own decision-making process – with governments and non-governmental organisations – the IUCN Congress is a prime example of an international democracy for environmental policy. Decisions are taken on the policy and the priorities of its world-wide programme – fostering collective action by diverse organisations. I do not think that there is another international body that has institutionalised multi-sector collaboration to this extent.
The Union’s 1 000-strong membership of states, government agencies and NGOs, 10 000 volunteer scientists and experts in six commissions, and staff of 1 000 in 42 offices around the world enable us as Union to build bridges between North and South, developed and developing countries, governments, civil society and the private sector. We work where conservation meets development, where natural science meets social science, and where global interests meet local reality.
Conservation in the 21st Century must not become the marginal voice of doom and gloom on environmental destruction alone. We must also be a resource for change, enabling our societies to make the right choices.
The sad truth is that current trends will eventually make our work easier as societies recognise the terrible price of unsustainable development. But for many species, ecosystems and communities this may be too late. Sustainable development is thus as much of a challenge to conservation as it is to the societies we belong to.