The Daily Summit - Instant news and comments from the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Development Archives

David Steven | 05:21 PM | |

August 29, 2002

Development dammed - two points of view that suggest sustainable development is the problem, not the solution.

In Lesotho, a huge infrastructure project leaves one woman threatening to drown herself in her village as the reservoir behind a new dam fill. Outside the convention centre, meanwhile, informal businesses march for the right to trade.

Less development, more subsistence living - says one side. More development - however unsustainable says the other.

Read the full article here...

David Steven | 12:54 PM | |

August 28, 2002

Two views of development - from Lesotho and South Africa (relevant to yesterday's post on livelihoods).

Mamptiti Mfela is a widow from Lesotho.

"We are scared of these big cars that pass on the new road near our houses," she says. "It is too noisy. The silence we used to enjoy is no longer there. I would love to go back to the time when there was no road. The road is hazardous to us. It kills our animals. It kills our children. We don’t enjoy this road."

BJ Buthelezi is a farmer in South Africa.

"Freedom is being taken away from us as farmers," he says, "by people who come and tell us which crops we are allowed to plant. People tell us that technology is not for us and GM food is not good for us. We are for GM technology. I am cotton farmer, but four years ago, biotechnology multiplied our yield three times, which put more money in our pockets."

More on these stories - one calling for the freedom to develop, the other for freedom from development - this evening...

David Steven | 03:58 PM | |

August 24, 2002

Nelson Mandela was arrested on the farm at Lilieslief, and spent the next 27 years in prison.

The farm played a central role in the struggle against apartheid, with senior members of the ANC masquerading as labourers and servants, before its betrayal to the South African police.

A few hours ago, Daily Summit listened to Dennis Brutus reminisce about his role in the resistance (he spent 18 months splitting stones with Mr Mandela). Mr Brutus claimed that the gains from that struggle had now largely been squandered.

"In a sad and ironic way, we are coming again to another vital point in the history of South Africa," he said. "We come here recognising our successes but, also, sadly our failures. It is almost as if we are going to have to make a new start in transforming South Africa after an abortive attempt at transformation."

"The perversion of that attempt has to be attributed to the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, and now to a very significant degree to the United Nations, which has become perverted by the global corporate agenda."

"We have to make a new beginning. We have been given this marvellous opportunity that we didn’t ask for. South Africa is coming under the global spotlight. Johannesburg is coming under scrutiny."

"Right here, close by in Sandton, we are going to have an incredible concentration of wealth, power and corruption. And that is what we are going to have to challenge."

David Steven | 01:31 AM | |

August 23, 2002

Bjorn Lomborg has perfected the art of irritating the greens, with his claim to be a sceptical environmentalist.

An interview with him on the eve of the summit is newsworthy, therefore.

Speaking to Reuters, Lomborg is anti-Kyoto (too expensive) and agricultural subsidies (abolish them and take 300-400 million people out of poverty in a few years).

He also says that sustainable development is not for the poor.

"It is not realistic to believe that people struggling to find their next meal would worry about the environment 50 years ahead," he says. "Sustainable development does not make sense until (the living standards) of these people have been brought to a level where they start to worry about the environment.

Further, he argues that "sustainability easily ends up prioritising future generations at the expense of current generations. Development has the advantage of both helping people today and creating the foundation for an even better tomorrow."

Daily Summit will note two points - before opening up this post to debate via our new comments system.

First, many developing world governments take a position very similar to this (and Clare Short, the UK international development minister, comes pretty close to this when she's feeling particularly cross with environmentalists).

Second, the area Lomborg doesn't cover is the reliance of the poor on the environment and the fact that they almost always suffer worst from environmental problems - especially the "dirty" problems he praises the rich world for solving.

Now over to you...

David Steven | 10:58 AM | |

August 21, 2002

"It is not technology that will change the future, but how we shape and apply it."

"Our choices, as individuals and as a society, are severely limited if we wait until the next electronic gadget lands on our desk. We need to replace the idea of sustainable development with sustainable research and development. Only if we are willing to move from being the consumers of technology to the shapers of technology can any notion of sustainability evolve... Our enemies in this enterprise will be the weight of history, the inertia of our prior conceptions, and our inability to move across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Peter Drucker had it right many years ago when he noted that in a world where turbulence dominates, the greatest danger is not the turbulence, but thinking with yesterday’s logic."

Tech Central Station again?

No, Sustainability at the Speed of Light from leading NGO, WWF...

David Steven | 01:49 PM | |

August 16, 2002

"Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature," is the title of an interesting paper recently published in Science

It comes up with four main findings.

First, there isn't much data comparing the value of natural habitats and habitats "converted to human use." (Question to academics: why not?)

Second, the few studies available seem to show "conversion" offers short term gains, but that these are outweighed by the cost of longer term losses. Often, however, there is a clear private interest in the gains, but a more diffuse public one in the losses.

Third, a very very rough estimate of the global losses through conversion is $250 billion in a year.

Fourth, that around $45 billion should be spent on conserving land and sea habitats, which should deliver benefits 100 times over.

"We are not arguing against development," the paper concludes. "However, current development trajectories are self-evidently not delivering human benefits in the way they should… Our findings show one reason why this is the case: our relentless conversion and degradation of remaining habitats is eroding human welfare for short term private gain."

The full paper is here (but you have to pay $4 to download it).

David Steven | 12:57 PM | |