Possibility of Convergence with the Rich World - Assignment Example

The concept of sustainable development robs the poor world of any possibility of convergence with the rich world Introduction Recently, the concept of sustainable development has become a topical issue since the leaders of various countries met at the Rio Summit in 1992. The Rio Summit is one of the initiatives that have been taken on a global scale to ensure sustainable development. However, it is often argued that because of the differences in levels of development between rich and poor countries, it is not possible for poor countries to commit themselves to the goals of sustainable development and at the same time attain the level of development achieved so far by the rich countries. Along this line, this essay defines the concept of sustainable development and discusses why the concept denies the poor world any likelihood of being at par with the rich world. It argues that it is difficult for poor countries to pursue sustainable development goals because of their limited resources and reliance on natural resources than rich countries. The essay also argues that restrictions imposed by developed countries as regards the use of natural resources are biased since the developed countries attained their status without these restrictions. Also, some developed countries such as the United States have been reluctant to ratify agreements which promote sustainable use of natural resources such as the Kyoto Protocol and this increases the gap between rich and poor countries. In the end, the essay suggests that rich countries can help poor countries to attain the objectives of sustainable development so as not to increase the development gap between them. Meaning of sustainable development Sustainable development is defined by the 1987 Brundtland Report as development that meets the necessities of the present generation without adversely affecting the capacity of future generations to fulfil their own necessities (United Nations 1987). Sustainable growth is not just limited to focusing on the environment but encompasses striking a balance between the social, economic and environmental aims of communities. These are the three dimensions of sustainable development. Also, where possible the three dimensions should be integrated through reciprocally supportive practices; and where this is not possible, trade-offs should be made. This in particular encompasses taking into consideration the repercussion of current decisions on the choices of upcoming generations. The pursuit of sustainable development requires policy changes in various areas and facilitating uniformity between them (OECD 2001, p. 21). Therefore, attaining a sustainable development path means that there is need to eliminate the negative consequences associated with the reduction of natural resources and environmental destruction. It also implies the need to secure those public resources that are necessary for economic growth to be maintained, for instance those provided by properly functioning ecosystems, an interconnected society and a healthy surrounding. Sustainable development also focuses on the importance of preserving the tractability to respond to prospective shocks, even when their likelihood of occurring, and the extent and location of their effects cannot be determined precisely (OECD Policy Brief, n.d.). From a political standpoint, sustainable development exemplifies a concern for taking a wide outlook of what human wellbeing encompasses, and for harmonising the aims of economic effectiveness, social growth and safeguarding the environment (OECD Policy Brief, n.d.). Sustainable development also underlines the import of taking a longer-term consideration of the consequences of the present period’s activities, and of global cooperation to attain feasible results. Why ‘sustainable development’ robs the poor world of any possibility of convergence with the rich world As seen from the meaning of sustainable development, the concept requires current generations to act in a manner that will not compromise the resources available to future generations. This means that resource use has to be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. However, several questions arise regarding how feasible it is for poor countries to achieve the objectives of sustainable development. For instance, poor countries, most of which are agrarian economies have to rely on ploughing farms in order to meet their food needs. Yet, doing this may be seen to go against the ecological goal of preserving biodiversity since farming activities may result in clearing of forests and watersheds. Poor countries are also prone to waterborne diseases such as dysentery, typhoid and bilharzia. This means that communities have to boil water to safeguard themselves from such diseases. Boiling water requires the use of wood, and since such families cannot afford gas and do not have access to electricity, they would have to clear forests to obtain wood. These families are therefore torn between protecting their families and conserving the environment. In another example, poor countries may be required to adopt practices that reduce emissions, meaning that they should reduce emissions from use of fuel sources such as coal – yet they cannot afford the technologies required to do so. Although sustainable development has three dimensions, the environment dimension is often mentioned because the other two dimensions also directly affect the environment. For instance, economic activities such as resource use and pollutant discharge affect the environment; environmental services to the economy such as natural resources are directly related to the environment; environmental services to society such as access to resources and amenities and living and working conditions are determined by the environment; and social variables such as demographic changes and environmental education and information all impact the environment (Stevens 2005, p. 1). With respect to the environment, there is a view that the notion of sustainable development has been introduced largely by industrialised nations whose unsustainable exploitation of resources has speeded up their better quality of life (Tosun & Jenkins 2007, p. 166). This means that in order for poor countries to achieve the level of development that the rich countries have attained and accumulate wealth comparable to theirs, they (the poor countries) too have to engage in ‘unsustainable’ use of the resources they have. According to Goodstein (2010, p. 474), attaining sustainable development requires governments to take several steps such as reducing environmentally damaging subsidies, regulating pollution in as cost-effective manner as possible, working to clarify and implement private or communal property rights, encouraging the development and transfer of sustainable technology, ensuring that the gains from trade are channelled into measures that promote sustainable development, and conserving natural capital by encouraging sustained-yield resource development. Yet a question that stands out is who will pay for these programmes. It is for this reason that many poor countries have questioned the wisdom of natural resource or environmental protections, pointing out that they cannot afford to engage in such measures (Goodstein 2010, p. 474). The reality is that if poor countries are to engage in such costly measures in the name of attaining sustainable development, then they would have to forfeit other areas of development – and thus continue lagging behind the rich countries. Although sustainable development is a worthwhile concept for all societies, underprivileged people in developing states are far more depended on their natural resources as mentioned earlier and as noted by Gillis and Vincent (2000, p. 13). In particular, Gillis and Vincent note that people in poor states rely more on their forests, soils, fisheries and rivers than citizens of rich countries. The same authors also cite a 1997 World Bank report which noted that natural capital, that is the capitalised value of services and rents from the natural environment, including forests, land, mineral deposits, and fisheries – accounts for between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of the total wealth of developing countries, compared with only 2-5 per cent in developed countries (p. 13). This means that any measures that tend to restrict how these resources are used – which is the essence of sustainable development – only serve to increase the wealth gap between the poor and rich countries. One of the key areas of sustainable development is pollution control. Along this line, common sense has it that rich countries are trying to impose pollution norms on poor countries, which are much stricter vis-à-vis those they would impose upon themselves (Goldin & Winters 1995, p. 145). For instance, the United States’ refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is an exemplar of the nation’s reluctance to lead the world in the establishment of international environmental guidelines (Ervin & Smith 2008, p. 87). The United States refused the protocol merely because in did not include reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for developing countries, notably India and China (Ervin & Smith 2008, p. 87; Ravindranath & Sathaye 2002, p. 5). While the United States’ argument that ratification of the Kyoto Protocol would hurt its economy (Ervin & Smith 2008, p. 87) can be justified on economic grounds, the argument that China and India were being favoured is amenable to discussion. From one point, it can be argued that developed countries would not like to see formerly poor countries developing fast and attaining their status [given that the Clean Development Mechanism in the Kyoto Protocol aims to help non-Annex 1 countries to pursue sustainable development as indicated by Munasinghe and Swart (2005, p. 369)]. Yet from another point, the fact that India and China (and other developing countries) are not as much economically endowed as the developed countries does not necessarily imply that they should not be involved in sustainable development – hence the United States had valid reasons for insisting that China and India be treated in the same context as the developed world. This viewpoint is supported by the fact that China replaced the United States as the world’s top emitter of CO2 in 2007 (Ervin & Smith 2008, p. 88). Given that China became the leading CO2 emitter as mentioned above, there is evidence that poor countries are striving to develop and attain the status of their developed counterparts. A problem therefore arises when an attempt is made by developed countries to curtail this fast development, yet the developed countries attained their status without any hindrances in terms of the need for sustainable development. As Goldin and Winters (1995, p. 145) argue, “if the poor countries could borrow freely or could be subsidised by the rich, this might not be a problem, but since they cannot, the question is: if you insist that a poor country obeys the same norms as the rich countries apply to themselves now, but which they were not applying before, are you inhibiting the poor countries’ growth?” Another important question posed by Goldin and Winters (1995, p. 145) is “should environmental norms be different depending on the stage of development?” To answer the first question, it is evident that rules of sustainable development seem to be imposed by rich countries on poor ones, and as such, the status quo will remain since the poor countries are still in the process of developing (Rolland 2012, p. 28). Turning to the second question, it is notable that even some of the so-called rich countries have failed to meet the goals of sustainable development and have continued to conduct themselves in ways that do not foster sustainable development such as denial of the rights of workers to organise and strike, abuse of immigrant workers, and violation and contravention of the Rio agreements on the protection of the environment (Brecher, Costello & Smith 2000, p. 57). Suggestions to bridge the gap between the poor world and the rich world Certainly, sustainable development is not a bad thing after all. But for it to be achieved in the poor world without increasing the development gap between the poor and rich countries, there is need for support from the rich countries. This commitment can take a variety of forms such as research and development in clean and sustainable technologies ranging from wind power and solar to biotechnology and improved stoves and refrigerators, funding for family planning programmes to control population explosion, international assistance for rural development projects, debt relief, and financial and technical help in the implementation of environmental regulatory programmes among others (Goodstein 2010, p. 475). Conclusion In conclusion, although sustainable development aims to meet the requirements of the current generations without negatively impacting the capacity of future generations to attain their own requirements, it is notable that poor countries have to grapple with the challenges of implementing it since it implies utilising resources under some restrictions. Since the developed or rich countries were not hindered by these restrictions at the time of their development, it is apparent that the gap between the rich world and poor world will continue increasing as poor countries seek to implement these restrictions that appear to be imposed by the rich world. As such, even as the poor countries grow, there is little possibility of convergence of their development with that of the rich world. References Brecher, J, Costello, T & Smith, B 2000, Globalization from below: The power of solidarity, 2nd edn, South End Press, Brooklyn, NY. Ervin, J & Smith, Z A 2008, Globalization: A reference handbook, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA. Gillis, M & Vincent, J R 2000, National self-interest, In J Schmandt & C H Ward, Sustainable development: The challenge of transition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13-62. Goldin, I & Winters, L A 1995, The economics of sustainable development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Goodstein, E S 2010, Economics and the environment, 6th edn, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Munasinghe, M & Swart, R 2005, Primer on climate change and sustainable development: Facts, policy analysis, and applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. OECD 2001, The DAC guidelines strategies for sustainable development, OECD Publications Service, Paris, viewed 19 September 2012, OECD Policy Brief n.d., Sustainable development: Critical issues, viewed 20 September 2012, Ravindranath, N H & Sathaye, J A 2002, Climate change and developing countries, Springer, New York. Rolland, S E 2012, Development at the WTO, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Stevens, C 2005, Measuring sustainable development, OECD Statistics Brief, No. 10, viewed 20 September 2012, Tosun, C & Jenkins, C L 2007, The evolution of tourism planning in third-world countries: A critique, In T Huybers (ed), Tourism in developing countries, Edward Elgar Publishing, London, Chapter 7, pp. 159-171. United Nations 1987, Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, viewed 20 September 2012, Read More