Sustainability in Armenia as an Ethnographic Problem - Case Study Example

Sustainability in Armenia as an Ethnographic problem Introduction Sustainability, as elsewhere, in Armenia too is the condition to be close to the nature and living with in the limits of nature. Sustainability does not mean that economic poverty or reduction in economic progress of the society. But more of an economic progress that will help in ensuring consistent growth; a healthy economy should promote healthy environments and healthy ecosystems. Sustainable growth, therefore, is the one that allows the world to progress economically under an ecosystem that is not damaged. Every problem in the world is caused by people and therefore, they all have ethnographic origins and causes. The same is true with respect to the issue of sustainability. Cultures and the lifestyles that people in a location practice leads to sustainability issues. For instance, a normal environmentally conscious citizen of the United Kingdom leaves a carbon foot print of over 6 tons of CO2 and an ecological footprint of 3.4 global hectares. This is the case with most of the western countries. The US for instance has a higher footprint on an average. This indicates the usage of more fossil and non-renewable energy sources causing more of environmental problems (WWF 2004). Sustainability is not only scientific or engineering related; it is also related to the cultural and ethical values of the community. Any community that does not have a tendency to protect its own environment and is interested more in commercialization of its own resources would end up denuding the environment faster; reducing sustainability. Sustainability problems in Armenia Sustainability reflects in many of the performance indexes of the country. While the gross domestic product (GDP) of a country could indicate the amount of money the country has spend or has earned over the period in consideration, other indexes take into consideration various parameters including the overall development of the country. Demographic and ethnographic factors hurt the performance of the country as a voter for sustained development. In the case of Armenia, it is ranked at 83rd position in 2005 with a Human Development Index of 0.775. This has increased from 0.701 in 1995, according to UNDP (UNDP 2008). At the same time, the percentage of people living below the national poverty line is well over 50%. This indicates that the wealth is not distributed uniformly across the population resulting in increased poverty at one end and extremely rich people at the other. This is one of the factors that will affect sustainable development in the Armenian Society. The Happy Planet Index is a measure of the long and happy lives people lead in that country or place. In the case of Armenia, it was found to be 36.1 out of 100 and the country was ranked at 130 out of 178 countries. This is a measure of the long lives people live and indicates how happy people are (nef 2006). As Aristotle says, the purpose of social living is to be happy. The same is supported by the US constitution when it says that every individual has the right to pursue his own happiness. This indicates that Armenia has a long way to go before it can turn into a happier place to lead human life. The Environmental Sustainability Index is produced out of 25 different factors in six policy categories. Multiple happenings in a country, including large corporate and social projects, affect the performance of a country when this index is measured. The index is a measure of the environmental health, air and water pollution levels, Productive natural resources, Biodiversity and habitat and finally, climate change contribution by the country. Environmental sustainability is an important criterion while looking for sustainable development. In case of Armenia, the ESI released in 2005 ranked it at 44 (CIESIN 2005). With the changes made in the factors estimated, the Environmental Performance Index was produced in 2008 where Armenia was ranked at 62 a substantial loss of position. There had been a number of factors that affect the performance of the country in these cases. Major factors impacting sustainability According to UNESCO, there are four major dimensions to sustainable development: Social, Political, Natural and Economical. Most of the actions planned by the United Nations and its affiliated departments work towards sustainable development particularly making use of the factors that impact sustainability. An equitable world economy is needed for a sustainable development worldwide. Within a country, an equitable economy has to be present to ensure that there is sustainability in the country. Figure 1: The four dimensions of Sustainable development (UNESCO 2004). As the World Commission on Environment and Development wrote (1987, p37), 'Environment and development are not separate challenges. Development cannot subsist on a deteriorating environmental base; environment cannot be protected if development leaves out of account the costs of environmental destruction'. These four dimensions have been stressed on to varying degrees by various analysts of sustainable development. The Brundtland Commission Report on Our Common Future defines the sustainable development as the development that would enable to meet the current needs at the same time ensuring that the future generations will be able to meet their own. The political factor is the overall policy making dimension of the sustainability; while the rest are closely interconnected dimensions that need to be looked at together. Economic growth is the core of development. This reflects in the overall GDP of the country as well as on the per capita earnings. However, this alone might not reflect on the overall development status of the country. To achieve sustainability in economic growth, environmental and social factors that affect sustainability need to be taken care of by political policies (Hak et al 2007). With a real GDP growth rate of 5%, Armenia shows a strong growth path. However, the equitable distribution of resources has been questioned under various situations. The unemployment rate in Armenia is officially put at 10% though there are private claims that are double this figure. However, the below-poverty-line population amounts to over 45% which is considerably higher and does not reflect on a growth that is equitable. These factors are reflected in many of the other sustainable growth indicators like the ESI. Institutions in Sustainable development The role of institutions in sustainable development is undisputed. Sustainable development defines institutions as those that would help in decision making as it is in organizations 'but complementing them with mechanisms and orientations' (Spangenberg 2002). Institutions are the ones that deliver the changes that are needed in all the fronts of sustainable development. While the political policy making might still be a part of the institutions, the delivery of every economic, social and environmental objective is done through the institutions. The role of the institutions and organizations both the ones that are governmental, non-governmental and those that are private ventures are influenced by the economic and social situations in the country. The same is true with the case of Armenia too. In the Armenian region, with the change in the trading structure after the fall of the Russian federation, the economic problems came to the fore. This definitely affected the country's overall performance and the growth for nearly two to three years. Constant wars also took its toll. From 1995 onwards, the country is showing considerable growth economically with more than 10% growth annually. However, IMF predicts that with the current practice of the growth that Armenia has resorted to could lead to a tapering off of the growth beyond 2006 (IMF Press Note 2007). This indicates unsustainable development and a growth rate that could fall down well below 10 in the future years. Institutions that support development and sustained growth have to be more environmentally and socially friendly. Large tracts of forest area have come under felling in Armenia resulting in a loss of over 1 million cubic meters of trees every year (UNEP/ETB 2002). With institutions and organizations poised for rapid growth there is a strong loss of focus and discipline in the nature of economic growth. While institutions have the strong focus on economic growth there is also the social responsibility that they need to uphold. It is not just the country's sustainability that is targeted; it is also the institutional sustainability and the resulting social sustainability that goes under the question. Institutional sustainability is displayed only if the institution provides social security, public health, social integration, participation opportunities, gender equity, justice and welfare orientation and finally, freedom for the way of life (Empacher & Wehling 1999, Littig 2001, Kopfmuller et al 2001). Analysis of the situation in Armenia The rapid economic development has had its toll in Armenia. A double digit development in the last three to four years of the Armenian economic upswing has left many inequalities enlarged. They have also left open a number of other wounds for the analysts to look into. Institutions in their aim of maximizing their own financial gains, have also taken up projects that do not go with sustainable development. These changes have to be monitored more closely to ensure that the four dimensions of the sustainable development in the country is administered well. The multi national corporations find themselves in various spheres of working. The foreign aid that has been flowing into the country has also created a large number of non governmental organizations that aid in development of the nation. The role of the MNCs in the growth of the economy is undisputed. However, the nature of control they have on the social equality and in the environmental conditions calls for much attention to the detail. Sustainable development can only be achieved through social and ecological responsibilities in addition to the economic growth. The rapid growth of the cities since 1995 and the industrial sector has left a large number of people under water stress in Armenia. This has also coupled with the deforestation that has been happening at a rapid pace to add to the woes of social and environmental problems. This has happened due to the lack of knowledge and sustainable development approach by the large institutions that have set up shop. However, with the growing importance of both non governmental and non profit organizations in the country, the extent of damage that is caused to the ecology is being controlled. With government policies initiating large scale seeding for artificial forests and with other social measures politically as well as socially realized, the objective of gender equality and distribution of economic gains across the population could be achieved. Conclusion Sustainable development is the way that every nation aspires to go. However, due to various reasons behind every development project, there is a loss of any of the dimensions that contribute to a sustained growth. Sustained growth is not only our need for us; it is also our legacy to the future generations of human race and its survival. Armenia has a long way to go as a modern nation and a challenge to build its resources to match the world need. However, it might be noted that these resources should be built not with the loss of ecological and social balance but with a conscious effort to maintain the balance and to develop upon it so that there is a sustained development in all frontiers of the country. References 1. CIESIN 2004, Environmental sustainability Index 2005. World Economic Forum. Data available at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/esi/ 2. Empacher C & Wehling P, 1999, The discussion about the social dimension of sustainability and putting the dimension into more concrete terms. Frankfurt am Main. ISOE-Diskussionspapiere, Nr. 13. Juni 1999. 3. Hak T, Moldan B, Dahl AL 2007. Sustainability Indicators: An Assessment. Island Press. 4. IMF Press Note 2007, Statement at the conclusion of an IMF mission to Armenia. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2007/pr07214.htm 5. Kopfmller et al., 2001, Nachhaltige Entwicklung integrativ betrachtet. Konstitutive Elemente, Regeln, Indikatoren. Edition Sigma, Berlin 6. Littig B, 2001, Feminist Perspectives on Environment and Society. Pearson Education. 7. Nef, 2006, The Happy Planet Index. Available at: http://www.happyplanetindex.org/ 8. Spangenberg, J.H. 2002. Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: frameworks for indicators measuring sustainable development. Ecological Indicators. Vol :57, p1-15. 9. UNDP 2008, Statistics of the Human Development Report. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ 10. UNESCO 2004, The four dimensions of Sustainable Development. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/mod04/uncom04t01s03.htm 11. UNEP/ETB 2002, UNEP/ETB Fact Sheets. Available at: http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/ETB_facts.htm 12. World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) 1987, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press. 13. WWF 2004, Living Planet Report 2004. Available at: http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/lpr2004.pdf Read More