Delivering inclusive sustainable development in the SADC region
by Farai Tererai
Post-doctoral researcher
“Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet is either mad or an economist”
Kenneth E. Boulding
“Those attempting to guide the economy and our societies are like a pilot trying to steer without a reliable compass” (Stiglitz and Sen, 2009:6). The common development metric, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has registered upward growth over the years, but poverty still bedevils society, and undesirable environmental change continues to escalate. Pressure on the planet is mainly a function of the excessive consumption of the richest 10%, the growing middle class and inefficiencies in resource use. This observation entails a rethinking of the current development trajectory and its processes.
Scientists and development practitioners generally concur that the earth has transitioned from the Holocene geological epoch, a stable and benevolent era, to Anthropocene, an era in which environmental change is predominantly driven by human activities. For the first time, scientists have begun to ask crucial questions including 1) What was peculiar about Holocene that made it such a benevolent period in terms of development?; 2) What earth processes do we need to hold on to, to keep in the Holocene?; and finally 3) What is the limit to the pressure that humanity can put on planet Earth without pushing it out of the stable state? These questions sum up the challenge of the 21st century, which is to bring together the twin development goals of poverty eradication and environmental sustainability.
Against this background, Rockström et al. (2009) identified nine major earth systems (freshwater use, climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, ozone depletion, Nitrogen & Phosphorous cycling, chemical pollution, land use change and aerosol loading) and proposed boundaries (by use of indicators) within which humanity can operate without causing unacceptable environmental change. The planetary boundaries work showed that humanity has transgressed boundaries of climate change, rate of biodiversity loss and changes in global nitrogen cycle. Another scientist, Raworth (2011) proposed that at the centre of these planetary boundaries lies unacceptable deprivation where humanity is denied of their basic human right to food, water, education, energy, voice, health, income, jobs etc. These two pieces of work put together, complete the picture of inclusive sustainable development in a framework dubbed “Safe and Just Operating Spaces (SJOS)”. Inclusive sustainable development is where every human being is able to meet their rights but their combined pressure on the planet does not cause environmental degradation. SJOS approach therefore, links the means (natural and economic processes) to the ends (human well-being) (Pintér et al. 2014). Clearly SJOS has potential to enhance the natural regulatory capacity of earth processes and to prevent the occurrence of unacceptable environmental deterioration. SJOS is envisaged to reveal status of social development viz-a-viz environmental integrity; inform formulation of sustainable development indicators; inform development practitioners of the appropriate actions to take in order to achieve developmental human rights within the capacity of regional resources; and promoting regional cooperation and integration thereby curbing transboundary environmental impact.
Without portraying SJOS as a panacea to inclusive sustainable development, I argue that this framework presents the best model based on current knowledge. However, at the current planetary scale, it is difficult to translate its recommendations into actions at sub-planetary scales. This is because development policies and actions are made at lower tiers of the human living space such as continents, regions, national or local scales. The initial attempts to downscale SJOS to a national scale in Africa was by Cole et al. (work submitted for journal review), in a case study of South Africa. This application was successful, and revealed that South Africa has transgressed four of its environmental boundaries, i.e. in biodiversity loss, marine harvesting, freshwater use and climate change. My current works aims at applying SJOS to the Southern African Development Community (SADC).
Application of SJOS in SADC: Opportunities and constraints
The SADC is a region of contrasts, making application of SJOS both interesting and potentially valuable. The region exhibits spatial variations in terms of physical (e.g. rainfall, temperature, geography – proximate to the sea) and socio-economic (e.g. inequality) attributes. All these differences translate into differences in the pressure that each country exerts on the environment. Besides a plethora of environmental challenges, the developing countries in this region are burdened with widespread poverty and deprivation, and these are compounded by governance challenges. Many of the resources are transboundary e.g. freshwater, biodiversity and climate space. SJOS therefore, presents opportunities for addressing the current intra and inter country inequalities thereby meeting every human’s rights to development within the capacity of regional resources.
A successful application of this framework depends on several factors including capacity, political will, and policy and institutional frameworks. In my engagement with experts at the SADC headquarters, the tone of those I spoke to in the areas of environment, social and economic development was very positive and encouraging. Experts concurred that there appears to be political will in member states and the policy framework is comprehensive. All member states are signatories to many international and regional agreements and treaties aiming to promote sustainable development. However, there are challenges and these mainly relate to a lack of financial, technical, institutional and technological capacity. Related to these is a dearth of data. My experience so far, exploring the application of SJOS to SADC is that data is scarce, and where it is available, it is either of poor quality, or at an inappropriate/inconsistent scale among member states. Much still needs to be done regards regional cooperation and integration and this is key for monitoring the use, development, protection and use of transboundary resources.
Delivering inclusive sustainable development calls for far greater equity – within and between countries – in the use of natural resources, and far greater efficiency in transforming those resources to meet human needs. I perceive environmental sustainability and poverty eradication as analogous to the “chicken and egg” – the grant question being what came first? There are feedback relationships between environmental protection and poverty eradication, with poverty fuelling environmental degradation and environmental degradation conversely driving the prevalence of poverty. My conception is that, it makes sense to work from both ends if inclusive sustainable development is to be a reality in SADC.
Further readings
Cole, M. J., Bailey, R. M., New, M. G. (Submitted). A national barometer for inclusive sustainable development in South Africa.
Pintér, L., Almássy, D., Antonio, E., Niestroy, I., Olsen, S., Pulawska, G. (2014). Sustainable Development Goals and Indicators for a Small Planet; Part I: Methodology and Goal Framework. Asia-Europe Environment Forum.
Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Paper. (Oxford, UK) Available at: http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en.pdf
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å, Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E., et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and society, 14(2).
Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., Fitoussi, J. (2009). The measurement of economic performance and social progress revisited. Reflections and overview.Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris.
Image: Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Paper. (Oxford, UK) Available at: http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en.pdf